Besting a sitting Democratic president from far off his right flank is exceedingly unlikely. In an interview with POLITICO, Terry was blunt about being an underdog and said his main goals are to bloody up Obama politically and draw more attention to the abortion fight.He's going to raise money...and show graphic images of aborted fetuses. So, if you were concerned that there weren't enough images of aborted fetuses on your tv, have no fear. Candidate Terry is here to provide them. If you were worried that a dark horse candidate couldn't raise enough money--oh, don't worry! Randall Terry's entire career has more than proven that you can convince people to part with their hard-earned cash to support a total douchebag who picks highly emotional issues like the Terry Schiavo thing (for one example) to self-promote and well--not actually advance any movement other than get himself recognized. Yeah. He's in it for himself, and probably knows it, but it doesn't slow him down any once he's started. He's sociopathic like that.
“We’re going to cause a crisis of conscience for America,” Terry said. “I will raise millions of dollars and run ads showing aborted babies.” Terry predicted his candidacy, which was first reported by Sunshine State News, will draw financial support from across the political spectrum because “the thrill of beating Obama up in a Democratic primary is going to be too much to resist.”
Now, as for those graphic ads he wants to use to create a "crisis of conscience." Um. I had the unpleasant experience, about two years ago, of seeing a really graphic portrayal of an aborted fetus that was pasted up on the side of a delivery-style truck that was coming down the street as I exited work. I've been pro-choice since forever. I looked. And I thought: "Yeah. That was a picture of an abortion." End thought. Because: Duh. People who understand what an abortion is know it's a medical procedure and there is blood, and that a fetus is removed and it resembles a little, wee, tiny baby--and you know what?
Fuck that. Baby dolls look like babies. You don't assume because they look like people that they are, right? Big toes are alive and have human DNA. If your big toe had gas gangrene, you'd probably have it off in a minute, even if it was yours, human, alive, and attached. Because it was killing you. If your gall bladder was just sort of killing you, but not really, you might think about having it out. And the pictures of the surgery would make some people just a little sick, right? Still--your gall bladder. Your gangrenous toe.
Your body, Or, my body. Or, anyone's body. We elect to have bloody surgeries. We choose what gets done with our bodies, whether it's tattooing, rhinoplasty, boob reduction, or not having a pregnancy. It isn't always pleasant, but what it is--
Is a choice about our bodies, which is the only thing we come into the world with, and the one possession we really can say is ours. Does he really think people don't know what they've been supporting when they are pro-choice? Does he think we aren't aware that it's a surgical procedure done by doctors and that women's bodies have blood in them, or that fetuses look a little like live babies? Does he really not know how many pro-choice activists are mothers themselves who have been through childbirth? Does he care--
Oh, again--fuck that. He's doing it because when you hear or see the name Randall Terry, you should always think about abortion, or brain dead people, or, I dunno, self-promoting jack-wagons who are not satisfied with 15 minutes of anything. Or maybe terrorism, since he seems really anti-life when it comes to the doctors who help women with their reproductive decisions.
In the end, he really wants to make people have to explain to their children, who might have caught a glimpse on the tube and been alarmed, exactly where babies come from and how sometimes, women don't want to have babies. And he's underestimating women, and America's tolerance for maudlin bullshit. He thinks he can shame the country into forced pregnancy and denying the rights of women to control their bodies. By sheer gross-out.
I think he's always been wrong, but never by so much. The question is about something bigger than the gross mechanics of a surgical procedure or the question of when life begins. It's always been about whether women matter, are persons, and can make decisions about our lives, bodies, health, and future. If we wanted to limit abortions as a society, the road would always be through a greater acceptance of many feminist ideals--the end of rape culture (which includes abuse culture and the manipulation of women's reproductive choices by others), the greater accessibility of sexual education and birth control, and a fairer socio-economic climate that might create more secure households. If he can't address all that--then he isn't ready to really talk about what abortion is, and should fuck off already. He just wants to degrade women and self-promote.
I assume my readers know that. But I'm just saying.....