The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

70° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat


Objections to women objectionable

Now that outrageous rumors of the illegalization of private insurance, slashing of Medicare benefits and implementation of death panels have simmered down, those opposing the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3692) hypocritically aim to bamboozle a new target — women. 

Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) co-wrote an article in the Washington Times asserting that Democrats in Congress are attempting to rob women of their power and hand it off to federal bureaucrats with their health insurance reform.

They argue that “”if Democrats in Congress and the administration had been listening to women,””  then this reform ill would never have been drafted and passed —  ergo, those darn reformists don’t care about women and it is the responsibility of females across the country to stand up to this heinous injustice and infringement on their God-given role as family healthcare provider.

Apparently, the only power that women possess stems from their control over the healthcare their families receive. There is no question that taking responsibility for the health and safety of a family is of vital importance and often undertaken by women, but the likelihood of such a loss diminishing women’s value within their families and communities is utterly demeaning.

A far worse scenario, and one far more prevalent today, is that of a single mother working two or more jobs to provide a roof and food for her children, agonizing over that fact that she simply cannot supply her children with the healthcare that they need. What happens if she gets sick and is unable to work? Ask her if she feels that providing basic affordable health insurance demeans her role in her family. 

But beyond the sexist stereotype imbedded in the claim, the idea that women, or anyone else, will no longer be able to have a say in their health care on account of this reform is yet another attempt to victimize the most vulnerable elements of our society. 

According to, despite the insistent claims that Democratic health care bills “”call for a Canadian or British-type system”” in which everyone is insured through the government, “”none of the bills being debated in Congress call for such a single-payer system.”” So women around the world can sleep in peace knowing that the essence of their very existence is still intact.

But if Rodgers and Jenkins wish to criticize instances of sheer insolence, perhaps they should look within their own party. Arguably the most atrocious disrespect the house floor has witnessed this year, even beyond the tantrum of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), occurred Nov. 7 at a health care debate. The victims of the Grand Old Party’s unruly behavior were none other than the very objects of their alleged concern and respect. 

As representatives of the Democratic Women’s Caucus stood at the podium expressing the ways in which they believe the bill would help women, representatives from across the aisle attempted to silence their female opposition with constant outbursts of “”I object,”” drowning out the voices of the very people Rodgers and Jenkins claim to be defending.

Objections on the house floor are hardly deplorable, but this was not objection for the sake of correcting a fallacy or inappropriate conduct. They were objections for the sake of bullying women to suppress the expression of their views. But vigorous debate is the primary reason for the foundation of the House of Representatives.

Voters elect those that they believe best represent their personal opinions and values, representatives that will hopefully relay those principles in the House. 

With each “”I object,”” thousands of citizens were silenced. With each “”I object,”” a representative was forced to break a promise to those who had voted for her, entrusting her with their voice.  And each “”I object”” gave lie to the empty words of Rogers and Jenkins. 

If representatives Rogers and Jenkins wish to discuss the rights and due respect of women being abused, perhaps the overworked and uninsured single mothers of this country would be a more suitable topic. 

But please spare us your sexist stereotypes and fictitious concern for our welfare; it’s unbecoming of a woman.

Rachel Leavitt is a creative writing sophomore. She can be reached at


More to Discover
Activate Search