Rep. Steve King: All Life Is Sacred…Except for The Woman’s Life That Is


Rep. Steve King, a Republican representative from Iowa,  has it all figured out – life, that is. It’s simple, he says, according to Lynda Waddington writing on the Iowa Independent. Each one of us has the right to life from the moment of conception and we have that right until natural death. Done and done.

Well, okay. It’s simple if you don’t take into account anything else but King’s unwavering commitment to his own religion, tended to within his cultural and social boundaries.

In this interview with CNS.com (the conservative news site with a decidedly religious extremist perspective), Rep. Steve King expounds on how to “never lose a debate” when it comes to abortion.

His advice?

1. This is about God and Jesus, women. All women, regardless of religion, creed, culture, ethnicity, economic or personal circumstances or moral beliefs must abide by Rep. King’s personal, religious stance on abortion. Since according to King his religion teaches that, “Jesus got the right to life when God conceived him in the womb of Mary” then all of us ladies should just stand aside and when we’re impregnated by what I can only assume would be “mystical means” we should continue our pregnancy no matter what? Does this pre-suppose that the males in this situation are equivalent to God? Or only that a man can get us pregnant (i.e. “conceive a baby in our womb”) but it’s up to us to carry that pregnancy to term no matter what?

I suppose if a woman is Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Sikh, or Atheist, it’s irrelevant to Rep. King. He, as a Christian man, has the right to determine the legality of abortion access for all. Never mind that there are actually many women within the Catholic Church who do not believe as King does.

2. It’s easy, kids. Repeat after me – There is no woman in this scenario. Abortion is about me and my own personal belief system which we will now repeat. Remember, abortion is not about the lives and health of our daughters, mothers, sisters, and friends. It’s about you and me. Rep. King says he “often goes into a high school auditorium” or into kindergarten through 12th grade levels to talk to the students about abortion. He pointedly asks them, “Where do you stand on the abortion issue?” Bear in mind, he’s not teaching them how to think critically or to ponder important questions but to answer then and there “where they stand” on the abortion issue. He doesn’t provide any authentic context for the discussion or refer, presumably, to the where and with whom this is all taking place – namely, that abortion is a private, personal decision that a woman makes –  on her own, with her family, or with a health care provider. The woman does not, in any way, seem to play a role in any of Rep. King’s thinking. Does he expect they know what abortion is? Does he talk about unintended pregnancy? Or does he prefer that, in fact, they have as little information as possible about what abortion is and isn’t? Rep. King doesn’t seem to care much. His goal is to have the young students ask and answer only two questions of themselves right then and there – two questions of his own creation and then – Presto! You’ve got my answer your answer!, says King.

3. Life is sacred – except when it comes to you girls. Rep. King says he asks the young students to ask and answer two questions. Do you believe life is sacred in all of its forms? And then he asks them to turn to their fellow students on the right and left of them and ask if those folks’ lives are sacred. If so, he says, ask yourself –  Do you believe your life is sacred? and then: When did your own life begin? King is clear, “If there is a universal agreement that their lives are sacred…then you have to pick an instant – one instant, the moment of conception.” It’s an awe-inspiring moment. Rep. King is clearly clueless as to the absolute callousness in his own reasoning. He is forcing the idea that if we believe the lives of those of us around us are “sacred” then we would not ever, under any circumstances conceive of being able to end a potential life.

But is King really that blind to the fact that some of those young people are young girls who will become pregnant? Are their lives not sacred as well? And will some of those young people – young female students – not experience a pregnancy which may threaten their health or lives? Are their lives not sacred, Rep. King? And is it possible that some of those young women whose lives Rep. King seems to brush off will become pregnant through the horror of rape? Apparently, lives are most sacred to Rep. King only if they are male or if they are still dependent upon a woman’s body to survive. 

Are these young women’s lives not sacred, Rep. King? Or are females only sacred until they are able to conceive?

It was only a week or so ago that the Roman Catholic Diocese, in Phoenix. AZ, stripped a hospital of its Catholic affiliation because surgeons saved the (sacred?) life of a mother of four by performing an emergency abortion. Rep. King and the Roman Catholic Bishop, Thomas Olmstead, are in agreement it seems. Her life was not sacred enough.

Watch for yourself…

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

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • crowepps

    Does this pre-suppose that the males in this situation are equivalent to God?

    Well, yeah, pretty much.  After all, men CREATE LIFE by injecting women with their sacred seed and so OF COURSE they’re GODS!!  Women just keep the life going afterwards, leaving women the equivalent of those low skill, low intelligence grunts in the maintenance department.

     

    I think it’s totally inappropriate for Rep. King to be giving talks about religion to school children.

  • arekushieru

    Interesting….  Except I would like to tell Mr. Steve King that Mary CHOSE to have Jesus.

  • prochoicekatie

    “Each one of us has the right to life from the moment of conception and we have that right until natural death. Done and done.”

     

    This should read, “Each one of us has the right to demand that others sacrifice their rights from the moment of conception to our expulsion from the womb. And we have the OBLIGATION to keep living, no matter how little “life” we truly have left, until the machines that keep us going are bested by god’s power outages.”

    “Oh, and women have the obligation to sacrifice the rights I previously established for “all” above upon menarche until menopause.”

  • purplemistydez

    To King women are uteruses that talk.  We should cook, clean, and spit out baby after baby.  I’m approaching 26 and I still don’t feel ready for pregnancy.  The Catholic hospital scandal makes me scared to be pregnant.  Will I lose my status as a person to a fetus?  It feels like it.

  • crowepps

    He’s pro-military.  Someone who is consistently ProLife would be a pacifist.

    King has continuously voted for Iraq War legislation, and has supported surge efforts and opposed a time table for troop withdrawals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King#Statements_about_Illegal_Immigration

  • princess-rot

    “Each one of us has the right to life from the moment of conception and we have that right until natural death. Done and done.”

     

    I find myself morbidly fascinated by the many ways in which powerful men will determine what is “natural death” for women. Also, “right to life” when spoken by anti-choicers often means “a right to existence, the extent of which will be determined by the powerful and privileged in relation to your usefulness to them, over which you shall get very little say in”.

     

    King subtly paints a male-centric picture of  reproduction: that a super special snowflake “baby” is created the moment sperm meets egg, conveniently forgetting to mention that pregnancy is essentially parasitical, and it is not the man who has to risk all the tolls gestation and child-raising takes on his body, health, financial and economic stability.

     

    I can’t help noticing that this subtle erasure of the realities of women’s lives and the work involved in them also coincides with the “invisibilising” of coerced, underpaid and/or forced labor of poor people, a majority of whom are women and non-white, and who will be highly affected by anti-choice attempts to control reproduction, as it has been in the past. I’m sure some people here are old enough to remember the 50s and 60s, and maybe before, when adoption could be straight-up forced and a pregnant unwed women was damaged goods. I guess these men and their anti-choice female supporters think it’s alright to extract forced labor in the name of morality from lesser-privileged females, because we aren’t real people anyway.

     

    I’m sick of this “fuck the poor” attitude from politicians. I’m no sociologist, but it doesn’t take a genius to see that there is exploitation of the already born going on in the name of saving people who haven’t yet been born.

  • crowepps

    So far as I can see, he’s referring to the right to life of men and the (hopefully male) fetuses they create.  Women aren’t actual ‘people’ and thus are entirely disposable.  That’s what women are FOR — to “die in bearing” (more men).

  • princess-rot

    Actually, in addendum to my previous comment, its not even ‘saving’ the unborn, because they are generally alone once they’re out, especially if they are not providing an upright, god-fearing white couple with a healthy white infant they can pass off as their own. It’s sick – the privileged using others to maintain the appearance of their privilege.

    So far as I can see, he’s referring to the right to life of men and the (hopefully male) fetuses they create. Women aren’t actual ‘people’ and thus are entirely disposable.

    It serves to remind you that you are worthless if you’re not useful to others, and your usefulness will be determined by others with power over you, regardless of how good you are at the things that supposedly determine your worth. The whole concept of female worth is a sham designed to keep you constantly unstable, self-esteemless and dependent. It’s why patriarchal women turn bitter. You can never be good enough. The price of supposed stability and safety is total disposability, and the reasons for disposal can be completely arbitrary or non-existant.

  • prochoicekatie

    “The whole concept of female worth is a sham designed to keep you constantly unstable, self-esteemless and dependent. It’s why patriarchal women turn bitter. You can never be good enough. The price of supposed stability and safety is total disposability…”

    I’ve shortened this up. Why waste so many words on women? (sarcastically, of course.)

    “The concept of female worth… is total disposability.”

  • okpi

    that may include their outlook concerning   OIL……….