Are Democrats really throwing the “War on Women” cliché overboard?


By Dave Andrusko

“[Saying] ‘Republicans are waging a war on women’ actually doesn’t test very well,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “Women find it divisive, political—they don’t like it.” — From an article in Thursday’s National Journal, “Why Democrats are Ditching the ‘War on Women,’” by Emily Schultheis.

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama

Really? Let’s see.

The subhead to Schultheis’ article is “The party that deployed ‘war’ rhetoric to help defeat Mitt Romney is looking for less divisive ways to reach female voters this cycle.” Oh, please. This would be almost amusing if it weren’t just as deceiving (and misleading) as the empty-headed “war on women” cliché.

As I read the article, I thought of the memorable quote attributed to pro-abortion former Vice President Al Gore: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.”

Pro-abortion Democrats are desperately looking are images and issues that they can twist so as to holler that Republicans are actively hostile to women.

As we noted in “ObamaCare’s unfavorable numbers in July worse yet,” pro-abortion Democrats do not want to talk about ObamaCare which includes (among other objectionable provisions) massive federal tax subsidies to assist many millions of Americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand.

Nor do they want to talk about laws to protect unborn children capable of feeling pain from the horrors of abortion. Pro-abortion Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) simply won’t bring up the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670).

As the National Journal article makes clear, instead of these issues or the economy or foreign affairs, Democrats want to talk about contraception, code for the “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby” Supreme Court decision.

Of course what was actually at issue in that case was whether the government can force employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections—freedom of conscience.

However what many people don’t understood is that there is another very dangerous problem that has always lurked in the background which the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision did not address.

The decision did not truly correct any of the major abortion-expanding problems created by Obamacare, including the overly expansive authority that the Obamacare law itself provides to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to define “preventive services.”

What if in the future, HHS chooses to add the abortion pill RU-486, or even elective abortion, including late abortions, to the list of mandated “preventive services”? Nor is there anything to prevent HHS from requiring coverage for, say, doctor-prescribed suicide, or anything else it chooses to classify as “preventive services.”

To return to Schultheis’ article, when pro-abortion Democrats do choose to avoid the inane “war on women” conceit, they are merely exchanging one set of misleading, divisive stereotypes for another.

“The playbook’s the same,” GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway told Schultheis.