Does Ohio Representative Matthew Barrett (D) REALLY hate women?
| By Carol Cogitating - Aug 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am EDT |
| Also listed in: Pro-Choice Ohio |
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Categories: Civil Liberties/Privacy, Civil Rights and Equality, Reproductive Rights, Women's Issues
Categories: Civil Liberties/Privacy, Civil Rights and Equality, Reproductive Rights, Women's Issues
The recently introduced HB 287 is yet another abomination to women. The bill seeks to force a woman to obtain the consent of the “father” prior to exercising her legal right to obtain an abortion, purportedly putting men on equal legal status with respect to abortion decisions. But the reality of this bill is that it does not place men on equal legal footing. This paternalistic bill really gives the father sole decision making authority by forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will by withholding his consent. A look at the sponsors of this bill yields the same conservative Republican nutwhackery suspects; Adams, Wagner, Brinkman, Uecker, Huffman, Fessler, Wachtmann, Barrett, Goodwin. Wait a minute… Barrett??? The same Rep. Barrett from Amherst who was endorsed by the AFL-CIO and the Ohio Federation of Teachers? W/T/F?? And it is the same Barrett who signed on to H. B. No. 280 with “the usual suspects” to require abortion providers to hang a big poster at the door imploring women not to let anyone “force” them to have an abortion (because we all know that Ohio women are being dragged kicking and screaming to forced abortions).
I had posted the foregoing on another site late at night when my emotions were running a bit high. Then I feared that perhaps I had made a disastrous blunder and maybe confused the Democrat Matt Barrett with another “Barrett”- hey maybe the Legislative Service Commission had a bad link. But no such luck. Google Matt Barrett and Ohio Right to Life and the confirmation is there much to my disappointment. Ohio Right to Life circulated its 2006 candidate survey to all the General Assembly candidates. By my quick count, around nine Republican candidates for the house managed to NOT answer this survey. On the flip side, about eighteen Democrat candidates responded. Some danced around a few tough questions or provided caveats to their answers. But not our boy Matt. His answers fit the perfect score for Ohio Right to Life; Mr. Barrett managed to secure the coveted Ohio Right to Life endorsement.
Here is what Matt Barrett supports:
A proposed constitutional amendment, which would have the effect of nullifying the U.S Supreme Court ruling on abortion and which would recognize the right to life of the unborn child, to be guaranteed at the time of “fertilization”.
The overturn of Roe v Wade and the enactment of legislation that would prohibit abortion in Ohio except to prevent the death of the mother (no exceptions for rape or incest).
No use of public tax dollars to fund abortions except to prevent the death of the mother.
No use of public funds to support embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of a human embryo.
No state funding of abortion-providing organizations, such as Planned Parenthood even if the funds are solely to be used for family planning services.
To be fair, there were other notable Democrat candidates that responded just as Matt Barrett. Although I can respect their personal “pro-life” position, I cannot accept their support for governmental restrictions on a woman’s right to choose her own destiny over the life of a fertilized egg. But as much as I disagree with these positions, I believe that Mr. Barrett goes beyond the pale with his sponsorship of HB 287- a position that apparently the other pro-life Democrats did not feel the need to sign on.
My disgust with Matthew Barrett is that he would put his name on this paternalistic government assault on the rights of my daughter to make the right choice for herself and place that decision solely in the hands of her male sexual partner who may or may not be interested in her health or wellbeing. Mr. Barrett, I respect your “pro-life” personal position, if that is what it is. But by signing on to this despicable assault on women it is clear to me that you do not meet my ideals of what it means to be a Democrat, that you view women as if they are merely the property of men, and that you are spiteful to women when they are most vulnerable.
I had posted the foregoing on another site late at night when my emotions were running a bit high. Then I feared that perhaps I had made a disastrous blunder and maybe confused the Democrat Matt Barrett with another “Barrett”- hey maybe the Legislative Service Commission had a bad link. But no such luck. Google Matt Barrett and Ohio Right to Life and the confirmation is there much to my disappointment. Ohio Right to Life circulated its 2006 candidate survey to all the General Assembly candidates. By my quick count, around nine Republican candidates for the house managed to NOT answer this survey. On the flip side, about eighteen Democrat candidates responded. Some danced around a few tough questions or provided caveats to their answers. But not our boy Matt. His answers fit the perfect score for Ohio Right to Life; Mr. Barrett managed to secure the coveted Ohio Right to Life endorsement.
Here is what Matt Barrett supports:
A proposed constitutional amendment, which would have the effect of nullifying the U.S Supreme Court ruling on abortion and which would recognize the right to life of the unborn child, to be guaranteed at the time of “fertilization”.
The overturn of Roe v Wade and the enactment of legislation that would prohibit abortion in Ohio except to prevent the death of the mother (no exceptions for rape or incest).
No use of public tax dollars to fund abortions except to prevent the death of the mother.
No use of public funds to support embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of a human embryo.
No state funding of abortion-providing organizations, such as Planned Parenthood even if the funds are solely to be used for family planning services.
To be fair, there were other notable Democrat candidates that responded just as Matt Barrett. Although I can respect their personal “pro-life” position, I cannot accept their support for governmental restrictions on a woman’s right to choose her own destiny over the life of a fertilized egg. But as much as I disagree with these positions, I believe that Mr. Barrett goes beyond the pale with his sponsorship of HB 287- a position that apparently the other pro-life Democrats did not feel the need to sign on.
My disgust with Matthew Barrett is that he would put his name on this paternalistic government assault on the rights of my daughter to make the right choice for herself and place that decision solely in the hands of her male sexual partner who may or may not be interested in her health or wellbeing. Mr. Barrett, I respect your “pro-life” personal position, if that is what it is. But by signing on to this despicable assault on women it is clear to me that you do not meet my ideals of what it means to be a Democrat, that you view women as if they are merely the property of men, and that you are spiteful to women when they are most vulnerable.
Comments are closed for this post.