The first thing to understand about the Department of Health and Human Services’ birth-control mandate, and the last, is that it is an assault on both faithful Christians and the Constitution by leftists who consider themselves at “war” — their word — with bourgeois America. It has nothing to do with guaranteeing access to contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients.
Don’t think so? Are you buying the Obama party line that the administration is merely protecting people who work for religious organizations — such as Catholic schools, hospitals, and charitable organizations? Ensuring they are not denied these “reproductive services” that are covered under health-insurance plans ordinary businesses arrange for their employees? These claims do not pass the laugh test. Nobody in America is denied access to abortion, let alone birth-control pills
Advertisement
Owing to its totemic status in the Kulturkampf, abortion is among the most heavily subsidized of medical procedures. In the first trimester, it generally costs less than $400. If the unborn child is in the second trimester, the price of ending his or her life is a bit steeper. Still, like life, death is cheap, generally under $600.
Abortion is alone on the top shelf at the Bang for the Buck Bar. The rest of the menu is cheap, cheap, cheap. The New York City Department of Health, for example, has a website dedicated to, er, disseminating “Free NYC Condoms” (“Get Some, Get Yours — Grab a Handful and Go!”). It even has the toll-free 3-1-1 number you can call if, while away from your computer, the cupboard is bare in your time of need. And if you’re really interested in the subject, Big Apple taxpayers helpfully provide “A Brief History of Condoms in New York City.” Besides learning that “distribution of the NYC Condom topped 40 million” in 2009, you’ll revisit such milestones as Valentine’s Day 2007, when the health department “set a national precedent” with its “Lifestyles condom in a chic, branded Gotham wrapper.” Go New York, go New York, go!
Planned Parenthood reports that birth-control pills run as low as $15 per month — and at the click of a mouse, PP will help you find a health center from which to get a prescription. Like the pill, diaphragms and the “Nuva Ring” start as low as $15 per month, and PP will work to get you set up with Medicaid or other state programs that defray costs — just as it will if you prefer the cervical cap route, which will set you back about $70 (with the spermicide “kit”) but, like a diaphragm, lasts about two years. Starting at $400, Implanon, a thin implant inserted in the arm, sounds costly at first blush, but it lasts for three years. Injections of Depo-Provera, the “birth control shot,” go for about 40 smackers, and they last three months. If for some reason you’re not near one of Nanny Bloomberg’s Gotham wrapper stands but you’d still rather go over-the-counter, PP itself will supply you with a package of three sponges for about ten bucks.
More good news: You’re not like BP — if there’s an accidental spill, you’ve got very affordable options. The “Morning After” pill — which is actually a treatment course of four to eight tablets — costs about $20 at the local drugstore, although, as PP points out, “we all like to be prepared. That is why it’s a great idea to keep some emergency contraception in your medicine cabinet or bedside table” just in case. If you wait too long, there’s always the “abortion pill,” RU-486. It starts at about $300, and PP assures you that “Planned Parenthood centers that do not provide it can refer you to someone who does.”
So why would Obambi want to make contraception/abortion "free" but not other health services, like dental cleanings or eyeglasses? What is so hallowed about contraception/abortion? Is it to appeal to the younger voters--"vote for me and you'll save enough on BC pills for your next Ipad!"? Or is it, as the author suggests, a sop to NARAL, PP, et al?
Or is it something more nefarious, such as to reduce the birth rate to sub-replacement, as is happening throughout Europe? Or to appeal to the zero-population growth eco-lefties? Or to reduce welfare and Medicaid costs (probably not--the more people dependent on government, the better in the lefty world)?
Or is it a backdoor eugenics play, a la Margaret Sanger/PP? If I were to design a program for black/AA genocide, I could do no better than Planned Parenthood, which aborts nearly half of all black pregnancies.
I'm sorry, but this is one of the few really ridiculous articles I've ever read by you. I am in favor of the conscience exemption for religious (primarily Roman Catholic) institutions, but it is simply absurd to argue that 1) all of these services and products are readily and inexpensively available to all women and 2) therefore omitting contraceptive coverage from women's health insurance will have no negative effects on women.
Amusing of you to take all of your examples of how easy it is to obtain contraception from New York City' the average suburban or rural woman will find most of these public health resources only some drive away, in a PP clinic probably in a marginal neighborhood. (The NYC condom promotion, btw, has a lot more to do with AIDS prevention than birth control; condoms are probably the least reliable of the commonly used contraceptive methods).Where women want to get their contraceptive coverage is from their primary care providers, almost always gynecologists during their fertile years. All of the hormonal methods you mention can have side effects; IUDs need to be checked,; even a diaphragm "which lasts two years" (I presume you mean the prescription for one, rather than the actual object) needs to be refitted if the woman has gained or lost more than twenty pounds. To "offload" all of this care into clinics and non-primary providers means that the woman's insurance simply doesn't cover one of the most common reasons women see their gynecologists.
As I said above, I support the conscience exemption for religious organizations--women know for whom they are choosing to work, and if they are informed upfront that there is no contraceptive coverage, they can decide what the importance of that is to them. But it seems to me the right is beginning to go well beyond the religious liberty argument, to an argument that contraceptive coverage should not be a part of health insurance at all for various reasons (it's controversial, it's "easily obtainable" elsewhere (as if it were a slightly less popular brand of soda), "pregnancy is not a disease," etc. I believe it would be an extreme political miscalculation to take the argument there. There are many women who can support a conscience exemption for Catholic hospitals; there are many fewer women who are going to listen patiently as men dismiss a central fact of their physical lives with flippancies like "an accidental spill" and cheery lists of all of the supposedly easily accessed options he has never, in fact, attempted to actually access, If the right is planning to demand that contraception should be removed entirely from the bill, you can count on women like me to react badly.
I missed the part of Mr. McCarthy's article where he argued either of those things. His thesis was quite clear:
Contraception and abortifacients are pervasively and inexpensively available, such that to pretend there's a crisis of access is ludicrous.
OF COURSE these drugs and services aren't "readily and inexpensively available to all women." There are 311 million people in the country, around 52% of whom are women; the Law of Large Numbers virtually guarantees that no matter how accessible the drugs and services are -- even if you passed them out door-to-door for free -- someone, somewhere, somehow will still have an access problem. The point is that they're readily and inexpensively available to the overwhelming majority of women, even poor women, notwithstanding the fact that some of these people might have to endure the doubtless-searing indignity of obtaining them from a clinic, or a non-primary provider, in a "marginal neighborhood". Quel horreur.
The squid, or liberal, releases large amounts of ink into the water in order to create a dark, diffuse cloud (much like a smokescreen) which can obscure the conservative's view, allowing the squid, or liberal, to make a rapid retreat by jetting away.
So it is with the liberal glossary of terms, all cleverly designed to obscure truth and soften the blow of reality. "Birth control" is really "birth prevention," isn't it? "Abortion services" means "getting rid of your baby." "Choice" means "Let us kill your baby for you. You won't feel a thing." Others, such as "reproductive services" and "reproductive health" are just clusters of syllables they throw out there to daze and confuse and sound nice, but also to justify murder, as the squid makes its escape into the murky deep.
O'bumbles is testing us, just as he's been since day one. He has so far been allowed to do pretty much anything he wants. He commanded Boehner to come to the White House. Boehner went. Can anyone imagine Tip O'Neill being publicly commanded so? After he threw a biblical-strength hissy fit, he would have made sure to skirt the White House by many blocks, just to show his contempt for being ordered about. And rightfully so.
He accuses the Republicans of being "obstructionist". Would that it were so. Right now, the Congress should be staging some kind of demonstration besides ineffectual hearings in regard to F&F, Eric Holder, DOJ racial politics, "recess" non-recess appointments...the list goes on and on.
For those who say, "But what can we do?" How about all the Republicans go to the House Floor and just sit in their seats, quietly. Do just about enough business to qualify as "in session" and to maintain order, but intentionally DO NOTHING until the White House behaves apppropriately. ON PURPOSE! And when the MSM starts to cover this event, which even they eventually must, stand firm.
In negotiation, the ability to walk away often is the determining factor in who wins. Boehner needs to be replaced by someone with cojones. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm sorry. He's a weeny. He does cry too much.
(Notice how many German words are getting thrown around? KulturKampf? Actually, Oblockhead doesn't remind me so much of AH, but BM, so maybe Italian is the more appropriate language. Have you noticed the chin action? The resemblence is uncanny. I understand that, body-language-wise, is a sign of megalomania. FWIW.)
Planned Parenthood becomes the charity-dispensing government actor (funded by and believing in) replacing - not competing with - a non-compliant church (and all faith-based and civic organizations who would oppose the state's beliefs). Whatever this is, it's not about being allowed to collectively decide or act or even the ability to individually oppose anything the state has decided.
Aside from the specific "healthcare issue," it's quite the governmental model, yes?
Seems to me that atheists may also think abortion is wrong. Absent a religious affiliation, even if churches and church-run businesses get an exemption, these atheists will be required to violate their consciences.
I do think there is some justification for reining in freedom of religion. We already limit religions that practice polygamy and/or animal sacrifice, through laws that require them to violate their beliefs. I am against abortion, but should there be a line that applies to all legal/acceptable religions? If so, how should that line be determined? I would be happy to be persuaded that I am wrong on thinking there should be a limitation, and I don't trust government to draw the appropriate or reasonable line.
As far as providing referrals to people on where they can get birth control info and supplies, I'm surprised there isn't an app for that. McCarthy didn't mention it, but I would be surprised if a lot of the (comparatively) poor also have some kind of smartphone. Let them refer themselves.
And what specific religion is banned from polygamy or animal sacrifice?
The LDS Church gave it up voluntarily. There are sect members that have been prosecuted but I don't know of any cases where people are actually facing charges related to polygamy that didn't also involve rape or statutory rape in a long time.
And good luck arguing that Catholics not being forced to promote something they think inspires evil is the same as animal sacrifice (banned for health reasons) or polygamy (which was first banned based on traditional Christian morality when Christians still controlled this country). Also we don't let religions sacrifice humans.. I don't know what that has to do with forcing Catholics to fund contraception.
If women have to be protected from childbirth or nature in general then its going to be tough to argue that the nanny state shouldn't also protect us from cigarettes, alcohol, too much sexual activity, fireworks, automobiles, watercraft, crossing the street at a busy intersection, coffee and, my favorite, Kit Kat bars. :(
Abortion is not wrong because some religion says it is wrong. It is wrong because objectively, it is the direct killing of an innocent and helpless person.
That is an ethical statement based on a scientific fact. That is enough of a basis for a civil law.
How do we draw the line on anything when making laws?
rimfrel: It has long been settled law that freedom of religion does not include the freedom to commit acts illegal under the civil law. It's easy to get confused here, so it's just as well you brought this point up. Notice that in a free society, very few affirmative burdens are placed on the citizen: the criminal law is essentially a series of negatives, thou-shalt-nots: assault, rob, kill, etc. These negatives are designed to protect the rights of his fellow citizens; in other words, no alleged "right" of religious freedom could include the right to violate the rights of others. But a free man has rather few positive obligations to his fellow citizens.
Let us suppose that animal sacrifice (or abortion, or any other practice) is legal. The citizen is required to accept its legality even though his personal moral or religious beliefs might tell him that it is morally wrong (though of course reserves the right to seek to change the law). However, he is NOT required to perform these actions himself, or support them financially.
It is this relationship between citizen and State that Obamacare is designed to change. The individual's freedom of conscience is to be violated not because there is some sort of desperate women's health need, as McCarthy points out (not that anyone's need would justify the use of coercion in Obamacare) - the violation of conscience is the express purpose of the law. Recall that the Democrats made sure that taxpayer financing of abortion was part of the law. (And when the Stupak group caved, the myth of the pro-life Democrat was shattered forever). This was no accident, it was purposeful calculation.
We must always remember that Obamacare is about power, not health care. Keeping that in mind will help us battle this monstrosity in the months ahead.
Good post. There is a clear distinction between the government's restricting a mode of worship it finds harmful and mandating an act it finds desireable.
I'm not atheist, but I'm not a Christian in any sense other than cultural. I'm pro-life and pro-contraception. And I oppose this mandate. One should not have to rely on a label like "Catholic" "evangelical" or whatever to exercise your conscience free of government demands.
If the administration keeps updating what it mandates as "free"in healthcare plans, more insurance companies will raise rates. As rates sky-rocket, the government will step in and be the only place that can provide all the "free" goodies to the people. There is no responsibility on the part of the people getting benefits to control costs. They will have no incentive to limit use. We will all pay. And, who is going to take away "free" contraceptives now? The media will paint the Republicans as killing women's rights if they dare touch "free" contraceptives. We need to repeal the entire bill. This is being forced upon us and the Congress seems to have no power here. And, by using religion as the reason we need to grant a waiver to the Catholic church only fires up the liberal base and makes the media paint the Republicans as bible bashers. This is all to persuade the independents that Republicans are extreme. We need to change the argument to one that shows that we are in debt and cannot afford 4 more years. And, certainly not "free" contraceptives.
Thank you, Mr. McCarthy, for pointing this out. The claim that there is "restricted access" to something as widely available and heavily subsidized as contraception is so absured that I doubt that even as rigid an ideologue as Secretary Sebelius really believes it.
The goal of the Administration and the MSM is to portray this as a moralistic preoccupation of a few bitter clingers. If they succeed in creating that impression they may win. If the purely secular economic facts on the ground are understood, they will not. John H. Cochrane in the WSJ spells out the economic issues that have nothing to do with anyone's opinion about religion, morality, or the First Amendment:
"He has started the war against our liberties not because of any crisis, but because he can. That is tyranny. It is a rupturing of the American conception of sovereignty, in which the president is our servant, not our ruler. It cannot stand."
Truth be told...
We must remember, however, that our fellow countrymen elected the current "ruler" in the White House...the entitlement society is alive and well, and growing...
One must face the fact that maybe, just maybe, this is what our fellow countrymen want...a tyrant and a government that will tell them the who, what, when, where, why, and how of their pathetic lives and take care of them from cradle to grave like herd animals......soon enough we'll get our answer.
And the government works hard at making people feel OK about it.
I heard the new Obama Chief of Staff on two talk shows this AM. On both, he was clear that birth control is a "right."
No it isn't. It's a good and/or a service. Our rights are freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from search and seizure, etc.
To sneakily refer to goods and services as rights means people will look to the government to provide them, since they are rights. Also, the government is in charge of doling them out to make sure everything is "fair."
Some day soon, they'll probably start saying you have a right to gasoline, or heating oil, or organic vegetables (maybe they already have, about that last one).
When all of those are rights that everybody is entitled too, pretty soon, there's not enough money to pay for them.
Look at Cuba: Food is a right, but the people's rations are so small they can't survive on them.
You hit on a critical fact: "access" does not mean "free". Obama and PP have smoothly Big-Lied their way into asserting that the opposite is true. With the changes on the Supreme Court since the Rust case in '91, we're uncomfortably close to seeing "access" redefined.
There is a simple question that religion must answer and it gets to the heart of this problem. Who does the Church owe it allegiance to....God or Obama. Therein lies the problem.
IMO...Obama is not God, the problem is, he doesn't know it because this Congress has failed to hold him to the Constitutional "mandate" of his duties.
