Immaculate Contraception
If there were a Pulitzer Prize for headlines, the lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, "Immaculate Contraception," would just have won it. But the analysis the editorial presents is even more arresting.
"The White House wants to impose its birth-control ideology on all Americans," the editorial asserts, "including those for whom sponsoring or subsidizing such services violates their moral conscience. The White House also wants to avoid a political backlash from this blow to religious freedom. These goals are irreconcilable.
'So you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are 'free,' including contraception. Thus a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one—in other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare."
Behold its soul indeed.
ObamaCare delenda est.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Immaculate Contraception
ObamaCare delenda est, indeed. In the proper spirit, your every address - now blog posts - should end with it. No? For, it must.
May '10
Re: Immaculate Contraception
Obama is one of those crazy middle school principals writ large -- who believes it's his right and responsibilty to to pass out condoms to the kiddies, with us as the kiddies.
May '10
Re: Immaculate Contraception
Should the Administration win a second term, we are one SCOTUS justice away from the complete superiority of the state over every individual and private institution in the United States. At that juncture we must either resign ourselves to the darkness or seek a bifurcation that would allow those who believe in Liberty to seek their own path. The end of the Great Experiment may be nigh.
Jun '10
Re: Immaculate Contraception
Here is a paradox: Obama's new "accomodation," for all the reasons set forth in the WSJ editorial, requires a leap of faith (that contraception services can be made to cost nothing). Given that, does it not violate the establishment clause, in that the Obama administration is creating its own religion (let's call it the "Church of the Immaculate Contraceptives" to give the WSJ its due)? Thus, the accommodation is as unlawful under the establishment clause as the original policy was under the religious freedom clause.
Edited on February 11, 2012 at 9:42pmJun '10
Re: Immaculate Contraception
Yes, indeed so. I don't see how this act of tyranny from the administration can be an indication of anything else.
The mandate and "compromise" are very similar to every other ratchet effect of big government. Progressives ask for "ONE TRILLION DOLLARS" for this program or that. This is followed by an outcry by conservatives. "OK," say the progressives, "we'll scale it back to 900 billion, if that makes you happy." Then everyone goes home happy.... right?
The only problem is that you can't partially compromise your morals, your soul. You either entirely compromise it, or you do not.
So, as the Bishops have indicated, we will continue to say, "give me liberty, or give me death."
May '10
Re: Immaculate Contraception
Obamacare delenda est?
That represents the triumph of hope over experience. Even if we elect a Republican president, even with filibuster proof majority in the senate and a lock on the house. They're not going to take away the candy the electorate has been promised.
We can't even repeal the ban on the incandescent light bulb for crying out loud, do we really expect a repeal of free stuff?
The three main Republican contenders are all statists to one degree or another. They'll all want to tinker, not repeal.
I'll be delighted if time proves me wrong.
May '10
Re: Immaculate Contraception
We've all gotten so used to government mandates and regulations that hardly anyone paid attention when this one came out many months ago.
Any there's something worrying about the fact that the bishops only got engaged in the battle when they learned that their institutions wouldn't be exempted. What about the faithful? What about Catholic insurance company owners or sellers? What about individuals? I am dedicated to marriage and the pro-life cause. I abhor contraception as an intrinsic evil. I now, by law, am not allowed to purchase health insurance that doesn't provide it free of charge. And I'm not allowed not to purchase any insurance.
The government is forcing us to participate in evil.
There is no worse form of tyranny.
Edited on February 11, 2012 at 9:56pmApr '11
Re: Immaculate Contraception
Nick Stuart:Obamacare delenda est?
That represents the triumph of hope over experience. · 30 minutes ago
You bet I expect it. Your two main finalists have pledged very publicly to repeal it. One's whole campaign is based on it.
It won't need 60 in the Senate. Due to budget implications, 50 will do it, much as it was passed.
Am I skeptical? Nervous? You bet. Is expecting it folly? Not on your life.
Sep '10
Re: Immaculate Contraception
Peter I hope you have a spare mind, because I'd like to mess with yours again. I present you with the 2001 press release of the Canadian Catholic Health Association defending our one size fits all healthcare system from evil Americanization.
If you can find anywhere on their site that this issue has or will ever come up, please let me know.
Re: Immaculate Contraception
Peter, funny you used that line. I have been thinking that the WSJ should use that at the end of every editorial no matter what the subject until full repeal!
Feb '11
Re: Immaculate Contraception
Charles Starnes, your hopefulness lightens my spirit. From your post to God’s ears! But I still worry -- the contraception mandate is a tip of an iceberg of governmental control over our lives.
The progressive supporters of the contraception mandate argue that the vast majority of women in the US use contraception. This is a truth, whether or not the 98% numbers cited are inflated. (links not working) Most women do, at some point in their lives, use some form of contraception.
My Church teaches that contraception harms human dignity and demeans sexual relations. From the numbers, it is clear that most Catholics do not follow this teaching and avoid contraception, any more than they divorce and remarry less than the rest of the populace or have fewer abortions for that matter. Most do not believe it is a matter of much importance, if it is even sinful at all.
How can the Church defend Her exemption when most Catholics are unable to articulate any sort of reasons why contraception is wrong? If Catholics can't defend their own teachings, there is no way that the hostile leviathan is going to care either.
May '11
Re: Immaculate Contraception
I understand that Ray LaHood will next require all employers to cover the purchase of motorcycle helmets with no co-pay.