#NCPOL: Local “feminists” flip out over #NCGA’s employer conscience protection bill

Posted by: ST on May 16, 2013 at 10:27 am

It’s sorta like the Sandra Fluke manufactured “controversy” over “access” to birth control mixing with the religious exemptions issue – except on a local scale, with narcissistic North Carolina “feminists” in the starring role(s).  Via the Raleigh News and Observer:

RALEIGH — A bill allowing private employers to refuse to cover contraception in their health insurance plans cleared a House committee Wednesday morning and is headed for a vote of the full chamber.

The legislation would also prohibit coverage for abortions in the new state health insurance exchange that is part of the federal Affordable Care Act, and through the plans cities and counties offer their workers. It also says any health-care provider can refuse to participate in abortions; current law protects doctors and nurses.

The bill is off to a rocky start, as Republicans in a House judiciary committee were not unified in supporting it. Rep. Bob Steinburg, a freshman Republican from Edenton who described himself as a hardcore abortion opponent, said he would only support the bill if the prohibition on contraception coverage was removed.

“It’s almost like we’re stepping back in time,” Steinburg said. “To suggest in the 21st century that women would be prevented from having access to birth control – even as far to the right as I am – is going off the cliff. This is going too far.”

Wellllll, I hope Steinburg’s constituents give him a piece of their mind on his  feminist-themed criticism, which greatly misrepresented what the bill actually called for – giving employers the right to EXCLUDE from their health care insurance plans coverage for BC purchases (and abortions). It did not “restrict access.”  It just changed who pays for it – not the insurer, but YOU. A self-described staunch pro-lifer shouldn’t be using left wing talking points to advance his argument one way or the other.  Perhaps Rep. Steinburg is confused. I dunno.

Unfortunately, Steinburg’s misguided remarks only served to unintentionally amplify a 60s-style themed protest by – you guessed it – self-centered, anti-freedom of religion pro-choicers in attendance at Wednesday’s House committee meeting on the proposed bill:

Steinburg’s remark about stepping back in time played directly into the costume-themed protest that members of Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina and other abortion-rights supporters staged in the audience. About 15 of them dressed up in “Mad Men” early-sixties attire to make the point that the GOP legislature was rolling back women’s progress in society.

Here’s a sampling:


Photo:

NC feminists

Yes, this really happened. Photo via @PPCNC.

Welcome to bizarro world:


But women can impose their beliefs on employers, who are made up of … individuals, then? *scratches head*

And from consultant Jeanne Bonds, a prominent North Carolina Democrat and activist comes this classic Fluke-You-And-Your-Freedoms-Too response to a local GOP women’s group:


Sigh. Embarrassing. What is it about the US Constitution that Ms Bonds – whose Twitter bio includes “Former Special Asst. to NC Chief Justice” – Rev. Akpan and other Democrat women don’t understand? If “going back to the 60s” is what it takes to get us back to the religious freedom all Americans have the RIGHT to observe thanks to the First Amendment, then yeah – we are “going back.” Indeed, we have strayed too far from the Constitution. This bill, and other similar bills which put the emphasis on personal responsibility (SHOCKING!) and protecting the unborn (PANIC!), has nothing to do with wanting to make women subservient to men, “taking away contraceptive access” or any other sort of mindless scare tactic “feminists” warn you it does. It was a woman who proposed the bill, for crying out loud. Oh, wait, it was a Republican woman which means her opinions count because she’s not an “authentic woman” or something due to the fact that she opposes the termination of unborn children.

Stop me if you’re heard this one before

Anyway, the birth control part of this bill was taken out in last night’s “crossover” marathon session of legislation so on that score, at least, the “feminists” here won. But on the abortion issue itself and an employer’s right to not offer health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage, the unborn are winning. Thank God. Of course this really, REALLY upsets the Usual Suspects, who are still trying to brainwash people into thinking this means women won’t have access to “quality healthcare” aka abortions on demand.

Last word from Charlotte-area Tea Party activist Dennis Peterson:


Says it all.

Related:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

5 Responses to “#NCPOL: Local “feminists” flip out over #NCGA’s employer conscience protection bill”

Comments

  1. Drew the Infidel says:

    Today Thomas Sowell has an exquisite article entitled “Words that replace thought”. His itemized list includes “diversity”, “fair share”, “access”, and “affordable”. He details how each has more emotional weight than factual. It paints a good picture of that gaggle in the photo above. BTW, why was there not such feminazi representation at the Gosnell trial? The case and verdict directly affected women’s “health” (there’s that word again). No?

  2. Carlos says:

    From the pic of the PPCNC, it’s obvious that that’s where ugly women go as an excuse for the fact that a man won’t ask them on a date (and probably a woman, too)! Can’t see a whole bunch of women in that photo who’d be in danger of getting pregnant even if they WANTED to.

    Not that skin beauty should be the overriding factor in dating or getting preggers, but good Lord, one has to have some standards (unless one happens to be a Democrap).

  3. Drew the Infidel says:

    @Carlos–Agreed. Beauty is only skin deep but ugly goes all the way to the bone.