Where politics is personal not partisan

An Open Letter to the Women of America

An Open Letter to the Women of America

Republicans are not waging a war against you.

I hope I’m not being too forward, but I’d like to speak to you about this alleged preoccupation you have with your lady-parts, and your alleged status as perpetual victims of the GOP. Democrats call this the “War on Women,” I call it a big fat lie.

As a woman, and a Republican, I listen to Democratic candidates talk about the “War on Women,” and accuse Republicans of “giving the back of their hand” to women, and I laugh. I laugh because it’s so absurd, I can hardly believe any woman believes it, and yet it seems many of you do. So it occurred to me that perhaps it’s because you haven’t had time to fact-check what you’re being told, or haven’t stopped to consider that maybe the stereotype of the Republican as someone hell-bent on forcing you to get and remain pregnant against your will, is bogus.

I also give you more credit than the Democrats do. I give you credit for being concerned about other issues, for being able to hold two or more thoughts in your head at the same time. For example, I’m pretty confident the average American woman can be concerned about her reproductive “rights,” foreign policy, immigration, and the economy at the same time. I’m also optimistic about your ability to think for yourself, and vote based on facts, not just fear.

With all that in mind, I decided to sit down and write to you about a few things that have been on my mind this mid-term election cycle. It is my sincere hope you will read the following points, and ask yourselves the following questions, before you cast your votes in November.

ObamaCare hurts you more than Hobby Lobby ever could.

When you wake up in the morning, is your first worry whether or not government will be able to continue to force your boss to pay for your birth control, or is it whether or not you’ll find a boss to pay you for anything, because you’re waking up to another day without a job?

If you’re a black woman, a single mother, or both, chances are it’s the latter. Although black women represented 12.5 percent of all American women workers in June 2009, in the two years following, black women accounted for more than 42 percent of jobs lost by all women. And according to Friday’s jobs report from the Labor Department, about 10.6 percent of adult African-American women age 20 or older, are unemployed, a number that remains unchanged from a year ago. Meanwhile, the report shows that unemployment rose for single mothers to 9.3 percent from 9.1 percent last year.

I certainly don’t mean to presume that you are unconcerned with who pays for your birth control. I just wonder why the Democrats never talk about your struggle to find work, never mind work with benefits. Why – for example – don’t you hear them talking about the way women are affected by the lack of full-time jobs that offer health benefits? Could it be because in order to do that, they’d have to call attention to the fact that ObamaCare hurts you more than companies like Hobby Lobby ever will?

ObamaCare mandates that employers sponsor health benefits for full time employees. But when those benefits cost the employer more than he (or she) can pay, what happens? That employer looks for legal ways to cut costs, and that means cutting hours and/or jobs. This isn’t my “opinion” or based purely on anecdotes, it’s real. As Forbes reported a year ago:

According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 71% of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to grow. One-half of small businesses that must comply with the employer mandate say they will either cut hours of full-time employees or replace them with part-time workers. Twenty four percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees.

It’s not just small businesses either. Even giant companies like Delta Airlines and UPS have looked for ways to cut costs by either cutting hours, raising employee premiums, changing employee eligibility requirements, or all of the above. In a letter from Delta to the Obama administration, Delta Airlines said the cost of providing health coverage to its employees would increase $100,000,000. How they could bear that cost without hurting their female employees is beyond me, and yet Democrats never talk about that. They’d rather distract you by focusing on the one employer who simply doesn’t want government ordering them to pay for one very specific type of coverage.

Will World Leaders Put Pressure on US to Improve Democracy?

My question is, why is it a “War on Women” when one small employer uses religious objection to opt out of paying for three specific types of birth control, but not when thousands of others employers opt out of hiring you in the first place, leaving you without any kind of employer-provided coverage?

What do you think happens to you once you are unemployed, or just underemployed in a part-time job? If you’re lucky, and married to a man (or in some states, a woman) with a good job and benefits, you might be okay. But what if you aren’t? What if you’re a single mother, or divorced, or a widow, or just a young woman starting out after college, in competition with tens of thousands of other recent college graduates for the same few entry level full-time jobs?

The Democrats want you to believe ObamaCare will help you. They’ll tell you you’re saved because you can go online and buy insurance in an Exchange, and get a government subsidy if you can’t afford it. There’s just one problem: It’s not true.

Never mind the fact that the ObamaCare website still doesn’t work properly. In more than half the states in this country, there is no Exchange, so there is no subsidy. In fact, the Obama administration just lost their lawsuit, so they cannot legally provide subsidies to you when you apply to get insurance in those states.

Now I realize you might be wondering why Democrats would pass a law that hurts women? You might even give them credit for trying to “help” you by offering government subsidies so you can “afford” health insurance, which was expensive even before ObamaCare. It’s simple really, and you don’t need a tinfoil hat to see it. You don’t need to believe they are intentionally hurting you. All you need to realize is that ObamaCare isn’t helping you, no matter how much Democrats claim it is. They want you to equate getting “help” with voting for Democrats because – in plain English – they’re trying to buy your vote.

But let me ask you this: Why should it be easier for you to believe Democrats are sincere, that they really do want to help you, and hard for you to believe that Republicans might want to do the same, just differently? I’m not saying Republicans don’t want your vote too, they just aren’t trying to buy your vote by saying they’ll force other people to pay for things you need. Republicans would rather make it easier for you to buy the things you need (and want) with your own money, the kind of money you’d earn at a job, the kind of job you are less likely to have now because of Democratic policies.

Bottom line: If there were a “War on Women,” ObamaCare would certainly be one of the most powerful weapons in it.

“What about abortion?”

What about it? First of all, not all Republicans are politically pro-life. What I mean is, even those who are personally pro-life – who think abortion is wrong, wouldn’t have one, and would tell you openly how they feel about it, and why – are still willing to vote for candidates who aren’t politically pro-life. The Republican Party platform aside, when you look at the way most elected Republicans legislate, there just isn’t a big push to make all abortion illegal – certainly not a push big enough to warrant the level of hysteria or fear-mongering coming from Democratic candidates this cycle.

Danger of Calling Repeal Without Replace on Obamacare

Now if your next question is “What about state laws that have passed making it harder to get an abortion, like those mandating ultrasound or waiting periods?” My answer would be, what about them? Harder-to-get isn’t “illegal.” I’d ask you in return, why not make them harder to get?

Roe v. Wade allows room for states to restrict abortion after the first trimester, and to a certain extent, within it. Of course if you are amongst the minority of Americans who wish Roe v. Wade mandated that all states allow abortion through 40 weeks no matter what, you aren’t the person I’m talking to in the first place. I’m addressing the majority of American women who actually favor the GOP’s late-term abortion ban.

All I ask is that you consider the bigger picture. If you think abortion is a good thing, then you’re going to be hard-pressed to find a Republican who agrees with you, and if it’s the number one most important issue for you, you’re probably not going to vote for any Republican, ever. However, if you’re in that majority who support restrictions after the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, then there really should be no rational reason you would reflexively vote for Democrats because you fear Republican abortion policy. In fact, I tend to agree with Kathleen Parker’s column published today:

While it is true that access to abortion has been restricted in several states owing to Republican efforts, it is not true that women as a whole care only or mostly about abortion.

I promise, this isn’t another abortion column, not that the horrific number of abortions performed each year shouldn’t make one’s stomach turn. Instead, extremists on the pro-choice left celebrate the “right” to terminate a 20-week-old fetus. Google an image of this stage of fetal development and try to comprehend the glee we witnessed when state senator Wendy Davis, now running for governor, became the belle du jour upon her filibuster to protect that “right” in Texas.

Additionally, it is extremely unlikely the political pro-life movement will ever be successful in their efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, if for no other reason than the same majority of Americans who support a 20 week ban, support keeping abortion legal, at least through the first trimester .

Bottom line: The allegedly “anti-choice” bogeyman is a myth created and perpetuated by Democrats who want you to fear Republicans so you’ll vote for Democrats instead. Meanwhile, the anti birth control bogey-man is about buying your vote with (allegedly) free stuff.

Don’t let Democrats take your vote for granted.

Maybe I’m wildly optimistic, but I don’t happen to believe you are preoccupied with birth control, or abortion for that matter. I don’t think you are fretting day and night about whether or not your boss will decide not to pay for your birth control, or that you or someone you know will want to abort a child. I happen to think most of you are more concerned about finding and keeping a steady job and putting food on the table consistently. I think you probably worry more about keeping your military sons and daughters from getting killed fighting a ruthless enemy we seem to consistently underestimate. I’m just guessing here, but I also imagine you worry more about saving enough for retirement (or saving anything, period), and making sure your kids get a good education.

If I’m right about you, and the Democrats are wrong, then I hope you will take a long hard look at the candidates for the mid-term elections in your state. It’s unlikely you’ll agree with any candidate, from either party, 100%, but I hope you’ll ask yourself whether Democrats really have your best interests in mind, or whether they are just trying to buy your vote, or scare you into submission.


Last updated by .

Deb Fillman
About Deb Fillman 8 Articles
Independent and critical thinker who intentionally avoids following the crowd. Curious, and intellectually honest, turns over every rock to ensure opinions have a basis in facts, rational thought, and sound principles.

13 Comments on An Open Letter to the Women of America

  1. Seriously, Deb, how can you support the GOP? It has no agenda. And look at the GOP record the last time they were in charge of Congress and the White House. They took surpluses and turn them into deficits. They expanded Medicare even though the program was already on the road to insolvency. And jobs? Did you forget the financial meltdown that happened under Bush? The economy was in free fall when Bush left office. I know, I know. Republicans want to pretend that Bush never existed. But the rest of America remembers well the GOP record in office.

    Come on Deb. You are a smart, articulate woman. Why in the world would you want to put back in charge the same failed GOP leadership that increased deficits and federal programs? That would be irresponsible. You should work to build a better GOP with new leadership. A new agenda. A fiscally responsible GOP. A GOP that has a positive vision for the future instead of a backwards looking party that craves to bring back some mythical past.

    • There were never any surpluses. The debt grew every year under Clinton. Go look it up at treasurydirect.gov Its the treasury’s own website, so dont blame the messenger. As for the crashed economy, well, for the first six years of the Bush presidency, we had a booming economy, with an average 4.5% unemployment. And that’s 4.5% before Obama changed the way we calculate unemployment. If it was still calculated the same way today as it was when Bush was president, the unemployment rate would be 13%, not 6.2%. The economy didnt crash until Reid and Pelosi took control of both houses of congress, and stopped all new domestic oil drilling. This shot the price of oil from $45 a bbl up to $150 a bbl. This is what crashed the economy. Bush finally got the price of oil back down to $43 a bbl just before the 08 election, based on the democrat lie that they would open up drilling again. As soon as obama took office, the democrats renegged on the deal, and oil shot back up to $100 a bbl. The rest is our 6 year long phony recovery with fewer people with full time jobs than when obama took office.

      • Please go tell the American people just how wonderful the economy was when Bush left the White House. The stock market was plummeting. The economy was in free fall. Exploding deficits. That’s the GOP record. Like I said. Republicans are experts at pretending that Bush never existed. The rest of America remembers well.

  2. Pretty sure your comment has less than nothing to do with this article. Also pretty sure you are a man, so I wasn’t even talking to you. Finally, what have any of your (obvious Libertarian) talking points got to do with whether or not there is or isn’t a “War on Women” waged by the GOP? I’ll answer for you: NOTHING.

  3. My thought on this letter is that women silly enough to buy into the Dem “War on Women” aren’t intelligent enough to understand what Deb is saying here. IMO, they’re the kind of voters who get their “news” and political information from Bill Mahar and the like, and form their opinions accordingly.

  4. >>“What about state laws that have passed making it harder to get an abortion, like those mandating ultrasound or waiting periods?” My answer would be, what about them? Harder-to-get isn’t “illegal.” I’d ask you in return, why not make them harder to get?
    Hold on there. Placing obstacles before a perfectly legal medical procedure just because you disapprove of it is WRONG. What if some group of Americans decide they don’t like tattoos, facelifts, or Lasik surgery? They get to force you to watch an “instructional” video on the risks, wait ten days, undergo a mental health evaluation, and get some unnecessary endoscopic procedure just to discourage you? That’s Daddy State b.s., an infantilization of women that’s worthy of the Left, and right next door to similar obstacles to gun ownership.

    • For starters, tattoos aren’t “legal” in every state, and I’m guessing you haven’t had those other procedures yourself either because Obamacare forces you to fill out all sorts of irrelevant “forms” that ask very personal questions about your mental state before anyone can touch you. Want your kid examined by a pediatrician to fill out school forms, you better tell us whether you have a gun in the home first.

      This isn’t about “some group of Americans” either, this is about the majority of Americans who live in a given state, where (in case you forgot) they are still permitted to restrict access to all manner of “legal” procedures and products. Want to get your ears pierced, or get a tattoo? Better not be under the influence of anything–even having beer breath will get you turned away. You don’t need to be legally intoxicated. That’s just one example too. If a plastic surgeon wants to operate on you, yes, you do need to fill out questions that ask about your mental state, they don’t want you to SUE them later when you’re not blissfully happier with your new face. But yes, ObamaCare also requires these.

      Your question also assumes abortion is benign. You have to answer more questions and have more permission for your child to get a TOOTH PULLED in most states than you have to have to get an abortion, and abortion is surgery–let’s not forget that. Young women (the most likely patient–yes, they are “patients,” not “customers” too) need to know what they’re doing is not completely “safe,” there are risks, and ultrasound (especially in younger women, where pregnancy IS riskier, just as it is in older women) helps identify potential risks the abortion doctor can’t see otherwise. They cannot *literally* force the patient to look at the screen, and suggesting they can or would is absurd. Does it force the patient to wait? Sure. Is that such a bad thing, if they are having second thoughts? Why? Those fully committed to having the procedure won’t be stopped from doing so, but if they happen to have an ectopic pregnancy (common in young women, especially those who’ve taken birth control bills btw), it could save their life.

      I really wish Libertarians would do their homework before they jump on the “OMG! Nanny state” bandwagon, and I further wish they spent as much time complaining about ObamaCare as they do about this.

      • I’ll just take two points.

        Obamacare forces you to fill out all sorts of irrelevant “forms” that ask very personal questions about your mental state before anyone can touch you. Want your kid examined by a pediatrician to fill out school forms, you better tell us whether you have a gun in the home first.

        That’s another excellent comparison to placing obstacles before abortion: Obamacare strictures on perfectly legal gun ownership.

        Does it force the patient to wait? Sure. Is that such a bad thing, if they are having second thoughts?


        When are we going to force women to “wait” for something as destructive and risky as mastectomies, C-sections, and hey, pregnancy itself? Maybe all female newborns ought to have their tubes tied and then apply for reproductive rights when they reach maturity, on a per-child basis of course.

        Deb, I’m a reliable Republican voter, but I wouldn’t use these arguments to persuade any of my default liberal female friends. The only one I do use is the whispering campaign of “They can’t repeal Roe v Wade anyway!” which you’d better not say out loud at a Republican convention or campaign rally.

  5. I would suggest you read this, then talk to me about how having an abortion is just like getting a tattoo:

    So when Texas passes a law requiring that abortion facilities have hospital admitting privileges, I fail to see what the huge problem is for the woman? For the facility? OK, but I wasn’t aware that gov’t’s job was to protect *private businesses* in Libertopia (which FTR, Planned Parenthood “facilities” and other “clinics” of its kind, are). Gov’t *does* have a job to protect women from unscrupulous and unqualified providers of a surgical procedure. Plastic surgeons–most of whom are Board Certified–are more obviously “qualified” to do what they do than the average abortion “Clinician,” and yet you probably have a problem with Big Daddy gov’t trying to protect women by making sure these people at least have admitting privileges to a hospital? Plastic surgery clinics also have (in most states) operating rooms that have passed inspection for being up to “hospital” standards, AND admitting privileges to hospitals in the area.

    Republicans believe in the 10th Amendment, and that gov’t has a proper role to play, and that role is the protection of Americans. In this case, they are not protecting a woman from herself, they are not even specifically protecting the fetus (because ultimately the woman may still abort). They are protecting the woman from practitioners who are performing an invasive surgical procedure, and ensuring that she is giving INFORMED consent, and that risks of the procedure are mitigated to a reasonable, rational extent.

    But as I say, if you are a Libertarian, you’ll disagree that this is the proper role of government, but again I ask you why you are ignoring the overarching point of my article which is that ObamaCare hurts woman MUCH MUCH MORE than these very few laws, in these few states, with its intrusiveness into the lives and healthcare decisions of ALL women, not just those seeking abortion?

Leave a Reply