Since the "jobs, jobs, jobs" Republicans took over Congress and state legislatures, the only jobs they have created are those for men inventing new ways to define and control women.
Hundreds of reproductive control bills have been introduced and more than 100 passed by Republican state legislatures, and signed by governors. In Kansas, physicians have to violate their Hippocratic oath ("first, do no harm") by telling women lies about data on abortion and the risk of breast cancer. In Virginia women seeking abortions must endure a common law assault, an ultrasound exam whether medically necessary or not, and must pay for it themselves.
Mitt Romney supports, and the Republican Congress has tried, defunding Planned Parenthood -- which provides healthcare to 3 million women. Only the Democratic Senate and President Obama's poised veto pen have prevented it.
Republicans, including Mitt Romney, supported the Blunt-Rubio Amendment that placed women at the mercy of corporate CEOs' decisions on covering contraception and other reproductive services.
Not to be outdone, Arizona, in possible violation of federal medical privacy laws, has a bill that would force a woman to prove to her employer that her contraceptives were not being used for contraception per se, but for some medical condition, and would allow employers to fire women employees if they could not prove their medical need.
Congressmen Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Todd Aiken (R-MO) have introduced "personhood" legislation to control women in the District of Columbia. The legislation defines a fertilized egg as a legal person. It would outlaw all abortions and certain forms of contraception.
Ryan and Aiken, along with their House Republican colleagues, have blocked a routine extension of the "Violence Against Women" Act.
When Scott Randolph, a Florida legislator, suggested that the way to protect women was for them to incorporate their uterus so that Republicans would stop regulating it, he was admonished by the Republican Florida Speaker that he should not be using the word "uterus."
It is sad and embarrassing to admit this, but the impetus for most of this control over women's bodies has come from men. Over time, the number of men that believe they must control women like this will decline.
Yes, there are many women, such as Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) who would vote against their own gender's freedoms, but, when given the chance, one suspects most women would understand that it is time to stop the control of women by male legislators.
This is not to diminish the key role many males, almost all Democrats, have played in providing women freedom and dignity. Vice President Biden, for example, authored the original Violence Against Women Act when he was a senator.
But women cannot await universal male enlightenment.
Hence, the "New Rule": starting with the next session of legislatures, state and federal, that each institution which adopts a rule that says that, on issues affecting only women's bodies, only women legislators can vote, and that majorities of those voting are sufficient to pass legislation.
This post has been updated since its original publication.
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
Karl Frisch: Mitt Romney and the Temple of Womb
Mike Lux: The Problem Is the Base
People confuse rights with demands and privileges. The government is thrilled to intervene, because also get to infringe on everyones rights in a myriad of ways. A law that enforces something as simple as jaywalking is a boon for the state. I, the state, now have an agency, enforcers, litigators, lawyers, courts, prisons, ect, to enforce a law that doesn't actually infringe on anyones right to freedom, property or life. The only way I, the state, can do this is by billing the serfs who I'll fine and/or imprison for breaking the law I made up.
The same goes for forced co-pay of contraception or anything else. I, the state, make a rule that must be followed and the serfs are made to pay for the enforcement of my ruling. People foolishly think they're voting for freedom, when they're actually voting for their own enslavement.
The "War on women" consists of people not appreciating being told they have to pay for the lifestyle choices of others and the ongoing debate over abortion which , believe it or not , has a huge effect on men too . Yes , that's right ... for years we've all been told that it's solely a womens' issue because 'my body , my choice' . Oddly enough , women are allowed to vote on things such as selective service . Are we allowed to discount their votes when the issues don't affect women primarily ? Of course not .
Secondly , in case you haven't noticed , despite being a body made up primarily by male representatives , there's no "office for men" in any sense at any level despite the pressing need for one .
If there's a war going on , a quick look at the facts indicates that it's being waged against men . Ah , right ... I forgot : It doesn't count when only men are affected .
Companies and businesses offer health insurance benefits as an incentive or inducement when hiring employees. It's up to the business what kind of coverage the employees get and as employees at wil (including women), they can either accept the job or keep looking. The government has no business sticking their nose into it and calling the shots on benefits.
Here are some powerful testimonies from such women:
"What Women Want" by Collen Carroll Campbell
http://www.wf-f.org/12-2-Campbell.html
"Serving an Epidemic of Sexual Excess: Free Contraceptive Coverage -- A Bad Joke Played on Women" by Rita Joseph
http://www.wf-f.org/12-2-Joseph.html
"The Contraception Trap" by Jennifer Fulwiler
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-contraception-trap/#ixzz1sixRqAcS
"Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good for Women? No." by Mary Ebersadt
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577297422171909202.html
"Battle Hymn of the Anti-abortion Feminist" by Lila Rose
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74739.html
"The Dark Fruits of Contraception" by Laura Locke
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/contraception%E2%80%99s-dark-fruits
Is it even more ironic that I, a male, am commenting on this? Feels very meta; almost "Inception"-ish.
We all know why the neocon party just loves these idealistic issues...they stir up their ignorant base and get them votes...even women's votes...and their naive base doesn't question the two real reasons that a political party would be dwelling on these things. The first is that the neocons have no viable economic and foreign policies...and the second is that once their fringe base gets them back into power again, neocon politicians, and their greedy rich political doners, can get their hands on the Federal credit card and have another "feeding frenzy"...just like they did during the Bush admininstration.
A political party that tries to run on "idealistic" issues should be discredited and done away with, and if the people in this country were as well-educated as they should have been, this would have happened thirty years ago!
The problem with making these issues only women could vote on would be to just shift the war onto women, when there shouldn't be a war about them in our political system in the first place.
I heard that if Romney gets elected, and gets a neocon majority in Congress, they would pass a Constitutional amendment making abortion illegal, regardless of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother...thereby bringing us back to the period before Roe v. Wade. I was wondering if Obama got elected, with a Democratic Congressional majority, whether he could pass a Constitutional amendment to get all idealistic and personal issues out of our government altogether.
Both vote if both are affected by the issue.
Grade: D Recommendation."
Feminist Obamacare death panels just condemned 220,000 men per year to death. Good enough for you?
What makes you think over time the number of men who want to control women will decline? It's on the rise and unless the GOP crumbles, it will continue. Otherwise, great article, and thanks!
how "free" is this place? women have to run their healthcare choices by their employer, not doctor, for approval? how on EARTH is the gop supporting so much of this crap legislation?