Why do progressives always want the government to intrude in their bedrooms?

“Get the government out of my bedroom!!!!!”

How many times have you seen that written on the internet, complete with multiple exclamation points so as to emphasize the emphasis of the emphasis of the emphasis? And there’s a funny thing about that phrase, aside from it’s general asininity: usually it’s trotted out in debates that have absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s bedroom.

There’s abortion, for instance. We’re told that laws against abortion somehow intrude on our “private lives” and “what we do in the bedrooms.” Now, I’m no “women’s health practitioner,” but I’m pretty sure that most people aren’t getting abortions in their bedrooms. They might have sex there, which is an act that no pro-lifer wishes to prohibit. We love sex, actually. We love every part of sex — even and especially it’s potentially life-giving aspects. It’s modern progressives who are the anti-sex curmudgeons. They’ve made it joyless, sterile, and literally lifeless.

And then there’s gay marriage. Again we’re told to “just keep the State out of the bedroom.” But I’m not aware of very many pastors or Justices of the Peace who will perform marriage ceremonies while sitting on your Serta mattress. The argument against gay marriage is an argument against gay marriage — not gay love or gay sex. Maybe some think the latter issues ought to be legally prohibited, but I’ve never encountered anyone who holds that position.

So, keep the government out of the bedroom? Sure. I can go along with that. But do you know who really vehemently disagrees with this statement? The people who constantly say it.

These people are delusional paranoids. They crawl under their covers at night and scream at the “government” shadows lurking in the closet, which only succeeds in freaking out whoever’s trying to sleep in the room next door. Meanwhile, when the discussion turns to an issue that WOULD involve getting the government involved in “our bedrooms,” suddenly these privacy warriors are shamelessly begging for Uncle Sam to take a seat next to their beds and oversee the proceedings.

This brings us to Obama’s birth control mandate. The Supreme Court, which will eventually decide on this piece of the health care law, recently issued an injunction to temporarily allow some religious groups to continue to practice their faith, and opt out of covering drugs that defy the moral laws of their religion.

I don’t know how the Supreme Court will come down on this atrocious thing. They’ve been very wrong many times, and there’s no cause to have any faith in them at all. But I don’t need the robed gods to tell me that the constitution CLEARLY gives the government no authority to require companies to provide, through a third party or otherwise, free contraception. There is no “right” to contraception. There isn’t a constitutional right, nor a natural right, nor a God given right, nor any other sort of right. You might want contraception, you might feel like you need contraception, you might really, really, super-duper, with-a-cherry-on-top yearn for contraception at the pit of your soul, but that doesn’t mean you have a right to it. To claim otherwise is to make a mockery of the doctrine of human rights, and to cheapen and reduce the concept to nothing more than a Christmas wish list of gifts you’d like to receive from the Nanny State.

You don’t have a right to contraception. And I guarantee that you can not even begin to offer a valid defense of the embarrassingly idiotic assertion that free contraception is a right that not only stands beside freedom of religion, but actually supersedes it.

I certainly know one talking point you can’t use: “Get the government out of my bedroom!!!!!”

Speaking of which, what about that?

If you want the government to subsidize your sexual habits, or pass laws requiring your employer to do the same, then you are clearly asking to sacrifice your sexual privacy. When I was a teenager, my dad reminded me time and again that my claims to autonomy and “privacy” are severely limited by the fact that my home, clothes, food, and lifestyle are all funded by him.

“Get out of my room! I want privacy!”

“It’s not your room.”

“Oh, well, I mean, GET OUT THE ROOM YOU BOUGHT AND ASSIGNED TO ME!”

Not as compelling of a case, wouldn’t you agree?

Similarly, “Get out of my bedroom, government!” is a relatively strong statement.

Unfortunately, birth control mandate supporters are actually saying: “Get out of my bedroom, government! But, before you go, leave your wallet on the dresser, ’cause you’re gonna have to pay for all of this, sugar daddy.”

You see, privacy is expensive. If you want to do something in private, you have to pay for it. Period.

If you want to be an adult, you have to find a way to fund your own sex life. Someone send that memo to Sandra Fluke.

This birth control mandate represents, I think, the final step in our national transition from a society based on Natural Rights, to one based on ever-changing Artificial Rights. Our Natural Rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and given to us by God, as a condition of our humanity. Artificial Rights are randomly declared by a governmental authority, and have no coherent philosophical or moral basis. Most importantly, unlike Natural Rights, which work in harmony with nature and mankind, Artificial Rights are bestowed on one segment of the population at the expense of another. This is how you can discern Artificial from Natural Rights: the former’s existence rests not on freedom, but on tyranny.

The birth control mandate is a great convenience for people who wish to have sex on the cheap, but it’s also a profound intrusion on the liberty of the individual or group forced to provide the perk. The Obama Administration has tried to quell opposition by insisting that “religious organizations” will be exempt, but the not-so-hidden caveat is that the Obama Administration gets to decide who and what qualifies as “religious.” Where are the Separation of Church and State folks when you need them? Let some public school in Alabama hang a plastic Ten Commandments in the hallway, and they’ll be there with their lawyers and their bags of money within the hour. But the president unilaterally decrees his own authority to define other people’s religion for them, and — silence. I guess the Church and State activists are too busy worrying about wall decorations to notice the government obliterating the distinction between its terrain and religion’s.

Besides, it isn’t up to the State to wave its scepter and grant “exemptions” to nuns and priests who come crawling before them, humbly asking for permission to abide by their ancient doctrines.

It’s none of the State’s business either way.

You want free contraception? Good for you. Go work at a place that will provide it. Or pay for it yourself. Or stop having sex. Or have sex without “protection.” These are all options. Which one should you choose?

Well, it’s none of my business, remember? And it isn’t. It’s up to you. You’re an adult. Act like one.

I could argue against the birth control mandate in about a dozen different ways. But I’m too lazy to get my own weapons, so I’ll just steal yours and use it against you. So, yes, let’s “get the government out the bedroom.”

And here’s a good place to start.

***********

Find me on Facebook.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

335 Responses to Why do progressives always want the government to intrude in their bedrooms?

  1. Cylar says:

    The people screaming the loudest to “get government out of the bedroom” not only are the ones who actually want it in the bedroom (as Matt points out), they’re also the same ones who are delighted to see the government in the kitchen, the garage, the bathroom, the living room, and every other part of your house. The people who are the most concerned with sexual privacy these days seem to have no problem with government telling you what car to drive, how many gallons of water your toilet can use, what firearms you can own, where your kids can be educated, what you can watch on TV, what you should eat, and whether or not you have to buy health insurance.

    It’s also getting to the point where your church minister can be charged with a hate crime for failing to approve of what goes on in those bedrooms.

    The Left is only about “freedom” and “choice” when it has something to do with sex. On every other conceivable subject, they’re totalitarians.

    • KnitWit says:

      Of course the Left is all about freedom and choice. You have the “freedom” to “choose” whatever they think is right for you. You can’t choose anything other than what they think is good, but if you feel like picking something the Left approves of, you’re free.

      That seems to be the running definition, anyway.

      • Laura says:

        KnitWit – you just gave the perfect definition of “democratic socialism”…. it means… you have a choice to choose tyranny period.

        • Pytor Thorbjorn says:

          Laura- I don’t think you really understand democratic socialism. Democratic Socialism is not tyrannical, and I know this because I’ve lived in that system my whole life. It is a system based around helping others- which is something that the Bible commands us to do.

  2. Crystal says:

    Excellent, Matt. Of course, everything you’re saying is common sense. Therefore, Obama lovers will hate it.

    • Bill says:

      Again I don’t have to look too far to find someone that has written my sentiments for me. What Matt has written makes entirely too much sense for the extremists to understand. Thanks Crystal.

  3. Teresa Rice says:

    Reblogged this on Catholibertarian and commented:
    Now progressives are pushing their bedroom sexual escapades out in the open demanding all citizens approve and approve via coercion by the State. Excellent article Matt!!

  4. l says:

    women should have the right to free menstrual products instead 😉

    • KnitWit says:

      And all the ladies said: “AAAAAAAAMEN!”

      Seriously, menstruation is a much bigger part of a woman’s life than sex is. Shouldn’t pads and tampons be free, if we’re all about women’s rights?

      • Kat says:

        LMBO!!!! Lets just throw out all logic! If ya can’t beat the mindless liberals, just join in with their bs!

      • Natalie says:

        I hope menstruation isn’t a bigger deal than sex (assuming you’re married) 😀 Seriously though – that would make more practical sense.

      • Speaking from experience says:

        Actually, birth control products are used regularly by women to regulate and control their periods. Some women won’t have periods without birth control, which would leave them infertile. Some women have irregular and highly painful periods, which birth control can help. Birth control is very essential for a woman’s menstrual health, not just her sexual health. For the sake of women’s health, birth control should absolutely be a part of insurance coverage.

        • Nate says:

          You’re not actually arguing for birth control but general health, which is covered. There is no need for a mandate for everyone.

        • Christina says:

          “Some women have irregular and highly painful periods, which birth control can help.”

          While this is true – it only helps in that it eases the pain. As a long term solution I’ve never heard of a case where birth control actually helped a woman become fertile or prevent infertility. Since it overrides the body’s natural cycle it actually ends up MASKING problems and making it MORE likely the women will end up infertile because the underlying issue was never treated.

          It can be used as a “reset” button if the woman is essentially hemorrhaging. In such cases it is used temporarily to stop the cycle and allow the uterus to rest.

          In either case most insurance plans already cover this case to some extent (like they do any other drugs with a copay) because it is being used as a medicine in a medially necessary situation. The problem is doctors tend to subscribe it like candy and give “medically necessary” reasons like “acne” or “PMS”, which can and SHOULD be treated with something other than a class-1 carcinogen.

        • katharinabachmann says:

          Well, I’m on the pill since I turned 11 (15 years ago when I first got my period), otherwise I would not be able to get out of bed for 3 days every! month.
          My best friend (my age…) would have not been able to have her beautiful little family (married and a sweet little daughter 🙂 ), if she hadn’t had a doctor in her teenage years which checked her fertility and then gave her the right pill…
          So yes, birth control should be available through insurance for the right medical reasons, especially for teenagers in order to prevent (physical and mental) damage!
          That said, I am from a country where exactly this is happening: There is free birth control for under 18 year-olds (after seeing a doctor!), but when you turn 18, you’ll have to fund it yourself, since you’ll count as an adult from that day on… And as it has been said before, I totally agree on that when you’re an adult, it’s your own business how you finance birth control or if you use it, since you’re old and mature enough (you should be!) to forsee the consequences of your actions!

  5. Debra says:

    Great article Matt. So much common sense, I forward your articles, you have the guts to tell the truth and not hid behind some politically correct nonsense. Keep it up. Loved the moving across the country story too, very funny.

  6. Jennifer says:

    Its so very easy to have strong opinions on topics that do not actually effect your life. Where are all of the people who are on birth control that their insurance does not cover and are happily purchasing it? I have not read any comments that say “I choose to have sex and so I am happy to pay for my birth control every month.” Nor do I see any comments that say “I am struggling from paycheck to paycheck but since I choose to have sex, yes I should have to pay for it.”

    Why don’t you try putting yourself in someone else’s shoes for a change? How many of you have ever been to a free clinic when you were sick? When I could not afford insurance, and my job did not provide it, that is where I went when I needed to see a doctor. And it involved waiting for a minimum of two hours, in a crowded room full of other sick people, in order to see a doctor who was rushed and knew nothing about me or my medical history. Yes, I could pay on a sliding scale and was thankful that I was allowed to see a doctor at all. But it felt depressing and demoralizing and made me angry that somewhere else,a person with more money than me was in a private waiting room, seeing a regular doctor.

    Do we really need people to have to go through this experience in order to gain birth control too?

    I am doing better financially now and can thankfully afford insurance that allows me to go to a regular doctor’s office and be treated like a human being.

    Poor people in this country have enough struggles. If you are not one of them, be thankful. At any point, you could be.

    Saying things like “having sex is an adult choice that comes with consequences” is just petty and mean. And it being true does not make it any less insensitive.

    • I’m a poor college student getting my second degree while working as many hours as I can to make ends meet. I can’t afford to have health insurance at all. I really can’t afford to get treated for STDs, buy a bunch of condoms on a regular basis, or help a woman bear the costs of pregnancy and child-rearing. So my solution is to avoid the risks of bearing those costs by NOT having sex, even though I’d really like to and I have the opportunity to do so.

      Saying things like, “Having sex is an adult choice that comes with consequences” is not petty or mean. It’s not insensitive either. It’s just true.

      And for those of us who are struggling to get by, difficult adult choices are par for the course and we might as well get used to making them.

      • Mom of 2 says:

        I love this comment. Adult choices=consequences and that is life, like it or not; it certainly is not petty or mean. Life is chalk full of consequences and there is no getting around that. I appreciate a college education and completed mine while juggling two children, one of whom is special needs, because I accepted that’s what it took. And I didn’t plan on having kids so soon but it did so I took responsibility for them, sucked it up and did it. Such is life. I frequently wait for for long periods of time in full waiting rooms for my baby who has health problems and travel hours and hours every month to get her the therapy and go to the doctors she needs. Such is life. I’m thankful to live in America where we have good doctors, access to healthcare and clean water/food.

      • Jennifer says:

        This is a very responsible attitude and I applaud you. When you are struggling you do have to make a lot of choices. Don’t buy that, don’t eat out, etc. I just do not think not having sex needs to be in this category too, especially since it is a great stress reducer. 🙂 I hope you are able to get insurance soon and until then, please stay healthy! And again, good for you!

        • andrew says:

          I hear spa’s are a great stress reducer too. Should the government fund spa visits? Should employers fund spa visits?

          Here is a website on birth control costs:
          http://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2013/04/q-how-much-do-birth-control-pills-cost-a-9-to-63-or-68-to-112/

          It seems like the pill can cost as little as $9/month or as much as $100’s/month. I’m a graduate student (read ‘I don’t make much money’) and the low end of that sounds pretty manageable. It also looks like from this website that even with insurance you still have a co-pay (like any medical service or prescription). So, the pill can be pretty cheap without insurance, but will still cost something with insurance. Maybe this is a hasty conclusion, but it seems like this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. Why not let people fulfill their moral obligations and do some research. Also natural methods (i.e. no contraception) are great when you do your research and you only have to refrain from sex 1-2 weeks per month. Maybe that is too difficult…

        • Thank you for the kind words. 🙂 And thank you for the thought-provoking response that sex doesn’t need to be one of the things I deny myself. It prompted me to do some serious pondering and write the following post. You may find it interesting.
          http://nousapeironlogos.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/fair-questions-is-sex-a-right/

    • TheApostlePaul says:

      Jennifer: I just went through a dental emergency (worst pain I’ve ever been in my life) and paid $450 out-of-pocket. I actually feel lucky, because I went through a similar situation years ago, without insurance, and my out-of-pocket was close to $3000.

      Excuse my vulgarity (the church ladies who make up the majority of Matt’s readers object to the words “fuck” or “shit” but don’t seem to object to the obscenity that Republican policies have made of our country), but the medically uninsured and under-insured (Liz Warren got in their crosshairs after empirically proving that most bankruptcies in the US result from medical debt, and a huge percentage of THEM already had ‘insurance’) are FUCKED in this country. It’s a de facto caste system.

    • Scarlet says:

      I have always had insurance, but for the majority of my adult life, it did not cover birth control. Once I was married, we paid for it out of pocket monthly, yes, so we could have sex without having children yet and because it helped my monthly cramps (or so I thought, didn’t realize the effect it would have on my fertility, future cancer risks, etc. What I really needed was surgery to excise my endometriosis – but hey, why bother figuring that out when we can just throw pharma at it).

      This seemed fair to me, although it always bugged me that viagra was covered – I thought neither should be. It was a minimal expense each month, even though we didn’t have much starting out. Eventually it was covered, but for around 15 years it wasn’t. Once it was covered, there was a copay just like any prescription, so it actually saved very little since it started out so cheap.

      Also, dr’s offices are very busy right now. My child needs to be seen, the dr is going to work us in tomorrow. We can affford to pay full price, out of pocket. However, she has warned us that we may have to wait a couple of hours to be worked in. Since it’s important that DD be seen sooner rather than later, that is was we’ll need to do. It didn’t occur to me that waiting in line with other sick people was dehumanizing.

      • Jennifer says:

        Waiting for 2 hours to see a doctor, no matter where, is ridiculous. I understand that we have all accepted this as normal, but it shouldn’t be.

        • Kat says:

          We pay for our healthcare. I still have to plan for a doctors appointment taking at least 4 hours. Suck it up buttercup. Seriously, do you walk around looking for ways to convince others you are a victim???

        • A Smith says:

          There is a doctor shortage in many, many areas of this country, and Obamacare is convincing many of our most experienced doctors to “get out while the going is good.” That 2 hours may seem really fast in a couple years…

      • Christina says:

        Viagra is only troublesome if one things of these as “medicines that enable someone to have sex” – which isn’t exactly true…

        – Viagra is used to FIX a broken reproductive system and enable a man to function in a healthy manner.
        – Birth control is used to BREAK a healthy reproductive system and enable a woman to NOT function in a healthy manner.

        If you have health insurance then it’s reasonable to expect them to pay for things that make you healthy – and not pay for things that make you unhealthy. Yes there are cases where birth control can help a woman, but it rarely does. I’m not saying that birth control is rarely prescribed for “medical” reasons, it is at an alarming rate. I’m saying it’s rarely prescribed in a way that HELPS women, instead it’s given as a way to make her stop complaining even if that means the problem is never healed or worsens (as in your case).

        • Laura says:

          I strongly object to this statement. I am on birth control because I do have medical issues and have had to take it for the past 15 years or so on and off. My mother and various friends have also had to take it for medical reasons. I am getting tired of people that don’t have these medical issues (especially men) making the assumption that it is solely used for birth control. Why can’t I have medicine that helps my medical condition? It’s nice you assume it doesn’t, but it in fact does help a variety of female medical conditions.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @Laura: Birth control does not fix any problems. It only masks the symptoms. You should go to a doctor that actually does tests to see why you have a hormonal imbalance or if it is undetected endometriosis.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Birth controls actually does fix problems. Many women have monthly debilitating cramps eliminated by birth control.

    • ME says:

      I am one of those “people who are on birth control that their insurance does not cover and are happily purchasing it.” I am happily choosing not to have a baby with my husband…MY CHOICE is private, not for the world. I have been on contraception for more than a decade now, and I am paying for it because it is my choice, and I am an adult. An adult who has a responsibility to not ask the government or my employer for hand outs. An adult who wants to keep my employer THOROUGHLY out of my bedroom. I am happy to pay my own way through life in order to keep the world from knowing what happens in my bedroom.

    • Joseph Lee says:

      It is so easy to have strong opinions that ignore logic and reason when something directly affects you, isn’t it?

      Consider this Jennifer; contrary to your beliefs this does indeed affect pretty much everyone. Ignoring the legality or the government mandating such things to insurers, the simple fact is that if insurance has to provide “birth control”, its price will be adjusted accordingly. Now that insurance companies cannot logically recognize the differences between clients, that means people that do not want and won’t ever use this are having to pay for it on your behalf.

      If it helps, I don’t think people should be forced to endure in crowded waiting rooms in order to get a needed prescription for birth control. Fortunately, people are not forced to do that, because birth control isn’t a necessity; its a luxury for people that wish to engage in sexual activity with a reduced risk of pregnancy. You won’t die from lack of sex. What is more, have you considered other people? People who actually do need to see the doctor for treatment of illness, possibly even to significantly reduce the risk of or flat out avert death… and you’re at the clinic to get meds so that you can engage in intercourse without getting pregnant.

      • Jennifer says:

        Actually I use NFP so I do not have to get my birth control anywhere. But that was my own personal choice, which I was free to make.

        Sex for purposes other than making babies is not some horrible thing, btw. I am married. I want no more kids. We have sex anyway.

        Shocking isn’t it?

        • A Smith says:

          Terribly shocking…NOT. But it doesn’t really matter, does it? We will all be forced to put our money into everyone’s bedrooms anyway.

        • Audrey says:

          No one on this site seems to understand how insurance works. Everyone contributes to the pool that pays for others’ procedures, medications, etc., that they themselves will not need, because it’s cheaper that way. 99% of American women, and 98% of American Catholic women, have used birth control at some point in their lives. It is by far the most reliable form of birth control, and the only kind women can use that doesn’t depend on the man’s cooperation (condom’s, NFP, all do).

          In short, nearly all women use it at some point, and nearly all medical doctors agree that it is a basic healthcare need for women. That’s why it is on the list of mandated coverage. If you don’t like the way insurance works, don’t buy it. There are other options. But to suggest that having protected sex, and that both insurance companies and society at large doesn’t have an interest in folks having protected sex–which is way cheaper & safer than having babies–is a big reach.

    • Patty Ramsey says:

      I think your last paragraph sums it up. The truth is not always sensitive. But, we cannot cater to untruths in order to make people feel more comfortable. It is not your neighbor’s responsibility to pay for your sex life – period. And just for the record, people who pay for health care insurance or self pay often have to wait 2 hours in the waiting room too. And often we are treated by physicians who are too rushed due to the load of government paperwork waiting for them to give us their time and attention too.

    • Sherry says:

      Well, I for one am one of the people you speak of (as I think many here have been) who are perfectly happy to say “I choose to have sex and so I am happy to pay for my birth control every month.” AND “I am struggling from paycheck to paycheck but since I choose to have sex, yes I should have to pay for it.” Makes perfect sense to me! Sex is an adult choice, my dear, and adults with common sense understand that! 🙂

      • Jennifer says:

        But if you had insurance that covered your birth control I am sure you would appreciate the savings. Families who are struggling financially already have to make so many sacrifices. I just do not think whether or not to have responsible, protected sex should be one of them.

        And yes, there is always abstinence. Which is great for a married couple already under stress.

        • Invisible says:

          Condoms are simply not that expensive. Even if you have sex twice a day.

          When we require that insurance companies cover birth control for all people (including the elderly, male, infertile, and “wealthy”) we increase the cost dramatically. It costs almost everyone more so that a few people can save a bit of money. The overall cost is dramatically increased because we additionally have to pay all the middle-men.

        • Brad says:

          I went into an insurance company to get car insurance the other day. While I was there I also picked up renters insurance as I had just moved into a new place. The agent asked me if I wanted accidental damage coverage on my things. I was confused and asked him what that was. He told me that if paid an extra $6/term I could get coverage that would replace my things if I broke them. They would pay me if I stupidly dropped my tablet, or poured coffee into my computer. I looked at the agent and in a confused state said, “If I break my stuff, it’s my responsibility to replace it. Not yours.” He was pretty shocked to hear that.

          Point is, just because something is offered doesn’t mean you have to take it. Some people are more than willing to take responsibility for their own decisions. Just because you think that someone should pay for you to take that responsibility doesn’t mean they should.

        • How about using the rhythm method of family planning? That’s natural, free, free of harmful chemical consequences, convenient, always available and all my husband and I EVER used. Using it, I had three pregnancies, which resulted in four beautiful children.

    • Kat says:

      You are so selfish that you have no idea, nor do you care to even try to understand that this is a MUCH larger issue here than your vagina. I do not care about your vagina. We have an issue with a government that thinks they now get to tell you which rights you get and which you do not. It is called a right not a privilege though. Rights can not be taken away, privileges can.
      Yep, I’ve been a poor college student. If I wanted to have sex, I had to pay for my own birth control, so forgive me if I think that one can live through that ordeal.
      It may not seem like a huge deal to you that the government thinks they can make a law regarding religious beliefs, but for those of us who can draw parallels through history, we realize it will not stop at one law.
      “The government shall make no law regarding an establishment or religion.” I think that is pretty clear. Our country was founded by those fleeing Europe in order to obtain the basic freedoms laid out in the Bill if Rights.
      It is much cheaper to buy birth control than to find a new country that still allows our right to religious freedom.
      It is not about birth control. If you think it is, you are an absolute tool. You have been conned. You have allowed yourself to become a mindless lemming to those leading you into tyranny.

    • Your friend franny says:

      Some women need birth control for other health reasons. For many years I was on the pill for medical reasons NOT for birth control, my health insurance would not pay for it. They paid for all my other meds but not the Pill. So it cost me about $300 a year for the Pill. Interestingly enough my health insurance would pay for some fertility treatments, they would pay for prenatal care if I became pregnant and delivery. They would also pay for treatment of erectile disfunction and those little Blue pills.

      When Discrimination against women is institutionalized it seems more subtle and less personal. That’s probably why you don’t know it when you see it Matt. But your daughter will see it soon enough you’ll see.

      • Invisible says:

        The major difference is that there is no government mandate REQUIRING any insurance company or business to cover those little blue pills.

      • A Smith says:

        These make complete sense if your insurance policy is sponsored by a group that encourages people to have children.

      • Laura says:

        Finally. I also have been on the pill for medical reasons and NOT for birth control. I’m lucky that my insurance covers it now, but it hasn’t covered it in the past. I also do not like the discrimination against women that allows things like viagra to be covered and not the birth control pill.

        • That is really two different issues. I think that the lack of coverage may be based on a misunderstanding of what else these medications can be used for. I didn’t know myself until several months after the Sandra Fluke testimony. I don’t think that anyone would deny coverage for issues like PCOS, if they know about it and especially if they can do it without covering it as straight birth control.

          As for Viagra, I don’t necessarily agree that it’s discriminatory, especially if we get the whole question of non-birth-control uses for the medications discussed above straightened out. One thing I learned a long time ago is that these decisions are usually made for economic reasons by bean counters, not for medical reasons by trained medical personnel.

      • TKDB says:

        The thing is, this is a red herring. The HHS mandate is, simply put, NOT ABOUT non-contraceptive uses of the Pill. If it were, it would only mandate that insurance cover (wait for it) non-contraceptive uses of the Pill.

        This is not what the mandate does. It mandates that the Pill be covered, period. Always and in all circumstances. Along with any and every other kind of contraceptive method under the sun, including sterilizations and things like the morning-after pill that are known to be potentially abortifacient.

        If you want to argue that insurance ought to cover the Pill when it’s used for medically necessary reasons, that’s one thing. You could have some truck with that argument. But that simply is not the issue at stake here. That is neither then intent nor the outcome of the HHS mandate.

        • Nah, it’s not a red herring. See, there are medical uses for birth control (including the Viagra family of pills), but the government would definitely be violating the separation of Church and state principle of the First Amendment if it were to dictate when birth control would be acceptable to use. You see, most Christians don’t adhere to the every-sperm-is-sacred dogma. Because of the First Amendment, the religious nuts out there really have two choices – recognize that birth control does have valid medical uses and accept that as a necessary part of women’s, and men’s, health and provide the coverage or recognize that birth control does have valid medical uses and accept that as a necessary part of women’s, and men’s, health and deny the coverage because the birth control may be used for nonmedical uses.

          Yup, a rock and a hard place. Provide coverage because some people need it even if others abuse it or deny coverage because keeping it from those who would abuse it is more important than the people who need it.

        • TKDB says:

          It wouldn’t be a violation of church/state separation at all to distinguish between therapeutic and elective uses of any given drug or procedure. It’s basic medical reasoning — there is a clear and distinct difference between therapeutic use of a drug and use of the drug for birth control. I say this as a pharmacologist, not a religious nut: any medical practitioner worth their credentials can plainly see that birth control qua birth control (and I mean this in the general sense, not in specific reference to the Pill) is a distinctly different category from treatment of a disease or disorder, even if the same drug is used for both. To say that the only way to ensure coverage for therapeutic uses of treatments conventionally used for birth control is to require ALL forms of birth control to be covered in ALL circumstances (even in cases with no therapeutic need is being met, even in cases where the method covered HAS no therapeutic applications) is wrong on multiple levels. It’s an acquiescence to the ignorance of those who don’t realize these drugs have therapeutic uses (ie, tangential to their birth control effects); it produces a flagrant policy absurdity (in that it puts birth control qua birth control as a medical necessity); and it is in fact the greater 1st amendment violation because it infringes on an employer’s freedom to practice their religion, and does so without a valid reason (or rather, it vastly overreaches the circumstances where there would be some such valid reason).

          Remember, the complaint here isn’t that insurance companies are covering these things, but rather that the government is REQUIRING all employers to provide for such coverage. It is this requirement that is the problem. To make such a requirement, a compelling reason must be given, and birth control qua birth control is not such a reason. And that is the only reason that would lead to requiring coverage of all forms of birth control in all circumstances.

          Just require coverage in cases where the drug is being used for a medically necessary therapeutic application, and let the ignorant nuts who don’t realize such a thing exists whine if they will. Or better yet, *educate* people so they’re no longer ignorant and realize that things like the “birth control” pill can be used for things besides just birth control. As you say, they need to “recognize that birth control does have valid medical uses and accept that as a necessary part of women’s, and men’s, health and provide the coverage or recognize that birth control does have valid medical uses and accept that as a necessary part of women’s, and men’s, health.” That is absolutely true, and the law is perfectly capable of acknowledging that necessity without overreaching and painting all possible forms of birth control as “medically necessary” even when they’re being used for non-therapeutic reasons.

          Granted, there’s the possibility that abuses of a more limited requirement might occur, with doctors and patients using fabrications and exaggerations to get insurance to cover birth control drugs for ostensibly therapeutic reasons when no such reasons really exist. But to say that this means we have no choice but to go all in and just require coverage of all forms of birth control is simply absurd. Even if such things occur, they do not make the requirement of coverage an infringement on an employer’s right to religious practice; there system itself is not meant to support the act one may consider immoral, but rather is being abused to such ends. Giving someone a tool that is intended to be used for licit ends but that is improperly used for something illicit does not make one morally complicit in the illicit act. And if the religious folks really have an issue with it, they would have options for redress for such abuses because they would constitute insurance fraud.

          The point is, there’s no good reason to *require* universal coverage for all forms of birth control. Coverage for “birth control” drugs when they’re used for a valid therapeutic reason, absolutely, and there’s no real obstacle to doing so. Trimming down the mandate to apply only to therapeutic uses of drugs typically used for birth control would still satisfy the essential need addressed by the mandate while removing any real grounds for religious objection. The Catholic Church, at least, would certainly not complain, seeing as they’ve always acknowledged (based on the principle of double effect) that therapeutic uses of the Pill are fine even if contraceptive effects also occur in the course of such treatment. And with that example set, those of other denominations would certainly at the very least take a closer look at their own complaints if not withdraw them entirely. Those that do continue to complain would surely lose their suits, because the mandate would then be limited only to medically necessary therapies (an acceptable limit on religious freedom) rather than subsidizing accessories to a lifestyle choice.

          All it would take is to make clear that the same drug can be used for multiple different applications; that what people commonly refer to as “birth control” isn’t always about birth control.

    • Daniel says:

      My wife and I lived for years without health insurance. We were happy to pay for our own birth control. We certainly didn’t expect someone else to pay for our medicine. We struggled from paycheck to paycheck, and yes, we believed we should have to pay for our own birth control. When did this country start believing that someone wealthier should pay for everything we want. I grew up poor and spent many hours in low budget clinics. I was never angry because someone who worked hard and earned more money was able to sit in a cozier waiting room. My own children will probably never experience that, but it’s not because I’m going to make someone else take care of them, it’s because I will do what it right and take care of my own family.

    • So then, what you are saying Jennifer is that if we dare to tell the truth about something we should do it with more sensitivity? Or we should pay for the contraception of people that cannot afford it, but insist on having sex on there terms anyway? We already do that Jennifer, it’s called welfare, oops sorry, that was quite insensitive of me. “A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, the medicine go down…” Oh sorry, we’re not children are we, we’re adults!

    • dana says:

      I choose to have sex and I choose the consequences of that choice, and I choose to fund these choices myself. I do not make my neighbor fund my choices, no matter how expensive or demoralizing or depressing I feel the results are.

  7. MTgrassland says:

    Great rhetoric, lousy logic

    • Could you elaborate on why you think Matt’s logic is lousy?

      • ion9 says:

        a.matt does not understand how private insurance works which is what is being discussed.
        b. makes the false and arguable statement that if someone else contributes or is payigng the insurance, they are ‘clearly asking to lose their medical privacy’…no.
        c. this would be applied to all medical procedures? no, that is not dissussed, and probable not even thought through,,,the consequences…it would appear it would be just the ones that affect women and just the ones that are offensive to him.

        • mom from MN says:

          Huh? Sorry, but I don’t follow your “logic.” Are you sure you typed your responses correctly?

    • Audrey says:

      MTgrassland, you’ve picked up on the enduring theme of most of the posts I’ve read on this blog. Because I’m a sucker for punishment, I occasionally return. Here, I’ll make a few arguments for my own narcissism.

      No one in the Obama administration or progressive camp is arguing for “free” contraception, as you claim. Sandra Fluke was not asking for a “handout”. They are arguing that contraception should be covered by *health insurance*, which the women *pay for*. You can try to argue that contraception shouldn’t be on the list of covered drugs, but if you want to have rationality on your side–and you all sure seem big on that–you’ll have a hard time making your case. Almost all medical professionals agree that contraception has been a boon for women’s health. Contraceptive pills give women the ability to space pregnancies after marriage and the ability to deal with all kinds of women’s health complaints *not* related to sex. It has enabled women to improve their status in society by letting them choose when they get pregnant. Taking them is way safer than being pregnant. It’s way cheaper–for the woman, for society, and the insurance company– than being pregnant. In other words, it’s not about the contraception itself, it’s about the fact that this is a basic healthcare need women have, so it should be part of their healthcare coverage, and often it isn’t.

      Oh, right. If they just didn’t have sex, those sluts wouldn’t need birth control. That knocks all of my arguments right out the window, doesn’t it? Maybe. But what about poor, young married couples. Should they abstain from sex too, if their health insurance doesn’t cover contraception? Not every women can take the cheap generics, condoms can break, and I hear many of you are not a big fan of abortion.

      And what about women who need to take a brand-name pill for menstrual cramps, or PCOS, or endometriosis? There are a lot, including good old Sandra Fluke. That’s what she was testifying about, not her sex life. Sure, we can “verify” that they need it for a medical reason, but that kind of makes hay of your beliefs about privacy.

      The government is interested in healthcare in this case, not anyone’s bedroom. If you want to argue that the government shouldn’t be interested in healthcare, well, you can make that argument, but that’s *not* you’re argument. You’ve hidden the fact that you, and those who agree with you, are the ones who are obsessed with citizens’ bedrooms. That’s your real problem–that women, especially unmarried women, or poor women, can have sex without consequences. And you have to pay for it! Never mind that you’re not really paying for it, or that study after study shows that access to contraception makes women healthier. Just don’t hide behind your religious zealotry and claim you’re making a rational argument.
      .

      • KnitWit says:

        Um, Audrey? I don’t care if some insurance plans cover contraception. Neither does Matt, which you would have known if you had bothered to read the post in any depth. What he and I object to is the mandate that ALL insurance plans cover contraception.

        It’s like this: Say you live in a rainforest, where the risk of sandstorms is pretty much nil. A stranger some hundred miles away lives in the desert, where she won’t have to worry about piranha. However, you each buy insurance plans that cover your respective needs: You have guaranteed medical care in case of piranha attacks, and the stranger has respiratory and property damage coverage for sandstorms. One day, the government comes to your door and says that you will have to pay extra to help this stranger in case of sandstorms.

        Why? It makes no sense whatsoever. You and this stranger both pay for your own needs. You’ve never met and probably never will. Why should you be forced to cover one another’s asses? It would make far more sense for your money to go to piranha attack coverage and for the stranger’s to go to sandstorm coverage.

        Contraceptives work the same way. If you want a plan that covers contraceptives, go find a plan that covers contraceptives. Wonderful. I won’t stop you. But don’t make me pay more money for something I don’t need.

        • yez70 says:

          “don’t make me pay more money for something I don’t need.”

          Fine, if you have children do not expect insurance to cover it. I don’t need pregancy insurance, so I don’t think I should chip in for your coverage. I will never have a kid. I have never caused a pregnancy. My parents paid cash for my birth – back when it cost less than the price of a car to have one.

          If you already had a kid and used insurance, you OWE ME MONEY!!!

        • KnitWit says:

          Great. I’ll find a plan that covers maternity, and YOU can find a plan that covers contraceptives. Then we’ll both be happy and you can stop yelling at me.

        • Audrey says:

          My point was that he’s not arguing about contraception, he’s arguing about the nature of insurance. You just demonstrated that very nicely with your response. The very nature of insurance is that you pay for things you might not need, or even that it’s not possible for you to need, by pooling risk. My insurance plan covers prostate exams and testicular cancer treatment, but I don’t anticipate needing those. Contraception, despite all of this carrying on, has demonstrable benefits to women’s health in much the same way a prostate exam does. So why single it out for this argument? Why go on and on about “choose not to have sex” if sex is not what it’s really about?

          As I said, we can argue about the pros & cons of government-mandated insurance. But that is a different argument. Or, if you want to only pay for what you need, you would pay out of pocket for everything and skip insurance entirely. Again, that’s not what anyone is focusing on. What’s unique about contraception to the libertarian argument, other than religion? In which case, someone’s going to need to explain to me why no one’s getting upset about covering impotence treatments.

        • KnitWit says:

          Fine, Audrey. You want what’s different about contraception? Here it is:

          Pregnancy—the one thing contraceptives are meant to prevent—can be avoided by natural means. Even if one wishes to forgo natural prevention, some forms of contraception are so cheap that they don’t need to be covered by insurance, unless your paycheck is less than $50 a week. Or, to put it more plainly….

          IF YOU DON’T HAVE SEX, YOU DON’T NEED CONTRACEPTIVES. IF YOU MUST HAVE SEX, BUY SOME $10 CONDOMS AT WAL-MART.

          Seriously, why should I have to fork over extra money for YOUR top-of-the-line birth control pills when you can get a big box of condoms for less than $20?

        • And if you didn’t smoke or drink and you ate a proper diet of mostly fruits and vegetables, fish, poultry, and rarely red meat, we wouldn’t have to cover cancer, liver diseases, and heart disease, either. Should we be paying for the irresponsible gluttons of our society? Eat and drink responsibly and you’re doctor will become a stranger to you. Why should everyone else have to pay for your irresponsibility?

        • You may not be aware of this, but studies of mummified remains from various periods of history and various cultures indicate that a certain percentage of human beings are going to get cancer, heart disease, etc., no matter what diet is eaten, etc. And even if that were not the case, those are still medical conditions requiring treatment to preserve life, and thus health insurance covers treatment. Lack of pregnancy is NOT such a medical condition, and thus birth control is an elective treatment that insurance is NOT bound to cover. Most insurance doesn’t cover elective cosmetic procedures either.

        • We never said that heart disease and cancer was nonexistent. What we did say, or at least implied, is that people who normally would not develop heart disease and cancer are developing these diseases now because of their dietary and lifestyle habits. Just as birth control measures are a necessary medical need for a small percentage of people, cancer and heart disease coverage should be a need for a small percentage of people if everyone made the right dietary and lifestyle choices throughout their lives. Sorry, when we see a 300-lb heifer eating at the all-you-can-eat buffet at Golden Corral, we can’t help but wonder why we should be paying for their health care.

        • Birth control is NOT a medical need. When the same medication is given for PCOS or similar conditions, it’s no longer birth control.

        • Medication prescribed for lowering cholesterol is not a medical need. When the same medication is given to vegetarians or others who eat a responsibly balanced diet, it is no longer heart disease prevention.

        • When I said it’s not a medical need, what I meant (and what I have said elsewhere in this thread) is that it treats a medical condition. Elevated cholesterol is a medical condition.

        • And you are incorrect. The fact someone has a cholesterol level above 200 does not mean one is suffering from heart disease. 200 is the magical number pharmaceutical companies designated as “let’s get them on our meds”. We won’t regurgitate all the studies out of Asia, particularly Japan and the sumo wrestlers, but heart disease is comparatively rare compared to the US despite their average cholesterol levels being at or above the 200 mark. The link, based on current thinking, is the Japanese high consumption of tea. The Japanese drink tea like we drink soda. So, again, it comes down to diet and healthy choices.

        • Jennifer says:

          I get the point of your analogy. Is this what we have come to as humans? I only want to support those things that affect me? I only want to pay for things for me. Me, me, me! Whatever happened to helping those in need? I guess it doesn’t matter that there are poor people out there, so long as it doesn’t effect you in any way.

        • KnitWit says:

          You’re missing the point, Jennifer. The point isn’t helping those in need—nobody NEEDS top-of-the-line birth control. I have no problem paying into an insurance plan that covers maternity leave, or prostate cancer, or extended hospital stays. People NEED treatment for those things. People do not NEED $85-a-pop birth control pills. If they NEED birth control at all, they should go to Wal-Mart and fork over ten bucks for a box of condoms.

          Nice job trying to make me look like a monster, though. All you did was make yourself look like emotionally manipulative and woefully uninformed, but A for effort.

        • Jennifer says:

          My comment was based on your analogy about the sandstorms. Based on that logic, whenever there is a hurricane or some other problem somewhere that is not my city, I have no responsibility to help. Not me, not my problem. Only the suffering of other humans is my problem and if I can afford to help, I should.

          But you are right that expensive birth control is not necessary. So long as people can get something.

        • Jennifer says:

          And no, I do not think you are a monster and was not trying to make you look like one. I just can’t stand this me, me, me attitude that so many people who comment on this site have. As if they never put themselves in the shoes of someone who was in a different position from themselves.

          I get your point. You do not want to pay for someone else’s birth control. But when you pay an insurance premium you are paying for all kinds of things you will never use. So maybe you should not purchase insurance and just pay out of pocket whenever you need to see a doctor. Why take away other people’s choices?

        • KnitWit says:

          Uh, no. That’s not what it means. You see, in my analogy, both of these people paid into plans that provided for them in case of dangers intrinsic to their chosen lifestyles. Those plans also covered people nearby, and in my hypothetical scenario, these plans were enough to cover all costs of piranha attacks and sandstorms. If a desert-dweller CHOSE to send aid for piranha attacks, she would be welcome to. I was making a point about choosing plans that cover your own personal lifestyle choices and not being FORCED to cover those who choose different lifestyles. Aid should be a choice, not a result of coercion. Nice job making it sentimental, though. I wouldn’t have gone there, but nice job.

        • KnitWit says:

          And Jennifer, if you want to combat the “me, me, me” attitude you think you see, sponsor a child in a developing country. Or give to No Kid Hungry, or the USO, or breast cancer research, or whatever cause you think your money would benefit most. Don’t come to a blog and try to shame others for their political beliefs. That doesn’t benefit anyone but yourself, since you can then give yourself a pat on the back for being so enlightened. If you want to make the world a better place, put your money where your mouth is.

        • Jennifer says:

          Knit, I do donate to others when I can afford to do so. I hope you do as well. I come to this site because I enjoy intelligent respectful debate. Not to shame others. But what I often see is a lot of absolutism, insults, and angry comments from people who clearly have not even tried to think about the other point of view and only really care about themselves. If this is not you, and you are in fact an open minded person who just doesn’t want to pay for condoms, that is fine. 🙂 Have a good evening.

        • KnitWit says:

          I won’t try to argue with you on that one, Jennifer, though I do kind of admire the way you claim the moral high ground WHILE shaming others AND offering backhanded compliments. It’s kind of impressive.

        • Jennifer says:

          Sigh, I give up. At least I tried.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Actually people would get heart disease and cancer even if their diet was excellent….they’d probably just get it a little later in life. (Which goes to prove the stance I’ve alway held that preventative measure don’t save money. They just delay it.)

        • Yeah, just like those who choose to live in flood plains should pay for flood insurance, but those who choose not to live in flood plains should not have to pay for it.

      • Wes Powell says:

        Not only all that, let us make a critical examination of the Catholic stand on birth control. No birth control used by followers the more followers. And the more prospective wallets. It’s certainly cannot be a moral stand. To stand against birth control in over-populated and poverty stricken areas, which they do, is about as evil as you can get.

        • KnitWit says:

          I thought about dignifying that comment with a well-thought out and reasoned response.

          Then I realized it was so ridiculous, it doesn’t deserve one.

          How ’bout them Yankees, Wes?

        • Audrey says:

          Heh. I’m sympathetic to this, but as a Christian (not Catholic) myself, I’m not ready to lay that on most of my Catholic brothers and sisters just yet. I think their intransigent stance on contraception is probably rooted in the patriarchy, but I think most Catholic theologians, like most people, are probably well-intentioned. But I agree that their policy has done a lot of harm in developing nations.

        • KnitWit says:

          At least the Catholics are in developing countries offering hope and aid. Leftists in our country are too busy fighting for gay marriage and free birth control to worry about starving children in Africa.

        • That’s a little unfair characterization. You see, Catholics (and some other Christians) are against birth control because they truly believe that a woman is nothing more than a puppy mill. That’s why Matt has complained in the past about the “browning of America” because not enough White people are having enough children to counter-balance the perceived explosive growth of Hispanics in this country. Hispanics, by the way, are predominately Catholic.

        • Erin L says:

          From my understanding as a Christian (not a Catholic) their stance against birth control is not so that they produce more followers, but because they view sex as a sacred gift given to us by our Creator so that we can be like Him, that is, Creators of life. Society has totally turned the life-giving aspect of sex as an annoyance that must be dealt with medically and THAT is was is objectionable. I hold that view of sex, myself. And that is our right to hold those beliefs and stand by them. I also believe that sex, when used within a loving, stable marriage between a man and a woman (and only then) is also a way to express love and to connect with each other. We have used birth control for short periods of time in my marriage for one reason or another and that is my business. The issue here is not whether or no birth control is or isn’t moral, (and I definitely believe that some methods are more moral than others). The issue is the requirement that employers must provide health insurance and that that health insurance must cover something that the employer feels is morally wrong is an infringement of religious rights. Plain and simple.

      • A Smith says:

        Audrey, you are missing the extremely obvious point that Catholic organization have the First Amendment right to religious beliefs, and those do not include any type of chemical contraception. They do teach a natural way to avoid children, but believe that every child is a blessing from God.
        Protestants have a First Amendment right to avoid paying for chemicals that can cause miscarriage and abortion because we share with the Catholics the MEDICAL knowledge that every human life began at conception, and causing the uterus to be hostile to that new human is murder.
        NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE US TO PAY FOR THE MURDER OF ANY CHILDREN, even through insurance companies. If you don’t mind murdering your kids, do it on your own dollar.

        • yez70 says:

          Not quite sure where this medical knowledge that life begins at conception comes from, especially since doctrine shoild come from the bible unless you believe in evolution too. The bible says life begins at BREATH not conception.
          After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.
          In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
          Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

        • Lisa K says:

          Aside from the fact that the sentence “causing the uterus to be hostile to that new human is murder” doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever, the bigger issue with your argument is that it is terribly flawed. Where are the up-in-arms religious folks about policies that cover a hysterectomy, a vasectomy or any medicine that might result in infertility. Not to mention any drugs that would treat conditions which fly in the face of extreme doctrinal beliefs.

          The truth of the matter is that religious organizations simply don’t want to women to be able to control their own sexuality. It’s an issue that the church has been dealing with since its inception and continues through people like you.

      • mom from MN says:

        I think that every female in this country should have access to natural family planning. This would educate all girls/women about their bodies and aids both in preventing unplanned pregnancies, but ALSO for those trying to get pregnant. By knowing how the female body functions, you are way ahead of the game when you can pin point issues that can affect your health, including fertility issues.

  8. Jessie says:

    A bunch of rhetoric! A few cells that are never positioned to develop is not a baby. People have to pay for people’s McDonald’s eating health issues, I don’t want any part of that. I have religious family that feeds their babies KFC. Disgusting. Your body is a temple, huh? Hypocritical, self-righteous, ignorant who wear God like a beard to justify their judgement of their fellow Earth inhabitants shouldn’t be breeding anyway, just to add to the large group of stupid people. This is a big circle-jerk, go eat some tortured animals. Idiots.

    • Also, didn’t you just call someone else petty and mean in an earlier post? Sigh………..Doctor heal thyself.

      http://www.theDHblog.com

    • KnitWit says:

      You know, Jessie, I’ve heard a theory that vegans are so mean and illogical because they don’t get enough protein for their brains to function properly. Your non-sequiturs and rampant comma abuse lend credence to this theory, but it’s your hateful and judgmental comments about the religious that make me think it’s spot-on. Here’s a suggestion, Jessie: Get off the Net, go to McDonalds, and eat a cheeseburger. Then sit down and think about what you wrote. If you still think you were absolutely right to say what you did, eat another cheeseburger. Obviously, your vegan diet is killing your cognitive functions, especially higher reasoning. For the good of your brain, and those who must deal with the word-vomit it produces, please become a carnivore.

      • Jessie says:

        I’m not vegan! Oi vey! I eat free-range meat. You’re suggesting I eat McDonald’s? No! I’ve lived with these honest observations for a long time and my logic (and comma use) is fine. I’ll make glue out of your high horse, ya pink-goo advocate.

      • Jessie says:

        Maybe you need to re-read my point, since you were too busy drawing inaccurate conclusions about me. It isn’t right to advocate McDonald’s! Gee whiz. You’re part of the problem in a big way.

      • Jessie says:

        I’m a vegan because I don’t eat McDonald’s? Inaccurate! I had a good point but with people like you it’s completely wasted. Wow.

        • mom from MN says:

          Maybe because you sound like a ranting emotional individual, with what appears to this audience as hatred against some of the “religious” element in your family tree. If you want to get a point across, do it without spewing hate and nastiness! You only hurt your own agreement!

      • What Jessie needs is to be transformed by the renewing of his/her mind in Christ Jesus! That’s what!

    • Invisible says:

      What you are saying is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. The problem is that nobody is trying to force any companies to provide services based on your opinion. A company could offer those services if they wanted to, but they are not forced to.

      The Catholic church (which I disagree with) has an opinion that is different than yours. They do believe that those cells are already a human baby. Thus they do not want a law that forces them to act against their own beliefs.

      There are lots of businesses and insurance companies that cover birth control (which seems smart to me because it is less expensive than pregnancy) and there are others that choose not to.

      The FORCE is what is upsetting people.

  9. Jessie says:

    *ignorant people.

  10. Natalee says:

    Your spot on.

  11. werner101 says:

    I said it before Matt. You would have a field day in South Africa. ‘Free condoms for all’ is our government’s ‘motto’…or attempt at trying to prevent HIV spreading. Every single government department has free contraception in the toilets, and some large emoloyers also. And every so often they literally deliver it by the truck loads. The masses are all too happy to make use of the freebies and ensure they dont go to waste. Ludicrous.

    • Lisa K says:

      The government is desperately trying to control the epidemic spread of HIV in that country. Imagine, a government trying to protect its people from a life-threatening, non-curable, highly spreadable disease!! Just “ludicrous”, isn’t it?!?

  12. yez70 says:

    So, as an employer I shouldn’t have to cover pregnancy either. Same argument there as you don’t have a right to pregnancy either. It’s not in the constitution.

    Fact is: Birth control PREVENTS abortion. Anoy intelligent pro-life advocate should know that.

    Common Sense…

    • On the surface, birth control does seem like it would prevent abortions. But in practice, an increase in birth control usage often leads to an increase in the number of abortions. This result may seem counter-intuitive, but it is due to a little thing called risk compensation. Basically, birth control greatly decreases the risk of pregnancy, but doesn’t eliminate it entirely. But people using birth control feel safer, as if the risk were totally gone, and thus engage in sex more often (even when a pregnancy would be a crisis). The increased amount of sex leads to an increase in crisis pregnancies, even with the lower percentage of sexual encounters that result in pregnancy. In other words, the belief that one is safe from pregnancy encourages behaviors that put women at greater risk of a crisis pregnancy. While the total number of pregnancies among all women may go down with increased birth control usage, the number of crisis pregnancies goes up due to women engaging in sex where they usually wouldn’t have – of which a certain percentage will get pregnant. And a greater percentage of crisis pregnancies end in abortion because women begin to see children as a burden to be avoided – that they have a right to avoid – and thus are more prone to see abortion as a solution to their unwanted pregnancy when birth control fails. They see their own child as, not a product of their own actions, but an unwanted and undeserved intrusion on their lives – and thus feel justified in having an abortion.

      • yez70 says:

        That was not my point. You were happy to ignore that. If I do not have to pay for birth control, I should not have to pay for pregnancies either. Besides the fact, you offer nothing to prove your delusion that birth control prevents pregnancy and abortions. All you have offered is an opinion. If your ilk allowed proper sex education in schools, we would not have this perceived perception you allude to…

        I don’t believe we need any more children on this planet, we have enough. Honor my beliefs too, make sure I don’t have to cover pregnancy.

        • mom from MN says:

          You can’t equate birth control coverage with maternity coverage. Pregnancy is a medical condition.

        • yez70 says:

          Yes pregnancy is a medical condition. It is prevented by birth control.

          Or are you saying we should stop giving flu shots, vaccines, and statins since they prevent medical conditions too?

          If my insurance has to cover everyone else’s conditions, so should yours.

      • Jennifer says:

        A good majority of birth control failure is due to misuse. So shouldn’t we spend more effort teaching women how their bodies work, how to know when they are ovulating, and how to use whatever method of BC they have chosen properly? Just a thought.

      • Lisa K says:

        Statistically, this isn’t accurate (although you make an interesting theoretcial point). Pre-Roe v. Wade, abortion statistics weren’t kept (since they were, you know, illegal and unsafe), however, statistics since then suggest that as the rates of contraception increase, the rates of abortion decrease. This is likely due to the fact that there are fewer unwated pregnancies.

        The fact that some people who use contraception may also seek an abortion is an irrelevant point. It doesn’t make the rates of unwanted pregnancies rise nor the rates of abortion.

    • Invisible says:

      To be clear, the libertarian philosophy would also include the right of any company to not cover pregnancy if they didn’t want to.

  13. Wes Powell says:

    I always enjoy the Jesus-Religion side of the far right.
    I am not religious and make no claims to be an expert. However I would still inject that the only thing I would consider a necessary prerequisite to any legitimate human religious experience would be a deep sense of humbleness and humility.
    Of which the far right displays absolutely zero, particularly it’s spokesmen at the top, who pass their frustrated, hot-head views down to it’s almost simian rank and file. It’s all belligerent, confrontational, loud-mouth, know-it-all hot air.
    They can only fool each other.

  14. Wes Powell says:

    They perpetually whine and moan about being persecuted as Christians, when you can hardly drive a few miles in any direction without seeing a church. Christian book stores, radio and TV galore. With many of these entities being nothing more than financial and real-estate companies that don’t pay taxes.
    I don’t think at any time in American history there has been as much bitching about America from one group as modern conservatism.
    Why not just move somewhere else?

    • Invisible says:

      Let me understand your arguments:

      1. People are “persecuting” non-Christians by buying private property and spending private funds to build a church, store, or media station without paying taxes. Even though they all pay taxes if they are making a profit.

      2. Christians should just move instead of complaining about a situation that they feel is unjust.

      • yez70 says:

        Churches do not pay taxes. They use all the taxpayer provided services for free. They are welfare leeches on society who expect everyone to comply with what they want.

  15. Wes Powell says:

    Lastly, on the constitutional issue, the constitution is whatever 5 or more of the 9 justices say it is. That’s how we do it. What would conservatives move to replace it?
    Let me guess? A majority vote of republican primary voters? A majority of clear channel radio talk show hosts?

    • And now we see the problem with Leftists’ view of the Constitution. To claim that the Constitution means what 5/9 justices say that it means makes a mockery of the Constitution and justice in general. Do you REALLY believe that the Constitution EVER truly upheld “separate but equal” or Jim Crow or Dred Scott or any number of other despicable rulings, or were those MISINTERPRETATIONS? A Constitution without a fixed meaning alterable only by Amendment protects no one’s rights. If the Constitution truly means what 5/9 justices say that it means, what if 5/9 get a bee in their collective bonnet next week and decide that another Japanese relocation or laws requiring discrimination by government is perfectly acceptable under the Constitution? Does this mean that the Constitution TRULY embraces that idea, or will those justices have been guilty of gross misinterpretation?

  16. CDK says:

    Our Natural Rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and given to us by God, as a condition of our humanity. Artificial Rights are randomly declared by a governmental authority, and have no coherent philosophical or moral basis. Most importantly, unlike Natural Rights, which work in harmony with nature and mankind, Artificial Rights are bestowed on one segment of the population at the expense of another. This is how you can discern Artificial from Natural Rights: the former’s existence rests not on freedom, but on tyranny.

    Aside from the hyperbole of asking why progressives ALWAYS want the government to stay out of our bedrooms (which I’ve never heard a progressive say, by the way), you bring up the words, Natural Rights, (capitalized, no less) and Artificial Rights (capitalized, no less), and you speak about the Constitution. What is this nonsense? If you wish to speak about such things then do it with history and at least a smidge of truth. The glorious U.S. of A. broke every treaty made with the humans that were already on this land, so your issue of Constitutional birth-control confuses me. Why would you focus on such inane things when the wondrous Constitution has already been proven to be a whole lot of nonsense? Forgive me, is this off-topic?

    • KnitWit says:

      Your argument is a non-sequitur based upon a red herring. By the end, it devolves into a straw man. Please make an argument that is not based upon logical fallacies before continuing.

      • Jessie says:

        Knit Wit is a good name for you! Did you read their statement or just draw conclusions based on your own narrow mind?

      • tsisageya says:

        Your argument is a non-sequitur based upon a red herring. By the end, it devolves into a straw man. Please make an argument that is not based upon logical fallacies before continuing.

        Well, that certainly includes all the logical lingo without actually saying anything to dispute my word. Good job, knitwit. But I don’t wish to argue with you.

        P.S. Thanks, Jessie.

  17. Devin says:

    Hmm… You’ve NEVER encountered ANYONE who has believed gay sex should be illegal? Why did we have to have a supreme court case then when an entire states worth of people made gay sex illegal because they are almost all conservative christian theocrats?

    • KnitWit says:

      He means in modern times, Devin. Matt doesn’t seem to make a habit of conversing with the dead.

      • Devin says:

        I was referring to Lawrence V. Texas… Ever heard of it? It was a case decided in 2003. Last time I checked ten years ago was still considered “modern times.”

  18. LilyL2182 says:

    I’m wondering if Matt has ever heard of the 9th Amendment.

    • Having a right to something doesn’t necessarily mean — in fact, usually does not mean — that you are given it for free, merely that government can’t deny it to you. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but no one is forced to buy civilians weapons. The First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of the press, but no one is forced to buy anyone mass communications technology. I could go on, but I think that you get the point.

    • LilyL2182 says:

      I actually agree with you in all that. I’m still wondering about my question though.

  19. Cory says:

    Matt obviously hasn’t read the latest version of the Declaration of Independence. Just like the Constitution, it is a living breathing document that has to be modified to fit the times:

    “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the right to consequence free sex and the right to force others to pay for it, that to uphold these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governing…”

    • This “living document” argument — that the Constitution has no fixed meaning, but can simply be reinterpreted over time without going through the messy process of Amendment — is a dangerous and ridiculous argument. I have elsewhere addressed the dangers, let me now address the ridiculousness. How would you like to play poker in a game where the rules are living? You hardly know what plays you could or should make, and you stand a good chance of losing your shirt…

  20. Kat says:

    “The government shall make no laws regarding an establishment of religion.” It does not say that there is no place for religion in the public forum rather there is no place for government ruling in a religious forum. How I wish Americans would read the Constitution and vote accordingly. I hate that I am going to lose my natural rights due to the selfish ignorance of others.

  21. Cory says:

    The whole health care debate has nothing to do with health care or contraceptives. It is all about compulsion. Should the government be able to dictate to insurance companies what coverages they provide? Should the government be able to dictate to us what coverages we will purchase?

    The answer to both of those is NO.

    In a free society, a government’s job is to make sure nobody is using either force or fraud to get what they want or need. With insurance, a proper government’s job is to make sure the insurance companies are honest about what they cover and under what conditions, to make sure they meet their obligations when those conditions occur, and to make sure the customers are being honest in their claims.

    We humans all suffer from tyranny-myopia. When we are the ones being the tyrants, it doesn’t feel like tyranny to us. If the government is compelling people to do things that we agree with and would do freely without the compulsion, then we don’t notice it.

    All of our arguments about the entire welfare state fit into the same boat. We aren’t arguing over whether we should help our fellow man, we are arguing over whether we will be compelled to help them the way you want them helped, or whether I will be free to help them according to the dictates of my own conscience. Those who agree with the current method, don’t see the compulsion so therefore think the fight is over welfare and think those opposing it must be uncaring jerks. Those who disagree with the current method, feel the compulsion keenly.

    • Here, here! The government has no business mandating what products Americans need to buy. Despite the last minute, majority by one vote decision of the Supreme Court, Obamacare is fundamentally unconstitutional. Too bad so many conservative talking heads have abandoned that perspective in favor of singling out specific provisions that they perceive affects them instead of maintaining the overall unconstitutionality of Obamacare arguments.

      • Actually, most commentators I have heard do both. Like with abortion, with the USSC having ruled one way on the general question, the debate will naturally turn to subsidiary issues, but that doesn’t mean the overriding Constitutional issue has been abandoned.

    • Invisible says:

      Yes. This.

    • Lars says:

      Cory, you must be reading my mind. Amen!

    • Kat says:

      A-FREAKIN-MEN!!!!!

  22. kcfig says:

    I like your blog Matt. It’s well written, humorous, and I agree with you.

  23. Adam says:

    Except for the fact that you are wrong about everything here, you are pretty much right on the money.

    This isn’t “free” birth control. It’s birth control paid for with premium dollars. It just doesn’t have a co-pay. That isn’t nitpicking. It’s the truth. Plus there is also an opt out option, which these people could easily use, but there’s more headlines and money involved in pretending that all Christians are living under liberal oppression.

    And by the way, I’m really sorry that even though you aren’t being forced to do much of anything, and that you are pushing the laughable notion that a private, for-profit corporation like Hobby Lobby is somehow having its “religious rights” violated, but I’m sort of beyond caring that religious people are upset about doing things that don’t please them. Welcome to the neighborhood. How does it feel?

    I bet the young earth creationist who was put in charge of choosing all the science textbooks for the entire state of Texas is really upset about this. Poor little fella.

    I bet all the abstinence only education people from religious organizations who were paid for by my taxpayer dollars during the W. years are furious. As are all the young, unready mothers who were told by these dingbats that condoms just don’t work,

    Bet my buddy Jen, who had been prevented from marrying her girlfriend of 7 years for reasons based on the Old Testament and not the Constitution, is just wailing and gnashing her teeth at the notion of religious people um, not really suffering from any sort of oppression whatsoever. But whatever. Keep your head up. Perhaps you can retreat to one of the hundreds of thousands of tax free churches in America and reflect on how utterly oppressive your life is.

  24. Adam says:

    And by the way, Matt, what are your thoughts about, say, Hindus having their tax dollars used for meat in school lunches? Are you equally outraged about that? Or, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses tax dollars used for defense projects? Are you going to throw yourself at the barricades over that one? Or is it just precious, precious, glorious Evangelical Christianity that you want to get it’s butt kissed by the law?

  25. thatoneguy says:

    wow dude. you are taking this bedroom thing way to literally. why would you take a perfectly good metaphor for invasion of privacy and twist it to make it sound like all people who think free and availiable birth controll is a good thing are just ignorant government leeches who want nothing more than to suckle Obama’s teet their entire lives? I don’t think religious business ownees should have to sacrifice their beliefs to employ people. but if they want to make it in corporate america, they may have to hire a person or two that is not of their own religion. either that or they can advertise their company stictly to those of theirbown faith. but. is it ok for business owners to employ people of different beliefs and ideologies abd then tell them they cannot have acess to the types of personal care they want just because their boss thinks its wrong? that’s no way to run a business. if the religious community wants to be completely separate from the rest of the world then that needs to be the goal. we need to stop trying to manipulate each other into letting somebody have their way. oh and by the way you claim that people who want birth control should go work for a place that provides it, pay for it themselves or stop having sex? well how about this? religious people who want to start a business should either provide all types of health care, hire only like minded people or not start a business at all. does that work or have I taken to many steps into your bedroom?

  26. christinewjc says:

    I think that it is terribly sad, sinful and atrocious that progressives in society hail abortion as some kind of great “virtue.” The latest statistic is that abortion is now the leading cause of death!

    2Cr 7:10

    For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

    ~ Christine
    http://talkwisdom.wordpress.com/

  27. krys2000 says:

    Nailed it, Matt.

  28. Dapper Dan says:

    This is a bit off topic but it follows the line of thinking of you telling your dad to get our of “your” room.
    I’d like to read your thoughts about the Federal Court judge saying its unconstitutional to drug test welfare applicants. In my opinion if you want help from the government or anyone else you should be willing to submit to their terms. No way should someone be allowed to do something illegal and still get money/services from the government.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/federal_judge_rules_floridas_welfare_drug_testing_law_unconstitutional/

  29. TheApostlePaul says:

    Why do “conservatives” claim to be in favor of “small government” and then turn around and call for the blanket criminalization of abortion, mandatory drug testing for federal aid recipients (which costs far more money than it saves) and shipping anybody with brown skin back to Mexico who doesn’t have papers on them?

  30. Grouchiegrrl says:

    So are employers who are of a particular faith entitled to adapt their employees health insurance to fit them regardless? Say Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses? Because they have some beliefs that would be very intrusive into their employees health beyond birth control. If your argument is that the tenants of their faith means it is ok to violate the laws of the nation they operate in, then does that not mean you would also support limiting access to say blood products? Or any kind of operation?

    • Actually, I would have NO problem with that, if they decided that it violated their beliefs to do so. Which is the problem with this entire scheme in the first place, it forces people to purchase a product that they otherwise wouldn’t as a requirement of living in this country.

    • Whome? says:

      That’s reasonable. People who wanted insurance that paid for blood products or operations would then either decide to pay for it themselves, buy their own supplemental insurance, or more likely, choose to work somewhere that would provide the insurance coverage they desired.

  31. JSantorelli says:

    Matt, let me help you out here buddy. I 100%+ agree with you on everything, and probably like you get rather riled up at these “progressives” types. Well, they aren’t “progressive” at all. Nero tried gay marriage in ancient Rome. Birth control was also a favorite Roman past time. Supposedly the Romans made some plant believed to be a contraceptive go extinct. Imagine that! I recently read an article about how “polyamory is going to save marriage.” Yeah, our “old crusty grandads and grandmoms” were into that kink too. Sorry, but nothing “progressive” about it.

    My point is your average person these days has 2 things on their mind, sex and money. I suspect the average person probably suffers from some mild form of sex addiction. We use sex as a quick pick me up much in the way crack addict shoots up to drown his/her troubles out. The world is just “too much” for them. The reason the world is “too much” for them is they are filled with fluff and empty of anything of substance. They are like eggs, hardshells filled with goup ready to go splat. They will drown in their own misery and all the birth control in the world isn’t going to fix that. Their “highs” are as artificial as their contraception. Take the pills away and it all comes crashing down. Oddly reminds me of the movie, “The Matrix.”

    Honestly, I say God bless those who cling to their contraceptives! They’ve “made their bed so let them lay in it.” We did our part in expressing genuine concern for our brothers and sisters. I don’t think God asks more than that of us at this time. The only way things are going to get better around here is when He returns. Until then it’s all downhill. Just don’t let those rolling down the hill drag you too.

  32. Amanda says:

    Here’s my 2 cents on the birth control mandate. Do I think it should be free – NO. But I do think all insurance policies should cover all prescription medications.

    I was on hormonal birth control. These weren’t whore pills or whatever some people want to think they are. I am happily married, and at this time my husband and I, don’t want to have children until we were ready. We’re being adult about the whole matter, right? Anyways, I switched jobs and I’m on a new insurance policy, that doesn’t cover birth control. I was shocked. The contraception I was on, cost $60 / month. With the previous insurance, it was only $10 / month. Thankfully, I made enough to cover the extra $50 / month. But still. I always thought it would be in my employer’s best interest for me to NOT get pregnant, since I’d have to miss lots of work, and probably wouldn’t want to do things like stay late or travel anymore. I did eventually switch to a cheaper birth control pill, that cost $15 / month, out of pocket. But I didn’t do well on it. There are very inexpensive Pills on the market, but not every woman can take them.

    And honestly, not having sex is NOT an option. Try telling that to my husband. I eventually ended up having some pelvic problems that made sex very painful for me, thus we couldn’t engage in coitus on a regular basis. My husband loves me dearly in all ways, but it did cause quite a bit of marital strife. As for non-penetrative sex, you try sucking that much dick. It get’s old fast, and I say this as a woman who doesn’t mind giving oral sex to men.

    Secondly, I don’t see how my employer’s religious beliefs should trump mine. If a Muslim employer insisted all female employees wear burkas, I’m sure it would quite infuriate the masses.

    • Whome? says:

      I’m sure the hypothetical Muslim employer would have a shortage of female employees. If my employer’s religious beliefs went contrary to my own, I would find a new employer. Then the employer and I would both have our religious freedom.

  33. Pingback: Why Do Progressives Always Want the Government To Intrude In Their Bedrooms?

  34. Stacey says:

    This made me laugh so much: And by “everyone” we mean the government. See, we have to take wealth and property away from the wealthy elite, and then promptly hand control of it over to the government… which is run by wealthy elite.

    Because it’s true. And I can’t spend any time crying on this.

  35. Pingback: Fair Questions: Is Sex a Right? | Isorropia

  36. cheekymonkey999999 says:

    Wow.

    The stupidity. It hurts.

  37. Jessica Larson says:

    Matt, I really like your blog. I do have a question about this one. I’m not great at expressing my thoughts fully so please bear with me. I’m assuming you’re talking about Hobby Lobby here. I think the argument about religion seems sound when you’re talking about requiring insurance to cover birth control and abortion or sex changes (I’ve heard some people trying to include that one!). But what if the owners of Hobby Lobby were devout Jehovah’s Witnesses. Should they be allowed to exclude blood transfusions from their policy? It seems confusing to me because I cant see where the line should be drawn and if using religion as basis for knocking it out is really as good of an idea as it seems.

    • Whome? says:

      Jessica, that’s a good question! My take on it is that traditionally an employer provided health insurance as an incentive to attract the employees he/she wanted, much like offering a higher wage. If a prospective employee had two job offers at the same wage, that employee might use the quality of the health insurance plan offered as the deciding factor. In that case, the employer offering a plan without coverage for blood transfusions would possibly lose out on a valuable employee.

      So my short answer would be yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses should not be required to provide insurance coverage which they deem in violation of their religion. They would be limiting the pool of prospective employees as people would likely choose to not work for that business.

  38. demandfoodEli says:

    I was along the lines of thinking that people were wanting hormone contraceptives to prevent that are not related to sex. If people wanted free contraceptives for sex, then I agree with this article, but I don’t think that is what they were going for.

  39. Pingback: Barack’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad law | bluebird of bitterness

  40. Eugene says:

    Matt writes:

    “But I don’t need the robed gods to tell me that the constitution CLEARLY gives the government no authority to require companies to provide, through a third party or otherwise, free contraception.”

    “You don’t have a right to contraception. And I guarantee that you can not even begin to offer a valid defense of the embarrassingly idiotic assertion that free contraception is a right that not only stands beside freedom of religion, but actually supersedes it.”

    The basis of the legal argument surrounding the contraception mandate is a little more complex than you pretend or, more likely, than you understand. The lawsuits brought against the ACA mandate were based on the premise that the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) was violated, which would mean that a particular religious practice was substantially burdened. According to that law, if the religious practice is in fact burdened, then that burden has to serve a compelling state interest and must be implemented in the “least restrictive means possible”. Moreover, because the RFRA applies to the 1’st amendment, it has to be established that corporate entities qualify for the person-hood or at least to the extent that they can have hold religious beliefs and that the government would have a vested interest in protecting said freedoms for corporations. This has nothing to do with ” a right to free contraception”, whatever the hell that means…

    Which leads me to this: what makes you think the contraception is free or, as you imply, unearned? Health insurance is a form of compensation. If you weren’t aware, compensation is something you receive in exchange for providing some kind of service, for example, your labor. Since the commerce clause gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and all economic activity effecting it, it has the authority to make stipulations about how workers should be compensated (like minimum wage, time-off, sick days, etc.) and this includes healthcare.( BTW ‘contraception’ has a host of medicinal utilities that don’t concern sex. The coverage is actually about women’s health, not hedonism and debauchery.)

    So, your charge to produce a “valid defense of the… assertion that free contraception is a right…” is unintelligible and a non-sequitur. There is no “right to free contraception” and rights don’t necessarily work as a zero-sum game. So for you to make an argument against the ACA contraception mandate, you need to explain why corporations should be granted free exercise rights, how the mandate burdens a particular religious practice, whether or not the least restrictive means of implementing the mandate are potentially co-existent with 1st amendment concerns and with the State’s compelling interest to interfere with health-care benefits, and how employees’ gross compensation will be effected.

    See this a problem with blogs like your’s. They start out as benign personal accounts of interesting life stories, funny open letters, etc., and then you have to go and try your hand at topics that are essentially beyond you. You don’t actually have any formal expertise in law, economics, policy analysis, etc. and that lack of understanding is immediately clear upon reading two paragraphs into one of these posts. When I read a post titled “5 Economic Reforms Every Millennial Should Be Fighting For”, I’m expecting something to do with economic policy reform, not the short-hand notes from a Dave Ramsey book like: spend within your means, work hard, and college is expensive. So please, rededicate your blog to posts about how not tipping your waiter is an asshole move, and how raising twins is challenging but rewarding, etc. because those are the subjects you are qualified to discuss and you do a great job with that material.

      • Eugene says:

        I would say that it was my pleasure, but the fact that something so obvious needed an explanation, not to mention the mass of people who found Matt’s post unassailable, paints a dark picture of the state of public discourse. So I’ll just thank you for your appreciation.

  41. The item is mentioned on the Residential Renters insurance
    Association website today.

  42. SP says:

    “They’ve made it joyless, sterile, and literally lifeless”. Hold up. So they’re actually dead people having sex now, huh? …Since it’s now…..literally lifeless?

  43. jasondrexler says:

    Good article, Matt.

    I’ve been saying for years that in the case of homosexuals, they brought their bedroom out into the front yard. What I mean by that is not that homosexuals started having sex in their front yards, but that they’re the ones who made this the issue that it has become. They’re the ones who started demanding—yes, demanding—complete and total acceptance of, and agreement with, their sexual behavior, using various forms of shaming and demonizing to exact pledges of allegiance from all sectors of society and culture—including even the Christian church. And, yes, the government; they started demanding civil unions, “marriages,” adoption rights, etc.—and they used the government (via court decisions and legislatures)—to get their way. THEY are they ones who got the government so deeply involved in this issue. It’s wrong (according to them) for Christians and other conservatives to use legal means (legislation, for example) to define marriage as one man/one woman … but it’s ok for them to use legal means to get their way. Total double standard.

    As Matt alluded to, there are very few people, of any stripe, trying to get homosexual behavior banned; so yes, go do whatever you want to do in your bedroom, just don’t try to force me to agree with or approve of it, socially, spiritually, or legally.

    Furthermore, regarding the common objections of homosexuals regarding inheritances and visitation rights:

    If you want to leave your money or possessions to your homosexual lover, fine, write it in your will and have it notarized; you don’t need marriage for that.

    And if your lover’s family is keeping you from visiting your lover in the hospital (which I’m not convinced happens a whole lot these days), push for legislation that addresses only the matter at hand, which is visitation rights—legislation that allows for homosexuals to visit their lovers. You don’t have to change part of the bedrock of human civilization to make that happen.

    • Eugene says:

      “It’s wrong (according to them) for Christians and other conservatives to use legal means (legislation, for example) to define marriage as one man/one woman … but it’s ok for them to use legal means to get their way. Total double standard.”

      Ironically, the actual “double standard” occurs when the legal institution of marriage is manipulated in such a way that it’s benefits and social esteem are only conferred to one class of couples, for no reasonably defensible purpose except for patent exclusivity, informed by religious and cultural bias. In that case there are literally two standards (you can count them). Unfortunately for your world-view, the Bill of Rights and the application hereto, are not matters to be decided by popular vote, even if that populous is crazed by insufferable religious dogma.

      • jasondrexler says:

        I’m not sure why “progressives” so often bring up the Bill of Rights in discussions about same-sex marriage and abortion; the Bill of Rights says nothing about these particular issues, nor does it say anything even remotely related to the general issue of human sexuality. Liberals often cite the 14th Amendment in both instances, but the rights of due process, equal protection, and privacy—contrary to what liberals believe—have nothing to do with marriage or abortion.

        “Due process” means, essentially, that you can’t be deprived of anything without the issue getting funneled through the proper legal channels, or without you being able to have your say in the matter (your “day in court,” so to speak). If citizens, either through their elected representatives or the direct referendum process, define marriage as only being between one man and one woman—and all citizens get to voice their opinions and make their votes on the matter—same-sex couples have not been deprived of their due-process rights. Likewise with abortion.

        “Equal protection” means just that—protection … from real harm. We all have the right to live in safety, to have the same protection from the police—the poor are to be protected as much as the rich, and the hicks in the sticks as much as the urbanites. It doesn’t mean the right to protection from those darn conservatives and their darn opinions. One way to see the logic here: What does marriage have to do with (nonsexual) protection? Nothing. Do you get married to avoid being physically hurt? No. Are homosexuals any less subject to police protection than heterosexuals? No.

        As far as the right to privacy, no such thing is stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Sure, there’s a “right to privacy” as far as protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, but abortion is as far away from this right as Los Angeles is from Laos.

        In all three cases listed above—due process, equal protection, and privacy—the liberal/progressive narrative is entirely suited to their own desires and entirely different from the intended (and quite obvious) meanings. Unfortunately, and contrary to what you wrote, these rights HAVE been put to a popular vote—by liberals, who realize that the meanings of the various clauses in the founding documents go against their liberal desires and that the only way to get their way is to popularize falsehoods and misconceptions about what those documents actually say, and find liberal judges to “interpret” these documents in ways that go against all common sense (such as Justice Kennedy and his ridiculous “sweet mystery of life” explanation for abortion “rights”).

        I also noted your reference to “insufferable religious dogma.” “Dogma” is another favorite liberal buzzword, often used to demonize conservatives. Yes, let’s redefine “dogma” to mean something entirely, 100% bad—because, you know, having complete fluidity in your worldview and opinions in such a great thing—but then never consider the fact that you yourself are as “dogmatic” as I am. After all, you’re as dogmatic about your beliefs as I am about mine, are you not? Aren’t you as gung-ho about “sexual freedom” as I am about doing things God’s way? So why can’t we all just be honest about whatever it is we believe, without using word games to paint opponents as essentially evil incarnate? So you want for people to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and you want everyone (namely conservatives) to approve of it, and pay for it—why not just say so and stop it with all the semantics?

        And speaking of “reasonably defensible purposes,” I see no such thing with the “progressive” worldview. It seems to me that the basic liberal worldview—especially when it comes to sexual matters—is hedonism, and I see nothing reasonably defensible about that. Liberals want not only social and religious acceptance of all sorts of deviant sexual behavior (as if that isn’t bad enough), but they also want employers and taxpayers to fund it, even if it means violating their core beliefs. If you want to have lots of sex, go by your own contraception. You want to kill your unborn baby, go pay for it yourself. You have no “right” to expect such funding from others.

        As for my arguments, I think they’re quite reasonably defensible. Our Creator made us a certain way (one man, one woman), and has told us so in the Bible—sure, you don’t have to believe the Bible, but that’s what it says, and if anyone is going to use the Bible to promote homosexuality, they’re sorely mistaken.

        There’s also a perfectly sound, reasonable, defensible biological argument to be made. It’s quite obvious that the male and female bodies were meant to go together, and I’ve always found it odd that liberals—who so often are materialists and place an emphasis on “the physical,” “what can be seen”—look right over the fact that human bodies aren’t suited to homosexual sex. Again, as with the Bill of Rights discussion, this seems obvious, but liberals seems to enjoy coming up with a lot of strange theories and explanations in order to avoid the obvious.

        There’s also research (not to mention anecdotal evidence) supporting the belief that children need a mom AND a dad. Again, though, this seems obvious: if a male and a female are needed to physically create another human being, doesn’t it also make sense that both the mom and the dad have something important and necessary to contribute to the child? I think so.

        • Eugene says:

          “I’m not sure why “progressives” so often bring up the Bill of Rights in discussions about same-sex marriage and abortion; the Bill of Rights says nothing about these particular issues, nor does it say anything even remotely related to the general issue of human sexuality”

          Allow me to elucidate this confounding proposition on the part of “progressives” (or whatever distinction you implicitly create by taking a word and proceeding to oddly impute a negative connotation upon). As you mention the equal protection clause,does indeed include the word protection. However, the notion that this is somehow limited to physical protection belies the history of jurisprudence and is a woefully rudimentary interpretation. I’m not sure of your interpretational method, but it sounds very similar to Originalism which, you may be interested and dismayed to hear, hasn’t been in scholarly preeminence for quite some time. Don’t believe me? Then check it out.

          The 14th amendment, and this clause, serve to protect classes from arbitrary and invidious discrimination. Because marriage certificates are issued by States, this leaves the opportunity for disparate treatment of citizens with respect to their rights. When laws are passed, they are done so under the requirement that they be constitutional. Laws that discriminate against a suspect class are to be scrutinized and evaluated using a variety of tests depending on the suspect classification of the class in question. A case must be made that the government’s interest in discriminating (via the law being passed) is compelling enough for the discrimination to achieve legal muster. To go much further would be a bit ridiculous, as it is an undue burden on my part to explain the current state of affairs regarding constitutional law. In all sincerity,I implore you to read about it.

          “I also noted your reference to “insufferable religious dogma.” “Dogma” is another favorite liberal buzzword, often used to demonize conservatives…After all, you’re as dogmatic about your beliefs as I am about mine, are you not? ”

          “Dogma” is really not so much of a buzz word as it is a descriptive word. As used here, dogma is in reference to the rigidity of the view. It comes from the way in which (at least seemingly) the two views being expressed are formed. Religion, relying on an presumed authority, purports to be incontrovertible. Thus, no amount of scientific evidence, philosophical posturing, or otherwise persuasive argument will amend the initial religious conclusion. It is, by definition, for better of worse (usually worse in my opinion), dogmatic. Dogmatic is not militaristic. Dogmatic is not necessarily deliberately rude, catty, or “the evil incarnate”. However, I am not invoking a presuppositional righteous authority on which my argument rests and can therefore not be amended or phased by reason. I am willing to listen to an argument and judge it for its own merits, and perhaps reconsider my position as a result of that evaluation. It just so happens that shoddy logic based on an inaccurate understanding of the topic at hand, does not qualify as persuasive or compelling. My apologies, but this is a condition when discussing issues with me.

          “It seems to me that the basic liberal worldview—especially when it comes to sexual matters—is hedonism, and I see nothing reasonably defensible about that. ”

          If that is how you see the “liberal worldview”, I suppose I am in no position to tell you otherwise. However, I cannot promise you will be taken seriously when discussing such a “worldview”.

          “As for my arguments, I think they’re quite reasonably defensible. Our Creator made us a certain way (one man, one woman)…”

          While this is interesting, your (or anyone’s) religious inclinations do not dictate the way in which everyone else is required to go about their lives. Unless of course, you live in a theocracy, which of course, does not describe the United States. If you would like public policy to reflect the truth claims held in Christianity (I presume), I suggest you find a way to make such claims convincing using objective and scientific findings that transcend the subjective biases of other religions and cultures, so that we may all agree on the prescience of your religious claims. As of now, this has proven to be not only fantastically difficult, but effectively fruitless. Nevertheless, keep working on it.

          “There’s also research (not to mention anecdotal evidence) supporting the belief that children need a mom AND a dad.”

          Yes, we need not mention anecdotal evidence, because anecdotal evidence ,does not, a statistically viable argument make. Broad-base policy prescriptions tend to rely on empirical methodology which has nothing conclusive to offer in the way of supporting the notion that same-sex households produce child-care that is somehow materially disadvantageous for the well-being of a child. As to your appeal to naturalism, it is patently obvious that the biological constraints of the human body do not serve as limitations for we allow ourselves to envision and pursue.

    • Eugene says:

      “They’re the ones who started demanding—yes, demanding—complete and total acceptance of, and agreement with, their sexual behavior, using various forms of shaming and demonizing to exact pledges of allegiance from all sectors of society and culture—including even the Christian church.”

      Um, no. They are simply asking for legal access to marriage. I wont speak on their behalf, but I would venture to say that they probably don’t care about your opinion regarding their sexual behavior. If you are defining marriage by law to mean a “complete and total acceptance of and agreement with” anything other than a lawful consolidation of property, spousal rights, parental rights, etc., well that is an issue you can take up with…yourself. Private actors like individuals, groups of individuals and churches, have every right to hold a private conception of what a “marriage” means. However, such actors do not have the right to tell the government to enact their private definitions and conceptions into the public domain of the law in such a way that it results in the unequal application under the 14th amendment. Given the lack of a compelling state interest to support discrimination of a suspect class (in this case, subject to intermediate scrutiny), such an action by the majority against the minority would be unconstitutional.

      How allowing gay couples access marriage, as legal status, impairs your ability to the same access or otherwise damages your pre-existing marital status, is beyond me. Unless you have a argument to justify such discrimination, your argument is problematic logically, factually, and most importantly, legally. There are numerous behaviors that are “socially and spiritually” distressing to any number of people at any given time, however, the fact that you don’t agree with it is a laughably pathetic reason to preclude others from partaking in it. Its this concept called individualism and liberty, brought to you by the Western intellectual tradition. Check it out sometime, its good stuff.

      • jasondrexler says:

        I never said that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage, as a legal status, impairs my ability to the same access or otherwise damages my pre-existing marital status. What I said (boiled-down version) is that same-sex marriage is morally and biologically wrong and therefore should not be allowed.

        I also dispute your claim that homosexuals “are simply asking for legal access to marriage.” This makes it sound as though they went down to the county courthouse, started a petition for a referendum question or piece of legislation, and if people say no to them, they respectfully accept the will of the people. Instead, from what I’ve read and seen, what many people want is nothing less than a wholesale acceptance of homosexuality in every aspect of life and society, and if you don’t agree, they’ll try to shame you into it—and if you STILL don’t agree, they’ll smear you.

        But let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that you’re right, and all they’re looking for is legal access to marriage. Your application of the 14th Amendment is incorrect. “Equal protection” is referring to actual protection—that is, keeping people’s constitutional rights from being trampled by the government, as well as making sure everyone gets the same physical protection from law enforcement. In other words, no favoritism—the poor get the same legal and physical protections as the rich, and the hicks in the sticks get the same protections as urbanites, and homosexuals and heterosexuals get the same protections. The 14th Amendment, however (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights), has nothing to do with marriage in general, or with any aspect of human sexuality; such subjects fall under the purview of the 10th Amendment, which says that anything not specified in the Bill of Rights is to be left up to the states to decide for themselves. Which means that if a state doesn’t want same-sex marriage, it doesn’t have to have it. We’re talking about marriage, which is not a civil right, and which is not addressed in the Bill of Rights, which means that I, with my individual liberty and voting rights, am free to influence the outcome of this issue, and my opposition to same-sex marriage doesn’t constitute an infringement of anyone’s constitutional (civil) rights. Clearly, sexual “freedom” (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) is not something the Founders felt was a basic political (civil) right that needed iron-clad protection in the form of an amendment; they clearly considered it to be an issue to be left to the states.

        • We hope you’re not shooting to be a constitutional lawyer. Besides, the Supreme Court already ruled in 1967, in Loving vs Virginia, concerning interracial marriage that marriage is a basic civil right, but states can limit the right if it can show a compelling reason to deny a marriage license. The fact that some people don’t like gay people is not a compelling reason just as denying a White from marrying a Black because some didn’t like Black people wasn’t a compelling reason.

        • Eugene says:

          “I never said that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage, as a legal status, impairs my ability to the same access or otherwise damages my pre-existing marital status.”

          Well, that is the argument that would need to be made successfully, in order to justify an arbitrary and invidious distinction, in this case based on gender. If you have nothing wrong with this, then show your support for the inconsequential recognition of marriage equality, seeing as it has no effect to your person.

          “I also dispute your claim that homosexuals “are simply asking for legal access to marriage.” This makes it sound as though they went down to the county courthouse, started a petition for a referendum question or piece of legislation,”

          Legally speaking, this has been tried at the state level. When popular vote struck down these attempts the question of Federal purview was raised. As you stated, the crux of the discussion is whether or not marriage equality is a human rights issue. Obviously, I happen to think it is. Obviously, you happen to think it is not. That is a discussion that, for all its appeal, will be difficult and tiresome to have on the platform of a comments section of a blog. Moreover, per our previous back-and-forth, it is easy to see how that discussion would be inconclusive given the irreconcilable methods we use to form our opinions.

          ” what many people want is nothing less than a wholesale acceptance of homosexuality in every aspect of life and society, and if you don’t agree, they’ll try to shame you into it—and if you STILL don’t agree, they’ll smear you.”

          Im not sure how a sweeping indictment of this sort can be honestly made,but either way, it is irrelevant to the official proposition in its legal form. Hopefully, no serious effort to shame people into accepting an opinion is underway, as that would be rather hypocritical. I don’t wish to force you change your personal views on the matter, but rather only that some subset of this country’s population is treated equally with the institution of marriage.

        • jasondrexler says:

          I’m certainly not a recognized (or unrecognized) constitutional “expert,” but I really don’t think I need to be. There are certainly a lot of complexities to constitutional law, but that’s only because, in my view, the Supremes and other judges have more than sufficiently muddied the waters of what is really a pretty straightforward set of rules (the Constitution and Bill of Rights). I don’t believe that the Founders ever intended that one would have to be trained in the law to know what those documents meant, and besides, judges have made plenty of mistakes in their decisions through the years, and in some cases have reversed their own decisions, so I don’t think their decisions should be equated with sacred writ. Yes, I am an originalist, and I don’t care that such a viewpoint is looked upon derisively by liberal academics. I think it’s obvious what the Founders intended, and I think that going beyond their intentions, or “reinterpreting them for modern times,” is dangerous and unjustified.

          In regard to your 14th Amendment argument, I don’t find my rationale against same-sex marriage to be arbitrary. Marriage IS a certain thing, to the exclusion of all other things. Sort of like how, for example, photosynthesis is a particular thing; you could change its name, but it is what it is. All things are what they are, and marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. So it’s not really about equality, it’s about trying to change the very DNA of something. It’s about trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, or like trying to transform a human being into another creature but still calling it a human being. Marriage is not two men or two women, or one man and three women, etc. It’s one of each. And that’s why it was wrong to keep blacks and whites from marrying—skin color has nothing to do with sexuality, or morality, and in no way goes against the definition of what marriage is. Whereas homosexuality doesn’t fit the definition.

          But anyway, as you say, your viewpoint and mine are well established by now, so a lot of this is just running round and round the same mountain.

  44. Eugene says:

    @jasondrexler

    “I think it’s obvious what the Founders intended, and I think that going beyond their intentions, or “reinterpreting them for modern times,” is dangerous and unjustified”

    How anyone can know what the Founders intended is highly dubious. Besides, what the Founders wrote or meant is not authoritative in and of itself. Those documents were no different than any other sheets of paper until they were ratified by government, who’s power to enact law is granted by the people. If you want to make an argument that each and every delegate who voted to ratify the Constitution shared the exact same interpretation of those documents and moreover, that you know with certainty what that interpretation was, I would be very interested to hear about it.

    “Marriage IS a certain thing, to the exclusion of all other things. Sort of like how, for example, photosynthesis is a particular thing; you could change its name, but it is what it is.”

    Although you inserted the qualifier, “sort of “, you could not have employed a more bizarre analogy with ‘photosynthesis’, as it describes a strictly technical physical and chemical process and has nothing to do with non-physical relationships between sentient beings. It doesn’t matter if I call it sunlight-grows-plant effect or fire-god-make-leaf-bigger, I’m still describing a very specific process that is contingent on the variables involved, regardless of what I call them. I cant photosynthesize a towel or a bottle of Coke. To say as much wouldn’t be an unintelligible claim. “Pho-to-syn-the-sis”, is the noise we make to efficiently communicate an abstract conceptualization of a tangible process that happens whether or not we have the wherewithal to recognize its occurrence.

    The objectivity of a scientific process bears not even the slightest resemblance to the subjective qualities we have endowed in the term marriage or friendship or love or hate. Each one of those descriptors applies to an infinite number of arrangements and experiences. The only thing that they have in common is their relation to sentience. There is not marriage or friendship, in a universe devoid of intelligent beings; those words would have no meaning. There is photosynthesis and evaporation and radiation. But not emotional qualities.

    The good news is, because such experiences are not scarce (meaning my ability to make a friend doesn’t preclude someone else from doing the same), everyone is free to hold a private conception of these ideas. For example, your quote above, presumably, represents your individual conclusion on what makes a marriage. Congratulations. Hopefully you will allow others to have their own. You aren’t personally required to recognize their definition, and they aren’t required to recognize yours. No matter how different they two definitions become they are both marriages to someone.

    “All things are what they are, and marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. So it’s not really about equality, it’s about trying to change the very DNA of something. ”

    As you revisit your own words, I hope you can see why that statement is not coherent, let alone, at all persuasive. For good measure, I’ll demonstrate:

    All things are what they are, and Rap is not music.
    All things are what they are, and thunder is actually god farting.
    All things are what they are, and British orphans with weird forehead scars have magical powers.

    I could go on. The point is, “all things are what they are”, is not a six-word shield that allows you make declarations with impunity.

  45. Lila says:

    Do you realize how insanely hypocritical it is for you to EVER use the words separation of religion and state after you STRAIGHT UP SAY you don’t want gay marriage to be legal because it is against YOUR religion? Are you stupid? Talk about a logical fallacy,, You really need to do some research before you spew out hate filled articles like this,

  46. spinetingler says:

    Gandhi was right.

  47. spinetingler says:

    “It’s modern progressives who are the anti-sex curmudgeons. They’ve made it joyless, sterile, and literally lifeless.”

    You apparently need to have more sex with progressives.

    Also, that’s literally the completely incorrect use of “literally”, unless you think there’s a mass wave of necrophilia sweeping the nation.

    • SP says:

      I totally agree with you! Thanks for the giggle; I was thinking the exact same thing about the necrophilia.

  48. Val Cutter says:

    Run for president!!!!

Comments are closed.