Headlines

Kirsten Powers

After flirting with the GOP in 2010, unmarried women are coming back to the Democrats

In 2010, Republicans won the women’s vote for the first time in 30 years. Many of the women who had voted for Obama stayed home because they were so unhappy with the economy. According to the pollsters, married women (who typically vote Republican) have seen almost no rise in unemployment, while unmarried women (core Democratic voters) have been losing jobs at the same rate as men. This caused unmarried women—who comprise 25 percent of eligible voters—to turn from Obama in 2010.

While Democrats had previously worried that 2012 could be a repeat of the midterm elections in terms of women, those fears are receding.

The poll found Democrats making significant gains among women in districts held by Republican incumbents. They report: “In the Republican-held districts where we have data from last year, Democrats picked up a net 10 points among women since December and now lead by 4 points. Among unmarried women, Democrats lead by 20 points in Republican held districts.” Page Gardner said in an interview, “Unmarried women don’t like the GOP economic arguments and they don’t agree with what is happening in terms of argument about birth control.” President Obama should send embossed thank you notes to the GOP leadership and, of course, Rush Limbaugh. “Do not underestimate the power of what is happening on this contraception issue,” said Greenberg in a conference call with reporters. “Contraception is a Terri Schiavo moment; there is a sense of government intrusiveness.”

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I would consider myself a libertarian instead of a conservative if the abortion issue didn’t exist. I am proudly pro-life.

McDuck on April 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM

But you better think long and hard which choice you’re making because there’s no do-overs.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:00 PM

The social conservative argument is you have the following choices:

1) Whether or not to have sex
2) If you do have sex, whether or not to use effective contraception.
3) If you get pregnant, you have the choice of whether to keep the baby or give it up for adoption.

So because we fall short of wanting a government stamp of approval on what we feel to be murder, we are forcing women back into the stone age or something? It’s a moot point anyway, Roe is still the law of the land last I checked so what is the issue?

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Yes, she made a poor choice. And you want to punish her with a life sentence for it.

YEt you want to murder an innocent baby for mom’s iniquity.

tommyboy on April 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM

So because we fall short of wanting a government stamp of approval on what we feel to be murder, we are forcing women back into the stone age or something? It’s a moot point anyway, Roe is still the law of the land last I checked so what is the issue?

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Laws change every day. Takes a few SCOTUS appointments and Roe is history.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:09 PM

No doubt more single women will vote GOP in 2012 than did in 2010. The vast majority of single women would rather have a job than an abortion.

tommyboy on April 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

YEt you want to murder an innocent baby for mom’s iniquity.

tommyboy on April 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Will you buy the baby’s diapers? Will you feed it at 3:30am? Will you pay for daycare?

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Laws change every day. Takes a few SCOTUS appointments and Roe is history.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Let’s say that happens. In my opinion, the repurcussions will be the following: people will continue to have just as much sex as they are now, but will be more careful with the contraception they use. When there is an unwanted pregnancy, the baby will be given up for adoption. There are many good homes who want to adopt who currently have to go to other countries to do so. It’s not going to be the end of the world. The US did just fine prior to 1973 and would do so again.

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Will you buy the baby’s diapers? Will you feed it at 3:30am? Will you pay for daycare?
angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I have contributed thousands of dollars for all those things on behalf of single mothers who attend my Church.

tommyboy on April 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Will you buy the baby’s diapers? Will you feed it at 3:30am? Will you pay for daycare?
angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

You’re promoting murder to save a few bucks.

Sick…

jawkneemusic on April 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Let’s say that happens. In my opinion, the repurcussions will be the following: people will continue to have just as much sex as they are now, but will be more careful with the contraception they use. When there is an unwanted pregnancy, the baby will be given up for adoption. There are many good homes who want to adopt who currently have to go to other countries to do so. It’s not going to be the end of the world. The US did just fine prior to 1973 and would do so again.

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I disagree. There will be as many abortions as there are now. But instead of performed in clean, sterilized operating rooms they’ll be in someone’s basement.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM

You’re promoting murder to save a few bucks.

Sick…

jawkneemusic on April 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

But don’t you DARE say that the Dems would be indifferent on whether you live or die when they are in control of the health care system. That’s just scaremongering, and stuff.

CycloneCDB on April 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I disagree. There will be as many abortions as there are now. But instead of performed in clean, sterilized operating rooms they’ll be in someone’s basement.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Because that doesn’t happen now, right? (Kermit Gosnell)

CycloneCDB on April 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Because that doesn’t happen now, right? (Kermit Gosnell)

CycloneCDB on April 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM

No, not really. Safe, legal abortions mean there is no need for it.

But let’s say you’re right. Then why do you care about Roe? With or without it, the precious babeez are getting killed.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

disagree. There will be as many abortions as there are now. But instead of performed in clean, sterilized operating rooms they’ll be in someone’s basement.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Well, if an individual chose to violate the law, they are going to be responsible for the consequences. Again, in that scenario, she would have the choice whether or not to give her baby up for adoption or roll the dice with a back alley abortion. Either way, there would be no state stamp of approval on it, simply a person taking a responsiblity for her own actions, for better or for worse.

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Women are convinced that they are going to be raped in a dark alley, then get forced to bear the rapist’s child, and bring it home and raise it. The ooooonly thing that will save them from such a fate is shoveling massive amounts of money at Planned Parenthood for any widdle fing they want.

How can we break this meme?

Sekhmet on April 19, 2012 at 1:27 PM

But let’s say you’re right. Then why do you care about Roe? With or without it, the precious babeez are getting killed.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Adults are going to be murdered as well by serial killers, crimes of passion, etc. Our current laws against murder don’t prevent that so would it matter to you whether or not we as a society put our collective stamp of approval on it by making murder legal? If not, why not?

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Well, if an individual chose to violate the law, they are going to be responsible for the consequences. Again, in that scenario, she would have the choice whether or not to give her baby up for adoption or roll the dice with a back alley abortion. Either way, there would be no state stamp of approval on it, simply a person taking a responsiblity for her own actions, for better or for worse.

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I get what you’re saying. But why put up all the barriers to have something happen that will happen regardless? This is like the drug war. People will use drugs whether they’re legal or illegal. Prohibition just creates a criminal element but doesn’t reduce use at all.

I think you’re conceding the point that abortions will take place whether legal or illegal. So wouldn’t you rather they take place in a safe medical environment instead of the proverbial back alley?

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM

But let’s say you’re right. Then why do you care about Roe? With or without it, the precious babeez are getting killed.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

It’s a matter of our laws endorsing the murder or people performing a criminal act. By your logic, murders happen every day = why have laws against murder?

(insert angry-red’s deflection here)

CycloneCDB on April 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM

How can we break this meme?

Sekhmet on April 19, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Tell them to get a conservative gentleman to walk them home–and to support Stand Your Ground laws.

BuckeyeSam on April 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Adults are going to be murdered as well by serial killers, crimes of passion, etc. Our current laws against murder don’t prevent that so would it matter to you whether or not we as a society put our collective stamp of approval on it by making murder legal? If not, why not?

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Well this is where the division stems from. I don’t see a fetus as a person who has the right not to be “murdered”. And I put it in quotes because it’s not murder if it’s still attached to the mother. It’s as much murder as it’s “murder” to take out a woman’s appendix.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Laws change every day. Takes a few SCOTUS appointments and Roe is history.

Any state stupid enough to actually ban abortion and put the government in charge of pregnancy would become an instant pariah.

The ramifications would be enormous.

Moesart on April 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Any state stupid enough to actually ban abortion and put the government in charge of pregnancy would become an instant pariah.

The ramifications would be enormous.

Moesart on April 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Agreed. But when has the fact it’s stupid stopped a state from doing something?

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I think you’re conceding the point that abortions will take place whether legal or illegal. So wouldn’t you rather they take place in a safe medical environment instead of the proverbial back alley?

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM

See my post at 1:29. It is impossible to legislate good behavior. However the area that you and I probably disagree on is whether or not the moral fabric of society is damaged when that society places an official stamp of approval on undesirable behaviors (legalization of abortion, drugs, prostitution, etc)

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:37 PM

(insert angry-red’s deflection here)

CycloneCDB on April 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM

So wouldn’t you rather they take place in a safe medical environment instead of the proverbial back alley?

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Right on schedule.

Because THAT should be driving motivation here. Finding a saintary and safe environment for murderers to murder.

CycloneCDB on April 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Any state stupid enough to actually ban abortion and put the government in charge of pregnancy would become an instant pariah.

The ramifications would be enormous.

Moesart on April 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

And by “instant pariah” you mean “suitable place for people of high moral character to raise a family”, right?

CycloneCDB on April 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Well this is where the division stems from. I don’t see a fetus as a person who has the right not to be “murdered”. And I put it in quotes because it’s not murder if it’s still attached to the mother. It’s as much murder as it’s “murder” to take out a woman’s appendix.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I understand. If I were an atheist, I probably wouldn’t care much either. It’s the difference bewteen thinking of an unborn child as sent here from God with a purpose and thinking of it as a mass of tissue. Don’t take this as a slight against athiests. Some of my best friends (and favorite bloggers) are atheists. I just know that if I were an atheist, I probably wouldn’t care much about any good or bad things that happened during my time on earth because I would believe that when I died, I would just go decompose in the dust never to answer for how I lived, never to see loved ones or anyone else again, etc.

Kataklysmic on April 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Yes, she made a poor choice. And you want to punish her with a life sentence for it. You are a monster. An uncaring, holier than though monster who cloaks herself in religion and morality to make yourself feel good.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:05 PM

So, oppose abortion and you’re a monster. Care about the unborn and you’re uncaring. Punish a mother with her child. Oy.

littleguy on April 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM

With or without it, the precious babeez are getting killed.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Really is a sick world where someone like you can become a father. Just goes to show that the world with be S**t for centuries to come.

IR-MN on April 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I don’t see a fetus as a person who has the right not to be “murdered

Southern slaveowners didn’t see blacks as “human” and Nazi’s saw Jews as subhumans with no right to live. When you have to adapt the arguments of slaveowners and nazis to rationalize your killing it’s time to take a long look in the mirror.

tommyboy on April 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I don’t understand why you don’t starve the troll.

Bmore on April 19, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Will you buy the baby’s diapers? Will you feed it at 3:30am? Will you pay for daycare?

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Nope, I’m with you. It sounds difficult, suffocate it with a pillow and throw it in the trash. Who cares about letting babies live; we’ve got to avoid inconvenience and if that means killing someone else; so be it.

And I put it in quotes because it’s not murder if it’s still attached to the mother. It’s as much murder as it’s “murder” to take out a woman’s appendix.

angryed on April 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Hey, you’re behind the times. Now we’re arguing it’s not even murder once it’s NOT attached to the mother.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

An the Journal of Medical Ethics has written an article in support of “after-Birth abortion”. Even kids aren’t real people anymore.

Once you decide a person isn’t a person you can do anything you want to them; and you encourage others who want to kill or maim someone to simply declare them “not people” to justify their behavior.

But I’m sure this time will be different… so are you against the killing of babies? Why are you against this?

“Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of,” they observe. Accordingly, “if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.” An after-birth abortion might be warranted by any “interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being”—including “the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”

Look at that brilliant argument, much like your argument for aborting the child; the only difference is the presence or absence of an umbilical cord… that’s not a serious medical difference here.

Oh, and another argument from the Journal of Medical Ethics on their blog:

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/

What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.

The Journal of Medical Ethics even goes so far as to declare the killing of infants as “liberal values”. And this is science, you’re not anti-science.

So clearly you’re for killing smaller children now if they’re a burden… right?

If not.. why not? Is there some mystical change that occurs when the umbilical cord is snipped? Something that happens when you travel down the birth canal (and does Caesarean Section have a different magical property)?

If the goal is to avoid inconveniencing someone who would have to care for the child; why is killing the child morally wrong?

gekkobear on April 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM

including “the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”

gekkobear on April 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I love this one.

They say a mother would be distressed by having to let someone come pick up the baby and take it away forever so she never has to see it…BUT shoving a scratch awl through its skull and incinerating it would be okay for the same mother.

It’s like they don’t even try to make sense anymore.

CycloneCDB on April 19, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I would consider myself a libertarian instead of a conservative if the abortion issue didn’t exist. I am proudly pro-life.

McDuck on April 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I am a proud Pro-life Christian. But I see no need for government to play God on earth. Jesus left that job to His Church! not to crony pols!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on April 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Kirsten Powers is married, last time I checked. What can she possibly know about unmarried women? /Rosen impersonation

smellthecoffee on April 19, 2012 at 2:29 PM

But I see no need for government to play God on earth. Jesus left that job to His Church! not to crony pols!
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on April 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Yet the Apostle Paul says governments are appointed by God, to carry out God’s will on earth and that is why we are morally obligated to obey them to the extent doing so does not conflict with God’s written word.

tommyboy on April 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3