It takes a lot to rouse the feminist indignation of the GOP, but even Washington’s most diehard opponents of women’s rights are condemning Donald Trump’s comments in a 2005 recorded conversation with Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush. The Republican presidential nominee said, among other things: “When you’re a star, they let you do it,” and “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and other members of the Republican leadership distanced themselves from Trump’s comments.
Pence issued a statement rejecting his running mate’s conduct. “As a husband and father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the eleven-year-old video released yesterday. I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them,” Pence said.
Yet Pence’s record is not exactly out of sync with Trump’s words. Indeed, as a governor and legislator, Pence has been an innovator when it comes to measures that obstruct women’s rights. In Congress in 2007, he sponsored the first bill to defund Planned Parenthood. He is credited with starting the fight against the organization, which offers contraception, STI screenings, and primary care — as well as abortions.
He also cosponsored a bill that redefined rape, drawing a line between “forcible” rape and other kinds. Women’s groups were horrified. “It speaks to a distinction between rape where there must be some element of force in order to rise to the standard, and rape where there is not,” Steph Sterling, director of government relations for the National Women’s Law Center, told the Washington Post at the time. “The concern here is that it takes us back to a time where just saying no was not enough.”
This year, as governor of Indiana, Pence signed an anti-abortion bill that would mandate funerals for all fetuses. The law was blocked by a federal judge, who deemed it unconstitutional. Pence so enraged women that he inspired a movement called “Periods for Pence,” where women called his office to share with him information about their health. “Let’s make our bodies Mike’s business for real, if this is how he wants it,” the Facebook page said.
House Speaker Paul Ryan rejected Trump’s statements as well. “I am sickened by what I heard today,” he said in a statement. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”
In Congress, Ryan has sponsored bills seeking to ban abortion, including one that defines a fertilized egg as a person. He cosponsored the bill with Pence that introduced the term “forcible rape” and would have banned abortions for statutory rape victims. He supported legislation that would criminalize some forms of birth control. He also voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which addresses gender-based pay discrimination.
FACT: Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan referred to rape as a “method of conception” and co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape with Todd Akin.
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 25, 2012
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called Trump’s remarks “repugnant, and unacceptable in any circumstance.” McConnell voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act and did not vote on the 2012 Violence Against Women Act. Last year, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said McConnell “doesn’t understand what our [women’s] lives are like.”
Other prominent GOP members who have criticized Trump’s comments but have created their own controversies around women’s rights include former Republican presidential contenders Jeb Bush (he’s said that unwed mothers should be shamed), Mitt Romney (remember “binders full of women”?), and John McCain (he has opposed equal pay legislation).
Women’s rights advocates have been quick to point out the hypocrisy of these statements. “Yeah I would prefer equal pay over reverence myself,” one woman tweeted at Ryan.
Thousands of women shared their own stories of sexual assault on Twitter as well.
“Outrage at Trump’s outrageous behavior rings hollow from politicians who have built their careers on attacking women’s basic rights to health care,” Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, wrote in a Medium post.
The GOP likes their bitches quiet and in the kitchen. This is nothing more than to make them feel better like a good pet before they get home and slap them.
You have no right to portray the troops as monsters, in your pathetic attempt to make your monster seem normal.
If the troops WERE a collection of serial sex offenders, who were such depraved predatory threats to women that Trump’s serial sex assaults “didn’t even compare” to what the troops perpetrate, then that wouldn’t legitimize Trump; it would delegitimize the US Military.
As for your “scary” talk, and your bubble-headed gossip: Who cares what sad little fantasies you dream up?
Here is a FACT: There is no defence for your lying, cheating, charity-robbing, tax-avoiding, serial bankrupting, torture-promoting, nuke-loving, racist dictator, and self-described SERIAL SEX-ASSAILANT.
Troops are monsters, but that’s mostly their baby killing instead of raping.
Some.
They’re not all the same person.
Some of them went to war, saw that their reality didn’t match the propaganda they were fed, and have been protesting the wars ever since.
Conversely, SOME of them ARE rapists. But that is not NORMAL.
My point was that bragging about sexual assault isn’t made acceptable by FALSELY ACCUSING military recruits of all being rapists, who openly congratulate themselves, and each other, for being rapists.
Anyone here ever been to Military Basic Training??? Trump doesn’t even compare to locker room talk. Go watch Youtube.
Anyone here ever used a cigar on a woman as a sex toy? Bill Clinton has.
Anyone ever been to Mena, Arkansas??? I have. Scary place. Bill/Hillary Clinton Territory.
Anyone ever notice that Chelsea Clinton looks like Webster Hubble??? There’s a reason for that. What, you ask? Hillary and Webster used to go to the same Toga and Mena Cocaine Parties.
You have no right to portray the troops as monsters, in your pathetic attempt to make your monster seem normal.
If the troops WERE a collection of serial sex offenders, who were such depraved predatory threats to women that Trump’s serial sex assaults “didn’t even compare” to what the troops perpetrate, then that wouldn’t legitimize Trump; it would delegitimize the US Military.
As for your “scary” talk, and your bubble-headed gossip: Who cares what sad little fantasies you dream up?
Here is a FACT: There is no defence for your lying, cheating, charity-robbing, tax-avoiding, serial bankrupting, torture-promoting, nuke-loving, racist dictator, and self-described SERIAL SEX-ASSAILANT.
Since when it is required to believe that because women are actual human beings to be afforded actual dignity and respect, one must also back various forms of “pro-woman” social and economic engineering through the federal government?
Is one automatically a mysoginst because they decline to support dubious equal-pay legislation? Because they have religious or philosophical hang-ups (mistaken, in my mind) about the charged issue of abortion? Let’s keep things straight: There is a significant difference between treating women with respect (and viewing them respectfully) and jumping into the political circus to ostensibly improve their lives through the force of law.
Since mankind (sic) realized that words are cheap.
This is an excellent question that will be treated with great disdain in this forum (if addressed at all). The paradox of individualism is always a sticky wicket for social justice warriors. In alleged deference to the idiosyncratic nature of those who live on the margins of society, social progressives embrace the concept of state imposed conformity to a standard of homogeneity that, if fully realized, would render individual differences functionally obsolete.
Describing equality as “pro-woman” is so dishonest that EVEN YOU couldn’t help but use sneer quotes.
Entitled pigs support continuing to use the government to enforce male privilege, because they would never be able to compete if the playing field were level.
That inadequacy is only highlighted by imbecilic questions that amount to: Why can’t you ignore my actions and just pretend that I have integrity?
The Republican rats were so desperate to leave the sinking A.S.S. Trump, that they grabbed onto a decade-old story for a life preserver. “We had no idea he was like that. We’re ever-so shocked!”
Drown, rats, drown.
Wow; another tempest in a teapot media circus. While the whole world faces existential crises; from thousands of nuclear weapons to catastrophic climate change to some horror escaping out of some lab; the cause du jour is vulgar locker room banter. What Trump could have said and should have said “and meant” was that the kind of things he said in private are commonplace among American men; especially jocks but this has caused him much soul searching and he will never say these kind of things again and use whatever influence he has to persuade other men to do likewise and in every way he can; support women in all their issues because they are his issues too. Instead; what do we get; Bill Clinton is a bigger scum bag than me which is true but it’s like a couple of 3 year olds accusing each other of starting it. Trump; your narcissistic egotistical bluster is putting an evil war mongering wall st. sucking witch in the oval office. Lady MacHillary in power, I shudder. Did you see Bill supporting her with one hand as she held to the railing with the other hand going down a short flight of stairs? The alternative of Kaine or Pence taking over fills me with more dread and you could have had Bernie who at least would have tried to make things better for the long suffering working people of Amerika. It’s almost like the opportunity of 2008 we had to take down the banksters and create a better monetary system and thanks to Obama and the gutless Amerikan people who should have taken to the streets; things are worse than ever with hundreds of Trillions of derivatives floating around an an economy that will collapse when the free money is withdrawn.
And, here it is. I don’t believe it made it to the Intercept yet so do enjoy young Hillary laughing at her skillfully getting someone who raped a 12 yr. old girl back onto the streets.
She was the rapist’s appointed attorney and that’s fine. But listen to her happily laughing at how funny it was to plea bargain him immediate release.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tor00iWUhDQ
Still with her?
>>>And, here it is. I don’t believe it made it to the Intercept yet so do enjoy young Hillary laughing at her skillfully getting someone who raped a 12 yr. old girl back onto the streets.<<<
Hillary even sniffed the air as Billy smoked his Monica-Lewinski-Juice-laced cigar in the Oval Office. (Yes, the one Bill used IN Lewinski as a sex toy.)
The quickest way to get a rapist (back) into the White House would be to elect the rapist’s wife as the country’s president.
I suspect that staying married to a rapist is part of the feministic credo these days. IF and only if the rapist is ‘our rapist’ (meant to rhyme with ‘our SOB’)
Those were rude comments from 2005 and Trump is happily married. Not Bill Clinton, if he is allowed to roam the whitehouse all young female aides are at risk. And then subject to persecution.
Mr. Trump has succeeded in uniting the Republican party … against him. Can he similarly succeed in uniting America? I think so.
In Mr. Trump’s America, Congress might once again start doing its job. The Supreme Court might rediscover the U.S. Constitution. Instead of fighting each other, citizens would pull together in the common goal of opposing Mr. Trump. America would become great again.
Previously that was like this:
Trump: “When you’re a star, they let you do it”
B. Bush: “Grab them by the pussy”
Trump: “You can do anything.”
Now, it is like that:
Trump: “When you’re a star, they let you do it,” and “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
What’s going on?
The joys of repressed voyeuristic titillation
By Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday, Jun 7, 2011
Excerpt:
Apparently, Glenn Greenwald and the Intercept now believe that “the private sexual activities of public figures — down to the most intimate details — are now inherently newsworthy.”
—-
Response to exchange from below:
I disagree with your assessment. Glenn Greenwald’s whole argument hinges on the word “private.” What Trump said, he said in private as a private citizen. He held no public office and was not a public advocate for progressive or conservative social positions.
You really should look before you leap. Rep. Weiner posted lewd photos to a website that could be accessed by anyone who put the correct link in their browser; to facilitate ready access, Weiner posted the link to the photos on his twitter account. And again, Donald made his comments with the expectation of privacy. Not a single person who was made a party to his comments made an issue of them at the time. There is no law against making a lewd statement in a private or public conversation; if there was, dozens of gangster rappers would have been prosecuted for their explicit lyrics.
Very recently, Weiner’s sexting was exposed for a third time. However, he chose to include his infant child in his this exchange. Where were all his liberal apologists when this story broke? After all, this last episode was actually a private and consensual sharing of sexually explicit photos…
I began my comment with:
I’m not defending the actions of Anthony Weiner nor saying I agree with Greenwald’s assessment of them.
You criticized Greenwald for hypocrisy in using a supposedly different standard for one case vs the other. I was merely pointing out the key difference in them, as Greenwald saw them.
In Greenwald’s view (not necessarily my own), Weiner’s actions were consensual. The things Donald Trump was bragging about (kissing women without their consent, grabbing women by their genitals without their consent) is clearly not consensual. Such activity, if he actually engaged in it, would, in fact, be criminal.
Should a conversation in which someone apparently admits to a serious felony be treated as a purely private conversation?
If you honestly believe that Trump was actually “admitting to a felony”, then there is little left to talk about. Even his most ardent critics have enough common sense to make that argument. Whenever I see someone make such specious arguments at the expense of the main point, I simply move on.
Sorry, still waking up…
Even his most ardent critics have enough common sense NOT to make that argument.
Regarding: “There is no law against…”
He hasn’t been ARRESTED; he has been exposed as an aspirational sex assailant.
Regarding: “Private” versus “consensual”
Privacy is the basis of the argument you referenced, but consensuality is a REQUISITE CONDITION of privacy.
Regarding: “Expectation of privacy”
Rapey the KKKlown was speaking to a broadcaster, while they were both wearing microphones. The predatory thug doesn’t win any sympathy for being stupid enough to expect privacy.
Regarding: “as a private citizen”
That squawking-point didn’t even work as a defence for serial-bankruptcy; his job status has no bearing AT ALL on his propensity for rape.
How revealing! Of course “Rapey the KKKlown” is not entitled to an expectation of privacy. Apparently, anyone to whom you personally take offense has no rights at all. Now, tell us all: How do your values (or lack thereof) differ from those to whom you purportedly take exception?
Try reading the rest of the words, moron.
It is not necessary Mona Lisa, your posture says it all.
You’re a retarded chicken shit.
Lisa…
FIRST, regarding “privacy”… the long and the short of it can be said this way: THE COMPUTER Weiner was using was government property. Aka, PUBLIC PROPERTY.
SECOND, if you don’t store your data on your own hard disk that is in your own possession, the communication(s) are not private. Why? Haven’t you ever heard the old saying, “Possession is 9/10ths of the law?” Nuf said.
THIRD, Greenwald is a lawyer. He should know what that FIRST and SECOND means.
Second, Karl claims to work for Tavistock. Look it up.
FOURTH, … we’re dealing with psychopaths. Weiner, Clintons, etc. Nothing they do makes any sense to normal persons like you and I … except one thing: Psychopaths like Clinton thinks Cigars taste better when laced with Monica-Lewinsky-Juice.
Need I say more?
“First,” you are responding to an argument that I neither made, nor referenced.
“Second,” you are STILL responding to an argument that I neither made, nor referenced.
“Third,” anyone who feels qualified to chastise a lawyer for his perceived inaccuracies, SHOULD have been competent to read the comment you chose to reply to (despite the fact that you clearly have no response to anything I actually wrote).
“Fourth,” the fact that you and Bill Clinton are vulgar perverts, doesn’t change the fact that the lying, cheating, charity-robbing, tax-avoiding, serial bankrupter – and torture-promoting, nuke-loving, racist dictator – is also a SELF-DESCRIBED SERIAL SEX-ASSAILANT.
Regarding: “Need I say more?”
To what end? There is no defence for your BILLION-DOLLAR-LOSER, and your attempts at deflection are as crude as you are.
This article is propaganda and Naomi LaChance is on Hillary Clinton’s payroll.
YOHAMI ZERPA is from the Andromeda Galaxy where all lifeforms have their names spelled out in capital letters. Under pain of xhzyu,.lma by Drogmisx!!!
Listen to all the shocked sensitive man types. Did you think he did all those pageants out of love for community service. He was living every real man’s dream and got busted with locker room talk. Let’s compare the Clinton’s rapest scorecard. give me a frkn beak will yuh.
This Intercept article, unfortunately, is factually inaccurate and the worst kind of partisanism. (See below for the factual inaccuracies about Pence and Ryan.) There’s a partisan tradition of intensifying efforts to make one political party look bad just when election time comes around, and this article deliberately places itself in that tradition. It reaches back to GOP nominees of earlier presidential cycles, stitching together past brouhahas about them (some of which were overblown at the time) with a newly exaggerated negative portrait of today’s top Republicans. This is an attempt to stampede your readers in a partisan way, not journalism. The goal is to psychologically reinforce a rote thought-pattern: top Republicans want to subjugate women, all Republican presidential candidates of our time fit this pattern, every Republican presidential candidate must be stopped. In my comment below I detail some ways that your reporter is distorting the facts – but this article is not only distorting things, but is also actually trying to get readers to form their own distorted thinking patterns about Republicans in the future. I don’t know if your author is doing that 100% consciously – maybe the complacent negative view of Republicans that the article is trying to stoke is something that’s building itself in the author’s mind. But regardless, whipping up a partisan frenzy in this way just pushes your readers into seeing politics in terms of the rabid fights of the two-party system. And our society already suffers too much from the disease where millions of people in each party are stampeded into repeatedly thinking that the most important thing in national politics is to defeat the other party’s nominee. In reality, most of what ordinary people can constructively accomplish to affect policymaking isn’t about channeling your energy into defeating an election-year opponent. And politicians of both parties are pretty bad. But demonizing any one party and pouring energy into defeating it tends to make people too complacent about how they themselves are collaborating with exploitative power, and it makes people blind to how their party loyalty enables them to be exploited by a bad system. These truths are what good journalism shows. Un-demonizing a group like Republicans (what some people call “humanizing”) helps build, develop, and elaborate the shared human values that are eroded when people start to enjoy absorbing and spreading partisan distortions.
As for the factual errors in this article, see my comment just below.
This Intercept article falls below your publication’s standards, descending into crude election-year distortions. It seems to be encouraging readers to form inaccurate impressions of top Republican politicians, focusing on making them look like opponents of women at the expense of getting the details right.
The article says that a bill cosponsored by Pence “redefined rape, drawing a line between ‘forcible’ rape and other kinds”. Not quite right. If someone relied on what the Intercept said here, they’d think that Pence was supporting an attempt to change the definition of rape — and the only way to change the definition of rape by drawing a line between forcible and non-forcible rape is to say that some acts will no longer be called rapes because they’re “non-forcible”. So anyone who trusted the Intercept here would think that Pence was willing to change the definition of rape so that women who suffered “non-forcible” rapes would be told that they hadn’t been rape. Actually, the bill Pence cosponsored didn’t do that at all. It was a bill about abortion, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (HR 3, dated 2011). It didn’t actually make any change to what’s considered rape. What it did was to change a criterion for abortion funding – previous law had said that federal funds could be used to pay for abortion in cases of rape, but this bill revised to say that federal funds could be used to pay for abortion in cases of “forcible rape”, not necessarily in other cases of rape. That’s not “redefining rape”, it’s changing the extent to which rape counts as a criterion for abortion funding.
The author never really walks back the article’s misleading impression that Pence was trying to say that non-forcible acts don’t count as rape. But Pence certainly wasn’t doing that. At one point later on in the article, the author mentions that Paul Ryan, too, cosponsored the same bill, adding that “the bill would have banned abortions for statutory rape victims”. That’s inaccurate in yet another way – for one thing, the bill didn’t try to ban any abortions at all, just to deny federal funding for some abortions. And even as far as federal funding is concerned, at least some statutory rape victims could still have gotten federal funding under this bill, because the bill included other criteria (such as incest) that would justify the use of federal funds for abortions. Still, the reader who trusts the Intercept is left with the totally false impression that Pence and Ryan supported a bill that would both (1) redefine rape so that non-forcible rape no longer counts as rape, and (2) prohibit abortions for statutory rape victims.
Although the author doesn’t want to mention anything that might put Pence and Ryan in a somewhat better light, a case can be made that the bill is even more moderate than I’ve been portraying it. When the bill was under consideration in 2011, opponents objected to how it talked about “forcible rape”, but the bill’s supporters argued that the word “forcible” would make relatively little difference in practice. A Republican congressional aide said that the word “forcible” was put in only to prevent abortion funding for minors who willingly have sex with other minors and get pregnant. A Democratic congressman who supported the bill, Daniel Lipinski, said the bill “was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so. Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105755.html
So that’s what the Democratic and Republican supporters of the bill were saying at the time, at least in public. They were implying that if the bill passed, it would in practice be interpreted as still allowing abortion funding e.g. for women who are raped when they are drunk or drugged, and for girls under the age of consent who are victimized by an adult man who has sex with them, and for women who are raped after saying no when they are intimidated into complying. Is it really true that these kinds of cases, and other similar cases of rape, would be considered “forcible” in a way that willing sex between two minors is not? I’m willing to consider the possibility that supporters of the bill might have had a reasonable case here; there’s certainly some history in rape law of expanding the meaning of “force” to ensure that “forcible rape” gets to cover all the acts that we think of as rape, and willing sex between two minors seems not to be “forcible” in the way the other cases I’ve mentioned are (which may be why some states’ rape laws don’t count willing sex between minors as rape). So perhaps Pence and/or Ryan really just meant to basically maintain a preexisting rule in which rape of any sort (but not willing sex between two minors) is sufficient grounds to allow abortion funding. Pence and Ryan might have been among those who, as Congressman Lipinski suggested, were ready to “clarify” the bill in the “legislative process” if any need arose to ensure that all kinds of rape (but not willing sex between two minors) would be treated the same way. On the other hand, maybe the bill’s supporters were incorrect about how the language about “forcible” rape would have been interpreted if the bill had become law. I don’t know; the bill ended up being amended to take out the word “forcible”, and even the amended version of the bill never became law. But in any case, you have to make a whole lot of assumptions to believe that Pence and/or Ryan were deliberately planning to use this bill to treat some rape survivors differently than others. The grounds for believing that are pretty thin.
I’ve already mentioned a few clear errors in how this article described the bill that Pence and Ryan helped support – it certainly wasn’t about redefining what rape is, for instance, and the bill arguably may not have made much of a substantial change at all about how rape affects other areas of the law.
And finally, it’s worth mentioning that firm opposition to abortion and post-conception birth control is ENTIRELY compatible with working for women’s equal human rights in all other areas. In some cases it is conscience, not patriarchy, that leads a person to be pro-life. There will always be good women and men who find the pro-choice position obviously right, and there will always be good women and men who find the pro-life position obviously right. But I’d like to see more of a consensus develop that women’s equal rights are worth supporting in a wide range of areas regardless of your position on abortion, and that consensus will include some people with strongly pro-life views. Merely being pro-life doesn’t make someone an enemy of women. Maybe if we recognized that, the country could more quickly move toward consensus on some other feminist points.
This Intercept article falls below your publication’s standards, descending into crude election-year distortions. It seems to be encouraging readers to form inaccurate impressions of top Republican politicians, focusing on making them look like opponents of women at the expense of getting the details right.
The article says that a bill cosponsored by Pence “redefined rape, drawing a line between ‘forcible’ rape and other kinds”. Not quite right. If someone relied on what the Intercept said here, they’d think that Pence was supporting an attempt to change the definition of rape — and the only way to change the definition of rape by drawing a line between forcible and non-forcible rape is to say that some acts will no longer be called rapes because they’re “non-forcible”. So anyone who trusted the Intercept here would think that Pence was willing to change the definition of rape so that women who suffered “non-forcible” rapes would be told that they hadn’t been rape. Actually, the bill Pence cosponsored didn’t do that at all. It was a bill about abortion, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (HR 3, dated 2011). It didn’t actually make any change to what’s considered rape. What it did was to change a criterion for abortion funding – previous law had said that federal funds could be used to pay for abortion in cases of rape, but this bill revised to say that federal funds could be used to pay for abortion in cases of “forcible rape”, not necessarily in other cases of rape. That’s not “redefining rape”, it’s changing the extent to which rape counts as a criterion for abortion funding.
The author never really walks back the article’s misleading impression that Pence was trying to say that non-forcible acts don’t count as rape. But Pence certainly wasn’t doing that. At one point later on in the article, the author mentions that Paul Ryan, too, cosponsored the same bill, adding that “the bill would have banned abortions for statutory rape victims”. That’s inaccurate in yet another way – for one thing, the bill didn’t try to ban any abortions at all, just to deny federal funding for some abortions. And even as far as federal funding is concerned, at least some statutory rape victims could still have gotten federal funding under this bill, because the bill included other criteria (such as incest) that would justify the use of federal funds for abortions. Still, the reader who trusts the Intercept is left with the totally false impression that Pence and Ryan supported a bill that would both (1) redefine rape so that non-forcible rape no longer counts as rape, and (2) prohibit abortions for statutory rape victims.
Although the author doesn’t want to mention anything that might put Pence and Ryan in a somewhat better light, a case can be made that the bill is even more moderate than I’ve been portraying it. When the bill was under consideration in 2011, opponents objected to how it talked about “forcible rape”, but the bill’s supporters argued that the word “forcible” would make relatively little difference in practice. A Republican congressional aide said that the word “forcible” was put in only to prevent abortion funding for minors who willingly have sex with other minors and get pregnant. A Democratic congressman who supported the bill, Daniel Lipinski, said the bill “was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so. Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105755.html
So that’s what the Democratic and Republican supporters of the bill were saying at the time, at least in public. They were implying that if the bill passed, it would in practice be interpreted as still allowing abortion funding e.g. for women who are raped when they are drunk or drugged, and for girls under the age of consent who are victimized by an adult man who has sex with them, and for women who are raped after saying no when they are intimidated into complying. Is it really true that these kinds of cases, and other similar cases of rape, would be considered “forcible” in a way that willing sex between two minors is not? I’m willing to consider the possibility that supporters of the bill might have had a reasonable case here; there’s certainly some history in rape law of expanding the meaning of “force” to ensure that “forcible rape” gets to cover all the acts that we think of as rape, and willing sex between two minors seems not to be “forcible” in the way the other cases I’ve mentioned are (which may be why some states’ rape laws don’t count willing sex between minors as rape). So perhaps Pence and/or Ryan really just meant to basically maintain a preexisting rule in which rape of any sort (but not willing sex between two minors) is sufficient grounds to allow abortion funding. Pence and Ryan might have been among those who, as Congressman Lipinski suggested, were ready to “clarify” the bill in the “legislative process” if any need arose to ensure that all kinds of rape (but not willing sex between two minors) would be treated the same way. On the other hand, maybe the bill’s supporters were incorrect about how the language about “forcible” rape would have been interpreted if the bill had become law. I don’t know; the bill ended up being amended to take out the word “forcible”, and even the amended version of the bill never became law. But in any case, you have to make a whole lot of assumptions to believe that Pence and/or Ryan were deliberately planning to use this bill to treat some rape survivors differently than others. The grounds for believing that are pretty thin.
I’ve already mentioned a few clear errors in how this article described the bill that Pence and Ryan helped support – it certainly wasn’t about redefining what rape is, for instance, and the bill arguably may not have made much of a substantial change at all about how rape affects other areas of the law.
And finally, it’s worth mentioning that firm opposition to abortion and post-conception birth control is ENTIRELY compatible with working for women’s equal human rights in all other areas. In some cases it is conscience, not patriarchy, that leads a person to be pro-life. There will always be good women and men who find the pro-choice position obviously right, and there will always be good women and men who find the pro-life position obviously right. But I’d like to see more of a consensus develop that women’s equal rights are worth supporting in a wide range of areas regardless of your position on abortion, and that consensus will include some people with strongly pro-life views. Merely being pro-life doesn’t make someone an enemy of women. Maybe if we recognized that, the country could more quickly move toward consensus on some other feminist points.
What, only one comment followed by two (longer!) replies to yourself?
Let’s see, without going too far up with my tired eyeballs I see the sentence: “merely being pro-life doesn’t make someone an enemy of women.”
Uh huh. I doubt I will be reading these, so keep replying to yourself
The GOP isn’t upset at Trump’s misogynistic comments — they are only upset that he makes very little effort to speak in code. Apparently Trump didn’t get the Lee Atwater memo…
i have to laff at this. Bug-eyed bella lugosi looking back stabbing wishy washy ann rand worshipping fidgety bipolarised o.c. Ryan was never behind Trump and was looking for his first jump-off point to break away and get back to the nest of the elite political insect colony of which he is a proud member. All the insects reject Trump.
moreover, Hellary’s excessive mudslinging on manjabber is more indicative of her insanity because to Hellary’s twisted mind, anyone’s rejection of Donald Trump is in her devious mind interpretted as love for her, acceptance of what she accepts, genocide, regime change, war financing, murder, bribery, and her TPP “genocide” of American sovereignty and by the way, open border policies.
Let me repeat, Hellary is a death solutioner. Life to her is providing contrast by death to others. She is paranoid. Her aim is to please wallstreet. She believes that hating others = loving her. If you dont love her, she wants revenge. That is twisted.
Did you hear Hellary recently rally for women all over the planet and how “THEY COULD ALL HAVE JOBS”?
WARNING! When she says all over the world have jobs, translate!!! She means corporate rule TPP fashion world wide and MUST HAVE JOBS.
Understand “must have jobs”. understand – this is her allegiance to THE GROWTH TRAP that i mentioned in upper post. Like it or not, many cultures do not believe that having to work for wallstreet is real freedom.
and btw, lloyd blanfein looks like he is smiling with hellary, no, that is a restrained laff.
Are you drunk?
If not, I’d hate to read you when you are?
Trump vs. Ryan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D13KjR_Xvc
These guys with their fake outrage are comical. They have all heard worse and used worse. They go to R rated movies where they enjoy much worse bashing of women. There women are paid big bucks to bare their breasts for their entertainment.
The joys of repressed voyeuristic titillation
By Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday, Jun 7, 2011
Excerpt:
Apparently, Glenn Greenwald and the Intercept now believe that “the private sexual activities of public figures — down to the most intimate details — are now inherently newsworthy.”
Whatever might be said about Anthony Weiner, and Glenn Greenwald’s take on it in 2011, the key word in that Greenwald quote is “consensual“. What Trump was recorded joking about was non-consensual (i.e. sexual assault).
Also, if someone involves an unwilling party in their sexual activity, it can hardly be called “private“. There’s a member of the public there (namely the unwilling party).
Hi azbz, Nice use of boldface. it reminds me of those who resort to shouting when they know that their arguments are weak and ineffectual. However, I still provided you with an answer above.
The boldface was simply emphasizing the key words.
My reply to that answer is posted to that new thread you started at 8:22pm, 9/22/16.
Perhaps you also missed the fact that the present article is not by Glenn Greenwald.
In any event, it is a very good article. Your judgment concerning journalism is hardly nuanced. It is NOT all about “whose side they’re on,” at least not here. Glenn hardly gave Clinton (i.e., Bill) a pass.
Learn to read for comprehension and get back to me.
Those gold digging hoes love getting their snatch grabbed by Trump.
Does anyone think it’s shocking that Trump said “pus^&” 10 years ago? Is this really worth the campaign blitz this weekend? Or does anyone think this is the new tactic of the corporate/complicit media to over shadow the already almost non-existent (except for Jordan Chariton & the Intercept) media coverage of Wikileaks. They are part of THAT story? Gloves off. They are so happy with themselves this weekend. Thank the universe for Glen & every REAL journalist at The INTERCEPT!
A lot of people think this is some sort of distraction. I’m trying to figure out what they are trying to distract us from. For example, we seem to be edging close to war with Russia and the IMF has been shouting about the economy. Maybe it is Wikileaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwOJlOI1nU
The worst thing about what Trump said is the nonconsensual sexual contact, not the words he used. What he said he’d done is sexual assault in my book, and as such it deserved a lot of public attention. I guess the media emphasized his language rather than the sexual assault because market research on headline writing showed you get more clicks if your headline is written that way. Or, more likely, the research showed that an article with fake outrage over the word “pussy” makes viewers more receptive to ads than an they would be if the media had had the decency to focus on how bad it is to have your crotch grabbed by a powerful older man.
Some people have been making it out like Trump is a degenerate molesting women… but what a true Trump supporter could tell you is that all this shows is that Trump is smart. And virile. When he sees an opportunity, he goes for it. He’s not the kind of negotiator who will settle for taking no as an answer. If people compare him to Brock Turner for picking girls up by the pussy, well, the difference is that Brock Turner was a bad businessman with a fairly good but uninspired legal team behind him. Now Donald Trump, he argues from a position of strength. He knows that if a woman wants to make it in the business world, she has to be willing to do a bit to accommodate people – the occasional kiss with a creepy old businessman, the occasional marital infidelity. They got to go along to get along. You have to ask, if a woman won’t do a little something like that to get ahead, how badly does she want the job? How committed is she to success? Next thing you know they’ll be demanding to be allowed to work without putting on make-up to match a plastic Barbie notion of what they’re supposed to look like (and doing it on their own time), and how could you put up with that? Republicanism means getting the job done, doing what it takes. They gotta do what it takes. And Trump has needs and jobs he wants to get done. It’s all very straightforward, really.
It also rings really, really hollow from the legions of righteous progressives who don’t care about Bill Clinton’s history of actual sexual assault and predation or HRC’s flinty defense of him.
Donald Trump is a buffoon, but it is interesting that the core of that whole story is one man telling another a story about sexual failure and vulnerability: he tried seducing a woman, and she didn’t go for it. The end! Nobody got assaulted, nobody got raped. That he then segues into absurd preening trash-talk bravado is actually one of the only moments from Trump that has seemed sort of humanizing. As a feminist who has seen *legions* of sensitive allies of the Hugo Schwzyer variety, I don’t think Donald Trump is anything to celebrate but at least he’s not a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
It rings a lot more hollow from the conservatives. I mean, I don’t know, I’m getting old — when I was a kid, conservatives were against Russia. Conservatives said that there was the U.S. the bastion of democracy and freedom and then there were third-world tin-pot dictatorships where the generalissimos would torture people with beatings and electric current. True, they funded those dictators enthusiastically on the flimsiest of pretenses, but they didn’t believe that America should do it. No matter what decency nonsense they would spout they never said outright that America had too free a news media. And so when Trump said he wanted to do “helluva lot worse than water boarding”, why didn’t they bolt? Why didn’t they get upset about his notions to censor the press? Why does it take him going on about pussy to make them turn? They didn’t pass subtle clues and hints, they passed big block letter banners saying YOU ARE LEAVING THE AMERICAN WAY without a second thought. And then they act surprised over this?
The fact that she has protected a rapist more than once she she defended andlaughed at getting a rapist off who raped a 12 year old girl. She supported perjury by mentioning he pass a lie detector test when she knew he lied in it so she knew he was guilty and everyone would like to know how she Hillary and Bill Clinton are worth over a hundred million dollars when she left the White House broke and they have never worked except for the state department and some speaking engagements and a stipend for the president retirement Hillary Clinton cancer only one thing money power and herself
I’m sure it’s been said here before but the GOP is hardly a sterling champion of women’s right. They’re still mostly stuck in the ‘Madonna/Whore Complex’, prefer their wimminz to stay in the kitchen, look good and breed when needed. For that they get ‘revered’ and some chocolates/flowers on Mother’s Day. ‘Attagirl!’
With the exception of his supposed strong opposition to Free Trade, Trump has made astounding statements with relatively little blowback from the GOP or the media.
He stated strong support for, and would vastly increase torture. –Hardly a murmur generally and other GOP candidates were falling over themselves to ‘get on board’ with torture.
He stated strong support for ‘broken windows’ and would implement it nationally. –Again, hardly a murmur from the GOP or the media, albeit some back-pedaling by Trump after his managers got ahold of him.
And he can’t wait to be given the opportunity to blast the hell out of the Middle East, civilians be damned. –And yet again, hardly a murmur out of the media or GOP.
But just let some long ago crudely put comment about the willingness of power groupies to be open to crude advances by the objects of their admiration and all of a sudden the guy is no longer fit to be President. Are you kidding me!! This is a distraction in the first sense of the word. There is not a male rock star in the Free World that has not marveled at this willingness, I suspect.
Yet the substantive reasons that he should not be President get little air, such as noted above. Intent to commit war crimes and egregious civil rights abuses against the powerless are OK, but it’s those nasty, crude sex issues that are sooo important.
As I said, …..a distraction!!
Neither party has ‘discovered’ woman’s rights. Clinton’s huge bribe-taking from the most misogynist countries in the world prove this. Imagine if she, back in the 1980s had taken millions from apartheid — and someone said she had ‘discovered’ black rights.
Obama also has armed these misogynistic regimes to the teeth and supports radical jihadists in Yemen and Syria who dream of a super-oppressive society when it comes to women. This would be akin to a president arming South Africa and assisting them in wars of conquest — while claiming to ‘discover’ black rights.
The Democrats have only ‘discovered’ women rights if you grade them on a curve with Republicans.
Donald Trump is a vain, insecure braggot. The Young Turks characterized these latest remarks as akin to those coming from the mouth of a forty year old virgin. Personally, I believe that Trump was attempting to be perceived as something that he is not – a likeable common man; yet even his inability to exit the tour bus speaks to the degree to which he has become accustomed to having doors opened for him. Secondly, he was being encouraged by little Billy Bush – a person who himself spent a good deal of time in locker rooms. This is pure male-to-male braggadocio – albeit arrested adolescent behavior. This having been said, Trump’s exaggerated claims of irresistible attraction to “beautiful women” seemed to hint at those used by closeted gays in an effort to avoid detection.
As self deluded as Donald is, the level of dishonesty that he displays pales in comparison to that exhibited by Naomi LeChance in the construction of this pathetic conflation. Using Trump’s puerile behavior as a broad brush by which all conservative social values can be summarily condemned is as equally gratuitous as the behavior it intends to condemn. If Ms. Chance wants to argue the slippery slope merits of abortion et al, then she should do it honestly and directly. And, if she wants to condemn republican drawn distinction between “forcible” rape and all other kinds, then she should begin by condemning that of which Julian Assange has been accused. The very fact that Ms. Chance feels the need to use Trump’s deeply inappropriate remarks as a segue into her own childish blurring of distinctions speaks to the degree to which moral principle is absent in her own corrupted world view.
Perhaps she should also report on a blizzard in Finland when there’s a tornado in the US somewhere? Just to restore the karma balance?
How BTW do you even know anything about the author’s views on Julian Assange and the rape allegations levelled against him?
In never said that I knew the author’s views Julian Assange and the rape allegations leveled against him. Rather, I argued that MS. LaChance’s implied position on rape would have been better served if she cited a celebrated example of rape wherein no force was alleged by the victim. Because Julia Assange was accused of initiating sexual intercourse with a woman who was asleep, Swedish authorities preferred a charge of rape against him. By citing the Assange allegations specifically, Ms.LaChance could have demonstrated that her position on rape was not merely the product of partisan or gender politics, but one of uniformly applicable principle.
Well, there’s credible statements from women that Trump has harassed them. Assange? One of the accusers presented alleged evidence of a broken condom- which neither had Assange’s DNA NOR HERS.
While I think this is one more reason why Trump should not be trusted, I do think it’s a distraction from the Wikileaks revelations.
Orville, Read for comprehension. I referred to one particular set of allegations wherein Assange was accused of initiating sexual intercourse with a woman while she slept.
Your argument is merely more ‘whataboutery’. Nothing more.
Ah yes…”whataboutery.” Yet another Mona tell.
The issue here is 100 % straight cut. Trust you to try and muddy the waters.
Go grope some women, you’ll be absolved because Naomi hasn’t condemned Julian Assange!
Twit.
You have presented a very cogent and articulate argument.
I commend you.
“Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. Paul Ryan.
That sounds so noble until I realized it reflected the Patriarchical view that we men are to protect those weak creatures of womanhood. It’s like saying, ‘women are fantastic, every man should own one’.
This is a perfect example of the “values” held by our American “social conservatives,” Naomi.
Passing laws that limit women’s control over their own bodies, constructing legal loopholes for rapists, and on and on, are all perfectly fine.
You just can’t say “pussy.” That’s outrageous and beyond the pale.
I’ve often pondered how the wives and ‘significant others’ of these Neanderthals stay with them in a relationship. I guess the money must be good.
Ask HilLIARy Clinton!
Did you come up with that all by yourself?
What is the issue? A little bravado locker room talk?
Compared to the Hideous shape shifting alien witch and her pedophile rapist husband, Trump’s words should bring a chuckle. Confirming he is not a polished politician, Hallelujah!
The DNC propaganda journalists are desperately trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
They talk like that in your locker room?
You hang out with guys who brag about getting away with sexual assault? And it doesn’t bother you?
could you report on h clinton dirtiness? there’s so much to say! and more important!
even on woman’s abuses like this…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqh0gRy-og
Trump said what all men say.
Women have the same. Not pretty but superficial.
Now, clintonemail.com to talk to criminals. Open the borders so all your tax money goes to support everyone, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPINIONS BECAUSE YOU ARE WORTH NOTHING are REAL THREATS to the USA!
Iamwithher1% lives in the basement of Potusa serial adulterer so he can kill her competition.
If you think all men say things like, “You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy,” you’ve definitely been hanging out with the wrong men.
Trying to ‘normalise’ the abhorrent is a tactic of course. ‘Nothing to see here, we all do it!’ Well… NO!
I’m not sure what the fuss is about. The quote seems like Trump is saying that rich, powerful men have ad easier time getting women than other men. Is this politically incorrect to say? Why? He did use the word pussy, which seems to scare or offend a lot of people, but other than that, who cares?
If you step back and think about it a bit, it looks like we are watching an Information War going on. The biggest threat candidates face is that someone is willing to tell the truth with WikiLeaks, Trump, Hillary/Bush etc. all waiting for the right moment to drop a “truth bomb” on their opponents.
This underscores the nasty nature of our modern society. NSA, CIA, FBI, political operatives and the media, all of them are collecting dirt on people to be used at a later date for political purposes. If Trump never ran, would this ten year old conversation ever have been an issues? Is this the reason we have such poor candidates? People have to fear that anything they have ever said will be blown out of proportion and headlined by the MSM?
Looks like I might have to vote for Trump.
It seems to me that Trump is saying that he and other “celebrities” can and do get away with sexual assault.
It’s kinda hard “blow that out of proportion.”
Maybe you should read it again. He said they will let you do blahblahblahwhatever if you are a star.
It isn’t sexual assault if they permit it.
If it was an assault, where are the police charges, the trial and so forth?
Very few women would allow that. He’s fantasising. And no fantasising doesn’t equal assault.
Jill Harth was one of those who wasn’t smitten by Drumpfie’s attempt at pussy grabbing and considers it to be an assault:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/20/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-jill-harth-interview
What do you mean by “permit?” Didn’t report? Didn’t press charges? Didn’t sue? Didn’t tell?
Grabbing another person’s crotch, uninvited and without permission is definitely sexual assault, what ever may be done or not done afterwards.
And, for Gert: Herr Drumpfuck may be fantasizing, but what he clearly claims to be doing is bragging about what he does/has done and gotten away with. And allegations such as Harth’s at least strongly suggest that his claim wasn’t entirely fantasy.
Wait a second. You have to give men at least one pass. It”s called making a pass at a woman. If she says no, then it’s no. Going straight to “sexual assault” seems premature. I mean, do you really need forms signed in triplicate sent to each others lawyers?
Another thing is, Trump is telling you (via Billy Bush) his experience. Maybe you should ask some rock stars, movie stars, star athletes and billionaires if this is accurate. You are going by your own experience and projecting it. He is telling you what the world is like for men in “his situation.” Unless you are a billionaire, this is likely outside YOUR experience.
From what we know, it seems reasonably accurate.
Good article good points, this is a big deal but it does not change my vote. Trump is an example of a flawed failure of a man peripherally supported by a money talks system, got no money shut-up and take what we elite “stars” dish out in law and action
Hillary is the poster child of this system with the same result and backup by the full force of said system. Trump could not have pushed his ill statement to far without getting his rich ass kicked by a husband or father or brother or a lady in good shape. Trump can only rent Hilary owns and is the system.
Ryan and Pence are bigger jack-offs than Trump. But the flowering crowns of hypocrisy goes out to cultural Marxists everywhere.
If Trump Were Sexually Interested In Men, It Would Be Politically Incorrect To Say Anything About It
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/09/if-trump-were-sexually-interested-in-men-it-would-be-politically-incorrect-to-say-anything-about-it
The alleged existence of “Cultural Marxism” is a conspiracy theory that is deeply rooted in antisemitism and a staple diet of the alt-right and neo-Nutzies the world around.
Also kindly point to prominent gays who brag or have bragged about power-based sexual conquests and “c*ck grabbing*. Just one example will do…
Here we go again – state facts and get called an anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, and/or racist. That dog wont hunt anymore, Gert. People, sane people that is, are fed up with the PC bullshit being fed to them. And on a side note – go and play with a rabbit.
Solution;Vote everyone who’s in,out.Doesn’t matter what party.
Send a message.
Marcy Wheeler’s devastating takedown of the GOP.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/10/08/trump-is-epitome-of-gop/
Paul Ryan is another windsurfer like J Kerry,twisting this way and that with the winds of zion.
He will get his,and every other rethug traitor.
The most surprising aspect of this election cycle is that the other Republican candidates did not use this well known Howard Stern like stuff against Trump as well! Maybe it speaks to the Republican audience versus the Independent audience. But politicians should know it is just fine to Kill People as HRC has done professionally for years, but if one instead crosses the line into Sexual Comments it is quite a different matter