Feckless Republican Responses to the “War on Women”

Why has the strategy of a supposed Republican “War on Women” worked so well for the Democrats? It is an almost totally fake issue, yet it has proved to be a potent motivating factor in elections for not a few voters, including especially single women.

One obvious reason for this is that the current virtually universal availability of contraception and abortion is an active concern for a large segment of the population today. People do have to have access to their contraception and abortions, after all; and even though there is not, and never has been, the slightest prospect that these procedures might possibly be curtailed any time soon—how would the Republicans go about curtailing them even if they wanted to?—the fact that they continue to be prominent subjects of discussion in the news of the day in connection with such things as the Obamacare birth-prevention mandate means that, especially in the minds of uninformed voters not seriously following the issues, the fear can arise that maybe those Neanderthal Republicans could actually be contemplating a ban on birth control, as alleged.

Another major reason for the success of the strategy alleging that there is a Republican “War on Women,” however, lies in the fact that, from the time this allegation of this supposed “war” was first launched, the Republicans have never effectively countered or answered the charge—nor does it appear that most Republican candidates, like most of those in Republican leadership ranks, have even the remotest notion of how such a charge might be answered.

The original charge came unexpectedly, in an election campaign that was supposed to be about “the economy,” leaving the Republicans non-plussed and fumbling for some kind of a response. Essentially they failed to produce any kind of an effective response, however, and this has continued to be the case up to the present day.

Mitt Romney, for example, who lost the women’s vote by 11 percent and the single women’s vote by 36 percent, when asked how he might have handled the issue more effectively, replied that “there are a lot of outrageous lies I just don’t think women believe, so I am not sure how damaging they are.” Instead of identifying and perhaps exposing these lies, though, the would-be Republican president simply denied the electoral evidence that at least some women apparently do believe the lies in question. Unfortunately, Romney’s kind of non-response pretty much became the standard Republican response.

Another recent example of the same thing came at the end of July in a debate in the current Virginia senatorial campaign. This debate took place between Virginia Senator Mark Warner, and well-known political operative, lobbyist, and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ed Gillespie, the Republican candidate vying for Warner’s Senate seat. Although the debate covered a range of issues such as energy, the federal budget, foreign policy, immigrations, and the like, in response to a moderator’s question about gay marriage, Senator Warner suddenly changed course and declared that his opponent would “vote to repeal Roe v. Wade.” He went on to add that his Republican opponent favored a “personhood amendment” to the Constitution that would define embryos as fully human, hence jeopardizing legalized abortion; and he also charged Gillespie with wanting to “ban certain forms of contraception”—all these charges being standard components of the alleged Republican “War on Women.”

It worked. These issues quickly became the principal subjects of the debate, and the headlines reporting on it became “Birth Control Inflames Debate” (Washington Post) and “Contraception Takes Center Stage at Debate” (Washington Times). Most Republicans do not seem to have caught on that whenever these issues are brought up, they almost always become the principal subjects of the debate. They represent charges that need to be answered. Yet most Republicans, like Mitt Romney, generally do not make any attempt to answer them.

Candidate Gillespie’s attempt at a response, such as it was, was to protest rather feebly that “this is an area where you are making up my view.” He went on to ask: “When did I support a personhood amendment?”

After the debate, Senator Warner’s campaign correctly noted for the record that the 2004 Republican Party platform—at a time when Ed Gillespie was RNC chairman—called for a personhood amendment as well as for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In this era of legalized abortion, it has long been the policy of the Republican leadership, in fact, to please (or appease) its pro-life constituency by affirming various pro-life principles and positions, for instance, in the party’s platform, as in the present case. No one can deny that the Republican Party in our day creditably has officially declared itself to be the pro-life party.

But that Ed Gillespie apparently did not even remember the party platform’s advocacy of a personhood amendment (adopted during his tenure as party chairman) is unfortunately also only all too indicative. This is not to imply that the Republican leadership does not subscribe to the positions included in its party platforms; nevertheless the fact remains that its official advocacy of most pro-life positions typically does end up pretty far down on its priority list.

And what Ed Gillespie, a professed Catholic and pro-life candidate, actually did say further in reply to what amounted to a revival of the charge that the Republicans were conducting a “War on Women” was, again, in no way an adequate reply, or, strictly speaking, even a reply at all to the actual charge being made. What he said was that he himself favored making birth control pills available without a prescription. “I believe we should make contraceptives easier to obtain,” he announced.

We are probably long past the time when anybody any longer even takes particular note of the anomaly of a professed Catholic pro-life politician found favoring wider availability of birth control. Much less does it seem that anybody is any longer “scandalized” by this (as would once surely have been the automatic reaction). But what still remains exceedingly difficult to understand in the present case is how announcing this stand might constitute any kind of an effective response to the accusation that Republicans are conducting a “War on Women.” The logic here seems to be: “How could I possibly be engaged in such a war aimed at taking away your contraceptives when I myself am in favor of an even wider distribution of them?”

It is not at all clear, however, how affirming this position can in any way be considered a reply to such charges as that one wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned or a personhood amendment enacted. These were the accusations, along with the allegation that he wanted to “ban certain forms of contraception” that elicited Ed Gillespie’s response; but the response itself seems almost wholly arbitrary—right out of the blue—and mostly unrelated to the major charges.

How or why in this situation would a Republican candidate immediately jump to declare his advocacy of birth control at all? How could he ever have imagined that this in any way might constitute a suitable reply to the major charges being lodged against him? What Ed Gillespie really established with his reply here was that he himself was effectively buying into a significant part of the anti-life agenda of the Democrats, namely, the supposed need to “make contraceptives easier to obtain.”

Actually—and sadly—Ed Gillespie does not seem to be all that untypical of today’s Republican leaders generally. They do not oppose or criticize social policies aimed at subsidizing and distributing contraceptives—at any rate it is hard to think of a single one of them who ever has. Not only do they avoid any criticism of such policies; many of them, like Ed Gillespie, even seem to find it necessary to make sure that the whole world knows that they, at least, are not so ignorant or so backward as to be opposed to contraception, Not just tacitly but quite openly they are only too happy to let it be known that they too accept modern society’s estimate of the benefits that today’s virtual universal availability of contraceptives supposedly confers upon society.

But this is to buy into a significant part of the anti-life agenda of the Democrats. Having bought into this agenda in this fashion, however, there is certainly little prospect that these same Republican leaders are ever going to come up with cogent and consistent arguments against that same agenda, specifically, against the allegations that they are engaged in a “War on Women.” Given their own ambivalence in the matter, they are probably incapable of framing such arguments.

Yet not only is their advocacy of birth control of doubtful help in their electoral prospects anyway; it may actually make them seem unprincipled, since if promotion of birth control truly is one their issues, some voters will ask, why do they follow the Republican line at all? The sad fact is that they have probably already irretrievably lost the “War on Women.”

Do not, therefore, look for any serious effort to expose the “lies” that Mitt Romney spoke about. The fact of the matter is that the “War on Women” allegations launched by the Democrats have undergirded what has proved to be a brilliantly successful strategy that the Republicans have simply not been able to counter. Nor would it seem that we have yet seen the last of this strategy being successfully worked out in practice.

Editor’s note: Pictured above is Ed Gillespie speaking to reporters after the U.S. Senate debate sponsored by the Virginia Bar Association in West Virginia, July 26, 2014. (Photo credit: AP Photo/Richmond Times-Dispatch, Bob Brown.)

Kenneth D. Whitehead

By

Kenneth D. Whitehead is a former career diplomat who served in Rome and the Middle East and as the chief of the Arabic Service of the Voice of America. For eight years he served as executive vice president of Catholics United for the Faith. He also served as a United States Assistant Secretary of Education during the Reagan Administration. He is the author of The Renewed Church: The Second Vatican Council’s Enduring Teaching about the Church (Sapientia Press, 2009) and, most recently, Affirming Religious Freedom: How Vatican Council II Developed the Church’s Teaching to Meet Today’s Needs (St. Paul’s, 2010).

  • If Catholics…especially “Catholic” politicians…were, in fact, truly, authentically, CATHOLIC, what a different world we would have.
    This article is spot on…and describes a very bad situation indeed.

    • DE-173

      They’ve been countenanced and tolerated by the likes of Bernardin (of the seemless garment nonsense) and Blaire.

      I really would like the opportunity to ask Bp. Blaire how it is he believes he’s qualified to direct or opine upon the vast expenditures of the federal government, absent any demonstrated aptitude, experience or training in public finance and a demonstrated incapacity to to keep his diocese solvent.

  • TERRY

    Want a ‘War On Women’ (WOW)?

    Spitzer, Boko Haran, Kennedy – the only confirmed kill so far in the war in this country, ritual female genital mutilation, Weiner, the only confirmed kill so far in this country, ad infinitum.

    This is a democrat made up issue, specifically made up to divert attention from the democrats’ spectacular failures over the last few years, especially those emanating from Pennsylvania Ave.

    As with all their issues which they make up, they make up the rules as they go along, they move the goal posts as they go along, IOW – we can’t win.

    Solution? Humor, mockery. “Here’s the latest in the WOW” and then cite some offense overseas – Boko Haran would serve nicely.

    End by quoting POTUS Andrew Shepherd – “America is a serious place. We have serious issues and we need serious people to deal with them.”

  • Bucky Inky

    The “War on Women” works for the rhetorician because it flatters both male and female conceits.

    It allows women to think of themselves as victims when they haven’t really been victimized, and it allows men to think of themselves as heroes when they haven’t been heroic.

    • Guest

      Perfect. Well said.

  • The continued sale of republican democrat tells me the writer is clueless. Looking at ‘results’ of either party going back to FDR it is worse than Chesterton’s kind words, “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” The one US GOV Party has two hands that play a magic act to keep the sheep entertained. The church is complicit in never willing to put their 501 status at risk. One huge ponzi.

    • Fred

      You know Michael, it’s taken me awhile to come
      to the same conclusion but it’s becoming more clear every day. I’ve
      always thought of myself as being independent even though I’ve always voted
      republican, but I’ve come to the conclusion that nearly all of DC is rotten to
      the core. I can’t even articulate what republicans really stand for. They all lie, try to control our lives, and enrich
      themselves from the trough of public money. When I read about the group of angry atheist’s
      insisting that the IRS crack down on churches who have anything to say
      politically from the pulpit it really drove the point home about being under
      the thumb. What has happened to our
      country and to a lesser extent the republican party – have we all become
      spineless in defending our traditions, liberties and values? When I hear these silly, empty bumper sticker
      statements I wonder where is the vigorous rebuttal. Why isn’t the killing of innocent babies called
      murder? I realize that most of this is
      straight out of the Alinsky playbook and apparently it’s been pretty effective
      in shutting down dissent, now with this administration more than ever using the
      long arm of the government as the agent of enforcement. War on women, please, how about the counter
      argument of let’s focus on the larger WAR ON TRADITIONAL AMERICAN VALUES, and
      putting CHRIST first in our (collective) public lives.

      • Fred, Fulton Sheen as early as the 1930’s, long before I arrived, warned us…. America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.
        – Fulton J. Sheen

        • Fred

          Wouldn’t it be wonderful if God gave us somebody with the moral clarity and boldness of a Bishop Sheen today. My wife and I love listening to his old recordings, and I remember that one.

          • DE-173

            Maybe “we” just aren’t listening.

  • Pamela

    Shame on Ed Gillespie and every other Republican like him. I would have voted for Todd Akin in a heartbeat — we need more like him (although I know they would take a beating).

  • Rachel Lu

    Interestingly, it seems Democrats are now trying to sideline the “war on women” meme. It isn’t focus-grouping well; women have decided it’s too belligerent. (They’re still on about women’s issues, but just looking for nicer-sounding ways to sell them.) Now it’s mostly Republicans who bring it up, amusingly.

    • DE-173

      Bingo Rachel. Sandra was a fluke, as well as that other monosyllabic term of derision she received.

      • Objectivetruth

        Watching Sandra being interviewed, it was always interesting how she floundered when confronted with the fact that Catholic women refuted her fishy birth control statistics. She usually got trapped in the drift net on these issues.

        Ahem…….please excuse the poor attempt at aquatic sea life humor…..it’s Friday……

        • DE-173

          Well if Aquatic humor is the topic du jour.. she’s a geoduck.

          • Objectivetruth

            I don’t think Sandra Fluke really had any sense of porpoise….

            • DE-173

              She needs the pill like a fish needs a bicycle.

              • Objectivetruth

                In front of congress that day, I think she was telling a whale of tale.

                • Fred

                  I don’t know about all that, when I watch here she always seems like she’s always floundering.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    People like Sandra that want free birth control are pretty shellfish.

  • DE-173

    “Why has the strategy of a supposed Republican “War on Women” worked so well for the Democrats?”

    Has it?

    Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Alert.

    “Women” aren’t a homogeneous group, nor is sex the only factor in voting and the “gender gap” has been around for at least thirty years. 2012 was the first year that we had the “WoW” slogan deployed as a political anthem, and Obama won 55% of the female vote, as opposed to the 56% he won in 2008. Even that dreadful John Kerry and his farcical “reporting for duty” shtick pulled 51% of the female vote in 2004.

    So what REALLY explains the PERSISTENT affinity for Democrats by women? Try dependency.
    With sky high illegitimacy rates among blacks and hispanics, the vote was 93% and 72%, respectively. Without a husband, the resonant themes among unwed mothers are economic.

    In other words, every illegitimate birth results in a woman attempting to run a house by herself, feeling overwhelmed and exhausted. Her likelihood of being dependent on the government is far greater than the male that impregnated her. This is why the left works to encourage young women to be sexually active. Married women with stable marriages and children having voting patterns that are virtually indistinguishable from similarly situated males.

    Also, take a look at the numbers of post graduate (they call it Piled Higher and Deeper for a reason) educated individuals voting for Obama. It’s the identical 55%, but we know that there’s disparities by field. I’m willing to bet that figure is overwhelmingly driven by the liberal arts and so-called “social sciences”, where women are more heavily concentrated than men.

    In short, the Sandra Fluke constituency was a diversion. There were a lot more inner city women without law degrees voting for food stamps for themselves and their peers who would likely become pregnant without benefit of clergy (Obama won the less than 50,000 income category 60-38) than spolied little rich girls playing veneral roulette.

    http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

    • Fred

      I agree in that I believe that it’s not all that effective insofar as translating into votes, though no doubt it has some, and important when margins are slim. Highly effective is stirring up the raw emotions of a rabid base during campaigning. There may be a wisdom and Christian quality to not trading barb for barb, but for me the spectacle of deer-in-headlights stare and non-response is viscerally un-settling in not standing up to the nonsense spewed forth.

      • DE-173

        “Highly effective is stirring up the raw emotions of a rabid base during campaigning.”
        If it doesn’t translate into (more) votes or money, it’s not effective. The reason for the success of the left is strategic, not tactical.

        • Tamsin

          I wish it were not effective. But as I wrote in a separate comment, I think the appeal to autonomy, to the fear of losing control, is very effective. Everybody wants to keep all their options open always. The left has built a culture in which nobody sees accepting food stamps as a loss of autonomy. It’s… empowering! It allows the mother to be independent of the father! Independence! That I’m entitled to!

          But try to make it harder to get an abortion? That’s chains! Slavery! De-humanizing!

          All the left has to do is to plant that tiny seed of doubt in each female mind, preferably at an early age, whether the Self can survive Pregnancy: the creation and care for another Self.

          • DE-173

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it doesn’t resonate with a certain constituency, I just don’t think the people it resonated with were ever going to vote against the Obama.

            There’s some people like the now gone die-hards in my family that believed voting Democrat was the eighth sacrament. They went to Mass every week and even when the “jig was up” and they all kew that Clinton was a hard-left paid whore of the abortion-government complex, all they could say was “well Bush is for the rich” and “you have to give him a chance”.

            One of the old biddy’s heads just about exploded when I said you mean like the Germans gave Shickelgruber a chance 60 years ago? (This was 1993).

        • TERRY

          I have to disagree. IMO That is one of the reasons bo won in 2012 – in the last 2 weeks they turn the rabid base loose via Soros money, sending kids out to spread the lies.

          And let’s not forget the old saying “never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”

    • samharker

      Panem et Circenses. Human nature doesn’t change, does it?

      • DE-173

        No, not really. Same old original sin.

    • Objectivetruth

      “Panem et Circenses. Food stamps are the bread, free contraceptives are the circus.”

      Spot on, DE. Great post.

      • DE-173

        Thanks.

    • jcsmitty

      You nailed it, DE!

    • Lewelyn Fidler

      Eat, drink and be merry…….if it feels good then by golly do it. Technology today is fully capitable to give and to provide everything, women don’t need men when a doctor can use a needle. Fathers are a “number”, nannies readily available so careers need never placed on hold. Test tube babies now a “artificial womb” thus a developing child we “visit” the next 9 months becouse society developed the idea of having children hazardous to a woman’s health, a health risk to be discouraged.

      War on Women yes there is but a deception as a means to “control” to power and political influence.

  • The stupid thing is that the real war on women, are those forcing contraception and abortion on them.

    • Lewelyn Fidler

      Since when is Healthcare a “Right”! and the Debate about who is going to pay of it….

      Healthcare and access is not a Right, I, you and others of making unto a Right then what “rights” will be removed from another?

      Does the Doctor loses his compensation, education and training unto anyone who “demands” of his skills, education time and training?

      Creating a victim class by demography a section of Humankind, women, children? Replacing of the “roles” of/to both women and men? Bringing Life into this world and to give others of our brothers and sisters physical bodies so they too reap the Joys that God planned for Mankind, just as The Father has one we too need of it for without one education and the ability to gain a room into our Father’s kingdom is impossible.

      • “Since when is Healthcare a “Right”!”

        Since polluters started creating new diseases while avoiding the cost of cleaning up their mess. Since the new understanding of communicable disease, under which one businessman flying to 12 meetings in 78 hours can spread death even before he himself is sick.

        If one is to be truly pro-life, from conception until NATURAL death, health care becomes a right.

        “Does the Doctor loses his compensation, education and training unto anyone who “demands” of his skills, education time and training?”

        Does the monk lose his compensation, education, and training in living out a vocation of service? It is high time we all began to disregard this selfish MODERNIST idea of career, and start exploring VOCATION instead.

        After all, you do know what the most lucrative career in modern medicine is, don’t you? Abortion. Sure, a good doctor might get $8000 for the birth of a child, compared with $400 for an abortion, but he can do 4-8 abortions an hour, where a childbirth is 50 hours of work spread over 9 months including pre-natal care. If a doctor is going to choose to go only on material compensation, he’s not going to be pro-life.

        • DE-173

          “If a doctor is going to choose to go only on material compensation, he’s not going to be pro-life.

          No, the exact opposite is true. There’s a reason that so many abortion “doctors” are bottom of the barrel, checked records types.

          • Kermit Gosnell earned $2 million a year.

            The average heart surgeon only earns $300,000/year.

            I want people who have a VOCATION, not people who are in it for the money. Your average Catholic Priest studies longer than a doctor, and earns $12,500/year.

            • DE-173

              Kermit Gosnell was not practicing medicine. He ran a shop of horrors.

              His “practice” only survived due to the failure of the state Health Department to properly inspect his “facilities” under three Governors (Rendell, Shweiker and Ridge).

              He’s in prison now. How’s that calculate?

              Comparing priest and a doctor is beyond silly.

              • “Kermit Gosnell was not practicing medicine. He ran a shop of horrors.”

                As do all doctors who practice abortion.

                My point is that a “shop of horrors” is a natural result when human greed takes over. There is the reason why, in the past 5 years, the largest killer of human beings in the United States has become diseased contracted while in hospitals.

  • Anne

    Honestly, Republicans just seem to have no clue on how to maintain a pro-life position in a pluralistic democracy. In 2012, their combined efforts were about as politically astute and persuasive as the proverbial bull in a china shop.

  • Tamsin

    This is a great analysis of an instance of the pivot to “War on Women”.

    Democrats have gone for the throat.

    They are catching and holding young men and young women using naked fear: the fear of losing choice and therefore losing self. In that tender period after childhood ends, but before longing for a child can begin, young men can’t see themselves committed to a woman, and young women can’t see themselves committed to a child, and pro-aborts make their unholy appeal to an otherwise healthy instinct for self-preservation, for independence. When the self only exists if independent and free of unwanted commitments.

    And so restricting access to sexual experimentation of to contraceptives is felt as a threat to restrict one’s access to oxygen. The Party of Fear masquerades as the Party of Self-Preservation. Republicans may as well be saying “I want to restrict your access to oxygen”. What Gillespie was saying, politically, was “I believe we should make oxygen easier to obtain.”

    Sad that Gillespie collapsed so cravenly on the issue of personhood, because that’s where the real debate is: personhood of the baby weighed “against” the personhood of the woman. In a culture where young women are taught to believe, without thinking, “It’s either you or me, kid, and we’re not both getting out of here alive.”

  • grzybowskib

    So….why the heck aren’t Catholics talking about Natural Family Planning as a positive alternative to birth control? We’re missing a huge opportunity to shift the discussion here!

    • Objectivetruth

      NFP is free. And to tell some guy “No, I won’t sleep with you” that wasn’t planning to stick around anyway is the best example of empowerment.

      • grzybowskib

        EXACTLY! Which is why we need to talk about it, for crying out loud!

  • jcsmitty

    The real “War on Women” is ignoring major needs of women while substituting “party favors.” When women suffering from cancer are denied certain treatments and drugs or medical problems are not covered under Obamacare, this needs to be exposed. A good Republican reply to the phoney “War on Women” would focus on how Obamacare is failing women where they need help the most: REAL healthcare.

  • jwrwau

    Both Mr. Gillespie and many of the laity have walked away from the Church’s teaching on contraception because the Church has been unable to give us an understandable explanation of why we should not. The Church’s strongest argument thus far has been “because I told you so!” Sadly this over reliance on raw power has been overused to the extent that the Teaching Authority of the Church is being undermined. Personally I sometimes wonder if Bishops are so busy closing schools, closing parishes, and filing lawsuits that they forget that they have pastoral responsibilities as well.

    • Augustus

      Your description is not entirely accurate and I would argue, quite dated. The Church has developed sophisticated arguments in defense of it’s teaching on contraception, thanks mostly to lay scholars. It’s not that the bishops teach merely with appeals to authority; the problem is that they don’t teach at all. The laity do their own thing because there is no official voice encouraging them not to. There have been only a couple pastorals issued by US bishops on this topic in the last couple decades and they have made serious arguments. But the vast majority of bishops simply remain silent. I agree, however, that bishops have focused too much on managing the decline rather than teaching the faith.

      • jwrwau

        My understanding of Church teachings may be a bit dated, but since I passed 60 I’ve become a bit dated myself. Thou past my prime, I am still smart enough to understand that the Word of God is a vibrant and living message for all who are receptive. What I am seeing is that the Church is using secular tactics and lawsuits to enforce matters of faith and morals. When such tactics are used, I always assume that the underlying theology is weak or non existent. I suspect that the authorities that utilize such secular tactics understand the Word of God to be stagnant and inapplicable. I find your analysis of the situation insightful. The less you teach, the more decline there is to manage. The more you focus on decline, the less you teach.

  • Chris Mason

    This would not have happended to the best candidate for political office I have ever heard or seen Dr Alan Keyes. His entire career in politics and life in general has been devoted to the truth and he has the incredible ability to clearly articulate his point. Google his name check him out you will see what I mean.

    • BillinJax

      Alan Keyes was and is the symbol of a moral conscience, virtue,
      and personal responsibility all of which are now seen as too restrictive for
      modern living in the “pluralistic” society we have created for ourselves by conceding
      to tolerance above the Ten Commandments and pleasure above principles.

  • AcceptingReality

    Either the Republicans stand for a platform which they don’t really believe in or they are miserable failures at P.R. Or maybe it’s both. At the very least they all need read the book “Positioning, The Battle For Your Mind”.

    • DE-173

      You have a choice between two political parties. One will almost always do the wrong the thing, the other usually doesn’t do the right thing.

  • BillinJax

    There is the war on women and there is the War with Women waged by Barrack Obama who puts them out front of him in his battle for liberal Utopia . Nancy Pelosi, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius, Sandra Fluke, and the list goes on.

  • anngs

    Like it or not, abstract or theological arguments won’t win voters. Pro-life politicians need to present a much broader view of women’s issues than just a contraception obsession. Why are people who claim to be pro-choice so hell-bent on forcing others to pay for things they don’t want or need or believe in?

  • JRDF

    I like this article. However, it seems the author (no disrespect, only an observation) has about as many responses to the War on Women accusation as the Republicans …. zero. Suggestions of responses would be helpful.

MENU