The War on Women is still a Thing.

If the GOP was an organized political party at the moment, that seriously was capable of having a rebranding moment, one of the most important steps their leadership could take would be figuring out how in the hell the perception that their party was at war with 50% of humanity came about--and then STOP DOING THOSE THINGS.

As luck would have it, however, I don't think the Republican Party is as disciplined in terms of messaging as it may have been supposed to have been in times past. For one thing,the unfortunate rape analogies persist, especially amongst the Tea Folk. (For the umpteenth time: The only thing like rape is rape. FFS, just leave rape, and for that matter slavery, the Holocaust, or any other thing out of your hyperbolic echo chamber ramblings and try, a little, to talk about, I dunno--facts?) And for another thing, there seems to still be an adamant denial that paternalistic authority over women's reproductive health constitutes an attack on women per se--Damn it! Why can't us silly wenches see it's all for our own good?

After all, former US Senator and GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum doesn't see a war on women where the fight regarding birth control coverage is concerned: Don't us silly wenches realize that it is the First Amendment right of our employers to determine what we can do with our bodies? No, seriously:

“I mean, the idea that the First Amendment stops after you walk out of church, that it doesn’t have anything to do with how you live the rest of your life, I don’t know very many people of faith that believes that their religion ends with just worship,” Santorum explained. “It ends in how you practice and live that faith.” 

“And President Obama is saying, ‘No, once you step outside that church, I get to impose my values on you, your religious values don’t matter anymore, it’s my values that I can impose on you,’” the Pennsylvania Republican continued. “I don’t think that’s what the First Amendment stands for. And I don’t think that’s what the court will say.”

Is there any place a women might step, such as her doctor's office or bedroom, where her employer does not get to impose his or her values on her? Interestingly one-sided perspective he has, you see? Why, it's like the woman's choices as a reflection of her values aren't considered at all! And for that matter, if we just concentrate on the issue at hand, of how contraception is covered--if women are not provided by their employer with insurance coverage of their birth control, they are doubtless paid in money that can be used for that purpose. The employer would still be technically financially assisting her in purchasing the "immoral" birth control. Employers have historically paid employees with money that can be used to buy alcohol, weed, abortions, porn, and many other things those employers might find objectionable. It generally isn't viewed as any of their damn business what their employees legally do with their money. Only the introduction of this thing called "Obamacare" seems to have made any "religious-minded" employer think that their compensation package was now aiding and abetting immorality. Seriously, this argument is just obvious crap.


But Santorum's shaky reasoning here about the First Amendment rights of employers seemingly trumping the rights of (female) employees is of a piece with his seemingly long-held view that sex isn't a private matter at all, but some calisthenics married people do to make new citizens. (And if your particular flavor of calisthenics is not resulting in new citizens, you are doing it wrong.) For a novel and more topical approach to the question at hand, we have SC Rep. Trey Gowdy, who speculates that us wimmens have been hoodwinked by a devilish Obama who has promised us our whore pills, but like crappy, insufficient and overpriced private insurance plans--we might not be able to keep them: 

“The president knows he is not going to win this case. But what he did win was an election. He won election in part by deceiving women and the so-called war on women,” Gowdy said Wednesday on Fox News’s “On the Record.” “He knows he is not going to win this in Supreme Court, but he won in 2012. That was his real objective.”

Huh. Steve Benen breaks down all the derp right here:

 Obama knew there would be a lawsuit filed by corporation owners pushing the limits of corporate personhood and religious liberty to unseen levels. And Obama knew an appellate court would ignore existing precedent that recognizes the distinction between owners’ religious beliefs and the business’ First Amendment rights. And Obama knew the Supreme Court would agree to hear the case. And Obama knows conservatives on the court will also ignore legal precedent and strike down this provision of the law.

If we just got to the first step in the chain of this logic--Obama knew right-wingers would act as if women had no rights to determine what was best for their bodies because duh--they believe no such thing, ipso facto, the war on women is real and QED, the SCOTUS conservatives can be presumed ready to eviscerate whatever privacy exists between patient and doctor (even for men) on behalf of employers because, "Grrr..women!" And that is why we can't have nice things. Because women vote Democratic because of their dumb ladyparts.

Or, not to interrupt when menfolks like Gowdy are speaking, but it is just possible that women sometimes vote with their self-interest and pretty much will continue to do that thing, and we aren't dopes who believe stuff that sounds good to us, but things sound good to us because of our life experiences, so on the whole we kind of think we should be the ones making decisions for our own bodies no matter what current conservatives say--because they too, can be voted out of office, and even judges get replaced.

That is very possible also. He might want to consider that. Or the whole GOP could consider that. Or not, because screw them for not getting it, already.