McIntrye and Shuler: Only rich women should be able to have abortions

Just when I think North Carolina might be on the edge of the cusp of the remote possibility of intelligent leadership, misogynist Neanderthals like Health Shuler and Mike McIntrye open their self-righteous mouths and prove me wronger than wrong. This time, the two hypocrites are part of a coalition of Republicans and BlueDogs gearing up to stop a public healthcare plan in the US House because women who pay premiums into plan might be able to get abortions. Instead of supporting healthcare for all, these rich, white assholes are drawing a line in that sand that means only women with money can get abortions, damning poor women to death in the back alleys again.

I'm not sure my outrage should be limited to Shuler and McIntyre, but those two have indicated they'll stand with the misogynists according to this Daily Kos post.


Without "Rich, White assholes"

Who would fund your Socialist programs, James?


"The vice of capitalism is that it stands for the unequal sharing of blessings; whereas the virtue of socialism is that it stands for the equ

Rich white nice people, of course.

There are some, you know. In fact, there are whole countries full of them in Scandinavia.

Not every wealthy person is a self-absorbed greeder without an ounce of compassion.

That's right, the rich white

assholes have already squirreled their money away in the Cayman Islands.

Unclear on the concept of individual rights

It isn't enough for people who would force their gang-raped 15 year old daughters who don't want to prosecute the crime to carry to term her rapists' concepti--they wish to require that every single woman in America be forced to do so or they will defeat health care reform. This is autocratic and dictatorial in the extreme. It's not enough that women who mistakenly believe that a conceptus is a human being with full rights superior to those of any adult American citizen would enable a rapist to continue his crime in her own body, but to require the rest of us to enforce this position so that we have needed health reform? A woman who believes it has the right to do it, but the rest of us graciously decline the offer.

Even many "conservatives" believe as you do

Jesse Helms, who was one of the democratic party's biggest foes, believed that abortion is justified in the cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger.

I hear itss3yr2's hate and disgust for many of the "christian conservatives" within the republican apparatus, but not all "conservative republicans" and the "christrian right" believes what is being presented here. I know many "moderate" republicans that do not lean so far right that they cannot know what is right or wrong on this issue. A woman raped and carrying the rapists' child should have the "choice" to abort. Put it to a vote in America. How do you think the majority would vote?

On another note, and I know this is not what this thread is about, but is important to me and I believe to everyone. The impending health care bill is being questioned by many republicans/conservatives because it may, again MAY, include a provision that would allow coverage for abortion at the taxpayer's expense under the "private option" provision. We, as a country and under law have given women the right to "choose" abortion as an option. This particular provision SHOULD be part of any public option. It's a law. It has been determined to be a legitimate option, a choice. I know the conservs do not want this, but that is outside of their determination. It is the determination of women, not the government or husbands or any man. It is a "choice". If it is covered by our nation's health care system, then it should be deemed acceptable.


Hey, James, if that's for me, as the German's say, "Danke".

Makes a lot of sense, does it not? Put that to a vote in America and what do you think would be the outcome? I think you and I know. So, we need to discount the minority extremist religious right opinion and go with what is right for our citizens.

I know you agree. Wouldn't most folks?

Yes you

You're welcome. Just don't let it go to your head.


Oh, I won't

Look, James, I am about 50/50 here on BlueNC with my posts being agreed with and not being agreed with. When I have you agreeing with one of them, it gives me a "feel-good" feeling :). I certainly will not let it go to my head. I am sure I will piss someone off along the line in due time, but today, I'm elated.

Government interference

This requirement of having to prove rape or incest puts the woman on the defensive and under scrutiny, guilty of not deserving an abortion until she proves it otherwise to the satisfaction of anonymous others who also judge the physician involved. What this means to her emotionally and socially is rather severe, given the interrogations she must undergo, just for starters. So having the exceptions in there do not mean it is a given that one could obtain an abortion under the amendment as proposed.

I must most strongly and respectfully disagree that putting the use of anyone's body to a vote is a moral act within the political sphere. It is not! If legislation were to be suggested which would require every woman believing that an inviolate right to live attaches at conception be on a list where forced impregnation with unwanted embryos would result--since there are many--I suspect the depravity of the denial of choice would be better understood. And before anyone starts to argue that the government has a right to draft bodies at will, think of what is being said with that analogy and some reasons why....