Smell the Glove President

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print



I stand in awe of this comment by Instapundit:


MEGAN MCARDLE:  A Fight Over Contraception Won’t Help ObamaCare.

I gather that both supporters and opponents of the mandate think the Supreme Court will probably rule that corporations (at least closely held ones such as these two) are going to be granted an exemption from the mandate if they have clear religious objections.

Social media was on fire over this when it happened, and I confess that I am struggling to see why. There was a lot of outraged talk about how corporations aren’t people, of course, but a lot more about employers trying to control their employees’ sex lives, treating women as second-class citizens and so forth. To judge from these reactions, you would think that birth-control pills were a scarce resource that could only legally be obtained through employers. In fact, generic birth-control pills are available for $25 a month through a Costco pharmacy, $50 if you want a brand name.

“But that’s expensive for a young woman on a budget!” you are about to cry. And I am about to answer that it doesn’t get less expensive because an insurer buys it. Regular, predictable expenses such as birth-control pills cannot be defrayed by insurance; they can only be prepaid, with a markup for the insurer’s administrative costs. The extra cost is passed on by the insurers to your employer, and from your employer to you and your fellow workers, either by raising your contribution or lowering the wage they are willing to offer. There’s obviously some cross-subsidy from your fellow employees who don’t use birth control, but overall, there’s no particular reason to force insurers to cover a minor and predictable expense.

The administration didn’t force employers with a religious objection to offer contraception because it made financial or medical sense; they did it because it had great symbolic value to Barack Obama’s political base. And much of that symbolic value seems to actually come from the willingness to coerce people who object to buy the stuff.

Obama, and his supporters, quite clearly take joy in coercing those seen as enemies to do things they find objectionable.  It is indicative of a deep psychological disorder.  Call it the “smell the glove” presidency. . .


What the ongoing culture war amounts to for much of the Left is to force their adversaries, usually Christians and conservatives, to choose between betraying their consciences or suffering legal penalties.  That this is done in the name of tolerance adds to the surreal quality of our time.

More to explorer


  1. “It’s indicative of a deep psychological disorder.”

    What gets me fired up is that the dems want us to embrace their disorders as being “unique individualism” and to tolerate the sexual diversity. Diversity or perversity? Promiscuity or “sexual expressionism.” Narcissism is “good.”
    Lying to get what you want is acceptable in obamaland.

    Come Emmanuel.
    Come deliver us from All Evil.

  2. “much of that symbolic value seems to actually come from the willingness to coerce people who object to buy the stuff…”

    Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Matthew 4.

Comments are closed.