Gender Bigotry

First, it was the “war on women”, but that catch phrase may have run its course. For the 2014 midterm elections liberals have now come up with a new catch phrase to cover their so called conservative hatred towards women – “gender bigotry”. Apparently the Supreme Court decision for the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case triggered this new catch phrase. The Supreme Court ruled that companies do not have to cover women’s contraception (a mandate under ObamaCare) that may abort a fetus based on religious beliefs. There are 20 types of contraception and Hobby Lobby will continue to cover 16 methods. This seems extremely fair, but not in the eyes of liberals who call this gender bigotry.

The court was correct to identify corporations as people since the government treats them like people (they pay taxes and they are subject to many of the same laws as people). Ginsburg in her dissent says “the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.” But a church is an artificial entity, so Ginsburg’s argument makes little sense. The Ginsburg dissent also points out the following culture war quote: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” And finally, Ginsburg also wonders what “ the impact that accommodation may have on . . . thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby.” One liberal article interpreted the court ruling as such: “The message is clear: women don’t deserve any help funding their sex lives, and it’s just too bad if they can’t afford it otherwise.”  

Liberals and women are overreacting. First, a narrow decision on the contraceptive mandate will have little effect on ObamaCare. In fact, ObamaCare is not going anywhere anytime soon – it will remain the law of the land until Republicans have super majorities to repeal the law. Secondly, liberals in Congress will find a way to cover women’s contraception even if it is to provide employee vouchers to sign up for a federal or state exchange, or hand out contraception similarly to how the federal government controls vaccines – and this is exactly what Democrats want: more people signing up for government run healthcare and or more government control over another facet of healthcare.

What is more puzzling is what made contraception a “right” in the first place. And why do liberals and women feel contraceptive decisions reside solely with women. In other words, why aren’t men a part of these decisions? The cost and decision of contraception should not fall solely on the shoulder of women. After all, it takes two to tango. But this is what liberals and Democrats want to accomplish – they want to pit women against men. In fact, liberals are great at polarizing Americans and also pit white v. black, gay v. hetero, wealthy v. poor among other political groups. This is a political tactic to win votes. The result of the liberal polarization of gender groups using propaganda and brainwashing: more divorces and more single parent families. However, this is exactly what liberals intend to accomplish – this polarization is important and is now the reason women vote for Democrats by large margins. Apparently most people are too naïve to understand when they are being manipulated for political purposes.

And if this is not bad enough, since when does the Constitution classify Americans as groups of people and reward these groups of people with rights that include wealth transference and the ability to prevent a pregnancy? It does not! That is the beauty of the Constitution, it does not see ethnicity or gender - it treats everyone equally. However, Thomas Jefferson wrote there should be a separation between religion and state. And therefore, people should be able to incorporate their beliefs within their corporations without government intrusion. No founding father expected the federal government to be this intrusive. Government intrusion only makes problems worse. For example, the president granting the children of illegal aliens amnesty, without securing the border, only led to 100,000 orphaned children crossing our border creating a massive federal disaster and expense.

Would women be better off in any country other than the United States? No! So we should find it utterly disgusting that a Supreme Court Justice, in her dissent, would try to generate a culture war. Her job is to judge and evaluate laws as they pertain to the Constitution and that is it. Her job is not to make political statements. It is also disgusting that these same people who use gender bigotry as their political platform fail to pay women the same as men for doing the same job – oh the hypocrisy.

What has been the result of liberal policies over the past several decades: irresponsibility and unaccountability. When taxpayers have to subsidize the sex life of other American citizens it only promotes more irresponsibility and bad behavior. For example, women will become more promiscuous with strangers or make them more likely to cheat on their spouses. This is similar to how people on welfare will act: irresponsible and choose not want to work. Is this the example we want to send to our children.

Here is the progression of leftist rights: income, housing, food, healthcare, and now sex. I still do not see any of these in the Constitution, but people do have the right to be free and choose any path they desire. If you choose to be a deadbeat, no worries, the government will take care of you by robbing from hard working responsible people. If women decide to be promiscuous that is there right, but the responsibility should not fall on others to pay for it. Maybe politicians should follow the path of Calvin Coolidge who refused to give large sums of government funding to flood victims. Instead, Coolidge led many charity fund raisers to help the victims and the nation recovered just fine. Americans are charitable and are willing to help people so long as they know where there hard earned dollars are going.