We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, February 10. 2012
The abortion and contraception issue: "If an unexpected pregnancy is a disease, then I am a disease."
I think the entire discussion misses the point.
The issue is not whether birth control and abortion are available. They are. The issue is whether the government should have the power to force your neighbor to pay for these things, and/or to require all insurance policies to cover them. Also, neither of these things are particularly expensive.
The insidious premise of the discussion is this: If it isn't covered, it's not available. But don't people buy their own Nyquil, Tylenol, heat pads, Viagra, divorce counseling, cosmetic surgery, toe fungus medicine, toothpaste, Botox, morning-after pills and Dr. Scholl's foot products?
Have people become so trained to expect somebody else to buy what they want that the premise has become distorted? I am a happy product of an unexpected pregnancy, and refuse to regard pregnancy as a disease. Pregnancy is health. If an unexpected pregnancy is a disease, then I am a disease. A tumor, or something.
In fact, I cannot understand why some medical insurances cover pregnancy at all, much less abortions. In my view, we all ought to be free to buy, or not buy, medical insurance of any sort with any sorts of coverage, depending on what makes sense for us. We ought to be able to bring a check list of what we want to the table, and see some nation-wide competition for our business. Get bids, like anything else.
Here at Maggie's, we tend to prefer high-deductible Major Medical coverages with our own choices of docs. Cheap protection from financial catastrophe.
Contraception and Obama
Earlier, The News Junkie posted a great piece on the kerfuffle surrounding Obamacare and birth control. I was 'lucky' enough, at roughly the same time, to see a friend post this on their Facebook page: Interesting, I thought. I had always been t
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Feb 10, 13:35
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I agree with your premise. I only disagree to the extent that you believe or advocate that a religion or a religious person has any more or any different or any better rights then every American. If the government can not mandate or standardize insurance for religious organizations then they cannot do that for anyone. As I understand the constitution and certainly as I understand the intent there was never any intent to make a "special group" or any group treated differently or better then any other group. Various parts of the constitution explicitly apply to specific groups but not with the intent of confering royalty on them or singling them out for special treatment but rather to make sure it was clear that constitutional rights applied to them as well. The 1st amendment does NOT mean the Catholic church can be exempt from law because of their belief but everyone else cannot be exempt. I, regardless of my religion or in spite of my religion have exactly the same rights under the constitution as anyone else and any attempt to carve out special groups is contrary to the constitution.
Religion does have special rights in america, or as you say "special". It is called out as such as the very first of rights in our Constitution. The very fact that it is called out makes it special. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Obama is trying to do exactly that by forcing people to act against their own conscience in their free exercise of religion. You don't have to agree with me, other than if you want to obey the Constitution, just agree to leave me alone. Is that asking so much? The whole point of the 1st amendment is just to leave people free to live by their own conscience. Progressives want to own your conscience and liverty in exchange for free "stuff".
The constitution delineates the rights of the citizens and the limitations placed on the federal government. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is a limitation on the federal government not a right or an elevation to special status for religion. Most of what you seem to believe the 1st amendment guarantees reflects the 200 plus years of lobbying and misinformation by special interest groups (in this case churches) trying to carve out a greater "right" then the constitution allows them. It seems every special interest group does this and I'm not sure I blame them. It is the job of the Supreme Court to bring special interest groups back down to earth with us mere citizens.
I believe unions, fedeeral government employees, several states, and several large corporations have already obtained Obamacare waivers.
Although the Federal government has the right to raise armies, Quakers and others (even now those whose "personal moral beliefs" cause them to object to war) have the right to claim conscientious objection. I doubt that those on the left would approve of eliminating it. In fact, the left has worked to expand the definition to apply to specific wars, something not intended initially.
I don't see that Catholics objecting to providing birth control (particularly abortifacient drugs) is any different. If we are willing to grant exemptions to laws for religious reasons, then we are willing to grant exemptions for religious reasons. You can't say that some consciences are more deserving than others.
I agree with commenter 1, however. I think that one's personal moral beliefs, whatever the basis, ought to count for something. I resent a religious exemption for refusal to perform marriages between homosexuals when wedding planners and others who might object have no recourse and can be sued.
What a clown.
And the media let him get away with it (I know, nothing new).
I agree that part of the issue is being forced to pay for contraception.
But the idea that any religious group should have to abide by a government mandate of this sort is an impediment to the practice of freedom of religion, and thus a Constitutional issue.
The issue you discuss is one of taxation and commerce. This could be a Constitutional issue if interstate commerce was somehow involved (and the government has been good at making everything interstate commerce), but otherwise it's just a question of economics and finance that people should be allowed to vote on.
You've hit the nail on the head. While it's being disguised as a "women's rights" issue or a "health care" issue, this is really just one of the small steps we are taking on the way to socialism where more and more (and eventually all) of what each person earns is handed over to the government and then doled out by the government for recipients and benefits that the government deems worthy.
I want cable TV insurance! And decent red wine with dinner insurance. In fact, insurance for the basics of civilized life as they appear to me.
I actually have such insurance. It's called work and savings.
TNJ: The discussion does miss the point, and perhaps so does your post, if I may be permitted to disagree. IMHO, the fight over abortion is no longer about who pays, or even about the availability of universal health care. At one time, long ago, it may have been about that, but now it's about political POWER: who gets to pull the levers of government authority, to set the national agenda and determine the future course of our nation, to control the social and cultural narrative. The more we Conservatives stress traditional values and individual liberty, the more Liberals are determined to stamp out such thinking. In the minds of Liberals, it is not abortion that is the disease; it is the notion that individual freedom, rather than collectivism, is what makes America great. To Liberals, right-minded thinking is a contagion that must be stamped out. If Conservatives were to argue in favor of apple pie as The National Dessert, Liberals would rise up in force against it. Abortion has just become the most convenient social issue at hand for Liberals to beat Conservatives over the head with. If not abortion, the Left would simply find another issue to wage the war it has declared against the Right.
"In fact, I cannot understand why some medical insurances cover pregnancy at all..."
Well, yes - for a normal pregnancy without unusaual problems. But if there are problems requiring special meds or procedures, help with unusual costs is what even "major medical" insurance is supposed to provide.
I agree with calling the liberals out for considering pregnancy a disease. I recall Obama said it like this: "If one of my daughters makes a mistake, I don't want her punished with a baby." That's the way the statists think.
However, I wonder, if it ends up in court, couldn't a lawyer argue that pregnancy isn't a disease, and therefore doesn't qualify for treatment under the umbrella of "preventive care"?
It just doesn't match up with the other preventive care measures, like immunizations, physicals, PSA tests, Pap tests, etc.
The whole federal healthcare mandate is unconstitutional. Period.
A Supreme Court that interpreted the Constitution as if words have meaning would scoff at the suggestion that the Commerce Clause empowered Congress to pass Obamacare, and would declare Obamacare a stem-to-stern violation of the Tenth Amendment.