By Nina May

The biggest complaint that the pro-Obamacare supporters have voiced is that conservatives are taking portions of HR3200 out of context when they talk about death panels, abortion funding, and insurance coverage for those who are in the US illegally. Creigh Deeds is doing exactly the same thing to Bob McDonnell’s school paper by pulling a few well chosen sentences out of a 93 page thesis. The good news is, anyone can read it for themselves and draw their own conclusion, the bad news is, most people won’t, and that is what Deeds is counting on. (here is a link if you care to read it for yourself . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/McDonnell_thesis_082909.pdf)

We have read the entire thesis and as women we find nothing outrageous about his findings which are all based on case history and the rule of law. It is a historical thesis that follows the history of the traditional family from the Common Law of England stating, “Before one can evaluate existing government policies with respect to the family, a clear understanding of the nature, definition, authority, and jurisdiction of the family institution is required.”

It goes on to say, “Respect for the rule of law over private morality and custom has been central in the history of western civilization. Deriving its roots from canon law and subsequently the Common Law of England, the law of marriage and family were formulated in the Christian context of covenant, not purely contract.”

In American jurisprudence, the model of the traditional family was drawn from the dominant Protestant ideology, American popular thought, and leading legal writers such as Blackstone and Kent. In the 19th century, the Supreme Court recognized the ‘ideal Victorian family’ as a small government in its own right in the few family cases that came before it. In Reynolds v. United States, in 1878, the Court upheld a bigamy conviction of Mormons despite a claim of religious freedom, stating that the family in American law is the Western European monogamous family in which sexual activity and child-bearing take place, not the tribal family of Africa or Asia. In 1923 Justice McReynolds acknowledged in Meyer v. Nebraska that there are limits to what the state can do to improve citizenship, saying that the statist notion that government should supersede parental authority because some parents act wrongly is repugnant to the American tradition. It is from this historical western model that American family law and policy has grown, and against which contemporary thinking must be compared.”

Now, someone reading that either in context or out might be offended, but whose problem is that? When someone, being trained as a lawyer, can’t even cite legal cases that are hundreds of years old, which is a requirement for earning a degree showing that he has a knowledge of legal history and precedent, then what is the point?

Is the point for Creigh Deeds to insult the intelligence of women and assume we will blindly join the mob to crucify a man who has written a thesis, 20 years ago, citing case law, drawing legal and historic conclusions, and not look at the document ourselves? Is this the best he can do to prove leadership and show all voters in Virginia that he is worthy to lead? Not only is it dishonest and disingenuous, but it is cowardly to hide behind women he thinks he can rally by hitting a few hot buttons with them.

Well, he has underestimated Virginia women. We read, we study, we question and we don’t like being used, exploited, lied to and manipulated. He claims to represent the will and the voice of women yet supports a "woman's right to choose" which would include a procedure called Partial Birth Abortion that could potentially kill her and most certainly kills an innocent, totally viable full term baby. Ask any reputable OBGYN if forcing a breach birth of a baby in any way is healthy for a woman. Ask any woman who has been waiting in line to adopt if she would gladly take that full term baby that is born breach, except for the head, and then the brains are sucked out, so that the skull collapses making it “legally” a protected murder. Ask the mother of that baby and the millions of other women who have been exploited by abortion how often they think of that procedure, regret it and blame the person who forced them to have an abortion. No woman “chooses” to kill her unborn baby . . . they are forced by circumstances, irresponsible men and even medical professionals to do this thing they regret for the rest of their lives.

I have zero patience for any cowardly man who stands behind a law that enables him to act irresponsibly and impregnate woman after woman with no consequence other than paying the occasional abortion bill. If Creigh Deeds really cared about the health of woman and protecting her right to choose, he would introduce a counter law that says that any man who impregnates a woman and forces her to have an abortion, will lose a testicle. And with the next woman he does that to, he will lose the second one. So these cads can only successfully destroy two lives and no more.

If he is so concerned about women and protecting their choices, then why doesn’t he reduce taxes so that women who are forced to work now, can stay home with their children if they choose. I dare him to find one woman who will tell you they love their work more than their children. And if he does find one, then great, he can have their vote. But the vast, overwhelming majority of women with children, who are forced by economic circumstances to work a 9 to 5 type job will tell you they would much rather have the freedom to be home when their kids come home from school, nurture their newborn, or just be there to help with homework, etc.

Bob McDonnell writes in his paper, “The Internal Revenue Code also wreaked havoc upon the traditional family. Dr. Allan Carlson, president of the Rockford Institute, blames heavy tax growth for giving the financial impetus for pressuring mothers into the work force. He reports that between 1960 and 1984, a two-parent family with four children saw its federal income tax liability increase 224%, while the social security tax increased 600%, to 7.15% of gross income.”

That doesn't sound like choice, it sounds like necessity. And these women will never see the money they paid into Social Security, in their senior years, because that system is totally broke. How women friendly is that? Did Creig Deeds bother to share this fact or hundreds of others that are based on solid statistics, case law and historical data?

To take this very well-written, well-documented and historically accurate thesis out of context to make a few political points is an indication that Creigh Deeds is a desperate politician who will do anything, exploit any group, and hide behind women to get elected. This is not the kind of leadership or stewardship Virginia needs, and it is certainly not what the smart women of Virginia want. Do NOT insult our intelligence.

Send article to a Friend Print article