Charles C. W. Cooke on the farce within a farce that is the contraceptives "debate":
It ought by now to have become rather obvious that there is no more a crisis in “access” to contraception in America than there is in access to Tylenol. But, for the sake of argument, let’s step outside of reality’s bounds for a moment and imagine that there were. In such circumstances, we might presume that it would not be of pressing concern to design an entitlement for the nation’s working and insured people while entirely ignoring the poor, the unemployed, and the uninsured. And yet those entertaining the “access” fantasy have done precisely that with their HHS mandate. In short, they have contrived the wrong answer to a problem that does not exist. That is some feat.Ah, but that's their specialty. Look at Obamacare, a monstrosity designed to fix a system that's not broken, at least not in the ways that they will "fix" it. He goes on:
We are dealing here with a non-issue: Women are not suffering in America because they have to pay for their own birth control. It is this stubborn fact that has pushed the advocates of the mandate to resort so quickly to hyperbole. Unfortunately, their hysteria has been surprisingly successful at conflating in the minds of many “not paying” for something and “banning” it, and effectively accusing those of us who can see that the emperor has no clothes of “hating women.”He's referring to the "war on women." (Mark Steyn had some fun with that today as he subbed for Rush. If anyone posts a clip from the show later on I'll link to it here.)
Back to Mr. Cooke:
. . . the more temperate among us have failed repeatedly to remind America that what we are discussing here is essentially welfare for those receiving a paycheck and carrying a health-insurance card, and that there is no need to be your sister’s keeper when she can keep herself.Because that's what women want, to be independent, right? Read the whole thing.
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.