20 Mar

Let me show you what a real war on women looks like [Reader Post]

                                       

Paula Jones. James Carville called her trailer park trash. Evan Thomas said she was a “sleazy woman”

Gloria Steinem said Bill Clinton was entitled to a “freebie” when he groped Kathleen Willey.

That’s Juanita Broaddrick on the right. Lanny Davis said we should all feel dirty even speaking of her accusations.

Betsy Wright had Flowers in mind as the bimbo in “bimbo eruption.”

This is Mary Jo Kopechne. Ted Kennedy “forgot” about her while she was trapped in an inverted submerged car.

Democrats are pitching a phony “war on women” by the right following Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Sandra Fluke. They absolutely pale in contrast to what democrats have done. Rand Simberg recalls democrats’ war on women over the last several decades:

An evergreen guide to what the Left is doing or plans to do is to listen to what they accuse their political opponents of. Along those lines, incandescent in its projection, cynicism, and hypocrisy is the latest mantra emanating from the Democrats of the “Republican War On Women,” based on nothing more than some crude comments (since apologized for) by a talk-show host aimed at a Democrat feminist activist who thinks that the world owes her free (and expensive) contraception and, moreover, that it should be done in violation of the religious conscience of Catholics. Of course, they don’t want their demagoguery to be distracted by the annoying reality that their own misogyny and assault on women is much more virulent, and has been going on for much longer.

It should be shocking, by the conventional narrative, that the White House of a “liberal” president would be a hostile work environment for women, but it is not at all a surprise to anyone familiar with the history of the Democrats and the Left, going back at least to the 1960s, when a prominent Democrat politician got a pass from the media for abandoning a young woman (possibly pregnant by him) to drown in his car. The same man went on to later fame as the top slice of bread in a “waitress sandwich,” and yet was so lionized by the Left that not that long ago, at the time of his death, a woman(!) wrote that Mary Jo Kopechne might have been happy to undergo the terror as her lungs filled with the brackish water of Martha’s Vineyard had she only known what a great legislator he would turn out to be.

To see similar hypocritical Leftist misogyny, we need only go back to the last time a Democrat was in the White House. Whenever a woman came forward with allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by Bill Clinton, the response of the Clinton defenders, both in and out of the media, was to attack her credibility, character, and virtue. Advisor James Carville famously said of Paula Jones (the young Arkansas state employee whom Clinton as governor had his state police guard procure to his hotel room for the purpose of orally pleasuring him), “Drag $100 bills through trailer parks, there’s no telling what you’ll find.” Evan Thomas of Newsweek dutifully complemented the slander by declaring her on national television “just some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks,” though he later was compelled to apologize in print. (One wonders how residents of trailer parks felt about that, but I guess empathy for them is for the little people.) When Kathleen Willey accused the president of groping her in the White House, and was physically threatened for her trouble, feminist icon and (former) scourge of sexual harassers Gloria Steinem said that it was no problem — he was entitled to a freebie, after which Cathy Young of Reason magazine reported on “the death of sexual harassment.”

It got worse. As the Paula Jones lawsuit progressed, and the president committed acts of obstruction of justice (federal felonies) by perjury and subornation of perjury through threats and bribes, the White House was prepared to go after Monica Lewinsky, the woman about whom he engaged in such obstruction. She was bribed with jobs, and urged to in turn suborn perjury from her confidante Linda Tripp, by implying threats against her family. If the incriminating blue dress hadn’t turned up, their plan was to continue to cover up and lie, and accuse Lewinsky of being a crazy stalker. The White House orchestrated the leak of the personnel files of Pentagon employee Linda Tripp, the only person in the entire fiasco who told the truth, in an attempt (sadly quite successful) to discredit her. This included a mistaken felony arrest record that had been sealed since she was a teenager. She was vilified and maligned in the media, with late-night comedians mocking her physical appearance. It’s unlikely that many of these people were either conservatives or Republicans.

Read it all.

Barack Obama is not without sin. His administration made life brutal for women.

Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.

At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.

Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. “There were some issues early on with women feeling as though they hadn’t figured out what their role was going to be on the senior team at the White House,” Jarrett said in an interview Monday. “Most of the women hadn’t worked on the campaign, and so they didn’t have a personal relationship with the president.”

The women’s-inclusion issue in the Obama White House is featured prominently in a controversial new book to be released Tuesday, “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind.

The book, based on more than 700 hours of interviews, including one with Obama, quotes a number of top officials describing a difficult work environment at the time for women, due largely to the dominating roles of male officials such as economics adviser Lawrence H. Summers and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn was quoted as saying

“this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

No word on whether Obama explained that to his daughters.

But the lapdog poodle press is rushing to Barack Obama’s side like faithful and dutiful pets. Remember I told you that the left has absolutely no long term memory whatsoever?

Meanwhile, Bristol Palin is still waiting for Obama’s phone call.

And I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear Obama explain to Sasha and Malia about Cee Lo Green (and Daddy is a fan of Cee Lo) and why Daddy arranged for someone to sing F*ck You (a song to a woman) at Daddy’s fundraiser. Don’t miss Green flipping the bird as well.

YouTube Preview Image

In case you missed something, here are the complete lyrics


(Chorus)
I See You Driving ’round Town
With The Girl I Love And I’m Like,
Fuck You!
Oo, Oo, Ooo
I Guess The Change In My Pocket
Wasn’t Enough I’m Like,
Fuck You!
And Fuck Her Too!
I Said, If I Was Richer, I’d Still Be With Ya
Ha, Now Ain’t That Some Shit? (ain’t That Some Shit?)
And Although There’s Pain In My Chest
I Still Wish You The Best With A…
Fuck You!
Oo, Oo, Ooo

Yeah I’m Sorry, I Can’t Afford A Ferrari,
But That Don’t Mean I Can’t Get You There.
I Guess He’s An Xbox And I’m More Atari,
But The Way You Play Your Game Ain’t Fair.

I Picture The Fool That Falls In Love With You
(oh Shit She’s A Gold Digger)
Well
(just Thought You Should Know Nigga)
Ooooooh
I’ve Got Some News For You
Yeah Go Run And Tell Your Little Boyfriend

(chorus)

Now I Know, That I Had To Borrow,
Beg And Steal And Lie And Cheat.
Trying To Keep Ya, Trying To Please Ya.
‘Cause Being In Love With You Ass Ain’t Cheap.

I Picture The Fool That Falls In Love With You
(oh Shit She’s A Gold Digger)
Well
(just Thought You Should Know Nigga)
Ooooooh
I’ve Got Some News For You
I Really Hate Yo Ass Right Now
(chorus)

Now Baby, Baby, Baby, Why D’you Wanna Wanna Hurt Me So Bad?

(so Bad, So Bad, So Bad)
I Tried To Tell My Mamma But She Told Me
“this Is One For Your Dad”
(your Dad, Your Dad, Your Dad)
Uh! Whhhy? Uh! Whhhy? Uh!
Whhhy Lady? Oh! I Love You Oh!
I Still Love You. Oooh!

This sounds like a truly touching Obama family melody. Maybe Obama can share some of Cee Lo’s other dubious remarks with his daughters as well. Maybe he could share all of this history with the kids. Maybe he could say “Girls, ain’t that some sh*t?”

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Feminism, Liberal Idiots, Media, MSM Bias, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics, propaganda bureau, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
| 1,976 views

75 Responses to Let me show you what a real war on women looks like [Reader Post]

  1. Comm0n Sense says: 1

    This is really good and will get the libs all up in arms. Picking on St. Clinton will drive them crazy.

    ReplyReply
  2. Skook says: 2

    If Hillary had not managed Bill’s Bimbo eruptions, she would have had no experience on her resume and hardly be qualified for Secretary of State. Actually, because of balancing bimbos and ruining their lives, she is the most qualified person in the whole Obama administration. Perhaps it was a good thing Wee Billy couldn’t keep his Willy under wraps, or the Obama Administration would be completely clueless.

    ReplyReply
  3. Nan G says: 3

    The Left’s “War on Women” also includes abortion.
    Because of the Left and it’s love of abortion there are now 130 million more men on earth than women.
    This is more than all of the females in the USA.
    In European countries it is legal to get an ultrasound, find out your baby is a girl, then get an abortion and try again for a boy!
    Communists, socialists, Democrats.
    When it comes to hatred of women, they are all the same.

    ReplyReply
  4. anticsrocks says: 4

    Personally, I can’t wait for Curt to say this to a couple select brain dead trolls….

    ReplyReply
  5. drjohn says: 5

    @anticsrocks: That’s far more creative than was Cee Lo Green. :-)

    ReplyReply
  6. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 6

    You forgot to mention how Republicans made fun of the looks of small children, like Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton. But I guess ‘cherry picking’ makes good copy.

    ReplyReply
  7. DrJohn says: 7

    @Liberal1 (objectivity): If I were trying to make a point, I’d link to actual President’s advisors and news people and show their actual quotes.

    Hey wait- I did

    ReplyReply
  8. Westie says: 8

    And a HT to Drudge for outing the sleazedog BJ after TIME Mag refused to publish the Lewinsky abuse.

    ReplyReply
  9. FAITH7 says: 9

    That’s Juanita Broaddrick on the right. Lanny Davis said we should all feel dirty even speaking of her accusations. I went to this link and – Wow! The years and dates may change, but the [ hypocrisy] doesn’t huh??.

    We can add, although not ‘famous’ as such, but the OWS/Occupy’s “own war on women” with the “rapes” [that leaked out] and the “cover-up’s” of such brutality against these women….Oh, what is it? Let’s [not] ‘report’ it for [the good] of the whole [socialist] movement they got going on? blatant hypocrisy….

    And Oh –
    Some “classy” song writing there…. very “creative” too ‘cee lo’! hmmm..
    What is it they say about the company you keep?

    ReplyReply
  10. tiffany says: 10

    I love the selective thinking it takes to deduce your war while you completely ignore the obvious facts. Sounds about right though and I will admit I am 100% NOT SURPRISED AT ALL. Bravo, bravo. Cee-lo? Cee-lo is your best defense? I’m sorry, you’ll have to pull something better than that out of your butt.
    As the Right continues to dig themselves deeper into their pit of despair/non-election, you guys grasp at straws. Even your own politicians are coming out in defense of the “war on women”, some are even retiring due to the BS, etc. and you guys choose to place the blame elsewhere.
    Sad.
    It’s hard to face reality, isn’t it?

    ReplyReply
  11. AlexWolf says: 11

    The sad fact is that, while the majority of the current abuses against women are indeed authored by, primarily, Republicans, the “war on women” has been going on for thousands of years. A brief glance at history, from biblical exhortations to take the women of your conquered enemies as sexual slaves (after murdering their own men and children) down to our current “modern” times where violence against women is STILL at epidemic proportions, will show you very clearly that the brutality against women and the denial of their rights as free and equal human beings, is nothing new. The mistreatment of women is indeed not confined to any one political party. Yet that does not change the fact that it is Republicans currently authoring bills that would force a woman to continue to carry a dead fetus inside her, that demands state ordered rape of women seeking abortions for no better reason than to shame and torture them, that compares them to livestock and insects. To point out the abuses of others against women while ignoring your own is indeed the height of hypocrisy and Republicans are every bit as guilty as Democrats have ever been.

    ReplyReply
  12. tiffany says: 12

    @alexwolf
    Finally, some facts! I consider rape, carrying a fetus by order of THE MAN (in any case, alive or dead), being forced to shell out a majority of my paycheck to cover lifesaving birth control (even while Viagra is covered by most insurance plans), being paid far less for doing the same job (seriously, when will ERA be passed nationally?!), slutshaming, victim blaming, etc. by pundits and media personalities, not to mention everyday Joes (and Janes, sadly), having to escort at Planned Parenthood/clinics to ensure patients aren’t humiliated/violated/physically assaulted or the clinic isn’t burned down, having a President Obama pass NDAA so our female soldiers who fight in the literal WAR and who are sexually assaulted by their FELLOW soldiers can feel safe in reporting it and justice can be served, the violence against women act could actually be pushed BACK onto the table and not under the rug by Republicans….

    Yeah, move it along here. Nothing to see. This is just the start to a civil war. No big deal.

    ReplyReply
  13. drjohn says: 13

    @AlexWolf:

    Yet that does not change the fact that it is Republicans currently authoring bills that would force a woman to continue to carry a dead fetus inside her, that demands state ordered rape of women seeking abortions for no better reason than to shame and torture them, that compares them to livestock and insects.

    You’re free to comment but it would carry more authority if you actually provided links for your assertions.

    ReplyReply
  14. drjohn says: 15

    @tiffany: Please read the post.

    ReplyReply
  15. tiffany says: 16

    @drjohn: I read the post, as hard as it was, and much of it, was antiquated, off topic, and grasping. Read my first post.
    THEN, read my second post where I tell you about the actual war on women that’s currently occurring.
    http://www.pdacommunity.org/wisconsin/1439-recall-facing-wis-gov-walker-continues-war-on-women-with-flurry-of-bills
    http://news.opb.org/article/idaho_woman_arrested_for_abortion_is_uneasy_case_for_both_sides/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dick-retta-pro-life-grand_n_1404072.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/20-week-abortion-ban-nebraska-oklahoma-fetus-feel/story?id=13116214
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/planned-parenthood-bombing-wisconsin_n_1400449.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fg%2Fa%2F2012%2F04%2F03%2Fbloomberg_articlesM1I6110YHQ0X01-M1VPC.DTL
    http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/314-18/10765-at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-qwomen-as-livestockq-bill
    http://prochoicejacksonville.tumblr.com/post/20200998382/new-hampshire-too
    http://prochoicejacksonville.tumblr.com/post/20199405092/arizona-also-looks-to-join-in-on-the-abortion-ban-post
    http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-open-letter-to-the-tiny-white-man-the-republican-party-has-sent-to-live-in-my-underpants
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/27/451563/ron-johnson-google-birth-control/

    These are just a few of the MANY links to stories varying from abortion rights to contraception, etc.
    https://www.facebook.com/ProChoiceJacksonville

    ReplyReply
  16. drjohn says: 17

    @tiffany: Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a healthy fetus may be aborted the day before due date?

    ReplyReply
  17. drjohn says: 18

    @tiffany:

    In late 2010, McCormack learned she was pregnant. The father was out of the picture.

    http://news.opb.org/article/idaho_woman_arrested_for_abortion_is_uneasy_case_for_both_sides/

    Not arguing the merits of abortion but is it not reckless to get pregnant with the father “out of the picture”? I mean, what’s wrong with thinking ahead?

    ReplyReply
  18. tiffany says: 19

    @drjohn: You’re a quick reader. Read ALL those sources, huh? Wow, I’m impressed. What a learned individual you are. You ask for proof, are provided with it, and by golly, you are the better for it!
    I am 100% PRO-CHOICE.

    ReplyReply
  19. drjohn says: 20

    @tiffany: This one:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dick-retta-pro-life-grand_n_1404072.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

    I don’t think he ought to harass anyone, but this is not a politician’s actions.

    ReplyReply
  20. tiffany says: 21

    @drjohn: I pass zero judgements on her life because it’s not my business. It’s no one else’s business but her own.

    ReplyReply
  21. drjohn says: 22

    @tiffany: Didn’t say I read them all yet, did I?

    ReplyReply
  22. drjohn says: 23

    @tiffany:

    I pass zero judgements on her life because it’s not my business. It’s no one else’s business but her own.

    But here you are putting her business on a blog.

    ReplyReply
  23. tiffany says: 24

    @drjohn: Actually, do you not know what the FACE act is? It was enacted under President Clinton, barely enforced under George W. and is finally being enforced under President Obama. The people that it is being used against feel that it’s all politics.

    ReplyReply
  24. tiffany says: 25

    @drjohn:
    “But here you are putting her business on a blog. ”
    You asked for proof on the war on women and this is an example. Her business was made public when they decided her private affairs were an arrestable offense.

    ReplyReply
  25. drjohn says: 26

    @tiffany:

    being forced to shell out a majority of my paycheck to cover lifesaving birth control

    You know you can get it Target for about $10 a month, right?

    ReplyReply
  26. drjohn says: 27

    @tiffany:

    You asked for proof on the war on women and this is an example. Her business was made public when they decided her private affairs were an arrestable offense.

    Then the other statement is moot. But again- why is someone else always responsible for cleaning up a mess that needn’t have happened?

    ReplyReply
  27. drjohn says: 28

    @tiffany:

    The people that it is being used against feel that it’s all politics.

    You mean people like Retta.

    ReplyReply
  28. AlexWolf says: 29

    @drjohn:

    http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill
    This is the gem that would force women to carry a dead fetus and compares women to livestock.

    http://themoderatevoice.com/143535/republican-party-chief-compares-war-on-women-charge-to-war-on-caterpillars/?amp
    And here’s where us girls get compared to bugs.

    http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html
    Here’s some “fun” stuff on violence against women.

    http://bluelinchpin.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/women-slavery-in-the-bible/
    And let’s not forget the bible, shall we? What a great source for how women should be treated.

    ReplyReply
  29. AlexWolf says: 30

    @drjohn:
    You say, “You know you can get it Target for about $10 a month, right? ”

    And here you show your ignorance in full. Birth control pills come in a staggering variety of formulations, SOME of which are very cheap and SOME of which are very expensive. What works for one woman doesn’t always work for another. And what a woman requires can easily change over time. I was not long ago prescribed a birth control pill that costs around $800 a year. I can’t afford that. The one I take now costs $20 per month, still twice as high as the $10 stuff I used to be able to get away with. For the record, it does NOT work as well for my specific medical condition as the $800 a year stuff but it’s all I can afford. Perhaps YOU ought to be required to prove your assertions with some sources before you blather on about things you don’t know. You might just get an education.

    ReplyReply
  30. AlexWolf says: 31

    @drjohn:
    You say, “Not arguing the merits of abortion but is it not reckless to get pregnant with the father “out of the picture”? I mean, what’s wrong with thinking ahead?”

    So… I’m guessing you’ve never had a sexual relationship with someone you later regretted? Or a relationship that failed? Or one where you later found out the other person was not what they seemed or turned out to be untrustworthy, unstable, etc? I have no idea what that woman’s relationship was with the man that impregnated her. I have no idea if they were using protection that failed. Maybe they WERE thinking ahead but, y’know, the best laid plans and all that. But the fact is you don’t know either. For all YOU know they may have been involved in a long standing relationship and he may have promised her marriage. For all any of us know he may no longer be “in the picture” because he’s dead. Maybe he’s “not in the picture” because he’s her rapist. You have absolutely no way to know if this woman was “being reckless” any more than I have any way of knowing she was a paragon of rectitude. You’re simply making mean spirited assumptions without any reasonable knowledge to back it up. And that’s pretty low.

    ReplyReply
  31. johngalt says: 32

    @AlexWolf:

    Just a few quick points;

    -From your Ms. Magazine article, one person, in their arguments to support the GA law, compared women to livestock. That does not mean that all GOP, or conservatives, believe that women are comparable to livestock. That is condemning an entire political party, or those who voted in favor of the bill, for what one person said, and generalizing that as the thought process of an entire political ideology. I’m sure that you are smart enough to realize the difference, despite your remarks on it in your comments.

    -Pertaining to the GOP national committee chairman, he did not compare women to bugs. His point is that the idea of the GOP declaring a “war on women” is pure political BS. I could, for example, point out several instances of Obama and the left restricting my rights(as a white, middle-aged, middle-class male) and state that Obama has declared a “war on white, middle-class males”. Now, it wouldn’t be true, any more than the idea of a “war on women” being true.

    -I’m not sure why you linked to violence on women. It’s hardly supportive of an assertion that the right has engaged in a “war on women”, particularly when it points out that young, low-income, minority women are most often the victims of such violence, and most often committed by young, low-income, minority males. Hardly the people that tend towards the GOP. And no, that isn’t to say that any other group is guilt free of violence towards women. Far from it. Just that you cannot point to any one group, in particular, and condemn them for all violence on women. Which is why I stated that I’m not sure why you linked it. It isn’t applicable, and doesn’t support the theme of “war on women” by the GOP.

    -Linking the bible is nearly the same thing as above. Christians in the US populate both major political parties. It’s hardly appropriate to condemn one party over the other in how women are treated overall, based on what the bible says. You could point to the evangelical christians, which many liberal/progressives do. However, their isn’t much truth to the idea that the group is pushing their religious viewpoints on everyone else, despite the recent laws dealing with abortions.

    The fact is, the political left is using the idea of a “war on women” by the right as means to gain votes. It simply isn’t true. And true conservatives, like myself, simply have no desire to infringe upon women’s, or anyone’s for that matter, rights. However, the term “right” is being abused in this country to obtain things for which the Constitution, and the founders, never intended. And in some cases, to override an actual right spelled out within that Constitution.

    Take the issue of the birth control debate, for example. I, and most others like me, don’t care what form of birth control one uses, or how much it costs, or how effective it is, or even whether it’s used for non-birth control reasons. It simply doesn’t matter to us. What does matter is when it is deemed acceptable for government to force one person to pay for another’s “right”. And when that “person” is a religious organization, and government is forcing them to go against their religious viewpoint, it violates the Constitution. And because some people object to government doing this, the left calls it a “war on women”.

    ReplyReply
  32. AlexWolf says: 33

    @johngalt:

    You say:
    Just a few quick points;

    “-From your Ms. Magazine article, one person, in their arguments to support the GA law, compared women to livestock. That does not mean that all GOP, or conservatives, believe that women are comparable to livestock. That is condemning an entire political party, or those who voted in favor of the bill, for what one person said, and generalizing that as the thought process of an entire political ideology. Iâ��m sure that you are smart enough to realize the difference, despite your remarks on it in your comments.”

    Yet you have felt free to tar an entire political party as being anti-woman on no more than the actions of 3 Democratic men. If you want, I can bring in a list of links of several Republican men saying nasty things about women (as well as stupid, let’s not forget the nimrod who is currently asserting that “money is more important for men”) and, as Tiffany already pointed out, authoring an astonishing amount of anti-woman legislation. This can go on and on.

    “-Pertaining to the GOP national committee chairman, he did not compare women to bugs. His point is that the idea of the GOP declaring a â��war on womenâ�� is pure political BS. I could, for example, point out several instances of Obama and the left restricting my rights(as a white, middle-aged, middle-class male) and state that Obama has declared a â��war on white, middle-class malesâ��. Now, it wouldnâ��t be true, any more than the idea of a â��war on womenâ�� being true.”

    Legislation that makes a woman submit to state ordered rape when she seeks an abortion is indeed indicative of war. Rape is often a tool of war. And lest we forget, rape is any unwanted penetration of the vagina (whether with a penis or a foreign object) perpetrated against a woman’s will. That is now the horrific situation women unfortunate enough to live in Texas face thanks to Perry who, last I checked, was not only insane, but a Republican. There’s no sound medical reason for this “procedure” and the woman is forced to pay for it. It exists merely to torture and shame women and make it that much harder financially to access a legal medical procedure. Yes, this IS indicative of a war on women… at least against those the state has deemed to be “sluts.”

    “-Iâ��m not sure why you linked to violence on women. Itâ��s hardly supportive of an assertion that the right has engaged in a â��war on womenâ��, particularly when it points out that young, low-income, minority women are most often the victims of such violence, and most often committed by young, low-income, minority males. Hardly the people that tend towards the GOP. And no, that isnâ��t to say that any other group is guilt free of violence towards women. Far from it. Just that you cannot point to any one group, in particular, and condemn them for all violence on women. Which is why I stated that Iâ��m not sure why you linked it. It isnâ��t applicable, and doesnâ��t support the theme of â��war on womenâ�� by the GOP.”

    If you had paid attention to my initial response that would have been quite apparent. My larger point is that there has ALWAYS been a war on women, waged by MEN, regardless of political party. It is simply the fact of the matter that it is currently Republicans authoring a slew of vicious, cruel, and flat out mean spirited legislation against women. That is why Republicans are getting so much attention at the moment. But their insane actions are just the latest symptoms of the patriarchy that has infected most societies like the disease it is. My other point was that, in light of this, it is hypocritical to point out the abuses of Democrats against women when it is Republicans who are guilty of the recent and continuous onslaught of anti-woman legislation. You dare to speak of the hypocrisy of Democrats (and I’m not saying they AREN’T guilty of it) when the hypocrisy of your own party is easily as much if not more staggering. This is incredibly childish thinking and harkens to a play ground full of five year old boys who justify beating up on the smallest kid in the group by saying, “Well Johnny hit her too!”

    “-Linking the bible is nearly the same thing as above. Christians in the US populate both major political parties. Itâ��s hardly appropriate to condemn one party over the other in how women are treated overall, based on what the bible says. You could point to the evangelical christians, which many liberal/progressives do. However, their isnâ��t much truth to the idea that the group is pushing their religious viewpoints on everyone else, despite the recent laws dealing with abortions.”

    Again, pointing out that the poisonous attitudes currently exemplified by Republicans have ancient, indeed biblical, roots. Understanding where the idea that men are superior to women and can therefore treat them however they would like, no matter how badly, came from is vital to combating that incredibly idiotic idea. Since many Republicans are Christians of one stripe or another the connection is quite clear.

    “The fact is, the political left is using the idea of a â��war on womenâ�� by the right as means to gain votes.”

    Of course they are. That’s politics. And Obama, no matter what you think of him (and I am personally no fan for many reasons) is no idiot. Both parties are guilty of seizing on whatever they can use against the other side. That is the sleazy underbelly of politics and is the primary reason most average Americans not only don’t trust politicians in general (regardless of party) but also actively dislike them.

    ” It simply isnâ��t true. And true conservatives, like myself, simply have no desire to infringe upon womenâ��s, or anyoneâ��s for that matter, rights. However, the term â��rightâ�� is being abused in this country to obtain things for which the Constitution, and the founders, never intended. And in some cases, to override an actual right spelled out within that Constitution.”

    If a woman does not have the RIGHT to determine her own reproduction, though whatever method she chooses, whether that be abstinence or birth control or even abortion, then she is a slave. She is no more than chattel, kept by men for breeding purposes, her entire life dictated by the lusts of someone else, up to and including her rapist. Does that sound extreme to you? It is. Because it is a matter of life and death even to this day. Abortion is still 14 times safer for a woman to undergo than childbirth in this country. Women still die in childbirth though that event is blessedly not anywhere near as common as it used to be. But the decision to undergo pregnancy and childbirth still encompasses real risk. And the more often that risk is taken, the higher the risks get. That elements of the Republican party ignore this is unconscionable.

    “Take the issue of the birth control debate, for example. I, and most others like me, donâ��t care what form of birth control one uses, or how much it costs, or how effective it is, or even whether itâ��s used for non-birth control reasons. It simply doesnâ��t matter to us.”

    I guess that’s why you’re okay with being ignorant of its cost and yet can toss out little (often incorrect) gems like telling a woman who darn well knows better she can get it at Target for 10 bucks.

    ” What does matter is when it is deemed acceptable for government to force one person to pay for anotherâ��s â��rightâ��. And when that â��personâ�� is a religious organization, and government is forcing them to go against their religious viewpoint, it violates the Constitution. And because some people object to government doing this, the left calls it a â��war on womenâ��. ”

    Viagra is covered, with no more than a small co-pay, by most insurance plans. It is not unreasonable to expect birth control to be covered as well. Should it be covered with no copay at all? Honestly, I wouldn’t mind a small co-pay. If I only had to pay $5 a month for the birth control that works best for me but costs $800 a year I would not feel abused at all. Viagra is covered by insurance plans offered even by religious institutions. Are those institutions checking to make sure it’s only being used by married men exclusively with their wives and only because they are trying to get pregnant? If not, why not? Is that any different than the attempted legislation that would allow an employer to violate doctor/patient medical privacy (and HIPPA) by being able to demand to know if she is taking birth control for a medical reason other than “mere” control of her own reproduction? I am also real tired of people screaming that they shouldn’t have to pay for things of which they do not morally approve. If that little gem had any actual validity *I* wouldn’t have to help pay for wars of aggression and conquest that I have a moral objection to. Because I DEEPLY MORALLY OBJECT to our country sending our young men and women out to DIE. ESPECIALLY when they aren’t hazarding their own kids but rather primarily the children of the poor who have few other options in life. I strongly suspect that is exactly why we are seeing MUCH of this attack on women with legislation that would forbid (or simply make inaccessible) abortion AND birth control. The powers that be want a steady stream of poor young people to keep on feeding to their insatiable war machine and that supply is threatened when women can truly decide how many, if any, children they wish to have. And it is the Republicans who are the warmongers.

    And you Sir, are just flat wrong in your assertion that there is no war on women. It has been ongoing for literally thousands of years and the Republicans are only the latest authors of that war.

    ReplyReply
  33. AlexWolf says: 34

    @johngalt:

    Correction: You aren’t the ignoramus who claimed women can just get birth control at Target for 10 bucks. I withdraw that particular claim against you.

    ReplyReply
  34. drjohn says: 35

    @AlexWolf:

    Correction: You aren’t the ignoramus who claimed women can just get birth control at Target for 10 bucks. I withdraw that particular claim against you.

    “Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university’s policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

    But Fluke’s testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown’s campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.’s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills—the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen—for $9 per month. “That’s the price without insurance,” the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

    It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can’t afford $9 per month for birth control. But this is the justification the mandate’s supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions.

    http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147820584/weekly-standard-target-sells-pills-for-9-a-month

    And Fluke had no idea.

    ReplyReply
  35. AlexWolf says: 36

    @drjohn:

    “And Fluke had no idea.

    As you clearly have no idea. How many times do I have to say it? COST of birth control pills VARIES and yes, some of them are VERY expensive, ESPECIALLY when they are also being used to treat specific medical conditions. The cheap generic formulations are NOT all the same. This is true of MANY drugs. Why are you compounding your error here? Or can you simply not read… or comprehend if it doesn’t agree with the silly idea you’ve already latched on to???

    ReplyReply
  36. drjohn says: 37

    @AlexWolf: You said that I was an ignoramus because I asserted that birth control costs about $10 a month and I demonstrated that it does cost ten dollars a month. If you’re treating another condition, then it’s not birth control.

    ReplyReply
  37. AlexWolf says: 38

    @drjohn:

    “You said that I was an ignoramus because I asserted that birth control costs about $10 a month and I demonstrated that it does cost ten dollars a month. If you’re treating another condition, then it’s not birth control. ”

    Wow. You just keep on commin’ with the silliness. Even IF “only” being used for birth control, the price and formulations of birth control pills STILL varies widely. That doesn’t change just because a specific one may be better to treat a condition. The ones that treated mine in my youth were fairly inexpensive (and I say that even though they were $35 a month through Planned Parenthood) but it took several tries to achieve what I need with different ones as side effects varied. A birth control pill that works perfectly for a healthy young woman may cause random bleeding, bloating, and mood alterations as well as lack of sex drive in another perfectly healthy young woman. It often takes a woman trying a couple different formulations to hit on the one that is perfect for her. Sometimes she ends up with an inexpensive one. Sometimes she ends up with an expensive one. They are just like any other drug. What works for one person will not for another. Why is this so difficult for you to wrap your head around?

    ReplyReply
  38. Aye says: 39

    @AlexWolf:

    http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill
    This is the gem that would force women to carry a dead fetus and compares women to livestock.

    I’d like for you to quote for us here the precise language of the law (Georgia HB 954) that “would force women to carry a dead fetus” and “compares women to livestock.”

    Be very specific and carefully source your quotes.

    Thank you so much.

    ReplyReply
  39. patt reid says: 40

    @drjohn:

    Tell that to the Catholic Church. They are opposed to birth control even when necessary to treat a condition, just as they oppose abortion to save a mother’s life, or in the cases of incest and rape. To the Catholic Church, women are disqualified from full personhood due to their sexuality which makes them incubators for future Catholics. Nothing more.

    ReplyReply
  40. Aye says: 41

    @patt reid:

    Tell that to the Catholic Church. They are opposed to birth control even when necessary to treat a condition, just as they oppose abortion to save a mother’s life, or in the cases of incest and rape.

    Pat, the Catholic Church (and all other religious organizations) are entitled to believe whatever they wish and no one has the right to force them to violate their religious tenets.

    It’s called “freedom of religion” and it “shall not be infringed.” That’s part of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

    There are religions that oppose blood transfusions and organ transplants too just to name a couple of things that might be considered medically necessary at times.

    None of those religious teachings, however, actually precludes a patient from having a transfusion or transplants or from taking birth control pills.

    The patient always has the right to choose treatment as they wish just as the religion has the right to teach as they wish.

    ReplyReply
  41. AlexWolf says: 42

    @Aye:

    You say, “I’d like for you to quote for us here the precise language of the law (Georgia HB 954) that “would force women to carry a dead fetus” and “compares women to livestock.”

    Be very specific and carefully source your quotes.

    Thank you so much. ”

    Nice to see I’m held to a higher standard than any of the pro-Republican folks here flapping their gums in ignorance via their keyboards. Nevertheless, here’s the version of the actual bill that passed, which, if read, DOES severely restrict access to abortion based upon extremely suspect “scientific” evidence:

    http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/954

    I would like to point out two things. First, the evidence for the existence of “fetal pain” is extremely flimsy.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.short

    Second, “The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile” pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.” (From: http://inthesetimes.com/duly-noted/entry/12978/women_as_livestock_bill_passes_in_georgia ) .
    So yes, it IS TRUE that women actually had to fight passage of a law that would have indeed forced them to carry a dead fetus. The fact that this lunacy was even proposed in the first place by Republicans is VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE of a malicious and deliberate war on women.

    Finally, since you are so insistent on sources, here’s the idiot himself, in his own words, making the comparison:
    http://vimeo.com/38048437

    Satisfied?

    ReplyReply
  42. Nan G says: 43

    What number of America’s women ever take ”the pill?”
    A small percent.
    Of 165 million females in the USA, some too old, others too young, so maybe only 70 million ovulating females are here….how many are on ”the pill?”
    Only 10.1 million.
    My doctor showed me the stat in one of his journals last visit.
    Other birth control methods are more popular for many reasons.
    Side effects from the pill can be deadly.
    The pill doesn’t protect against disease.
    Popular pills are often recalled for various reasons, souring users from the whole idea of finding an alternate pill.
    All this debate over a tiny proportion of women who take the pill.
    WHY?
    Because it isn’t about the pill.
    It is about defining a new relationship between religion and government with government becoming the boss.

    ReplyReply
  43. AlexWolf says: 44

    @Nan G:

    Not all that many people take heart medication either. But those who do, absolutely need it. Why should someone be denied medication merely because not all that many people need it? What a ridiculous argument. And no one has explained to be yet why it’s ok to cover a drug that does nothing more than induce erections but not birth control. Which, by the way, is NOT confined to only “the pill.” There are various methods including IUDs. The fact that the pill does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases does not make it unimportant and unworthy of coverage. That argument is as foolish as saying that because heart medication doesn’t also protect you against high blood pressure it shouldn’t be covered. And while there may not be a tremendous number of women on the pill at any one given time, the fact is that a far greater percentage HAVE used it at some point in their lives. Let’s not forget that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. None of your arguments have logical merit.

    ReplyReply
  44. Aye says: 45

    @AlexWolf:

    Nice to see I’m held to a higher standard than any of the pro-Republican folks here flapping their gums in ignorance via their keyboards.

    Alex, you’re really new here so I would encourage you to take a look around and see what standards others are held to here before you go “flapping [your] gums in ignorance via [your] keyboard.”

    A good place to start would be this post and the ensuing comments. Another good place to look would be this post and it’s comment stream.

    Both of those posts (and their comments) vividly demonstrate the ignorance you have of the environment and audience here.

    Nevertheless, here’s the version of the actual bill that passed, which, if read, DOES severely restrict access to abortion based upon extremely suspect “scientific” evidence:

    Surely you’re not attempting to reframe the argument to fit a new premise are you? Surely not, because that’s not the way it works. Here is what you originally said:

    This is the gem that would force women to carry a dead fetus and compares women to livestock.

    Now, what I asked was for you to document your claims regarding the portions noted in italics above using the precise language of the bill.

    You failed to do that and, instead, went on to “flap[] [your] gums in ignorance via [your] keyboard” so, no, I am not “satisfied” with your lack of an answer to the question that I asked.

    Care to try again?

    ReplyReply
  45. Nan G says: 46

    @AlexWolf:

    Alex, you are conflating ”coverage” with ”access.”
    All women have access to birth control.
    Saying “the pill does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases does not make it unimportant and unworthy of coverage,” or it is so dangerous that most women freely choose something else does not make it unworthy of coverage is beside the point.
    Women who want it can get it, covered or not.

    Why must MY insurance cover birth control if I am post-menopausal, or a man, or a priest or nun?
    Why must MY insurance cover drug or alcohol addiction treatment if I have a non-addictive personality and lifestyle?
    Why must MY insurance cover tobacco replacement gum or patches or therapy if I am a non-smoker?
    And, yeah, if I am a woman, why must MY insurance pay a dime for erection-aid medications?
    Why must MY insurance pay for gender re-assignment surgery?

    Obama demands all (except his friends who are waived) pay for all this stuff whether or not they will ever use it.
    Obama doesn’t care about matters of personal or religious conscience, personal or religious habits and lifestyles.

    Remember, just weeks before he tried to force churches to pay for birth control they do not agree with he tried to define who a church can call a minister, and who they cannot.
    He lost that case in the Supreme Court 9 to 0.

    ~~~~~~~~
    Your heart medication ”analogy” is poor because doctors sometimes like to give a patient a one symptom medicine and at other times like to give a different patient a multi-symptom medication.

    If ObamaCare forced doctors to only give single-symptom meds would it be better?
    If ObamaCare forced doctors to only give multi-symptom meds would it be better?
    No.
    Neither would be better.
    It is best if doctors and their patients make that informed decision with their situation in mind.

    ReplyReply
  46. Nan G says: 47

    I agree with a Democrat who claims the Obama strategy behind the entire contraceptive mandate is calculated to change the subject from his abysmal record and scare women into believing that the GOP wants to ban contraception.
    This is a waste of time and effort.
    No GOP candidate wants to ban contraception.

    Obama is almost all about diversion.
    When it isn’t the Straw Man fallacy it is diversion.

    ReplyReply
  47. Aye says: 48

    @AlexWolf:

    Not all that many people take heart medication either. But those who do, absolutely need it. Why should someone be denied medication merely because not all that many people need it?

    Who is being “denied medication” that they need or want?

    And no one has explained to be yet why it’s ok to cover a drug that does nothing more than induce erections but not birth control.

    Does the Catholic Church, or any other religious organization, have basic foundational tenets of their belief systems that would be opposed to their followers/parishioners/congregants/etc receiving prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medications? The religious freedoms of the Catholic Church are, after all, the basis of this whole birth control kerfuffle.

    So, which religion is opposed to ED meds? And is that religion being forced to pay for those meds in violation of their religious tenets?

    ReplyReply
  48. KenChimp says: 49

    First, I’m a registered Republican.
    Second, I am a fiscal conservative. I will qualify that with the statement that I consider it a conservative notion that freedom REQUIRES responsibility and responsibility REQUIRES freedom. One cannot have one without the other in any reasonable sense.

    Third, I am NOT a social conservative. The concept that a free society in a constitutional, democratic republic can or should be attempting to legislate virtue is patently ludicrous. Issues of virtue which are clearly NOT of a criminal nature, (activity with no non-consenting victim or where the perpetrator of the so-called crime AND the victim of the so-called crime are the same person or people), are NOT issues in which ANYONE outside those consenting to contract in the activity should have any interest in, much less mandated say in.

    In plain English, we each have the right to our own opinions on such activities, but the moment one of us attempts to legislate an opinion is the moment that person’s actions become anathema to the concept of individual liberty.

    As regards zygote or fetal rights: Current U.S. and state legal code defines, and has since before the foundation of the United States as a nation, defined personhood beginning at birth and continuing until cessation of heartbeat.

    Granted, this definition has been “stretched” with the advent of new technologies in life support and resuscitation, as well as technologies for monitoring development of the pre-born in the womb. But it is the LEGAL definition of personhood, based upon British (from Anglo Saxon) common law AND codified law in the United States.

    Some people in this nation want to change this. They want to mandate that human life, and thus personhood, begins at conception. All things being equal, I would normally not have an issue with this. But all things in this issue are NOT equal.

    Long-standing definitions of a living organism are based upon certain reasonable assumptions.

    1. A living organism consists of certain biological processes.
    2. A living organism is a self-regulatory and self-sustaining system.

    Pre-born organisms certainly qualify under #1. They do not qualify under #2. Now before I am attacked by outraged moralist arguments, let us consider HUMAN pre-born life. Human pre-born are indeed living organisms. They are indeed arguably “human” by genetic differentiation alone (that’s enough for me). I will not go into all the statistics of survival for prematurely born humans, but the extreme ranges of survival are +20 weeks or longer term. The ranges are from about 15% survivability at 23 weeks to 95% survivability at 34+ weeks.

    Prior to about 20 weeks pregnancy term time, a developing pre-born human is NOT a viable, independent organism. There is absolutely no medical, and therefore no ethical justification for claiming otherwise. And for anyone to ATTEMPT to legally place the life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness of an undeniable “person”, in the form of a sexually reproductive aged woman, subject to that of her not independently viable, but potentially viable, human offspring is not only absurd, it is ETHICALLY irresponsible and reprehensible. It is a form of tyranny.

    If theocratic moralists succeed in getting the definition of “personhood” changed legally in the United States to beginning at conception, birth control via hormone regulation will become ILLEGAL. All abortion, regardless of circumstance will become ILLEGAL. Any activity by any pregnant woman, from state of conception to delivery, which might POTENTIALLY result in the termination of the life of the unborn “person” would become a CRIME. It is nearly so, now.

    If that does not seem to you like A STATE OF WAR on the PERSONHOOD and the in(un)alienable rights thereof of adult women, then you are not thinking clearly.

    Now, before some idiot starts arguing that “These people just respect life! They’re not against women’s rights, they’re just for the rights of the un-born!”, let me just remind everyone here how respectful of human life theocratic conservatives are. They are:

    Among the strongest proponents for the death penalty in the United States

    Among the strongest proponents for wars of aggression

    Among the strongest proponents for remote controlled aircraft being used to assassinate “suspected” enemies of the United States abroad.

    Unfortunately, Hellfire missiles fired from Predator drones do not distinguish between terrorists in one room and the children sleeping in the next. And yet U.S. foreign policy continues to utilize these aircraft and missiles to attack targets suspected of being terrorists, regardless of the proximity of other human beings, including children and pregnant women, to that target.

    Yeah, I know. If those mothers and children are so “innocent” they wouldn’t be hanging around with terrorist scum, would they?

    Believe me, people, I’ve heard it all. Bring your bulls–t arguments.

    ReplyReply
  49. johngalt says: 50

    @AlexWolf:

    Thank you. You have generalized myself, amongst other male, conservatives, and condemned us for the simple facts that we are male, and conservative, regardless of what we actually believe, or how we act towards, or our attitudes in general towards, women. You are wrong to do this, but somehow I don’t think you actually care, or are willing to recognize it.

    My point about the Ms. Magazine article stands. One comment, from a GOP state congressman, and it becomes a statement of the entire Republican party comparing women to livestock.

    My point about the GOP national chairmen stands. He didn’t compare women to bugs. He compared the left’s accusation of a “war on women” to a fantastical idea. And, of course, that must then mean that Republicans, and conservatives, across the nation see women as bugs.

    49% of the US population is male. Considering the current estimated population entire is 310 million, that means males number around 152 million or so. According to your own linked site, approximately 4.8 million women experience intimate partner physical assaults and rapes per year. Add on the estimated 200k of rapes and sexual assault occurring annually, even making the assumption that all of those are non-intimate partners of women, and the number is 5 million. So, what you are doing, again, is generalizing the entire male population for something that around 0.3% of the male population, estimated, engages in.

    The number of Americans who regularly attend church hovers around 20%. Extrapolating the data, and using the US population numbers, that means that some 120 million males in the US do not regularly attend church, even if they self identify as christians. And you specified the Republicans who are christians, which is but a part of that 20%. So, again, you are generalizing on an entire set, or subset, of people(males, conservative or GOP) something that a select few, comparatively, actually believe in.

    Viagra as something insurance companies provide for means very little to the recent debate on birth control. We must clarify the distinction as having to do with the Catholic Church’s views on both, since that is the origin of the recent flareup on contraception. The Catholic Church’s official stand is to condemn the use of artificial means of contraception. That is, the prevention of pregnancies. Birth control pills, whether used for other medical conditions or not, violates that view. Viagra, and other similar drugs, on the other hand, is a medical means of allowing males afflicted with a medical condition of engaging in sexual intercourse with a female. In other words, Viagra allows a male to engage in an act he otherwise might not be able to, in order to create life(as long as, per Catholic dogma, the male and female are married). Comparing Viagra and birth control pills is comparing apples to oranges.

    The flareup is not one of Republican males engaging in a “war on women”. It is one of religious freedom vs. women’s “rights”. Religious freedom is guaranteed, spelled out specifically, within the Constitution. Regardless of whether one believes that the Catholic Church is “behind the times”, or even if one believes the Catholic Church is dominated by males and treats women horribly, neither you, as a citizen, nor the government itself, can tell the Catholic Church what they can, or cannot, do in practicing their religion, unless by their own practice they infringe on another’s Constitutionally guaranteed right(s).

    It is not a right for women to require someone, anyone, pay for their birth control. Rights do not happen when one person, or group, is forced into providing an action, service, or product, to another. Rights are only those things where a person, or group, is prevented from engaging in an action on another. What the left, and women’s groups, are calling a “right” is actually nothing more than a privilege. And I would no more want to force another person, or group, to provide a privilege to me than I want it forced from me to another. Calling a privilege a “right”, and making it ‘legal’, opens the door for everything under the sun to be considered a “right”, and then, the only thing limiting the number of “rights” that people have is how many others they can convince of their “right”.

    This is not to say that I believe women don’t have an actual right to birth control. They do. They just don’t have a right to force anyone else to pay for it. Please note the distinction, as it’s important to understand.

    What is truly amusing is that you are engaging in generalizing a portion of the population(male conservatives) for generalizing another portion of the population(women, in general). That, in most circles, defines hypocritical to a ‘tee’.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>