How many times have you heard the hackneyed phrase from the political left, “the war on women”? I think I hear it on a regular basis. Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace, had a Democratic spokesman, Xavier Becerra, on to discuss the pending SCOTUS ruling related to religious freedom, otherwise known as “the Hobby Lobby Case.” When Mr. Wallace asked Mr. Becerra how can the Democrats defend forcing people to pay for something they believe violates their religious freedoms, he answered by saying that Obamacare does not violate a woman’s religious belief (apparently they have another definition of what is a violation of religious beliefs) and that “no one has the right to discriminate against a woman’s beliefs.” As Lt. Columbo would say: just one more question: what does a woman’s beliefs have to do with the violations of a person’s religious beliefs ? This is what the left does, it cannot answer a direct question and they instead, change the question. Click here for a video of this interview – this particular question starts at about the 11:50 minute mark of the video.
Former Hewlett Packard Executive, Carly Fiorina has started a campaign to counter this phony “war on women” that the left is promoting. Click here for more information on this issue from Ms. Fiorina. The classic on this phony “war on women” was when a supposed Catholic girl, Sandra Fluke, a law student at a Catholic University, Georgetown University Law School, testified before a Congressional committee. What she was complaining about was that an employer should pay for her birth control insurance coverage. As it turns out you can get this type of drug for no more than $9 per month at Target. This, to the left, is the burning issue; sexual satisfaction should be guaranteed by and paid for by your employer. So, the left invents a “war on women” unless an employer pays for his employees sexual pleasures. What right does that come from? Where do these rights come from and why should an employer be forced to pay for these costs? An employer pays an employee for work provided. Why does he have to pay for anything else, unless it is negotiated freely between the two? Do you pay for your Plummer’s insurance just because he fixed your faucet? You pay him for the work and nothing else. Does the word hedonism come to mind? I think it does, but then this is the world of the left.