Mary Katherine Ham: Contraception Isn't In The Constitution...
...but religious freedom is.
Boy, I just don't see how I've ended up disagreeing with the American left so much. But I'm certainly inclined to agree with Ham about this. The state should have more of an interest in protecting freedom of religion than it does in getting all insurance plans to include contraception coverage. I mean...I'd like for more women to have easier access to contraception. Primarily because I think unwanted pregnancies are really bad...not because I think there's some kind of right to have contraception covered by insurance...though...the left now seems to think that we have a right to everything it thinks it would be good for us to have... But women can pay for their own contraceptives, or they can buy supplemental insurance, or they can avoid jobs that don't provide insurance with contraception coverage. However, a person with religious objections to contraception would be semi-excluded from going into business if they have such objections and there was no work-around. You might say that they, too, could do something else...something other than going into business. But that seems more burdensome. And, again: there's no right to contraception in the Constitution...
What'm I missing here?
Boy, I just don't see how I've ended up disagreeing with the American left so much. But I'm certainly inclined to agree with Ham about this. The state should have more of an interest in protecting freedom of religion than it does in getting all insurance plans to include contraception coverage. I mean...I'd like for more women to have easier access to contraception. Primarily because I think unwanted pregnancies are really bad...not because I think there's some kind of right to have contraception covered by insurance...though...the left now seems to think that we have a right to everything it thinks it would be good for us to have... But women can pay for their own contraceptives, or they can buy supplemental insurance, or they can avoid jobs that don't provide insurance with contraception coverage. However, a person with religious objections to contraception would be semi-excluded from going into business if they have such objections and there was no work-around. You might say that they, too, could do something else...something other than going into business. But that seems more burdensome. And, again: there's no right to contraception in the Constitution...
What'm I missing here?
posted by Winston Smith at
8:27 PM
3 Comments:
That should be "women and men who menstruate can pay for their contraceptives," right? Or maybe just "people who menstruate...?" I don't know, it's all very confusing. I assume the left-o-sphere will be all over this soon, if they aren't already, since most of the articles I've read on this have been transparently trans-phobic or something, something because they only talk about this being bad for women, leaving trans-men out of the conversation.
lol I've already seen an internet exchange in which person A repeats that old feminist line "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament" (which, incidentally, I think is a fairly plausible suggestion, and I've long admired the point)...and A gets "called out" (God that phrase has begun to annoy me) by B, who says "Some men *can* get pregnant you transphobe!"
This is the kind of thing that I think might eventually push feminism back in the direction of sanity. I'll bet they're really going to be unhappy about having to give up that line...
"This is the kind of thing that I think might eventually push feminism back in the direction of sanity. I'll bet they're really going to be unhappy about having to give up that line..."
For the sake of my own entertainment, I kind of hope they keep up the slap fight. For instance, I never considered what would happen if a (biological) male took birth control pills. How fascinating this brave new world can be!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home