I have been approached by a few acquaintances asking why I am supporting Bob Marshall for Senate. The reasoning behind my support is simple: We need someone who will advocate for change in the U.S. Senate, someone who will not stray from their core values. After receiving Bob’s literature at a Fairfax County Republican Committee meeting, I had a chance to research his proposals for the continued prosperity for the Commonwealth and was impressed by his legislative record.
I am what most would consider a “crunchy” conservative (What is a Crunchy Conservative? You should read “Crunchy Cons” by Rod Dreher), and I believe that we need to protect our environment for future generations. Now, I do not subscribe to Al Gore’s conspiracy theories on global warming, because they are nothing but hype. However, it is my belief that the little actions we take will improve the environment.
Bob Marshall has a solid record of protecting and preserving the environment. He fights to protect the Chesapeake Bay by enforcing tough standards to clean it up and reduce pollution. Additionally, Bob has received the endorsements from the Virginia chapter of The Sierra Club and The League of Conservation Voters. This alone has earned him a title and reputation of being a friend to the environment, and this is one of many reasons why I am supporting Bob Marshall for U.S. Senate.
February 14, 2008 at 1:13 pm |
The Boston Globe
July 12, 1989, Wednesday, City Edition
Equal rights gone wrong
BYLINE: By Bella English, Globe Staff
SECTION: METRO/REGION; Pg. 17
LENGTH: 768 words
The number leaped out at me: 9 percent of respondents in a statewide poll last week believe abortion should not be allowed even to save the life of the mother. Nine percent also believe abortion should not be allowed in cases of rape or incest.
I wanted to learn more about these people who value protoplasm more than they do a woman who has been on Earth for years, who undoubtedly has loved ones (including, perhaps, children). A person with dreams and ideas, who is part of a community of human beings. A person, in short, who has a life
I called the American Life League, which broke off from the National Right to Life Committee over the issue of birth control: the league not only opposes abortions under any circumstance, it also opposes modern forms of birth control, including the Pill and intrauterine devices.
I spoke to Robert Marshall, the league’s research director, and asked his stand on abortion to save the life of the mother – perhaps the “easiest” abortion scenario.
To him, it’s apparently a simple issue, too. “The baby and mother are of equal value,” he said. “I can’t express a preference.” But then, in the course of a lengthy telephone conversation, he proceeded to do just that.
“We’re against the IUD and pills, too,” Marshall said. “They don’t prevent ovulation and conception, they prevent implantation, which is abortion.” Then he railed against Norplant, a soon-to-be-marketed contraceptive that is implanted under the skin and provides protection for up to five years by slowly releasing progestin.
“It’s a real tribute to women’s intelligence,” Marshall fumed. “They feel so irresponsible they can’t do something once a day?”
Convenience – not responsibility – is the issue here. And while we’re on the subject of responsibility, women have been the ones largely responsible for birth control, prenatal care, labor and delivery – and child care – since the Garden of Eden.
Marshall then turned to the population decline, which he attributes to abortion and birth control. “In Florida, retirees are working at McDonald’s because there’s not enough kids to do it,” he said, obviously displeased.
OK, girls, let’s do our patriotic duty and crank out another kid to keep those Big Macs coming. But wait, there’s more than just cheeseburgers at stake here! “Military and economic security are severely jeopardized by the serious population drop in this country,” he explained.
Why, he continued, if birth rates don’t increase, we may have to reinstitute the draft, and our Social Security system may go bust. Quoting from a 1975 report of the advisers to the Social Security system, Marshall said the fertility rate will have to increase and remain high for three decades “in order to produce any meaningful reduction in the high taxes that will otherwise be payable.” Women, it seems, will be responsible for the “long-term deficit” that may result if they don’t fulfill their biological destiny and produce a brood for the cause.
The league’s “fact sheet” notes, with some alarm, that “birth control, including abortion, keeps a woman in the labor market or keeps her there longer. . .” Why don’t they just substitute the word “breeder” for “woman?”
But Marshall wasn’t through. “Why do you think Gorbachev is reducing his troop strength?” he asked. Lost lives, plight of the Soviet economy, warmer Western relations? I naively wonder.
“He doesn’t have the population base,” Marshall answered. “They’ve been aborting themselves out of existence.” (The Soviet Union, by the way, has 287 million inhabitants).
Next, I asked about abortion in cases of incest or rape. “What if incest is voluntary?” Marshall asked. “Sometimes it is.” And rape? “Your origins should not be held against you,” he said, referring to the offspring. “The woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime.”
Why should she? “Because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman.” I wonder how many pregnant rape victims consider their trauma a mere “embarrassment.”
Incidentally, Marshall said, rape figures “have either doubled or tripled since the first abortion reform law.” Meaning that abortion is responsible for more rapes? “Well, obviously women’s bodies aren’t as highly valued as they were before the laws.”
Marshall, 45, is proud of his five children. “Gloria Steinem had an abortion, and now she doesn’t have any children to pass things along to,” he said. “We’re informing and forming our children with our values, and we’re living our values.”
Fine. Just let me, and the majority who are for abortion rights in this country, live ours.
February 14, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
With all diue respect, Mr/Ms anonymous, kindly mke sure to recognize the difference between birth control and abortifacents. Ms. English obviously can’t.
February 16, 2008 at 10:50 pm |
In response to the anonymous commenter who put this article up, I hope that you actually read my article. The article was about Bob Marshall’s record on the environment, and it would have been advisable to comment on the topic. However, you just gave me another idea about an article which Bob and I agree on: the protection of life, which begins at conception.
April 16, 2008 at 11:49 am |
[...] The temptation to write-off the Virginia race, well-founded though it may be, means that interesting developments among the Republican would-be contenders are being overlooked and under-reported, however. The Virginia GOP looks to be pressing rightward. First moderate Republican Tom Davis declined to get into the race. And now Jim Gilmore, the former governor and RNC chair (and presidential also-ran), the establishment conservative in the race, is facing a challenge to his right from Delegate Bob Marshall. Much of Marshall’s support comes from social conservatives, who are dissatisfied with Gilmore’s views on abortion (he would allow it in the first eight weeks of pregnancy). He scores points with economic conservatives as well for successfully challenging the taxation powers of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. And Marshall’s “crunchy” supporters tout his endorsement by the state chapters of the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters. [...]