There continues to be some glitches in obvious anagram Reince Priebus’ epic rebranding of The Confederacy, er, GOP:
Several Republican congresswomen are reportedly splitting from their party on a national abortion bill that’s scheduled for a vote in the House next week, raising concerns that the legislation is too extreme and will alienate female voters.
Oh. And what is it about this bill that finally has GOP women alarmed?
As Politico reports, Ellmers is also concerned that the proposed abortion ban has a particularly narrow exception for rape victims. As the bill is currently written, in order to qualify for the exemption, women who became pregnant from rape must have reported their assault to law enforcement officials.
Ah, a permutation of Todd Akin’s Theory of Legitimate Rape (women’s body’s have a way of shutting down a rape-baby): to be a legitimate rape, the woman has to submit to gentle, probing intrusions from the legal system—starting with the local guys whom she might have gone to high school with—or otherwise it didn’t happen. Got it.
But here’s the paragraph that jumps out to me (emphasis mine) that I think gives away the duplicitous game:
However, the National Journal reports that a group of GOP women led by Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) have started pushing back against the legislation, expressing concerns during a closed-door meeting of House Republicans. Ellmers reportedly said she is worried that voting on the 20-week ban will alienate young female voters, urging her colleagues “to be smart about how we’re moving forward.”
So these Republican women are not worried about this being bad policy, they are worried about it being bad for recruiting. I mean, if you are being fine, upstanding Xristians, and you are taking a stand on a moral issue, then you should let the chips fall where they may. Also/too alienating people is the GOP core competency, and as long as the not-alienated (Y’all Qaeda in this case) comes to the polls, what does it matter? This bill is designed for them, not for (young) women.