From Shumlin’s Imagination: The War on Women

By Kevin Joseph Ryan

Nobody likes men who hit women, certainly not me.

The Democrats nationwide are counting on this fact to get elected in the fall. At least, they are counting on Americans believing that Republicans are hitting women where it hurts, in their reproductive rights. While the left has so far failed to show that any Republican is trying to challenge women’s rights, they certainly seem to be making strides in creating the fear in the minds of some. Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin does not want to let this opportunity to terrorize women go to waste as he struggles for re-election himself.

The past two weeks, a great deal of news coverage has been given to comments made by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who

Gov. Peter Shumlin

himself was reporting on the testimony of activist Sandra Fluke at a press conference organized by Congressional House Democrats.

Governor Shumlin entered this controversy last week with the following response: “I found Rush Limbaugh’s recent attack on a young woman who articulated her support for President Obama’s contraceptives policy to be vile and reprehensible. It is almost beyond belief that we are still having a debate in this country about the right of a woman to choose to use contraceptives, but given the right wing character of today’s national Republicans, nothing should be surprising.”

At his weekly press conference Wednesday, when asked about his statement, the Governor had this to say, “Let me first say, that I’m a little surprised, that as a nation, we are having a conversation that I thought happened when I was a little teeny kid, about whether women, in this country, should have access to contraception. I thought that happened a long time ago.” When it was pointed out that neither Limbaugh nor any Republican had suggested challenging access to contraception, Shumlin continued, “I heard what Limbaugh said, and I think the rest of America did, too. I personally applaud the advertisers who are pulling out of his show and if I were he, I would voluntarily get off the air.”

The Governor was then probed as to why he would step into this national issue. He noted “I think there is a time, when everyone, every leader in the free world, should stand up for women and their rights when they’re being trampled on and as I said, I’m shocked that were having this conversation as a nation at a time when Vermonters and Americans care more about job creation and economic security….” When asked if the folks bringing up this issue of contraception was the Democrats rather than the Republicans, Shumlin added, “I think we all know where it came from”. It may be correct that Shumlin knows where this is coming from, but a closer look reveals the truth is closer to the Left working very hard to put words in Republican’s mouths.

The theme of a “War on Women” by Republicans has been brought up repeatedly by Democrat politicians and media pundits recently. However, when David Gregory of Meet the Press asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich about his views on the subject, Gingrich told him, “Nobody is blocking anyone’s access to contraception. I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the president’s apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the great depression….”

Other Republican presidential contenders have been asked to address contraceptive access as well, but neither have they brought it up themselves. During a January 7th Presidential debate, George Stephanopoulos asked former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney, “do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception?” Romney said plainly, “George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising… I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking, given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so….” Meanwhile, Rick Santorum pointed out that he felt the Griswold Vs. Connecticut Supreme Court decision allowing contraceptives constituted judicial activism, he has also denied any desire to bar women from accessing such items.

Under this “War on Women” narrative, Republicans are misogynistic and hateful towards women, which the Left says can be demonstrated by efforts to require certain types of medical tests prior to abortion services, cutting budgets on grants to family planning organizations, and now resisting efforts to violate the separation of church and state by forcing church organizations to provide birth control, whether they want to or not. Such a discussion would be beneficial to Democrats, at least according to progressive pollster Celinda Lake, who in a recent report stated that inclusion of contraception in insurance plans was popular with voters. Lake was in Vermont as recently as last April, where she spoke to a training seminar for Democratic Party candidates, and was introduced by Liz Bankowski, a Shumlin staffer. Bankowski described Lake as “our collective scout, who creates a map for us.”

In August of 2011, the Obama Administration issued mandates through the Department of Health and Human Services, which force all insurers, including religious institutions, to provide, at no cost, contraceptives and even the “morning-after” abortion pill. It is widely known that many religions, including the Catholic Church, have deep seated moral objections to the use of contraceptives and the Council of Catholic Bishops issued a statement objecting to this mandate as a violation of their religious freedom. Shortly thereafter, the Democrat theme of the “War on Women” began.

It becomes clear, in view of the evidence, that on a national level, Republicans have no interest in denying women their reproductive rights, while Democrats do indeed have a interest in promoting that idea, rather than focus on the poor economic landscape created by Obama era policies. Mostly recently, the February Sandra Fluke staged event, demonstrates this most clearly. Here in Vermont, Governor Peter Shumlin, who won election with only 49.7 % of the vote in 2010, needs to make sure he takes advantage of every crisis to beat Randy Brock, his Republican opponent, in this year’s race, even if that means making up fearful scenarios for the women of Vermont. If last Wednesday’s press conference is any indication, Shumlin intends to do exactly that.

One thought on “From Shumlin’s Imagination: The War on Women

  1. Limbaugh and the, um, Lady
    By Matt Barber, on March 9th, 2012

    Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the political maneuverings of the secular left. The problem is; we all have the play book now.
    As most know, Rush Limbaugh has been under fire of late for comments he made about 30 year-old “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke recently gained national attention while testifying before Congress. There, she demanded that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit University, underwrite her stated fornication practices by paying for her and other students’ birth control and, ostensibly, abortions. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception.
    Rush said of Fluke: “[T]hey’re talking about, like this left-wing sl-t, what’s her name? Sandra Fluke?”
    Not really. Actually that bile came from the revolving pie-hole of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz in reference to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham. Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).
    During the interview Ms. Fluke somehow failed to mention Schultz’s identical insult of Ingraham. (An inadvertent oversight, I’m sure.)
    And speaking of double standards: the media has made much fanfare about a staged phone call from President Obama to Ms. Fluke to “ask how she was holding up.” (No call yet to the similarly aggrieved Laura Ingraham.)
    Additionally, Obama has refused to return – or even answer questions about – a one million-dollar donation from serial misogynist Bill Maher who, among other things, has called Sarah Palin a “tw-t” and a “c-nt.”
    Mainstream media-types have no interest in this double standard because they share it. They’re duty-bound to ignore the palpable hypocrisy. To do otherwise would undermine the absurd “GOP-has-declared-war-on-women” narrative. (By ‘women,’ of course, they mean liberal women – outnumbered by Rush-supporting conservative gals two-to-one).
    Indeed, Rush Limbaugh has become the left’s flashpoint in this twofold election year ploy to both sour women against the GOP and distract from Obama’s impending debt bomb, skyrocketing gasoline prices and the threat of a nuclear Iran.
    David Burge (@iowahawkblog) of the Iowa Hawk blog summed it up nicely in a tweet: “How can you monsters talk about a $15 trillion debt at a time like this, when a brave coed has hurt lady-feelings?”
    Yes, how can we focus on trillions in Obama debt, $6.00 gasoline and Islamo-fascists with nukes while a Georgetown “coed” is being denied free medication from Christians for her “Saturday night fever”?
    Well, I have it on good authority that today Rush is chewing a big fat Padron Toro and laughing himself silly. Every time McCarthyite liberals take a swing at El Rushbo, they get their hemp-clad heinies handed to them. It’s like watching Andre the Giant toss midgets.
    On Wednesday, Rush announced on his show that the “progressive” machine’s latest effort to bring him down via a sponsorship boycott was failing fantastically. Following the DNC-manufactured Fluke dust-up, Rush revealed that he has suffered zero revenue loss (even making gains); that he has a wait list of new advertisers lining up, and that some of his former sponsors – who hastily bowed to leftist pressure and dropped him – are now “practically begging to come back.”
    This comes as little surprise. One such sponsor, Carbonite, saw its stock plummet by twelve percent overnight after announcing it was pulling its spots. This is what happens when a company puts partisan politics over profit.
    Limbaugh – rated number one in talk radio – has tens-of-millions of loyal, activist listeners who love to spend tons of cash on the products Rush plugs. (Wonder how long before Carbonite CEO and MoveOn.org supporter David Friend “steps down” to “spend more time with his family”?)
    Still, liberal attempts to sidetrack aside, the cultural issues embedded within this Fluke flap are worthy of discussion. Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.
    It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.
    Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango.
    This is by design. Secular-“progressives” have been working to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, and get with the postmodern program.)
    But, beyond this assault on religious freedom and the moral implications surrounding the debate, Ms. Fluke has additionally set the true women’s movement back decades. Her public groveling for free contraception and abortifacients reinforces the sexist stereotype that single women can’t survive without welfare. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal government dependency.
    Still, like so much in its propagandist bag of tricks, the left’s entire “denied access to contraception” premise is built upon a lie. Liberals would have you believe that, for decades, women seeking birth control – already cheap and often free – have been systemically tackled in front of Walgreens by a bevy of white, Republican Catholic Priests.
    Name one woman who has been “denied access” to birth control – ever. Show me one Republican politico who wants to “ban contraception.”
    There are none.
    Birth control at Walgreens? A few dollars. Taking personal responsibility for your own lifestyle choices and consequences? Priceless.
    That’s all Rush was saying.

    Contraception and Deception
    By Ron Hunnicutt, on March 6th, 2012
    Progressives are demanding taxpayer funded contraception. Obama says the church should genuflect to the state. Activist and thirty-year old Sandra Fluke, with no husband in sight, says she needs over $3000 from taxpayers for contraception while she attends $23,000 per year Georgetown Law School, a Catholic Jesuit institution. The strong delusion called liberalism maintains that pregnancy is the worst of all fates, taxpayer funded contraception is reproductive justice, with the end game aimed at easy and “free” abortion. The moral clarity here among liberals is nonexistent.

    Research clearly shows that the current “hook up” culture has a devastating effect on the marital prospects for females. One researcher says it this way, “…women who were sexually active prior to marriage faced a considerably higher risk of marital disruption than women who were virgin brides.” A study at the University of Chicago said it this way, “For both genders, we find that virgins have dramatically more stable first marriages.”

    Nancy Pelosi is spinning this conflict as a, “…War on Women.” This is as silly as saying that rat poison increases intellectual capacity.

    Democrats push taxpayer funded contraception as if it is the grandest panacea since the harnessing of electricity. Astute thinkers know that this agenda is anything but grand.

    A good father, an honorable man, a father with moral character, fully attempts to deliver his daughter on her wedding day as a virgin to the groom. This simple and grand idea, assuming she marries a good man, can save a young woman from a multitude of poison darts: STD’s, AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, the deep grief and loss that results from abortion, raising a child by herself, an increased chance of poverty, and the prospect of marital disruption.

    And the positives of this charmingly odd idea of a father getting his daughter to the altar as a virgin are manifold: she increases her odds of obtaining a good husband, she gives herself the best chance of a fulfilling marriage, there is a much better chance of financial stability, and each anniversary is a celebration of her wedding day that includes the pleasing memory that her first act of intimacy was with her husband on her wedding night.

    Such proper goals are not even on the map for liberal democratic leaders. They think, talk and act as if it would be totally natural for their daughter to lose her virginity on prom night in a pot smoke filled 1970 Pinto with that “nice guy” who married somebody else.

    Now, we all know that people make mistakes and that redemption is available.

    But the message is vital. Do we tell young women to do what you will, use tax payer funded contraception, and maintain that this constitutes, “women’s rights and access to healthcare”? Or do we emphasize the moral narrative and personal responsibility?

    Sandra fluke cited abnormal medical issues in her attempt to normalize tax payer funded contraception at all venues including religious institutions. But the bigger narrative is obviously the promotion of contraception and abortion with a wink at the en masse promiscuity involved. And that is a disastrous agenda for young women and females.

    So when Ms. Fluke informs congress that young coeds require $3000 worth of contraception for their excursion at a Catholic school, realize that she is promoting a worldview that is highly noxious to women. When Obama called to encourage Ms. Fluke the activist he undermined the marriage prospects of countless simpleminded followers. And when Nancy Pelosi emits her white hot rhetoric about access to healthcare, it must be understood that her strong delusion ends up promoting a promiscuity that deeply injures young women.

    Just in case someone thinks I give my own gender a free pass on this realm, let me say this. Promiscuous males ruin vulnerable women and do great harm. Ruining a woman is serious evil. Every man that sleeps with someone who is not his wife is sleeping with the wife of someone else… she is just not married yet. That is a serious offense. A promiscuous man has a very hard time sticking to one woman once he is married. And the fact of the matter is this, if fathers held to their responsibility to raise daughters correctly, and young men were taught high virtue then there would be no occasion and no reason for Ms. Fluke to express her wayward sentiments.

    There is absolutely no reason for conservatives to take a defensive posture on this issue. The consequences of this liberal narrative amount to a life of ruin and people with moral insight should vigorously oppose this agenda

    Obama’s Waiver for Bill Maher
    By Aaron Goldstein, on March 6th, 2012
    After Rush Limbaugh referred to Georgetown University Law Student Sandra Fluke as “a slut” on his radio program last week, the Obama Administration wasted little time in coming to her defense.

    On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed that President Obama had spoken with Fluke. When Carney was asked to describe their conversation, he replied:

    They had a very good conversation. I think he, like a lot of people, feels that the kinds of personal attacks that she’s — that have been directed her way are inappropriate. The fact that our political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough. It is worse when it’s directed at a private citizen who was simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy.

    Although Rush would issue an apology the following day it wasn’t enough for longtime Obama adviser David Axelrod who said, “I think what Rush Limbaugh said about that young woman was not only vile and degrading to her, but to women across the country.”
    So what do Messrs. Carney, Axelrod and, for that matter, President Obama have to say for Bill Maher?

    It is no secret that Maher despises conservatives especially of the female variety. Nearly a year ago, Maher delighted both himself and his left-wing audiences when he called Sarah Palin “a dumb twat” and “a cunt” – words even harsher than the ones Rush used against Fluke.
    Let us remember that Carney lambasted Limbaugh for being inappropriate towards Fluke because she is a “private citizen who was simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy.” Well, the last I checked Sarah Palin is a private citizen who expresses her views on public policy. Does the Obama Administration believe Palin should be afforded the same courtesy as Fluke? Do they believe what Maher said about Palin was inappropriate? Or does the Obama Administration believe that some points of view more equal than others?

    Let us also remember that Axelroad wasn’t satisfied with Rush’s apology because what he said about Fluke “was not only vile and degrading to her, but to women across the country.” So does Axelrod also believe that Maher said things about Sarah Palin that “were not only vile and degrading to her, but to women across the country?”

    Or has Bill Maher been granted a waiver by the Obama Administration for saying degrading things about Sarah Palin and other conservative women who do not agree with their policies? Consider how Maher bragged that he could get away with what he said because he is on HBO while Rush is at the mercy of commercial sponsors. This surely sounds like a man who has been granted dispensation from the highest authority.

    After all, it was with great fanfare last month that Maher donated $1 million to Priorities USA Action, an Obama Super PAC. As the large check was being hauled out on stage, Maher said to his audience at Yahoo headquarters in Silicon Valley, “I think Mitt Romney’s going to get the (Republican) nomination, and then I hope Obama beats him like a runaway sister-wife.” Well, it’s good to know that a joke about domestic violence (not to mention Mormonism) is such a hit with liberal audiences. Of course, had Rush joked about domestic abuse (not to mention Muslims) the very same audience would rise in unisom to accuse him of hate speech.

    Now I, for one, did not like what Rush said about Fluke. In one fell swoop, he shifted the issue from the heavy handedness of government in compelling religious organizations to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to the heavy handedness of Rush Limbaugh in casting aspersions upon someone for taking a point of view which differs from his own. His intervention was not helpful and Rush was ultimately right to make amends to Fluke. Unlike Axelrod, I accept both Rush’s apology and his reasons for doing so. As Rush put it:

    I ended up descending to their level. It’s important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week.

    Of course, it should come as no surprise that Axelrod would not accept Rush’s apology. The Left has wanted Rush excised from the airwaves for nearly a quarter century. Now Rush has stumbled and they see blood in the water. So at this point, the Obama Administration is about as willing to accept Rush’s apology as Afghan President Hamid Karzai is willing to accept the Obama Administration’s apology last week for the accidental Koran burnings at Bagram Air Base. Karzai wants to put American soldiers on trial while liberals yearn to do the same with Rush. Both proceedings would be sure to have all the fairness found in a kangaroo court.

    Unfortunately, I suspect that this double standard is not likely to be raised by the White House Press Corps (with perhaps the possible exceptions of Jake Tapper at ABC or Ed Henry at FNC). If I were a member of that scrum, I would ask Jay Carney the two following questions, “In light of Rush Limbaugh’s apology to Sandra Fluke for his inappropriate comments, why didn’t you call upon Bill Maher to apologize for his inappropriate comments against Sarah Palin a year ago? Will President Obama now publicly call for the Super PAC acting on his behalf to return the $1 million donated by Maher?”

    When it comes to Sarah Palin and other conservative women being pilloried for expressing their views on public policy, I don’t think the Obama Administration will put the money where Bill Maher’s mouth is. In other words, the Obama Administration has no waivers for conservative women like Sarah Palin.

Comments are closed.