Women are Losing Their Jobs—Not Their Birth Control

In a post on Monday, I wrote that the GOP desperately needs to do something about the “war on women” narrative and its impact on elections, such as the gubernatorial race in Virginia between Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

One suggestion is to cut through all the rhetoric about abortion and birth control pills and shout from the rooftops that women are losing jobs because of the Democrats.

Women who need to support their families, feed their children, and send their kids to college can’t do so because Democratic policies are shrinking the job force. Last month, 154,000 fewer women held jobs than in August. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, female participation in the labor force is at a 24-year low!

Yet the big concern for women in Virginia is birth control—and not even the demand for free birth control for poor people (who, by the way, already get free contraception under government family planning programs like Title X), but the right to keep their pills under the law—a concern that is completely unfounded.

The Democratic Party is spending millions on ads telling women that Cuccinelli’s past support of personhood laws – designed to provide a legal remedy to parents if an unborn child is killed by the negligent or criminal act of a third party — is really a ruse to ban all birth control pills.

The assumption is that if a law is passed saying that life begins at conception, abortifacient pills will be banned. No one mentions that OB-GYN physicians disagree on the abortifiacient nature of most pills, and that some pills don’t cause abortions at all.

No one mentions that Cuccinelli himself has made it clear that he “does not believe the government should regulate contraception and supported this legislation because he is pro-life, and this bill would protect innocent life.”

Cuccinelli has repeatedly emphasized that the legislation he supported simply “defined life and had no language or reference to any form of contraception or any access to contraception.” The bill was about helping grieving parents find justice, not about banning birth control pills.

No one mentions that there is a law already on the books protecting a woman’s right to contraception. Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark 1965 Supreme Court case that secured a couple’s right to use contraception based on privacy rights, would have to be overturned for women to be denied their right to contraception.

In other words, ladies of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli can’t come for your birth control pills like a thief in the night. You can stop clinging to your 28-day packs and relax. Worry about the job market—which is the real threat to your well-being—not imaginary fears that men are going to take away your pills, impregnate you, and chain you to the kitchen. That isn’t going to happen.

What is going to happen is that you are going to find yourself unemployed because of Democratic policies. You’re not going to be able to buy the food you want at the grocery store, or order clothes online, or buy gas to take your kids to soccer practice because you won’t have the money. That is what you need to be concerned about—not fairy tales about birth control villains.

Obama told you to “vote like your lady parts depended on it.” I’m asking you to stop thinking with your lady parts, and vote like your pocketbook depends on it!

  1. Duane Oyen

    So the Obama position is that women should be seen and not heard (based on the reported sexism in the White House power structure), unemployed, and not pregnant?

  2. D.C. McAllister
    C
    Duane Oyen: So the Obama position is that women should be seen and not heard (based on the reported sexism in the White House power structure), unemployed, and not pregnant? · 1 minute ago

    Looks like it. Think the message with get through to women?

  3. Jeff

    There are only two ways to calm a people’s fear: (1) make them believe they won’t experience the thing feared, or (2) make them believe they can deal easily with the thing feared.

    I continue explain: this is a problem of rhetoric not logic. Your discussion about the law and judicial precedents will be entirely unpersuasive. Few on the other side will believe that a governor cannot find a pretext to override  law and judicial precedent.

    IMHO, the best way to proceed is by admission. “Yes, I  support neither the use of contraception nor the use of abortion. However, as a principled limited government governor, I am legally and morally obligated to restrain government from interfering with you private choices as defined by the courts.”

    This simultaneously admits the fears people have, and explains how limited government allows them to avoid the fear or deal with it easily.

    Ron Paul was pro-life. He took the tack I suggest above, and I daresay the vast majority of his supporters were pro-choice and swing voters. 

  4. D.C. McAllister
    C
    Jeff: IMHO, the best way to proceed is by admission. “Yes, I  support neither the use of contraception nor the use of abortion. However, as a principled limited government governor, I am legally and morally obligated to restrain government from interfering with you private choices as defined by the courts.”

    Cuccinelli seems to have said basically this many times as far as the birth control issue goes.

    I’d also like to add that Romney said this in the election. The war on women still went on. Even Rick Santorum who said he was against women using contraception, said he would not seek to overturn it in the courts. It’s the law of the land… no one listened.

  5. MichaelC19fan

    I am sorry to say this but the post understates what these Personhood Laws/Amendments are about. They are not about legal remedies if an unborn child is killed. There are laws that deal specifically with that including in Pro-Choice bastions such as California, Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts to name a few. The Pro-Life movement has pushed these Personhood Laws to ban abortion and they freely admit it. For example,

    1: When South Dakota passed a Personhood Law, Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D., legal analyst for Personhood USA, continued: “The North Dakota personhood amendment takes the pro-life plank of the GOP platform and puts it into practice. Furthermore, it allows the legislature the needed flexibility to implement the specific protections of the right to life through future legislation.”

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-north-dakota-passes-first-ever-personhood-amendment

    2: The person behind a Personhood Amendment that loss in Mississippi stated:

    “This amendment is a common sense approach to protecting both babies and women from the devastation of abortion,” 

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/personhood-measure-filed-in-mississippi-fails-in-iowa

    -continued-

  6. MichaelC19fan

    -continued-

    The VA GOP knew the other side has successfully used the contraceptive issue and the issue such laws would ban abortion for rape/incest victims to defeat these measures even in Mississippi. Yet they still brought up this bill in 2012, along with other laws attempting to limit abortion. A much more narrowly focused law could of been passed with no controversy if the supposed issue was providing legal remedies. But the Pro-Life purists wanted VA to make a bold statement since their efforts in other states have mostly failed except for in South Dakota.

    Cuccinelli and company knew exactly what was going to happen this election season and yet just like Romney with Bain they were unprepared or assumed if they kept quiet it would go away.      

  7. Jeff
    D.C. McAllister

    Cuccinelli seems to have said basically this many times as far as the birth control issue goes.

    I’d also like to add that Romney said this in the election. The war on women still went on. Even Rick Santorum who said he was against women using contraception, said he would not seek to overturn it in the courts. It’s the law of the land… no one listened. 

    That’s all true. But the crucial element was missing in Romney and Santorum, and is missing in Cuccinelli – they do not really believe in limited government and everyone knows it!

    On the other hand, everyone really believed that Ron Paul was for limited government. You can’t get around the ethos of the speaker, DC. And this is where you keep going wrong. There is no magic message we can use, no publicity blitz we can spend million on, no add campaign that will make a new image.

    If the candidate lacks a limited government ethos, no one will believe the message. Ever. And that, DC, is the real problem.

    It’s the character of the candidate not just the message.

  8. D.C. McAllister
    C
    MichaelC19fan: -continued-

    Cuccinelli and company knew exactly what was going to happen this election season and yet just like Romney with Bain they were unprepared or assumed if they kept quiet it would go away.     

    You’re right. They certainly weren’t prepared. As for personhood laws, they can be a basis for anti-abortion legislation, but not birth control pills that don’t cause abortions. 

    And the point remains. Women are putting these “possibilities” above current, real-life threats to their well-being. Just as they did in 2012. They’re still voting with their lady parts and not their pocket books. That’s my point. They’d rather have the right to abort a child (a right that’s not even truly being threatened) than have money in their bank accounts to educate and feed their living kids. 

  9. jpark

    Jeff,

    I don’t think Cucc’s problem is that he does not really believe in limited government.

    The WaPo and other press don’t like him, and he’s getting barraged by negative ads.

  10. D.C. McAllister
    C
    Jeff

    D.C. McAllister

    I’d also like to add that Romney said this in the election. The war on women still went on. Even Rick Santorum who said he was against women using contraception, said he would not seek to overturn it in the courts. It’s the law of the land… no one listened. 

    That’s all true. But the crucial element was missing in Romney and Santorum, and is missing in Cuccinelli – they do not really believe in limited government and everyone knows it!

    On the other hand, everyone really believed that Ron Paul was for limited government. You can’t get around the ethos of the speaker, DC. And this is where you keep going wrong. There is no magic message we can use, no publicity blitz we can spend million on, no add campaign that will make a new image.

    If the candidate lacks a limited government ethos, no one will believe the message. Ever. 

    I’m not looking for a magic bullet, and I’m not saying Cuccinelli is the perfect candidate. I’m saying women have their priorities wrong, and the lies and the distortions of the left need to be answered, regardless. 

  11. MichaelC19fan
    D.C. McAllister

    You’re right. They certainly weren’t prepared. As for personhood laws, they can be a basis for anti-abortion legislation, but not birth control pills that don’t cause abortions. 

    There is scientific evidence that some birth control work through preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.  That is why the Pro-Abortion side hammers away on that issue. 

  12. D.C. McAllister
    C
    MichaelC19fan

    D.C. McAllister

    You’re right. They certainly weren’t prepared. As for personhood laws, they can be a basis for anti-abortion legislation, but not birth control pills that don’t cause abortions. 

    There is scientific evidence that some birth control work through preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.  That is why the Pro-Abortion side hammers away on that issue.  · in 0 minutes

    Yes. I didn’t say all birth control pills are nonabortive. Some definitely are. Please read the link in the post about this.

    Plus, my point is that it is controversial and not settled science for all pills. Not a fact, the way both sides use it for their own purposes.

  13. MichaelC19fan
    And the point remains. Women are putting these “possibilities” above current, real-life threats to their well-being.  · 3 minutes ago

    Edited 2 minutes ago

    One thing to keep in mind the women who think like that in Virginia live in Northern Virginia which thanks to Federal largesse going back to the Bush the Younger administration have felt zero effects from the Great Recession and stagnant recovery. In their minds if anything Cuccinelli being a R represents a greater threat to their economic well being due to the gov’t shutdown and sequestration.   

  14. Jeff
    D.C. McAllister

    I’m not looking for a magic bullet, and I’m not saying Cuccinelli is the perfect candidate. I’m saying women have their priorities wrong, and the lies and the distortions of the left need to be answered, regardless.

    I agree women have their priorities wrong. You need fifty years to tackle that problem, and we should tackle that problem.

    I agree, the lies of the left need to be answered. I’m simply adding that those answers will avail nothing unless our candidates are perfect limited government guys.

    As I point out in comment #3, that’s the only way to assuage the fears of misguided women voters.

  15. Look Away

    Virginia is in the same position New Jersey was decades ago. Living next to a huge financial city that attracted non-natives world wide was an economic boom at first, but as progressive policies and unionization slowly infiltrated the system, presto, you have the New Jersey of today, economic basket case. Washington DC is now the financial capital of the US and even many native Virginians “smell the money”. This is why the Dem. candidate is doing so well in NVA, many republicans support him out of simple greed; more government is more development. 

    It would be quite a boon for the Dems to make Virginia a blue state, just as they done to Maryland. Bloomberg is pumping $1MM in the election sensing an anti-gun victory. Given the make-up of what the Virginia Legislature should be, I don’t see it: Elimination of right to work would be sheer madness, as would CA style gun laws. 

  16. Plato

    Another rule of the Media Age, understood by the Democrats: Simplify!

    Fact: Candidate tried to pass a law that life begins at conception. Strategy: Make sure moderate voters know this. Tactic: Invent scary implications of such a law, and tie to candidate.

    Best way to combat the Democrats?

    Never advocate such a law in the first place!

  17. The King Prawn
    Jim_K: Another rule of the Media Age, understood by the Democrats: Simplify!

    Fact: Candidate tried to pass a law that life begins at conception. Strategy: Make sure moderate voters know this. Tactic: Invent scary implications of such a law, and tie to candidate.

    Best way to combat the Democrats?

    Never advocate such a law in the first place! · 0 minutes ago

    Again, abandoning our principles is no way to win elections.

  18. MichaelC19fan
    The King Prawn

    Jim_K: Another rule of the Media Age, understood by the Democrats: Simplify!

    Fact: Candidate tried to pass a law that life begins at conception.  Strategy: Make sure moderate voters know this. Tactic: Invent scary implications of such a law, and tie to candidate.

    Best way to combat the Democrats?

    Never advocate such a law in the first place! · 0 minutes ago

    Again, abandoning our principles is no way to win elections. · in 0 minutes

    Guess what some of these principles  are going to cost the GOP all the statewide offices in Virginia this November. The Democrats and their lap dogs in the MSM tried the same tactics in 2009 in VA but it failed, the GOP swept the election, because abortion and the like were dormant. So the GOP failed to follow Jim_K’s advice and they are about to be destroyed at the ballot box. One cannot blame this on RINOs because the GOP candidates were selected at a convention by hardcore activists.  

  19. Western Chauvinist
    D.C. McAllister

    Jeff: IMHO, the best way to proceed is by admission. “Yes, I  support neither the use of contraception nor the use of abortion. However, as a principled limited government governor, I am legally and morally obligated to restrain government from interfering with you private choices as defined by the courts.”

    Cuccinelli seems to have said basically this many times as far as the birth control issue goes.

    I’d also like to add that Romney said this in the election. The war on women still went on. Even Rick Santorum who said he was against women using contraception, said he would not seek to overturn it in the courts. It’s the law of the land… no one listened. 

    Makes you think maybe the problem isn’t with the message or the messenger, but with women willing to buy into this idiocy. It’s too flattering to say “they’re voting with their ‘lady’ parts.” It’s an insult to lady parts.

  20. D.C. McAllister
    C
    Western Chauvinist

    D.C. McAllister

    Jeff: IMHO, the best way to proceed is by admission. “Yes, I  support neither the use of contraception nor the use of abortion. However, as a principled limited government governor, I am legally and morally obligated to restrain government from interfering with you private choices as defined by the courts.”

    Cuccinelli seems to have said basically this many times as far as the birth control issue goes.

    I’d also like to add that Romney said this in the election. The war on women still went on. Even Rick Santorum who said he was against women using contraception, said he would not seek to overturn it in the courts. It’s the law of the land… no one listened. 

    Makes you think maybe the problem isn’t with the message or the messenger, but with women willing to buy into this idiocy. It’s too flattering to say “they’re voting with their ‘lady’ parts.” It’s an insult to lady parts. · 0 minutes ago

    That is my point. Thanks, WC.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In