So contraception is a now a new front in the US culture war.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:16 pm

I thought it was just stupid U.S. social conservatives feeling their oats after the Santorum revival and the stumbling of Romney and getting all krunk and drunk with power. But apparently, no. It's a real issue now. Douchebags like Boehner and Rubio are making serious noise about health insurance providers covering birth control and are trying to block it because of 'freedom of religion' or some silliness.

Seriously, guys? Seriously? I mean... wow.

Libertad · Post by **Libertad** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:25 pm

It isn't new.

Evangelical Christian and Catholic leaders railed against condoms and birth control for decades, arguing that they made people more eager to engage in promiscuous sex.

Heck, Margaret Sanger was put in prison for handing out pamphlets about this! And that was around the time of World War I!

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:30 pm

I wanted to put 'reopened', but, it wouldn't fit in the title window.

angelfromanotherpin · Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:38 pm

The weird thing is how completely full of shit their position is. In the name of 'freedom of religion'... they get to inflict their religion on other people. That's some great Newspeak there, guys.

Notice that there's no interest in allowing, for example, a Jewish medical institute to deny procedures that involve pig parts; or anything remotely similar. It is 100% about hating your orgasm. I... don't actually understand how a platform based on hating your orgasm gets any traction anywhere. It really feels like the inherent opposition should be immensely powerful.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:48 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:In the name of 'freedom of religion'... they get to inflict their religion on other people. That's some great Newspeak there, guys.

The worst of the worst culture warriors have had some minor successes with exactly this angle in PR, various court systems, and lobbying various governments.

As such they immediately jump on and adopt it wholesale and push it like lunatics and will do so until they completely destroy it as a vehicle for their agenda with something ludicrously stupid.

Re-branding and other forms of disguising the same old agenda never lasts forever. And this particular rebranding is a bit of a last gasper if you ask me.

After all when they drive THIS car into the ground what bit of newspeak can they possibly move onto next?

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:50 pm

angel wrote:The weird thing is how completely full of shit their position is. In the name of 'freedom of religion'... they get to inflict their religion on other people.

Amen.

I was reading an article this morning about whether or not religious employers should be required to include contraception in their employees' health care coverage.

I don't even understand why there's a question there - of course they should. They're not being required to force their employees to use contraception, just provide it in their insurance plan.

Angel wrote:Notice that there's no interest in allowing, for example, a Jewish medical institute to deny procedures that involve pig parts; or anything remotely similar.

If there were, I'd half expect some screaming about something like the invasion of Shariah (Yes, even if were done in the name of Judaism).

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:08 pm

Maj wrote:I don't even understand why there's a question there - of course they should. They're not being required to force their employees to use contraception, just provide it in their insurance plan.

But you see if you force religious organizations to allow their employees to decide as individuals personally whether they will religiously decide to not use contraception or not then...

...er... that is some sort of attack on religious freedom. Because religious organizations (and possibly religious individuals who employ) should be permitted to ENFORCE RELIGIOUS LAW! On like, random people of varying faiths that they employ...

Apparently.

And this is basically what this is about. The idea that if a catholic worker was genuinely catholic there is nothing to stop them from just not using the pill is not even CONSIDERED because they want to MAKE their worker (who might not even be catholic) not even have the CHOICE.

And, and, and lets note specifically that they are framing this argument purely by the "rights of the employer" to THEIR religious freedom to apparently not be part of a secular inclusive society where they would compromise like everyone else always does with them. They almost NEVER actually say "of course this is an opt in scheme for Catholic employees only!" the employee could be ANY religion and they will be losing their contraception coverage for the benefit of the EMPLOYERS "religious freedom".

Actually it is pretty clear they are trying to leverage this as a slippery slope to remove contraception coverage for EVERYONE, I mean after all, what the hell is a "religious employer" a lot of what they are talking about COULD be cast as "some guy who says he is Catholic or something"? Not to mention increasingly the rhetoric of the guys pushing this is that they basically won't be happy until they get their way 100% on this one, which means the total removal of the coverage in question.

Meanwhile everywhere else in the world retrograde religious warriors are emboldened by this and feel confident to once again "bring up the issue" of banning contraception for everyone else as part of their personal rights to their own religious freedom.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:16 pm

I'm guessing that I need to donate more money than I will ever have to Planned Parenthood to fight this adequately?

tenuki · Post by **tenuki** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:33 pm

Well, we can't hardly let them ragheads outbreed us, can we?

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:42 am

It's against my religion for other people to have premarital sex. Therefore in order for me to have freedom of religion, other people must conform to my religion's doctrines.

Someone, somewhere, actually believes this. And will say it, out loud, and think other people are left speechless by their righteous conviction when they see their stunned faces.

tenuki · Post by **tenuki** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:50 am

Fuck, yeah. That's the problem with granting freedom of religion to missionary religions.

Originally, freedom of religion was intended as a restraint to such presumption.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:22 am

PhoneLobster wrote:
Maj wrote:I don't even understand why there's a question there - of course they should. They're not being required to force their employees to use contraception, just provide it in their insurance plan.
But you see if you force religious organizations to allow their employees to decide as individuals personally whether they will religiously decide to not use contraception or not then...

...er... that is some sort of attack on religious freedom. Because religious organizations (and possibly religious individuals who employ) should be permitted to ENFORCE RELIGIOUS LAW! On like, random people of varying faiths that they employ...

Apparently.

Oh, it's crazier than that. See, by signing those insurance payment checks, the employer is personally murdering babies. As in, go directly to Hell, do not pass God, do not collect 200 virgins. And therefore, the only possible solution is to take away everyones' contraceptives forever.

They've already pushed this nonsense more directly with "no federal funding of abortions" because that is your tax dollars, you baby-murdering sinner. Not surprising that they're pushing further.

And the Catholic Church itself is still exempt. This fight is over Catholic "charities" and other fringe groups that aren't even directly a religious organization.

tenuki · Post by **tenuki** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:43 am

Does this make sense politically? Last time I paid attention, catlicks were mostly a dem constituency, and most evangelicals (i.e. the GOP constituency) are positively hostile towards the Vatican.

Deplorable as the position of the Vatican towards contraception may be, I don't see them behind this.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:51 am

It may be that the majority of catholics are democrats, but there's a substantial amount of them that vote republican. I have been to a catholic church service where the priest urged that they vote for the anti-abortion candidates.

My wife's family is almost entirely catholic and they are hard core republicans, some birthers among them even. Most amusing are her grandparents. One of whom was a mayor of their town a long time ago as a democrat, and they call themselves democrats. Out of curiosity given their views I pressed them for the last time they voted for a democrat instead of republican. It was JFK in 1960. 50 years of voting republican and they still call themselves democrats. So, yeah.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:04 am

So, how frequently do these people, say, donate blood?

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:27 am

Why do they not want women to fuck? Most of the worlds problems would be solved if women fucked more often and with less bullshit.

That's it, I'm running for congress on the "Fucking is Awesome" platform.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:44 am

Ted the Flayer wrote:That's it, I'm running for congress on the "Fucking is Awesome" platform.

While I consider this to be an excellent position to support, I'm not confident that it is a sufficient platform for the complicated issues of today.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:14 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Ted the Flayer wrote:That's it, I'm running for congress on the "Fucking is Awesome" platform.
While I consider this to be an excellent position to support, I'm not confident that it is a sufficient platform for the complicated issues of today.

How about I add "Beer is awesome"?

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:22 am

Ted the Flayer wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Ted the Flayer wrote:That's it, I'm running for congress on the "Fucking is Awesome" platform.
While I consider this to be an excellent position to support, I'm not confident that it is a sufficient platform for the complicated issues of today.
How about I add "Beer is awesome"?

That doesn't add much.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:26 am

Fuck, politics is hard...

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:08 am

tenuki wrote:Does this make sense politically? Last time I paid attention, catlicks were mostly a dem constituency, and most evangelicals (i.e. the GOP constituency) are positively hostile towards the Vatican.

Deplorable as the position of the Vatican towards contraception may be, I don't see them behind this.

Catholics are a split constituency that probably leans a bit democratic....but Abortion and now Contraception are decent wedge issues. By highlighting a position that a candidate holds that contradicts a tenet of belief the candidate can be shown to hold a position different from that of the constituency, or even made to seem hypocritical when the candidate tries to separate his personal beliefs from legislation he supports. (See Kerry vs Bush debate exchange over abortion)

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:17 pm

The thing that gets me most any time these people start doing anything to limit access to contraception is that it goes 100% counter to their "abortion is murder" rhetoric. Sure, they try to have their cake and eat it to with abstinence, but given as how only 10% of people in the US wait until marriage, you think they'd try a better approach.

So, if abortion is murder, and they want to limit contraception because it might make people more promiscuous, this literally means that they think that sex outside of marriage is worse than murder. What the actual fuck?

That, or they seriously haven't put that much thought into it. Or they think abstinence and shaming others is much more effective than it is.

Maj wrote:I was reading an article this morning about whether or not religious employers should be required to include contraception in their employees' health care coverage.

I don't even understand why there's a question there - of course they should. They're not being required to force their employees to use contraception, just provide it in their insurance plan.

I listened to this on NPR recently, and this was the same conclusion I came to, as well. What the crap?

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:38 pm

Just to clarify, since I've heard a lot of people expressing puzzlement about it.

The religious nutjob stance is that if they believe contraception is wrong, they should not be "forced" to contribute in any way to anyone using it, ever. If an employer feels that contraception is wrong, they should not have to provide something they disapprove of to anyone.

Now: this stance is utterly insane. They provide money to people, which they can use to buy contraception...or heroin, for that matter, or kiddy porn, things relatively few employers approve of. They find the health benefits/contraception thing especially galling because they know in this case that employees are using their compensation to get things the employer disapproves of.

And trying to defend this mindset using "religious freedom" is even more insane. No one's religion (that I'm aware of) requires them to not only abstain from certain behaviors, but to prevent ANYONE from doing those things. And if such a religion did exist, it wouldn't fly legally, first amendment or not.

Hope that explains the religious nutjob mindset.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:14 am

The whole idea that you can belong to a group of people and pay in only for the things you believe in and not for anything else is laughable to me.

Ess and I worked out a solution for this. When you pay your taxes/dues/fees/whatever, just declare to yourself what you are paying (or not paying) for.

For example, my taxes this year are totally going to the food stamp program so people can afford good food when they're broke. I'd also like part of my taxes to go to the maintenance of Olympic National Park because I got married there, so it's sentimentally important. I'm also rather fond of the Interstate highway system since I use I-5 just about every time I leave my house. I'm not so sure I want to be paying for the war in Afghanistan, so clearly, I'm not paying taxes to support that.

See? The war won't miss my few thousand dollars anyway.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:53 am

That's way too sensible and "not making it someone else's problem" for these people though, Maj. I mean, how dare you make a simple justification to yourself that lets you obey the law (paying taxes) without making a huge fuss!