In the recent weeks, I have seen a large number of my friends link to a graphic of “Paul Ryan’s War Against Women”. (Depicted below and here.) It is frustrating because this graphic is deeply flawed and unfairly distorts Paul Ryan’s record. The group that put out the graphic, a radical feminist group, is relying on the fact that young Americans aren’t educated and don’t know the issues. Conservatives, arm yourself with the facts below so that you can easily out-debate a liberal.
1. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is incredibly misrepresented in the image’s description. The Act does not give fair pay for equal work. Instead, the bill’s purpose is to extend the period of time that women are able to file a claim of wage discrimination. Before this act, anyone facing discrimination had the ability to file within 6 months of the incident. This time frame is for practicality and fairness, not because Paul Ryan doesn’t “think women deserve to earn the same pay as men for the same work”. In the present economy, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act actually hurts women’s job prospects. Companies are discouraged from hiring women because women employees become a greater liability- companies know that in twenty years’ time, they may be sued by these former employees and have to pay large sums of money. Men become more appealing to hire because they do not present this liability. To accuse Paul Ryan of being anti-woman based on his opposition of an unfair time frame is both extreme and unsubstantiated.
2. Paul Ryan is pro-life, there is no doubt about that. However, this image claims that being pro-life is synonymous with being anti-woman. For this image to declare that Paul Ryan “would even rather let a woman die than allow her to have an abortion” is misleading; Paul Ryan’s record includes voting in favor of legislation that allows women to get an abortion in the case of life endangerment, rape, or incest. The allegation that “He’s supported a bill to allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care to a woman, even if she could die without it” is also misleading. It refers to the “Protect Life Act,” H.R. 358, which allows for Catholic hospitals to maintain their religious freedom by not forcing them to perform abortions. (The Church is strongly morally opposed abortion.) It is an act that seeks to protect religious freedom, not ban all hospitals from performing abortion no matter the circumstance.
3. Paul Ryan does wish to de-fund Planned Parenthood. It is speculated to be a deeply corrupt organization that tax payers are being forced to fund, even if they are morally opposed to its work. To quote the Luce Policy Institute, “the government’s role should be to help make health insurance high-quality and affordable by encouraging free market competition among insurance providers.” There is nothing “free-market” about Planned Parenthood.
4. The statement “Happy about free birth control? Rep. Ryan sure isn’t.” is another extreme and misguided statement. Birth control is never free, someone always pays for it. Before, it was the individual who actually used it. Now, it is the tax payers. Ask yourself why a seventy year old man should be forced by the government to give up his hard-earned income to pay for a college woman’s birth control and you will understand Ryan’s opposition to government-subsidized birth control. In response to the allegation that “he adamantly opposed to the health care law’s requirement that insurance companies cover birth control”, this is another issue of freedom of religion being spun by feminists to be a woman’s-issue. Ryan is not opposed to insurance companies covering birth control of their own choice, but he believes that no one should be forced to pay for something if they are morally opposed to its function. This is an issue of liberty, not being anti-woman.
5. The author of this misleading claim is basing it on Ryan’s co-sponsorship of H.R. 212, a human rights bill that would give rights to embryos. This is again an issue of government-subsidization, what government should pay for, and what it shouldn’t pay for. Ryan believes that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to fund something they are morally opposed to.
#1. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does not mandate equal pay for equal work, but it is one of the few ways for women to move closer to equal pay for equal work by suing employers who discriminate based on gender. The problem with the 6 month time frame that existed before this bill was that if the company could hide it’s discrimination for that time, they would never be held accountable. This is grossly unjust, and only rewards companies that are great are hiding their discrimination. Imagine a worker was secretly by toxic chemicals at their work place, but they wouldn’t be able to sue if the employer kept it secret for more than 6 months. Paul Ryan/Romney do not appear to want to help women achieve equal pay for equal work. Also, if you have any actual evidence that it has discouraged employers from hiring women, please share! Even if you had that evidence, it wouldn’t justify a grossly unjust policy.
#3 Where has it been proven that Planned Parenthood is a deeply corrupt organization? Or is that #notintendedtobeafactual statement? Or is stating your conclusion as a given fact all that is necessary? Also, there is also nothing “free market” about the Catholic church and the billions in subsidies it gets from the government/taxpayers via charitable deductions. Is Ryan advocating we ditch all government support of non-free market organizations like churches?
#4- Should the government not subsidize any program or expense that some taxpayers are morally opposed to? Does Ryan support getting rid of the federal death penalty and subsidies to oil companies because some taxpayers are morally opposed to them?
In response to Fred:
#1 Compromise, like the Republicans wanted. Maybe the fair pay act could designate some way of figuring out WHAT IS fair pay. The problem is that women do not look good on a payroll. Lily Ledbetter would make women look really bad on a payroll. So? Pass legislation that will encourage business to hire women! Its that obvious! Making businesses pony up for birth control and abortion make them unwelcome, even if the woman in particular don’t -want- birth control or abortion insurance. This supposedly feminist act is not -pro woman- in any sense. Liberal Legislatures are out of connection with the world and out of touch with the people they claim to represent.
#3 Look it up. Planned Parenthood drains tax-dollars, and then turns around and donates to the Dems. An institution that receives tax-dollars should never, ever, EVER, be allowed to donate to a political group. That is what we call Crony Capitalism. The Catholic Church runs all forms of charity and healthcare using money that would otherwise be going straight to the pockets of the folks who run it, and they make a point of NOT donating to political causes. These policies made them very popular with the framers of the Constitution, and remember the “separation of church and state” clause? It was a way of empowering the Catholic Church in the states, because it allowed them to operate their American branch free of government meddling. The Catholic Church earned American Trust, and are continuing to do so. What has Planned Parenthood done to earn the trust it has?
#4 http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/ Hee hee hee. This’ll blow your mind.
Honestly, the government has the power and the responsibility to prevent murder. The death penalty is another matter, because, as G.K. Chesterton said, “we take liberties from a man who takes liberties.”
The government shouldn’t be subsidizing anything, period, end of sentence. Its a massive drain on financial resources that could be better spent, say, preventing murder, and is instead raising prices so that people can afford the subsidized product only with government help.
DrDisaster
#1- Fair pay is the same as legal pay, meaning you can’t pay a woman less than man for the same work just because of their gender. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The problem is not “women do not look good on a payroll” the problem is we are still dealing with the effects of sexism across the country. Imagine companies were illegally paying Catholics less than other employees, but they couldn’t sue if the employer hid that discrimination for more than 6 months. Would this be fair? Would you just say the government should provide more incentives to hire Catholics to fix this problem?
#3 Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3) which does not donate to any political candidates. You are factually wrong. Planned Parenthood Political Action Committee is a 501(c)(4) and donates to political causes, which is perfectly legal, and they do not receive taxpayer dollars as you mistakenly stated. The two are not the same organization, if they were, Planned Parenthood would lose their non-profit status. The Catholic church earned America’s trust? Have you not heard about their high-level and systematic cover up of pedophiles?
#4 My mind was not blown by the Forbes link (but then again, I had low expectations after seeing the quality of your earlier arguments). Yes, Democrats don’t want citizens in poverty to freeze in the winter, but they don’t want oil companies with absurd profits to get direct taxpayers subsidies. Those are not outrageous or irreconcilable positions. You say the government shouldn’t subsidize anything, but again, does that include non-profits like the Catholic church which are currently subsidized? And the death penalty does not prevent murder….there’s also a thing called life in prison. Wow, so many more inconsistencies to address, but I’ll leave it at that.
Hi Fred, I will admit I know very little on the economic side of politics. I am a gun toting female who is a strong Obama supporter. That being said, I am against the death penalty myself as I know even one innocent person wrongly accused (and they do exist) is not worth loosing. But lets talk prisons. Not enough of them, average cost for one person in prison for a year is around $34,000 and they are way overcrowded. I’m not arguing with you, but there is a concern I just wanted to point out. I don’t mean to change the focus.
Janelle- I’m also against the death penalty for many reasons (irreversible, doesn’t work as deterrence, often used disproportionately against racial minorities, etc)
And your concern is cost which is understandable. But I think cost is another enormous reason to oppose the death penalty. Pursuing capital punishment is incredibly more expensive than life in prison. It dramatically increases the cost before the trial, during the the trial, and after the trial- there is no part you can skip to make it cheap without violating the Constitution and denying people Due Process under the law. I’ve included a link so you can check out the numbers I’m referring to and see if they are persuasive.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost