
The Buffalo News/Adam Zyglis
Despite his seemingly robotic demeanor, Mitt Romney is proving himself a bit of a rogue. His campaign has broken the cardinal rule of presidential races: pander and pivot. First the candidate secures the base during the primaries by pandering to party ideologues; then the candidate swiftly pivots to the center to attract swing voters and independents. Eric Fehrnstrom’s infamous Etch A Sketch comment back in March suggested that Romney was preparing to execute this venerable campaign two-step. But the choice of Paul Ryan as running mate obliterates the possibility of moderation. This campaign is going to run hard and fast to the right. Forget the pivot; they’re just going to pander.
Unlike Romney’s inconsistent but mostly centrist Massachusetts governing record, whose signature accomplishment was the model for the GOP-maligned “Obamacare,” Ryan’s ideological bona fides are unvarnished. And don’t be fooled: this is not about economics alone. Ryan is just as devoted to good old-fashioned moral conservatism, government small enough to fit on a vaginal probe. Ryan may have slipped his playbook into an Ayn Rand cover, but it was co-written by Ralph Reed.
Nowhere is this more apparent, or more important, than in Ryan’s record on reproductive rights. Romney may have flippantly suggested that he would eliminate Planned Parenthood, but Ryan has worked consistently to restrict women’s access to healthcare. It’s not just his fifty-nine votes to block or limit reproductive rights that are of concern; it’s the absolutist nature of his positions. He rejects rape and incest as mitigating circumstances for abortion. He won’t even consider the possibility that women’s moral autonomy or constitutional rights are sufficient reasons for access.
Ryan is one of sixty-four Congressional co-sponsors of H.R. 212, a “personhood” bill that gives legal rights to fertilized eggs. Last November a similar measure was soundly defeated by 57 percent of voters in that liberal bastion, Mississippi. (Mississippi!) Ryan co-sponsored a bill too extreme for a state that has only one abortion clinic, a state whose policies have effectively made it impossible for most doctors to perform—or for most women to access—an abortion.
It may be time to update the title of Nina Simone’s iconic song from “Mississippi Goddam” to “Paul Ryan Goddam.”
Ryan’s role in H.R. 212 isn’t just the symbolic co-sponsorship of a bill with little likelihood of passage. He explicitly articulated his case for personhood in a 2010 Heritage Foundation article, in which he parrots the familiar conservative case that America’s failure to recognize fetuses as persons is the same as our nation’s historical failure to recognize the humanity of enslaved black people. Therefore, Roe v. Wade is the twentieth-century equivalent of the 1857 Dred Scott decision.
With Ryan and women’s health, there is no middle ground; there is only his moral judgment. And despite his avowed libertarianism on economic issues, on women’s health and rights Ryan is willing to use the full force of government to limit the freedom of dissenting citizens to exercise their opposing judgments.
True, Ryan is merely running for vice president—and with the singular exception of Dick Cheney, vice presidents haven’t had much significant policy influence. But with the Ryan pick, Romney has signaled that his moderation on women’s health issues is over. He is casting his lot with the most extreme elements of the anti-choice movement. It should hardly be surprising, then, that within a week of the announcement, GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin told Fox News that he saw little reason to consider abortion in the case of rape or incest, because pregnancy rarely results from sexual assault. According to Akin, “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Romney and other Republicans swiftly denounced the remark, but it’s easy to see why a Ryan candidacy might have led Akin to believe that such a position would be acceptable.
For more than a decade, GOP presidential candidates have pandered to pro-lifers but pivoted to a more moderate position in the general election. Now Romney is doing the opposite. This is, if nothing else, a fascinating political strategy. It forces the question: What’s the electoral arithmetic guiding Camp Romney? They seem to expect women swing voters to discount Ryan’s abysmal record.
Perhaps they will, but after spending a half-hour on the StairMaster recently, I’m not so sure. Cardio machines are the one place I indulge my guilty pleasure of reading women’s magazines. I was startled to see a deeply personal letter in the September issue of Women’s Health from editor in chief Michele Promaulayko titled “Your Body Is a Battleground.” In it she recounts her own experience of receiving sexual health counseling and contraception from Planned Parenthood when she was 15. Promaulayko directs readers to an article by Gretchen Voss that urges: “Read on to learn how your choices are endangered and what you need to do to keep them from becoming extinct.” It’s a no-nonsense, well-researched, action-focused piece whose bottom line is that voting for someone with a record like Ryan’s is tantamount to voting against the health of women. And this is in a magazine whose other articles tell readers “How to Have a Flat Belly in 15 Minutes” and keeps them abreast of the “10 Hot Hair Color Trends.” A lefty political rag it is not.
These women are interested in choice. And if choice appears in a magazine this mainstream, this close to the election, there’s good reason to think huge numbers of women will be prepared to demonstrate that at the polls. More than the breathless angst of progressive commentators, more than e-mail bombardments by feminist organizations, more than the slight panic in Romney’s tone as he reprimanded Akin, this article in Women’s Health has me convinced that by choosing Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has ensured he will not be president of the United States.
Melissa's column first appeared today in The Nation. Below is the recent Jason Stefaniak short film, "This is My Body," which you can learn more about here.
This Is My Body from Jason Stefaniak on Vimeo.


First. Filicide is NOT healthcare. It is morbidly related to infanticide and genocide. It requires the complete annihilation unto death of a preborn baby girl or boy that SCIENCE teaches us became a 100% DNA human being at the moment of conception -- never mistaken by science for anything else - not even the Democratic party's mascot, the ASS.
Second, a moral, civil, non-barbaric society never KILLS Rachel because Bobby raped Tamika, anymore than we punish store owner John's daughter Jessica when Melissa robs John's store.
Next, ignoring the fact that SCIENCE teaches us that the probability -- but not the certainty -- of developing breast cancer in one's lifetime INCREASES from abortion is deleterious to women's health, ever so much more so than becoming pregnant and bringing a precious new baby girl into the world created in the Imago Dei with God's full blessing.
Reproductive rights are for reproduction; filicide is the antithesis of reproduction and is grievous sin because it can NOT occur without killing s/he who is being reproduced; in a civil and just society it is also a felony. The dynamic duo of Presumptive President Mitt Romney and Vice-President Paul Ryan wants to once again make the law align with science, declaring that the human being formed at conception is also a person for legal purposes and is thus protected from moment of conception in the womb to her tomb by the 14th amendment.
Stated more simply for the ignorant Progressives: newly formed "persons" will have the law on their side protecting them from serious bodily injury or death and give them immunity from death as they "stand their ground" in their first home until they are ready to emerge and take up residence in their new home.
Science and religion rightly state that what godless progressives refer to as "fertilized eggs" are Human Beings made in the Image of God and as such are persons protected by the Declaration of Independence's promise that everyone is imbued with Creator endowed unalienable rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of HAPPINESS -- never possible once someone has been killed, and enjoy protections under the Constitution from all misdemeanor and felony crimes.
Yeah, right. We're going to learn what constitutes Life, Liberty, Happiness, Civil and Criminal Law, Morality, Ethics, and Science from a magazine that boasts,
"How to Have a Flat Belly in 15 Minutes” and keeps them abreast of the “10 Hot Hair Color Trends.” The millions of God-fearing, Life-affirming, and Fiscally Conservative women are far, far smarter than that.
A moral, civil and Rule of Law society -- which is what our Constitution framed for us within our REPUBLIC (ours is not a Tyrannical Mob Rule Majority DEMOCRACY) -- knows that all choices must be between two or more moral, civil and lawful options, never one moral and lawful and the other immoral and lawless.
Intelligent, educated, and critically thinking men and women know and understand that what is fecklessly paraded around as "choice" by Feminazis and Abortionists is nothing more than a temporary license to kill. The expiry on that license is fast approaching and though the 56,000,000 precious baby boys and girls annihilated since 1973 wont' be resurrected until the Resurrection, America can and MUST repent and save future babies from the same horrific fate at the hands of their own mothers and complicit butchers parading as doctors who swore the Hippocratic oath to "do no harm!"
"God-fearing, Life-affirming, and Fiscally Conservative women are far, far smarter than that."
With quips like that, you MUST be joking. With your misunderstanding of science (which most anti-choice arguments cannot survive without), I wonder if you know what "smart" even means.
Women who are smart do not support political parties that are dead set on eliminating their rights and reducing them to legally subhuman incubators. No war on women indeed.
Abortion is a personal decision. If your body is not involved, you have NO SAY IN THIS DECISION. It is that simple. Women who are actually smart know this. Our rights to make our own medical decisions were hard won. And we will not go back, no matter how hard you try to drag us back.
Mr. Green, please feel free to rant like this in public. A lot. You're doing your part to marginalize the GOP, just as Todd Akin is. Bravo!
Wow this is not CRUD.
If found "The Elephant in the Womb" both a clever pun and a timely video essay.
Yet one thing seems always to be left out of the Life/Choice discussion. We should be honest and address the question in a broader context relating not to just rights of "privacy", but to our fundamental declarations of an unalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
As a general principle, I assert that this language means, among other things, that: The government at every level must never coerce any citizen, for any reason, to put themselves in danger.
Whenever this principle is strongly violated, a fair number of Americans will react with a keen sense of injustice. I think a real balance to the Life/Choice debate starts with this simple idea.
Every pregnancy, whether carried to term or terminated, represents a life threatening event. It's a simple medical fact. We may seek to encourage women to brave this risk and bear children under all kinds of adverse circumstances, but we must never coerce them to do this!
If I allow my government to coerce the bearing of offspring, and a mother dies in such a childbirth, then I am an accessory to murder. If the opponents of abortion want to offer any manner of supporting inducements to carry pregnancies to term, fine. When they ask me to legislate the potential death of the mother versus the potential death of the fetus, that's unacceptable!