I genuinely can not believe the heights this contraception issue has attained. It’s mind boggling to me how those on the left completely misunderstand, misstate, or out right lie about the positions the conservatives are taking. I have experienced numerous cartoons, Facebook postings, comments, and talk show programs on this subject. This, in a nutshell is the position of those on the liberal left.
“Republicans want women pregnant and have no choice but to become so at the whim of an evil male. They must not be allowed to have contraceptives”
I know it seems like I am setting up a straw man to tear down, but I’m not building this scarecrow. The left has the wagon full of straw.
Conservatives are against Obama’s contraception mandate from two basic points of view; one from the social conservatives and one from the economic/constitutional conservatives.
The social conservatives generally belief that life begins at conception. I don’t completely agree with this, but there is a very real possibility that they are right. Even if I was sure these people were wrong, is that belief so morally repugnant a point of view to garner all the hatred I have seen? These conservatives are saying because we belief that life begins at conception, it is wrong to try to prevent life from occurring. I part company here, with my more religious counterparts. If I don’t want to have children, I should be free to prevent that from happening with any way I feel comfortable with. Contraceptives fit that bill with me, and most Americans.
But we come together again, when the religious right simply states that they will not violate their core beliefs by providing the means to prevent life from occurring. Simply, they won’t pay for, or use an insurance company who will do so in their name.
Those Catholics, as an example, are in no way denying anyone access to contraceptives. If you want contraceptives, you are perfectly free to go get them. It costs in the neighborhood of $20 per month, without insurance. No one is stopping you.
Spare me the lectures on what $20 will buy a poor family. I see poor families all over my city. They have cell phones, cars, flat screen TVs, most smoke and drink, and otherwise waste that much money in a week, let alone a month. This is not an economic issue for the poor. This is an economic issue for the left, who want to cloak their bribery of the uniformed or unintelligent, in morality. They claim that they are just helping people who are being shackled by the religious right.
“Republicans want women pregnant and have no choice but to become so at the whim of an evil male. They must not be allowed to have contraceptives”
I know it seems like I am setting up a straw man to tear down, but I’m not building this scarecrow. The left has the wagon full of straw.
Conservatives are against Obama’s contraception mandate from two basic points of view; one from the social conservatives and one from the economic/constitutional conservatives.
The social conservatives generally belief that life begins at conception. I don’t completely agree with this, but there is a very real possibility that they are right. Even if I was sure these people were wrong, is that belief so morally repugnant a point of view to garner all the hatred I have seen? These conservatives are saying because we belief that life begins at conception, it is wrong to try to prevent life from occurring. I part company here, with my more religious counterparts. If I don’t want to have children, I should be free to prevent that from happening with any way I feel comfortable with. Contraceptives fit that bill with me, and most Americans.
But we come together again, when the religious right simply states that they will not violate their core beliefs by providing the means to prevent life from occurring. Simply, they won’t pay for, or use an insurance company who will do so in their name.
Those Catholics, as an example, are in no way denying anyone access to contraceptives. If you want contraceptives, you are perfectly free to go get them. It costs in the neighborhood of $20 per month, without insurance. No one is stopping you.
Spare me the lectures on what $20 will buy a poor family. I see poor families all over my city. They have cell phones, cars, flat screen TVs, most smoke and drink, and otherwise waste that much money in a week, let alone a month. This is not an economic issue for the poor. This is an economic issue for the left, who want to cloak their bribery of the uniformed or unintelligent, in morality. They claim that they are just helping people who are being shackled by the religious right.
They are actually claiming the authority to make someone else violate their own core beliefs, and then forcing them to pay for the deed with their own money. It’s money for votes, and rest assured that was Obama’s goal (The same as his Keystone decision. The labor unions will vote for Obama, regardless. The enviros might vote with the Green party)
The economic and/or constitutional conservatives share the same reasoning that Obama’s decision is wrong. I addressed the fallacy that contraceptives are a right in last week’s blog, so I will leave that argument out here. However that is far from the only reason.
Let’s start with the authority of even make this proclamation. Leaving out the obvious First Amendment conflict; what part of the constitution gives the President the power to order a private company, let alone a church based one, how to run it’s business? Those who have read the constitution might answer that the commerce clause in Article One, Section Eight is relavent. It says there
“That Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...”
There are two conflicts between the constitution and Obama’s proclamation. First, and I know King Barrack the First has not noticed this; he is not Congress. He has no authority to make such edicts. These are things that come from the mouths of dictators and tyrants, not US presidents. Is he going to declare that all fruits and vegetable must be grown organic
next?
Second, this clause was never meant to be bastardized the way it’s been, and being done. If a business is infringing on another’s rights, such as excessive pollution that takes away the right of
another’s use of public property (air or water) or business practices that infringe on another state (a tariff on goods made in another state) then Congress has the power to do something. Otherwise, the 10th amendment says the individual states have this power; not Congress and
certainly not the president.
From an economic perspective is well to remember that insurance is not supposed to pay for certainties. You buy insurance to cover things that might happen; a tornado, a serious illness, or an auto accident. These are things that have a chance of happening. What is the “chance” that you will want your blood pressure medicine or contraceptives, next month? Forcing the insurance companies to not only cover contraceptives, but to do it for free, is not insurance. Does Barack the First now have the power to require McDonalds to start giving away their
salads, because they are good for people?
This is a very dangerous man. He is not only a socialist, intent on taking from those who produce and giving to those who don’t; he is circumventing our constitution in new and creative ways. Those of you on the left should take note; that kind of power can be used when a Republican is in office, too.
The economic and/or constitutional conservatives share the same reasoning that Obama’s decision is wrong. I addressed the fallacy that contraceptives are a right in last week’s blog, so I will leave that argument out here. However that is far from the only reason.
Let’s start with the authority of even make this proclamation. Leaving out the obvious First Amendment conflict; what part of the constitution gives the President the power to order a private company, let alone a church based one, how to run it’s business? Those who have read the constitution might answer that the commerce clause in Article One, Section Eight is relavent. It says there
“That Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...”
There are two conflicts between the constitution and Obama’s proclamation. First, and I know King Barrack the First has not noticed this; he is not Congress. He has no authority to make such edicts. These are things that come from the mouths of dictators and tyrants, not US presidents. Is he going to declare that all fruits and vegetable must be grown organic
next?
Second, this clause was never meant to be bastardized the way it’s been, and being done. If a business is infringing on another’s rights, such as excessive pollution that takes away the right of
another’s use of public property (air or water) or business practices that infringe on another state (a tariff on goods made in another state) then Congress has the power to do something. Otherwise, the 10th amendment says the individual states have this power; not Congress and
certainly not the president.
From an economic perspective is well to remember that insurance is not supposed to pay for certainties. You buy insurance to cover things that might happen; a tornado, a serious illness, or an auto accident. These are things that have a chance of happening. What is the “chance” that you will want your blood pressure medicine or contraceptives, next month? Forcing the insurance companies to not only cover contraceptives, but to do it for free, is not insurance. Does Barack the First now have the power to require McDonalds to start giving away their
salads, because they are good for people?
This is a very dangerous man. He is not only a socialist, intent on taking from those who produce and giving to those who don’t; he is circumventing our constitution in new and creative ways. Those of you on the left should take note; that kind of power can be used when a Republican is in office, too.
RSS Feed