How many ways do they have to tell you they’re after birth control before you believe it?

23 Feb 2012 02:25 pm
Posted by: Donna

At last night’s GOP primary debate in Mesa, the audience booed a question about contraception. Each of the candidates then proceeded to filibuster about abstract gobbledygook while CNN’s John King sat there, befuddled. Santorum was particularly disgusting as he invoked racist Charles Murray (author of a book about the supposed intellectual inferiority of black people) as an expert on how contraception has led to all kinds of social decay, mostly involving women not being properly yoked in marriage to men. Gingrich was also vile, accusing President Obama of supporting infanticide. Not to be outdone, “libertarian” Ron Paul made the following analogy:

“I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don’t blame the pills,” Paul said. “I think it’s sort of like the argument — conservatives use the argument all the time about guns. Guns don’t kill, criminals kill.”

Did you catch that? Ron Paul declared that the vast majority of women in America are immoral and akin to murderous criminals. Nice.

And here in Arizona we have striker bill HB2625, which will allow ANY employer or entity to exclude contraception from health coverage. Not just religious institutions. Any provider. So a Taco Bell manager with an unhealthy interest in your private life and reproductive decisions can ixnay your birth control or sterilization coverage. But reporters here will still act like this is about a broad principle of “religious freedom” and they will let Cathi Herrod and wingnut legislators spew piffle such as the talking points Herrod has sent out about the bill:

TALKING POINTS

• The Obama administration’s actions impact every person of faith, regardless of
their view of contraception. By forcing religious employers to cover birth control in
their insurance policies, the Department of Health and Humans Services is displaying a
complete disregard for our religious liberties guaranteed under the first amendment.

• Participation in religious communities should be celebrated, not penalized. Religious
organizations provide countless services to our state. The Obama administration’s
mandate unconstitutionally penalizes these groups for the practice of their religion.

• The Constitution doesn’t only guarantee our “freedom to worship” but our freedom
to practice our faith. Americans don’t have to leave their faith at the church door. They
have the right to live free from government intrusion.

Oh hi, Arizona media people, please take note: She’s not even hiding that it’s about contraception! So when you give these control freak charlatans cover by constantly describing it a “religious freedom” issue you are contributing to dishonesty and confusion. No other medical treatment – and there are medical procedures i.e., blood transfusions and organ transplants, that violate the tenets of some religions – is being considered. Only contraception. And if certain religious organizations objecting to contraception were being at all consistent in their so-called principles they would also insist that erectile dysfunction drugs be included from coverage too. But no, they don’t insist that, because they have no principles besides “keep the bitches in line”.

So here are some pro-choice, pro-women talking points on this issue, which y’all are free to use in your discussions:

1. Employer-based health insurance is a form of compensation. You earned it through the work you did for your employer. Contraception is perfectly legitimate form of preventive medicine that insurance routinely covers. Your boss denying you coverage for it is not much different than your boss telling you what legal items you can buy with your salary based on his or her religious views.

2. It’s a medical privacy issue. My decision to use contraception is my business, not my boss’s.

3. Denial of contraceptive coverage is gender discrimination. This legislation will overwhelming impact women since it will allow their employer or provider to deny them coverage for the vast majority of birth control – the pill, patch, Depo-Provera, IUD, diaphragm – that women use. It’s also borderline sexual harassment.

You’re welcome.

2 Comments

  1. Comment by PinkPatriot on March 4, 2012 8:26 pm

    Donna,

    What do you mean Obama was “accused” of supporting infanticide? For the love of god, do some research. You can even read the transcripts from when he spoke on the IL Senate floor.

    Secondly, what warped your mind for you to believe an employer is responsible for their employee’s health? Once upon a time, not so long ago, it was called a “benefit”. Somehow, in the warped Liberals’ mind, it’s now a “right”. Employer provides if they choose; employer chooses what plan ‘they’ purchase. If employee is not happy they can, a) find a different job, b) buy their own pills, c) visit their local Planned Parenthood

    By the way, we’ve all been waiting on examples of Fox News calling women c*nts, twats & sluts.

    Kudos to Kirsten Powers for speaking the truth that just GLARES in your face. Go seek counseling, psychiatric care, .. something, please. You are a bizarre messed up individual. Good luck.

  2. Comment by Donna on March 4, 2012 8:37 pm

    For the love of god, look at the transcript of the debate. Gingrich accused Obama of supporting infanticide.

    No one is saying an employer is responsible for an employee’s health. Employer-based health insurance is compensation. It is earned through labor, just as wages are. And if you’re okay with certain religious employers excluding contraception, then you should be okay with others excluding blood/bone marrow transfusions and organ transplants based on their religious beliefs. Not to mention objections to Viagra or procreation. Be consistent!

    There aren’t examples of Fox News calling women those words. There are examples of Fox News anchors and contributors gloating over women being raped and even murdered. Kirsten Powers’ latest piece includes numerous examples of liberal pundits being misogynistic in which she used a much broader criteria than simply bad words. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html Why does the definition become so narrow where conservatives are concerned? Still waiting for any of you to answer that.

    I’ll give kudos to Kirsten when she shows the moral fortitude to resign from Fox News. Until then, she’s just another lazy MSM opportunist.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment