Yes and No. "War on Women" is a moniker given to the recent conservative efforts to pass certain laws that further their positions on abortion and contraceptives. The TITLE is 100% political marketing, but saying that there is not a campaign to pass certain laws would be very, very untrue, because that's just how politics works. Parties or groups have an agenda, develop legislation, "test" it somewhere and/or make a concerted effort to have it passed in several places. Everyone does it, because that is how this thing works. It is not a coincidence that immigration laws or gay marriage or abortion laws pop up in clusters. And, yes the current agenda tackles issues that most directly affect women. That is is not condemnation or approval of their position, merely the facts. Titling it "The War on Women" is how those opposed to their positions frame the conservative campaign to incite disdain. Even conservatives will tell you its clever and effective politics. I think we all know that whether or not its true has little effect or no consequence to many people. They will just use it to say conservatives are evil or to say liberals are evil for making this up. And we all go back to reinforcing our insular lives with Fox news and MSNBC.

Is there a planned political and legislative campaign, yes. Is it a "war"? Depends whose side your on. If you like these bills and don't think women have or should have these rights, or that they are not rights at all, then I doubt you view this as a hostile attack. But if you do think they are women's rights and this is aimed at dismantling them, then it is a war.

Maybe "War on what are Women's Rights" is more fair, albeit clumsy.

Edit: Why does this only allow a "No" reply . . .

"people sometimes have legitimate reasons for fearing a certain group of people and sometimes they don't."

So you are for individual rights but think some people do not have the right to be treated as individuals? How does that work?

Anywho, the government is responsible for the relationship between itself and citizens, but also has responsibilities in some of the relationships between individuals that are deleterious to society as a whole. That's why rape is a criminal offense in which the government gets involved and a breach of a contract between two individuals generally is not. Certain discrimination are harmful to society as a whole. So the problem I think I have with all these cries of enhanced individual rights, no matter the consequences, is that people are suggesting that society can go to hell and your neighbor can too as long as you get what you want. And I don't think I need to explain why that attitude is so dangerous.

Rights conflict. This is part of being part of a society. If we as a nation decide that we will all, without regard to anyone else, do whatever we please in the name of 'individual right', then let's see how long before there is another Dark Age. A person's right to be an asshole should not come before another's freedom to eat or purchase goods. And saying "just go somewhere else" doesn't quite work (see e.g. 1776 - circa 1970s) And why o why do some people STILL think everything will be saved through free markets???

Wow. You managed to comprehensively and effectively argue against decades of commerce clause jurisprudence with some great cut-and-paste action, there! You went to law school, didn't you? Am I right? If that was just your natural abilities, I would advise you to find out what Justice Marshall wrote later concerning the Commerce Clause and Congressional Powers before using him in this way.

"So as i said, go ahead and pass the laws, but don't take away the rights of others to believe that homosexuality is wrong, because THAT is what is against the constitution."

Hmm. Looks like we should reread the Constitution. And also understand what anti-discrimination laws do. They DO not require a person be less bigoted, but only require they not be guided by their prejudices to a point where they deny another human being of their equal rights under the law. CRA of 1964 didn't stop anyone set on being a bigot from doing so.

While it's quite easy to capitalize words like FREEDOM and think we are making a stunning point, we must remember that it is impossible for everyone everywhere to have the freedoms he or she would want. Rights and freedoms and privileges will always contradict. Thus, we all have to look around and agree as a society that we will value other human beings and chose not to deprive them of certain rights, especially in favor of our deleterious 'freedoms.'

Remember that not of the 'rights' that we have in American (speech, etc.) are really natural, but the product of a country that was based on the ideals that all men were created equal, working towards the goal of a 'more perfect union' by canonizing laws that are in line with that humanitarian ideal.

Agreed. Marriage has its roots as a business arrangement. If you do want to start talking about marriages in the context of religious texts, you will even see it was about joining families or trading women for goats. Women were property and men were allowed to have multiple concubines, mistresses, etc. So I'm not sure saying "it has religious roots" is the best angle. Furthermore, even if it did "because we always did it that way" is not a valid reason to take away rights. . see e.g., women's and civil rights movements