The Republican War on Women: Humiliation as a Weapon, Subservience as a Goal?

This is the twenty-third in a series of articles on the subjects of women, abortion rights and the Republican Party. 

Republicans continue to say they don’t have to change their core principles, they only have to change the language they use to get their message out.  One perception they want to alter is the idea that they are running a “war on women”.  Looking at the news over the past few years, I’d say the Republican Party has a long way to go on this subject.

• Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): “Talk about a manufactured issue.  There is no issue.” 
•  RNC Chairman Reince Priebus:  “It’s a fiction.”

It has been some time since I wrote an article in this series, but after this past week, I couldn't avoid it any longer.

#1 Remembering Idaho and Alaska

#2 Addressing the Missouri Front

the facts and commentary:  #1 - The latest Republican outrage against women in this country reminded me of Idaho State Senator Chuck Winder (R)

who proposed a bill that would require abortion doctors to "ask a woman who says she was raped if the pregnancy could have been caused by normal relations in a marriage."  Mr. Winder was rebuked by a fellow state legislator for suggesting that a woman may lie to get an abortion.

I would ask why a woman would have to lie in order to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure.  Is it really anyone's business, beyond her physician and/or family, why a woman would make this choice?  Taking an oath of office as an elected official does not automatically grant that official a voyeur's license.

And then there was Alaska State Representative Alan Dick (R)

who said he "would advocate for criminalizing women who have an abortion without the permission via written signature from the man who impregnated her."

Mr. Dick (I find his name particularly appropriate), who apparently believes that a woman is incapable of functioning without a man to guide her, said, "If I thought that a man's signature was required...required, in order for a woman to have an abortion, I'd have a little more peace about it."

And why, exactly, would he think his "peace" should have any bearing on a woman's rights--unless subservience is what floats his boat?

#2 - And now we have Missouri State Representative Rick Brattin (R) 

who has introduced a bill that would require a woman to have written, notarized permission from the "sperm donor/father" before she can obtain an abortion.  He does make exceptions for rape or incest, but "It has to be a legitimate rape...you have to take steps to show that you were raped."  

"Written, notarized permission."  Really? And would that notary also have a voice in the woman's decision? Or would his purpose be simply to expose the woman to more embarrassment and unwanted judgement?  How many people must be informed of a woman's very private medical choice before men like Rick Brattin are satisfied?

I also have to wonder where this Missouri politician ranks on the slow-learner scale. Did he learn nothing from the Todd Akin (R-Missouri) "legitimate rape" fiasco?

As for the exception in cases of incest, how exactly does Mr. Brattin propose that a victim obtain her abuser's signature?  "Hey, Daddy, would you mind signing this paper that says you raped and abused me so I can get an abortion?  Oh, and we have to have it notarized too.  Can we do that this afternoon after we finish mowing the lawn?  Gee, thanks!" 

Attempting to cover all bases, his bill also addresses death: "If the father of the unborn child is deceased, the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced must sign a notarized affidavit attesting to this fact...The physician must retain a copy of the consent or affidavit in the patient's medical record."

A 1992 Supreme Court ruling struck down a requirement that a woman inform her husband before she has an abortion.  This new bill ignores that decision and goes several steps beyond it.  

The more I think about the GOP's war to prohibit abortion rights, the less I see it as a matter of religious fervor and more a matter of keeping women subservient.  If they really see women as equal, why aren't there legislative proposals that a man get written permission from his wife/mistress/mommy before a doctor can prescribe Viagra? Or how about a notarized death notice before a vasectomy? 

I look at people like Mr. Brattin and Mr. Dick and Mr.Winder and I see men who are so essentially weak that they are willing to use humiliation as a weapon; men who are afraid that acknowledging women as equals will somehow reduce their own manliness, will make them less powerful--and they love that power above all else.   

The Republican War on Women is "fiction?"

WHAT YOU DO SPEAKS SO LOUDLY

THAT I CANNOT HEAR WHAT YOU SAY.