Feminism Unveiled

Last week, feminists rallied in Washington and lobbied Congress to prevent the elimination of federal funding for a private business. This business’ primary reason for existence is to perform abortions. Representative Louise Slaughter of New York ratcheted up the hyperbole to defamatory levels by stating, “Now they’re (referring to Republicans) here to kill women.” Obviously, Representative Slaughter needs to see a side-by-side comparison of the number of humans killed at the hands of the Republican Congressional delegation (presumably zero) as opposed to the number of slayings by Planned Parenthood (definitely millions). Maybe she could slip an earmark into the revised budget to fund research to resolve her confusion.

Leaving aside the debate over the legality or morality of abortion, conscientious citizens should question why this funding even exists as an issue. How can anyone constitutionally justify funding a private business? Why is one that facilitates sexual acts without unintended consequences worthy of subsidies? One should notice that these blowhards cannot cite any clause in the Constitution mandating that Uncle Sam contribute to the cost of women’s and girls’ birth control and of their abortions after those measures fail or they failed to use them.

Federal funding of Planned Parenthood serves as fodder for militant supporters of teen girls engaging in sexual acts then aborting the unwanted consequences. Planned Parenthood does nothing which a private enterprise could do without any governmental subsidies. Pharmacies sell contraception and pregnancy tests, often after business hours and on weekends and holidays when Planned Parenthood’s locations are closed. In order to display some intellectual honesty, should not they demand that funding go to businesses which provide the same goods and services as Planned Parenthood at more accessible times for the general public?

Why do self-proclaimed advocates for women’s rights obsess over facilitating abortion while failing to address issues such as polygyny, wife-beating, marriage of child brides, female genital mutilation, wearing of suffocating and dehumanizing clothing? Do they fear threats or violence from Islamists who regularly torment fighters for rights of women and girls throughout the Islamic bloc? Do feminists remain ignorant of these crimes committed against women and girls under Sharia? Do they excuse brutality inflicted on female Mohamadans as mere “cultural differences” that must be tolerated within the Free World? Why do they equate a lack of taxpayer dollars underwriting abortionists to American society being outrageously misogynistic? Are they blind to the plethora of freedom that they enjoy compared to the second class status of their sisters under Islamic regimes? It seems that their allegiance to political correctness and nanny-statism outweighs any concern for the lives and liberties of women and girls.

If feminists truly valued all of those of the feminine gender, their priorities would include diverting funds from businesses like Planned Parenthood to pressing concerns affecting women and girls. Increased focus of law enforcement agencies is necessary to respond to rampant incidents of anti-female violence. Mohamadan men are brutalizing and eventually killing their female relatives for being raped, refusing to hide under tent-like outfits, dating infidels, listening to music or otherwise not conforming to Islam. Also, Mohamadan families are transporting their girls out of the country to undergo mutilation of their genitals. Increasingly, Mohamadans are setting up clandestine networks to perform the gruesomely cruel Islamic ritual that scars women for life. Even the most hardcore libertarians and progressives should agree that a government must intercede in such cases to protect the lives and human rights of female victims of Islam. Now, feminists must decide if their notion of women’s rights extends beyond extracting taxpayers’ money to dispose of the results of irresponsible sexual activity.