Kate Hayes' attempt at intelligent commentary is nothing but a poorly written excuse for satire predicated on a dishonest straw man fabrication. Is The Daily hurting for contributors or something? This stuff wouldn't pass muster at a decent high school newspaper. Ms. Hayes shows she understands neither the conservative principles she purports to deplore nor does she understand honest, effective satire. Her caricature is laughably off-the-mark and reeks of the kind of out-of-touch, "we care more than you" behavior seen too often in the Stanford echo chamber of left wing teaching. The whole article deserves to be dismissed as such, but what should be pointed out in particular is her seeming suggestion (as I interpret it) that conservatives and/or Bush supporters condone or excuse rape of women; this kind of accusation is simply repulsive and idiotic. Why doesn't Ms. Hayes try directing her attention at the despicable treatment of women in many Islamic countries? I wonder if she read about the prominent Muslim cleric who recently likened women to uncovered meat that attracts sexual assault and ought to be covered and locked away? Nothing to say about that, huh? The fact that she ignores such outrageous treatment in favor of Bush bashing makes me question her sincerity, judgement and honesty. From what I can tell, conservatives are the ones most loudly protesting the appalling treatment of women around the world (and especially in Islamic countries), so I'd suggest Ms. Hayes and others living in her cocoon wake up or have the bravery to acknowledge who the real enemies of women's rights are.

Whether people think Kate Hayes' satire of right-wing politics is fair or not, I hope we can agree that she is correct in this specific case: people's bodies are their own property, so they have a right to be able to withdraw consent during intercourse.
The second commenter didn't seem to get that the article was satire. The first commenter engaged in specious moral reasoning: just because women in other countries suffer greater injustices than women here, it doesn't mean that the smaller injustices women face here aren't deserving of remedy. This is an article about injustices to women in America, not about injustices to women in other countries.
Sadly, there are a couple points in the article that are actually true, even though they are supposed to be satire. Hayes (satirically) says: "We’ve instituted sexist policies that favor women over men and enable women not only to have sex out of wedlock, but also to blame men for it." Unfortunately, there are many examples of sexist policies that DO favor women over men (also allowing women to withdraw consent during sex is NOT one of them). For example, if a woman commits paternity fraud, commits statutory rape with a boy, or gets herself pregnant from raping a man, the guy has to pay her child support for the resulting kids. In these cases, men are made to pay (metaphorically and literally) for the choices of women, even if they are adolescents or rape victims. From http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html :
------The father argued that because he did not have sex voluntarily with the mother, he was not liable for child support. The court disposed of the argument, comparing it to the arguments made in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.: the wrongful conduct of the mother in causing conception did not obviate the father's support obligation. The court also compared the father's argument to the arguments put forth in the statutory rape cases, concluding that the "rape" of the father could not preclude a finding of liability for support.-----
While protesting policies that are sexist to women, it is neither necessary nor accurate to deny that they are many policies that are sexist to men. Sexism and privilege are not one-way streets.