Nails in the coffin of conservatism ...

Some thoughts today ...

Today I find myself wondering if the outcome of this election is perhaps a humbling visited upon the self-righteous religious conservatives that have tended to dominate the Republican party and continuously sway the party agenda and platform. Maybe this election finally hits home the point to religious conservatives that their staunch social stands and inflexibility are not the way forward? That is to say that there needs to be a distinction between holding a moral conviction and the infliction of those convictions upon others? This is fundamentally what “free will” is all about … We are here to make our own choices and those choices must be embraced, felt and wholly processed in both the heart and mind of the individual. Spiritual enlightenment and progression of the soul along its journey does not move forward as a result of coercion or fear. So while religious conservatives may feel that they are in the right and doing God’s will by continually pressing to force others to make the “right choices”, the Creator may be sending them a wake-up call to rethink what it truly means to do God’s will here on Earth. If we follow Jesus’s example, we as children of God … Christians … do not judge, do not condemn: we lead by example, not by condescending self-righteousness. We welcome the sinners.  We love them unconditionally, one and all … We shelter them, feed, clothe and heal (inside and out) them and in doing so we open their hearts and minds to see that they are worthy of God’s love and that they can choose to make choices here on Earth that further His will and advance the spiritual evolution of their immortal souls. And yes, many Christians do much of the latter, but how many can honestly say that their help comes with unconditional love ...without conditon?

To that end, I would say that the time for Republican party to abandon their staunch stands on women’s reproductive health, and more specifically on abortion, has come. Yes, abortion is the taking of an innocent life and it is not the will of God, but if one truly believes in “life ever-lasting” … in the existence of an immortal soul … then they have to trust that these innocent souls are with God and He will decide when and if they will re-incarnate again. As Christians we can educate others and lead by our example, but the final choice on these issues has to be a personal choice, processed on an individual spiritual level. We interfere with God’s wisdom and plan for the progression immortal souls along the path of spiritual enlightenment when we force others to do the “right thing” with forced legalities. As Christians we can be “pro-life” in our beliefs and show our support for life (e.g., supporting adoption programs that offer support to expectant women and find homes for unwanted children) but we should not dictate or inflict these beliefs onto others. I know that this way of thinking will be a sore point for many “Christians”, but I strongly feel that if people would momentarily remove “religion” from the equation and pray/reflect upon this in their own heart and mind that they would then begin see the reason for our being here on Earth and the journey that we are each on, individually, on a higher spiritual level which to my way of thinking super cedes the ways of the world.

I'm not blaming the defeat of the opposition to "four more years of the same" --and likely worse with another full-blown recession looming in our immediate future-- in this election on Christians ... I'm just saying that perhaps, in light of this election's outcome, it is time to do some serious self-assessment as "Christians" and as "Republicans."  Granted this election saw an unbelievably downright and dirty campaign on the Democratic side, the likes of which I think history will prove out that the American people have never before seen.  This campaign has forever changed the face of politics in this country and not for the better.  The outcome of this election will likely forever change the face of America as we once knew it, because we are no longer the "Land of the Free and the home of the Brave." With this election 2012, America has become the "Land with the illusion of 'free' and the home of the 'free-ride'." The problem with what 51% of Americans have voted for in this election is that ultimately there is no "FREE" ride. The free-ride that people think they want from government comes with conditons that will slowly, quietly and systematically whittle away so very many of our hard-won American freedoms (i.e., true free speech, personal health-care choices, religious freedoms).  But what concerns me most about this election, and its final outcome, is the fact that the United States of America has now become a nation where honesty, integrity, hard work, truth-based fact and accountability no longer seem to matter and that saddens me deeply. To me this election rings with a newfound, dark and demoralizing truth: that not only are our American votes for sale, but our hard-won --by the sacrifices and lives of those brave Americans who came before us-- American way of life now seems to be for sale as well.  Christian values do embody many of the latter noble principles--principles that have made America a great nation-- so in that respect Christians may just wind up being this country's saving grace.  Bottom-line: I am not knocking Christians, I am simply wondering if this might be a good time to reassess how Christians approach others when it comes their personal beliefs and moral convictions.

The above being said, I would not want to be in B.O.'s shoes for anything right now. The progressive liberal agenda has been gifted an unwarranted and unprecedented second chance given the current state of the economy. They now have an additional four years to make their case and if they fail, the repercussions will be lasting, not to mention devastating.  In fact, I would venture that these progressives would sooner sacrifice their “messiah” by having him die a martyr’s death –allegedly at the hands of the 'radical extreme', 'evil right' … thereby hammering yet another nail into the coffin of conservatism—before they will ever see their ideology outright fail.  



P.S. And I know many “Christians” will reflexively counter with arguments lumping all life issues together into one. Arguing that if we do not impose legal repercussions on abortion, then why not remove penalties for murderers, rapists and child-abusers. Why? Because the former does not have immediate and far-reaching implications on the functioning of an ordered society. Because those living here in the world would be significantly hindered in their ability to grow and progress along a path of spiritual enlightenment if they perpetually lived in fear for their lives and the safety of their children, thereby limiting the progress they could make --spiritually speaking-- in their present life incarnations.


[ Have not had much sleep of late ... So I am writing and editing this in waves as time, clarity and energy permits and also as I receive feedback from family and friends ... some of whom seem to be taking my questions here as a personal attack on them, as Christians, and their entire way of life.  At times like these I have to remember Bible passages where even Jesus often felt misunderstood by the people that were supposed to be his own.]

Think some people misunderstand my suggestion here:  I am not saying that religion should be disbanded by any stretch of the imagination and I am not implying that religious conservatives should no longer participate in helping to shape the party agenda. Organized religion is not all bad. I am not criticizing any Christians “for believing” or questioning their right to BELIEVE, nor are most people who have a problem with organized religion. I am simply saying let us reconsider how we, as Christians, embrace the world around us. I am saying that maybe the way of God is true peace, love and understanding and not the infliction of our beliefs onto those in the world around us --which IS the problem that most people (and maybe even God?) have with organized religion. That's all I'm saying.  ... And someone else mentioned changing demographics (all comments via email).  Yes, I do agree changing demographics is also an issue that needs to be addressed by the Republican party.  Clearly the Democratic party has a better handle on demographics than the Republican party did (during the election)/does now.  I have to wonder if the problem lies in the fact that many voters who might potentially vote with the Republican party --given the right candidate and platform-- now identify themselves as Independents and hence are not adequately accounted for or readily able to be identified?

Contraception: A Possible Win-Win Strategy for Republicans?

Happy Women's Day 2012!

"Change your perspective: change your life."

...And in this case maybe someone else's too.

Copyrighted Photo, 2011.  All Rights Reserved: Isabelle Black Smith.

Perhaps, in honor of International Women's Day you will take a few minutes to read the following and just for a moment consider another perspective?


As you can probably tell by now: this contraception issue is an extremely important issue to me. The issue hits close to home for me for many, many reasons. I can still vividly recall being a struggling college student having to pay full price for birth control pills (I did need pills for hormone regulation, but I was also married in college and trying to complete a degree in Electrical Engineering) because my HMO did not offer coverage for contraception at the time. As I was married, working my way through school to pay for my college, I did not qualify for the "FREE" birth control pills [ not that I wanted or expected anything for FREE ... affordable would have been nice though. $60.00 a month was hard to swing. Insurance coverage would have brought the cost down to around $10.00 - $15.00 ]. I also saw firsthand, in the workforce, after graduating the need to have some degree of control over my husband's and my ability to plan our family so that I could remain somewhat competitive with my male counterparts in the engineering profession. We now have three young daughters who will one day soon venture out into the world to fend for themselves. This issue will undeniably impact them on down the line.

And so, I have done much reflecting and writing on this issue over the last two plus weeks. I am trying to keep things in perspective and not do anything rash --like strangle my seemingly dispassionate husband ; ).  I am kind of feeling like a voter without a party right now. I haven't yet decided how I will ultimately vote, but my firm commitment to my original candidate of choice is no longer firm, as he seems to have gone back on his original stance from the beginning of his campaign and is now pandering to conservatives on the religious right. And my overall enthusiasm for the Republican Party and this election in general --hope for meaningful change with respect to our economy and jobs, etc.-- now seems to have been completely and utterly annihilated. The big picture just seems foggy to me now with this timely reminder that women still aren't truly equals with men ... even in our technologically advanced modern-day society... because we can still be controlled at the most base and fundamental level. Well that's how I feel today; we shall see if time and perspective do anything to improve my outlook.

I will concede that there are BIG issues facing our nation right now that require BIG solutions and focused attention. I would also allow 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 --birth control became available to the public in the 1960's-- 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."[2]   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).

I don't see why everyone assumes that if you are "pro-woman", by supporting contraception as a legitimate medical condition for healthcare insurance, that you are in some way now no longer "pro-family." The two are not mutually exclusive.  If you empower women you get healthier, happier women who can then in turn be less stressed, more productive, happier wives, mothers and employees. How is that not pro-family? As I always say, "two sides there are to every truth." But I guess, perhaps some societal truths are so deeply embedded within our culture that people have stopped thinking things through for themselves?


===>We're not asking for the sun, moon and stars here people?! Women are just asking that contraception medicatons and services finally --after half a century-- be included as standard in healthcare insurance. If you have a moral objection to contraception then by all means don't use it:  that is your choice and your constitutional right.  No one is forcing you to personally use contraception, but this moral objection to allowing for the coverage of contraception medication and services under standard healthcare insurance, across-the-board, is doing exactly the latter in reverse by imposing your personal beliefs on another ... and that is just plain wrong from both a constitutional as well as a spiritual perspective. Just as the government cannot require that religious institutions proper must provide access to contraception in their healthcare insurance ... individuals should not be able to apply to a "moral code" or "moral test" to challenge the legitimacy of certain medical conditions which they find morally offensive due to their own personal religious beliefs. That is why our Founding Fathers gave us the "Separation of Church and State" and it works BOTH ways. If we allow this "moral test" to stand now: what other challenges to medical conditions, based on this "moral test", will come next? Aids medications? <===




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." [Bearing in mind, of course, that if a Republican is elected to the Office of President "Obama-care will be repealled ... consquently current hearings and findings would then become meaningless.  As contraception medications and services would no longer be mandated as standard in healthcare insurance --with the repeal of Obama-care-- new legislation would then be required to ensure this coverage.]

By doing the latter a candidate would: 1) take some of the "POWER" away from Democrats on this issue and stop feuling the incumbent's re-election campaign momentum; 2) regain support of Republican women who may have defected because of this issue, as well as extend an appeal to Independent and more moderate Democratic voters 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?  ... Might I suggest, dunk it and move on?







We'll see what the future holds, I guess .... Meantime, God Bless all women all around the globe this day. Let us be thankful for all that we are and all that we have been so blessed to accomplish for women in an effort to make this world a truly better place for everyone.  Since I;m not finding my words easily these days, here follows my closing wish from my 2011blog-post on the 100th Anniversary of International Women's Day.  If you are interested in knowing the history behind this day you might want to visit my link from last year and read at the very end of the post.

"My wish for all women is that they find true peace and happiness. That they find validation in a world that so often takes them for granted and underestimates them. That they rise above oppression in all of its many guises to be all that they are capable of being. That they see other women as allies, friends ... That they stand up for one another and support one another. That God will protect them from violence , especially our young daughters. That women feel worthy of love and find validation for their spirit in some form ... even if it is just the whisper of hope and love carried upon the mystic winds of the mysterious universe."     

~Isabelle Black Smith 2011

P.S. My oldest ... perhaps a future politician ... says to me this evening as we are discussing issues in our nation and around the world  "You can't change human nature.  There will always be another Kony ready to step in and fill the void.  You have to fight the battles you can win."  Out of the mouths of babes? Pretty deep for a middle school student, wouldn't you agree? Pretty deep and perhaps a bit sad that at such a young age she's already beginning to assess the battles that can be won.  ... And I always keep the children in my daily thoughts and prayers -- most especially the invisible ones.













Footnotes:
[  [1] 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, for their part, 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) .

[2] "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.]

To read more of my thoughts and reflections on this issue please see the following posts:

"Contraception Mandate: Fear is not an effective choice ..."

"Where have all the good men gone?"

"Follow-up: where have all the good men gone?"

Where Have All The Good Men Gone?

“Where have all the good men gone?”  … [ And why are all the good women silent? ]

Image Source

To borrow a line of thought from an old, familiar song,"Where have all the flowers gone?" Sitting here today, the dark side of my nature wonders briefly ...for just a fleeting moment: if, in truth, there ever were any... But that thought all too quickly passes as my inner light gently whispers its never-fading hope that Peace and Love will prevail.  Thus, I shall do my very best to push aside the negative influences of my interactions with some men in my own personal life (the reasons for my dark nights and horrible nightmares) and try to be semi-diplomatic as I venture forth into the murky waters of the controversy of this day.

The word "hypocrisy" is ringing rather loudly in my ears as I try to compose my thoughts …

“Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” 
~La Rochefoucauld

Ah, Glorious Hypocrisy … The mantle of our American society in this day and age, especially, I would have to say.  Then again, thinking back to days long since gone by … before modern day birth control … images of brothels, whores, bastards and marital infidelity spring readily to mind so perhaps this hypocrisy is long-lived and deep rooted after all?

Why is it that whenever the subject of birth control comes onto the table the narrative goes straight to the sexual promiscuity of a woman who would want to use birth control in the first place? The fact that  women having access to birth control gives all the Viagra-addled men running around in our modern-day society an outlet for their drug-induced state aside … not all women who would use birth control desire this option as an enabler to be sexually promiscuous. Many women use birth control pills to regulate and balance hormones. A large percentage of women who choose to use birth control are married women who want to have a modicum of control over their reproductive health … women who want to have a say as to when they will have children, how many children they will have and the spacing of those children.  A woman being able to have a say in making these choices is empowered to have aspirations in addition to bearing and raising children. A woman who has a degree of control over her reproductive health can have a career, working outside the home if she so desires, and be able to compete on a more level playing field with her male counterparts.  A part of me wonders if this is the real threat to men like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and other religious conservatives who continually insist on bringing the narrative back to sexual promiscuity; they fear women who are empowered. Without birth control women can be kept in their ‘proper place’ and all that currently ails our misguided modern-day society would then be 'miraculously' healed? 

With the defeat of the “Blunt Amendment” in the U.S. Senate earlier in the week, the contraception mandate‘issue’ has evolved beyond being a “freedom of conscience (religious)” issue: now it’s a fiscal issue, right?  “We should all be up in arms that the government wants to use our 'taxpayer dollars' (*see below) to fund the sexual promiscuity of women!” shout the angry white men.  And I only say ‘white’ because as of yet, I’ve not heard any other men --or women for that matter-- shouting this rhetoric from their media pulpits.  Seriously? Do we really want to go there: the ‘moral test’ to determine valid medical conditions to be covered under universal healthcare insurance packages?

I find Bill O’Reilly’s argument in his on-air commentary this evening –“Talking-points Memo”-- that birth control and Viagra are not equivalent because, paraphrasing … “Viagra addresses a legitimate medical condition in a man and birth control does not do the same thing for a woman” … to be laughable, at best (albeit a shrill, mocking laugh).  Hormone imbalance is a medical condition, Mr. O’Reilly, and so is pregnancy.  It’s not apples and oranges as you dismissively suggested after all. And if, as you suggest, you don’t want “[your] my hard-earned tax dollars* used to fund [law student’s] sexual activities” or any woman’s sexual promiscuity, then why would you be okay with enabling and paying for  a man’s sexual promiscuity.  If a woman can abstain, so can a man, right? Why is a man’s need to engage in sex any more valid than a woman’s? You say you don’t want the government "in our bedrooms", Mr. O'Reilly, but to follow your line of reasoning we would need someone --dare I say, the dreaded government?-- to establish legitimate criteria for "enabling sexual activity" … that is to say, if you follow the argument that a man only wants to use Viagra so that he can have children verses using Viagra to support his extra-curricular activities.

Furthermore, on the issue of a ‘moral test’ to determine valid medical conditions to be covered under universal healthcare insurance packages: what about obesity? “Gluttony” is one of the “seven deadly sins", is it not? Under the ‘moral test’ line of reasoning, some would argue “why should tax-payer dollars (*see below) be used to pay for medical conditions that are the direct result of the bad choices made by individuals who indulge in overeating (e.g., type of diabetes caused by obesity,  resultant foot, leg, back problems, heart conditions).” There are likely a whole host of other medical conditions for which a similar argument could made. Can you see how the need to apply a ‘moral test’ in determining valid medical conditions is, in a truth, a rather weak argument at best and an extremely slippery slope in the long-run.

===>[* "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.]<===

I have to give the Democrats a lot of credit on this “contraception” issue … I have always felt that my interests as a U.S. citizen were best served by the Republican party. Even when my own personal issues were not adequately addressed by the Republican Party (hence, my referring to myself as an ‘Independent Republican’), I reasoned that the Republican Party was the greater-good for the country as a whole.  I even had a hand in converting my Democrat husband over to the Republican Party early on in our marriage.  My husband claimed, at the time of his conversion, that “The Democratic Party is not the party that it used to be any longer.” Sitting here today and watching the debate on this contraception issue unfold, I am beginning to wonder if  “The Republican Party is not the party it used to be any longer”? 

I just can’t rationalize the paradoxal stance of conservatives, so adamantly opposed to having the federal government infringe upon an individual’s or the Church's rights, having absolutely no problem turning right around and infringing upon the rights of women. Maybe, the times are once again changing? I have three daughters, who will one day soon venture out into the world to fend for themselves, and I have to think ahead and consider what will be in their best interests then as well as now. I know that contraception is just one 'issue', but individuals response to this issue speaks volumes about the attitude of larger groups within our country towards the roles that women should play in our society. Quite frankly, the conservative response to this issue is proving to be judgmental, intolerant --not to mention hypocritical-- frightfully condescending and dismissive to my way of thinking. This is a side to the Republican Party that I do not like and cannot find any truthful way to appreciate.  Perhaps, for the moment there are bigger issues facing our nation as a whole? Perhaps, I am wise enough to look beyond this "contraception issue" to the larger issues facing our nation for now, but I can honestly say that many other women, independents and moderates will not be willing to do the same.

My family and Republican friends will, of course argue, that I am "being used by the Democratic Party" by succumbing to this "hot-button" issue and that I should "rise above it" ... But how do you honestly rise above BEING A WOMAN? ... Aside from succumbing to suppression and denial by silently smiling and nodding congenially right along to the song of party & religious rhetoric?

As for Rush Limbaugh's radio comments on Wednesday: they are not worthy of my commenting here, as his remarks were not at all respectful to the law school student, Ms. Fluke --or women in general-- constructive to a meaningful discussion of topic at hand, or worthy of a news-focused, current events radio talk-show host commentator. The latter being said, Mr. Limbaugh's remark to the effect that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund video posting of the promiscuous sexual activities of women who receive "taxpayer funded birth control" ..."so we can all watch"?!? ... does begin to get at the heart of the true root of 'moral decay' in our society.

In closing, I am left wondering ... What does it truly mean to be a good woman?  Why are all the 'good women' --in the eyes of conservatives-- remaining silent (i.e., towing the party-line) on this contraception issue?  Am I willing to conform "for the greater good" in the short term? And if so, what will happen in the long term?

Alas, Timing is (once again) everything ... As tomorrow finds the State Caucuses upon us here in Seattle and surrounding cities throughout the State of Washington.






Follow-up:  On Where Have All the Good Men Gone?

Contraception Mandate: "Fear is not an effective choice or method for enlightenment of the soul."

Today, there are no images ... only much soul searching which has evolved into words ...

I know, I said that I would be gone for the rest of this month ... focusing on images rather than words, but the current controversy over the Obama-care "contraception mandate" has been weighing heavily on my mind and my spirit.   Thus, I seem to have been compelled by my spirit to find my words to speak.  If you read nothing else in this post, please read at least the very last paragraph (of the initial post) ... Thank you.

Obama-care rears its ugly head yet again?  This time the controversy stems from a newly unveiled aspect of Obama-care in which government has mandated the requirement that coverage for contraception medications and procedures be provided as standard provisions in healthcare coverage offered by employers.  Exemptions are provided for religious institutions (churches, synagogues, etc.) whose primary function is that of religious worship.  This exemption provision, however, is not extended to secondary institutions run by religious institutions such as hospitals and universities.

Naturally, leaders of religious institutions that are "morally opposed" to contraception in any form immediately took issue to this recent government mandate.  The largest and loudest complainant has come from the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church and other supporters of "religious freedoms" claim  that government is overstepping its constitutional authority by forcing religious institutions --even at the secondary level of religious run hospitals and universities ...many of which receive government funding-- to provide for services which they find "morally reprehensible."   

I suspect that the above religious institutions do indeed have a legal, constitutionally-backed argument to support their claim as outlined above.  While I am opposed to government stepping on an individual's or institution's right to exercise religious freedom in any instance :   I do happen to approve of the government providing for  inclusion of contraception medications and procedures as standard provisions for healthcare coverage.  Contraception coverage, whether religious opponents like it or not, is a vital part of women's health in this day and age.  A woman being able to choose when she will have children and how many children she will have has revolutionized the lives of women and their families for the better.  Women can now have careers, choices and interests beyond bearing and raising children.  Contraception has also helped to greatly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which has reduced the number of instances where a woman would even want to contemplate abortion.  I do not like that the 'morning-after pill' may be included in this contraception coverage, as I am personally opposed to abortion ... but once again it is an individual decision and also an individual freedom to choose whether or not to use contraception medications and procedures.  The individual will have to weigh the moral implications, if any, of the contraception services that they personally will choose to use for themselves.  I, personally, find the attempt by some on the religious right to lump all forms of contraception into the same category as abortion "morally reprehensible."

[ Side Note:   The argument that women (and men) can simply go elsewhere to get the contraception medications and services that they need is ludicrous.  Costs for medications and services not covered directly by primary healthcare insurance in the United States, in this day and age, are undeniably outrageous.  It makes me a bit angry to hear prominent individuals dismissively claiming that individuals can get contraception medications "for free" elsewhere if these medications are not provided for by their comprehensive healthcare insurance.   The news commentator Bill O'reilly, of FOX News, said on his broadcast just yesterday that birth control pills can be gotten "at any clinic [by anyone] for free."  Mr. O'reilly should verify his facts before he rattles off statements such as this as fact.  I was unable to obtain birth controls for free when I was in college, because I worked my way through college and made "too much money"  to qualify for "free pills."  My HMO insurance did not provide coverage for contraception services at the time.  The $60.00 a month cost for the pills was a heavy burden for me as a struggling college student. Coverage for birth control pills under my health insurance plan would have lowered the price that I had to pay out of my pocket quite considerably. While it is true that some low-income individuals will be able find clinics that will provide birth control pills at little to no costs, this option is not available for most moderate income earners where the cost of about $60.00 per month equates to a daughter being able to take dance lessons, children learning Taekwondo or Karate ... a child learning to play a musical instrument.  These are real choices facing real people.  .  For me, as for many women, becoming pregnant before I finished my degree would have most likely meant that I would not have completed my degree (and yes, I was married in college).  And as for the argument:  "if you don't like the rules, then don't play" (go get a job with another employer or attend another university) ... In this lousy economy of the past four years the ability to "play" somewhere else has been severely limited for many. 

Based on recent comments by Bill O'reilly and his surrogates (specifically, Laura Ingram): It seems to me that the "no-spin zone" of the "O'reilly Factor" has lost some of its credibility lately in neutralizing 'spin'.  Laura Ingram's interview with the Reverend Katherine Ragsdale, President of Episcopal Divinity School of MA, was so blatantly biased and disrespectful.  I have to give Reverend Ragsdale credit for not biting on Ingram's pointed jabs and line of irrelevant questioning in an effort to discredit this guest in the eyes of the viewing audience.  Reverend Ragsdale made some very well articulated and valid points in this interview, despite Ingram's repeated attempts to derail her.   I know that the issues relating to religious freedom can lead to heated discussions, but I found Lauren Ingram's behavior in this interview to be highly unprofessional.  I will be writing a letter to FOX news about this interview.  ]

Today, the Obama administration issued a statement declaring that religious secondary institutions (e.g., Catholic-run hospitals and universities) will no longer be required to provide the mandated "contraception coverage" as a part of their comprehensive healthcare packages.  The contraception coverage will now be offered separately to employees directly from (and exclusively through) the insurance provider itself, with funding for the services coming from the government and/or savings resulting from the issurance companies not having to cover costs associated with unwanted pregnancies and additional dependents. In this way, the individual can choose for themselves whether or not they want to have the contraception coverage without having to involve the perceived sanctioning of contraception services by religious institutions themselves. 

In sum, religious entities such as the Catholic Church now have their "freedom of conscience" and the additional exemption from the mandated compliance for their secondary institutions.  Sadly, I suspect that even this concession will not be sufficient for the Church and other religious opponents to contraception.  Constitutionally and legally --though the courts will likely have the final say on this-- the Catholic Church and other religious entities now effectively have what they wanted:  the right to exercise their "freedom of religion" and "freedom of conscience."  What will they do next?  Will the self-righteousness of religion rear its ugly head by continuing to press for further concessions (i.e., insistance that contraception services will not be made available to the employees at their hospitals and universities under any circumstances)?  Perhaps, Obama-care will wind up being repealed in the near future and all of this will become a mute point?  Though, I do hope that the inclusion of access to contraception medications and services in standard healthcare coverage will remain in place or be addressed through subsequent, separate legislation.  I strongly feel that the availability of contraception coverage in standard healthcare insurance is an important issue facing women and their families.  I applaud the current administration for having the courage to address this need for reform even though their timing may have been politically motivated and the manner of implementation could have been better thought out before its unveiling.

While I do concede that our U.S. Constitution guarantees that our government cannot be allowed to force the Catholic Church, or any other religious institution, to provide* for "contraception services" :  It seems somewhat ironic to me that religious institutions and individuals fail to make the distinction between holding a moral convinction or belief and the infliction of those convinctions upon others (e.g., pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescribed birth control pills to patients).  In my humble opinion, being a former Catholic --baptized, raised and married in the Catholic faith, who had all three of my children baptized in the Catholic Church-- the biggest shortcoming of the Catholic Church, and many other religions, is their ongoing failure to recognize that the role of the Church should be to provide spiritual guidance not to pass judgment or to coerce the behavior of individuals by using fear (of social reprisal or "eternal damnation") or by withholding medical services in order to conform to the Church's standard of a perceived moral code.  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, 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? 

*[It looks as if it will likely be left to the courts to determine the legal and constitutional definition of "provide".]





1/11/2012   ... I do not deny that the unveiling of this mandate at this point in time and in the fashion in which it was done was a politically motivated tactic by the current administration in a effort to galvanize Obama's voting base (women in particular) for the upcoming November 2012 Presidential Election.  That being said, if the Catholic Church is wise: they will take their first amendment victory that was conceded by the Obama Administration yesterday and let this debate cease right here and now.  The latter will effectively take the wind out the Obama's campaign sails.  Then, if needs be, this issue can be taken up in the courts after the election.  There is also the distinct possibility that Obama-care will end up being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or repealed by a newly elected Republican President.  If either of the latter happens all of the debate with respect to this specific mandate and its method of implementation becomes a mute point.


1/12/2021 ... As I have said before, "It's still not about class warfare.  Just like its not about a perceived moral victory" (re: Republican Presidential Primary). And for the time being, maybe it should not be about a woman's right to "pursue, Life, Liberty and happiness" by being guaranteed unhindered, affordable access to basic contraception medications and services?  The politics of polarization and division have brought this country to its knees. Obama, I think, is hoping to cash in on the ongoing divisions in our country in order to benefit his re-election campaign by using the strategy of "Divide and Conquer." What we've been doing these past 3++ years hasn't been working; It's time to try something NEW!  It's time for us to throw down our sticks and to extend our hands towards one another in an a concerted effort to try to find common ground so that "We the People" can save our country from its final demise.  We have real issues facing our nation (as I've outlined in previous posts) and ... We need real solutions to implement that will unite us as a strong nation in order to get America back up on its feet again and stave off looming disaster.  "United we stand; Divided we [shall innevitably] fall."


1/14/2012 ... While the Catholic Church and others opposed to the "contraception mandate" have argued forcefully, repeatedly, and rather dismissively that this is "not about contraception": IT IS. For the Church and its champions to dismiss the medical aspect of this legislation entirely is rather an arrogant and dangerous posture to assume ... especially in light of the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election.  The contraception mandate legislation, while controversial and inflammatory in its initial wording and method of implementation, does addresses a vital problem facing women (and men) in healthcare today:  unhindered access to affordable contraception medications and procedures as fewer than 28 states have any sort of law requiring inclusion of contraception medications and services in standard healthcare insurance. The Obama-care Contraception Mandate addresses access and affordability requirements across the board for ALL employers in the United States --NOT JUST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS-- in an effort to include a vital aspect of healthcare as standard in healthcare insurance packages offered by employers to their employees.

 The "First Amendment" issue, now being rallied around, was a subsequent issue that has evolved from this contraception mandate legislation, but the underlying need and principle healthcare issue still remain.  The Catholic Church, religious right and conservatives news commentators need to show a bit more sensitivity (i.e., acknowledgement for the legitimacy of the underlying healthcare issue) to the principle issue from a healthcare standpoint lest their words, arguments and actions further fuel the stereotype that so many Americans already have of these religious groups and thereby the Republican Party itself by default ... That is to say, that while political posturing around the First Amendment issue may rally the conservative base:  the blatant and arrogant dismissal of the underlying issue (medical need) will simultaneously trumpet a timely reminder to moderates, independents and the rest of the country that they should remain fearful of any leadership (presidential candidates) coming from a political party comprised of persuasive religious factions whose actions and words, now and in the past, have caused the conservative base and its party to be perceived as being the party of  "fiercely rigid inflexibility, narrow-mindedness, intolerance and arrogance [self-righteousness]."

In sum Catholics, religious conservatives and others championing the First Amendment infringement of the Obama-care contraception mandate should tread carefully.  At present, your actions and words are just fanning the Obama re-election campaign momentum.  I'm not saying that you do not have a legitimate First Amendment argument; I am simply pointing out the need to show some genuine sensitivity for the other side of the issue.  Unfortunately, this is not simple mathematics where two negatives multiply for an end positive result. Two infringements ... "two wrongs, do not make a right."  


One last thought:  timing is everything.




Additional Thoughts on the "Contraception Issue" with respect to party politics & losing women voters:

"Where Have All the Good Men Gone?"
"Follow-up: Where Have All the Good Men Gone?"
"Contraception: A Possible Win-Win ..."   (summary and final basic conclusions)

Do As the Church Says ... Not as I Do?

I know, I said that I would be gone for the rest of this month ... focusing on images rather than words, but the current controversy over whether the U.S. Government is overstepping its constitutional authority by requiring that institutions run by religious entities (i.e., Catholic Church) --where the primary purpose of the institution is not directly dedicated to the purpose of worship-- must provide heallthcare insurance coverage for contraceptive medications and procedures has been weighing heavily on my mind.  The government has already consented to an exemption for religious institutions dedicated to the "sole purpose of worship."  The controversial mandate is directed solely towards secondary institutions  (e.g., hospitals and universities) that are run by the religious entities such as the Catholic Church.  Apparently, this is the first wave of "Obama-care" coming into play?  It does seem odd to me that the Obama Administration would choose to unveil this aspect of the Obama Healthcare Plan in an election year?  Perhaps, the Obama campaign hopes to gain women voters with this issue?

Political designs and agendas aside, I have been extremely frustrated in discussing this issue with the men in my life because they are so quick to dismiss this issue and side with the church.  I guess, it's easy to label this as a non-issue if you aren't the one left carrying a child for 9 months, having your life completely and forever altered in one of  the most (if not, the most) profound ways? Access to birth control and being able to exercise some control over our own individual reproductive health has truly changed the lives of millions of women for the better.  We now have some say in choosing when we will have children and how many we will have. Because of the latter, women can now aspire to have careers and interests beyond merely bearing and raising children. Contraception is in a very real sense liberation for women.  The denied access to contraception coverage also affects men (and their families) with respect to having access to affordable medical services for vasectomies.  How many marriages would legitimately survive prolonged abstinence, I wonder?

The argument that women (and men) can go elsewhere to get the contraception medications and services that they need is ludicrous.  Costs for medications and services not covered directly by health insurance in the United States in this day and age are undeniably outrageous. Contrary to what news commentators like Bill Oreilly of FOX News say: you can't just go out and "get birth control pills for free."  Some low-income individuals can find clinics that will provide birth control pills at little to no costs, but this option is not available for most moderate income earners where the cost of $60.00 per month equates to a daughter being able to take dance lessons, children learning Taekwondo or Karate ... a child learning to play a musical instrument.  These are real choices facing real people.  And as for the argument:  "if you don't like the rules, then don't play" ... In this lousy economy of the past four years the ability to "play" somewhere else has been severely limited for many.  

The above arguments aside, I don't like the idea of the government stepping in to mandate this insurance coverage for contraception medication and services ... even for secondary institutions that are "not directly places of worship."  Given that the Catholic run hospitals and universities are secondary institutions, providing services and acting as employers to lay people: it would be best if healthcare coverage for contraception medication and procedures were provided on a voluntary basis by the given institution, as was previously the case.  This would  maintain the illusion of upholding the "freedom of conscience" clause ... although, to me the freedom of conscience should belong to the woman (or man) and not her employer.  Perhaps, government should adopt a transparent policy of  not allowing  government funding (or tax exemptions) to go to institutions that choose not to offer a comprehensive, non-discriminatory healthcare insurance coverage to their employees or students.  Government could then use the funds no longer eligible for institutions that choose not to comply with the contraception mandate to offer a government sponsored healthcare coverage add-on option for employees (or students) that are denied contraception healthcare insurance coverage by a given religious-run institution.  The Obama administration could also look into the feasibility of making birth control pills an over-the-counter medication --with ID check for age 18 and over-- which would greatly bring down costs and increase access.

I was raised a Catholic and one of the reasons that I left the Catholic Church was the Church's rigid, and somewhat hypocritical, stance on birth control among other issues.  The Catholic Church has a long history of injustice where women are concerned; I don't suppose that they would choose to change now?  I also find it rather amazing that so many Catholics are up in arms, siding with the Catholic Church on this issue when the Obama Administration has given a clear exemption to churches, synagogues and all places of worship ... especially when such a large percentage of  Catholics use some form of contraception themselves.  It's not okay to infringe upon the beliefs of the Catholic Church, in a secondary, for profit setting that receives government funding in many cases ... but it's okay to allow the church to step on the reproductive rights of those that they employ and serve?  I'm just still trying to wrap my mind around this ... (I am tired.  Have not slept yet.  Going to try to find some elusive sleep. I will proof this later and perhaps delete?).