Atheist Candidate Has Perfect Response To Anti-Abortion Extremists

Openly atheist, blind Democratic congressional candidate James Woods (D-Ariz.) had a flawless response to the anti-abortion extremists at the National Pro-Life Alliance this week: If you really want to prevent abortions, support access to birth control.

After receiving a mailer from the NPLA asking him to endorse the “sanctity of life,” Woods sent back a letter telling them he couldn’t support “policies that jeopardize the health and stability of women and their families.” Instead, Woods said he supported policies proven to reduce abortion rates like promoting comprehensive sex education, expanding public family planning services, distributing universal birth control and helping low-income families. The real kicker is that he sent along a few condoms with “Prevent Abortion” labels and his name on them:

preventabort

abortletter

This is a great response to a terrible organization. The NPLA’s mission statement begins with “every human life is precious in the eyes of God,” and laments, “Ever since the dreadful Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 55 million precious unborn babies have lost their lives.” They back ultrasound “informed consent” laws (you know, the ones that require many women to undergo medically unnecessary vaginal penetration), the Sanctity of Life Act (which would define life as beginning at conception) and countless other aggressively evangelical attempts to regulate women’s bodies. Their latest 2014 newsletter is full of half-crazed accusations that Obamacare is “tyrannical” and “funds abortionists,” like abortions are some kind of lackadaisical welfare benefit for no-good lazy strumpets rather than medical procedure.

So kudos to Woods, who not only refused to engage them on their own screwed-up premises but also pointed out that crazy pro-life policies don’t do anywhere near as much to lower the abortion rate than ones that equip women with the resources and education to plan for children for a time that’s right. Or — and this is crazy — helps women who don’t want children at all to avoid going through a costly medical procedure. Studies have shown comprehensive sex education, for example, to result in a 50% lower teen pregnancy rate than abstinence-only. Extensive research by the Guttmacher Institute found that ease of access to birth control was responsible for falling abortion rates, while new abortion restrictions barely had any impact at all.

Woods’ opponent Matt Salmon won in 2012 with 67.19% of the vote in one of the most conservative districts in Arizona, so Woods has a lot of work ahead of him.

Image credit: James Woods For Congress

h/t: The Friendly Atheist

  • benbobjam
  • Leonard Henderson

    It’s not even about the rights of the child. No one has the right to use my body to support their own life without my consent. Period.

    • Hank

      Then you shouldn’t allow a life to be placed in your body. That’s the height of selfish inconsideration.

      • Leonard Henderson

        Shifting the argument. It’s not about that either. No one has the right to use my body to sustain their own life. Inconsiderate or not.

  • hangman

    All the fuel for Hell lies below me…..

  • hangman

    The extremest are those who want to kill and murder children.

  • FredC1968

    This guy is my hero!

  • Christopher Pelton

    I’ve solved the abortion protester problem. If you going in to have an abortion and there are protesters outside giving you shit, just tell them that through a series of scientific test you have been able to determine that your baby is going to grow up gay. It’s not like most of those people are going to know if such test exist, and if they still argue with you then you know there stance on homosexuality. It’s kind of like giving a robot a paradox. With any luck their heads will explode.

    • Kerry Reid

      Or you could do what one friend of mine used to do: tell them that you’re pregnant. With Satan’s baby. And everyone is telling you to abort but you REALLY want to keep it and you know they help women like her so could they please help? Pretty please?

      • Christopher Pelton

        Well played indeed.

  • Christopher Pelton

    So it seems like there are mostly intelligent free thinking people here so I will go ahead and drop some actual facts as provided to us by the good folks at the CDC and March of Dimes. In the year 2012 CDC received confirmed reports of 765,651 legal abortions in the United States. The March of Dimes reports that between 900,000 and 1,000,000 miscarriages are reported be hospitals every year. Sure am glad all human lives are precious in the eyes of some invisible man.

  • Heidi Hanson

    If conservatives were really about preventing abortion they would focus on punishing the MALES who have sex with women who don’t want to have a pregnancy. But they don’t make a peep about that. So just that fact in itself PROVES they really don’t care about preventing abortion. They only care about slut shaming and controlling and destroying the lives of women.

    • Hank

      No matter how you feel about the topic, that comment makes zero sense.

      • Heidi Hanson

        So you don’t think it takes two to make a baby? If it were the responsibility of men to make sure that they didn’t have sex with anyone who didn’t want a baby there would BE NO ABORTIONS. I would take it a step further. I would make every 14 year old male have a vasectomy and when they can present a wife and a suitable income along with a statement from the wife that she wants children then he could have it reversed. That would make SURE that there were no unwanted pregnancies. Why is the onus PUT SOLEY ON THE FEMALE, when in reality it is often at the male’s insistence that the sex occur.

        • Hank

          Why is the onus PUT SOLEY ON THE FEMALE

          Same reason they don’t have the pill for men. When it comes to sex, you can’t trust us!

          • Heidi Hanson

            Well if men are so shifty and immoral either they need to shut up about having ANY opinion on abortion or they need to suffer some kind of punishment when creating an unwanted pregnancy, say castration or at least imprisonment where they can no longer do damage in society. Is that not what they do to other people who have caused injury to others with thoughtless acts? At the very least be charged with negligence. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around. BTW the did formulate Birth control for men, It is an injection that lasts for years. http://www.healthline.com/health-news/male-birth-control-procedure-in-trials-012313

          • Hank

            False equivalency.

          • Heidi Hanson

            No it is not, it is EXACTLY the same. It takes two to tango.

  • Alan Thomas

    there is a word for those who teach their children abstinence only. Grandparent!

  • KenRob

    A man after my own heart. How dare he point out, so diplomatically, all the things the RW fanatics are against that actually work to help reduce abortions. How dare he? Doesn’t he know that the RW doesn’t actually care about fetuses anymore than they care about children who are born, they just hate & want to control women? How could he miss their point?

  • Ken

    Glory! :-)

  • Chrisbam

    You can’t quote Guttmacher which is basically an arm of Planned Parenthood. Not an independent organization.
    Birth control is available at low cost. Personal self control and self responsibility is free

    • Kerry Reid

      I agree! All women should have the self-control to not fuck misogynist anti-choice losers.

    • Heidi Hanson

      Most women who use birth control are married. Tell the MARRIED men to quit having sex. Then we wont have any abortions.

  • Donald Hobbs

    if this god guy was so great, why doesn’t he just stop the evil? If he cared about abortions, cant he just stop the abortion from happening? If he actually exists, and has great power, and does nothing to stop abortion, then he is evil too, except that abortions aren’t a bad thing. If life begins at conception, then our infant mortality rate would be skyrocketing. Many zygotes die before a woman even knows she’s pregnant. If you don’t know what a zygote is, you have no right to tell us abortions are evil.

    • http://www.findingmyvirginity.com/ Belle Vierge

      I misread that as “good guy,” and I was really confused that you expected a politician to do all that…

  • aynwrong

    I have said this before and I will say it again. Conservatives define freedom as their ability to control other peoples freedom.

  • A. Cawthorne

    If you really want to prevent abortions, support access to birth control.

    Well, duh.

    But it’s never been about protecting fetuses or anything. It’s always been about exercising control over other people.

    I’ve got a good friend who had said for years that the obvious solution to abortion is to avoid unwanted pregnancies. And if preventing abortions is REALLY what the right-to-life folks want, they be very in favor of getting info and contraception out to folks who need it.

    But preventing abortions has never been what it’s really about.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      It’s about putting all those whores (women who aren’t controlled by one or more men) on notice that one way or another Christian Dominionists will find a way to control and punish them for not submitting to being both servile and hated.

      We’re all Eve and it’s all our fault. Women are original sin.

      • Kerry Reid

        And then there are the ones with sick disgusting “virgin rape and sodomy” fantasies: http://www.salon.com/2006/03/08/bill_napoli/

        • A. Cawthorne

          From that link:

          state Sen. Bill Napoli (R) was asked if he could conceive of a scenario in which the exception might be invoked.

          Indeed he could. “A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged,” he said. “The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

          So what if all of those happened, but the victim was an atheist?
          Or if the sodomy fell short of being “as bad as you could possibly make it”? (As if having someone forcibly jam their dick up you ass could somehow get worse.)

          These people are sick.

          • Kerry Reid

            Well, you know, the virgins are “tighter” — and that means that they might think they’re being torn up by the dick of God. The little sluts! Yeah, I wonder how much Mr. Napoli thinks about “how bad he can make it” sodomizing a “religious” virgin when he’s wanking his pathetic half-incher to underage rape porn.

      • Karma_Hitman

        They are LITTLE junk boys who BLAMED females for all the troubles of little boys who think with their little junk head.

    • Tony

      Spot on, it is always about control.

  • xServer

    Nice that his last name is “Wood” – works well with the condoms.

  • Matthew J

    This is the thing about the “every life is precious …” argument.

    Society is replete with ways of allowing death:

    We send the young to war, sometimes without true justification, Iraq leaps to mind.

    We have the death penalty — (The part of that I find ironic is that those who don’t think the government should be involved in anything, like building bridges, or health care, think its perfectly alright for that same, untrustworthy government to decide who dies. Though, I can see and agree with reasons to support the death penalty, I think that the Innocence Project has shown that enough innocent people get wrongly convicted that we shouldn’t take the chance of killing an innocent person.)

    We have acceptable rates of death for medical procedures.

    We have acceptable rates of death for prescription drugs.

    We accept that smoking can kill.

    We accept that alcohol can kill.

    We could manufacture a totally safe car, but only the very rich could afford it. Therefore we accept that people die in car accidents. And companies fight tooth and nail when government adds on another safety feature.

    When constructing roads, civil engineers have equations taking into account grade, speed limit, etc., to calculate how many deaths are likely to occur on any given road (got this from a friend of my brother, who is a civil engineer.

    We accept that there are occupations where injury and death happen, yet companies often fight safety protocols.

    This is just some — but what we’re discussing are people who exist(ed), had families, joys and sorrows. Those lives seem to mean little to the “every life is precious” folks.

    The only way I’ll take the “every life is precious” crowd more seriously is when they show as much respect for the loss of actual, born humans that claim to have for the zygote. But, we must remember, anything touching on sex simply freaks them out.

    • Kerry Reid

      I usually present them with a hypothetical challenge: They are in a fertility clinic (protesting!) when a fire breaks out. There is a three-year-old child that they can save, or a freezer full of fertilized eggs. Which do they choose? Because in their logic, that freezer is far more valuable than the already-born kid.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        They’d have to see a picture of the kid to decide.

      • Matthew J

        Brilliant!

      • don

        Very good.

      • KenRob

        That fire probably was set by the RW protestors in the first place. If the 3 yr old is one of their children, it gets saved, if not, or if it’s a child of color, let it burn. Protect the zygotes. RW logic.

      • Glaisne

        If the 3 year old was a black, Latino or Asian kid they would definitely save the freezer of fertilized eggs.

        • Christopher Pelton

          And the eggs all turn out to be black,Latino, and Asian. And we laugh and laugh at the poor dumb bastards. :) The pro-lifers not the children. Laughing at children is just mean. :)

    • Wit

      Also it seems that for many in the “every life is precious” crowd they don’t mention (at least in the same breath) their other core belief of “unless you’re gay”.

  • Ashes Defacto

    The truly staggering part is that the true colors of those who go by the label of “Pro-Life” tend to come out in unexpected and very ugly ways. It’s not actually about abortion or contraception. It’s about them wanting control over the most intimate aspects of other peoples lives. (Their tune changes rapidly when it happens to them.) They love to use moral language and paint their action in some sort of religiosity. Yet to follow their logic to it’s conclusion reveals a very different agenda. They’d like to go back to how things were for my Grandmother, 6 kids by the time she was in her mid twenties, a alcoholic husband who she couldn’t afford to leave and system of punitive laws against her even if she did.

    The most galling part is that you frequently run across the truth in all of this any time the Unerwunschen class of the moment get mentioned; drug addicts, immigrants, minorities, whatever or whoever all of societies problems are being blamed on this week on any online forum. There they are advocating laws that could have been written by a Eugenicist a century ago, provided said laws are aimed squarely at people they do not like.

    So I applaud this Congressional candidate for doing what he did. It’s something we need to see more of at all levels of Government.

    • Kerry Reid

      The other part of it is the “abortion is murder!” rhetoric, which feeds a mindset wherein it’s acceptable to kill doctors and bomb clinics. Because hey, they’re “murderers.” I really like the approach in this video (which you may have already seen, I don’t know), where protestors at a clinic are asked directly what penalties they think should be assessed against women who have abortions. If they truly are murderers, shouldn’t they be jailed? It’s premeditated, even!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

      The fact is, their hesitancy to go that route tells me that, though they may be deeply bothered by the idea of abortion and use the “murder” line for political gain, a not-unsizeable number of the anti-choicers themselves make distinctions between terminating a pregnancy and killing an already-born child.

      I would also like to see the strategy used that some ministers are now using in the battle for marriage equality: not ALL religions view abortion as a sin at all stages, just as not all religions view homosexuality and same-sex marriage as sins. Though of course in a secular nation it’s ridiculous that ANY appeal to “biblical” principles is held as legitimate in legislating, at least we should start making the “establishment clause” argument that laws prohibiting birth control, abortion, and same-sex marriage favor certain religions over others and are hence unconstitutional.

  • Glaisne

    What prevents abortion?
    Comprehensive sex education, expanding public family planning services,
    distributing universal birth control and helping low-income families, and jobs.

    What doesn’t prevent abortion?
    Being a terrorist in front of clinics, making abortion illegal, making contraception illegal, no sex education. Conservative polices create the thing they say they hate.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Texas has effectively shut down most clinics that were serving poor women.

    • Kerry Reid

      Funny thing is, as a former hotline and volunteer coordinator for Planned Parenthood, I can tell you that abstinence is always the starting point in all health and sexuality discussions. It makes a lot of sense for both boys and girls to avoid sex when they are still maturing emotionally and physically. But what the fundies don’t like to admit is that abstinence education works best when it comes from the point of view of empowering women to take charge of their bodies and not being afraid to say “no” to a guy — placing their own needs and dreams and aspirations first. Which is different from the fundie abstinence stance that it is the sole responsibility of girls to stay “pure” until they “surrender” their chastity in marriage to their Lord and Master Husband.

      • Karen Hall

        THIS is my version of that. I have taught my 16yo dtr every aspect of sexuality, including her right to say hey I am not done growing up and I am not ready for anything to invade my body. Abstinence is not about holiness and saving thyself for marriage and it does not work. It is about this is my body and I own it and that is what is works. My prayer everyday is she will graduate and go to college with no kids something no one in my family has done.

        • Conrad Lingus

          “Abstinence is not about holiness and saving thyself for marriage and it does not work”

          So the old tall tails are true? A woman can still get pregnant even if she chooses to abstain? There actually IS such a phenomenon as immaculate conception?!

          Praise Jaay-zuss!

          • That River Gal

            Are you being deliberately obtuse? The concept of not having sex is unrealistic.

          • Kerry Reid

            Well — maybe not in his case.

          • Jason Motley

            While I dont agree with not having sex until your married, It is perfectly doable. I personally work with a guy who is in his mid 20s and he has chosen not to have sex. Not for some pious religion reason but because he wants the first time to be with his wife. If this is what a person wants to do then go for it. Its not for me but hey go right ahead

          • Christopher Pelton

            While your attempt at sarcasm is humorous, do me a favor, the next time you use the term “immaculate conception” please know that it has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. The concept of “immaculate conception” has to do with Mary being born without original sin. That is if you believe in fairy tales.

    • http://avclub.com/ Mike Vago

      Sorry, but conservative policies create the thing they love: votes. Pretty sure the people in real power don’t give a damn who has an abortion or doesn’t, they just want the fundamentalists lining up at the polls. When Bush was in power, the right controlled the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the media. Did they make any attempt to outlaw abortion? None whatsoever. It’s not about banning abortion for them, it’s about scaring idiots into voting for more tax cuts for the rich.

      • Glaisne

        I think you bring up a valid point. The corporatists and 1 percenters don’t really for the most part don’t give a damn who has an abortion or doesn’t as you say. Also as you say these are the people in real power. These people are using the theocrats as “useful idiots” to gain their votes for more tax cuts for the rich as well as more free trade and other corporate friendly economic policies. The theocrats however absolutely give a damn who has an abortion and who has sex with whom and how and when. These “useful idiots” may turn out to be a Frankenstein of the corporate right as they become more powerful and harder to control. Many underestimate their power and influence and their will. We do so at our peril. Interesting times.

  • Glaisne

    “every human life is precious in the eyes of God,”
    except refugee kids trying to escape murder in Honduras
    except poor kids on food stamps
    except black teenagers on city streets
    except poor kids on medicaid
    except kids who are collateral damage from drone missles
    etc,

    Right tea baggers?

    • Kerry Reid

      Except every kid that is no longer a fetus.

    • Hank

      No. Not right at all.

    • uconnchaz

      wrong libtard

      • Karma_Hitman

        ummm..God is the biggest abortion provider ever… so there is that. oh by the way, your bible makes great toilet paper, the pages are very soft.

        • uconnchaz

          I’ll pray for you.

          • Bill

            Oh, goody, a godtard! I LOVE you guys, you’re so wacky and… well, frankly, insane.

          • hangman

            Why are people like you are filled with so much hatred and scorn. I feel sorry for you.

          • Bill

            What do you know of “people like (me)” to presume what I’m filled with?

            Hatred, no, scorn, yes, it was mirroring the OP’s. Certainly not “filled with” it, at any rate. You know nothing outside of an irritated comment and ascribe your limited perspective to me, instead (and in the process, I’d bet, mentally categorized me into at least one group you have strong negative feelings about).

            I should feel sorry for you, but, am pretty sure it’s not only self-inflicted, you’d see it as your duty to spread it.

          • hangman

            Loser….

          • Bill

            There you go projecting your inadequacies again.

          • jona100

            I’d rather you do something more useful than talking to yourself.

          • Ivan Stavros

            I’ll talk to my cat for you. We’ll both get the same result.

          • Christopher Pelton

            Hey my cat at least comes when he’s called. :)

          • Leonard Henderson

            At least your cat can be shown to exist

          • Kari Sommers

            I liked this so much I made a meme.

          • Sage

            while you are on your knees, open your mouth I have something for you to swallow. You can call it holy water.

          • Leonard Henderson

            Cool, and we’ll think for you

      • kiden

        well, then it’s a good thing that the bible doesn’t say that abortion is wrong, isn’t it? in fact, the closest it says is that a man who assaults a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage is levied a fine.

        • Mystia

          lets not forget all his commands to kill women touched by men, SO only keep the virgins alive I guess this means he commands the death of all pregnant women

      • J. Fischer

        Then God is responsible for miscarriages and fertilized eggs not implanting. By the law, then, God must be arrested, charged, and convicted of murder.

        Or do you want to claim that contraceptives and abortion infringe on God’s territory? A God who can be stymied by contraceptives and vaccines isn’t omnipotent, and nothing to fear.

      • Glaisne

        wrong conservatard, it’s about conservative hypocrisy, who claim to be “pro life” but are only concerned about the fetuses and embryos. But once they are born conservatives no longer have much concern for their lives or their families. Once born conservatives could care less whether the babies live or die.

        Conservatives and their policies and values are pro-death.

      • Bill

        So, without your belief in God, you wouldn’t care about life?

      • Koltiras Rip

        You can’t kill something that isn’t alive. An early fetus, up to about 6 months gestation, is not independant from the mother, and even the oldest Christian and Jewish literature on the matter consider the fetus to be part of the woman’s “thigh” (which is Bible-talk for lady-parts) until the moment the infant draws its first breath.

        You have no horse in this race.

        • Elizabeth Mynatt

          My children were both born well before the 6 month mark and both are alive and healthy 5 and 11 years later!! You CAN NOT say anything prior to 6 months is not alive!!

          • Ivan Stavros

            Ah, but if you know your bible (which most christains DON’T) it says that your life begins with your first breath. If a zygote can’t breathe, it isn’t “alive”.

          • Sage

            and Just because you are an uncontrolled breeding hole does not change the fact, that abortion rids the female body of an unwanted growth.

          • Heidi Hanson

            And without modern medicine they probably would not have survived. So if you had left it up to God, they wouldn’t have lived,

          • Elizabeth Mynatt

            My daughter was monitored in the NICU because she wouldn’t leave her breathing tube in so no modern medicine did not save her, her will to survive did!

          • Heidi Hanson

            How would she have done without a NICU? Or a Hospital or all that was required of the doctors for her birth.

          • Christopher Pelton

            Hey my son was born at 24 weeks, but you know what saved him? Science.

      • Tony

        Your god killed millions of babies and pregnant women in the great flood. You are a cruel and unforgiving follower of a cruel and unforgiving god, who is drunk with blood.

      • Tiberius Raikage

        Wrong retard, abortion is not murder, cells are not conciously aware or alive. A religious retard giving his view on anything is a view to be ignored. Life is much further along, conception is not.

      • Kerry Reid

        Not all religions agree that abortion is wrong or that life begins at conception. But I’m sure a scholarly theological type such as yourself already knows that. Also, Catholics generally capitalize “Mass.” Unless they are discussing physics.

    • uconnchaz

      Think again and again if need be. Everything you said except the first line is Politics. It is the democrats that are keeping people in the place they have been for a long time. What has gotten better for urban youth after the almighty Obama as elected? Absolutely NOTHING. I am as poor as anyone else.
      Charles Barkley who I rarely agree with and is loud and opinionated said something to think about. “Blacks having been voting democratic for 50 years and are still poor.”

      • Quandle

        You do realise that even though the Democrats are in power, the fact that it has to be agreed on by Republicans is what stops things being changed, right?
        Same when Republicans are in power. The fact they have to get changes past Democrats stops changes being made.
        Now, if you could just manage to all vote for the Senate and House of Reps to have the same party in power at the sane time, and keep them there for 10yrs, then you just might see change.

      • Bill

        Actually, one thing is MUCH better for the Working Class, so many of whom (I have friends who used super glue as the ER before “Obamacare”)… Now, if the partisan nuts would actually allow anything to pass without it being forced past them (like the multiple bills, take the “Jobs for Vets Bill” for example), there might be more.

        Then, too, there’s the warmongering. Both of his Presidential opponents have stated outright that he was showing weakness and they’d have “boots on the ground” – then, later, it turned out (what, SIX times so far?) that his methods actually WORKED, without war. So, how would we be better with Pres. Perry or Romney, uconnchaz?

        • Hank

          “Now, if the partisan nuts…”

          Like Harry Reid?

          “there are 352 House bills “sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action,”

          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/06/lynn-jenkins/rep-lynn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/

          • Bill

            Way to pick a nit that’s not there… and avoid the whole and the direct questions therein.

            There are always hundreds, most deferred to committees (which cannot operate as fast as bills can be produced). How many is he blocking? On the other hand, how many get through all of that only to be filibustered?

            You should read the article you provided, as well, it gives a little more insight to just the claims themselves… also have to bear in mind, though, that the above wasn’t relevant to debunking the original quote, so wasn’t included in the fact check.

            That said, both sides can improve, especially on working together for the Greater Good, but one has been adamantly, absolutely, fanatically (to and past the point of shutting down the government) opposing anything the President tries. They’ve gone so far as to block/vote against their own bills to prevent anything good from happening during their sworn enemy’s term.

            Read, it’s good for you and the world.

      • Glaisne

        I noticed you changed the subject. I thought we were discussing abortion and the hypocrisy of so called “pro-lifers” who are not really “pro-life” based on the policies they support.

        Folks, this is what conservatives do when they lose a debate, they switch topics. For conservatives the main point is “winning” not having an honest debate. So when the debate isn’t going your way you switch topics in an effort to gain a “win”.

        Since you concede my point about the hypocrisy of so called “pro-lifers”, uconnchaz I will now address the new topic about how democrats “are keeping people in the place they have been for a long time”.

        The fact is that the overwhelming majority of democratic politicians at all levels are conservative (not bat shit insane conservative but nonetheless conservative), especially on economic issues. For the last 45 plus years we’ve been following mostly conservative economic policies promoted and implemented by both republicans and democrats. These policies include free trade, tax cuts, privatization, outsourcing, deregulation, austerity, war, off shore tax havens, and more. These are the policies, the whole Reagonomics trickle down economics of both republicans and democrats that are “keeping people in the place they have been for a long time.”

    • Koltiras Rip

      Any child between the ages of 9 months (assuming life begins at conception) to 18 years of age is completely worthless and deserving of nothing but scorn and humiliation, be it through the degredation of their mothers or through outing the kids themselves in their school cafeteria when their lunch card is at zero.

      “Pro-Life” supporters are absolute scum.

    • DarkHorseSki

      I’m a pro choice Tea Party supporter. Most of the Tea Party folks I know are very Libertarian in their viewpoint and while they may hold personal opinions they do not wish for the government to legislate such moral controls.
      Yes, there is a very vocal minority of the Tea Party that gets most of the media attention, but those that wish to legislate social conservatism are still a minority in the whole movement.

    • D. Kiiskila

      I would have agreed with your sarcasm if you hadn’t ended that statement with “tea baggers”, whereupon you lost all credibility and now makes me support abortion.

      • Glaisne

        My sarcasm was to point out the hypocrisy of “pro-lifers” who claim “every human life is precious in the eyes of God,” yet scream in protest and block buses carrying refugee kids trying to escape murder in Honduras, who scream against programs like food stamps that help feed poor kids, who scream against prosecuting cops who kill poor black teenagers on city streets, who scream against spending on health care to help poor kids on medicaid, and who scream for ever more warfare that results in even more kids who are killed and injured as collateral damage.

        And yes, most of the loudest screamers are tea baggers.

        And it’s not about “supporting abortion” but about support for policies and resources that actually reduce abortion. Including among other things promoting peace and improving the lives of kids and their parents.

  • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

    OMG, reasoning and common sense. The horror!

    • ssj

      Incredibly unreasonable, isn’t it?

  • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

    You know this has been said many times in pro-choice camps. Right?

    • D_C_Wilson

      Of course, but give him points for eloquence.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        I’m not denying him credit, I just think that this is not a new idea and I’d wager that this has been said eloquently before, possibly on many occasions. I think we need men to speak up for choice and reproductive choice— which he did— he’s just speaking up for it after nearly fifty years of women’s advocates doing the same.

        • Seráh Blain

          It’s not a new idea–just clever branding of a very old, very good idea. I imagine if he’d been around 50 years ago, Woods would have advocated for reproductive justice then, too. But certainly our campaign messaging has been inspired by our personal relationships with organizations like NARAL, NOW and Secular Woman–and it’s not lost on us that without people like Margaret Sanger, it wouldn’t even be legal for us to send condoms in the mail! – S. Blain, Director of Communications, Woods for Congress

        • JozefAL

          I’m sorry, FG, but I think I’m missing your point.

          Are you suggesting that these arguments he’s making should NOT continue being made by contemporary people simply because others have been saying them–with varying degrees of success (and much less over the last decade)?

          The man is running for Congress and he got a typical mailer from an anti-choice group, so he responded with the facts that we’ve all known about for all these decades. Would you suggest that we stop teaching kids early American history simply because it’s “not a new idea and. . . has been said eloquently before, possibly on many occasions?”

  • That River Gal

    This guy is simply awesome!

  • don

    Good statement. However, ff you want to be politically effective drop the K-12 line. Nothing is more useless of a statement and more hot as a political target than the image of an 8 year old being taught sex in a public school. I know I know but its true.

    • i_a_c

      We had our first sex ed in 4th grade. In Nebraska. So–8 and 9 year olds.

      Despite being a deep red state, Nebraskans are not nearly as loony about sex ed and birth control as some other locales. Not sure about Arizona.

      • Matthew J

        As did I, 4 – 6 grades. In Tucson — Arizona (actually, born in Nebraska, grew up in Arizona, surrounded by red).

        But that was a long time ago, I haven’t lived there in a while so I can’t say exactly what goes on now.

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          All I learned about sex ed in the sixth grade was that the start of menstruation was a very animated flowery experience— not at all like the monster cramps and blinding migraine I had.

          • Matthew J

            We were told about menstruation in 6, but the boys were segregated out of the film presentations that the girls got.

            The best, or at least most memorable, piece of Sex-Ed I ever witnessed was in high school. Many of the Sex-Ed classes were taught by P.E. teachers and not Science instructors. Anyway, this one guy, a very nice, very Christian man, who was obviously uncomfortable with the subject, but to his credit, tried to do his job — back to the point — one day we were going over female anatomy and he stands up in front of class with his arms stretched wide and asks, “Ok, what am I?”

            He was the womb and fallopian tubes.

          • xServer

            Yes, why do they always assign high school sex ed classes to gym teachers? Most of those guys (and it was mostly guys) were so embarrassed – I thought our instructor was going to have a heart attack, his face was so red the whole time!

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            Yeah, my sex-ed class in high school was taught by the golf coach who also taught my geometry class in which his answer to every question anyone in the class ever asked was, “It’s intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.”

          • Kerry Reid

            One of my community-ed pals at Planned Parenthood always said her favorite thing to do was the program on “changing bodies” — i.e., puberty. She would usually have a little box on the table that kids could drop anonymous questions into at the break. Her favorite wasn’t actually a question — it was a statement that simply read “I had a wet dream once. And I wasn’t thinking about nuthin.”

          • JozefAL

            Sounds a bit like the sex ed scene in the film “Maurice.” The young (and fatherless) Maurice is being taught the “mysteries” of puberty and anatomy on the beach by an older man (IMS, the family minister or such) which includes a diagram of the female reproductive system drawn in the sand. After they’ve finished the lesson, they begin walking away and the older man realizes he forgot to wipe the sand and a woman screams, having come across the “pornographic” drawing.

          • Matthew J

            Now I’m going to have to see the movie.

    • Ashes Defacto

      The idea is not waiting until after they become sexually active before anything gets said. But it doesn’t surprise me in the least to have you pushing right wing bullshit over whether or not someone feels comfortable when the alternative is to have their kids become a public health risk.

      • Kerry Reid

        Look, Don said it’s true, so that settles it!

        • don

          You damn right Kerry! You tell `m! :)

          • Kerry Reid

            “Facts? He don’t need no stinkin’ facts!”

          • don

            Careful Kerry, you are dangerously close to “speaking code” with a racial stereotype embedded assuming your uteral privilidge will protect you. :)

          • Kerry Reid

            You assume I still have a uterus.

          • don

            Perhaps we have assumed a lot about each other that itsn’t true.

      • YourMom

        I don’t think don was pushing right wing bullshit as much as expressing firsthand knowledge of living in a community where the right wing goes ballistic over anything even remotely connected to sex. I’ve lived in those communities. I believe they truly want any teen having sex to get pregnant for the pleasure they’ll get out of publicly shaming the girl with the baby bump. And I can never, ever understand those who are loudly and militantly opposed to abortion and just as militantly opposed to WIC and other programs helping poor children.

      • Kerry Reid

        It’s also not “teaching them sex.” It’s teaching them about healthy ideas regarding their bodies — whether about protecting themselves from those who would touch them inappropriately or getting ready for the physical changes of puberty. And given that a lot of girls now hit puberty at 10 or sooner, 8 really isn’t unreasonable.

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          I think kick and scream is great advice that should be drilled to the degree that children do it automatically in the face of a threat, even when taken off guard and/or scared. Having the fundamental belief that no one has the right to violate certain boundaries is healthy mentally and likely physically, as well. As a much as children’s bodies change, they’re really always going to relate to their body, and I surmise that by learning that their body belongs to them while young prevents a lot of other problems with body image and such.

          Our feelings are embodied.

    • JozefAL

      So, don, when do you think it’s a good idea to teach kids that it’s not a good thing to smoke or drink alcohol? Wait until they’re old enough to start experimenting?

      What about teaching against drug use? Most kids don’t actually start even “gateway” drugs until they hit puberty, yet every year, we see D.A.R.E. programs going into schools, talking to kids as young as 6 and 7 about the “evils” of drug use.

      • don

        Actually I was just commenting on political strategy. Personally I think that teachers have enough on their plate than to also deal with sex or drugs at 8. I don’t think any knowledge is taboo at pretty much any age but why make 3rd grade controversial?

  • Kerry Reid

    And cue fundie talking point that Woods is blind because of God’s wrath in 3, 2, 1…

    • xServer

      That was exactly my first thought as well.

    • Lindsey Leigh Phillips

      Or masturbation.

  • formerlywhatithink

    Adding the condoms was genius.

  • Ansel Akula

    Go get ‘em, Daredevil!