I would like to know.
I’m sure feminists will come back with “what, you don’t think fighting for a woman’s right to control her own body is worthwhile?” Or something similar.
First, on birth control. Feminists are in an uproar because Hobby Lobby, which already provides health insurance that covers birth control to its employees, doesn't want to cover Plan B.
The argument the Left has been using is that the Hobby Lobby case would allow employers to make women’s health decisions and restrict access to birth control — neither of which are true.
Obamacare forces employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control without a co-pay. Prior to that provision in the law taking effect, were women “restricted” from access? No, they just weren't getting it without a co-pay. So if that so-called contraception mandate went away, things would stay exactly as they were before it began, nothing would have changed.
Women would still have access to purchase Plan B or any birth control they wanted, just as they were before; they’d just have to pay the co-pay. No job I’ve ever had provided health insurance that covered Plan B, so I’m not sure where the sudden outrage over its price is coming from.
Prior to that provision in Obamacare, were feminists screaming for birth control without a co-pay? No. Birth control only became an issue once the lack of a co-pay was dangled in front of them.
On abortion, that’s obviously a different story. I could rehash the arguments for and against legalized abortion, but they’re well-known.
But on both of these issues, the reason behind feminist outrage is the same: freedom.
As they see it, a woman can’t be free unless she’s free from having babies.
The underlying assumption then is that a woman can’t make decisions about her own life without pills or the ability to have an abortion — which is untrue and an unfair characterization. I think women are perfectly capable of planning their families without drugs or a last resort, but that’s just me.
For evidence of this, look no further than Amanda Marcotte's recent article:
This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion. Given the choice between living my life how I please and having my body within my control and the fate of a lentil-sized, brainless embryo that has half a chance of dying on its own anyway, I choose me. Here’s another uncomfortable fact for anti-choicers: Just because a woman does want children doesn’t mean she wants them now. Maybe she’s still got some fun-having to do. Or maybe she has a couple already and, already well-educated about the smelly neediness of babies, feels done with having them. Either way, what she wants trumps the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.
Wow. It’s fine that she doesn’t want kids, but her clear hatred for babies is clouding her pro-abortion position. I’m not recoiling because she sounds selfish, I’m recoiling because she is actually making an argument that to be truly free is to be free of children.
Sandra Fluke, now running for California state Senate, became famous when she declared that paying for birth control was a “burden” for many women. Because college girls can't make decisions unless they're on pills, apparently.
In both cases, the argument is that, for women, freedom means freedom from having to think about being pregnant. The implication is, of course, that women need birth control and abortions in order to do anything else with their lives.
It’s condescending, sexist and ignores real issues that women face, like finding good jobs.