The birth control controversy infuriates me

This is the very definition of American Taliban.

“If the president does not reverse the Department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must,” Boehner said. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand.”

Keep in mind, the “freedom” involved here is an insurance company’s “freedom” to refuse to cover birth control. Ignoring the fact that you’d think pro-lifers should love birth control thanks to its favorable effect on abortion rates, what chaps my ass is that if “religious freedom” was a legitimate complaint, then insurance companies would also be allowed to deny people STD medication, refuse to cover gays, and a host of other nonsense.


8 responses to “The birth control controversy infuriates me

  1. I was under the impression that this was about Church funded med centers right to refuse the coverage…Which, if true, would be a justifiable use of their rights.

    • Yeah, it is. Supposedly Obama was negotiating a deal where the insurance company that supplies the church organization’s medical coverage would supply the coverage to the women who wanted it at no out-of-pocket cost to the women. It’s turned into another goddamned right-wing teapublican power play. Kos has a boatload of posts on it today.

  2. So my question would be; will the churches then be taking in the kids of people who don’t take the pill and have children as a result, free of charge?  Will they take care of them while their mom now has to work to pay for everything they need (and considering that every year there could be a kid on the way, mom working would be tough)?  Will they hire these women to do work for them?

    Yeah, thought not.  It’s all about the kids, until the kids are actually born and then it’s who gives a crap about the kids.

    • Would explain why Rick is against pre-natal screening. You know damn well that he won’t want federal funds used to help any kids born with birth defects.

  3. It’s about the “freedom” to be in control of one’s own person.   No offense to the President or his staff but this should have been thought out a bit better, otherwise the rightwingers/teahadists and conservative churches and anti-choice groups come off looking stupid.  Wait, what…?  Nevermind.

    • I -have- heard folks theorize that this was angled to make the GOP look bad by stoking the fires of extremism, but I don’t know if Obama’s THAT good, LOL.

  4. Many churches do not believe in using birth control as a contraceptive because it sterilizes. If a woman is sterile because of the pill and engages in a sex, her body is not allowing for life to be created. Usually, if someone is “pro-life” they do not only stand against abortion. They are usually also stands against not allowing a woman’s body to naturally create life via the pill. They see it as using a foreign substance to take over your body’s decisions instead of your heart, mind, and soul.

    • That’s a little extreme though, isn’t it? Although, that raises the question of birth control versus condoms. But keep in mind the pill isn’t permanent, it only lasts as long as it’s being taken. I can sort of see this in terms of permanent sterilization (vasectomies and what have you), but isn’t a temporary thing more acceptable?

      This is a genuine question, I’m always eager to hear from the other side.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s