Kathryn Jean Lopez reported in The Corner, “Last night, Michelle Obama explained that her husband ‘believes that women are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care.'”The First Lady was, of course, speaking about the Most Important Issue of this election: access to contraception and abortion. (What, you thought it was the unemployment rate, religious liberty, the economy, or the upheaval in the Middle East and the threat from Iran? Psht. Why do you hate women?)
K-Lo took the opportunity to point out the anti-choice, anti-freedom activities of the Obama administration happening under the authority of Obamacare.
But there’s another problem here. See, the other day Obama expressed her desire to “impact the nature of food in grocery stores” as part of her agenda to end childhood obesity in one generation.
Not only does she not seem to know that “impact” is a noun and not a verb, but she puts the lie to her own concern for protecting women’s ability to choose, while also affirming the notion that Dems think We the People “belong to the government.”
Think: the self-same individuals that Michelle Obama insists are “more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care” will be among those choosing which foods to put into their own mouths and their children’s mouths. Are food choices not related to “our bodies and our health care”? If they are, why the double standard? Either women are capable of choosing good foods for themselves and their children at the store, just as they are capable of making good decisions regarding abortion and contraception; or women cannot be trusted to make healthy decisions about the food they eat (among other decisions more, erm, visceral?) so we must limit the choices available.
Unless she wants to start arguing that abortion is *good* for women, like eating your vegetables and limiting portion sizes.
But she maintains at one and the same time: a) women should be able to choose abortion; b) women should not be able to choose foods with “too much” salt.
And she sees no problem with pushing both sides of that odd pair because she believes we all belong to the government.
If this election hinges on nothing else, it should hinge on the notion that one party thinks we all belong to the government (in any sense), versus the other party that believes “the politicians work for us.”