Emily’s List Ridicules “Mama Grizzlies,” or How Liberal Feminism Became Irrelevant




I'm embarrassed for the lack of economic understanding demonstrated by these women, really by the group exploiting them, in this video. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0mp99eEaic] One woman complains about Republicans and asserts that they want to do away with unemployment benefits which is false; Republicans are asking why they have to be extended to nearly two years - especially when, during the 80s, unemployment was at 10.8% and unemployment benefits were less than what they are now. Instead of asking why capital must be diverted towards non-production, Emily's List ought to be asking why this administration isn't doing anything about the 9.5% unemployment rate which - and this may shock these costumed ladies - is directly related to unemployment benefits! SHOCKERZ! They ought to ask why excessive government manipulation and intervention is ongoing despite the carcasses of failures in its wake. If the government got its hands out of the private sector and eased up on small businesses we wouldn't be engaged in this discussion of whether or not to turn extended unemployment benefits into a new, quasi-welfare system. And what was that about their little cubs not having health care?
Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children. Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage. Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.
Of course, it seems they were too busy fighting over the feminist mantle, their bread and butter, to pay attention to their pretense of actual advocacy for women. Their indignation at why The Man won't pay for their female genocide, the litmus of abortion, pops in at :24 in; they are angry at The Man telling them no abortion on demand (because babies come from MAGIC, not from sex that a woman can choose to have, just as she can choose to walk up into Wal-Mart and buy herself a box of condoms, spermicidal gel, a diaphragm, the pill, et. al.) but are perfectly A-OK with The Man telling what they can or cannot do in every other aspect of their medical choices. Side note - is it really "independent" to claim girl power when you have to have The Man pay for your medical choices, a la abortion? Curious. What about Emily's List mama grizzlies being shut out of their existing health care plan?
Under the most likely scenario, 87 million Americans will no longer be able to retain the health plan they have and the number could be as high as 117 million. Small businesses will be especially hard hit. As many as 80% will lose their grandfather status by 2013, for example. One reason: any change of insurers (say, to take advantage of lower premiums) will cause a loss of such status. By contrast, a self-insured union plan is free to change its third-party administrator and still keep its grandfather status.
Where were Emily's List's mama grizzlies when the FDA announced that the first victims of the Democrats' health care rationing would be breast cancer patients?
Susan G. Komen for the Cure® and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance (OCNA) today urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to continue to allow the use of the drug bevacizumab, commonly known as Avastin, for metastatic breast cancer patients, noting that it is effective for some patients and warning of a chilling effect on new drug development if approval is withdrawn...
Rationing, thy name is Obamacare:
The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest.
No, instead of focusing on these actual issues, Emily's List is trying desperately to keep their meal ticket - the facade of caring about women's issues a la "feminism" while selling them out to the pimp with the most restrictive entitlements - from being used by any woman that dares not carry water for the DNC. Meanwhile women dealing with breast cancer suffer, women who thought their children would be included in this joke of health care reform suffer, women who are trying to put food on the table and pay their bills suffer because Emily's List thinks it more important to fight over who can call themselves "feminist" and who can't. That's what this issue is really about: liberal feminists unable to justify their support for a party that contributed to the dismal economic situation, a party that enabled The Man to control their medical decisions (irony!), a party that does more to squelch freedom and opportunity in the name of equal misery for all than any others. Emily's List is mad that modern day women are giving the one finger salute to the liberal establishment, slipping on shoes and walking out of the kitchen. They've said loud and clear that liberal "feminists" don't speak for them, for us, for me. Now groups like Emily's List have come full circle: they've become cannibals to the very group for which they originated to protect; in order to keep control of their shtick they must attack any woman who dares question it. And this is how liberal feminism became irrelevant.

Related articles ALL POSTS
comment(s)
l.//