yes, Rachel is very articulate. i appreciate how the loons try to turn her into some shrieking ugly shrew like anne coulter. but she isn't. she's always well-spoken and her research is impeccable. on those occasions where she's been incorrect factually, she always corrects herself. one can disagree with her politics, but her intelligence has to be acknowledged.
as for your point. i believe that's correct, in part...
there is one distinction, however, between the GOP war on women and the GOP war on working people... and that is, the old white men of the GOP seem to want to control women's sexuality in ways that make them subservient to the will of their male 'keepers'...
no woman should have to ask the permission of an old man, whether her boss or a judge, for access to contraception, to reproductive choice, and to economic parity in the workplace.
Interesting how you make the issue entirely partisan.
I'm uncertain as to how anyone can blame any real or perceived lack of "progress" among females in the USA during the past to any party. Indeed, Wyoming, not known as a democratic stronghold by any means, allowed women to vote as early as 1869.
June 4, 1919, when the Senate approved the 19th amendment by 56 to 25 after four hours of debate,
during which Democratic Senators opposed to the amendment filibustered to prevent a roll call until their absent Senators could be protected by pairs. The Ayes included 36 (82%) Republicans and 20 (54%) Democrats.
It is interesting how the democrats have since claimed to be the proponents of women's "rights," mainly on the basis that they champion abortion, and quite naturally, this is often for better or worse,
the women's choice. The republicans have drawn a constituancy which rejects this rather obvious fact, and as a result are perpetually on the defensive: If they ever return to sanity, then democrats won't have a chance.