Elizabeth Warren is often treated as the ideological leader of the Democrat Party. A few days ago she made a speech on the Senate floor attacking "rightwing" efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. A few quick comments:
She asked Republicans if they knew what year it is. Did they wake up in 1950 or 1890s?
It's unclear what's special about those dates. What does that allude to? Before Roe v. Wade? Before the 19th Amendment?
She referred to a "highly edited video."
To begin with, the same organization released the unedited video. In addition, it has released 5 videos (and counting). So her statement is misleading, uninformed, and out-of-date.
She asked why so many people use Planned Parenthood?
Of course, that's a circular appeal. They use it because Planned Parenthood receives so much Federal funding. If that funding was diverted to different healthcare clinics, people would switch to other clinics instead.
She accused Republicans of changing the law to let employers deny women's access to birth control.
i) To begin with, that wasn't about female contraceptives, but contraceptives generally. It is sexist for her to single out woman. What about male contraceptives?
ii) Why should employers be forced to take money away from employees who don't buy contraceptives to subsidize employees who do? Why should some employees have less take-home pay to subsidize the recreational activities of other employees?
iii) No one was denying women access to contraceptives. Rather, the question is whether someone else is supposed to subsidize your sex life.
iv) She retreated into generic euphemisms like "healthcare." But if she believes in a right to abortion, why is she so afraid to call it what it is: a mother's right to kill her own baby?
This is not about "healthcare" in general, but abortion in particular. Indeed, it's about human vivisection. Involuntary organ harvesting. Trafficking in baby corpses.
But, of course, that's harder to defend than vanilla euphemisms like "women's healthcare."
She said only 3% of Planned Parenthood services go to abortion. But even honest liberals admit that's a bogus statistic:
Finally, she said the effort to defund Planned Parenthood represents "attack on women's rights." An attempt to "take away a woman's right to control her own body" or "strip away women's rights to make choices over our own bodies."
i) For starters, this isn't a legal ban on women's behavior. It just means not forcing wage-earners to subsidize abortion, as well as involuntary organ harvesting, through their tax dollars. This isn't a legal dress code for women. It doesn't outlaw women driving cars. It doesn't criminalize anything women currently do.
ii) Why does Warren imagine women have no control over their own bodies unless somebody else foots the bill for their lifestyle choices? Does she think all women should be kept women?
Why are there so many unwanted pregnancies in the first place? In the overwhelming number of cases, women become pregnant through consensual activity that's naturally designed to impregnate women. If that results in so many unwanted pregnancies, then the problem is not with Republicans controlling women's bodies, but women who lack self-control.
iii) And if this is really about a woman's right to control her own body, Warren should defend the right of girls in utero to have control over their own bodies. The right of girls in utero to make choices affecting their own bodies. Why does Warren think people should be entitled to attack girls in the womb? Why does she defend violence against baby girls?