Obama Administration: Health Insurers Must Cover Birth Control With No Copays

Bishop Lori Tells Parable of the Kosher Deli and the Pork Mandate in Congressional Testimony
February 16, 2012
http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-030.cfm

WASHINGTON—The mandate for virtually all private insurers, including most religiously-affiliated organizations such as Catholic hospitals, universities and charities, to include contraceptives, sterilizations and drugs that can cause early abortions in their employee health plans is akin to mandating that a kosher deli serve pork, the chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told Congress.

In his February 16 testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, outlined the bishops’ opposition to the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate through an extended parable of a country where a new law requires all businesses to serve pork, including kosher delicatessens.

When the Orthodox Jewish community expresses its outrage, Bishop Lori said, it’s met with arguments of “But pork is good for you,” “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times,” and “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

Bishop Lori’s parable had a happy ending, that people recognized “it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich,” “it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state,” and “it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.”

“The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes.”

The full text of Bishop Lori’s testimony may be found online: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...2012-02-16.pdf
---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Is Sandra Fluke a fake victim used by Democrats to push free birth control?
March 4, 2012 Joe Newby Spokane Conservative Examiner

Is Sandra Fluke, the 30-year-old Georgetown law student who testified before a Congressional panel in late February, a fake victim used by the Democrats to push free contraceptives? Several posts in the conservative blogosphere seem to suggest just that. A post at Jammie Wearing Fools notes: http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-...e-is-no-fluke/

The Washington Post spoke to Ms. Fluke after Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) refused to let her testify in a hearing regarding religious freedom.

Democrats invited her to speak at that hearing, hoping that she would tell Republicans how much birth control meant to her. As the Post notes, the topic was so important to Fluke, she actually researched the school's policy before enrolling : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...57HR_blog.html

The Daily Caller reported that Fluke has a long history of activism: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/03/me...-sandra-fluke/

An article at The Blaze also found holes in her narrative: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sand...ontraceptives/ That profile also reveals a woman with a long history of feminist activism.

The idea that she is an unwitting victim of a religious school is patently absurd. Yet that is the narrative Democrats are presenting to the American public.

It would seem that Fluke intentionally attended Georgetown for the sole purpose of agitating for her cause - contraception.

Her testimony caused a firestorm of controversy, especially after talk radio host Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut." Limbaugh issued an apology on Saturday, and added: http://www.examiner.com/conservative...ing-her-a-slut

Democrats want us to believe that Ms. Fluke is a victim of mean, cruel religious organizations, but the reality is something quite different. Instead of being a poor, downtrodden waif suffering under male oppression, she is a long-time agitator for feminist causes who allowed herself to be used as a propaganda tool by the Democratic Party.

As the post at Jammie Wearing Fools notes, Americans "are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her." At the very least, Democrats owe Americans an apology for this dog-and-pony show. Ultimately, they should be voted out of office for perpetrating this fraud on the public.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Is Sandra Fluke a fake victim used by Democrats to push free birth control? - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative...#ixzz1oB7DI1rS

---

Sandra Fluke: Your Health Care Should Cover Gender Reassignment Surgery
Patterico @ 5:58 pm 3/5/2012

So we are now forced to endure the women of the View and Jake Tapper (Jake Tapper!) interviewing Sandra Fluke without asking her any questions about her activism, or the facts concerning how easily it is to actually get birth control ($9 per month for birth control pills in Georgetown http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147820...-for-9-a-month ).

Here is a new part of the story for Big Media to ignore.

The College Politico has discovered something very interesting about Ms. Fluke’s beliefs: http://thecollegepolitico.com/sandra...lth-insurance/

Quote:

---

Birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law. The title of the article . . . is “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons” and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review.

---

Via The Other McCain, who observes: http://theothermccain.com/2012/03/05...hange-surgery/

Quote:

---

This law school journal article is the sort of thing that might have been discovered about Fluke’s background, had the Democrats who put Fluke forward as a witness done so with the usual 72-hour advance notice. Here’s one brief quote from the article:

Quote:

---

Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.

---

Now, imagine Fluke trying to defend this language about “heterosexist” policies in a public hearing, with Republican members of the committee questioning her about whether religious institutions (or private businesses, or taxpayers) should also be required to foot the bill for “gender reassignment.”

---

Congratulations, America: You’ve been scammed!

http://patterico.com/2012/03/05/sand...nment-surgery/


And while I agree that Rush was inappropriate to call Ms Fluker a "slut".... it seems that the media is pushing the usual double standard.....


Carbonite Drops Limbaugh — But A-OK with Ed “Laura Ingraham Is a Slut” Schultz
— Patterico @ 8:42 pm 3/4/2012[/i]

So a whole bunch of advertisers are dropping Rush Limbaugh. I always feel ambiguous about boycotts, pressure on advertisers, and such. For me, it generally comes down to the rightness of the cause. Here, I can’t get terribly excited on either side. Sure, Fluke is a fake; a 30-year-old who shouldn’t have sex if she can’t afford $9 a month for birth control pills — and someone who has grossly misled the country about the price of contraception. But calling her a “slut” and so forth? It seems personal and nasty to me, and if Rush really thought that was the appropriate way to handle it, he should have the courage of his convictions and tell off his advertisers.

Here’s what is outrageous, though: Carbonite advertises on Ed Schultz. And he called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeGQ..._embedded#t=0s

I don’t recall Carbonite pulling their advertising then. I guess the operative word in the phrase “right-wing slut” is the word “right-wing.” If it’s a conservative you are calling nasty names, it’s A-OK.

That’s what Carbonite seems to be saying . . . doesn’t it?

So I figure that a lot of Limbaugh listeners subscribed to Carbonite for their backup needs because of Rush Limbaugh. And a lot of them might choose to stop because of Carbonite’s hypocrisy. As I said, sometimes boycotts seem justified. Maybe this is one of those times.

http://patterico.com/2012/03/04/carb...comment-926643

I have a gay friend on FB who liked a link about a bill being proposed regarding men who should be forced to watch a video about viagra side effects as "punishment" for the bill of women "forced" to have an ultrasound/sonogram seeking an abortion.

The vile being spewed is unbelievable. I am a woman and stand by other women for what's fair, but the vile, bashing and hatred toward men is unbelievable, just because they are men. These people vote :puke: and are being fueled in MSM. :sad:..:thumpdown:

What's really sad is we women who are trying to raise our sons to be sensitive human beings and to do what's fair for all...our sons don't stand a chance. What crimes have they committed? (still in grammar or high school) being male?

The War on Conservative Women
Michelle Malkin – 6 hrs ago

I'm sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a "slut." She's really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP "war on women." I'm sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment — because it's the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs.

We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don't need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight.

At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation's Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughters and all women that they shouldn't be "attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens." After inserting himself into the fray and dragging Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he "didn't want to get into the business of arbitrating" language and civility. Too late, pal.

The fact is, "sl ut" is one of the nicer things I've been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was "race traitor," "coconut" (brown on the outside white on the inside) and "white man's puppet." After my first book, "Invasion," came out in 2001, it was "immigrant-hater," the "Radical Right's Asian Pitbull," "Tokyo Rose" and "Aunt Tomasina." In my third book, 2005's "Unhinged," I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.

If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a "Manila wh ore" and "Subic Bay bar girl," I'd be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser.

Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent "respectable," "mainstream" liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a "female impersonator." It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for "authentic" female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being "uninflected by the experiences of the female body."

It was Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked my early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: "Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose."

It was Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC and now at Al Gore's Current TV, who wrote on Twitter that columnist S.E. Cupp was "a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does" and who called me a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it." He stands by those remarks. Olbermann has been a special guest at the White House.

Some of us have not forgotten when liberal Wisconsin radio host John "Sly" Sylvester outrageously accused GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing "fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee" and sneered that she had "pulled a train" (a crude phrase for gang sex). (Earlier, he called former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a "black trophy" and "Aunt Jemima.")

Or when MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz called talk show host Laura Ingraham a "talk s lut" for criticizing Obama's petty beer summit. Or when Playboy published a list of the top 10 conservative women who deserved to be "hate-f**ked." The article, which was promoted by Anne Schroeder Mullins at Politico.com, included Ingraham, "The View's" Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and others. Yours truly topped the list with the following description: a "highly f**kable Filipina" and "a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, 'Do me!'"

And then there's the left's war on Sarah Palin, which would require an entire national forest of trees to publish.

A reporter asked Obama to comment on examples of liberal hate speech at Tuesday's press conference. He whiffed, of course. This is, after all, the brave leader who sat on his hands while his street thugs attacked tea party mothers and grandmothers as "Koch who res" during the fight over union reform in Wisconsin. (As I reported last week, his re-election campaign is now targeting the Koch brothers' private foundation donors in a parallel effort to chill conservative speech and activism.) He's leading by example.

So no, we won't get any phone calls from Mr. Civility. Acknowledging the war on conservative women would obliterate The Narrative. Enjoy the silence.

http://news.yahoo.com/war-conservati...080000034.html

Yea, the silence from the left when lefties go after conservatives like Palin referring to her with the C word or making fun of her down syndrome baby is deafening. They will never hold their own accountable much less to the same standard as conservatives neither will they ever have to apologize. And they say they are the party of fairness and equality? Far from it.

...

Not just conservative women. I remember the democrats paying James Carville to get the democrat media to attack democrat women. It's the way they roll. And heaven help you if you are gay or minority and end up on the democrat enemy list. They are just nasty.

...

no story here, we all know the nasty left...they are acting with all this righteous indignation whilst the low lifes on their side use/used much worse language toward the right and they laugh and giggle, Wanda Sykes, Sergeant Ed Shultz, the Forehead, Olbermann, Letterman, etc...

The Left's War on Babies
Brent Bozell III – 6 hrs ago

In the wake of the Obama administration dictate that private insurance companies cover contraceptives and abortifacients, supporters have defined anyone who would oppose this mandate as waging a "war against women." Obviously, no opponent of this policy is actually bombing, shooting or stabbing women to death.

The same cannot be said for what the cultural left favors — a war against babies. The latest front of "advanced" leftist medical ethics has emerged from the experts at Oxford University. They don't just favor abortion, even partial-birth abortion. They favor "after-birth abortion."

It is stomach-turning stuff. Killing babies is no different than abortion, these academics argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Ironically, pro-lifers would agree and have long pointed to this logical progression in the face of laughter. The "ethicists" now explain it somewhat differently. Parents should be allowed to kill their newborn babies because they're still "morally irrelevant."

The article carries the chilling title "After-Birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue newborn babies aren't "actual persons" but "potential persons."

How this qualifies as "science" or "ethics" is anyone's guess. It qualifies as a quintessential example of the culture of death. Giubilini also gave a talk at Oxford in January titled "What is the problem with euthanasia?"

Team Oxford argued it was "not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense." They explained that "what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

These "ethicists" also argued that parents are somehow cheated when only "64 percent of Down syndrome cases" in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing. Once such children were born, there was "no choice for the parents but to keep the child," they complained.

All this should cause us to return to what Rick Santorum was trying to say — and our pro-abortion media could only scorn as politically disastrous — about amniocentesis being used as a death panel. The Santorum family's decision to have a disabled child — as well as the Palin family's decision — have been disdained by the liberal media as freakishly weird, dangerously religious. It's an "alternative lifestyle" that the "compassionate" liberals cannot comprehend.

The same people who casually spew about a "war on women" have no time to discuss the "termination" of most pregnancies when disabilities like Down Syndrome are discovered. These people argue capital punishment is wrong because an innocent life may be taken. But they have no moral qualms about "parents" slaughtering their innocent but somehow subhuman babies that don't pass prenatal tests for normalcy.

They have yet to speak about post-natal death sentences.

The same people who wouldn't countenance talk of a "war on babies" expect the national media to continue their near-total blackout of Barack Obama's record advocating against a Born-Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois in 2001, 2002 and 2003. This article out of England ought to spur reporters to ask Obama about "after-birth abortion" as a 2012 campaign issue.

How could the president who led the effort to prohibit the care of infants surviving abortion oppose those who would want to kill them a minute after birth?

There was a terrific pro-life speech delivered a month ago before the Susan B. Anthony Fund by Sen. Marco Rubio, who addressed the same "viability" argument on a moral slippery slope. To the argument that the fetus is not viable without the support of the mother, he answered, "a newborn isn't viable without the mother, either. A 1-year-old child, a 2-year-old child — leave a 2-year-old child by himself, leave a 6-month-old child by himself, they are not viable either."

This is why Rubio declared, "The issue of life is not a political issue, nor is it a policy issue. It is a definitional issue. It is a basic core issue that every society needs to answer. The answer that you give to that issue ends up defining which kind of society you have." You can have a society defined by sexual libertinism and abortion for convenience — or you can respect a right to life.

Rubio drew a standing ovation for concluding with this:

"There is nothing that America can give this world right now more important than to show that all life — irrespective of the circumstances of its creation, irrespective of the circumstances of its birth, irrespective of the conditions of that they find themselves in — all life, in a planet where life is increasingly not valued, in a planet where people are summarily discarded, all life is worthy of protection. All life enjoys God's love."

But somehow, the left and their media allies define Rubio's view as a "war on women" — no matter how many female babies are discarded as medical waste.

http://news.yahoo.com/lefts-war-babies-080000587.html

Slippery slope. When you advocate the killing of others for your own good, regardless of if it's abortion, euthanasia, or capital punishment, who's to say you can't be killed for someone else's selfish desires?

...

Medicade covers birth control, some private insurance does too. But near me, the government funded clinic, offer birth control pills for $1 a month, issued 6 months at a time, for those who need it. No proof of income necessary. So why or where are these depraved women with no birth control. Plus there are other options like don't have sex, use a condom, IUD, sponge, etc.

Me

All the name calling aside. Here are the facts:

1) Sandra Fluke is not a "school girl" or "3rd year law student." She is a 30 year old political activist who joined Georgetown with the specific intent of challenging their religious policy.

2) Mandating that Georgetown provide coverage for contraception against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional and a violation of Freedom of Religion.

Forget about all the name calling and look at the facts. You can either side with Sandra Fluke against the Constitution or side with the Constitution. It is really that simple.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0307014625.jpg


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0306042551.jpg

Women's Group Presses Obama on Limbaugh/Maher Double Standard
By Devin Dwyer | ABC News – 10 hrs ago

After making a point of standing up for women during the Rush Limbaugh controversy, President Obama is taking flak from one corner for not speaking out against "vile misogynist" and liberal Obama supporter Bill Maher. Maher, a comedian who specializes in politics, is also a $1 million contributor to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that supports Obama's reelection.

Penny Nance, president of the conservative group Concerned Women for America, said in a letter to White House chief of staff Jack Lew that Obama "needs to publicly disassociate himself from Priorities USA" until it returns Maher's money. "President Obama cannot put forth the eloquent position he announced on Tuesday, while sending administration officials out to raise money for an organization that not only counts a vile misogynist as its largest single donor, but whose executives actively boast about that vile misogynist's support," Nance wrote in her letter to Lew.

Last month, in an about face, Obama approved support for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing his campaign, allowing senior White House officials to appear at Priorities fundraisers. The move also drew a $1 million contribution to the group from Maher, though he is not the group's largest donor as Nance mistakenly noted. (Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg gave the group $2 million last year.)

Nance says Obama and his re-election campaign are advancing a double standard by singling out Limbaugh for criticism over liberal perpetrators of sexist speak. Limbaugh has been taken to task and later apologized for calling Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" for advocating for free coverage of birth control in employer health plans, which Obama favors.

What did Maher say that has drawn the protest from CWA?

Nance cites instances when Maher, a comedian whose show airs on HBO, reportedly called former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" and Palin and Rep. Michelle Bachmann "boobs" and "two bimbos," and said of a woman seen breast feeding in public, "don't show me your tits!" The comments were made in a satirical setting, but Limbaugh has said he was joking, too. "It's never appropriate to degrade women, no matter whose side you're on," said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

Neither Maher nor a White House spokesman immediately responded to ABC News' request for comment

http://news.yahoo.com/womens-group-p...-abc-news.html

The article didn't even mention that Maher once made crude jokes about which woman he would have preferred to get raped. Maher has no class.

...

In Obama's press conference a few days ago, a reporter asked him about the Limbaugh/Maher double standard but Obama responded without addressing the issue. It doesn't help him to address it so he ignores even direct questions!!

...

I like how the liberals seperate the Fluke girl as being a private citizen so she should not be called names by Rush L....but its open season for Maher to call Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman the most disgusting names imaginable. This is the same Bill Maher who said he thought the US deserved to be attacked on 911...same guy said the terrorists were hero's ...I am sure the 3,000 people all of whom are private citizens who died families don't give him a pass on those "jokes" eihter.....Obama give back this dirt balls money or accept that you are two of a kind! And remember he called Sarah Palin a C*nt on national TV when you are tucking your daughters in bed tonight!

...

WSJ : How about coffee and gym-membership employer mandates, too?
posted at 12:10 pm on March 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Well, why not? Sexual activity is as voluntary as drinking coffee and going to the gym, and at least the latter has potentially profound implications for long-term health. While the federal government demands that employers provide free contraception and sterilization to their employees on demand, why not mandate a bunch of goods and services that have beneficial effects? Allysia Finley offers her modest proposal in today’s Wall Street Journal in response to the immodest diktat of the Obama administration: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...876605408.html

Quote:

---

• Fitness club memberships. Most doctors agree that exercising is one of the best ways to prevent disease. However, gym memberships can run between $240 and $1,800 per year. Such high prices force us to choose between exercising and buying groceries. While we could walk or jog outside, many of us prefer not to. Therefore, employers should be required to pay for workers’ gym memberships. Doing so might even reduce employers’ health costs, which is why many companies already subsidize memberships. Those that don’t are limiting our freedom to exercise.

• Massages. Stress raises the risk of heart disease, obesity, depression and a host of other maladies. About one half of Americans say they’re stressed, and studies show that health costs for stressed-out workers are nearly 50% higher than those for their chilled-out counterparts. According to the Mayo Clinic, a great way to reduce stress is to get a massage. However, since few of us can afford massages, it is imperative that employers be required to cover weekly massage treatments or hire in-office masseuses. Think of the millions of new jobs this mandate will create in the therapeutic field, too.

• Yoga classes. Like exercise and massage, yoga reduces stress and can relieve back pain, osteoarthritis and even menopausal symptoms. Yoga is also one of the best exercises for pregnant women since stress raises the risk of birth defects, which in turn increase health costs. While we could practice yoga with the aid of a DVD or Web video, classes offer social benefits that enhance our psychological well-being.

• Coffee. Studies show that coffee can ward off depression, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes and sleepiness—which makes it one of the most powerful preventive treatments. Workers who drink java are also more productive and pleasant. While many offices have coffee makers, some employers—most notably those affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—continue to deny workers this essential benefit. All employers should have to provide workers with freshly brewed coffee. Oh, and workers must also be able to choose the kind of coffee regardless of the price.

---

Finley points out that Mormons and other sects might object to the coffee mandate as their doctrine opposes the use of caffeine. But since caffeine has such positive implications for employee health, the government should step in and force Mormon organizations to provide free coffee, especially since we need alert drivers in the afternoon traffic crunch. I’m sure that we can find a study showing that 98% of all Mormons have had coffee at some point in their lives, which proves that the government’s doctrine is superior to that of the Mormon church, anyway.

Actually, many employers offer most of the above, either for free or for subsidized discounts, precisely because they think the long-term benefit pays off for them. That’s especially true of gym memberships, which get employees to exercise and lower the eventual costs associated with treatment of diabetes and obesity, but many employers provide free coffee for their staff, too. Those choices are driven by voluntary estimations of cost-benefit analysis as well as market forces in labor. Just as with contraception, no one wants to propose a law that bans employers or insurers from funding those choices, but oppose the government forcing employers and insurers to provide them for free, regardless of their supposed benefits.

As for yoga, well, we’re already there — at least with Medicare. CNN reported two weeks ago that Medicare now pays for yoga, meditation, and exercise programs in order to lower costs associated with treatments for heart disease.

Once again, I have no issue with an insurer deciding that the cost-benefit ratio makes coverage for yoga and meditation a good choice, although Medicare’s government-funded status means that choice is also a public-policy issue, too. But government has no business mandating that coverage onto employers and private insurers, just as they have no business banning them from doing so.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/1...-mandates-too/

http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/

The MSM didn't show all the women who spoke before congress that are supporting the bishops. Here they are.


Those currently invoking "women's health" in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of "costless" birth control with "equality," note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.