Should Obamacare Dictate Birth Control?

[Anders Hallin]

Institutions that do secular public works and takes secular public money does not get to claim a religious exemption for everything." is hardly a directed assault on a faith.

[Mark Asher]

There's nothing wrong with compromise; what's wrong is creating a mandate that violates the religious rights of an entire group of people in the first place.

If I draft a law that says, "All Jews are forbidden from wearing yarmulkes at school without permission," and then back down and decide not to pass it, I couldn't just wave away any criticisms by saying, "What's wrong with compromise??" The problem is that the law should never have been drafted to begin with. It makes me look bad for even considering it without thinking through the consequences.

Edit: About the 42% who "would have voted against Obama in the first place," that ignores all the people (including prominent Democrats) who openly supported Obama and his healthcare plan, but openly criticized him for this decision against the Catholic Church.

It was never violating a religious right. All Catholics can choose to not use birth control. Nothing about providing coverage for contraceptives forces Catholics to use them, just as legalizing abortion doesn't force a Catholic woman to have one. It's a matter of individual conscience, as it should be.

If you think the law should never have been drafted then clearly you think that healthcare shouldn't include coverage for contraceptives, because that's what would happen in many plans. I will disagree. It's a big health issue and no one, the Catholic church or the government, should impose the use or impose the non-use of contraceptives.

As to the political realities, the idea of allowing healthcare that doesn't include coverage for contraceptives would make Obama look bad. There would have been plenty of criticism of him if he didn't support it.

Some things are just going to be a bit controversial. As this one goes, Obama gets to look like the moderate. Those that oppose him look like extremists.

[Dan_Theman]

Here's my question on the whole issue: what do the health insurance providers get out of this compromise? Mind you, they'd be among the absolute lowest rankings on my infinite list of holiday cards to send, but it seems weird that they're suddenly to provide free health insurance in exchange for political convenience. I can't see how they'd agree to it without something in exchange, and if they were forced without agreement then I can't see how that would be legal. I can only suppose there would be some sort of direct compensation for the expenses from the government, but then that would seem to lead to a potentially messy "Obama (because it's always just him and his 'cronies') is paying to kill good, Christian babies" sentiment. While I think that outlook is simple-minded at best, I'm pretty sure all voters have been idiots at some time or another and therefore are not immune to such stuff.

disclaimer: IANAL nor AP(olitician)

[Lorini]

They get to reduce their costs by preventing unplanned pregnancies. It's called preventive care. Like giving out pneumonia shots saves them money.

[Dan_Theman]

Is that their official word on it? If so, then why don't they provide it for free to everyone? (like many do with flu shots)

[Lorini]

Is that their official word on it? If so, then why don't they provide it for free to everyone? (like many do with flu shots)

What do you think the reaction would be if they did this?

[Tortilla]

Here's my question on the whole issue: what do the health insurance providers get out of this compromise?

My take on it is that the insurance companies should definitely be playing nice right now because if they continue as they have been they are definitely going to need police protect to avoid being stood up against the wall and shot.

[Calistas]

"I'll bet if altar boys could get pregnant the church would be all in favour of birth control" - friend of mine.

[AaronSofaer]

Also, this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/08/1062753/-Red-State-of-Georgia-Has-Declared-War-on-Religion?via=sidebyuserrec) KOS link (yes, I know it's DailyKOS, but this article seems to be perfectly reasonable) is completely relevant to the discussion and fascinating.

[Jason Townsend]

...Nothing wrong with Kos? I used to post there. There's lots of user-contribution, which can be all over the map, but Markos Moulitsas is a pretty mainline liberal Democrat.

[Jason McCullough]

There tends to be a lot of hyperventilating, bad data, and internet triumphalism.

[Jason Townsend]

I think that's just because it's more of an all-internet-liberal blog-forum as opposed to Kos-and-friends like it was a few years ago - at that point I'd have compared it with Atrios or whatever other left-bloggers-of-note. Can't speak to the details nowadays, since I stopped blogging/blogreading.

[Murbella]

My take on it is that the insurance companies should definitely be playing nice right now because if they continue as they have been they are definitely going to need police protect to avoid being stood up against the wall and shot.
I don't think it is that bad for them. Obviously absolutely no matter what happens, a significant amount of republicans will be against any attempt to reign them in, as we've seen many times.

I think it is highly likely this will be another situation where they can raise rates in order to increase profits while blaming it on "politician increased out costs." People are generally simple enough to fall for this simple tactic, even if they aren't batshit insane.

[Jason Townsend]

Well, US Bishops and the rest of the axis-of-sacred seem to be doubling down pretty hard today. Not that surprised.

[Enidigm]

My take on it is that the insurance companies should definitely be playing nice right now because if they continue as they have been they are definitely going to need police protect to avoid being stood up against the wall and shot.

You're probably quite right there. My insurance rates went up 10% a few months ago; i just got a notification that they were reducing them (reducing insurance rates?!) by 2.5%.

[Dan_Theman]

What do you think the reaction would be if they did this?

I'm not sure I understand the question as I'm not sure of which perspective you're wanting me to look from, but I think many people would go and get free contraception.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from: I'm not trying to say that the compromise is a bad thing. Rather, I'm trying to figure out how it's remotely tenable. So far, I can't, and thus I'm left waiting for the other shoe to drop. You're arguing the Insurance companies would do it because it would save them money (at least I think that's what you're arguing). That sounds great and I hope it's the case, except there's a whole goose-gander problem that seems to run into and I was hoping you might be able to address it.

Others have argued that they'd do it essentially for PR purposes. That also sounds great, but I would ask since when did any of them care about how their practices looked to us? As long as they're making money, they can smile with the best of them. But when they're not, they'll cut you off at the knees rather than care for a stubbed toe.

But I guess we're all still in the dark until this thing becomes official (actually - is it official, or still pending?)

[Lorini]

Dan sorry, I should have explained myself better. If for example at my HMO, Kaiser, they had a free condom vending machine next to the vending machine where they sell candy, the batshit crazies would go mouth frothing batshit crazy. Geez what if a fifteen year old boy could get a condom??? He could have safe sex and stuff, that's not good. And if they advertised the availability of the pill and the morning after pill as much as they advertise the availability of the flu shots, what would happen then?? The world would come to an end for these people.

Seriously though the backlash to allowing free and easy access to contraception would drive the social conservative idiots literally insane. Women could actually control their own bodies and 'religious freedom' should prevent that right?

Insurance companies aren't going to touch that with a 100 foot pole unfortunately.

[charmtrap]

McConnell says the GOP will push for legislation allowing *all* insurers to deny contraception coverage. Good luck with that.


"They don't have the authority under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to tell someone in this country or some organization in this country what their religious beliefs are," McConnell told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer

"This issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down," McConnell said.

McConnell said he expects the Senate to take up the issue as soon as possible to overturn the contraceptive rule, although his party's minority status would hamper offering up legislation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57376154/mcconnell-contraceptive-issue-will-not-go-away/

[John Reynolds]

It is an election year after all.

[Murbella]

I'm not sure I understand the question as I'm not sure of which perspective you're wanting me to look from, but I think many people would go and get free contraception.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from: I'm not trying to say that the compromise is a bad thing. Rather, I'm trying to figure out how it's remotely tenable. So far, I can't, and thus I'm left waiting for the other shoe to drop. You're arguing the Insurance companies would do it because it would save them money (at least I think that's what you're arguing). That sounds great and I hope it's the case, except there's a whole goose-gander problem that seems to run into and I was hoping you might be able to address it.

Others have argued that they'd do it essentially for PR purposes. That also sounds great, but I would ask since when did any of them care about how their practices looked to us? As long as they're making money, they can smile with the best of them. But when they're not, they'll cut you off at the knees rather than care for a stubbed toe.

But I guess we're all still in the dark until this thing becomes official (actually - is it official, or still pending?)
You're extremely naive.

Here is what would happen.
Mothers for Rights of the unborn (i apologize if said organization actually exists): Health Insurance Company X supports the Murder of defense children. Even if you're a good Christian or other approved western religion, part of your premiums every month goes to advertising, pushing and finally performing abortions which kill thousands of children every month. Health Insurance X even raises your rates if you don't get an abortion!

If you don't believe that murdering defenseless children is the right thing to do, drop your Health Insurance Company X plan. Help stop Obama from murdering defenseless children (and yes, there would be a slowly zooming closeup of a sad looking baby staring at the screen here).
You already see a huge backlash to things like the HPV vaccine and even having sex education in school. This would be much worse.


This is a pretty obvious attack on abortion/contraceptives in general by the scummy Religious Right (keep the government out of my pocket but in my neighbor's bedroom) whom are mad that in 20 years they will be even less relevant.

[Mark Asher]

The HPV vaccine and sex ed in schools is a different issue. It's decisions being removed from parents. That's a legitimate issue. I think sex ed is a good idea but I understand some parents who would rather handle this themselves. And mandatory HPV vaccines is another thing just like that.

[Dan_Theman]

Murbella -

Yes. I understand that. I understood that a month ago. Thanks for restating the freaking obvious and insulting me while doing it - that's a nice extra cherry on top. Unfortunately, it didn't address what I was talking about.

Here's what I *don't* understand: whether this compromise is even real. It seems like it can't be without approval from the health insurance companies.

edit - and thanks for the clarification, Lorini

[Daagar]

The HPV vaccine and sex ed in schools is a different issue. It's decisions being removed from parents. That's a legitimate issue. I think sex ed is a good idea but I understand some parents who would rather handle this themselves. And mandatory HPV vaccines is another thing just like that.

I understand parents wanting to handle certain things themselves. If they would, such things wouldn't be necessary.

[Jason McCullough]

Insanity (http://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/13/religious-freedom-and-contraception-among-other-things/).


Sticking just with the medical case, getting specific: suppose the Muslim owner of a large company that employs Muslims and non-Muslims (or even just Muslims) wants to be exempt from insuring medical stuff except in cases where male employees see male doctors and female employees see female doctors. The owner find it objectionable that ‘his money’ should pay for anything he finds religiously repugnant, and this is his take on sharia law. Would Republicans have any objection?

[ineffablebob]

What I don't understand about this whole thing is why no one is talking about the real solution. If we got out of this silly system we have of employers being responsible for health care options, this whole thing would be a non-issue. Cut out the middleman and have individuals buy their insurance straight, either from the insurance companies or some kind of exchange. Then there's no issue of whether religious organizations are involved, and you've also eliminated a big chunk of the problem of entrepreneurs being unable to get insurance since they have no employer.

Actually, I take it back. I do understand why no one is talking about removing employers from the health care insurance provision game. It makes sense, therefore there's no place for it in political discussion in this country.

[Jason McCullough]

The employer based healthcare model is so entrenched that Obamacare couldn't move it. Something this minor isn't going to do it.

[Lorini]

If everyone was on Medicare, this would not be an issue.

[RichVR]

Stop calling healthcare Obamacare you ignorant weasels!

[Murbella]

Can we change the thread title to "Should The Church Dictate Birth Control?"

[RichVR]

BINGO!

[Jason McCullough]

Stop calling healthcare Obamacare you ignorant weasels!

I like it!

[charmtrap]

Catholic voters approval of Obama, very little change if any:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152636/Catholics-Approval-Obama-Little-Changed.aspx

Goes to show, the only place the contraception battle is being fought is in Washington.

[biosc1]

Goes to show, the only place the contraception battle is being fought is in Washington.

...and the bedroom, the couch, the kitchen counter, the car, the park, the...

[John Reynolds]

If you're fighting over your contraceptive of choice in the bedroom, you're doing something wrong.

[charmtrap]

So, women seeking abortions in Virginia will have to submit to having a large probe shoved up their womanly area under a new law that just passed the House there.


One bill, Republican Del. Bob Marshall's House bill 1, would define personhood at conception and "provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth." The second bill requires that women be required to undergo an ultrasound procedure prior to having an abortion.

The personhood bill, which passed by 66-32 in the Virginia state House, does not ban abortions, the legality of which are protected under the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. It would, however, make illegal certain types of contraceptive measures, including emergency contraception. Women's health advocates say it could also open the door to banning birth control pills and intrauterine devices (IUD).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57378712-503544/anti-abortion-bills-spark-heated-debate-in-virginia/

I honestly don't know how these inhuman pieces of shit live with themselves. Just leave the women alone.

[Two Sheds]

Oklahoma, too (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/personhood-law-oklahoma-s_n_1280977.html).


OKLAHOMA CITY -- The Oklahoma Senate has overwhelmingly approved an anti-abortion "personhood" bill that declares life begins at conception.


The vote Wednesday upset doctors who fear the proposed law will jeopardize reproductive medicine.


The bill now heads to the House, where it is expected to pass. Republican Gov. Mary Fallin typically won't comment on pending legislation, but she has described herself as strongly "pro-life."


The bill provides embryos and fetuses with "all the rights privileges, and immunities" of other citizens.


I will not rest until fetuses get the vote. FETAL SUFFRAGE NOW.

This should surprise nobody who is at all familiar with Oklahoma.

[AaronSofaer]

The best way to deal with this is for the State attourneys to start prosecuting anyone who has a miscarriage for negligent manslaughter.

Then the law gets either overturned or thrown out, and we all get to shake our heads wryly. Also, it'll make for excellent Onion/TDS headlines.

[JetLagger]

Oklahoma, too (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/personhood-law-oklahoma-s_n_1280977.html).

I will not rest until fetuses get the vote. FETAL SUFFRAGE NOW.

This should surprise nobody who is at all familiar with Oklahoma.

In all seriousness. Can a constitutional lawyer please explain this "all rights as a personhood" law to me and how it doesn't conflict with the 14 amendment?

Because the 14th amendment.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Obviously a unborn child doesn't qualify because ya know, not born...?, yet the states want to circumvent the US constitution to grant full citizen rights (or States rights only?) to fetuses.

SO if I knock up a Swedish super model on US soil. I could keep my baby mamma here indefinitely during pregnancy in the state because you can't deport a citizen fetus right?

-Tim

[Two Sheds]

Well not indefinitely.

[JetLagger]

Well not indefinitely.

yea I caught that after I posted, haha

[mdowdle]

If you wanted to gain Oklahoma support for abortions, I think all you'd really have to do it rename the procedure "proactive capital punishment".

[Tortilla]

If you wanted to gain Oklahoma support for abortions, I think all you'd really have to do it rename the procedure "proactive capital punishment".

Dammit, where's the "like" button on QT3!

[fox1]

I'm still terribly confused by the original controversy.
-The Catholic Church has no constitutional rights beyond those derived from its individual member's right to freedom of worship
-There is extensive precedent for the federal government's authority to make laws regarding how employers can or must financially compensate employees for labor
-A portion of this compensation, in many cases, is a subsidy toward purchase of a risk management strategy package known as health insurance
-In virtually all cases, the larger share of payment for this product comes directly from the employee, after the subsidy
-The employer never "owns" this risk management product, and thus, never "gives" it to the employee.
-Arguably, the entire product is solely purchased by the employee, The larger share with their own liquid assets and the "subsidized" portion with the labor they provided to the employer.
-In any case, this risk managment strategy is not contraception, it is a negotiated transfer of risk. I am not aware of any Church doctrine against this arrangement and, even if there were, the church as employer is only indirectly involved with its purchase and not any more involved with any eventual arrangements for payment of applicable costs between insurer and insured than it is for how the employee disposes of their monetary income.
-At no point has anyone attempted to force or coerce any Catholic to take birth control, for contraceptive purposes or any other reason.

I dunno, it seems fairly cut and dried to me.

[bishop]

It's not quite that simple as religious institutions tend to have rights beyond those of other employers. For instance, how far 'ministerial exception' can be applied.

[fox1]

It's not quite that simple as religious institutions tend to have rights beyond those of other employers. For instance, how far 'ministerial exception' can be applied.

Even that (which I would argue isn't an actual right, but that's beside the point) only allows religious employers increased leeway in who they hire and fire for certain positions. It's a very narrow exemption, and was kept narrow in the most recent case before the supremes (the narcoleptic teacher case).

[Mark Asher]

So, women seeking abortions in Virginia will have to submit to having a large probe shoved up their womanly area under a new law that just passed the House there.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57378712-503544/anti-abortion-bills-spark-heated-debate-in-virginia/

I honestly don't know how these inhuman pieces of shit live with themselves. Just leave the women alone.

I've seen an ultrasound done on a pregnant woman. As I recall it, nothing is shoved into her. The ultrasound device is held by the doctor and moved around on the abdomen. Maybe I'm forgetting something though.

Not that I agree with the law, but I think an ultrasound test is routine and painless. This law isn't designed to cause the woman physical discomfort. It's designed to force her to look at a live image of the fetus.

[Jason Townsend]

I've seen an ultrasound done on a pregnant woman. As I recall it, nothing is shoved into her. The ultrasound device is held by the doctor and moved around on the abdomen. Maybe I'm forgetting something though.

Not that I agree with the law, but I think an ultrasound test is routine and painless. This law isn't designed to cause the woman physical discomfort. It's designed to force her to look at a live image of the fetus.

From link:


One issue that has come under the microscope with relation to the ultrasound bill is its requirement that some women undergo a transvaginal ultrasound probe, which is considered more physically invasive than other procedures.

While the bill does not explicitly mandate the use of transvaginal ultrasounds, many women would inevitably be required to undergo them; in the early stages of pregnancy, that procedure is often the only form of ultrasound that can detect a fetus' heartbeat.

[charmtrap]

No, according to the reports I've read, the law requires a "transvaginal ultrasound" to get the specified images. And a transvaginal ultrasound does indeed involve jamming things into a tight place:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/images/image_popup/mcdc7_vaginal_ultrasound.jpg

[Hugin]

I've seen an ultrasound done on a pregnant woman. As I recall it, nothing is shoved into her. The ultrasound device is held by the doctor and moved around on the abdomen. Maybe I'm forgetting something though.

Not that I agree with the law, but I think an ultrasound test is routine and painless. This law isn't designed to cause the woman physical discomfort. It's designed to force her to look at a live image of the fetus.

The vast majority of abortions are conducted early enough in the pregnancy that it would be difficult to get an image using external ultrasound. So for the purposes of this law, most women would be getting a transvaginal ultrasound, and it would be mandatory. So the law would be causing women both physical and psychological discomfort, with little or no medical benefit.

[Two Sheds]

That's fucked up.

[Mark Asher]

Ok, that's ridiculous.

What I really hate about these stupid attempts to suppress abortions is this seeming attitude that the legislators have that a choice to have an abortion is something casually made and just another birth control choice: Let's see, do I go with the pill or just go get an abortion if I get pregnant? Oh I'll just breeze in and get the abortion!

I don't think it's an easy decision for most women. It's a big deal.

[Two Sheds]

I just want to reiterate that that's fucked up. It kind of makes me nauseous.

[John Many Jars]

"Out of my uterus," almost literally.

[CLWheeljack]

Devil's advocate: I wonder if the pro-choice position isn't slightly logically inconsistent in that regard. If it a fetus _isn't_ a person, then why is it a big decision?

But I guess that appeal to emotion is in many ways the sum-total of the anti-abortion argument.

[AaronSofaer]

Devil's advocate: I wonder if the pro-choice position isn't slightly logically inconsistent in that regard. If it a fetus _isn't_ a person, then why is it a big decision?

But I guess that appeal to emotion is in many ways the sum-total of the anti-abortion argument.


Your (for the sake of argument, and giving your argument about the level of seriousness it deserves) pet is not a person. Is it a big decision if you have your pet put down?

Kittens. Cute adorable little kittens with big shiny eyes. They are not people, but we still form emotional attachments to them, no?

[Timex]

Your (for the sake of argument, and giving your argument about the level of seriousness it deserves) pet is not a person. Is it a big decision if you have your pet put down?

Kittens. Cute adorable little kittens with big shiny eyes. They are not people, but we still form emotional attachments to them, no?

The psychological reasoning behind those attachments is that you actually DO regard them as people. You anthropomorphize those entities (and even objects), and thus the decision making process gets confused.

Animals and objects which are less easily anthropomorphized don't invoke those same feelings in us.

Most people don't want to kill their pets, but don't have any problem eating meat from the store... because it's just meat at that point. There's no connection with personhood at all, and thus no moral qualm associated with eating it.

If you regard a fetus as meat, then there really shouldn't be much issue with aborting the pregnancy. I think that the reason that it's a big deal is that most women do recognize that there is some link between that fetus and a person.

[Hugin]

The psychological reasoning behind those attachments is that you actually DO regard them as people. You anthropomorphize those entities (and even objects), and thus the decision making process gets confused.

Animals and objects which are less easily anthropomorphized don't invoke those same feelings in us.

Most people don't want to kill their pets, but don't have any problem eating meat from the store... because it's just meat at that point. There's no connection with personhood at all, and thus no moral qualm associated with eating it.

If you regard a fetus as meat, then there really shouldn't be much issue with aborting the pregnancy. I think that the reason that it's a big deal is that most women do recognize that there is some link between that fetus and a person.

Enh. Women are also trained since birth to regard pregnancy and motherhood and anything going on with their reproductive systems/sex organs as a big deal, and a potential source of embarassment, shame, societal disapproval, etc. Going against what's been deemed your ultimate role in society isn't easy even if rationally speaking it's the obvious proper decision. Hell, women have written extensively about all the ambivalent feelings, involved with just having and managing their periods, and menstruation isn't a person either.

Besides, the pro-choice position has never been that abortion is no big deal, or that getting rid of a fetus is as trivial as getting rid of a mole. The pro-choice side of things takes the decision to get an abortion seriously, without resorting to the nonsense that fetuses are literally the same as people.

[fox1]

Hey Timex! I'm going to disagree with you again, but I'll try to do a better job this time.


If you regard a fetus as meat, then there really shouldn't be much issue with aborting the pregnancy. I think that the reason that it's a big deal is that most women do recognize that there is some link between that fetus and a person.

I think there's any number of things wrong with this, but I want to start with one in particular, because I've seen you propose similar reasoning, elsewhere. Just because you don't hold a particular belief that is widespread throughout your culture does not mean you will not internalize some of it. The issue of abortion is a Big Deal in our culture, and there are many organizations and individuals in our culture who are dedicated to making it as Big a Deal as possible. For an over-simplified and anecdotal example, I stopped being Catholic in my teens, because I realized that I had no reason to believe in any of the things the church claimed were True. Nonetheless, I still felt, and occasionally feel, little twinges of panic because I did not have my children baptized.

Plus, it's a medical procedure, there are active campaigns to make it seem as scary and evil as possible, it carries social stigma, the locations occasionally get bombed, the providers occasionally killed, and so on. I think, to avoid feeling like the decision has no weight to it in the face of all those factors, you might need to be a sociopath.

[Arbit]

If you regard a fetus as meat, then there really shouldn't be much issue with aborting the pregnancy. I think that the reason that it's a big deal is that most women do recognize that there is some link between that fetus and a person.
No one denies the link between a fetus a person; plenty of people deny that a fetus IS a person. It's entirely possible to attach significance to a fetus without having to believe it is a person.

Anyway, the logical inconsistency prize goes to people against abortion except in cases of rape. A fetus is a human being! Except apparently it's OK to kill a human being (totally blameless, not even capable of doing anything wrong yet) if said human being was conceived by rape.

[Jason Townsend]

Anyway, the logical inconsistency prize goes to people against abortion except in cases of rape. A fetus is a human being! Except apparently it's OK to kill a human being (totally blameless, not even capable of doing anything wrong yet) if said human being was conceived by rape.

We already had this argument - in fairly heated form - once already. Unless that was on the other forum. At any rate, to summarize, a lot of people find that (quite apparent) inconsistency in formal logic less off-putting than the Atwoodian level of woman-controlling implied by the "consistent" anti-abortion hardliners.

[Jestintime]

If you regard a fetus as meat, then there really shouldn't be much issue with aborting the pregnancy. I think that the reason that it's a big deal is that most women do recognize that there is some link between that fetus and a person.

And for today's lesson in Logic 101, we present a classic case of false dichotomy.

Thank you for playing.

[CLWheeljack]

Enh. Women are also trained since birth to regard pregnancy and motherhood and anything going on with their reproductive systems/sex organs as a big deal, and a potential source of embarassment, shame, societal disapproval, etc. Going against what's been deemed your ultimate role in society isn't easy even if rationally speaking it's the obvious proper decision. Hell, women have written extensively about all the ambivalent feelings, involved with just having and managing their periods, and menstruation isn't a person either.

Yeah, for the record, I understand this entirely, which is why I added the devil's advocate tag. But I do see how a person who's already prone to reducing things to black and white could imagine an apparent logical inconsistency there.

[Hugin]

Yeah, for the record, I understand this entirely, which is why I added the devil's advocate tag. But I do see how a person who's already prone to reducing things to black and white could imagine an apparent logical inconsistency there.

Thinking about it more, I just think it comes down to, in this world, there are a ton of things that one wouldn't just kill or destroy or throw away thoughtlessly. As someone noted above, people think seriously before putting down pets. People think seriously before cutting down trees. People think seriously before destroying or throwing away all kinds of inanimate objects they possess, like things that belonged to deceased relatives, things that were made with skill and care, things from the past that cannot be easily recreated. We think hard about getting rid of old letters, postcards.

I'm not saying a fetus is any of these things. I'm just saying, there can be serious thought and ambivalence and downsides and regret associated with all kinds of decisions like this in life, without deciding to go ahead being a crime or morally incorrect. A fetus isn't a banana peel or a week old newspaper. It's just not a person either.

[Two Sheds]

In addition to all that, there's the fact that the woman in question is making a decision that will have a huge impact on the course of her life. People tend not to make such decisions frivolously.

[Arbit]

We already had this argument - in fairly heated form - once already. Unless that was on the other forum. At any rate, to summarize, a lot of people find that (quite apparent) inconsistency in formal logic less off-putting than the Atwoodian level of woman-controlling implied by the "consistent" anti-abortion hardliners.
So, handwaving away dead babies because we don't want to tell rape victims they must give birth, then?

The best way to avoid that mess is to be pro-choice, of course.

[fox1]

Yeah, I've run into any number of positions on abortion that don't stand up well to any kind of logical (or ethical) scrutiny.

I've met a disturbing number of people who don't believe that a blastocyst or a fetus are necessarily people, but, nonetheless, don't want abortion to be legal because then women are able to "get away with" "their lifestyle" (so let's force them to be responsible for a human life, I guess?). Even more distressing, not all these people have been men.

[Lorini]

Yeah, I've run into any number of positions on abortion that don't stand up well to any kind of logical (or ethical) scrutiny.

I've met a disturbing number of people who don't believe that a blastocyst or a fetus are necessarily people, but, nonetheless, don't want abortion to be legal because then women are able to "get away with" "their lifestyle" (so let's force them to be responsible for a human life, I guess?). Even more distressing, not all these people have been men.

Which is why I didn't particularly care that the Congressional birth control discussion didn't include any women. Women can be just as stupid on this issue as men.

[Jason Townsend]

So, handwaving away dead babies because we don't want to tell rape victims they must give birth, then?

The best way to avoid that mess is to be pro-choice, of course.

The conversation I'm usually having is among several pro-choice people.

Person 1 says "I hate Santorum, that caveman thinks rape babies are a gift from god."

Person 2 says "Wait, but at least they make sense; the anti-abortionists who make exceptions are apparently in favour of not 'killing babies' except in certain circumstances when they are."

Person 3 says "Person 2 cares more about logical consistency then evil politicians who make women into rape baby incubators."

Person 4 says something like what I said in post 310, because persons 3 and 4 are probably just talking about different things.

The key here is nobody in the above conversation thinks "babies" are being "murdered." I have no idea what exactly the various types of anti-abortion people think about fetuses, but my general sense is that most of them aren't thinking hard enough about a lot of things, and that they have worse problems than logical consistency or lack thereof.

[ReptileHouse]

Which is why I didn't particularly care that the Congressional birth control discussion didn't include any women. Women can be just as stupid on this issue as men.

While that's certainly true, it's still bullshit that it was a bunch of men sitting around talking to a bunch of other men about womens' rights.

[fox1]

Which is why I didn't particularly care that the Congressional birth control discussion didn't include any women. Women can be just as stupid on this issue as men.

That seems like kind of a weird tack to take on the whole thing, but for some reason I can't identify precisely why. I guess you're right that having female representation wouldn't have been guaranteed to make things better, but it couldn't have hurt, could it? Unless they only included women like Phyllis Schlafly, I suppose... yeah, I guess that might have been worse.

[cesare]

While that's certainly true, it's still bullshit that it was a bunch of men sitting around talking to a bunch of other men about womens' rights.

More specifically, about how their rights were being trampled.

Un-fucking-believable.

[Arbit]

Person 2 says "Wait, but at least they make sense; the anti-abortionists who make exceptions are apparently in favour of not 'killing babies' except in certain circumstances when they are."

Person 3 says "Person 2 cares more about logical consistency then evil politicians who make women into rape baby incubators."
Why would anyone say this? Pointing out logical inconsistency in an anti-abortionist's arguments makes said arguments weaker.

I have no idea what exactly the various types of anti-abortion people think about fetuses, but my general sense is that most of them aren't thinking hard enough about a lot of things, and that they have worse problems than logical consistency or lack thereof.
OK.... so it's a lost cause then? If someone doesn't give a shit if they're being illogical, then you're not going to get through to them.

[Lorini]

While that's certainly true, it's still bullshit that it was a bunch of men sitting around talking to a bunch of other men about womens' rights.

I feel very strongly that many men do care about access to birth control and there's nothing inherently wrong with them representing that position. On the other hand, idiocy knows no boundaries and I really don't care about the gender of the anti birth control contingency.

[Jason Townsend]

Why would anyone say this?

Because the notion of enforced gestation is vastly more horrible and upsetting than whether or not the stupid and wrong opinions of various "soft" anti-abortionists are logically inconsistent or not.

In other words saying "at least the Santorums are consistent" sounds too much like a preference for the blue-eyed Taliban over quotidian illiberal Republican assholes.

[Arbit]

Because the notion of enforced gestation is vastly more horrible and upsetting than whether or not the stupid and wrong opinions of various "soft" anti-abortionists are logically inconsistent or not.

In other words saying "at least the Santorums are consistent" sounds too much like a preference for the blue-eyed Taliban over quotidian illiberal Republican assholes.
But the quotidian illiberal Republican assholes ARE proposing enforced gestation, they just have an "out" for rape. They think by giving an out for rape that they're being compassionate, when really according to their own philosophy they're approving the killing of babies because they don't have the guts to tell a rape victim to buck up and give birth. My hope would be that a soft anti-abortionist would back off and move towards pro-choice when faced with that dilemma.

Purely from a practical standpoint, yeah, I would prefer less Santorums and more of the others.

[RichVR]

From a purely practical standpoint, they do not practice what they preach. It's late and I'm not in the mood to do a search, but I'm sure that I've often read that most of the pro-life crowd is more of a do as I say but don't look at what I fucking do crowd.

[Robert Sharp]

Yeah, I've run into any number of positions on abortion that don't stand up well to any kind of logical (or ethical) scrutiny.

I've met a disturbing number of people who don't believe that a blastocyst or a fetus are necessarily people, but, nonetheless, don't want abortion to be legal because then women are able to "get away with" "their lifestyle" (so let's force them to be responsible for a human life, I guess?). Even more distressing, not all these people have been men.


Hmmm...I should have read this before I posted about my aunt in the other thread. She was such a person. It wasn't really about getting away with a lifestyle per se, in the sense of being a sluts or whatever. It was more about accepting the consequences of your choices.

I disagreed with her on this pretty strongly, of course, but that was her position. She was a doctor, if that matters.

[Tin Wisdom]

Santorum says that Obama wants to offer free prenatal care because that will encourage abortions. Can't make this stuff up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57380887-503544/santorum-attacks-obama-on-prenatal-screening/

Cause I guess no prenatal care would be best? Or only people who can afford it should get prenatal care since poor folks get more abortions? The logic eludes me.

[Robert Sharp]

Wouldn't free prenatal care mean that a woman is LESS likely to have an abortion based on financial difficulties?

[Desert Journeyman]

The Christian Science Monitor ran a rather provocative article (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0217/Does-Obama-really-care-about-religious-freedom-in-America/%28page%29/2) this morning blasting the Obama administration over the birth control fiasco.

What I find especially interesting about all this is that the Monitor and those likely to take a similar view -- in this case, the Religious Right -- seem to fall very easily into the trap of predicting that such rulings will lead head-over-heels to an erosion of other freedoms of conscience, while blithely waving away the complaint that providing religious exemptions for drug use -- the specific example used in the article -- would not make every individual "a law unto himself." The article goes on to tout James Madison for his assertion that conscience could only be circumscribed when "the exercise of that right deprived another of an 'equal liberty.'" It seems to me that one could make a strong argument, on the face of it, that refusing to provide financing for birth control deprives somebody else of a liberty, although we very quickly get into a debate over whether the right to "safe sex" is a right at all. Ironically, it isn't that I think that certain institutions shouldn't be required to pay for birth control; it's that I see a far larger set of social ills standing behind the fog of this argument. The Monitor invokes Martin Luther King and discussed his "calling" by God. That's never sat right with me: how does one know which are the "legitimate" inner voices, and which are evidence of mental illness? Who is the judge?

[Jason Townsend]

I was taken aback that the "freedom of conscience" argument was even raised outside the context of the usual absurd bogeymen. Least of all by moderate or liberal people, however religious. Not only because it seems absurd in and of itself to conceive of religion "imperilled" by America's homeopathically diluted liberal politics, but also because of the smokescreen it provides for the unmistakably vile religious right.

[Lorini]

So Obama wants women to have abortions. That's so obvious I wonder why Santorum was the first to think of it!

These people are truly frightening in their hate.

[John Many Jars]

The Monitor invokes Martin Luther King and discussed his "calling" by God. That's never sat right with me: how does one know which are the "legitimate" inner voices, and which are evidence of mental illness? Who is the judge?

Any Christian whose inner voice is reading from the Republican platform, of course. Any non-Christian is hearing the voices of demons. Any liberal Christian is hearing the voice of mental illness, as sanity prevents mixing liberalism with Christianity.

[Nezz]

Wouldn't free prenatal care mean that a woman is LESS likely to have an abortion based on financial difficulties?
Sure, if it's actually prenatal care.

But why do we call telling a mother that her child has an incurable disease prenatal care? Where's the care? What's the point?

[Robert Sharp]

Sure, if it's actually prenatal care.

But why do we call telling a mother that her child has an incurable disease prenatal care? Where's the care? What's the point?

Prenatal care includes certain tests to make sure there are no complications. Giving the results of such tests is simply conveying information. So what's your point? Giving information is a doctor's duty under informed consent and disclosure.

Perhaps you think that the doctor will then coerce the mother somehow? But that's a non-sequitur.

[Monsieur Eek!]

Sure, if it's actually prenatal care.

But why do we call telling a mother that her child has an incurable disease prenatal care? Where's the care? What's the point?

You are the worst person, just fyi.

[Desert Journeyman]

I was taken aback that the "freedom of conscience" argument was even raised outside the context of the usual absurd bogeymen. Least of all by moderate or liberal people, however religious. Not only because it seems absurd in and of itself to conceive of religion "imperilled" by America's homeopathically diluted liberal politics, but also because of the smokescreen it provides for the unmistakably vile religious right.
I sometimes suspect that the Monitor is the kind of newspaper that would question a candidate's humility were he not, in some way, a believer. As one co-worker advised, I must not be very aware of the possibility of error in my own judgment if I can't acknowledge a higher authority still more legitimate than myself. That could make me a loose cannon if ever I were elected to public office!


Any Christian whose inner voice is reading from the Republican platform, of course. Any non-Christian is hearing the voices of demons. Any liberal Christian is hearing the voice of mental illness, as sanity prevents mixing liberalism with Christianity.
It even boils down to questions about life choices. When very religious friends of mine, whatever their denomination, talk about "callings" and "giftings," are they referring to the prolonged bouts of self-assessment and consideration that we all undergo as human beings, or to a particular kind of experience about which I, as a non-believer, can objectively know nothing? Some of the moments of revelation described to me by religious friends sound a great deal less like the byproduct of self-assessment and much more like momentary fixations, especially when they fundamentally alter a series of decisions already made.

The power of religion, I think, it its ability to impute importance to everyone. So many people feel overlooked -- in family, in school, in work, in marriage. The idea that there is somebody watching, and judging, can be extraordinarily reassuring. The idea that one can have an important mission in life, handed down by the Almighty, must also be incredibly seductive. Ditto the idea that there are a series of clearly-defined rules of behavior, fulfillment of which entitles one to lasting love, fidelity, and protection. It's no wonder that so many women stand behind pronouncements that seem to suggest they have a very fixed role in life: the payoff seems as great as the sacrifice being asked. Then there are those who not only wear their faith as a badge, but seem to delight in admonishing their neighbors for living less faithfully than they. Again, the power of the idea that one can "know" how to live properly, and therefore accurately self-assess their likelihood of a future reward.

Even more frightening are those people who wrestle with aspects of the Bible they know are wrong, but who refuse to contemplate that the fault may lie with the Bible. One of my friends has struggled for years with the fact that slavery is considered an abomination in modern society, but was once supposedly practiced with sanction from God. His tentative conclusion is that there is nothing inherently wrong with slavery.

[Nezz]

Giving information is a doctor's duty under informed consent and disclosure.
And I have qualms with this (re-)definition of his duty. I have been in situations myself where a doctor presented entirely useless pieces of information to me whose only effect was to disquiet my mind. A doctor is not a teacher, and his only professional concern should be the health of his patient. If giving information doesn't improve anyone's health, isn't his duty better served by concealing it? For example, if he learns that Jane feels better because she takes a placebo, should he tell her?

I realize there are good reasons for the new policy. No doctor is infallible, and a patient might want to share the findings of one doctor with another, who might interpret them differently. But in cases such as diagnosing things like trisomy-21 in unborn children, I can't really imagine any justification. It's absolutely untreatable in the first place, and any attempt to manage it is pointless until birth. The diagnosis worries the parents for no medicinal reason at all.

Perhaps you think that the doctor will then coerce the mother somehow? But that's a non-sequitur.
The doctor need not do anything. The coercion emanates from powerful eugenics-friendly forces in society which will immediately begin to work upon the mother's mind. Why should he not spare the mother this particular trouble if he can?

[Robert Sharp]

That's a legit debate in biomedical ethics, Nezz, but the trend is to err on the side of disclosure because otherwise the doctor tends to cross the line into paternalism. Put differently, most doctors do not know their patients well enough to make that decision for them, so unless a patient instructs the doctor not to disclose the information, the default is to do so.

As for your second point, the knowledge increases her autonomy. I get that you are assuming that all life is valid and special and deserving and all of that. I disagree, and so would many potential mothers. I think intentionally bringing a person into the world knowing that he/she will suffer from a fatal illness and then die (with little chance of actually enjoying life) is a bad thing to do. But this choice is left to the parents. Taking away that option seems wrong to me, so I agree with the modern tendency to disclose the information.

[Anders Hallin]

Not letting people prepare mentally, economically and socially for having a special needs kid is completely unconscionable to me.

[John Many Jars]

And I have qualms with this (re-)definition of his duty. I have been in situations myself where a doctor presented entirely useless pieces of information to me whose only effect was to disquiet my mind. A doctor is not a teacher, and his only professional concern should be the health of his patient. If giving information doesn't improve anyone's health, isn't his duty better served by concealing it? For example, if he learns that Jane feels better because she takes a placebo, should he tell her?

I realize there are good reasons for the new policy. No doctor is infallible, and a patient might want to share the findings of one doctor with another, who might interpret them differently. But in cases such as diagnosing things like trisomy-21 in unborn children, I can't really imagine any justification. It's absolutely untreatable in the first place, and any attempt to manage it is pointless until birth. The diagnosis worries the parents for no medicinal reason at all.

The doctor need not do anything. The coercion emanates from powerful eugenics-friendly forces in society which will immediately begin to work upon the mother's mind. Why should he not spare the mother this particular trouble if he can?

Indeed! After all, there couldn't possibly be any worries or regrets after the child is born.

And why ruin the wonderful surprise of a trisomy-21 baby? As the parents grow old, the child will remain a child, and who wouldn't want that?

[Andy Bates]

And why ruin the wonderful surprise of a trisomy-21 baby? As the parents grow old, the child will remain a child, and who wouldn't want that?

Have you ever known anyone with Down's Syndrome? Because saying that they "will remain a child" is at best overly simplistic, and at worst just technically inaccurate.

[Dawn Falcon]

Wouldn't free prenatal care mean that a woman is LESS likely to have an abortion based on financial difficulties?

Don't you be putting logic into their argument now.

Andy - Take something like Tay Sachs...

[Lorini]

Funny funny

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-02/311485620-20011225.jpg

[Andy Bates]

Andy - Take something like Tay Sachs...

Yes, there are lots of debilitating conditions out there. That doesn't mean that the best thing would be to end those pregnancies before birth.

I have a friend who was pregnant, and her baby was diagnosed with a severe disorder (spina bifida? It may have been that, or something else...). The doctor said that it was unlikely that she would carry to term, and even if she was able to deliver the baby successfully, the child would only live for a few days. The doctor recommended an abortion. She decided against it, and it turns out that it was a false positive; the baby was born without incident, and has grown up fine.

[Monsieur Eek!]

How wonderful. I now agree with you that doctors should lie to women in order to coerce them to carry each pregnancy to term. Unlike your friend, most of these silly bitches don't know what's good for them or their own lives.

[Andy Bates]

I love how people laugh off comments like, "Liberals just want women to have abortions," but seriously believe comments like, "Conservatives want to lie to women because they think women are dumb."

[Monsieur Eek!]

Have you read the posts you've been responding to?

[Dawn Falcon]

Yes, there are lots of debilitating conditions out there. That doesn't mean that the best thing would be to end those pregnancies before birth.

Um. No, Tay Sachs is not "debilitating", it's fatal. That's why I used it as an example (also, it affects my own community).

Infantile Tay Sachs is an inherited autosomal recessive degenerative disease which kicks in no later than six months, causes a vegetative state by two and is fatal before four (rarely five). There is no known treatment, let alone cure. It's easy to detect both in adult carriers (enzyme assay on a blood test) and prenatal (amniocentesis). It is found nearly entirely in three separate, but distinct, populations due to the founder effect. (Ashkenazi Jews, Cajun and French Canadians)

Spina bifida is rarely fatal, the quality of life and lifespan of people affected has dramatically increased in recent decades and it isn't generally degenerative after surgery. Also, the root causes are completely unknown (there are some risk factors, but they're minor). I am personally opposed to abortions for it. (The argument for public health availability of abortions is one I still follow, though)

These are not comparable situations.

[Andy Bates]

Then it wasn't spina bifida. I can't remember what the diagnosis was, but whatever it was, the doctor said the baby wouldn't survive more than a day or two, if she even made it to delivery. Even the results of an amniocentesis can sometimes be wrong.

[Dawn Falcon]

Certainly, when you're dealing with a complex diagnosis. The test for Tay Sachs is a simple enzyme assay (The enzyme is missing entirely in affected foetuse's amniotic fluid. The only other thing that causes this, if not Tay Sachs, is an even rarer and equally nasty condition (generally found in completely different communities, too) - HexA is vital for normal function of the human nervous system).

[Monsieur Eek!]

Shush. You're ruining his totally innocent anecdote from which we're certainly not supposed to infer any unseemly implications given the context of the surrounding conversation.

Mean liberal!

[russellmz00]

Then it wasn't spina bifida. I can't remember what the diagnosis was, but whatever it was, the doctor said the baby wouldn't survive more than a day or two, if she even made it to delivery. Even the results of an amniocentesis can sometimes be wrong.

honest question: no second opinion/test was done to be sure? or was it done really close to delivery?

[Andy Bates]

honest question: no second opinion/test was done to be sure? or was it done really close to delivery?

The followup test was something more invasive, that had a non-insignificant chance of putting the baby at risk. Based on the risks involved, they decided to forego a second opinion and just hope for the best.

[Timex]

Funny funny

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-02/311485620-20011225.jpg

This is an excellent point. Does that insurance company cover viagra? Because it seems far less medically useful than the pill.

[W Wiley]

If my weiner becomes inappropriately hard what should I hit it with?

[russellmz00]

I realize there are good reasons for the new policy. No doctor is infallible, and a patient might want to share the findings of one doctor with another, who might interpret them differently. But in cases such as diagnosing things like trisomy-21 in unborn children, I can't really imagine any justification. It's absolutely untreatable in the first place, and any attempt to manage it is pointless until birth. The diagnosis worries the parents for no medicinal reason at all.

"so i says to my boss, i says, 'fuck yo mom'. and he's all 'you'll never get a better medical plan than the one we have here!' and i am like, 'i don't got any unhealthy kids.' so i took the other job."

"that's funny. anyway, my mom and dad are moving across the country since we don't need any special help. nope. just one normal baby coming in. no surprises AT ALL."

"hey look, a 50% off coupon on a book for dealing with special needs kids."

"toss it! we don't need it."




The followup test was something more invasive, that had a non-insignificant chance of putting the baby at risk. Based on the risks involved, they decided to forego a second opinion and just hope for the best.

oh, i thought the first test would just be repeated.

[Anders Hallin]

I love how people laugh off comments like, "Liberals just want women to have abortions," but seriously believe comments like, "Conservatives want to lie to women because they think women are dumb."
That's because that's exactly what Nezz wrote earlier. Well, not the women are dumb-part. Do you think your friend shouldn't have been given the information the doctor had received according to the tests she made and the best of her knowledge, and/or that your friend should not have been allowed the choice to carry the pregnancy to term?

[Two Sheds]

That friend was Mrs. Bates, and that miracle baby she named Andrew.

[Scuzz]

Not letting people prepare mentally, economically and socially for having a special needs kid is completely unconscionable to me.


When we had our kids we chose not to have the tests because we decided we preferred not knowing. What would have been the options had we known. Abortion? Depression? We saw no upside.

Also because of my wife's age the odds of causing a problem by taking the tests weren't that much different from finding a problem with the baby.

This was 22+ years ago.

[jeffd]

Scott Lemieux: the contraception requirement is absolutely not unconstitutional (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/02/specious-free-exercise-arguments-cant-hide-the-war-on-contraception).


Under existing law, a constitutional challenge to the contraception provision wouldn’t even rise to the level of being frivolous. In the 1990 case Oregon v. Smith, in an opinion written by that infamous radical leftist Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws are constitutional even if they incidentally burden religious practice. Only if a law intentionally targets a religious practice does it run afoul of the Free Exercise clause. “We have never held,” wrote Scalia, “that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.” The requirement that insurance plans cover contraception is a valid secular objective that is not directed at any religious practice per se, and hence is plainly constitutional. If the mandate applied to religious institutions this might be a constitutional problem, but religious institutions themselves are excluded; only religiously-affiliated institutions that serve secular purposes and hire people of multiple faiths are affected.

[Monsieur Eek!]

When we had our kids we chose not to have the tests because we decided we preferred not knowing. What would have been the options had we known. Abortion? Depression? We saw no upside.

Also because of my wife's age the odds of causing a problem by taking the tests weren't that much different from finding a problem with the baby.

This was 22+ years ago.

What does that have to do with what anyone was saying? Are you saying you would rather have not had the choice or that the doctor would have lied to or withheld information from you? Or is this just a non-sequitur?

[Andy Bates]

Do you think your friend shouldn't have been given the information the doctor had received according to the tests she made and the best of her knowledge, and/or that your friend should not have been allowed the choice to carry the pregnancy to term?

I think that sometimes doctors don't communicate the certainty (or lack thereof) of test results, and if there's an attitude of using abortion to avoid any type of complications, then in this case a perfectly healthy baby would have been aborted.

[Monsieur Eek!]

And that's why prenatal care is unconscionable.

[CLWheeljack]

I think that sometimes doctors don't communicate the certainty (or lack thereof) of test results, and if there's an attitude of using abortion to avoid any type of complications, then in this case a perfectly healthy baby would have been aborted.

I'm assuming you're using "any" to mean "there exists" rather than "for all", because obviously nobody is suggesting that abortion be used to avoid anything other than the most severe complications.

[Scuzz]

What does that have to do with what anyone was saying? Are you saying you would rather have not had the choice or that the doctor would have lied to or withheld information from you? Or is this just a non-sequitur?

My two cents worth, and this was being discussed on the previous page. I am saying that while the info was out there you would still need to decide what to do with it. If the doctor suspected something I would want him to say something, otherwise he didn't do his job. And in today's world he would be open to a lawsuit.

[Monsieur Eek!]

Thanks for clarifying and sharing your experience. Taken by itself your story could've been misconstrued as support for the notion that prenatal care is only supported by people who want to increase abortions, as Santorum said of Obama and some people have been saying in this thread, so that's why I asked.

[Teiman]

Does Obamacare requiring Catholic Hospitals insurance plans to provide care against catholic teaching violate the constitution?

"catholic hospitals"? how that even work? If you get cancer, the doctors pray for you, or you are administered medicine?

If a hospital want to be part of a national health program, must agree with all the rules and conditions, if have a problem with that, must "opt-out" from working as a part of a program.

[Scuzz]

"catholic hospitals"? how that even work? If you get cancer, the doctors pray for you, or you are administered medicine?

If a hospital want to be part of a national health program, must agree with all the rules and conditions, if have a problem with that, must "opt-out" from working as a part of a program.

In America it is not unusual for hospitals to have religious origins. There are catholic hospitals, baptist hospitals...any others? Basically non-profits started by a religious group to serve the public that grew into large, full fledged medical facilities. We have a major catholic hospital here in my town.

And they want to "opt-out", that is the problem.

[Tin Wisdom]

When we had our kids we chose not to have the tests because we decided we preferred not knowing. What would have been the options had we known. Abortion? Depression? We saw no upside
I won't argue your decision (and at least you had one), but there are a number of logistical "upsides" to knowing ahead of time that you will be having a special needs child.

One of those you noted yourself: depression. While any pregnant woman is a swirl of hormones, postpartum depression is particularly nasty. Knowing about an infant's problems ahead of time might make the last trimester more stressful, but you can at least take steps to make sure that the few months after the woman gives birth are less painful than they would be if it were a "surprise". I'm no expert (a casual Google didn't give me any numbers), but I'd suspect that suicide/infanticide rates among new parents of disabled infants is pretty grim; knowing ahead of time could allow a couple to mitigate that danger.

On the more mundane logistic-front, knowing you have a special-needs infant coming allows you to line up extra help that you wouldn't need for a healthy kid - from nursing support to special equipment to education on how to care for a child with that condition. It would depend on the resources of the couple, but a special-needs child might well require one or the other of the parents to stay at home full time; it might be nice to start financing/planning for that eventuality a half-year before it becomes necessary rather than having it sprung on you.

Again, I'm not criticizing the choice; it just wasn't one I could have made. I'm a non-romantic "planner" who gets nervous if I don't have a plan-of-action for even trivial things. I want to know the sex of my kid as far ahead of time so that I can pain the room and air out all the fumes months in advance.

[Teiman]

In America it is not unusual for hospitals to have religious origins. There are catholic hospitals, baptist hospitals...any others? Basically non-profits started by a religious group to serve the public that grew into large, full fledged medical facilities. We have a major catholic hospital here in my town.

And they want to "opt-out", that is the problem.

Its sad, but hardly a problem.

If you "opt-out", then you become a "private clinic". With all effects and consequences.

I don't see this as different private schools (for rich kids) and public schools (for everyone else). Maybe a private school want to teach students on the Branna Purna or any other religion item. More power to then.

[Tortilla]

Its sad, but hardly a problem.


No, it's a problem because in some areas the religious affiliated hospitals are the only choice. If they can start opting out of regulation they don't like, then that effectively puts medical care in certain areas beyond government regulation.

[AaronSofaer]

Its sad, but hardly a problem.

If you "opt-out", then you become a "private clinic". With all effects and consequences.


It's unacceptable for exactly the same reason that pharmacies cannot chose to not offer certain medications because of their religious preferences.

[Andy Bates]

I'm assuming you're using "any" to mean "there exists" rather than "for all", because obviously nobody is suggesting that abortion be used to avoid anything other than the most severe complications.

JMJ suggested abortion to deal with a child with Down's Syndrome. That does not seem like a severe complication.

[CLWheeljack]

JMJ also allegedly has sex with cantaloupes. I don't give much credence to most of the things he says.

(Love ya, Jars!)

[John Many Jars]

The amazing memory of JOHN MANY JARS recalls a timely ballad:


Ohhh, you can't elope with a cantaloupe
If you're a casaba melon
But if you're another 'loupe, that cantaloupe
Might just be willin'

No, you can't elope with a cantaloupe
If a cantaloupe you're not
No, you can't elope with a cantaloupe
If you are a coconut

That said, I can't see what you're responding to.

[Anders Hallin]

When we had our kids we chose not to have the tests because we decided we preferred not knowing. What would have been the options had we known. Abortion? Depression? We saw no upside.

Also because of my wife's age the odds of causing a problem by taking the tests weren't that much different from finding a problem with the baby.
That's great, women should both be allowed and have appropriate resources to make the decisions she finds appropriate for her.

[Anders Hallin]

I suggest abortion for any reason that makes a woman not want to have a baby.

[Scuzz]

I suggest abortion for any reason that makes a woman not want to have a baby.


So if she breaks up with her BF or husband she should go get an abortion.

Or if tests show the kid will be a boy and she wanted a girl.

[Brian Rubin]

So if she breaks up with her BF or husband she should go get an abortion.

Or if tests show the kid will be a boy and she wanted a girl.

You sound adorably ridiculous. Or ridiculously adorable. I can't tell which.

[Scuzz]

You sound adorably ridiculous. Or ridiculously adorable. I can't tell which.


He did say "any reason". And I am adorable. :)

[John Many Jars]

Get a room, you two

[Brian Rubin]

He did say "any reason". And I am adorable. :)

I bet. ;-)

Seriously though, you're gonna use batshit, crazy examples like those to show that abortion should be denied to everyone? Thaaaaaaaat's ridiculous.

[Brian Rubin]

Get a room, you two

Only if you join us with the chocolate sauce and the crushed graham cracker crusts.

[Anders Hallin]

So if she breaks up with her BF or husband she should go get an abortion.

Or if tests show the kid will be a boy and she wanted a girl.
Uh, yes? If she doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term, I see no point in trying to force her to do so.

[Brian Rubin]

Uh, yes? If she doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term, I see no point in trying to force her to do so.
Exactly, it's no one else's choice to make than the woman. End of story.

[Scuzz]

I bet. ;-)

Seriously though, you're gonna use batshit, crazy examples like those to show that abortion should be denied to everyone? Thaaaaaaaat's ridiculous.

All I did was respond to his line about a women should be able to use any reason. Having the right to use any reason doesn't make it right.

[Scuzz]

Okay....stupid to ask this, but.....at what point of pregnancy should an abortion not be allowed. Or, should abortions be allowed up the minute of "birth".

I only ask this because I believe there should be some point when the fetus is actually able to live outside the mother when abortion shouldn't be allowed.

Please feel free to attack me and bad mouth my mother. :)

[Brian Rubin]

There's no carte blanche answer for that, I think. It's entirely dependent, on the particular health situations of those involved.

[Scuzz]

There's no carte blanche answer for that, I think. It's entirely dependent, on the particular health situations of those involved.

That's the thing. There are health situations where the mother could die if the baby is carried too long (my nephews wife developed a blood condition that required a premature birth which the baby did not survive) and then there is the health conditions of the fetus.

When health conditions are a factor then it must truly be up to the parents, with the advice/help of the doctors.

[Brian Rubin]

Health plays a factor, but it's not the entire story. Choice is the other part of the story, in my opinion. Again, it depends on the specific situation of each woman, her choices, her beliefs and her health concerns.

[Scuzz]

Health plays a factor, but it's not the entire story. Choice is the other part of the story, in my opinion. Again, it depends on the specific situation of each woman, her choices, her beliefs and her health concerns.

Agreed.

When are we getting together. I like chocolate syrup. :)

[Brian Rubin]

So you believe that an abortion should be left to the choice of the woman, ultimately?

[Scuzz]

So you believe that an abortion should be left to the choice of the woman, ultimately?


The final say so.....probably. I mean I assume she would ask for feedback from any others involved but in the final analysis the decision is hers. I don't know how you co-mingle the "legal" rights of a husband or significant other.

As stated though, I would restrict anything after a certain date except for health reasons. I am not enough of a expert (hell, I am no expert) to actually name the time (6 months, 7,8?).

[Brian Rubin]

See, I'd be worried about adding restrictions like that. I know they exist, and I get why they exist, but a large organization such as the government, I don't think, has a right to dictate what a woman can and can't do with her own body. The choice of what happens in these situations should, I feel, be left up to the mother and whomever she chooses to take advice from, such as family, significant other, or doctor, for example.

[Scuzz]

I can imagine the problem with putting a time on the abortion is that not all fetus's (feti?) develop at the same pace.

Other than that limitation we pretty much agree.

Although I can only imagine that this is one of those things that you really don't know about until it happens to you personally. Talking about something in the abstract is very easy without having any emotional baggage involved.

[Brian Rubin]

Exactly, which is why I don't think folks like the guvment should tell women what to do in stuff like this. :)

[Andy Bates]

because obviously nobody is suggesting that abortion be used to avoid anything other than the most severe complications.


I suggest abortion for any reason that makes a woman not want to have a baby.

So, there you go.

But do people generally that women should be given as much information as possible before making the decision whether or not to have an abortion?

[Monsieur Eek!]

But do people generally that women should be given as much information as possible before making the decision whether or not to have an abortion?

I think you're missing a key verb there, but women should have as much information as they desire about their own health and their doctor should be required to disclose anything pertinent to that. Obviously. Under what circumstances do you think your doctor should coercively withhold information from you? For what reason?

[John Many Jars]

The firmest moral decisions are made in ignorance, which is why Mother Church has always promoted ignorance in her children.

[arctangent]

I think you're missing a key verb there, but women should have as much information as they desire about their own health and their doctor should be required to disclose anything pertinent to that. Obviously. Under what circumstances do you think your doctor should coercively withhold information from you? For what reason?

I think he's headed towards providing information like, I dunno, an ultrasound to show the women the fetal heartbeat. Forcefully if need be, because you wouldn't want a doctor to withhold vital information like a fetal heartbeat, even if someone might not want or need it.

[RichVR]

A good doctor will never hold back any information. Nor will he or she lie, mislead or in any way obfuscate. A good doctor will give any and all information for the health of the patient. Or one would think.

In what world should a doctor have the right to mislead a patient? Not any as far as I know. That should include telling a pregnant woman exactly the information known to him or her.

Then it's up to the woman to decide. And of course discuss with her partner.

Holding back information should be grounds to revoke the medical license of any practitioner.

The choice is with the patient.

[Teiman]

No, it's a problem because in some areas the religious affiliated hospitals are the only choice. If they can start opting out of regulation they don't like, then that effectively puts medical care in certain areas beyond government regulation.

Then you build a REAL hospital that will help everyone. It will cost money, but losing lives also cost money and getting your citizens in good health is good for everyone.

[Tortilla]

Then you build a REAL hospital that will help everyone. It will cost money, but losing lives also cost money and getting your citizens in good health is good for everyone.

That's a hell of a handwave. Are you a queen?

[Teiman]

That's a hell of a handwave. Are you a queen?

No. I am not a women either, but I defend the idea of hospitals having ginecologist. Theres always womens that will need to abort, and you want to send these people to a hospital. People forcing on thenselves a abortion at home will probably kill thenselves. Is a waste for a modern society and barbaric, to lose citizens that way. If the hospital you have cant help all the needs of your people, you need a new one, maybe close the old one.

[Jason Townsend]

That's a hell of a handwave. Are you a queen?

I think it's more that the idea of religious hospitals only (even just in some areas) is very weird for people in different parts of the world. It's like an area only having religious schools or religious fire departments.

"But if we didn't have the Baptist Fire Department, who'd put out the fires?"

[Scuzz]

Then you build a REAL hospital that will help everyone. It will cost money, but losing lives also cost money and getting your citizens in good health is good for everyone.


You do live in a candy cane/puppy dog world don't you.

Most of these religious hospitals exist because they were the only ones who would commit the funds in the areas they were built. Do you have any idea what the modern hospital costs to build and operate? To staff? To put modern machinery/electronics/devices into it?

Yea, everywhere there is a religious hospital let's just build another one to run them out of business.

FYI....Both my kids were born in a catholic hospital. It was, at the time, probably the best one available and closest to our home. With the second kid we had my wife's tubes tied there as well. It was done at the hospital with the hospital's permission.

[Anders Hallin]

Yea, everywhere there is a religious hospital let's just build another one to run them out of business.
Nah, let's just define a hospital as a public service and create a list of resources and procedures they must make available.

[Disconnected]

Nah, let's just define a hospital as a public service and create a list of resources and procedures they must make available.

Better yet, amend the constitution to define those services as a fundamental right and fund them via taxes.

There's no known connection between religion and medicine, so no reason to confuse or conflate the two.

There is, however, a rather well known and demonstrable connection between quality of life and access to adequate healthcare. So why would a civilised society not do its utmost to provide adequate healthcare to all of its citizens, in the most affordable way possible?

[CLWheeljack]

There is, however, a rather well known and demonstrable connection between quality of life and access to adequate healthcare. So why would a civilised society not do its utmost to provide adequate healthcare to all of its citizens, in the most affordable way possible?

Because Communism. Duh.

[Teiman]

Nah, let's just define a hospital as a public service and create a list of resources and procedures they must make available.

But it is already!, well it just make sense.

Education is already a public service, and arguabily education is less important than health. If you are dead, you can't learn new tricks. Stupidity is not contagious (lets ignore here Fox News) but a virus is. So you want everyone healty even more thant you want everyone educated.

[Scuzz]

In America sex is a no-no. We don't our kids taught about it by anyone but their parents (or their friends), we don't want the government forcing sex education on us or forcing health programs that promote sex on us.








This has been a message of the American Right Wing.

[Scuzz]

Better yet, amend the constitution to define those services as a fundamental right and fund them via taxes.

There's no known connection between religion and medicine, so no reason to confuse or conflate the two.

There is, however, a rather well known and demonstrable connection between quality of life and access to adequate healthcare. So why would a civilised society not do its utmost to provide adequate healthcare to all of its citizens, in the most affordable way possible?

Really, amend the constitution. Do you have any idea what that would require?

As for religion and medicine, it developed in this country that the early on the public service organizations were usually religious in nature. Thus many cities in need of hospitals had them built and funded through religious organizations. Except for "sexual matters" you probably could not tell most of these hospitals from any other hospital. They care for the sick and indigent regardless of race, color and creed. You don't have to be catholic to have your kids born at a catholic hospital.

[Disconnected]

Really, amend the constitution. Do you have any idea what that would require?

Not even a hint of a clue. But unless it involves people dying, I can't easily imagine it wouldn't be worth it.


As for religion and medicine, it developed in this country that the early on the public service organizations were usually religious in nature. Thus many cities in need of hospitals had them built and funded through religious organizations. Except for "sexual matters" you probably could not tell most of these hospitals from any other hospital. They care for the sick and indigent regardless of race, color and creed. You don't have to be catholic to have your kids born at a catholic hospital.

My "amend the Constitution" bit wasn't so much motivated your mixing religion and medicine, as by your lack of universal healthcare. It's one of several ways your nation reminds me of a shark tank, and I cannot imagine why human beings would want to live in one. I mean, sharks are pretty & stuffs, but they have really big teeth and tend to bite the hell out of anyone who flops about ways they're unaccustomed with.

Still, even if it's in practise relatively problem free to mix religion and medicine right now, it's still not exactly a sound practise. You're not taking a legal and institutional stand against mixing medicine and things that are not medicine, and while the result isn't per definition bad medicine, it can't be better than medicine alone. It can at most be as good. There's no reason to maintain your practise, and a very good one to change it. However small the immediate benefits are.

[Scuzz]

Not even a hint of a clue. But unless it involves people dying, I can't easily imagine it wouldn't be worth it.


It was made intentionally very difficult so that every little disagreement wouldn't involve someone running off to amend the constitution. Believe me there are groups who start and never finish because it is just designed to be difficult.

[Murbella]

You don't need to amend the constitution, all you need to do is wait them out. They are dying out and the new generation is not buying in to their bullshit about forcing their religious beliefs on others.

The question though is if it is worth attempting to fix in our generation. Forcing them to not discriminate against a woman who has sex with her long time boyfriend before they are married at the same time they are more than happy to give Gingrich Viagra in order to cheat on one of his wives is probably not a bad thing.

[Teiman]

In America sex is a no-no. We don't our kids taught about it by anyone but their parents (or their friends), we don't want the government forcing sex education on us or forcing health programs that promote sex on us.

The best way to avoid teaching your children's about sex, is to avoid having children's.

Really, the people that have childrens, and don't want to give his childrens a complete education are lousy parents. BOO!, I say, BOO!.

[Scuzz]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/birth-control-new-hampshire-repeal_n_1294524.html


GOP Lawmakers in New Hampshire lead the way.....



The amendment comes the same week that the Tea Party-controlled New Hampshire House passed a resolution calling on the Obama Administration to repeal the federal birth control requirement for religious organizations. The resolution's passage came after a committee hearing where one Republican lawmaker said that birth control causes prostate cancer and another GOP lawmaker said that married couples should practice abstinence except when they want to conceive.

[Monsieur Eek!]

Ugh. I don't know if it's good or bad that they're being so overtly crazy about this. On the one hand, they're offputting to sane people when they say what they actually think, but on the other, I'm afraid that by pushing the line all the slightly less crazy shit they say and do becomes more normalized.

[Lorini]

I think that's what they are hoping for, is that their stupidity will become the norm. I don't think that will happen however, and if they put Santorum up and if he insists on using the government's power to implement some of the craziness he believes in, they'll find this out in November.

[Murbella]

It is the republican definition of compromise. Pick an Ultra Extreme position and have democrats pick a compromise position. Then you compromise between ultra right and compromise.

In any event, the problem with teaching abstinence or not teaching any sex education at all is that sticking your head in the stand does not lower teen pregnancy. The irony about abstinence camps are that they don't work and in any other situation where you have an expensive program that doesn't work, republicans would be the first to cut it.

[Anders Hallin]

The irony about abstinence camps are that they don't work and in any other situation where you have an expensive program that doesn't work, republicans would be the first to cut it.
When it comes to military, old people and corporate benefits, I don't see that being true.

[Tin Wisdom]

Ugh. I don't know if it's good or bad that they're being so overtly crazy about this. On the one hand, they're offputting to sane people when they say what they actually think, but on the other, I'm afraid that by pushing the line all the slightly less crazy shit they say and do becomes more normalized.
If you're a Democrat, it's tough to see this as anything but a good thing. The longer the GOP and the media are focused on whether or not the government should ban birth control (you'd have to go to "government slashing your tires" to find a more losing political position), the less time they have to focus on the sole Democratic weak point: the economy.

Take the debate last night - they talked about contraception, who took the most ear-marks for their constituents (something they were elected to go after for Pete's sake), and which ones (apparently shamefully) voted for the No Child Left Behind Act... a bill put forward by their own party and championed by a GOP president. It's astounding. They're not even accusing each other of supporting "liberal" bills, they're lambasting each other for supporting things that were/are on the GOP plank.

I forget where I read the line, but I thought one recent editorial summed up the likely results of the GOP becoming perceived as the "ban contraception" party: "The 1% of US Catholic women that actually don't use birth control will vote for them; the other 99% will pull the lever for Obama."

The silly thing here is that even Santorum says that he's against banning contraception. The GOP has been maneuvered (probably by incompetence on their side rather than Machiavellian skill on the part of the Democrats) into defending something that only a sliver of their base is in favor of. It's bringing that nut-job sliver out into the open though, and that's just manna from heaven to Obama.

[Monsieur Eek!]

I think you're right as far as short-term political considerations go, but my concern was more to do with long-term damage to the state of political discourse in the U.S., such as it is. Once you stretch the Overton window, it's difficult to, uh, unstretch it is what I'm saying.

[Dan_Theman]

Yeah, while I agree with what you say, Tin, but I still share Monsieur's concern over the potential cultural shift this could be a harbinger for. The more this goes on, the more sure I am that Obama will win the election, but the more "teh caaaazy" is being spouted by ostensible leaders of people, the more mainstream it threatens to become.

[CLWheeljack]

I think you're right as far as short-term political considerations go, but my concern was more to do with long-term damage to the state of political discourse in the U.S., such as it is. Once you stretch the Overton window, it's difficult to, uh, unstretch it is what I'm saying.

That's true, but I think that the overton shift only applies as long as the party that espouses those beliefs exist. If the republican party does collapse under the weight of it's own crazy, I'd think that they cease to become relevant in terms of national discourse.

Basically, if you try to shift the Overton window farther than it's willing to go, you splinter off and the window snaps back because there's no moderate (sane) conservative view. That would be my hope in any case.

[Monsieur Eek!]

But that's already happened. The GOP has been off the rails for at least a decade, now, and they're not going anywhere basically because we have a two-party system, and there isn't anyone to replace them. John McCain and Sarah Palin got 46% of the popular vote even in the midst of several confluent and looming disasters including a potential economic collapse that were all tied directly to Republican policies that they still espoused, and one of the people on the ticket was Sarah Palin. The Republican Party won't collapse without taking the country down with it.

[CLWheeljack]

I'm not sure it goes quite that far back. Although they had some policies I disagreed with, I don't think Bush and the neo-cons were beyond the pale. They had that whole "compassionate conservative" thing for a while. They've been drifting rightward for a long time, and I don't think they've been completely bonkers until the last couple years.

Although, your point about 2 party system is well founded. I'm not sure how far you can push that before a wholesale party collapse, which has happened a couple of times in US history, but its hard to say how it will work in the modern world.

[Murbella]

McCain might have sold his soul and given up his renegade belt to get the nominee, but i don't think he can really be labeled a crazy or anywhere as bad as the current crop.

I can't say i liked Bush either, but wasn't crazy even if he wasn't the best president ever either.

I'd say the republicans created a weapon they couldnt control and the result is it took over their party. The previous overlords, the Religious Right, were not happy about this so they combined western cloning techniques with forbidden eastern sorcery in order to create Santorum.

[Tin Wisdom]

Yeah, while I agree with what you say, Tin, but I still share Monsieur's concern over the potential cultural shift this could be a harbinger for. The more this goes on, the more sure I am that Obama will win the election, but the more "teh caaaazy" is being spouted by ostensible leaders of people, the more mainstream it threatens to become.
The GOP needs to readjust, and what we're seeing is the ugly outward symptoms of that process. People thought that it might happen back in 2010 but it didn't.

The US has had periods (sometimes decades) of single-party rule a few times in its history and we might be looking at the start of one now (or not). If we are, the political landscape will shake itself out to form one or more new parties soon enough.

As for the level of perceived gutter-level of discourse in politics, this is not a new thing either. If the Founding Fathers could see the political theater today they would probably be astounded at how polite it all is. They would certainly be flabbergasted at the relative neutrality of the press - back in their day candidates (or rather their agents) actually set up newspapers for the sole purpose of plugging their man and tearing down the other guy.

The bills cited a few posts up were from a state legislature, and they propose bat-sit crazy stuff on a near-constant basis to get attention or simply to prove to their "base" that they kept their promise (even though there is no hope in Hell of getting such a thing passed). Nothing new here. There was once a bill proposed in Utah that every time a meteorologist got a forecast wrong, they would be required to buy everyone in the state legislature an ice cream cone. Didn't pass.

[Monsieur Eek!]

It has nothing to do with "gutter" language, dude. And these views are widely espoused at the local and national level and have become deeply calcified within the party. It's nice to think that things just always magically right themselves without anyone having to take notice or do anything, but I don't share that kind of optimism.

[Crispus]

The US has had periods (sometimes decades) of single-party rule a few times in its history and we might be looking at the start of one now (or not). If we are, the political landscape will shake itself out to form one or more new parties soon enough.

And during those periods, did the perpetually losing party boast 45+% of the population's vote, on a regular basis?

[Scuzz]

I think much of what you see with the republican party is a result of the candidates themselves. None of the candidates are truly attractive to a wide range of people. Thus the crazies are allowed to run the asylum instead of sitting back and just yelling without being heard.

A candidate who could command the respect of most of the party would quiet a lot of this crap.

[Lorini]

Latimes.com was saying that over 50% of Republicans are unhappy with all the candidates, but it's too late for a newcomer to be able to win the candidacy at this point. I think you are simply seeing the fact that people don't want to spend a lot of money trying to defeat an incumbent who is running again. The cost of a Presidential campaign has gotten ridiculous.

[Tin Wisdom]

It has nothing to do with "gutter" language, dude. And these views are widely espoused at the local and national level and have become deeply calcified within the party. It's nice to think that things just always magically right themselves without anyone having to take notice or do anything, but I don't share that kind of optimism.
No one said you don't have to DO anything. Of course you have to do something if you want stuff to change and especially if you want the change to benefit your way of thinking. Personally, I recommend voting at a minimum.

All I am saying is that the current situation is not unique or unprecedented in US history as the overblown media coverage would tend to indicate.


And during those periods, did the perpetually losing party boast 45+% of the population's vote, on a regular basis?
Tough question. When the Federalists were effectively unchallenged there wasn't a single opposition party and the ruling party more-or-less self-fragmented so that there would actually be competition rather than "decreed" presidencies. The Democrat-Republicans (Jefferson's party) was pretty much the only game in town (nationally) until Jackson changed the game, but there wasn't much of a national "plank" back in those days.

In the 20th and 21st centuries the minority party generally held national support somewhere in the mid-40%, even in the string of (long) Democratic regimes between 1933 and 1984.

Probably the only time in US history where the dominant party was unopposed nationally for a long period of time was the in the Reconstruction Era where Lincoln's Republicans were pretty much unopposed at the federal level for a couple decades, and they may have been getting more than 60% of the votes down at the Congressional level... but I tend to doubt it. Certainly at the Presidential level their candidates still had to work, even if that was due to self-inflicted scandals.

[Brian Rubin]

Hope this isn't old, but saw it today and thought I'd share it:

http://i.imgur.com/S9nIj.jpg

[Hugin]

I think much of what you see with the republican party is a result of the candidates themselves. None of the candidates are truly attractive to a wide range of people. Thus the crazies are allowed to run the asylum instead of sitting back and just yelling without being heard.

A candidate who could command the respect of most of the party would quiet a lot of this crap.

Enh, I don't think this chicken and egg story starts with the candidates. I think the Republican party has pushed itself down an evolutionary dead end, and now the only candidates who can make it out of the Primary are by definition too loony for the General election.

[Scuzz]

It is a year that features loony though.

Romney: Mormon, state health plan, prone to the good quote
Paul: well, he is Ron Paul
Gingrich: womanizer, left office in a cloud, egomaniac, catholic convert
Santorum: overtly religious and not afraid to say so
Huntsman: morman
Cain: womanizer, prone to the good quote
Perry: duh, talk about collapse


A very strange year for candidates.

[charmtrap]

The Virginia personhood bill appears to have been killed, and the Republicans Would Like To Have A Look Around Your Vagina bill has been postponed.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/virginia-legislature-kills-personhood-bill-postpones-ultrasound-bill

[milo]

Hope this isn't old, but saw it today and thought I'd share it:


Well, you know Grover Norquist did say he wanted to shrink the government until it was small enough to shove it up a woman's vagina.

[Lorini]

Tough year to be a woman.

[Pogue Mahone]

Man, if you stop to think about how much energy, like policies, wars, and just general time and effort have been spent focused on vaginas ...

oh sorry, what was I saying?

[John Many Jars]

It is a year that features loony though.

Romney: Mormon, state health plan, prone to the good quote
Paul: well, he is Ron Paul
Gingrich: womanizer, left office in a cloud, egomaniac, catholic convert
Santorum: overtly religious and not afraid to say so
Huntsman: morman
Cain: womanizer, prone to the good quote
Perry: duh, talk about collapse


A very strange year for candidates.

Left out Bachmann!

[russellmz00]

now that you mention it, has there been a more interesting group of primary contenders?

[Monsieur Eek!]

It is a year that features loony though.

Romney: Mormon, state health plan, prone to the good quote
Paul: well, he is Ron Paul
Gingrich: womanizer, left office in a cloud, egomaniac, catholic convert
Santorum: overtly religious and not afraid to say so
Huntsman: morman
Cain: womanizer, prone to the good quote
Perry: duh, talk about collapse


A very strange year for candidates.

Left out Bachmann!

And Donald Trump.

I strongly disagree with Scuzz's idea of what makes them loony, though, but it's not like I'm going to make my own list. It basically comes down to a group of post-Palin candidates who have no real viability or interest in governing anything and see a presidential campaign as a great platform for self-promotion setting the tone for the whole campaign by playing hard to the GOP's id with no consideration for a general election, and suddenly even someone as fundamentally unelectable as Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum seems like a serious candidate. All the candidates are largely corrupt, ignorant, and egomaniacal and, unlike most politicians, wear it on their sleeves. The only exception is Romney which is why it's been obvious from day one that he'd win the nomination. I'm pretty sure that more viable candidates who have a good shot at the presidency in the future like Chris Christie have stayed out so as not to tarnish themselves by association.

[Desert Journeyman]

One point worth making is that most people have affordable access to healthcare only through their employer, meaning that the employer's exercise of conscience in determining which services they want to pay for could be considered discriminatory.

[madkevin]

http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/2722/TMW2012-02-29colorlowres.jpg

[Mark Asher]

I don't understand how the conservatives get away with saying the shit they say. Now Limbaugh, obviously trolling, is saying women who get free contraception should post videos of themselves having sex online.

Is there any equivalent on the left of saying such kind of insane things and being unscathed by it?

[jeffd]

This is an opportunity for me to share these (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/in-veritas-vino/253832/) posts (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/cruelty-cont/253878/) about the normalization of cruelty amongst conservatives.

No, I'm not aware of any liberal analog.

[Andy Bates]

You mean like bio-ethicists saying that it is morally okay to kill babies? Is that the kind of ridiculousness you were looking for?

[Anders Hallin]

You mean like bio-ethicists saying that it is morally okay to kill babies? Is that the kind of ridiculousness you were looking for?
And by bio-ethicists you mean two PhDs with a grand total of 1 article written between them before this one. Of course, you also missed being unscathed by it.
EDIT: not counting articles written in Italian.

[Andy Bates]

So Limbaugh was unscathed by what he said? Define "unscathed" in this context.

[Mark Asher]

So Limbaugh was unscathed by what he said? Define "unscathed" in this context.

As in other Republicans denouncing him for saying women who support public funded birth control should post videos of themselves having sex.

Which Republican members of the House or Senate have come out with statements denouncing him? Where is the conservative backlash against his comments? Cite please.

[Teiman]

I don't understand how the conservatives get away with saying the shit they say. Now Limbaugh, obviously trolling, is saying women who get free contraception should post videos of themselves having sex online.

Or how you can be against abort "because every life is precious", but not fight death penalty.

[Mark Asher]

Or how you can be against abort "because every life is precious", but not fight death penalty.

A good point. Why aren't those opposed to abortion also lining up to vote against those in favor of the death penalty?

[madkevin]

I have this image of the Earth being destroyed by a meteor, or maybe a huge Martian death ray. Huddled together on a chunk of ex-Earth, a small group of survivors cling to this last shard of the planet as they hurl into the galaxy. Two of those survivors are brettmcd and Andy Bates, telling the rest of them "Pfffft, so what? You don't remember when that one junior Democratic senator blew up the Earth? I'd find the link but, you know, the world's ended."

[madkevin]

A good point. Why aren't those opposed to abortion also lining up to vote against those in favor of the death penalty?

You don't even have to go that far. Why don't those who oppose abortion support programs to help pregnant women? If the pro-life lobby was really pro-life, and not simply anti-women like they obviously are, we would be swimming in cash and resources to help single mothers, or teenage mothers, or subsidized child care, or any number of pre-natal health programs.

But they don't, because their actual goal for outlawing abortion is to have the power to shame sexually active women. Helping young or struggling mothers does not further that goal at all.

[Teiman]

Perhaps "democrat" and "republic" are just huge flags or mask people use to attract the mass. But if you are serius, you have to look at the person behind the mask.

The mask distract from the reality, it don't inform enough, and hidde too much.

The ability to think in a political level seems to destroy the ability to think.



You don't even have to go that far. Why don't those who oppose abortion support programs to help pregnant women? If the pro-life lobby was really pro-life, and not simply anti-women like they obviously are, we would be swimming in cash and resources to help single mothers, or teenage mothers, or subsidized child care, or any number of pre-natal health programs.

Its really that?

What seems to motivate most people its the DNA programation to protect childrens, activated wen people tell then that a fetus is a children, or by the opinion that a fetus is a children. Other motivation seems "Its written in the book", or "Say so the Pope"... arguments from the high up in the organized religion... And religions are motivated by tradition, preserve ideas and lust for power. Then you have people anti-abortion, because are educated that way, and can't go against his programation.

Almost all the people against abortion are programmed. Programed by his DNA, by The Book, by the Pope or by his School. Are like robots following a program.


I can't see the "attacking the position of the women in the culture" has the main reason to many people. But I could be wrong. We don't know why religion take the positions that take. Why eating some food some day is a horrible sin? Why gays are a sin? nobody knows, ...It could be power.

Gays are people that can have sex withouth having to adquire a permision from the religion, ... somewhat like pirates that have unauthorized sex (unauthorized by the religion). I imagine this is the problem of organized religion about womens having sex: Religion get a cut ($$$) wen people marry, and religion enjoy the power to allow people to marry and have childrens:

If you want to marry or have childrens, get a CERT from us, or you are EVIL.
Religions want to preserve the power to allow people to have childrens and marry people, and everything that challenge that sould be attacked. Lone mothers, gays couples, ...these "pirates".

I don't think the hate of religion against lone mothers is anything personal. Just bussines.

[John Many Jars]

The anti-abortion leaders are increasingly going after birth control too. It's almost exclusively woman-focused. It's "slut-shaming."

[madkevin]

Its really that?

Yes. It really is. I happen to be in a position where I know a lot - more than I want to, actually - about what gets funded by whom in my little neck of Canada, and if the pro-life lobby actually put their money where their mouths are with regards to babies, we'd be living in a golden age of motherhood.

They, of course, don't. Because, as JMJ notes, it's not about babies at all. It's about punishment and slut-shaming.

That's why you find "pro-life" people who support the death penalty without their brains exploding from cognitive dissonance. It's a perfectly logically consistent position if you understand that they want to punish people, and not help them.

[CLWheeljack]

This is an opportunity for me to share these (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/in-veritas-vino/253832/) posts (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/cruelty-cont/253878/) about the normalization of cruelty amongst conservatives.

No, I'm not aware of any liberal analog.

I feel the need to point out that Rush apparently thinks that you need to take more birth control pills the more often you have sex. Like, "I had sex today, better take a couple extra just to be sure!"

[Tin Wisdom]

A good point. Why aren't those opposed to abortion also lining up to vote against those in favor of the death penalty?
That's something of a hoary old chestnut there, and mostly unfair. There is a reason that the death penalty is on the decline in the US despite the majority of the population being at least nominally in favor of it, and a big part of it is the Catholic Right is almost as rabidly against the death penalty as they are against abortion. There is actually a decent correlation between Catholic populations and anti-death penalty policies in many states... except Texas, which defies all attempts at understanding.

I think you could make the case that an anti-abortion anti-death penalty voter would probably choose a anti-abortion, pro-death penalty candidate over a pro-choice, anti-death penalty candidate as the lesser of two evils... but I don't think that's necessarily hypocritical on the voter's side.


You don't even have to go that far. Why don't those who oppose abortion support programs to help pregnant women? If the pro-life lobby was really pro-life, and not simply anti-women like they obviously are, we would be swimming in cash and resources to help single mothers, or teenage mothers, or subsidized child care, or any number of pre-natal health programs.
This is a much more valid criticism, though some pro-life groups do have such programs (though most end their aid after the kid is born).

[madkevin]

Again, I can only speak to my corner of Canada, but here anyway the vast majority of pre-natal care programs are not run by pro-life groups. Many of them are government programs or non-profits like Planned Parenthood, and those are often picketed by - you guessed it! - pro-life groups.

[Tin Wisdom]

As Santorum inadvertently demonstrated, pre-natal care (with the associated requirements on doctors to provide all the relevant data to their patients) and anti-abortion groups are often at close to cross-purposes... though until recently I would have never guessed that.

[Scuzz]

Or how you can be against abort "because every life is precious", but not fight death penalty.


Because an unborn baby is innocent and someone convicted of murder getting the death penalty is not. Also the unborn baby apparently waived rights to council whereas anyone accused of murder does not.


By the way, I oppose the death penalty, but only on the grounds that it costs to much to execute the scum and the laws drag out the process to such an extent that most die of old age anyway.

[madkevin]

Because an unborn baby is innocent and someone convicted of murder getting the death penalty is not.

You hope.

[Scuzz]

I imagine this is the problem of organized religion about womens having sex: Religion get a cut ($$$) wen people marry, and religion enjoy the power to allow people to marry and have childrens:

If you want to marry or have childrens, get a CERT from us, or you are EVIL.


You do know this is the 21st century? What you are talking about may have occured 100 years ago and may still in parts of the world but if you can explain how the church makes money off a marriage I would like to know.

[Dan_Theman]

... if you can explain how the church makes money off a marriage I would like to know.
Weddings are normally not performed for free.
Children from a marriage are normally raised up in the same faith, and often join the church as paying/tithing members.
Those children later get married, often at the church.
rinse/repeat

[Scuzz]

Weddings are normally not performed for free.
Children from a marriage are normally raised up in the same faith, and often join the church as paying/tithing members.
Those children later get married, often at the church.
rinse/repeat

The church is probably the cheapest part of any wedding.

I think you stretch your argument too far, but i will not argue with you over it.

[CLWheeljack]

Weddings are normally not performed for free.
Children from a marriage are normally raised up in the same faith, and often join the church as paying/tithing members.
Those children later get married, often at the church.
rinse/repeat

Admittedly, that's a pretty long con.

[madkevin]

When you've been around for two thousand years, you got the time.

[Scuzz]

When you've been around for two thousand years, you got the time.


He probably has a pretty good argument with the catholic church, and the mormon church as well.

[Teiman]

You do know this is the 21st century? What you are talking about may have occured 100 years ago and may still in parts of the world but if you can explain how the church makes money off a marriage I would like to know.

On my country, the religion make money from taxes. Wen you pay taxes a part of it is given to then. Also the religion on my country run a lot of "ONG" like bussines, so receive money has help for that, or to run these things. Add to that schools.

I don't think the point of any of this is become rich, but self perpetuation of the organization. Then power, organized religion is a lobby that want to control society and imposed his rules on everyone.

[Pogo]

You mean like bio-ethicists saying that it is morally okay to kill babies? Is that the kind of ridiculousness you were looking for?

Yeah because bio-ethicists totally have a talk show with millions of daily listeners.


So Limbaugh was unscathed by what he said? Define "unscathed" in this context.

Good job Bretting yourself up by completely ignoring the part where you got your shit handed to you and then strawmanning a question out of your ass in response.

You're so like... adorable, Andy.

[Scuzz]

On my country, the religion make money from taxes. Wen you pay taxes a part of it is given to then. Also the religion on my country run a lot of "ONG" like bussines, so receive money has help for that, or to run these things. Add to that schools.

I don't think the point of any of this is become rich, but self perpetuation of the organization. Then power, organized religion is a lobby that want to control society and imposed his rules on everyone.

I don't know if this is a language problem but in your country the churches receive "tax" money. Boy, you do come from a backward country then. :)
Here churches are tax exempt but they do not receive tax money from public sources. I suppose you could argue though that being tax exempt to avoid taxes is the same, but then all charities and non-profits have that status.

Religious schools here do not receive tax money either, at least directly. I will admit to not knowing where all their funding sources come from. But most do not want any government funds because it then allows the government to dictate programs to them.

[godhugh]

He probably has a pretty good argument with the catholic church, and the mormon church as well.

If you're talking about how much it costs to have a wedding, then no he doesn't. I could have gotten married at my Catholic church for free and my wife's Mormon bishop actually performed our ceremony for free.

If you're talking about tithing...well, you got me there ;).

[John Many Jars]

Tithing? I thought it was "teething."

[Scuzz]

If you're talking about how much it costs to have a wedding, then no he doesn't. I could have gotten married at my Catholic church for free and my wife's Mormon bishop actually performed our ceremony for free.

If you're talking about tithing...well, you got me there ;).


Not the wedding part but the gotcha for a lifetime and encourage the kids into the church part. The tithing.

Your a catholic who married a mormon? That must have been interesting. We have been invited to a couple mormon receptions but never to the weddings. Good kids though. I can't say a bad things about the way they were brought up.

Yeah, churches don't make money on weddings and funerals. My dad's funeral was free, they just requested a donation to the organist.

[asspennies]

Churches don't pay taxes. Including property tax. Renting out space for events, tithing, even free labor from your constituents. It all adds up.

[Dawn Falcon]

I don't know if this is a language problem but in your country the churches receive "tax" money. Boy, you do come from a backward country then. :)

Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Sweden...


Religious schools here do not receive tax money either, at least directly.

That'd be "most countries" where that happens. I personally strongly oppose it. (Which has caught my some flack from my community, but oh well)

[dithadder]

On his show today Rush asked why gays and lesbians should have to pay for birth control for breeders. I don't guess anyone here thinks Rush's concern is sincere, but I'm curious if the objection itself holds water in these parts.

[AaronSofaer]

For the same reason that I have to pay for ovarian cancer treatments for women.

[Jason Townsend]

Not sure if the present Limbaugh conversation is the same as the one where he called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" in every way he could think of (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/02/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-slander?newsfeed=true) for advocating one side of the contraceptive coverage discussion while also owning a vagina. This, after she was refused permission to testify by Daryl Issa, with the result that all testimony was from men.


What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex, she can't afford the contraception; she wants you and me – the taxpayers – to pay her. What does that make us? We're the pimps! The johns! That's right. We would be the Johns. No, well, pimp's not the right word. OK, so she's not a slut, she's round-heeled.

The American right in 2012. Bracing.

[Disconnected]

Boy, you do come from a backward country then.

In some respects, yes. Generally speaking, the liberal democracies were around for a long, long time as culturally and geographically similar states with state religions, before they became liberal democracies. So they've all inherited a great many practises and traditions you wouldn't find in the ideal liberal democracy. Tax to a state religion is probably the most common and obvious example there is.

America is kind of unique in that you guys had very close to a blank slate.

But I suspect you could make the argument that this burden of old bullshit has actually been an advantage. They tend to be less religious and far less extreme about it, and more cooperative and supportive of their individuals. Then again... Correlation =/= causation.

[Oghier]

I'm curious if the objection itself holds water in these parts.

"No, the defense's case does not hold water" /marissatomei

I love that movie.

In any event, no, it's a ridiculous claim. I am in no danger of coming down with breast cancer, sickle-cell anemia, childhood leukemia or a host of other issues that adult white guys don't get. Yet my insurance plan would cover all of those things. You don't get to pick insurance pools made up solely of people with health issues identical to your own.

I wonder what Rush's premiums would be, if his insurance pool contained only obese, middle-aged, pill-popping smokers.

[Andy Bates]

As in other Republicans denouncing him for saying women who support public funded birth control should post videos of themselves having sex.

First of all, I'm not sure how "unscathed" is defined as "being publicly denounced by people who have roughly the same political beliefs," but using that yardstick, the people who wrote about killing babies are also unscathed. Did Obama speak out in opposition to them? Any Democrats? Yeah, didn't think so.


Which Republican members of the House or Senate have come out with statements denouncing him? Where is the conservative backlash against his comments? Cite please.

Spokesman for John Boehner said that Boehner, "obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate."

Santorum said that Limbaugh was being "absurd."

Two sponsors pulled ads from his show, one after 25 years.

Darrell Issa called the comments "inappropriate."

Senator Scott Brown said, "Rush Limbaugh’s comments are reprehensible,. He should apologize."

Carly Fiorina said that the comments were "insulting," and "It's incendiary, and most of all it's a distraction."

So there you go: not unscathed. Obviously, I'll expect you to provide a list of Democratic members of the House or Senate who have spoken out against the idea of "post-birth abortions."

[Andy Bates]

A good point. Why aren't those opposed to abortion also lining up to vote against those in favor of the death penalty?

By that logic, if you're opposed to a child being locked in a closet, you should vote against any kind of jail time. If you oppose a child being handcuffed to a radiator, you should protest the use of handcuffs in arrests.

[Manresa]

I wonder what Rush's premiums would be, if his insurance pool contained only obese, middle-aged, pill-popping smokers.

Speaking of which, I wonder how the other people on Limbaugh's insurance plan felt about supporting his OxyContin habit.

[CLWheeljack]

So there you go: not unscathed. Obviously, I'll expect you to provide a list of Democratic members of the House or Senate who have spoken out against the idea of "post-birth abortions."

Assuming you're referring to the journal article in the other thread...



This bi-monthly journal is a leading international publication in the field of medical ethics and is the journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics
Circulation 1,495


I'm pretty sure that nobody's spoken out against it because nobody has even heard it exists. It hasn't even gotten much "outrage" traction yet from what I can tell, just a couple small web articles.

[Pogo]

Spokesman for John Boehner said that Boehner, "obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate."

Really? So if Limbaugh had used other words, his argument wouldn't have been just as fucking retarded as it already is?


Santorum said that Limbaugh was being "absurd."

That's funny coming from a guy with an equally blind eye towards the health and social benefits of contraception.


Darrell Issa called the comments "inappropriate."

There again is that "fuck-off" word given by politicians to anyone asking a serious question.


Senator Scott Brown said, "Rush Limbaugh’s comments are reprehensible,. He should apologize."

Carly Fiorina said that the comments were "insulting," and "It's incendiary, and most of all it's a distraction."

These two are OK.




Obviously, I'll expect you to provide a list of Democratic members of the House or Senate who have spoken out against the idea of "post-birth abortions."

So adorable.

[Lorini]

For the same reason that I have to pay for ovarian cancer treatments for women.

And I have to pay for Viagra! As well as prostate cancer treatment, muscular dystrophy (doesn't happen in African Americans) and a whole host of stuff that I either can't get or probably will never get.

[Greatatlantic]

Really? So if Limbaugh had used other words, his argument wouldn't have been just as fucking retarded as it already is?

His actually argument (or point he is making) is a bit more straight forward and defensible: individuals should not be required by the government to subsidize the sex life of others. It's part of the larger argument that individuals should be responsible for themselves and their actions, and only stopped when they interfere with other individuals freedoms.

The rest is just Limbaugh being Limbaugh, which is to say misogynistic, talked-about, and profitable.

[Jason Townsend]

His actually argument (or point he is making) is a bit more straight forward and defensible.

Plonk.

[asspennies]

His actually argument (or point he is making) is a bit more straight forward and defensible: individuals should not be required by the government to subsidize the sex life of others.

How is this defensible? If you have a heart condition, and my tax dollars go to paying your heart medication bills, am I allowed to say that I should not be required to pay for the style of life that lead to your heart condition? Maybe you were fat or ate poorly. I only want to pay for the lives of olympic athletes! Those who don't fuck.

This neanderthal attitude has to go away, this whole idea that sex is bad and we don't want people to be having it unless they are married or have lots and lots of money. Sex is a fundamental part of human life, it is something to be celebrated, not shunned and ignored. It is fundamental to people living happily and healthily. And some people don't like it because some old book says it's a bad bad thing (except when it's not.) Fuck those people. Sometimes, literally. Get them some god damn sex.

[Pogo]

His actually argument (or point he is making) is a bit more straight forward and defensible: individuals should not be required by the government to subsidize the sex life of others.

Sex is very much connected to human health in so many complex ways that I really don't see the point in making this kind of flat generic statement. It's the type of statement that the GOP field is using to drum up thinly-veiled misogynistic rhetoric, rhetoric that is a shortcut away from beginning to label women (particularly poor disenfranchised women who can't afford basic health care) as whores and prostitutes. The GOP either completely distances themselves from this bullshit, or they're caught pussyfooting around the issue in a way that makes it obvious what their goal is in political legislation of the female body.

If you think healthcare should not be subsidized by the government at all, then that's fine, but that's not the only point that Limbaugh is trying to make because he's not making it in a vacuum. Hell, even if we didn't already subsidize a whole plethora of sexual related health issues, his comment would be fucking retarded.

[jeffd]

Kevin Drum posted today (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/quote-day-romney-rush) about the significance of Rush's comments.


The real problem is that Rush is speaking for a big pool of people who agree with him. We're all acting as though we're shocked that the "religious freedom" argument was just a facade for a seething hostility toward contraceptives themselves, but what's to be shocked about? Rush knows his audience well, and for most of them insurance coverage of contraceptives has always been a sideshow. That's clear enough already if you're plugged into the email chains and church newsletters that form the backbone of social conservatism, and all Rush has done is drag it out from this netherworld and shine a national spotlight on their real concern: that unmarried women are having sex at all, and that easy access to contraceptives expresses a tacit endorsement of it. They really do disapprove of the pill and the free-love generation it ushered in, and they disapprove of the fact that modern society forces them all to pretend that this is OK. Because they don't think it's OK. They're afraid of it. They think it's bad for public morals, they think it leads to a breakdown of order, and they think it should be condemned. Maybe the hypocrisy of times past was nothing to be proud of, but it's still better than the chaos and self-indulgence of the if-it-feels-good-do-it generation.

A lot of people like to pretend that Rush doesn't speak for the conservative base, but the truth is he does. He's the conservative id. Remember how many conservative politicians have had to apologize to him over the years, when they stray from his party line?

And the truth is (Greatatlantic's protestations to the contrary) that this isn't about paying for other people's contraception. That's not the objection Limbaugh made. He called that girl a slut because she has sex out of wedlock. That's the issue.

[Jason Townsend]

That's not the objection Limbaugh made. He called that girl a slut because she has sex out of wedlock. That's the issue.

As far as I can tell he said it because she espoused the same view that we're all espousing - that it's a health issue, that the pill should be covered - without any insight into her sex life beyond his own disgusting prurience.

[Teiman]

Ok. Lets refocus this.

Religious people don't like contraceptives, because make easier to have sex. And think that is a bad thing.

Some people like contraceptives, because stops teenagers mothers (that have destroyed his life), people that can't have more children's having more children's (that can make the life of some people unnecessary more difficult), and so on.

I think the motives of the religious people are ridiculous and stupid, and these people should be ashamed of themselves for having these stupid ideas.

I think paying for pills only make sense if are exceptions aimed at helping the problems we could have: teenagers mothers and poor people that don't want to have more children's.

In USA, and also in India, or any other country of the world, you have "Family planning" centres where people try to give help in these issues. I don't think its something new.

If thats include giving pills to teenagers, then go on. The opinion of the religious people that you have to ignore the fact teenagers have sex is absurd. Its not a solution, its ignoring the problem. Maybe giving pills to teenagers its not the best solution? Its possible? then show me a better solution or get out of the way.

[Nezz]

then show me a better solution
Building a social and economic framework that supports early and lasting marriage with many children for everyone.

But that's hard, and risks empowering many people. Much easier to drown them in their sensual desires.

[Manresa]

Building a social and economic framework that supports early and lasting marriage with many children for everyone.

But that's hard, and risks empowering many people. Much easier to drown them in their sensual desires.

I don't want kids. I've never wanted kids. That kind of solution may be fine for you, but not for me, or anyone like me, and especially any woman who is interested in being anything other than a mother.