Why do Republicans hate for other people to have sex?
Do Republicans really want to take on the contraception fight? Have they lost their ever-lovin minds? They insist that this is about religious liberty not contraception. I, like so many others, disagree.
When the religious right showed its true intent by focusing more of their political power on issues having to do with sexual behavior instead of economic justice and human rights, it became clear that their fight against a woman's right to choose would not stop at abortion. As they chipped away at reproductive rights, they began to work on their plan to attack the affordability and accessibility of contraception.
Because even I, with my limited knowledge of Christianity and Jesus' teachings, know he spent way more time talking about charity, kindness, peace, love and forgiveness than he did about pee pees and wee wees. But hey, sex sells. It stokes something in our lizard brain. If you're talking sex, even if you're railing against it, people are more likely to listen.
When the story about Catholics being upset about the provision requiring employer-provided health insurance to cover contraception exploded, I understood how the issue could be framed as an affront to religious liberties, but my question was what if you live in a place where the only medical services provided are through Catholic-affiliated health care facilities?
Well, it turns out that you would be without options. Your personal liberties take a back seat to the institution's beliefs.
It's not all bad news. People are fighting back. Including governors.
I'm not anti-religion. What you do in your home, your head, and your church concerns me not one bit. But if you're going to take federal and state money to provide health care services, you should have to operate as a health institution first, not as a religious institution.
With the growing movement from the right to limit the rights of women, it's time for all of us to take a good look at their aims. What is it about us and our innie reproductive parts that frighten them so?
Hey those bishops became bishops out of the conviction that women's tingly parts were ruled by the devil. Fun is impermissible, except with minors.
ReplyDeleteIf sex is for procreation only, they've got some serious explaining to do.
DeleteYour forgot biology: Repugs have either tiny weenies or vaginas with teeth.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to think of any R's I've seen naked to verify this.
DeleteIt's like we all fell asleep in a time machine and woke up in the 50's.
ReplyDeleteI know! As much as I want a time machine, I don't want to turn today into then.
DeleteWhy do Republicans hate Vagina Americans so much?
ReplyDeleteGood question, Sue. I think they prefer us with our mouths shut and our legs open.
ReplyDeleteMouths full, not closed.
DeleteHa! I suppose so.
DeleteI agree with you so much and wish I had time to say more!!
ReplyDeleteGreat post!!
Thanks! It's nice to see you here!
DeleteWhy all the uproar now when several states have had mandatory birth control coverage laws going back a decade and more? Huckabee signed the law in Arkansas. Romney signed the law in Massachusetts. Just to name a couple. Where is the outrage from Republican women? And while we're at it, why would any woman even be a Republican?
ReplyDeleteIt's a glaring hole in the discussion, isn't it? I think they must be frustrated because the economy seems to be improving and they know they're going to have to energize their base. Gay marriage won't work like it did for Bush's reelection so they're going after women.
DeleteI wonder, like you, how anyone who isn't white, male, wealthy and Christian can vote Republican. It makes no sense.
I don't know how you can say republicans hate women. Why Newt all by himself has found time to bring love and respectability to three already. Not even counting any side affairs he may have had.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile smart people know that the only way to bring about economic and social justice is for the government to have absolute control over vaginas everywhere.
Newt doesn't love women. Newt loves Newt. It's the woman's privilege to get to love him.
DeleteI'm curious how being all up in our sex lives is small government, but not letting Georgia Power pollute the air that millions of people breathe is strangling regulation and Big Government.
They're just hanging this "christian morality agenda" shiny thing before us to froth up the furvor in order to distract us from the real matters at hand, i.e. jobs, war, education, housing woes, medical coverage for all, social security, medicare and real accountablity in government...etc, fill in many more blanks here____. Any real concern will take a back seat.
ReplyDeleteThese issues definitely will turn out their base. They'll have the churches doing a lot of their voter turnout for them.
DeleteAs an aside, I've always thought that those who are part of the anti-choice movement would appreciate us lesbians a little more than they do (erm...don't). Lesbian = no contraception needed, no abortion. At least I fit their social agenda in that regard. Sadly, though, they still hate me because I don't use my girly bits in the way they think I should. I just. can't. win.
ReplyDeleteIt's an odd logic they have. If life is what they're for, then why don't they support a wide distribution of contraception? Why do so many of them support the death penalty? I mean, what's life without quality of life? If you're going to insist that all these unintended pregnancies go to full term, what do you intend to do to help make life fair and just for all those people once they are no longer fetuses? That's where their argument falls apart. They accuse liberals of treating pregnancy as an illness and having children as punishment, but isn't that what they're pretty much saying - you made your bed, now you must lie in it?
DeleteRant over. They need to get out of our bedrooms. Period.
I am anti religion. I don't want it in my government, in my life, or in any part of the public sphere. Keep it hidden and share it only with those who want it, you know, kind of like our genitals.
ReplyDeleteThe more I'm digging, the more disturbed I'm becoming about the unreported way in which churches, not just the church, finds work arounds to violate the separation of church and state.
DeleteThe irony of the whole thing is that most Catholics - including Catholics who are actually involved in their Church - don't accept their hierarchy's teachings on birth control anyway. Back in the 60s, the Rhythm Method got the nickname "Vatican Roulette."
ReplyDeleteExactly. How can they impose such narrow views on non-Catholics when their own adherents don't follow their rules?
DeleteAs a Christian, a married person who has recreational (as opposed to procreational) sex, and a political radical, the ugly truth these morons are finally displaying to the world is that, whether Catholic or Protestant, they truly and honestly believe what the great medieval theologians (not St. Thomas or Anselm, but folks like Hugh of St. Victor and, earlier, Dun Scotus Eriugena) that women's sexual organs were a physical representation of hell. That sex with a woman was a horror to avoid. That women, having brought sin in to the world, were continuing the Serpent's work with their wily ways. Unlike, say, Peter Abelard who spent his adult years writing beautiful commentaries on Christian ethics because he fell in love and her brothers castrated him, many of these men, simply put, were repelled by women.
ReplyDeleteOne would think the beautiful ideas of The Song of Songs, with its praise of physical beauty, of the marvelous gift of sexual love, which happened to be the most commented-upon book in the Bible until the Reformation, might have taught them a thing or two. Alas, having the truth waved in their faces and still missing it only showed how obtuse they are.
Please do not allow these misogynsts, these neo-Platonic nincompoops fool you. The stuff they say has nothing to do with a real Biblical teaching on human sexuality. They're talking about power instead of love. Power over women. Power in society. Power in the world. Sex, love, the marvelous mystery that occurs between two (and sometimes more) people is a gift from God. The stuff they're talking about doesn't have anything to do with the God in which I believe.
Well put, Geoffrey. It is about power. Thank you for adding your voice.
DeleteThe irony of this whole matter is that you on the left complain that those on the right are always trying to impose their morals on the rest of the country. How exactly is this any different?
ReplyDeleteActually, I'll answer that for you...as much as you all want to make this controversy about contraception, it's not...it's about the government forcing a religious organization to violate its own moral teachings. If this rule is rescinded, no one loses access to contraception...no one is denied access...what is denied is the requirement that someone else pay for it.
Obamacare forces organizations to purchase insurance, and now forces that insurance to cover contraceptions and abortifacients. Religious organizations, rightly so, object.
You should all think this through though...if you believe it's okay for government to impose its values in this manner, just think about what might happen under President Santorum.
This is a battle over governmental unconstitutional infringement on individual liberties. It just so happens that this time it's about contraception...the specific issue does not matter...it's the overall principle at stake...
The left likes to say that woman's healthcare should be between her and her doctor..I agree...but under Obamacare, it's between her and some bureaucrat...you tell me which you prefer....
Hey, you. Long time no see. I disagree. This is about contraception. This is about a religious organization imposing its beliefs on people who do not share their values and tenets. This is about access. Women who live in places where the only medical facilities are Catholic run cannot get tubal ligations, abortions or contraception. That's ridiculous.
DeleteThis kind of law has existed in many states for years and there's never been an uproar about religious freedoms before.
You think I'm worried about a gov't bureaucrat getting between doctors and women? Ha! That already exists except it's insurance bureaucrats and, as I said regarding women with limited access to health care facilities, religious bureaucrats. That argument doesn't hold one bit of sway with me.
The reality is this - the more Republicans push on this issue with the Blunt Amendment, the more they are making the case for single payer, universal healthcare. If employers will be allowed to pick and choose insurance coverage more than they already do and for any kind of "moral" opposition, that opens the door to all kinds of abuse and manipulation of employees.
Maybe it's time for religious institutions to revisit their reliance on tax dollars because that's where the issue lies. They can do pretty much whatever they want if they're not taking tax dollars.
But a religious organization is free to impose its beliefs on people who choose to affiliate with it. Any private organization can do so. In fact, employers do not have to even offer insurance coverage (I don't think they should anyway...should be an individual purchase, but that's another argument).
DeleteWhy is it okay for government to push its moral tenets on everyone, but a religious organization cannot do so for only those affiliated with them...and yes I understand the "unfairness" of person who is only affiliated by employment being put in this position, but the larger issue is government overstepping its constitutional limits
Here's the difference. The position that contraception (including vasectomies, BTW) has to be covered by insurance expands and protects the rights of the individuals. And to allow any religion to impose its beliefs on individuals limits the right of those individuals. In terms of the constitutionally established right to privacy, this is about the limitation of individual freedoms.
DeleteUltimately, contraception is a health issue, not a morality issue.
I'll repeat myself. If religious institutions don't want to adhere to the federal and state labor laws, they should step away from the tax dollars.
I came here for the bunga-bunga, and it's nothing but politics. Boomchickasadsadsad.
ReplyDelete-- Silvio
I'll send you a link to the bunga-bunga, but you'll have to wear a condom.
DeleteIt's not about religious freedom at all. It's the opposite -- it's one religious sect trying to impose its belief system on the rest of us.
ReplyDeletebut it's okay for the government to impose it's belief system on a religious sect?
DeleteAgain, think of the consequences when its not your guy in power anymore...just sayin'
The government formed a compromise on this to give Catholics the room they needed to deal with the conscience issue. No individual will be forced to take or distribute contraception against their convictions. At some point, the rights of the individual have to take precedence over the institution and this compromise gets us closer to being able to address that balance.
DeleteDid Quakers get to designate that none of their tax dollars would support our wars?
there was no compromise...religious organizations still must buy insurance, that insurance still must cover contraceptives...the "compromise" is that the insurance company will pay for it...but as we all know, that cost will be passed on...and the organization still has to provide coverage for a service that is in opposition to its belief.
DeleteAgain, it's not the coverage of contraception that is the problem...it is the government ordering a religious organization to violate its own beliefs.
I'm not buying it. The Catholic Church can't have it both ways. If they want state and federal dollars, they have to understand that they live with the prevailing labor laws.
DeleteSo you'll be using the same argument when Pres. Santorum tells Planned Parenthood no more abortions to be permitted?
DeleteI don't believe that's a Presidential prerogative. If the Congress passed a law that Planned Parenthood couldn't perform abortions, then they'd have to live by that law if they want the tax dollars. But let's not forget that PP already doesn't use any tax dollars to support their abortion services. That's a law already on the books.
DeleteOk, this whole debate is not even a presidential prerogative....this is an unelected bureaucracy mandating this rule...this is Pres. Obama enforcing his moral belief, but not legislatively....remember when Rep. Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it...now we're findong out...but not even explicitly...simply gave legislative power to HHS to impose what it cannot do legislatively...so, suppose Pres. Rick uses the same mechanism...HHS says under PPCA, if you receive federal funding, you cannot perform abortions...and there is nothing to stop them from doing so, especially if you set the precedent here with mandated coverage of contraception.....on what basis can you possibly object since you clearly approve of the use of that process in this case....
DeleteAnd please, to say that PP does not use tax dollars on abortions is naive...once the money is in the pot, does not matter where it came from...if they are able to use 100% of their own funds to perform abortions, because they get enough govt funding to do everything else...well, just because the govt$ does not go directly to abortions does not mean that the funding does not help PP perform them
I can't say it enough....those of you who are so willing to give government so much control over your life are headed down a dangerous path...because what might work in your favor now, can always be reversed when new people in power
You seem to be moving the goal posts over and over again. I understand exactly what you're saying regarding "careful what you wish for." It's been used time and again to argue against any and all regulation.
DeleteMost importantly, keep saying "President Rick Santorum" because if you want to see women turn out in droves to vote against him and Republicans who are overreaching in amazing ways at the state and federal level, that's going to do it.
Ha! very true...I just use Rick because I figure it hits a nerve...
Deletebut I'm not moving goalposts...issue is the same in this for me now as it was in the beginning...you do not want to give government so much control over your life....remember, the Constitution was written to specifically say what government could do...if it was not in there, government could not do it...some states said that is not good enough, some things far too important to be left to interpretation...so we get the Bill of Rights which explicitly says what government CANNOT do...the idea from the get-go was the most limited form of govt acceptable that could still manage a nation such as ours...to give up those protections so easily now, for "free" contraception? Once the camel gets his nose in the tent........
We're not just talking any regulation here...we're talking about government blatantly ignoring a constitutional restriction on its actions...if we let this pass, on what basis do we ever get to say to the government, you've gone too far now?
This sums up my argument far better than I have to this point...
Deletehttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291550/freedom-conscience-or-free-contraceptives-melissa-moschella
if you take one thing away from it, it should be the the quote from Jefferson:
“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”
I don't see how this the President enforcing his moral beliefs on anyone. The ruling isn't about morals, it's about health. It's about the access women have to necessary health procedures and pharmaceuticals. If you want this to be about morals, then it's about the morality of wanting all humans to be healthy and to receive the preventative measures and care they need. I see that as far more moral than not allowing women to have affordable access to reproductive health care.
DeleteThis is more of an issue of health and economics than it is about morals, but when it comes to the Constitutional questions, don't you think this will be eventually hashed out in the courts anyway? Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
I read that and I see the point the author is making to which I respond, there is the best case for single-payer universal health care. It is in the best interest of the nation to have a healthy populace. It's a critical piece of our national security. Therefore, everyone should have to pay toward and have the exact same access to a full-spectrum of care. If you don't want to use those services, you don't have to. Employers won't be on the hook for their employees health care and therefore won't feel their conscience is being violated.
DeleteAnd those who are unhappy because of the conscience issue can get in line with those of us who don't approve of our tax dollars being spent on unnecessary wars, a racist prison-industrial system, the death penalty, the ridiculous war on drugs, etc......
Why are we so willing to let the courts interfere when not necessary....Why is it we are so willing to let government act this way and then hope that some more unelected officials, with their own agendas (on both sides, btw)will make it right?
DeleteThis is not about access...no one is denied contraception, and contraception is not prohibitively expensive....but even if you want to say some still cannot afford, does not give government the right to force everyone to pay for coverage...that's what organizations like PP are supposed to be for (or so I thought...
My last word, as I have (once again, old habits die hard) beaten this to death....you're almost there when you say employers not being on the hook for insurance...we can do that without the government being the overseer of our lives...just sayin'....we don't buy car insurance this way...should we have even more personal control over something as important as our own health?
This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I see health care as a right, not a privilege. It's part of the pursuit of happiness. I can choose whether being healthy or unhealthy defines happiness, but having affordable access to health care ensures my right.
DeleteI don't agree that a for-profit health care system is the best for this or any nation. I'd like to see the insurance become something people can purchase if they want a level of care beyond that provided to everyone.
As for your assertion that contraception is affordable, you're wrong. It can be very costly to the tune of $600 or more a year and if you've got insurance coverage, but it doesn't cover the pill, for example, and you're employed, you can't qualify for the sliding scale prescriptions provided by public health offices or Planned Parenthood.
Or, in my case, at my age, my doctor wants me to either have a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation or for MathMan to have a vasectomy. But we can do neither because we can't afford the co-pays.
My last word on this: there is a radical, concerted anti-female agenda being unleashed by Republican-controlled state houses and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. When you take this HHS issue in context with that, you cannot expect women to go along with the pretense that this is purely an issue of religious liberty.
Okay, I promise the end here...but, yes perhaps in your case it is expensive...but if your doctor is suggesting this for medical reasons, then that is different than just "free" access to contraceptives to whomever wants them...I would argue that a medical necessity changes the parameters under which it should be covered...but in a national system, which would be unsustainable under our current tax structure, which has to cut costs wherever possible, you are going to face unresponsive bureaucrats who will decide whether your are worth receiving coverage. At least in a private system, if one company says no, there are others to turn to. Look, our healthcare system is a mess, we certainly agree on that...having dealt with medicare first hand, I have seen the future of Obamacare, and it ain't pretty. Name one thing that government does better than the private sector, and then maybe you can convince me.
DeleteWe should be careful about rights vs. privileges....and the government role in each....a right cannot be denied by government, that is true...but it also cannot be forced upon you...the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms...does not give the government the right to force us to bear arms....whether there is a right to health care (and I would argue no) is debatable...but if there is, all that means is that government cannot deny the right to access...it does not mean government has to provide it...otherwise, by definition it is denying the right to FREE EXERCISE of our rights...the government cannot prohibit you from saying what you want under the First Amendment...but that does not mean it can force you to say what it wants...having the right to something does not mean government has the obligation to force you to exercise that right...
does this mean people can go thru life without insurance and then should face the consequences? Yes...or at least it used to, until government decided we can't just let people live their own lives and face their own consequences...in an effort to protect and care for those who could not do so themselves, government stepped in...and unfortunately provided an incentive to others not-so-less-fortunate to take the easy way out....
the compulsion to help those who need it comes from a very noble and sympathetic nature to us as a nation...but it came with consequences, and unintended results....we've become a nation that turns to government first for help in matters both small and large, that sees money from the government as not a gift, but an expected obligation due simply because we are citizens, either forgetting or even worse, not caring, that any money from the government comes first, last and always from our fellow citizens.
As always, it's been fun, will try to stop back more in the future, and I'm still looking for my horse in this race...none of my favorites even ran...
Thanks, Jonah. I always enjoy our debates. Let us know if you find that horse. It's an exciting time for those of us who love this stuff.
DeleteIf the churches are going to be so political, let's start taxing everything they do, including the collection plate and charities. That's fair ain't it?? If they want to get in the game, they have to put some skin in the game, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteOr - if they don't want to live by the labor laws, they can stop taking tax dollars.
DeleteAll of this has much less to do with women's health and religion and everything to do with power. If you control fertility you control the woman.
ReplyDeleteThe world would be very different if more women were like you, fully engaged with the unfairness of the way things are run by old white men.
Thank you, susan. And you're absolutely right. This is about power. It's also a huge economic issue for women.
DeleteSex is for Procreation Not Recreation!
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of world do these inhuman assholes want to force upon all of Us?
Who could support such an ideology?
The Patriarchy is far from gone!
You're right. And I think they've poked a hornets' nest.
DeleteHere is a good article on reproductive control of women by men in domestic relationships. It was posted by one of my google+ contacts, who makes the point that the religious Republican men are trying to apply their control of women's fertility through the legislative process.
ReplyDeletereproductive control
Gina, I think you're right. We're back to the issue of power. I hadn't even heard of this issue of women being forced by their spouses/partners to reproduce. It's definitely a hidden problem.
DeleteI bet the work around will be those dealing with religious based employers will now get "F vouchers" or "Va jay jay tickets" or "Screw script" "KY currency" ( you know you can think of fun names) so discreet envelopes can be sent so they can redeem birth control pills from some heathen pharmacy.
ReplyDeleteThese sanctmonious s@$theads want to be able to dial things up or down, based on their manly decisions. Perry requires Texas doctors to perform medically unnecessary ultrasounds on women having abortions, or risk losing their licenses.( She or her insurance picks up the tab?)
This "pro lifer" has ok'd executions of 234 people.
Santorum wants amnio eliminated because couples might make the difficult decision to abort a child with serious disabilities. These jokers want us to believe their invasive decisionmaking for our most private and personal choices equates to "less government".
The Pope may be opposed to birth control, but he's not birthin' them or raising them, or paying for them, pretty lame to think catholics stopped having large families because they were abstaining or successful with the rhythm method . Shouldn't be a mystery if families are made to cover their own birth control expenses, there will be less in the donation basket.
Don't get me started on their costs to cover pedophile priest crimes the church was complacent or accomplice in not reporting, but hiding & moving predatory priests to different parishes.
Talk about religious exemptions-- explain how that went on for so long???
I'm in the keep the government out of my vagina camp.
The hypocrisy on the "pro-life" versus the death penalty is an issue for me, too. And I won't get into how I feel about the Catholic Church having abdicated the ability to discuss the issue of sexual morality when they allowed pedophiles to continue to prey on children.
DeleteWell said, Lisa.
ReplyDelete