DANCIN' ON THE GRAVE OF ALL THINGS ORIGINAL.
I love biting satire - the bloodier the teeth marks, the better.
- One woman shares a personal story on having to make a life-changing decision: http://www.guernicamag.com/features/3535/ptacin_3_1_12/
- Jezebel asks, “Why is it that, legally, only anti-choice professionals are believed to have a conscience? Can’t pro-choice people make moral…
These trans-vaginal bills are BEYOND disturbing and offensive.
On his “conscience” bill - The Blunt Amendment - Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) said the following in a February press release:
This bill would just simply say that those health care providers don’t have to follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles. This is about the First Amendment. It’s about religious beliefs. It’s not about any one issue.
Except that it is about one issue: a woman’s choice.
It’s about her choice to follow her own principles, be those in faith or godless heathenism. It’s about her choice whether or not to use contraception based on those principles.
The Blunt Amendment tells me women should not be allowed to make that choice. Rather, the employer makes those health care decisions for the entire company based on his or her own moral compass. Keep in mind this amendment is applicable to any kind of health coverage and allows employers to opt out of coverage based on “their religious beliefs and moral conviction.”
[The Affordable Care Act] does not allow purchasers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline providing or obtaining coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.
By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates in PPACA jeopardize the ability of individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.
I’m thoroughly entertained by legislative language like the sentence I bolded above. You’d think the Affordable Care Act forced employers to escort their female employees to the Abortionplex.
To be Blunt (see what I did there?) you’d have to be fucking retarded to believe that the First Amendment guarantees your right to enact your own morality upon someone else. That’s religious freedom as understood by a child - and not one of the smart ones either. Outside of the aforementioned mental retardation, your its fairly well understood that the influence of your “principles” only get to go so far as the tip of your nose.
Your “religious or moral objections” to someone else’s choices don’t mean shit. Unless someone’s actions actually negatively affect you in a meaningful manner, “religious or moral objections” don’t get to exist. “Moral objections” are the last grasp at the objection straw once logic has flown the coop and are a nonstarter in an adult conversation because they’re nothing more than fancy-worded versions of “But I don’t like it!”
And frankly, the only adult answer to that is “Tough shit. Deal.”
I wonder what the women at these meetings have to say…is what I would ask if there were any present.