Sarah’s excellent post about the Republican “war on women” made so many good points that I feel a bit guilty about neglecting the issue.
First, I think Rick Santorum added to the confusion deliberately created by President Obama, George Stephanopoulos, and others when he sounded off on contraception. That he is on record as opposing Griswold v. Connecticut and privacy in general, and supporting “sodomy” laws is hardly reassuring to ordinary voters, and he will certainly be spun and re-spun as a religious prig out of touch with ordinary people. Never mind that contraception will never be outlawed, sodomy laws will never be restored, and abortion will likely remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. What matters are simplistic sound bytes, especially quotable ones. And I think Rick Santorum’s quotable opinions provide a ready-made scare tactic for the left. He will be made to look like a walking, talking “war on women” (whether he is or not will be irrelevant) and if he is the nominee, that will be a central message of the Democratic campaign.
Which means it is a good idea to attack this meme now as Sarah has. Much as I disagree with him, Rick Santorum is not waging war against women, and he will not “steal their ladyparts.” He couldn’t even if he was crazy enough to try, and I don’t think he is.
In a free country, no one should be forced to pay for anyone else’s contraception, or abortion, plastic surgery, or any other elective medical procedure or treatment. Whether it violates their religious principles or not. What worries me is that by injecting religion into the debate, Obama has succeeded in dividing and conquering people so that socialism — in the form of Obamacare — is the winner.
Under normal circumstances (and by normal I mean pre-Obamacare) your health insurance was your business, and if you didn’t want to share the cost of abortions or birth control (or AIDS or cancer treatments for high risk individuals, for that matter), you were free to shop around for whatever sort of policy you wanted. This has changed — big time — and the debate over contraception conceals the impending complete loss of freedom of choice in health care. What matters to me is not only whether I have to pay for other people’s birth control or abortions, but whether I should have to pay for their ordinary visits to the doctor for a common cold when I only want insurance protection for catastrophic coverage.
Why should I have to pay for something for other people that I don’t want to pay for for myself?
But under Obamacare, we are all being put in the same pot. The government will be deciding what we ALL must pay for. This means Muslims will have to pay for diseases contracted by pork eaters, or from homosexual conduct. Non-smokers will have to pay for lung cancer treatments for smokers. People opposed to circumcision will have to pay for the procedure on others. Lean and fit, healthy-food-eating, gymnasium fanatics will have to pay for junk-food-induced couch potatoitis syndrome (if I may be so sloppy in my terms). And so on. No one will be allowed to opt out of anything. By making it look like religious people are getting a break, Obama is concealing the true nature of what is really going on.
The Republicans, especially Rick Santorum, need to be doing a better job of making clear what occasioned this, um “debate” because it really isn’t a debate about contraception or abortion, nor is it a Republican war against women. It is a Democratic war on freedom. It is socialism.
And under socialism, we will all pay for everyone else’s everything.
Religious exceptions to socialist programs are a complete red herring.
But then, so is the culture war. Yet it works.
The issue here is Obamacare. Or am I wrong?
MORE: If the government can compel health insurers (whether religious or not) to provide contraception and abortion, then why can’t it just as easily forbid them from providing the same?
Comments
7 responses to “War on religion versus war on women?”
I’VE HAD ENOUGH! In this Holy War on Religion, of Religion, and by Religion. I SURRENDER! I’m a lover, not a fighter. Instead… I’m gonna start my OWN religion, and get in on the good stuff: tax exemptions, and lots of taxpayer money to do what I want, in the name of religious liberty. Most definitely! Hey NEWT -wanna join? We’re gonna have open marriages and multiple wives and all SORTS of neat stuff that you’re just gonna love! But don’t you worry your little head Newt: we’ll have no -I repeat- NO nasty stoning of adulterers. None of that stuff. I Promise! As for SANTORUM, he just LOVES to tell other people how they should live. He’ll make us a REAL fine preacher-man. In fact, we’ll make him Saint Santorum. AND fix his Google search results! As for Mr. Obama, obviously, we’ll need to (severely) demonize him, even further. And his dog Toto too. Last but not least: MITT and RON. Hmmm. Hey, I know. Just for you two guys: if you join we’ll insist on NO TAXES AT ALL for church members…AND human sacrifice of illegal aliens. Out with their hearts! Televised! Live! Whoooppee! WHAT A COUNTRY! 🙂
By the way, please don’t mention the REASON that Mitt Romney’s dad was born in Mexico (i.e. The fact that Mitt’s Mormon grand-dad left the United States in the 1880’s. He went to Mexico BECAUSE laws against polygamy were passed in the U.S. ; Being a Mormon back then, Mitt’s grand-dad wanted to keep his multiple wives. Hey, who wouldn’t?) Bottom line: if we follow the “logic” of the people crying crocodile tears about a non-existent “war on religion”, then the U.S. should have allowed polygamy (and who knows what else) just because a particular religion claimed it as their cherished belief. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Absolutely NO ONE is coming into our Churches or places of worship and trying to tell parishioners what to believe…..or forcing them to use contraception. BUT If the Bishops (and other denominations) want to continue running businesses that employ millions of people of varying faiths -or no “faith” at all- THEN they must play by the same rules and rights that other workers have and enjoy…especially if their businesses use our tax dollars (and skip paying taxes) in the process. This is not a “war on religion”. It’s a war on women and men who simply want to plan their families and control their future. Now that’s REAL religious liberty!
p. s. I come from a religious background. I know that their are MANY good people out there, in various faiths (and outside of those faiths); many good people searching for answers, for community, for a way….in this all-too-harsh world. There’s only one thing I can say to you: think for yourself, be yourself, trust yourself. Don’t just accept something because it comes from a “voice of authority”. That’s why you have a conscience: to choose, not just to follow….
Eric – You are right when you say that contraception will never be outlawed (again), but it says a lot about Santorum that he would like it to be outlawed, or at least that individual states should have the right to outlaw it. To me, it says that Santorum is too far from mainstream American thinking to get elected. It will be very easy for Democratic superpacs to portray him as a nut.
I was dumbfounded when the HHS mandate came out. Why on earth would *any* prescription drug be “free”?? None of the drugs covered by my health insurance are free, I have co-pays for everything. There’s no free lunch and there’s no free drugs. This episode points out how horrible Obamacare is. I want to buy my own medical insurance just like I buy my own car insurance and renter’s insurance, with coverage limits that I choose, and my employer should have nothing to do with it. On top of an assault on freedom, it’s a poke in the eyeballs of the Catholic Church.
M. Hayes, I think you are absolutely right.
Aren’t you a little confused? Obama didn’t “inject religion into the campaign”. The Republicans and Conservative Fundamentalist Christians did that—with their complaints about contraception and abortion laws.
[…] I touched on this in an earlier post, today I saw a link at Greg Mankiw’s blog to an article by John Cochrane that nails down the […]
[…] and then frame it as a “Republican war on women” — which (yeah, this is old) not only mis-characterizes the debate, but completely disregards the opinions of a very large […]