The Liberal War on Women

I recently posted two blogs (one here and one here) on the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.  This decision provoked the expected hyperbolic distortions from the left, mostly designed to perpetuate their “war on women” campaign trope. If refusing to pay for something that can be purchased at the local CVS for $30 qualifies as a war on women, then what liberals in Arkansas are doing to three women must be the Armageddon.

Under democrat Governor Mike Beebe, the state Medicaid office has denied payment to Chloe Jones, Elizabeth West, and Catherine Kiger for a life-saving cystic fibrosis drug called Kalydeco, which can cost up to $300,000 per year. These three women have filed suit against the liberals in Arkansas to get access to the drug. This is the liberal vision of healthcare and, indeed, state-controlled decision making over all aspects of your life other than what birth control or abortifacient method you get to use. In their bizarre world-view, it’s a “war” on a woman to have her employer opt not to pay $30 for an abortifacient, which she can drive to the local drug store and purchase over-the-counter for about the cost a high end bottle of shampoo, but perfectly OK to refuse to pay for a drug that enables that same woman to breathe.

It is important to note that Kalydeco falls into a category of drugs called “orphan drugs.” These are drugs approved by FDA with a particular designation and market exclusivity for diseases with fewer than 200,000 patients in the US. In the case of Kalydeco, it is approved for cystic fibrosis patients with a particular gene mutation that occurs in about 1,000 people in the US, including the three women on whom war is being waged by liberals in Arkansas. Given the very few number of patients, manufacturers of orphan drugs have to charge high prices to make back the development costs. At $300,000 per patient and 1,000 patients, the total addressable market for Kalydeco is only about $300 million, which is very small by drug standards. Any smaller and there is not enough profit to justify developing the drug. I sense that is precisely what liberals want in their healthcare vision. The fewer new drugs there are, the less work it is for them to deny them to patients in need.

I feel like a broken record, but the liberal hypocrisy is just astonishing. They go categorically berserk about  the alleged intervention in a woman’s contraceptive choices by a court decision that, practically speaking, did nothing to limit a single woman’s choice of anything. The economics of contraception are such that the female employees of Hobby Lobby will have to change absolutely nothing as a result of the SCOTUS decision.  They might have to forego a few lattes at Starbucks if they need to purchase a Plan B pill on their own dime. These same liberals then applaud the denial of life-saving medications to women with serious, but rare diseases that will ultimately kill them.

Tell me again who’s waging a war on women?

About Bruce Robertson

Bruce Robertson is an amateur writer and professional provocateur
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Liberal War on Women

  1. Kathy DeHaven says:

    I, too, Bruce, am somewhat surprised at the lack of comments you receive on your blog posts and I’m venturing a guess at why. People who agree with you are afraid to speak. The silencing of voices has become more common in the US, the home country of free speech. Speak up and you’ll be embarrassed, targeted, labelled “anti-woman,” or worse, a twitter campaign (slight upward eyeroll while I wrote that one).

    In fact, I can hear (very loudly, in fact), the response to this particular blog post right now. That damn corporate pharmaceutical company, refusing to reduce it’s cost or offer this drug to these women for free. Their profits must be too high! Let’s ban them.

    • Kathy, I think you’ve nailed it. Liberals have set a course where anyone who challenges any part of their doctrine is a racist, sexist, or something-else-ist, even though much of their doctrine harms the very constituencies they pretend to help. Someone who challenges Obama’s failed economic policies must be a racist. But, his policies have led to record levels of unemployment for young black males. So, who’s racist here? If one were to define “racist” as “doing things to harm black people,” not an unreasonable definition, one could logically argue that Obama is a racist. Yeah, that’s inflammatory, but not nearly as inflammatory as their language.

      But, here’s the problem. They have the mass media to take their BS and put it in a megaphone. They are really good at this. Just look at what’s happening with this “corporate patriotism” crap. Liberals have perpetuated a business climate that doesn’t work. Companies react exactly as they should. This is a problem created by liberals that refuse to reform the corporate tax code. But, now just 3 weeks into the debate, liberals have successfully turned it into a campaign theme for THEM. That takes my breath away. They create a problem. Business responds. They blame Republicans. The media parrots it. Lather, rinse, repeat.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s