Political Animal
Blog
All of the rightward forces in the Republican Party have a not-so-secret and powerful ally: the Iowa Caucuses, which have increasingly served as a crucible for presidential candidates who (unless they take the great risk of skipping it) must spend months in the state trouping around Pizza Farm outlets and responding to the demands of one of the most conservative (and spoiled) “activist bases” outside the Deep South.
So it’s with interest that I noted a piece in The Iowa Republican suggesting that Rand Paul has gotten himself in hot water with “personhood” advocates for his recently introduced “personhood” bill in the Senate. TIR’s Kevin Hall reports:
Iowa’s most prominent supporters of Personhood legislation applaud the Life at Conception bill Rand Paul introduced in the U.S. Senate last week. However, they feel the possible presidential contender undermined his own legislation during a CNN interview earlier this week.
“That’s exactly how I see it,” said State Rep. Tom Shaw (R-Laurens).
Shaw has introduced a Personhood bill in the Iowa House, which defines life beginning at conception and provides equal protection to all human beings, including babies in the womb. Rand Paul’s bill does the same. However, during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday, Paul repeatedly talked about exceptions to his legislation.
“What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions,” Paul said. “You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.”
Tom Shaw believes equal protection for all leaves no room for exceptions.
“It’s a little disconcerting to see Rand Paul make the statement that there can be thousands of exceptions,” Shaw said. “Personhood is the belief that at the moment of conception, there is a distinct individual. You can’t claim Personhood and then go on and say that there are times that you can go on and kill that person.”
Keep in mind before you read further that we are talking about zygotes here, and that the obvious purpose of “personhood” initiatives is to go far beyond abortion bans to prohibit IV fertilization clinics, IUDs and Plan B contraceptives, and in some interpretations, the standard “pill” used by many tens of millions of Americans. You’d think the “personhood” lobby would be happy to have a pol with Rand Paul’s current star power more or less in their camp. But oh no:
Cindy Anders is the executive director of Iowa Pro-Life Action, a group that adamantly supports Personhood legislation. She criticized Senator Paul on Facebook.
“God did not give the sword to the parents or individuals. He gave it to the state and for the sole purpose of punishing crime,” Anders wrote. “Senator Paul, I hope we get an opportunity to talk about this in Cedar Rapids because I’m beginning to think that D.C. has corrupted you. You are beginning to think you are God. I believe you are treading on very dangerous grounds and as a principled voter with a conscience bound only by my Savior, I could not give you my vote if the election were today. I wonder what your father thinks about this interview, but then again, it is true, you are certainly not your father for he understands the Constitution and the issue of murder.”
Paul needs to get his story straight pretty soon. Anders’ reference to “Cedar Rapids” alluded to the Kentuckian’s headliner speech at the state party’s Lincoln Day dinner on May 10. It will be a tough and demanding crowd athwart any Republican’s path to the 2016 presidential nomination.
Facebook
Twitter
BillFromPA on March 22, 2013 3:41 PM:
I know this article is about how even Rand Paul is not quite crazy enough for the base voters who will determine the arc of the GOP primary season, but let's keep this in mind when the Villagers tout Christie as a dangerous threat to Hillary, et al in the general. The repugs might manage to shorten the process and decrease the number of debates, but what remains will surely produce as much mind numbing insanity as last time. Sen. Christie? Maybe, GOP Pres candidate Christie? Not in the cards.
golack on March 22, 2013 3:52 PM:
"Personhood from fertilization"....
So gov't needs to be big enough to monitor every copulation?
Probably over half of the fertilized eggs do not implant or successfully implant. Women would not even know they are/were potentially pregnant. And this doesn't even get to miscarriages.
Sgt. Gym Bunny on March 22, 2013 4:17 PM:
"You are beginning to think you are God. I believe you are treading on very dangerous grounds and as a principled voter with a conscience bound only by my Savior, I could not give you my vote if the election were today."
Um, I'm confused (or maybe Cindy Anders is). So having a conscience that is bound only by one's Savior and not circumscribed by the State is a privilege--I mean RIGHT--that only the Teahadists are entitled too?
For someone who's supposedly so aghast about some one else's perceived God Complex, she doesn't have any scruples about foisting her own religiosity and holier-than-thou God Complex onto the rest of the US of A. But, then again, she did assert that God gave power to the state... which is an entirely new interpretation of psuedo-dogma from the Right... Hell, if God gave the sword to the state, just who the hell is she to back talk Paul on Facebook??? Just sayin....
Zorro on March 22, 2013 4:28 PM:
I can hear it already: Rand Paul is a RINO!
-Z
c u n d gulag on March 22, 2013 4:32 PM:
Rand Paul - 'hoist, by his own retards!'*
My apologies, for using that term.
Kathryn on March 22, 2013 4:37 PM:
So the anti government Iowa Pro Life group wants the state to monitor every pregnancy from the moment of copulation until birth after that, Mom is on her own. Of course, these nuts see this as murder, thus that gives them wiggle room in their anti government line or so they think. Maybe every aspiring presidential GOPer should be equipped with a pro life minder who accompanies them to all interviews with a cattle prod to keep them in line. The unholy alliance between church and state is really biting these neophyte presidential candidates in the arse, well the whole party really. What a pity.
Raoul on March 22, 2013 4:53 PM:
Kinda quibbly, here, but it's Pizza Ranch.
Otherwise, wow, the idea of no exceptions, ever, that'll go over well in most of reality-land.
Julie Charles on March 22, 2013 5:04 PM:
"“God did not give the sword to the parents or individuals. He gave it to the state and for the sole purpose of punishing crime,” Anders wrote."
Guns - now, that's a different matter.
boatboy_srq on March 22, 2013 5:17 PM:
@golack: precisely.
It's curious how the GOTea and the anti-choice crowd whinge incessantly about Big Gubmint and the Unbearable Heaviness of Taxation (wasn't that a Roald Dahl novel?), but the moment there's a chance to peek inside ladybits or shame a slut they're all over public sector intrusion into otherwise-private affairs. Big Gubmint seems to be the crack of the anti-choice set: it's the preferred drug, and they don't care what it costs as long as they get some. It's a fair question to ask these people whether they'd be in favor of a tax increase to pay for the bureaucracy their fever-dream policies would require, and if so how much more in taxes they'd be willing to pay to fund the Bureau for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
One wonders whether the anti-choice crowd is trying to suppress women or simply get some perverse sexual thrill from all the "oversight". Either way, their chosen methods are almost certainly the most intrusive, most expensive, most offensive, and likely least effective.
God did not give the sword to... individuals. He gave it to the state and for the sole purpose of punishing crime. Can we qoute this every time some 2nd-Amendment shouter goes off on his Gawd-given right to shoot those darn kids who trample his lawn?
@Sgt. Gym Bunny: for the GOTea, it's l'etat c'est moi v2.0.
majun on March 22, 2013 5:20 PM:
"Tom Shaw believes equal protection for all leaves no room for exceptions.
“It’s a little disconcerting to see Rand Paul make the statement that there can be thousands of exceptions,” Shaw said. “Personhood is the belief that at the moment of conception, there is a distinct individual. You can’t claim Personhood and then go on and say that there are times that you can go on and kill that person.”"
I can't state with absolute certainty, but I would guess, based on long observation of my countrymen, that Tom Shaw and Cindy Anders would have no problem if some African American teenager accidently walked into the wrong house and the owner of the home just blew them away with an assault rifle. Not a problem because a person has a right to defend their property. But if a zygote takes up residence in some woman's womb for 9 months, they have that right and the woman has no say in the matter. I am still trying to get my head around this "pro-life" label. Their definition of "life" seems a bit skewed.
majun on March 22, 2013 5:22 PM:
In reference to my last post, I think the problem is, for the religious right, a man's home is his castle, but a woman's body still belongs to her father first and then her husband.
MuddyLee on March 23, 2013 10:10 AM:
Welcome to America, Rand Paul. Insane America. If you lie down with dogs, you're gonna get fleas...
JoanneinDenver on March 23, 2013 2:56 PM:
A political question:
Since Roe v. Wade was a SCOTUS decision and thus trumps both state law and Congressional legislation, why aren't the so-called "pro-life" people advocating for a constitutional amendment to protect life from the moment of conception?
Instead, we have a slew of state actions and laws introduced in Congress?
Why? Why? Why?
Ixtlanero on March 24, 2013 12:10 PM:
The "tiger riders" deserve every gash and bruise and deep tooth mark they get.