Click to see full size.

(Editor’s note: Insider Louisville has created an editorial board in an effort to strike a balance between liberal and conservative viewpoints. A diverse group of board members will post regular unsigned opinion pieces addressing the important issues of the day.)

There is an important election and critical issues before our nation.

How sad then that in the face of unprecedented United States and European debt, collapsing schools, bankrupt cities, an increasingly aggressive Russia and China, Afghanistan and other crises, the party of inclusion, diversity and peace is spending so much energy on a “War on Women.”

This war apparently is being waged by the Republicans. And according to the amount of attention paid by the Democrats, this war is one of the most important issues facing our country today.

Do Democrats and our president really and truly believe Republicans have declared a “War on Women”?

Do Republicans not have daughters and mothers, wives and husbands whom they dearly love? And what about the millions of Republican women? Where do they fit into this war against an entire gender?

Apparently, the Left feels about Republican women the same way they feel about the citizens of Kansas; that they are too ignorant to understand what’s good for them. Republican women might be insulted by that line of thinking.

Either way, Republican women need to know their party is at war with them merely because they are women. They will be bummed to hear it.

Really, how sad – and ultimately destructive – is it that we are spending day after day hearing the great Lions of the Democratic party ginning up this war as if they really believe in their hearts Republicans want to hurt women, and to do so for no reason other than pure Republican meanness.

What’s even sadder is that apparently polls told the Obama campaign this was an issue that would fire up a segment of their base.

This “war” is what will motivate their voters. Of course, all of this talk of war is definitely a long, long way from anything resembling Hope and Change, or tolerance toward diversity of opinions. Vote for us because the Republicans are… just mean? Come on.

And of what exactly does this war on women consist?

A complete abandonment by the Democratic party, in a nasty election, of the one woman who had a legitimate shot at being the first female president of the United States? The utter demonization of a woman who was the second female vice presidential candidate of a major party in our country’s history? What is the cause of this war that will apparently take away all women’s rights?

Contraception? Is there a serious conservative who is against having contraception widely and inexpensively available as it is today? Do we see conservatives boycotting Walgreens for selling condoms and birth control pills or occupying Rite Aid parking lots and harassing their executives?

Are Republicans really taking up arms to prevent women from having access to birth control?

Is it abortion? Is this what the war is about?

Certainly, this is a divisive and passionate issue that has created an enormous amount of vitriol and drama on both sides, and is likely to do so for a long time. But again, is this really a “war,” and is it news, that for some on the right, this is as important an issue as it is to some on the left?

Roe v. Wade still stands and will do so until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. And as we have recently seen, their decisions and logic are unpredictable. So, it does not appear there has been a new war declared on women/abortion by Mitt Romney.

The issue that has ignited all of this war talk – as in most issues this federal election cycle – is about the federal government’s role in the funding of contraception and abortions. This is a totally legitimate conversation to have.

The role of the federal government in our lives is the important political issue of our day, as it has been for more than 200 years. And whatever side of the issues you fall on, to question the validity of federally funded abortions and contraception is not to declare a “war on women” is it?

In these difficult times, there are serious issues with which we must contend: a $16 trillion deficit, 8.5 percent unemployment with no improvement in sight, soldiers dying in a real war in Afghanistan.

It is of no benefit to this nation for politicians to ignore these real issues with platitudes while practicing sophistry regarding the “war on women.”

No politician, especially a president elected in large part on the promise of reconciliation and common ground, serves our country by using the inflammatory words of war in a disingenuous effort to supplant hope with anger just to get votes.

The war is on ideology, not gender.

[dc_ad size="9"] [dc_ad size="10"]

16 thoughts on “Do the Democrats really and truly believe Republicans have declared a 'War on Women'?

  1. “Are Republicans really taking up arms to prevent women from having access to birth control?”

    Since you asked: Yes. Three years ago, a doctor was murdered in his own church by an anti-abortion extremist. The killer was a member of a right-wing militia group and self-proclaimed Christian.

    There is one political party in this country that has introduced several bills that disproportionately affect American women’s reproductive freedom and health. I will give you one guess as to who they are. Hint: Not Democrats.

  2. “Are Republicans really taking up arms to prevent women from having access to birth control?”

    Since you asked: Yes. Three years ago, a doctor was murdered in his own church by an anti-abortion extremist. The killer was a member of a right-wing militia group and self-proclaimed Christian.

    There is one political party in this country that has introduced several bills that disproportionately affect American women’s reproductive freedom and health. I will give you one guess as to who they are. Hint: Not Democrats.

  3. If anything, it is Democrats that wage a war on women. Mary Jo Kopechne & Linda Tripp show it is nothing knew, and the vitriol spewed against Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Nikki Haley, Michelle Malkin etc. illustrate this.

  4. If anything, it is Democrats that wage a war on women. Mary Jo Kopechne & Linda Tripp show it is nothing knew, and the vitriol spewed against Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Nikki Haley, Michelle Malkin etc. illustrate this.

  5. so just because that kook acted abysmally, you automatically say he represents the thinking of a whole political party? How do you draw that conclusion? Brian, just because someone disagrees with you on abortion and forcing churches to sign on to birth control provisions doesn’t mean they’re anti-woman. It means they’re pro-life and reminding everyone that the state can’t force its will on churches in all matters. As the author said, this is about ideology and issues. Without fair and truthful public discourse on these issues, we’ll never get anywhere.

  6. so just because that kook acted abysmally, you automatically say he represents the thinking of a whole political party? How do you draw that conclusion? Brian, just because someone disagrees with you on abortion and forcing churches to sign on to birth control provisions doesn’t mean they’re anti-woman. It means they’re pro-life and reminding everyone that the state can’t force its will on churches in all matters. As the author said, this is about ideology and issues. Without fair and truthful public discourse on these issues, we’ll never get anywhere.

  7. I’m sorry to see this anonymous over-simplification being used to lead off a series about “balance”. I’m sorry to see that InsiderLouisville is contributing to the false equivalencies that keep real complex discussion from taking place in the political arena. Having said that, call it what you will, the GOP has participated in a very concerted effort to appeal to a powerful block of its supporters that DO want to see certain rights for women rolled back or relativized. From the Sandra Fluke pile-on to the anti-women’s-health-choice stances of the Party’s Pres and VP choices, it seems clear that the GOP definitely panders to anti-women ideologies. If the use of the word “war” is a bit of theatrical political histrionics, that, again, is something that was started by the GOP, from the “war” on drugs to the “war” on terrorism, changing the term and politicizing it in a way that has now become common practice across the spectrum.
    I wish you wold at least tell us who is on this “board”, and I hope that there is more nuance in the future from board members.

  8. I’m sorry to see this anonymous over-simplification being used to lead off a series about “balance”. I’m sorry to see that InsiderLouisville is contributing to the false equivalencies that keep real complex discussion from taking place in the political arena. Having said that, call it what you will, the GOP has participated in a very concerted effort to appeal to a powerful block of its supporters that DO want to see certain rights for women rolled back or relativized. From the Sandra Fluke pile-on to the anti-women’s-health-choice stances of the Party’s Pres and VP choices, it seems clear that the GOP definitely panders to anti-women ideologies. If the use of the word “war” is a bit of theatrical political histrionics, that, again, is something that was started by the GOP, from the “war” on drugs to the “war” on terrorism, changing the term and politicizing it in a way that has now become common practice across the spectrum.
    I wish you wold at least tell us who is on this “board”, and I hope that there is more nuance in the future from board members.

  9. No, it doesn’t. But my comment was framed the same way as this opinion: biased. And to your point: Churches aren’t businesses. They don’t pay taxes and they aren’t profit-making entities, yet they are involved in so many business-like ventures that they actually hire employees and give them health insurance. Now they want to dictate what type of medicine and treatments you can receive by refusing to pay the bill for certain things. I think that’s wrong. Your discussions with your doctor are confidential. The church doesn’t belong in the middle of that. And if a church employee asks for birth control they should get it and have it paid for by the insurance company. Is this about the insurance or is this about control over the flock? Tell me.

    Why are these “pro-life” initiatives (conjured up by MEN) always based on what a WOMAN can do with her vagina? Would a male church employee have his Viagra covered by insurance provided by the church? Should it?

    This is about ideology, yes. I often hear complaints from religious conservatives who say “the government” tries to “save people from themselves”. Yet that is exactly what the church is doing by refusing to pay for birth control – something that is none of their business.

    There is a religious sect in this country that believes antibiotics are the work of the devil. Should they be able to refuse to pay that bill? Where does it stop?

  10. No, it doesn’t. But my comment was framed the same way as this opinion: biased. And to your point: Churches aren’t businesses. They don’t pay taxes and they aren’t profit-making entities, yet they are involved in so many business-like ventures that they actually hire employees and give them health insurance. Now they want to dictate what type of medicine and treatments you can receive by refusing to pay the bill for certain things. I think that’s wrong. Your discussions with your doctor are confidential. The church doesn’t belong in the middle of that. And if a church employee asks for birth control they should get it and have it paid for by the insurance company. Is this about the insurance or is this about control over the flock? Tell me.

    Why are these “pro-life” initiatives (conjured up by MEN) always based on what a WOMAN can do with her vagina? Would a male church employee have his Viagra covered by insurance provided by the church? Should it?

    This is about ideology, yes. I often hear complaints from religious conservatives who say “the government” tries to “save people from themselves”. Yet that is exactly what the church is doing by refusing to pay for birth control – something that is none of their business.

    There is a religious sect in this country that believes antibiotics are the work of the devil. Should they be able to refuse to pay that bill? Where does it stop?

  11. Just to make sure I am reading this correctly…you open your comment by accusing the author of constructing “false equivalencies” (and don’t even bother to point out what exactly you’re refering to) and then go on to imply that pro-choice equals anti-woman. Are you being serious? You are a caricature of everything this article is talking about. Good God.
    Do you not see that your entire line of logic is nothing more than an attempt to stifle or shut-down (to use your words) “real complex discussons from taking place in the political arena”. Let me guess…Don’t like Obama? Racist. Don’t think the government should be in the birth control business? (afterall, we all know how efficient and competent the government is at implementing programs) Oh, you’re a hate spewing anti-woman war-on-women hate monger. Don’t like Obamacare? You’re a racist, a classist, a f*cking idiot, pro-child death, and pro-cancer!
    I have to admit that these intellectually lazy arguements and accusations are somewhat effective (you know, guilting the sheep into siding with you), but I really don’t want a pointy headed lecture on false equivalencies from you. At least make the effort to learn about your opponents reasons for opposing something instead of jumping to innane conclusions or “false equivalencies”.
    Oh, and by the way, the war on terrorism is a real war. Is that a controversy now too? Jesus.

  12. Just to make sure I am reading this correctly…you open your comment by accusing the author of constructing “false equivalencies” (and don’t even bother to point out what exactly you’re refering to) and then go on to imply that pro-choice equals anti-woman. Are you being serious? You are a caricature of everything this article is talking about. Good God.

    Do you not see that your entire line of logic is nothing more than an attempt to stifle or shut-down (to use your words) “real complex discussons from taking place in the political arena”. Let me guess…Don’t like Obama? Racist. Don’t think the government should be in the birth control business? (afterall, we all know how efficient and competent the government is at implementing programs) Oh, you’re a hate spewing anti-woman war-on-women hate monger. Don’t like Obamacare? You’re a racist, a classist, a f*cking idiot, pro-child death, and pro-cancer!
    I have to admit that these intellectually lazy arguements and accusations are somewhat effective (you know, guilting the sheep into siding with you), but I really don’t want a pointy headed lecture on false equivalencies from you. At least make the effort to learn about your opponents reasons for opposing something instead of jumping to innane conclusions or “false equivalencies”.

    Oh, and by the way, the war on terrorism is a real war. Is that a controversy now too? Jesus.

  13. You’re
    not reading it corectly. I’m accusing Insider Louisville of
    contributing to the culture of false equivalency by putting up this far
    right mess of an argument as an example of their attempt to “strike a
    balance” on “important issues”. Historically, the Dems have supported
    women’s rights to have general equality and to control their own health
    care decisions. When those rights are attacked, and you agree with the
    foundations of those rights, then it stands to reason that you would see
    that as anti-woman. I think it’s ridiculous to call it a “War on Women” but I also think it’s ridiculous to pretend that the GOP hasn’t made a the contraception/abortion/women’s health a huge part of its platform as a way of pandering to Anti-choice voters (especially now that Ryan is on the ticket).You make a lot of assumptions about who I am, but I don’t see how you’re furthering the discussion either, by immediately falling into name-calling and insulting. So try something not intellectually lazy yourself. Actually tell me your stance on the issue.And no, the war on terrorism is not a real war. Terrorism is an abstract, a condition . . . you can’t have war against a condition. “War” has a very definite meaning that gets abused and reworked by politicians and puts us into an Orwellian situation where we forget what the military is actually for, and we accept this state of perpetual military engagement where force is used for purposes far beyond defense.

  14. You’re
    not reading it corectly. I’m accusing Insider Louisville of
    contributing to the culture of false equivalency by putting up this far
    right mess of an argument as an example of their attempt to “strike a
    balance” on “important issues”. Historically, the Dems have supported
    women’s rights to have general equality and to control their own health
    care decisions. When those rights are attacked, and you agree with the
    foundations of those rights, then it stands to reason that you would see
    that as anti-woman. I think it’s ridiculous to call it a “War on Women” but I also think it’s ridiculous to pretend that the GOP hasn’t made a the contraception/abortion/women’s health a huge part of its platform as a way of pandering to Anti-choice voters (especially now that Ryan is on the ticket).You make a lot of assumptions about who I am, but I don’t see how you’re furthering the discussion either, by immediately falling into name-calling and insulting. So try something not intellectually lazy yourself. Actually tell me your stance on the issue.And no, the war on terrorism is not a real war. Terrorism is an abstract, a condition . . . you can’t have war against a condition. “War” has a very definite meaning that gets abused and reworked by politicians and puts us into an Orwellian situation where we forget what the military is actually for, and we accept this state of perpetual military engagement where force is used for purposes far beyond defense.

  15. My apologies for the tone of my post. I ended a very long day with an early happy hour. 🙂

    I still don’t see how the article is a “far right mess” nor do I see the false equivalency. Can you spell it out for me?

    I agree that there is some pandering going on…it is politics after all. Most of the conservatives I know are against the government getting involved in birth control for the same reasons they are against the government getting involved in anything else. It has nothing to do with women. Rest assured that it will cost us all many times more to pay for “free” birth control out of our taxes than it would to just pay for it directly. Remember, insurance is a profitable business which means that pay out less than they take in. A lot less.

    Oh, I almost forgot. You’re way over thinking this war thing. 🙂

  16. My apologies for the tone of my post. I ended a very long day with an early happy hour. 🙂

    I still don’t see how the article is a “far right mess” nor do I see the false equivalency. Can you spell it out for me?

    I agree that there is some pandering going on…it is politics after all. Most of the conservatives I know are against the government getting involved in birth control for the same reasons they are against the government getting involved in anything else. It has nothing to do with women. Rest assured that it will cost us all many times more to pay for “free” birth control out of our taxes than it would to just pay for it directly. Remember, insurance is a profitable business which means that pay out less than they take in. A lot less.

    Oh, I almost forgot. You’re way over thinking this war thing. 🙂

Leave a Reply