DarkOx's Journal: Hypocrisy and the Contraception debate

Since apparently we have to decide the future of American politics around this issue of whether insurers should be forced to offer contraceptives and pharmacies be forced to carry them the freedom or religion question again comes to the forefront.

The progressive propaganda machine is out in full force trying to accuse conservatives of forcing their religion on others and or trying to sell us all on the idea that these measures are in some way protecting them from the tyrannical religious views of the minority. The sad part is its working in that public is actually entertaining the idea this has anything to do with religion. It may be to an extent but if is than the conservatives as usual have the more supportable position even if most of those would be ïïSantorum votes and the candidate himself are blind to it.

All of these âoeprogressivesâ who see their boy Obama as a hero pushing common sense over the religious right, are as much the fools they like to make the Santorum supporters out to be or the worst kind of hypocrite. I personally suspect its pretty even mix of both; frequently found in the same individuals. Almost any of them would be willing to argue that âoefreedom of religionâ means freedom from religion and Iâ(TM)d agree. It follows though that âoefreedom of associationâ its in that same amendment, should also mean freedom from association. That means as an individual, or private business, I should have the right to disassociate myself form any person or group of people I chose for any reason, however stupid. This is the view I take as libertarian. Its incumbent upon me to not pick stupid reasons but if I do; well to damn bad right? So if an employer, insurance agency or pharmacy does not want the sort of customer or employee that interested in contraception coverage well that ought to be allowed. So toss out all your civil rights acts, quota laws, and similar non-egalitarian derk.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with me; partially. The have held you can only exclude members from your group if their presence would make it difficult to express you view point. Clearly in the case of Catholic organizations who have the view point that contraception is wrong, would have a problem espousing that viewpoint while having a membership with the expectation they are going to pay for it. So their covered but the pharmacy that does not want to carry Plan B, they are not a religious organization, the are not pushing an agenda other than make buck; so they canâ(TM)t just dissociate themselves from a certain group of customers right? Well I guess you got me there, or do you? I say the the Supreme Court is wrong. I say this because if the the freedom of associate is in fact not freedom from association than its terribly inconsistent to take the view freedom of religion is.

If your not forcing people to violate the tenants of their own faith with say biblical-y inspired laws than those must be okay, as that would be consistent with the Courts rulings on association. Sorry Atheists if the Christians want to hang the Ten Commandments over the door and start the school day with a prayer I guess you must let them. You canâ(TM)t have it both ways, well not and be honest anyway. Lets face it honesty and integrity have never really been part of the progressive agenda though have they?

  hmm some other thoughts on the subject.

What about the basic freedom reserved for the states and the people, you know ALL the ones not enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. Like say deciding what to stock in your store. If a pharmacy has to carry Plan B, does my auto mechanic have to stock parts for my thirty year old import? Does JC Penny have to have beige pants in a thirty-one inch waste in stock at all times? Where is line? Clearly its totally against the character of this nation for any central governing body to be dictating what a retail operation has on their shelves, at least I hope that is still true!

Finally can we just dispense with the totally ridiculous notion that contraceptive drugs are âoenecessary for womenâ(TM)s health.â Clearly when prescribed for âoecontraceptive useâ they are not. Effective inexpensive contraception for men and women is available at just about every gas station, drug store, and many a public rest room across this country. If you really canâ(TM)t of any of it for whatever reason you could just keep your pants on. Sure it might ruin a Saturday night but it wonâ(TM)t kill you. I would be willing to entertain an argument that these medications might be necessary when prescribed as they frequently are for other health reasons. Doing so than places it on the doctor writing the prescription and their professional integrity when they attest to why they are doing it. Seems like a reasonable compromise. This simply is not an equal protection issue. Its just not.

Lets face it contraception is NOT specifically a womenâ(TM)s issue unless fathers have no obligation or rights to the consequences of not using it. Oh wait nobody is happy with that idea? Thought not.