Paul Ryan’s Anti-Women Platform…

Romney sticks it to the working class; Ryan sticks it to women!

What a joke!

As if Mitt Romney hasn’t done enough to prove he represents just the wealthy, at the expense of the lower-income and middle class population, he picks Paul Ryan as his running mate. Paul Ryan is a man who, if he had his way, would set women back to the Stone Age. I have tried not to read any of the things he stands for, but there is always someone or something bringing politics to my attention. Now I have to say something.

I came across the list below of Paul Ryan’s stand on women rights. I feel like I took a ride in a time machine, back to the Dark Ages. Susan B. Anthony must be on a perpetual roll in her grave. I can’t even wrap my mind around this kind of thinking. The list speaks for itself, I really don’t need to add more, but I will.

Paul Ryan doesn’t believe that women should get equal pay for equal work.Really? I’d like to meet the woman who agrees with that. Are there actually conservative women who are okay with this position? Is this okay for your daughters and granddaughters to make less money than a man? It’s not okay with me. I have two daughters. One day they may have daughters. I would like them to be treated fairly and equally in the workforce. I don’t like it that their salary might be based on gender and not the job or job performance. Of course Paul Ryan has two sons so maybe it’s fine with him, they won’t be affected.

Paul Ryan is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. I am against abortion too. I think it’s being used way too often, in pregnancies that could be avoided in the first place. It was not meant to be a form of birth control. I don’t want to debate the whole abortion issue, however I am upset at how radial his stand is on this issue. In cases of rape and incest, I have always felt that abortion should be an option. The reasons are obvious and don’t need to be stated. No woman should have to have a baby that was created in an act of brutality. Imagine Paul Ryan telling you that your daughter would not be able to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest? How can anyone agree with that? Of course, Paul Ryan has two sons, so he is not concerned with our daughters.

If Paul Ryan has his way, he would eliminate Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has been around almost 100 years and provides health care services for women such as: preventing unwanted pregnancy, pap tests, breast exams, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and yes 3% of their services involve abortions. Without their vital services many women, men and teens would have no where to turn. Is this really necessary and has he thought out the consequences of such a policy?

Paul Ryan does want insurance companies to pay for birth control and wants to make some forms of it illegal. Again, we have the argument that birth control is used to treat other women’s health issues, not just prevent pregnancy. And why wouldn’t you want to prevent pregnancy? Isn’t preventing a pregnancy a better option than an abortion? Do we really want to bring children into this world who are unwanted or cannot be provided for? I just don’t get it. The fact is that when a woman or teen gets pregnant, many times the father takes off and leaves the raising of the child to the mother. She is lucky if she can get child support. And then, often times, she may need public assistance. How many more of these situations will we have without birth control as an option? It would cause many women to drop out of school, or be unable to work. Wouldn’t this be more of a drain on society? But, Paul Ryan has sons, so maybe he isn’t concerned about unwanted pregnancies.

And finally, Paul Ryan would outlaw in vitro fertilization. Here we have a man who is pro-life and against birth control and abortion, seeking to prevent wanted pregnancy too. He is heartless enough to want to deny women and couples with fertility problems, the right to have a baby through in vitro fertilization. Paul Ryan was never a woman who longed to have a baby. He doesn’t know how that feels. He has two children of his own, so what does he care of the next couple can’t have children? I wonder if his wife hadn’t been able to have children, if he would be taking this position? As a mother of daughters, I am glad that science has progressed to the point that if they have problems conceiving, there are alternative options available. How dare he take away a woman’s chance of having her own baby?

Is this what conservatives mean when they say they want government out of their business? They want less government interference in our lives, unless it‘s for telling women what they can and cannot do? What’s next? Will Paul Ryan suggest we revoke a women’s right to vote?

As or Mitt Romney, this is his first major decision as "would be President." As far as I am concerned he failed.  He didn’t choose someone who I have trust and confidence in. Paul Ryan is clearly against women’s rights and equality. If these are the things Paul Ryan freely admits to standing behind, what more does he have in mind that we aren’t aware of? I shutter to think about it. If you have daughters, you should too.

Can’t Agree With Rick Santorum…

Even though I don’t follow politics, I manage to hear a few things here and there a long the way, thanks to all the media coverage. This weekend I heard from Rick Santorum and I really don’t agree with what he had to say. Santorum is speaking out against prenatal tests, like amniocentesis, which he says encourages abortions. He is also against Obama’s plan to have employees of religious schools and hospitals to have birth control covered by their healthcare insurance. I have to disagree with him on both counts.

Prenatal testing has been used for years to identify genetic problems in the unborn baby. Women, age 35 and older, and those with hereditary conditions, are encouraged to have the test done. It is NOT a way to encourage abortion. That decision is up to each and every individual or couple to decide, once a problem has been identified. Some problems that are found can even be corrected while the baby is in utero. 

One of the main reasons for determining if a problem exists and what it is, is to not only to give parents a choice, but to psychologically and emotionally prepare them for the outcome before the baby is born. Many, like Santorum himself, will choose to have their baby and they will have time to be informed as to what special needs their child will require. Others will have to make a decision to terminate the pregnancy based on the medical information they are given and the severity of the condition. That is their choice to make and, one way or the other, they have to live with it. There are a lot of considerations that go into making this decision. The family’s financial circumstances and whether they have good health insurance has to be a major consideration. How many other children they have and how a special needs child is going to affect their lives may be considered. Parents cannot live forever, the care of a sibling with special needs will eventually fall on the other children in the family. Is it not an easy decision to make by any means.

Santorum’s stand that birth control shouldn’t be covered is ridiculous. First of all, birth control does help to prevent abortions. So if Santorum is so concerned about abortion, he should make sure everyone has access to birth control.  Second, I have had an issue with the Church’s position on birth control for years. The Church says it’s a sin and we should all have as many children as the Good Lord wants us to have or use abstinence. Isn’t abstinence a form of birth control? It is a detrimental form of birth control. It can have some serious affects on a couple and their marriage. Why would the Church want to put a strain on marriage when the divorce rate is already so high? They should encourage couples to have loving, sexual relationships without the fear or possibility that they will have more children than they can afford to provide for. If a couple followed the Church’s teachings, I’m sure there would be many more children, but at what cost? If a family is struggling and can’t afford diapers or formula or baby food, will the Church send them a check every week for being “good” Christians and having more children than they can afford to feed? No, they will not. What they will do is expect you to contribute one tenth of your salary every week to the collection plate on Sunday. Is this even realistic? Birth control allows couples the freedom to be loving and intimate without the stress of having additional children that they cannot care for and which will cause additional stress on the couple. I don’t see what is wrong with that, especially if the Church isn’t going to step up to the plate and supplement their income for the extra unplanned children.

This issues are not cut and dry or right and wrong. They are personal decisions best left to the people who avail themselves of prenatal tests or birth control, not the government or the Church. It’s the individuals themselves that will make these choices and have to live with them. To me it would be more of a sin to have six children when you only have the resources to provide for two, or to have a special needs child if you don’t have the emotional, financial or physical resources to care for them. That’s my personal view on these issues.

I don’t see Santorum winning anything if he sticks to his position on these issues. And, to quote Martha Stewart, “that’s a good thing.”