Image 01 Image 03

Sen. Boxer ratchets up war-on-women talk in critique of Hobby Lobby

Sen. Boxer ratchets up war-on-women talk in critique of Hobby Lobby

The war-on-women narrative for the 2014 and 2016 elections is already taking shape

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) appeared on MSNBC this week to discuss her objections to the challenge Hobby Lobby has leveled against the United States government’s contraception mandate in Obamacare.

Boxer made several baseless claims during the interview, which deserve to be put into a broader political context.

Before discussing Boxer’s claims, due credit must be given to the MSNBC anchor, Chris Jansing, who drew attention to the fact that Hobby Lobby provides its employees with all sorts of contraceptives through its health plan (16 to be exact), but that the store’s ownership objects to 4 drugs in particular. Among them, Hobby Lobby objects to pills like Plan B — also known as the Morning After pill— and Intrauterine Devices (IUDs), because they have the potential to be “abortion-inducing.” In other words, they can terminate a pregnancy after the egg has been fertilized.

In response to this very legitimate distinction, Boxer proclaims, “that’s a distinction without a difference.”

Perhaps Boxer knows better than the companies who offer these drugs, but I doubt it. Indeed, while Plan B claims to have no effect on a woman who is already pregnant, it qualifies this by saying “there is no medical evidence that Plan B One-Step would harm a developing baby.”

It is important to note that “no medical evidence” does not mean there is no possibility. Moreover, Plan-B does not assert that their position is medically conclusive. Thus, Hobby Lobby’s position that it is an abortifacient (an abortion causing drug) is a reasonable one.

Beyond Plan B, however, Hobby Lobby also objects to providing IUDs. Unlike Plan B, there is medical evidence IUDs cause abortion after an egg has been fertilized. Indeed, that’s the exact language used to describe how they function.

[A Hormonal IUD] also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick. This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. [Emphasis Added].

Contrary to what Senator Boxer claims, this is a distinction with a difference. There are a great many people in this nation that harbor the entirely reasonable belief that life begins at conception (i.e. fertilization). Since neither science nor law has determined the exact moment life begins, the question becomes one more of philosophy than anything else.

(Video clip h/t Twitchy)

Following this first miscue, Senator Boxer doubled down by drawing the improper but persistent analogy between abortifacients and Viagra.

I have never heard Hobby Lobby… complain that Viagra is covered by many insurances plans — or practically all of them — or other kinds of, you know, things for men, which I won’t go into.

Again, to the credit of Jansen, she properly noted Hobby Lobby and supporters of their position would argue, “this is a life issue for them.”

Boxer seemed moderately indignant at the anchor’s response. Instead of addressing the valid point raised by Jansing, Boxer continued,

Excuse me, I have never heard them put any type of moral objection — remember this is a moral objection — to men getting viagra, but they have a moral objection to women getting certain types of birth control. So I view this as very much an anti-woman position to take.”

Again, Boxer — either willfully or due to a lack of understanding — fails to draw the crucial distinction.

Viagra is closer to a pregnancy inducing drug than it is a pregnancy terminating drug, and of course, it is the termination of pregnancy that is the crux of Hobby Lobby’s claim. Recognizing this reality, however, is antithetical to the continuing goal of the left to frame what are popularly considered “conservative issues,” as issues that are “anti-women.”

In truth, comparing Viagra and abortifacients is like comparing KY Jelly and condoms. You’d have to be hopelessly naive — or perhaps more likely, have a side agenda — to seriously contend they have the same effect. Indeed, their only legitimate similarity is that they are all used in the bedroom (or, you know, wherever).

I don’t think Senator Boxer is naive, I think she has a side agenda. That agenda is perpetuation of the myth that conservatives take an anti-woman position on just about everything.

Whether Hobby Lobby wins or loses this case, be prepared to have the side agenda march on into 2014 and 2016, regardless of its scientific accuracy.

(Featured Image Source: YouTube)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I don’t think Boxer is naive either. I believe she is someone who has complete and utter contempt for the citizens of this country (aka the unwashed masses) and believes “the little people” must be controlled in every aspect of their “little” lives.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Sanddog. | March 27, 2014 at 11:21 am


    Shame on you Barbie!

    pjm in reply to Sanddog. | March 27, 2014 at 7:51 pm

    Her ‘agenda’ is obvious. Distraction.

    Instead of the voters focusing on the failures of her party and her Dear O-Leader, like Obamacare, Crimea and our position as laughing stock internationally, the economy, the debt, unemployment, etc, etc, let’s drag up some old shibboleth about some non-existent ‘war on women’

Henry Hawkins | March 26, 2014 at 4:02 pm

Women make up half the vote. It’s the largest demographic you can (pretend to) champion without being accused of something-ism. Whites make up even more of the voting population, but a campaign theme of War Against White People isn’t going to fly, obviously.

The bogus War on Women addresses the largest number of voters without hurting Dem/libs.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 27, 2014 at 11:24 am

    They bluster on but say nothing and mean nothing.
    “Yeah, you say it best when you say nothing at all.”
    Read more: Keith Whitley – When You Say Nothing At All Lyrics | MetroLyrics

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Not A Member of Any Organized Political. | March 27, 2014 at 11:27 am

      Every time those Dems bring up this lie they should be hit hard with:

      “Yeah, you say it best when you say nothing at all.”

      Then it must be demanded that they explain it in great detail with itemized lists. The Dems are the “War on Women” and are the “War on Humanity.”

      Read more: Keith Whitley – When You Say Nothing At All Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Do not discount the high probability that Boxer is both stupid AND evil. Most Democrats are.

Fortunately, this interview appeared on MSNBC, so it was only seen by a few dozen conservative bloggers needing an outrage fix.

    AConsidiot in reply to Estragon. | March 26, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    “Do not discount the high probability that Boxer is both stupid AND evil. Most Democrats are.” Yep, they are sub-human. That sure is easier than dealing with their ideas.

      murkyv in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 6:25 pm

      If their ideas weren’t both stupid and evil, they’d be a lot easier to deal with.

        AConsidiot in reply to murkyv. | March 26, 2014 at 6:41 pm

        History tells us the results of your kind of ignorance.

        You better look to yourself. You seem to be governed by hatred rather than reason.

          Ragspierre in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 6:53 pm

          You seem to be a hate-twisted lil’ troll who hasn’t the wit to get the arguments showing how stupid Boxer’s statements were, and how evil is her/your side of this argument.

          AConsidiot in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 6:59 pm

          @Ragspierre I think we both know who the hateful one is. Hate seems to be your argument of first resort.

          Ragspierre in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 7:30 pm

          Well, let us see, shall we…?

          Who came on a conservative site using the name “AConsidiot”?

          Who threw a handful of trolling comments all over a thread?

          I submit YOU, punkin’, are a sick som-bitch.

          And your hate is part of your pathology. Along with your totally unfounded sense of moral superiority.

      Ragspierre in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 6:41 pm

      Nobody said they were subhuman. They are stupid and evil, which fully appreciates their humanity.

      Like yours….

        AConsidiot in reply to Ragspierre. | March 26, 2014 at 6:51 pm

        If they are stupid and evil, why would you grant them humanity? Shouldn’t they be exterminated for the betterment of the people who are smart and good? How does the country survive if half the people are stupid and evil?

        The answer is that it couldn’t. But you don’t have to deal with their ideas, experience and culture if you can simply dismiss them as ‘stupid and evil’.

        Pop quiz: Who was evil? Martin Luthor King or Sheriff Bull Conner? How about James Earl Ray?

        OK, I will give you a current politician. Do you really think Bernie Sanders is stupid and evil?

          Ragspierre in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 6:56 pm

          “If they are stupid and evil, why would you grant them humanity?”

          Because, you evil lil’ moron, they ARE human. Evil and stupidity are…as you are demonstrating…human traits. Starfish don’t exhibit them.


          Ragspierre in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 7:01 pm

          “Shouldn’t they be exterminated for the betterment of the people who are smart and good?”

          No, hunny. That urge to mass murder belongs to your Collective, who have indulged in it without abandon for over one hundred years.

          It still results in the mass murder of unborn human beings.


          AConsidiot in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 7:06 pm

          @Ragspierre You simply cannot deal with their ideas, experience and culture.

          So if half the country is evil and stupid, what do you plan to do about it? Are you going to use evil to combat it? Your ‘virtue’ doesn’t seem to be winning.

          Why don’t you crawl into a hole and wait for the Apocalypse.

          AConsidiot in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 7:09 pm

          @Ragspierre I am much more concerned with the mass murder of the born. Besides if the evil ones stop reproducing, you could have your utopia.

          Ragspierre in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 7:12 pm

          I can deal wonderfully with anybody’s “experience, ideas and culture”.

          Bring some.

          But don’t try this fallacious bullshit about “1/2 the country”. Baw-baw Boxer does not speak for anything like “1/2 the country”.

          Does she, liar…???

          Is her “Viagra” nonsense really have anything to do with the case we are discussing?

          Is that an “idea” I should respect?

          Now, tell us about how fertilization differs from conception.


          AConsidiot in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 7:15 pm

          @Ragspierre You really don’t know? How did you get out of High School?

          Ragspierre in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 7:16 pm

          “Besides if the evil ones stop reproducing, you could have your utopia.”

          Cool! I love it when the delusional and eugenics-loving self-identify…!!!


          Ragspierre in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 7:19 pm


          I could draw you very good anatomical color illustrations, moron!

          But, hey, thanks for your chickenspit capitulation!

          Love it when you guys show up with names like “Considiot” to troll and show your “superiority”.

          LOVE IT…!!!

          Sanddog in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 10:03 pm

          Why would we want to exterminate anyone? We’re not progressives.

viagra also used after prostate surgery to get blood flow going, a medical need.

nordic_prince | March 26, 2014 at 4:20 pm

Now I’m confused. If “there is no medical evidence that Plan B One-Step would harm a developing baby,” then what, precisely, is the point of the “morning-after pill” in the first place?

Unless they’re going to play semantic games and say that a fertilized egg is not a “developing baby” – in which case, let’s cut through the fog and look at the big picture:

The morning-after pill is designed to destroy any life that might exist in the womb.

Period. That is the drug’s sole purpose.

And yes, a fertilized egg is life. The cells grow and reproduce – the fundamental definition of what constitutes “life.”

It is human life. The DNA would be recognized as unmistakably human, indistinguishable between born and unborn, a few days from conception or a few hours from death.

It matters not whether the life in the womb is a “developing baby,” or a fertilized egg.

Furthermore, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They cannot state with absolute certainty that the morning-after pill is without any adverse effects on developing babies. They have not conducted any clinical studies to that end, have they? I doubt it.

Besides that, Barbara Boxer is dumber than a box of rocks. She managed to take on a whole slew of straw men in that news clip, but she’s still dumber than a box of rocks.

    AConsidiot in reply to nordic_prince. | March 26, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    You and the author of the article don’t seem to understand the difference between fertilization and conception. They are not the same. Even the State of Mississippi voted down an Initiative to give ‘personhood’ to a fertilized egg.

    Just because an egg can become a human being, doesn’t make it a human being. Many fertilized eggs never become anything else by perfectly natural processes.

    You are entitled to your religious beliefs. But the state cannot enforce your religious beliefs. That is in the Constitution right before the 2nd Amendment.

      Ragspierre in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 6:44 pm

      “You and the author of the article don’t seem to understand the difference between fertilization and conception.”

      Why don’t you elaborate? Hmmm…???

      “But the state cannot enforce your religious beliefs.”

      You mean like the ones against murder and theft?

      You really are an idiot.

      Bruno Lesky in reply to AConsidiot. | March 26, 2014 at 9:02 pm

      Read RFRA — it’s that the State has to have “a compelling government interest and employ the ‘least restrictive means’ of furthering that interest.”

      You say “the state cannot enforce your religious beliefs.” That’s what me / libertarians are saying!

      No dear, you are playing semantic games. While SOME medical people define “conception” as the moment of implantation (for numerous reasons) the vast majority of non-med people (including the dictionary) consider “conception” and “fertilization” as synonymous.

      Scientifically, human life begins the moment of fertilization aka conception as two halves of DNA contributed by mother & father becomes a unique set of DNA and starts the journey towards eventual death some 80 years in his/her future.

      If that unique human life is interrupted earlier – naturally or artificially, doesn’t negate that is was 1) life 2) human.

      Now, please don’t attempt to pin “personhood” at some juncture of this life and assert “science”, because personhood is a metaphysical argument. Go ahead and make your case but don’t pretend that people who disagree with you are #waronscience because the question is NOT science.

    Observer in reply to nordic_prince. | March 26, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    You may be confusing the “Plan B” pill with RU-486 (also known as “the abortion pill”). Plan B is designed to be taken right after unprotected sex (up to 72 hours). Depending on where a female is in her cycle and how soon after sex she takes the pill, Plan B will prevent ovulation, or it will prevent fertilization of the egg by the sperm, or it will prevent implantation of the already-fertilized egg in the uterus. Plan B (unlike RU-486) will not work if the pill is taken after the fertilized egg has already implanted itself in the uterus. So when they say Plan B won’t harm “a developing baby,” what they mean is that once a fertilized egg has implanted in the uterus, Plan B is ineffective. If the female wants to end her pregnancy at that point, she’ll need to use RU-486 or have another type of abortion (e.g., surgical).

      nordic_prince in reply to Observer. | March 26, 2014 at 8:19 pm

      So if one of the effects of Plan B is to “prevent implantation of the already-fertilized egg in the uterus,” then it *does* destroy life.

      It surely doesn’t *preserve* it.

      My broader point still stands ~

DINORightMarie | March 26, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Barbara Boxer is indeed very thick-headed. But she is a snake, a low-life politician who will do any dirty deed to get elected, to control, to gain power.

She knows what she is saying is apples to oranges; she knows that there is nothing in what she says. She takes her talking points from the Democrat Party Media Complex (Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a great example of how this works.)

War on women. Republicans hate women. Rinse. Repeat.

1. Bah. Any Real Conservative™ knows how to counteract the War on Women ploy in 2014/2016:

Make those elections All About Abortion.

Right, Senator Akin? You tell ’em, Senator Mourdock!

2. No Ann Coulter fan am I, but she’s on the right track here:

I also think all Republican candidates should be trained with shock collars and cattle prods to automatically respond, upon hearing some combination of the words “abortion,” “rape” and “incest”: “Yes, of course there should be exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and I also support giving rapists the death penalty, unlike my Democratic opponent, who wants to give rapists the right to vote. Now, back to what I was saying about Obamacare …”

That said, I think there’s a significant chance that by 2016 the Democrats will deliver a fresh disaster(s) comparable to Obamacare. I worry, though, that by 2016 the American electorate may be too far gone to punish them.

If a man can orchestrate to pay for a porn subscription, a dinner and movie date, a bed and condoms for the very purpose of scoring, then he should also bear the final cost of the contraceptives.

Either these women have absolved their sexual partners of all responsibility or there’s an epidemic of immaculate conceptions that employers (of faith)and taxpayers are somehow financially responsible for.

    Radegunda in reply to Aucturian. | March 27, 2014 at 11:42 am

    It’s odd how the Democrats ignore the obvious fact that someone besides the woman is involved in the action. It’s as though women were just spontaneously getting pregnant and there’s no way to stop it except by getting the general public to fund “free” contraceptives.

    Used to be that women would generally say (or, were expected to say), “Marry me and then I’ll play along.” But now, they can’t even bring themselves to say “I can’t afford contraceptives, so you’ll have to share the expense if you want me to play along”?

    Why can’t they? Well, Democrats might say “They may not know the men well enough to be comfortable doing that …” In fact, I’ve heard an argument along those lines.

    Furthermore, wasn’t the founding principle of feminism that women are capable of standing on their own two feet and really don’t need men? Now, most of the feminists are telling us that women don’t have the ability to pay for their own contraceptives — or even to ask their men to divide the cost!

Boxer is not naive.

She is a stupid liar. But stupid first. She is teh most stupid person in the Senate. Fortunately for her, in the House there is Sheila Jackson-Lee and a few others, or she would be the stupidest person in the Congress.

Very few insurance plans pay for Viagra.

Viagra does not kill as its primary effect.

Viagra is as much for a man’s partner as it is for a man.

    Anchovy in reply to Ragspierre. | March 26, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    In the poker pool of the stupid senate ranking game, I’ll see your Barbara Boxer and raise you a Patty Murray.

      Ragspierre in reply to Anchovy. | March 26, 2014 at 6:47 pm

      Murry is a gold star “Lake Woebegone” student compared to “Don’t Call Me Ma’am” Boxer.

        Anchovy in reply to Ragspierre. | March 27, 2014 at 12:14 am

        I call you!

        “”I’ve worked hard to make sure that women have access to the right kinds of health care, and it’s their choice, not their employer’s choice,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday.

        “Sitting in that court today, it was stunning to me to recognize that nine people are going to make that decision — and will decide for a long time to come — whether women have to question when they go to work every day what the shareholders of that company’s religious views could be.”

          Observer in reply to Anchovy. | March 27, 2014 at 9:20 am

          Maybe Boxer should have thought about that before she voted “yes” on a bill (Obamacare) that would force employers to provide their employees with government-mandated health insurance coverages.

          These statists insist that their “bodies are none of the boss’ business” at the same time they are demanding that the boss pay for their bodies’ health care and contraceptives and abortion drugs. They can’t have it both ways. Having demanded that the government involve their bosses in their health care, they now have to deal with the fact that their bosses have some rights too, including the right not to have to pay for drugs and procedures that violate their religious beliefs.

    canoworms27 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 27, 2014 at 8:12 am

    I was under the impression that “Viagra” was developed for women…”an erection that lasts more than four hours, contact a doctor”…or have five wives, then everybody’s happy?

Two questions come to mind….

1. Just how many insurance companies now include Viagra in their coverage? (My personal BC/BS policy does not.)

2. Is the Federal Government now forcing companies to include Viagra in their employee insurance?

What part of “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” does she not understand? It is unconstitutional for government to normalize redistributive change and evolutionary dysfunction. It is immoral to advocate a population control protocol under the pretense of health care “reform”.

The master stroke on the “health-care-is-a-woman’s-issue” war will be for a group of men to file a law suite aimed at the Supreme Court mandating that men receive an equal amount of health care funding. Based on the fact that we have decided that all Americans should have health insurance and that women should not pay more than men, there is no other way to settle this. Just the look on that old hag’s fossilized face would make it all worth it.

Women consistently outspend men on health care 30-40% throughout every stage of their lives and they outlive men by 4-5 years. Does not sound very fair or equal to me. I don’t see the Republicans doing anything because they are afraid of the wimmin’s vote but if it were a legal challenge it would bypass all the political and social hurdles and go right for the throat.

    Radegunda in reply to Prof. Woland. | March 27, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Couldn’t you make your argument without injecting a nasty comment on the fact that women (just like men) get older over time? If women regularly ridiculed the way men look in the course of making a political argument, you’d probably think it demonstrated that women are too silly and shallow to make important decisions.

Just FYI, the post above was from a suck-puppeting troll.

As is apparent, it was not my post.

I have advised Prof. Jacobson. Interesting how dishonest these pukes are, innit?

More lies by a suck-puppet.

What a coward.

I am sure that Viagra has been a staple for ALL of Ms. Boxer’s sexual partners! I would tend to think, in light of her appearance, that several of her partners may have overdosed!