Skip to main content

Ted Cruz: "The war on women is all about condoms!"

With some (many) of the things he says, Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz makes it quite difficult to believe he was once an Ivy League student. At a town hall rally in Iowa on Monday, Ted Cruz made the following comments with regard to contraception, abortion, and the war on women:

- "Hillary Clinton embraces abortion on demand in all circumstances up until the moment of birth. Partial-birth abortion with taxpayer funding, with no notification for parents in any circumstances - 91% of Americans say that's nuts."

- "Now listen, I have been a conservative my entire life. I have never met anybody, any conservative who wants to ban contraceptives. It's a great example when the war on women came up, Republicans would curl up in a ball, they'd say, 'Don't hurt me.' Jiminy Cricket! This is a made-up nonsense example. Last I checked, we don't have a rubber shortage in America. When I was in college we had a machine in the bathroom, you put 50 cents in and voila! So yes, anyone who wants contraceptives can access them, but it's an utterly made-up nonsense issue."

With regard to the first quote, Cruz is right; that would be nuts - largely because it's not true. Hillary Clinton never said such a thing. She simply said that all such decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor and without government interference. For a man who blasts government as much as Senator Cruz does, it's quite interesting he believes government should be so involved with a woman's vagina. Also, that bit about abortions being paid by taxpayers is hogwash. So, like I said, Senator Cruz is right - if his quote were actually true, that would be nuts!

Cruz's second quote is where he completely goes off the rails. If he thinks the war on women largely revolves around access to condoms, I'm going to have to check his college records, and if I see he did pass with flying colors, ask how much help he received along the way. No, I haven't heard conservatives calling to ban condoms, but again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the war on women. Many conservative politicians, as well as religious institutions, have called for Plan B to be banned because they believe it induces abortion (that myth has been debunked countless times) and have fought to not cover women's contraception in employer-based health plans. If Cruz wants to come back with the argument, "Well, employers don't cover men's sex lives by providing condoms, now do they?" No, but unlike with condoms, which are only used for sexual intercourse (and perhaps as balloon animals), birth-control pills are used for a number of other reasons, such as: Decreasing one's cancer risk, providing clearer skin, lighter and less painful periods, PMS relief, endometriosis relief, fewer periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome relief, etc. So for many women, birth-control pills are about a whole lot more than just birth-control; they're about providing better health today and in the future. Even if women were to use the pill exclusively for sexual purposes, which gender gets pregnant again and would need to take time off work due to that living being inside of them coming out eventually? That's right, women. So from a business perspective, and studies will back me up on this, it's economically advantageous to cover women's contraception in their employer-based health plans.

So what was it you were saying about the war on women being nonsense, Senator Cruz? Your party continually fights against equal pay for equal work for women, regularly fights against their reproductive rights, often fights against the fairer sex being provided an employer-based health plan which covers contraception, and even wants to ban certain forms of women's contraception. But then again, what am I thinking? The war on women is all about rubbers...

http://theslot.jezebel.com/ted-cruz-theres-no-war-on-birth-control-because-you-ca-1745443169?trending_test_two_e&utm_expid=66866090-68.hhyw_lmCRuCTCg0I2RHHtw.4&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/30/conservative-media-pretend-federal-taxpayers-fo/204689

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2014/07/16/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"