No Progressive Pat the Obama administration did not start this fight. The origins and totalitarian purposes of right-wing christians are much deeper and emotionally primitive than that - as the reference I provided describes.

Right wing Christians were already targeting Planned Parenthood and similar organizations which provided comprehensive birth control information long before the proposed legislation was introduced.
They had also started campaigns to even prevent the availability of contraceptives altogether.
Even, if I remember rightly, introduced legislation in some states to do this.

I know the point will be lost on the extremes where all feminism is hated and anything Jennifer has to say is intepreted on the basis of the feminist tag rather than what she actualy says but again, Jennifer is not one of those feminists running a war against men. Shes not one of those feminists supporting a one sided view of every gender issue.

Those anti-feminists who attack her and what she writes as though she were like that just polarise the debate and lessen the chances that more moderate readers will take the time to listen to what men have to say when we talk about the extremes hurting us.

You are no better than those feminists who dismiss the plight of men suffering harm via family law or CSA based on gender perceptions rather than concepts of fairness or what
s actually being said.

The takeover of the right side of politics by religious extremists is and should be a concern for those with liberal views. There don't seem to be moderate options for liberal voters anymore.

R0bert

@ Daffy Duck, why use the term "right wing Christians" when what you mean is simply, 'Christians'?

Christians don't seem to mind if Planned Parenthood and Media Matters exist, they just don't want to continue to fund them like secularists are trying to get them to do...both of these leftist organisations are, in fact, tax exempt.

Umm Trav, I don't identify myself as a "feminist" but I certainly don't think it's a dirty word, as you apparently do. I'm not aligned with any "feminist" movement. Therefore your strawman argument is pointless. Now perhaps you'd like to address the substance of the piece, including its links. Or do you dismiss all those commentators as "feminist" as well? Especially, perhaps, Carolyn in Texas, who is one of the first to bear the brunt of new legislation?

I am very disappointed with this article; when I saw the phrase "war on women" I expected to see a critique of Islam; but no, just the usual, craven attack on the right of US politics.

Why craven? Because, while no doubt there are some anti-abortion crazies floating around in the US right, they pale into insignificance compared with the misogony of Islam. And Islam does not muck around with disbelievers or apostates, male or female.

Until Western feminists stop writing drivel which is grotesquely disproportionate in its focus on the West and start attacking the real enemy of women, Islam, they deserve all the scorn they get.

From the article - "Even the US Constitution, so clear on the separation of church and state".

The authour, as a leading feminist who influences the opinions of millions of modern women should know that the US Constitution doesn't mention the separation of Church and State at all. The Constitution, however, does protect the freedom to 'exercise' religion, anytime, anywhere -

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Paying for birth control/ abortion is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Paying for a new highway or hospital is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The separation of church and state argument grew out of the fear US states had of the federal government dismantling their own religion, and replacing it with a national denomination. In this contect, these days the 'denomination' infringing on freedom of religion the most, is the religion of secularism (see: Torcaso v. Watkins).