How Democrats Can Take the ‘War on Women’ to the Next Level

You’ve got to hand it to Democratic strategists. Who would have thought six months ago that in the lead up to perhaps the most important presidential election of our time, the hottest political topic in the country would not be the weak economy, high unemployment, the huge national debt, record gas prices, or turmoil in the Middle East. Instead it’s Women’s Rights, or at least that’s what the Democratic party is calling it while miraculously managing to keep a straight face.

A term that was once used in conjunction with women’s suffrage and the right to vote is suddenly synonymous in the modern day with free contraceptives at the expense of others. Gone are the likes of true icons like Susan B. Anthony. Now we have Sandra Fluke and her heroic crusade to mandate that her sexual lifestyle choices be subsidized. How proud the Democratic party must feel right now to have successfully revitalized the civil rights movement in the 21st century by equating it with luxury entitlement. The media must feel pretty good too. They’ve actually been able to substantiate this ridiculous narrative to the American public… or at least a targeted voting block within the American public.

The Republicans’ War on Women – that’s the poll-tested talking point coming out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC these days. Despite the absurdity and insulting nature of the claim, the mantra sure is getting a lot of attention. It’s also proving to be an effective weapon – one of several weapons from a year-long arsenal of distractions designed to keep the Republican party off step, off topic, and constantly on the defensive at a time when President Obama is wrapping up what is surely the most dismal presidential term of my lifetime.

Of course, the Republicans haven’t really helped themselves either. They’ve fallen into practically every liberal trap set for them, whether it be Rush Limbaugh crossing the line in his rhetoric toward Sandra Fluke or Rick Santorum’s repeated engagement in sensitive social stances. Combined with an overly-personal and gaff-prone primary, one has to wonder if any GOP candidate is going to seem electable come November. At times, the frustration makes a even a conservative like me wish the candidates would just put each other out of their misery. Then, if there’s anything left to save of our country come 2016, we can start over with a fresh stable of more attractive hopefuls.

I don’t really mean that of course. I think we’ve only seen the beginnings of Obama’s catastrophic social justice crusade. The country can’t take another four years of this. But in a temporary moment of cynical weakness, I’ve decided to offer the Democratic party a helpful idea for how they can not only escalate their silly War on Women narrative, but use it to achieve certain victory for Obama in November.

We’ll start with the premise behind the War on Women. The Democratic party has long understood that this is going to be a tough and tight election year. They’ve concluded that their best chance of winning Obama a second term in office is to secure the female vote. That’s the sole reason anybody is talking about access to contraceptives right now. The topic came out of thin air back in January and the Dems have been trying to embed it in our water cooler conversations ever since. To a large degree they’ve achieved that… not because it’s grounded in any genuine concern (no one’s trying to ban contraceptives), but because it’s a sensitive, personal topic to women. Any sort of perceived encroachment in to that part of women’s lives is going to be met with fierce resistance, even if that perception is completely manufactured. Thus, the strategy has been seen as a political winner by the Democrats.

This is where I think I can lend my expertise to the DNC, as far as fabricating another women’s rights controversy. You see, in addition to being married for nearly ten years now, my weekly schedule includes me taking my daughter to music and dance classes where I’m typically the only father waiting in a room filled with numerous mothers. I often listen to their conversations and I think I’ve developed a pretty good feel for a highly sensitive issue when it comes to women.

Obama Re-election team, take note… I’m about to give you a gift. My plan may seem a little convoluted at first, but try and stay with me. I’m confident it has legs…

Phase 1: Have ABC News commentator (and former Clinton adviser) George Stephanopoulos interview Mitt Romney and ask the Republican candidate if he believes that states have the right to ban women from watching the Twilight movies. The point of this is just to begin a narrative and plant some seeds in voters’ minds. Now, Romney might not take the bait. He might squint and emulate how a normal person with actual emotions would act when confronted with such a bizarre topic. He may outright reject the question. If that happens, have Stephanopoulous remain persistent and keep asking it until the segment runs out of time. Then, take about a month off before bringing Twilight up again. This is a slow brew strategy after all.

Phase 2: Have President Obama issue an executive order to mandate that Catholic churches show at least one Twilight movie to their congregations each month. This will of course trigger the Republican party to decry the administration’s move as an assault on religious freedom. This will initially seem like a winning issue for the GOP, but don’t worry… It won’t be. When Republican congressman Darrel Issa conducts a House hearing on the mandate, have Democratic congresswomen Carolyn Mahoney and Eleanor Holmes object to the proceedings for not allowing representatives of both Team Edward and Team Jacob to testify. Issa, of course will refuse to allow them to speak based on irrelevance to the issue. He’ll walk right into the trap! Have Mahoney and Holmes claim that Issa is running a good old boys club of Clark Gable fans who want to suppress voices most impacted by inaccessibility to chick flicks. Next, have the congresswomen walk out in protest. This should generate a lot of media coverage.

Phase 3: Have a reporter ask Rick Santorum his thoughts on the Twilight movies. Santorum will most likely mention that he doesn’t let his children watch those movies due to the PG-13 rating. From there, let the media run a barrage of stories questioning whether or not Santorum will, based on his socially conservative beliefs, ban the Twilight movies from public consumption if elected. Ask similar questions of the other GOP candidates, and hope they weigh in as well. Just make sure and keep questions about the economy and foreign policy to a minimum.

Phase 4: Have Nancy Pelosi invite a 30 year-old female college student to testify before congress on why she believes other people should pay an estimated $1,000 a year for her to watch the Twilight movies anytime she wants. Have her explain that as a college student, her budget is tight and with the rising cost of movie tickets, theater popcorn, and milk-duds, she can’t afford to both complete her degree and experience the enjoyment of fictitious love triangles between teenage vampires and werewolves. Have her play it as a women’s health issue. She can explain the emotional attachment she and millions of other women have to the Twilight movies, and how she’ll become depressed without her Edward fix. This will surely drive Conservative radio-hosts ballistic. They’ll point out that she can rent the movies anytime she wants with her own money at Redbox for a dollar! This is good, because the Democrats can later use the argument as evidence that the GOP is in the pocket of Big DVD Rental. Hopefully, one of the radio-hosts will cross the line with some over-the-top rhetoric. When that happens, turn the media loose and they’ll publicize the hell out of the sound bite and make the GOP candidates accountable for that rhetoric. Then, make the college student available to the media where she can appear on every national news program  (except for those on FOX News) and be touted as a martyr for standing up for women in the face of cruel conservatives who want to take the country back to the golden age of film. Last but not least, have President Obama actually call the student on the phone and offer her his support. When asked by the media why he felt compelled to make the call, have him explain that he can’t bare the thought of his daughters growing up in a world without the right to fawn over teenage heart-throbs. This will surely melt the hearts of Twilight fans across the nation and win over that important demographic.

Now, I’d like to take credit for coming up with that idea… but I can’t. Because if you haven’t already figured it out, it’s merely a satirical summary of exactly how the contraception controversy was introduced and groomed into our national discussion. In review, it really is amazing how such a ridiculous series of events built such an amazingly effective distraction for the Democratic party. Sure, it didn’t play out as smoothly as they would have hoped. Along the way, they made some unforced errors, but the strokes of good luck they enjoyed at the expense of Republicans more than made up for it.

The War on Women angle truly is a testament to the power the mainstream media still has over public perception. When people don’t know what the heck’s really going on, it’s always good for the Democrats at the voting booth.

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration, and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. His first novel, entitled "From a Dead Sleep", is now on sale! He lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website: http://www.johndalybooks.com/
  • Pingback: Can The Romney Team Stir the Pot as Well as the Democrats?

  • Chris

    So… The republicans go on the offensive first by trying to make it a religious mandate* (which it is not) then the democrats have a WOMAN testify about REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS! Yeah, that’s obviously a democrat trap.
    If it was, they’re genius and republicans are too stupid to live.

    *Not a religious issue. The republican stance basically boiled down to “We want to violate our employees’ constitutional rights, even though they are not necessarily members of our church and they only work at the hospital/school/etc. So don’t you dare violate our constitutional right to enforce our zealotry on others, you (insert mis-used political term here, such as ‘socialist’)

    John Daly, I hope you don’t believe any of this article. That would truly be sad.

    • John Daly

      I absolutely believe it, because it’s a little something called ‘reality’. I know that’s a term a lot of lefties like to avoid because it slices right through many progressive arguments.

      The issue never has had anything to do with “reproductive rights”. No one’s taking away anyone’s rights. It’s about who should pay for birth control pills.

      The “reproductive rights” angle is nothing more than a DNC-manufactured narrative that you’ve sadly bought into. I think that deep down, a lot of liberals get this… but they’re inclined to repeat the same nonsense over and over again because they see that it has successfully clouded the actual issue.

      From a religious freedom standpoint, it makes no difference if someone actually attends the church on Sundays. It DOES make a difference that they’ve willingly signed onto a policy through the religious organization.

  • alf514

    The bumbling Democrats finally out-Rove the Republicans on something, and all you can do is wail like a spoiled brat.
    Cry me a river, you big baby.

    • John Daly

      Wail? I’m impressed by it!

      It takes real talent to pull off such a goofy narrative, even by today’s lamestream media standards.

  • Tyro

    You really don’t understand just how deep this conspiracy by the Democrats goes. Specifically, Rush Limbaugh, having spend 25 years as a Democratic party sleeper agent, was recently “activated” just for this very purpose to make the Republican “war on women” seem all too real. It also helped that the Democrats have peppered both the Susan B Komen foundation and the state legislatures of Virginia and Texas with “Republicans” working under “deep cover” who coordinated to make a set of legislative and administrative moves designed to strike directly at a bunch of health issues that affect women that they previously took for granted.

    This was all a poll-tested and planned strategy from the Democrats to make the “Republicans” put the focus on contraception and women’s health issues right now. Well played, Democrats. Well played.

    • John Daly

      Rather than reading snippets of my column through the Daily Kos, try reading it in its entirety. Letting others do your thinking for you isn’t an admirable trait.

      The War on Women nonsense was absolutely concocted by the Dems and fueled by the media. It’s been sloppy but affective. It’s not so much a conspiracy as it is two entities who have a lot invested in the president. They both view any workable distraction from Obama’s poor performance as the end (his re-election) justifying the means.

      People like Limbaugh and Santorum have merely given your side an excuse to lend publicity to your silly narrative.

      • judybrowni

        Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

        When a Republican evil plan backfires — it’s all the fault of the Democrats!

        This is good news for John McCain!

        • Chris

          ^this

        • Canof Sand

          “Republican evil plan”
          WHAT plan? Did you even read the article? If there’s a plan, it’s not the Republicans’. They didn’t bring this asinine contraceptives topic up at all. WE ALL LIVED THROUGH THE LAST FEW MONTHS. WE WERE ALL THERE. YOU CAN’T TELL US THINGS DIDN’T PLAY OUT AS WE WITNESSED THEY DID.

          You people are intellectually and morally bankrupt. If you thought the narrative would help you politically, you’d deny the very existence of George Washington himself, all while claiming the eeeevil conservatives were ignorant liars. Severe psychological projection. Heck, your ilk’s “history” texts lean in that direction already, distorting real history and putting far more emphasis on fringe Leftists from the last few decades than on the Founders.

          • John Daly

            To answer your question, No… They didn’t read it.

            They read selected snippets of my column that someone posted on the Daily Kos along with an alternate context of what I actually wrote.

            They’re essentially drones.

  • Pingback: Quotes of the day « Hot Air

  • John Daly

    This is funny… I found parts of my column re-posted and analyzed at the Daily Kos:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/11/1071926/-War-On-Women-It-s-All-a-Secret-Democratic-Plot-to-Make-Us-Hate-the-GOP-

    The lefty knucklehead behind the analysis is actually taking my Twilight idea seriously, and playing it off like I’m claiming to be an expert on women.

    Seriously, could the satire have been any more obvious?

    At least it explains why so many on the left think they’re getting real news from Jon Stewart.

  • Webmaster

    With the news from Spain that on January 1, 2012, 75% of all babies born in that country were from immigrants, Muslims coming from Morocco, the statistic seems like it could be any other day in any other European country.

    The future unborn adult grandchildren of liberal, (and lesbian), women around the world better prepare themselves for wearing burqas under Sharia Law within a newly formed Caliphate, which Obama is helping to achieve as president of the United States. It was a “president” Obama who said in his Cairo speech in 2009 that the office he held would defend Muslims, referring to Western countries, “to be able to practice their religion as they see fit.”

    Many far-left Democrats, as well as those arrogant liberal women at Georgetown University dunking down those birth control pills, seem to have forgotten that in Western democracies a majority vote forms the rules of the society. It was Georgetown, if you remember, that allowed the covering of the “IHS” for Christ with a black cloth so Obama wouldn’t offend viewers when he gave his televised speech. So Georgetown University has already left its heritage to the wolves.

    So allow me to ask this question. How many Muslim voters does it take in a democracy to begin to change the laws set by the previous society? I bet 50% is a very high number, maybe 33% a start? I read it took only 1/3 of those living in the Colonies to begin the American Revolution.

    The Old Testament of Abraham found in Psalms 127:5 warns every society on earth, to those willing to listen, about the importance of having many children. The 2001 English Standard Version reminds us, “Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.”

    Coming from the same Abraham, Muslims are waiting in the wings while smiling all around the world as they heed the warning of the sages before them, teaching their children well, the ones they know will rule all in the coming days.

    http://www.freedomisknowledge.com/meltingpot/doesntmatter.html

    • John Daly

      Alrighty then.

  • wally

    Good job! Burt are you sure you didn’t work for Bill Clinton in the past?

    • John Daly

      I’m not Burt.

  • Jay in Austin

    Duh . . . when someone who took his daughters to music lessons actually thinks that qualifies him to speak on behalf of women, well, maybe we should leave all discussion and decisions about men’s health care to spinsters (because they all had a father?). Some people are clearly not interested in ‘thinking’ . . . and then deprecating those who can and DO think. Oy!

    • John Daly

      At least no one will confuse you with someone qualified to understand satire, Jay.

  • CCNV

    In the real world, if birth control is provided for women, then programs such as WIC, Medicaid and other welfare freebies should be eliminated; thus, no need for abortions either. Since an alternative to getting pregnant is FREE, then there is NO reason to have kids when you aren’t able to support them.

    • Will Swoboda

      Come on CCNV, you’re making way too much sense. I’ve often thought to my myself of course, that with all the ways of birth control available these days, most women would have to want to get pregnant. I don’t mean the cases where there is rape or incese.

  • Lucy

    Why does everyone seem to think that this is somehow the government/taxes that are being used to pay for insurance companies’ coverage of birth control? This law affects private insurance companies. At no point will the government be stepping in to cover my $300/mo health insurance payment, what will happen is that my $300 will now cover birth control, which frankly it should have in the first place.

    I’ll tell you what, you give us socialized medicine and *then* you can go on a happy little rant about being forced to pay for my slut pills.

    • John Daly

      In the particular case of what Fluke is calling for, it won’t be the taxes but rather higher insurance premiums that would cover the birth control.

      Obamacare as whole however, does use lots of taxpayers money to pay for such things.

      Regardless, the notion of forcing people to pay for things you don’t feel like paying for yourself (especially when it defies the religious beliefs of an organization) is the issue here… not access to birth control.

      • Roxiebell

        I erased my comments since a Mega Dittos of yours will suffice.

      • GeneJockey

        “In the particular case of what Fluke is calling for, it won’t be the taxes but rather LOWER insurance premiums that would cover the birth control.”

        There, I fixed it for you. Pregnancy and childbirth are a whole lot more expensive than contraception.

        And again, FLUKE IS PAYING FOR HER INSURANCE, so GWU is not being asked or required to pay ANYTHING. So, really, the issue IS access to birth control, in that GWU is insisting that students, in addition to paying for health insurance (which GWU requires them to do) must pay ADDITIONAL for contraception.

        If you’re going to write about these issues, you really ought to take the time to learn the facts, don’t you think?

        Regarding the rest of your column, there’s a psychiatric term called ‘Projection’. You should look it up.

        • John Daly

          I can’t figure out if you people really don’t understand this stuff, or if you’re just acting this way because you’re desperate for attention.

          Let me break it down this way… Maybe it will make more sense to you:

          If I go to the store and buy groceries, I am paying for food. But then, if I say that I want five gallons of ice-cream free, in addition to the food I’ve already paid for, that doesn’t mean that I’m somehow entitled to those extra items because I’ve already given the store some money.

          Fluke went to that college knowing what came with her insurance policy. The notion that they’re somehow ‘denying’ her things that she knew ahead of time she wouldn’t get is absurd.

          As for the “projection” thing, please, please try thinking for yourself rather than letting the Daily Kos do your thinking for you. Come up with something on your won. You know, some independent thought.

          • GeneJockey

            I understand your point, but your point is not accurate. It is less expensive for insurance companies to pay for contraception than to pay for unexpected pregnancies. Similarly, it is less expensive for insurance to pay for blood pressure medications than to pay for people in their 50s getting strokes, or for cholesterol reducing medications than to pay for heart attacks. It’s called ‘preventive medicine’, and it’s a big saver of lives and money.

            Now, regarding your metaphor, the point you missed is that she’s being charged the same for the bag of groceries as are other customers who are getting the ice cream, but she’s not getting the ice cream because Father Flanagan, who isn’t paying for the groceries, doesn’t think she should have it.

            Regarding projection – you guys are the ones who kicked the ‘Own Goal’. Nobody held a gun to Rick Santorum’s head and made him tell everyone his antiquated ideas on contraception, and nobody held a gun to Rush Limbaugh’s head and made him go on a 3-day rant where he ran the gamut from simply wrong to incredibly creepy. Republican legislatures all over the country have been going wild with any number of restrictive laws designed to shame women seeking what is still a completely legal procedure, including involuntary vaginal penetration and allowing physicians to lie to a woman about her own health to her detriment if they fear it might case her to abort a pregnancy. Opinion leaders on the Right are now talking about contraception – something nearly all women use at one time or another – as if the use of it makes one vile, dirty, disgusting.

            No, John – you guys did this to yourselves. What upsets you is that the criticism of your accurately-portrayed positions resonates negatively with a large segment of the population, and exposes the lie behind your ‘small goverment’, ‘keep government out of my life’ facade.

            You’ve already spent most of 4 years insulting young people, Blacks and Latinos, and now women. How long do you think a party that caters only to middle aged and elderly white guys can last?

          • John Daly

            Gene, arguments about which is more expensive doesn’t matter. The issue is that the government shouldn’t be forcing organizations to offer such things, especially when it goes against their religious beliefs. If insurance companies CHOOSE to cover contraception, that’s fine. But they shouldn’t be forced into it.

            Rick Santorum’s personal views on contraception have absolutely nothing to do with policy. Personally, I choose not to drink alcohol. That doesn’t mean I’m trying to stop others from drinking it, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean I’m engaged in a “War on Liquor Stores”.

            No one is trying to enact involuntary vaginal penetration on women. That’s ridiculous. And it’s the media who keeps bringing up the topic of contraception, not the Republicans. It’s a non-issue to Republicans.

            So if your only evidence of a “War on Women” is Rick Santorum’s personal views and vulgarity from a radio talk show host, can’t you apply that exact same standard to absolutely anything you want to?

            I can easily find two prominent Democrats to cite examples from in waging any number of “wars”. The difference is that such lame narratives are only substantiated by the media when the agenda is a liberal one.

          • GeneJockey

            “Gene, arguments about which is more expensive doesn’t matter.”

            But you made that argument yourself. If it didn’t matter, why did you say it? Or does it only not matter when it’s your ox that gets gored?

            “If insurance companies CHOOSE to cover contraception, that’s fine. But they shouldn’t be forced into it.”

            It’s not about the insurance companies’ desires. It’s the University, which requires but doesn’t pay for the insurance, that insists contraception not be covered.

            “Rick Santorum’s personal views on contraception have absolutely nothing to do with policy.”

            But, as the Right is always telling us about Obama, the personal views inform the policy choices.

            “No one is trying to enact involuntary vaginal penetration on women. That’s ridiculous.”

            It IS ridiculous. It is also true. Virginia just narrowly avoided enacting such a law when public outcry scared the House of Delegates.

            “And it’s the media who keeps bringing up the topic of contraception, not the Republicans. It’s a non-issue to Republicans.”

            NOW it is, now that it’s blown up in your collective face. The thing is, you guys brought it up, when the Administration discussed the original rule that exempted churches but not institutions where the majority of employees are not of that faith. The GOP hoped it would stay focused there, but it didn’t, especially when the Administration adjusted the rule to make the coverage, and informing employees of the coverage, strictly between the insurer and the insured. After all, employee health insurance is part of compensation, i.e. it is the EMPLOYEE’S MONEY, not the employer’s that’s paying for it.

            At that point, the Right and the Bishops should have declared victory and walked away. But no, they pushed a bad position and ended up defending religious COERCION – that the employer has the right to enforce his will on how the employee’s money is spent.

            That’s what you’re actually defending.

          • John Daly

            “But you made that argument yourself. If it didn’t matter, why did you say it?”

            I never made any argument about which is cheaper between contraception and the covering of children on a plan. I wouldn’t bother because it’s irrelevant.

            “It’s not about the insurance companies’ desires. It’s the University, which requires but doesn’t pay for the insurance, that insists contraception not be covered.”

            The college selects which plans are available to students through the insurance provider (just like employers do). That’s what I’m talking about. They should not be forced to select specific benefits that are in violation of their religious beliefs.

            “But, as the Right is always telling us about Obama, the personal views inform the policy choices.”

            You just made my point by admitting that your accusation toward Santorum is completely bogus and is based on nothing but ‘tit for tat’. Good for you.

            “It IS ridiculous. It is also true. Virginia just narrowly avoided enacting such a law when public outcry scared the House of Delegates.”

            Yeah, and there’s been proposed legislation over how to deal with martian landings too. Must be a War on Aliens too, right?

            “NOW it is, now that it’s blown up in your collective face.”

            B.S. It’s been like that from the start. It started with that goofy question George Stephanopolous threw out of left field at the GOP debate. I called this one out early. Read my column from January. I predicted the Dems would do precisely what they did:
            http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/george-stephanopoulos-contraception-fixation/

            It’s part of a strategy which the won the Dems a senate victory here in Colorado in 2010 at a time when practically every other Democratic politician across the country got creamed in the elections. Dem strategists proudly call it the “The Colorado Model” and they’ve taken it nation-wide.

            Your defense of this issue is no different than if I tried to defend Rick Perry’s “War on Religion” strategy which was bogus as well. While it’s true that Obama is infringing on religious freedom, it has more to do with obliviousness to constitutional violations than it does any sort of malice toward Christianity.

            I believe that you think you’re fighting an actual injustice, but you’re not. You’re being duped by your party leaders.

        • GeneJockey

          John, you made that very argument you just inaccurately claimed not to make on 11 March at 7:50, two posts above my first one. Please don’t think I didn’t see it. Indeed, the first part of that post quoted, and fixed, your claim.

          “The college selects which plans are available to students through the insurance provider (just like employers do). That’s what I’m talking about.”

          Then why did you say ‘insurance companies’?

          “They should not be forced to select specific benefits that are in violation of their religious beliefs.”

          They aren’t paying for them. The students or employees are. Your argument has evolved through a series of fallback positions, which all boil down to the employer, or university, dictating to the employee or student what they may do with their money.

          Religious coercion, not religious freedom.

          “You just made my point by admitting that your accusation toward Santorum is completely bogus and is based on nothing but ‘tit for tat’. Good for you.”

          If Santorum hadn’t said that he believes states should have the right to outlaw contraception, you might have had a point. That, however, is a question of policy, not personal belief. Stephanopolous question didn’t come out of left field. It is the job of journalists to ask the questions that pop the bubble of manufactured reality that candidates try to operate in.

          The problem isn’t that you don’t like the question, it’s that you don’t like the answer.

          “Yeah, and there’s been proposed legislation over how to deal with martian landings too. Must be a War on Aliens too, right?”

          The Governor of Virginia didn’t promise to sign a bill on martian landings, only to pull back when the bill’s contents were made public. Don’t act the fool.

          Regarding the ‘Colorado Strategy’, what you don’t like about it is that it exposes the extremism of the Right as currently constituted. The Dems aren’t lying about the Right’s views, as Rush Limbaugh so eloquently revealed.

          “Your defense of this issue is no different than if I tried to defend Rick Perry’s “War on Religion” strategy which was bogus as well.”

          So, Rick Santorum DOESN’T believe that states have the right to deny their citizens contraception? Rush Limbaugh and a whole host of other Right Wing pundits haven’t actually spent the last week and a half attacking Sandra Fluke, lying about what she was requesting, attacking her personally, while suggesting that women who use contraception must be sluts?

          Well, that’s a relief.

          “While it’s true that Obama is infringing on religious freedom…”

          No he hasn’t. Again, the employers don’t pay for the insurance, since it’s part of compensation. It’s the employee’s money – they earn it with their labor. To allow employers to deny contraception they don’t pay for is to allow religious coercion.

          Would you allow an employer to tell an employee how much he could give, from his own salary, to his church? And yet you are advocating for the employer to control what insurance he doesn’t pay for may cover.

          “I believe that you think you’re fighting an actual injustice, but you’re not. You’re being duped by your party leaders.”

          Oh, please. I’m a grown up, John, probably a bit older than you. I’m not some kid in his parents’ basement.

          And if you think Democratic party leaders are that effective, you REALLY aren’t paying attention.

          • John Daly

            “John, you made that very argument you just inaccurately claimed not to make on 11 March at 7:50, two posts above my first one. ”

            I just re-read the 7:50 post and still haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. At no point in this thread (including that post) did I argue any point between the cost of contraception vs the cost of covering children. Please quote me his mystery post.

            “Then why did you say ‘insurance companies’?”

            A mistype.

            “They aren’t paying for them. The students or employees are.”

            Employers and colleges absolutely DO pay the insurance companies along with the students and employees. Any increased benefit is payed for by all of them, including the benefits objected to due the religious beliefs of the organization through which the plan is set up. The notion that you can’t seem to understand this seems like willful ignorance on your part. If insurance policies came at no cost to the college/employer, why wouldn’t these organizations all offer five-star coverage that includes everything possible as an option? The reason is that it’s too expensive for THEM.

            “Your argument has evolved through a series of fallback positions, which all boil down to the employer, or university, dictating to the employee or student what they may do with their money.”

            It has not evolved. You just keep misrepresenting my argument. The university SHOULD be able to dictate what benefits are available because the plan is set up through THEM. It’s not an individual plan. It’s a GROUP plan. For example, my old insurance policy through my employer did not cover dental. The insurance company itself had plans that would, but not through my particular employer because the employer gets charged for the availability of those increased benefits.

            “If Santorum hadn’t said that he believes states should have the right to outlaw contraception, you might have had a point. ”

            My point isn’t any less valid. On numerous occasions, when badgered by interviewers, he has said that the states have ‘the right’, but the states would be making a the wrong decision if they tried to ban contraception. He’s been adamant that he would be against such an attempt. Personally, I wish Santorum wouldn’t even entertain such questions because his answers then get misrepresented by people like you as an endorsement of a policy he himself says he doesn’t believe in.

            Again, if I don’t drink, that doesn’t mean I’m for banning alcohol. If I don’t like guns, that doesn’t mean I’m against the 2nd amendment. I know it’s tough for Democrats to understand this, but believe it or not, a person can choose not to have something in their own life without wanting to ban it from the public.

            “It is the job of journalists to ask the questions that pop the bubble of manufactured reality that candidates try to operate in.”

            Oh please. ‘Manufactured reality’ is this entire ‘War on Women’ nonsense, not scaring voters into thinking Republicans are trying to steal their contraceptives. George’s play was purely part of a DNC strategy that the party has used before. It would be like an interview asking a Democratic candidate if states have the right to kill babies.

            “Regarding the ‘Colorado Strategy’, what you don’t like about it is that it exposes the extremism of the Right as currently constituted. ”

            First of all, there’s nothing extreme about a PERSONAL choice not to use contraceptives. It would only be extreme if they were trying to impose a restriction on the public which no one is.

            Our president chews Nicorette gum. How would you feel if the media suddenly started pushing the narrative that he’s trying to force the public to chew it as well, despite his claims otherwise. That’s the gist on this false contraception controversy.

            “The Dems aren’t lying about the Right’s views”

            Yes they are.

            “So, Rick Santorum DOESN’T believe that states have the right to deny their citizens contraception”

            He does believe they have ‘the right’, but has said numerous times that it would be wrong if they did. Do YOU think they have ‘the right’ to try such a dumb thing? And if so, does that make YOU a foot soldier in the ‘War on Women’?

            “Rush Limbaugh and a whole host of other Right Wing pundits haven’t actually spent the last week and a half attacking Sandra Fluke, lying about what she was requesting, attacking her personally, while suggesting that women who use contraception must be sluts?”

            I’m sure your outrage burns just as hot when it comes to Sarah Palin, doesn’t it? The things said about her have been far more vile but no one’s citing those examples and proclaiming the “Democrats War on Women” mantra, are they? I wonder why not. Hmmmmmm.

            “Oh, please. I’m a grown up, John, probably a bit older than you. I’m not some kid in his parents’ basement.”

            Then you should know better.

            “And if you think Democratic party leaders are that effective, you REALLY aren’t paying attention.”

            Oh please. When you’ve got probably 80% of the media on your side, it’s not all that hard to push a false narrative.

          • GeneJockey

            Regarding the quote, it was the first line of your post, and feigning ignorance about what you wrote doesn’t cut it. You claimed it would lead to higher premiums.

            “Employers and colleges absolutely DO pay the insurance companies along with the students and employees.”

            In Fluke’s case, the University does not subsidize the insurance they require she buy, so no, they don’t.

            Regarding employees, this represents a basic failure on your part to grasp the relationship between employee and employer. This is not surprising, since this misunderstanding is basic to Conservatism as currently constituted. . Benefits are not a gift, nor a shared expense. Benefits are part of an employees compensation, what they purchase with their labor.

            “If insurance policies came at no cost to the college/employer, why wouldn’t these organizations all offer five-star coverage that includes everything possible as an option? The reason is that it’s too expensive for THEM.”

            The reason is that the same reason they don’t pay you more salary – because they don’t have to. They are able to purchase your labor for that level of cost, so they won’t pay more for that labor. Your benefits, like your salary, are what you purchase with your labor, they’re what your employer must pay for your work. The employer acts as intermediary, to reduce the cost of the coverage by pooling, but the coverage is paid for by the employee – it is purchased with his labor, just like his salary.

            “It has not evolved. You just keep misrepresenting my argument.”

            Of course it has. First it was all of us paying for it, then it was the University, then it was the University acting as intermediary.

            Regarding Santorum, his position on Griswold reflects his basic understanding of the rights of the individual and the authority of the state. I don’t know how much more basic you can get than that in determining what sort of President he would be. Your alcohol argument is mere obfuscation – not to mention that Santorum promised to speak out against the evils of contraception. This reflects a worldview at odds with the mainstream of American opinion/

            “‘Manufactured reality’ is this entire ‘War on Women’ nonsense, not scaring voters into thinking Republicans are trying to steal their contraceptives.”

            John, ‘manufactured reality’ is what every candidate uses, the image they want to project, that they want the voters to believe. They pay dearly for that to strategists, consultants, pollsters, etc. In the case of the Right, candidates want to hide the extremism of their views on things like contraception.

            “I’m sure your outrage burns just as hot when it comes to Sarah Palin, doesn’t it? The things said about her have been far more vile but no one’s citing those examples and proclaiming the “Democrats War on Women” mantra, are they? I wonder why not. Hmmmmmm.”

            Really? Far more vile than that she’s having so much sex she can hardly walk? That men are lining up around the block to have sex with her? Please, John.

            “Oh please. When you’ve got probably 80% of the media on your side, it’s not all that hard to push a false narrative.”

            Hogwash, John. Your side have been playing the refs effectively for the last three decades. You have essentially frightened most of the newsmedia out of doing their jobs. I have been bothering to write to you, because I perceive you are more thoughtful than most bloggers on the Right. But you seem prone to lapse into the victim mentality that is so much a part of Conservative thinking these days.

            And again, the problem you have with the narrative is not that it’s false, it’s that it’s true. How the GOP views women’s reproductive freedom is an issue of vital importance to voters, especially to the majority of voters who are directly affected. ‘War on Women’ is hyperbolic, but for the Right to complain about hyperbole is ridiculous. ‘Death panels’, ‘Cutting Medicare’, ‘Taking over 1/6 of the economy’, ‘Apology tour’ – any of this ring a bell?

    • Roxiebell

      Your $300 premium would surely go UP in cost if your Insurance Company is forced to provide “free” controceptives. Thats how Obamacare will “shake out” over the long haul where you won’t be able to afford your HC Insurance and be forced into a Government Insurance Exchange, aka Socialized Medicine.

      • GeneJockey

        Ever had a kid? I can assure you it’s WAY more expensive, and it IS covered by insurance. Covering contraception actually LOWERS overall costs to the insurer.

        • Canof Sand

          Just stop. You make crap up and act like it’s an objective fact. There’s no simple apples to apples comparison to be made, there. You CANNOT say definitively that insurance companies would save money. INSURANCE COMPANIES’ OWN STUDIES SAY OTHERWISE.

          If it REALLY would save them money, THEY’D VOLUNTARILY COVER THOSE THINGS. Either way, it’s NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS even before you examine the First Amendment, which Obama’s decision and the agenda of your ilk (who are not-coincidentally anti-religion, as they’ve proven repeatedly) BLATANTLY VIOLATE, so BUGGER OFF, you wannabe tyrants.

          • GeneJockey

            The average cost of pregnancy and childbirth in America is between $6000 and $12,000, so yes, actually, I can.

            And Obama’s decision has nothing to do with the First Amendment, because IT’S NOT THE EMPLOYER’S MONEY. It’s the employee who pays for their health insurance with their labor.

            Why would you give the employer, who doesn’t pay for it, the right to dictate to his employees that their insurance must reflect his beliefs?

            Why do you support religious coercion, and not religious freedom?

            Would you allow a Muslim employer to dictate to his Christian employees that they may not give to their church from their own salaries?

          • CanofSand

            And you “can” put a cost on a human life, considering various factors, as well. Doesn’t mean you should. Doesn’t mean it’s a FAIR comparison – that it’s apples and apples. PREGNANCY IS NOT A DISEASE, scumbag. Moreover, AGAIN, insurance companies’ own studies say otherwise. Blue Cross, for instance, says you’re wrong. You, a random bigot on the Internet spouting out nonsense, are hardly a credible source, nor are any other Leftist hacks, whose words you’re merely parroting.

            Oh, and it IS the employer’s money. If it wasn’t, they’d give it directly to the employee. ANY “benefit”, healthcare or otherwise, you get from an employer is provided by the employer, spent from the employer’s money. There’s no point arguing with you about that; this is just a fact.

            Your question about “religious coercion” is dishonest – a loaded question based on false assumptions.

            Your question about dictating is again a dishonest, loaded question. The Catholic Church isn’t barring anyone from buying anything with their money, hack.

    • Will Swoboda

      Hey Lucy, if you think medical care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.

  • Think

    “Birth control” pills are often used for more than preventing pregnancy. It seems that so few people acknowledge this. See the examples here. http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/med-uses-ocp.html
    I recently met a woman that was blessed/cursed with a uterus that did not thicken normally during her menstrual cycle. The blessing was that her periods were nearly non-existent; the duration was about 10 hours and very light, and she did not experience cramping. The curse was that she and her husband would have difficulty conceiving without assisted reproduction. Part of this therapy was being placed on “birth control pills” to regulate her hormones and allow her uterine wall to thicken, thus provide a place that could support the development of the fertilized egg. I believe the reason that Catholics are against “birth control” is because a woman and man’s responsibility is to procreate. If this therapy was inaccessible to her because of cost and not covered because a Catholic organization refused to provide insurance that covers “birth control”, then the Church would be obstructing her ability to conceive. That goes against the Catholic belief. IT VIOLATES HER RIGHT AS A CATHOLIC AND AS A WOMAN.

    • John Daly

      Listen to your logic…

      You’re saying that if someone doesn’t buy something for you, they’re obstructing you from having it.

      That’s ridiculous.

    • Roxiebell

      The need for BC pills for a medical condition is a very small percentage and if push came shove BC pills can be purchased for as little as $5 from Walmart, $9 from Target or $30 from CVS.

  • Phillips

    There is nothing bogus about the war on women. You don’t get it do you? How are the actions of the GOP NOT against women? I would like a well thought out reply with proof of your argument. Not some cut out, standard red herring rhetoric lacking any cohesion or facts.

    • Patrick

      YOU don’t get it, do YOU? Simply not forcing the Catholic Church to pay for something (contraception) it finds morally offensive is a war on women? Gee, the way you and other liberals talk, it’s like the GOP was trying to ban the sale and buying of contraception altogether which it’s most certainly not.

    • John Daly

      Phillips, I’ve written about this topic in several recent columns. Read them if you’re truly interested in my thoughts.

    • Roxiebell

      And there is nothing bogus about the Democrat WAR on our liberty and freedoms.

      The DNC “war on women” battlecry is nothing more then cover for their:

      War on religion
      War on babies
      War on right to life
      War on the very sick
      War on seniors
      War on prosperity
      War on energy
      War on just about everything that made this country great.

      Its a neverening Democrat/Socialist WAR against the country and its people.

    • Canof Sand

      The REAL war on women:

      http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/07/the-war-on-conservative-women/

      An extension of the overall war:

      The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010
      http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

  • Bruce A.

    I am willing to pay for birth control used by liberals.

  • John

    It is not the Republican position on Abortion and Contraception that has infuriated men and women alike; it is Rush Limbaugh’s ugly, sexist, slanderous, demeaning of an individual woman, without basis, in logic or in fact, that has turned the nation against him and the tactics of the Republican party.

    • John Daly

      Read my previous column and tell me why it’s okay when liberal pundits make similar or worse comments about women.

      • What’s next Burqua’s?

        It’s not ok. Bill Maher called Palin or Bachman or one of them a dumb twat. I was appalled enought to stop watching him even though I do not have much respect for Palin or Bachman’s intellect. When men reduce women to nothing more than genitals by calling them things like slut, whore, twat, etc. they are stripping them of their humanity, making them breeding stock, and making it easier to restrict their human and American rights. Republicans want me to give up my right to even live for an unborn child. How do you think that makes me feel? It makes me fear my government an the rich old white men who run it want to enact the same Taliban Sharia law they accuse the “Muslim” (oh please) President of wanting to do.

        • John Daly

          Republicans want you to give up your right to live? Haven’t heard that one before.

  • bitters
  • Danny

    And who pays for that baby when the mother can’t (or won’t)??? The answer is YOU DO, from pre- birth to 18 years of age. The whole objection to government paid birth control sounds like penny wise and dollar stupid…………

    • John Daly

      What people like Sandra Fluke wants is for other people to subsidize laziness. Birth control is cheap. There are plenty of outlets where she can get it free and plenty where she can purchase it for next to nothing. This idea that the government needs to step in whenever someone’s budget is pinched is ridiculous.

      • What’s next Burqua’s?

        No did you listen to her testimony? She said that this college that accepts government funding should be following the law. If you don’t want to follow the law then don’t accept taxpayer funds. I don’t like supporting a school that would let a woman lose an ovary because she can’t afford to buy the MEDICINE that would have helped her. She wasn’t talking about having sex. She was talking about the fact that hormonal birth control is medicine for many other women’s health needs.

        • Canof Sand

          “What’s next Burqua’s?”
          What’s next, calling us “pro-rape”? OH wait, your ilk has said exactly that. You people are intellectually bankrupt.

          “did you listen to her testimony”
          Did you?

          “If you don’t want to follow the law then don’t accept taxpayer funds.”
          The law and the ruling in question are both UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you understand what that means?

          “a school that would let a woman lose an ovary”
          And I suppose the school “lets” people starve to death because it doesn’t pay for all their meals?

          “MEDICINE”
          Pregnancy isn’t a disease.

          “She wasn’t talking about having sex.”
          Fluke most certainly WAS. She mentioned other things as well, but she MOST CERTAINLY WAS talking about getting people to pay for her and her “friends'” recreational sex and that of “ALL women” (her words). There is NO medical condition that requires $1000/year (HER FIGURE) of contraceptives as a treatment! Again, did YOU listen to her testimony, hack?

          You didn’t put an ounce of critical thought into your comment. You didn’t make a single remotely intelligent point. You’re such a peabrained little parrot.

      • Sarah

        Sandra Fluke and other Georgetown Law students pay $1800 – $5600 a year for their health care insurance. They don’t want you or anyone else to pay for their contraception or hormonal therapy, they just want to get what they pay for.

        As for the $4 pills — not every pill is good for every woman. I tried them for a while (for PCOS) and had horrible side effects, so my doctor switched me to a much more expensive formulation. It’s not the same as aspirin, where a generic brand is pretty much the same as Bayer or Anacin.

        It’s actuarially sounder for an insurance company to provide free birth control (or hormonal therapy for various conditions) than to pay for obstetric/maternal care and complications of untreated conditions. (Really, childbirth is expensive, 18 years of pediatric care is expensive, and the removal of an ovary is expensive.) This should be a free market, actuarial decision, and not based on ideology/religion/etc.

        • John Daly

          Just getting what they pay for?

          That reminds me of this guy I used to work at a restaurant with. He’d steal silverware, pitchers, bottles of ketchup, etc to use at home. His rationale was that he wasn’t getting paid enough, thus he felt justified in stealing.

          Fluke knew what was and wasn’t covered in the insurance plan before she ever enrolled in it.

          If insurance companies want to cover the pills, that’s fine… but the government forcing them to against their religious beliefs is a slap in the face of religious freedom.
          He felt he wasn’t getting paid enough so he’d steal silverware, cups, bottles of ketchup, etc.

          • Sarah

            If Georgetown and the Catholic Church want to cry religious freedom, they should be like Hillsdale college and not accept any federal funds (grants and loans for the college, Medicare and Medicaid for their medical facilities.) The government forcing me to subsidize them against my religious beliefs is a slap in the face of religious freedom, too.

          • Canof Sand

            “want to cry religious freedom”

            Your tone just goes to show how anti-religion you are, bigot. THE RULING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD.

  • Danny

    You want to talk bogus?? Lets talk about the bogus “War on Religion”………

    • John Daly

      I actually agree with you there. I didn’t like that mantra either. The Obama administration isn’t at war with religion. They’re just oblivious to religious freedom.

      • Phillips

        I don’t think you get it! There are many Christian religions in the USA.
        Can you count them? Not all of them find contraception a problem…your thinking is all about your views. You must be either a rabid Catholic or an Evangelical. Both have narrow views of the world. Your view my friend is not the only view!And what about religious freedom do you not understand. The next topic is freedom in the work place. Your employer should not have the right to impose his/her views on your personal views. Any questions? If you are a Christian Scientist…you don’t believe in blood transfusions. Should an employer who holds these beliefs be able to say no to your blood transfusion. Have you given any thought or do you just spout out what you are told to spout out by the far right? THINK! It might do you good one day.

        • Patrick

          Phillips, here’s what you don’t understand. This debate is not over whether or not contraception should be banned. This debate is over whether or not the Catholic Church should be forced to pay for something it finds morally offensive. There’s a big difference between banning something and just refusing to pay for it.

          • Sarah

            In the US, health care insurance is considered part of our compensation, and most employees also pay a lot for their premiums. An employer shouldn’t have any say what you or I do with our compensation. Should an employer who objects to blood transfusions or surgery for religious reasons be allowed to opt out of that coverage?

          • Canof Sand

            “An employer shouldn’t have any say what you or I do with our compensation.”
            They don’t. They give you a paycheck, and you can buy what you want with it. Are they “having a say” in whether you can buy chocolate because they don’t buy it for you? How do you people live with yourselves knowing how low you have to stoop to make your asinine arguments?

            Buy them for yourself, Sarah. It’s not that expensive. You can even get it for free ALREADY in several different ways. If you buy this whole “war on women” narrative, you’re a useful idiot, to say the least.

        • anna zachariah

          It’s not just the Catholics & Evangelists opposed to contraception, etc. – Why are you not respectful of ones religious faith? They aren’t bothering you; so, why force your beliefs onto them?

      • Canof Sand

        No “war on religion”? Depends on what you mean by that. Call it whatever you want, Obama IS anti-Biblical (anti-Christian, anti-Jew). His many, many, many vile deeds prove it. Educate yourself:

        http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106938

        Here’s a VERY partial list (MUCH more on the site, fully footnoted with citations):

        1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

        April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” 1

        February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2

        April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. 3

        May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4

        April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5

        October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6

        November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7

        January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8

        February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9

        April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10

        August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11

        November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12

        November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13

        December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14

        January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15

        February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16

    • John Daly

      Oh, and they’re oblivious to the Constitution as well.

      • What’s next Burqua’s?

        Yeah remember the one about ah… equal protection under the law the 14th??? I guess women are not as equal as zygotes and churches.

        • John Daly

          Huh?

  • Jeb Bush / Lez Cheney 2012

    We need to Impeach oblamo an end all this foolishness NOW! Demand additonal tax cuts for the Job Creator class! End all class warfare! End the EPA, FAA, FDA, etc., NOW! Join with your Tea PArty Patriots and lets end all these demorat sociast programs like Socialism Security, Mediscam and so called unemployment “benefits” GET A JOB BUM!!!

  • cmacrider

    John: Excellent parody on how the MSM can truly manipulate public perception.
    However, I have my doubts about the sincerity of the Left on the Women’s Rights issue. As a Canadian soldier, my son (along with many others) went to Afghanistan to actually put their lives on the line and fight FOR Women’s Rights. Its kinda funny though …. never seem to see the Left in this country even so much as acknowledge these young men and women.

  • Dave R

    John:

    Very enjoyable article. Now I can’t help myself but to believe this really was orchestrated right from the first bizarre Stephanopoulos debate question, up to Limbaugh falling out of the cuckoo’s nest.

  • T Ivison

    Funny, one of your best.

    • John Daly

      Thank you!

  • Bob

    Great illustration of how a serious issue has been twisted and used in such a ridiculous manner.

    • John Daly

      Thanks!

  • robin in fl

    when I hear the MSM even say the phrase ‘war on women’.it makes me want to projectile vomit at them..sorry to be so graphic,BUT I am a woman,,and I know in some countries there truly is atrocities done to woman that could be really called ‘war on women’

    so because some self entitled,pay for my birth control women,that can obviously pay for their own bc if it’s that much of a priority think this is a ‘war on women’,when FAR MORE serious topics are at hand right now is just plain old lame and stupid and just another attention seeking topic that screams ME ME MEEEE..it’s ALL about ME!

    • What’s next Burqua’s?

      You say “Me” like it’s a bad thing. There is a war on women when they are proposing that a woman should die by law if she is in child birth and to save her would mean her unborn fetus would not survive. Better to make sure they both die. Go look at what the Georgia Legislature is attempting to do. It’s ok if a woman dies. Who is going to protect ME in these circumstances from the Taliban and the sheeple who elect them is a damn valid question.

      • John Daly

        Oh brother. Where do you get this stuff?

  • Kathie Ampela

    No one seems to understand that “free stuff” isn’t free and government entitlements weaken society. The next generation will be gimmees. America will be the 40 year guy who still lives with his mother. “Women’s rights” is a clever smoke screen but instead of congratulating the dems, the GOP had better articulate that strong counter message or we’re done.

  • Glen Stambaugh

    John, your last sentence is the truest political analysis I’ve seen in a long time. Ignorance always favors the left and we certainly aren’t becoming a more informed society over time. God help us.

    • Nancye

      I hope so. We need HIS help.