On the 40th Anniversary of Roe V. Wade, Marco Rubio declared himself a true warrior and vowed to carry on that War Against Women the Republican Party swears does not exist:
“Today marks the tragic anniversary of one of America’s most blatant instances of judicial activism that paved the way for the destruction of innocent unborn life. Since this decision, tens of millions of our nation’s unborn babies have been denied the chance to celebrate a birthday, begin kindergarten or go on to contribute their God-given talents to our world.
“As a U.S. senator, I am privileged to serve in a position that allows me to fight for the lives of the unborn. I will continue to fulfill my duty to fight to reduce the number of abortions. As with many of our nation’s most important debates, the battlefield of this issue is in the hearts and minds of the American electorate, and I pray that we can one day live in a society that fully cherishes every life from conception until death.”
If they truly wanted us to believe that there's no War On Women, the GOP should have probably put a muzzle on Rubio, and sent him a memo on the definition of a "press release."
That being said, it may come as news to Rubio and the Republican Party that polls show they're more than a tad out of touch:
Seven in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, according to new data from a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, as the landmark Supreme Court abortion-rights ruling turns 40 on Tuesday.
That is the highest level of support for the decision, which established a woman's right to an abortion, since polls began tracking it in 1989. The shift is mostly the result of more Democrats backing the decision—particularly Hispanics and African-Americans—and a slight uptick in support from Republicans.
Yes, that's from a Wall Street Journal poll. ("Skew" that.) The highest support since 1989, and even favored by Republicans. But then the GOP only pays attention to polls they like, and Rubio is King of the magical thinkers.
Rubio, ever the hand-wringing diva, calls this anniversary "tragic," and throws in that favored golden oldie "judicial activism" for a touch of nostalgia to capture the hearts, and no doubt the checkbooks, of the holdouts from GOP days of old. Add to that "God" and "battlefield" and he's got it all covered. The one thing he leaves out is common sense.
Here's what's "tragic." It's when someone like Marco Rubio mistakes his role as a Senator for that of playing God with other people's lives. By stating "I will continue to fulfill my duty to fight to reduce the number of abortions" he also vows to deprive many of those children of decent health care, an education, earning a decent wage, if they can even find a job. If they can't, well, he'd gladly send them to war if it was up to him. His economic and tax policies would sentence them to a lifetime of poverty. He will gladly tell them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, in the absence of boots, much less "straps" from the government. (Ask him about those bootstraps he put on a Republican Party credit card.) The only welfare he doles out is to corporate America and Wall Street. Those children he wants to save are on their own once they take in their first breath.
Also stunning, especially in light of recent events, is this statement:
"As with many of our nation’s most important debates, the battlefield of this issue is in the hearts and minds of the American electorate, and I pray that we can one day live in a society that fully cherishes every life from conception until death.”
How about a school in Newtown that recently became another statistic in one of our most important national debates? As a warrior on that battlefield, Rubio took a real tough stand. He sided with those who think their right to own something as "precious" as their own private arsenal is more important than a child's right to be safe in a classroom. That too, Sen. Rubio, is called "right to life."
It seems Rubio is a believer in "choice" when selecting which lives are to be cherished.
Life is precious, and no one knows that more than a woman who finds herself having to make that kind of choice. Someone who takes that situation lightly and doesn't understand it has no place to judge her, and certainly has no right to make that decision for her.
Who says Rubio isn't "pro-choice?"
