A recent article ( linked above) makes a good and plain case for what is the real issue concerning the recent HHS mandates proposed by the Obama Administration.
What should have been seen as a question of religious entities being able to set their own guidelines and policies has now been turned ( with admittedly some egregious “unforced errors” by erstwhile allies) into a “war against women.”
If one wants to find an example of a genuine “war against women” one need only look to the mandatory and socially encouraged abortion programs in China and India that are resulting in a dramatic decline in live female-births.
The production of a 30 year old professional law student to complain in public of the cost of her tri-annual contraceptive needs not being met by a formally Catholic law school health insurance plan is almost breath-taking in its cynicism. A person capable of being admitted to Georgetown Law School would be amply qualified to attend a secular law school that would perhaps “cover” her contraceptive “needs”. Why then attend a Catholic institution? Is pregnancy a disease whose prevention must be met by a health insurance plan? Or is it not the natural ( if not always universal) result of sexual intercourse? Nothing was suggested that the sexual activity engaged in by the unmarried woman ( materially sinful in Catholic and orthodox Christian theology) is anything other than consensual; so even the poor excuse of rape is not invoked.
It seems likely that the tactic of singling out contraception as the “wedge” to splinter the Catholic ( and other religious bodies’) rights to set their own parameters of coverable and acceptable behavior for their own voluntary employees was deliberately chosen as the issue seems a forgone conclusion. Next will be abortifacients, then abortion. That is, if it is not stopped here.
March 12, 2012