The Obama Admission That Wasn’t


You know, even with the flagrant dishonesty of the Worldnetdaily, this article, entitled Obama Admits Waging ‘War on Men,’ manages to stand out. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that there was no such admission and that the issue, in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with this mythical “war on men.”

While the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of the Obamacare contraception mandate, the real goal of the provision appears to have very little to do with providing affordable birth control.

After combing through Obama administration documents in the Federal Register, National Center for Public Policy Research Chairwoman Amy Ridenour said the administration’s official justification for the policy is very different than the reasons often stated publicly.

“While the president went out in the East Room and gave a speech saying that the purpose of the HHS mandate is to help lower-income women afford birth control, in the HHS documents themselves, they talk about something else entirely and that is that the purpose of the mandate is to reduce economic and social disparities between men and women,” Ridenour said.

“This is an official legal document. They do not talk about the need to help lower-income people afford birth control. They do not say things like birth control may only be $9 a month, but if you make $9 an hour that’s a lot of money. No, what they talk about over and over and over again is gender disparity. It sounds like a women’s studies class,” she said.

On Planet Wingnuttia, adopting a policy to give women more control of their own reproduction so they can finish their educations and build careers is a “war on men.” You know, just like ending segregation and discrimination was a “war on white people.” There isn’t even a pretense of rationality or honesty to this. They aren’t even pretending anymore. They’ll just lie and lie and lie, safe in the knowledge that their readership will never notice and, if they did. wouldn’t care.

Comments

  1. says

    Freedom is a zero sum game to these people. If women gain more freedom and opportunity, it can only come about by taking freedom away from white Christian men, who are already the most oppressed group in the world.

  2. Numenaster says

    <sarcasm> Yup, white Christian men are so oppressed and beat down, it’s a wonder we hear from any of them at all. They certainly aren’t anywhere to be found in political leadership positions, or the ranks of the very wealthy. <sarcasm off>

  3. D. C. Sessions says

    Freedom Everything is a zero sum game to these people.

    FTFY.

    For the plutocrats, it’s all about social status — which is relative and indeed a zero-sum game. There’s only so much you can do in the way of comfort and conspicuous consumption, after the first few million a day you just run out of time.

    For the Base, it’s the fact that we’re no long in the “Land of Opportunity.” There are fewer good jobs every year, and what there are aren’t in practice open to everyone (if nothing else, the educational requirements keep getting harder to meet.) And that makes the competition at the bottom fiercer. Which is why rednecks have always been the greatest bigots: without the color premium they’d be competing with former slaves for subsistence at slave wages (and the slaves had more practice.)

  4. Michael Heath says

    Re the ‘zero sum’ quips: This is another illustration on how illiterate conservative Christians are when it comes to science and economics. Even Mitt Romney made such idiotic, ignorant arguments when he was running for president in 2012, all the while claiming he understood economics and the president didn’t. As did Rick Santorum.

  5. says

    Sure, nine bucks doesn’t sound like a lot, but since women make 77% what men make, to them it’s, like, twelve ladybucks!

     
    Alternately:
    Thank goodness dick pills are covered, or they might lose their hateboner.

  6. eric says

    If there is a war on men, it isn’t going very well.

    On a less sacrastic note, I agree with all the zero sum comments.

    For the plutocrats, it’s all about social status — which is relative and indeed a zero-sum game.

    I agree this is a factor, but its not one which should necessarily be leading to keeping people in poverty. We are talking about basic things here, such as being able to afford medical care, a house, a car, etc… There is plenty of room between the middle class and the upper class so that there should be no social status pressure to even have a lower class. Put simply, nobody at the top should feel their social status challenged by those at the bottom going from earning a legal minumum of $7.25/hour to, say, $15-20/hour.

  7. D. C. Sessions says

    We are talking about basic things here, such as being able to afford medical care, a house, a car, etc… There is plenty of room between the middle class and the upper class so that there should be no social status pressure to even have a lower class. Put simply, nobody at the top should feel their social status challenged by those at the bottom going from earning a legal minumum of $7.25/hour to, say, $15-20/hour.

    For the Kochs, it’s pretty much impossible to increase their own situation. It is, however, possible to make everyone else worse off. So yes, having the teeming masses do without medical care, sex, clothing, shelter, food, etc. does make them better off in a relative way.

  8. blf says

    [I]f you take away lies, what else will the wingnuts have?

    Stupidity, intransigence, totalitarianism, kleptomania, …

    Religion and delusion would be rather curtailed, however.

  9. says

    D. C. Sessions “So yes, having the teeming masses do without medical care, sex, clothing, shelter, food, etc. does make them better off in a relative way.”
    What’s the point of climbing to the top of the economic ladder if you can’t pull it up after you?

  10. LightningRose says

    What the Reich Wing always forgets in the contraception debate is that free contraception for women is also free contraception for *men*; thus relieving men from the financial burden of paying child support for children they didn’t want either.

    Of course, what this is really about is controlling and punishing women for their slutty behavior, again forgetting that it requires men to assist in said behavior.

  11. D. C. Sessions says

    What’s the point of climbing to the top of the economic ladder if you can’t pull it up after you?

    If you pull it up after you, how are you going to have anyone’s face to kick?

  12. freehand says

    Of course, what this is really about is controlling and punishing women for their slutty behavior, again forgetting that it requires men to assist in said behavior.
    .
    Well, we men aren’t really responsible for our behavior when it comes to women. Eves of temptation, all of ‘em. Of course, we can’t let them have positions of power. They obviously are ill equipped to make decisions.

  13. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @7. eric :

    I agree this is a factor, but its not one which should necessarily be leading to keeping people in poverty. We are talking about basic things here, such as being able to afford medical care, a house, a car, etc… (nip) .. Put simply, nobody at the top should feel their social status challenged by those at the bottom going from earning a legal minumum of $7.25/hour to, say, $15-20/hour.

    Yes, agreed here.

    However, whilst I am not an economist, what about inflation and the likelihood that a rise in the minimum wage means price of goods and services rises everywhere and in real terms the buying power of the money stays the same or even drops?

    We need to find a solution for this problem don’t we – a better way to close the income gap and make society more equitable – not sure how we could bets do that though. Note :I do think the minimum wage should rise.

  14. freehand says

    StevoR: We need to find a solution for this problem don’t we – a better way to close the income gap and make society more equitable – not sure how we could bets do that though
    .
    Well, I’m OK with the 90% income tax on the very rich which we saw in the Eisenhower administration – to start with. The US was prosperous(1), and income inequality was much smaller. However, multimillionaires are tricksy creatures, and they have other ways of concentrating money without it looking like taxable income.
    ..
    The world is in serious danger,(2) and our greatest threat is not other, hostile countries, but rather the new feudal lords, who are protecting the status quo(3) with bribed politicians, control of the media, and sleazy but possibly legal business practices.(4)
    .
    (1) Yes, I know. Much of that prosperity was because all industrialized nations except the US & Canada had had their factories bombed to Hell and back.
    (2) Global warming, ocean acidification, tropospheric ozone, depleted mined resources, etc.
    (3) Capitalism I suppose, but not free enterprise.
    (4) Such as bribing legislators to criminalize competitive new technologies.

  15. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @ ^ freehand : Sounds like a good idea – although the 1% being super rich I’m sure a lot of the money is locked away in tax havens and they have all the dodges, loopholes and lawyers to fight this with. But yes.

  16. Crimson Clupeidae says

    I’ve seen it suggested that tax at the upper ranges be extended to wealth, not just income. This seems like a good idea on the surface, but I’m not sure if it wouldn’t have some unforeseen consequences on the economy.

Leave a Reply