GOP Abortion Strategy

Some may think the GOP War on Women was a loser campaign issue and I agreed with them to a point. The point being once you let someone place conditions and limitations of what medical treatment you can have or have funded by the health insurance you purchase; you are on a slide toward something like Ireland's anti-life policy.

The Details Are Worth Exploring

The "War on Women" was defined over time by the GOP rank and file. Once it became clear what the GOP anti-abortion zealot's intentions were/are and how the details of those intentions would interfere with our lives; people had a "wait a minute" moment and voted differently. When idiots talked about forcible rape, legitimate rape and other such statements, it's no wonder a lot of people wrote off those talking heads as crack pots. The election may be over, but the intentions of anti-abortion lawmakers remain unchanged. We must continue to ask for the details of what they believe. It's the details that show what the GOP really stands for.

Abortion law often states an abortion can be obtained to "save the life of the mother", but what does that mean? Most people understand the need to remove the embryo in an ectopic pregnancy, but the legality of that procedure can come into question if something like the Sanctity of Life Bill comes into law and some religious zealot doctor refuses to end the ectopic pregnancy. When is the mother's life in danger? Before or after infection sets in? Before or after the fallopian tube bursts?

We can't allow a politician to hide behind "Of course, abortion should be allowed to save a woman's life" without insisting the politician define what the saving her life standard is. Chances are once the definition is set, it will be rejected as there will be a circumstance that will occur outside the parameter. There are lots of reasons a woman might not be able to complete her pregnancy and that is anguishing enough without having to deal with religious born/contorted laws on top of the personal tragedy.

Why Should We Have to Ask?

The demand for women to prove they "need" abortion services sidesteps the issue of self-governance. Why do we need to ask permission or "prove" the need for abortion? That's the detail that makes most people most uncomfortable. It's one thing to talk about "casual" abortion. It's another to define it.

These are real issues. They aren't fantasies or nightmares. Before Savtita Halappanavar, the Dominican Republic let a 16 year old girl die rather than let her receive cancer treatments that would hurt her embryo. The Vatican excommunicated a doctor who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old girl because the girl's life wasn't sufficiently in danger. When we hold up these individual cases where the politics of law are shown to cruelly supersede the needs and rights of women (and children), these anti-abortion policies are shown to be heartlessly anti-life.

Getting Caught in the Weeds

Some within the GOP understand that getting into the weeds of such issues like rape or abortion is a loser for them. John McCain put it best:

"As far as young women are concerned, absolutely, I don't think anybody like me -- I can state my position on abortion but, other than that, leave the issue alone"

Why? Because when you get into the details on abortion prohibition, it's an untenable position for most women.

Anti-abortion details leads to this International Medical Symposium Policy Position released in Dublin, Ireland (I bolded my main concern):

Prof O’Dwyer and a panel of speakers also formally agreed a “Dublin declaration” on maternal healthcare. It stated: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

“We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

“We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

In a statement, Prof O’Dwyer also said no treatment should ever be withheld from a woman if she needed it to save her life, even if that treatment resulted in the loss of life of her unborn child.

Ok, that policy bites it's own tail. There's no reason to directly perform an abortion, but no treatment should ever be withheld if it's needed to save the mother's life. Except if that treatment is an abortion? Stop, my head from spinning please.

GOP Risk Managment

The GOP has to navigate a fine line and they know it can only be done if they don't talk about the details of their anti-woman, anti-abortion land pro-poverty policy positions.

McCain clearly wants to walk this line:

Fox host Chris Wallace asked McCain if that meant he would support "freedom of choice."

"I would allow people to have those opinions and respect those opinions," McCain responded. "I'm proud of my pro-life position and record. But if someone disagrees with me, I respect your views."

Nice. John McCain is ok with "allowing" people to have an opinion different than his. It's a shame that Chris Wallace didn't follow up with a question that defined what "respecting" differing opinion entails (not that we would). If former performance is any indication of future behavior; McCain means you can say whatever you want as long as we do what John wants.

That a boy, John, keep talking.