So last night the family was sitting around talking about the recent shenanigans in DC around the government shutdown and the debt ceiling.
The TV was on in the background and the story was about the Virginia's governor race. They were talking about Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP candidate and incumbent Attorney General. Specifically they were detailing how much of his focus and energy is on social issues, especially dealing with female reproductive health. Dude is downright obsessed.
At one point it was mentioned that he was in favor of outlawing contraception, even the birth control pill. This blew my wife away, as in how in 2013 could we possibly have to be fighting about something so basic that so many women use? I reminded her that the "conscience clause" that so many conservatives want to add to Obamacare was about the last vestige of health care reform nullification demands the GOP took off the table before their abject surrender.
You know the "conscience clause"? That's where an employer is given the right to object to, and opt out of, paying for plans that provide coverage for anything the employer finds morally objectionable. Presumably it would be for employers to be able to say that the health care plans they offer to their employees will not cover female contraception, at least not without a copay as mandated by Obamacare.
Well this must have gotten my subconscious working and in the wee hours of the morning I awoke with a thought. "Why is it that only female contraception goes against God's will, but erectile dysfunction medications do not?"
I mean at the heart of it that does seem to be the moral/religious objection to the Pill and female contraceptives. (I know, we all know it's really about control of women and certain people always being afraid that someone is having more fun in this life than they are, women having sex with less fear of consequences, etc.) But taken at face value the objection seems to be that contraception is interfering with God's plan. Only God decides when, where and how life begins. By taking the Pill women are taking the power away from God and making that decision on their own. (We won't get into a discussion about how God supposedly gave us all free will, but so many conservatives will fight like hell to be sure nobody is allowed to exercise it.)
And if that's true then why is it morally okay for a man to take Viagra or some other erectile dysfunction drug? Obviously God intended for you to have a limp dick or you wouldn't have one. He has decided you should not reproduce (which we are often reminded is the only acceptable reason for sexual relations). By taking an ED drug and being able to have a boner you are thwarting God's plan.
Yet the Ken Cuccinelli's of the world never talk about outlawing ED drugs. And apparently nobody believes there needs to be a conscience clause added to Obamacare to allow employers to opt out of paying for treatments that are so obviously morally objectionable.
A glaring inconsistency if you ask me. Sticks out like a sore thumb.
The TV was on in the background and the story was about the Virginia's governor race. They were talking about Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP candidate and incumbent Attorney General. Specifically they were detailing how much of his focus and energy is on social issues, especially dealing with female reproductive health. Dude is downright obsessed.
At one point it was mentioned that he was in favor of outlawing contraception, even the birth control pill. This blew my wife away, as in how in 2013 could we possibly have to be fighting about something so basic that so many women use? I reminded her that the "conscience clause" that so many conservatives want to add to Obamacare was about the last vestige of health care reform nullification demands the GOP took off the table before their abject surrender.
You know the "conscience clause"? That's where an employer is given the right to object to, and opt out of, paying for plans that provide coverage for anything the employer finds morally objectionable. Presumably it would be for employers to be able to say that the health care plans they offer to their employees will not cover female contraception, at least not without a copay as mandated by Obamacare.
Well this must have gotten my subconscious working and in the wee hours of the morning I awoke with a thought. "Why is it that only female contraception goes against God's will, but erectile dysfunction medications do not?"
I mean at the heart of it that does seem to be the moral/religious objection to the Pill and female contraceptives. (I know, we all know it's really about control of women and certain people always being afraid that someone is having more fun in this life than they are, women having sex with less fear of consequences, etc.) But taken at face value the objection seems to be that contraception is interfering with God's plan. Only God decides when, where and how life begins. By taking the Pill women are taking the power away from God and making that decision on their own. (We won't get into a discussion about how God supposedly gave us all free will, but so many conservatives will fight like hell to be sure nobody is allowed to exercise it.)
And if that's true then why is it morally okay for a man to take Viagra or some other erectile dysfunction drug? Obviously God intended for you to have a limp dick or you wouldn't have one. He has decided you should not reproduce (which we are often reminded is the only acceptable reason for sexual relations). By taking an ED drug and being able to have a boner you are thwarting God's plan.
Yet the Ken Cuccinelli's of the world never talk about outlawing ED drugs. And apparently nobody believes there needs to be a conscience clause added to Obamacare to allow employers to opt out of paying for treatments that are so obviously morally objectionable.
A glaring inconsistency if you ask me. Sticks out like a sore thumb.
RSS Feed