Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Palin Redefines Feminism

The nomination of Sarah Palin to the Republican Vice Presidential ticket in August was a huge leap forward for conservative women in America. It seems, however, that the "feminist movement" on the left that has lectured us all these years on women's rights has, all by itself, taken a huge leap backwards.

Feminism is defined by Wikipedia as the belief of the political, social, and economic equality of women. On the left, the feminist movement is a broad movement that includes a diverse group of women who hold a radical pro-abortion agenda that appears to drive everything else they strive for. On the right, the movement primarily consists of women who have a sincere desire to promote women's issues while continuing to embrace our religious beliefs, our families, and our femininity. 

Having never been too outwardly involved in politics before the 2008 election, I was shocked at the fury directed at Sarah Palin by feminists on the left from the very moment she stepped into the arena. It was at that moment that, in my opinion, the feminist movement on the left completely discredited itself. The movement that seemed to want a female in a position of authority at any cost suddenly began foaming at the mouth because a CONSERVATIVE woman was nominated, one who believes in life. 

These so called "feminists" say that being a woman is more than just being a mom at home with the kids. The say that they believe that a woman is every bit as qualified as a man to hold a political office. They believe that premarital sex is completely okay and that we should not try to stop young people from having sex, but instead we should deal with it by teaching sex education in schools. They believe that when the young woman gets pregnant, we should not stand in her way, at any age, of killing her unborn baby-no matter what stage in the pregnancy she decides to do so. 

Now, I don’t know about you, but what I have heard in the media these last few months from the feminists who oppose Sarah Palin seems to be completely in contrast to everything they say they believe! They have repeatedly trashed Sarah for wanting to become VP while having 5 children, one who is a special needs child. They suggest she is a horrible mother for having considered such a position, saying she is incapable of being both a mother and a VP. They have suggested that, because her daughter had premarital sex and got pregnant, Sarah and Todd are bad parents. Most egregious, however, are the criticisms of Sarah for not choosing to abort her son Trig. On all counts, their comments have been incredibly hypocritical. 

I have said it before, and it bears repeating: Sarah Palin IS everything the radical left wing feminists are NOT. She is a gorgeous, feminine, God-fearing wife and mother who values life and stands for what is good and right. She represents the vast majority of women in America who hold these same values. I think I speak for most conservative women when I say that for us it wasn't about getting a woman in office. For me, conservative, moral values come first. Party, gender and all the rest comes next. I am most excited about Sarah because of her stand on the issues, and all that goes with it. I love that she happens to be a woman, and I am very excited to see what the future has in store for CONSERVATISM and for conservative women who now feel empowered like never before! We are no longer the silent majority, and we have our own Sarah Palin to thank. 

Some reading you may find interesting:
See the previous post on this subject, entitled "Conservatism and Women's Rights/Feminism"


Mary said...

Even though I have not said much, I have been keeping up and trying to figure out SGP. Good post here! I didn't get to Perry, GA on Monday to see Sarah Palin and I was sorry about that. So close...

third rock from the sun said...

I am a member on a publishing website that crucified Palin. I stood up for her and they turned on me. The right's opinions were attacked by vicious leftists. Personally, I'd drather try and take a raw steak from a pitbull, or face a black bear in the wooded tundra of Montana, than I would 'blog' with a liberal social democrat. But I did it and I've got the scars to prove it!

Atleast you know why a bear or a pitbull would attack you. But, it makes no sense why these leftist tear into people that disagree or state an opinion and exercise free speech.

Liberal Socialist Democrats have little regard for humans that get in their way. Whether it be a blogger who disagrees with them, or an unborn child, I've concluded.

The language on that website that hurled out of their mouths in the form of words were horrendous and unlike any I have encountered before.

I don't believe in the feminist movement anymore.

I actually thought they were making strides by infiltrating the schools with female principals and the newspaper industry with female publishers, etc..., but they shot themselves in the foot by the double standards they portrayed in '08. They just went 50 years back in time and all of their efforts are for 'not' in seeking to be equal.

By setting precedence and dissing a woman for the silly reasons they gave....their feminist cause is questionable, to say the least. Men were catapulted into the forefront because of what women did to a woman.

Sarah Palin is capable. So capable, that it scared the democrats into a media ambush of her. I don't see a gender on stage when I see Sarah Palin...I see what 48 million other people saw who voted for her. Obama's millions of voters saw it too and they had to create lies to squelch the uprising. Remember... after the gazillion dollars that the Obama campaign spent in extra advertising and all the biased media in his favor...he should have received wayyyy more that just 2 percent over what Al Gore received. Wayyyy more.

Obama has been campaigning since birth and Palin was in the national spotlight 9 weeks. Half of that time had to be spent combating the media's false accusations. So really, Palin only had a little over a month (one month) to capture America's attention and she still brought the gap within 2 percent of the votes. Ingenious.

The 2 percent that made the difference are the 2 percent who got their information and news from Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart commentary and of course, the mainstream media like ABC and CBS, who base their news on "un-named sources".

Tyler said...

Hmm..last time I checked the election was OVER..Obama is the next president. Move on. Instead of looking back at the past, look towards the future, while the future is might not what you have wanted it to be, Barack Obama will become the President of The United States of America, get used to it.

Tami said...


Although perhaps you are aware of that, and I am certainly aware of it, many in the media seem to still have quite the fascination with SP. So much so that they just can't quit talking about her!! I find that to be humorous since we haven't heard a word about Biden except when he emerged the other day to complain that no one is talking about him. SO...quite frankly, I am looking forward to the next 4 years as I watch Obama flail, while trying to implement the same old Democratic playbook that fails every single time it's tried. If it weren't going to do so much damage to the country, it would be fun.

third rock from the sun said...

Tyler, you forget you are talking about BO.

The election is not over. It never is for BO. That is all he knows how to do. Campaign. Get the job and then move onto the next campaign. He loves the attention and let's face it...actual work can be boring for his narcissistic personality.

You speak of the future as BO is filling his cabinet with the past.

Personally, the 2008 election was like watching a basketball game with bad refs. The better team lost because of bad calls. Now we get a time out to asses the situation and to take a break from BO propaganda and I can't wait for the first clash between the Titans "BO and Hillary'.

You want me to get used to BO being our President? The only thing I will get used to is 'getting used'.

thomas said...

To third rock:

I've been following your comments for several weeks waiting for you to tire of posting indiscriminately false information or, at the very least, to show some sense of balance in your writing. Alas, that seems more and more unlikely.

Doesn't anyone ever get weary of hearing stories about the despicable and dishonest leftists who viciously attack anyone who disagrees with them? There will always be those people who cannot tolerate opinions that differ from their own. The trouble with all this indignation is that it fails to acknowledge that the bad behavior emanates from all sides of all issues, from all political parties, all religions and on and on and on.

It would behoove us all to stop referring to each other and the groups we support with the ALWAYS and NEVER adjectives, as if all Liberal Democrats were Godless, terrorist-supporting, unpatriotic, baby killers or all Conservative Republicans were war-mongering, fascist/racist, anti-intellectual goons. It is not helpful and certainly is not Christian. It does not foster understanding or create places where we can find commonality. Mostly it is simply untrue. People do not conform to the banal stereotypes embodied in those kinds of comments. Real people have more subtlety, variation and humanity than the cardboard cutouts I see endlessly manufactured in these posts all for the sake of winning an argument.

We would all do better to ignore the people who deal in these stereotypes in order to concentrate our focus on those people who are interested in a true dialogue and exchange of ideas. I believe we are all Americans and the essential greatness of this country is completely inseparable from the idea that we can tolerate different ideas, even deeply conflicting ideas without demonizing our opponents, without attempting to dehumanize them.

To wit, the feminist movement has many variants - Sarah Palin can be a feminist without invalidating the National Organization for Women. There are obvious reasons why many liberal women do not subscribe to Palin's version. But it is also clear to me that Palin has achieved success and broken barriers of her own. And although she endured rough treatment at the hands of some elements of the political and media culture (no more, by the way, than Obama from his media and political detractors) there was also truth to some of the criticism. Her explanation of her inability to name any of her sources reading material or to name a Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade was implausible and far-fetched. But it is possible to level such criticisms without turning her into an ice-bunny, gun-toting bimbo. She deserved more respect. And I have respect for her. But I think she also could have helped herself by having a little more respect for her opponents. What goes around tends to come around in politics.

I believe American feminists who did not support Palin acted in opposition to her positions on abortion, gun control, equal pay for equal work and the war in Iraq. That is their right.

I do not believe the treatment of Palin was fear of her great capabilities any more than people feared Obama for his abilities. They were supported or opposed mostly on the substance of what they stand for. When you accuse Obama's supporters of creating lies to squelch the Palin uprising, you are accusing over 69 million Americans of lying. I personally voted for Obama not because I was afraid of Sarah Palin but because on the many issues this country faces, Obama was more convincing (to me) in his solutions.

Obama, by the way, has not been campaigning since birth but only for the last two years, like all the other candidates. And although I believe Palin hurt McCain as much as she helped, do not forget the steep mountain an African-American has to climb to win the Oval Office.

I do not know where you got your numbers but the final total officially endorsed by the government gave Obama a 9.5 million lead in the popular vote which broke down to win of better than 7 percent. I do not know where you get the 2 percent from.

Independent polls identifying informed vs. uninformed voters broke in the Democrats favor in 2004. Viewers of Fox News, identified as heavily conservative Christian and Republican continue to be the least informed eligible voters when asked a series of fact based questions concerning the economy, foreign affairs and domestic issues. The best-informed voters were viewers of PBS's News Hour. Those voters were largely Democratic. So it is ludicrous to suddenly claim that the Democrats are starved for information.

And Tami, it is hard to imagine anyone calling the Democrat playbook a failure every time it is tried. The last time was the Clinton era and as I recall we were prosperous and at peace. The Republican mode, which includes lowering taxes while waging war, has landed us in the worst crisis of my considerable lifetime.


third rock from the sun said...

Thomas...your definition of Liberal Democrats is superb. I couldn't have said it better.

If you had taken the time to notice the 1st sentence of my comment, you would see that I was referring to a website that I am a member on. Since you are not on it, because it is for woman, you cannot dispute me about the fact that they ALWAYS viciously attacked the right.

As far as Democrats being starved for information. There is a poll where BO voters are standing in line to vote. A democrat conducted the poll for fairness sake. None of them knew that BO referred to the US as having 57 states. None of them knew that BO had his opponents eliminated from the ballot to win an election. None of them knew anything about him. But when asked who spent 150,000 on clothes (a lie)...they said Palin. When asked which candidate can see Russia from their house (a Tina Fey spoof)...they said Palin. The poll is much longer and pathetically displays uninformed voters. Those are the kind of people hailing BO. Thomas, if you are proud of obtaining votes from people like that, you have my sympathy as well.

You seem to be dreaming of sugar plums dancing in your head (Tis the season) when you refer to a grandiose figure of BO's lead in votes. I stand corrected though, the exact figure was 2.3 million lead instead of 2. You happy now?

About the Clinton era. Wasn't it Michele Obama that said Hillary couldn't run her own house, let alone the White House? It does bring back fond memories of 'hanky panky' in the Oval Office as he is signing the papers to deregulate banks. Ah yes...such sweet memories.

Sarah has an awesome marriage. Almost better than mine, and mine is pretty good. Let's face it, she has the whole package and some people just can't be happy for people who have it 'together'.

Susy said...

Third rock, where did you get the 2.3 million figure? According to FoxNews (because I know you trust them) the final count was:

Obama: 65,445,417
McCain: 57,448,226

This is a difference of 7,997,191. Nearly 8 million votes.

As for the poll taken in a voter line, please provide your source on that as well.

Tyler said...

Well third rock, I am going to guess that you're part of the 23% Bush rating since you seem to have your head so far up your butt that you have no intention to listen to anybodies opinions except you and your fellow Bush lovers on this blog. You sit and talk about the millons of people that voted for Sarah, guess what they didn't vote for her, they voted for McCain, on nearly all of the exit polls taken Palin was a DRAG on the ticket! And you also sit and talk about the character of the people involved in the feminist movement, along with attacking the character of Obama by calling him Narcissistic, lets talk about the character of McCain who's first wife waited for him to come back from war, who suffered a car accident and could have moved on only to be cheated on in the end, now that is GREAT character. And Tami while you say that the media is so involved in talking about Sarah, guess what they are talking about the extra clothing that she is claiming that the GOP bought, and trying to turn in her travel forms late so she could get her trips cover, I would love that attention too. The difference in votes between Obama and McCain was 8,538,559 or about 7%, that is a large margin of votes. I am a republican that was proud to vote for Obama.
And this so called Obama Recession, guess what we have been in a recession since December 2007 they announced that on Fox News, if you had your ears open for anything else besides that name of your precious Sarah to be said. So I guess you can't really call it an Obama recession.
Thank God that Former VP, and VP Candidates rarely ever make it, and I am glad because I would rather be dead than have Sarah Palin as MY president, because I am not as egotistical as to say that somebody would not be "MY President" as many of you have said about Mr.Obama

satiate said...

I definitely commend and respect Sarah Palin for what she has accomplished in life and what I'm sure she will accomplish in the years to come. I was excited to see a strong, conservative woman nominated for VP, but I was disappointed once she started talking. I want someone smarter than me and most of America in office and she didn't seem to fit the bill.

Also, it's never fun to be attacked and criticized for what you believe in from extremists on all ends. I'm pro-choice so you can only imagine the multitude of names I've been called... but we have to ignore it and not let it interfere with our interactions with the "sane" world.

Nicole said...

Although I always respect opposing views, as someone who identifies as a feminist I am very offended about your comments on so called liberal feminism. I'm still scratching my head about the "pro-abortion agenda" statement. As Barack Obama said in the second debate, no one is pro-abortion. We are, in fact, pro-choice. This means you have the right to CHOOSE to give birth to your baby, put it up for adoption, or *GASP* have an abortion. I understand your opposition to abortion, but in all due respect, I feel the government does not have a right to tell me what I can and cannot do with MY body and MY baby should I become pregnant. That is, I feel, a private matter. Roe v. Wade was not a crusade to legalize killing babies as you may believe, but it was a battle against unconstitutional abortion laws. The laws against abortion before Roe v. Wade violated an individual's right to privacy granted to us by the 14th amendment.

We do not hold beliefs that premarital sex is okay, but that every woman should have access to proper contraception and sex education IF she chooses to have premarital sex. We do not support abstinence-only education because we don't believe the proper way to ensure sex safety and responsibility among young adults is by telling them NOT to do it. Seriously, how many children actually do what their parents and other authority figures tell them to do? Perhaps the very reason why so many feminists including myself criticized her for daughter's pregnancy was because she so staunchly advocated abstinence-only education yet it obviously didn't work for her daughter. Now I acknowledge that her daughter is a free thinking individual who is going to make her own decisions, but ask yourself: Had her daughter been properly educated about STDs, condoms, birth control and other contraceptive methods, had she had gotten pregnant? The point of sex education is not to ENCOURAGE but to EDUCATE.

Sarah Palin kept talking about equality and breaking the glass ceiling but almost everything in record stated otherwise. Her town charged victims for rape kits, she joined the presidential ticket with a man who opposed equal pay for equal work, and stood against everything that the women's movement fought for.

Now I haven't heard about any feminists who said she should've aborted her son or who said she wasn't fit to be VP and a mother. If they're true, then those women are definitely not fit to be called feminists.

But on behalf of those who are, we were against Sarah Palin because she was the antithesis of women's progress and women's rights, not because she was conservative and supported life. This statement from the National Organization for Women sums up our thoughts perfectly:

Tami said...


You are either FOR abortion, or AGAINST abortion. Let's call a spade a spade. You are either FOR killing babies, or you are not. Murder is illegal. The state already assumes the authority to prevent you from murdering another citizen. It's a false argument to say there is no such thing as pro-abortion.

Additionally, I have grown weary of the lie that Palin charged victims for their rape kits. Enough already. Read the facts below:

"Accusations That Gov. Sarah Palin Charged Victims for Rape Kits Proven False" by Warner Todd Huston
September 24, 2008

(From Note: Warner Todd Huston is an editorial columnist whose work is featured on numerous web sites. He has also written for several history magazines, and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture." This article was originally featured in Newsbusters, the web site of the Media Research Center.)

"At least since September 8 the extreme left has been pushing a lie that Governor, then Mayor, Sarah Palin "charged rape victims for rape kits" performed upon them in the Alaskan town of Wasilla.

The charge stems from a May 22, 2000 article in the local Wasilla paper The Frontiersman and has been spun from a comment made by the Wasilla Police Chief. This comment was somehow made into a Sarah Palin policy.

Evidence of the incident, though, shows no involvement by Palin at all. Still, many Old Media outlets continue to keep illegitimately linking this rape kit billing claim to Sarah Palin, even though the truth is easily discovered.

As mentioned, first up was The Frontiersman story from 2000.

In that story Police Chief Fannon was quoted as standing against legislation that would force local municipalities to pick up the costs of rape kits being performed. In the interview Fannon said that, upon conviction, he favored the criminals being charged for the costs.

The story mentions that Fannon claimed that at the time Wasilla did have a policy that rape victims' insurance would be charged for the kits being performed but there was no mention that victims themselves were charged and no claim that any ever were.

It should be pointed out that The Frontiersman is the local Wasilla paper, so, consequently, the story did not mention what the policy was in any other Alaskan city outside the area the paper covers other than to say that "most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams." This last phrase has been focused on by Palin's detractors and spun from "some municipalities" into "all" (except Wasilla) and presented as some sort of proof that she hates rape victims.

After Palin was picked to be VP, on September 8, a blog called Americablog found the old story and brought it up as evidence of "a rather nasty window into Sarah Palin." Americablog is run by a man named John Aravosis, a Democratic strategist, sometimes gay activist, and Washington D.C. lawyer who once worked for Alaska Senator Ted Steven before he, Aravosis, formally switched to the Democratic Party.

Later that day The Daily Kos also picked it up and from here it began to morph even further adding false claims to the story.

In one of those additions to the story, Kos blogger Steven R claimed that Palin hired Police Chief Fannon because he was in favor of charging rape victims for rape kits. Steven R said he was "Pro-Charging Rape Victims for their OWN TESTS!!!" (bold in original). I cannot find this claim anywhere prior to the meme being picked up by the Old Media echoing this Kos diarist.

According to the Uniform Crime Reports for Wasilla, up until 2000 only one rape had been reported to police in Wasilla.

The Kos diarist tried to claim that one rape reported equalled one rape conviction alleging that all the "other" rapes were not convicted. But the report clearly says that it was one rape reported not one rape convicted. The Daily Kos Diarist was trying to make it seem as if there were all sorts of rapes going on that weren't being reported and, presumably, all sorts of victims being charged for rape kits.

In any case, from here the Old Media began to pick up the charge that Palin had put in place or at least agreed with this charging of victims policy. On September 12, for instance, The L.A. Times repeated the charge.

When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

The L.A. Times also helped further the warped claim that made it seem that the only Alaskan town that charged victims for rape kits was Palin's Wasilla.

Then-Gov. Tony Knowles said Thursday that Wasilla was unique in the state in charging rape victims for costs incurred by law enforcement in trying to solve the crime.

This charge then began to appear in all sorts of opinion columns, blogs and in the comments sections of many of the Palin stories in papers all across the country.

On September 21, the Chicago Tribune repeated the tale, as well. The Chi Trib tried to spin this tale into one that made Palin notorious in the Alaska State Legislature over the practice.

While she was mayor of Wasilla, her town was the only one in Alaska that required rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests. Charging victims for the "rape kits" necessary to collect evidence and convict sexual predators was a "cost-cutting" measure that continued until complaints about her administration's policy prompted the Alaska State Legislature to pass a bill that banned this anti-victim practice statewide.

On September 22, it was CNN's turn to highlight the charge. CNN also pushed the false idea that out of all of Alaska's towns only Wasilla insisted on perpetrating this policy quoting former Democratic State Rep. Eric Croft to that effect.

Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.

Farther down in the story, CNN does reveal that there are no records and no proof that Palin ever even knew about this charging the victim policy. CNN also finally mentions that Wasilla wasn't the only town in Alaska that had this policy.

Many other papers also mention that Palin charged victims for their own rape kits. Papers such as Denver Daily and Philadelphia Weekly, for instance. There are far more than the few I mention here.

So, the impression all these stories leave us with is that the town of Wasilla was a major impediment to passage of a bill in the state legislature that would end the policy of charging rape victims for their own rape kits being administered.

We are told that "Palin charged rape victims" and we are told that she hired a new police chief because he also wanted to charge victims. One would think that if all this were true, Palin would have been all over Alaska's news in the year 2000 because of it.

But, in reality, none of these charges can be found and Jim Geraghty of NRO has done a little investigative work to prove it.

Geraghty looked to see how often Wasilla and Palin were mentioned in the debates about the rape kit bill. But he finds that there is not one mention of the town of Wasilla in the hearings over the bill. Far from being the mayor that had "complaints about her administration's policy" (as the Chi Trib says) being the one forcing the state legislature to pass the law, Wasilla is not mentioned at all in the debates about the bill.

The Democratic sponsor of the legislation, Eric Croft, told USA Today recently that “the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.” Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged.

Geraghty also could not find a single instance of a rape victim ever having been charged for her own rape kit.

To clarify: In preparation to attend a hearing and support the bill, one of the state’s top law-enforcement officials found no case of a rape victim ever being charged. And roughly a month after 30 Democratic lawyers, investigators, and opposition researchers, not to mention reporters from every major news agency in the country, landed in Alaska, we still have no instances to consider.

Additionally, Geraghty found that it was the hospitals in Alaska, not the police agencies, that were passing the bills on to the victims' insurance companies. And the idea that only Wasilla had such a policy is blasted out of the water by Geraghty who notes that Juneau also had the same policy of charging rape victims for their rape kits.

In fact, at a Finance Committee hearing, Representative Gail Phillips (R., Homer) “read for the record, a statement from a woman in Juneau who had experienced the charges as indicated.” Compare Juneau (population 30,711 in 2000) to Wasilla (population 5,469).

On top of all of that, there are no stories prior to Sarah Palin being offered the billet as VP by John McCain that makes the claim that Palin was informed of or involved in this policy of charging rape victims for rape kits. And, since there was only one rape reported in the city between 1996 and 2000 when the story first came to the papers, it's no wonder she wasn't aware of the policy. When would it ever have come up? Does anyone think that any given mayor of any American town is fully cognizant of every single policy or law in their city, especially if it is a law not in use because of a lack of situations to bring it to light?

For her part, Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella has said that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

In the end, it seems that this story is a wild exaggeration about Palin's role in this policy. There is no proof that she ever knew about the policy until long after the situation hit the news, it is untrue that her town was "unique" in blocking the measure, no evidence that she, herself, was notorious for the policy, and no proof that any victims were ever charged for rape kits. In fact, according to the Uniform Crime Report there were only 5 rapes reported in the 6 years she was mayor of Wasilla and four of those happened after the state law in question was passed.

In fact, this whole thing looks like another case where the media has been programmed by the nutroots and Democratic operatives.

Yet, the media still repeatedly bring this false charge up at every possible opportunity. Geraghty is right. The Old Media and the Obama campaign owes Palin an apology."

third rock from the sun said... said you know I trust Fox. I didn't get my figure from Fox. I got it from a democratic stategist on Lou Dobbs who is independant.

Unfortunately...I can't receive Fox because I live in a Democratic State that makes Fox unavailable without charging for the luxury.

There is a saying, Susy. Better to be thought of as a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Before you stand on a soapbox to proclaim you know something about me, you better check your facts.

I have Dish, so you can do some homework before assuming every Republican listens to Fox.

House of Brat said...

Tami, since you state:

"You are either FOR abortion, or AGAINST abortion. Let's call a spade a spade. You are either FOR killing babies, or you are not. Murder is illegal. The state already assumes the authority to prevent you from murdering another citizen. It's a false argument to say there is no such thing as pro-abortion."

How exactly would you plan on enforcing the illegality of abortion? Abortions have always been performed whether they were legal or not. Do you plan on jailing women? Their doctors? Since you say it's "murder," does that mean you think women who have abortions are eligible for the death penalty? And their doctors?