Posted on 02/15/2012 2:37:54 PM PST by Kaslin
I can't believe that I actually agree with something President Obama has done. Granted, I'm one of those conservatives who has never subscribed to the full-meal-deal checklist, preferring to critically consider whether each of my positions is the most logical and sensible given the available information and my own values. Usually that process results in coming down on the "right" side of things. In this case, though, I somehow find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Obama and being rather miffed at his opponents.
The president's new birth control plan would insure coverage of women's birth control without co-payments or deductibles. Sounds fair, especially given that men's anti-impotence Viagra treatments have been covered by insurance plans for years. Some, including CNN's Jack Cafferty, have argued that impotence is a medical condition but birth control for women is optional. Really? This implies that sex for men is mandatory at all costs -- to the point of paid hydraulic assistance, if necessary -- yet women should be able to take it or leave it. But pregnancy is a medical condition -- one that some of us want to avoid as much as men do impotency. And in neither case is "just don't have sex" a realistic solution for any halfway normal human being with reproductive drive in its prime.
Others argue that men aren't getting their birth control paid for, so why should women get theirs covered? News flash: It's the woman's inescapable lifelong burden. Women have babies, regardless of whether the man sticks around. If she gets pregnant, the costs are hers to bear -- or, if she can't manage, the state's. A few extra dollars invested to prevent the creation of future welfare recipients -- not to mention abortions -- seems like a good trade-off.
Leave it to Facebook, that Petri dish of blowhards, to unveil some doozy responses, like, "Most women on birth control still get pregnant, so this is a waste of money." Given that women can live their entire lives on birth control and never end up pregnant, I'll just go ahead and call you-know-what on that. Another added, "Taking birth control to prevent pregnancy is like wearing a bulletproof vest to prevent yourself from getting murdered." Guess what? If a "bullet" gets through with one form of birth control, there's another called the morning-after pill that will prevent it from doing "full damage," if you get my drift. Which is all the more reason to ensure its accessibility.
Yet another argument was, "Why do I have to pay for other people's sex?" Look, by joining a health plan -- privately managed or otherwise -- you're already paying for other people's smoking, sex or lack thereof, alcohol overconsumption, poor food choices and so on. What does it matter if you're paying for the schmuck down the street to shove that extra donut into his face, or for a college student to have safe sex? If any religious entities object to birth control for women they don't know or support, perhaps they could first decline tax exemptions on the basis of benefiting from the same public pool into which these same women pay taxes?
Speaking of which, it's the 21st century. Can we not accept that both men and women are driven by sex as much as by food, and that any differentiation between the genders in this area has long been socially mandated through shaming and derogatory labeling of women who enjoy this very basic human and survivalist drive as much as men do? It's difficult enough for society to collectively accept sex as being just as normal as eating -- but it is. Both are basic, innate pleasures of being human. Yet we're bombarded with food shows, food magazines, food discussion forums, food classes, endless food banter at house parties. Just try doing any that with sex in polite company. Food and sex are on exactly the same level for us as human beings in our basic drive for survival.
There's still an overall taboo around sex that promotes rampant ignorance and prohibits rational consideration of its rightful place in our lives. Hopefully moves like this that destigmatize non-reproductive sex will take us one step closer to breaking that taboo so we can enjoy, among other things, a better quality of political candidates who aren't automatically disqualified for admitting they enjoy sex just for the fun of it.
Plus, if I want to kill someone, I want YOU (and you know who you are eh) to buy my bullets for me.
Bet she doesn’t come across as easy as she tells us either.
Meghan has been enlarging her breasts for some reason ~ maybe these two can get together with a party of some kind.
then why did his disapproval among Catholics rise to 59%. This is low hanging fruit for the GOP.
They imagine these young women who can't afford insurance are going to be happy to get free female condoms.
Hmm. Bet they'd like jobs much better ~ they clean out the Safeway then, with change to spare.
The last sentence says it all
Quit reading right there, Why waste time on someone who has a void where her brain should be. Totally irrational, sadly.
You must have missed how he's nearing 50% in Gallup national. The Catholics' disapproval will fall quickly after the "accomodation" takes root.
Now, calm down Rachel. Nobody is saying you can’t have all the fun you want. The issue isn’t sex. The issue that some basic moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have been disregarded by requiring Catholic organizations to pay for contraceptive practices and abortion, which the Church considers to be mortal sins. (And this position is so well-known that it is impossible to believe that whoever wrote this part of the law did so ignorantly.) The issue is also whether the Catholic Church, or any other like-minded body, will have its First Amendment rights protected to teach and practice its faith without government interference.
Let’s deal with something less incendiary than sex. If the goverment ruled that the use of incense violated indoor air quality standards, or that receiving communion from a spoon, or drinking from a common chalice, were unhygienic, or that circumcising Jewish boys was a form of mutiliation, or that reading something like “The Late, Great Planet Earth” in Sunday school is emotionally scarring to young people, do you think the government should have the power to force the change of these practices?
I think it’s a synonym for Rache Maddow.
This one claims to be Conservative.
Bwahahahaa
Our republic has slipped down that slippery slope too far.
Rachel’s conscience (or lack of) is good enough for her - so it should be good enough for all. Why would the Catholic church know more concerning the leading of the risen Christ than some lay columnist?
In republican Roman society, the father could (and sometimes did) kill his adult sons if they, in his opinion, did not measure up. But he did it at his own expense, he didn’t bill his neighbors.
this is B/S this is not just about contraception this is about the constitution and making Catholic hospitals etc do abortions sterilization and form there it will lead to telling Catholics etc that they have to have a female homosexual
YET AGAIN our side and even some on here fall for the lefts talking points, the MSM talking points,
let us all stop saying contraception as that issue is popular with women , this is about more i.e. abortions at hospitals, etc
the left is shaping this issue and we are letting them, this is not just about contraception, it is about hospitals doing abortions, sterilazations etc, this leads to female homosexual Priests based on discrimination laws.
I’m sick of the left calling bills like the dream act and we repeat it, the left now uses contraception and we just focus on this
Our side is so frigging dumb that we cannot even figure the basics out in this fight as we always let the left dictate the fight and they get the message out while our side look stupid and our candidates the dopes they are stand there and repeat the lefts talking points by using the contraception issue and not the abortion or where this will go and it is high time to point out the first amendment too
I guess she's using the "two wrongs make a right" defense.
Make the guys pay for their Viagra and tax it.
Finally a chance to realize Rhode Island's old dream of taxing sex acts!
To be an actual conservative with a column one needs to be at least mildly conversant with economics. If the service is “free” that just means that everyone who pays premiums is paying for it, including the bishop and the parishioners. In fact they are paying for it for everybody instead of just for themselves. It is not an improvement. If one is compatible with abortion and contraception being the norm in a civilized society then what is one doing writing for a putatively conservative site like Town Hall?
>>Who is Rachel Marsden and what conservative credentials does she have?<<
Obviously some slut.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.