Politics -- I know, I know, I'm sorry, but I just had to.
I had a long -- and painfully obnoxious conversation-- with my father about Paul Ryan today. Now I admit that I am not an economist or political know it all but I also believe I keep myself better informed about these things than most people my age. This might not be saying much. Still, in general, as most people tend to do, I believe I have valid opinions.
One of these opinions is that nobody knows for sure what is actually going to save our economy right now, and the ideas that most people who actually have some authority on the subject (having studied it in depth) actually tend to agree upon are probably never going to get put in place regardless of who is in office because they tend to be extreme and would basically require overhauling everything (source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform / and proof that even when they agree with that they don't agree with that: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/26/157396666/the-disagreement-behind-our-economic-platform). Even with the best intentions, we people are not perfect and cannot predict the future.
Which is part of why I find it a bit ridiculous that my dad so steadfastly supports Paul Ryan's financial plan.
It supposedly largely relies on eliminating loopholes and arbitrary tax cuts, and even though he won't say what, which, or for whom about that I can generally agree with this sentiment -- but also more clearly relies heavily on overhauling and cutting down on social programs, financial aid programs of all kinds, and generally pushing for less government spending. The aim of this is supposedly to cut the deficit. Sounds good. Sounds excellent being of the generation that is likely going to be very affected by this deficit. But wait! There's more! Tax cuts. For the wealthy. Big ones, too, that according to the Tax Policy Center could loose over four trillion dollars in revenue over the next ten years. (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html?ref=paulkrugman) If that's even close to being the case then, according to Krugman, his plan would actually increase the deficit because cutting loopholes and social programs would probably not save anywhere near enough to make up the difference in this loss of revenue. Even if it is completely off the mark though and Krugman's numbers are wrong, and Ryan's plan would help the deficit, this program is still literally taking from the poor to give to the rich. Social programs would be cut in order to fund tax cuts for people and companies in the highest income brackets. And in reality, this would be regardless of whether or not they actually are "job creators" (which is a concept that I basically consider to be a huge, steaming load of malarkey any way). How is that okay?
Also, where is the precedence that shows that cutting out the safety net and the public funding helps a depression? These things were put in place in the first place to combat the great depression and prevent things from ever getting to that point again. Moreover, where is the precedence that shows that giving more money to the rich actually has a real trickle down effect, like politicians claim? Because it hasn't. Why is there this obsession with starting at the top and working our way down when it comes to fiscal policy? Obama is guilty of this too, I'm certainly not saying he isn't, and his assertion that we should be starting with the middle class is almost as ridiculous. No one, as you can see, is arguing that we start from the bottom up. Why? You'd think that would be a no-brainer. Get the people who need to the most support enough for them and their kids to have the opportunity to no longer require that support and to give back by having productive roles in their communities and produce tax revenues for the government. Lower crime, create new business, new education opportunities, lower the wage gap. Nope. Give more money to the rich in the vain hope (as we've seen time and again in the last decade) that that will actually spur them into creating more jobs for Americans, even to the degree that it will make a substantial impact in unemployment. Not only that, but do that at the expense of programs that are the only things keeping many hardworking Americans afloat (and in good-ish health).
But this economics crazy was not even what I mentioned Paul Ryan for. A lot of the details of his policies I learned today when I took my dad's advice and looked into Paul Ryan's plan. So, a little more on that later.
What I did mention was Personhood, Forced Ultrasound, "Legitimate" Rape, access to birth control, Pro-Choice, the Let Women Die bill, and cuts to Family Planning Programs. What I didn't mention was the Lily Ledbetter veto, or the health care discrimination he would re-institute.
For those of you who don't know, Personhood is a bill that would grant "personhood"-- legal rights under constitutional law -- to a zygote at the moment an egg is fertilized. At this point in time -- the time of fertilization-- a woman is not even pregnant yet. As a legally recognized person, any action that could cause harm to the zygote would be assault. Its death by will or by neglect would be murder. I'm not making this up.
Let's think of some of the repercussions here: hormonal birth control and IUDs cannot prevent fertilization; they prevent pregnancy. This is why IUDs come with warning about continued risk of ectopic pregnancies. Birth control, with the exception of condoms, diaphragms, and spermicide (and I'm pretty sure that's it except, of course, for abstinence) cannot prevent fertilization, just the ability for that fertilized egg to be accepted by the body and adhere to the uterine lining. Using any form of birth control besides condoms, diaphragms, and spermicide (those latter two in particular having a pretty low degree of effectiveness, and condoms only being 97% effective when used properly-- which a lot of the time they're not) would make you, under personhood, a murderer.
Abortions would be murder under any circumstance. Imagine being in a situation where your life was in immediate danger and you needed an abortion to save it. This is not some obscure fantasy situation, it is a medical reality that many women face. Not only would abortion not be a legal option for you and may be impossible to get -- even though you were dying and it would stop you from dying. If you did manage to get one, would you have to argue self-defense in a murder trial because of it? Because your situation is not traumatizing enough, here let's put you before a judge.
In vitro would be murder, since zygotes "die" in the process. If not willful murder, it would be murder by neglect.
What would happen to women who miscarry? To women who did something potentially dangerous to their zygote or fetus before they knew they were pregnant such as smoking or drinking or working a physically grueling job or indulging in a potentially dangerous hobby or endeavor? Where would the line actually be if we opened the door? It's terrifying to think even if you are pro-life/anti-abortion.
The idea would be that a tiny two-celled organism that only has a pretty small chance at life, all things considered, and has no humanity-- no thoughts, no feelings-- by all medical accounts, who's sole ability is to split its cells, would have the same (and realistically probably more) rights as the woman who provided half of its existence.
Why is this relevant? Paul Ryan supports it. In fact, he cosponsored a federal bill to make personhood the law in every state in America. Not only that, but going back to our hypothetical situation where-in you are pregnant and it's killing you, Ryan voted for the "Let Women Die Bill" which, in the words of Sandra Fluke, "proposed to allow hospitals to refuse a woman emergency abortion care, even if her life was in immediate danger. Currently, a federally funded hospital is required to provide at least enough care for a patient to be stabilized so that she doesn’t die and can be transferred to another hospital. The bill Ryan voted for meant that hospitals wouldn’t even have had to do that." (source: http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/15/13301064-sandra-fluke-paul-ryan-on-womens-issues-so-bad-its-unbelievable-but-true?lite)
I hope everyone knows about Forced Ultrasound by now. It's the law here in Texas. It's also the law in Virginia, despite the public outcry. It's appalling. It makes me sick to my stomach. It's medically unnecessary and an especially absurd concept when you consider the "ability to turn eyes away" clause (although without it, the law is even worse -- more on that in a minute). Ryan's federal forced ultrasound bill actually had a clause named exactly that. Let's talk about the mis-allocation of health care resources, shall we?
The idea, in case you don't know, is that any individual seeking an abortion would be first forced to undergo an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound. This involves inserting a phallic "wand" into a woman's vagina in order to get an early sonogram of the fetus. In Texas, it doesn't stop there. Doctors here are legally required to verbally describe the sonogram image, make heartbeat audio available if possible, and make the sonogram image available to the patient. Again there's that "ability to turn eyes away" bit. I don't know about the other state's laws on this or the ones proposed in Ryan's bill so for the sake of fairness let's assume that this isn't what's called for in those. Still, this is messed up. It's being called "informed consent" and in Texas, at least, it's followed up with a mandatory wait period following the ultrasound and before abortion services may be offered, during which two face to face visits must be made to the doctor. The idea being that women who go to get an abortion don't understand that they are pregnant. No, they need to pay up to see it, hear it, think about it, talk to a doctor about it two more times and only then do they realize-- oh hey, fetus. Golly. (see: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/01/womens-health-in-texas-state-state for more info). Imagine the amount of torment this would cause if you were getting an abortion for rape or medical reasons. For any reason really, but especially in those cases. Yet as far as I know there's no exception to the rule. In fact, getting an abortion in Texas has become so difficult that some women are fleeing to Mexico in order to get potentially dangerous abortion options in the form of ulcer medication, available over the counter there, with no information on proper dosing or health check-ups to follow up. (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/reproductive-health/looking-mexico-alternative-abortion-clinics/)
The Sandra Fluke article also talks about Ryan wanting to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood -- an organization that despite popular belief primarily provides services that have nothing to do with abortion, and any federal money they get cannot be used towards abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, and medical emergency (the woman's life being in danger). Planned Parenthood is a trusted resource for a lot of people to get information, birth control, std testing, gynecological exams, pap smears, mammograms-- potentially life-saving preventative care measures that help women stay healthy and prevent or quickly shut down deadly and expensive diseases.
Besides this he's voted to cut abortion rights to people on medicaid/medicare, and he and Romney have included the "Human Life Amendment" in their platform which aims to make all abortion illegal under the constitution. Considering past precedence with the whole Personhood thing, I assume this also means to make it illegal in medical cases. And I'm not just talking about medical emergencies where in the woman's life is in immediate danger (I don't know whether they both actively support that, even though Personhood does, theoretically, and "Let Women Die" clearly does) I'm talking about fetal death. Just look at Georgia's "Women as Livestock" bill (see: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill/) Because women, like pigs, should have to carry dead or medically unviable fetuses to term (or induce labor as a form of abortion only after the point where the fetus could "emerge alive"), regardless of their mental state, unless their life is endangered.
The list goes on. I can't even handle it. On the issue of "Legitimate Rape" (see this, if you have not already: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html?utm_hp_ref=todd-akin for the re-introduction of the absurd term "legitimate rape", medical fallacy, and Todd Akin's desire to continue to victimize victims of rape for the sake of a fetus or zygote, even by denying them morning after pills) Ryan joined Todd Akin and many more in cosponsoring a bill to narrow the definition of rape, " limiting which victims of rape were "legitimate" enough to receive financial assistance for access to abortion care." (Sandra Fluke, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021179033 ) "Legitimate" rape, in the case of this bill, is forcible rape. (http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/08/23/forcible-rape-legislation-this-is-civilized-politics/)
Rape is rape. A man who forces himself on or takes advantage of a woman, or a woman who forces herself on or takes advantage of a man, or a man who forces himself or takes advantage of a man, or a woman who forces herself on or takes advantage of a woman is a rapist regardless of circumstances, and their victim in a rape victim. That's it. There are not levels here. Those who supported this bill are abusing and degrading and defaming victims for their own political gain and excusing the actions of horrible criminals. Rape is rape.
(And the implied notion that women have a tendency to claim rape when there wasn't one-- it's more likely the opposite is true. Look up "rape culture". Rape culture makes excuses for creepy-ass behavior from men and turns the women who refuse to stand for having them and their friends be objectified and made to feel unsafe by these jerks into "bitches" and "drama-queens." Moreover, it creates an environment, by everyday actions and words, that tells women that they will be blamed for admitting to being victimized by a man, and makes excuses for the guy that tell him that his behavior is acceptable and he will not get slammed for it. The result is ideas like "legitimate" rape, women not feeling able to take a stand, and rapists getting away with it to rape again. Here's a good, but pretty unrelated article that talks about rape culture, if you're interested: http://captainawkward.com/2012/08/07/322-323-my-friend-group-has-a-case-of-the-creepy-dude-how-do-we-clear-that-up/. The comments section is equally interesting.)
Heading back, however, to his fiscal policies, Paul Ryan voted down the Lily Ledbetter act and other "equal work, equal pay" legislation. Presumably on the (incorrect) assumption that a pay gap no longer exists, and that indiscrepancies in pay are a result of women generally choosing lower salary fields (which is accounted for in many studies, as far as I understand), or that women deserve less pay because women (all women, apparently) prioritize their time towards their children (which is an argument that I saw a while back but cannot find the article about. It was not coming from Ryan but may have come from another Wisconsin rep. I am not sure.) Or maybe he just hates women and wants us to suffer (I'm not saying that, I don't know the guy, but, damn, it is hard not to think that's the case).
He also wants to rescind new legislation that makes it illegal for insurance companies to charge more for women. Presumably the justification here is because of the potential for a woman to become pregnant and therefore require additional medical services?
When I brought these subjects up with my dad, he brushed it off. He thinks that Paul Ryan's opinions on social issues make no difference and they won't matter even if he becomes vice president. In a time where we are seeing a record amount of anti-women's rights legislature being passed into law, I don't believe this for a second. He spent the next hour on the phone with me trying to convince me that a man who voted down the Lily Ledbetter act and numerous other equal pay bills has the best ideas for my economic future. He brushed off the fact that Paul Ryan thinks that he has better ideas for personal decisions regarding my body and life than I do based on his assertion that "the guy is brilliant". I can feel the love. It's just clearly more for some mysoginistic politician than his own two daughters.
On a slightly different note, Ryan also idolizes Ayn Rand.(Who incidentally supported abortion passionately, although I feel like that may have more to do with her eugenics-feuled ideologies than anything else). Ayn Rand was a woman too blind and unintelligent to see past her own very narrow view of her personal experience and recognize the world as anything more than a black-and-white place full of producers and moochers, Ryan's "makers" and "takers". She wrote fantasy novels wherein the world was destroyed by the free-loading moochers who drove the productive citizens to boycott their lives instead of continue to work in a society that allowed for people to take advantage of social programs, and, in their minds, them. These novels perpetuated her out-of-touch-with-reality (and likely, I can't help but think, at least partially set in racism, despite her objections to the contrary) philosophy that social programs allowed lesser people to be carried along in a cozy "hammock" (as Ryan put it) at the horrible expense of these better, more intelligent, more hardworking, morally superior "producers". It fits very well with the very fucked up (sorry, but there is no word strong enough) eugenics movement that was very much still in force at her time (and led to many horrifying things including state-sanctioned forced sterilization) and clearly still has many hangers-on today. Ayn Rand is not someone to be idolized in my book. (More Ryan/Rand and also, Ryan wants to return to the gold standard? Worst idea ever, oh my god. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/opinion/krugman-galt-gold-and-god.html )
The other point of all of this, though I got rather caught up in things, was initially to share a comment I have regarding this article, however: http://www.salon.com/2012/08/12/paul_ryan_randian_poseur/
I take some issue with this one. The main point is, though: Social Security benefits played a big role in Paul Ryan's education and therefore, it is assumed, his success in his career. Not only is he not acknowledging the role that the gove
rnment support has played in his success and possibly his family's financial stability, he's trying to destroy opportunities for other people to receive these same benefits and opportunities. And the fact is, many of the people who would be denied these benefits need them much more than he did.
Not only is he looking to cut social security benefits (like those he received) and medicare benefits (apparently to reform it into a system "like congress has" but without any of the fail safes that prevent federal employees from having to make up the difference if the coverage doesn't amount to actual real-world costs -- which many people believe it won't via his plan, because for that to be possible the health care system has to act as a perfect free market (which it very much is not)) but also funding for public universities and schools (like those he attended) and aid and fiscal support for college students.
This is not to say (and the problem with the article is that it sort of does) that everyone should be tied to agreeing with and supporting every institution that ever gave them anything that they have used in their lives. That's insane and anti-progress.
The problem is in the lack of recognition that he, and many other successful and powerful people, seem to have in the role that other people, circumstances of birth, and government support have played in their lives and in their success. There is a tendency among people to believe that their success is solely a factor of their hard work and moral and intellectual superiority. This is even more insane and anti-progress than the other thing.
What he should be doing is looking at the role that the financial support played in helping him achieve his own goals and the ramifications of not having that money, and then consider all of the people who are in the same or (let's really stretch his cognitive power here) worse positions and what the ramifications of not having these programs would be for them. Instead he, and I'd say a large number of well off white guys (my father certainly included) will tell you that that's not the point and the sole reason he's standing there before you in the position he's in is that he deserves it, he worked hard, he's smart, he earned it, he had all of the ambition, he is the sole maker of his own destiny and he was just better so he won. Nice and self serving, but nowhere near reality.
These government institutions help people, even the now rich and powerful people who claim to be wholly self-made. They provide the opportunities that people need in order for their hard work and intelligence to get them something, or for them to have the opportunity to give something back. In fact they're needed (via public schools and programs for kids) just to grow that intelligence and work ethic in children to begin with, so they can grow up to be "makers", as Ryan would put it.
Ryan and his ilk talk about the safety net our country has built (largely in response to the great depression, I might add) as a preventer of innovation, a slower of progress, and as a free ride for those lazy "takers" who use the opportunities it provides. This is also insane, and the real anti-progress would be eliminating the safety net that allows people the opportunity to take risks and bet on themselves or on those around them with innovative ideas or products. Getting rid of this safety net would severely cripple the American people's ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Forget the American dream, screw you if you come from less than what I had, I won't even allow you the same opportunities or support.
TL;DR: Paul Ryan has some scary (and at times slightly hypocritical) ideas about our economy and about women's bodies. Remember when I said I was disillusioned about politics, aggiebell90? Well, now I'm just angry.
One of these opinions is that nobody knows for sure what is actually going to save our economy right now, and the ideas that most people who actually have some authority on the subject (having studied it in depth) actually tend to agree upon are probably never going to get put in place regardless of who is in office because they tend to be extreme and would basically require overhauling everything (source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform / and proof that even when they agree with that they don't agree with that: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/26/157396666/the-disagreement-behind-our-economic-platform). Even with the best intentions, we people are not perfect and cannot predict the future.
Which is part of why I find it a bit ridiculous that my dad so steadfastly supports Paul Ryan's financial plan.
It supposedly largely relies on eliminating loopholes and arbitrary tax cuts, and even though he won't say what, which, or for whom about that I can generally agree with this sentiment -- but also more clearly relies heavily on overhauling and cutting down on social programs, financial aid programs of all kinds, and generally pushing for less government spending. The aim of this is supposedly to cut the deficit. Sounds good. Sounds excellent being of the generation that is likely going to be very affected by this deficit. But wait! There's more! Tax cuts. For the wealthy. Big ones, too, that according to the Tax Policy Center could loose over four trillion dollars in revenue over the next ten years. (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html?ref=paulkrugman) If that's even close to being the case then, according to Krugman, his plan would actually increase the deficit because cutting loopholes and social programs would probably not save anywhere near enough to make up the difference in this loss of revenue. Even if it is completely off the mark though and Krugman's numbers are wrong, and Ryan's plan would help the deficit, this program is still literally taking from the poor to give to the rich. Social programs would be cut in order to fund tax cuts for people and companies in the highest income brackets. And in reality, this would be regardless of whether or not they actually are "job creators" (which is a concept that I basically consider to be a huge, steaming load of malarkey any way). How is that okay?
Also, where is the precedence that shows that cutting out the safety net and the public funding helps a depression? These things were put in place in the first place to combat the great depression and prevent things from ever getting to that point again. Moreover, where is the precedence that shows that giving more money to the rich actually has a real trickle down effect, like politicians claim? Because it hasn't. Why is there this obsession with starting at the top and working our way down when it comes to fiscal policy? Obama is guilty of this too, I'm certainly not saying he isn't, and his assertion that we should be starting with the middle class is almost as ridiculous. No one, as you can see, is arguing that we start from the bottom up. Why? You'd think that would be a no-brainer. Get the people who need to the most support enough for them and their kids to have the opportunity to no longer require that support and to give back by having productive roles in their communities and produce tax revenues for the government. Lower crime, create new business, new education opportunities, lower the wage gap. Nope. Give more money to the rich in the vain hope (as we've seen time and again in the last decade) that that will actually spur them into creating more jobs for Americans, even to the degree that it will make a substantial impact in unemployment. Not only that, but do that at the expense of programs that are the only things keeping many hardworking Americans afloat (and in good-ish health).
But this economics crazy was not even what I mentioned Paul Ryan for. A lot of the details of his policies I learned today when I took my dad's advice and looked into Paul Ryan's plan. So, a little more on that later.
What I did mention was Personhood, Forced Ultrasound, "Legitimate" Rape, access to birth control, Pro-Choice, the Let Women Die bill, and cuts to Family Planning Programs. What I didn't mention was the Lily Ledbetter veto, or the health care discrimination he would re-institute.
For those of you who don't know, Personhood is a bill that would grant "personhood"-- legal rights under constitutional law -- to a zygote at the moment an egg is fertilized. At this point in time -- the time of fertilization-- a woman is not even pregnant yet. As a legally recognized person, any action that could cause harm to the zygote would be assault. Its death by will or by neglect would be murder. I'm not making this up.
Let's think of some of the repercussions here: hormonal birth control and IUDs cannot prevent fertilization; they prevent pregnancy. This is why IUDs come with warning about continued risk of ectopic pregnancies. Birth control, with the exception of condoms, diaphragms, and spermicide (and I'm pretty sure that's it except, of course, for abstinence) cannot prevent fertilization, just the ability for that fertilized egg to be accepted by the body and adhere to the uterine lining. Using any form of birth control besides condoms, diaphragms, and spermicide (those latter two in particular having a pretty low degree of effectiveness, and condoms only being 97% effective when used properly-- which a lot of the time they're not) would make you, under personhood, a murderer.
Abortions would be murder under any circumstance. Imagine being in a situation where your life was in immediate danger and you needed an abortion to save it. This is not some obscure fantasy situation, it is a medical reality that many women face. Not only would abortion not be a legal option for you and may be impossible to get -- even though you were dying and it would stop you from dying. If you did manage to get one, would you have to argue self-defense in a murder trial because of it? Because your situation is not traumatizing enough, here let's put you before a judge.
In vitro would be murder, since zygotes "die" in the process. If not willful murder, it would be murder by neglect.
What would happen to women who miscarry? To women who did something potentially dangerous to their zygote or fetus before they knew they were pregnant such as smoking or drinking or working a physically grueling job or indulging in a potentially dangerous hobby or endeavor? Where would the line actually be if we opened the door? It's terrifying to think even if you are pro-life/anti-abortion.
The idea would be that a tiny two-celled organism that only has a pretty small chance at life, all things considered, and has no humanity-- no thoughts, no feelings-- by all medical accounts, who's sole ability is to split its cells, would have the same (and realistically probably more) rights as the woman who provided half of its existence.
Why is this relevant? Paul Ryan supports it. In fact, he cosponsored a federal bill to make personhood the law in every state in America. Not only that, but going back to our hypothetical situation where-in you are pregnant and it's killing you, Ryan voted for the "Let Women Die Bill" which, in the words of Sandra Fluke, "proposed to allow hospitals to refuse a woman emergency abortion care, even if her life was in immediate danger. Currently, a federally funded hospital is required to provide at least enough care for a patient to be stabilized so that she doesn’t die and can be transferred to another hospital. The bill Ryan voted for meant that hospitals wouldn’t even have had to do that." (source: http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/15/13301064-sandra-fluke-paul-ryan-on-womens-issues-so-bad-its-unbelievable-but-true?lite)
I hope everyone knows about Forced Ultrasound by now. It's the law here in Texas. It's also the law in Virginia, despite the public outcry. It's appalling. It makes me sick to my stomach. It's medically unnecessary and an especially absurd concept when you consider the "ability to turn eyes away" clause (although without it, the law is even worse -- more on that in a minute). Ryan's federal forced ultrasound bill actually had a clause named exactly that. Let's talk about the mis-allocation of health care resources, shall we?
The idea, in case you don't know, is that any individual seeking an abortion would be first forced to undergo an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound. This involves inserting a phallic "wand" into a woman's vagina in order to get an early sonogram of the fetus. In Texas, it doesn't stop there. Doctors here are legally required to verbally describe the sonogram image, make heartbeat audio available if possible, and make the sonogram image available to the patient. Again there's that "ability to turn eyes away" bit. I don't know about the other state's laws on this or the ones proposed in Ryan's bill so for the sake of fairness let's assume that this isn't what's called for in those. Still, this is messed up. It's being called "informed consent" and in Texas, at least, it's followed up with a mandatory wait period following the ultrasound and before abortion services may be offered, during which two face to face visits must be made to the doctor. The idea being that women who go to get an abortion don't understand that they are pregnant. No, they need to pay up to see it, hear it, think about it, talk to a doctor about it two more times and only then do they realize-- oh hey, fetus. Golly. (see: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/01/womens-health-in-texas-state-state for more info). Imagine the amount of torment this would cause if you were getting an abortion for rape or medical reasons. For any reason really, but especially in those cases. Yet as far as I know there's no exception to the rule. In fact, getting an abortion in Texas has become so difficult that some women are fleeing to Mexico in order to get potentially dangerous abortion options in the form of ulcer medication, available over the counter there, with no information on proper dosing or health check-ups to follow up. (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/reproductive-health/looking-mexico-alternative-abortion-clinics/)
The Sandra Fluke article also talks about Ryan wanting to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood -- an organization that despite popular belief primarily provides services that have nothing to do with abortion, and any federal money they get cannot be used towards abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, and medical emergency (the woman's life being in danger). Planned Parenthood is a trusted resource for a lot of people to get information, birth control, std testing, gynecological exams, pap smears, mammograms-- potentially life-saving preventative care measures that help women stay healthy and prevent or quickly shut down deadly and expensive diseases.
Besides this he's voted to cut abortion rights to people on medicaid/medicare, and he and Romney have included the "Human Life Amendment" in their platform which aims to make all abortion illegal under the constitution. Considering past precedence with the whole Personhood thing, I assume this also means to make it illegal in medical cases. And I'm not just talking about medical emergencies where in the woman's life is in immediate danger (I don't know whether they both actively support that, even though Personhood does, theoretically, and "Let Women Die" clearly does) I'm talking about fetal death. Just look at Georgia's "Women as Livestock" bill (see: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill/) Because women, like pigs, should have to carry dead or medically unviable fetuses to term (or induce labor as a form of abortion only after the point where the fetus could "emerge alive"), regardless of their mental state, unless their life is endangered.
The list goes on. I can't even handle it. On the issue of "Legitimate Rape" (see this, if you have not already: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html?utm_hp_ref=todd-akin for the re-introduction of the absurd term "legitimate rape", medical fallacy, and Todd Akin's desire to continue to victimize victims of rape for the sake of a fetus or zygote, even by denying them morning after pills) Ryan joined Todd Akin and many more in cosponsoring a bill to narrow the definition of rape, " limiting which victims of rape were "legitimate" enough to receive financial assistance for access to abortion care." (Sandra Fluke, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021179033 ) "Legitimate" rape, in the case of this bill, is forcible rape. (http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/08/23/forcible-rape-legislation-this-is-civilized-politics/)
Rape is rape. A man who forces himself on or takes advantage of a woman, or a woman who forces herself on or takes advantage of a man, or a man who forces himself or takes advantage of a man, or a woman who forces herself on or takes advantage of a woman is a rapist regardless of circumstances, and their victim in a rape victim. That's it. There are not levels here. Those who supported this bill are abusing and degrading and defaming victims for their own political gain and excusing the actions of horrible criminals. Rape is rape.
(And the implied notion that women have a tendency to claim rape when there wasn't one-- it's more likely the opposite is true. Look up "rape culture". Rape culture makes excuses for creepy-ass behavior from men and turns the women who refuse to stand for having them and their friends be objectified and made to feel unsafe by these jerks into "bitches" and "drama-queens." Moreover, it creates an environment, by everyday actions and words, that tells women that they will be blamed for admitting to being victimized by a man, and makes excuses for the guy that tell him that his behavior is acceptable and he will not get slammed for it. The result is ideas like "legitimate" rape, women not feeling able to take a stand, and rapists getting away with it to rape again. Here's a good, but pretty unrelated article that talks about rape culture, if you're interested: http://captainawkward.com/2012/08/07/322-323-my-friend-group-has-a-case-of-the-creepy-dude-how-do-we-clear-that-up/. The comments section is equally interesting.)
Heading back, however, to his fiscal policies, Paul Ryan voted down the Lily Ledbetter act and other "equal work, equal pay" legislation. Presumably on the (incorrect) assumption that a pay gap no longer exists, and that indiscrepancies in pay are a result of women generally choosing lower salary fields (which is accounted for in many studies, as far as I understand), or that women deserve less pay because women (all women, apparently) prioritize their time towards their children (which is an argument that I saw a while back but cannot find the article about. It was not coming from Ryan but may have come from another Wisconsin rep. I am not sure.) Or maybe he just hates women and wants us to suffer (I'm not saying that, I don't know the guy, but, damn, it is hard not to think that's the case).
He also wants to rescind new legislation that makes it illegal for insurance companies to charge more for women. Presumably the justification here is because of the potential for a woman to become pregnant and therefore require additional medical services?
When I brought these subjects up with my dad, he brushed it off. He thinks that Paul Ryan's opinions on social issues make no difference and they won't matter even if he becomes vice president. In a time where we are seeing a record amount of anti-women's rights legislature being passed into law, I don't believe this for a second. He spent the next hour on the phone with me trying to convince me that a man who voted down the Lily Ledbetter act and numerous other equal pay bills has the best ideas for my economic future. He brushed off the fact that Paul Ryan thinks that he has better ideas for personal decisions regarding my body and life than I do based on his assertion that "the guy is brilliant". I can feel the love. It's just clearly more for some mysoginistic politician than his own two daughters.
On a slightly different note, Ryan also idolizes Ayn Rand.(Who incidentally supported abortion passionately, although I feel like that may have more to do with her eugenics-feuled ideologies than anything else). Ayn Rand was a woman too blind and unintelligent to see past her own very narrow view of her personal experience and recognize the world as anything more than a black-and-white place full of producers and moochers, Ryan's "makers" and "takers". She wrote fantasy novels wherein the world was destroyed by the free-loading moochers who drove the productive citizens to boycott their lives instead of continue to work in a society that allowed for people to take advantage of social programs, and, in their minds, them. These novels perpetuated her out-of-touch-with-reality (and likely, I can't help but think, at least partially set in racism, despite her objections to the contrary) philosophy that social programs allowed lesser people to be carried along in a cozy "hammock" (as Ryan put it) at the horrible expense of these better, more intelligent, more hardworking, morally superior "producers". It fits very well with the very fucked up (sorry, but there is no word strong enough) eugenics movement that was very much still in force at her time (and led to many horrifying things including state-sanctioned forced sterilization) and clearly still has many hangers-on today. Ayn Rand is not someone to be idolized in my book. (More Ryan/Rand and also, Ryan wants to return to the gold standard? Worst idea ever, oh my god. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/opinion/krugman-galt-gold-and-god.html )
The other point of all of this, though I got rather caught up in things, was initially to share a comment I have regarding this article, however: http://www.salon.com/2012/08/12/paul_ryan_randian_poseur/
I take some issue with this one. The main point is, though: Social Security benefits played a big role in Paul Ryan's education and therefore, it is assumed, his success in his career. Not only is he not acknowledging the role that the gove
rnment support has played in his success and possibly his family's financial stability, he's trying to destroy opportunities for other people to receive these same benefits and opportunities. And the fact is, many of the people who would be denied these benefits need them much more than he did.
Not only is he looking to cut social security benefits (like those he received) and medicare benefits (apparently to reform it into a system "like congress has" but without any of the fail safes that prevent federal employees from having to make up the difference if the coverage doesn't amount to actual real-world costs -- which many people believe it won't via his plan, because for that to be possible the health care system has to act as a perfect free market (which it very much is not)) but also funding for public universities and schools (like those he attended) and aid and fiscal support for college students.
This is not to say (and the problem with the article is that it sort of does) that everyone should be tied to agreeing with and supporting every institution that ever gave them anything that they have used in their lives. That's insane and anti-progress.
The problem is in the lack of recognition that he, and many other successful and powerful people, seem to have in the role that other people, circumstances of birth, and government support have played in their lives and in their success. There is a tendency among people to believe that their success is solely a factor of their hard work and moral and intellectual superiority. This is even more insane and anti-progress than the other thing.
What he should be doing is looking at the role that the financial support played in helping him achieve his own goals and the ramifications of not having that money, and then consider all of the people who are in the same or (let's really stretch his cognitive power here) worse positions and what the ramifications of not having these programs would be for them. Instead he, and I'd say a large number of well off white guys (my father certainly included) will tell you that that's not the point and the sole reason he's standing there before you in the position he's in is that he deserves it, he worked hard, he's smart, he earned it, he had all of the ambition, he is the sole maker of his own destiny and he was just better so he won. Nice and self serving, but nowhere near reality.
These government institutions help people, even the now rich and powerful people who claim to be wholly self-made. They provide the opportunities that people need in order for their hard work and intelligence to get them something, or for them to have the opportunity to give something back. In fact they're needed (via public schools and programs for kids) just to grow that intelligence and work ethic in children to begin with, so they can grow up to be "makers", as Ryan would put it.
Ryan and his ilk talk about the safety net our country has built (largely in response to the great depression, I might add) as a preventer of innovation, a slower of progress, and as a free ride for those lazy "takers" who use the opportunities it provides. This is also insane, and the real anti-progress would be eliminating the safety net that allows people the opportunity to take risks and bet on themselves or on those around them with innovative ideas or products. Getting rid of this safety net would severely cripple the American people's ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Forget the American dream, screw you if you come from less than what I had, I won't even allow you the same opportunities or support.
TL;DR: Paul Ryan has some scary (and at times slightly hypocritical) ideas about our economy and about women's bodies. Remember when I said I was disillusioned about politics, aggiebell90? Well, now I'm just angry.