Friday, February 17, 2012
Phillips Who Thinks They're the Landlord of My Vagina This Week?
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM
According to a press release from the Tennessee Senate Republican Caucus, a bunch of men, a handful of women who don't need birth control anymore, and Douglas "Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was" Henry all think that they need to stick up for the rights of churches to which I don't belong to dictate what happens to my vagina.
Here's the list:
Senators Dolores Gresham (R-Somerville), Jim Tracy (R-Shelbyville), Mike Bell (R-Cleveland), Jim Summerville (R-Dickson), Mark Norris (R-Collierville), Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro), Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet), Rebecca Duncan Massey (R-Knoxville), Steve Southerland (R-Morristown), Ken Yager (R-Harriman), Mike Faulk (R-Church Hill), Jack Johnson (R-Franklin), Doug Henry (D-Nashville), Reginald Tate (D-Memphis), and Speaker Pro Tempore Bo Watson (R-Hixson).
These are the folks who think that birth control, unlike all other medications prescribed by your doctor, is so spooky and weird and vaguely immoral that your employer should be able to financially punish you if you need it and so are pushing a resolution to oppose the birth control mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Let's count kids among the sponsors of Senate Resolution 84:
Gresham—no mention
Tracy—3
Bell—5
Summerville—no mention
Norris—2
Ketron—1
Beavers—2
Duncan Massey—2
Southerland—1
Yager—2
Faulk—2
Johnson—3
Henry—6
Tate—4
Watson—1
Granted, there are many reasons why people who don't practice birth control might end up with small families. But are we supposed to believe that not a single person on that list with three or fewer children ever practiced some form of contraception?
Color me skeptical.
Oh, I know what you're thinking. God, Betsy, it's disgusting that you would look at the size of these people's families and draw judgments about whether they're hypocrites.
Yes, it is disgusting. How many children people have and the circumstances under which they arrive at that family size are no one's business. But if we can agree that it's wrong to speculate on the reasons these politicians have the size families they have, why can't we agree that it's just as wrong enabling employers to sit around and pass moral judgment on the medical needs of their employees?
If you don't want to use birth control, fine. More power to you. But it is a prescription medication that is legal in this country — used not only to control fertility, but also to treat heavy menstrual periods, to relieve the symptoms of various ailments like polycystic ovarian syndrome or fibromyalgia, and as a drug women are often required to take before being prescribed drugs known to cause miscarriages or birth defects. And you can't know why a woman needs birth control just by looking at her and guessing.
And for these busybodies to demand the Obama administration make it easier for other busybodies to keep women from using birth control — and that's what this is about, because the cost of birth control pills unsubsidized by insurance will put it out of the reach of a lot of women — is ridiculous.
Some people want any excuse they can find to poke their noses up under women's skirts and into their business. But they should be embarrassed.
Readers also liked…
-
Planned Parenthood Strikes Back with Federal Lawsuit Against Tennessee
- Feb 2, 2012
-
Lock One Park: A Review
- Mar 15, 2010
Comments (74)
Showing 1-50 of 74
"These are the folks who think that birth control, unlike all other medications prescribed by your doctor, is so spooky and weird and vaguely immoral that your employer should be able to financially punish you if you need it and so are pushing a resolution to oppose the birth control mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"
Behold the upside down and backwards economic "logic" of the liberal mind. If someone else refrains from subsidizing your existence in some way that you desire, that constitutes "punishment".
Nope. You never had any "right" to be provided ANYTHING by anyone else in the first place.
"And for these busybodies to demand the Obama administration make it easier for other busybodies to keep women from using birth control — and that's what this is about, because the cost of birth control pills unsubsidized by insurance will put it out of the reach of a lot of women — is ridiculous"
More liberal absurdity. It is the Obama administration that are being busybodies by mandating such coverage in the first place. ANY government interference in pure freedom of contract constitutes government being a busybody.
You have a right to do what you want with your own body. You don't have any right whatsover to dictate what other people will or won't pay for.
You body may belong to you but other people's money doesn't.
like
dislike
Don't you see that in a Right thinking (far right thinking) world, we (by which I mean, they) would be happily ensconced in 1912, instead of this annoying 2012? Mr. Martin and his little stuck-in-time friends are endorsing living in the 19th century as a gateway to the 21st. "Rescind the 20th century!" is the bumper sticker. I assume that women's suffrage and the legalization of contraception, those fussy intrusive liberal ideas of 1912, should be other rights he'd move towards putting in snarky quotation marks.
quick: name one thing that you purchase that is 100% tied to your employer. They get to choose what you buy and the terms that you will take it and the quality of the item. That would be health insurance, ladies and gentlemen. If people actually had freedom of choice in purchasing insurance at the same tax preferential treatment cost as given to your employers, none of this would matter a damn, would it? ladies could purchase plans that were in tune with their needs, men to theirs, elderly to theirs and so on..
"I assume that women's suffrage and the legalization of contraception, those fussy intrusive liberal ideas of 1912, should be other rights he'd move towards putting in snarky quotation marks."
There isn't any century where such a thing as affirmative rights exist.
All rights are negatlive liberties - in this century or any other one.
The discussion doesn't have anything to do with legalization of contraceptives - it's about whether somebody else should be required to pay for your use of them.
"If people actually had freedom of choice in purchasing insurance at the same tax preferential treatment cost as given to your employers, none of this would matter a damn, would it? "
It would if the government mandated what all insurance plans offered for sale has to cover. Then you would have to pay for it regardless of whether you got your insurance through your employer or bought it yourself. In fact, existing government coverage mandates for all sorts of things at the state and federal levels drives up the cost of private insurance and inteferes with freedom of contract there as well.
Gilbertese-to-English translation: wwwhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa! Change my diaper! I want my bottle!
I don't see insurance companies bitching about this. Coverage for contraception is cheaper than abortion or childbirth. Why would you soil your diaper over how private corporations conduct their business? OR, are you simply against free-market capitalism?
Gilbert, I applaud your skill in demonstrating the "lie" in libertarianism!
"... it's disgusting that you would look at the size of these people's families and draw judgments about whether they're hypocrites."
No what's disgusting is that a bunch of people think it's their business to nose around in stuff that's none of their business. Birth control is not cheap. Women need it. It's legal. We have a right to access it. End of discussion.
"There isn't any century where such a thing as affirmative rights exist."
You just repealed the entire Sixth Amendment, among others.
"You just repealed the entire Sixth Amendment, among others."
Wrong. The 6th Amendment is about a check on government power to violate someone's negative right to liberty when it accuses them of a crime.
No one has any unconditiionl "right" to get something free at someone else's expense.
"Gilbertese-to-English translation: wwwhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa! Change my diaper! I want my bottle!"
Ha! As usual, you are the one's actually doing the whining - for a handout of other people's money.
"I don't see insurance companies bitching about this. Coverage for contraception is cheaper than abortion or childbirth. Why would you soil your diaper over how private corporations conduct their business? OR, are you simply against free-market capitalism?"
More nonsense. Government mandates on either employers or insurance companies isn't "free market capitalism".
Those of you who support the contraceptives mandate in particular or ANY intereference in pure freedom of contract in the healthcare industry or any other are the one's against free market capitalism.
Birth control is MEDICAL CARE, a decision that rests with patient and doctor, and a basic tool of self-determination for women and their families.
From a public policy perspective, birth control allows people to plan their families responsibly and avoid the heartbreaking question of abortion. If we make birth control more difficult to get, more unwanted babies will be born and more unwanted babies will be aborted. If we want public policy that is PRO-ABORTION, this is it.
"Birth control is not cheap. Women need it. It's legal. We have a right to access it. End of discussion."
You have "right" to buy anything that you want to with your own money and nothing more.
End of discussion.
I just called Sen. Henry's office to ask why he'd sign on to this and they said because "he doesn't think the government should be involved in people's lives." Which is totally the OPPOSITE of what the contraception mandate does. { facepalm }
But hey don't blame me, I voted for Jeff Yarbro.
"You have "right" to buy anything that you want to with your own money and nothing more."
Brilliant, thank you! Let's have that apply to ALL healthcare and ALL prescriptions, then. Let's get rid of ALL health insurance companies. It's an immoral business that adds nothing to the healthcare landscape anyway, except making everything more expensive so some overpaid executive can skim their profits off the top.
Shut them down. Put 'em out of business. Let's just buy everything directly without the middle man. Think that will happen? No? Well then why is women's healthcare treated differently from anyone else's?
Gilbert, perhaps some day while you're still alive you'll actually meet and encounter other human beings and how life is lived, not theorized. I hope those theories keep you warm when the nights are cold. . Meanwhile, as you always say, resident crank, end of discussion.
Doug Henry (to my regret) is my state senator. I called him a few years ago to voice my opposition to his stance in favor of repealing the state's motorcycle helmet law. In their wisdom, the senators were going to charge $15 extra for each motorcycle license and allocate that money to a fund to help pay for the increase in traumatic head injuries projected in the wake of helmet repeal. I told Henry that, from personal experience, I had seen what could happen to a helmetless motorcycle rider in a crash. When he reaffirmed his position, I played what I thought was my trump card: by his logic, I said, we shouldn't have seatbelt laws. He paused for a second and said, "Well, I don't believe in seatbelt laws, either." That was basically the end of our conversation. The man is from another century, and it's not the 20th.
"Brilliant, thank you! Let's have that apply to ALL healthcare and ALL prescriptions, then. "
Indeed. Let pure freedom of contract reign in every aspect of healthcare - and every other industry.
Employers are free to offer whatever coverage they want. Insurance companies can offer whatever type of products they want that covers whatever they want or not. Individuals are free to buy or not buy any private insurance polciy they want and free to work or not work at any employer taking into consideration all the compensation offered whether it be cash, healthcare coverage, retirement benefits or anything else.
"Gilbert, perhaps some day while you're still alive you'll actually meet and encounter other human beings and how life is lived, not theorized"
Maybe someday you'll be capable of coming up with a salient point.
But I doubt it.
Can I opt out of paying taxes to fund the War on Terror and the War on Drugs? Freedom of contract, right? Cool, thanks.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Each and every one of those is an affirmative individual right. The text speaks for itself. What part of "the accused shall enjoy the right" do you have difficulty understanding?
"End of discussion".
Just another gaseous expulsion from Gilbo Gasbag that the rest of us here would love for him to honor. However, since Gilbo has already expelled about half of the comments posted on this thread, I for one won't hold my breath (until, that is, I'm in the same room with that cheese-cutter).
Say what you mean and mean what you say, Gilbo. Better yet, plug your pie-hole and sit on your hands. The internets would definitely be a better place for it (and you might even get a little non-verbal-diarrhea gratification from it.)
Why can't I think of anything funny to write about Betsy's vagina? It's going to take more thought. Oh, well, one thing's for sure, this thread provides strong evidence that liberals are always thinking, "somebody" owes them "something" for any reason they deem necessary and all their personal needs should be the burden of anyone unfortunate enough to employ them. Here's a thought: enough leeches will eventually suck the life out of the host.
If an employer can opt out of contraception on the employees health insurance, then why not also exempt blood transfusions? And painkillers of any kind, since these can be immoral according to some religious fanatics?
The solutions is to enact real national health insurance.
"Each and every one of those is an affirmative individual right"
Each and every one of those is a CONDITIONAL right predicated on being charged with a crime by the government. That's why it starts off with "In all criminal prosections".
I repeat, you have no unconditional right to get anything free paid for by someone else.
"Just another gaseous expulsion from Gilbo Gasbag "
No, that is you specialty, small d.
That and insanity about voting machines.
Southern Beale was the first one to proclaim "End of discussion" in here - not me.
"Each and every one of those is a CONDITIONAL right predicated on being charged with a crime by the government."
And I suppose your right to carry an umbrella is conditional on the pre-existence of rain, right? The next time the man reads to you from that little card about your right to remain silent, interrupt him and tell him that none of your Miranda rights exist until you have been charged with a crime.
We'll have to disagree about this one.
This sort of policy fight comes from the philosophical inconsistencies that both sides refuse to acknowledge and from the impossibility of governing based only on 'rights.'
If the debate over requiring employers to provide coverage for contraception were restricted to the public policy merits, then there would be no case for allowing employers to opt out. There are all sorts of excellent policy reasons to require coverage of contraception. Reducing future health care costs from unwanted pregnancies would be one. Reducing the number of abortions would be another. Worker morale springs to mind.
Sadly, this debate seems destined to be another pointless and irreconcilable fight over competing rights. Were the pertinent issue limited to the right to 'privacy,' as in Griswold vs Connecticut, the conclusion would be simple. Contraception is a wholly private issue, not subject to public policy debates because it does not impact anyone except the people using or not using it.
However, once one starts arguing from 'rights,' in increasingly specific situations, things become more difficult. The employees rights versus the employers' rights cannot be decided without a legal hierarchy of rights, leaving no defense against laws like this one in the General Assembly. Gun rights activists, for example, who support this sort of legislation are not considering that their argument from 'rights' can be matched in instances where conflicting 'rights' are found, making gun rights equally vulnerable to being overridden on without regard to public policy.
I think this mostly misses the point. The Moor and the cabal in the White House along with the mainstream media wish to present the women of America with vague thoughts of no birth control pills for you. Obviously one could buy them, not have sex or perhaps engage in the notorious coitus interruptus, but politically what better for the Democrats?
Of course th devoute Catholic. the tax payer or even males should not have to pay for carefree sex, am I right? And, not only that, we have posted, boldly, this nonsense about the landlord and the vagina. Truly disgraceful.
You liberals keep screaming about the rights to your body.I agree 100% it's your body and you have rights to it since it is yours.You can wash it or not, you can tatoo it or not, you may want hair you may wish to go bald , you may choose to have sex or not, you may choose to be homosexual or not --it's your body. But if it 's your body then you should take the responsibility that comes with it. Buy your own soap if you wish to bath,pay for your tattoo, buy the haircut you choose to wear.And pay for your own birthcontrol if you choose to have sex.And if you don't and want an abortion then pay for it yourself ,it's your mistake not mine ,don't expect me to pay up for your lack of judgment.And you want to be homosexual the so be it , but don't expect special rules or laws just for you.And don't go into the schools and try to indoctrinate others children to you beleifs, If we can't indoctrinate all children to my religous beleifs, then why should you be able to indoctrinate all children to your sexual beliefs.
"Why can't I think of anything funny to write about Betsy's vagina?"
Not even anything about the landlord being a slumlord?
The problem with damnfools like Tony and Gilbert is that they insist on believing that "employer-provided" health insurance is some sort of freebie to the wage-earner. That's why they're damnfools (not merely ordinary ones). Health insurance is invariably a part of the compensation package to the employee, and a significant reason for the employee taking the job in the first place. Historically, health insurance became part of the pay package in lieu of increased wages beginning in WW2. In many cases, the employee is still paying a significant chunk of his/her gross salary to what benefits there are. Both the employer and employee know this. Only idiots think otherwise.
Neither Tony nor Gilbert must be employers or managers of any sort, or they would know this, but since they don't, they're idiots. Really what they are merchants in is b*llsh*t, and the market is already flooded with that product.
@anon: How about something along the lines of a short term lease - like maybe an hour?
"The problem with damnfools like Tony and Gilbert is that they insist on believing that "employer-provided" health insurance is some sort of freebie to the wage-earner. "
The only damnfool is you in thinking you can get away with setting up a straw man position.
No one said that health insurance is a "freebie to the wage earner".
Even if one considers both the nominially employer paid portion of health insurance to actually be paid by employees as well as the portion expliciity deducted from their paychecks, it all is still going into an insurance pool. And when government mandates something be covered by that insurance pool at no extra charge for the user, then that raises the costs for everyone in the pool. So whether it's the employers money or the money of all the other employees in the insurance pool, the mandate still results in forcing other people to pay for the contraceptives.
"However, once one starts arguing from 'rights,' in increasingly specific situations, things become more difficult. The employees rights versus the employers' rights cannot be decided without a legal hierarchy of rights, leaving no defense against laws like this one in the General Assembly"
There has always been a legal defense againt this sort of thing. It's called the United States Constitution. The problem is that the 3 branches of government have increasing colluded in deliberatly violation the provisions of it.
There is no "right" to receive any product or service at anyone's expense at all.
And there is no enumeated power delegated to the federal government in the text of the Constitution to be involved in healthcare at all. That is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Gilbo -- I see you're still spewing your anal swill all over PITH. Have you ever tried Depends? I for one would be happy to contribute to a fund to help you control your output.
As for the "insanity" of my continuing concerns over the absense of free, fair and verifiable elections in Tennessee, you might be interested to know that I was honored to be invited to give the keynote address at the recent Martin Luther King Day celebration at the US Department of Energy/Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge. No doubt it is the first time a "suspected domestic terrorist" (at least according to "Too Tall' Tre Hargett) has been accorded that platform. My presentation was entitled "Protecting the Promise of America".
In that presentation, I told the audience that before President Karl Rove stole a second election for his Dim-Son sock puppet, only eight states had requirements that their elections be conducted using voter-verified paper ballots (VVPB). Today, 40 states have this requirement, as do the countries of Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands and India (among other countries.) Only one US state (that's right -- ONE) has ever passed a VVPB law, only to repeal it after the voting machines (s)elected Republicans to take control of their legislature. That state would be Tennessee. That's why I keep harping that Comedy Central and other media outlets for whom our state is now a ready source of cheap jokes should not blame Tennessee voters for the overt racists, religious bigots, gun fellators and Hooters girls who now stink up our General Assembly. No one can prove that those flying monkeys were selected by TN voters. Your side likes it that way -- those of us who are Americans (of all political stripes) living in Tennessee do not.
Sorry to talk about something besides purloined vaginas in this thread, but you brought it up. Still sucks to be you, but then the rest of us already know that. I'm still happy to meet you anytime, any place to discuss these issues, when and if you ever find the courage of your convictions (and when and if you start wearing Depends).
Small, you think the Republicans stole the election here in Tenn? The mechanism of elections was in place and developed by Deomcrats, true also in Florida when the Great Disaster occcured. I think most would agree the Tenn legislature when controlled by Democrats was a bit iffy at best.
You need to go back and recall Democrat hi-jinks on the road to Memphis as well as some old timers like Ray Blanton.
What's wrong with you, Small?
And right on cue small d obliges with futher evidence of his insanity.
Evidenty the nurse at the nuthouse where he's confined still hasn't got the dosage right on his meds.
John,
It is not only me who questions the outcome of the 2008 (s)election here in Tennessee. In a review of the state-level elections that year, political scientists nationwide credited the Republican capture of our legislature (for the first time since Reconstruction) as the most "unexplainable" outcome in that election year. It still is. In addition, the current unverifiable voting equipment in 93 counties in Tennessee was purchased under the iron-fisted insistence of the former State Election Coordinator, Brook Thompson. It is very unclear what political party Brook belongs to, but the fact that he was the only senior staffer in the Secretary of State's office to be retained (actually promoted) when the Republicans "won" our legislature in 2008 speaks volumes, now doesn't it?
As for Memphis/Shelby county, please explain why one of the Blackest and bluest counties in this state and country (s)elected an entirely White Republican slate of county officials in 2010, an outcome that no one believes is legitimate, an outcome that might have been overturned if the Republican judge hearing the court case alleging election fraud had bothered to look at any of the evidence presented.
To be clear (again), I don't support election fraud, regardless of who commits it. I believe anyone convicted of election fraud -- regardless of party -- should be hanged in the public square and I am more than happy to provide the rope. That is why the group I helped organize, Gathering To Save Our Democracy, had members from six different political parties, including decent and honorable Republicans. (Talk about an endangered species these days.)
Gilbo, my guess is that the US Department of Energy/Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge would not have invited me to keynote their MLK Day celebration if I was confined to a nut-house. (BTW, my hosts at that very secure federal facility said they did a background check on me before the invitation, so I am pleased that I passed their inspection. Could you say the same?) The next time I am accorded such an honor, I will be sure to invite PITH readers, including you, to attend. In the meantime, if your mother ever allows you out of the basement AND if anyone anywhere anytime ever invites you to give a public presentation, I will be sure to attend (if invited), though I may have to take a Dramamine first. I would like to be able to finally put a face with PITH's loudest-mouthed far-reich coward.
Bernie
PS: Betsy, once again sorry to speak about non-pubic matters on this thread. If there's anything that seems to give Rethugs a red-faced, raging hard-on, it's calling them out re: their favorite man-date.
The fact is that insurance will pay for erectile dysfunction aids and no one says a thing. However, when it comes to birth control there is a big mighty uproar. It is ok to provide a mans erection, but not a woman's birth control? What is wrong with this picture.
"I would like to be able to finally put a face with PITH's loudest-mouthed far-reich coward. "
So says the guy who hides behind an anonymous ID to hurl insults on a blog.
Quite pathetic.
'So says the guy who hides behind an anonymous ID to hurl insults on a blog.
Quite pathetic.'
So I guess you don't remember the Scene cover story about 'small d' do you Gilbo?
It's unfortunate that you present yourself as an over privileged, under experienced young man. It should be required that a modicum of life experience be achieved before posting one's thoughts.
You should put down that copy of Ayn Rand and get out of your Mom's basement...
You need to get in shape before you confront 'small d' in meat space. He's a BIG ol' farmer.
If someone doesn't want their taxes going to cover my contraception due to their moral objections to it, that's fine. It's only fair, then, that I can object to MY taxes going to fund any medicare paid procedures covering smoking-related ailments- smoking is legal, someone's personal and private choice, and it's completely against my morals. We only get one body- why poison it? All those smokers can foot their own bills for oxygen tanks, hospital stays, and chemo treatments.
The overheated rhetoric in this forum provides a good bit of evidence that widespread availability of contraception is a good thing.
Doctors and patients can choose the appropriate treatments to apply for a person's own medical care. No issue there. Patients are (rightfully) allowed to choose their doctors and chart their own path to care. No issue there. But just like your employer has exactly _zero_ say in the doctor your choose and the care they provide to you, neither should they have the capability to "lock out" certain types of care from you for any reason -- religious included. Locking out types of care is a decision to be made between doctor and patient, and if the patient has moral concerns, they'll change doctors or refuse that type of treatment.
Would the "conservative" arguments flow the other direction if the employer was a hospital with an Islamic bent whose choice was to refuse to pay for ANY gynecological care for women on their health plans? Or only provided "high-deductible" health plans to "infidels"? Or insisted that all female employees be treated only by select women doctors in order to recieve benefits?
This whole "baseless attack on religious freedom" argument cuts both ways.
And to continue Don't Ask's analogy, what if my religious conviction leads me to believe that God has called mankind to be good stewards of the earth and that having lots and lots of children is a poor example of stewardship on a planet whose resources are already being strained to the breaking point? Isn't denying me birth control under those circumstances an attack on my sincerely held religious beliefs?
"So I guess you don't remember the Scene cover story about 'small d' do you Gilbo?"
Why should I?
I never read the Scene.
But the point is still the same. You're the one hurling insults under a phony ID - not me.
"It's unfortunate that you present yourself as an over privileged, under experienced young man."
I don't present myself as anything. I state my views on various subjects. You have never been capable of empirically refuting anything I've ever said. In fact, you haven't posted anything in here on the topic of this thread at all.
"You need to get in shape before you confront 'small d' in meat space. He's a BIG ol' farmer."
LOL
You've got a big old mouth, that's for sure.
Kind of a sick pro murder your baby hu?
Hell that may work if ending a life means nothing to you.
Trouble is most women who do these things regret it later.
How do you know who that baby would someday be?
He could be even more impotrtant than you think.
If it was easy to make a baby why is it so much to finnish what you already started?
There are organizations who will help if you let them.
I believe there has been enough killing in this country.
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
"just like your employer has exactly _zero_ say in the doctor your choose and the care they provide to you, neither should they have the capability to "lock out" certain types of care from you for any reason -- religious included."
The issue is whether someone other than the purchaser of the contraceptives should be required to pay for those contraceptives. It doesn't have anything to do with "locking out" anybody from any care. You can pay for whatever care you want with your own money.
The employer may have zero say in the doctor you choose and the care they provide, but they have all kinds of say in what health care expenses are covered in the insurance plans they offer and which doctors you'll get reimbursed for more than others. That's why you'll pay more when you go to a doctor that's not in the preferred network that's in the plan the employer offers.
I think there are too many abortions performed in this country. I'd like to see fewer. I'm not an abortion advocate, and I consider myself (as most pro-choice people do) to be pro-life in the actual sense of the term.
I also think that the decision to perform an abortion or emergency contraception is best left to the individual and their doctor, and should not involve your government or your employer.
I am also an adoptee whose life exists because of a positive choice made by a young mother and her family years ago -- one backed up by loads of positive assistance.
How do I square all of this? It's easy. Because instead of insisting that others adopt my religious views on life and getting my government to apply an overarching, moralizing, and paternalistic law to everyone in this country regardless of their situations, I'm keeping busy with supporting that new life once its brought into this world.
I volunteer with crisis pregancy hotlines. On many occasions, I give my view on adoption to prospective mothers but do not judge those who do not want it or refuse to take it, nor do I lecture them on their spiritual health -- neither I, my church, nor my government is qualified to hold forth on that. I give money to organizations that provide free prenatal care and specialize in at-risk pregnancies. I support adoption and foster care with my time, attention, and resources. I do not spend time holding cardboard signs, yelling at women, and campaigning to elect people whose "theocratic" views match my own. I do not audit organizations that provide womens' care to ensure that they only support medical procedures I find 100% palatable when I donate, and I do not second-guess the decisions made between annother individual and their doctor -- it's not the place of my government, my employer, my church, or myself to do.
I once had an overly enthusiastic evangelical friend castigate me for my views since, as he held forth, being an adoptee "you're a product of the pro-life movement." I reminded him that I was actually a product of a young mother whose family was incredibly supportive of her, who recieved excellent prenatal care from the Federal government (via the VA hospital), and an adoptive family willing to send the time and money to raise yet another young life for 18 years. If any one of _those_ three resources had not been available to her, the presence of a pro-life movement restricting her access to a single type of medical procedure wouldn't have made one bit of difference in my later life -- I'd have been just as dead or uncared for.
Bottom line: we should all be pro-life where it actually _counts_. To do anything else is certainly easier, but tacitly admits that although we're supposed to care for the weak among us, we don't actually want to _do_ that.
