Stanek Sunday Funnies: “Conservatives Started It” edition
I saw the above Planned Parenthood tweet a couple days and first thought, You have got to be kidding, and then thought, Of course this is how they’ll spin this.
The Obama administration provoked a huge nationwide controversy in January by ordering religious groups to cover contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization in their insurance plans, and now the Left is trying to say the Right started it. The obvious political ploy is to try to peg Republicans as anti-contraceptive, since pegging them as anti-abortion is no longer a winning issue.
On that note, let the political cartoon revisionism begin.
by Dan Wasserman at GoComics.com…
a twofer by Mike Luckovich at GoComics.com…
by Clay Bennett at GoComics.com…
by Stuart Carlson at GoComics.com…
by Robert Ariall at Townhall.com…
by Clay Jones at GoComics.com…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Didn’t I tell you? Obama won this round. He accomplished exactly what he set out to do.
Is it just me or so I see some appalling bigotry and stereotyping on display here?
No, can’t be. Liberals are much too enlightened.
what has obama done? nothing. sorry but i had to correct someone the other day. a bush blamer. and i said no no no you cant blame bush anymore!
Jill, you called it with your post: Liberals, media try to shift debate from abortion to contraception
I am tired of “the issues” being divided into “economy” and “other”. Spending money you don’t have is a moral problem.
Why would Obama go after the Catholic Church on contraception. Read the following article.
http://coloradocoalitionforlife.com/462#more-462
It is all moral problems. A short list for those to whom it applies.
Greed and envy – wanting other’s money/businesses or, at least, control of this through taxes and regulations.
Lust – leading to contraception and when that fails, abortion.
Hate – population control through war and pushing/mandating birth control with various forms of euthanasia and the whole culture of death coming over the horizon.
Lies – media, teachers, politicians, etc. not telling the whole truth, and, in general, leading people astray. Put some churches in there as they preach that contraception and abortion are OK.
You can probably add to the list.
Seems we are all heading to hell-on-earth if not to hell everlasting. Dear God, Please send us leaders that will lead us to you and not astray. Have mercy on us and the whole world.
As a Roman Catholic, I especially love the cartoons demonizing my bishops. It just makes it easier to make the case for the left being Stalinist thugs. We passed bigotry about 20 years ago. This is now the state’s attempt to dismantle religion in the quest for controlling every aspect of our lives. The MSM are wholly subsidiaries of the new Pravda, and the cartoonists are doing a splendid job of advancing the ball.
Contraception is ok.
Maybe one day someone from our side will come out with the truth and we can be done with all this nonsense.
xalisae: Contraception is not okay. It demeans and objectifies women, often at the expense of their emotional and physical health. That aside, contraception isn’t the issue. The unconstitutional nature of the mandate — and “Obamacare” as a whole — are the issue.
You said it, Xalisae. The whole prolifers want to ban contraception is one of those strawmen they throw out when they have no other arguments left. It gets harder to dismiss when many on our side act like its true.
Hi heather 9:39am
You just made me think of something. Blaming Bush. Obama displays another narcissistic trait.
These people will NOT acknowledge they are wrong or take any responsiblity for things going wrong. This strikes us as petulant and unpresidential. Its exactly what we should expect.
Don’t expect Obama to ever stop blaming Bush.
Hi Gerard,
The media under Stalin at least had the excuse they had only one other option than towing the gov’t line, a trip to Siberia.
Our media has no just excuse, which makes this even more despicable. They have again displayed they do little more than follow their marching orders. I wonder how long it was before Chris Matthews, who actually displayed an inkling of journalist tendencies in questioning this mandate, was b—-slapped back into line by Obama’s pimps.
This just might be the ultimate moronic prochoice quote. I feel a special award for this coming on, LOL. They started it, but we’ll finish it.
“Is it just me or so I see some appalling bigotry and stereotyping on display here?”
If any cartoonist drew African Americans or homosexuals in the same crude fashion as they drew the clergy, that cartoonist would be fired in a heartbeat.
Contraception is not okay. Contraception is the primary cause of risky sexual behavior, leading to our epidemics of divorce, STD’s, unwanted children, abortion, and breast cancer.
However…. Americans are addicted to contraception. Obama is playing that addiction against the voices that warn against the dangers. The BIG LIE is that Republicans want to ban contraception, and the addicts are reacting with predictable paranoia.
We cannot ban contraception, any more than previous attempts to ban alcohol or tobacco. If kids realize that contraception is more dangerous than tobacco, they will make better choices.
I thought the first one was pretty funny.
Yeah, count me as another pro-lifer who has no issue with non-abortifacient contraception.
xalisae: Contraception is not okay. It demeans and objectifies women, often at the expense of their emotional and physical health.
Umm…It doesn’t demean and objectify women. You think it does though, because you refuse to acknowledge that sometimes women want to be intimate with their partners without an imminent conception of a child that they can’t adequately provide for. You refuse to acknowledge this at the expense of conservatives and the pro-life movement. They’ve already found out they win this fight, and you’re helping them because of your insistence on disregarding the reality that-OH NOES-some women like sex yet can’t necessarily care for or don’t want to care for additional children. Perish the thought.
Heck, some women don’t even necessarily LIKE the sex entailed, but like contraception because, for instance, it gives them the chance to say, get out of an abusive relationship. I’m glad for mine. My abusive ex told me he regretted having me get my tubes tied, because when he finally became physically abusive I decided to end the relationship, and he lamented openly to me not being able to rape me in order to impregnate me and force me to have another tie to him that would discourage my leaving. Am I saddened that it’s going to take a considerable investment before my fiance and I are able to have our own children after we get married? Yeah. If we were to experience a failure and I were to somehow conceive tomorrow, you had better believe that would be one of the most loved babies in this world, even though we’re not planning for him or her just yet.
Your (and those of many others here) notions regarding contraception are patently false and absolutely absurd, but I’ve known that for years. I can’t help but say “I told ya so.” since I SAW THIS TACTIC COMING FROM MILES AWAY YEARS AND YEARS AGO, AND IT’S WORKING.
That aside, contraception isn’t the issue. The unconstitutional nature of the mandate — and “Obamacare” as a whole — are the issue.
YES! And let me tell you, if we focused on that, and kept the personal opinions about the evils of contraception to ourselves if we happen to be so inclined, we’d make considerably more progress in this debate. They know they can derail you about this issue though. You guys are shooting yourselves in the feet-with a bazooka.
Sometimes, it really DOES boil down to, “It’s MY body.”
Deal with it.
Contraception is a personal choice that is really no one’s business. Unlike abortion. Seriously, vilifying those who agree with or use contraception does more to hurt the movement than the choicers do.
“The whole prolifers want to ban contraception is one of those strawmen they throw out when they have no other arguments left. It gets harder to dismiss when many on our side act like its true.”
How silly. You call it a strawman and then admit in the same post that many in your movement, if they had their druthers, would, in fact, ban contraception. Or are these people “acting like it’s true” just kidding around? They don’t really have a social or religious agenda built around banning something that they think causes breast cancer, or is an “abortifacient” that “murders” microscopic embryos, or is the “primary cause of risky sexual behavior” that has led to every conceivable social ill they can think of.
but they wouldn’t, joan. They just hate it and think ill of people who use it. That’s the thing. And your side is using that fact to conflate the dislike with a desire to ban it, when by and large that is just simply not the case.
Mark/Others concerned about the mandate -
I’d encourage you folks to contact your representative concerning HR767 – it allows for an individual to opt out of health care reform all together. If an individual opts out, they are out of the reform package for a minimum of three years – so they aren’t subject to any sort fines/mandate, and then furthermore, the individual, if they choose to buy insurance, can be discriminated against if they had a pre-existing condition, they can’t buy insurance through a state exchange, and if they have a financial hardship, they can’t roll their medical bills into a bankruptcy (those bills will stay with them).
i am assuming things like lifetime caps will also apply to a person who opts out, but I’m not sure from reading the text of the bill.
“You call it a strawman and then admit in the same post that many in your movement, if they had their druthers, would, in fact, ban contraception.”
The % of the public that wants to ban contraception is miniscule if it even exists.
Pro abortion is a losing position. So is the economy, so it makes sense for them to drum up something like this to distract from their other unpopular positions and policies Still, the extensive discussion of birth control means many more women who never thought about it, will hear words like abortifacient and carcinogenic and will make it their business to inform themselves about this drug they have been taking. Probably all publicity is good holds true in this case as well.
Like hell they wouldn’t. You don’t think these people would ban something that they believe is literally directly responsible for an “epidemic” of “divorce, STD’s, unwanted children, abortion, and breast cancer”? Really? If someone truly believes that contraception has caused or facilitated all of these things, it would be utterly irresponsible for them not to want it banned: it would, after all, be the most serious public health hazard since smallpox.
“The % of the public that wants to ban contraception is miniscule if it even exists.”
That’s irrelevant. The thought leaders and the most vocal supporters of the anti-abortion movement want contraception banned or severely restricted, and they’re not interested in putting it up to a majority vote either.
EGV 1:14PM
Obviously you’ve been suckered by Obama’s ploy.
That’s irrelevant. The thought leaders and the most vocal supporters of the anti-abortion movement want contraception banned or severely restricted, and they’re not interested in putting it up to a majority vote either.
Sure, Joan, and Obama’s a muslim, and Bush brought down the World trade center, uh, huh. Whatever.
Mary – I’m 100% in favor of opting out of social security, medicare, medicaid, health care reform, driving on publicly funded roads, getting help from cops and firefighters…opt out of everything. Live in the woods if you’d like.
I’m just saying, here is a real bill that would allow people to keep the status quo if they’d like.
“And your side is using that fact to conflate the dislike with a desire to ban it, when by and large that is just simply not the case.”
So what’s the point of these Personhood initiatives, then, if not to endow human life at its most incipient stages with legal rights?
And the thought leaders and most vocal supporters of abortion on demand, all nine months, any reason want to keep their industry self policing and demand taxpayers foot the bill, and we the taxpayers are saying no. That is the real issue here, and prochoice isn’t interested in putting it to a majority vote either-I don’t recall being asked to vote on whether I wanted one-choice obamacare, do you? Libs screech about keeping the govt out of their uterus then demand the govt pay for their abortions and bc-you can’t have it both ways.
Feminists are shrieking because they’re being told to own their own values (or lack thereof) their tantruming over bc being under attack is just a smokescreen to distract from their lame duck lapdog president and his epic fail administration. Haven’t heard a single lib lobbying for aid for seniors to afford their meds, or aid for single mothers to provide insulin for diabetic kids. If you can’t pay for your own contraception then you have no business having sex-you’re certainly not going to die from lack of nookie. If you don’t want your own consciences violated then don’t violate the consciences of others-we’ve seen through the thug mentality and lib groupspeak, and we won’t fund your irresponsibility any longer. You want your nanny state, then we the taxpayers funding your cradle to grave entitlements get to decide how that funding is distributed, and why. If you like that kind of governmental control, keep voting democrat.
joan,
Looks like Obama is playing you for a sucker like he is EGV.
Before you blow a gasket keep in mind there is no legislation out there banning contraception and it is not an issue. Without the majority vote it isn’t likely to ever be an issue. Its a free country and people can believe and advocate what they want. Who cares?
I’m sure there are people who would advocate segregation. Let them. I’m certainly not worried that Jim Crow will make a comeback.
Unlike Obama, I don’t forsee a future Republican president issuing unconstitutional mandates on this issue so you can relax and worry about real problems.
EGV 2:14PM
What are you talking about??? Did you mean to address someone else?
Mary – I’m not talking about the contraception mandate – I’m talking about the individual mandate in health care reform. See, it would take any questions on the constitutionality of the mandate (which will most likely be ruled constitutional by the way) and allow people to opt out and live a life will things like preexisting conditions. It is a win-win.
So what’s the point of these Personhood initiatives, then, if not to endow human life at its most incipient stages with legal rights?
Oh look, another oldie but goodie in the lie department from the left. Personhood initiatives were clarified to specify that they would do no such thing as outlaw contraception or IVF. I’ll give you the same link I gave Tyler the other day which verifies this:
http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/
Cute though, re-hashing the old lie to try and make a point about a new lie.
One more thing-political division and social unrest are absolutely essential for Socialism to flourish-this whole debate is proof that Socialism is the aim of the current admin-watch as they continue to fan the flames and encourage the ire on both sides-they benefit from it.
Joan, I mostly agree with what the others have said but I would like to respond anyway. I consider it a strawman because no the vast majority of those who want abortion illegal do not want contraception illegal. Even Rick Santorum said he would vote against such a law. As for acting like its true, when people put forward arguments about contraception itself instead of the mandate, it sounds like they want to ban it whether they do or not. Regarding what the most vocal leaders say, all I can say is that it is to be expected that the people with the most radical positions are also likely to get the most involved and be the most vocal. But the average American who happens to identify as prolife has no interest in banning contraception and in fact uses it themselves. So I consider it a strawman when people say prolifers as a whole want to ban contraception.
Xalisae,
In this debate over contraception, we need to separate a few threads for the sake of clarity:
1. The truth that science teaches about contraception’s various negative sequelae in women.
2. The religious proscriptions.
3. The politics of running roughshod over the First Amendment protections of religious groups as well as the religious liberties of individual citizens.
4. The place that contraception has in the pro-life movement vis the abortifacient properties of many contraceptives, and the mentality it engenders regarding an antipathy to new life.
Regarding the first issue, that of negative sequelae in women, there is an abundance of evidence pointing to the links between cervical, liver and breast cancer from oral contraceptives, and we’ve had plenty of conversations about that.
Regarding religious proscriptions by the Catholic Church, I think that Pope Paul VI’s predictions in Humanae Vitae have all come true. You are quite correct that many women want contraceptives because they want sex lives without the worry over unwanted children. However, contraceptives fail with ghastly frequency. When they do, the contracepting couple has taken a very long walk down the road toward abortion. Guttmacher reports that 54% of women coming in for abortions were using some form of birth control in the month in which they conceived. ZSo Pope Paul VI was correct in predicting a rise in abortions and a general lowering of the moral standards.
I believe that my non-Catholic brothers and sisters can see a great deal of truth in Humanae Vitae if they sit and read the actual document and contemplate it against the 44 years of history that have since elapsed.
As for taxpayer funded contraception, there is a more fundamental issue of decency here. I really don’t care when, where, how, or with whom any person has sex. My simple admonition is to keep your hands off of my wallet and buy your own rubbers. It is a fiction that a nation as morbidly obese as ours is filled with people who can’t afford contraception. It’s a question of priorities.
Let’s be clear about these cartoonists. They are creative folk who do not need to be constrained by pesky things like facts. They do most of their work with an eye on the acceptance and accolades of their peers–which are mainly illiterate liberals like themselves.
Now Mary I would not claim that Obama “won” this. I think if anything he awakened a sleeping giant; i.e. the semi-awake Catholics and denominational/non-denominational Christians who otherwise sleepwalk through election campaigns waiting to hear that one soundbite that resonates with the issue they care about. What this controversy has done is something that will come back to bite Obama…it educated a great many people about the true intent and extent of Obamacare’s power in our lives, and the ruling elite’s willingness to trample on the rights of conscience. Regardless of how they feel on many things, the majority of people do not like to be told by the government what they must and must not do.
It is very obvious that O and his proabort fellow travelers think that they can excite women voters with this issue and it is a calculated gamble to do just that. What they could not anticipate was those whom they considered patsies would not go with the flow. So now we have the MSM doing clean-up for the administration in their pathetic lying about the controversy–hence the cartoonists picking up on the theme started by the thought leaders at the NY Times/WaPo/ABC/NBC and the backbenchers at MSNBC etc. In the end the thing that will be remembered is not the cutesy little pathetic cartoons, but rather the core of the issue–government stomping down on our rights.
“If you can’t pay for your own contraception then you have no business having sex-you’re certainly not going to die from lack of nookie.”
You classist jerk. Heaven forbid people want to enjoy intimacy even when they can’t afford to have children–which, judging by the unemployment and food insecurity rates in this country, would be about a fifth of the population. Do you intend to conceive every time you hop in the sack?
Dan Wasserman’s pretty liberal, correct? So I doubt it was his intention to point out how silly the charges are that Republicans are going after people’s contraception, but that’s what he’s doing with his cartoon. Right, Dan, it *would* be a losing issue ~ that’s why promoting the idea that Republicans are pursuing it is so ridiculous.
This is what Margaret Sanger thinks of those who are given Birth Control. She is quite the name caller. So do you think you and yours are the “fit” or “unfit”? We are at the point as she also says where “Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society”. Here Obama and friends step in.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qAkiAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=%22birth+control+is+not+merely+of+eugenic+value%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sGc-T7jIDIPe2AWvsOizCA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22birth%20control%20is%20not%20merely%20of%20eugenic%20value%22&f=false
The Birth Control Review Margaret Sanger, Editor, Oct., 1921, Vol. V, No. 10 Pg. 5
Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda By Margaret Sanger
“… Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. …
… I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics. …
As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit,” admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-due classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective….
Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism”
“I’d encourage you folks to contact your representative concerning HR767 – it allows for an individual to opt out of health care reform all together.”
Is HR 767 the patch that will make the Health Care Act constitutional?
So, with the Act so amended, those challenging the law will not have standing to challenge it?
1. The truth that science teaches about contraception’s various negative sequelae in women.
Great. I’m lighting up a cigarette right now. It’s my choice to smoke. I know it causes cancer. Oh-freaking-well, it’s MY body, and I’ll do whatever I want with it, dad.
2. The religious proscriptions.
I don’t give a flying freak at a rolling doughnut. Government needs to keep out of religion, hence my objection to mandating contraceptives be paid for by religious entities. However, religion also needs to stay out of government, which means they shouldn’t be dictating legality based on what is unacceptable in their religion.
3. The politics of running roughshod over the First Amendment protections of religious groups as well as the religious liberties of individual citizens.
See my response to #2. This is what you should be emphasizing if you actually want to be effective.
4. The place that contraception has in the pro-life movement vis the abortifacient properties of many contraceptives, and the mentality it engenders regarding an antipathy to new life.
Umm…if you really want to address this, I think education is something that you need to be focusing on, not outlawing contraception. I have a daughter who was a result of failed contraception. I have a few nieces who are in the same boat. Contraception =/= abortion, and trying to paint it as such is nonsense. Letting people know that the children resulting from failed contraception are children and creating laws to protect their lives are what will help here, not outlawing contraception. The fact it fails sometimes does not translate to a reason to ban it altogether. Also, you already know my response to the unsubstantiated “abortifacient properties” argument. Let me know how banning coffee and exercise works for ya after you’re done with hormonal contraceptives, because if you want to be fair, you’d have to do that too.
Hippie – I believe that reform is going to be allowed by the Supremes anyways…it would be too big of a departure from past rulings for them to run it unconstitutional…but this specific law is sort of a “put up or shut up law”. Quite frankly, my guess is, though a lot of the right is mad about the law, few people would actually want to opt out and miss out on the benefits.
Gerard:
You have written many times with precision and eloquence on the ABC link and the harmful effects of contraception. For the sake of bringing greater clarity to this discussion could you elaborate or otherwise link to your articles re number 1 in you response to Xalisae?
Obama is saying he wants to provide “free” access to contraception for “health ” reasons. And yet the very medicine Dr. Obama is prescribing could unleash a tidal wave of cancer on his unsuspecting patients who follow his advice and gobble down ”free” drugs which they might not have otherwise used with regularity or even at all. But of course we have Obamacare in place to fix up those gals when they come in with cancer.
Enjoy intimacy on your own dime Megan-I see no reason to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids to pay for you to get laid. You want to tell a hungry single mother your sex life matters more than her kids eating? Go right ahead. Classist jerk. The rest of us can manage to control and pay for our own fertility-put your big girl pants on and join us.
Umm…Jerry, Gerard can link to that all he likes. As explained in my response to his #1, let me make this perfectly clear:
I. DON’T. GIVE. A. FLIP.
Neither do a lot of other women. We appreciate your concern, but really, it’s absolutely wasted.
“You classist jerk.”
Absurd.
Contraception costs less than food.
Pills $20/month.
Food $200/month.
Anyone too poor to afford it already qualifies for Medicaid.
Contraception is so cheap, it makes the whole discussion a joke.
Anyone who has a job can already afford it.
It is a distraction from the wars, economy, unemployment, inflation, etc.
The classist jerks are those who think the poor should kill their kids rather than feed them.
Remember Swift’s essay was satire!!!
Amen, hippie. Entitled libs don’t want to pay for anything. It’s all up to the rest of us. ME ME ME I WANT ME ME. No wonder they’re so bitter and miserable and angry all the time. What a narrow minded, pathetic way to live. Junkies living on the street can manage to get condoms, but pampered college student feminist princesses can’t? Please. PP is handing condoms out to the kiddies in school, but pinhead academics can’t quite manage to get ahold of them? LOL.
Do you understand how insurance works, Moron? It’s inherently a collective endeavor. I receive insurance as part of the deal for having a job–I do think you know how this works, right?–which means I’m, in part, subsidizing everybody else’s so-called “lifestyle choices,” too. I am careful about my weight, yet I know that somehow, in some way, my hard-earned dollars are paying for an overweight business exec’s bypass surgery. Yet I’m not going to make this into a moral issue and picket the local hospital. I tacitly accepted that I’d subsidize things I’m not crazy about when I took the job offer. Oh frigging well.
Right now you’re free to hoist your big girl capitalist pants up to your eyebrows, eschew health insurance and pay the market price for every medical expense you incur. That’s what real anti-socialists would do.
Megan,
And everyone in the ‘collective’ who’s paying into it has a right to an opinion as to how its spent. Too difficult for you? As I stated above, I wasn’t invited to join the obamacare ‘collective’-it’s being forced on me, and all of us, which makes your last comment pure strawman and bs. People aren’t picketing cardiologist’s offices for one simple reason-cardiologists aren’t paid to end the lives of others. Abortionists are. WAKE UP.
P.S. Megan, next time I’m pregnant I’ll be expecting you to fund my prenatal care. Get that checkbook ready and don’t ask any questions. Resistance is futile.
“It is a distraction from the wars, economy, unemployment, inflation, etc.”
Exactly. It’s a moral crusade conservative busy-bodies are waging to a) reinforce their vision of the “good woman,” i.e. one whose role is first and foremost that of a mother, and b) deflect attention from the terrible ineptitude of conservative lawmakers.
If contraception is so cheap, then it would hardly make a dent in any insurance-holder’s pocket to classify it as preventive care. From an economic standpoint, this fuss about birth control isn’t warranted.
“Quite frankly, my guess is, though a lot of the right is mad about the law, few people would actually want to opt out and miss out on the benefits.”
Uh, benefits? Pay more, get less?
Not so sure. A lot of people opt out of public schools. They pay high taxes for public schools and then pay high tuition for private schools. I would opt out because I have really good family health history and can afford to pay for treatment if I need it. Insurance costs too much. If I needed something really expensive, I could go to Singapore. There is just too large a market of people who can pay, and don’t want to wait or put up with the BS.
http://www.globalsurance.com/resources/singapore/
The Health Care Act just increases profits for insurers. It doesn’t reform or increase access. Nor does it incentivize responsibility or any healthy behaviors.
I think Singapore has a better plan.
http://blog.jparsons.net/2009/08/why-singapores-health-care-system-beats.html
Moronic -
Well baby care is a minimum coverage item in health care reform.
I’m not positive about prenatal care, but I hope it is- I’d much rather pay for somebody’s prenatal care than have a pregnancy that has preventable issues later (that typically cost a lot more and exert a high emotional impact).
Also, where is the opt out for people of faith being forced to pay for bc? Don’t see any collectivism there-just thuggery.
Hippie – so are you in favor of a government takeover of health insurance – a system like the UK?
Also, if you had the chance to opt out, but then allow insurance companies to discriminate against you for pre-existing conditions in the future, while also disallowing you from participating in the exchanges or rolling medical debt into a bankruptcy – would you opt out?
Also, how big of a bill are you able to afford? If you get a cancer that costs multiple millions to treat, you can pay that?
It’s a moral crusade conservative busy-bodies are waging
uh, conservatives? Who wrote the mandate?
From an economic standpoint, this fuss about birth control isn’t warranted.
So, why not just have people pay for their own like they always did before? Why mandate that employers pay for it? I mean, vitamins aren’t covered. Why not?
Alright, MPQ, so without the ACA, you wouldn’t have purchased insurance? You’d still be paying fees out of pocket for every service, as you’ve presumably done your entire life?
And by the way, I’d gladly pay for your prenatal care. My insurance company already covers it, and my tax dollars help fund Medicaid. Prenatal care, like family planning, is essential women’s healthcare.
Hippie-
Exactly. It’s just more govt bloat and bureaucracy-not to mention all the taxpayer funded committees that will be formed to study the ‘impact.’ The poor will get stuck with the bill, as always. Funnily enough, it’s the college student libs who will be crying foul when the fines for not having obamacare start coming in. Hopefully it’ll be repealed before it goes into effect. Waste of billions that could have fed a whole lot of people.
Megan, if bc is so affordable and isn’t making a dent in insurers budgets, you won’t mind if we take the million a day in title X funds that PP gets to feed the poor. Right?
uh, conservatives? Who wrote the mandate?
LOL! Enough said.
megan-
breaking news-obamacare doesn’t go into effect until 2013-stop acting like its saving lives already.
gotta run, battle on people.
The last one is from my local newspaper. I missed it at the time. It prompted me to write this letter to the editor:
When I saw Clay Jones’ cartoon depicting elephants throwing boxes of condoms from a ship in classic Boston Tea Party fashion, I just shook my head. Like so many others, Mr. Jones has fallen for the lie that by opposing Obama’s mandate that all insurers and employers cover contraception, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs–even if their religious beliefs forbid it–Republicans are bent on doing away with contraception altogether. Nothing could be more ludicrous. According to your commentary explaining the cartoon, Mr. Jones, you have a problem with religion and its pesky rules and regulations. The Catholic Church has always opposed contraception, and in America, employers and insurers have always been free to choose whether or not to cover it. We have this little thing called the First Amendment which stipulates that our government may not infringe upon our rights to practice our faith. By demanding that every employer (with a negligible exception for some churches) provide insurance coverage for these practices, Obama et al have thrown the First Amendment out the window. It doesn’t matter how you or I feel about contraception. It doesn’t even matter that most Americans use it. By imposing the new mandate, the Obama administration is forcing Catholic and Christian employers to defy their religious beliefs. It isn’t contraception we have a problem with, Mr. Jones; it’s government making itself more important than God.
Thanks for publishing these, Jill! The Kool-Aid is obviously flowing freely.
If you get a cancer that costs multiple millions to treat, you can pay that?
I can afford to pay for reasonable treatment that I would actually want, but I don’t fear death, so my opinions can’t be generalized. My life isn’t worth multiple millions. I would rather leave my money to my kids than pay for treatment that might not work anyway. If I choose not to buy insurance and give my money to my kids, well, there is no money in that for the preferred corporations and constituencies of the republican and democrat power brokers. So, naturally, I should be forced to pay for insurance whether or not I want treatment for some particular illness.
Anyway, birth control pills increase the odds of getting breast cancer because they are generally used to delay the first pregnancy and reduce the number of full term pregnancies.
Later and fewer pregnancies equals more cancer, so contraception may prevent people, but it doesn’t prevent cancer.
So hippie, you are essentially saying that if medical care for you is over what you pay for, that hospitals should let you die (if it comes to that)?
I just want to be clear in what you are supporting.
So Moron, who do you think receives Title X services, Gloria Steinem? Newsflash: low-income people have sex, too. The “virtuous poor” trope is a fiction propagated by missionaries, isolationist politicians and bored housewives to shield themselves from any sort of accountability for their humanitarian “efforts.” That’s why the US sends boatloads of Lakers’ jerseys to Haiti instead of doing anything that requires a modicum of political mettle. By using poor women as pawns in your crusade against feminism, you’re just making it obvious what kind of jerk you really are.
“imminent conception ”
Sounds scary xalisae. Is this a healthy way to look at pregnancy?
xalisae, please stop your grand standing. Simply because you want contraception to remain legal doesn’t mean everyone should agree. People are allowed to their own opinion.
If you don’t want to accept or even acknowledge the evidence and research provided by others, there is no reason we should accept yours.
Your argument for contraception has been to support its ability to prevent conception. Not once have you acknowledged the harms that some “contraception” cause women. It would be considerate of you if would at least show some compassion for the women “contraception” has harmed.
Furthermore, you should be certain to clarify whether you support contraception that aborts. In fact, you appear to support RU486. If you don’t support RU486, it is only because you believe ignorance is a defense for the woman who use hormonal contraceptives.
The LEFT will even lose the debate about the ethics of contraception. Don’t worry about it.
So hippie, you are essentially saying that if medical care for you is over what you pay for, that hospitals should let you die (if it comes to that)?
No. Just saying my opinions aren’t generalizable because I can afford to pay for what I want and don’t fear death. I just don’t want that much. Hospitals don’t just let people die, which is why people get bills they can’t pay and go bankrupt.
Also, patients can refuse treatment and many do, especially at the end or when the chances of success are too low. Got a problem with that?
I don’t need to spend millions. I can die at home for free. Lots of people have done that over the millennia of human history. It is a valid choice. If you want millions of dollars of insurance, by all means, buy it. It is a free country.
I don’t think that the Health Care Act is about getting more treatment to more people. It does just what it says it does. It gets more people insured. That means that insurers and providers will get paid rather than have to write it off when folks without insurance go bankrupt.
No one, including Sen. Santorum, is seeking to ban contraception. Many people, including Sen. Santorum, don’t personally believe in using artificial contraceptives, and also believe that their widespread use has led to societal problems. This does not equate to wanting to make them all illegal. People can be pro-life on abortion and pro-choice on contraception even if they don’t use contraception, themselves.
The issue revolves around whether or not the government can force an organization (such as the Catholic Church) to fund, purchase, or provide contraception, in violation of its beliefs. Those who want contraceptives can a.) pay for them, b.) pay for insurance that will cover them, or c.) switch jobs to an employer that will provide insurance that will cover them. (Trust me: many of us will be happy to fill the jobs they vacate.) We can not and will not allow the media or the Democrat Party to spin this around so it’s an argument over the “right” to purchase or use contraceptives.
Hippie – since you said no…this is a very easy question – yes or no.
If you needed medical care in excess of what you could pay, do you feel that a hospital should have to treat you?
No, I don’t support RU486, and yes, I don’t think women can be held accountable for something they don’t even know is happening within their bodies. Now you’re getting it!
The LEFT will even lose the debate about the ethics of contraception. Don’t worry about it.
If you actually believe this, you are seriously delusional, as evidenced by the lack of support displayed when even the idea of hinting at outlawing contraception is dropped.
xalisae, “held accountable” what the heck do think is going to happen if they ban hormonal contraceptives that have an abortive element to them, and that cause grown women cancer?
The only thing that a ban will do is to make the Pill unavailable. Therefore, there won’t be anyone women/couple to be held “accountable.”
Stop being so alarmist.
Each individual women may not know when the Pill they use aborts their child but the fact that it can and does should be sufficient for anyone with a properly formed conscience to want to avoid. To me, taking the Pill is like playing Russian Roulette with your child’s life. I don’t like the odds.
If you needed medical care in excess of what you could pay, do you feel that a hospital should have to treat you?
It doesn’t really apply to me personally because I can afford much more than I would need. The only way to rack up mega bills would mean getting way more than I would be willing to accept. I personally would rather die. So, no, I wouldn’t demand more than I would be willing to pay for.
…this is a very easy question…Got a problem with that? – yes or no.
Ex-GOP,
If you needed medical care in excess of what you could pay, do you feel that a hospital should have to treat you?
I will say one more thing before someone descends into hysteria.
Hospitals, like car dealers, and mortgage companies provide goods and services in excess of what people can pay all the time. Then the person who received treatment, a car or a house, then makes payments on the goods or services. This is a very common arrangement for expensive goods and services. Obviously hospitals exist to heal and save lives, but like any service it costs money to provide and it is reasonable for hospitals like car dealers and mortgage companies to expect that it will take people a while to pay off the bills.
No one, including Sen. Santorum, is seeking to ban contraception. Many people, including Sen. Santorum, don’t personally believe in using artificial contraceptives, and also believe that their widespread use has led to societal problems.
No one, including Sen. Santorum, is seeking to ban alcohol. Many people, not including Sen. Santorum, don’t personally believe in using alcohol, and also believe that its widespread use has led to societal problems.
Is alcohol/artificial hormone consumption and unqualified good? No.
Can some people use them without problems? Yes.
Has they ever been banned? Yes.
Is there currently a popular campaign to ban either? No
So what we have here is unwarranted hysteria contrived to produces distraction and political polarization.
You have to admit that it is pretty funny to see pro aborts go hysterical because they always pretend that they don’t go hysterical and that they are so reasonable blah blah. Well most women are reasonable. Pro aborts, not so much. They get hysterical pretty fast.
xalisae, “held accountable” what the heck do think is going to happen if they ban hormonal contraceptives that have an abortive element to them, and that cause grown women cancer?
1.) “abortive element” is unsubstantiated. I believe the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists over you, Mr. Nobody.
2.) I’m sure they’ll get on that as soon as they get done banning tanning oil and cigarettes. If someone wants to do something that might increase their risk of cancer, as long as they know what they’re doing will increase their risk, they should be allowed to go ahead and do it. IT’S THEIR BODY, NOT YOURS.
The only thing that a ban will do is to make the Pill unavailable. Therefore, there won’t be anyone women/couple to be held “accountable.”
Umm…that’s an unsuccessful argument if I’ve ever seen one, since I’m not arguing that anyone can or should be “held accountable” for any embryo failing to implant, because:
1.) It’s impossible to determine when/if that has happened, anyway
2.) There are a PLETHORA of other things that can cause that to happen. Your crusade against birth control on the pretense that it MIGHT prevent implantation is short-sighted and a fool’s errand, because there are so many other things that have the capacity to do the same thing, you’ll be tilting at windmills indefinitely.
Stop being so alarmist.
Alarmist? Says the guy who apparently wants to ban everything that could ever possibly prevent an embryo from implanting. Or is it that you just want to ban the things that can possibly maybe prevent an embryo from implanting while primarily enabling non-procreative sex? You are remarkably transparent.
Each individual women may not know when the Pill they use aborts their child but the fact that it can and does should be sufficient for anyone with a properly formed conscience to want to avoid. To me, taking the Pill is like playing Russian Roulette with your child’s life. I don’t like the odds.
And to me, taking the pill, drinking soda or coffee, exercising, undergoing stress, overeating, malnourishment, illness are ALL equal to this game of “Russian Roulette” you’ve built up in your mind, because they can all have the same effect. Do you also not like the odds of the other things I mentioned to the point you tie your wife to your bed and don’t let her know what’s going on to “save your baby” from her being under stress or engaging in too strenuous of activities? Do you forbid her from drinking caffeinated beverages? Do you force her to take vitamin supplements and make sure her diet isn’t too fatty or not fatty enough?
My conscience is perfectly fine. But the difference between you and I is that, unlike you, I also have biological knowledge and a firm grasp of reality, and I understand that although it isn’t optimal, there are some occurrences in this world we just have to accept for the well-being of others in our society and reasons of practicality and logistics.
FOLKS,
LET’S REIN IN THE NAME-CALLING HERE, OR IN MY CAPACITY AS A MODERATOR, I’LL START DELETING POSTS. THANKS.
“Each individual women may not know when the Pill they use aborts their child but the fact that it can and does should be sufficient for anyone with a properly formed conscience to want to avoid. To me, taking the Pill is like playing Russian Roulette with your child’s life. I don’t like the odds. ”
About a million children die in traffic accidents worldwide every year. So… banning driving is cool with you? We don’t want to play Russian Roulette with our children’s life. Fact is, you have absolutely no idea how many, if any, embryos might fail to implant from someone taking birth control.
X summed it up pretty well. If a woman wants to raise her risk of cancer, that’s her business. I don’t wear sunscreen and I smoke cigarettes. Come and make me stop, bro. :) There isn’t enough evidence of abortive anything to justify banning or condemning those who use contraceptives from a secular standpoint, if you are doing so from a religious standpoint I wish you good luck, because it will not get you far with those who don’t share your religion.
Xalisae, JackBorsch, thanks for bringing some sanity to this discussion.
oooooh i would be nore than happy to have some of you child haters fixed forever!
I just want some presidential debate questioner to ask Obama if he believes states have the right to ban alcohol. Of course none want to. But he should be harangued endlessly as to whether they have the right under the US Constitution. I just want him to be harrased too, just for good measure. Who knows, he may so brilliantly argue for state’s rights ban alcohol that the muslims in Dearborn may partner with the Baptists in Michigan to ban alcohol.
That’ll show those Catholics, Lutherans and Jews what for.
In my previous posts that have debunked the claims of the AAPLOG article. Furthermore, if that is the article that you are basing your opinion on I think you should re-read it. It is far from a definitive support for oral hormonal contraceptives.
Your argument that some people will continue behaviour that harms themselves is cynical and cold. Most importantly, it is not not pro-life.
Whose body is the embryo? It is also the right of any life respecting individual not to date/marry those people who are willing to use hormonal contraceptives. Lastly, no one is allowed to use their body to harm another.
Or is it that you just want to ban the things that can possibly maybe prevent an embryo from implanting while primarily enabling non-procreative sex?
Your sentence is 5 words too long. I want to ban the things that can possibly maybe prevent an embryo from implanting. Don’t you?
You need to provide statistics and evidence about the affects that caffeine, exercise, etc… have on embryoes failing to implant. I asked you this before, and you have not provided any support. And if they do I would definitely feel comfortable warning and telling women about these side-effects.
I will ignore your insults and claims that I want to tie my wife to the bed, etc… It is nice to be so highly thought of.
I think Dr. Nadal and Ms. Stanek have biological knowledge and you fail to respect their educated opinions as well.
I think they’re amusing rather than flat out funny because they are so accurate.
“This is now the state’s attempt to dismantle religion in the quest for controlling every aspect of our lives.” – oh the irony, it burns!
“Sometimes, it really DOES boil down to, “It’s MY body.” – you have my full support.
Xalisae,
I get it that you have a body and a choice about what you do with it. There are men here who love their wives and who approach their marital relations in a true unitive spirit. A discussion of the medical sequelae for women is essential for men who love their wives, as it opens the door to loving conversations about how to most lovingly engage in relations.
It might come as a surprise to you that men do care about their wives and are horrified to learn of how destructive OC’s are to women.
Then there are the women who are similarly horrified by what OC’s do. So, don’t let me get in the way of your body, your choice, or your poisoning yourself as I have a conversation with others here about things that might matter more to us than they do to you.
That’s my choice.
“I want to ban the things that can possibly maybe prevent an embryo from implanting. Don’t you? “
No. That would not be a good precedent. Way too much contingency there. I feel for your sentiment, but practically, as a legal matter, that much conjecture has to be a non starter.
http://www.ivfsuccessprogram.com/ivf-implantation-what-can-i-do-to-help-my-embryo-implant/
Jack, when you say there isn’t enough evidence, is it because you have failed to read the dozens of studies and position papers based on those studies that show the abortifacient properties of OC’s, or because you fail to understand them?
The Federal Government reports that progestin-only contraceptives result in 5x greater incidence of ectopic pregnancies, which has a great deal to do with the inhibition of motility in the Fallopian Tubes, and implantation in the uterus.
These drugs pose lethal risks to babies conceived while on them, as well as to the mothers who experience ectopic pregnancy because of them.
Fair enough, Dr. Nadal. I just wish women and the decisions we make were respected a little more.
Hippie – my only point is, if you had a terrible car accident tomorrow (and I pray you don’t), you are fully expecting a medical facility to treat you whether or not you can pay the bills. If you can’t, you are fully expecting that medical facility to pass on your costs through higher prices to those who can pay, or those who are insured.
This is why the individual mandate was first pitched by conservatives – because it is a principal of personal responsibility. Those who want the mandate don’t want people to be able to skate by and pass on costs to the system. Those who want it want a twisted version of a socialistic medicine system where all are forced to pay for those who think it is their right not too.
Just my two cents – thanks for being civil through this – I’ve appreciated the discussion.
But it’s all different when proaborts use poor women as political tools to shill for abortion, and it’s all good when proaborts exploit rape victims by crying rape over transvaginal ultrasound, eh, Megan? No double standard there at all, huh? LMAO. What a good little Roebot you are, parroting the party line and the feminist echo chamber rhetoric. Too bad obamacare doesn’t cover feminist deprogramming. Just easier to regurgitate whatever the feminist hive mind is spinning at the moment. So grateful not to be enslaved to victim feminism-most antiwoman ideology ever. I hope someday you get free and start thinking for yourself. Meanwhile, your privelege is showing…
Gerald – this is a statement that hit me the other day in researching this issue:
There is a real controversy regarding this issue, and science does not have all of the answers. Let me state this plainly: anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in “chemical abortions” is simply wrong. They don’t. I don’t know for sure either.
– From the Life Training Institute Blog, which at least on the site, claims to be a pro-life blog.
Seriously, do feminists not see the irony in one choice only obamacare? Prochoice, as long as the choice in question is abortion. Choices of others? Not so much. SMH.
Xalisae,
Disagreeing with a decision made by a woman is not an act of disparagement when made by a man armed with scientific evidence of the harm that flows from that woman’s decision. It is actually the highest form of respect; to point out that the woman merits better than the sequelae sure to follow her decision.
Gerard, from my reading on the issue, it doesn’t seem so black and white. There are professionals like yourself who think that the evidence is sufficient, and there are others (even pro-life professionals) who don’t think that the issue is remotely settled. And regardless, as opposed to RU486, none of you will be able to point at any woman using the Pill and definitively say that an embryo failed to implant because of her use of contraceptives. I am not going to advocate restricting adult women from using something that might cause an embryo to fail to implant, no more than I would decide that sexually active women should be banned from using Accutane because it can cause severe birth defects or miscarriages.
EGV,
Once again, I invite you to call me Gerard and not Gerald. Names matter, and repeated mistakes in calling someone by a different name cross into places that are beyond bad manners.
There are varying degrees of scientific evidence surrounding this issue. Because the mechanism has not been fully explicated does not mean that the effect does not happen. I’m actually part of an international team of MD’s and Ph.D.’s collaborating on a research project that will fully explicate this mechanism, so stay tuned.
I disagree. Considering that you know better when she’s weighed the cost/benefit analysis herself is condescension in its purest form, and that is not respectful.
Jack – well said – that is what I have found as well. I’ve really been struggling with this issue and wanted to do some research on my own.
Jack,
In the context of the HHS mandate, if women want to use the pill, fine. They need to pay for their own. Mrs. Nadal and I don’t subsidize the sex lives of our neighbors.
Fair enough?
Sorry about the name issue Dr. Nadal – I meant no disrespect.
So am I correct in saying that the birth control and abortion link is much like global warming and humans? Those who are skeptical have a leg to stand on, but there is a lot of causal relationships that seem to point to a relationship?
Gerard, I am against the mandate. I agree that Catholic or other employers should not have to provide contraceptive coverage. I am simply not going to oppose contraception based on the evidence so far.
Jack,
In the context of the HHS mandate, if women want to use the pill, fine. They need to pay for their own. Mrs. Nadal and I don’t subsidize the sex lives of our neighbors.
Fair enough?
GREAT! Now can we get the rest of the Pro-Lifers to adopt this position so we can get over this nonsense that will stop us dead in our tracks and rob us of any hope of victory about us wanting to ban hormonal contraception outright?
Ex-GOP,
If you needed medical care in excess of what you could pay, do you feel that a hospital should have to treat you?
Also, patients can refuse treatment and many do, especially at the end or when the chances of success are too low. Got a problem with that?
It is tiresome having one sided conversations with people who demand answers to their multiple questions, but do not extend the courtesy of ever replying to anyone else’s questions, even when it is the same question they demanded an answer to.
By law, Moron, to which groups must Title X give priority?
Hippie – what questions are to me? I guess I’ll answer them all. Sorry about that – when you said “you got a problem with that” – I thought it was more of a statement than a question. Again, my bad.
Yes – I feel a hospital should have to treat the person – but I also support the mandate that says that a greater number of people will have insurance coverage which will pay for the treatment.
I am okay with patients refusing treatment. I do have an issue with patients refusing, or not getting treatment because they can’t pay or believe they are a financial liability.
Wow…
There really is a sharp divide in the pro-life movement, isn’t there? It seems to me that pro-lifers can be placed into two camps:
Group A: Pro-life activists who believe that abortion is morally wrong and frame the issue in terms of what is sexually moral or immoral.
Group B: Pro-life activists who believe that abortion is wrong both on its own and also because it is a symptom to a larger problems including misogyny/male privilege and racism/white privilege; the arguments are framed here as a form of social justice.
The fight over contraceptives in the healthcare mandate may be over whether or not a religious organization can be compelled to violate its own teachings- fine. But I should warn those here who are making arguments that contraceptives are already available.not in a woman’s best interest anyway/leading to moral decay that such arguments distract from your assertion that this is about the rights of the religious. I’ve no problem with someone arguing on behalf of what they consider to be a violation of their First Amendment rights and if one has an argument to show me I will gladly read it. I need to see things from your point of view. However, most people outside of the pro-choice/pro-life debate do view this as one continued assault on women’s access to birth control. Given the timing- in the midst of both a poor economy and an increasingly tense situation with Iran- this debate is being received even more poorly by moderates and those outside of this debate.
I am not saying that you can’t argue your stance regarding religion, but I would suggest that you make it the focal point of your argument if you want to debate this. Some of the comments- well, many of the comments- reveal, as I said earlier, antagonism toward birth control based on paternalistic fears for women’s health or a feeling that birth control is going to lead to an undoing of family values. Most people accept birth control. Since I (along with several people that I myself know) are uncertain about forcing a religious organization to fund birth control and want to hear both sides of the argument, I kindly ask that you refine your focus.
This doesn’t really have to be a war, particularly because Americans generally don’t see abortion and birth control in the same way. Abortion is taboo and controversial- people are divided on that- but birth control enjoys pretty overwhelming support. Bearing this in mind, let’s see where we go from here: all women should have access to contraceptives should the need arise (and if you don’t want to use them yourself, great) and we can do this while still not forcing Catholics into something that they don’t want.
Thoughts?
Here is a problem I have with insurance, it guarantees payment even if the patient doesn’t want it or really need something. Obviously these are somewhat subjective sometimes, but a service may be a “need” if you are insured but not if you aren’t. You may not even want it. I was billed for services I didn’t receive and when I brought it up, they said the insurance had already paid and that since I personally didn’t owe anything, there was nothing to do about it. I think that is a fraud of sorts even if it is an error. What is there to contain costs when everyone is “insured” It just seems that the Health Care Act combines all of the worst features of each type of health care provision. Either free market insurance or single payer government programs are better than this hybrid version.
xalisae,
I just want to add that I know some women request that their husbands refrain from drinking alchohol while they are pregnant since they cannot drink while pregnant without harming the fetus.
What do you think of this? Are women going too far with this request? Would you ever request this from your fiancé?
By the way, thre is a difference between drinking and OCs. Drinking has another purpose, OC’s, for the most part, only have one purpose.
xalisae feel free to swap the word “moderate” for the word “refrain” in my preceding post if that would be more accurate.
He’s welcome to if he likes, but I’m the one who signed up for the pregnancy bit when we got together and planned to have children and became sexually active together. I wouldn’t ask it of him, myself. However, if other women feel better asking their SO’s to do so, that’s between them and their SO’s.
I can get off the banning contraception bandwagon (although I do think it is morally wrong) only because it seems that it may be too hard for some women.
I have a daughter who was a result of failed contraception.
I have a son who is a result of my having intercourse with his father.
I have a daughter who is a result of my having intercourse with her father.
I have another son who is a result of my having intercourse with his father.
The media continues to highlight the division among the pro-life community in Ohio, and no where is this more evident than in the hormonal contraception controversy. There’s a lot the pro-life movement disagrees upon – whether child-killing in cases of rape and incest are justifiable compromises to try to save some lives, whether an abortion is ever necessary and acceptable to improve a mother’s health, whether hormonal contraception is ethical or not, whether states have an obligation to submit to the Supreme Court or to resist, whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned or ignored, etc.
However, there are some things on which we agree – the Personhood Amendment IS everything upon which we agree! 1. Human life begins at conception. 2. Every human being is a “person” not “property”. 3. Every person should be equally protected in the eyes of state law. 4. The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision is immoral and unconstitutional, and 5. Ohio should protect the preborn within Ohio’s lawful and constitutional jurisdiction. Can we agree on that?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Johnston/patrick136.htm
Even here among people who follow these things fairly closely some have taken the bait. To clarify…the opposition to Obama’s directive has nothing to do with contraception and everything to do with the loss of constitutional rights.
Of course there are people who know this but who nevertheless seize upon the lies and misrepresentations because it serves their political ends to do so. Among honest people there is no honor in winning if you have to cheat or engage in unethical behaviors, but in leftist political circles this does not apply as the ends justifies the means. A lie is not a lie if it is viewed as a tool to achieve political victory.
But America has not fallen so far as to let the Pelosi/Obama/Reid fraudsters have their way any longer. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. After seeing 700 legislative seats switch to Republicans just 15 months ago there is no evidence that we have forgotten the things that led us to that point.
Obama’s team has been brilliant in bringing this issue up – he’s using it as a distraction.
I like Glenn Reynold’s (Instapundit) take on the whole thing: It’s like the state told Muslims they needed to start providing bacon and pork sandwiches at mosques, then when there was an objection that it ran counter to their faith practices, the the cry went out against the Muslims – “They’re trying to ban bacon!”
When it comes down to this issue – it’s fast become one of my body-my choice all around. The individual mandate is outright wrong. In the meantime they’re going to have to switch it from a tax to an outright government billing because no one will be working by the time Obama has Won The Future (WTF).
The last thing we need is in-fighting among pro-lifers.
I found this article quite interesting. Perhaps contraception is just the beginning.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577220950656734864.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
However, there are some things on which we agree – the Personhood Amendment IS everything upon which we agree! 1. Human life begins at conception. 2. Every human being is a “person” not “property”. 3. Every person should be equally protected in the eyes of state law. 4. The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision is immoral and unconstitutional, and 5. Ohio should protect the preborn within Ohio’s lawful and constitutional jurisdiction. Can we agree on that?
Dr. Johnson, you have claimed that Ohio’s “Heartbeat” anti-abortion bill is irredeemably flawed because it does not allow for the prosecution of women who have abortions, which you analogized to banning slavery without prosecuting slave-traders, or prosecuting the crimes of the Holocaust while giving an exemption to soldiers who threw Jews into ovens. You have stated that the Personhood amendment is an improvement over the Heartbeat bill because it does not have a maternal exemption. Therefore when you ask participants on this board to agree with your propositions, I suspect that you are implicitly asking them to agree with prosecuting a woman who has an abortion under Ohio’s homicide statutes, which include the death penalty. Though this will no doubt win you many secret admirers, it will probably narrow down the number of people who will rally round your flag openly.
I have a son who is a result of my having intercourse with his father.
I have a daughter who is a result of my having intercourse with her father.
I have another son who is a result of my having intercourse with his father.
The intercourse is implied in my former statement. Sorry I didn’t realize I’d have to explain that to some people.
We have to get it straight between abortifacient and non-abortifacient birth control. But the former would only be banned well after abortion is. Few are talking about banning all birth control.
Not caring about the difference is a cop-out. Shooting in the dark is unwise unless you’re unconcerned about any victim.
“Trust women” on possible abortifacients is as fatuous as it is for abortion. Let’s examine the evidence. We sure can’t rely on the other side to give us the truth.
I’d just like to add, although it has been accepted that hormonal BC has been linked to breast cancer, and unopposed estrogen (rarely used) is linked to endometrial cancer, it is actually protective against ovarian cancer.
On a personal note, with the awareness and heavy concentration on early detection of breast cancer, and the often late discovery (often mets at diagnosis) of ovarian cancer which is also generally more deadly and difficult to effectively treat, I’d choose the latter protection over the former risk.
Although my epilepsy precludes me from hormonal contraception (except depo for which I eventually started having side effects) as long as women are properly educated by me or other providers adequately it really is up to them to weigh the risk vs benefit, regardless of other people’s opinions on the matter. When I get a steady paycheck I’ll use my benefits or out of pocket expenses for the copper-T IUD and could care less what anyone thinks about that to be perfectly honest. My choice, not based on other people’s opinion. So many OTC drugs have very serious side effects which probably wouldn’t even pass the tests set up for drugs today. Its time we look at each drugs’ side effects and let the individual patient decide if its worth it whether its expensive chemo or a $30 birth control pill. Patient’s rights. People have a right to their opinions but as long as they don’t want to change social policy limiting the rights of others, then…whatever. Their choices, their decisions.
In any case, Obama has redacted his mandate against religious organizations so this is a moot point, anyways.
As a last point, “just don’t have sex” is a lame excuse to advocate for expulsion of birth control from society- it’s already a daily part of life and sex is a natural urge that the majority of people understand (although they should be educated on risky behavior, for their sake). Nothing in birth control SUGGESTS “sleeping around,” as that is a personal choice, since many married couples use it, but again, your opinions don’t affect other people’s lives and its time we accept that. As someone who is pro life I still believe in women’s autonomy (as long as she does not hurt or kill another human being) and I think that helping women avoid situations leading to abortion should be supported; this seems like perfect logic to me. Religious views on BC should be respected but not influence public policy or be a mainstay of the pro-life movement. It is short-sided and based on control. Also, X, I love your posts on this.
Gnight all, just thought I’d share my thoughts.
Lisa C, be sure to include the risk/benefit of abstinence side-effects, as well as its 100% effectiveness in reducing unplanned pregnancy.
This cry that women are too weak to control themselves is becoming nauseating. I never really new that the pro-choice side viewed women as bunch runting nymphomaniacs.
I plan to start a class to educate/warn young men about how sexually mad some women have become. The way some of the posters on this site have described their relationship to sex does make it sound like they are addicted to sex.
I should not consider every action of my neighbour private. If he kills his wife and kids in his house, or if she drowns them in her own automobile in a lake, I hope I can intrude on his/her private moment and have them arrested. Where does our duty to be civil neighbours begin and our right to privacy end? Not all actions are good or beneficial for the individuals involved or for society as a whole. I wish some of the pro-contraceptive people would start looking at the bigger picture for a change and not just their sexual desires.
This not about the anti-abortive contraceptive people trying to control the pro-contraceptive people. It is about the pro-contraceptive people learning to control themselves, and to do so on their own dime!!!
Pro-contraceptive people are you sure that you came to the conclusion about the positive benefits of contraception on your own, without the influence of snazzy marketing campaign, or any political correct motivated “safe-sex” program? We all need to be wary of all the ways we have been inculturated and controlled. The constant drip of sexual anarchy in mainstream music, movies and media has had its effect on all of us.
If I might offer a bit of unsolicited advice?
1) Don’t feed the trolls (e.g. Megan, Joan, CC, Reality).
2) Might I offer the possibility that it is perfectly safe to DISCUSS the potential banning of contraceptives, as a mental exercise, on this forum designed for DISCUSSION? The talk about “splitting the pro-life movement” is a bit premature, I think, at least insofar as the discussion HERE is concerned. Speaking for myself, I do think it’s quite possible to walk (i.e. fight the current mandate, and emphasise that a ban on contraceptives is not currently included in our fight against it) and chew gum (i.e. discuss the merits–or lack of merits–of any prohibition of contraceptives, of any claims that contraceptives are immoral or dangerous or [fill in the blank]) at the same time.
Oh no, Tyler thinks I’m a sex-addicted nymphomaniac. Whatever will I do, since I care so very much what his opinion of me is. *yawn*
I consider intercourse with my significant other a meaningful and uniting part of our relationship. I’m sorry you look at it as something to be avoided in yours. But hey, at least you have self-control, unlike us heathens, eh? You get a gold star and a cookie.
JMJ
Yum Yum I like cookies.
I wasn’t really referring to you. But again, xalisae it sounds like your conscience is biting you.
xalisae, I would like to offer you something I recently read. It was from the Bible, so be forewarned. However, it is a beautiful idea: those who are married should not consider their bodies their own. Rather they should considers their bodies the property of their partners, so to speak. If one of the persons in the married couple wants to be intimate, if this person is experiencing a moment of weakness, the other partner, in charity, should satisfy their partner’s desire. Chastity in marriage is a beautiful concept, and it doesn’t mean sexual abstinence.
I know this paraphase of St. Paul’s teaching contains a lot of concepts that are antithetical to the modern mind, but the concept of service and charity highlight a way of improving the intimate relationships of adults. The passage reminds our younger generation of the love that is still possible, how spiritual love can enhance physical love.
3Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. 6But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. (1 Cor 7:3-7)
If you have questions about this passage let me know.
xalisae,
P.S. Can you make enough cookies for my son as well, he is a little cookie monster.
I’d say this most recent diversionary tactic has been a total success for PP and prochoice-took the focus off their stomping the Komen foundation and got us all sparring with each other. Sorry, babykillers, I’m not gonna play anymore.
Tyler,
Thought it might be more profitable to everyone if we read the passage in contemporary english and with the preceding passages and couple of the succeding passages.
The author was answering a specific inquiry, not issuing an arbitrary edict.
1 Cor 7:1-6 1 NOW AS to the matters of which you wrote me. It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable, and wholesome] for a man not to touch a woman [to cohabit with her] but to remain unmarried.
2 But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [man] have his own wife and let each [woman] have her own husband.
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights (goodwill, kindness, and what is due her as his wife), and likewise the wife to her husband.
4 For the wife does not have [exclusive] authority and control over her own body, but the husband [has his rights]; likewise also the husband does not have [exclusive] authority and control over his body, but the wife [has her rights].
5 Do not refuse and deprive and defraud each other [of your due marital rights], except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves unhindered to prayer. But afterwards resume marital relations, lest Satan tempt you [to sin] through your lack of restraint of sexual desire. [Ex 19:15.]
6 But I am saying this more as a matter of permission and concession, not as a command or regulation. AMP
One of my personal favorites:
1 Tim 2:9-15 9 Also [I desire] that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with [elaborate] hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing,
10 But by doing good deeds (deeds in themselves good and for the good and advantage of those contacted by them), as befits women who profess reverential fear for and devotion to God.
11 Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire submissiveness.
12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain in quietness and keep silence [in religious assemblies].
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; [Gen 2:7,21,22.]
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but [the] woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into transgression. [Gen 3:1-6.]
15 Nevertheless [the sentence put upon women of pain in motherhood does not hinder their souls’ salvation, and] they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child. AMP
Again the author was NOT issuing an edict, but simply sharing his ‘desire’, preference, opinion.
NOT saying, “Thus commandest the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, you SHALL/SHALL NOT…
[You can’t command or force ‘submission’. That would be ‘subjection’. ‘submission’ is a voluntary, act of free will.]
Complete agreement Ken. 1 Cor 7:6 says as much.
This is by far the very best sermon yet I have heard against Barack Hussein Obama:
http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2012/02/best-sermon-yet-against-obama.html
And I will add for all you godless liberal progressive Democrats, that I will if necessary (and may it never be necessary, dear Lord Jesus) back up my First Amendment Right to my free exercise of my religion in the public square with my Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It took a civil war to free the black slaves. May God forbid that it takes a civil war to stop you murderous sexual perverts from continuing to torture and dismember unborn babies to their deaths. But if that’s what it takes, then so be it. You chose this fight. May God damn liberalism, progressivism and Democracy (two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner) to the depths of hell for ever and ever, and may He have mercy on your immortal souls. Amen!
Ken your verse from 1 Tim 2 is a little out of context without verse 8. Verse 8 sets up the rest of the verses. Paul talks about both sexes.
1 tim2;8: I will therefore that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention.
Furthermore, this passage from Timothy needs to be explained and contextualized in history. Do you have commentary about this verse you would like to share?
Jasper is what is wrong with the pro-life movement.
“murderous sexual perverts,” by the way, was the blogger’s term, not the priest’s. I don ‘t know who that blogger is, but that site contains a whole lot of strangeness.
Kate S. says:
In any case, Obama has redacted his mandate against religious organizations so this is a moot point, anyways.
“Redacted”? Not so, Kate. They did not change a word. The so-called “accomodation” was a total sham.
11 Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire submissiveness.
I do my best to fail at this whenever possible, in every way, shape, and form.
The “quietness, in entire submissiveness.” part. Not the “learn” part.
Lol, X. I tried that verse on my wife once, when we were fighting. I was just joking… Still didn’t work out to well for me. :p
Yeah. That’s one of the verses that inspired me to abandon religion all together.
xalisae, a more spiritual reading of the verses in Timothy show that they are about self-sacrifice, and self-giving, two actions/concepts/virtues I know you are already well acquainted with, and practice.
Tyler, how is having to be quiet and submissive self-sacrificing and self-giving? My wife and I have way more problems when she isn’t clear about what she wants from me. I see no reason why she should have to submit to what I want.
Jack, I will say to you what I said to xalisae. I have noticed in your comments a willingness to listen and to respect the opinions of others. I have seen posts where you have deferred to those with greater knowledge on topics that you are not familiar. Like xalisae, you too practice self-sacrifice and self-giving. It is a sacrifice to submit to the will of another person. All responsible parents like yourself, are aware of this sacrifice. As parents we know we are called to be quiet at times, so that our children may be heard. We give our ears, our entire self, to our children so that they may feel heard. If we are good spouses (much better than myself) we would do the same for our spouses as we do for our children, we would be willing to submit (sacrifice) and to be quiet (give of ourselves). This is just my 2 cents on this bible passage.
(Although what I believe what I said is pertinent to the Timothy passage one must remember that passage in Timothy was also talking about how men and women should be when in Church, when worshiping.)
Folks,
I am going to keep this whole matter simple.
First, Jasper is what’s right with the pro-life movement.
Second, I am the author of that strange blog, Commentarius de Prognosticis. If people don’t like the blog, then don’t read it. I don’t write to please people, and indeed, it does please me no end to find that I irritate the liberal element of society.
Third, to all you right to choose liberals, no one gets to abort, contracept, commit adultery, fornicate or commit homosexual acts – no one, period. Sexual intercoruse outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one women is forbidden always and everywhere. God made that rule, whether you believe in Him or not, because one day you. me and everyone else will answer to Him.
Fourth, the right to choose ends at the decision to have sexual intercourse. If you don’t want a baby, then you men, keep your pants zipped up, and you women, keep your legs closed. You are not wild baboons to be mindlessly given over to the lust of your passions . You are human beings created in the image and likeness of God Almighty, and He expects and requires you act like it.
Fifth, to all you people who say you revere science and logic and reason, but insist on acting like wild baboons in heat, you are nothing but hypocrites because you can’t (or won’t) even control your lusts. How can you be given over to mindless passion and expect to be considered oh so scientific and logical? It is absurb!
Sixth, there can be no social justice, no common good without personal righteousness and holiness. Conversion and repentance come before prosperity and health, never afterwards. See 2nd Chronicles 14:7 and Matthew 6:33. Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.
Seventh, Jesus didn’t come to feed the bellies with the food that perishes. Read John chapter six. After He fed the 5000, they followed Him around the lake searching for more free handouts, and He told them not to seek the bread that perishes, but the Bread of Eternal Life. See John 6:27. They got no second handouts.
Eighth, any time a politician promises you he is going to serve the common good and provide social justice, but he is willing to sacrifice unborn babies on the altar of politicial expediency, then he is lying. He is no better than Judas Iscariot in John chapter twelve. Mary was annointing Jesus feet with costly oil and Judas iscariot declared that the oil could have been sold and the resulting proceeds used to feed the poor. What does the gospel say right after that? John 12:6 tells us. Judas uttered those words not because he cared for the poor but because he did what every godless liberal Democrat politician does today: he would steal from the common purse.
I despise and loathe liberalism, progressivism and Democracy – two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner, which in our case is the corpses of 54 million unborn babies because men and women of sexual idolatry just have to have their genitals titillated like some mindless heroin or cocaine addict. God is not a disinterested spectator in human affairs. Israel was deported into Assyria and Judah into Babylon for crimes like these. King Manasseh was led away into captivity because he made his little children walk through the fire to Molech, and that is precisely the punishment which Barack Hussein Obama deserves for his baby-murdering, sodomy-sanctifying ways. You liberals don’t like that? Well, you’ll like it a whole lot less when you stand before the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ.
Yup, my views are strange – to people who don’t believe in personal accountability and responsibility. That fills me with great joy.
Ioannes,
May your prostelyzation rain grace down upon the world that God’s children not fall victim to the snares of evil.