Obama Foments a War of Women against Women

Apparently, this administration and liberal media saw women as strictly and solely abortion seekers. The “War on Women” narrative hasn’t worked, but they still hope that a war between women will. Photo: iStockphoto.com

WASHINGTON, November 2, 2012 — As the presidential race tightens, the Democratic National Committee and liberal media headlines are once again back to screeching about some imagined war on women. But there never was a real war on women, only a war between women fomented by Team Obama and pro-abortion media.

Team Obama assumed pandering to a generation of women—brought up in a throw-away culture of non-return bottles and returnable babies—would easily defeat women raised on traditional values and personal responsibility. Oops.

At a recent debate, the “rape exception” question was posed to pro-life Senate candidate Richard Mourdock. He responded, “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Just a bit of distortion allowed abortion-hungry media and politicians to morph Mourdock’s response into the false impression that he believes rape is a gift from God. The war on women was back with a vengeance. The NY Times immediately linked the remarks to the presidential race with “Rape Remark Jolts a Senate Race, and the Presidential One, Too.”

Barack Obama, once again running as the defender of women, elbowed his way to be among the first in line to condemn Mourdock’s comments about God and life as “outrageous and demeaning to women.“ Really?

Well, of course: A pro-abortionist never misses a chance to politicize the horror of a woman being raped in order to advance the cause of freedom to terminate the preborn—not as an exception, but for any reason at all. That’s how you defend women … I guess.

But strip away all the fancy window dressing, and all that’s left is “pro-choice” abortion industry activists and politicians who exploit female rape victims. The inconvenient truth that the innocent child conceived in rape had “no choice” is ignored.

(The Rev. Jesse Jackson used to agree that life is a gift from God until he saw a political future in the opposite position. Does Jackson think the world would be a better place without people like him or abolitionist Frederick Douglass? Both Jackson and Douglass were conceived in rape. I think both mothers were women … but I wasn’t actually there.)

After all, politicians don’t have to live with aborting their own children; the traumatized mother does for the rest of her life. It doesn’t matter that the unborn child—male or female—isn’t the criminal; nor does killing that child punish the rapist. Abortion is packaged and sold as freedom and the easy fix for the tragedy of rape.

But, how are women’s rights protected by calling respect for God and all innocent life “outrageous and demeaning” to women?

Well, let’s see: This is the president who, as an Illinois state senator, voted twice to protect partial-birth abortion and voted twice against parental notification for minors.

Fast-breaking news: Mothers are women! Mothers know and care a lot more about their vulnerable daughters than government. Exploiting scared daughters and pitting them against their mothers denies them the support and wisdom of their moms.

And this helps moms and daughters (who, by the way, are women) how?

Coming between moms and daughters also exposes adolescent girls to pushers of sex and “quick-fix” abortions like Planned Parenthood—which just happens to be spending $15 million to get Obama re-elected. The same Planned Parenthood that is notorious for failing to report underage rape. (But I digress…Ouch, I’m getting a headache.)

President Obama even came out against the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which would ban sex-selection abortions, a practice occurring worldwide (including the United States) that results in female babies—preborn women—often being considered a “surplus pregnancy.”

Outrageous and demeaning to women? How about just plain deadly for women?

This is also the president who mandated, in Obamacare, that everyone will pay for abortion, contraception, and sterilization regardless of constitutionally protected religious freedom.

Might make sense if women were solely abortion seekers without the right of religious freedom. But, Obamacare forces women of conscience to help pay for the free abortions and contraceptives sought by other women. Who created that blue-on-blue war?

The narrative of a right-wing war on women didn’t work. However, we do know who is exploiting a war between women.

And just who is that person fanning the flames of strife between women for political gain? (OK, one hint: The first letter of his last name looks like a circle.)

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Common Sense
blog comments powered by Disqus
Paul E. Rondeau

Paul E. Rondeau's research and writing on social issures has appeared in law journals, private publications, and  the popular press.  His work has been cited at the U.S. Supreme Court, United Nations and by best-selling authors.  He serves as executive director at American Life League.  He can be contacted at prondeau@all.org.


Contact Paul E. Rondeau


Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus