Women Star in the President's Political Theater: Who's Really Getting Played?

3/7/2012

(Page 2 of 2)

to do with my body!" But now she is demanding that same government, that same Church must relieve her of the cost and responsibility for her own personal choices and bear the burden themselves.

Is this really the future of young American women? Do they really not have the brains to figure out that if they don't have promiscuous, premarital sex, they don't need to worry about paying for contraceptives? As an added bonus, they also won't have to worry about STD's and unwanted pregnancy. Why is that simple concept so hard to grasp?

It's infuriating to me as a woman that this entire controversy is being played as a "war on women" and that this asinine contraceptive mandate is for the sake of "women's health." Artificial hormones bring with them serious risks for women and pose a real danger to women's health. Pumping a woman's -- worse, a young girl's still-growing body -- full of these artificial hormones should not be anyone's idea of the right way to take care of a woman's health.

Fertility is not a disease. How insulting to suggest that women require artificial hormones, contraceptive devices, and abortion in order to be happy, healthy, and prosperous.

The language of this mandate and the rhetoric being used to defend it is insidious. Preventing pregnancy is equated with women's health. Preventing children is equated with women's well-being. Pregnancy = unhealthy and expensive. No pregnancy = healthy and cost-saving. Children have become the enemy. Children are now threatening, ominous dollar signs that we must strategically avoid.

This is really a mandate against life. What begins with pills in order to prevent pregnancy and save money will eventually become mandated abortions to eliminate children, especially disabled, "imperfect", medically expensive ones. America is not immune to this progression. We're submitting to it right now, and modern, secular "feminists" are leading the way.

The "feminists" swear that this is all about protecting women and their choices, blah blah blah. Baloney. The irony is this mandate only further puts the responsibility of pregnancy and children totally on women, leaving men with nothing to do but use women for their sexual gratification and then walk away. Train the guys well to make sure their girlfriend is on the Pill so he can get what he wants, and then when the contraceptives fail, she can walk into Planned Parenthood where they've been waiting for her and she can get "her problem" taken care of. Teach those young boys now that girls are just vaginas with a pretty face.

Greater access to contraceptives does not prevent unplanned pregnancy. Just the opposite. If people think they can have worry-free, consequence-free sex, they have more sex more often with more partners. And since contraception fails, more pregnancies result.

Face it; Cecile Richards doesn't love this mandate because she wants to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. She doesn't want to put herself out of business. She loves this mandate because she knows that it will bring her more business. More promiscuous sexual activity means more STD's and more pregnancies. And those "unwanted" babies will need to be gotten rid of for the sake of the woman's future, so Cecile and company will be there holding the doors open to their abortion mills, happily counting their cash.

President Obama has created this contraception brouhaha for the express purpose of getting women in a tizzy before November. He plans to stoke the fire even further at Barnard College in New York, where he just made himself the commencement speaker.

"Word of Mr. Obama's appearance at Barnard, a 123-year-old women's college in New York City, comes as the White House and Democrats have seized on Republican attempts to block a requirement for contraception coverage in the new health care law, saying it amounts to a "war on women." Democrats believe the issue could be an effective rallying point with women voters in a presidential election year, and the decision to appear at the prestigious women's school could provide a high-profile forum for the president on that front."

He called and invited himself, displacing Jill Abramson from the NY Times, who was already scheduled to give the commencement speech.

Whatever else he talks about in his speech, it ought to be alarmingly clear that this President is not interested in freedom. Barack Obama doesn't want to be the leader of a free republic. He wants to be King. He wants to be the Sovereign. He doesn't govern or lead -- he simply issues mandates from on-high. So what if our Constitution guarantees the Freedom of Religion? He's been telling us for years now that it's really just the "Freedom of worship", and if it gets in the way of his dictatorial edicts, well, then to hell with it.

C'mon ladies, wake up and stop being used and played for political points. This contraception theater show is insulting and women deserve better.

-----

Jennifer Hartline is a grateful Catholic, a proud Army wife and homeschooling mother of three children. She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online. She doesn't need any contraception, thank you. Visit her online at Wake Up, Deborah!
- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: Obama, Sandra Fluke, Georgetown Law, contraception mandate, birth control, sex, feminism, Rush Limbaugh, Jennifer Hartline

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 76 Comments

vance
1 year ago
Rob, It amazes me after all that Obama, Reid and Pelosi have done, you still fall on the sword for their cause. I know you want to convey that you are this middle of the road guy but you have given yourself up long ago. You justify your support for their evil deeds by saying "Both Sides" are equally guilty. This article is about the Marxist Democrat Party Political Theater to divert the issue from their Assault on the Catholic Church and the American People to a phoney GOP Hates Women. If you remember back to the early January TV Debate hosted by George Step-on-all-of-us, you will remember when he asked Mitt Romney if he will "Outlaw" Contraception. Romney reaction was taken back by the question where he replied, "Where is this coming from, this is not an issue". Step-on-all-of-us pressed the issue more to the 'BOO's' in the audience. We now know where that question came from - Obama and the Marxist democrat Party who were prepping the nation in advance of his assault on the Catholic Church. All this seems to roll off your back like water on a duck. That's OK. Just be honest. Can a Liberal be honest? I don't know. You tell me.
Emma
1 year ago
What more of the people posting here need to do, is migrate over to other news sites such as Yahoo and msn and begin to post on some of their boards. The comments sections there are one-sided. Hardly anyone on those message boards is speaking out in a calm, factual way re. this issue. I've been there, maybe one or two others, speaking the truth in support of our religious liberties. Where are all of you???? If young women hear only one side of this (and they are only hearing one side, because they are not apt to come to this web site), then of course they believe their choices are under attack. Secondly, Ms. Fluke would hardly be my choice were I to be called up before a judge. Aren't attorneys supposed to know what the charge is? She made a fool out of herself! If I were ever represented by an attorney of that caliber, I'd sue them for malpractice! Heck, I'd be charged with "shop-lifting", she'd have me convicted of murder! And, lastly, why is it considered a crime for an 18 yo man to be sexually involved with a minor, yet clinics are permitted to perform vaginal exams on teen-age girls without consent? If a young girl does not have capacity to give consent to sexual relations, how/why is she then deemed to have capacity to give consent to a gynecological exam???? Just wondering. But, please, some of you join me on Yahoo????? There are many opportunities to defend your church. I see few people there doing so. All seem to be congregating on Catholic Websites, but that's not where the battle will be lost or won. It will be won in the public arena.
Rob
1 year ago
vance, did you happen to read that bill? If you did, you know darn well that bill was never going to pass. It went way beyond the issue at hand. And given the fact that they spent so much of the bill on an ideological rant, that was really all it was. If they were serious, they could have very simply crafted a bill that provided the exclusion and probably got it past. But why on earth would they do that? Like all the pro-life arguements at the federal level, it's all about the drama of it. It's never about the results, obviously. 40 years of Roe v Wade pretty much sums it all up. 4 Decades! Since you keep making things personal with me vance, I have to say, that you are the only one following orders from a party you refuse to see for what it really has become. You desperately grasp for a party and a position that has only amounted to campaign slogans and rehtoric. Both parties main focus has been power and the rention of it. And while this has resulted in the enrichment of their supporters and a small amount of people in this country, for the rest of us, it has only left us with scaps and to fight about issues they have absolutely no intention of seriously addressing. Sure, a crappy bill every once in a while, but they surely are not solutions orientated. To deny this is to deny reality. But if you want to use this bill to support your ideology, be my guest. It's precisely what they want you to do.
Bulbajer
1 year ago
Vance, good point about Sarah Palin. I still stand by my comment on Limbaugh and Ms. Fluke.
Vance
1 year ago
Rob, GOP Sen Blunt's Bill to over turn the Obama attack on the Catholic Church was no parlor trick. Your Marxist Democrat Party had a chance to prove me wrong that there are actually Dems who care about the constitution BUT they stuck together like good comrades to doubled down and stick it to the Catholic Church and the nation. The only person here getting suckered is the guy you see in the mirror. If Barry Seotoro's attack on the Catholic Church isn't enough to convince you, I can only conclude that you must agree with him. This is what Liberalism is. Yours is not to question your leadership but to follow his orders. Rob, Pres. Barry Soetoro should be proud of you defending his despotism very well.
Rob
1 year ago
vance, you are right. I suspect there will not be many "liberals" as you define them at these rallies. But for me, until I see a party that is as serious about life issues as they are fiscal matters, it's all nothing but parlor tricks that baits suckers for votes. So whether a party publicly embraces the culture of death or quietly permits it, it's the same difference. Abortion remains. On this issue we'll just have to agree to disagree, but either one side has one party whipped or the other side is just a dismal failure in this issue, the clinics are still open.
vance
1 year ago
I would like to address, "Name Calling". Now, we all agree that petty name calling is NOT a good thing. But what do we 'Call' or 'Refer' to someone who commits murder?? A murderer. What do we call a person who "Steals" stuff from other people?? A thief, A Robber, Burglar . What do we call or refer to a person who tells frequent Big lies?? A Liar. So, what would we refer to a man who nationally or in a community setting proclaims to have multiple sexual exploits with multiple women?? A scumbag?? Loser?? or a Lady's Man?? What would we call or refer to a woman who nationally or in a community setting proclaims to have had multiple sexual encounters with multiple men?? Slut?? Floozy?? or a Cultured Woman?? I'm not sure that assigning a "Name" to Bad Behavior is a bad thing. I am sure that assigning a "Bad Name" to a "Good Thing or Person" is a bad thing.
vance
1 year ago
Bulbajer, "Whose leading the charge?" The Marxist Media Complex is leading the charge. The same hypocrites that were getting a laugh with Bill Maher and David Letterman calling Sarah Palin a "Slut" and "Whore" while making fun of her special needs child are fuming over Rush Limbauh calling Sandra Fluke a slut who went on national TV and told you and me that she is having an orgy with multiple partners and she wants you and me to pay for it. My point is that Liberals/Marxists call Christian women who live their Christianity a Slut and a Whore. Yet Liberals hoist women like Sandra Fluke up on a pedestal and as your Dear Leader nationally proclaimed, "She is someone her parents should be proud of". This speaks loudly of the sick perverse amorality of Liberals.
Bulbajer
1 year ago
Vance, who's leading the charge in calling that Georgetown student a slut? She may be wrong about the mandate and the role of sex, but there is no valid reason to call any woman, never mind a young one, what Rush Limbaugh called her. And it's not as if pro-life liberals don't exist. Look us up. We are small in number compared to pro-life conservatives, but I bet more than one of us will be at that rally you mentioned.
vance
1 year ago
Rob, the diference between Liberal and Conservative is only cosmetic? I suppose if we lived in La La Land that might be true, but here on planet earth the deference is day and night. I'm not seeing Conservative women testifying before congress proclaiming that they are having marathon sexual relations and demanding that tax payers provide contraceptives for their on-gonig orgies do you?? I don't see Conservatives leading the charge for abortion and euthanasia do you?? I have yet to see a Liberal participate in a Walk-For-Life rally. Again, it is the GOP Conservatives in the Congress who pushed a Bill to overturn the assault on the Catholic Church by the Marxist Democrat Party. This March 23rd, there will be a Wash DC rally to protest the Marxist Democrat Party's mandate that the Catholic Church provide birth control and abortion. You and I doubt seriously that a Liberal would be caught dead there. If you saw a Liberal there, it would only be for the purpose of heckling the Pro-Life crowd. You talk about Jesus rebuking the self-righteous. If you look closer, you will see the self-righteous clergy of his day closely resembles the thought and behavioral patterns of Liberals today.

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment