President Trump Has Not Threatened Any Women’s Rights

In light of today’s Women’s Social Gatherings Rights Marches across the country,  a deep dive into the angst that caused these get-togethers might be fruitful.

I challenge readers to name a single right that President Trump has threatened to take away from women. The truth is that Donald Trump has not threatened a single right that women have. He is certainly guilty of making disparaging remarks towards many women and this should neither be promoted nor endorsed.

However looking at his actions in context shows that he is likely no different than many past presents with respect to his personal proclivities. This comparison is not a justification of his actions, but instead a question why such politicians as John Edwards, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton did not evoke similar marches and to this day are touted as paragons of liberalism. Consider such liberal paragons as John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton:

  • John F. Kennedy: Notable extramarital affairs include Marilyn Monroe, Angie Dickinson, Judith Exner Campbell, Blaze Starr and white house secretaries Priscilla Weir and Jill Cowan. He objectified and womanized them, even referring to Weir and Cowan as “Fiddle and Faddle.” The Atlantic published an article titled ‘JFK’s Womanizing: Why Americans Just Don’t Care‘ and referred to him as a “notorious philanderer.”
  • Bill Clinton: Well known for “many long term hookups with women,” including Gennifer Flowers, along with “a staff member […], a lawyer who was a Clinton appointee to a judgeship; a prominent judges wife; a reporter; an employee at an Arkansas Power company, and a sales clerk at a Little Rock department store.” The mind need not wander far before becoming overwhelmed by the number of potential Bill Clinton affairs and sexual assaults that have reached the public.

Why is this equivalency fair? Women gathering today feel in some way threatened by Trump despite the fact that he has not proposed to take away any of their rights. We must infer that they are threatened by his rhetoric and conflating it with actual policy decisions. To the extent that Trump’s actions towards women are interpreted as threatening, the womanizing and objectification of women by JFK and Bill Clinton are at the very least comparable, if not more severe. Thus we reach a valid equivalency and wonder at why women march now but did not march at Bill Clinton’s inauguration.

If you would like further reading regarding immoral and detestable presidents and their womanizing scandals, consider the following articles:

The volume of material that exists because of the actions of our nation’s leaders is deeply upsetting. And we have only considered presidents- needless to say this behavior could extend to many policymakers in Washington.

Now that the women’s marches are staged against the proper context, we can return to the question of just what rights are threatened to be taken away from women?

Unfortunately, the march/protest does little to clarify. I looked at a number of pictures taken from the protests and examined the posters that participants held for clues as to what rights they fear losing and only found the following:

Women march in Boston. Source:
  • “Sisterhood IS Powerful”
  • “Ovaries before brovaries. Uteruses before duderuses”
  • “RESIST”
Protesters in D.C. Source:
Protesters in D.C. Source:



The march drew media attention as expected and for this reason it was a great opportunity for participants to present legitimate points on the world’s stage. From what I can see they failed by instead reverting to ubiquitous and vague slogans.

Failing to find evidence or mention of any specific rights that women who participated in the march fear President Trump will take away from them, I took to the internet to read articles that might contain actual points.

The pro-choice group “NARAL” created a list of Trump’s policy positions on reproductive rights and women’s equality. Lets take a closer look at their points:

“Trump wants to completely ban abortion, with exceptions only for rape, incest, or when the life of a woman is in danger. He’s backed this up by showing support for a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.”

How does supporting a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy back up the statement that Trump wants to completely ban abortion? This is a ban refers to elective abortions, and only to those that occur 20 weeks after pregnancy. It doesn’t sound like he favors completely banning abortion if he supports allowing it for up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. Am I missing something? Furthermore, aside from situations in which a woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, what other situations that might arise? It seems that the remainder of potential scenarios in which a pregnancy might occur could be avoided (with 99.9% effectiveness) by the use of condoms. Yes. We are talking about responsibility. Who doesn’t have access to condoms? Target sells 36 condoms for $18.69. If a couple engages in sex twice a week, they would be completely covered with an annual expense of $50.67. The best part is that this solution does not require murder and it does not require tax-payer dollars. There is only one requisite- responsibility.

“Trump says he’ll make it a priority to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The ACA has made it possible for millions of people to get health insurance that includes coverage for birth control at no additional cost and prenatal care.”

I have already written extensively about why healthcare is not a human right here. NARAL has also taken issue with the fact that Obamacare provided coverage for birth control. Does every American have the right to government subsidized birth control? Of course not. If a couple does not wish to become pregnant, it is their responsibility to take appropriate measures and assume the responsibility that their actions may have unintended consequences. Why should my taxpayer dollars fund birth control? What right is being taken away here? Is it the right to birth control that taxpayers buy for you? That is not a right and birth control will still be widely available as a result of the free-market.

“Trump would have preferred to shut down the government rather than fund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood provides low-cost family-planning services, cancer screenings, and other health to millions of people every year.”

Again, what right is going to be eliminated for women? Planned Parenthood can still exist by leveraging outside donations and moving away from its current for-profit structure. Where in The Constitution does it state that our government will pay for abortions?

“Trump has pledged to nominate anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court. He reiterated this promise to Bill O’Reilly after being the presumptive GOP nominee. This could destroy access to reproductive health care for generations.”

This is so overly-sensational. Access to reproductive health will never not exist. It might not be paid for by the government but it will always exist.


So it is clear that Donald Trump has not actually threatened to take away any rights. Leftists would benefit from reviewing the Bill of Rights for a quick refresher on what the government is obligated to do. Beyond that, simple decency and responsibility can prevent the need for electable abortions to arise, which is great news! Even if the government would pay for these under Obama’s administration, basic ethical values and decency ensured that everyone did everything they could to avoid this… right?




Healthcare is NOT a Right

Healthcare is not a right.

Admittedly this statement sounds cruel. I think, and hope, that we all agree in wanting everyone to have good health. In other words nobody wants to deny an individual the healthcare that they need. However good laws generally result from the principals outlined in our Constitution and those that are the result of emotions rarely prove effective, fair, and sustainable.

Before we examine why healthcare is not a basic right, lets indulge in a brief refresher on what are our basic rights, originating from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

In the Declaration of Independence published in 1776, Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers put forth that all men are created equal with unalienable rights such as LifeLiberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Our Constitution has been modified throughout the past 200 years, though perhaps most notable with the Bill of Rights (ratified in 1791) to place limits government authority. The Bill of Rights outlined 10 amendments:

  1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
  2. Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
  3. No quartering of soldiers.
  4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
  5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
  6. Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
  7. Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
  8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
  9. Other rights of the people. (Total Conservative Note: potentially affirming unremunerated rights)
  10. Powers reserved to the states.

Each of these aforementioned rights is a negative right, which means that they obligate the government to inaction rather than action.1 According to Wikiepedia,

“a negative right entitles a person or group not to be subjected to the action of another person or group.”

Given that the Bill of Rights was written with the intention of limiting government to prevent it from abusing power, that the rights therein are negative is the only reasonable interpretation.

The distinction between negative and positive rights is important because negative rights do not obligate the government to such actions as protecting people from robberies or murders, or to offering welfare. Issues of welfare are positive rights, and they inherently occur at the expense of other people or groups as they require things of those people or groups.

This is where we arrive at the issue of healthcare.

There is no Constitutional right to healthcare. As a United States citizen, there is no obligation of the government to provide your healthcare or any other welfare for that matter. Ben Shapiro, editor at the and Harvard Law School graduate, framed universal healthcare succinctly and irrefutably in an article he recently penned for the National Review.1

The article was prompted by this pointed Twitter exchange between Shapiro and Bernie Sanders:

As Shapiro elaborated over at The Daily Wire and National Review,

“I was pointing out that medical care is a commodity, and that in life, we are often faced with commodities we cannot afford. But this mere observation caused a ruckus on the left.”

This is a valid claim yet many liberals will be quick to demonize this undeniably factual statement. We all recognize that without doctors there is no medical care. Medical care is a service that doctors and medical professionals perform, and on what basis can a person demand this service from a medical professional? The leftist moral justification of healthcare’s necessity making it a right ignores the rights of others. In fact demanding or being entitled to healthcare violates the rights and freedoms of the individuals from whom this service is demanded and must be provided.

On a moral level there is nothing worthy of contention. We would be hard pressed to find someone in favor of taking away another citizen’s good health. Liberals should recognize that their disagreement with conservatives centers around the solution to this problem. They believe the solution is government intervention and that healthcare is somehow a positive right guaranteed through the Declaration of Independence’s “pursuit of happiness. For how could one be free to pursue happiness without good health? However countless examples around the globe and here at home evince how governments and the US government have and will continue to fail to solve this problem.

To conclude with finality, I will once again quote Shapiro’s article at the National Review which concisely buries the notion of effective government healthcare. I encourage you all to read the full article here.

To make a commodity cheaper and better, two elements are necessary: profit incentive and freedom of labor. The government destroys both of these elements in the health-care industry. It decides medical reimbursement rates for millions of Americans, particularly poor Americans; this, in turn, creates an incentive for doctors not to take government-sponsored health insurance. It regulates how doctors deal with patients, the sorts of training doctors must undergo, and the sorts of insurance they must maintain; all of this convinces fewer Americans to become doctors. Undersupply of doctors generally and of doctors who will accept insurance specifically, along with overdemand stimulated by government-driven health-insurance coverage, leads to mass shortages. The result is an overreliance on emergency care, costs for which are distributed among government, hospitals, and insurance payers.