14 December 2007

Glenn Grothman: wrong for supporting rapists.

Hi folks,


Whew.

In the "you-just-can't-make-this-stuff-up" category of the Grothmanesque, Glenn just voted against requiring hospitals to offer rape victims emergency contraception to prevent their getting pregnant from the rape.

No, I didn't make that up. Glenn voted against requiring hospitals to offer a way for women who've been raped to avoid getting pregnant.

Admittedly, sometimes ethical calculus can be a bit tricky, so here's a little quiz.

See how you do.


Question:

When a woman is raped, which one of the following is, ethically, the best course of action?

  • A) Force her to conceive and become pregnant?
  • B) Put her in the position of having to decide between an having abortion and having the rapist's baby?
OR
  • C) Prevent the pregnancy in the first place?

Did everyone get "C"?

Not Glenn.


An update from our colleague Clyde Winter next door in Cedarburg.

Wisconsin Legislature Votes to Protect Rights of Victims of Violent Crime
Wednesday the Wisconsin Assembly voted 56 to 41 in favor of the Compassionate Care for Victims of Rape bill, without amendments. Since that bill was overwhelmingly approved last spring by strong majorities of both parties in the State Senate 27 to 6, it will finally become law after a final reading in the Assembly and the Governor signs it, following five years of obstruction by a small but powerful faction. Thanks to all of you in the grassroots who persisted in struggling uphill for years, and to you who contacted your legislative representatives, your media, and your family, friends, and neighbors and urged them to support this bill.

Over 80 percent of Wisconsin residents approve this bill, so it is about time. Learn more about the issue, and the opposition to this law, here. This crime victims issue and initiative is a national one, and other states besides Wisconsin have either passed this law, or are considering it. Where do YOUR state legislators stand on this bill?

Thank you Clyde.

Glenn was in a minority of six members of the Senate who thought women should be forced to conceive and get pregnant as a result of rape -- or maybe, on a more positive spin, they believed it was some kind of evil social engineering for the government to require hospitals to offer compassionate care to rape victims.

Difficult and terrible dimensions surround the topic of abortion but, ethically speaking, allowing rape victims to avoid pregnancy is neither difficult nor terrible.

NOT allowing them to avoid such a pregnancy is both terrible and... well, insane.

Glenn's position boils down to helping the rapist finish the job.

Those opposed to this bill sometimes use slick logical fallacies to persuade people that "emergency contraception" is the same thing as an "abortion" but you can't terminate a pregnancy if you prevent it from happening in the first place.

Glenn's ideological commitments have once again overcome good sense and simple decency.

I suspect I'm not going to change his mind, so let's have a contest.

Please submit your suggestions for which circle of Dante's Inferno Glenn will have to suffer in the afterlife for this kind of behavior. I promise to post all results and then we'll vote.

I'll cast the first vote: I'm going with Hypocrites and the Fraudulent down in Malebolge [Circle 8].

In the meantime, Wisconsin's women are safe from Glenn's idea of family values.


And so it goes.

Pat Strachota, from whom I'm still waiting to hear, also voted against the Assembly version of this bill.

I note it in passing.

Mpeterson

4 comments:

clyde said...

4 of the 6 Wisconsin state senators who voted against the 27 other senators "represent" residents of Ozaukee, Washington, and waukesha counties.

Every single person living in Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties is "represented" by an Assembly person who voted AGAINST this legislation that is supported by over 80 percent of Wisconsin citizens.

Last, but not least, every single Republican leader of both the Wisconsin Senate and Assembly fought to defeat this legislation and voted against it, despite the clear majority of legislators of their own Party voting in favor of it, and despite it being voted for by two-thirds of all members of both houses of the legislature.

Draw your own conclusions, speak out, and take appropriate action.

ClydeWinter

Al said...

I agree that this bill should be passed, but can anyone point me to where it shortens prison sentences for rapists? Otherwise it has nothing to do with supporting rapists, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying so.

I don't think the rapist really gives a damn whether the second victim of his crime is born or not.

So yes, in the end, I do believe in PREVENTING pregnancy after rape, but not abortion after rape. If you want to kill someone, KILL THE RAPIST! I actually oppose the death penalty for both perpetrators and victims of rape. I oppose the death penalty entirely. But I wonder how many people who are pro-abortion would support the death penalty for rape cases. If they don't, they are hypocritical.

Mpeterson said...

Al's right, of course.

I'm sorry if the headline is a bit sensational... but I couldn't think of a more trenchant way to draw attention to the kind of fundamentalist ideologue who wants to make it difficult for women to prevent pregnancy after being raped.


As for an appropriate penalty, my favorite piece of graffiti ever was something painted on walls all over downtown Toronto back in the 80's during a string of unsolved rapes. It read:

DISARM RAPISTS!

But we're getting off the topic of which circle of Hell Glenn belongs in.

hiho
Mp

Anonymous said...

Rape is an awful crime, and pregnancy caused by rape is especially tragic. However, securing death of the most incident for a crime s/he had nothing to do with is "not the answer". Rape victims, despite the mental trauma, need immediate access to measures to prevent egg ferilization. But if her egg becomes fertilized, then she should be compelled to bring the child to term.