In the New Yorker‘s HAS LIMBAUGH IDENTIFIED THE G.O.P.’S WOMAN PROBLEM? writer Amy Davidson calls out Rush Limbaugh’s rude remarks about Sandra Fluke, but then seems to get confused.
First she misconstrues the amendment being debated.
“The Blunt amendment… would have given employers broad leeway to dispense with contraceptive coverage on religious or ‘moral’ grounds.”
This is incorrect. According to an article on the amendment by the Washington Post, the bill would have allowed employers to drop coverage of drugs they deemed morally problematic. But then the insurance company would have to continue offering the drugs. And the insurance plans would be paid for by… employers.
Next she confuses opposition to violations of religious liberty and property rights for war.
Its opponents said that it [the Blunt amendment] was a war on women. It’s looking as though the one defense Republicans have for that charge is that it’s not about women, because they don’t care whether it hurts women or not. Women are the equivalent of civilian casualties in an indiscriminate ideological carpet-bombing campaign.
I have another defense against the claim that objecting to the mandate amounts to a war on women. Objecting to having your money taken from you at gunpoint and used to buy something for anyone else, whether it’s birth control for women or yeast for bakers, does not signal a declaration of war on women or bakers. If anything’s a declaration of war, it’s the taking of the money at gunpoint, not the objecting to the taking.
I’m also confused about how a desire to protect and defend both religious liberty and property rights constitutes an “indiscriminate ideological carpet-bombing campaign.” Heck, I’m not even sure what that means.
Supporting the mandate requires that you value forcing employers to offer health insurance that covers contraception over religious liberty and property rights. Objecting to it means just the opposite. Let’s stop pretending it means you hate women.