Follow-up: Where Have All The Good Men Gone?

[My original post was written on, Friday, March 2, 2012:  "Where Have all the Good Men Gone? [And Why Are all the Good Women Silent?]"]


I watched the beginning of "The O'Reilly Factor" this evening, Monday, March 5, 2012 … just to see if Mr. O'Reilly would amend his previous stance that, paraphrasing … 'all women want access to contraception for the exclusive purpose of enabling their sexual activities [sexual promiscuity]' and further that they want and expect this access for "FREE!" (See the truth about "free"* below. Yes, Bill uses a clearly discernible SHOUT, in emphasis, when uttering this word: free … which he drops into every other sentence.).  I also wanted to see if the "fair and balanced", "neutralizer of spin" Mr. O'Reilly would condemn Rush Limbaugh's radio show comments of last Wednesday --but perhaps I missed that show where Mr. O'Reilly spoke out against his fellow brother on the right?  Alas, Mr. Factor didn't reproach Mr. Limbaugh in the least.  He just stated the facts surrounding the Limbaugh broadcast and moved right on along.  … So sad!  The conservative media endlessly claims to be "fair and balanced", but in this "Sandra Fluke-Limbaugh" instance I have not yet seen much fairness in coverage, nor condemnation of Mr. Limbaugh's appalling radio commentary on his Wednesday, Feb. 29th radio broadcast [Apparently though, twelve of Mr. Limbaugh's commercial sponsors found his remarks to be offensive enough to pull their sponsorship from his station.].

Well, Mr. O'Reilly did not sway from his original narrative of "enabling sexual promiscuity," He did, however, noticeably refrain from using the hot-button phrase "taxpayer dollars" in his opening remarks for  the broadcast this evening.  Personally, I find this spin-off narrative of "enabling promiscuity" on the contraception issue to be judgmental, intolerant --not to mention hypocritical-- frightfully condescending, dismissive and wholly unacceptable as a mainstream Republican Party stance. Because of Mr. O'Reilly's (and his surrogates, i.e. Laura Ingram) handling of the "contraception issue" on his show last Friday, as well as on previous "Factor" broadcasts, I have now decided to replace "The O'Reilly Factor" with the broadcast carried on CNN at this same time. [I am hopeful that this switch will help improve my own "fair and balanced" seeking of news and information.]  This whole contraception issue has led me to the conclusion that Bill O'Reilly has clearly lost his "fair and balanced" perspective and is now no longer capable of "neutralizing spin", but rather has now become a purveyor of spin.

Let me just reiterate the highlight the most important part of the post that I made on Friday (up above in my original March 2, 2012 post):

===>[*"FREE" and "taxpayer dollars" ...the accepted argument being that the cost for covered services is passed along to the public in the form of higher health insurance premiums, where carrying of health insurance is mandated by the Federal Government --“individual mandate”-- in “Obama-care.” Although, technically speaking, it is not ‘taxpayer dollars’, but rather money taken directly out of the insurance purchaser’s pocket. I think that the words “taxpayer dollars” are more of an attention-grabber, used for the express purpose of fueling emotions which often precludes logical thought processes. Furthermore, no-one is asking for anything to be “FREE”; women merely want access to affordable contraception medications and services, which healthcare coverage would undeniably provide. And if we are talking from a purely "cost" perspective here, I would venture that insurance companies would find little difficulty in producing a veritable mountain of data to demonstrate that the costs for contraception medications and services --specifically tubal ligation, hysterectomy and vasectomy-- are considerably lower than the associated costs for: 1) care during pregnancy, 2) delivery of a baby and 3) a new dependent to be added a healthcare policy after the delivery.]<===


The most important point of this entire discussion is the following:  Women do not want or expect any "special entitlement" at "taxpayer expense." We just want contraception medications and services to be recognized as legitimate medical condidtions for coverage under standard healthcare insurance. This recongnition, by means of legislation --as has been done for other medical conditions-- would then provide access to affordable healthcare insurance coverage for contraception medications and services (e.g., tubal ligation and vasectomy) which would then bring the costs to women --and their families-- back into an affordable/cost effective arena (e.g., $100.00 month birth control pills would now be $15.00 month with an insurance co-pay paid by the employee). 

Why is there a need for government to intercede and mandate coverage for contraception in healthcare coverage in the first place?  Because the 50 states, have for the most part failed to establish and protect contraception medications and services as a universally covered legitimate medical expense in the first place. We have had birth control medications available in the United States since the 1960's --that's half of an entire century!-- and only 28 states have any sort of laws requiring that contraception medications and services be included in healthcare insurance coverage. In those states that do have coverage: compliance with the law is optional for "religious institutions" and the like --even as  "secondary employers"-- with no requirement for these employers to offer an alternative avenue for coverage options to their employees/students.  And contrary to the current conservative argument:   contraception medications and services do indeed address legitimate medical conditions, whether conservatives happen to personally agree with how these services may be used in some instances or not (i.e., enabling sexual promiscuity vs. regulating hormones for medical conditions like ovarian cysts or for family planning for married couples ... yes, pregnancy IS a medical condition) .

At first, I began to wonder:  Why aren't we having a discussion about the moral implications of Viagra and whether Viagra-related medications should be required coverage under standard healthcare insurance?  I mean, clearly Viagra can be labeled as a "sexual enabler" and possible promoter of promiscuity  in men, but we aren't having that discussion and religious conservatives aren't up in arms about Viagra and the like.  Talk about hypocrisy and a total double standard!?!  

So why aren't we having the latter "Viagra issue" discussion?  First and foremost probably because Viagra is a man's issue thus conservative and religious leaders --who happen to be mostly men-- don't want to go there ... then there is the fact these drugs "promote life" in a round-about way, right? Secondly, Viagra and related drugs are relatively new on the pharmaceutical scene whereas contraception has been around for decades. Thus, the dialogue and religious doctrine on "birth control" and contraception has had to time evolve and be tailored to suit the various social agendas of religious institutions such as the Catholic Church. ...  But probably the most plausible excuse for not delving into the "Viagra issue" is because we would then get into the grey-area of having to apply a "moral test" to determine all legitimate  conditions for inclusion in a standard for healthcare insurance ... and given the religious diversity of our country, I highly doubt that either side of the aisle could ever reach a legitimate or legal consensus for all medical conditions --as we have already seen with the unfolding of just this contraception issue.

The latter is why our founding fathers built a "Separation of Church and State" into our wonderful United States Constitution:  and "Separation of Church and State" works BOTH ways!  Religious conservatives are entitled to have opinions based upon their religious beliefs and to act upon these beliefs in their own personal lives (e.g., if you don't morally agree with birth control pills then you don't have to use them), but they do not have the right to impose those beliefs on me, or any other woman or man, by denying across-the-board (i.e., non-religious-proper employers as well as religious institutions proper) medical coverage to any individual based upon these beliefs.  In the same way, the U.S. Government cannot dictate that a religious institution-proper be required to provide healthcare insurance coverage for medical conditions to which they are opposed to based upon their religious beliefs. 

The last point that I heard Mr. O'Reilly make on his show this evening, before I tuned him out, was that he --like so many other conservatives-- firmly believes that this whole contraception, "hot-button" issue is just a "ploy by President Obama and his re-election campaign to gather votes [ women's votes] in the November 2012 general election."  To that I would say only this:  If the contraception issue is indeed a ploy by President Obama, then people like you, Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Rush Limbaugh and other arrogant, spin-inducing, hypocritical conservatives are doing a commendable job of fueling the Presidents re-election fire, thereby giving his campaign further momentum. 

I have been a life-long Republican, now considering myself to be an Independent-Republican.  I come from a family of life-long Republicans.  Sadly, this single contraception issue, coupled with the conservative response to it, has made me embarrassed to call myself a Republican at all.  After a lot of thought and soul-searching, I have begun to question what Republicans truly believe and their motives for these positions.  Some true colors are starting to shine through from my new point of view. 

I would agree that there are BIG issues facing our nation right now that require BIG solutions and focused attention. I would also concede that now is perhaps not the best time to pursue this contraception mandate or the underlying issues behind the need for this legislation, BUT women have already waited half a century for the right to pursue their own "life, liberty and happiness" without undue hindrance. And in my humble opinion:  not being able to have affordable access to contraception medication and services --which inclusion in standard healthcare insurance would undeniably provide-- is undue hindrance. We've waited patiently for our individual states to address the issue of passing legislation that would require inclusion of contraception medications and services as legitimate medical conditions under standard healthcare insurance and: our 50 states (see specifics below [1]), for the most part, have failed to adequately address the issue. How much longer do we have wait?!?


And Let me be clear (If I say this enough, maybe it will eventually begin to sink in?): 

Women do not want or expect any "special entitlement" at "taxpayer expense."   We just want contraception medications and services to be recognized as legitimate medical condidtions for coverage under standard healthcare insurance. This recongnition, by means of legislation --as has been done for other medical conditions-- would then provide access to affordable healthcare insurance coverage for contraception medications and services (e.g., tubal ligation and vasectomy) which would then bring the costs to women, and their families, back into an affordable/cost effective arena (e.g., $100.00 month birth control pills would now be $15.00 month with an insurance co-pay paid by the employee).  



To me this is a golden opportunity for a Presidential candidate to step up to the plate and say:

"As coverage for contraception medications and services is a complex issue that needs further evaluation:  If I am elected President, I promise to assemble a commission of legislators to seriously investigate and assess all aspects of the feasibility and constitutionality of passing federal legislation to require inclusion of contraception medications and services as standard in healthcare insurance."

By doing the latter a candidate would: 1) take some of the "POWER" away from President Obama on this issue and stop feuling his re-election campaign; 2) regain support of Republican women who may have defected because of this issu, as well as extend an appeal to Independents and Democratic moderates in the general election; 3) temporarily silence debate on the contraception issue; 4) thereby refocusing the campaign dialogue back onto to the bigger issues like the economy, jobs and a potentially nuclear Iran.

The ball is in your court presidential candidates; what will you do with it?

[My initial thoughts on the contraception issue can be found here:  "Contraception Mandate".
My final thoughts on can be found here: "Contraception:  A Possible Win-Win for Republicans?" 
Letters to my elected officials go out next.]




[Side Note:  Just some food for thought ... Viagra and related drugs are most often covered under standard medicial insurance.  These"enabling" drugs for men are undeniably used throughtout a wide percentage of the male population in our country. Thus, we have more men than ever looking to engage in sexual activity ... which conservatives and the religious right don't seem to have any problem with. Then on the other hand, these same conservatives are telling women ... your contraception medications and services are not valid medical conditions for coverage.  So if you can afford contraception medications and services or if you are poor enough to qualify for free birth control pills --well as long as "Planned Parenthood" and the like are not immediately defunded by a newly elected Republican President-- then you are covered ... if you're not then, oh well too bad.  You'll just have to alter your life plans and make hard choices.

So statistically speaking which segment of the female population do you suppose is going to be hit the hardest by an inability to afford access to contraception services? And what then are the larger societal consequences of this ... most likely an increase in pregnancies, particularly in the younger female population which will in turn result in an increase of single, unwed mothers ... women who would then be most likely to consider having abortions in the first place ... but never fear, the Church is here to champion the unborn's cause and provide counsel to the poor misguided souls who are clearly "spiritually inferior" for not being able abstain in the first place ... forget all of the increased outside pressure from all of the now additional Viagra-enabled men running around in our country. And let's not even talk about the women who are forced to have sexual intercourse against their will. ... And what about the implications of Viagra-Non Contraception pairing for married couples? Might there be implications with respect to marital fidelity? If all the women are just supposed to say "NO" ... then where do the men then go? Enter prostitution ... etc., etc., etc.

It is so sad that people "of faith" are so utterly and completely indoctrinated in their religous beliefs that they wander around mindlessly reciting the mantras of faith, without ever stopping --just for one single moment-- ... stopping to think this whole mess through ... to consider, for once, the larger picture and perhaps another more realistic truth ... embracing a doctrine of Peace and Love instead of a doctrine of judgment, condemnation and imposition.  I truly think that if Jesus were actually here amongst us, in this day and age, that he would in fact not uphold many of the social positons --many, but not all ... I do believe that Jesus would not approve of abortion--  and judgements of many religious doctrines so widely accepted throughout our nation today. [For some reason, Jesus's saying ... "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is echoing in my mind as I type here.]  To reiterate my conclusion from my original post on this contraception debate:

"Perhaps, we would all do well to stop for a moment and consider the contraception aspect --the constitutional aspect being momentarily set aside-- of this debate from another perspective:  "What would Jesus do?" Would Jesus pass judgement and condemn?  Is there a single direct Biblical instance of Jesus ever inflicting His personal beliefs or convictions forcefully upon another?

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to use contraception should be between the individual ... the conscience of the individual ... and God.  We are each of us on a spiritual journey in this life, here to make our own choices to the best of our individual abilities based upon our own experiences, interpretations, and a relationship with God, our Creator.  The choices that we make directly translate into the ongoing evolution of our spiritual being and ultimately determine the state of our immortal soul. No one can make the choices for us ... Our choices have to be fully processed, embraced in the heart, mind and soul and fear is not an effective choice or method for enlightenment of the soul."

Perhaps, you who are reading here now will stop for just a moment and contemplate the above for yourself?  Perhaps, upon prayer and true reflection you will venture forth in your own life with a newfound courage to speak your mind and no longer mindlessly follow ... embracing those that you encounter along your journey through this life with the true Peace and Love of our Creator ... in whatever form you happen to believe in. ]