2014: The Lady Parts Election Cycle
For The Federalist, Rich Cromwell writes:
Robin Williams joked that “God gave men both a penis and a brain, but unfortunately not enough blood supply to run both at the same time.” When it comes to politics, the Lena Dunhams, Cosmopolitans, and ladypartsjustice.coms want to overlook the humor of that joke and make the female equivalent the focal point of their politicized lives. Lady Parts Justice lays out the skinny:
5 REASONS TO JOIN LADY PARTS JUSTICE
- Because women decide elections and if we get together, blow this shit up in a smart and funny way, we just may be able to get folks to sit up, take action and reverse this erosion of rights.
- Because neanderthal politicians are spending all their time making laws that put YOUR body squarely into THEIR hands.
- Because extremist goon squads exist in EVERY statehouse in America and are sneaking in tons of creepy legislation. We’re staying on top of this shit so you can stay on top this shit.
- Because you use birth control.
- Because you like sex and it’s not all about having babies. Think about it, if it were there would be no room to stand.
“[Voting] is how you keep sexist health care policies from happening.” What is sexist health care? It’s comparable to pornography—difficult to define, but they know it when they see it. Dunham also took to Instagram, with the help of friends, to talk about Planned Parenthood. Cosmo, meanwhile, is less focused on lady parts and more focused on Latinas and how sexist policies affect their lady parts. They also have a party bus, which is somehow related. No word on whether it will offer alcohol and affirmative consent forms.
“As a man, I’m probably not supposed to have an opinion on this, but I totally do. As a father of daughters, I’m actually quite opinionated on the matter. Whereas I get to make decisions based on a whole raft of factors, apparently I’m supposed to teach my daughters to ask only one question: How will this affect your vagina?”
When we mash all these things together, I’m reminded of a useful literary tool.
Synecdoche—noun \sə-ˈnek-də-(ˌ)kē\: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society), the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species (as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage).
Despite its uses in writing and storytelling, though, it’s no way to live life. And that’s why the Robin Williams’ joke came to mind. Sure, it’s all about rallying female voters, but it seems women have forgotten they have other organs; that the only one that matters is the vagina and how they get to use it. Don’t get me wrong—I love the vagina, too. It’s definitely high on my unwritten list of favorite organs.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) July 30, 2014
“That pattern involves taking provocative executive actions on sensitive, divisive issues to isolate people he detests, knowing it will invite a sharp response, and then using the response to scare his own base voters into thinking they are under assault when in fact they are on the offensive.”
Yuval Levin‘s post at The Corner is bracing, and revealing, noteworthy not only because of the insights expressed here, but as an example of what team NRO does best: the most lucid writing on these matters you’ll find anywhere.
From Legalization by Edict:
“…the notion that the president can respond to a failure to get Congress to adopt his preferred course on a prominent and divisive public issue by just acting on his own as if a law he desires had been enacted has basically nothing to do with our system of government.
In one sense, the approach the president is said to be contemplating does fit into a pattern of his use of executive power. That pattern involves taking provocative executive actions on sensitive, divisive issues to isolate people he detests, knowing it will invite a sharp response, and then using the response to scare his own base voters into thinking they are under assault when in fact they are on the offensive. That’s how moving to compel nuns to buy contraception and abortive drugs for their employees became “they’re trying to take away your birth control.” This strategy needlessly divides the country and brings out the worst instincts of people on all sides, but it has obvious benefits for the administration and its allies. Liberals get both the substantive action and the political benefit of calling their opponents radicals and getting their supporters worked up. Obama’s legalization of millions would surely draw a response that could then be depicted as evidence of Republican hostility to immigrants, rather than of Republican hostility to illegal executive overreach that tries to make highly significant policy changes outside the bounds of our constitutional order.
But while the legalization now being talked about fits into that pattern in a sense, the sheer scope of its overreach would put it in a different category as a practical matter…(read more)
This week’s shameless bucket of foul Democratic campaign slop from Nancy Pelosi gave Hot Air‘s ALLAHPUNDIT fits, like any sane person who had the misfortune of hearing even 15 seconds of Pelosi’s vile comments. In fact, some of us are still recovering from kaleidoscopic room-spinning nausea. Visit Hot Air‘s medicine cabinet.
In the meantime, here’s Megyn Kelly to the rescue:
“We should be afraid of this court. That five guys should start determining what contraceptions are legal or not. … It is so stunning,” Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol. Pelosi said last week’s Supreme Court ruling that the birth control mandate under President Obama’s healthcare reform law is a violation of religious freedom was particularly egregious.
“That court decision was a frightening one,” she said. “That five men should get down to the specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or her boss. It’s not her boss’s business. His business is whatever his business is. But it’s not what contraception she uses.”
Liberals’ Hobby Lobby Doublethink
I’m particularly fond of the Game of Thrones reference. Read Jonah’s entire column here.
Abortion-rights protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court building on Monday holding signs that read “Birth Control: Not My Boss’s Business.”
“The notion that denying a subsidy for a product is equivalent to banning that product is one of the odder tenets of contemporary liberalism.”
Much to their chagrin, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito agreed in his ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.
Of course, that’s not how supporters of the government’s contraception mandate see it. They actually believe that birth control is their boss’s business, and they want the federal government to force employers to agree.
More on that later, but it’s first worth noting how we got here.
First, contrary to a lot of lazy punditry, there is no Obamacare contraception mandate. As my National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru notes, even President Obama’s liberal rubber-stamp Congress of 2009–10 never addressed — or even debated — the question of whether companies can be forced to provide contraceptive coverage. Department of Health and Human Services bureaucrats simply asserted that they could impose such a requirement. Indeed, “several pro-life Democrats,” Ponnuru adds, “who provided the law’s narrow margin of victory in the House have said they would have voted against the law had it included the mandate.”
“If I like to dress up as a character from Game of Thrones on weekends, pretending to fight snow zombies and treating my mutt like she’s a mystical direwolf, that’s none of my employer’s business. But if I ask my employer to pay for my trip to a Game of Thrones fan convention, I am asking him to make it his business.”
Moreover, Hobby Lobby never objected to covering birth control per se. It already covers 16 kinds of birth control for its employees. But it objected to paying for what it considers to be abortifacients, which don’t prevent a pregnancy but terminate one. The pro-abortion-rights lobby can argue that “abortion” and “birth control” are synonymous terms, but that doesn’t make it true. Read the rest of this entry »
“I’ve worked hard to make sure that women have access to the right kinds of health care, and it’s their choice, not their employer’s choice,”
— Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
“Sitting in that court today, it was stunning to me to recognize that nine people are going to make that decision — and will decide for a long time to come — whether women have to question when they go to work every day what the shareholders of that company’s religious views could be.”
Well, that problem wouldn’t exist had Congress not given HHS the power to mandate that employers provide specific products and services to their employees in the first place. Prior to the passage of ObamaCare, most employers already provided some form of health insurance to their employees, and most of those already covered birth control, albeit with co-pays. Those employers who object to abortifacients found other health plans, but that doesn’t prevent men and women from acquiring birth control of their own volition — or finding other work based on competitive compensation packages, for that matter. This became an issue only when Democrats forced the creation and participation of a command economy in health insurance and gave bureaucrats the power to issue regulations such as the HHS contraception mandate, for no rational reason except as political demagoguery. Read more…Hot Air
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a critical religious freedom case. The court will decide whether the government may compel family-owned companies to provide employees with health insurance that covers no-cost birth control and other medical procedures that violate the owners’ religious beliefs.
The plaintiffs argue that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to private, for-profit businesses…Read more….CNSNews
Completely unrelated, but too good not to share. A Patty Murray Freudian slip:
NYT House Editorial on HHS Mandate Cases: Obscuring the Obama Administration’s Hostility to Religious-Liberty ConcernsPosted: December 2, 2013
Bench Memos at NRO (my new favorite source for judicial news & analysis) on Nov. 27th, Ed Whelan posted a good rebuttal of the NYTimes House Editorial on HHS Mandate cases. It’s a point-by-point takedown that I recommend for any health care consumer, reporter, NYTimes skeptic, religious observer, or like myself, underinformed non-attorney spokesperson.
1. NYT charges that “the real assault on religious freedom [is] the assertion by private businesses and their owners of an unprecedented right to impose the owners’ religious views on workers who do not share them.” It contends that the HHS mandate is necessary to “preserve an employee’s right to make her own decisions regarding birth control and not to conform to the religious beliefs of her employer.”
But the plaintiff businesses and owners are not trying to “impose [their] religious views on workers.” If they succeed in refusing to comply with the HHS mandate, their employees would remain entirely free to obtain and use the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives and to “make [their] own decisions regarding birth control.” All that the businesses and owners are objecting to is the Obama administration’s insistence on dragooning them to provide insurance coverage that violates their religious beliefs.
If the Obama administration wants to marginally increase the already easy access that employees have to contraceptives, it can do so through alternative means that don’t violate employers’ religious-liberty rights. That’s exactly what the standards set forth in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act contemplate.
2. NYT asserts that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act “was not intended to cover profit-making corporations,” and it observes that the Supreme Court “has never recognized that a secular corporation is an entity capable of engaging in religion.”
As a textual matter, RFRA extends its religious-liberty protections to all “persons,” and relevant federal law (as the third paragraph of this post explains more fully and as even the dissenter in the Seventh Circuit acknowledged) defines “persons” to include corporations. If a law were to require all restaurants to serve pork and to be open on Saturdays, is it really NYT’s belief that a kosher deli run by a Jewish family would not even have a claim under RFRA if the family has incorporated the deli?
Sandra Fluke, the infamous former Georgetown law student who begged for free birth control in front of Congress, “rallied” a crowd of just 40 people on the University of Florida campus yesterday.
Women’s rights activist Sandra Fluke made an appearance on Turlington Plaza on Wednesday to encourage students to utilize early voting for next week’s presidential election.
Fluke stopped at UF as part of her “It’s On You” Youth Early Vote Campus Outreach tour.
About 40 students gathered by the potato statue to listen.
I’m not even going get into why they chose to name Fluke’s campus outreach tour “it’s on you” but it’s clear Fluke’s 15 minutes are over. There is only so long you can stay legitimate based on demanding people pay for your sex life and by complaining about Rush Limbaugh calling you a slut. Not to mention, her “rally” crowd really is an indicator of just how unenthused youth voters are this time around. If there’s one place liberals should be able to get young liberals whipped into a frenzy, it’s on a college campus (not to mention, college professors are always talking about how much they hate Rush Limbaugh) and that clearly didn’t happen here.
- Noted moocher makes appearance at University of Florida, no one notices (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
- Hilarious: Sandra Fluke draws ‘crowd’ of tens to Florida rally for Obama (twitchy.com)
- Sandra Fluke’s 15 Minutes of Fame Are Up (happolatismiscellany.wordpress.com)
- Obama surrogate Sandra Fluke speaks to crowd of 10 in Nevada (foxnews.com)