David Kurtz writes:
An odd exchange on Fox News a short time ago. I know. That never happens, right? But this one has me really confused. Genuinely.
The host was Alisyn Camerota, and she was doing a panel on health care reform where Bob Beckel was playing the liberal going up against Kate Obenshain of the conservative Young America’s Foundation.
The discussion turned to abortion restrictions in the health care reform bill, and of course Obenshain is opposed to any federal funds going to abortions, even indirectly via insurance policies subsidized by federal dollars.
At which point Camerota asks her, “If there is no federal money used to subsidize abortions for low-income women, doesn’t that mean there will be more low-income babies, and do any of these amendments talk about the health care for them then?”
Aimai answers:
What’s not to get? Sometimes Babies are a moral good that evil, slutty, poor, feminist women refuse precisely because they are good and the women are bad. Sometimes Babies are seen as some kind of luxury that evil, slutty, poor, feminist women are trying to access without paying the appropriate luxury tax (like getting married, or having lots of money). Sometimes Babies are thought of as the natural punishment and consequence of evil, slutty, shiftless/poor, and feminist behavior which women try to avoid because they won’t accept responsibility and accountability. Each of those positions on babies and their temporary vessels necessitates a different attitude towards abortion–and towards the kind of women who get abortions.
The biggest mistake you can make with wingers — or with other human beings in general — is to assume that they’re logical or consistent. One should always remember that in order to avoid confusion.
aimai
Oh Hai.
aimai
freelancer
This cognative dissonance is also not unlike the anti-gay legislative pogroms championed by closeted Republican politicians.
Or Bristol Palin becoming the Candies’ spokeswoman for abstinence.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’ve always thought of our two averted abortions as a good and luxurious punishment.
demkat620
That Kate Obenshain looks gobsmacked by the question is an understatement.
What point was Camerota trying to make?
John Cole
Culture of life, bitches.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
Cognitive dissonance causes an error in their programming. Sometimes it can temporarily shut down the Fox robots. That is when they go to commercial.
Comrade Jake
I’m just surprised Fox would allow such a response from Camerota to air at all, because this concept is not something conservatives want to be raised. Pro-lifers care about these kids before they’re born. After that? Not so much really.
Zifnab
Opposition to abortion is a conservative value. You do not question conservative values. And extremism in the defense of conservative values is no vice.
Notorious P.A.T.
Maybe it’s my headache talking, but what’s wrong with asking how poor people will be able to take care of their babies if they can’t get the abortion they wanted?
valdivia
OT–In the meantime The Sadly No crew really stick it to the Strike Force at Red State. Love how they nail these idiots about Climate Change idiocy.
Mark S.
First link should go here.
I don’t know who Camerota is, but I have a feeling she’ll soon be embedded in Afghanistan.
jacy
The thing that pisses me off more than anything about anti-choicers is that they don’t give a fuck about children, not at all. The only thing they care about is fetuses.
They want their anti-choice ticket punched so they can get into the imaginary heaven that exists inside their head.
Healthcare? Food? Safety? Education?
Hey, kid, if you actually make it to birth, you’re on your own.
dmsilev
I think it was Barney Frank who said that to the “pro-life” people, life begins at conception and ends at birth. If you feed that assumption in, their stance makes some sort of sense.
-dms
srv
Uhm, is that second link snark, or serious? I’m afraid to click and find out.
aimai
Well, Notorious PAT, the point I was trying to make is that the “confusion” makes perfect sense when you grasp that two imperatives have come crashing together–make women suffer for having abortions, and make women suffer for having babies without enough money to pay for them. The speakers simply wound up unable to navigate these two imperatives. Or, as I put it over at the other blog:
I
aimai
Grumpy Code Monkey
@jacy:
They don’t even care about the fetuses. They care about asserting control over other people, especially women, especially poor women.
libarbarian
I usually like Aimai. He’s more left than I am but a good writer and witty.
Mark S.
Um, guys, aimai’s a she and she comments here regularly.
jacy
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
Yeah, I’d have to agree with you, otherwise why would pre-natal care be s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m?
Makes me want to hit people with a shovel.
Zifnab
@aimai:
No they wouldn’t. They’d trout out a long line of “Cadalliac Driving Welfare Mom” stories and doggedly insist that private charities are doing more than enough to provide for children in poor families. Then you’d get another round of “My father is a millionaire and I’ve got it so rough” sob stories and pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps inspirational speeches. And when all is sad and done, the right wing will collectively conclude that poor children in America never had it so good and SWEET JESUS LOOK AT THOSE COUNTERTOPS!
The Republicans don’t touch actual policy proposals with a twenty foot pole unless they are “Cut Taxes!” or “Raise Military Spending!” Their spokes-pundits just prattle on about how everyone can take care of themselves and drag the debate out until the end of the news cycle.
Great sound and fury, signifying nothing.
libarbarian
Damn.
Sorry about the default use of “he”.
Running on Empty
Hey – until that bald tire you picked up at a garage sale for $5.00 blows out – it’s still good. GOP talking points are kind of like that, only not as useful.
CORNYN: It’s breathtaking to me, Chris, the disdain with which this administration and Senate Democrats have for the private sector. If you eliminate the private sector when it comes to health provision, you’re left with only the government.
CORNYN: I think, actually, Senator Durbin has underestimated the amount of tax dollars that would go to insurance companies under the Reid bill. I think it’s about $450 billion.
CORNYN: This shouldn’t be about demonizing the private sector, and, you know, glorifying the government sector.
CORNYN: I think it’s about $450 billion that will go in the form of tax credits that will be directed by the Treasury Secretary to insurance companies.
Forget the fact that Cornyn is speaking in what is — at best — broken English, the most amazing thing is that he said all this within a span of 60 seconds or so.
One second he’s is claiming that Senate Democrats are trying to eliminate private insurance companies, and the very next second he’s claiming that they are subsidizing them to the tune of $450 billion.
That just doesn’t make any sense at all, but he says it with a Straight face and Deeply Serious voice dripping with Concern for all Americans.
It really is a microcosm of the entire G.O.P. approach to governance after Bush: say anything as long as it’s negative, and hope that whatever sticks slows down progress.
It might yield them some short-term victories, but it’s a bad long-term (or even medium-term) strategy. As long as Democrats have their act together, it should be easy to defeat the “Party of No.”
Oh, and another thought: if John Cornyn thinks giving an industry $450 billion is an act of disdain, then please, let me be disdained.
Mnemosyne
@Comrade Jake:
Eh, they don’t even care about them then, given their hostility towards affordable pre-natal care. Basically, they like to think about their cloudy image of “baybeez” that bears no resemblance to the real world and not trouble their beautiful minds with messy reality. The problem, as with all conservative ideas, comes when they try to pass laws to try and force reality to conform to their fantasy world.
freelancer
@libarbarian:
It’s okay, someone here last week defaulted to ‘she’ when talking to me. BJers are weird. Either that or my prose is very effeminate. Whatevs.
jl
TPM interpreted the host’s question as leading to the issue of whether these born infants were worth paying for, who would foot the bill, and gave it a sinister cast.
I didn’t see that such a sinister intepretation was necessary. It is a simple question, a useful question, and I am glad that anti-abortion (and I think also often anti-contraception) forces should be confronted with, no matter what the questions intent.
As for “Culture of life. bitches” and DougJ’s concern for cosistency, I think they are underestimating the Xtianists’ and fellow-travelers’ resourcefulness.
The Xtianist and their ilk reserve the right to judge what is ‘innocent’ life worthy of protection, versus other uninnocent life that is neither ‘innocent’ nor worthy.
As a religious person myself, I think this attitude is either heretical or blasphemous (not sure which is the correct term).
But anyway, from Xtianist point of view, not a problem. They see themselves as like unto self-righteous little gods on earth, who can divine the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares, and pronounce their doom on humanity in God’s name.
Because they rend their clothes, beat their breasts and loudly pray in the public square, and are very grateful that they are better than others.
Because Jesus said that was the way to go, after all. Or because the earthly Jesus was the previous dispensation and they have spun the Bible into a mystery religion, where the new regime is run by Christ the Judge, who is all about kicking unrighteous ass and sending the unworthy to hell.
I think is should be clear that at the moment of birth, we all become not innocent, and not worthy. Why that is the moment, I have no idea.
But, no inconsistency at all, from their point of view, I think.
matoko_chan
amai……
Chattel slavery of women and children is part of the conservative ethos……you didn’t know that?
Consider “life” at conception. If the life-warriors really thought abortion was murder, they would seek to prosecute or deter women seeking abortions……instead they seek to criminalize abortion and kill/shame/intimidate abortion providers while totally ignoring the moral position of the woman seeking to “murder” her own unborn child.
I realized this in the conservative blogverse’s coverage of Yearning for Zion.
YFZ were just exercising their freedom of religion rights as far as the Instapud and Allahp were concerned…their rights to exile teenage boys, force 13 year old girls into polygamous “spirit” marriage with 50 year old men, and deny education to children.
But it was okfine because the children were clean and didn’t eat junk food.
/spit
wallamaarif
Aimai,
While I agree the practical effect of the “prolife” position is to harm poor women, the same can be said for many conservative positions. But that doesn’t mean that if universal health care passed tomorrow the Bible-thumping idiotards would forget decades of sloganeering about the “sanctity of life” from every pulpit. I think you overestimate their ability to put two and two together (advocating policies that hurt poor people is equal to supporting policies that hurt poor people) and underestimate just how unquestioningly they cherish the notion that a blastocyst has a soul.
I don’t mean to concern-troll, I just hate to give those assholes ammunition.
Notorious P.A.T.
@valdivia:
hahaha
That guy is an idiot. Although unfortunately, that kind of idiocy is common among wingnuts. I remember back in the Dark Age talking to a die-hard reactionary who said that Hans Blix tried to cover up vital information by including it in his report to the UN.
It's the economy, I'm Stupid
And this is one of the more articulate ones.
The big idea is to get, to get, to produce an environment where we can have job creation again.
If Cantor’s goal is “to produce an environment where we can have job creation again,” shouldn’t he have supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (i.e the economic stimulus), which has boosted GDP growth and lending to small businesses, while cutting taxes for workers, thereby boosting demand? And shouldn’t he be supporting further efforts in Congress to craft a jobs bill that emphasizes infrastructure spending and lending to small businesses?
Instead, Cantor has put forth a “no-cost jobs plan” that Andrew Leonard rightly called a “magic pony jobs plan.” “Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes. That’s the plan,” Leonard wrote.
And then Santa drops our new pony on Christmas Eve, Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
Desert Rat
It’s easier to explain when you realize that the Republican “culture of
blastocystslife” extends from conception until the child enters the birth canal, and also covers the period from brain death until the party is taken off of life support.In between Birth and Brain Death, they frankly don’t give a shit. Doubly so if you aren’t white, Anglo-Saxon, and rich.
Notorious P.A.T.
@aimai:
Okay. Thanks )
That’s what this is all about.
freelancer
@Desert Rat:
-Carlin
Notorious P.A.T.
Is “beautiful minds” in the BJ lexicon? It should be.
No! ! ! Okay I just spent 10 minutes watching a video of a cat chasing a feather, but No! ! !
Fern
@Notorious P.A.T.:
Actually, I don’t think that is what it is all about. It is merely the pretext.
matoko_chan
aimai….
Women and children are property to conservatives.
jl
Good point, though, about prenatal care. I think for that they would invoke the necessary role of patriarchical family governance. The man is like a little god running his family in God’s stead, who has the holy right to run his family as he sees fit, and the holy right to beat the **** out them if they disobey in any way (including the dachsund who must learn how to dump into the toilet like his master, dammit).
They are completely mad people, IMHO, but they can rationalize their insanity into a consistency, if you believe enough of their assumptions.
What is dangerous, is that the professional actors and clowns in the media, very few of whom know one thing about religion or its history, think that this mess is any kind of traditional Christianity, or has anything to do with Jesus’ teachings.
jl
@matoko_chan: Exactly. Women, children, pets, any dependent, is holy property given to the earthly male Patriarch by God, no matter how crazed, abusive or arbitrary the man may be.
valdivia
@Notorious P.A.T.:
The idiocy is too much to contemplate but hilarious.
matoko_chan
wallamaarif…
No…the prolife position is to treat women as chattel and too immoral and ignorant to know their own minds on abortion….a kind of subhuman breederbot without autonomy over their own body….. a brood slave.
Conservatives don’t relly care if other tribes abort the hell out of their fetuses….altho they demogogue the issue at every opportunity.
They just want to force their own chattel women to reproduce.
Zam
Personally I just think they stop caring when the babies come out black.
YankeeApologist
I have a Muslim friend who often jokes about how his people are treated with contempt for mixing religion and politics, and how often those who look down on him are American.
Then, things like this arise and a religious issue is the big obstacle preventing much-needed healthcare reform from passing and preventing the insurance mega-giants from running roughshod over all of us.
He calls it the “Christian Shari’a”, which I love.
Martin
I think the official answer to the question is “more bootstraps”.
BFR
@Mark S.:
Fox anchors stray off the reservation from time to time though, don’t they? Shepard Smith I know does but I’ve never seen this one before.
The look on Obenshain’s face was pretty amusing tho.
jl
@Desert Rat:
“It’s easier to explain when you realize that the Republican “culture of blastocysts life” extends from conception until the child enters the birth canal, and also covers the period from brain death until the party is taken off of life support.”
Suddenly struke me that there seems to be a high correlation between what they deem to be ‘innocent’ life worthy of protection, and situations that where a person can exert complete coercive control without any opposition from the supposed worthy.
You can completely and coercively control the blastocyst with no pushback, also the fetus after quickening, also the probably actual person in late term, also the comatose whatever lying helplessly in bed stuck full of tubes and strapped to the railings.
I think we have discovered the nub of their definition of ‘innocent’ and worthy.
Newborns need not apply, wether they passed through a cooter or came out of the belly via CS.
SiubhanDuinne
@freelancer:
“Effeminate prose” would be an excellent new tag!
kay
All babies are low income. Babies are no income.
They’re itty bitty deadbeats.
Martin
“Christian Shari’a” needs to be a tag.
Seriously, that’s pure, distilled truth right there.
scudbucket
TPM interpreted the host’s question as leading to the issue of whether these born infants were worth paying for, who would foot the bill, and gave it a sinister cast.
I didn’t see that such a sinister intepretation was necessary.
Agreed. It’s pretty clear to a thinking person that conservative social policy is made by sociopathic meanies, but in this case I think Camerota simply let her brain do some thinking before she spoke, and the result was a puzzle for her conservative quest.
RedKitten
I’ve said it before: my theory is that conservatives just do not want poor people to have sex. Period.
They don’t want them to have access to affordable birth control or reliable information on how it works.
They don’t want them to have access to abortion.
They don’t want them to have access to any sort of social services to help raise their children.
And they don’t seem to be lining up to adopt poor women’s babies, do they?
So, by sheer process of elimination, they just plain do not want poor people to have sex. I genuinely think, that in their heart of hearts, they think that only the wealthy (or the genteely poor, white, uber-Christian, who can always rely on their church for help) should be able to breed — thus ensuring that future generations consist solely of wealthy people and/or white Christians.
I know, it sounds tinfoil hat-ish, but when they keep saying that people shouldn’t have babies if they can’t afford them, but then work towards making it impossible for anybody to prevent having babies…what the hell else conclusion is one supposed to draw?
freelancer
@Martin:
second this.
Notorious P.A.T.
That is terrific.
Notorious P.A.T.
Based upon what?
I’m sympathetic to the argument that anti-abortion zealots are anti-woman. But they aren’t too fond of men, either.
Mnemosyne
@jl:
Yep. Look at how many journalists credulously report that the Left Behind books are based on a “literal” interpretation of Revelation when it actually requires you to skip around within both the Old and New Testaments to find verses to support that “literal” interpretation.
Ranger 3
Did they actually call them slutty feminists? Awesome.
YankeeApologist
Sorry, don’t know how to make those grey quote boxes (I am kind of computer-illiterate, in a cute, DFH-ish way), so I cut and paste like a caveman:
“I know, it sounds tinfoil hat-ish, but when they keep saying that people shouldn’t have babies if they can’t afford them, but then work towards making it impossible for anybody to prevent having babies…what the hell else conclusion is one supposed to draw?”
Your conclusion is based on the assumption that there is a shred of logic or cognitive thought to the NeoCon side of the argument, thus rendering your conclusion not “tinfoil hat-ish”, but actually “incorrect”. It’s not your fault, though. Rational people tend to project rationality on others, and vice versa – to our mutual disadvantage.
I also don’t think they have a particular antipathy towards poor children, especially poor black children. Who the hell do you think is humping across the mountains in Afghanistan, on the front lines of the God Squad Jihad?
Martin
@YankeeApologist:
Most of us who have been here for years have trouble making them properly as well. Rather than try, just put ‘FYWP’ at the bottom of your comment. It’s easier that way.
aimai
Redkitten,
I agree with you. The way I think of it is in terms of other pleasures the poor have access to–look at the way society looks at the drug habits of the rich (cocaine) as opposed to the poor (meth, heroin, grass) or the alcoholism of the rich vs that of the poor. Basically society and its scolds are very forgiving of, or even supportive of, the addictions of upper class people–especially those that cause people to work harder or slave for more money and they are always worried that the poor will pick up addictions that will cause them to work less hard, or be less willing to accept slave wages. Sex is cheap, or free, and a source of pleasure and comfort in a heartless world. People who are happilly banging away aren’t out there buying tons of shit, or being workaholics in order to buy tons of shit. Its a distraction from capitalism.
Plus, you can’t begin to underestimate the fact that worldly pleasures that make people happy make them less willing to wait for a heavenly reward. The right wing is incredibly anti-sex for poor people. Just as it is anti-playgrounds, clean air, clean water and universal health care. All these things are things that should be available only to the wealthy.
aimai
wallamaarif
@YankeeApologist: That’s the point I was trying to make in comment #27. It’s not that they hate poor kids, it’s that the Christian Shari’a truly believe that:
a) The evil of taking “innocent life” (as they define it) is greater than the evil of consigning poor people to lives of quiet desperation. And,
b) When the great evil of abortion is lifted from this wicked land, God will magically make everyone’s life better by bestowing his grace on us for turning from out wicked ways. (No, really: “God would never allow harm to come to someone who chooses life” is an argument I have heard uttered with a straight face.)
I grew up with these people (my parents forced me to participate in an Operation Rescue sit-in when I was 11). They don’t hate poor people. They are ideologically blinded to the possibility that their actions could possibly hurt anyone, since they are ordained by God.
wallamaarif
@aimai: Agreed, but I think you overestimate the extent to which this is intentional. Those on the right don’t hate poor people, they just can’t/refuse to see that their policies have the effect of hurting the poor.
What I’m saying is that they are dumber than they are nefarious. There probably are some nefarious ones out there, but those aren’t the shock troops.
scudbucket
@wallamaarif:
Well, this last point I would have to argue purely from statistics, but when you say they are ‘dumber than they are nefarious’, do you mean that they can’t effectively reason – or that they lack relevant facts? Most republicans I know blame the Destruction of America on specific groups of people: the po’, coloreds, Messkins, homosexuals, and of course liebruls. That sounds like hate to me. Look, anyone who rejects that the government ought to take care of the poorest in our society knows a) exactly what they are advocating (they’re not ignorant) and b) precisely what abandoning the poor entails (they’re mean).
wallamaarif
@scudbucket: I was a die-hard conservative for 15 years of my life. I can assure you that I was utterly tone-deaf to the cognitive dissonance of arguments I truly believed, from affirmative action to spreading democracy. I honestly believed that a “rising tide lifts all boats.” I eventually decided to read what the left actually had to say, based on them having been right all along about Iraq, and found the argument from reality more convincing than the argument from Hayek.
I only say this to establish some bona-fides on my take on the conservative mind. I’m tellin’ ya, they honestly believe that every problem the poor face is the result of government regulation of business. Any argument against that conclusion is a priori the result of bias by the forces of communism/humanism/cultural decay, and thus need not even be considered, Rush Limbaugh having done that for them.
I was that guy, to my continued shame. There are a lot of them out there.
wallamaarif
@scudbucket: To answer your question directly, they do lack relevant facts, thanks to the echo chamber. Because if their utter faith in the liberal bias of everyone outside the chamber (it’s an article of faith), they are free (in their minds) to dismiss all contrary facts as biased, and pat themselves on the back for their uncanny ability to see through librul lies.
wallamaarif
I paint with a broad brush, of course. My description above certainly describes how I once, er, “thought” about things. Having been a YAF Campus Chairman in the days when I should have been paying attention in class, I think I’ve characterized the mindset of the Brooks Brothers CR dorks accurately, if not charitably.
burnspbesq
@jl:
25
December 7th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
jl
“As a religious person myself, I think this attitude is either heretical or blasphemous (not sure which is the correct term).”
Stick with “sinful.” It’s simple and accurate.
Notorious P.A.T.
“Most of us who have been here for years have trouble making them properly as well.”
and
YankeeApologist
@wallamaarif:
While never having to sit in on an Operation Rescue, my wife is Christian and her grandmother is one of the Pro-Life players here in Central Texas. I have stared into the face of that bad craziness.
I have to say that I’m personally a bit on the fence about the whole abortion thing. Not to start any kind of crazy ethics war here, but I have no idea when life starts, so if I were a woman, I think I’d err on the side of caution and explore other options. I’m a liberal from NYC, though, so I’ve heard other viewpoints, which A.) I understand completely, and B.) Have given me the perspective to never try and dictate to a woman what to do with her body.
Which is why, to veer myself back to my point, I am so mystified just how much of the Christian Shari’a Pro-Life Police are indeed women. You’re right, though. That whole “God could never allow harm to anyone who follows these competely arbitrary and made-up rules” thing is the scariest thing I’ve ever heard. It’s deus ex machina, but off the goddamn deep end. You can’t argue with someone like that . . . .
YankeeApologist
@Notorious PAT
Ummm . . . I didn’t get that. em>
and what?
Martin
@YankeeApologist:
Exactly.
FYWP.
(See how much easier that is?)
scudbucket
@wallamaarif:
Well, I’ll grant you that they are dumb. I’m still a bit hesitant on the idea that they are dumber than nefarious. It seems to me that a certain type of personality is drawn to the spewings of Rush and the like. I hear that stuff and wonder how in the world he isn’t laughed off the radio, but others sincerely believe all the crazy conspiratorial evidence-free nonsense. And I tend to assume (perhaps incorrectly) they believe it because it conforms to their preconceived notions of victimhood. Remember, the people we are talking about are predominantly white conservative ‘hard working’ American Christians. They hate any and all other subgroups. They even hate unions! So in my thinking, these folks are haters first, then RUsh comes along and gives them a false theory to justify the hate. And not coincidentally, established a huge voter base for the GOP.
In fact, the whole ROvian campaign of ‘value voting’ is based on just the type of nativist thinking I am describing (the outgroup is dangerous and wants to take your liberties). It’s something which Rush exploited but did not create.
wallamaarif
@scudbucket: I think you’re confusing hate with fear. They aren’t (in general) actively spiteful toward minorities, etc. They do fear what a “takeover” of “their country” might mean for their way of life. It’s called “Homophobia,” not “Homo[insert Latin root for hate here]ia” for a reason.
Tonybrown74
Pregnancy (and the health risks associated with it) is punishment for being a feminist/poor/slutty whore …
And if they (the fetuses) manage to survive the process, then the nobility needs fresh serfs.
That pretty much is it.