I was really surprised at this column by E.J. I was raised Catholic too, but I'm outraged at the Church's hostility towards contraception and I didn't think he bought into this narrative. And let's be honest E.J, many pro-lifers will not vote or support Obama anyway so why should this matter to him or any progressive Catholic? Why should the president do any more for them than the Democratic Party already has?
All religions live in the U.S. and must honor our laws. What's being offered is not illegal. How many times are women and progressives supposed to kowtow to the religious right? It's infuriating and I grew up Catholic.
Tell me again why I'm supposed to care that "progressive" Catholics are unhappy that president Obama mandated that Catholic institutions that employ people who are not members of the faith have to provide birth control coverage under the health care law? I'm hearing they feel "betrayed."
Welcome to our world folks. Now you know what it felt like for the rest of us when the administration made a deal with the Church to give abortion coverage pariah status in the health care law and treat it as though it is something so dirty that decent people wouldn't even want their money to touch the money of those who bought this dirty coverage. It wasn't pleasant.
I don't pretend to understand why progressive Catholics, who I'm told practice birth control at similar rates to non-Catholics, are upset that the government is mandating low cost coverage for everyone—for something they personally practice. That sort of hypocrisy is simply beyond the ken of a heathen like myself. But as a political matter, the*President made the right decision. Pro-choice progressive women have been shafted over and over again on reproductive issues and to enable this growing anti-birth control crusade to gain traction at the hands of a Democratic president would have been a true betrayal of epic proportions. Keep in mind that Democratic women outnumber Democratic men by nearly 10 points.
I feel betrayed by a religion that taught me only how to be a better person when I attended in the '60s and '70s. I'm so sick and tired of these hypocrites telling women what they can and cannot do.
Today, 1 in 3 women has trouble affording birth control. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies in the industrialized world, and studies show that women who plan their pregnancies are likely to be healthier, seek prenatal care, and have healthier children.
Given all of this, shouldn't the question be why a group of mostly men—bishops or otherwise—need an extra-extra special exemption from prioritizing the health of women? Sadly, this is no freak occurrence. When the Obama administration made the misguided decision not to allow Plan B to be sold over the counter, the debate focused exclusively on the way he—"as a father"—viewed the idea of 11-year-old girls getting Plan B with their pack of gum. The overwhelming majority of young women who were simply trying to avoid pregnancy or abortion, both far more risky than Plan B, were ignored. And when a collection of almost all men pushed the "Bart Stupak amendment," holding health reform they supposedly supported hostage for the sake of inroads on their anti-choice agenda, the actual impact their amendment would have on women was virtually absent, as news coverage lionized these men's dedication to their consciences.
Shouldn't we ask why women's health, our ability to control our lives and bodies and careers, is such a popular political football? Is it because the women who actually are affected have no voice in our political system?
Bart Stupak got run out of office for supporting these people. They are not interested in facts or freedoms. We do not live in a monarchy where men are the lords and women are the chamber maids. Dionne's instincts have been compromised by the same propaganda as so many Americans have been over the years. It's really sad.