Monday, April 16, 2012

"War on women" is really a war on the individual

We've been hearing a lot lately about the supposed "war on women" that Republicans are waging against women. The left claims it is so because Republicans believe nobody should be forced to pay for contraception, abortion or other such actions that go against an individual's religious beliefs. The left is saying this means Republicans want to deny women access to healthcare. As the left would have you believe,  Republicans hate women and want us to just live miserable lives of endless suffering. Either that's true, or the left knows that accusing Republicans of this hatred will help them win support for the November election. My money's on the latter.

The real casualty in this war is not women - it's common sense - and ultimately the individual. If you peruse any of the many Internet chat areas discussing the issue, it is astounding the type of arguments being put forth by the left claiming that this Republican hatred of women is true. Here are a couple gems:

In response to a New England state's recent passage of House bills banning tax-funded Planned Parenthood and offering employers exemptions from paying for contraception/abortifacient coverage, one reader said, "Your desire to impose your religious beliefs on others is not freedom. Because someone does not follow your religious beliefs does not make them unworthy of respect. I respect your rights to believe whatever you want to cannot however impose your beliefs on others."

Here's another: "Abortion is a legal procedure, and the choice of having one is up to the woman and has nothing to do with you."

Sorry, but once you force me to help pay for a woman's abortion, it has everything to do with me. And, by the way, not wanting to pay for the abortion is not forcing religious beliefs on anyone. Though the left claims we are forcing our beliefs on others - and that's not okay with them -- apparently it is okay to force people to go against their religious beliefs by making them pay for private, elective decisions that violate their values. 

Not wanting to pay for actions deemed evil is not the same as taking away a woman's right to abortion or contraception. She can still get all the abortions or contraception she wants. But the left is complaining that some people don't wish to partake in paying for certain actions (and like bullies, the left is trying to force them to pay anyway). 

If this really is about respect and fairness toward women, then why should my right to not pay for someone's abortion or contraception not be respected? Is it only a certain group of women who deserve respect? I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone. But the left is forcing its views on me and forcing me to partake in actions I want nothing to do with. How is that fair and where's the common sense in that? As a woman, as an American, I am highly offended that the left is trying to make this a war on women, when it is actually a war on the individual and his or her freedom of conscience -- and that is an infinitely more serious battle.

Casting women as victims of a false misogyny in an attempt to maintain political control over America's destiny is a shameless tactic, but typical of the left.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


  1. Can you further expand upon how *you* are paying for these? Is it because you are paying into a plan that would cover abortion or birth control?

  2. I can't answer for Julie Szydlowski but yes, if my insurance premium is raised even a dime because my plan has to cover contraceptives or abortions, then I am paying for those. What is worse, paying for those violates my religious principles, which is something which is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

  3. The the Constitution specifically notes that the government cannot prevent the practice of religion or establish a religion. However, we have to consider "compelling interest" - that something with a beneficial effect for many people outweighs the religious concerns brought by other parties (such as the health benefits for birth control). Courts usually side with the religious offender in cases of compelling interest. A strikingly similar example to this can be seen in Adams v. Commissioner (1998), where a Quaker claimed that paying taxes, of which a large portion goes to the military (which, in her beliefs, as with many other Christians like myself, is murder), was against her religious freedom. The Supreme Court decided that the tax system could not function if people could challenge it because of their religious beliefs, so the Quaker lost.

    I'm not saying that I agree with birth control, but there does seem to be a good legal argument for it - that millions of women could benefit from birth control, which would be enough of a compelling interest to ensure it is covered.

  4. Abortion is not beneficial to women. Just ask the up to 87% of those who have had one who suffer deep emotional and physical wounds from them. And it is certainly not beneficial to the baby aborted. But, oh yes, the baby has no constitutional right to his or her life. Contraception is a false hormonal alteration of a woman's body. Read about its side effects one day. And maybe look into what it does to the woman psychologically as well when she is no longer having sex to procreate but specifically and only to have sex. There is absolutely NO empirical evidence that contraception benefits women, physically or emotionally, and especially not women as a general rule. It's an issue meant to inflame, not one that has a compelling reason for forcing it on anyone, especially to force someone to pay for it if it does go against their belief system.

    1. Just wanted to weigh in - I have access to DynaMed, which is an evidence source used by doctors to ensure they're providing the best care based on the evidence. The following had at least a level 2 (mid-level) ranking of support through research:

      -Oral contraceptives may be associated with decreased long-term risk of death from various causes (including significantly lower rates of death from all cancers, large bowel/rectum, uterine body, ovarian cancer, and main gynecological cancers combined
      significantly lower rates of death from all circulatory disease and ischemic heart disease)

      -Can treat some diseases, such as polycystic ovary syndrome

      -They may give a small (OR=1.7) increased risk for venous thromboembolism

      You can't look at the side effects of a medication and say "gee, that's a lot of side effects" without understanding the likelihood of the side effects and the potential benefits. A lot of the side effects are unlikely to occur unless someone has other health issues like smoking or has previous cardiovascular disease.

      And the previous poster didn't mention anything about abortion - just birth control. According to "compelling interest", I don't think it would be possible to force companies to provide abortion coverage (except, perhaps, if the mother's life was in danger). That's just speculation, though.

      Also, I assume that since you don't support hormonal alterations, that you're for government regulation of plastics to decrease the amount of BPA (which is an artifical estrogen), against hormone replacement therapy (which drastically decreases menopausal symptoms), against industrial meat (which uses hormones, and can be passed on to humans), against obesity treatment using ghrelin or leptin, against a method of treating some forms of cancer... the list goes on. The prerequisite of something being "natural" rules out a lot of medical science from treatment options.

  5. So vitamins might be good for you too, but I shouldn't be forced to pay for anyone's. Benefits or not is not the point. As for the item about the woman's objections to war, comparing the taxpayer's responsibility to paying into the defense of our country in cases like war to contraception is apples and oranges. In war, innocent people die which is always a tragedy, but the premise (at least in theory) is in defense of something, usually ultimately human life. The end purpose of war is not necessarily to kill. Contraception and abortion's main purpose is to prevent or end human life. Big difference and hardly a compelling reason to force people to pay for something that is specifically anti-life. Sorry, but that comparison just doesn't fly. And Lydia was right - there is only hype that contraception helps women, there is no overall evidence substantial enough to force people to pay for it. A woman wanting contraception can pay for it herself, because otherwise, we should pay for anything a woman, or anyone wants if they say it helps them feel better or live better. Why not liposuction, or face lifts, etc. Although I would rather pay for someone's face lift than their contraception or abortion because that is anti-life and against my religious beliefs. Crazy how people just don't get that. Nobody's taking anything away from women who want contraception, just don't make me violate my beliefs to help her obtain it. Whether contraception is good for a woman or not isn't the point.

    1. War (and the killing that results) cannot be excused because of utilitarian motives. If that was the case, we should accept abortion because of its potential to decrease crime rate (since low-income children who are likely to increase crime would not be born). I don't think we should accept either war or abortion. What is more anti-life than killing an undoubtedly alive person?

      And if you have insurance, you probably to pay for other people to have prenatal vitamins or OTC painkillers like aspirin or Tylenol.

      Birth control is more than hype. Take a look at medical literature (you can use Google Scholar) and you'll find that there are definitive medical benefits that may be enough justification for a court to say its useful enough for "compelled interest" despite protests from religious folks like you and me. Like it or not, there is possibly enough legal precedent for this to happen. Remember that rights are not absolute - there are limitations to every right that we have, from free speech, to weapons, to yes, our religion.

      I don't like it. But I have to admit the legal case is there.

  6. very well written, go on!

  7. Sounds like the "Tylenol" writer is lacking the fortitude to stand up for what's right. Says he "doesn't like it" but will go along with it. Nothing to admire there. Just more weakness like we're seeing in so many places. I for one am really grateful for strong and courageous people like Julie to stand up for what's right. Thank you Ms. Szydlowski. I appreciate what you are doing.