Category: Featured News

 

Photo by: Michael Conroy/Associated Press

Indiana’s Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Richard Mourdock is receiving much criticism for comments regarding rape and pregnancy.  During Tuesday night’s debate, Mourdock and his opponent Representative Joe Donnelly, were asked if they believe abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest; at which point he responded, “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it’s something that God intended to happen.”

Mourdock quickly tried to walk back his comments in a press conference on Wednesday, explaining that he did not mean “to suggest that God wants rape, that God pushes people to rape, that God wants to support or condone evil in any way” and apologizing to those who were under such an impression.

Murdock’s comment came one day after a television ad of Governor Romney endorsing him candidate was released.  The DNC’s chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Shultz has called on the Republican Presidential candidate to denounce the comments and request that this ad be taken off the air.  Though, Romney’s spokeswomen Andrew Saul told The Hill that, “Governor Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr. Mourdock’s comments do not reflect Governor Romney’s views.  We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him.”

This further demonstrates how dominant the extreme right flank has become in the Republican Party.  Mourdock isn’t the first GOP candidate to come under fire for such comments this election cycle.

Not only can a Republican nominee, in one of the countries most highly contested races, so blatantly insult women and their ability to make personal health decisions, but can do so and still receive the legitimacy and public support of his party’s leader.  Neither Presidential Candidate will be able to call the White House home for the next four years if they are not able to court the women’s vote come November 6.  Yet, Romney continuously pushes women away with what President Obama refers to as the social policy of the 1950’s.

 *The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Fully understanding the implications of his disastrous performance during the first presidential debate, President Obama came back in full swing at last night’s Town Hall.  He was able to not only rebut Governor Romney’s falsehoods with the passion and aggression he was so heavily criticized for not having two weeks ago, but did so in a setting that calls for much more tact; which Romney did not seem to realize.

The night was filled with moments in which the Governor seemed completely flustered and combative, acting disrespectfully to not only the President of the United States, who at times he looked like he was going to punch, but the moderator, Candy Crowley.  While both candidates ignored the debate rules on occasion, Romney was not only the first to do so, but was more frequent and more hostile.

Not only was Romney’s performance rocky at best, but the content of his responses to the questions asked were continuously void of specifics.  While, he was persistent in reiterating that he “know[s] how to make an economy work” or “what it takes to create jobs again” or “what it takes to balance a budget,” he refused to share with the American people his supposed knowledge.  When asked about how he would go about solving the problem of pay inequality for women in the workforce, the Governor took a page out of the Ryan playbook with an anecdote regarding how he hired women once; and then stated that we need a stronger economy.  While it is great that he hired women, his answer lacked any mention of discrimination, which has existed long before the Great Recession and is the obvious root cause of pay inequity.

One thing did become clear last night, the contempt that the candidates have for one another is more than just a professional rivalry; but it was President Obama that was better able to hide his disdain.  The debates are the best place for Governor Romney to exemplify to the American people that he has the gravitas to be “presidential” and last night’s incessant whining did not do it.

*The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

With a struggling economy and unrest in the Middle East, discussion of social issues has taken a back seat in this election cycle.  That is, until this week’s Vice Presidential debate, when moderator Martha Raddatz asked the Candidates to explain their views on abortion and the role that their religious practices have played in this opinion.

As Catholic men, both Vice President Biden and Congressman Ryan expressed the personal belief that life begins at conception; the sole difference being that Biden does not want to force his personal, religious ideology on the American public, while Ryan does.  At one point Ryan attempted to pass his view off as not exclusively the product of religion, but stemming from “science and reason.”  His evidence being an anecdote about seeing an ultrasound of his oldest child who was shaped as a bean; yet seemed to have forgotten to mention any actual “science” or “reason.”

The Congressman then held himself to a double standard, explaining that if he were to be elected Vice President, he would infringe on the constitutionally afforded right to freedom of religion, while simultaneously accusing the Obama administration of doing just that.  He explained that a Romney/ Ryan White House would hold an anti-choice position (except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother), while condemning the Affordable Care Act for “assaulting” religious institutions, without of course, any specifics.  However, Biden was able to make it perfectly clear that this was a complete falsehood, and that no religious enterprise is forced to “refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide.”

Ryan then went on to explain that, “unelected judges should not make this decision,” referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe V. Wade, that laws prohibiting abortion violate the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.  Ryan seems to have also forgotten that the Supreme Court did not create the Constitution and that its role is not to serve as lawmakers, but rather ensure that all government action abides by this document through “science and reason,” not religious ideology.

While no one can deny that the economy and national security are of the utmost importance in November’s election, we must not forget that social justice is also at stake.

*The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.