By Dave Andrusko
The last post of the day, almost by definition, gets the least amount of time and reflection. Hanna Rosin’s column for Slate is worth thinking about, both for what she gets right and what she misses.
The title of her piece is “The War on Women Has Lost Its Purpose.” In a nutshell Rosin argues that since no Republican candidate has stumbled over his own tongue and said egregious things about abortion, Democrats “are anxious right now because they rely on the votes of single women, who are less likely than married women to turn out for the midterms.”
But if Republicans are not misspeaking and single women are less likely to turn out for midterm elections than married women, what are Democrats to do? According to Rosin, make stuff up (which is par for the course anyway) and pretend every sensible thing a Republican says about a host of issues unrelated to abortion are somehow, nonetheless, part of a “war on women.”
Click here to read the April issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”
That part Rosin nails. But note where she goes wrong. When she says that married women are more likely to come out in the non-presidential years—and that is not good for Democrats—what does that imply? That married women do not qualify as “women” because they are more likely to vote for those war-on-women- waging Republicans?
Moreover, if in general, more women than men are pro-life, how is it waging a war on women to support commonsensical limitations, such as a ban on abortions when children are pain-capable?
Democrats reflexively conjure up imaginary wars on women because otherwise there is a chance the public could actually evaluate the candidates’ respective positions on abortion. And this is something pro-abortion-to-the-hilt Democrats fear more than anything.
Which is why they wage a war on reason in perpetuity.