G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
News flash: liberals are maddening. At The Daily Beast, Michelle Goldberg writes:
On Thursday, Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling firm, released a memo attributing improvements in Obama’s approval rating largely to unmarried women, and suggesting that controversies over birth-control coverage are buoying him (PDF). “We may yet look back on this debate and wonder whether this was a Terry Schiavo moment,” it says. “The Obama position finds a two-thirds majority among suburban voters and a 61 percent majority among single women. These results loom large when voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by 52 to 26 percent on women’s issues, including a 36-point margin among senior women and a 47-point margin among unmarried women.”
I grow tired of this appeal to the masses as if just because single women, senior women, or suburban voters’ wrangling for mandated goodies is the same thing as being principled and correct. Only someone who has an unflinching love for democracy and the attendant tyranny of the masses could utter such idiocy. And to mention Terri Schiavo in this appeal to the masses – a case which was about the life or death of an individual and not about whether or not the sexual choices of the female class will be subsidized – is pretty distorted.
Now several Republican presidential candidates proclaim a desire to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and we’re having a nationwide argument about whether women deserve contraception coverage in their insurance plans.
Correction: we’re having a nationwide argument about whether women deserve free, mandated contraception coverage in their insurance plans. Correction to the correction: we’re having an argument about deserve. Larry Auster, putting it simply (and here) – which is perfectly enough.
I’ve enjoyed Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney’s tweets on this front. He’s gone reduction ad absurdum which is often required when dealing with liberals:
So if I try to force employers to pay for my guns, and liberals object I can ask “it’s 2012, why are we debating the right to bear arms?”
Hint: forcing your boss to subsidize your sex-life is the position that puts “your boss in your bedroom.”
The Washington Examiner refused to pay for my commute. According to @jonathanalter, my boss is “denying me” a ride to work.
And benefits, like “free” birth control, aren’t free. They often reduce other compensation. So you’re trading wages for pills.
I don’t understand the Viagra “retort” to arguments vs the contraception mandate. Do ppl think US mandates Viagra coverage?
Pax Dickinson also has a good one:
If you don’t believe in forcing my employer to buy me booze and whores, you are a anti-sex prohibitionist. #progressivelogic
The principle on which women deserve free contraception (which is freaking cheap considering what it prevents) is the same one which says that I deserve a gun, porn, a car, a job, a girlfriend. Which is to say, the principle is posited and then rationalized by those who hoist democracy and widespread desire up as a human right which must then – to, you know, be fair – be mandated and subsidized.
I’d agree that the GOP is placing too much emphasis on the religious roots of this argument. The same reason that ObamaCare was generally despised on the Right is the same reason that any mandate – whether birth control forced on Catholics or purchasing health insurance at all or price fixing certain treatments and drugs – is to be opposed. It seems clear that Obama infused the debate with this religious angst because he knows that his base would get fired up. Sadly, the GOP and Catholics have bought into this frame.