as some articles and this tweet point out:

Another disturbing facet of the #legitimaterape argument is the implied converse; if you DO get pregnant, you must've actually wanted it.

Virginia VS Vaginas


http://vimeo.com/47825539

Chris Matthews is doing a piece on Akin right now on MSNBC.

Huckabee (note the inclusion of the word "forcible")
 

The former Arkansas governor and onetime GOP presidential contender suggested a couple of cases in which he suggested that rapes, though “horrible tragedies,” had produced admirable human beings.

“Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape,” Huckabee said of the late American gospel singer. One-time presidential candidate Huckabee added: “I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970s, he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape. And so I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people are able to do extraordinary things.”

Huckabee to Akin: 'Horrible' rapes created some extraordinary people

A Must See--Rachel Maddow--montage/commentary of various GOP members and their thoughts on rape over the years
 

Please watch and share!

Appeals court rules Texas can cut off Planned Parenthood funding
 

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Texas can cut off funding to affiliates of Planned Parenthood for a state women's health program because the network of clinics provides abortions.

The decision is a blow to Planned Parenthood, which is the nation's largest abortion provider and has been under attack from conservatives across the country. Some conservatives oppose any state government money going to support abortions.

Planned Parenthood denies the money to some of its affiliated clinics supports abortions and said it was for cancer screenings, birth control, and well-woman examinations, which focus on health histories and reproductive healthcare.

Texas is the most populous of a number of states with Republican majorities that have mounted a campaign to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. A group of Planned Parenthood clinics earlier this year filed a federal lawsuit to stop Texas from cutting off the funding.

The ruling on Tuesday reversed a lower court decision that had temporarily allowed Planned Parenthood to continue receiving funding from the Texas program.

After the appeals court decision was announced, Texas said it would immediately stop providing money to Planned Parenthood under the Women's Health Program, which provides services to poor women.

"We appreciate the court's ruling and will move to enforce state law banning abortion providers and affiliates from the Women's Health Program as quickly as possible," Texas Health and Human Services Commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said.

Planned Parenthood said that the decision puts the health of some 52,000 Texas women in jeopardy. The state program covers more than 100,000 women and Planned Parenthood has said the eight clinics suing Texas stand to lose $13 million a year.

"We are evaluating every possible option to protect women's health in Texas," Planned Parenthood Action Fund president Cecile Richards said in a statement.

The dispute erupted after Texas said that it would enforce a law that had been on the books for several years barring funding for abortion providers and affiliates.

The battle has also pitted Republican-dominated Texas state government against the administration of Democratic President Barack Obama because 90 percent of the funding for the Texas health program comes from the federal government.

The Obama administration has said it will not renew federal funding for the Texas program because the state was violating federal law by restricting the freedom to choose health providers.

But Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, said in a statement on Tuesday that the state would continue to run the program despite the federal government decision not to renew funding Texas.

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-...50.html?_esi=1

Ryan Refuses to Explain “Forcible” Rape as Dems Attempt More Akin-izing of the GOP Ticket
 

The comments of Todd Akin are bringing scrutiny, goosed by Democrats and the Obama campaign, to the views on social issues of the GOP ticket.

Yesterday we saw the Obama campaign blast out an email from women’s health care activist Sandra Fluke referring to “Akin, Romney and Ryan”; over a Paul Ryan rally in Pennsylvania yesterday, Moveon.org flew a banner referring to “Romney, Ryan and Akin” being bad for women; and when the Republican party reaffirmed its anti-abortion plank yesterday, making no menion of exceptions for cases of rape or incest, the Obama campaign repeatedly referred to it as the “Akin Amendment.”

This morning brings the latest example — attention to that “forcible rape” language in legislation co-sponsored by Akin, Ryan (and 225 other members of the House). The legislation, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” restricted the exceptions to “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest” for federally-funded abortions. That language was changed.

In an interview to air this morning in Pittsburgh on KDKA,Ryan refused to even engage in a discussion of what “forcible” rape — as opposed to other kinds, such as statutory rape — meant.

Ryan said that Akin’s “statements were outrageous, over the pail. I don’t know anybody who would agree with that. Rape is rape period, end of story.”

KDKA Political Editor Jon Delano asked: “Should abortions to be available to women who are raped?”

Ryan opposes abortions in all cases except for when the life of the mother is at stake, which is different from Mitt Romney’s position — Romney would also carve out exceptions for rape and incest.

“I’m proud of my pro-life record,” Ryan said. “And I stand by my pro-life record in Congress. It’s something I’m proud of. But Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president and he will set the policy of the Romney administration.”

“You sponsored legislation that has the language ‘forcible rape,’” Delano noted. “What is forcible rape as opposed…”

“Rape is rape,” Ryan interrupted. “Rape is rape, period. End of story.”

“So that forcible rape language meant nothing to you at the time?” Delano asked.

“Rape is rape and there’s no splitting hairs over rape,” Ryan said.

Ryan scoffed at Obama campaign suggestions that he and Romney would restrict access to birth control. “Nobody is proposing to deny birth control to anybody,” he aid, arguing that voters are not “going to take the bait of all these distractions that the President is trying to throw at them.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...e-gop-ticket/#

Paul Ryan Softens Anti-Abortion Stance as 'Good Step in the Right Direction'
 

Kind of amusing to see Paul Ryans, moment by moment, political development as his record, his words, and his behavior comes back to bite him in the butt. Notice how many times he mentions how "proud he is of his pro-life agenda". Im not even gonna mention pro-life might be a euphemism for anti-woman.

----------------
In Flight Between Roanoke, Va., and Raleigh, N.C. - Although Paul Ryan has taken the position that all abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, should be outlawed, the Wisconsin congressman supports Mitt Romney's softer position now that he shares the GOP presidential ticket because it's a "good step in the right direction," he said today.

Romney believes abortion should be legal in cases of abortion or incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. Ryan's previous position only extended exceptions to protecting the mother's life.

"Look, I'm proud of my record," Ryan said at a brief news conference on his plane. "I'm proud of my record. Mitt Romney is going to be president and the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction."

He wouldn't say he regretted abortion legislation he co-sponsored with Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, explaining that he is "proud of my pro-life record I have."

"That bill passed, I think, by 251 votes," Ryan said. "It was bipartisan. I think HR-3 is the one you are talking about. I think we had 251 votes, 16 Democrats, I am proud of my pro-life record I have."

The legislation was co-sponsored by Akin and Ryan and also 225 other members of the House. The measure would have ensured no federal funds even indirectly supported abortions performed nationwide.

An earlier version of the measure had sought to redefine rape for purposes of exemption of the funding ban under the Hyde Amendment, drawing sharp criticism from women's rights groups and Democrats. The language would have allowed for subsidized abortions only in cases of "forcible rape," and limited exempt cases of incest to only those involving minors, although that provision was dropped from the bill.

Meanwhile, Ryan called Akin earlier in the week to try to persuade him to get out of the Missouri Senate race after his controversial comments about rape and abortions. Ryan said he wanted to keep their conversation "between us."

"But I agree with Roy and Jack Danforth [the former U.S. senator] and the rest of the people from the Missouri delegation, current and former, that he should have dropped out of the race," Ryan said. "But he is not, he is going to run his campaign and we are going to run ours."

He said he has "no plans" to talk to Akin again.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith today said that as a "Republican leader in the House, Paul Ryan worked with Todd Akin to try to narrow the definition of rape and outlaw abortion even for rape victims. He may hope that American women never learn about this record, but they deserve an answer to why he wanted to redefine rape and remove protections for rape victims."

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-soft...-politics.html

NYT Todd Akin article....
 

more poignant insights from the land of .....huh?
 

"In asserting that women have the superpower to repel rape sperm, Akin ratcheted up the old chauvinist argument that gals who wear miniskirts and high-heels are “asking” for rape; now women who don’t have the presence of mind to conjure up a tubal spasm, a drone hormone, a magic spermicidal secretion or mere willpower to block conception during rape are “asking” for a baby."

Wham, Bam, Sonogram! Meet the Ladies Setting the New Pro-Life Agenda
 

It is the delineation of the strategy being used that is so amazing and scary about this article.

-----------------------------------
From transvaginal ultrasounds to attacks on Planned Parenthood, Americans United for Life is targeting reproductive rights one state at a time.

AUL's mission is to end all abortions in the United States. Founded in 1971 by a Unitarian minister from Harvard Divinity School, AUL first focused on reversing Roe v. Wade flat out, but in the 1990s it turned its attention to rolling back reproductive rights incrementally at the state level.

Lately, it's been chipping away at abortion access at an ever-faster pace. Its team of lawyers has written dozens of model bills, which are collected in a playbook, Defending Life, and delivered to every state and federal legislator.

All told, 92 anti-abortion restrictions were passed throughout the country last year, an all-time record; AUL can claim credit for 24 new laws. So far in 2012, 17* laws promoted by AUL or based on its model legislation have been passed. Invasive vaginal ultrasounds in Virginia? That was AUL's bill. Trying to shut down all the abortion clinics in Kansas? That was AUL, too.

"Our model legislation enables legislators to easily introduce bills without needing to research and write the bills themselves," AUL's website boasts. The organization's foes see it as the pro-life equivalent of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the corporate legislation mill. "It's troubling when you see the same bill language introduced in 27 states that you know came out of an anti-abortion think tank in Washington instead of coming from the concerns of the sponsor or that particular state," says Jordan Goldberg, a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is trying to block AUL-backed laws in Arizona, Kansas, and Texas

Yoest says her focus is on a "post-Roe nation" in which states will again be the sole arbiters of when, where, and whether women can get abortions. "The real question is what do the states do," she says. "And so in a sense, we're leapfrogging over [Roe]." She believes AUL's growing body of state laws will set precedents with the potential to eventually change federal abortion law. As she explained to National Catholic Register, "We don't make frontal attacks. Never attack where the enemy is strongest."

The Supreme Court opened a critical avenue in its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, which upheld Roe while giving states greater leeway to regulate abortions. Echoing AUL's women-centered approach, the group's bills often cite the court's finding that the government "has legitimate interests from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman." Its Women's Ultrasound Right to Know Act clearly aims to prevent women from terminating pregnancies. But its framing—that a woman deserves to know what's inside her body and must give her "informed consent"—centers on the mother rather than the fetus. A controversial version of this prefab legislation was introduced in Virginia this spring. Only after abortion rights supporters pointed out that it could effectively require doctors to stick a wand in pregnant women's vaginas did its Republican sponsors amend it to require abdominal ultrasounds.

Then there's AUL's bill for banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy—often performed when tests that can only be done at this stage reveal severe birth defects. Though bans on late-term abortions are often pitched on the medically dubious premise that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, AUL's model bill, the Women's Health Defense Act, emphasizes the potential harm to women, citing the health risks as well as potential "emotional complications" such as depression and anxiety. Arizona passed a version of the bill earlier this year; AUL consulted on a similar law passed in Georgia.

Another AUL bill, the Women's Health Protection Act, places tight restrictions on the physical offices in which abortions are performed, asserting that abortions are "distinct from other routine medical services" due to their potential health and psychological effects. The version of the law that passed in Kansas in April 2011 was so onerous (it even mandated specific room temperatures at clinics) that it threatened to shut down every abortion provider in the state. (A court has blocked it.)

When I ask Yoest about her favorite model bills, she promptly mentions telemed abortions. In 2010, AUL first proposed banning such abortions, wherein a physician prescribes the drug RU-486 via a video connection. Since then, eight states have passed laws prohibiting doctors from remotely administering RU-486; never mind that there were no clinics actually doing this in those states at the time (PDF). "This is Planned Parenthood's new business model, because they're having such a hard time finding doctors to do abortion, for all kinds of good reasons," Yoest says.

Indeed, AUL's greatest success may be its push to take down America's largest abortion provider. In July 2011, AUL released "The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood," a 174-page report detailing dozens of alleged abuses, ranging from poor patient care to the misuse of federal funds. Two months later, the House Energy and Commerce Committee started looking into Planned Parenthood's "compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion." A spokesman for Rep. Cliff Stearns, the Florida Republican heading the investigation, confirmed that the AUL report was a contributing factor in the decision to launch the probe. (AUL's legislative arm gives Stearns a 100 percent pro-life vote rating.) Stearns' investigation, in turn, inspired Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut funding for breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics.

Komen reversed its decision amid public outcry, but the cumulative impact of AUL's efforts has abortion rights advocates worried. In 2000, the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research nonprofit, rated 13 states as "hostile" to reproductive rights; in 2011, it gave 26 states that designation. "We're seeing states that go in and make their laws worse, and we're seeing states that are adopting more extreme, more onerous, and more creative laws," says Elizabeth Nash, Guttmacher's state issues manager. By putting up more hurdles for women who want abortions and the doctors who provide them, "at some point, someone will cry uncle."

But making abortions all but impossible is only half the battle. Ultimately, AUL would like to see the Supreme Court legally enshrine its restrictions—all in the name of protecting women. "It's really, really critical that we start establishing this in the legislative record," Yoest tells me. "Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has turned away from the threat that abortion poses for the baby, because the Supreme Court has said repeatedly they're concerned about the woman. So we basically want to say to the court, 'We share your concern for women. You need to look at the fact that abortion itself harms women.'"

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ima...ckedup_630.jpg


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...nal-ultrasound

This whole thing scares me, like "The Handmaid's Tale" scared me. It's seriously creepy and I'm sure there are idiots in other countries following what's happening really closely.

That was a great article by Maureen Dowd. Love her. Thanks for sharing.

Also, some fantastic readers' comments.

Loved it. Thanks for posting the link. OMG I didn't know he was on the House Committee on Science and stuff. Lord. *chuckling*

My favorite quote from the article:

I'll go a step further. You have a vagina? No?

Shut the Fuck Up.

don't have the link...........heard it on some femi-nazi liberal radio talk show

Apparently Aiken said on some Fox show during his various explanations and so-called apology that sometimes women lie and say they were raped when they were not....that's what he meant by 'forcible' and also 'legitimate'....

Feels like the Phyllis Shaffley days are on us again.

The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies. ~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973





And yet, this is exactly what the GOP has been doing.

ENOUGH!! I have HAD it with these fucking assholes and their "definitions" of rape! Rape is "another method of conception"??? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you lying, backward, teabilly, douchebag!! ANY woman who votes for these fucking idiots is a self-loathing moron!! (excuse my language..I am furious and have lost ALL my filters when it comes to these pathetic excuses for human beings!)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/2...of-conception/

I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole and the clock has been turned back to the 1950's.

I just can't believe my eyes and ears anymore. It is like insanity overload and I just want to turn it off.

Where is the outrage of the women that would have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy or a pregnancy as a result of rape? Are they truly that apathetic?

Oh god for the marches and political activism today, of the 60's and 70's! I just do not get all of this.

Do I still live in America?

Maybe I am dreaming.

Can someone wake me up please, because it is actually a nightmare.

Rep. Steve King: I’ve Never Heard Of A Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape Or Incest
 

Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.

Transcript:

REPORTER: You support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that would provide federal funding for abortions to a person that has been forcefully raped. But what if someone isn’t forcibly raped and for example, a 12-year-old who gets pregnant? Should she have to bring this baby to term?

KING: Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way and I’d be open to hearing discussion about that subject matter. Generally speaking it’s this: that there millions of abortions in this country every year. Millions of them are paid for at least in part by taxpayers. I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter. So that’s my stand. And if there are exceptions there, then bring me those exceptions let’s talk about it. In the meantime it’s wrong for us to compel pro-life people to pay taxes to fund abortion.

King’s office said he had been taken out of context.

“What he was saying was, he personally does not know a girl who was raped,” Brittany Lesser, a spokesperson for King said. “He never says, ‘I’ve never heard of that.’ There’s a fine line between ‘I’ve never heard of that’ and ‘I don’t know personally anybody who’s been raped. There’s a difference. There is a difference.”

Lesser said “of course” King is aware that girls have been impregnated by statutory rape or incest, and said King supports people who have not been forcibly raped receiving federal abortion coverage under a rape exemption. “That’s a given for anybody who understands pro-life legislation,” Lesser said.


Check out the raw as well as the broadcast version.


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...utory-rape.php

------------------


So, if you were "raped forcibly", he doesnt want you to have access to federal funds to pay for an abortion.

Yet, he is ok with abortion funds for statutory rape and incest.

So, he is pro-life except when it involves pedophilia.

:praying:

Compulsory maternity.......
 

I'm going to attach some links to some great organizations.

http://www.waronwomen.com/RockTheSlutVote/

http://www.unitewomen.org/

http://feminist.org/

The above also have Facebook pages that you can link to through their websites. I also want to mention an organization called "Vagistan" which doesn't have a website as of yet, but does have a Facebook page and a Twitter account. There are also the organizations that everyone has heard of (or at least I hope they have): NARAL, NOW, League of Women Voters, etc.. that post daily on Facebook.

More from the world of huh?
 

From NARAL:

For years, the opponents of women’s reproductive rights have floated some dangerously misguided ideas about the female body and reproduction.

Lately it’s become clear that their junk science, wishful thinking, and outright propaganda have been taken up by all manner of anti-choice politicians nationwide.

One of the main sources of this harmful misinformation is Dr. Jack Willke, former president of the National Right to Life Committee, often described as the godfather of the anti-choice movement. Just take a look at what he says about pregnancy from rape:

"To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma … than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy."

Dr. Willke, is a medical doctor. But he has been preaching dangerous propaganda to the anti-choice movement for decades about rape survivors “defenses” against becoming pregnant. Earlier this week he told the New York Times that “sperm, if deposited in [a rape survivor’s] vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”

just to lift the spirits
 

Abortion ban backers fail to make Colorado ballot
 

DENVER—The nation's only pending ballot measure to ban abortion in all circumstances has failed to advance to voters in Colorado.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler announced Wednesday that backers of the divisive "personhood" amendment fell about 3,900 valid signatures short of the some 86,000 needed.

The rejection was a major setback for abortion foes in the home state of Personhood USA, which said the Colorado proposal was the only measure pending for ballots this fall. Other initiatives are aimed for future years but not this fall, Personhood USA spokeswoman Jennifer Mason said Wednesday.

Personhood proposals go farther than other proposed abortion bans because they would give fertilized embryos all the rights of a born human. They would ban embryonic stem-cell research and some fertility treatments.

The measures haven't been backed by other abortion opponents or the Catholic church.

Personhood proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by Colorado voters in 2010 and 2008. Similar measures have been rejected by voters in Mississippi and by several state legislatures.

Colorado has a relatively low threshold for petitioning measures onto ballots, making it a hotbed for proposed citizen initiatives. The rejection of the personhood measure leaves only one citizen initiative on ballots: a proposal to buck federal law and legalize marijuana without a doctor's recommendation for adults over 21.

Personhood USA vowed to fight the Colorado rejection in court. The group argues some of the signatures were improperly rejected, including some on which a notary public changed a date.

"We are going to be filing to have those ballot signatures recounted, and we are confident personhood will be on ballots this fall," Mason said.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, which campaigned against the two earlier personhood proposals and was raising money to do it again this year, lauded the rejection. Spokeswoman Monica McCafferty said support for the idea is eroding.

"This year they're not even getting people to sign on to the concept," she said. "Hopefully that signals that Coloradans understand the concept, that they don't like the outcome of what this would mean."

The political implications of Colorado's personhood decision were immediately apparent. Democrats say the unpopular measure has helped motivate female voters, and they immediately scrambled to connect Republicans to the measure even though it's not on ballots.

A Democratic suburban Denver congressman being challenged by well-funded Republican Joe Coors reminded voters that Coors once gave money to personhood backers.

"Regardless of this initiative appearing on the ballot, this doesn't change Joe Coors' extreme views and past funding and support for efforts to restrict a woman's ability to make her own medical decisions," read a statement from the spokeswoman for Rep. Ed Perlmutter.

Coors volleyed back with a statement that voters are more interested in talking about the economy. He distanced himself from the abortion measure.

"Joe's stated that he wouldn't endorse personhood, and it's clear Colorado voters have already spoken on this issue -- twice now," said his spokeswoman, Michelle Yi.

A Democratic strategist who worked to fight the previous Colorado personhood measures said Democrats will still campaign on abortion this year, even without a personhood proposal on ballots. She pointed out that Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan opposes abortion in all cases and sponsored a federal version of a personhood measure.

"What began as a fringe issue in Colorado in 2008 has become a mainstream issue for the Republican Party in 2012," Laura Chapin said. "When you've got Paul Ryan on the ticket, I would say yes, this is going to be a major issue in the campaign for women voters."

The head of Colorado's Democratic party put out a statement Wednesday saying Ryan and other Republicans still have an "extreme agenda" aimed at ending abortion rights.

Mason insisted personhood ballot proposals draw social conservatives to the polls as much as they draw abortion-rights supporters. She said the rejection of Colorado's personhood amendment could hurt Mitt Romney, because some social conservatives find him too moderate and may stay home without personhood on ballots.

The presidential campaigns did not immediately return calls seeking comment on the Colorado personhood decision.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...--+Latest+news

Scott Brown, rep senator from Ma continues to be a man of contradictions
 

Massachusetts’ leading pro-life group says it is supporting Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, while Brown is trying to distance himself from the anti-abortion wing of his party.

Since the firestorm around Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's comments about rape and abortion, Brown has been emphasizing his pro-choice credentials. Here’s his wife, Gail Huff, at a recent campaign stop:

Scott is pro-choice. Has been forever. He’s always been very, very clear about his pro-choice view. Like he said, he has two young daughters, 24 and 21 years old. He understands more than anyone that women have a right to make their own decisions,” she said.

So it must have been awkward when Massachusetts Citizens for Life decided to throw its support behind Brown.

Anne Fox, the group's president, said Brown's voting record was more in line with her organization's views. “What he has voted on so far, yes, it’s been pro-life. So we would prefer to see our people vote with Scott Brown,” she said.

Megan Amundson of NARAL Pro-Choice, on the other side of the issue, saw some irony in the situation: “This is the one thing that Massachusetts Citizens for Life and NARAL Pro Choice of Massachusetts do agree on — is that Scott Brown may call himself pro-choice, but in reality he voted pro-choice only 1 in 5 times.”

In the past, Brown’s votes have angered both sides of the abortion debate. In 2007, he voted to create a 35-foot buffer zone to keep protesters away from abortion clinics. But he also co-sponsored a bill that would require women to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion and be provided with pictures and information on the development of their fetus.

Brown isn’t rejecting Massachusetts Citizens for Life's support. But on the campaign trail, he maintains he’s a moderate pro-choice Republican.

http://www.wgbhnews.org/post/pro-lif...hes-pro-choice

---------------------------------

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin is still campaigning — and his controversial comments about rape are continuing to impact the high-profile U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts.

On Aug. 21, Sen. Scott Brown sent a letter to the chairman of the Republican National Committee, asking him to drop the anti-abortion plank in the party platform.

Peter Blute, the deputy chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, said sending the letter was a brave move. "I think it’s very rare that a senator stands up and speaks against a plank in his own party’s platform."

But Megan Amundson, the executive vice president of NARAL Pro Choice, said the letter didn't go far enough.

“The letter doesn’t do anything. He’s been very clear the letter is all he’s willing to do. That’s he’s not willing to go to the convention to speak about for this or fight for this, that’s he’s not willingly to actively stand up for women’s rights,” she said.

Brown said on Aug. 22 that he wouldn’t be taking the abortion fight to the GOP convention in Tampa this weekend.

“I’m going down Thursday as I’ve always planned before this came up," he said. "They know my position. It’s up to others to join forces. The Olympia Snowes and Collinses need to join forces.”

In the past, other big-name Massachusetts Republicans did more than write letters about abortion. In 1992, then-Gov. Bill Weld delivered a strong pro-choice speech at the Republican Convention in Houston. He tried to launch a floor fight but didn’t have enough votes.

Brown’s challenger Elizabeth Warren has capitalized on this issue. All this week she’s been hammering Brown on abortion, contraception and equal pay.

http://www.wgbhnews.org/post/scott-b...not-far-enough