So it appears that Republicans are going to force a fight over the requirement that employers cover contraception as part of their insurance plans. This is rather curious, as most people (other than the truly crazy, “every sperm is sacred” crowd) are on board with this. The Republicans are, predictably, framing this provision as “an attack on religious freedom,” which is pretty stupid, considering nobody will be forced to use contraception, and, instead, employees who don’t want to breed irresponsibly will have their religious freedoms attacked – all for the crime of working at, say, a Catholic hospital or something. Assuming the Obama Administration isn’t stupid enough to pre-cave on this (a huge assumption, given its previous track record), I think this will turn out to be a real bummer for the GOP – and not a fight that will do them any good in the long run.
I agree. The Republicans have pushed themselves so far to the right that they are falling off a cliff. I don’t think much good will come to Frothy Santorum when his contraception is dangerous speech starts to be better known either.
Tales From the Kitchen Table
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: February 8, 2012
This is a really old story, but let me tell you anyway.
When I was first married, my mother-in-law sat down at her kitchen table and told me about the day she went to confession and told the priest that she and her husband were using birth control. She had several young children, times were difficult — really, she could have produced a list of reasons longer than your arm.
“You’re no better than a whore on the street,†said the priest.
This was, as I said, a long time ago. It’s just an explanation of why the bishops are not the only Roman Catholics who are touchy about the issue of contraception.
These days, parish priests tend to be much less judgmental about parishioners who are on the pill — the military was not the first institution in this country to make use of the “don’t ask, don’t tell†system. “In most parishes in the United States, we don’t find them preaching about contraception,†said Jon O’Brien of Catholics for Choice. “And it’s not as though in the Mass you have a question-and-answer period.â€
You have heard, I’m sure, that the Catholic bishops are in an uproar over an Obama administration rule that would require Catholic universities and hospitals to cover contraceptives in their health care plans. The Republican presidential candidates are roaring right behind. Mitt Romney claimed the White House was trying to “impose a secular vision on Americans who believe that they should not have their religious freedom taken away.â€
Let’s try to work this out in a calm, measured manner. (Easy for me to say. I already got my mother-in-law story off my chest.)
Catholic doctrine prohibits women from using pills, condoms or any other form of artificial contraception. A much-quoted study by the Guttmacher Institute found that virtually all sexually active Catholic women of childbearing age have violated the rule at one point or another, and that more than two-thirds do so consistently.
Here is the bishops’ response to that factoid: “If a survey found that 98 percent of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so?â€
O.K. Moving right along.
The church is not a democracy and majority opinion really doesn’t matter. Catholic dogma holds that artificial contraception is against the law of God. The bishops have the right — a right guaranteed under the First Amendment — to preach that doctrine to the faithful. They have a right to preach it to everybody. Take out ads. Pass out leaflets. Put up billboards in the front yard.
The problem here is that they’re trying to get the government to do their work for them. They’ve lost the war at home, and they’re now demanding help from the outside.
And they don’t seem in the mood to compromise. Church leaders told The National Catholic Register that they regarded any deal that would allow them to avoid paying for contraceptives while directing their employees to other places where they could find the coverage as a nonstarter.
This new rule on contraceptive coverage is part of the health care reform law, which was designed to finally turn the United States into a country where everyone has basic health coverage. In a sane world, the government would be running the whole health care plan, the employers would be off the hook entirely and we would not be having this fight at all. But members of Congress — including many of the very same people who are howling and rending their garments over the bishops’ plight — deemed the current patchwork system untouchable.
The churches themselves don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage. Neither do organizations that are closely tied to a religion’s doctrinal mission. We are talking about places like hospitals and universities that rely heavily on government money and hire people from outside the faith.
We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body?
Organized religion thrives in this country, so the system we’ve worked out seems to be serving it pretty well. Religions don’t get to force their particular dogma on the larger public. The government, in return, protects the right of every religion to make its case heard.
The bishops should have at it. I wouldn’t try the argument that the priest used on my mother-in-law, but there’s always a billboard on the front lawn.
Compromise is in the air! It would to make too much sense for the ‘offended’ employers to offer their employees some alternative that would not violate their precious morality they’d like to impose on everybody? Meanwhile, Mr. Frothy’s position on contraception is hopefully a harbinger of more careful
scrotumysodomyscrutiny his new foundman-datesuckcess to some of the craziest positions he and the nut job 20% espouse. The feigned indignation that the rw media displayed when anyone dared suggest it was a bit weird that Sactorum brought his miscarried child home to hang with the family for a few days gives the delightful prospect of all of the twisting and turning they will have to do to ‘explain’ away the wack and the doodle that is tocumcome.I thought they were saying Foster Freeze, a frothy soft frozen faux ice cream extrusion possibly also made with lubricants.
To be fair, his wife, Karen, has a recipe for Fetus Flambé that is to die for. So to speak.
Not available in OK.
Thank you Vernon and PJ. I really needed a good laugh this morning. :rofl2: