Sarah’s excellent post about the Republican “war on women” made so many good points that I feel a bit guilty about neglecting the issue.

First, I think Rick Santorum added to the confusion deliberately created by President Obama, George Stephanopoulos, and others when he sounded off on contraception. That he is on record as opposing Griswold v. Connecticut and privacy in general, and supporting “sodomy” laws is hardly reassuring to ordinary voters, and he will certainly be spun and re-spun as a religious prig out of touch with ordinary people. Never mind that contraception will never be outlawed, sodomy laws will never be restored, and abortion will likely remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. What matters are simplistic sound bytes, especially quotable ones. And I think Rick Santorum’s quotable opinions provide a ready-made scare tactic for the left. He will be made to look like a walking, talking “war on women” (whether he is or not will be irrelevant) and if he is the nominee, that will be a central message of the Democratic campaign.

Which means it is a good idea to attack this meme now as Sarah has. Much as I disagree with him, Rick Santorum is not waging war against women, and he will not “steal their ladyparts.” He couldn’t even if he was crazy enough to try, and I don’t think he is.

In a free country, no one should be forced to pay for anyone else’s contraception, or abortion, plastic surgery, or any other elective medical procedure or treatment. Whether it violates their religious principles or not. What worries me is that by injecting religion into the debate, Obama has succeeded in dividing and conquering people so that socialism — in the form of Obamacare — is the winner.

Under normal circumstances (and by normal I mean pre-Obamacare) your health insurance was your business, and if you didn’t want to share the cost of abortions or birth control (or AIDS or cancer treatments for high risk individuals, for that matter), you were free to shop around for whatever sort of policy you wanted. This has changed — big time — and the debate over contraception conceals the impending complete loss of freedom of choice in health care. What matters to me is not only whether I have to pay for other people’s birth control or abortions, but whether I should have to pay for their ordinary visits to the doctor for a common cold when I only want insurance protection for catastrophic coverage.

Why should I have to pay for something for other people that I don’t want to pay for for myself?

But under Obamacare, we are all being put in the same pot. The government will be deciding what we ALL must pay for. This means Muslims will have to pay for diseases contracted by pork eaters, or from homosexual conduct. Non-smokers will have to pay for lung cancer treatments for smokers. People opposed to circumcision will have to pay for the procedure on others. Lean and fit, healthy-food-eating, gymnasium fanatics will have to pay for junk-food-induced couch potatoitis syndrome (if I may be so sloppy in my terms). And so on. No one will be allowed to opt out of anything. By making it look like religious people are getting a break, Obama is concealing the true nature of what is really going on.

The Republicans, especially Rick Santorum, need to be doing a better job of making clear what occasioned this, um “debate” because it really isn’t a debate about contraception or abortion, nor is it a Republican war against women.  It is a Democratic war on freedom. It is socialism.

And under socialism, we will all pay for everyone else’s everything.

Religious exceptions to socialist programs are a complete red herring.

But then, so is the culture war. Yet it works.

The issue here is Obamacare. Or am I wrong?

MORE: If the government can compel health insurers (whether religious or not) to provide contraception and abortion, then why can’t it just as easily forbid them from providing the same?

Share