• About Us
  • Activity
  • Advertising
  • Books
  • Business
  • Contact
  • Entertainment
  • feedback
  • Government
  • Home
  • Interviews
  • Members
  • National
  • Nevada
  • Nevada News and Views
  • Newsmax
  • NN&V Ads
  • Opinion
  • Politics
  • Polls
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Confirmation
  • Survey
  • Survey
  • Terms of Service
  • Today’s Top 10
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Welcome!
  • Yop Poll Archive
Nevada News and Views
  • Home
  • Muth’s Truths
  • Politics
  • Government
  • Entertainment
  • More
    • Nevada
    • Opinion
    • Business
    • Travel
    • News
    • Sports
  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • Pinterest

  • RSS

Opinion

Thirty-seven years of controversy over Roe v. Wade

Thirty-seven years of controversy over Roe v. Wade
N&V Staff
December 19, 2009

(Samantha Stone) – It’s timely, though the timing is probably accidental, that Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Sue Lowden’s record on abortion is being combed for inconsistencies.

The anniversary of Roe v. Wade is about a month away. It’s always highlighted by the media. The Reasonable Reporter uses the occasion annually to recommend a visit to Netflix to order “Citizen Ruth,” a hilarious and dark send-up of both sides.

The brilliance of Citizen Ruth is that every character in it is thoroughly unlikable, including the protagonist Ruth, a crude and anti-social pregnant addict (played by Laura Dern), who is arrested and tossed into the same holding cell with a group of pro-life demonstrators. Zaniness ensues. Grim zaniness, but zaniness all the same, as each side of the abortion fight tries to recruit Ruth to be its emblem, stooping lower and lower in their successive bids to win her.

Citizen Ruth illustrates a bitter truth, which is the futile nature of prolonged public debate on an irreconcilable question. The film also caricatures, in cruel shades, adherents to the absolute, emotion-stirring positions.

For more than a decade the true points of public contention on abortion have been taxpayer funding, parental notification, and late-term procedures. Nonetheless, candidates are under pressure to adopt an absolute pro-life or pro-choice position, at least in a tough primary. What does a candidate do if he or she is inclined with most of the American public?

(Ms. Stone writes The Reasonable Reporter blog)

Prev postNext post

Related Items
Opinion
December 19, 2009
N&V Staff

Related Items

More in Opinion

Mike Lindell

Memo To Mike Lindell: Kick Some Dominion Ass

Penny PressFebruary 24, 2021
Read More

Trump Acquitted AGAIN!

Penny PressFebruary 17, 2021
Read More

More Money STILL Doesn’t Buy Better Education

Ron KnechtFebruary 17, 2021
Read More

Trump 2, Washington Whores 0

Penny PressFebruary 17, 2021
Read More

Pelosi: (I) Don’t Need To Follow My Rules, Man

Penny PressFebruary 11, 2021
Read More

Memo to Wyoming GOP: Time To Peacefully Get Rid of Liz Cheney

Penny PressFebruary 10, 2021
Read More
Scroll for more
Tap

Subscribe Free By Email

Looking for the best in breaking news and conservative views? Let Chuck do all the work for you! Subscribe to his FREE "Muth's Truths" e-newsletter.

* indicates required
Nevada News and Views
Nevada News & Views is an educational project of Citizen Outreach Foundation, a non-partisan IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. It is not associated or affiliated with any political party or group. Nevada News & Views is accessible by the public at no cost. It funds its operations through tax-deductible contributions from donors and supporters and does not accept government money or grants.

TAGS

Featured Article Nevada Politics Muth's Truths business government Government Opinion Obama News Donald Trump GOP Republicans Ron Knecht Adam Laxalt

Copyright © 2021 Citizen Outreach | Maintained by VirtualAlly

Jon Ralston’s “Face” to Go Statewide
Once Again Teachers Union Shows Kids Don’t Matter