.

It’s Not a War, It’s a Choice

How the Democrats are using women as human shields.

If you are running for office as a Democrat, you might be tempted to claim the Republicans have engaged in a war on women.  That their policies are meant to restrict the freedoms of women or even return this country to the 1800’s (or middle ages depending on how much fear mongering you are willing work with).  As a Democratic candidate you will attempt to point out that Republicans are restricting a woman's reproductive rights and moreover trying to prevent women from having equal rights within society.  While a quick of review of news headlines would prove you were following the proper Democratic rhetoric; your campaign would be built on a lie.

The truth is women have been handed a choice.  The Democrats don’t like choice.  Choice implies that the people (or in the case of this blog, women) have the power to make decisions without the government.  Ideally, Democrats want people to make the decisions given to them; hence, the government would hold the true power.  In Wisconsin, and nation wide, this mythical war on women surrounds a couple pieces of legislation: 1) Contraception  2) Equal Pay  3) Sex Education.  Republican action in these areas has created more choice and less government control in effort to return freedom to the people.

Contraception

In order to accept that Republicans are restricting access to birth control, you must believe that it is the government that provides women with birth control.  Why would you have to entertain this premise, because the Republicans in Wisconsin have neither taken birth controls off the market nor have they implemented any regulation as to their use.  Instead, they have simple repealed the Contraceptive Equity Law which mandated insurance providers provide contraceptives be covered as prescription drugs.  This law tied women and their contraceptives to the whim of both the government and insurance provider.  It also forced additional premium cost not only onto all the insured, but also on women who choose not to use contraceptives.  If insurance providers wish to include contraceptives as a covered drug; it should be at their own discretion.

While most Democrats will argue that abortion is not contraception, the facts point to mostly health women using abortion to prevent the birth of a child.  Either way, the Wisconsin GOP legislature has imposed a mandatory one-on-one visit with a Doctor prior to having an abortion.  This ensures that no woman is coerced into having an abortion against her will, giving women the chance to be helped in possibly threatening circumstances.  The fear for Democrats is that it might give women the chance to change their mind on abortion.  In a recent NY Times article, it was stated that 58% of the country is still against abortion when used in a situation not involving rape, incest or medical complication.  That means most Americans are willing to allow only 7% of the abortions (those performed for rape, incest or medical complication) that happen in the country.  In the end the Democrat stance that abortion is a societal need has been challenged by the Republicans who wish to allow women to make a informed choice.

Equal Pay

The equal pay enforcement act that was repealed by Scott Walker was a redundant law enacted in 2009.  Democratic assumption is without this law it will be harder for women to challenge discrimination in the workplace.  State Rep. Louis Molepske wrote in an Op-ed piece in the Stevens Point Journal that sums up the Democratic argument.  The major evidence has been the reduction in the gender wage gap Wisconsin had in comparison to other states.  In 2009 Wisconsin was ranked 37th and in 2010 it rose to 25th.  Democrats attempt to use this as proof that Equal Pay Enforcement Act changed the business culture in Wisconsin.  A further look into wage gap numbers shows that in 2000 Wisconsin was 20th, in 2001 was 47th, in 2002 was 44th, (2003 report would not load), in 2004 was 38th, in 2005 was 49th, in 2006 was 30th, 2007 it was 21st and in 2008 it was 22nd.  Not to bore you with numbers, but it is important to see how the numbers have fluctuated over time and the Equal Pay Enforcement Act was not the reason for a one year change.

The reality is not that Democrats wish to decrease the wage gap, but instead wish to use women as a pawn in the control of business.  The state and federal governments already have laws on the books that protect from discrimination.  Oddly enough as Rep. Molepske points out, “that no actual cases were brought before a state court after the passage of the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act”.  They assume because business was to scared.  More likely the law was just useless.

It is also worth pointing out that the leader of the Democratic Party, Barrack Obama, has not been very diligent in his own attempt to create an equal environment for women.  In the 2011 White House annual report it showed that the median income for women was $60,000, while for men it was $71,000.  Prior to that Amy Sullivan of Time had written a piece, The White House Boy’s Club, detailing the lack of women present in the Obama White House.  I am not willing to state that Obama has a war on women, because these numbers do not detail the merits of his choices; however, there is a sense of hypocrisy.

Sex Education

The Wisconsin legislature recently adjusted the sex education bill that had been passed by the prior administration.  It is important to note that this adjustment only required that abstinence be identified as the only way to prevent the risks associated with sex.  Beyond that, this bill allows local school boards to work with parents in order to create a sex education curriculum.  Unfortunately, the Democrats have taken this opportunity to claim abstinence is a war on women.

Prior to the adjustments, Wisconsin was teaching comprehensive sex education.  The theory is that if you provide school kids with all the information about sex, they will make the most informed decision regarding sexual activity.  The students will be able to weigh the risks appropriately and make sound mature sexual judgments.  In a twisted way, Democrats believe this helps women.  Since, women are the only gender to get pregnant, providing the most information about how to safely have sex should work to a women’s favor.  Hence, they believe not teaching comprehensive sex education will lead to more pregnancies.  As proof they like to point out that teen birth rates have dropped from a high of nearly 97% in 1957 to it lows currently at 34%.

These pregnancy statistics are very misleading and show the dirty side of comprehensive sex education.  That it has actually caused more to harm women.  In 1960, the birth rate was around 90%, however, the un-wed teen birth rate was only 13.9%.  In 2009 the number of unmarried teen births was 94%.   There are countless statistics showing that unmarried women have a lower standard of living. 

Why is comprehensive sex education to blame?  It removes the freedom of personal responsibility.  Comprehensive sex education teaches all form of sexual preventions are equal and sex is an instinct that cannot be completely controlled.  Prior to this style of education, sexual control was a virtue.  We  have allowed that virtue to be destroyed.  In its place is an amoral sexuality that assumes the consequences of sex are permissible and should be accepted.  You don’t need to be responsible with your body because medicine has created easy exits for pregnancy and cures for most STD’s.  The repercussions of this are felt the hardest among young women who are raising children outside of marriage.  Marriage is no longer the end result of a healthy relationship; it is the outcome of dysfunctional cohabitation stemming from a society where sex is nothing more then animal instinct.

__________________________

A war does exist, not against women, but for women.  While the Republicans are providing more options for women and the freedom to live as they choice, the Deomcrats are using women's issues to deflect attention away from their disastrous economic policy.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Bob McBride April 30, 2012 at 04:42 PM
I'm a secular realist, so you're close at least.
Dan B April 30, 2012 at 04:54 PM
Looks like Barrett is waging his own war http://mediatrackers.org/2012/04/30/barrett-discriminates-pays-women-17k-less-than-men/
Jay Sykes April 30, 2012 at 05:10 PM
Lyle sez "Since teaching methods have changed, females are out performing males and now are in the majority at colleges and universities; women making up the highest enrollment in professional programs. This is proof positive that males have been given educational advantages. When structural privilege exists, then not changing that structural system is equal to promoting such a system." Lyle, this is actually proof positive that females have been given an educational advantage; structural advantage actually now exists for females in education. It is likely further evidence that we may not be capable of achieving 'equal outcome' or that the cost of achieving that 'equal outcome' may exceed the net gain.
Bob McBride April 30, 2012 at 05:18 PM
There's a yeast joke in there somewhere...
Randy1949 April 30, 2012 at 06:18 PM
@J.B. Schmidt --"If you want to play 'which gender has more specific treatment' game, which of the women do you know must go in for prostate examines or are concerned about testicular cancer?" Interesting you should say that. How would you feel about legislation that allowed private insurers not to cover prostate exams and checking for testicular cancer under their policies because, y'know, some men might actually enjoy the procedure?
Randy1949 April 30, 2012 at 06:32 PM
" Instead, they have simple repealed the Contraceptive Equity Law which mandated insurance providers provide contraceptives be covered as prescription drugs." So they've done that too? To date, I had only thought they has outlawed most abortion coverage in the insurance exchange. Next thing you know it will be pregnancy coverage, since pregnancy is a 'personal choice', although one that only women require medical care for. Unless the lack of insurance coverage will bring prices down sharply, I fail to see how the previous policy "tied women and their contraceptives to the whim of both the government and insurance provider". The whim now is whether an employer/provider will choose to treat contraceptives like any other prescription drug and if the state will continue to allow for the legal sale of hormonal methods. I think women were always free not to use them if they so chose, just as I've always been free to decline any prescription medicine I don't need or wish to take, even if my plan would pay for it.
Lyle Ruble April 30, 2012 at 06:32 PM
@J.B. Schmidt....I challenge your statement that structural privilege has always existed and thus cannot be changed. That is just not the case. However, to equalize privilege, it probably means that those who have had structuralized privilege will have to give up that privilege or at least modify it. Just as my example of education is an indication that when fundamental changes are made, then true meritocracy can exist. What the white male majority is resisting is the giving up of their dominance and privilege. Males can and do flourish in the new educational environment, but they must work harder to do so. The return to social policy of old is not just a scare tactic, it is a fact. To return sexuality to that of 50 or 60 years ago states that it was a better time, which it was not. An individuals sexuality is their business. The conservatives are always screaming about government intrusion in our personal lives, yet when it comes to sexuality, it's OK for the government to be involved. We now have the technology to reduce the negative outcomes of sexual expression, freeing both men and women, why would we wish to return to a period where choice is limited as if the technology doesn't exist. That is similar to having a vaccine for measles but refuse to use it. Measles have all but been eradicated so the incidence is low, but we understand if we don't vaccinate, that it will return. Same go for not using technology for protecting sexual choice.
CowDung April 30, 2012 at 07:00 PM
Lyle: T?here seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that males are indeed suffering under the 'new' education system. What you stated about males having to work harder in the new educational environment seems to be the same as what was being said about females in the 'old' educational environment. Are we doomed to flip=flop back and forth between systems that favor either males over females? Can't we find a system that both males and females can benefit from?
J. B. Schmidt April 30, 2012 at 07:00 PM
@Randy I am against health insurance mandates for anything. Insurance providers will figure out what people want, need or be willing to pay for. The government intervention has caused people to look at insurance, not as a system to protect them from serious medical costs; but to be an intermediary between the doctor's office and themselves. This has driven up prices on both health care on the doctor's end but also premiums on the patient end. Let me decided what I want covered. If insurance was al a carte people would have more freedoms and the cost would be based on what you want.
Greg April 30, 2012 at 07:15 PM
Have you seen some of these lefty women? No way you could get near that sober.
Randy1949 April 30, 2012 at 07:18 PM
Insurance companies will charge whatever the market will bear, and tough luck to the person who is unable to afford what you might consider to be a 'choice'. I agree somewhat about the move toward insurance covering every little thing, but that comes from the understanding that it makes sense to control costs before there's a problem, and that means covering preventive care. Women need to give birth in hospitals, just as they need to find breast and cervical cancer before it becomes an even more expensive problem. There are conditions that men need to detect early as well. We're all in this life together, and your cafeteria style of coverage doesn't work.
Greg April 30, 2012 at 07:20 PM
http://mediatrackers.org/2012/04/30/barrett-discriminates-pays-women-17k-less-than-men/ HMMMMMMMMMM.......
235301 April 30, 2012 at 07:33 PM
If you are in business and you hire people on a regular basis there is an ugly truth in all the government intervention in "protecting" the protected classes: it usually has the opposite affect. The results are in from ADA(enacted 1992): Using data from the Current Population surveys for 1988-97, the authors find that the ADA had no effect on the wages of disabled workers, which are still approximately 40 percent below those of the non-disabled. On the other hand, employment rates for disabled men in all age categories, and disabled women under the age of 40, fell sharply after the ADA. This decline represents a clear break from past trends for both disabled and non-disabled workers, and therefore seems likely to have been caused by the ADA. Additional evidence for this claim is the finding that mid-sized companies show the most pronounced decrease in hiring the disabled. Large companies probably have sufficient resources to absorb compliance costs, according to the authors, while small companies are exempt from the ADA requirements. Also, in states with large numbers of ADA-related discrimination cases in previous years, fewer disabled people are hired afterwards. This too suggests that concern about costs from ADA provisions may have been driving the decline in disabled employment. I would love the hear everyone's opinions on these results and it's implications for protecting other classes of citizens.
AWD April 30, 2012 at 07:42 PM
And thanks to liberal policies there are thousands of men who receive NO salary because they are out of work.
Greg April 30, 2012 at 08:00 PM
My opinion is that if it does not make a good sound bite, against Governor Walker, it will not be heard.
Luke April 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM
@Jason, <<<As a stay-at-home dad, don't you want your wife (the bread-earner) to be paid just as much as a male for the same job? Not only are women earning less for the same job, >>> As I explained on your blog, the statistics simply do not support your argument. Even the book that the Dems are using to support this argument makes the argument that women are not paid less. Yes, there are fields that pay less that women tend to be attracted to, but women are not required to make that choice, nor are they paid less than the men that make that same choice. In addition, those fields tend to have benefits that are associated with less work, such as only working 7.5 months per year and having it be counted as full-time, or other lavish benefits. I have, however, found some anecdotal evidence that supports your claim. There is a local employer who discriminates against women: http://mediatrackers.org/2012/04/30/barrett-discriminates-pays-women-17k-less-than-men
Randy1949 April 30, 2012 at 11:09 PM
@Luke -- "Yes, there are fields that pay less that women tend to be attracted to, but women are not required to make that choice, nor are they paid less than the men that make that same choice." Could it be, possibly, the reverse? That fields traditionally considered to be women's jobs -- elementary school teaching, nursing, clerical, etc. -- pay less for that reason, and that of course anyone willing to take those jobs will be paid less, but mostly it's women. There's also the difficulty that women have being hired into some of the more lucrative fields like the building trades.
Luke April 30, 2012 at 11:25 PM
@Randy <<<Could it be, possibly, the reverse? That fields traditionally considered to be women's jobs -- elementary school teaching, nursing, clerical, etc. -- pay less for that reason, and that of course anyone willing to take those jobs will be paid less, but mostly it's women. There's also the difficulty that women have being hired into some of the more lucrative fields like the building trades.>>> No.
Randy1949 April 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM
That's what I like about you, Luke -- so very open-minded.
Ima Hippee April 30, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Jason - you should unplug your keyboard. You should proof what you type. At least practice what you type. But then again, you are so blinded by your "feelings" you cannot understand. Your comments hear are entirely inappropriate. You totally project and are trying to stir something. You have some unresolved guilt of some sort.
Ima Hippee April 30, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Lyle, really? You wrote that? What structural elements have women shackled?
Ima Hippee April 30, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Lyle, why do write that about Mississippi? A third world nation? You are an embarrassment. Oh, just another flippant snarky comment. Oh yeah, your are the tolerant one, the compassionate and understanding.
Luke May 01, 2012 at 05:31 AM
Randy, <<<That's what I like about you, Luke -- so very open-minded.>>> I’m an empiricist. No loyalties to anyone.
Tom Barrett May 01, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Is this bad? http://www.unionfacts.com/
Rachel Holley Sciortino May 01, 2012 at 03:42 PM
Yes, Tom It is bad to perpetually insert random links to sites that have no names/companies associated - so one cannot determine who/what organization is behind them and whether the info. they are pedaling has any basis in truth. Indeed it is bad. Feel free to stop or at least limit your link sharing to legitimate sources that back up opinions you are evidently unable to state for yourself. Thanks for asking!
J. B. Schmidt May 01, 2012 at 05:43 PM
@Lyle No one is limiting technology. Please provide proof that there is a republican agenda to do so. Making people cover their own costs, is not limiting, its fair. Free sexual expression is a not a truthful statement. Just like there is no free lunch. This 'freedom' as you call it, has done greater harm to our society then some old mans idea of pinching a aspirin for birth control. Since the 60's more women are burdened with single motherhood, which in turn has affected the next generation. This single failure has destroyed the inner city. It is bringing end to the nuclear family. Their was a time when 'shacking up' was a negative. Now we call it cohabitation and I in my last link, the NY Times puts its origins in free sex and shows how it is having negative consequences on the young people of this country. More and more abortions are taking place and while there maybe some disputes, they have had a negative impact on the lives of some women. I am not against contraceptive. Nor am I against sex. I am against the notion that a pill or condom is all that is required to prevent the negative consequences of sex. That idea is short cited and ignorant of everything else encompassed in sex and sexual intimacy.
Lyle Ruble May 01, 2012 at 06:57 PM
@J.B. Schmidt....Can you say in all seriousness that conservatives don't resist the technologies of the "morning after pill" and stem cell research using fertilized cells? Those are just two examples. Conservatives also are opposed to birth control pills and I.U.D.s, all of which weren't available prior to 1960. The idea that most of single parent families is due to out of wedlock birth is just incorrect. The vast majority of single parent families are created through the process of divorce. In any case, is a life born out of wedlock worth any less than a life born to a committed married couple? One of the things that the War on Women targets is a women's basic rights over her own body. the idea that a women doesn't have a right to insurance coverage of her birth control and must pay for it herself, is nothing more than a back handed way of limiting her sexual expression. You talk to anyone in the insurance actuary discipline and they'll tell you birth control is cheaper than child birth, it is also cheaper to society. The single variable that destroyed the nuclear two parent family in the inner cities was the misplaced principle that you couldn't have two able bodied adults in a single household receiving AFDC. This occurred under the Carter Administration and the problem has progressed to what we see today; a socially engineered solution gone terribly wrong. Your idea of virtue and ideology is grounded in unrealistic expectations of changing social norms.
Brian Carlson May 04, 2012 at 12:52 AM
Sally, arent many "Dems" women? When you say that the Dems believe that all women care about is this or that...do you realize you are including women...that probably half or more of the people you are talking about are women? Why speak of the Dems monolithically? Again..."another issue that the Democrats feel is too complicated for women to understand." Which Democrats? Hillary Clinton? Michelle Obama? Your shout out to the Women include huge numbers of very intelligent Democratic women Sally. Its a strange post.
Dirk Gutzmiller May 05, 2012 at 04:07 PM
I prefer to get the Tea Party view on women and contraception from the national source, from Rush Limbaugh, not the local apologists. He does not mince around on this issue, and he has millions of defenders. At one time, he was the leading Republican candidate for President. Either from him, or the presumptive Repub. candidate, Romney. I hope his wife does not have an accident in that garage elevator with getting her Cadillacs up to the second level. She is fantastic relating to wealthy, white, suburban women and their aspirants. Birth control, abortion, and Mormonism have historically been in conflict, as every baby brings a waiting soul from "heaven." The Romneys can afford five kids, most cannot, or often, even the preventative measures.
Tom Barrett May 08, 2012 at 12:00 AM
IS THIS BAAAAAAAAAAAAAD???????? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQ8LkH9Ucw

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something