Abortion Trench Warfare Spills into the Contraceptive Debate
*********************************************************
Liberals Resort to their Typical Smoke-Bomb Tactics to Confuse the Public
*********************************************************
The government-mandated contraceptive skirmish heated up this week with what started out as filling in the regulatory blanks to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
As contraception falls under what pro-choice supporters call “women’s reproductive rights,” the crown jewel of which is abortion, it is no surprise that both sides are not only massing for battle but also throwing themselves full-bore into it.
But as with all debates in which sides know the weakness of their argument, this one also has shrill disinformation coming out of the discussion.
Some facts, and not distortions, would be a good thing.
The Obama administration policy just issued requires organizations to cover the cost of contraception, but does not require religious establishments to cover the cost. However, employees of religious establishments can still obtain contraception from the health care insurance company. Senator Roy Blunt introduced a bill that would allow organizations to refuse covering the cost of contraception in employee health plans by citing moral and religious reasons.
Thus, this is about having an institution that finds contraception, and by extension anything else, morally repugnant, and not forcing it to partake in such (i.e. purchase of contraception insurance or the like).
Of course, Liberals act as the Cerberus of all their causes; no compromise no matter how reasonable.
Thus, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, mis-characterized the “Blunt amendment” as an effort to ban contraception. “Glad we voted down [the Blunt Amendment], 51-48, but close vote shows how high the stakes are for women…”
The ever-befuddled and tongue-tied Mitt Romney stated Wednesday in an interview that he did not support the amendment, but then retracted that statement when he realized that the primaries were not over and he had conservatives to assuage.
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, also a New York Democrat, wrote an op-ed stating “Instead of coming together to fix our economy and strengthen the middle class, the Senate is considering a measure so extreme that it would allow any employer — religious or secular — to deny their employees coverage of any preventive service, including contraception, mammograms –anything the employer deems unfit to be covered.”
It’s a rule of thumb that you can tell the weakness of an opponent’s argument when they distort the other side’s position, as Democrats were so artfully doing in this case.
No reasonable person, nor I, is re-arguing the seminal Supreme Court privacy case of Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 that established the “right to marital privacy” that allowed use of contraception. But just as Liberals painted the impeachment of Bill Clinton as being “all about sex,” so too are they trying to confuse the matter and make it seem that this is solely about women’s reproductive rights. In fact, it is about women’s reproductive rights as interacting with the rights of religious institutions. And as with many of these situations, there will be a winner and a loser. In this case, President Obama has chosen women’s reproductive rights over religious rights. Fair enough: that’s what the courts and elections are for.
But there are several lessons to be (re-) learned.
First, Liberals will distort the facts or their opponent’s argument to achieve their goal. It’s a take-no-prisoners approach which, given the infirm position that they usually occupy, is understandable. It reminds of the late Senator Moynihan’s oft-used phrase “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Clearly, Liberals, if not many politicians, violate this.
Second, the shrill level that our discourse has gotten into must be reversed. Our politicians must stop trying to demonize their opponents just because of differences in opinions and philosophies. And no matter what each side says, both are guilty of such. Watch MSNBC on any given night and they are firebombing anyone who remotely disagrees with their ultra-Liberal positions. Then, of course, salutarily saying that we should all work in a bi-partisan fashion. And Rush Limbaugh got involved this week in this discussion with inappropriate remarks which he has since apologized for.
Finally, the radioactive politics of women’s reproductive rights clearly is not for the faint of heart. Recently, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation found such out when they tried to extricate themselves from Planned Parenthood. Not unlike a scene from The Godfather, Komen found out that once you are part of “the family,” you can never leave.
The over-arching issue of this debate is the intrusion of Obamacare into our lives (as is with most of Mr. Obama’s legislation, despite what he says in his re-election mode). It’s fair to say that this contraception issue is but one of many that the public will “discover” about Mr. Obama’s nanny-state initiatives.
-I.M. Windee
