talkpolitics | The Right Wing's Idea of "Freedom"

Entry tags:

The Right Wing's Idea of "Freedom"

From Statepress:

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

‘I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,’ Lesko said. ‘So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.’

Jezebel points out that Arizona is an “at will” state. This means that bosses in Arizona will be able to fire women for being depraved enough to take birth control pills to prevent pregnancy.

As we all know, what made the Soviet Union infamous were not the gulags, its treatment of dissidents, and the rigid control over the press, but the fact that women could take pills for the purpose of contraception without fear of losing their jobs over it.

Yes, here it is -- the right wing's idea of "freedom" is a society where a woman has to ask her boss' permission to use oral contraceptives.

Does anyone else find this more than a little weird?

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

> There's no significant push or desire for this sort of legislation

I think there is, and there will be more. There is a concerted effort among some religious conservatives to unify anti-abortion sentiment and anti-contraceptive sentiment, and we've already seen how much abortion restricting legislation (at the state level) has gone forward under pressure from the state legislatures post 2010.

(source of above Graphic... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/2012-another-record-year-for-abortion-restrictions/2011/12/29/gIQAw5tKxR_blog.html )

Edited 2012-03-14 19:29 (UTC)

Birth control isn't abortion.

That depends upon whom you ask. The sufficiently religious differentiate the two only as extremes of the same phenomenon.

So, around 20 people then.

It is according to the Catholic Church. But their view only counts when you say it does. Not when it actually says it in bold, explicit terms for everyone with intellectual maturity and honesty to know that words stated in public baldly mean what they mean.

The Church considers all of these sins, but not all of them are considered abortion. The morning after pill is considered an abortifacient, but others like condoms and diaphragms are considered run of the mill contraception.

The same condoms the Church wants banned in countries with high HIV rates when using condoms would make actual dents in the spread of the virus? Not the best example.

Googling keywords about the Church wanting to ban (as a matter of governmental and public policy) the sale of and/or use of condoms has yielded zilch so far.

Then I don't know what you put in as this is a selection from the first four pages of what I found Googling this:

http://allafrica.com/stories/201112190281.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june11/vatican_05-30.html

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/105359/catholic-church-c-is-for-chastity-not-condom

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-benedict-advocates-right-sexuality-not-condom-use-in-fight-against-hiv/

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-un-vatican-reaffirms-stance-against-condoms-for-hiv-aids-prevention-anal/

Bans for me are synonymous with prohibition, not advocacy against "x".

I'm an advocate against using heroin, but I'm not about to argue in favor of banning it or prohibiting it. Certainly not the way it is today.

In this case the argument against it was after a span when the Church said it was for them. So, frankly, at this point the Church would really rather that Africans died of HIV so long as every sacred sperm is saved. I admit that this is not advocating banning it, it is, however, advocating a useless method that bloats the bill of HIV victims, however, after in 2010 spineless Benedict said he was for using them.

Oh you should look harder.

Cardinal Egan chided the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for its plan to distribute 18 million condoms to the public for free in an effort to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. According to Egan, the city’s initiative and encourages “inappropriate sexual activity.”

Cardinal Geraldo Majella Angelo, Brazil

In the months preceding the papal visit to Brazil, officials came under harsh attack from the country’s Roman Catholic hierarchy for the government’s support of comprehensive sex education and a successful AIDS prevention program which distributes free condoms. On the television program Fantastico, Cardinal Majella, the head of the National Bishops Conference commented, “We cannot agree with condoms because they turn life into a life without responsibility.” In a later interview he added that “the use of the condom encourages people to have inconsequential and irresponsible sex.”

Archbishop Ndingi Mwana a’Nzeki, Nairobi

During the opening of the national religious leaders’ conference on stigma, denial and discrimination in Kenya, Archbishop Ndingi Mwana a’Nzeki urged the government to ban advertising and distributing condoms. He insisted, “There are no two ways about it…. When condoms are provided anyhowly, chances of promiscuity increase since a majority of our people end up engaging in casual sex.”

Edited 2012-03-15 01:03 (UTC)

Nothing in those links has anyone advocating banning condoms.

Actually they do.

Weren't you busy splitting hairs with Meus, or has that been resolved?

If you think advocating against the use is the same as banning then you're stretching yourself mentally in ways that speak volumes.

Well to be fair, I think you're splitting hairs over a typical Internet pedantic debate. This isn't a court room and we don't have to speak with lawyer-like precision because YOU or others think we are all required too. Underlanker's original point was a valid one and pretty fair one, despite his rhetorical flourishes and ruffles (yeah he used the word "ban", so because you and Cajun focused like a laser beam on that single word, that means the general gist of what was said isn't true? That the Catholic Church has an extremely antagonistic view regarding birth control and condoms, especially in Africa or here in the United States and specifically about HIV and AIDS? Yeah, that speaks volumes about me. And the funny thing is, you're not even Roman Catholic-- which isn't surprising since you've really misspoke on Catholic teaching regarding Papal infallibility in the past.

Edited 2012-03-15 03:25 (UTC)

'Well to be fair, I think you're splitting hairs over a typical Internet pedantic debate. This isn't a court room and we don't have to speak with lawyer-like precision because YOU or others think we are all required too'

Lawyer like precision? Are you kidding me? Are you seriously kidding me?

Can I now say that Democrats advocate child-rape because they endorse comprehensive sex-ed in late elementary school? Can I defend the statement with a total cop-out such as "well it's not lawyer like precision but..."?

Can I? Because there's a huge gulf between advocating a ban and advocating government not subsidize or promote the use of something.

'And the funny thing is, you're not even Roman Catholic'

I was born a Roman Catholic. And I was wrong on a specific issue detailing the pope speaking ex cathedra.

At least I'm honest about not being a Catholic and not pretending to be one. So I got that going for me.

Post-edit addition:

'That the Catholic Church has an extremely antagonistic view regarding birth control and condoms, especially in Africa or here in the United States and specifically about HIV and AIDS? '

Here's the problem. You condemn the Catholic church for their advocacy against condoms while neglecting they advocate against promiscuous sex as well. So all these "good Catholics" get to blame the church for the first part while getting a pass on the second part.

The problem is all these Catholics who pick and choose what to follow. But condemning them would hit a little too close to home for you.

Edited 2012-03-15 03:29 (UTC)

(no subject)

telemann.livejournal.com - 2012-03-15 03:32 (UTC) - Expand

If the comment I was responding to contained 200+ words with better context added, I'd be more inclined to simply let it go. With so little to go on, however, what else was one supposed to look at?

Besides, asking for a ban sounds a lot more damning than advocating against the same, which for all the links being shown, the latter would seem to more accurately fit the bill without going overboard on the seriousness of what is vs. what is not being said.

(no subject)

telemann.livejournal.com - 2012-03-15 05:54 (UTC) - Expand

Archbishop Ndingi Mwana a’Nzeki urged the government to ban advertising and distributing condoms.

That says he wants to ban advertisements.

It also says he wants to have the government no longer give away free condoms.

That does not say he wants to ban condoms.

reads to me like he wants the government to ban ALL advertising and distribution.

Govt distribution.

(no subject)

fornikate.livejournal.com - 2012-03-16 15:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

mrbogey.livejournal.com - 2012-03-16 15:26 (UTC) - Expand

I admit there was nothing mandating they be banned, there is, however, the Church's direct advocacy *against* something that measurably is shown to save lives on the Every Sperm Is Sacred mentality. Meaning the Church doesn't give a flying fuck if people die so long as its view of human life is preserved, a self-contradiction if ever there was one.

The church advocates a method that has virtually no way of spreading HIV.

People dont wear condoms, church's fault . Yet when people don't follow abstainance it's the chuch's fault.

Priests raping young boys and being moved from church to church with the papacy covering it up behind closed doors and advocating abstinence in public?