Liberal Media Freakout: Are Catholics About to Wipe Out Availability of 'Birth Control'?
The Obama administration announced plans to force Catholic schools, hospitals, and other church-affiliated organizations to subsidize sterilization, abortifacients, and contraceptives in their health insurance plans. Bizarrely, this is causing the media to wonder if the exact opposite is happening. Time.com posted this odd headline on Monday: "Birth Control: Could It Be Illegal Again?"
On Thursday, NPR talk show host Diane Rehm echoed that science-fiction question: "Are we creeping towards a wiping out of the availability of birth control?" NPR health correspondent Julie Rovner replied "I'm not sure I would say that." Because it's not exactly supported by any present facts?
The mere questioning of artificial contraception as anything less than the greatest invention ever given to mankind apparently causes grave concern. Rehm guest Judy Waxman of the liberal National Women's Law Center declared "Contraceptives have been declared by the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, as one of the 10 major public health achievements of the 20th century."
Rehm asked Waxman, "Is there some sort of plan here to define, as Mark has said, life beginning at conception and, therefore, a denial of birth control methods to prevent conception?"
Right before Rehm's wacky "creeping ban" question, guest Mark Rienzi of Catholic University warmly congratulated the Susan G. Komen foundation for (very temporarily) removing some funding for Planned Parenthood.
For his part, Cohen displayed the classic Phil Donahue liberal position, refusing to believe we haven't all bowed before the liberal position yet: "It is 2012: Are we still fighting over condoms and the pill? In fact, we are. The score so far: both supporters and opponents of birth control can point to some significant wins, and neither side shows any sign of backing down." As usual, it was "conservatives" versus nonpartisans:
The well-publicized conservative campaign to defund Planned Parenthood has been about birth control as well as abortion. As one New Hampshire lawmaker said of his vote to stop funding: “I am opposed to providing condoms to someone. If you want to have a party, have a party, but don’t ask me to pay for it.”
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Oh, for crying out loud!
This could be one of those teasers for the 11:00 news.....
It's just to get people to listen.
Like when they say "New facts about breast cancer. Find out if you're at risk."
The answer always ends up being "Uh.....no."
The "Phil Donahue liberal position is actually liberalspeak for "It's 2012!! Is the Catholic Church STILL against birth control?"
Is Rehm seriously contending that the RCC has the power to outlaw birth control in the whole country?
The only thing at stake here is the convenience of every woman being able to get birth control, wherever she wants, from whomever she wants, for free.
The stupidity of these media
The stupidity of these media idiots is giving me a headache. Unbelievable.
Imagine NPR's outrage if . . .
. . . the Federal government forced participants in the SNAP program to buy pork. NPR would be blasting Washington for its insensitivity to Islamic religious practice.
Alinksyism or stupidity (or both)
These are either Alinsky tactics, or shear stupidity. I'm not sure which. I can hardly walk into an ordinary drug store or supermarket without being accosted with vast selections of designer condoms, including different colors, shapes, and yes, sizes, even when I'm not looking for them.
"Contraceptives have been declared by the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, as one of the 10 major public health achievements of the 20th century."
Can we get any more hyperbolic than that? Precisely *how* are condoms and high-dose artificial chemical female hormones "health achievements", especially in the context of "disease control"? Are they talking about preventing the spread of STDs? If so, then why don't they say that? And why aren't they specific in identifying *condoms* as one of the 10 major public health achievements? Why the veiled vague lib-speak? Are they suggesting that pregnacy is a disease? And one more question: How is it then that epidemics of various STDs commenced precisely during the rise of contraceptive use?
Typical
The issue isn't about the Catholic church trying to outright ban abortion (although the church wouldn't complain about such an outcome). The issue is the government trying to force the church to violate its own doctrine by providing abortions and birth control. This has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. The left is SO quick to scream "separation of church and state" when someone wants to pray in public, a courthouse displays the Ten Commandments, a cross is located on public land, a government office puts up a Christmas tree, or a kid wears a Christian-themed t-shirt to school. Yet here they are, silent about the real instance of church and state, when the state tells a religion to violate its own precepts. All their noise is about a fictional issue where NOT forcing the church to provide such services will spell the end of abortion in the U.S.
election year politics
There is method to the media madness. We might as well be ready for all types of stories that make no sense. The media needs to flood the news cycle with any story it can to take away scrutiny of obama's presidency.
Every concievable special interest group will be identified and their greatest concern will be magnified and exploited. And of course, it will only be the reelection of obama that can protect these special interest groups.
Not quite on the same topic, but
I do have a health care question: Why, exactly, does anyone want their health records digitized and online?
BK
My area is one of the first that has been putting health records online. For several years almost any doctor in my geographical area could check out my records online.
There are no firewalls among "health care providers" in the hospital system (which encompass's the majority of doctor's etc here). Meaning my SIL has already looked at my records, unless she has the ability to sense one of my medications.
I'm with you. Why anyone would want this is beyond me. i would prefer to carry a file from doctor to doctor with my records.
Security and privacy are not the only issues.
The accuracy of the information in an EMR (electronic medical record) system is often compromised by notations or interpretations made by persons who are not health care professionals and have zero clinical training and judgment to back up what they put into the EMR contents.
Another major problem with the integration of EMRs is a barrier created by the reforms of past decades. For years, federal and state laws have required the separation of medical and mental health records for purposes of privacy. These reforms were made due to misuse of mental health information to prevent discrimination against those with treatable mental illnesses such as epilepsy, depression and anxiety. These systems are not only designed NOT to talk, but as a matter of fact are prohibited by law from even attempting it. Yet, the legislation reads that the information is to be integrated for purposes of assuring quality of care under structures such as ACOs (accountable care organizations) or PCMHs (patient-centered medical homes) while two layers of existing law specifically prohibit it.
Of course, that ignorant bitch Sebelius is doing absolutely nothing about the problems. Her performance as Secretary of HHS is worse than Holder's disgraceful time as Attorney General, because Sebelius' decisions will have lasting effects on the entire nation and she is just too dumb and lazy to do anything but put forth regulations that openly conflict.
This is what you get!
The Catholics voted for this guy so this is what they get for voting for someone who was the most liberal member of the senate. Remember...the subject of abortion was "above his pay grade"...
Why?
I really wonder WHY these people are against the first ammendment?
Don't they understand that THEIR freedom will be also be extinguished under a totalitarian boot if the destruction of the constitution is allowed to stand?
Only liberals would freak out
Only liberals would freak out over the thought of not being able to fornicate without consequence.
Wipe out contraception? Hardly!
First off, the medical profession would fight tooth and nail for the continued availability of contraception medications because they have so many uses just beyond their primary indications. Oral contraceptives for women have proven value in a number of hormonally-liked disorders, as do certain fertility medications. Equally, the notion of getting rid of condoms is impractical and would be subject to a fight by infectious diseases and other physicians because of their proven value in decreasing the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (some of which are now resistant to multiple antibiotics).
Secondly, there is no serious discussions in any state legislature or the US Congress to do so.
This smacks of a desperation by the old guard media to show something of value more than the usual compost and diatribe they shovel out every day. The hyperbole and sensationalism get weary, and are often displayed in an inverse relationship to the intelligence of the journalists and editors and talking heads.
⇒ Separate the issues
Liberals connect all women-related issues to the sacrament of abortion.
Yep
In lib-speak, "women's issues" = "abortion".