Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

The Blue & Gray Press | August 22, 2019

Scroll to top


Democrats Distract from Policy Issues

As the election count-down begins, the Obama administration continually reminds me of the rights he guarantees my gender and the persecution I’ll face if Romney is elected. I don’t know why, as a woman, I’m made to feel guilty for not condemning the GOP and outright demanding free birth control under the guise of equal rights and reproductive freedom.

The so-called “War on Women” is fiction, fabricated by the Democratic Party. Contraception was readily available before Obama came into office, and it still would be under a Romney administration.

Ultimately, its purpose is to divert attention from our stagnant economy and high unemployment rates. And unfortunately, it’s working.

As a woman, I find the manipulation of my gender for political gain to be both absurd and insulting. If we’re truly seeking betterment of women, then the Democratic Party is sending me mixed messages.


In April, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen claimed Ann Romney couldn’t comment on economic issues because “she has never worked a day in her life.” Is this not also an attack on women? Rosen essentially classified stay-at-home mothers as unproductive and uninformed citizens. By doing so, she made them voiceless on national issues, seemingly violating the cause of her own Party’s fight.

Furthermore, the Obama-era unemployment crisis is an existential threat to women’s security and place in society. According to the American Labor Report, of 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them belonged to women. Perhaps we should be evaluating why our gender is being summoned for war on the Republican Party when the issues at stake in the upcoming presidential election are far from reproductive rights.

Romney is a moderate conservative on the issue of abortion. He supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and when the life of a mother is in jeopardy. Additionally, he maintains that abortion should be a state-regulated issue.

Romney is also not going to outlaw contraceptives but rather return to typical practice, in which people are responsible for their own – available in drug stores, Walmart, Planned Parenthood or online. Birth control is cheap and readily available to everyone and has been for decades.

Fighting to ensure rights we already have is a waste of time. Obama has created $6 trillion in new debt and is hurting men and women alike. As a woman, I am not afraid for my uterus. As an American, I am afraid what four more years of the Obama administration will mean for my future.



  1. Common Sense

    Perfectly stated. The Democratic party seems to believe that they can manipulate women (college-aged, especially) with fear tactics and false accusations. I hope everyone remembers how little (if any) impact the Executive branch ever has on social issues, and votes based on foreign policy and economics, which the POTUS actually can effect. Congress will NEVER outlaw abortion, so whether or not the President is personally pro-life or pro-choice is a moot point. It’s just another ploy to distract from the Obama administration’s dozens of failed policies that as mentioned in the article, jeopardize men and women alike.

    Oh, and for anyone that questions the FACT that the POTUS has little effect on social issues, please note that even though President Obama openly supported gay marriage this year, there is not a constitutional amendment legalizing it.

  2. Han Brolo

    I wish someone would post some sources. We are in college and (hopefully) smart enough to tell rhetoric from logic. This might give you some insight on the president’s effect on social change and it is done by a reputable institution:

    This took me exactly 4 minutes to find.

  3. eb

    The POTUS can certainly influence social issues, as he did in providing contraceptives to women via healthcare. Also, the proposed budget is one of the most powerful social policy shaping actions in all of government, allowing eg the Violence Against Women Act (harshly opposed by Republicans), providing government funded violence prevention programs, battered women’s shelters.

    The key though is the availability of abortion which has massive implications for the crime rate. Less money would be partitioned to abortion clinic availability under Romney, leading to more women in destitute situations having to give birth, and more children with parents without proper means to care for them. These children grow up vastly more likely to commit crimes. When their parents posses another option, crime rates fall, as they did in 1985-1997 in states with high abortion availability.

  4. G Bucello

    I’ve said this before, but I cannot even begin to understand why we characterize ourselves as at war with those who we disagree with. I will certainly side with the author on one thing: there is no war on women. All that we’re seeing is a perfectly legitimate debate over the role of government in issues of health and family. The answers are, of course, not easy. If they were, this debate would be far shorter and far less heated, and the solutions would have been implemented. But characterizing Republican policies as a “war on women” do nothing to actually advance Democratic policies, with the possible exception of getting themselves elected. It also doesn’t help to dismiss the entire Democratic platform on social issues as a “distraction” either. This election is mainly about the economy, as many elections tend to be, but social issues always have and always will shape opinions at the voting booth, and the government’s impact on them is as real as anything else.