Cosmopolitan has gotten in on the anti-Stupak movement. Without bothering to think for themselves at all, they’ve just taken the feminist route and decided that cutting abortion funding means that “women’s rights” are being threatened somehow. Check it out:

If you’re pro-choice, you may not be aware that an amendment to the health-care reform bill that passed in the House earlier this month threatens women’s rights. Called the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, it bans abortion coverage for millions of women who will purchase health insurance in the new health exchange. This ban will also extend to women who opt to be covered under the “public option” form of health insurance that the bill will create.

The health-care reform bill still has to be passed by the Senate, so it isn’t law yet. If you want to preserve a woman’s right to comprehensive reproductive health care, click on the link below to sign a petition that will be sent to President Obama and key legislators.

To really get their point across, they even included the prerequisite picture of a defiant-looking woman.

I guess it would be impossible for someone to point out to these harpies that abortion would still be legal. Any woman in the United States, provided she is over the age of 18, can legally get an abortion without any trouble at all, beyond the occasional pro-life protestors. All the Stupak amendment will do is prevent abortion from being taxpayer funded… in the new health care bill. It doesn’t ban all taxpayer funding for abortion. But to hear these feminists carry on, it’s as if abortion is going to be completely outlawed and the world is going to end.

But Cosmopolitan wouldn’t possibly point out all those pesky little facts, would they? They phrase it in a very specific way. They aren’t lying, but they don’t point out that abortion itself isn’t going to be banned, nor is all taxpayer funding going to be ceased. Women who don’t pay attention to politics — which would be many Cosmopolitan readers, of course — could very easily be misled. And why would they offer the other side of the argument, either? It’s all one-sided with liberal publications like Cosmopolitan, which, of course, masquerades as a non-partisan, non-political publication.

Let’s say that I were to suddenly decide to follow the feminist line of thinking. I believe in the Second Amendment. And unlike so-called “women’s rights”, the right to bear arms actually is in the Constitution. Therefore, I think that all guns should be taxpayer funded, because it’s my right.

Now, it’s easy to snicker and say that subsidizing guns sounds pretty good, but we all know that it’s really a ridiculous prospect. Most people who possess a maturity level above that of a twelve-year-old understand that just because something may be a right, it doesn’t mean that you get it for free. Even if we were to agree that abortion is a right (which, of course, it isn’t), that doesn’t mean that every woman also has the right to get one on the taxpayer’s dime. It doesn’t mean every woman can have an abortion without having to pay for it. But what would that kind of logic matter to feminists and the sex-craved harpies that run Cosmopolitan?

Their logic is the logic of a two-year-old: they want what they want, when they want it, and they want it now, and don’t you dare expect them to have to work for it.