Presidential Debate 2: Abortion, Planned Parenthood, HHS Mandate

President Obama raised the specter of a war on birth control during the debate last night. According to him, Governor Romney, if elected, is going to limit your access to contraceptives. This particular set of claims has become almost pro forma whenever pro abortion people debate those who are pro life. These statements are untrue. However, as with many lies that are so easily told today, they gain traction simply by virtue of being repeated again and again.

The people who keep pushing this lie base it on four assumptions, all of which are untrue.

1. They equate any opposition to unlimited funding for Planned Parenthood with a “war on birth control.”
2. They ignore the simple fact that legal access to birth control as a private matter is, as a result of a Supreme Court decision, protected by the Constitution of the United States.
3. They equate attempts to force religious institutions to pay for birth control with all legal access to contraceptives. They seem almost to be saying that if they can’t force churches to violate their teachings women will not have access to contraceptives. This is such an obvious lie, but they keep repeating it.
4. They erroneously imply that a lack of contraceptive availability is the cause of almost all abortions.

All four of these assumptions are untrue. But that doesn’t stop Planned Parenthood and its supporters from pushing them as if they were absolutely accurate at every turn.

There was no lack of this nonsense in the debate last night. I think it is ridiculous to say that Governor Romney is in any way attacking or waging war on contraceptive availability. The people who try to claim this are doing it by equating Planned Parenthood with all contraceptive availability. This is simply not true.

Yet President Obama made these same charges in the debate last night.

I could talk about many different issues which were covered in the debate, but I’m going to limit myself to this one. It is an essential point for pro-life people to understand and to be able to articulate. There are far too many people who are unaware of how inaccurate these charges are.

The following YouTube video is a good example of how this biased viewpoint can be presented in a subtle and effective fashion. It’s convincing, even though what it’s implying is not true. Have a look at it and see if you can spot the manipulations.

YouTube Preview Image

  • Arkenaten

    Correct me if I’m wrong.
    Romney states: Contraception should be made available.
    Abortion should be available for victims of incest,rape and if there is a threat to the mother’s life
    Religious exemption from from HHS mandate(Obama care)

    Is there a problem with this stance?

    • Ted Seeber

      There is from a Catholic point of view with step 2. What did the children of rape do to deserve the death penalty? Why is a child guilty of the father’s sin?

      • Arkenaten

        So, if we stamp all over a rape victim’s right (could even be a twelve year old girl, for example? Maybe, even your daughter, Ted?) You will think nothing for the young victim?

        And as for the incest victim …again, nothing. And for the woman who’ s life may be forefit if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? In your mind, let her die too, it is god’s will.

        And you accuse me of bitterness?
        For shame, Ted. You are a sorry individual indeed. Even animals are not so callous.
        I have been accused of being sad and deluded. Well, I say, let those that visit read your response and then judge who is sad. Who is delusional and who is bitter.

        You preach condemn the sin not the sinner. I wonder, considering how unfeeling you obviously are would you deserve such consideration?

        • Ted Seeber

          “So, if we stamp all over a rape victim’s right (could even be a twelve year old girl, for example? Maybe, even your daughter, Ted?) You will think nothing for the young victim?”

          2000 years of history prove that the best result is to punish the perp, not turn the victim into a murderer. But of course, you refuse to look at the facts, instead preferring to erase the symptom and let the perp go free.

          “And as for the incest victim …again, nothing. And for the woman who’ s life may be forefit if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? In your mind, let her die too, it is god’s will.”

          Again, there’s that pesky 2000 years of experience thing. Experience and records YOU refuse to look at merely because you’re bitter and hate any authority that might cause you to have to act differently.

        • Zai

          I think you do not see how difficult the problem actually is. Being pro-life means caring for EVERY life. Sometimes, that puts you in the bit of a bind. There are times when a doctor and pregnant woman that’s being cared for HAVE to make a truly tough decision. I’m not talking about the ones that deal with the inconvenience of fitting a child into your life. I am referring the those same people you were referring to: victims of rape, incest, and mothers who are truly threatened. That is a difficult and life altering sort of choice.
          In the case of the mother who’s life is threatened, several things must be examined. First, is the mother in question the only one in danger of dying? What if the child will die with her if the child is not removed via another method? What if she actually had some sort of condition that was killing her and was exacerbated by her pregnancy? Could it be avoided? The list of conditionals goes on, and it seems that someone is going to lose their life either way. So, if there is no way to save the child, but attempting to deliver said child will kill the mother, then it seems apparent that perhaps abortion is the BEST option for saving at least one life. However, we do not know every single question that can pop up and you fail to realize that Western pre-natal and birthing (not sure of the term) medicine is quite advanced. The ones who are more likely to die in pregnancy are the women who still live in areas without a lot of hospitals or weaker medicine. In our world, the United States, it simply isn’t nearly as common.
          The victim of rape is also in a terrible situation, but punishing the child is not going to change what happened and is rather unfair, since the child did not ask to be conceived–however it happened. There are two innocents here: the victim of rape and the child conceived through the rape. Why is it necessary to eliminate one of them? I can understand not desiring to raise that child and the like, but there are plenty of other avenues. Also, have YOU met a child that was the product of rape? One of my best friends is, and I do not know what I would do without her. Would you have preferred that her mother abort her due to the circumstances of her conception? Is that remotely fair for her? It would have deprived her of the 26 years she’s been alive and the few years she has been able to live her dreams acting. What about those people? http://kathyschiffer.com/except-in-cases-of-rape-or-incest
          The same thing applies for a victim of incest. Yes, a terrible sin was committed but committing another sin is not going to help anyone and it deprives something that has been shouted to the rafters during this entire election, that is: everyone deserves a chance and an even playing field. Would you not hire, love, or associate with someone who was a product of such a heinous act? A kid who’s mother was raped and ended up being raised by her as a single parent in the projects is just as worthy as a child who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth and come into the world with joy. That’s the problem: all these people are full of worth and a wealth of possibilities. If you believe people should be given a chance, then it shouldn’t matter what circumstances they come from. Abortion ends a developing human (which is essentially our constant state of being. Think of us as a river, never completely the same as time goes on). It kills a human. It isn’t like some sort of dolphin or alien is going to pop out. It’ll be a human at a later stage in their development. Just like I am, now that I am 25, at a different stage of development and understanding than when I was a teenager. Oh, this study is old, but it shows the most common reasons for abortion via 2004 (doubtful it has changed much since then).
          http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

          Alright, I’m off of my soapbox. Hope you have a wonderful night/day (depending on when you see this).
          (for the record: if it were my daughter, at whatever age, I would push her towards going full term and then making a decision that allows the conceived child to have a chance at life. She will still make her own decision and I will help her go through whatever sorts of issues come up due to that decision, later in life. I would hope her mother does the same. I would prefer to know so that I could show her whatever type of love she needed (missing the child because she let him/her be adopted, regret over having had an abortion (I wouldn’t be the one yelling at her about it, attacking her) etc.) I may not agree, but my love would never be diminished and neither would my support (that does not necessarily mean I have to agree with said choice).

          • Arkenaten

            Your stance is based on religious convictions or at least your belief of what you consider to be a viable human being.
            It is something that there is no consensus, irrespetive of what those who are anti abortion say.
            And for this reason my attention would be directed solely at the physical and mental well being of the pregnant woman. Until such time as the definition of what constitutes a human being has reached consensu then ultimately, the choice remains with the woman.
            If you, as does Ted Seeber, believe abortion is murder then should lobby your government to ensure they prosecute EVERY SINGLE WOMAN who aborts a fetus.
            They should face penalties the same as any murderer. If you are not prepared to push for this then you are all hypocrites.

            • Ted Seeber

              “Your stance is based on religious convictions or at least your belief of what you consider to be a viable human being.”

              Actually, it’s based on what science says is a human being full stop. No bigotry against the non-viable, the unwanted, the unplanned, or any other group you care to name, please.

              • Arkenaten

                It is not based on what science says, otherwise it would already have been made law. There is no consensus. Unless you care to provide evidence to the contrary?
                And I reiterate if you believe a woman who aborts a fetus is committng murder why are you not calling forappropiate jail terms for every murderer. Their actions are thus no different to those of a person who pulls a gun and shoots someone.

                • Zai

                  Also, it WAS law (that is abortion was formally illegal). Just because the law of the land changed does not mean that the act in question is morally right. The government can say that forcibly sterilizing a woman because you don’t like her is correct and that would not change the actual morality of the situation.

                • Ted Seeber

                  “It is not based on what science says, otherwise it would already have been made law.”

                  That’s a lie. Sorry, there’s no connection at all between secular law and the physical sciences.

                • Dan

                  Scientific consensus exists, and it does in fact state that a fetus is a human, it has nothing to say if a human is a person. There are a multitude of ways a ‘person’ is defined, both legally, philosophically and morally. If you define it as a ‘being capable of valuing their own existence’ you leave out the fetus, the newborn, the infant, the toddler, the mentally ill, the mentally challenged, the comatose, and the *sleeping*.

                  I would like to once more bring up the fact that actual governmental law must in no way follow the actual moral law. Or even make sense. They banned acetone in nail polish here, then the companies released their new products with acetone in them under their IUPAC name; our governments are scientifically illiterate.

            • Zai

              Define human being. Is it someone who can make conscious choices and move? Is that all? If so, let’s let people who have accidents or sicknesses that dampen or eliminate such abilities die. They are less than human by that definition. So, I am wondering: what do you believe is a human? What does it matter that the human is viable? Are children/adults with down syndrome unviable? Is it write to just eliminate them?
              What else is the “bundle of cells” but a developing human? Is there really a chance that it would become something less than, or more than, a human? It is not like the cells that are dividing and forming the child are full of chimp or dolphin DNA. That’s simple science. You get 50% (around that) of your genetics from each parent. They have human DNA, and so do you. If all things go as they should, the baby will reach a point where it needs to take the next step in its development–by being born. Is a dolphin fetus or the developing set of dolphin baby cells not for a dolphin?
              Here’s an argument from one of my favorite professors at Baylor, Dr. Pruss:
              (it is partly borrowed from another) https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/1308/abort2.html
              Also, you have failed to answer the question: what about the current children/adults that were the product of rape? Should they have been aborted? Would you go to them and say that they should not be alive because they had less than ideal circumstances involved in their conception? Have they not the same right to flourish? It is not simply religious views that guide me but, as a philosopher and aspiring academic, logic and (yes) science. Science is not a vehicle from which we can derive our morals. Doing certain scientific experiments or using science in certain ways can be considered morally wrong. Therefore, there must be a morality that is higher than science. Science is a definitely useful discipline, but it is not full of everything we need to know to live well or rightly. Would you say eugenics is sound science and sound morally speaking?

              • Arkenaten

                “Should they have been aborted?”

                One cannot be expected to provide answers to such rhetorical questions.
                This is no different than asking the same question of a child born because of failed contraception. A nonsensical scenario as if the child had NOT been born there would be no emotional attachment . Does a couple using a condom sit and weep after sex because they have ‘murdered’ millions of potential children?
                If we go down this path we will be issuing fines to males for masturbation.
                See how quickly it can get very silly?

                And while I concur that these can be for some very difficult moral decisions, the primary focus in such cases – Rape, Incest and where the mother’s life is threatened – should always be towards the welfare of the mother. Period.

                • Ted Seeber

                  ” Does a couple using a condom sit and weep after sex because they have ‘murdered’ millions of potential children?”

                  They should.

                  “If we go down this path we will be issuing fines to males for masturbation.”

                  And we should.

                • Zai

                  You have made an assertion: the entire focus regarding the decision to abort should be toward the welfare of the mother, always. What are your reasons for it? What makes the mother more important than a being who did not ask for its existence and cannot defend itself? It is not bad that you believe this, though I cannot say I agree (I think both mother and developing child are equally important and should be taken into account), but I do want to see how you justify it. I realize you think the fetus is not a baby, but I again ask you what is it instead? There are different kinds of fetuses (dolphin, human, chimp, or pig), we distinguish between them in our common language by adding the species as a modifier to the noun fetus. So, we have a human fetus, a dolphin fetus, or a pig fetus. Just what is the fetus, in your line of thought?
                  The question is rhetorical, but it is a fair one. The mother who chose not to abort the child, were they wrong? They were a victim, after all. I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from morally. Do you think it is a moral imperative that children who are the result of rape, incest, or possibly killing their mother whilst being born should be aborted? It is an important question.

            • Rebecca Hamilton

              Douglas, it is a biological fact that a complete, unique human being is formed at conception. There IS consensus on this. Where opinions divide is what legal protections we should afford this human being and when.

              • arkenaten

                Then maybe you would care to offer a link that states this, please”

                • Dan

                  A human fetus is, in fact, human much like a red car is still a car, a baby elephant is still an elephant, the sun is still a star, etc. A human fetus carries the same genetic material and organization to develop into a mature human, and it carries the potential to become part of a genetically similar population of breeding organisms. To be human is to be part of the human species. A biological/scientific species is defined as a population capable or possessing the potential of interbreeding.

                • Dan

                  The moral question lies in whether or not the fetus is an actual *person*; the legal question (which holds no actual truths, it simply provides a framework from which we operate a legal system that need not conform with any sense of morality whatsoever) is if a fetus is a “legal” person.

            • Zai

              Your point about asserting that it is murder and not giving them the same penalty as other murderers is well taken, but not all murders are created equal (not to mention the simple fact that, as far as the law is concerned, they have done nothing wrong). There are different types of murderers and they commit different types of murders. Some people murder when they are half mad or in a state where they cannot actually control themselves (such as actually being mad), others do so methodically and repeatedly (serial killers). They each should be treated according to the particulars of their case, a blanket punishment makes little sense. There is a difference between someone who kills in cold blood and someone who kills due to specific circumstances.
              As far as I am concern, the woman in question would only be an accessory. She is not actually doing the murder. The doctor is. That’s one problem with the whole legality of abortion thing, it makes doctors into murderers. I would also venture to say that (like in the case of incest) the man pushing for the abortion is culpable as well (another accessory or something a bit above that).
              Now, is it even practical to lock all those doctors and the people committing the accessory part up? No. Not in the least. It would make sense to lock up the abortion doctor(s), and the criminal who harmed the woman (if it was a case of rape or incest) but not her (her decision making has clearly been compromised). However, there are the tough choice moments that I mentioned that would make either act less than criminal. It would fall under the committing of a murder for the sake of saving a life. Those situations, even when a person is guilty, are (and should be) looked at differently.
              Getting back to the practicality of jailing those involved, considering the number of abortions we currently have, there is no where near enough room in the prison system. It would make little sense to attempt to do that. I would also say that not every crime is a jailing offense. Sometimes people are punished in a different manner. Jail is not the only option.
              That said, I think (even if abortion becomes illegal again) that the law should worry more about the practitioners and criminals causing the pregnancy in the first place. If the woman keeps the child, in a very cynical and machiavellian sense, she has evidence of the crime. If she keeps the child and chooses to press charges, then she is in a better position to actually get a dangerous person off of the street. Her mental and emotional well-being have already been compromised and killing the child is not going to help her (in fact, it would tend to make it worst. I know a woman who had an abortion that she was forced to choose by her then boyfriend, she regrets it every day). The first thing to do is probably face the criminal. Once they are behind bars, then time should be taken to deal with the rest of her wounds. She simultaneously helps herself and other women if she takes this route. In the end, the woman was only in that position (again, assuming it is a rape/incest case) because of the sins of other people. She is not nearly as culpable and should be treated as such. If it was a case of a judgement call on who was going to live or die, then that is not a matter for the courts, just the consciences of the people involved.
              Finally, it is obvious that my religious convictions color my feelings, but that does not make it any less logical. Your philosophy/religion ALWAYS colors everything you do. That’s the nature of the beast. A scientist who is an atheist is going to view certain endeavors within their field differently than, say, a Catholic one. By their philosophy, it may be acceptable to do something in the search for truth, while another may draw a line there. It’s ALL colored by philosophy/religion. What you believe colors how you view my comments and vice versa. That’s just the way it is.
              Be that as it may, I am still referring specifically to scientific facts. If the embryo, fetus, or whatever (again) is not a human, then what is it? Also, I don’t know if you answered the question on what is a viable human and why do viable humans have more of a right to live than those who don’t.

          • Arkenaten

            I am not talking Law. The law does change and has. I acknowledge this.
            I am referring to the lack of consensus amongst the scientific community, not interpretation based on religious or moral grounds.

            • Ted Seeber

              There is no lack of consensus. Every embryo is scientifically an individual member of the species homo sapiens, and thus, a human being.

              Do you have any science, at all, that refutes that definition? I mean real science, not some idiot abortionist who prefers to earn $6000/hr doing abortions to $6000 in 9 months for prenatal care and a live birth.

              Examine your bias before you answer.

              • Rebecca Hamilton

                My take on this question (fwiw) is that if I wouldn’t kill a child conceived in rape after it’s born, I will not kill that same child before it’s born. That doesn’t mean I am indifferent to rape victims. I just don’t think the child is the one that needs killing. I’m against the death penalty, btw. So no, I don’t favor the death penalty for rapists. I’m more along the lines of lock ‘em up and throw away the key.
                As for helping rape victims, abortion in many ways harms them. Abortion allows everyone to sweep the crime under the rug, so to speak. What rapists want most is the victim’s silence. Abortion also doesn’t address the many real needs that a woman who has been through has, including acceptance, support and love by the larger community.
                Rape is often used by those who favor abortion on demand as a ruse to justify abortion in all instances.
                Having said all this, I do have sympathy for those who are genuinely motivated to try to help women with abortion. I just don’t think it’s the answer.
                As for incest, who do you think brings daughter to the abortion clinic? Most of the time it’s the one who got her pregnant. People who rape their own children seem to like abortion as a way of getting rid of the evidence.
                I think in all of this we’re focusing on the wrong person here. The miscreant isn’t the baby. It’s the rapist. As for people who rape their own children … scum of the earth.
                So far as I’m concerned that’s why we build prisons, for people like that.

                • arkenaten

                  “The miscreant isn’t the baby. It’s the rapist. As for people who rape their own children … scum of the earth.”

                  I have not said the miscreant is the fetus. And it is NOT a baby any more than an egg is a chicken.
                  Attention seems totally focused on the perpetrator and the fetus. What about the abused woman?
                  Has she no rights WHATSOEVER over her own body? Remember the commenter Nina?

                  • Rebecca Hamilton

                    Of course I remember her. Giving a woman the “right” to kill her own child as a way of dealing with rape is almost as misogynist as the rape itself. I’m not going to go into this here, mainly because I’m just plain not up to it. As for the baby not being a baby, you are wrong Douglas. One thing that people want to do when they talk about this issue is to simplify things so that the moral conundrums will go away. People who oppose abortion sometimes fall into the trap of ignoring the needs and suffering of women. People who want to justify abortion fall into the trap of denying the humanity of the baby. Both are wrong.

                    I don’t kill innocent people, Douglas. I’ve got the track record and the scars to prove it.
                    I have done and am willing to do anything to help rape victims. I’ve got the track record and the scars to prove that, too.

                    That creates a conundrum. But anything else would be a simplifying dodge.

                    My question to you is this: What, other than giving her an abortion, would you do for rape victims?

                • Zai

                  arkenaten,

                  The fetus is NOT the woman’s body. In fact, it has a completely different genetic code from its conception (a mix of the parental DNA). As soon as those cells start dividing, it is the beginning of a new creature. The fact that the child has to gestate within its mother is not its fault, just a biological necessity. The child is not consciously intruding on the woman’s body, so she has little right to eliminate the child’s existence. The fetus/child is NOT actually her.
                  Again, there are other options and the more important thing for the woman’s health is not being rid of the child, but rather getting assistance with her roiling emotions and thoughts over what happened to her.
                  Also, calling the developing child a fetus does not exclude it from being a homosapien. Please, tell me how it is anything but a DEVELOPING human? What would its genetic code tell us? Who’s DNA would be closest to it? You have not addressed this. If the fetus is not a human, then what is it? What’s gestating within the womb? (btw, would be how you distinguish one fetus from another. A human fetus is not the same as a pig fetus, though both are fetuses.)

            • arkenaten

              “My question to you is this: What, other than giving her an abortion, would you do for rape victims?”

              Firstly, I wouldn’t give her an abortion. This decision would never be up to me.
              Neither is it an automatic assumption that an abortion would be performed.
              Second. Not being a qualified professional in such areas I would refer the matter to those who are. Medical specialists and psychologists.
              And lastly, but of most importance, while a woman still has control over her own mind and body then her welfare and wishes would come first. Irrepective.

              • Rebecca Hamilton

                So … you would give her an abortion.

                And you think the answer to rape is medical specialists and psychologists?

                • arkenaten

                  I honestly get the feeling you are trying to twist my words for the benefit of your own argument, Rebecca.
                  If you read my comment carefuly….

                  Firstly, I am not qualified to perform an abortion, either through an op. or by administering drugs.
                  Second. I do not think the ANSWER to rape is medical specialists and psychologists.
                  The answer, if it were possible, would be to create a society where rape and incest did not occur. However, at this stage such a scenario is more pie in the sky than hoping abortion will not happen, so please , do not be facetious.

                  The CHOICE whether the victim of these heinous crimes had an abortion remains primarily with the victim…the woman. Her welfare should come first at all times. It is barbaric to force a rape/incest vistim to carry to term, especially in a situation where the woman may well be, in fact, still a child.
                  That you wave away the damage a young girl might suffer because of this crime is callous. Although you will justify it I have no doubt.
                  I am now past the line where rationalism in this discussion is an option.
                  Like Ted, as you too believe abortion is murder then I hope you will be willing to step up to the plate and demand the maximum prescribed sentence for those who commit abortion, be it life imprisonment or the death penalty.
                  And may your god have mercy on you.
                  The Pope might cheer you on, but Jesus would turn his back.

                  I will not comment further.
                  Shakes head and wals away.

                  • Zai

                    I gave a response to the whole criminal thing, and you seem to have completely ignored it. Why is that? I gave valid and logical ways of approaching that on the law side of things. Your logic is completely faulty on all of this. You fail to look at who is specifically committing the act etc. These are all things you must do when examining morality and deciding what punishments make sense.

                  • Rebecca Hamilton

                    Douglas I answered you harshly earlier, then re-thought it. Apologies for that.
                    First, I admire you for standing up for women. I don’t agree with you about abortion because abortion means killing a child. However, I know that this is a terrible situation we are talking about.
                    I got impatient with you because I cannot abide people who patronize rape victims to further their agendas. I don’t think you are doing this (hence the apology) but it happens all the time with pro abortion people.
                    You say that doing away with rape is impossible, but I disagree. I think that rape is misogyny in action. If we can do away with slavery, we can do away with rape. We just need to begin by being frank about how wrong and evil it is. We need to stop tolerating it.
                    Rape victims need help, not abortions. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying when I say that abortion sweeps rape under the rug and hides it. I also don’t think you understand that abortion is not a re-wind where the woman was never pregnant. You can argue and pitch a fit all you want, but the fact remains that abortion requires a woman to kill her own child.
                    Every woman I’ve ever known sees this, even if they won’t always admit it. Abortion is an added cruelty, another brutality, not a help.
                    Your odd insistence that if I think abortion kills a child I should want to send women who have abortions to prison for murder seems more like polemic than anything else to me. Frankly, most women who end up aborting do so because they feel hopeless to do anything else.
                    I’ve counseled abortion-minded women. What they always seem to want is a way out. If I offer them help, they usually chose not to abort and they also thank me over and over. Rape victims are no exception to this.
                    I don’t know your history. But I do know from my personal experience with rape victims that they need a lot of things, number one of which is a deep affirmation that they are not the rape but themselves. You are correct that the loss of personal control is a huge factor. Your logic that deciding to have an abortion can feel like taking control to a woman who is in this situation has a short-term merit for some women. I can see how a woman could see aborting a rapist’s baby as a kind of revenge. I can also see how a woman who was pregnant as a result of rape would feel doubly violated.
                    Where you are wrong is assuming that abortion itself has no long-term cost, that it is not another trauma with even longer-term damage than the rape itself. You are also wrong in assuming that abortion is the only or even the best way to deal with the issues of self-determination, violation and anger that women feel after a rape.
                    You dismiss out of hand the life of the child. I understand that. Your certainty depends on it. If you ever face the fact that abortion kills a child, you’ll be down here, working your way through the conundrum of how to save them both with me.
                    As for you and your big mouth; you need to stop insulting people Douglas. You also need to stop attacking Christianity. Believe or don’t believe. That is your privilege. Being rude about it is not.

  • snowygreen

    I think Romney’s statement in the debate was equally problematic. They are both lacking in this area.

    ROMNEY: I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And — and the — and the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.

    • bob

      Snowy, what is “problematic” with this statement?

  • snowygreen

    This is problematic from a Catholic viewpoint, which I hold. It reflects the larger, Non-Catholic Christian viewpoint that discussing contraception has nothing to do with life issues. Hormonal BC, IUDs, can also be abortifacents as some work specifically to prevent implantation of fertilizing eggs if ovulation does not occur. So while frustrating the sexual act though barrier methods is one type of sin, ie not being open to life, the use of these methods, aside from doing that, can at times work as abortifacents, without the knowledge *each* time that in effect, an abortion occurred. I do not mean to imply that Non-Catholic Christians do not believe life starts at conception, but rather, that many who are pro-life do not understand the intricacies of being so as the biology of pregnancy is complicated.

    More specifically, Romney, in stating that no employer should be able to tell someone if they can have contraceptive care or not, is supporting the HHS mandate, which states exactly this. Catholic hospitals are merely employers, not religious institutions, in this framing and he did not offer any alternatives (ie exemptions) nor seek to challenge this framing.

  • bb

    We need three or four parties. Republicans love the poor like I love prunes and Dems love the poor in some ways not the deepest way. God actually loves those poor who are not sloths while republicans think all poor are sloths if you give them ten minutes to explain it. Christ from the cross entrusted Mary to John because among other things, she was poor. We have no indication that she was a creative job producer or started a business or had a 401 with millions in it. Would Romney see her as one who did not take care of her life? We need more parties.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I agree.

  • arkenaten

    @ Ted
    ” Does a couple using a condom sit and weep after sex because they have ‘murdered’ millions of potential children?”

    They should.

    “If we go down this path we will be issuing fines to males for masturbation.”

    And we should.

    I mentioned it before…and I’ll say it again. Your point of view is extreme enough for that you need to seek professional help.
    I hope you don’t habe kids of your own.

    • Dan

      Extreme? Hardly. The simple fact that one does not care about whether one’s casual actions can be morally wrong does not in fact make them morally permissible.

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        Excellent point.

      • arkenaten

        Oh, my goodness.! Well, at least the cards are well and truely on the table and I can fully understand why this blog has the header it does.
        Yes, you are definitely people to watch. Preferably from a long distance, or from the other side of a reinforced locked door.

        Morals! How dare you! You belong to a Church that has been abusing children for hundreds of years, has been responsible for innumerable wars in the name of your god.
        Has been the cause of untold misery most of which is claimed as justifiable.

        Morals? You wouldn’t know honest, moral behaviour if it jumped up and bit you in the backside.
        Even Jesus would shake the dirt off his sandals and walk away. You hypocrite.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          Douglas, I’m tired of having to monitor your comments because you will not stop insulting and abusing people. You have in the past few days called people’s sanity, morals and faith into question in rude and outrageous ways several times, all because they don’t agree with you on issues that are known to create diverse opinions.
          I delete. You behave better. Then, you come back with another outburst of verbal abuse toward someone; often, but certainly not always, me.
          What is wrong with you? Is your hatred of Christians so extreme that you simply cannot control your own outbursts of insult?
          I’m leaving this up mainly to make my own point. I don’t want to ban you completely. You should be able to control your own behavior. My question: Will you?

        • Zai

          Morals!? How dare ANY of us!? That’s the whole point. We are all broken and need something outside of ourselves to bring us in the right direction. Humankind has always known this and only Judeo-Christian religions have placed the blame squarely on our shoulders. It is We who are the problem. The fact that Christians sin does not make Christianity wrong, just as having corrupt officials do not make government wrong or corrupt teachers make schools wrong. What would make it wrong is if its claims are false. Which, btw, you have not addressed.

  • http://elizabethk-fthnfort.blogspot.com/ Elizabeth K.

    An employer not paying for contraceptives is not the same as an employer telling an employee they can’t use contraceptives. My employer neither pays for my wine nor suggests I don’t drink it. I can think of a million other examples.

    I really don’t see what’s so hard to understand here.

    Which is my way of saying you’re exactly right. The Obamaiam/Orwellian doublespeak on contraception seems so obvious, I’m constantly astonished that people are taken in by it. It’s like people can’t think anymore.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Very well put Elizabeth!

      “An employer not paying for contraceptives is not the same as an employer telling an employee they can’t use contraceptives. My employer neither pays for my wine nor suggests I don’t drink it. I can think of a million other examples.”

  • kenneth

    The idea that the religious right is seeking to outlaw birth control is not without basis in fact. The “personhood amendment” ballot measures in Mississippi and Colorado and other places would outlaw most forms of contraception, including all hormonal methods. The record is also very clear that “Plan B” morning after contraception was held up from FDA approval for years for reasons that are political, not scientific. The Catholic Church has worked to outlaw birth control in every nation where and when it has had the secular power to do so. They fought the Griswold v Conneticut decision which supposedly guarantees access in this country. They managed to outlaw or sharply limit birth control devices in Ireland even well into modern times. Does this mean the opponents of the HHS mandate are going to take away our access to contraception the day after tomorrow if they prevail? No, but they would dearly love to do so, and it is one of their ultimate goals.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X