Paul Ryan: Bad news for women’s rights

To most women, Paul Ryan’s ideas are pretty much the political equivalent of menstruating forever. But it seems like some new analysis of legislation he wrote really takes the cake: if Paul Ryan had his way, theoretically, a rapist would be able to sue his victim in order to prevent her from having an abortion. Hey girl, no means baby.

In this post on Jezebel, Erin Gloria Ryan points out that Paul Ryan wants to allow states to decide on the legality of abortion and wants to legislate the idea that human life begins with fertilization. Doesn’t one cancel the other out? Check out his ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act’–HR 212–and then ask yourself (as I did) why someone who supposedly holds life as sacred and untouchable would sign off on multiple wars, vote no to bring troops home, consistently vote against environmental protections, and have a clear anti-public health voting record.

And all of the above says little about the fact that Ryan’s plan for the country would end Medicare (“as we know it”) and privatize the nation’s earned benefit program, Social Security; both programs known to be sustaining and enhancing the lives of millions of our aging population.

Every time a rightwing pundit praises Ryan’s smarts, he proves that pseudo-intellectualism is an effective political tool. Paul Ryan: bad for women’s rights, bad for human life.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page