There's an attack on freedom. It's not, as many propose, an attack by the President or the administration on religious freedom, but rather an attack from those of religion onto the people in our society. I believe in freedom. As a member of the military and a veteran, I take it so seriously that I have made myself available to literally fight for it.
With the current dialog about contraception and the Affordable Care Act, we face another ideological chasm. I believe Obama made a mistake initially requiring religious institutes to include something they find goes against their moral edicts within their insurance coverage. I think he sidestepped the issue well by allowing these institutes to hold their beliefs and still make the coverage available to individuals, women mostly, since I have heard no issues regarding male contraceptives. However, the results may end up generating more problems as others see an opportunity to request exceptions to the coverage they will provide.
The true problem now comes from the religious institutes vowing to continue their fight despite the administration's concession and members of the GOP are taking up the banner in their never-ending campaign to discredit and "defeat" the President. I should mention that I have noticed so far no prominent female voice in favor of cutting off funding for contraception. This is because most rational people can see that this is not an issue concerning abortion, a topic where there are plenty of legitimate concerns, rather, it is about all forms of contraception including those preventing initial fertilization.
Despite a majority (61% by Fox News poll) of Americans stating they believe employer health insurance should cover contraception and a whopping 98% of Catholic women report using contraception at some point in their sexually active lives, the vocal bishops and GOPers continue their assault. Though access to contraception (excluding abortion) is generally viewed as a public health topic, those opposing the mandate want to frame the use as a moral issue and the mandate as an imposition to their religious freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment. It doesn't help that we have a contending Republican candidate who openly is against contraception. It doesn't help that Mitch McConnell has stated he supports a bill that gives any employer the right to exclude any type of birth control they find objectionable.
If you don't see where this dialect is leading then let me clarify. There have already been bills introduced over the last couple of years from both Utah and Georgia that mean to punish women for miscarriages. This whole thing is an assault on women's reproductive health and rights!
I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I am pro-choice; however, I'm against abortion. This does not mean I'm willing to put on blinders and dismiss the historical information relating to a lack of access to all forms of birth control. Also, though I have no problem stating my position, as I will shortly, I wouldn't presume to make others share or follow my beliefs.
I believe pre-fertilization or early intervention are the best types of birth control, but I also believe that woman should not be "made" to carry a baby against her will. Though I would never encourage aborting a pregnancy which arose from a consensual encounter, I do not believe abortion is murder. I think infanticide is murder and something that happens too often to unwanted babies. I do not consider my trillions of sperm to be seeds or life, otherwise I would have to consider myself to be the killer of more life than the entire human population in the history of the world and that only includes the rampage in my pursuit of sire the children in our family. Rather, I view my sperm for what they are: flagellated haploid cells whose sole role is carrying a package of my genetic information in a mission of ensuring a bit of me and my predecessors carries on. I believe life begins not at conception but rather at the point in time which a fetus can survive (even with medical aid) outside the mother's body. (If you feel interested in the metaphysics of the issue, I encourage a visit to Cosmic Variance.) This is a subject on which my wife and I disagree, but that is okay because we do agree about wanting and loving the children we have.
Now, I'll address the freedom issue since so many seem to want to make this into a freedom issue. The word means many different things to many different people, so let's start with the definition:
free·dom
[free-duhm] noun
Obviously, there is a lot of room for interpretation or focus, but I personally think the first, the fifteenth and last are the most pertinent. One may notice these refer specifically to the individual since the individual is the paramount figure; however, within a civilized society, the individual participates in a more complex dynamic. The individual does not need to vanish or blend into a faceless mass, but they can't simply live as though the rest of society doesn't exist. One shouldn't expect acceptance without first accepting others.
The people who continually shout about President Obama placing "illegal" mandates on our society are the same people who propose legislation that defines our marriages, inhibits women from full control of their reproductive schedules and imposes a singular faith-based moral standards into our laws while actively preempting other's religious inclusions. They do this all and more while stating outright that Obama is the one attacking religion. He is simply making laws that are secularly based so that all of our society can benefit from them. They say he is disregarding the Constitution, but they want to create amendments so they can pass laws which they know currently fly in the face of the Constitution.
I feel I could go on and on. Instead I'll finish off with a few closing points.
1. Despite the bad press the Catholic church gets for some pretty reprehensible stuff which would seem redundant to write about, they perform a wealth of good in the form of charitable activities. It is a shame they are choosing to make a stand on this hill. Obama acknowledged that his mandate needed tweaking to accommodate the needs of both the religious institutes and the public health needs of our society. If the institutes insist on forcing the issue further, they may dislike the outcome. At some point the insistence of the Church to enforce rather than instruct their moral beliefs on others will backfire, and they will be required to abide by a public health requirement which trumps their particular moral compass. Religious freedom does not mean that they are fully outside of the laws of society.
2. This is a nation of freedom, but it is also one of laws. Freedom does not mean that one is outside of law. There are limitations on every freedom we enjoy whether it regards speech, religion, assembly or otherwise. Laws not only are there to protect us from those who willfully and sometimes inadvertently do malevolent things, but also they are there to ensure that our society continues to function despite hardship and tragedy. If Obama's administration is breaking laws or pushing through legislation that goes against the Constitution, our courts will remedy it. One shouldn't believe that this nation is great and in the same thought believe that our president won't be held accountable for actions found unlawful. The process is not always smooth but it is designed to protect the population. It is not designed in a way that everyone will be happy or agree with the outcome.
3. My biggest pet peeve about the dialogue concerning freedom is when people who dislike or disagree with how others choose to exercise the rights we have in this country say the person exercising the rights should move to China/Saudi Arabia/ North Korea/ etc. On the contrary, the one to move to those societies should be the one who desires such a restriction to individual rights of expression and/or conduct, not the one who believes in exercising the rights. As the saying goes, "I may not like or agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." The other favorite, "Love it or leave it!" applies in both directions.
4. Loving one's country doesn't imply loving stagnation. It doesn't mean one must accept a subordinate standing in the society. It doesn't require agreement or acquiescence. It does often call for some patience, empathy to fellow members of the society and acceptance that not every ruling pleases everyone.
Most want women to have access to the full spectrum of birth control but most also don't want the government infringing upon their religious rights. I think the whole issue with coverage and freedom has pointed out something which isn't getting the attention it should: medical insurance shouldn't be influenced by anyone other than the individual receiving the coverage. Perhaps we should refocus our efforts and tackle the issue from a different angle in order to provide both coverage and freedom in a way that separates and maintains each.
Enjoy the Show!
With the current dialog about contraception and the Affordable Care Act, we face another ideological chasm. I believe Obama made a mistake initially requiring religious institutes to include something they find goes against their moral edicts within their insurance coverage. I think he sidestepped the issue well by allowing these institutes to hold their beliefs and still make the coverage available to individuals, women mostly, since I have heard no issues regarding male contraceptives. However, the results may end up generating more problems as others see an opportunity to request exceptions to the coverage they will provide.
The true problem now comes from the religious institutes vowing to continue their fight despite the administration's concession and members of the GOP are taking up the banner in their never-ending campaign to discredit and "defeat" the President. I should mention that I have noticed so far no prominent female voice in favor of cutting off funding for contraception. This is because most rational people can see that this is not an issue concerning abortion, a topic where there are plenty of legitimate concerns, rather, it is about all forms of contraception including those preventing initial fertilization.
Despite a majority (61% by Fox News poll) of Americans stating they believe employer health insurance should cover contraception and a whopping 98% of Catholic women report using contraception at some point in their sexually active lives, the vocal bishops and GOPers continue their assault. Though access to contraception (excluding abortion) is generally viewed as a public health topic, those opposing the mandate want to frame the use as a moral issue and the mandate as an imposition to their religious freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment. It doesn't help that we have a contending Republican candidate who openly is against contraception. It doesn't help that Mitch McConnell has stated he supports a bill that gives any employer the right to exclude any type of birth control they find objectionable.
If you don't see where this dialect is leading then let me clarify. There have already been bills introduced over the last couple of years from both Utah and Georgia that mean to punish women for miscarriages. This whole thing is an assault on women's reproductive health and rights!
I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I am pro-choice; however, I'm against abortion. This does not mean I'm willing to put on blinders and dismiss the historical information relating to a lack of access to all forms of birth control. Also, though I have no problem stating my position, as I will shortly, I wouldn't presume to make others share or follow my beliefs.
I believe pre-fertilization or early intervention are the best types of birth control, but I also believe that woman should not be "made" to carry a baby against her will. Though I would never encourage aborting a pregnancy which arose from a consensual encounter, I do not believe abortion is murder. I think infanticide is murder and something that happens too often to unwanted babies. I do not consider my trillions of sperm to be seeds or life, otherwise I would have to consider myself to be the killer of more life than the entire human population in the history of the world and that only includes the rampage in my pursuit of sire the children in our family. Rather, I view my sperm for what they are: flagellated haploid cells whose sole role is carrying a package of my genetic information in a mission of ensuring a bit of me and my predecessors carries on. I believe life begins not at conception but rather at the point in time which a fetus can survive (even with medical aid) outside the mother's body. (If you feel interested in the metaphysics of the issue, I encourage a visit to Cosmic Variance.) This is a subject on which my wife and I disagree, but that is okay because we do agree about wanting and loving the children we have.
Now, I'll address the freedom issue since so many seem to want to make this into a freedom issue. The word means many different things to many different people, so let's start with the definition:
free·dom
[free-duhm] noun
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical
restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.the power to determine action without restraint.
4.political or national independence.
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6.exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from):
freedom from fear.
7.the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.frankness of manner or speech.
10.general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11.the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.a liberty taken.
13.a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or a corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14.civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16.the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17.Philosophy: the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
The people who continually shout about President Obama placing "illegal" mandates on our society are the same people who propose legislation that defines our marriages, inhibits women from full control of their reproductive schedules and imposes a singular faith-based moral standards into our laws while actively preempting other's religious inclusions. They do this all and more while stating outright that Obama is the one attacking religion. He is simply making laws that are secularly based so that all of our society can benefit from them. They say he is disregarding the Constitution, but they want to create amendments so they can pass laws which they know currently fly in the face of the Constitution.
I feel I could go on and on. Instead I'll finish off with a few closing points.
1. Despite the bad press the Catholic church gets for some pretty reprehensible stuff which would seem redundant to write about, they perform a wealth of good in the form of charitable activities. It is a shame they are choosing to make a stand on this hill. Obama acknowledged that his mandate needed tweaking to accommodate the needs of both the religious institutes and the public health needs of our society. If the institutes insist on forcing the issue further, they may dislike the outcome. At some point the insistence of the Church to enforce rather than instruct their moral beliefs on others will backfire, and they will be required to abide by a public health requirement which trumps their particular moral compass. Religious freedom does not mean that they are fully outside of the laws of society.
2. This is a nation of freedom, but it is also one of laws. Freedom does not mean that one is outside of law. There are limitations on every freedom we enjoy whether it regards speech, religion, assembly or otherwise. Laws not only are there to protect us from those who willfully and sometimes inadvertently do malevolent things, but also they are there to ensure that our society continues to function despite hardship and tragedy. If Obama's administration is breaking laws or pushing through legislation that goes against the Constitution, our courts will remedy it. One shouldn't believe that this nation is great and in the same thought believe that our president won't be held accountable for actions found unlawful. The process is not always smooth but it is designed to protect the population. It is not designed in a way that everyone will be happy or agree with the outcome.
3. My biggest pet peeve about the dialogue concerning freedom is when people who dislike or disagree with how others choose to exercise the rights we have in this country say the person exercising the rights should move to China/Saudi Arabia/ North Korea/ etc. On the contrary, the one to move to those societies should be the one who desires such a restriction to individual rights of expression and/or conduct, not the one who believes in exercising the rights. As the saying goes, "I may not like or agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." The other favorite, "Love it or leave it!" applies in both directions.
4. Loving one's country doesn't imply loving stagnation. It doesn't mean one must accept a subordinate standing in the society. It doesn't require agreement or acquiescence. It does often call for some patience, empathy to fellow members of the society and acceptance that not every ruling pleases everyone.
Most want women to have access to the full spectrum of birth control but most also don't want the government infringing upon their religious rights. I think the whole issue with coverage and freedom has pointed out something which isn't getting the attention it should: medical insurance shouldn't be influenced by anyone other than the individual receiving the coverage. Perhaps we should refocus our efforts and tackle the issue from a different angle in order to provide both coverage and freedom in a way that separates and maintains each.
Enjoy the Show!
No comments:
Post a Comment