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:
- Salon: The 7 biggest presidential scandals in American history
- The Atlantic: JFK’s Womanizing: Why Americans Just Don’t Care
- The Huffington Post: Presidential Affairs that Shook ‘America’s Least Faithful City’
- The New York Times: The President Under Fire: The History; 14 Presidents Have Been The Talk of the Pillow
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:
- “LOVE NOT HATE MAKES AMERICA GREAT!”
- “Sisterhood IS Powerful”
- “Ovaries before brovaries. Uteruses before duderuses”
- “LITERALLY EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS IS SO AWFUL THAT I HAVE NOWHERE TO EVEN START”
- “WE WON’T GO BACK”
- “INTERSECTIONAL FEMINISM OR BUST: BLACK TRANS MUSLIM LATINX […] Women”
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?