Mitt Romney, friend to women’s rights. Ha-ha, just fooling

Here we have Romney assuring us he supports access to contraception, but not any laws requiring insurers or employers to cover it.
Then we have his assurance that he boosted women’s presence in the Massachusetts government by putting together a big binder of potential female candidates (which is not true—under Romney women’s presence shrank). Beyond that? Well, all government can do is make the economy so good that companies are scrounging for workers. Amanda Marcotte replies by pointing out that even when the economy was booming, pay discrimination existed. Plus, of course, our government doesn’t like full employment, precisely because it raises the risk of workers other than CEOs getting pay increases (inflation!). I’ve heard many times that the Fed and other bodies look on really low unemployment as a problem, not a sign of success.
Here’s a more general discussion of women’s issues in the debate. Unsurprisingly some conservatives think that Obama considering women’s issues is just pandering, because it’s not like losing Roe vs. Wade would encourage states to pass even more anti-abortion legislation or anything, and the real issue over contraception is religious freedom for employers so there!
As I’ve noted before, however, the right-wing isn’t just opposed to abortion, they hate birth control (more on the topic from me here). I have no trouble believing Mitt will eliminate it if the right presses it enough, or come up with the kind of insane regulations that have made abortion so much harder to get.
I also believe it’s a strain to say providing employees with insurance (or covering part of the cost) means you’re “subsidizing” birth control. As the employee is also paying for it (or in the case of Sandra Fluke and her fellow students, Georgetown University mandates they buy it), why is the employer’s religious freedom paramount? Should the employee be told she has to abide by her boss’s faith? And hell, what about economic freedom—women should be confident that they’re paying for a policy that provides the coverage they need.
Plus of course, I don’t see any of these institutions squealing about paying single men for Viagra which they obviously shouldn’t need, being, you know, single. Or checking they’re not just using it as a party drug for better erections. But of course, men’s slutty behavior is Totally Different, right?