Women voted for birth con­trol

The Washington Times Weekly - - Editorials -

Planned Par­ent­hood is pat­ting it­self on the back over Pres­i­dent Obama’s vic­tory ear­lier this month. Ac­cord­ing to Dawn Laguens, the abor­tion provider’s ex­ec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent, women were scared away from Mitt Rom­ney with the threat that he would take away their birth con­trol. Other, seem­ingly more im­por­tant is­sues, such as the frag­ile state of the econ­omy, record job­less­ness among women and the for­eign-pol­icy de­ba­cle in Beng­hazi, Libya, took a back seat for the 56 per­cent of fe­male vot­ers who opted for Mr. Obama, in­tent on se­cur­ing their “re­pro­duc­tive rights” against a pur­ported Repub­li­can on­slaught.

In a post­elec­tion anal­y­sis hosted by Emily’s List, a Demo­cratic po­lit­i­cal ac­tion com­mit­tee, Ms. Laguens boasted that Planned Par­ent­hood per­suaded women to vote for Mr. Obama based on “hope and fear.” They wanted women to feel “a sense of as­sault” from the Rom­ney cam­paign. The left­ist groups fo­cused on women who were less con­cerned about abor­tion but were wor­ried about main­tain­ing ac­cess to con­tra­cep­tives.

Those ladies were fed up with the econ­omy and un­em­ploy­ment, but Planned Par­ent­hood was able to “hold them in un­de­cided” by mak­ing Mr. Rom­ney “ques­tion­able in their mind.”

The scheme worked. The mere hint that they might lose ac­cess to birth con­trol ap­pears to have been suf­fi­cient to frighten a ma­jor­ity of Amer­i­can women into Mr. Obama’s pro­tec­tive arms. The straw­man ar­gu­ment Democrats cre­ated was es­pe­cially brazen con­sid­er­ing Mr. Rom­ney never once threat­ened to “take away” birth con­trol in any way. All the Repub­li­can can­di­date did was op­pose the Oba­macare man­date that will force em­ploy­ers to sub­si­dize con­tra­cep­tives for em­ploy­ees (whether di­rectly or through in­surance cov­er­age) when do­ing so will go against their re­li­gious be­liefs. The is­sue was never tak­ing those prod­ucts off store shelves but pro­tect­ing free­dom of con­science and re­li­gious ex­pres­sion, rights that are en­shrined in our Con­sti­tu­tion.

Fem­i­nists like Ms. Laguens and Emily’s List Pres­i­dent Stephanie Schri­ock are crow­ing that this elec­tion year marks a tri­umph for fem­i­nism and for women. Con­tin­u­ing the Obama cam­paign’s nau­se­at­ing fo­cus on the fe­male anatomy, Ms. Laguens de­scribed 2012 as “the year of women’s uteruses.” It is ironic that she would thus la­bel women’s ap­par­ent re­jec­tion of moth­er­hood, and trou­bling that any woman would cel­e­brate this as a vic­tory for women in gen­eral. The over­all ef­fort shifted pub­lic opin­ion sig­nif­i­cantly. A Ras­mussen Re­ports sur­vey found 54 per­cent of vot­ers iden­ti­fied them­selves as pro-abor­tion. Never be­fore have so many com­mit­ted them­selves to the cause of ter­mi­nat­ing the life of the un­born.

Women’s fran­tic in­sis­tence on their right to birth con­trol and abor­tion will play a huge role in Amer­ica’s loss of its his­toric free­doms. Mr. Obama’s sec­ond term prom­ises to bring more eco­nomic woes, ever-greater threats from for­eign en­e­mies and fur­ther di­vi­sion in an in­creas­ingly po­lar­ized na­tion. In­stead of vot­ing for their real con­cerns, more than half of the na­tion’s women yielded to scare tac­tics. In the in­ter­est of keep­ing their birth con­trol, they ceded con­trol of our na­tion’s fu­ture to a pres­i­dent who does not have our na­tion’s best in­ter­ests at heart.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.