Why We Need To Have A Woman As President

It could come to be seen as the first real watershed moments of the Hillary Clinton presidency when, during the last debate, the only woman of the three people who spoke during the debate, SHE drew a clear line that those like the two old men who demonstrated that they had no clue what they were talking  about were not going to get to decide for women what was the best thing to do with their own bodies.   That they clearly had no idea what the basis of such a decision to have a late state abortion was couldn't have been clearer.   Chris Wallace didn't and no one with an ounce of intelligence would think Donald Trump either knew or could begin to understand what a woman is such a situation would experience or what would inform her decision.

That moment must have resonated like few others in the entire history of presidential campaigns with scores of millions of women, to actually have a woman say that women's' bodies were their own and there was no legitimate interest of the government that could overcome her right to decide what she was going to do with her body, especially when facing the kinds of circumstances described.   Or as the great Samantha Bee put it:

Hillary Clinton did more for the rights of women in that moment than could ever be said.  Slapping down the ignorance of both Donald Trump and Chris Wallace, pushing anti-choice myths for the lowest of political purposes.  Hillary Clinton did that declaring women had a right to own the most direct, inalienable aspect of our physical being in this world, their own bodies and that men didn't have the right to override their decisions about that.

If the government can't regulate the use of the money and mouths of two idiots to promote, on nationwide TV, a myth designed to deprive women of their most basic right to determine the course of their own bodies then it certainly doesn't have any business trying to regulate what a woman does with her uterus which impacts the rights of no other people.   You can understand why the slave-holders who wrote the Bill of Rights wouldn't have wanted to put FREEDOM OF BODILY OWNERSHIP in that document, it would have made them poor as their slaves owned their own bodies and the product of the labor they performed with it.  It's certainly way past time that slave-holders' lapse in the logic of freedom was amended, once and for all.  And women, especially in the  wake of this year of the ultra-male-chauvinist-pig will probably be the ones to do that.

The situation that Samantha Bee investigates in that video has got to be changed.   There is no way that the entirely male, U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, just about none of whom has any medical training, if any of them do, has any business being involved in health care decisions of that kind.   No woman should have the Catholic Bishops making those kinds of decisions, even life or death decisions, with no alternative available in their area.  The Catholic Bishops have no right to deny women the right to medical treatments necessary to save their health and their lives, the regulation of the commerce of health care certainly gives the government the responsibility to prevent them from risking the health, the lives and the rights of women.   If they want to restrict the medical activities of Catholic institutions, they could do that, but they, then, can't be allowed to run major hospitals, especially those that are the only alternative in any area.   Of course, if governments on the local, state and national levels did the responsible thing and took medical care out of private hands, this wouldn't have been able to become a problem, though I doubt you could really trust politicians, especially male politicians, to behave any better.

Update:  Yeah, Simps, get back to me when St. Atheist Hospitals are as common as those with religious names.