I got the idea for this meme when reading Stacy’s post about NARAL’s new anti-Catholic, economically-illiterate ad.

We can talk all day about the economics of “free” birth control, the disgusting pandering that Obama is doing in light of $4/gallon gasoline and almost 9% unemployment, or religious freedom, but this blogger is ready to talk about discrimination. Specifically, the huge numbers of people who are discriminated against by this rule.

For example, gays and lesbians – particularly gay men.  There is no sexual activity that any gay man or lesbian will do, with the partner of their choice, that will ever produce a child.  A sexually active gay has about as much use for the Pill as does a fish for a bicycle, but they will have to pick up some of the cost for their heterosexual peers. How heteronormative – and homophobic.

It gets worse for gays, though. Gay men are about forty-four times as likely to have AIDS as their straight counterparts.  But this new regulation doesn’t pay for condoms as a way of preventing STDs, even though treating AIDS costs over a half-million dollars per patient.  And AIDS is an actual disease, unlike pregnancy; AIDS ends in death, not in new life.  But apparently, Obama doesn’t care about gay people.

This also discriminates against the middle-aged and elderly.  The Pill isn’t safe for women who are over 35 or 40, who have to use other forms of birth control that are not covered by the mandate.  So does Obama think that women who are beyond their “sell-by” date don’t deserve to have a sex life? To continue my usual rant, fertility is not a disease; having working ovaries is not a medical condition.  However, erectile dysfunction is at least a dysfunction, but HHS isn’t offering to pay for Viagra. Again, why the disparity? Obama thinks that anyone who isn’t Hollywood young-and-hot doesn’t deserve to have fun in bed?  A couple in their forties, struggling with losing their jobs to lay-offs, whose children are teenagers, can’t (ahem) enjoy each other’s company?

My favourite group that this discriminates against: pregnant women.  They still have co-pays for prenatal care, labour, delivery, paediatrician visits, preemie care, even prenatal vitamins.  Lest anyone think that having a child is a choice, let me remind you that Social Security is seriously insolvent; next time a woman talks about a $300 co-pay for delivering in a hospital, remember that her baby will be paying your retirement and changing your bedpan. But the hard work of being pregnant and growing a healthy baby doesn’t rate under Obama’s idea of “women’s health,” and having babies is now only for rich white women – minorities, poor women, and all those groups hurt by a co-pay on the Pill should hear the message loud and clear: Obama thinks you don’t deserve to have kids.

The Obama Administration’s plan is great – if you’re young, heterosexual, don’t have a family history of blood clots,  and are wealthy enough to pay for both your babies and some other chick’s birth control.  The message is loud and clear: this is all about ensuring that heterosexual men can bang young women without having to pay child support.

…on union workers and political freedom:

Last week, the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform turned its attention to the injustice of forced union membership, focusing on the appalling union practice of forcing American workers to give money to partisan political activity they oppose.

I spoke to a union worker at the airlines on Sunday concerning this. According to my source they have a brief window where they can decline to have those dues taken from them, in exchange for losing the right to vote in union elections (an opt-out vs an Opt-in like in Wisconsin).

The member expressed that is was a small price to pay to make sure monies earned did not go to the Democratic Party and its leader in the White house.

Every dollar of that union fund spent on elections is a dollar not spent on actual pensions, it’s a dollar not spent on services for union member and exists basically to try to extract taxpayer dollars to make up for it.

Unions once existed to protect their members, now they exist to protect the prerogatives and comfort of their leaders.

Awesomeness of the day: Dave Mustaine endorses Santorum.  Here’s the explanation:

“Earlier in the election, I was completely oblivious as to who Rick Santorum was, but when the dude went home to be with his daughter when she was sick, that was very commendable,” Mustaine recently told MusicRadar.com.  “…You know, I think Santorum has some presidential qualities, and I’m hoping that if it does come down to it, we’ll see a Republican in the White House… and that it’s Rick Santorum.”

Weighing in on the rest of the field, Mustaine called Newt Gingrich an “angry little man” and said Ron Paul will “make total sense for a while, and then he’ll say something so way out that it negates everything else.”

As for Mitt Romney, the rocker said, “I’ve got to tell you, I was floored the other day to see that Mitt Romney’s five boys have a $100 million trust fund. Where does a guy make that much money? So there’s some questions there.”

In related news, Dan Savage just cried.

I will be posting interviews with candidates done at CPAC one a day starting today:

Meet Glenn Addison (R) candidate for Senate in Texas

Mr. Addison’s web site is here.

Over at the Conservatory we have video of, as Glenn Reynolds likes to say, rubes self identifying:

MacIver videographer captured Tubbs telling the protesters, who did not have a permit, that they’d promised him they’d leave before the weddings that were scheduled to take place there for Valentine’s Day:

The video from the event is telling the chief can’t understand why these people aren’t willing to keep the “deal” after he has allowed them to violate the law, and his annoyance with the cameraman who notices this says even more.

Dishonorable people acting dishonorably, who wouda thunk it?

Now this is why Scott Walker is going to win this recall and win it big. The three couples who were planning to get married at the Capital. This was going to be a totally apolitical day. The brides, the grooms, their friends and families, the guests could be from any political background. Their primary focus is on the big day.

They planned and spent money to make it perfect, their expectations were high as they always are at the start of a marriage and relationship and what do they get?

They get the Fathers of the occupy movement in their way.

All the permits, planning and fees didn’t matter, a political point had to be made and the Capital Police knowing this conflict was coming were more interested in allowing the political point to be made than holding these protesters to the same rules as the three couples being married.

Let me tell you something, each member of that wedding party, each bride and groom, each person who had been invited and each facebook friend will remember who spoiled their wedding day and who allowed said day to be spoiled.

And that in a nutshell is the occupy movement and the democrats problem.

Andrew Breitbart, Lee Stranahan et/al might point to the occupy rapes and idealistically expect it to mean something to the party that stood behind Bill Clinton, however the real danger the occupy movement and its fathers in Wisconsin pose to the left is that sooner or later it gets in the way of regular people trying to do regular things.

A horrible crime happening to someone else far away in a shame, but it is a lot less likely to move a voter than to have their wedding day, their picnic or their day with the kids and family spoiled because some occupod somewhere is in the way. That changes votes.

It’s simple human nature and the left can’t see it any more than Jimmy Carter could see this:

In November these guys are going to get an education.