Yes. Women know very well that they are pregnant and, what's more, they know very well that it will eventually result in the birth of a child. If they didn't know this, they would not be taking proactive steps to end that eventuality. In other words, if she didn't know what she was doing, she would do nothing. The idea that after a woman finds out that she is pregnant, decides that she doesn't want to give birth, makes an appointment, arrives at the office for the procedure, then needs to be shown that she is pregnant is fatuous in the extreme.Digby's probably right about Cowan and the others who relish the idea of punishing women for having sex that they didn't OK with Cowan first. But I think Digby's first reason explains a great deal of the conservative mindset - particularly when it comes to teachers and public education.
There are only two reasons to support this: you either believe that women are mentally disabled and are incapable of understanding that they are pregnant and will give birth if they don't have this procedure or you believe they should be punished for seeking the procedure by shoving a probe inside them while lecturing them about their decision and showing them pictures of the inside of their wombs. That's it. My guess is that Tyler Cowan and the rest of these people making all these clever bon mots believe the second. But it doesn't matter: you're a jackass either way. [emphasis mine]
As I've noted before, corporate "reformers" love to push the idea that teachers are too stoopid to understand how they are being manipulated by their unions:
Every time these two take a bat to the NJEA, they always couch their words by saying how much they love teachers. Leave aside the fact that Christie has attacked teachers - not the NJEA, but teachers - over and over again. Leave aside the economic hits the teaching corps has had to take while New Jersey's millionaires get tax gifts.And the War On Vaginas only provides further proof. These conservatives think women are such a bunch of knuckleheads that they couldn't possibly understand what's going on inside their unions or their uteruses. It's up to big, strong he-men like Chris Christie to save them from themselves.
What strikes me is how utterly patronizing their attitude is. Do they think teachers are so stupid that we couldn't change our leadership if we wanted to? Do they think we are incapable of demanding accountability from our unions? Do they think we are so naive as to believe we could get good executives to run the NJEA for less than six-figures?
I've said it before and taken heat for it, but I'll say it again: this is a result of straight up sexism. Christie never goes after the cops or the firefighters or even the CWA workers like he goes after teachers, and the reason is clear: he is comfortable verbally abusing women. He did it to Valerie Huttle and Loretta Weinberg and Marie Corfield without the slightest hesitation. Is it such a stretch to believe that he thinks that a profession with a majority of women is a profession that is full of bubble-heads that can be easily duped by their union?
Yes, I know what I'm saying is controversial; it's also correct.
How do you feel about that, gals?
Looks really comfortable, doesn't she?