I understand your emotional battle. I empathize with it. But nothing you said has to do with the healthcare debate. Central planning is a failed strategy as I already explained. For some reason, you did not respond to that section of my response.

You claim you know what you need to carry and raise a child. Obviously, I believe you. So why would you not want to control your own health care so you can make sure you get exactly what you need? Why would you want to use the government and a failed central planning strategy to try and provide what you need to yourself and other women across the country?

The only person who can always make sure they find what they need is the individual. When the government tries to get involved, people get left out. There are 300 million people in the United States. Each of those people has massively different individual needs. A handful of Washington intellectuals, regardless of how many women represent the handful, can’t possibly make sure that each person gets what they need efficiently.

The most efficient method of getting people what they need is the free market. The reason health care is very difficult for some people to adequately acquire and keep is due to government involvement in the marketplace and the consequences of that involvement. The more government you add, the worse it gets.

You know exactly what you need and we all want you to have what you need. Using the government to blanket females with supposedly needed services instead of seeing millions of individuals with individual needs is going to ensure that your quest to fulfill said needs is an indefinite one.

I guess you guys are out of talking points. The truth is inconvenient isn’t it.

Arguing false premises isn’t going to get us anywhere. Your opening statement is vehemently false.

No, maternity leave and women’s health issues shouldn’t be discussed by our federal government. There are far too many problems with both sexes to be fixed by central planning. If the government fixes one problem for one group, it’ll just create more problems for another. Central planning is a historically failed intellectual strategy that was ditched even by despotic governments. For you to advocate central health care planning shows exactly how illogical and irrational your viewpoint is.

Additionally, your feminism blinds your reality. While women give birth to the future of our generation, men plant the seed that gives them that power. And the product is a mix of both. For you to advocate that women should come first when it’s the man that initiates your example is passionately misguided. What happened to equality? Your reverse sexism is just as disgusting as the sexism you initially chose to fight against. You’ve become what you initially opposed. I feel sad for you.

It takes both genders to create babies. There are stay at home dads.

I teach Taekwondo to all ages (mainly 3-12yos). I am in constant contact with parents (Dads as well as moms) about their kid’s development. We have belt levels and if you have a bad attitude or are lacking in a part of your life, you don’t test for next belt.

I have had moms come to me and ask for help with their child; behavior, motor skills, you name it.

Your argument for Woman needing to be pampered and put on a pedestal is garbage. Your logic is the same as every other statist (liberal) out there. You take a random fact and associate welfare (your agenda) to it. So because the baby comes out of you, I owe you something?

I do believe it is WOMEN who give birth to the FUTURE of our nation therefore their rights are first and FUNDAMENTAL.
In order for America to produce continual healthy, intelligent generations we MUST focus on those who carry that burden: WOMEN.

I do applaud Kevin’s commentary, however, because he just makes me realize that women must really ban together (regardless of political affiliation or religious views) so that we can have the voice we deserve.

Don’t you think our high corporate income tax rates and the anti-wealth policies of progressives does far more harm to the competitiveness of American businesses in foreign markets than having to pay for health care for employees? Especially since paying for health care for employees is optional? Surely you can see where Slaughter’s stance on the issue is missing the mark.

Equally interesting is that I assume Slaughter supports the high corporate income tax rate and the soak the rich tax policies, yet makes a contradicting argument when the opportunity to pass another progressive government takeover is presented. It seems to me you’re quoting an opportunist, not someone with values and principles who actually cares.