Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 16802
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:24 pm
 


Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Contraception clarity (click to view)
Date: February 14, 2012
For the first time in however many decades, contraception has emerged as a contentious issue in American politics, though observers seem fairly divided as to which party is poised to benefit the most. The roots of the schism lie in Obamacare, which, in a most novel fashion, is slowly starting to evolve from mere totemic abstraction into an actual, enforceable law with real-world consequences.

As we may remember, the President's Affordable Care Act placed a number of new legal obligations on employer-based insurance plans, including a list of medical services they would henceforth be expected to cover for all employees under all circumstances. Most famously, this necessitated a ban on denying coverage on the basis of so-called "pre-existing conditions," but also stipulated that anything involving "preventative care" must be provided in all plans without any obligation of co-payment. On January 20, President Obama's secretary of health clarified that "preventive care" includes birth control, morning-after pills, female contraceptive devices, and even sterilization surgery, since pregnancy tends to be among the medical conditions women are most eager to prevent.

The problem is that not all American employers — the ones who have to foot the bill for all this stuff — are necessarily down with contraception. Catholic employers, for instance. The Obama administration, however, specifically refused to grant conscience exceptions for all but the most religiously strict employers (such as, say, a nunnery) meaning most broad-based Catholic organizations, including Catholic schools, charities, or hospitals are still on the contraception hook.

Of course, all evidence suggests this is exactly what their employees want. As the White House itself noted, studies have found that 98% of American Catholics claim to use birth control without qualm, and the health insurance regimes of many states already demand mandatory contraception coverage without faith-based exemption.

Yet in what is probably yet more evidence of the disproportionately large influence right-wing Catholics have over the American political discourse, the issue is now in its second week of news cycle-dominance. Spurned on by the US Council of Bishops, who have released a number of angry press releases on the matter, the Republican presidential candidates have made outrage over the birth control mandate one of their leading talking points on the stump, while GOP leaders in Congress have already begun planning to repeal the offending regulations.

The issue, conservatives say, is primarily one of religious liberty. No government should ever have the right to step between a faith-based employer and their employees, and undermine religious values by distributing morally objectionable material. It's basically a fresh spin on the ol' "condoms-in-schools" argument: regardless how medically necessary or desired contraception may be, the right of religious leaders to opt-out of supplying any product that violates their beliefs should ultimately take precedence over any imagined right to the product itself.

Republicans are gambling that this somewhat complex philosophical argument is a winning one, since it's not really about contraception at all. The bigger story, as they see it, is the sheer spectacle of Obamacare itself, and the extremely top-down, authoritarian, busybody way it way it goes about aggressively modifying millions of private, personal health insurance plans across the nation. Obama's tone-deaf, one-size-fits all approach to contraception coverage is a symptom of a larger, tone-deaf, one-size-fits all approach to governing in general, and who knows what realm of your life will fall victim to his central planning next?

On the other hand, I can't help but feel that contraception is a very dangerous bit of political fire to be playing with. As I portrayed in an earlier cartoon, it doesn't take much for wild, ignorant misconceptions to evolve out of a few oft-repeated hot-button phrases, and I'm not convinced it's really in the GOP's best interests for the words "Republicans," "oppose," and "birth control" to be constantly appearing in the headlines, regardless of what clarifying phrases fall in between.

Listening to FOX News radio last night, the dominant topic of caller interest was not how to best create workable contraception opt-out clauses for faith-based employers, but rather outrage that the GOP was once again clamouring to "tell people what to do with their bodies." With birth control having a literal 99% approval rating among the American public, even the most casual misconception among swing voters regarding what exactly Republicans are opposing has the potential for very serious consequences.

Obama, in typical fashion, has since caved somewhat on his original policy. On Friday he revised his central planning rules to exempt faith-based employers from covering contraception in their insurance plans, but added a new rule stating that dissident employees would still be eligible to gain access to birth control from the insurance companies directly, so long as they were comfortable making a special appeal. This has, of course, satisfied no one; liberals are aghast at the compromise and conservatives are vowing to pledge forward with a complete repeal of all language in the Affordable Care Act that makes contraception coverage mandatory, period.

To liberals, this episode thus bears all the hallmarks of everything they hate about the president: clumsy overreach in a moment of opportunity followed by a hurried retreat the second controversy beings to boil. Obama apologists, however, argue that this may actually be one of the most "crazy like a fox" moments of his presidency, providing the end result is a public with a somewhat hazy, though permanent, mental association between the GOP and puritanical hard-liners who hate legalized birth control. For a president who doesn't have a whole lot of winning economic issues in his quiver, a retreat to the culture wars may be his best hope for re-election. A rare strategy for a Democrat, but then again, we live in unusual times.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4451
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:34 pm
 


I love the GOP seal on the desk. :lol:


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 117
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:02 am
 


I'm still wondering why my President considers pregnancy to be a disease that requires preventative care in the first place.

I mean we know he considers it a punishment, but a disease?


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 257
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:48 am
 


Teikiatsu wrote:
I'm still wondering why my President considers pregnancy to be a disease that requires preventative care in the first place.

I mean we know he considers it a punishment, but a disease?
Well, let's look at the facts. Pregnancy causes diabetes, muscle pain, swelling, and vomiting, among a host of other problems. Childbirth is known to be fatal in some cases. And it's all caused by a parasite!

The reason contraception can be considered "preventative care" is because it's supposed to prevent bringing a life into a place where its existence is considered... inconvenient.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14682
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:02 am
 


Teikiatsu wrote:
I'm still wondering why my President considers pregnancy to be a disease that requires preventative care in the first place.

I mean we know he considers it a punishment, but a disease?


Image


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8545
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:19 pm
 


andyt wrote:
Teikiatsu wrote:
I'm still wondering why my President considers pregnancy to be a disease that requires preventative care in the first place.

I mean we know he considers it a punishment, but a disease?


Image


:lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15612
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:20 pm
 


andyt wrote:
Teikiatsu wrote:
I'm still wondering why my President considers pregnancy to be a disease that requires preventative care in the first place.

I mean we know he considers it a punishment, but a disease?


Image

And you just congratulated someone for not resorting to name-calling. 8O


Online
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1743
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:44 pm
 


raydan wrote:
andyt wrote:
Teikiatsu wrote:
I'm still wondering why my President considers pregnancy to be a disease that requires preventative care in the first place.

I mean we know he considers it a punishment, but a disease?


Image

And you just congratulated someone for not resorting to name-calling. 8O

Who's name calling? He just got the wrong thread for his still life.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3266
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:17 pm
 


It's just more "I'm entitled to your money" legislation. The religious angle just makes the implied "even if you don't like how it's used" part explicit. Ho hum.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13847
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:31 pm
 


raydan wrote:
andyt wrote:
Teikiatsu wrote:
I'm still wondering why my President considers pregnancy to be a disease that requires preventative care in the first place.

I mean we know he considers it a punishment, but a disease?


Image

And you just congratulated someone for not resorting to name-calling. 8O


That's our Andy.

Hypocrisy is the one guarantee you get out of him.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 117
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:29 am
 


Murray_Smith wrote:
Teikiatsu wrote:
I'm still wondering why my President considers pregnancy to be a disease that requires preventative care in the first place.

I mean we know he considers it a punishment, but a disease?
Well, let's look at the facts. Pregnancy causes diabetes, muscle pain, swelling, and vomiting, among a host of other problems. Childbirth is known to be fatal in some cases. And it's all caused by a parasite!


Muscle pain, swelling and vomitting? Those aren't diseases.

Diabetes is not caused by pregnancy, otherwise men would not ever develop diabetes. Choose your words better. Perhaps you meant to say that pregnancy creates a higher risk for diabetes, but even that is incorrect. Diabetes is a genetic and lifestyle affliction. Perhaps you are thinking of the specific case of gestational diabetes, which occurs in about 3% or 4% of pregnancies, and again only in those women with genetics or lifestyles that lead to diabetes anyway.

As for parasite... considering we are discussing an entitlement from a progressive administration I find your irony delicious. At least the parents have a choice whether or not to have sex and create a child. My wife and I waited 13 years to have our son. I had to pay taxes for welfare leeches during that time no matter what, and I still do now.

As for andyt
Image

Murray_Smith wrote:
The reason contraception can be considered "preventative care" is because it's supposed to prevent bringing a life into a place where its existence is considered... inconvenient.


Based on your definition, abstinence is the ultimate preventative care. It is actually 100% free and 100% effective. If couple thinks a child's life is considered inconvenient, perhaps the couple should think twice about engaging in an activity specifically designed to create that inconvenience. Of course, that requires thinking in the first place. It's so much easier to let other people pay for their stupidity later.

Psudo wrote:
It's just more "I'm entitled to your money" legislation. The religious angle just makes the implied "even if you don't like how it's used" part explicit. Ho hum.


The Progressive 'Guilded Baby Crib' Agenda: Keep the base ignorant, tell them they deserve everything you give them so they should vote you back in or that mean, nasty 'other group' will take away their shinies.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 257
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:26 pm
 


Teikiatsu wrote:
Murray_Smith wrote:
Teikiatsu wrote:
I'm still wondering why my President considers pregnancy to be a disease that requires preventative care in the first place.

I mean we know he considers it a punishment, but a disease?
Well, let's look at the facts. Pregnancy causes diabetes, muscle pain, swelling, and vomiting, among a host of other problems. Childbirth is known to be fatal in some cases. And it's all caused by a parasite!
Muscle pain, swelling and vomitting? Those aren't diseases.
No, but they are signs that something is wrong with the body.

Teikiatsu wrote:
Diabetes is not caused by pregnancy, otherwise men would not ever develop diabetes. Choose your words better. Perhaps you meant to say that pregnancy creates a higher risk for diabetes, but even that is incorrect. Diabetes is a genetic and lifestyle affliction. Perhaps you are thinking of the specific case of gestational diabetes, which occurs in about 3% or 4% of pregnancies, and again only in those women with genetics or lifestyles that lead to diabetes anyway.
Okay, I forgot to add the word "may". Other than my imperfect word choices, what problems do you have with my statement?

Teikiatsu wrote:
As for parasite... considering we are discussing an entitlement from a progressive administration I find your irony delicious. At least the parents have a choice whether or not to have sex and create a child. My wife and I waited 13 years to have our son. I had to pay taxes for welfare leeches during that time no matter what, and I still do now.
I'm not actually arguing that contraception should be provided by the guvrinmint. If someone is so poor that she can't afford her own birth control, then there are clearly other problems in that person's life which makes birth control a tangential issue at best. What I'm arguing is that pregnancy actually fits many of the criteria for a disease, except that it is necessary for the survival of the species.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, I plan on creating some of my own parasites.

Teikiatsu wrote:
Murray_Smith wrote:
The reason contraception can be considered "preventative care" is because it's supposed to prevent bringing a life into a place where its existence is considered... inconvenient.
Based on your definition, abstinence is the ultimate preventative care. It is actually 100% free and 100% effective. If couple thinks a child's life is considered inconvenient, perhaps the couple should think twice about engaging in an activity specifically designed to create that inconvenience. Of course, that requires thinking in the first place.
The two main impediments to a world where people bump uglies responsibly are drugs, superstition, and occasionally drug-fueled superstition.

Teikiatsu wrote:
It's so much easier to let other people pay for their stupidity later.
That is a truth of human history and daily life.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 44543
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:47 pm
 


I LOVE how women's rights are being thrown back in time 60+ years. YAY!
WTH have we been fighting for??
GET REAL PEOPLE!!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13847
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:55 pm
 


Brenda wrote:
I LOVE how women's rights are being thrown back in time 60+ years. YAY!
WTH have we been fighting for??
GET REAL PEOPLE!!


While you're back there, Dutchie, make me a sammich! :twisted:

Anyway, remember this is a Yankee problem... unless of course, it's part of Harper's hidden agenda!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26877
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:00 pm
 


Quote:
While you're back there, Dutchie, make me a sammich!


it'd have to made using fresh baked homemade bread and the meat would have to come from a roast made the day before....none of that luncheon meat slices on Wonderbread shit.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.