Birth Control; Help Me Understand Obama?

[ApatheticNoMore]

And since there is, I, for one, would like ALL women to see plainly which side it is that would, if it could, not only take away women's right to choice, but would, if they could, deny contraceptives and birth control to women altogether.

Yes and I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the libertarian argument for freedom of conscience for the church on this matter etc.. But I don't think secular libertarians ultimately drive this as a political issue (people I don't agree with entirely but have some real sympathy with), I think theocrats do, and no amount of birth control makes me feel right laying down with them.

I think the actual danger of rights to birth control being taken away are very low though. The chances of me not being able to afford birth control are basically non-existent. It's really not that expensive (depending on brand etc.). It's not as if it's massively expensive cancer pills or something. And poor women do have Planned Parenthood as mentioned.

But I have already seen which party has taken away my right to trial. The answer is: BOTH! And that means much much more to me than the right to cheap birth control. Not because I'm inclined to a life of crime (not at all, but I have known people in the prison system). If I get arrested it is going to be for protesting someday, when I can stand no more, take my word on that one . But just because I absolutely know from history and feel in the core of my being how crucial that right is. So no very few presidential candidates I could in good conscience vote for regardless of "side".

[Zoebird]

I'm hearing you ANM.

I keep bringing that up as well. No one seems to notice, they're too excited about the emotion of it.

[Gregg]

[QUOTE=loosechickens;66958]Could it be that there is an election coming up??????????? [QUOTE]

That is what makes it curiouser and curiouser. Why on earth would the administration pick right now to fight this fight? Politically speaking, its a no win deal. The rallying cry on the right was one of the more predictable reactions of modern times. For all the rhetoric, I really don't believe the conservative opposition is anti-woman. That argument doesn't hold much water simply because there are several options through which a woman can acquire birth control at no charge and there is no cry from the mainstream to limit those options. More in the light of day (for me anyway) is that I simply don't know any conservatives with such antiquated notions of how women should be treated. I'm wondering if anyone here has actually heard authentic arguments in favor of repressing women anytime in this century? Seriously, is there anyone in any kind of elected position, or any other for that matter, who really touts a barefoot & pregnant position or is it just more of a slogan on the left side of the topic? That may sound a little snarky. I promise it isn't meant that way. I'm really just curious where that angle is coming from because I don't ever hear it...anywhere.

[JaneV2.0]

Someone, somewhere pointed out that if you take government money, it's expected that you pay by government rules. Unless you're a religious institution, apparently. Personally, I'd like to see an end to taxpayer-subsidized religion entirely.

"Seriously, is there anyone in any kind of elected position, or any other for that matter, who really touts a barefoot & pregnant position or is it just more of a slogan on the left side of the topic?"

Rick ("Don't Google Me") Santorum maintained in an interview with ABC that states should be able to make birth control illegal--apparently because he doesn't believe in it, and he's widely quoted as having said
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

I hope this election cycle is theocracy's last stand. Really.

[Alan]

I'm wondering if anyone here has actually heard authentic arguments in favor of repressing women anytime in this century? Seriously, is there anyone in any kind of elected position, or any other for that matter, who really touts a barefoot & pregnant position or is it just more of a slogan on the left side of the topic? That may sound a little snarky. I promise it isn't meant that way. I'm really just curious where that angle is coming from because I don't ever hear it...anywhere.

Other than here and on my occasional forays onto Democratic Underground, I've never heard it in real life.

[LDAHL]

Someone, somewhere pointed out that if you take government money, it's expected that you pay by government rules. Unless you're a religious institution, apparently. Personally, I'd like to see an end to taxpayer-subsidized religion entirely.

Doesn't this view require you to believe that any income that isn't paid in taxes (i.e. anything you get to keep for yourself) amounts to a government subsidy? That the simple act of leaving a religious institution, or anyone else, alone is a form of support?

[JaneV2.0]

I don't look at it that way, but I don't feel it all oppressed by our historically low federal tax rates, either.

[creaker]

Rick ("Don't Google Me") Santorum maintained in an interview with ABC that states should be able to make birth control illegal--apparently because he doesn't believe in it, and he's widely quoted as having said
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

I've always thought this undercurrent of pregnancy as some sort of moral punishment for having sex was kind of weird.

[LDAHL]

I don't look at it that way, but I don't feel it all oppressed by our historically low federal tax rates, either.

So you have no problem taxing any non-profits, whether they are faith-based or not? Planned Parenthood for instance?

And until that happy day, the president can go Henry VIII on religious institutions because "its expected you play by government rules"? Does government supremacy apply to other conflicts with belief? Such as conscientious objection?

[rosebud]

What I want to know is WHERE was the uproar in all these years past when the 28 states, including some "red states" had these laws where all employers had to supply this coverage in their plans, and even EIGHT states that didn't even give an exemption for actual Catholic churches, so the housekeepers at the rectory, for example, who presumably were probably themselve Catholic, had to be provided this coverage.

These Catholic hospitals, universities (and in eight states, the actual churches themselves) have had to provide this coverage for years, but NOW that it is an election year, and all of a sudden that banner has been picked up and that bloody shirt waved all around in the service of politics?

Why hasn't this been a huge problem that should have been shouted from the rooftops, with Bishops sending out letters to parishioners in those twenty-eight states, for years now? Why now?

Now? Because conservatives think they have something they can use to motivate their very conservative base to go out there and vote, because hatred of "libruls" is not reliably enough, and folks can be ridden to a fever pitch on social issues like abortion, birth control, gun control, etc. That's why.

If this was such a "religious freedom" question, it should have been fought loudly and out there in public and all over our media, just as it is now, for years and years.....yet.....up until now, pretty much "sound of crickets". Sure, there may have been protests against these laws in some states, and people against them, but Fox News, the rightwing blogosphere, Rush Limbaugh and company and all these conservative Catholic leaders sure weren't making the noises in past years in all those states that they are making about this.

Could it be that there is an election coming up???????????

And since there is, I, for one, would like ALL women to see plainly which side it is that would, if it could, not only take away women's right to choice, but would, if they could, deny contraceptives and birth control to women altogether.

That is exactly right. And in fact the SCOTUS has denied cert on the challenge of the NY law which has been upheld by its state courts.

What is going on is the fabrication of a faux controversy a la "the war onChristmas" The right is trying to shape this into the narrative that Obama is taking away religious liberty and/or that Obama is meddling with the free market and telling peoe what to do against their will. However nothing in this rule prevents anyone at all from the free exercise of religion which is the constitutional standard. No Catholic person is forced to use birth control. That's the bottom line and the rest of it is a lot of noise. The Catholic Bishops need to turn their attention to why so many women in their flock use birth control and leave the rest of us alone. When you enter the public square as an employer you are agreeing to conform to the rules of the larger society.

Mitch McConnell now wants to double down and allow all employers to deny parts of insurance coverage they find religiously objectionable. So that privately held companies could deny anything at all they could justify. So it would be a crap shoot for employees whether the treatments they need are covered.

It is simply not a good policy if we are trying to expand coverage of health care access. And frankly women are sick of being political punching bags. Pro-choice activists always warned that birth control is also under attack and now we see that's true.