A couple of interesting facts that you may not know regarding the Catholic and Evangelical freakout regarding the recent contraception ruling by the Obama Administration (if you don’t know the background go here). First, the Catholic Church has been unofficially complying with this requirement for the last 10 years…so their outrage is manufactured. Now that it’s official, they’re raising a stink about it. Second, they are falsely acting as if they were caught off guard. In other words, they’re lying about being surprised by the ruling. They’ve known for 7 months that this ruling was coming down and they’ve been planning the entire time to release a media sh*t storm as soon as it was announced. Why would they do that, and particularly at this time? Probably to give some support to conservative, religious candidates….that’s my guess.

If you would like to see why those protesting are completely full of crapola because their interpretation of the 1st Amendment is backwards and their logic incredibly faulty, read this incredibly cogent and spot on blog post. WARNING: It contains cussing and if you’re particularly religious, it will probably offend you. Just sayin…..





  1. Ireland only allowed condoms to be SOLD – anywhere in the country without a prescription – in 1993. Do these jerks want to go back to the rhythm method when even the last biggest bastion of Catholicism allows birth control? Yes, I think your guess is spot on.

    • drangedinaz says:

      I was going to ask you what the policy is in Ireland! You must have read my mind. 🙂 The worst thing about it is that low info voters won’t ever know about all their shenanigans behind the scenes and will vote based on that one issue alone. Although, that kind of single issue voter probably wouldn’t have voted liberal anyway, no matter what. So perhaps they’re not doing much damage. Let’s hope…..

  2. alopecia says:

    Jon Stewart (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/jon-stewart-mocks-gop-opposition-to-birth-control-rule.php?ref=fpnewsfeed) expressed my reaction to the carefully-cultivated outrage far better than I could.

  3. I didn’t realize the Church knew about the provision so long ago. I have been an ex-Catholic for a long time, but even when I wasn’t I knew of plenty of Catholic women who took birth control pills, including my mom. The Catholics in power appear to be ignoring what their flock really thinks about birth control. Hmm…I will have to ask my mom what she thinks. But she’s probably been brainwashed on that too by Fox. It should be a lively discussion. 🙂

  4. D.R. says:

    Hi Aunt Tina,

    It’s cool that you have a blog. I decided to read some of it. I don’t know if you’ll see this, though, since this is an older post.

    As you know, you and I (respectfully) don’t agree on everything politically, but we share a lot in common. However…I do have a few comments:

    1) You state that “First, the Catholic Church has been unofficially complying with this requirement for the last 10 years…so their outrage is manufactured.”

    That’s not a very accurate statement. The article states that some smaller Catholic organizations that could not afford to self-insure decided to insure their employees. The Catholic Church unsuccessfully challenged the CA and NY laws, for example. So I don’t think it’s fair to make the assertion you did.

    2) I don’t see the big deal of any organization being smart and building up support for its position. Would you have a problem with a liberal organization doing the same thing? I wouldn’t.

    • drangedinaz says:

      Again, slow to respond….have been sick and baby sick too…but quickly….

      1) I should have stated my assertion differently, like so: “many different organizations associated with the Catholic Church and various divisions within the Church all over the U.S. have been unofficially complying with the requirement for the last 10 years….so their outrage is manufactured”. This one article, you are correct, does not support this assertion but I had read several others that did like this one and this one and this one. So I should have phrased things differently and offered more supporting sources. Does this change the general meaning of what I said? No. A significant portion of the Catholic Church in the U.S. and its associated organizations had been complying with the rule for as many as 10 years. Many like Xavier are now taking it away, after complying for so long…it probably puts quite a few employees and students in a bind. I hope no women there need it to stave off ovarian cancer.

      2) So why raise a stink now? If complying under “duress” all these years? It beggars belief that the timing isn’t politically motivated. Because the President decided to make it official? Well as I said they knew seven months in advance and had been complying for years—why now? Instead of waiting until the rule came out to unleash their criticism, why were they not working with Pres. Obama directly to get the exemption? Why stir up the controversy when they could have achieved what they wanted through dialog to find a compromise? It stinks of political manipulation in a Presidential election year and I have a MAJOR problem with any religion trying to do such a thing. Unfortunately for them, it has backfired and who knows how many of the 90% of Catholic women who use or have used birth control may now vote for Pres. Obama.

      Furthermore, the Church got it’s exemption and they aren’t forced to provide birth control. (As I understand it) The insurance companies must offer it at no charge, so the churches don’t have to pay for it. However, did they accept that? No they had to get pushy and say that the govt has no right whatsoever to tell them what to do in regards to insurance under the guise of religious liberty.

      What is your stance on this issue? Do you feel that the any religious employer has the right to dictate what kind of medical care their employees receive regardless of whether the employees share the views of said employer?

      • D.R. says:

        No worries re: responding. We’re all busy, and I know I’m slow to respond because of our little one!

        1) Those articles are indeed better, but the first article brings up a good point that is overlooked by you, I think:

        “New York began requiring prescription contraception coverage in 2002, over the objections of Catholic groups, which sued and lost in the state’s highest court.”

        So they did fight it, and they lost. And those were the two of the largest states in the U.S. What else could they do? They either complied or violated state law. And my guess is (the other articles don’t state either way, at least based on my skimming of them) the Catholic Church fought in those other states too and lost….So I don’t see a major problem with them crying foul now.

        2) a) My impression from the news I’ve seen is that they did try to get a compromise, and the Obama administration would only give them more time to comply with the regulations. Even assuming they didn’t try to compromise, I don’t necessarily agree with you that religion cannot have a viewpoint in a democratic society. So secularists/humanists can, but religion cannot? That’s silly, especially if they can tie it to universal ideals. (You may not agree with those ideals, or consider them universal, but Catholicism is a quite coherent theology and philosophy. Catholic theology reads like lawyers wrote it, and perhaps because it was–many Catholic leaders are lawyers.)

        b) The media likes to sling the 90% figure, but it’s interesting when you consider that 90% of Catholic women have used contraception AT SOME POINT in their lives. Without quantifying that, it means little. I can assure you that 99% of Catholics have committed a mortal sin at least once in their life–but that doesn’t mean they don’t think that what they did was wrong. That statistic is not a strong one, and quite frankly, seems to me to indicate a bias in the media. (And I don’t say that to blast the media on the “left”–both sides are notoriously slanted in the media.)

        3) Maybe my knowledge of insurance is bad, but they’re still offering the insurance, correct? If so, I don’t see a problem with them not wanting something that is so anathema to their religious beliefs.

        The reality is that religious institutions run MANY of the largest hospitals in the United States. And, if they wanted to, they could tend to their own flock. Instead, out of love, they minister to all, as they are called to do (e.g., as Christians are called to do).

        Would you prefer them to instead only hire Catholic nurses? Catholic doctors? Would you prefer a larger shortage of medical staff than we already have? Some dioceses actually considered shutting down their hospitals–but the Obama administration is playing a game too. It’s a “they wouldn’t dare shut down these hospitals and kill people, so we can get away with this.” So to be fair, let’s not pretend it’s just the Catholic Church playing games.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s