I know that much of the health care debate has surrounded the government funding of abortion, and we all know where I fall on that debate. However, I had not read how the Senate bill would implement the policy until I read this Washington Times article:

The groups are divided over whether the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortions. Status quo, as dictated in the Hyde amendment, bans taxpayer funding of the procedure in programs such as Medicaid, except when the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of rape or incest.

Members of the Pro-Choice Caucus say that they don’t like the Senate bill because it requires women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums.

The line, women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums, makes my blood run cold.

The Pro-Choice Caucus infers that there are women out there who pro-actively pay for abortion insurance. Insurance is an economic decision to invest in services that you will possibly need. When you opt into getting a specific policy, you are acknowledging that the odds are against you. For example, if you live on a mountain, are you likely to get flood insurance?

Women who opt for this coverage would make a premeditated decision thinking, “It is likely that I will get pregnant unexpectedly. If I do, I want to abort any child that I conceive.”

Perhaps I’m naive. I’ve always believed that even those who support abortion view it as a worst case scenario. Lately, the left has managed to shock me by endorsing abortion with glee. It’s as though pro-abortion advocates are shouting, “Who cares if abortion is murder? I’m ok with that. In fact,  I’m going to be a cheerleader for it because a woman’s “right” the most important factor. To hell with everything else.”

Just look at Feministing’s response to Mary Ann Sorrentino, former Planned Parenthood executive director in Rhode Island, when she questioned Angie Jackson’s live tweets of her abortion.

Sorrentino’s piece reads like she’s telling Jackson to be ladylike, to be a “good girl.” There are certain things a woman just shouldn’t speak about in public. This isn’t the feminism of a previous generation – it’s an argument that the divides between public and private should be maintained, with women’s experiences kept in the private sphere. It’s an argument for silence, for stigma, and for an appropriate way of being a lady.

This goes against the approach to destigmatizing abortion that I learned from pre-Roe organizers. The Redstockings Abortion Speakout in 1969 began a traditional of women telling their abortion stories publicly to humanize the procedure, to bring it into the public sphere, and to remove shame. These women didn’t listen when they were told their stories should be kept private. Jackson used new technology to share the experience as it was happening, a new twist on an old consciousness raising technique.

In removing the stigma of abortion, feminist forces aren’t justifying this debate, they’re celebrating it. They are reveling in this legal right regardless if it is good for women. Forget the gory details and pain that Angie Jackson’s tweets revealed. She’s raising the collective consciousness of womankind! To hell with anything else. As long as the feminist agenda is advanced, nothing else matters.

Anyone else sickened by this?

If you’re like most Americans and too busy to read whiny feminist blogs, note that March is Women’s History Month. Christina Hoff Sommers has an article in the current Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute’s Policy Express on taking back the feminist movement and highlighting women’s history. It’s an absolute must read. She writes:

But today the movement has been taken over by aggrieved eccentrics. Marching under the banner of feminism, the current activists are fighting a gender war that few women support or understand. The potential for harm is enormous. Mainstream women are going to have to rescue feminism from the feminists.

We badly need a responsible, reality- based women’s movement. Women in many parts of the developing world are still struggling for their basic rights.
Egalitarian progressives—some would say radicals. They held that men and women, although socialized to different roles, are identical in their essential natures. By appealing to principles of social justice and universal rights, egalitarians sought to liberate women from the private sphere of the home—into the public spheres of politics, business, and work.

I came into this fight over feminism late. As a young woman and conservative college student, I purposely avoided anything relating to womyn’s studies or gender politics. After working at a nonprofit geared towards girls, I came face-to-face with the “egalitarian feminism” that Sommers discusses. Behind every rallying cry for “equality” there’s a scary agenda from the Radical Left to remake our society into a European socialist copycat that has taken over colleges, the media and our court system.

Since the left has demonized conservative women for so long, most females on the right avoid anything remotely resembling feminism. That leaves us woefully ignorant when it comes to the history for women’s equality. Please take a few minutes and understand that there is a need to fight for equality between men and women, but this can be done–and has been done–in ways that value and protect American traditions and capitalism.

As Sommer’s notes in the article, Clare Booth Luce was writing about women’s issues long before Betty Friedan ever felt bored in her affluent suburban home. Rather than fight to change society into some socialistic utopia, she understood how women operate. Sommer’s quotes Luce:

It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature—a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women’s nature to do they will do, and you won’t be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won’t be able to make them do it.

Feminist arguments fall flat over “second shift” work, the so-called wage gap and complaints that we still have not achieved equality despite making up more than half of the workforce, as seen in the recent Shriver Report. Women don’t make choices to better the cause of women. Women make choices that better their individual lives and families. When you make women equal, as our society has largely done, women will reject what doesn’t work, even if this conflicts with the agenda of the left-leaning feminist movement.

H/T American Enterprise Institute

You can’t read CosmoCon very long without noticing how the media blatantly ignores the misogyny directed towards conservative women often by other women. Last week, I wrote about feminists attacking the women who attended CPAC.

The Culture and Media Institute at Media Research Center put together a top ten list of attacks against conservative women. They write:

Much of the criticism was the worst sort of misogyny with a dose of violence and disgusting adolescent sex references thrown in for good measure. The media outlets in question ranged from Playboy magazine to MSNBC to Sirius XM radio and included comments from both men and women.

The message that rang through loud and clear was that perspectives from conservative women were not appreciated or welcomed, and if a woman stepped out of line, she deserved whatever treatment she received.

Aside from the Playboy incident, which only made news because of the overwhelming outrage on the right, how many of these stories did you hear about? NOW conveniently issues press releases when it suits their political interests, but where were they in attacking Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Frontline or the Toronto Star?

Had someone tweeted a death wish for Gloria Steinem or written about violently attacking Katie Couric or Rachel Maddow, there would have been marches through the streets of Washington.

Feminists are always yammering about double-standards in our society. Why don’t they focus on the double-standard of not defending conservative women? That’s something they can realistically fix without involving the word “patriarchy.”

Update: Some pit in hell must be icy today because I nearly agree with Amanda Marcotte on something. Although, I do enjoy the “joys of housework,” and look forward to spending a few hours each week cleaning my apartment. Also, as a life-long crafter, Martha Stewart ideas are generally overrated.

In a post displaying all of the hubris that comes from being a liberal feminist writer, Newsweek’s Margaret Wheeler Johnson admonishes those under 35 for taking the time to cook. In response to a New York Times article on bread recipes, she writes:

The question that occurred to me reading every one of these pieces is how anyone trying to succeed in New York or a similarly pricey and competitive cosmopolis finds the time or reason to engage in elaborate culinary exercises like bread making. Perhaps these articles are geared to a middle-aged, upper-middle-class demographic secure in their careers with some leisure time to spare. But the Times articles also validate the idea currently floating in the zeitgeist that while building our actual careers, we under-35-year-olds should also be joyously training ourselves in the art of fresh-market-simple-slow-nouveau soul-food preparation. Think of the multitudinous cook-offs, the astonishing amount of cookware urban twenty-something engaged couples receive as shower and wedding gifts, the “young artisanal food scene,” or Noteatingoutinny.com. The overall implication is that if you stock your freezer with Trader Joe’s frozen entrees, or worse, anything non-organic, if you aren’t making your friends buttercream-frosted birthday cakes or whipping up truffle frittatas, you do not live “seasonally, locally, sustainably, cost-efficiently and healthily”; you are immature and possibly lazy; and the worst of all possible Gen Y fates, you are NOT WELL-ROUNDED.

What’s wrong with cooking? Even though I live in a busy metropolis and work hard at my career, I haven’t felt society pushing me towards culinary action. I have a crazy commute, several blogs, including a cooking blog, numerous weekly volunteer commitments, and relationships to maintain but I still find the time to cook each week. Why? Because I like it. Am I offending Ms. Wheeler Johnson by being more well-rounded than her?

I simply disagree with Ms. Johnson’s opinion that Millenials shouldn’t cook:

The truth is that unless you are a chef by profession or truly love cooking, spending a minimum of seven hours a week in the kitchen—and that’s just making dinner—is not the best use of an ambitious youngish person’s time. Wouldn’t the energy we expend making the meatloaf our mothers never did, or feeling guilty that we don’t, be better spent connecting with peers, putting in extra hours at work, or pursuing personal projects? If you want an Amy’s loaf, get it from Amy’s. Otherwise buy a sleeve of Nature’s Own, and leave the no-need bread for retirement.

Actually Ms. Johnson, cooking is not a waste of time for educated young workers. IT’S CALLED BEING A GROWN UP. Responsible adults think ahead about what they’re going to eat in order to be healthy and use their financial resources wisely. I’d rather spend a few hours a week cooking than spending my money eating out every night or defrosting TV dinners as Ms. Johnson suggests.

For many, baking or cooking is a way to relax. I spend my work hours in digital media and then come home to blog. Cooking provides an outlet to use a different part of my brain. There are many days that I spend writing emails or building websites while I’m thinking about a recipe or dying to try out a new cookbook. I’m not alone. My best friend’s husband calls her love of the Food Network, “cooking porn.” Why is cooking offensive?

Cooking also provides a better way to control our diets and budgets. Eating out is expensive. When trying to save money, the experts always say eliminate Starbucks and restaurants. One day when I’m finally free of credit card debt and student loans, will I look back and regret all my missed opportunities for Chinese takeout? Also, those Trader Joe’s dinners that Ms. Johnson praises are typically high in fat and sodium. As a Trader Joe’s customer, I’ve checked. The best way to stay on a budget and eat healthy is to cook.

Perhaps Ms. Johnson also failed at the most basic Millenial skills–time management and multi-tasking. Typically, I cook several meals on the weekend, freeze the leftovers and enjoy them during the rest of the week. I also package fresh veggies in sandwich bags after grocery shopping, so that I can throw my lunch together quickly in the morning (with a re-usable and fashion-forward lunch box even the trendiest Manhattanite would approve). It hardly takes time. Just a little planning.

Cooking also helps those concerned about buying environmentally-friendly products, fair trade or special diets. A friend of mine is now eating gluten-free at the advice of a doctor. Try going to a restaurant and finding gluten-free food. It’s difficult. My mother is a vegetarian, it is still hard to eat out decades after the vegetarian movement took off.

Honestly, what’s Ms. Johnson’s deal? Cooking isn’t sexist. Millenials who cook are just as likely to be men or women. It’s not a waste of time to enjoy being in the kitchen. Apparently, it is a crime for the New York Times Dining & Wine section to publish a recipe. Something struck a nerve with Ms. Johnson. I just don’t understand why she had to share it with everyone else.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed a number of feminism blogs and even the Wall Street Journal discussing the new Butch Bakery cupcakes sold in New York City. Billed as the “manly cupcake,” it comes in 12 different varieties such as, the Jackhammer, Campout and Driller.

While some of them sound really good like the Rum & Coke and Sidecar, my first reaction was to laugh. Do guys really look at desserts and deem them too feminine to eat? During my years working in various PR sectors, I’ve thrown a lot of events and fundraisers and attended even more. I’ve never seen men refuse sweets because they were too “girly.”

I think it’s an interesting gimmick, and I’m not going to fault anyone for being an entrepreneur. It does strike me as odd because the most masculine examples that come to mind never acknowledge the “masculinity” factor. Unless it’s some Tim Allen comedy routine, did the Marlboro Man or John Wayne ever discuss the inherent sexism in cupcakes? The concept of a manly cupcake simply conflicts with the image of masculinity. Would Don Draper put down his Lucky Strike to pick up a Butch Cupcake?

Is this an interesting sales pitch or masculinity interpreted through the eyes of an urbanized, metrosexual male? According to the web site, “Our objective is simple. We’re men. Men who like cupcakes. Not the frilly, pink-frosted sprinkles-and-unicorn kind of cupcakes. We make manly cupcakes. For manly men.” (They need James Earl Jones to narrate the site for the most impact.)

Are real men going to seek out the most masculine type of cupcakes available or wander clueless into the nearest Walmart and ask the bakery department for cupcakes because their wife/girlfriend/mother sent them? Is this like the dessert version of the cocktail? Real men aren’t going to eat cupcakes covered in sprinkles or order fruity cocktails with paper umbrellas?

I also feel like we’ve arrived at some pre-apocalyptic point in society when reality has turned into a Mel Brooks/Monty Python satire because people are seriously discussing the gender implications of cupcakes.

Once upon a time, I used to find common ground with liberals on the abortion issue. We both agreed that all sides were too polarized to actually accomplish anything and that society could make some changes to decrease the demand for abortion. I’ve long advocated that birth control should be more readily accessible and abstinence-plus courses taught in high school. I also believe that passing laws that limit abortion are better than fighting to overturn a Supreme Court decision. Saving lives should be the goal–the lives of both women and children.

Not anymore.

I don’t know if life has been devalued so much that the brutal shock of abortion isn’t chilling, or if pro-choice forces are so backed into the corner that they’ve become stubbornly entrenched into their talking points. Today, I saw two things from feminist sources on the web that truly disgusted me.

A woman is now tweeting her abortion. Four weeks into her pregnancy, she decided to obtain the RU486, the “abortion pill” and is chronicling it for the internet masses. Broadsheet writes:

Instead, she explains in a YouTube video pasted below, her aim is to remove the shame and “demystify” the experience of terminating a pregnancy, “so that women know, hey, it’s not nearly as terrifying as I had myself worked up thinking it was.” She says, “It’s not that bad, it’s not that scary. It’s basically like a miscarriage.” (Remember, we’ve already written about a woman who tweeted her miscarriage.) In her Twitter feed, she talks spotting, nausea, cramps and Vicodin. She doesn’t make it sound like a walk in the park — and of course it isn’t, her body is working to expel the embryo from her uterus — but there is something reassuring about how she matter-of-factly walks us, and herself, through the whole process. It’s as though she’s live-tweeting the aftermath of a routine medical procedure, like a wisdom tooth extraction.

Tracy Clark-Flory, who’s quickly surpassing Jessica Valenti levels of callous idiocy, likens abortion to having a tooth pulled:

In fact, before I went in for what felt like terrifying oral surgery to remove a backasswards tooth from my sinus cavity — freaky, right? — I went on YouTube and watched footage of similar procedures and video blogs of people’s recovery process. It replaced all of my far-fetched nightmarish visions with concrete, factual information. Without that, I might have gone running for the hills — or at least passed out in the waiting room. Considering that abortion is so prone to politicized distortions and outright lies, Jackson is doing women a real favor. This isn’t another case of overshare-itis, it’s an example of how amid all the frivolous cacophony of Facebook, Twitter and the like, some folks are, like, actually doing good. Oh, Internet, you enigma you.

Babies. troublesome teeth. They’re all the same, right? Having a dentist pull a tooth with Novocaine is so similar to having saline shot into your uterus until it burns a fetus alive or a giant vacuum suck out the live fetus because that’s the reality of abortion. I doubt the baby being aborted would tweet such a pleasant experience if it were possible.

It’s also not like footage of abortions hasn’t existed before now. When did Silent Scream come out…1984? It’s been online since the concept of online video was around, long before YouTube. “Facts” just don’t exist to abortion supporters until it suits their needs.

Secondly, one of the feminists I follow on Twitter linked to ImNotSorry.net, a web site dedicated to women sharing “positive” experiences with abortion. My stomach turned when I read this. I wish this was just denial, but it goes deeper. This is callous and cruel. I imagine a serial killer message board would be similar.

Honestly, pro-choicers remind me of two-year-olds in mid-tantrum. They know that their parents are right, but they’re going to dig into their fit and scream as loud and long as possible. It is impossible to argue with them because all rationality is gone. They don’t care if the “political right” that they argue for is unbelievably violent and cruel. (Were livestock treated as an aborted fetus, it would be deemed animal cruelty, but that’s our screwed up world. Read the Humane Slaughter Act if you don’t believe me.) The point is that they want it available. All other truths and consequences be damned. Every sick woman who tweets or blogs works to further desensitize the horrors of abortion. This helps them achieve their goal of devaluing life. That’s their end game.

We teach our kids in history about the Holocaust and wonder how it happened. Yet, we sit back and allow abortion to continue in our society, while increasingly-sick pro-choice groups revel in their ability to systematically murder our young. How can you read these sites and not be utterly ashamed at what our society allows?

Once upon a time even pro-choice supporters admitted that abortion was a terrible thing and should be limited. Not anymore. Now they celebrate it.

Update: Since my friend, “usuck” had such issues with my comment policy, I decided to post his/her comment. I don’t even think it makes sense. It is completely unedited, grammar and all.

There are anti-choice people that blow up abortion clinics, kill doctors and women, but only someone with two brain cells would say they represent all anti-choice people. When focus on extreme or idiotic pro-choice people then make blanket statements about all pro-choice people, contrary to your belief, is not rational and intelligent thought. I’m pro-choice because I believe women and girls have the right to determine if they want to sacrifice their body for 9 months. It’s a woman’s choice and hers alone. The only uterus you have domain over is your own, not anyone else.

And abortion is not murder. They are two entirely different legal concepts. Read a book

The Network of enlightened Women, a group that I wish had been around when I was a student, asked me to write a guest post. It’s up over at their blog.

Go over and read it and discover why I’m a proud conservative woman.

Feminists are up in arms that CPAC attracts…WOMEN!

Via Feministing and Broadsheet, I watched this video that the Daily Caller put together. Not only did it feature several of my former co-workers, but it was also silly. The premise was dumb, yet the women interviewed tried to explain why they were there.

No where in the video did the women say that their reason for attending was “boys, boys, boys” as Tracy Clarke-Flory alludes. Actually, if you listen to the video, the majority of the women are attending for work. The college students articulate that they are attending to learn about the issues and support candidates.

Even in the twisted world of feminism, I thought learning about issues and supporting candidates was supported. Oh, silly me. I forgot that different rules apply to conservatives. We’re supposed to shut up and pretend we don’t exist.

Oh crazy feminists, get over yourselves and do the math. CPAC proactively reaches out to college students with steep discounts on ticket prices. Traditionally 50% or more of the attendees  are college students. Since more women are now matriculating than men…connect the dots. Also, attendance was up 20% overall this year with at least 10,000 people registering.

I realize that this this is difficult to swallow since it proves:

1. CPAC, the representation of all that is evil to the universe of liberals, is growing. 10,000 is a lot for any conference on any subject or political ideology.

2. Women are actually conservative, including college-aged women.

3. Conservative women aren’t ashamed of being attractive.

4. With more and more conservative organizations targeting women and inviting them to attend events like CPAC, it’s hardly surprising that they would show up.

It really is amusing to read through liberal blogs and newspapers and see what the left pulls out of CPAC. It’s like they attended a completely different conference than the one that I saw.

I think I make it pretty clear that I have zero respect for both Jessica Valenti and Meghan McCain here, but Jessica really out did herself with saying “just when you think CPAC can’t get any creepier.” Really? Just Really? This video freaked you out that much? With all the actual evil in the world done to women, those women at CPAC are the worst?

My friend and fellow Tennessee transplant, Matthew Hurtt, posted these videos on his blog. The first one is the Dodge commercial that did catch the wrath of feminists who weren’t busy complaining about the “inherent violence” in the Focus on the Family spot.

Both ads build on stereotypes. The feminist answer perpetuates the wage gap myth and makes the usual complaints about how awful it is to be a woman. I think these are silly since relationships are hard and there will always be communications issues between the sexes since we’re wired differently. Society also places different expectations on men and women. Deal with it. Men have issues too.  The only difference: men seem much more capable at laughing at these stereotypes, whereas women whine about them.

Warning: like most things feminist, the second video contains some language. The lefty gals enjoy being crass.

The Dodge ad is created to sell a product, but the feminist ad is a little long and doesn’t give a call to action. Whoever created it did a lot of work, but there’s no web site or activism appeal. Wasted opportunity for them.

Update: Not surprisingly, Broadsheet likes the ad calling it a “ego-blistering spoof!” Feministing claims “You must absolutely watch…” Amanda Hess at The Sexist has a full transcript of the video.

There you go. Feminists fighting the terrible front lines of silly Super Bowl ads. Glad to see that there aren’t more important battles out there.

All over the web, I’ve read the reaction of feminists to the Tebow Superbowl commercial and almost universal laughter at their charge of domestic abuse. When I first saw Amanda Marcotte’s tweet and then saw that NOW, Women’s Media Center and other organizations were going with that angle, I rolled my eyes. This was clearly a group that picked an unwise battle, came out on the losing side and was desperately trying to save face.

After seeing Megyn Kelly’s interview with Women’s Media Center spokesperson, (always use gender neutral speech when referencing feminists) Shelby Knox, I remembered a few facts about the feminist movement’s relationship with domestic violence. After the video, let’s examine other high-profiles of domestic violence* and the feminist movement. It’s not such a supportive history.

Superbowl Sunday 1993
The week prior to the Superbowl, numerous women’s groups announced that calls to domestic violence shelters dramatically increased the day after the Superbowl. Watching men beat each other up on the gridiron caused men to rough up their wives, girlfriends and mothers.

Wrong! It turns out a “coalition of women’s groups” in California had fudged some numbers from a study conducted at Old Dominion University and actually misquoted an expert on domestic violence in their press release. However, the damage was done. If you Google “Superbowl, domestic violence” hits come up for nearly every year since then. Christina Hoff Sommers also examines the evolution of this myth in Who Stole Feminism?

O.J. Simpson 1994
In her book, The New Thought Police, Tammy Bruce recounts here experience in leading the California NOW chapter’s efforts to fight domestic violence after Nicole Brown Simpson was found murdered. Regardless if OJ did it or not, there was clear evidence that she has frequently abused in the relationship. Bruce use the high-profile story to lead candlelight vigils and increase advocacy efforts to fight domestic violence. She was making so much noise in California that conservative Christians were donating money to their domestic violence efforts.

A problem emerged when higher-ups in the NOW told Bruce to stop. She was making the NAACP and other minority partners upset. In the grand scheme of leftist politics, race counted more than sex (according to Leslie Sanchez’s book, We’ve Come a Long Way, Maybe, this was also was a factor in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign). According to the hierarchy of Democrats, feminists couldn’t highlight the domestic abuse issue in the OJ Simpson case because OJ was black. Despite the good that might come about, it ruffled feathers in the liberal coalition. Bruce was maligned by the highest levels of NOW and the feminist movement and officials distanced themselves from her.

Bill Clinton, late 1990s
Despite mounting evidence that Bill Clinton took advantage of women and potentially raped them. Aside from Monica, which would have been deemed inappropriate by any private workplace, (Harassment of interns should never be tolerated even when “consensual.”) there was Juanita Broadderick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Not one feminist group stood up to Clinton. Like the Bruce situation, they sacrificed one for the team in order to protect their waning voice in Democratic politics.

Domestic Violence in LGBT Relationships
Domestic violence PSAs and images are very stereotyped. What do you call a man’s sleeveless undershirt? A wifebeater! Where do you think that name came from?

A dirty little secret among feminists and other liberal groups is that domestic violence is just as prevalent among LGBT intimate partners as it is among heterosexuals. That mans that middle-aged white men are not the most dangerous individuals around, as feminists would have you believe. Anyone can perpetrate violence against an intimate partner, women against men, women against women and men against men. When was the last time you heard that talked about during Domestic Violence Awareness month?

Feminists are quick to play the domestic violence card when it suits their purposes. However, whenever it might place them in a sticky situation or make their friends look bad, it doesn’t happen. Every time they cry wolf about an issue and then fall back on a domestic violence charge, it cheapens the actual problem of domestic abuse in our society. Every false charge hurts women (and men and children) who are stuck in violent situation. Having seen and talked to kids and women who were real victims, it makes me sick to see them attempt to gain political capital from a bad strategic decision.

High profile groups such as NOW and Women’s Media Center may give lip service with a few PSAs and press releases throughout the year, but they cause real harm to the small groups and hard-working advocates fighting this terrible problem in society. On the same day that they called Pam Tebow’s tackle “bizarre” or “violent,” a real case of high-profile abuse by a Warren Sapp, former NFL player and Dancing With the Stars finalist, was reported. Did you hear any feminists condemn his actions? Joe Henderson, columnist at the Tampa Bay Tribune has a problem with the situation:

NOW fights legitimate issues and has been a strong (if occasionally strident) voice against real problems in society.

This isn’t one of them.

A statement like this actually hurts women’s causes because it comes across as irrational wide-eyed rhetoric, especially when you consider the timing.

Hours before the Tebow ad ran, former Tampa Bay Buccaneer Warren Sapp was arrested in Miami on a misdemeanor charge of domestic battery against a woman.

Where was Terry O’Neill on that one? (H/T NeW)

Groups that claim to fight domestic violence should not be selective when it has the potential to get their names in the news and raise a few dollars. Either they fight every case or they don’t engage. Sadly, there are enough high-profile domestic violence cases that they could made an difference if they actually lived up to their name. Instead, they tried to fight pro-lifers and looked like idiots, so they changed strategies and exploited a cause that has the potential to inflict real damage in the lives of women.