Roundup: Are You Ready to Go Back to the 50’s?

Old fashioned values.  Turning back the clock.  Reproductive justice was just one of the frames used in the 2010 elections to focus voters who are really just wishing that we could go back and relive the 50’s.  Don’t believe me?  Check out this letter from Montana.

The same people who promote sex education today were the free love generation of the ’60s. The progressive viewpoint promoting open sexuality created sex education in the schools and the tolerance of girls coming to school visibly pregnant (these girls used to have a home school teacher). These progressives mocked, and still mock, the moral values of the ’50s. These progressives who are “all-knowing” have overseen an increase of unwed pregnancies and venereal disease. The verdict is clear, it is time to stop listening to these “all-knowing” progressives and go back to those morals which promoted sexual restraint. These morals saw much less unwed pregnancies and venereal disease. Parents need to, for the sake of the children, stand up to these “all-knowing” progressives and just say “no.” These “ all-knowing” progressives will say that it is the media that sexualizes our children. As they very well know, media follows the culture, not the other way around. When promiscuity is not tolerated in our culture it will not be in the movies. Parents need to stand up and, for the sake of their children, just say no to progressive sex education in our schools.

Want to see all the ways that the GOP could potentially turn back the clock, in this case as a means to move us away from a secular society?  The “On Faith” columnist lists them over at the Washington Post:

Here’s a roundup of the potential bad news:

* The Republicans slated to head House committees are not only religious and social conservatives; many embody the most extreme right-wing brand. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who will almost certainly be the new chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is one of the hardest-line conservatives in Congress. He has long been an opponent of all abortion rights (receiving a 100 per cent rating from the National Right to Life Committee). He’s the sort of anti-choice right-winger who opposes not only abortion but embryonic stem cell research–and judges whose decisions would allow that research to continue. He has been a consistent and strident critic of all in the federal judiciary whose decisions, on matters ranging from the teaching of creationism in public schools to religious school vouchers, run counter to the religious right’s assault on the separation of church and state.

* In the new Congress, there will be almost no moderating Republican voices on any committee. Many moderate Republicans throughout the country were defeated by Tea Party candidates in primaries. On the judiciary committee, the chairman will be backed up by members like Rep. Steven King (R-Iowa), who recently attacked the federal district court judge who struck down the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

* Look for an endless stream of amendments to vital appropriations bills designed to promote favorite right-wing causes like abstinence-only sex education. and to favor faith-based social spending over programs administered by secular organizations.

* Forget about any possibility of ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the next two years. The Republicans aren’t going to listen to any high-ranking military officials who have already testified against the policy, and the military knows which side its bread is buttered on. Obama, who has always waffled on these issues, is certainly not going to press this battle while he is struggling to retain his presidency.

* Worst of all, from a secular point of view, is the unlikehood of Obama being able to affect the federal judiciary during the next two years. The Senate, of course, still has a Democratic majority, but it has already been demonstrated that in the absence of a super-majority, any appointment can be blocked by any senator. Given the Republicans’ stated objective to make Obama a one-term president, they can endlessly delay any judicial appointment proposed in the next two years. Should any of the four far-right Supreme Court justices drop dead during the next two years, I believe that Republicans will stall the confirmation of his successor. Why wouldn’t they? They scent blood in the water, and it’s hard to imagine that the voting public will punish them for keeping a seat vacant on the Supreme Court until 2012.

And that’s only half of the examples.  Be sure to follow the link for even more.

Speaking of going back to the same place in time, in case you had any doubt, Colorado will be seeing a Personhood amendment on the 2012 ballot again, as they declare victory in 2010 because, well, they had more people vote for it than in 2008, and, oddly enough, because Ken Buck lost his senate race.

Conventional Wisdom: Only 15% will support a personhood 100% abortion ban.

Colorado’s 2008 vs. 2010 Campaigns: The “Yes on Personhood” vote grew by 10% as compared to our 2008 Yes votes, in that 27% of the 2008 vote is now 30% of the 2010 vote, and that encourages us!

In 2010 on Amendment 62: 30% of Colorado voted Yes to ban all abortion, and that is with the opposition of the biggest names in the pro-life industry.

Join Us: in praying for the wisdom and resources to build on this increase the Lord has given us (ten percent growth in those who voted Yes) so that we can reach even more people to protect every precious child by love and by law.

Regarding Ken Buck’s Close Loss: After breaking every pro-life campaign promise he made including by promising to confirm pro-choice judges if elected, Ken Buck told the Amendment 62 proponents, “I’m not going to cater to personhood for 2% of the vote.”

Of course, the conservative voting turnout percentage in 2010 was much larger than in 2008, yet they only gained 3 percent vote change, but we won’t let facts get in the way of a good spin, right?

Mini Roundup: In a belated Halloween roundup, one church has some pretty creepy ideas what belongs in a haunted house.  You can bet that they didn’t hand out condoms as treats, either.

November 4, 2010

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • rebellious-grrl

    Robin, thanks for the great roundup on the news. I always enjoy reading your roundup column and don’t know how you have the time to find the multitude of stories.

    Thanks for the link to Tweeting your abortion – Salon, interesting story. I’m not a huge fan of twitter but I think tweeting about one’s abortion is a positive step in openly discussing abortion. This might make me a twitter fan.

    It seems silly to argue over whether tweeting about your abortion is provocative; of course it is, and the point is to make it less so. The real question is whether or not the #ihadanabortion thread is an effective step in that direction. There is part of me that bristles at the idea of abortion or rape being reduced to an edgy t-shirt slogan or a trending Twitter hashtag — because the complexity of women’s varying experiences is lost. But, you know what? Political slogans are not about nuance, and after Tuesday’s election we’re especially in need of some bold rhetoric.

  • arekushieru

    It would be interesting to know if Angie Jackson’s own live tweeting of her abortion had some hand in this – destigmatizing and demystifying, as she said.

  • priam1

    This is no reflection on you since you are only writing about comments made elsewhere, but most of this information is thoroughly inaccurate.  An item by item reply would be too much for this blog.  Note the sloppy reporting by those writing: “…in the new Congress there will be almost no moderate Republicans…” Gee that’s really professional…whoever wrote this’s 6th grade English teacher may want to remind them that when a child journalist reports, they should not use non specific terms like: “at lot of,” or “almost always”, or “big number.”

       Furthermore, the comment about endless streams of ammendments to favor right wing faith based organizations over secular ones is ridiculous since for the record the way that faith based organizations originally received federal tax dollars was because the government was giving so much tax money to organizations like Planned Parenthood (secular organizations) If you would like to see all appropriations to faith based organizations stop–and I personally would–then lobby all the secular organizations to stop feeding at the government trough and no one would be able to obtain federal dollars or grants for any reason. I’m sure both fiscally conservative Republicans and the TEA party members would be thrilled by this idea.  And lastly–again for the record– historically faith based organizations have done a far better job of running both charity and services for minorities than secular ones have.  Their cost value ratio are usually at least 2x and sometimes 5x’s higher than their secular counterparts. Just ask President Barack Obama since his community organizing was at Rev Jeremiah Wrights Baptist Church.  According to the President, without that Church tying the community together, it would have been far more difficult.  And of course, the President owes his political career to both the church and its political clout not to mention the fact that his wife drew a $250,000 per year salary as the head of “public relations,” for the University of Chicago Hospital which kept the Obamas only “slighly impoverished,”–if you compare their standard of living to Al Gore–LOL!!!!