What War on Women?

Posted: October 18, 2012 by GeeOhPeeved in Abortion, Current events, Equality, War on Women
Tags: , ,

I keep hearing about how conservatives are trying to restrict women’s rights.  What I haven’t heard is a single legitimate argument supporting this claim.  Whenever it comes up, liberals and pseudo-feminists go on at length about two main things: abortion and birth control.

Sorry, libs, but abortion is a losing topic for you.  The primary sticking point in abortion, legally speaking, is whether or not an unborn child is alive, and therefore protected by its constitutional rights.  In Roe v Wade, the court, while avoiding the issue of person-hood, decided that states could restrict the abortion “rights” of people whose unborn children had reached viability, which the court defined as being, “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”  Now, if there’s ever a legal determination of when human life begins, that little caveat becomes moot.  There is an opportunity there, though, to effectively end abortion even without revisiting Roe v Wade or passing new legislation: artificial uteri, if perfected, could effectively end abortion.  If such a device existed, that “albeit with artificial aid” bit means that states could effectively end  abortion, as nearly any embryo or fetus could be removed and placed in an artificial womb, rendering it viable by artificial means.  Sadly, I’ve met people who still wouldn’t be satisfied, as they’d insist that it’s the mothers right to terminate the life anyways, even if the mother wasn’t affected by the continuation of that life.

Regardless, the specifics on abortion, as far as this phony “war” goes, have more to do with public funding, mandating insurance coverage of the procedure, and to whom abortions are made available.  The public funding aspect of this, as a conservative, is a no-brainer:  any time you spend taxpayer money, the first question asked should be, “Are we justified in taking money from these people to give to other people for this purpose?”  Simply?  No.  With the country split on whether or not abortion should be legal in the first place, there is zero justification for funding it with taxpayer dollars.  As far as the insurance aspect, I’m against  government high-handedness in the private sector, especially when it has a detrimental effect on the religious freedoms of both private citizens and religious institutions.  When it comes to availability, I somehow doubt letting 16 year olds get abortions without the knowledge or consent of their parents is going to have a net positive effect on our society.  Crazy, I know.

On a side note, during the recent debate, President Obama defended government funding for the largest abortion provider in the country (Planned Parenthood), in part, because he says they provide mammograms.  My friend Christina, with whom I was watching the debate in her and her husband’s home, pointed out that this isn’t the case.  They refer women elsewhere for mammography.  This is akin to saying Planned Parenthood offers pizza, as if one were to call them up and inquire, they’d likely inform you that while they don’t serve pizza, they can give you the number for the local Pizza Hut.

The birth control aspect of all this is actually a bit baffling to me.  The flip side would be me knocking on my neighbor’s door and telling them that they’re obligated to buy me condoms.  The whole idea is preposterous.

Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown student Pelosi called on to explain why forced coverage of female contraceptive methods was so important, said that insurance companies should be forced to cover them in part because it was so expensive being a sexually active law school student.  “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”  Ignore how ludicrous it is to claim that anybody else should be forced to pay for something you want, simply because you can’t afford it.  Instead, consider that the way she phrases it implies that $3,000 is towards the high end, and for most it would be cheaper.  Fine.  Law school generally takes about three years to complete, so call it one grand per year.  That’s less than three dollars per day.  Sorry, but if you can’t afford that, then A- you may want to look a one of the many cheaper forms of birth control (there are pharmacies that offer generic options for as little as four dollars per month, $144 for her three year’s worth), and B- you clearly have more important things to be worried about than whether or not you can get laid without getting pregnant.  Consider, oh, I don’t know, forgoing booty calls and such until you aren’t so destitute that you can’t afford something that, on the high end, costs less than a cup of coffee per day.
She’s specifically talking about those attending religious schools or employed by religious institutions, though, which makes the whole thing even more childish and stupid.  As it turns out, nobody is holding a gun to your head making you attend that school, or work that job.  You chose to study or work there, you can choose to go elsewhere. What on earth makes you think you have the right to demand birth control from them?  Really, whether the situation is, “We’ve decided to accept your application to our school, in order for you to study under our professors,” or “We agree to pay you this much in exchange for this work,” what is it that makes you think they’re obligated to subsidize your sex life?  Are you that childishly greedy?  Are you going to ask for legislation forcing Alcoholics Anonymous to fund your keggers, next?
Probably the dumbest thing I’ve heard on the subject to date is the insistence that this all boils down to women’s rights and equality.

Sorry, but you have the right to buy birth control, not to force others to pay for it for you.  If this isn’t the case, then I need a lawyer,  so I can file suit against the government tomorrow for infringing on my right to a Lamborghini.

The equality nonsense has to do with some insurers covering Viagra.  First, the difference here is that Viagra allows otherwise unable men to have sex, period.  You know, making their body function the way it’s supposed to, unlike birth control which artificially alters body chemistry to avoid pregnancy.  Second, private companies have the right to choose which services they offer.  Don’t like the services one company offers?  Then don’t give them your custom.  Your choice to purchase a private company’s goods or services, however, does not give you the right to dictate which goods or services that company must offer.

If you want to make a point about equality in this issue, though, maybe address the fact that contraceptives for men are rather specifically not included in this “reproductive rights” push.  Condoms not only prevent pregnancy, but prevent the spread of STD’s as well, something hormonal contraceptives can’t.  To be clear, no, I don’t believe anybody should be forced to pay for their neighbor’s condoms, either.

Hmmm… Maybe this issues aren’t so much about ensuring equality and reproductive “rights” so much as liberals relying on certain people’s selfishness and sense of entitlement to try to buy a key demographic…  Nah, can’t be.  Must be a war on women.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s