"...if you're not pro-choice, you're not a feminist."

"Choice" has long ago been known as mere code for slaughtering the unborn. The lie was also exposed when Obama (Mr.Infanticide)reversed Bush's "no foreign aid money for abortion" policy and now we help places like China pay for unwanted "forced" abortions. Not a soul on the left decried those Chinese women's loss of their beloved "Choice."

Liberals have long been masters at wordcrafting and manipulation to make their evil sound as if it had been sanctified by God.

Obama added a new one when he justified the post-birth murder of a child using his new legal escape clause of "intent." It seems no one (including John McCain) had the courage to ask him how long a woman's new found "intent" right to kill lasted after the child was born; days, months, years,decades?

And has anyone noticed how silent they are about their constitutional medical right to privacy when Obamacare came along and gave that privacy right away to some million or so unknown bureaucrats?

It's not hypocrisy -it's pure unadulterated evil.

They have Helen Thomas, we have Sarah Palin, any questions?

Jay Tea, there's a perfect valid explanation - these people are apostates and are treated as such.

Hooray, it's the typical Jay Tea System of Deductive Reasoning: "I haven't lifted a finger to find out what the well-known Internet feminists have been saying on this issue, so I'm going to assume that because their words didn't somehow force themselves into my eyeballs that nothing has been said. Permit me now to advance my theory which has its proof entirely invented by me and which I own and is also mine, brackets, Miss, brackets. Ahem."

Didn't you try this tack some years ago when you claimed to have searched the blogosphere for "deep thinkers" on the left, only to report that you found none, even after you said you had gone to all the trouble to check BOTH Atrios and Eschaton? Yeah, good times.

no matter how predatory you are towards women in your personal life, no matter how you treat women in general (yes, Bill Clinton, I'm talking about you), if you're pro-choice, you're a champion of women everywhere.

Untrue. Consider Bob Packwood. From Wikipedia:

Two years before Roe v. Wade he introduced the Senate's first abortion legalization bill, but he was unable to attract a cosponsor for either. His pro-choice stance earned him the loyalty of many feminist groups and numerous awards including those from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (January 10, 1983) and the National Women's Political Caucus (October 23, 1985).

Packwood, as we all know, later resigned over allegations of sexual misconduct.

Also, Gary Condit, who demanded Clinton "come clean" on Monicagate, was later taken down over his own sex scandal.

I tried to find more examples of left-leaning politicians taken down, but my light Googling mostly turned up James McCreevey and Eric Massa.

Honestly, anybody who complains feminism is solely a creature of the left is ignorant of history. The feminist movement of the late 19th century and early 20th century was also bound up with the temperance movement, a movement that would hardly be considered left-wing.

In the modern context, I see nothing wrong with recognizing that both liberal and conservative women benefit from the fruits of earlier generation feminism ... but simultaneously recognizing that these liberal and conservative women will fundamentally disagree on major political issues.

Further, interesting reading is available here.

"no matter how predatory you are towards women in your personal life, no matter how you treat women in general ... if you're pro-choice, you're a champion of women everywhere."

OK James H, you've shown this not always to be true.

Nice try at using an accusation of historical ignorance to dismiss what's currently true. Nor is the issue that liberal and conservative women will fundamentally disagree on major political issues.

The central issue is Jay's assertion that "to the self-appointed guardians of the "feminist" label, the only true defining point is whether or not the person is pro-choice. No matter how much you might believe in equal rights for women, if you're not pro-choice, you're not a feminist."

If that's not true, give us examples that disprove it. And if you can't, be honest enough to admit it.

James H-

"I tried to find more examples of left-leaning politicians taken down, but my light Googling mostly turned up James McCreevey and Eric Massa."

Gary Hart, John Edwards, Ted "bootleg" Kennedy. Oh wait, swimmer was never taken down out of respect for Maryjo.

Gmac-

"They have Helen Thomas, we have Sarah Palin, any questions?"

Yes, when will beauty kill the beast?

914:

Gary Hart, John Edwards, Ted "bootleg" Kennedy. Oh wait, swimmer was never taken down out of respect for Maryjo.

I was looking for situations where feminist groups also turned on the politician in question, and I found no such evidence regarding these individuals.

The central issue is Jay's assertion that "to the self-appointed guardians of the "feminist" label, the only true defining point is whether or not the person is pro-choice. No matter how much you might believe in equal rights for women, if you're not pro-choice, you're not a feminist."

If that's not true, give us examples that disprove it. And if you can't, be honest enough to admit it.

The key phrase is "light googling," Brits. don't have time to do the heavy googling at the moment, but if others have names, fine.

I actually think Jay Tea has a point, but you should I also make hectoring Jay Tea one of my major recreational activities. Kind of like bowling.

Interesting article James H. I think its significant that the author, who is clearly a leftist, stated that

"A new "pro-women" movement led, initially, by women on the right."

Her acknoledgement that it must be led by "women on the right" pretty much reinforces Jay's point which you attempted to dispute in comment #5 by confusing a politician being "taken down" by the electorate and a politician loosing the support of leftist-feminists. There is a big difference.

Good try though. A lot better than anything Lee Ward could've come up with.

Oh, O.k. after reading your #10, my #11 stands corrected.

Huh, P.? Not sure what you mean.

In #11 I said that there was a big difference between being taken down and losing the support of feminist groups, but in #9 (which I read after posting #11) you explained that you were specifically looking for those who lost the support of feminist groups so my point in #11 was not valid.

However I mistakenly wrote #10 in #12, when I should have wrote #9 so I can see why that was confusing.

Hopefully now this is all as clear as the water in the Gulf of Mexico. Wait- bad example...

You're right, P. I did use confusing language.

I'm specifically looking for:

a) politicians who supported women's rights, particularly on abortion; and,
b) who were later accused of sexual misconduct; and,
c) lost support from feminist groups.

Packwood's the only example I have off the top of my head, and I haven't had time to dredge up others. There have to be a few more out there, but "sexual harassment democrats" on Google mainly yields Massa.

I will say, however, that women's groups have been deafeningly silent in their defense of Edwards.

P. Bunyan:

I also found the HuffPo article interesting. I'd like to think that the "feminism" tent, while no doubt political, would be large enough ton encompass women who disagree on certain issues, but who also fundamentally agree on such things as discrimination and perhaps a few other issues.

That kind of movement is useful issue-based coalition-building. Kicking somebody out of the feminist club over comparatively minor political differences is mere political tribalism ... and in execution is no different from the good ol' boy networks that hampered women and minorities in politics in previous generations.

For another interesting take, consider this article.

Mt advice: Don't piss off the Sikhs. They carry knives.

So is Wasilla forcing rape victims to pay for their own rape examination kits while Palin was mayor, also proof of her feminist cred?

#18

Stuck on stupid has arrived.

Yes it's true rape victims have to pay for their own medical rape kits thanks to Sarah Palin, she did that right after she burnt down the library and walked over to Russia from her front porch. Stay tuned next week on Sat. Night Live Paul McCartney will thrill you with his political commentary. Dumb ass

Actually, John, they were.

"Stuck on stupid has arrived."

That's what happens when your 'thinking' revolved around cutting and pasting DNC, DK, or DU talking points.

Actually, there is some truth to the rape kits charge. Jim X isn't just blowing smoke on this one.

RE: # 19, 20 and 21:

Proving people wrong generally requires facts. Got any?

Thought so.

"Yes it's true rape victims have to pay for their own medical rape kits thanks to Sarah Palin,"

No, it isn't true now - but it was true when Palin was mayor of Wasilla.

In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.

According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.

The rape kit is necessary in order to obtain DNA evidence. Alaska had the highest rape rate in the nation. Having the victims pay for rape kit would discourage some from following through - and therefore hamper law enforcement efforts to stem rape.

Apparently that wasn't a big deal to Wasilla's former mayor, Sarah Palin.

"Yes it's true rape victims have to pay for their own medical rape kits thanks to Sarah Palin,"

No, it isn't true now - but it was true when Palin was mayor of Wasilla.

In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.

According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.

The rape kit is necessary in order to obtain DNA evidence. Alaska had the highest rape rate in the nation. Having the victims pay for rape kit would discourage some from following through - and therefore hamper law enforcement efforts to stem rape.

Apparently that wasn't a big deal to Wasilla's former mayor, Sarah Palin.

Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims

So #23 is saying Sarah was in charge of billing insurance companys for medical supplies the police dept used? Right, how mayoraly of her to moonlight like that.

#18 stated a fact proving Palin is no feminist, and #19. #20, and #21 ignored the facts and just crapped instead.

#23 restated the fact along with additional info, and #24 and #25 ignore the facts and just crap instead.

Seeing a definite pattern here.

"So #23 is saying Sarah was in charge of billing insurance companys for medical supplies the police dept used? Right, how mayoraly of her to moonlight like that. "

No, she was mayor of Wasilla at the time.

And the plural of company is companies, not companys, you moron.

There is evidence that the practice occurred in Wasilla while Ms. Palin was mayor.

So because some rural police departments charged evil insurance companies for rape kits Sarah Palin is not a feminist. Damn fine logic there. That sure proves it with facts and everything.

The attacks on Haley have NOTHING to do with her being a woman or a conservative woman. She is being attacked because she is a threat to the corrupt establishment in SC, who were looking forward to getting rid of the last effective thorn in their sides, Mark Sanford, and replacing him with someone more, er, "cooperative" with them.

Corruption in the legislature and local government in SC is truly a bipartisan venture.

Jim A but when that is turned toward a woman wouldn't you think the leaders of the women's rights orgs would get up in arms. Let me rephrase that if this happened to Hillary Clinton do you think the response would be silence from the feminist?

James H,

Packwood isn't a good example either, because he committed the other unforgivable sin...he had an R after his name.

It's the exception to JT's general rule.

The grammer police they live inside Lee's head... Hey Lee run over to the Helen Thomas thread everyone is waiting for you over there. I'm sure the true feminist will come running to her aid soon.

James H,

There is evidence that the practice occurred in Wasilla while Ms. Palin was mayor.

Really?? Since that charge was pretty well debunked, care to point us to your evidence?

OK, Kenny: Here (AP via Anchorage Daily News), this USA Today article references an interview with the Mat-Su Frontiersman, and FactCheck.org, also citing to the Frontiersman interview, establishes the practice occurred during her tenure as mayor, though FactCheck is uncertain regarding Palin's level of attention to the matter.

Kenny: I responded to you charge, but the post (which contains three links) is currently in moderation.

James H,

OK, Thanks. I'll keep looking back to read it when it's released.

Jeez, James H, you came up with Packwood and Condit? That's pretty weak sauce.
As Sheik pointed out, Packwood was a Rupublican, so he's right out.

As for Condit, according to Wiki:
"According to Salon, Condit voted against President Bill Clinton most frequently of all Congressional Democrats."

'nuff said right there.

Actually Les, I was thinking of an article I read a long time ago. The writer bemoaned the number of women's-rights-supporting men who turn out to be utter scuzzes in their personal dealings with women. I've been driving myself crazy trying to remember where I read it.

Ah yes TRUE feminists.... why can't they just perform sex then go make me a sandwhich.

Heads explode in 3...2...1

James (and, indirectly, Lee):

As I recall, the practice of billing insurance companies for rape kits was fairly widespread and predated Palin's term in office. In other words, she "inherited" it.

She also said, I believe, that she found out about it when there was a push to outlaw it -- and she supported that move.

So there goes another lie from Lee. Unfortunately, Lee Lies are apparently an infinitely renewable resource.

J.

Jay, Lee can't keep from confusing Sarah Palin and Tina Fey. It's because he's a racist.

Jay Tea,
according to sources the practice was widespread UNTIL enough towns complained to the Alaska state legislature - Wasilla was not one that was complained.

At that point, the state legislature passed a law requiring that rape victims NOT be charged - and Wasilla was one of the few towns that resisted this change.

The vocal opponent was Wasilla's chief of police - but Palin, as Mayor, approved the budget.

To quote factcheck.org on this,

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html

Eric Croft, a former Alaska state representative who sponsored the 2000 legislation, told CNN that "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it." But Croft, a Democrat, says he does not recall discussing the issue with Palin at the time.

Now, it may theoretically possible that this occurred without her knowing - in which case I would consider her to be pretty inexcusably checked-out from her obligations as Mayor.

But I also find it pretty hard to believe that this would occur without Mayor Palin knowing about it. Which I think just about nixes any possibility of Palin being a feminist. And beyond that, it makes her an appallingly cold human being.

I swear, watching a bunch of conservative geezers discuss feminism is almost as amusing (but only half as informative) as watching kindergartners explain how Santa delivers all those presents in just one night.

But, take it from someone who actually knows feminists in real life: they have no interest in being the marital fidelity police for either political party. Seriously, all the feminists of my acquaintance have little use for the institution and would think any woman trapped in it should consider herself lucky to have her husband's infidelity as a convenient excuse to shitcan the whole sorry enterprise.

Re: # 25 and 26 - thanks Lee, and re: # 21 and 23 - thanks James H. I appreciate your commitment to the facts.

"#18 stated a fact proving Palin is no feminist, and #19. #20, and #21 ignored the facts and just crapped instead."

So what.. either way your still a racist.

I swear watching liberals trying to sterotype conservatives is like watching..... anyway thanks for the personal insight from someone who actually knows a feminist. But since martial infidelity is not a big deal why wouldn't feminsts be on our side in this fight, it's purely a bunch of OLD GEEZER conservatives going after a woman over nothing more than sex.

James H,

Thanks for the links, Sorry to see that you base your 'facts' on the initial reporting and on factcheck. It's too bad that none of those 'facts' show that Sarah Palin billed rape victims for the rape kits as you allege. You (and factcheck) also seem to ignore all the items that were reported later.

I had expected better from you. But after seeing your deliberate mixing of legal and illegal immigrants in the recent Arizona law discussion, I shouldn't be surprised.

Jesus, John, put down the bottle, man. Fight? This ain't no stinkin' fight, it's just a pissing contest.

The only thing cons know about feminism is that libs claim to be in favor of it, therefore it must be opposed. If liberals came out in favor of beer, you assholes would begin swilling tall, frosty mugs of turnip juice.

Kenny: If you have links the other way, i'd be happy to take a look.

James H,

OK, lets start with the committee minutes as they were debating the new law. I'll specifically point out the testimony of DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety

He noted that it has always been the position and practice of law enforcement to pay for the collection of forensic evidence in support of a criminal prosecution. ... he does not know of any police agency that has requested payment.

and the questioning of Representative Ogan

as to why hospitals are sending bills to victims when the exam has obviously been ordered by a local police department.

link to committee minutes here: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?ch=H&beg_line=0317&end_line=0714&session=21&comm=STA&date=20000309&time=0820

Don't see any references to Wasilla or Sarah Palin, compare that to your linked ap and usa today articles

According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.

After reviewing the committee minutes, No police departments were known to have billed the victims, some hospitals had done it.

I think you'd agree that Democrat Eric Croft is lying. (or would you?)

Next up, how about a blogger who, actually asked Wasilla City Clerk for information? (Since no news reporters seem to). Hmmm no police or finance dept records of victims being billed for forensic exams.

link here: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/273965.php

If you look around the site, you'll find a couple of other items from the city clerk.

And to finish it off, let me point you to the Violent Crimes Compensation Board. Isn't it interesting that it was never reported by the mainstream media that in the cases where sexual assault victims had been billed by the hospital, the VCCB would pay for the rape kits? I wonder why that would be? oh yeah, doesn't fit the narrative.

link: http://doa.alaska.gov/vccb/

And a referral to Title 18, chapter 67 of the Alaska Statutes for what is and isn't covered.
http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/STATUTES/Title18/Chapter67.htm

Hope you'll at least take a look at the links and consider the evidence.

Thanks!

Of those links, Kenny, Confederate Yankee provided the information I was most interested in and that seems to gibe with everything else that is out there: Wasilla reserved the right to charge for the rape kits from 1996 to 2000 (at which point the process was outlawed), but did not do so.

Wasilla reserved the right to charge for the rape kits from 1996 to 2000 (at which point the process was outlawed), but did not do so.

Heh.

So now we've gone from Sarah can't be a feminist because she charged rape victims for med kits to they "reserved the right" to charge. Ever consider that there are occasionally false rape charges made? I'm no fan of Sarah Palin but I do get frustrated at the charges that get casually thrown around. SHE NEVER CHARGED ANY RAPE VICTIM FOR THEIR MED KIT.

John:

All I'm doing is following information where it leads.

Let's apply the James H tactic to Obama, OBAMA IS AN ISLAMIC TERRORIST....... actually the real truth is Obama's father was a muslim.

James I'm calling BS on following where it leads, you started it with a BS charge that Palin can't be a feminst cause she charged for rape kits, clearly not accurate. Since then plenty of contrary evidence has come to prove you wrong and now you're just follow where it leads? It's the same tatic liberals always use, make a charge then moderate the charge as the real truth comes out. That crap works in the MSM not here.

No, John, I did not raise the initial charge. I only pointed to journalism that suggested truth to the charge. Somebody else offered counter statements, and I looked at them. That's how it happened.

And, if I'm not mistaken, I was completely silent on whether the issue affects Palin's feminist credentials.

Sorry James, Jim X made the can't be feminst because... but still your research was failry one sided wouldn't you agree?

Oh and James, if not to show that Palin lacks feminist credentials what was the point of all the posts about rape kits, especially all the links that supported the argument that she did support charging rape victims for kits?

John:

My search was one-sided chiefly because of the search terms I plugged into Google; I followed the first three or four links I found. Keep in mind I've also corrected Lee Ward et. al. on occasion, most recently over interpretations of the Arizona illegal-immigration law.

Interestingly, I just dredged up this Politifact analysis that deems the charges "half true."

John:

Couple things:

1) I've corrected the liberals on this board on occasion, too. My last foray into this was on the Arizona immigration law.

2) I provided links because two people were going back and forth without providing backup. I provided backup for one side, and Kenny provided backup for the other.

3) Sarah Palin may very well be a feminist. A century ago, those in her tradition were praying at saloons and taking axes to bars.

Senor I see your point now...... I guess I just never looked at from the point of view of a liberal who actually knows a feminist.

James thanks for clarifing my only comment would be if you were trying to provide links to help clarify seems links to both sides might be in order. Obviously it's fair to have a point of view which all of us have and to sort our information accordingly.

I'm not a big fan of Palin, but I'm also not a big fan of the tone of the politics that seems to surround conservative women.

John, re: # 61 I don't agree.

Post # 53 ignores without refuting the factcheck.org article, as well as the CNN article **and** the Alaskan Frontiersman article that factcheck cites.

Post # 53 also claims as proof that Eric Croft is lying, that the minutes of the discussion for this law "has no direct reference to Sarah Palin or Wasilla".

So? There is no mention of ANY city or person in the discussion, at all.

Here's Croft's statement:

"the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor."

Here's what **confirms** Croft's statement - the formal statements to the press by none other than Wassilla's Chief of Police. As referenced by the factcheck.org article.

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.

So, to review:

- Croft said the law was in part created because Wasila was doing this.

- There is historical newspaper evidence including a direct statement from Wasilla's own chief of police, that:

a) Wasilla did this,
b) Wasilla was well in the minority of Alaskan municipalities that did this,
c) Wasilla's Chief of Police wanted to keep doing this
d) Wasilla's mayor during this period was alleged "Mama Grizzly feminist" Sarah Palin

Confederate Yankee's lack of finding financial records over the phone **also** does not refute the statements of Wasilla's own chief of Police. Why would Fannon possibly lie to make himself look bad, in print?

Furthermore, there's no contradiction about the lack of records - it sounds like they forwarded the bill entirely on to the victim's health insurance companies. Why keep the bill if Wassila isn't paying?

Now, how much did Sarah Palin know about this? Her spokespeople have been absolutely silent about whether or not she knew about it. But I find it extremely difficult to believe that she didn't know about it, seeing as how her own Police Chief is making statements to the press about a matter that's reached the State Legislature.

It seems far more likely to me that she just didn't care. But if she didn't know - how is that better?

If the definition of feminist is supposed to include "cares about what happens to women, from a woman's perspective", then as a feminist this clearly makes Palin an epic fail.

James H,

Thanks for reading the links I posted and responding.

I must admit, however, to a little confusion. In your posts #21 and 23, you state that Sarah Palin charged victims for rape kits.

In response to my links in #54 you state that

seems to gibe with everything else that is out there: Wasilla reserved the right to charge for the rape kits from 1996 to 2000 (at which point the process was outlawed), but did not do so.

Seems to gibe with everything else that is out there? Really? What was the headline of the first article you linked to?

Wasilla rape victims billed when Palin was the mayor