Pretending Contraception is the Crisis – UPDATED

My husband and I had to attend a late mass today, and we managed to make it to the last available mass at parish in the next town. We haven’t gone to this parish in a while, and as we drove the main thoroughfare we were shocked to see how many businesses were gone — restaurants that had been around for 20 years — closed. Small businesses my kids used to patronize — shuttered and disappeared. Even realtor offices were closed — not surprising given the market, but still.

Medical office “parks” had signs advertising available space. The gas prices were the highest we have seen in our lifetimes. My husband remarked that those businesses having managed to stay open with gas at $3.50 a gallon might yet see their doors close as already-struggling customers have to re-budget and re=-prioritize their spending, and everyone needs $4.50 a gallon gas to get to work or — as is often the case, to just go look for work.

Very depressing. And I don’t think we’re anywhere near out of the woods yet.

But by all means, let’s keep pretending that there is a “contraception crisis” looming before us — not the actual “constitutional crisis”.

Let’s keep making believe that entities besides Democrats, Democrat operatives and the Mainstream Media are talking about banning contraception.

Let’s keep promulgating the utter lie — and that’s all it is, a big, fat lie — that some mean, out-of-touch bishops are trying to take women’s birth control away from them! You know, the birth control that the CDC reports (pdf) 99% of American women call readily available and affordable.

Let’s keep talking about a 30-year old student/activist (who attends one of the priciest schools in the country) whining to congress that her birth control should be free, and pretending that this is a real issue.

Let’s keep pretending — along with the phonies who act out cases of the vapors when they think it’s politically expedient to do so, that a radio talk show host who used vulgarisms about her is somehow more misogynistic and more vulgar than the cable-tv hosts who have called conservative women c***s, or the cable-news guys who call them “sluts” or “bags of meat with lipstick”. Etc. Etc.

I mean, let me be clear — I think Limbaugh went down a foolish and unconstructive route with his vulgarisms. But excuse me if I remain unpersuaded by the hysterics and demands for “repudiations” from people who were not the tiniest bit scandalized when other women — the wrong sorts of women, not “real” women, I guess — were called names that were equally as vulgar if not more so. Spare me the theatrics, please. If Limbaugh is to be burned if effigy, let him be joined by Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and others to be named later.

If you’re not willing to do that, then shut up. Stop pretending.

You’re not willing to stop? You want to keep pretending that the churches who have served the nation since its founding — who helped build the nation by providing services that the government was in no way prepared to address — are suddenly impediments to liberty, even as they fight for their constitutional rights, and in so doing, fight for ours, too.

The nation is in genuine crisis — take a look around your neighborhood; unless you’re living in the Upper West Side, Georgetown, Beacon Hill or Beverly Hills, it’s not looking too good, is it? And this is the crap that we are reading about and hearing about, endlessly, endlessly, because the genuine crises are not allowed to be discussed.

The pretending must continue, you see — the theatrics must go on, the misdirection must be prolonged — until all remedies are too late. And these cynical people believe you are stupid enough to be distracted long enough for that to happen.

For the love of God, prove them wrong.

Don’t pretend. Don’t accept their framing or the narrative that some crappy, make-believe manufactured “crisis” is what you should be thinking about. Keep your eye on what is central to the continued existence of the nation, and keep talking about it: the first amendment and the first amendment and the first amendment.

YouTube Preview Image

(Video H/T)

A church that doesn’t provoke any crisis, a gospel that doesn’t unsettle, a Word of God that doesn’t get under anyone’s skin, what kind of gospel is that? Preachers who avoid every thorny matter so as not to be harassed do not light up the world!
- Archbishop Oscar Romero

Quotes of the Day at Hot Air

The Naked Politics

UPDATE II: Commenter Kevin, below gets an Instalanche for his suggestion on red wine!. First time that’s ever happened before! Congrats Kevin. And thanks, Glenn!

Egregious Twaddle was thinking on similar lines

UPDATE III: Total Political War:
What is happening goes beyond Obama’s call for people to argue with their neighbors and get in their faces. It goes far beyond Bill Clinton’s politics of personal destruction directed at accusers, and beyond name-calling by right wing pundits.

This total war, in which no one is allowed to be non-political and neighbors and clients become mere pressure points, is a dangerous development.

Jen Hartline pipes in!

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pingback: The Truth About the HHS Mandate in 2 Minutes | Why I Am Catholic

  • kenneth

    How is it a lie to say that the bishops and more especially the broader pro-life movement wants to outlaw contraception? They clearly want to do such a thing, and they’ve demonstrated very recently that they mean to do that, even if it’s clear that they’re very unlikely to prevail in the foreseeable future. In the past couple of years, “personhood amendment” initiatives in several conservative states clearly would have outlawed all hormonal birth control.
    Those measures have so far not succeeded, but they gained some serious momentum, and a sizable portion of the pro-life movement is getting on board with the strategy. The bishops support the spirit of the movement, though they have declined to formally endorse them due to strategic reasons (they want a national victory, not state-by-state).
    The bishops too want to outlaw contraception. There is no way they cannot want that. Church teaching considers the Pill an abortifacient, or likely abortifacient, and so it is very nearly on par morally with surgical abortion in their eyes. Over many centuries, the Church did in fact manage to have contraception outlawed in civil law in virtually every country they controlled. This was true in Ireland and even here in some states into the 1970s.
    It’s true that this does not amount to a “crisis” insofar as there is no real probability of them taking birth control away from the general public, or that the bishops are making birth control the main thrust of their legal strategy re abortion. But its not a lie to point out the full scope of their full agenda.
    I have raised this point a number of times in this and other forums, and there is always a conspicuous lack of engagement on it. The thread suddenly takes up another topic or the whole thing is dismissed as a “lie” without any explanation how or why that is so.

  • Bender

    I have raised this point a number of times in this and other forums, and there is always a conspicuous lack of engagement on it

    There is no requirement that people treat with or otherwise engage with an anti-Catholic bigot on every issue. In fact, too many people have fallen into the trap of feeding such hate. They should stop and let the animus wither and die.

  • Bender

    By the way, this is NOT entirely a Democrat-Republican thing.

    There are PLENTY of Republicans who have contempt for the Church and her teachings on human sexuality. They are as much of the problem as is the most rabid culture-of-death Democrat.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    That is very true, Bender.

    This is not a Republican/Democrat thing.

  • kevin

    Kenneth, everyone knows that this entire discussion of outlawing contraception (and “war on women”) is a diversionary tactic inserted into the national conversation by a former Clinton hack George Stephanopolous (by the way, did you know he’s Greek Orthodox? If not, he’ll be sure to mention it at some point). Obama’s economic record is so miserable that he needs a diversion and this is it. I tip my hat to their creation of a non-issue on this massive a scale, but it’s not going to have legs.

  • John

    You people, with your hidden desires to outlaw sin…

    Seriously, this country is embarked upon a constitutional crisis triggered by an extra-legal attempt to outlaw our rights of association, property, and free religious exercise. But hey, let’s talk bread and circuses instead!

    You Catholics just hate bread. And circuses. Admit it.

  • Manny

    Hold on a second on the Republican/Democrat thing. To say that perhaps there are 20% Republicans that are anti religion and therefore 80% supportive is not the equivilent to the 90% Democrats that are anti religion and therefore 10% supportive.

    Remember that the five conservative justices – all Catholics – on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans. All the anti religionists on the Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats.

    While it’s not absolute, there is a distinction between the parties.

  • Freddie Sykes

    Kevin, i agree with your comments on red wine but you are missing the point. Red wine helps prevent certain heart diseases; contraception helps prevent pregnancy which is not a disease.

    This stance is consistent with the Independent Payment Advisory Board deciding what people suffering from actual diseases will not be covered while mandating that Medicare pay for cover voluntary end of life counseling because life is not a disease.

  • Amy

    Kenneth, I’ll respond.

    I agree with you. Any Catholic who has truly studied and understands the Church’s position on protecting the dignity of human life cannot help but advocate for most contraception to be illegal (speaking the truth and changing civil society are two usually incongruous paths). A HUMAN BEING is created at conception, and there is no getting around that. It is immoral, and should be illegal, to kill these people. I don’t see this morality being upheld in our civil society anytime in the near future unless there is some serious conversion of hearts.

    But that is not what the controversy over the HHS mandate is about. The HHS mandate simply REQUIRES institutions (groups of people) that are founded on the truth that it is morally wrong to kill human beings to cooperate with that killing by paying for the products that carry it out. Plain and simple – we have a right to follow our conscience and not pay for these products.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I dunno, John.

    I’m not Catholic, but I’m pretty fed up with the government giving us bread and circuses, instead of addressing the economy, or Afghanistan, or the rising price of gas, and food. I’m also tired of its efforts to meddle in religion, and in business.

    (You progressives, with your not-so-hidden desire to control everything, and make everybody believe as you do.)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Manny, the sad fact is, our country would not be in the morass it is today, unless plenty of so-called “Conservatives” hadn’t chosen to go along with the sexual/revolution, culture of convenience/death. Many Republicans, while supporting the fiscal aspects of conservatism, balk at, or are frankly opposed to, what they contemptuously call “Social conservatives.” just go to any prosperous, “conservative” enclave in Southern California, and count the trophy wives. . .

    That the Republican party in general isn’t as bad as the Democratic party in general, is praising with faint damning, so to speak (and, yes, the Dems have gone completely around the bend.)

    This is not a Republican/Democrat issue.

  • Brian English

    “How is it a lie to say that the bishops and more especially the broader pro-life movement wants to outlaw contraception?”

    It is a lie to claim that the current conflict between the bishops and the Obama Administration arises from an attempt by the bishops to ban contraception, with the Obama Adminstration valiantly protecting the “reproductive health” of women. This has everything to do with the Administration’s agenda, and nothing to do with the bishop’s agenda.

  • John

    Sorry, that was a bad attempt at sarcasm — I think we’re being accused of wanting to outlaw sin (which is, er, impractical). And the accusation is being made by people who would rather talk about free lunch… because anyone who doesn’t want you to have a free lunch obviously hates hungry people.

  • kenneth

    “……This has everything to do with the Administration’s agenda, and nothing to do with the bishop’s agenda………”

    It has everything to do with BOTH the Adminstration and the bishops’ agenda. All deeply contested public policy decisions have proximate causes, but they are also rooted in wider agendas and never exist in isolation from them. The American people understand this very well. Yes, the proximate cause was the administration’s action to mandate birth control coverage. But when people decide who to cast their lot with, they naturally ask the questions of wider context. What does this or that party in the dispute really stand for? What’s their true endgame? People on any side of any issue would be fools not to consider the wider context in forming their alliances and opinions.
    The Pope himself acknowledged this concept while still Cardinal, when he drew the distinction of “remote material cooperation” in voting guidelines. A Catholic can’t vote for a candidate because they are pro-choice, but if the candidate happens to hold that position, you’re supposed to weigh their full agenda and see how it adds up morally.
    That holds true in this issue as well. Each side wants to spin the issue as being “just about” this or that. Planned Parenthood will say it’s just about access to contraception. The bishops and other opponents say its just about religious freedom. It’s clearly about all of these things at different levels. The bishops and pro-life movement wants us to believe that this is only about getting Obama off their back, not having to pay for contraception, and nothing else. Well that’s absurd, and its demonstrably absurd. That is their fight TODAY. There’s clearly much more to their long-term strategy and even the near-term goals of many elements of the movement.
    Anyone who dares to point out this obvious reality is being labeled “anti-Catholic” or “tools of the liberal media” or some other conspiratorial nonsense. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s informed citizenship. If people support the full agenda of the pro-life movement, they ought to back it. If not, they need to form their own consciences to support whichever side they see as the greater good or lesser evil. I believe that whatever the spin and noise around any issue, people sooner or later see the full picture for themselves and make their judgments accordingly.

  • John

    You trying to say the bishops are somehow disqualified from invoking the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment?

    Okay, let’s throw the bishops overboard. Now: what about the rest of us who aren’t bishops? Can we form faith-based organizations and arrange our affairs within the boundaries of our religious exercise?

    Or does that depend on whether you think we have “ulterior motives”? Say, can a right be contingent on an ulterior motive? And still be a, you know, right?

  • Brian English

    “It has everything to do with BOTH the Adminstration and the bishops’ agenda.”

    If the Adminstration had not tried to force Church-affiliated entities and individuals to purchase insurance policies that provided free contraception to employees, none of this would be going on. Period. Your attempt to claim that the bishops had some part in instigating this confrontation is intellectually dishonest.

  • Brian English

    “This is not a Republican/Democrat thing.”

    Really? So you think if John McCain was president we would be having this discussion?

  • Bender

    Would we be having this discussion? Probably not. We’d be told to shut up. We’d be told we have to have a truce on social issues. The problem is that it takes two to have a truce, and the other side long ago pledged to wage eternal war.

    So if John Most Electable McCain had been elected, we probably would not be having this discussion. Rather, we’d still be continuing to respond to evil with silence, with acquiesence, with occasionally the more traditional people bitching and moaning, “why don’t we ever hear a homily on Humanae Vitae?” and then going on with business as usual. No, we would not be having this discussion, instead we’d be going over the cliff in slow motion, we be slowly dying with the water being slowly heated, rather than being brought up to a quick boil.

    And if Governor Romney is elected? The same Governor Romney who, at best, did nothing and sat silent as Massachusetts state officials sought to compel Catholic institutions to act against the faith?

    Would we be having this discussion with President McCain? No. The Big Tent is not big enough for social conservatives anymore. They are trying to kick us all out as it is.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    To be perfectly honest, Brian—yes, I think it’s very likely that we would, at least in the case of McCain.

    Speculating on what would, or woudn’t, have happened, is usually a waste of time and energy. But, yes, given McCain’s record, I think it’s quite possible we would be having this discussion, or we’d be discussing a very similar problem, related to him. Just because someone has an “R” after their name doesn’t mean they’re necessarily going to be supportive of the culture of life as opposed to the culture of death I believe the Republican party is, at this point in time, saner than the Democrats, but that’s no guarantee of anything when it comes to individuals.

    We couldn’t have arrived at the state we’re in today without a lot of people, from all parts of the political spectrum, going with the flow.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    This is not about banning contraception.

    It’s about forcing religious organizations to submit to the state, and about forcing employers to pay for services that might not want to pay for.

  • Pingback: If “denying women access to contraceptives” is wrong… « The TrogloPundit

  • richard40

    As long as we are calling for our health plans to give us free birth control pills and red wine, because somebody thinks they are good for us, how about this, free guns.

    Logic. Being a victim of a violent crime is bad for your health. If you own a gun, you can defend yourself against violent crime. Therefore all our health care plans should give us a free gun. If you oppose this, you are denying me gun access, taking away my self defense freedom, and denying my gun rights.

  • savvy

    A lot of Catholics have failed to make the distinction between social justice and socialism. Socialist policies trying to overtake private health care options. Birth control is available for free at Planned Parenthood. It’s like arguing that refusing to fund hamburgers forces people to be vegetarian.

    There are Catholics who are selling out to Caeser for 30 pieces of silver.
    Ceaser’s offer comes with an expiry date.

    European courts are already trying to force pro-life doctors, nurses to perform abortions.

    How long before this comes to America?

    This is what happens when socialist policies take-over health care.

  • Manny

    “That the Republican party in general isn’t as bad as the Democratic party in general, is praising with faint damning, so to speak ”

    So how do you chose to vote? Who do you support? In a democracy you only get something done when you build coalitions. A voice of one is meaningless. Even in the Senate you need fifty one to pass anything and sixty to avoid a filabuster. To throw up your hands and say they are all the same is close to nihilism. The majority of Republicans are with us on religious issues. The majority of Democrats are not. By all means vote against those Republicans who you feel are not, and for those Democrats that support us. But to refuse to build party support or even just acknowledge one side is to doom yourself to a meaningless solitary voice. Plus it’s an act of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

  • Mark

    Didn’t we hear that the government should stay out of our bedrooms from the left for years? I think that how we chose to lead our lives in regard to sex should then be off limits to the federal government and this would include not forcing anyone to have to pay for preventing nature from taking its course in those bedrooms. If you choose that you do not want to have a baby, that is not my concern or at my cost. If you do have a baby, then that baby is a seperate person from conception and thus should be covered again unless you chose to step in with the intent of hurting that person. Sodomy laws had to go away so what those with same sex attraction did in their own bedroom was made legal, but should we now be forced to pay for the protection this act seems to demand to allow those ingaging in that act safety from what is obviously a natural result of those actions? If they get sick, we already are forced to pick up coverage for the impact of that act. Shouldn’t the person at some point if they want to go against nature at least have the decency to provide the means for their own prtection against what seems to happen in our natural world? Doing something against nature usually has consequences. I am not using the term God here so as not to offend the lovers of godless government. If one engages in eating too much, it often costs us a lot to fix the consequences to health by doing something that nature seems to bestow on the glutton. Some chose to dive off of bridges with bugy cords which is certainly against nature. We have to cover the impact problems that might evolve. Do we have to cover the extra bugy cords. Some ride bikes and if they fall on their head, we cover the impact to their health, do we have to pay for all the protection that happens when we chose to get on a bike and not walk as nature intended. Do we have to pay for every mandated safety devide for everyone else in cars and ladders and anywhere else our actions go against nature? We already support massive big government programs where people sit around looking to see where they can slap a new warning label or regulation or government recall.
    Leaving God and religion out of this argument for a minute, it seems obvious that the intent of using birth control as a new mandate opens the door to everything else being covered that might prevent natural consequences which can become the biggest new entitlement program ever created. I think we should all start making a list of things which the government should demand be covered in case our actions cause us problems with mother nature. I am sure Michelle Obama can add them to her list when she gets done telling us all how to eat, what foods resturants can serve, what schools have to provide for lunch, and questionaires for kids to report on parents who feed them the wrong things. Oh, wait, they have started this part of the hitler youth program yet. That is why they need a second term.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Manny, I never said I wouldn’t vote for a Republican.

    I’ll vote for whichever Republican candidate runs against Obama.

    But the Republican party isn’t free from flaws, and not everyone who runs as a “Republican” is necessarily going to be against the culture of death. At the moment, I consider myself an independent, though, given the Democratic party’s stance on issues such as abortion, and its adulation of Obama, I doubt I’ll ever vote for a Democrat again.

    What we’re facing here is something that goes above, and beyond, mere political parties, or supporting an “R” instead of a “D.”

    [Mark Shea is fond of saying that it's no longer about "left" and "right" or "R" or "D" -- that it's about the elite vs the rest of us. -admin]

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I also never said I didn’t support the Republicans. I do.

    But our support can’t be blind. There’s always a chance the Republicans can blow it, once again, and the three candidates they’ve ended up with for the current presidential run all have problems, and might not be able to win against Obama, even given his current unpopularity.

    Since the McCain debacle in 2008, the Republican party has had years to come up with a good, solid candidate and run him (or her); they’ve also had plenty of time to come up a strategy for dealing with the media, which attacks any Republican nominee, as a matter of course.

    Not that the Republicans haven’t done a good job of attacking them, themselves. One’scandidate too slick, one’s too naive, one’s too much of a social conservative, one doesn’t have enough experience (compared to who? Our current, former political activist president?) At the moment, we’ve got a front runner who can barely get the support of his own party, and there’s a good possibility the convention might end up being brokered. I’ll support the Republican candidate, whoever they are, but I can definitely criticize Republican strategy.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Mark, I’d like the government to buy me red wine and chocolate, myself!

    Yes, I know—after years of chatter about how we must get government out of the bedroom, we’ve got government firmly enthroned there—rifling through our wallets, and checking to see if there’s any cash in the bedside drawer.

    We’re being offered sexual license as a substitute for freedom.

    (Anchoress, I have to agree with Mark Shea on this one; it’s us against the elites, here.)

  • daisy

    Everywhere I go I see empty buildings. A shop near me that’s been in business since the –1920s(!)– just closed. Another favorite store that’s been arouhnd since 1972 closed without warning. I was in Baltimore last year and one neighborhood looked like the zombies had just attacked. No stores were open, empty unsold houses for blocks. While we’re all talking about stupid stuff something really bad is happening. I’ve never in my life seen so many closed businesses.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    daisy, yes, I see a lot of empty buildings, and a lot of people out of work, too.

    I just don’t believe in this vaunted recovery the media’s rejoicing over.

    Bad things are happening all over. Unfortunately, it’s all based on “Stupid stuff”—none of what’s happening to us, and our society now, is necessary, or was inevitable; it’s the result of bad philosphies, bad thinking and being mesmerized by fine sounding phrases like “Hope and Change”. Stupid thinking.

    For instance. . .

    Considering that businesses are already in a bad way, what’s going to happen to them when they’re forced by the government to provide full-coverage birth control for their employees, as well as whatever other insurance they might have been offering? And, you know it won’t stop with birth control, but will be extended to cover any, and all, other things the government thinks people should have. Aren’t businessmen all rich? Shouldn’t they be forced to support the poor 99%, who can’t afford birth control/chocolate/red wine/vitamins-what-have-you? It’s in the new healthcare plan, which nobody’s read, and nobody knows what’s actually in it, but you must obey it, all the same!

    Hey, we’ll just raise taxes! The 1% can afford it, right? /Sarc.

    Unfortunately, it’s all “stupid stuff” these days—all of it.

    Just as a side note; one reason I don’t feel more sorry for Ms. Fluke being called the “S” word is that I feel sure that, five years from now, more or less, we’re going to see her, or a clone of her, testifying before Congress as to why all those useless eaters: i.e, the mentally retarded, the autistic, the handicapped, etc., and all those old people who can’t work anymore should be denied health benefits, so there’ll be more money to buy contraceptives for all those pathetic coeds, who have to have it! For their health, and self-esteem! How can you deny that, to poor coeds?

    As things are going now, we’re going to end up buying the Kardashians, et al, their birth control pills, while people who really need healthcare are going to be dropped. They’ve already slashed programs for special needs kids in California.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And, of course, if you object to any of this, or point out any flaws in the latest utopian scheme, you’re a mean ol’ meany-face, who hates women, poor people, minorities! You’re probably a religious fanatic, and a member of the evil 1%, cackling with sadistic glee as you gloat over the thought of Georgetown coeds, unable to buy condoms (or whatever else they’re supposedly in dire need of, at the moment.)

    You’re also a paleo-conservative, who probably listens to Rush Limbaugh, and are disobeying the Church’s teachings about social justice, and helping the poor, you bad ol’ heretic, you! (Will the latest version of the Spanish Inquisition involve chasing down those who don’t support Liberation theology, and pelting them with Che T-shirts?)

    Honestly, if I could, I’d just give up the modern world for Lent! But the world, alas, is always with us!

  • Brian English

    “To be perfectly honest, Brian—yes, I think it’s very likely that we would, at least in the case of McCain. ”

    On what issue do you think McCain would be trying to force Church affiliated entities or individuals to act in conflict with teachings of the Church?

    Let’s not lose focus here. You can have a situation where the government fails to do something that would be in conformity with Church teachings. You can also have a situation where the government is taking actions that conflict with Church teachings. We are in a very different, and far more dangerous, situation now. If we lose sight of that we are in big trouble.

  • Manny

    “I also never said I didn’t support the Republicans. I do.
    But our support can’t be blind.”

    Ok, I agree with that. In 2008 I supported Rudy Guilliani despite his pro-abort position because i thought he did a spectacular job in NYC. I had made a decision that if Rudy ran this time around, I would not overlook his abortion position.

    Let me say this that started my comment to you. I’m just sensitive to pseudo nihilism. A plague on both your houses without constructive building toward a solution (as I see Mark Shea’s positions) irritates me. A constructive building has to include supporting a party because an independent in Congress (either House) is powerless.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Oh, for Pete’s sake, Brian, are you still on this? After all my posts above, explaining what my stand is, vis-a-vis the whole Republican thing?

    Please, go back and re-read those. I’ve honestly pretty much said all I have to say on this subject. If you don’t agree—we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    I voted for McCain, in 2008, because I thought Obama would be a disaster (which he is.) I also liked Sarah Palin (who has since been denounced, by Left and Right alike, as a hick with no experience, not ready for leadership, etc., etc., etc., with a disabled kid and “disturbing” pro-life views.*) I didn’t like McCain’s record of continually turning against Republicans, and supporting the other side, but I thought he would be better than Obama.

    Given his behavior since the election: his support of many of Obama’s worse plans, such as bombing Syria, and his repulsive behavior in trying to blame his losing the election on Palin (whom he chose to be his VP) indicates to me now that, faced with Democrats trying to ramrod through a plan like HHS, he’d probably go along with it.

    Please note, my remarks were about McCain individually, not all Republican candidates in general.

    (*If Santorum wins the nomination, the Left is going to go after him in much the same way—and on some of the same grounds—that they went after Palin: “Hick”, “Religious Right”, “Weird ideas about the Sanctity of Life.” If he wins, we’d better get ready to face this, and not back down.)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Manny, what the heck is “Pseudo-nihilism?” (And, yes, I think you’re being kinda over sensitive, about this.)

    Have you even read my earlier comments, wherein I state that I will support the Republican candidate and that I will not for a Democrat?

    (And, no, I’m not going to vote for any independent candidate, especially since such a candidate would probably be Ron Paul—Um, no thanks!)

    (Now, in addition to being a “Pseudo-Nihilist”, the Paulbots will now accuse me of being a “Neo-con”, a “War monger” and/or a Communist. The new Inquisition will now pelt me with Republican elephant T-shirts, and Ron Paul T-shirts, for my heresy!)

    I believe Republicans should work together. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen much evidence that they are. The fiscal conservatives disapprove of the social conservatives; Romney supporters disapprove of Newt supporters, Country Club Conservatives disapprove of “Far right” evangelicals, Libertarians disapprove of everybody, the Randians march to their own, strange, Ayn Rand drummer (I will now be pelted with Ayn Rand T-shirts), and ordinary convervatives are caught in the middle.

    If we aren’t honest with ourselves, we’ll lose this election.

  • AMMurphy

    Dear Anchoress,
    You are right that we should all abhor the name-calling on both sides of this political debate. But it IS a political debate and there IS a legitimate disagreement over how it should be framed. No party to the matter should take full cover in the bunker of first amendment or the fourth amendment, or try to cloke the issue entirely as a matter of religious liberty or of women’s rights. When religious leaders attempt to influence policy, and decide play in the public marketplace of ideas that is indispensable to democracy, then they ought to expect a pluralistic, even somewhat unruly debate. And that debate can (in this case, does) include a debate over how to frame the debate itself! How to understand define what exactly we’re talking about is fair ball. In this case, religious liberty or women’s health and rights. So, in the full spirit of the first amendment, I say let that meta-debate continue. Hopefully, more civilly and more charitably-on all sides–than we’ve seen to date.

  • Vickie

    First, let me say that I don’t agree with most of what you all say, nor do I vote the way most of you probably do. That being said, I think people need to think about the decisions and choices they make. I believe that a woman has the right to birth control and abortion if that is her choice. A woman also has the choice of what college or university to attend just like she will choose where to work. When I first went to work, many years ago, my employer offered good vision coverage, but no dental. I had good vision, but lousy teeth. I had made a poor choice. Instead of expecting my employer to change, I found employment with another company that had a dental plan. The situation is the same here. If Sandra Fluke, for instance, knew she wanted birth control covered, then she made a poor choice by attending Georgetown. Another example, don’t attend a Baptist college and then complain you can’t have beer in your dorm room.
    Another thing I don’t quite understand is how this is a women’s health issue. Really? The leading cause of death among women is heart disease. More women die from cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and stroke then ever die from the complications of pregnancy. In fact, I suspect that more women die from bee stings than die from pregnancy. If people are connecting birth control to women’s health then shouldn’t they rather be giving men free condoms? I’m not sure the Catholic church approves of condoms either, but I hope you see the point I’m making.

  • Manny

    “Manny, what the heck is “Pseudo-nihilism?” (And, yes, I think you’re being kinda over sensitive, about this.)”

    LOL! Yes, I made the term up. Perhaps I meant semi-nihilism and that might be equally vague.

    Yes, I read your earlier comments and took note. Thanks. The republican Party has divided in this decade into more factions than previous. I see your point on that, and I don’t particularly care for the Ayn Rand faction. (There, now I’m going to get pelted.) ;)

  • liz

    this is a sex issue and the republican party as well as the democrats will always be against it because everyone is morally declining on sex issues and been fed these lies that if you live a chaste life or are abstinant, you must be a wacko if you don’t give in to your “natural” urges. I’ll be the first to confess, as a poor college student, you bet I will take advantage of free contraception, (hey, I’m in a stage of dicerning this chaste/abstinance thing, it is not easy) I’d take a freebie, even when I don’t need it (I’m sure there’s lots of corruption in other free/welfare handouts). Right now, I only buy it when I’m in a relationship, but since I’m not, I won’t pay for it since I’ve got better things to do with my money, but boy I would’ve soo hooked up with that guy at the bar, so I have to think twice about hooking up right now, but if it was free, boy would I not think twice.

  • doc

    Miss Fluke did not make a poor choice by attending Georgetown. She, as an activist, made a very deliberate choice with the express intent to bend Georgetown to her will, with the help of an oppressive and intimidating Democratic administration.

    Democrats OWN abortion. Let’s not forget that or lose focus.

    There is no movement to ban contraception, kenneth. There is no political will anywhere to do that. The leftist argument that to refuse to fund with tax dollars equals banning is a falsehood requiring a pushback.

  • kenneth

    No movement to ban contraception? There have been at least three such ballot initiatives in the past couple of years and plans for at least six more. How does that add up to “no movement”? It may not be a terribly successful movement, but it’s far from non-existent.

  • Brian English

    “No movement to ban contraception? There have been at least three such ballot initiatives in the past couple of years and plans for at least six more. How does that add up to “no movement”? It may not be a terribly successful movement, but it’s far from non-existent.”

    But what does any of that have to do with the HHS mandate?

  • SKay

    Another great post Anchoress.

    When you realize that Obama really does not like the Constitution as written by the founders of this country, then you understand where he and those behind him intend to go.

    In 2008 very few paid attention to this PBS interview of Obama in 2001-just like they did not investigate what Rev. Wright had been preaching in the church that Obama had attended for 20 years.