That’s not what ‘misogyny’ means

As promised, the House of Representatives devoted the day to ignoring the jobs crisis working on abortion legislation that can’t pass the Senate. At issue is the so-called Protect Life Act, which would allow hospitals to refuse to perform abortions, even if a woman’s life depended on it.

House Democrats railed against the bill as an attack on women’s health, prompting Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) to offer what Kate Conway described as “warped thinking.” Here’s Foxx’s argument from the House floor:

“[F]or my colleagues across the aisle who say that this is a misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women than I have. But 50 percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted are females. So the misogyny comes for those who promote — promote the killing of unborn babies. That’s where the misogyny comes in, Madam Speaker, it doesn’t come in from our trying to protect taxpayers’ money from being spent on killing unborn children.”

Foxx keeps using that word, misogyny, but I don’t think it means what she thinks it means.

In Foxx’s mind, do Democrats oppose this legislation because they secretly hope fewer girls will be born? We’re talking about legislation that would allow pregnant women to die. A right-wing Republican lawmaker seriously wants to argue that opposing that bill is misogynistic?

Is that really where the debate over productive rights is headed?

For what it’s worth, the House voted earlier to approve the rule allowing the legislation to reach the floor. Literally every Republican in the chamber supported it.

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation