• About Us
  • Activity
  • Advertising
  • Books
  • Business
  • Contact
  • Dashboard
  • EB5
  • Entertainment
  • feedback
  • Forgot Your Password?
  • Government
  • Home
  • Interviews
  • Login
  • Members
  • Meme generator
  • National
  • Nevada
  • Nevada News and Views
  • Newsmax
  • NN&V Ads
  • Opinion
  • Pick a New Password
  • Politics
  • Polls
  • Privacy Policy
  • Profile
  • Recent comments by me
  • Recent comments on my posts
  • Register
  • Submit post
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Confirmation
  • Survey
  • Survey
  • Terms of Service
  • Today’s Top 10
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Welcome!
  • Yop Poll Archive
Nevada News and Views
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • 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
Chuck Muth
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
Chuck Muth

Related Items

More in Opinion

Tark: Trans “Rights” … and Wrongs

Chuck MuthMay 26, 2023
Read More

Stone: The Truth About AB 250: Will Patients Really Benefit?

NN&V StaffMay 26, 2023
Read More

How the GOP Lost Jacksonville

NN&V StaffMay 18, 2023
Read More

The Dark Side of Wealth Taxes: Why Nevada Should Say No

NN&V StaffMay 12, 2023
Read More

Nohra: GOED vs. State Senator: A Showdown Over Tax Reductions in Nevada

NN&V StaffMay 10, 2023
Read More

Washoe Commissioner Throttles Citizen Speech

NN&V StaffMay 2, 2023
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 business Muth's Truths government Muth’s Truths Opinion Government Obama Ron Knecht News Donald Trump GOP Republicans

Copyright © 2023 Citizen Outreach | Maintained by VirtualAlly

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