Cosmopolitan magazine is branching out. Instead of just encouraging
promiscuity and cheering on abortion, the editors have launched the
#CosmoVotes campaign. The magazine will endorse political candidates,
encourage readers to vote and to share their votes on social media, and
have hired a political writer to write about “women’s issues”. And while
they claim to care about a number of political issues, they are clear
that the most important one is abortion.
Every week from Sept. 8 leading up to the November
elections, Cosmopolitan.com editors will endorse from one to three
candidates based upon an “established criteria agreed upon by Cosmo
editors.”
“Obviously it’s important if we’re encouraging our readers to vote
for them to get to know the candidates,” Odell said. “[W]e’re going to
find a fun way to highlight candidates we’re excited about, so when our
readers go to the polls they know who they should be looking to vote
for.”
The Cosmo endorsement criteria fall squarely into the liberal camp —
equal pay, pro-choice, pro-birth control coverage, anti-restrictive
voter-ID laws. Asked how a candidate who might line up on certain issues
like equal pay but is pro-life would fare, Odell said that would be a
deal breaker.
“We’re not going to endorse someone who is pro-life because that’s
not in our readers’ best interest,” Odell said. “[P]eople say that’s a
liberal thing, but in our minds its not about liberal or conservative,
it’s about women having rights, and particularly with health care
because that is so important. All young women deserve affordable easy
access to health care, and that might include terminating a pregnancy,
and that’s OK.”
So if a female candidate supports all of their other pet causes, but
thinks it isn’t acceptable to kill an unborn child, then Cosmo editors
will refuse to endorse her. Because to Cosmo, some women are more equal
than other women, right?
It’s actually rather insulting that a magazine that is supposed to
cater to women has turned women into one-dimensional sex objects who
care only about birth control and abortion, and pushes the idea that all
women think — and vote — the same way. The reality is that half of all
women consider themselves pro-life, and Cosmo has basically just spat in
the face of those women and told them they don’t matter. Why is it
acceptable to demand that women all walk in lockstep with what a few
extremists believe? Cosmopolitan editors evidently believe that women
can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves. Rather than allowing
open debate and different opinions from women, they want to shut up any
woman that doesn’t think exactly the way that Cosmo editors want them to
think.
Cosmo arrogantly assumes what women want most is abortion-on-demand
and leaves no room for those with different opinions. What about
the women who find other issues more pressing, like national defense,
the economy, health care, etc.? Those women clearly don’t count in the
pro-abortion extremist land of Cosmopolitan magazine.
Of course abortion groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood have
cheered on Cosmo’s decision to only back candidates that get behind
abortion-on-demand. NARAL went so far as to launch an email campaign of
thank you notes to Cosmo’s Editor-in-Chief Joanan Coles. Top US abortion
provider Planned Parenthood showed their gratitude by bestowing
Cosopolitan with their infamous Maggie Award which is named after eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Lila Rose
Pro-life women had much to say as well as Live Action President Lila Rose made it clear that Cosmo was making a big mistake:
America’s youth are becoming more pro-life with every
passing year. The longer Cosmo clings to its abortion-centric mindset,
the more it reveals itself as a fossilized throwback from the failed
Sexual Revolution, recycling tired old falsehoods and warmed-over
activism. By-the-numbers abortion-playbook endorsements won’t change
that.
No comments:
Post a Comment