PeaceNikki
PeaceNikki's JournalNews Bulletin: Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist
With Ron Paul ascending in Iowa, winning the hearts of independents, and even the endorsement of Andrew Sullivan, it’s worth pointing something out: Ron Paul is not a kindly old libertarian who just wants everybody to be free. He’s a really creepy bigot.
Around four years ago, James Kirchick reported a lengthy story delving into Paul’s worldview. As Kirchick writes, Paul comes out of an intellectual tradition called “paleolibertarianism,” which is a version of libertarianism heavily tinged with far-right cultural views. The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking. The most comparable figure to Paul is Pat Buchanan, the main differences being that Paul emphasizes economic issues more, and has more dogmatically pro-market views.
How, then, has Paul become a figure of admiration among social liberals?
One reason is that nobody is attacking him. Paul is (correctly) considered to have no chance to actually win the GOP nomination, so debate moderators have not bothered to research his past, instead tossing off generalized questions that allow him to portray himself on his preferred terms. The Republican Establishment is focusing all its fire on Newt Gingrich, and indeed, Paul’s rise in Iowa would greatly aid Mitt Romney’s campaign by preventing an acceptable alternative from emerging from the state with momentum.
Read more at: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html
The Case for Repealing ALL Anti-Abortion Laws
This was in the Choice Forum on DU2 and I think it deserves a spot in this new home. Joyce is my favorite author and I adore her and her work.
Long, but a great read.
(PDF) http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/repeal.pdf
No country needs to regulate abortion via criminal or civil law. Only when abortion has the same legal status as any other health procedure can it be fully integrated into women’s reproductive healthcare.
by Joyce Arthur
The repeal of abortion laws is supported by evidence from Canada, the only democratic country in the world with no laws restricting abortion since 1988. Abortions have since become earlier and safer, and the number of abortions has become moderate and stable. Current abortion care reflects what most Canadians are comfortable with, and women and doctors act in a timely and responsible manner, with no need for regulation.
Several legal arguments help build the case for abortion law repeal. A constitutional guarantee of women’s equality can be used to overturn abortion laws, and ensure that abortion is funded by the healthcare system as a medically-required service. Freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and the right to self-defense can also be used to strike down laws. All anti-abortion restrictions are unjust, harmful, and useless because they rest on traditional religious and patriarchal foundations. Laws kill and injure women, violate their human rights and dignity, impede access to abortion, and obstruct healthcare professionals.
Solutions for Repealing Anti-abortion Laws
Here’s some suggested solutions to get rid of harmful anti-abortion laws:
* Guarantee women’s equality in countries’ constitutions.
* Collect evidence of laws’ harms, find plaintiffs, and challenge laws in court.
* Lobby government against abortion restrictions (meet with legislators, submit briefs).
* Educate media, government, health professionals, and public about the harm and futility of abortion restrictions.
* Challenge the religious basis of anti-abortion laws, and keep church and state separate.
* Change the rhetoric: Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
* Empower women in society by changing public policies.
* Change patriarchal attitudes about women and motherhood through advocacy and education.
* Prioritize childcare and child-rearing as a universal concern, not a “woman’s issue.”
Some of these proposed solutions are obviously very difficult and would take many years. But one has to start somewhere.
To conclude, no country needs any laws against abortion whatsoever. We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process.
