Political results of Republican fetus-forfeiture


Fig. 1 –Why Republicans keep losing

Let’s look at the record, as Al Smith used to say. Starting with the antiabortionists, here follow their statements and odds of getting elected.

Sarah Palin, October 22, 2008: “I’ve always had near and dear to my heart the mission of protecting the sanctity of life and being pro-life, a hardcore pro-lifer, but I think this opportunity for me to really be walking the walk and not just talking the talk.” Odds: zero

John McCain, August 16, 2008: A baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate.” Odds: zero

Jeb Bush, Nov. 1, 2015: “My views haven’t changed. I believe in the exceptions of rape and incest and the life of the mother, of course.” Odds: zero

Ben Carson, Nov 25, 2015: Q: Definitively, do you want to see Roe v. Wade overturned? CARSON: I would love to see it overturned. Odds: 119-712 to 1 against

Carly Fiorina, Sep. 27, 2015: Q: In 2010, in your Senate race, you called Roe v. Wade a decided issue. You have since said you would work to overturn it. What changed your mind? FIORINA: Well, we are finding common ground. People’s views evolve on all kinds of things. Odds: zero

Lindsey Graham, Aug. 6, 2015: I don’t think it’s a war on women for all of us as Americans to stand up and stop harvesting organs from little babies. Odds: zero

John Kasich, Aug. 16, 2015: Q: You’re pro-life? A: Right. Odds: 48-835 against

Marco Rubio, Aug. 9, 2015: I’ll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions. Odds: 76-949 to 1 against

Donald Trump, “If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. (Translation: Point guns at doctors, not pregnant women) Odds: 7/4 to 13/5 against.

The 422-word GOP platform position–a paean to the equivalence of many words and many lies–reads a lot like a fetus forfeiture bill: The Reich owns that potential Lebensborn taxpayer-trainee, but the owner of the individual female body it occupies is condemned to forced labor and involuntary servitude, no compensation, threats of criminal liability, Thirteenth Amendment be damned. This is exactly the pattern of law pushed by Bush Senior and George W. Bush. Citizens take out a home or auto loan, the Prohibitionist Theocracy declares the property suspect, State and local police confiscate it for their private club expenses and the owner of the property, now homeless or afoot, still has to pay off the mortgage or auto loan. Of course with asset forfeiture the economy collapses, exactly as under Rumanian communism. With fetus forfeiture the economy collapses because Germanic nationalsocialism is a lot like Rumanian communism.

To deflect attention from this added trampling of the Constitution, mystical conservatives misdirect attention to the 1776 Declaration. Religious conservatives seize upon Jefferson’s use of “self-evident” as the legal enshrinement of Divine Revelation as the foundation for legal jurisprudence, when in fact the Declaration has no force of law. The phrase “endowed by their creator” is blithely interpreted as absolute proof of the existence of a deity undetectable by modern physics. But most exciting of all is the word “life,” which to Christian and Mohammedan religious fundamentalists alike is code for singling out individual women to serve as breeding dams–by forcible impregnation if need be, in a Jihadist-Crusader fetus forfeiture program.

“Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” are completely meaningless to the blinkered conservative mind. Then again,  “shall not be abridged” is as blankly meaningless to worshippers of communism and the progressive income tax. Theirs is a competing and blasphemous Revealed Faith in which any body of ruffians able to seize a monopoly on the initiation of force become, in effect, the equals of Allah or Yaweh, not His vassals.

So if the Thirteenth Amendment–the one forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude–is to be cavalierly swept aside, what of the Fourteenth? This is the Amendment that spelled out clearly in its first three words (All persons born…) that nobody–not even Saracen blackamoor women–can be bought and beaten, raped and enslaved as they were, by tradition and with the blessings of Congress and the Supreme Court, in These States in 1860. Now that Congress is packed with Republicans, has it become more trustworthy? No.


Fig. 2 –Trust in Republican-controlled Congress

But elections are all about choice, so let’s look at the competition.

Bernie Sanders, Sep. 5, 2015: Bernie believes in protecting a woman’s right to choose and has a lifetime pro-choice record. (Don’t coerce doctors or pregnant women, except by taxation and cartel pricing laws).  Bernie’s odds range from 28 to 43 to 1 against.

Hillary is as incapable of making a declarative statement as Mitt Romney, so her evasions add nothing to the platform. Odds: 3 to 1 FOR.

Clearly the betting odds–mathematics uncolored by ideological bias–favor the Democratic Party. We therefore cut to the 2012 Democratic plank on abortion, only a third the size of its rambling and disjointed competitor:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

The first 20 words of that would make a really nice Libertarian Party platform. Deleting our present cowardly straddle plank would also work. I just read Canada’s Libertarian Party Platform and the word abortion appears nowhere in it. Best to let them explain their own system of laws and rights:

Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that has NO criminal law restricting abortion at all. We first liberalized our law against abortion in 1969; then our Supreme Court threw it out completely in 1988. And we’ve been doing just fine without it.

See that? People from all over the world line up to apply for visas to live and work in Canada, even if it means tramping through snow. And Canada has a remarkably stable economy compared to countries run by mystical fanatics. Clearly there is nothing wrong with skipping the abortion plank entirely if your constituents are overwhelmingly for safe, legal abortion. The Libertarian party contains less superstition, fewer lawyers and a larger percentage of scientists and engineers than any U.S. Party. We don’t elect all that many politicians, but we change A LOT of laws. Visit LP.org and see for yourself.


One thought on “Political results of Republican fetus-forfeiture

  1. Pingback: Gary Johnson’s long lever | libertariantranslator

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s