Birth Control; Help Me Understand Obama?

[peggy]

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

Well here you go Alan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo

He also thinks scientist are amoral.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjv0Z...eature=related

and here's Rep. Joe Pitts on the value of a woman's life:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...n-abortion.php

and here is what Texas thinks of women, and their intelligence:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

this is what the catholic church thinks of women...ordaining them is as sinful as pedophilia, which, of course, how they handled that, not so bad!
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...004702,00.html

and we know what Mormon think of women:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm

These are but a very few of the 'keep them barefoot and pregnant' brigade in these here modern times. So, there is a regular doctrine of keeping women second class. Now, considering how our government allows very wealthy churches to be tax exempt, and those churches not only discriminate against women, they actively pursue the discrimination of women as a part of their teaching, I think this tax exempt status so squarely goes against the constitution and separation of church and state. In effect, our government is enabling the discrimination of women by supporting the tax exempt status of these archaic systems.

[JaneV2.0]

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?

Governments have traditionally encouraged charitable activities by various means, but I don't see any reason to encourage religion by subsidizing church properties, or proselytizing (which I understand is rampant in the military), or any other manifestation of frank dogma.

[Gregg]

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

I could not agree more! So bizarre. Maybe the folks with that inkling will just come up with a pill that takes all the pleasure out of orgasms (aka, reduce sex to the utilitarian purpose of procreation) then team up with the government to insure distribution. Between those two groups no one has more experience taking the pleasure out of things.

(Now, time to start checking out peggy's links...)

[peggy]

Governments have traditionally encouraged charitable activities by various means, but I don't see any reason to encourage religion by subsidizing church properties, or proselytizing (which I understand is rampant in the military), or any other manifestation of frank dogma.

+1

[Zoebird]

that's partly what circumcision is about, actually -- destroying physical pleasure. Except that we do it to males rather than females. And, it affects female sexuality/pleasure as well -- according to the science.

the fact that MGM isn't outlawed is beyond me. FGM is only a recent development -- you can go back to Playgirl magazines in the 70s and early 80s extolling the virtues of female circumcision and why adult women should have it done "for their own sexual health and pleasure."

so, it is there, culturally, as part of the undercurrent.

[gwendolyn]

I have to revive this one. I just read almost all 10 pages of arguments, and I am surprised at how little of it was a) logical and b) had a clue as to what's really going on here. So let me widen your gaze:

1) Birth control is HEALTH CARE. Either an employer provides insurance for health care or they don't. I'm happy to argue against mandates, but no employer should be able to dictate what an employee does with their health, even and especially if it has no negative (and actually a positive) impact on employer costs. No priest should be sanctioned to deny health care access for his parishioners. No "pro-life" logic would support letting a woman die (and I might add, her unborn child) in a hospital waiting room because it's a Catholic hospital and they won't provide an abortion even to save her life. Alan's analogy about a camel's nose in a tent is applicable here -- but it's more like other people's nose's sticking up a woman's ___ is the first step to them taking over her whole body.

2) Think this isn't about controlling women? Note that the Catholic institutional insurance often pays for vasectomies, and no crying from the bishops has been heard. Check out the Stupak-Pitts Amendment for just how bills are being written (and passed) to deny due process to one gender. Catholic institutions have been dealing with/paying for birth control, sterilizations, and yes, even abortions (I once worked in a Catholic hospital run by nuns, not priests) for decades. They do this because the majority of Catholics are capable of nuance, something this new pope and these latest "small-government" pols seem to lack.

4) This pope has decided to go on a rampage about sex, in order to try to regain a “moral standing” after being shown to be blatantly complicit in the wide-scale perpetration of pedophilia. But it really started back when he became chief inquisitor in the early 80s. Read 1993's Holy Seige; this article has a list of radical totalitarian actions after he was appointed to guard the Doctrine of the Faith. He has been organizing a witch hunt (historical references intentional) to not only attack women and gays, but to destroy anyone or any organization that does not get in lockstep with his orthodoxy, even if the institutions aren't Catholic!

e.g. Church Fathers are defunding charitable organizations where leaders express PERSONAL, free speech in support of the attacked groups. (e.g. women's homeless shelter in Sacramento) and especially if the organization tries to support the attacked groups (e.g. homeless group in Maine). Or the group has some loose affiliation with a group that advocates for women's health. (e.g has suddenly decided to de-fund Komen for its funding of the mammogram programs at Planned Parenthood, despite the fact they've been funding Komen, and Komen has been funding Planned Parenthood for YEARS – they've even sent letters to parishioners telling them they shouldn't make personal donations to Komen!) In states with gay marriage issues, all priests have been ordered to make sure their entire congregation marches in lockstep. The acquiesence to this even amongst liberal priests in pro-gay dioceses where gay parishioners give LOTS of money indicates the level of pressure being exerted from on high. If priests don't comply, their funding will be cut. This is a new inquisition, make no bones about it, and this Pope is getting pretty darn close to Leo XII.

5) It's not “the Church's” money. God didn't drop it into those men's coffers like mana. Except for its corporate profits, this is money given by parishioners to support the administration of the church and it's charitable works. I don't think bashing women and gays is anyone's definition of charitable works. Benedict's attempts to deflect from his own moral decay will fail, most especially because, rather than deal with critically serious issues of violence, greed, corruption and environmental degradation, he has chosen to pick on two groups that his parishioners actually support. American Catholics overwhelmingly support the human rights of homosexuals, much more than other Christian groups. They are predominantly pro-life, and they certainly believe in using birth control.

6) As an Arkansas church leader stated, "it won't hurt women if priests tell parishioners not to donate to Komen, because they'll donate to the hospitals directly." Indeed, it is time for Catholics who believe differently than the hierarchy – ESPECIALLY WOMEN -- to stop putting money in the collection plate, and give it directly to the non-Catholic non-bigoted charities who are doing good non-political work! (There are plenty of Christian denominated agencies out there that foot the bill: Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Quakers... and that's just in my small community.)

7) and one more thing... those of you who say "it's okay, poor women have Planned Parenthood" should wake up and see that Conservatives are stopping at nothing to destroy services for poor women - PP is practically the only agency left and it is under severe attack by powerful people, not just to defund it federally, but to SHUT IT DOWN. (Hello! Georgian Sec. of State, anyone?) And again, see Stupak-Pitts Amendment regarding denying ALL women access to (anti-)reproductive health care.

Regarding HeyDude's original question, I imagine Obama is aware of all the above, especially #1 and #7.

[peggy]

Well said gwendolyn. +1

[Maxamillion]

7) and one more thing... those of you who say "it's okay, poor women have Planned Parenthood" should wake up and see that Conservatives are stopping at nothing to destroy services for poor women - PP is practically the only agency left and it is under severe attack by powerful people, not just to defund it federally, but to SHUT IT DOWN. (Hello! Georgian Sec. of State, anyone?) And again, see Stupak-Pitts Amendment regarding denying ALL women access to (anti-)reproductive health care.
.

There's also the fact that not all women have access to a Planned Parenthood. There's only one located in Mississippi. How is a low-income woman, perhaps with no reliable transportation (and possibly no transportation at all) suppose to drive two to four hours to get there? Especially considering the cost of gas. I don't know how often you have to see a doctor when pregnant but I can imagine the cost of trips adds up pretty quickly.

[HKPassey]

ah, no. Employment discrimination against protected classes is illegal regardless of who or what entity is carrying it out.

Actually, that's no longer true. The Supreme Court decided just this year that church employers may violate the ADA and (possibly) other anti-discrimination laws if they so choose. They can now fire you if you become disabled, or they even think you've become disabled, without repercussion. Religious freedom, you know.