Liddick: What women want?
October 29, 2012
Courtesy of the Democrat party, we now know what the women of Colorado want above all: someone to pay for their birth control and abortions.
The asthmatic economy? Not an issue. A disintegrating foreign policy? So what? Unemployment? Nah. Debt and deficits? Who cares? Washington gridlock, partisan divide, the environment? No, no, and no. The only issues are access to abortion on demand and “family planning services” paid for by anyone else.
How do we know? Spend half an hour watching television. Count the number of times the message “Misogynist Republican weasel X wants to take away your birth control and chain you to the kitchen stove” comes up. The volume and vehemence of the message is a measure of how fervently the authors believe they are mining the mother lode of feminine angst in our fair state.
This is deeply insulting, since it takes for granted the intended audience – Colorado’s women – has the collective intelligence of a bag of hamsters. From Gov. Romney down to Colorado politicians targeted by these attacks, if one ignores cut-and-paste snippets in favor of policy statements, it’s clear the candidates argue only that federal money should not be spent to fund abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. One such statement is in Gov. Romney’s remarks at the Oct. 8, 2011, Value Voters Summit, available at “http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2011/10/mitt-romney-delivers-remarks-values-voter-summit.” This would return Planned Parenthood to the independent status it enjoyed for more than half a century, and would roughly reflect the federal government’s policies for the health care services it provides directly through the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits and Tricare programs.
Democrat attacks assume disinclination to do research. Even the Liberal Annenberg Center’s “Factcheck.org” can’t stomach the mischaracterization of Mitt Romney’s abortion stance, noting that his words are taken out of context and his position wildly distorted. The phrase “if there is a national consensus” is meaningful – and disregarded in Democrat ads.
They also count on ignorance, both of process and of the principles of finance. Can a single congressman, or even a president, “cut us off” from birth control? If legislation is involved, it will require bipartisanship, just as in 2005 when funding was trimmed for certain types of “partial birth” abortions. These hyperbolic claims seem to indicate a sort of projection: fiat decisions in the face of divided public opinion are the current Administration’s approach, not what Gov. Romney – or Colorado Republican candidates – propose.
Similarly the argument that there is a “firewall” between public and private dollars. The former is neither radioactive nor differently colored; once in the checking account, all money is fungible. To pretend otherwise is dishonest, or foolish, or both.
Then there’s the Democrat refusal to recognize that abortion and birth control are issues fraught with moral questions, and that the absolutist “no restrictions on anything, anywhere” position might create qualms, even in women. Democrats believe instead that women must be of a single mind on these issues, and that mind must be Margaret Sanger’s.
Democrats have another clear assumption about Colorado women. Despite all assertions from HHS Secretary Sibelius, the Democrat party is not celebrating “strong, independent women.” The woman they elevate instead is “Julia,” the Obama Administration’s electronic waif, who floats through life from Head Start to senior volunteer, courtesy of lavish government support. The absolute antithesis of Alexis de Tocqueville’s American, who lives at the center of a large and complex web of family and social contacts which creates great freedom, “Julia” has no need of husband, relatives or social institutions. She’s found a very generous sugar daddy to take care of her every need: the Democrat party, who will fund her caprices with money extracted from taxpayers – if only she will give them her vote.
The “Julia syndrome” has recently had another iteration, a “vote for Barack” promo by Lena Dunham, evidently based on even-creepier ads used by Vladimir Putin in the last Russian election. In suggestive language, the little ingenue speaks about voting for Barack Obama “making her a woman.” The takeaway message, for anyone thinking about it, might be that Barack Obama’s trying to do to the country what young Ms. Dunham is dreaming about her “great guy” doing to her. But the real question is, will he call her the next day?
Really? This is the party that “understands” women? That supports them, idolizes them, caters to their “needs?” Seems a bit more like a seedy guy in a plaid suit and slicked-back hair offering to buy them a drink. Or the Obama administration’s favorite flack, that serial sexual predator and perjurer Bill Clinton.
Summit County resident Morgan Liddick pens a Tuesday column. Email him at firstname.lastname@example.org.