December 11 2010
IWF in the News: Obamacare: More for Women, Nothing for Men
As the gargantuan Health Care Law begins to reveal itself and the scores of new government agencies it has created, some noticed that while at least seven of these new agencies are created directly for the benefit of women, there is apparently nothing for men. As an example of the disparity, "breast" is mentioned some 40 times in the law, but prostate not once.
When asked about the discrepancy Hadley Heath, a health care policy analyst at the Independent Women's Forum, noted that women voted for Obama in larger numbers, so they are being rewarded at the expense of men:
Women came out big in 2008, and they were a very big voting bloc for [Obama]. Women as voters really care about health care, health reform because we often make decisions for ourselves, our families and dependents about health care. So clearly this is an issue that is important to women, women are important as voters to any politician.
Scott Williams of the Men's Health Network suggested that women have an advantage when it comes to lobbying, and said that they are both more vocal and more aware of the politics surrounding the issue. Williams thinks men need to work harder to bring their issues to attention, but he neglects to mention that many of the organizations and agencies created solely for the benefit of women have created a very loud, active and well-paid army of women whose job is to shove men's concerns aside in favor of women.
As the private institutions men used to rely on to defend their interests were eviscerated by "equality" legislation, new, public institutions exclusively for women were set up. Public institutions have an inherent advantage as they are funded by all of us whether we want to pay for them or not, and their initiatives are often enforced by the courts, and ultimately law enforcement. This is really why women continue to win victory after victory: they are a legally privileged class.
The result of this is naked government discrimination against men, and a disregard for the welfare of half the adult population of the United States that goes beyond mere neglect; due to the fact that men are forced to fund these measures it could fairly be called an act of tyranny.