Found it on Facebook: Voting with those “lady parts”

This keeps cropping up on Facebook and every time I see it, I find it irritating.

There’s something horribly medieval about reducing women to their sexual organs.  After all, when you think about it, the only thing that Obama has done for women is to order employers to provide insurance that covers birth control — which is a very limited expense.  That’s the difference between Obama’s approach to women and Bush’s.

In all likelihood, notwithstanding the fact that both Romney and Ryan are pro-Life, the only change under a Romney presidency is that we’ll go back to having women pay for their own birth control.  (And men, I’m sorry, but you should pay for your own Viagra.)

The Supreme Court is not going to reverse Roe v. Wade.  If it does, the matter goes to the states and, if enough people want it, a constitutional amendment.

As Michelle Malkin says, I’m voting with my lady smarts, not my lady parts.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • JKB

    Here’s another one: “Mom, if Mitt Romney gets elected, women will lost the right to vote.”
    Me: “Why do you think that?”
    “Because he doesn’t support a woman’s right to choose.”
    What kids learn living in a swing state | Penelope Trunk Homeschooling

  • NancyB

    If you’re talking about your “lady parts” in public – you’re not a lady.

  • jj

    YOU find it irritating?  Imagine being a reasonably intelligent male, having to live with the knowledge that this is EXACTLY the basis on which most of them vote!  “Irritating” doesn’t remotely approach it.  “Irritating” isn’t in the same universe.