Sunday, February 12, 2012

An Interrogative Reply to Rachel Maddow's Paean to Contraception

Rachel Maddow and the Missus in a domestic moment - contraception is not only favorable, but scientifically unnecessary

Rachel Maddow argues for contraception with same conviction and from the same moral and spiritual rampart as Ghandi ordering a steak.

Maddow sums up the HHS Choice Mandate thus:

There is no constitutional infirmity in requiring religious institutions to follow the same insurance and labor regulations as other employers. Twenty-eight states already require that health insurance plans cover contraception; eight states do not even exempt churches from that requirement, as the Obama administration’s rules would, even before the president announced an expanded religious exemption on Friday. New York, whose Catholic archbishop has railed so vehemently against the administration on this issue, already lives under the rule he decries — it’s state law. The rule is also partially enshrined in federal law thanks to a December 2000 ruling of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. More than a dozen congressional Republicans proposed that this same rule become federal law in 2001, to a furious outcry from precisely no one.

The right has picked a fight on this issue because religiosity is a convenient partisan cudgel to use against Democrats in an election year. Despite that, some Democrats and even some liberals have embraced their logic. The thinking inside the Beltway seems to be that religious voters will turn against Democrats unless the White House drops the basic idea that insurance should cover contraception.

Time will tell on the political impact of this fight, but the relevant political context here is more than just a 2012 measure of Catholic bishops’ influence on moral issues. It’s also this year’s mainstream Republican embrace of an antiabortion movement that no longer just marches on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to criminalize abortion; it now marches on the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, holding signs that say “The Pill Kills.”

Which begs the question -What's it to you?


idahogie said...

What a hateful and ignorant commentary. You should be embarrassed.

I'm white. I argue for equality for racial minorities. Would you really ask me, "What's it to you?"

Are you really that tiny a person that you don't care about any interest other than your own? I guess it's no wonder your a conservative.

Shame on you.

pathickey said...

Now, that is a wonderful summation of Progressive dialogics, there Ida.

About as thoughtful and well argued as Mr. Maddow's.

Stay happy!

julia said...

and Catholic bishops are all celibate men... so what's it to them?

pathickey said...

Why plenty Julia!

Concern for the family and tradition is gender neutral and not locked to the Natural laws of gestation or procreation - dismissal of those troublesome verities is everyone's business.

1+1 =3 is where God's will jumps the broom. That is where those celibate gents help explain things ( metaphysics and all that).

1+1 = 2 is sterile and really makes sense in accounting. John Dewey never understood that 1+1 could also be 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or even 10 in the case of Octo Mom.