Hell hath no fury like a woman left out of the conversation she thinks she should own.
Nimrod Nancy Pelosi and her minions are hacked off again. This time, the offenders just happen to be a group of lawmakers – all men – who were discussing the Hyde Amendment, a temporary hold on federal financing of abortions that is renewed annually via attachment to spending bills, in a subcommittee hearing. For whatever reason, they did not allow Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton to testify during the hearing. It was not clear if she was invited and later refused or if she invited herself and then was refused.
With this group of harpies anything is possible.
But, due to the circumstances – an all-male group of GOPers shutting out Holmes Norton (can’t say I blame them) – Nimrod Nancy is all fired up over the “War on Women” again and had this to say about the gentlemen discussing the financial responsibility the federal government has for women’s private and personal reproductive health decisions:
“America’s women deserve better than eight Republican men trying to dictate and control the most intimate medical decisions in their lives,” she Pelosi asserted to the Judiciary Committee’s subpanel on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
“It’s no wonder that House Republicans have to keep taking lessons on how to talk to women,” Pelosi said in a statement. “When you have a subcommittee that is 100 percent male considering legislation restricting women’s rights and denying a woman Member of Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the ability to testify on that legislation, it’s pretty clear those lessons aren’t taking.” SOURCE
Maybe it’s just a bad time of the month, but I’m confused:
- What “rights” are restricted when the federal government is not financing abortions – with full approval of many of us women out here on the fruited plain, by the way. Legal or not, women have been having their children killed for thousands of years. That’s not going to stop simply because the government won’t be funding the procedure.
- Who’s dictating and controlling “the most intimate medical decisions in [women’s] lives”? All the subcommittee wants to do is not pay for any of it.
- If these decisions are so private and personal, why are the harpies carrying on about them? Very publicly.
- And really, why should the rest of us pay for women killing what should be the next generation? (Really, any socialist with a brain should oppose abortion due to the procedure eliminating future workers who will provide for them when they get old, but no one seems to think about that.)
- And what does Nancy mean the GOP sorts don’t know how to talk to women? Avoiding the spotlight when some harpy is going to go off the rails because the gentlemen are trying to be fiscally responsible seems like a good idea to me. (Just like a woman to change the subject and blame men in the middle of a substantive discussion.)
While it is disturbing that morality has not entered the argument anywhere in the current context, at least there is still some life in the idea that government should not be financing the people’s personal and intimate lives, especially when what the harpies are advocating has done more damage to women overall and the industry lies like Obama and Jay Carney just to sell more of the procedure.
Well, Nimrod Nancy, you and your sycophants like Eleanor do not speak for many of us women. You just don’t.
Oh, and by the way, carrying water for the very people who seek to objectify women – have always sought to objectify women and have gotten women to fight the non-existent war for them – by making all discourse about reproduction is a form of prostitution. Nancy and her clique are being used, and they are too stupid to see it.
Why not put all the gals out of their misery and just make the Hyde Amendment permanent? Oh yeah, the Senate would never pass it by itself.
P.s. Note to the men of the GOP, ummm, you might take care to keep from getting caught up in these situations. Doesn’t matter what you do, it’s going to be wrong. May as well let the Nancy-gang make idiots of themselves rather than give the impression that they might be on to something, i.e., patriarchal dictation.