WashPost Columnist Holmes Levels Screed Against Social Conservatives Over Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood
Conservatives' calls for taking away taxpayer funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood and ensuring that religious organizations are not forced to pay for abortions and birth control through their health insurance plans proves we are not a "sane society," complains Jezebel founding editor and Washington Post columnist Anna Holmes in a Style section column today, blandly titled "The politics of birth control."*
The feminist writer opened her column by grousing that "almost 39 years to the day that the right to abortion was decided" by the Supreme Court, "we're still having a conversation about the access to and legality of female reproductive health services." In other words, "dammit, pro-lifers, you just won't quit!"
Sure, "No one in the race for the GOP nomination has called for an explicit ban on contraception. That's because they don't have to," aiming instead to "chip away" at "reproductive rights laws" by a "strategy" that involves "Defund[ing] family-planning initiatives and organizations, legislat[ing] away health insurance coverage of birth control or block[ing] FDA approval for new preventatives," hence making "contraception all but obsolete."
Of course, it's HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, no right-wing Republican she, who recently overruled an FDA recommendation to make the Plan B contraceptive available over-the-counter to young girls. It's hardly a right-wing proposal to prevent completely unfettered access to powerful birth control drugs to minor children without their parents' consent or knowledge. And at least in theory the Obama administration has suggested it agrees that religious organizations should be exempt from requirements to provide health insurance for contraception.
But why let facts get in the way of a good, conspiratorial screed? Indeed, Holmes turned a few times in her January 13 post to quote Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast/Newsweek, whom you may recall last year insisted Michele Bachmann was an evil schemer bent on "Christian plot" of "domination" of the United States.
Holmes did find a silver lining towards the end of her screed. The "newly explicit GOP attack on reproductive health services underscores what many abortion-rights activists and advocates have known all along," that pro-lifers aren't fixed no a "fantasy of saving cute, chubby babies but to the very idea that women can, and should, make decisions about their own bodies, and that sex is for more than just procreation."
That's right, Ms. Holmes, pro-life conservatives, especially ones with big families, detest sex. They hate making love and only suffer through it to have plenty of kids to brainwash into conservative Republicans that you continue their war to overturn Roe v. Wade. [Insert evil laugh here]
"Finally, the real agenda is coming out," Holmes closed her column, quoting "online women's health advocacy outlet RH Reality Check" editor Jodi Jacobson.
Actually, Ms. Holmes, the political fight over public financing of Planned Parenthood is only exposing that it's never been about "choice" to the pro-choice Left but rather the political normalization and ongoing public financing of the abortion industry through taxpayer dollars.
*The online version was laughably titled "Conversation over abortion continues 39 years later."
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Absolutely Jezebel...because
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 1:48pm.
Absolutely Jezebel...because killing babies is such a natural thing to do! How can Conservatives be so heartless as to deny women the option of killing their own offspring???
If this dumb b!tch wants a definition of insanity, she looks straight at it in the mirror every morning....
anna holmes jezebel - how apropos
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 2:24pm.
She picks an appropriate name for her rag (from wiki):
The biblical Hebrew 'Izebel may be rooted in a Hebrew word for "prince/nobility" or "husband" (bul/ba'al) combined with the word for "naught/none" ('iy), "there is no prince/nobility/husband," suggesting a lack of character (i.e. implying lack of royal sensibilities) or of morality (i.e. unmarried, implying adultery or fornication). It may also find its root in a Hebrew word for "dung" (from gbl; note here Ba'al-zebul/Ba'al-zebub, "Lord of dung") combined with the word for either "naught/none" ('iy) or "island" ('iyz), thus "no dung" or "island of dung."
Other sources find meaning from the character's native Syro-Phoenician language. It may be rooted in the word ba'al (lord), referring either to the Syro-Phoenician god, the "King of Heaven," or simply the royal title "lord." Thus, Iz-ba'al may mean "the Lord (Ba'al) exists/exalts" or "where is the prince," a name known from liturgies of the Syro-Phoenician Ba'al cults.
The Hebrew text portrays Jezebel as a power behind the throne. Ahab and Jezebel allow temples of Baal (including infant sacrifices) to operate in Israel, and that religion receives royal patronage. After Ahab's death, Ahaziah and Jehoram, his sons by Jezebel, accede to the throne. The prophet Elisha has one of his servants anoint Jehu as king to overthrow the house of Ahab. Jehu kills Jehoram as he attempts to flee in his war chariot.
Jehu confronts Jezebel in Jezreel, where he incites her court officials to murder the queen via defenestration and leave her corpse to be eaten by dogs. Jezebel became associated with false prophets. In some interpretations, her dressing in finery and putting on makeup before her death led to the association of use of cosmetics with "painted women" or prostitutes.
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Ms. Holmes
Submitted by John21 on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 1:50pm.
Ms. Holmes I really don't care if the ladies you know want to kill their unborn children (clorine in the gene pool) and I rather wish you mother had made that decision as well.
I do object to paying for the procedure, I do not know the women in question, I did not get to enjoy the conception and I fail to understand why I should pay for it. I know you are a far left liberal and think that the taxpayer should pay all your and your friends bills and see racism or sexism in anyone that would like to keep their money in their pocket.
I have heard the rant from you and your fellow whack jobs for the last 39 years and you are right I will never willing pay your bills, try paying them yourself.
taxpayer money...
Submitted by dmacleo on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 2:49pm.
you know if planned parenthood is making money hand over fist, usually by tearing the fist off the hand, why do they need any taxpayer money?
they make buttload of profits, literally, from abortion.
they can't even be honest with themselves...
What someone else does
Submitted by texasborngranny on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 4:08pm.
What someone else does with/to their own body is none of my business or concern... unless it's being paid for with my money!
Sigh...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 11:38pm.
We (the Canadian taxpayer) have been paying for abortions ever since our SC struck down the abortion laws way back when.
There was a case of a Christian who tried to withhold his taxes because he did not want his money to pay for abortions. He lost, natch, however, in this case, the judge was right, unfortunately. That's our law, and "That which is Ceasor..." and all that jazz.
Don't let this happen to you. I sense the tide turning on this in our favor, even up here. If you stand your ground, you'll give us some momentum to at least change the law to add some regulation to abortion so that it's not used embarassingly as a free-for-all method of birth control as is the case now.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"