The ‘War on Women’ only matters in macro not the micro–not the individual, anecdotal wars according to Emily’s List, a group which supports pro abortion women in politics.
Bob Filner can feel up the rear of a Rear Admiral, lick the chin of a college professor, tell a right-hand-woman he’d rather she worked without panties and it’s not a war on women, but if a Republican did that it would be an, uh, War on Women.
Jeff Cogen, the Multnomah County (Portland), Oregon Chair can have a side-honey who loses her job when the tryst (using public funds) is unveiled but keep his job, but if a Republican did that, it would be a ‘War on Women’.
Anthony Weiner, the one man peter-tweeter, can selfie his schlong all day long to strange women with whom he has virtual affairs, but it still makes him a better candidate to the far left than a conservative who doesn’t believe in late term abortions.
The ‘War on Women’ that we’ve been hearing so much about lately indeed has only to do with abortion. Like Clinton before them, any Democrat who doesn’t believe in abortion on demand till the 59th minute of the 11th hour of the 41st week of pregnancy is an intolerant instigator of the war on women. It’s a fraud, of course.
When Democrats invoked the “war on women” slogan during the 2012 election it was about policy, not personal behavior. Anthony Weiner may have sent photographs of his penis to strangers on the internet, but he didn’t, like Todd Akin, justify his absolute opposition to abortion by saying victims of “legitimate rape” [which is a legal term of art ignored by the media] don’t get pregnant. Eliot Spitzer may have cheated on his wife with high-class prostitutes, but he didn’t, like Richard Mourdock, explain his anti-abortion stance by saying that conception from rape is “something that God intended.” [being a Christian or a person of faith automatically makes you against women? Interesting then, that the left loves radical Muslims] And even Bob Filner, who has allegedly hurt numerous former employees with deplorable sexual harassment, cannot damage as many women’s lives as Republicans who want to restrict abortion rights, limit birth control options and defund Planned Parenthood.
Have you noticed that the latest efforts in Texas to limit abortions have to do only with a baby who’s able to survive outside the mother’s womb–or at the very least–days away from being able to do so? This is what the phony War on Women is about: 24 weeks versus 20 weeks of pregnancy. Of course, in the U.S. there is abortion on demand–for the ‘health’ of the mother. Women now consider any limitation on killing a child just days, hours, minutes away from delivery as an assault on their ‘rights’. Rights to what, murder?
This won’t be persuasive to the low information voter who takes on faith only what the Emily’s Listers and Planned Parenthood types profess. But do you suppose it might be persuasive to those who consider Filner, Weiner, Cogen, Kennedy, Clinton, Spitzer et al. preferable candidates to any Republicans that we tell them one of the side benefits of keeping babies alive is so the next generation of Democrats will have a bigger crop of prospective victims? Think that would work?