Democratic senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren “has assumed the mantle of oppressor,” Senator Scott Brown has said, The Weekly Standard‘s blog reports. In supporting the contraception mandate,
She and her allies on the left are dictating to Catholics and other people of faith that they must do as they are told when it comes to health care or face the consequences, regardless of their personal religious beliefs.
As my friend Mark Barrett notes, “It’s a very good sign that Brown is forcefully opposing this. Warren has been attacking him 24/7 on this, expecting him to run from it and he, somewhat surprisingly, has turned around and fully embraced it. Brown is a shrewd political operator, he apparently thinks this is a winning issue in Massachusetts.”
Warren has also declared that ”I am shocked that Senator Brown jumped in to support such an extreme measure.” The language of extremism is the common language of politics these days, but it’s still a fascinating charge. How exactly is supporting what had been the law of the land until a few weeks ago extreme? In what understanding of public discourse can a view move from one accepted position among many to one beyond the pale because the party in power makes an administrative decision?
I don’t think the answer is simply that Warren says whatever she needs to say to try to marginalize Brown. I think it’s both better and worse than that: it’s that the liberal of Warren’s sort really does believe that any view not held by her and her crowd is extreme, and would be so even if it is held by 97% of the American people. It’s not just that the other people are wrong, which everyone believes about many of the people who disagree with them, it’s that they’re bizarrely, absurdly, perhaps culpably wrong. Extremely wrong, so to speak.
February 18th, 2012 | 10:34 am
The Democrats need to frame this dishonestly in order to win. They need to say it is about “women’s health”.
But contraceptives are only a health need for those who are voluntarily engaging in a high-risk activity. Why do we treat recreational sex as different from recreational eating, recreational drugs, or extreme sports? One reason only: because Democrats are successfully framing the debate, and therefore sexual pleasure is being treated as a basic human right and need.
Imagine if bungee jumping were treated the same way, and people were shouting about how “extreme” it is to refuse to pay for anything and everything that might reduce a bungee jumper’s risk of unwanted outcomes.
But that is what we are doing: we are redefining “health” to include anything and everything that contributes to a sense of well-being.
In the opinion of those who decide such things. (Somehow, I do not envision people who prefer smoking to sex as their vice of choice getting free “low tar” cigarettes, no matter how many studies might be produced linking lower-tar cigarettes to given health benefits; “abstinence-only” education works just fine for smokers, it seems).
Of course, even if you go along with the idea that anything there are already solutions in place to make contraceptives available (at little or no cost to women who might not be able to afford it). This is about redefining categories and expanding influence – not about serving a need.
February 19th, 2012 | 9:24 am
Contraception is essential for married women who want to keep their jobs, or simply don’t want to be constantly pregnant for decades.
And please, don’t throw NFP at me. NFP only works if the husband cooperates AND if the wife has a very regular cycle. It required absolute perfection in practice. in the real world that’s not possible, and most not possible because the overwhelming majority of men won’t be perfect.
But please, go ahead and attack contraception, loudly and frequently. I’d especially like you to attack working married women at the same time.
February 19th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
“Contraception is essential for married women who want to keep their jobs, or simply don’t want to be constantly pregnant for decades.”
Not likely that you can believe it, but NFP does work despite the obstacles you have thrown up. In a world of love and commitment and faith, all is possible. Is it easy? Not at all. But when the “real world” demands that we dummy down our relationships, and of course, our fertility, I resoundly say, “Not me”. A man may never rise to maturity and unselfish love if we women don’t ask and demand that they learn a different way. Why should he? We’ve given him every reason and exuse to continue to be shallow. NFP has been a blessing to imperfect me (yes, I am a professional, working woman) and my imperfect husband.
February 19th, 2012 | 4:46 pm
Karen,
Yes, and of course work is what life is all about.
February 19th, 2012 | 11:58 pm
Karen,
I assume that if you are presently working and if contraception is essential for you, then your present health coverage is probably covering it. If this mandate does not pass, nothing will change for you. You can still get your contraception. On the other hand, if you are presently working for a Catholic employer who is not providing contraception in your health coverage, then you must be obtaining it some other way since it is essential to you. Again, if the mandate does not pass, nothing will change for you and you can still get your contraception the way you always have been.
I’m not understanding how this is a problem for you.
February 20th, 2012 | 7:47 am
“contraceptives are only a health need for those who are voluntarily engaging in a high-risk activity.”
Contraceptives are not only used by those
who are engaging in high-risk activity; they are also used by married women, who are having normal marital relations with their husbands, who do not presently wish to have more children.
But for those who are engaging in immoral activity, they are also a health need for their prospective children. It is the health care need for the children not to be conceived before their mother is ready to care for them and not to be conceived when the mother’s reproductive organs are not the necessary condition for healthy pregnancy.
That is the fundamental difference between bungee jumping and sex. Sex has the potential to create a new human being. Bungee jumping does not.
February 20th, 2012 | 12:23 pm
Karen is exactly the type of person Prof. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, was writing about when he wrote of the mandate supporters: “It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!’”
February 20th, 2012 | 10:06 pm
the liberal of Warren’s sort really does believe that any view not held by her and her crowd is extreme
Just as the Right today constantly claims that the Left is “un-American.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact