Republicans, Our Constitution and Their Blatant Hypocrisy

Rep-Paul-RyanEvery time I hear Republicans talk about our “Constitutional rights” I have to laugh just a little bit.  Especially when I’ve just read an article about some state representative that’s proposed some new measure to attack a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body, or seeks to ban same-sex marriage because it’s a “threat to God’s definition of marriage.”

Both being violations of Constitutionally protected rights.  One being that of our First Amendment rights (in the case of the Republican opposition to same-sex marriage being based on religious beliefs) and the second being their repeated attempts to defy the Supreme Court’s decision that gave women the right to have an abortion.

You see, most people realize Roe v. Wade was the landmark case where our Supreme Court said it is within a woman’s Constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.

Then just this past week the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

And in the case of abortion, this isn’t an ideological debate on a proposed bill.  Roe v. Wade is a 40 year old Supreme Court decision that said abortions are a woman’s Constitutionally protected right—end of story.

Now, when it comes to nationally recognized same-sex marriages, that’s still a process in the making.  But the striking down of DOMA was a huge step towards marriage equality.  As for now, states still have the right to ban same-sex marriage—though that will soon come to an end as well.

Do many Republicans disagree with these rulings?  Of course they do.

But I don’t recall seeing many conservatives, most of the same ones who oppose any regulations on guns (because any regulations on guns “violate” our Second Amendment—according to most Republicans) objecting to the passing of legislation all across our country which requires a mandatory transvaginal probe into a woman’s body against her will—mandatory ultrasounds before she’s allowed to exercise her Constitutionally protected right to an abortion.

And you know why?  Because they don’t think abortion should be legal.  They don’t dispute that Roe v. Wade stated, per our Supreme Court, that abortions are Constitutionally protected—they just feel they shouldn’t be legal.  Therefore, many Republicans feel it’s acceptable for those rights to be violated.

They claim abortions equate to “murdering babies,” yet have no problem with the over 10,000 deaths by gun violence we have every year.  No, no—guns are not to be regulated.  Because “guns have nothing to do with gun violence.”

“Pro-life” you say?  But of course you are.

And I’m not even covering the legislation that’s being pursued in states all across the country, such as that made famous by Texas Senator Wendy Davis in her 13 hour filibuster to protect women’s rights in Texas, that seeks to force closures of health clinics that happen to provide abortions.  They’re not only attacking the rights of women, they’re attempting to force their hand by not giving them any options.

Because nothing bad could possibly come from thousands of women in emotionally fragile and desperate states having no access to health clinics.  Nothing bad at all.

But Republicans claim this is all about women’s health.

Here’s a radical idea:

Let’s let the woman decide what’s best for her own health.  

See, this is why I feel many Republicans are hypocrites and I can’t take most of them seriously.  They never have any issues if Constitutionally protected rights they disagree with are violated.  It’s only when the rights that they support might be regulated, then they freak out like people who would never think of violating a single Constitutional right in any way–-except for all of those rights they try and violate, because they disagree with them.

Then while they oppose something like same-sex marriage, based entirely on religious beliefs which violate our First Amendment right of freedom of religion, they have the audacity to say our Second Amendment rights should have little to no regulation when the phrase “well regulated” actually appears in the text of the amendment.

Now I know some will say “well regulated” meant well trained.  Then why didn’t they just say that?  They could have easily just said something like:

Second Amendment: The right for Americans to responsibly keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any way.

But they didn’t.  They specifically put in words like “militia” and “well regulated” because that’s what they were talking about.

Yet, when it comes to abortion or same-sex marriage, then suddenly Republicans act as if our First Amendment (which is extremely definitive in its text) becomes objective based on assumptions.

Time and time again, Republicans prove that they don’t support our Constitution, they support a version of our Constitution that they wished existed, but never has.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • James Regan

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. — Thomas Jefferson

    • GPK

      An unproven quote that cannot be properly cited as being something Jefferson actually wrote or said. Perhaps Allen, you could elaborate further on this type of false attribution that occurs, all the time, during these heated debates. After you dispel the notion itself of being pure folly.

    • wecandobetter758

      So…what you’re saying is that people need their guns to protect their Constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion from being stripped away by a tyrannical theocratic government. Got it.

      • Sick Burn

        SICK BURN!!!

    • Erika Frensley

      Amazing that these people don’t use the basic methods to protect themselves against what they see as tyranny – the ballot box (you know, the entire basis that our gov’t is based on) and the law. Or is it that if their party loses at the ballot box then gov’t is tyrannizing them? No, it’s straight to the gun to protect themselves.

    • ironman2819

      That was NOT the intent of the 2nd amendment. The true intent was to allow people, ordinary citizens a protected right to hold any weapon… not just a gun.

      During the time of the occupation by British forces, one could be arrested for having a machete, a knife or even so much as a baton in their possession.

      Notice the amendment does not say “keep and bare guns” because back then a gun was actually not nearly as dangerous as a shiv or a garot or even a blackjack.

      However the GOP is heavily invested in the gun industry so now it is a revenue stream for them as is the industrial prison complex and the industrial military complex.

      But since murder is against god’s will why doesn’t someone submit a bill to repeal the 2nd amendment based on that misdirected logic? It’s the same logic republicans use to redefine rape and repeal abortion rights.

      • bob

        If armies presumably chose the most effective weapons available to them, why did they not use shivs, garrots and blackjacks, which you say were really more dangerous than the guns of the time. Maybe that’s why the British lost! They had
        too many guns!

      • Charles Vincent

        “But since murder is against god’s will…”
        Murder is, self defense isn’t the second amendment is about self defense not indiscriminate killing.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      That only works if you have a dictatorship. You have democratically elected leaders. Sorry if you don’t like them. You lost.

    • Sam Knudson

      As they said earlier arms does not just mean guns. Also these quotes that republicans LOVE to use to protect the second amendment all came in a time when a gun would take a minute to reload and shoot a barely lethal ball. People died more often from the infection of the wound than the shot itself. Now we live in a time of machine guns and bombs that can blow up a block that can be made at home. Our founding fathers never even imagined the weapons that could be made in our time.

  • Truthspew

    Well of course it’s all based on a concept called emotivism. Much of it driven by the Catholic and Protestant churches in the United States. The disdain for abortion comes directly from a biblical INTERPRETATION of the Sin of Onan, you know, wonderfully parodied in Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life” in the “Every Sperm is Sacred” scene.

    • ironman2819

      Are these the same churches that allowed pedophiliac priests to be protected after continuously sexually violating children?

      • MARTinNJ

        And then fought tooth and nail to protest the pedophiles.

      • ironman2819

        Really… name a single church that had a demonstration outside a pedophiles home? Or a republicans’ for that matter…

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Every sperm is sacred
      Every sperm is great
      If a sperm is wasted
      God gets quite irate!

      • Truthspew

        Let the heathen spill theirs
        On the dusty ground
        God will make them pay for
        Each sperm that can’t be found

      • MARTinNJ

        Not I feel real bad about my morning wake up activities.

    • MARTinNJ

      When the Republican Congress passes a law that says every sperm is human life, I am going to petition the government to have my scrotum admitted to the Union as two new states. I want to call them North Testicle and South Testicle. I will get two seats in the House and fout seats in the Senate. And you can just bet that both them states will be blue states.

      • ironman2819

        Martin… the minimum is 3 representatives to the house and 2 senators for each state

  • strayaway

    “When President Obama unveiled his program to tackle climate change last month, he deliberately sidestepped Congress as a hopeless bastion of obstruction, relying completely on changes that could be imposed by regulatory agencies.” The New Yorker 7/1/13

    …and without even an enabling act giving him powers delegated to Congress; how audacious! How is that any different than the predictable behavior of other tyrants? Bombing Libya, giving weapons to Mexican drug cartels, F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt, heavy weapons to Syrian ‘rebels’, while spying on Americans outside of 4th Amendment constraints were nice Constitutional touches too. The majority of Republicans, of course, were also silent on most of these matters.

  • Charles Vincent

    Roe v. Wade is a 40 year old Supreme Court decision that said abortions are a woman’s Constitutionally protected right—end of story.
    Wrong you need to read the brief below is the pertinent passage.
    The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician’s right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women’s rights in general.

    Now I know some will say “well regulated” meant well trained. Then why didn’t they just say that? They could have easily just said something like:
    Second Amendment: The right for Americans to responsibly keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any way.
    But they didn’t. They specifically put in words like “militia” and “well regulated” because that’s what they were talking about.
    Wrong again, the wording in the constitution supports the “well regulated” as meaning training, and organization as well as how officers in the militia we to be chosen by militia members from the said militia.

    • Seth Cole

      Don’t forget Article 1, Section 8
      “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

      ‘Well regulated’ in this context certainly means more than simply well trained. It implies ‘well regulated’ as meaning more than just well trained. It implies being controlled and held accountable.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well that was what I was referring to in my post and not it still means well regulated and properly trained to work in concert with the standing army the militia were intended to be overseen at a state level congress was only to enact the standards of training and organization to provide seamless operation with the said standing army.

    • godlessveteran

      So what is “a compelling state interest” that could possibly justify ridiculously extreme over-regulation of clinics in order to shut them down?

      • Jim Malm

        Future cannon fodder.

  • James Worcester

    This is the deal. It’s not the true Republicans that are pushing this nonsense, it’s the new breed of John Birchers, led by Boehner, the Pauls, Ryan, and the twin Fems of evil, Bachmann and Palin, who call themselves “Tea Party”, though they have effectively garroted both the Tea Party and the Republican Party. I call them the Teapublicans, but in truth, they are the rebirth of the nefarious John Birch Society, which had lay in remission like a bad carcinoma on the brain of America until 2010.

  • A Voice in the Dark

    The fundamental decision by SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade was not to “give women the right to have an abortion” but to uphold privacy of healthcare between a person & her (his?) physician. This ruling should by its very nature put an end to the requirements of such ridiculous measures as transvaginal ultrasounds, etc., ad nauseum…. But the crazies who want to overturn R v. W don’t think that they will ever need patient-physician privacy. Or maybe they just don’t think. Oh wait that has been proven, time after time.

  • 1JudgeNotLestYeBeJudged1

    It’s convenient, I suppose, to change facts, history, current events, etc…whatever it takes to push your twisted agenda!