Yes, because draconian laws aimed at reducing the deficit at the expense of the poor is what Democrats like.
It’s funny. The Tea Party shrieks and shrieks about government spending and deficits. They get some traction, get into power, start passing laws against abortion instead, and people who voted for them think they are really tweaking Democratic noses. Dude, we KNEW we were going to be screwed over. Tea Partiers are being screwed over without warning and they LIKE it.
A claim that is absolutely the opposite of how elected officials actually behave, of course.
It’s part of the conservative toolkit post-Goldwater. It doesn’t matter if what you say is a non sequitur so long as you are repeating your talking point. And if your talking point has already been refuted and is the exact inverse of reality, so much the better.
Some numbers to back that statement up (parentheticals mine):
The article details some of the 2013 legislation, which includes:
[ul]
[li]The Arkansas legislature banned abortions occurring more than 12 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period, overriding the governor’s veto to do it (the ban was blocked in May by a Federal judge).[/li][li]North Dakota enacted a ban on abortions occurring after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which generally occurs at about six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period; although a legal challenge has been filed, the law is scheduled to go into effect in August.[/li][li]This year, these same two states passed legislation to ban nearly all abortions performed at or beyond 20 weeks post-fertilization. This brings the total to 10 such states with a ban; an eleventh–Arizona–currently bans abortion after 18 weeks (three of these bans have been enjoined pending legal challenges).[/li][li]Alabama and North Dakota passed laws requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, rasing the number of states with this requirement to seven (two of these laws are blocked pending legal challenges). [/li][li]Nine states require abortion clinincs to have transfer agreements with a local hospitals for emergency services. Ohio–one of those nine–passed a further law forbidding public hospitals in the state to enter into such transfer agreements.[/li][li]Alabama became the 26th state to require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as Ambulatory Surgical Centers. Indiana, in fact, extended their current law to cover sites where only medication abortions (no surgery required) are performed.[/li][li]Four states (AL, IN, LA, MS) passed laws requiring the physical presence of a doctor for medication abortions, bringing the total number of states with this provision to 12. Medication-only abortion clinics were developed as a way to deliver abortion services to rural areas by having a doctor oversee dosing from a remote location (the same doctor can handle several clinics that way).[/li][li]Indiana passed legislation requiring a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound. Ohio now requires testing to determine if a fetal heartbeat is audible (presumably so the mother can be forced to listen). South Dakota now no longer counts weekends or holidays in the 72-hour waiting period. Kansas and Montana now allow heath-care providers to withold medical information to pregnant women if they believe it could lead her to consider abortion.[/ul][/li]This is legislation that was passed just in the last 6 months. The sheer breadth of it is amazing.
I did respond to what you actually said, thank you very much.
You guys and gals have a stark double standard here. Once Democrats get into power, you all turn a collective blind eye to anything Democrats do that are not related to the economy, whether that be gun control (see: Gov. Hickenlooper in CO), gay marriage (see: MN, DC, WA, etc.), abortion (see: CA and NY), pot legalization (see: CO and WA), etc.But once Republicans garner power? Nope, sorry. They have to stick to the economy. They don’t get to focus on social issues. I haven’t seen any “Damn those Democrats for focusing in social issues!” threads, but plenty for the GOP.
Tell me again how that works?
Nope, they don’t. Not after campaigning on the economy. Duh.
Don’t you dare lump me in with your ridiculous “you guys” and “you all” assertions. You have no god damned idea what my reactions are when Democrats overreach or when they do the opposite of what they say they will. If you want to accuse me, personally, of anything, you damned well better be prepared to back it up, or just shut the Hell up and step off, Jack.
Just because I point out the rampant idiocy and hypocrisy of the Republican party doesn’t mean I excuse the Democrats of their many transgressions. Your guys, right now, just happen to be much worse than the other guys. You don’t believe that? Fine. Cleave to whatever nonsense you want. But if you want to dispute it publicly, then at least come to the table with a desire to debate honorably because, after reading many of your posts, I have to tell ya man, whether you care or not, tu quoqueing all over the damned place is not a respectable debate technique.
The OP’s question in ***this ***thread is: Will the Republicans keep beating the abortion drum after this year’s election?. That’s the topic, not whether or not the democrats are also poopie pants. There is an answer to the OP’s question, and that answer is yes. It is provable, demonstrable, and citable. Now, you are well within the rules of this forum to contest or debate any aspect of this extant fact, giving your arguments for why, in your opinion, it is important and/or correct for the party to have continued to do so, but to continue to nonsensically deflect the thread into, at best, tangential and spurious arguments, tells me your desire is more to prop up an ideology rather than to discuss the merits of the topic.
It doesn’t. Neither does smarmy sarcasm.
You didn’t, but that’s okay. I’m done playing your games.
I think I love you Onomatopoeia.
This is a weak rebuttal. I said you guys and gals turn a blind eye to the fact that Democrats run on “jobs” but then turn around and decide to play with their pet issues, yet give no such leeway to Republicans. You turn around and claim that’s not true and tell me to prove it.
Hmmm, really? Well, how about this? Care to show me the posts where you’ve come out against Democrats focusing on their pet issues? How about anyone. …No? Of course not, which leaves us with a position in which you can claim to not turn a blind eye to anything, but have no proof of not turning a blind eye to anything, whereas, on the other hand, I have an entire forum as proof of you guys and gals turning a blind to the very thing you seem to denigrate Republicans for. On this very site, I’ve been told that it’s perfectly acceptable for Democrats to focus on their pet issues either because “they’re important”, or because “everyone knows the Democratic party platform”, even when Democrats campaign on “jobs! jobs! jobs!”.
What’s the definition of irony again?
You’ve really done no such thing, except to try to play the “just because I don’t comment doesn’t mean I’m not turning a blind eye to them!” line. Something makes me thing I could never get away with that. Call it… a hunch 
This is serious cherry picking, and precisely what I mean to turning a blind eye to things. Have you nothing to say about the four different issues I presented to you? If not, then what about CA passing a transgendered rights bill amidst, arguably, a floundering state economy?
Why would I? It’s easy to cherry pick and see what you want to see.
Dispute what? That you’re doing nothing cherry picking to decide “who’s worse”?
Unluckily for you, I was responding to a specific post you made.
That’s great. Who said otherwise?
You do realize I’ve been intermittently posting in this thread from day one, correct (in fact, my first post was 7 minutes after the thread was created)?
And they will more than likely do it again in 2014, hoping the public is too stupid to notice. What’s sad is they’re probably right.
And there’s a figure on that page that shows the shocking spike graphically. As previously alluded, the party campaigned on smaller government, yet immediately began greatly expanding the role of government as a means to hurt, shame, and control women, and squelch their reproductive rights. Typical.
Ah, so my human rights should take a backseat to an economy which, while poor, still places the average Californian in a socioeconomic position better than probably 95% of the planet.
Gotcha.