I see where President Obama gave a speech in Colorado today before an almost all woman audience, with the truth-challenged Sandra Fluke as his warmup act:
President Obama on Wednesday accused Republicans of wanting to take the nation “back to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century” during a campaign stop aimed at securing support from women.
Stumping on a two-day, four-stop swing through Colorado — a state where Obama needs strong turnout from women in November — the president sought to hammer home the benefits his healthcare law includes for families, such as free mammograms and contraception and cancer screenings with no copay.
But the president also emphasized the differences between him and his opponent, Republican presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who he said would take the Affordable Care Act and “kill it dead” on his first day in office.
“The decisions that affect a woman’s health aren’t up to politicians or insurance companies, they’re up to you,” Obama said during a fiery speech before a crowd of nearly all women.
Targeting Romney specifically, Obama said, “He said he’d ‘get rid of’ Planned Parenthood,” as the crowd booed.
Back to the fifities? While there's no evidence whatsoever that Republicans have any interst in doing that, let's look at that statement in totality.
In the 1950's a far lower percentage of woman and their dependent children were living in poverty than are today, and a portion of those numbers can be directly attributed to the economic policies of President Barack Obama.
Most workers earned enough to support a family, a home, a car and a decent lifestyle that was the envy of the world on one paycheck. While it's true there were inequities in what men earned versus what women earned, the fact that one paycheck could usually support a family allowed women an important choice many of them are denied today..the right to be stay at home moms and raise their children if they chose to.
In today's Obama economy, that frequently isn't an option, even in two parent families.
Statistics on divorce were far lower than they are today, another fact that keeps far more of today's women in poverty. That change was largely brought about by the institution of 'no fault' divorce laws and a number of other changes to family law, which have made the whole process a lot easier and reduced it to a financial transaction if there's even a father involved. Frequently, there isn't, and the number of children growing up in homes where a sole woman is the only parent and provider have also skyrocketed. Those changes in law and social policies were lobbied for and championed largely by lawyers and by 'women's rights' activists.
In fact, women were far more likely to be married in the 1950's than they are today, and their persons and sensibilities were arguably safer and more respected. Sexual harassment and assaults aginst women certainly occurred, and probably at a lot high level than statistics indicate because fewer women reported them then. But even making the most generous extrapolations, nothing like what's going on today. The objectification of women that has occurred in our culture as well as certain fallout from the feminist movement and the 'if it feels good, do it' attitude carried over from the boomer days has made such crimes a lot more commonplace.
Out of wedlock births occurred, but were much less common back in the 1950's because most young girls understood that there was a real risk of getting pregnant and took precautions not to get into that situation. While no one wants to go back to the days of the back alley abortionist, there's an argument to be made that abortion on demand marketed by the grossly misnamed Planned Parenthood have not only vastly increased the number of abortions but coarsened the sensibilities of our entire society.
In short, while there have been some beneficial and welcome changes in the status of women in America, on average, in a number of respects they were far better off half a century ago.
And as for the president's riff on contraception, that is largely a First Amendment argument that deals with the freedom of practice and the establishment clauses on religion. Of course, he'd much rather people think it was about 'denying contraception' , but as we found out while investigating Sandra Fluke's nonsense, the cost is ridiculously affordable even without insurance.
In short, President Obama, once again is simply doing what he's become less and less good at as time goes on. Simply and obviously lying.
Oh and while I'm on the subject, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) pay's its female staffers almost 20% less than it's male staffers.
Talk about back to the fifties.