From the title of this post you might think that this is yet another blog entry calling out leftist hypocrisy over Rush Limbaugh’s comments toward Sandra Fluke. There is no need for me to add to those arguments – leftist misogyny has already been well documented, at least when it comes to conservative women. Apparently love for diversity and respectful dialog ends for the leftist when a woman (or any other member of the permanent victimhood community based on their gender, race, or sexual orientation) strays from leftist orthodoxy. But I’m not just talking about conservative women today. The recent Fluke controversy shows the left’s disdain for all women.
How does this media circus prove that leftists hate all women? Look no further than the recently discovered "right" to free contraception – sterilizations services, birth control pills, and of course, morning after abortifacient pills. These of course, give the woman the freedom to explore their sexuality without fear of that most dreadful, life ruining condition that could impede their right to pleasure known as pregnancy. Anyone reading this who is old enough to remember the 80′s or 90′s will remember some buzzwords from those ancient times like "Herpes" and "AIDS". Not to mention many other joys that were around long before those days, such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. Does anyone know how much protection that the "free" items from above offer from these diseases? That’s right, none. While other Sexually Transmitted Diseases’ (STDs) infection rates have remained steady over the years, chlamydia has been on the rise, and when this piece Obamacare is implemented, our government’s subsidy for unprotected sex will make these diseases even more widespread.
So if you enjoy warts on your genitalia, cold sores, a burning sensation when you pee, having to get penicillin treatments, just follow this administration’s "advice" for how you should take care of yourself. And if you’re lucky you’ll only get one of the maladies that’s actually curable. As the old joke goes, "What’s the difference between love and herpes? Herpes is forever!" (snare drum) Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week. Be sure to tip your bartenders.
If only there were a way to protect women from diseases that was not only reliable but also inexpensive… Yes, I am talking about condoms. They’re cheap, easily available, and actually will protect women (and men, who leftists hate even more) from STD’s. So why wouldn’t leftists favor condom use? There are several reasons:
- They’re cheap. In the left’s efforts to get the public to accept sacrificing any freedom over their health care decisions, having expensive medical needs are necessary to show why average citizens need the government to protect them.
- Condoms are easily accessible. The evil, capitalist system has crated a product that is so cheap and easy to purchase that it would be difficult for the government to swoop in and take over their distribution, thus the need to force solutions that are easier to control.
- It’s a nice payback for Big Pharma for not fighting too hard against Obamacare, forcing citizens to pay them more premiums for these services whether they have any need for them or not.
- If women get diseases and need treatment, that increases their dependency on Obamacare, and government in general. While that will sound insane to most people in the ears of a leftist, to use an Information Technology term, "It’s not a bug; it’s a feature."
"When you entertain your men don’t you know the risk of getting… disease?"
Does that last point sound far fetched? I’ll admit that it does, but consider this – if George W. Bush was putting record numbers of Americans onto food stamps, do you think the mainstream press would acknowledge this for the problem that it is, rather than pretend it is in any way compassionate or that criticism of said policy should be seen as racist. Making more women dependent on the government somehow equates liberation in the left’s eyes.
I understand that my last few points might make me sound like someone typing this in his pajamas as I adjust my tin foil hat. But can someone explain to me how opposing a policy whose net effect will be to hurt more womens’ health equates a “war on women”?
Cross Posted from Brother Bob’s Blog
