It’s tempting — particularly in an election year — to take the popular position without really thinking it through. But there are compelling reasons to reject the Paycheck Fairness Act — and not one of them is sexism.

One reason is that the most commonly cited statistics are false. We’re told, time and again, that women make 77 cents to every dollar men make. That’s misleading.

“It neglects occupation and education,” explained Julie Borowski, of FreedomWorks. “It just compares the median wage for a wage-earning female with the median wage for a wage-earning male. On average, women do earn less than men, but that’s mostly because of individual choices. Men and women tend to be interested in different career choices. Men are more likely to choose highly lucrative college majors, such as engineering and computer science. On the other hand, women are more likely to choose lower-paying majors such as education, English and psychology.”

When you compare “apples to apples,” she said, there’s no wage gap — at least, not one that favors men.

“The average salary for a female mechanical engineer is $61,100 a year, while men make $60,400,” Borowski said. “Young, childless, single urban women earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts. Women who have never had a child earn 113 percent of what men earn. Unmarried college-educated males between the ages of 40 and 64 earn nearly 15 percent less than their female counterparts.”

Another reason to reject the Paycheck Fairness Act is that it’s simply not needed.

“The 1963 Equal Pay Act already bans sex discrimination in the workplace,” she noted. “We need fewer laws, not more. This bill is less about stopping female discrimination and more about benefiting trial lawyers who would profit from the law.”

It’s really about lawsuits, not fairness.

“The PFA would be a gift to trial lawyers,” Borowski adds. “It would require the federal government to collect information on workers’ pay classified by race and sex. The PFA would make it much easier for any person to file a frivolous class-action lawsuit with punitive damages against employers. This would enrich trial lawyers since damage awards would be uncapped under the PFA.”

Like many federal laws, this one could have the unintended (but not unforeseen) effect of increasing employment discrimination.

“The PFA raises the liability employers’ face when hiring women,” she said. “The bill could have the unintended consequence of actually hurting the same people it was supposedly trying to help. It could lead to employers hiring fewer women due to fear of costly frivolous lawsuits. The last thing we need is a law that makes employers hesitant about employing women.”

Of course, these reasons won’t stop the Democrats from portraying any opposition to the bill as a “war on women.”

That’s ridiculous. But in the heat of a campaign season — particularly with the Senate in jeopardy for the Democrats — it can be hard to take the reasoned position. Still, that’s what our elected officials must do.