Republicans Admit Intention To Sugarcoat Their Opposition To LGBT Equality

The Republican Party continues to struggle with its intentions moving forward in regards to LGBT equality. In its autopsy report of the 2012 elections — its “Growth & Opportunity Project” — the gay community was the one group that the Party was not actually interested in reaching out to. Instead, the plan was to convince young people to support conservative principles even if they support LGBT rights. Since then, GOP chairman Reince Priebus has attempted to model this by citing his own marriage as an example for building bridges and suggesting Mike Huckabee, a very vocal opponent of equality, be an ambassador on gay issues.

This week, both Priebus and potential presidential prospect Jeb Bush have both been a bit more candid about their intentions to simply sugarcoat their opposition to equality so it doesn’t sound so anti-gay. Bush told Newsmax that a different tone that expresses opposition to same-sex marriage “in a civil way” that is “not judgmental” would help keep conservatives united:

BUSH: I know for a fact that as it relates to gay marriage and other social issues there is growing divergence of opinion on this. When we talk about it, we ought to talk about it with a different tone — and we ought to talk about it recognizing that there is more than one point of view, and we should talk about it in a way that is not judgmental. If we can get to that point where people who have diverging points of view and express them in a civil way, the conservative coalition can stay intact.

Priebus, in turn, told USA Today that opposition to equality can be presented with “grace and respect”:

“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Priebus said in an interview Monday on USA TODAY’s Capital Download video series. “But it doesn’t mean that we divide and subtract people from our party” who support the right of gay men and lesbians to marry.

“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said, saying Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”

What the Republican Party cannot seem to accept is that no polishing of this message amounts to respect, grace, or civil discourse. Inequality is inequality, and no changes in tone can change that the GOP platform specifically calls for one group of people to be treated as second-class citizens.

View the original article here

Anti-Choice Activists Push To Ban Abortion For Rape Victims, But They Admit It’s A ‘Tough Sell’

The 2012 election season was largely dominated by Republican men making insensitive and medically inaccurate comments about rape — so much so that the GOP caucus actually received professional advice to stop talking about rape at a retreat last month. But the anti-choice community is pressuring Republicans to do exactly the opposite, even though they admit it’s not exactly the most popular message.

Personhood USA, the group that advocates for endowing zygotes with the full rights of U.S. citizens, recently launched a new “Save the 1? campaign with the goal of limiting abortion access for women who have become pregnant following a sexual assault. And at the recent March to Life event protesting the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion activists emphasized the issue that “even pro-lifers have a hard time embracing” — pregnancies that result from rape:

Standing before the throngs at the March for Life on Jan. 25, Ryan Bomberger admitted that he was the poster child for one of the most difficult aspects of the abortion debate: his mother had been raped.

“I’m the fringe case that even pro-lifers have a hard time embracing,” said Bomberger, an anti-abortion activist whose mother chose to continue the pregnancy and put him up for adoption. [...]

Bomberger, an evangelical Christian, said his inclusion at the January rally — and increased chatter on social media — are signs this issue is getting more attention. His Virginia-based Radiance Foundation aims to “shatter the myth of the unwanted” through campaigns that focus on adopted children, including those who were products of rape. [...]

“These are the tough sells in the public,” said [Susan Wills], assistant director for education and outreach at the [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop's] Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities. “It’s very easy for us to convince people that partial-birth abortion or other gruesome late-term procedures ought not to be happening, but when we talk about rape and incest, it’s not a sound-bite issue.”

Obviously, like Bomberger’s mother, not every woman who becomes pregnant from rape chooses to have an abortion. But some certainly do. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that women who become pregnant from rape or incest contribute to about 10,000 to 15,000 abortions each year. The group also reports that 22,000 pregnancies resulting from rape could be prevented each year if female survivors had better access to emergency contraception — another women’s health resource that abortion opponents often attempt to restrict.

And polling shows that, just as abortion opponents suspect, they haven’t had much success “convincing people” that abortion “ought not to be happening” in the cases of rape and incest. A full 75 percent of the Americans who describe themselves as anti-abortion still want rape survivors to have legal access to abortion services so they can make their own reproductive choices.

View the original article here