The war on women is not exclusive to liberal women. Just because a woman won’t vote for Obama doesn’t mean the restrictive measures sweeping state legislatures across the country - and attempts at the federal level - can’t affect her.
The “war on women” - referencing legislation that restricts access to abortion, contraceptives, family planning and other reproductive health services - is applicable to all women. It does not apply only to the most liberal of us. Take note:
- “Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method. […] Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.” [Guttmacher]
- “In the United States, publicly financed family planning prevented 1.94 million unwanted pregnancies in 2006, according to the Guttmacher Institute… The result of those averted pregnancies was 810,000 fewer abortions, the institute said. Publicly financed contraception pays for itself, by reducing money spent through Medicaid on childbirth and child care. Guttmacher found that every $1 invested in family planning saved taxpayers $3.74.” [Nick Kristof]
With the Rosen vs. Romney debate stewing, I’m reminded that the war on women is about gender, not the political ideology of various women. Hillary Rosen deserves the heat she’s receiving, but this condescending comment is not exclusive. Women still ride the bittersweet line of being scolded for working too much while not spending enough time at home and being labeled as a weak and ineffective member of society for staying home to raise their children. (It’s also in extremely poor taste to criticize the work ethic of a woman who is battling multiple sclerosis.)
Even for women who do not face life-altering medical conditions, raising kids is not an easy job. I think Michele Bachmann is a wretched lawmaker, but I bet she’s worked her ass off to raise her five children and 23 foster children.
Let’s clear the air on one thing right now: Rosen’s comment does not negate the existence of the GOP’s “war on women.” Additionally, one asinine remark does not signify a war here, unless a slew of Democrats come out of the woodwork slamming stay-at-home mothers.
However, passing countless laws restricting access to contraceptives, attempting to criminalize abortions at a detectable heartbeat, and repealing a law that helps women fight wage discrimination does signify a “war on women.” And Romney is still not a good choice for women who care about reproductive health for all. As President, I don’t think he’d ever be proactive on social issues like reproductive rights, accessible contraception or well-financed family planning… no condescending Democratic strategist can change my mind on that belief. [Photo credit: ABC/Getty Images]
42
![pantslessprogressive:
The war on women is not exclusive to liberal women. Just because a woman won’t vote for Obama doesn’t mean the restrictive measures sweeping state legislatures across the country - and attempts at the federal level - can’t affect her.
The “war on women” - referencing legislation that restricts access to abortion, contraceptives, family planning and other reproductive health services - is applicable to all women. It does not apply only to the most liberal of us. Take note:
“Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method. […] Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.” [Guttmacher]
“In the United States, publicly financed family planning prevented 1.94 million unwanted pregnancies in 2006, according to the Guttmacher Institute… The result of those averted pregnancies was 810,000 fewer abortions, the institute said. Publicly financed contraception pays for itself, by reducing money spent through Medicaid on childbirth and child care. Guttmacher found that every $1 invested in family planning saved taxpayers $3.74.” [Nick Kristof]
With the Rosen vs. Romney debate stewing, I’m reminded that the war on women is about gender, not the political ideology of various women. Hillary Rosen deserves the heat she’s receiving, but this condescending comment is not exclusive. Women still ride the bittersweet line of being scolded for working too much while not spending enough time at home and being labeled as a weak and ineffective member of society for staying home to raise their children. (It’s also in extremely poor taste to criticize the work ethic of a woman who is battling multiple sclerosis.)
Even for women who do not face life-altering medical conditions, raising kids is not an easy job. I think Michele Bachmann is a wretched lawmaker, but I bet she’s worked her ass off to raise her five children and 23 foster children.
Let’s clear the air on one thing right now: Rosen’s comment does not negate the existence of the GOP’s “war on women.” Additionally, one asinine remark does not signify a war here, unless a slew of Democrats come out of the woodwork slamming stay-at-home mothers.
However, passing countless laws restricting access to contraceptives, attempting to criminalize abortions at a detectable heartbeat, and repealing a law that helps women fight wage discrimination does signify a “war on women.” And Romney is still not a good choice for women who care about reproductive health for all. As President, I don’t think he’d ever be proactive on social issues like reproductive rights, accessible contraception or well-financed family planning… no condescending Democratic strategist can change my mind on that belief. [Photo credit: ABC/Getty Images]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2e3cklPqT1qzr73ro1_250.jpg)
