...I notice that in their coverage NPR and the evening news shows generally refer to the controversy as being about “contraception,” discreetly avoiding mention of sterilization and pharmacological abortion, as if the GOP have finally jumped the shark in order to prevent you jumping anything at all. It may well be that the Democrats succeed in establishing this narrative.
But anyone who falls for it is a sap. In fact, these two issues — the Obama condoms-for-clunkers giveaway and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 900 percent by 2075 — are not unconnected. In Greece, 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren — i.e., an upside-down family tree. As I wrote in this space a few weeks ago, “If 100 geezers run up a bazillion dollars’ worth of debt, is it likely that 42 youngsters will ever be able to pay it off?” Most analysts know the answer to that question: Greece is demographically insolvent.
...The United States faces a mildly less daunting arithmetic. Nevertheless, the Baby Boomers did not have enough children to maintain mid-20th-century social programs. As a result, the children they did have will end their lives in a poorer, uglier, sicker, more divided, and more violent society...
We note that the common (MFM,economist and libertarian) yappaflappa about the Japanese "lost decade" wholly ignores the FACT that Japan, too, is on a path of self-extinction through contraception--as is Greece, Italy, and Germany.
By the way, if you think my children are going to support YOU, you are nuts. They know what I meant when I said "Buy More Ammo."
HT: Fr Z
Contraception is so affordable and readily accessible that 99% of those who want it, have it. Why is it even necessary for the government to have it be free? Another solution in search of a problem. And all of that before you bring the suicidal demographics. Best line....
Reynolds, the Instapundit, distills the current hysteria thus: “It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!’”
I adore Mark Steyn and his fabulous ability to point out the insanity, inanity, and absurdity of the nanny state.
Tell your kids to Buy More Aspirin!
Anony has the minor-mind track of "birth control" firmly implanted in his......ahhh......whatever.
The issue is the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Maybe Anony can read capital letters better than the other kind.
This isn't about the first amendment. No law has been passed "prohibiting the free exercise" by a Catholic person of their religion. Or a Lutheran for that matter. Clearly, every Catholic who uses contraception has proved that they are free to exercise their religion as they see fit.
Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, distills the current hysteria thus: “It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!’”
From the Steyn article.
This is precisely about the first amendment.
It's as if you had passed a law requiring mosques to buy bacon, and then give it away for free.
Jim's just reading the Marxist's talking points. Give him a break.
Jim does have a tendency to be willfully obtuse. He is doing the same on another thread right now as well...
“It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!’”
Proving Glenn Reynolds is an idiot. It's more like what if a Native American organization sold food and the government said they can't put peyote in the food.
But we are not talking about food, selling food, broccoli or anything of the sort. We are talking about employers and health care services that nearly every woman in the US uses or has used. How many of THEM are objecting to this rule? How many of them are having their First Amendment rights abridged?
He is doing the same on another thread right now as well
Jim - your peyote analogy is nonsensical. The bacon I e is really quite appropro. Muslim doctrine is to not eat pork. I'd bet there are some Muslims that eat it anyway. If the government mandated that they were required to include it in say, their school lunches, because the pork industry is vital to US economic interests and affects interstate commerce. It would be wrong, regardless of whether or not those kids eat it at home.
Not forcing religious institutions to cover things they object to is not banning them or preventing women from having access to them. Again, their is no mandate to "no cost" contraception now and yet, almost every woman who wants them, gets them.
And as a woman who used them for many years, I strongly object to this rule. And I'm not Catholic either. But I understand the Constitutional overreach here and want to stop it.
Here's a better one from Jon Stewart:
"Nobody’s forcing the kosher deli owner to serve ham. In the metaphor, it’s more like the owner of the kosher deli is refusing to pay taxes because his money could go to food stamps, which someone might theoretically use to buy ham."
Good analysis of the complete lunacy of this requirement...
"The CDC reported in 2009 that contraception use wasn’t exactly lacking: “Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age: 99 percent of all women who had ever had intercourse had used at least one contraceptive method in their lifetime.” Of all the reasons for non-use of contraception in cases of unwanted pregnancy, lack of access doesn’t even make the CDC’s list; almost half of women assumed they couldn’t get pregnant (44 percent), didn’t mind getting pregnant (23 percent), didn’t plan to have sex (14 percent), or worried about the side effects of birth control (16 percent). In fact, the word access appears only once in this study of contraceptive use, and only in the context of health insurance, not contraception."
So why the mandate? Because progressives want it.
And here is one from a libertarian, although I disagree with his view that this has no religious freedom overtones...
"Libertarians and conservatives are missing the point: Mandating “free” contraception is less about religious freedom and all about the secular issue of government intervention in the unalienable right to voluntary contract.
A fundamental principle of libertarian/conservative thought is that economic freedom and personal freedom cannot be separated. Economic freedom should not be treated with less scrutiny and reverence than personal freedom because a curtailment of economic freedom must necessarily manifest itself as a curtailment and loss of personal freedom. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is a classic case in point. …
The role of government is protecting individual freedom to do the right thing – it is not the role of government to force any one of us to do what the administration du jour believes is the right thing."
Post a Comment