It’s Not about Contraception
Negative versus positive "rights"
When you bake a bad ingredient into a cake, no matter how nicely you decorate it, the cake will still be bad.
That’s the lesson to take from the controversy over Obamacare, Catholicism, and contraception. To recap, under Obamacare all employers will be required to arrange for “health insurance” for their employees. Coverage must include various disease-preventive health services and women’s contraception at no charge. No premium-sharing, no copays, no deductibles – nothing.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which has ominous rule-making power under Obamacare, exempted Catholic churches (as employers) from this rule because Catholicism teaches that contraception is sinful. However, HHS did not exempt Catholic institutions whose mission (the government says) extends beyond religion, namely, colleges, hospitals, and charities. Those institutions would have to pay (nominally at least) for their women employees’ birth-control products and services.
That seemingly arbitrary distinction set off a political firestorm intense enough to force the Obama administration back to the drawing board. Under President Obama’s so-called “accommodation,” all Catholic institutions would be exempt from paying for contraception after all, but their insurance companies would have to provide the coverage at no cost.
Top Catholic officials are still unhappy, though other prominent Catholics are satisfied. The matter isn’t settled yet. (Aside: Is there a significant difference between a Catholic institution’s being forced to pay for employees’ birth control and its being forced to arrange the match between its employees and the insurance company that will pay for it?)
In announcing his “accommodation,” Obama said that religious liberty has been squared with a “core principle”: “a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women.” We need not “choose between individual liberty and basic fairness for all Americans.” Since men’s contraception is not mandated for free coverage, Obama’s remark about discrimination is puzzling.
Competing Liberty Interests?
Washington Post column E. J. Dionne, a Catholic and an enthusiast for Obamacare, put it this way: “There were legitimate liberty interests on both sides of this debate.” He is satisfied that both “liberty interests” have been served.
What exactly are the two liberty interests? One is clear: an institution wishes not to be compelled to facilitate what it regards as morally abhorrent. (The validity of that moral judgment is irrelevant.) But what’s the other one? One infers from the discussion that it’s women’s liberty to use contraception. (A third liberty interest – an insurer’s right not to be forced to give away services — is strangely overlooked.)
How exactly was the liberty to use contraception jeopardized by the Catholic exemption? In no way would a woman’s freedom in this respect be infringed simply because her employer was free to choose not to pay for her contraceptive products and services. (See last week’s TGIF on why volitional acts such as contraception and other preventive measures are neither free nor insurable.)
Yet advocates of Obamacare insist on conflating these issues. They repeatedly portray opposition to forced financing of contraception as opposition to contraception itself. (Alas, some conservatives have encouraged this conflation.) Must the difference really be spelled out?
This sort of argument is nothing new, of course. In The Law (1850), Frederic Bastiat noted that advocates of government-run schools accused those who opposed them of being against education itself.
Prohibitive Expense
When pressed, proponents of “free” employer-provided contraception claim (as though this were responsive) that many women can’t afford birth control and that insurance companies would save money by giving it away. (Why haven’t the insurers thought of that?)
Taking these in reverse order, the second argument begs the question. Insurance companies allegedly would save money because they wouldn’t have to pay for medical services associated with having children. That assumes that if the insurer were not providing free contraception, women would have to do without. But that is precisely what is in dispute. Why assume that?
As for the claim about the allegedly prohibitive expense, one may properly ask how that could justify forcing others to pay. It’s amusing to watch advocates of free contraception cite as evidence for their position polls showing that women overwhelmingly support no-cost contraception. Since when have people not wanted free stuff? Women have managed to obtain birth control up until now (we’re repeatedly told that nearly all women, including Catholics, have used it), and low-income women can resort to Planned Parenthood if necessary, which already gets taxpayer money (which is not to say it should).
When a “Right” Is Not a Right
What we have in this debate is a clash not between two liberty interests, but rather between two rights-claims – one negative (genuine), the other positive (counterfeit). All that is required for the exercise of a negative right (to self-ownership and, redundantly, liberty and one’s legitimately acquired belongings) is other people’s noninterference. (“When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof,” writes James A. Sadowsky, S.J.) But the fulfillment of positive rights requires that other people act affirmatively even if they don’t want to — say, by providing products or paying the bills. If one person’s freedom depends on the infringement of someone else’s freedom, the first claim is illegitimate. To hold otherwise is to reject the principle of equality.
Women have the right to contraception (and any other product) in the sense that they have a right to spend their money on it or to try to persuade someone else to do so. There can be no right to force (or have the government force) others to pay. (Aside #2: It’s curious to see feminists asking the male-dominated State for “free” birth control.)
This controversy is not about contraception. It’s about freedom versus compulsion.
As long as that bad ingredient – the principle that government may coerce people to buy things for others – is baked into the cake, it will be rotten no matter how it’s nicely decorated.
Comment by Beth on 17 February 2012:
As usual Mr. Richman, you make excellent arguments.
Comment by Richard Holmes on 17 February 2012:
The self-indulgence of those who would force their debatable views on others is disgusting. The worst offenders are those who consider themselves “educated”.
Comment by Susan on 17 February 2012:
The PPACA does not require employers to provide health care. Penalties are only given if the employer doesn’t offer health care, AND fails to pay its employees enough to afford basic coverage on their own. The determination is made by percentage of the employee’s wages. If basic coverage costs them more than 9.5% of their total income (i.e. they qualify for tax credit assistance for health insurance expenditures) then the employer is assessed a penalty to make up for it.
So, if a Catholic institution doesn’t want to provide health care that includes contraception, or a Jehova’s Witness business doesn’t want to provide care that covers blood transfusions, they don’t have to. They just have to pay their employees well enough that they can reasonably purchase their own insurance.
Here is a paper that summarizes the employer responsibilities under the PPACA, although of course you can get the same info by reading the text of the bill itself:
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Documents/EmployerPenalties.pdf
In light of this information, I must respectfully disagree with you that it is a matter of freedom. There is no government coercion to buy health coverage for others here; only that the employee has the opportunity to get it from SOMEWHERE. And that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Comment by bionic mosquito on 17 February 2012:
Susan: They just have to pay their employees well enough that they can reasonably purchase their own insurance.
BM: Even your your interpretation of this is correct, what point have you made. The government is not forcing an institution to pay for contraception, but is forcing the institution to pay wages sufficient that the employee can pay for contraception? (As if someone could calculate that wage).
Is this the best you can do in order to find disagreement with Mr. Richman?
Comment by Erik on 17 February 2012:
Susan – your missing the point as made VERY clear in the article. The government is still FORCING insurance companies to pay for the contraception. How is that freedom?
Comment by Erik on 17 February 2012:
Additionally, if you don’t think that the insurance companies won’t pass the cost associated with contraception in the form of higher premiums, you’re sadly mistaken. If we’re going to force the insurance companies to cover contraception, why don’t we make them cover every medical procedure known to man even unnecessary ones. Why not have them cover plastic surgery. After all its our RIGHT to look good, isn’t it.
Comment by Lisa on 17 February 2012:
The fact is insurance costs have already increased for those of us who have to pay for it. I’m self-employed and cannot now afford health insurance due to the high costs and Obamacare isn’t helping us at all. I guess this means that I have to pay myself more so that I can afford my own healthcare? Not sure how I can do that.
Comment by Philip Lewis on 17 February 2012:
Absolutely accurate assessment. This is nothing more than a statist taking away a bit more freedom and tightening the noose. It’s unfortunate that Romney, Santorum and Gingrich are essentially ignorant and fail to recognize that contraception is not really a topic that voters want to be forced to decide upon. The Republicans (minus Paul) are risking alienating millions of voters … not to mention the fact that they will accomplish ZERO. The entire healthcare debate is enmeshed in theft of freedom … it’s quite a simple concept … and the political elites are simple-minded.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 17 February 2012:
Susan, how is this any less a matter of freedom versus compulsion?
Comment by Libertarian Jerry on 17 February 2012:
Once the American voters and body politic decided to go down the road to socialism (income taxes,inheritance taxes,Public Education,Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid,Welfare,Food Stamps,Unemployment Compensation etc.etc.) then the question wasn’t about whether or not such and such a program should exist in the 1st place but instead the question was directed to the minutia of details on how it should be run. Lets face it,we have all 10 Planks to The Communist Manifesto woven into the fabric of American life. Its about 80 years too late to worry about the loss of Liberty in America. That,sad to say,is an accomplished fact. So to the readers of this blog,keep paying all your taxes,keep using your Social Security numbers, make sure that your children get their SS numbers at birth,make sure your sons sign up for the draft and most importantly respect and obey authority. Welcome to the world of serfdom.
Comment by Susan on 17 February 2012:
Bionic Mosquito: As I already said, the calculation is done by percentage of the employee’s wage. If the employee makes so little money that they qualify for tax credit assistance, then the employer is assessed a penalty fee to help pay for said assistance. As I’m sure we’re all well aware, tax credits don’t just come out of nowhere; someone has to pay for them, and it might as well be the employer who’s trying to get away with underpaying their workers.
Erik: You make a good point, and there I think it comes down to the argument of whether contraception is really a necessary inclusion in a “basic health plan.” Personally, I feel that it is — having friends and relatives who HAVE to take birth control or suffer literally debilitating pain at “that time of the month” — but I would also be fine with taking my wages and buying my own private coverage if the insurance company associated with my employer didn’t offer it. In any case, that’s a matter for doctors to decide, not the Church and not the insurance companies.
Sheldon: The real freedom vs compulsion issue I see here is that if I want to use contraception, that should be MY choice, not the choice of my employer. Just as if I want to take all of my wage and spend it on booze, that is MY choice (albeit a foolish one); my employer cannot dictate what I can and cannot spend my money on. Why should I be bound by my employer’s religious beliefs? (Or by my insurance company CEO’s, for that matter?)
I don’t see this as a war on religious freedoms. I see it as an attempt to make sure other people can’t impose their religious beliefs on me.
Comment by Jim Hull on 17 February 2012:
Susan: Mr. Richman is right. The PPACA makes either health care or wage hikes compulsory. It’s not a free choice if the institutions involved may choose only between spending more on health care or more on salaries.
Mr. Richman: Interesting point about feminists begging the government for free contraception. How can a self-respecting woman ask for handouts and call herself a feminist, which itself involves self-ownership? It reminds me of the general principle that big government juvenilizes its citizens.
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 17 February 2012:
Re: Susan
“As I’m sure we’re all well aware, tax credits don’t just come out of nowhere; someone has to pay for them, and it might as well be the employer who’s trying to get away with underpaying their workers.”
I’m curious about where you’ve obtained the omniscience over every individual’s preferences necessary to make the claim that a particular group is “underpaid”, based on the percentage of their income they dedicate to healthcare. You realize, I hope, that the wages available to an employer to pay an employee is over the long term wholly derived from the market demand for a product, right?
To claim someone is underpaid because they don’t have enough money to afford basic healthcare without a subsidy is to essentially claim that they’re doing a job that almost nobody wants to buy the product of. It seems to me that the better way to rectify this problem, if you were to do anything at all, would be to assist them in transitioning to a more socially useful line of work.
“You make a good point, and there I think it comes down to the argument of whether contraception is really a necessary inclusion in a ‘basic health plan’.”
Generally, the customers dictate what goes into a ‘basic health plan’ by buying the ‘basic health plans’ they want and not buying the ‘basic health plans’ they don’t want (whether they are too costly or don’t cover enough). That is presumably what would happen in a market where customers have large freedom of choice (a freedom that is unfortunately heavily undermined today).
What I suspect you’re trying to do is further undermine what little choice customers have left and supplant their choices with your own. Which sounds reasonable if you’re omniscient about people’s preferences, but would presumably not be if you weren’t.
“The real freedom vs compulsion issue I see here is that if I want to use contraception, that should be MY choice, not the choice of my employer. Just as if I want to take all of my wage and spend it on booze, that is MY choice (albeit a foolish one); my employer cannot dictate what I can and cannot spend my money on.”
The same argument can be used to defend a policy that states that the government should provide fully-functional space ships to anyone who wants one. You see, it isn’t the employer who is stopping you from buying contraceptives, it is the limitations of reality. The reality is, to make something requires labor and materials, and so to obtain it you generally need to make something of your own that is useful to trade for it. Even in an economy of money rather than barter, that is the essence of all transactions between two individuals: you work a job or start a business and make money by giving other people what they want, then you spend that money on stuff that you want, and both you and your customers are better off.
Regarding your specific booze example, I would expect you to admit that the employer is not responsible for giving you extra money because you develop an alcohol addiction and so presumably need the extra cash for all the booze you drink. Similarly, if you are sexually promiscuous (or simply interested in having sex before committing to a long-term relationship or having children) I would expect that you would agree that the employer should not be expected to pay you for that. Even if you’re born with a birth defect that makes you suffer chronic pain, the expectation is that you provide for others something of value or at least ask for charity rather than utilize coercion.
“I don’t see this as a war on religious freedoms. I see it as an attempt to make sure other people can’t impose their religious beliefs on me.”
I find it strange that you conflate the limitations of reality with coercion. Does gravity coerce you into staying on the ground without paying a bunch of money too? As long as you hold to the moral premise that people are entitled to basic ownership rights and the ability to dictate whether or not they want to trade what they own, then me not giving you something for free (or your buddy not buying it from me) isn’t coercion at all. It’s simply a fact of reality that contraceptives are not unlimited in quantity and take some amount of human effort to produce, and trying to deny it is a fools errand; someone will always be the victim, someone will always have to pay.
Comment by hasimala on 17 February 2012:
Susan let me put it this way would you be happy paying into a organization that was committing genocide. Your not killing anyone but your still forced to pay to enable the crime. The Church believes contraception is wrong, whether you agree with that point of view is irrelevant. anybody who supports making others pay for something directly or indirectly that violates their morals, is wrong, period.
Comment by Kevin on 17 February 2012:
Susan, I’m afraid you’re confused. You’re free to use contraception and to buy it (it’s really not that expensive). What you aren’t free to do is to have *someone else* finance it, *especially* when they consider it gravely immoral. Just because X refuses to buy Y for you doesn’t mean that X denies your freedom to use Y.
Comment by BC on 17 February 2012:
When did declining to pay for someone else’s reproductive health services become an “imposition”? I think I missed that memo.
Comment by Peter Karth on 17 February 2012:
While I appreciate the economics of the situation I find that every single debate I have found or participated on this subject miss the point. Politically the administration has created a soft target for religious free the purpose of which is create a legal inroad into all religious freedom.
This isn’t about contraception, or money, or women’s rights. This is about the right to adhere to a belief based upon a code of right and wrong that holds you to a standard that transcends the law of the land.
The moment we began changing the law from an instrument of prohibition to one of prescription the law began a religious instrument. The proponents of such laws must needs wage war against the idea of religious freedom because they counteract the basic presumptions of the laws the create.
Don’t mistake me for a Catholic. I don’t agree with their position on birth control. However, what I do support is their right to not support birth control, or any other form of medicine they find violates their beliefs.
Susan: you asked why you should be bound by your employer’s religious beliefs? You shouldn’t and I would never support such a position. But you need to step back and look at the real picture. You are forgetting that no matter how you want to color the situation your employer is just as bound to the transaction as you are–only in his situation he is being given no choice in the matter.
That is the crux of the matter. If we value freedom we must value the freedom of the Prince and the Pauper, Master and the Slave. That responsibility you wish to so easily absolve the employer of is the one I would return to him ten-fold. You seek to rid the world of Mr. Scrooge, and I seek to find him.
Always it is forgotten that in the end of the story the crotchety penny pinching miser had become in the words of Mr Dickens:
“He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world”
But, you say, he was allowed to treat his employee in such a shameful way in the beginning. Yes, he was, and in a free and open world Bob Cratchit could go and find another employer as he pleased, one who provided him the birth control he so desperately needed to curb his growing family.
This is my point. A world that is truly free requires not only the freedom from restricting laws, but a culture in which personal responsibility and adherence to values that transcend personal gain are respected, nurtured and given the opportunity to flourish.
Comment by Tom Blanton on 18 February 2012:
Manly men of the world unite! Burn your neckties! Demand equality from this unjust matriarchal social system!
It’s time to demand that all barriers to free rubbers be torn down. The matriarchal state has ignored the needs of men for too long!
Where are the government research programs for ending prostate cancer? Why are the breasts of those wielding vaginas more important than prostates? Nearly all men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough. Yet, there are no fancy colorful ribbons displayed to show solidarity for this cause.
Men, perhaps we should all quit our jobs to cut off funding the contraception for matriarchal vagina owners until equality for men is achieved. We could also refuse to let these oppressors who undress us with their eyes use us for their sexual pleasure and then throw us aside to fend for ourselves, paying for our own rubbers as we die from prostate cancer while being denied the freedom to abort an unwanted fetus brought to life by our own semen.
hasimala writes:
“Susan let me put it this way would you be happy paying into a organization that was committing genocide. Your not killing anyone but your still forced to pay to enable the crime.”
Assuming Susan is happily paying taxes, she is happily paying into a organization that is engaged in killing thousands of people.
Comment by MD on 18 February 2012:
Wow-I can’t believe I’m reading the “well if you want to be immoral and have sex outside of marriage and for purposes other than procreating…” BS! I provide basic medical care including contraception in my practice and i can’t believe anyone would call it anything other than basic. Fact is, there is no free market for health care purchasing and one can’t pick and choose the coverage from a menu of options sons free market does not drive health care costs and that argument is invalid if you live in the real world. Additionally, this article fails to mention the fact that, while libertarians may not like it, health care coverage for contraceptives is mandated for all businesses with more than a certain number of employees, so why should catholic (or any other ) institutions that are moving out into a secular business framework (outside of providing religious houses of worship) be able to dictate to non catholics that they can’t have basic services as the rest of the country ? In
My community a catholic hospital is the only one within 25 miles, so it’s not like there are lots of options out there in some locations. And why should entities that take government funding and get tax free status as “religious” when really they are businesses in a secular society first and foremost, get to decide That they don’t want to follow the rules? What if they don’t want to
Provide services to gays? Is that ok since it’s against their “religion”? If they want to control what people do in their churches, I am fine with that, by when they run schools and hospitals and get my tax dollars to provide services I vote that they don’t get to decide if they want to cover basic health care like ALL other like businesses.
Comment by foo on 18 February 2012:
Wow. I can’t believe I’m reading all of these statist BS comments.
It’s really simple. Your taxes should not be used in any way that forces someone else to do or buy anything.
Just because you’re a woman or a doctor or a politician does not give you the [positive, counterfeit] right to force anyone else or everyone else or every business of any arbitrary classification to buy anything, pay for your services, or anything else for that matter. Everyone else, same as you, has the [negative, genuine] right to ignore your desires or voluntarily assist you in achieving them.
It really would be that simple, were it not for all of the coercion-addled statists in our midst.
Comment by Anne Brewbaker on 18 February 2012:
I have one question for the hypocritical right wingers to which I’d like to get not just an answer but an intelligent answer. Here’s the question:
If it is against the “divine laws” for women to use contraceptive measures to PREVENT unwanted births which lead to the mamoth problem of over population on earth, is it also against the religious rules for men to use condoms? Haven’t heard a
s i n g l e word about it. It is after all a birth prevention measure among other usages. Are men so mighty that they are excluded.? The manly panel should answer if it was honest and fair.
Anne Brewbaker-Dallas
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 18 February 2012:
Mario Rizzo sheds a great deal of light on the Obama sham here.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 18 February 2012:
Susan writes: “The real freedom vs compulsion issue I see here is that if I want to use contraception, that should be MY choice, not the choice of my employer.”
Dear Susan: It is your choice. How is your freedom of choice violated by your employer’s refusal to pay the cost of your choice? I refuse to buy you the car of your choice. Have I violated your freedom?
Comment by Mike in MI on 18 February 2012:
I’m with you, foo!
And to “MD” and “Anne Brewbaker” – all the class and group warfare arguments, like I read here are eliminated (“poof”) when the government is removed from health care, and for that matter, all other areas in which it has no Constitutional power. Want contraception or an abortion? Fine, I cannot stop you, just don’t make me pay for it…or your food, car, anything! But I will help you with charity, which gets the government out of the theft business, and takers out of the phoney “rights” business.
And to “MD” – how did we survive before the government insinuated itself into health care, unConstitutionally?
Comment by Matt S on 18 February 2012:
If the Church feels that their universities and hospitals are arms of the Church, fine. But then they can’t take government money for those institutions. They argue that they are not proselytizing with their charities and so should get government funds. So which is it?
Comment by Tom Blanton on 18 February 2012:
MD seems to be saying that because we don’t have a free market healthcare system, we shouldn’t have one in the real world.
What a novel concept. But, what about in the unreal world?
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
Tom noted the dishonesty of the author’s article, but I’ll add my 2 cents.
In a “free market”, women would be free to find abortion services at market rate: not abortion services with forced additional tests, time restrictions etc. Not having to travel 100s of miles to get an abortion.
It is fundamentally dishonest to leave out the fact that abortion is severely restricted, even illegal in many States in USA.
Mr Richman:
It is dishonest of you to focus on contraceptives without first doing away with the restrictions on women to freely seek abortion as they see fit. Given the reality of States that ALREADY restrict abortion, it is all the more dishonest of you to focus on contraceptives and the “liberty” issues in the contraceptives debate, while completely leaving out the fact that if women were free to get abortion on-demand at market rate, women may not demand that the state provide contraception…its the damn state that restricts their right to get abortion as per their needs, and its hypocritical of you to be silent on that and complain just when women seek contraception to get past the tyranny of the state.
Comment by Tom Blanton on 18 February 2012:
To answer Anne Brewbaker regarding religious rules on men using condoms, I recently had a conversation with God and He told me that men should use condoms whenever they feel like it. Further, He informed me that condoms should also be free as they are in Heaven and it should be women that pay for them. Not only that, He told me that women should also provide men with dinners, theater tickets, and motel rooms. Older wealthy women should also provide younger men with new sports cars.
Obviously, women that deny men these basic things are denying them their freedom to choose where to eat dinner, what movies to see, what motel to stay at, and what car to drive.
Comment by Roderick T. Long on 18 February 2012:
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” — Thomas Jefferson [source]
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
Roderick, your post does NOT address the use of State power by the SAME men to restrict women’s ability to access abortion services. If your point really were about Freedom, Liberty, you and Sheldon would make sure every legal restriction to abortion is first removed, before lecturing to other people about “use of your money”. When you used the State to restrict women’s ability to have abortion in a Free Market, you already lost the Freedom and Liberty argument. Your claim of tyranny is laughably hypocritical since you choose to not oppose the State tyranny that restricts women’s ability to access abortion services in a free market, in a legal manner.
Comment by hasimala on 18 February 2012:
Karthik I don’t want to get in an argument about abortion but it seems odd that you assume abortion is only a woman’s right and no one else might possibly have rights involved in the whole process. You are purposefully taking a very narrow view piont in order to force an augment to your way of thinking. Again this is not about abortion but about how you are forming an argument.
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
” it seems odd that you assume abortion is only a woman’s right”
Speaking as a man, if I discard my semen somewhere, I don’t have rights over my semen that supersede someonne else’s right over their own body. Swimmers swam, a fetus was formed, and yet the fetus is in the woman’s body. My limited rights over the semen, and the “fetus”‘s own rights (if there is such a thing) are trumped by the woman’s right over her own body.
But all that is a very separate discussion. More to the point: people who USE the State to impose restrictions on a woman’s ability to have an abortion in the free market are hypocritical when they complain about use of their money to fund birth control.
If you want to discuss who has the right over the act of the abortion, it is a separate discussion. The potential for that discussion does NOT give you or anyone the authority to use State force to restrict a woman’s right over her own body. Once you do that, you lose the Freedom, Liberty argument. Oh, someone’s money is being used against their wishes for someone else’s birth control? Cry me a river.
Comment by Roderick T. Long on 18 February 2012:
Karthik,
You say: “you choose to not oppose the State tyranny that restricts women’s ability to access abortion services.”
What the hell are you talking about? I have been a strong defender of the right to abortion all my life.
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
“I have been a strong defender of the right to abortion all my life.”
That’s TALK, Free Speech.
Put your money where your mouth is, and remove restrictions on abortion imposed through the State. When you didn’t do anything to get the State to remove those restrictions, the complaints about “spending my money for someone else’s birth control” make those words sound hollow.
I have not seen a single person who complained about “spending my money for someone else’s birth control” take action about restrictions on abortion. Show me the “Liberty” people who actually push to remove existing restrictions on abortion. Words are just words, Free Speech. Take action to remove existing restrictions, your words could sound genuine, and your argument on “Birth control” would ring legitimate.
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
You walk with people, and put people in office who make it pretty clear they would only increase legal restrictions on abortion services, leave alone the question of removing restrictions. You tacitly participated in the use of State force to restrict abortion rights of other people. I dare say, the tab you get now is fair.
Comment by Roderick T. Long on 18 February 2012:
Karthik,
I’m not sure what actions you’re asking me to take. I’ve published pro-choice articles, I’ve marched in pro-choice rallies, but apparently for you that’s all just “talk.” Well, I don’t have political power, I’m not in a position to repeal any abortion laws.
You say I “put people in office who make it pretty clear they would only increase legal restrictions on abortion services.” I do? Really? So you know my voting record? Are you under the impression that I’m a Republican?
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
‘Are you under the impression that I’m a Republican?’
No, am under the impression that you vote for people who make it clear they have no intention of removing existing restrictions on abortion.
I don’t care about “political affiliation”. However, if you repeatedly vote for people who make it clear they have no intention of removing existing restrictions on abortion, especially if you have available candidates who would potentially work towards removing existing restrictions, then it would imply your words (about being pro-free-market-abortion) are not honest.
Comment by Roderick T. Long on 18 February 2012:
Karthik,
So you are “under the impression that you vote for people who make it clear they have no intention of removing existing restrictions on abortion.”
So where and how in hell did you form this insane “impression”?
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
The people who complain about “paying for other people’s birth control” at the political level are people who make it clear they have no intention of removing existing restrictions on abortion, and could potentially add further restrictions. I see you make the same argument, and I don’t see where your argument ceases to be an independent academic discussion on an isolated issue, and not political support for those above-identified political people.
Comment by Roderick T. Long on 18 February 2012:
“The people who complain about ‘paying for other people’s birth control’ at the political level are people who make it clear they have no intention of removing existing restrictions on abortion …
I don’t see where your argument ceases to be an independent academic discussion on an isolated issue, and not political support for those above-identified political people”
Then it’s time for you to discover that there is a pro-free-market left that is deeply opposed to the “above-identified political people,” and that this is the movement that Sheldon and I are part of. So read this.
Comment by Anonymous on 18 February 2012:
Joe, I really liked your contribution, especially this thought:
“To claim someone is underpaid because they don’t have enough money to afford basic healthcare without a subsidy is to essentially claim that they’re doing a job that almost nobody wants to buy the product of. It seems to me that the better way to rectify this problem, if you were to do anything at all, would be to assist them in transitioning to a more socially useful line of work.”
However, many markets are not free for everybody to work in due to licensing etc. I’m sure you agree with me that these limitations have to be lifted before we can recommend poor people to look for a more profitable way of working.
Comment by Anne Brewbaker on 18 February 2012:
Thank you to Tom Blanton for his rather convoluted reply.
You made my day, I am still laughing.!! It is a very good answer showing a sense of humor. It will not cause anger, merriment only.
Anne Brewbaker-Dallas
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
Roderick:
I read that writeup, as well as some other articles in that website.
My original conclusion stands firm, even more so now. For people who claim to be “for the rights of oppressed people”, it is NOT a casual error of omission/oversight to have missed out the link I drew between why YOU get a bill for someone else’s birth control, and the fact that the same someone else could potentially have severe restrictions on access to free market abortion services(thanks to tyrannical government), and stress upon the importance of removing those restrictions.
Overall, on the evidence of this article, I do not find your claim credible that “the Libertarian Left” fights for the rights of oppressed minorities.
Heck, until someone (I) came and brought up the link between restrictions on abortion rights and the birth control issue, I didn’t see any inclination from your side to make that connection.
I hope you will look at the bigger picture when writing on a topic like this in future.
Comment by She on 18 February 2012:
This is a political corporation NOT a church! They are getting monies from our tax-payers thru the gov. to support their arrogant feral man’ lust for power that has NO respect for women and treat them as objects and boot-licking slaves. Why are women putting up with such filthy sin? Did GOD blind them to the truth this is not a church about HIM? Clearly they are making a grab for power in this and take over to stick their hands in all women’s panties, belonging to their nazi vatican corporations or NOT. In fact, Germany’s President got ousted for going to the vatican to get big money….Our Constitution declares there shall be NO establishment of any churches and they are violating those rights by denying non-members and refusing to assimilate and obey our laws of the land. Deport these devils out of our country or planet…whichever they came from. How come they don’t tell about the contraception in old days when there is instruction in the bible for that when it tells men to spill their ‘seeds’ on the GROUND! NO SEX. Period.
Comment by Mike in MI on 18 February 2012:
MD, picture this: a world with NO government funding, an no one gets the government to coerce anyone else. If someone wants an abortion, or any medical service, they can go out and buy it. A nation where every one is responsible for himself. Got it?
Now you’re looking at America, before Progressivism, when it was still a Constitutionally limited democratic republic.
Freedom!
Comment by Alex on 18 February 2012:
Karthik,
Good Ol’ Roderick Long showed immense patience with you. It’s time for someone to be a bit more blunt: you’re a moron.
You’re accusing others of not doing enough for abortion rights, when in fact you have no clue what they do or don’t do. Furthermore, why is it Long’s responsibility to fight for reproductive rights? He has stated that he supports a woman’s right to choose, and that’s ALL you may demand of him. He has no responsibility to march, or vote, or do anything else to fix a problem he has not caused.
At the same time, he has every right and reason to argue that women’s contraceptives should not come at his expense. It is ridiculous to argue that I must first guarantee legal abortions (Roe V. Wade still stands, by the way) and only then ask not to have my money robbed to pay for someone else’s expenses.
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
“Now you’re looking at America, before Progressivism, when it was still a Constitutionally limited democratic republic.”
Actually, the restrictions on abortion from the State did not come from progressives, but from Social Conservatives.
The more you propagate these lies, or try to pretend like Sheldon that these connections don’t exist, the more they show you up.
Comment by Roderick T. Long on 18 February 2012:
“Overall, on the evidence of this article, I do not find your claim credible that ‘the Libertarian Left’ fights for the rights of oppressed minorities.
Heck, until someone (I) came and brought up the link between restrictions on abortion rights and the birth control issue, I didn’t see any inclination from your side to make that connection.”
As someone who’s written a hell of a lot more about abortion rights than about the right not to pay for others’ contraception, I think I’m entitled to call bullshit.
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
” It is ridiculous to argue that I must first guarantee legal abortion”
To the contrary: if you fund the State and the State will use its power to restrict women’s ability to obtain abortion services, you are complicit in the act of restricting someone else’s liberty. Once you do that, your own complaint about your liberty being violated via the strong arm of the State doesn’t stand to scrutiny. Call me whatever name you want, it’s just free speech. Fact is, there is no evidence that Roderick doesn’t support the State’s use of its power to restrict free-market abortion services.
My original assertion does stand to the test of available evidence. Roderick’s does not. And Sheldon, through his deliberate exclusion of the connection between women needing birth control more severely than they would in a free market with state-unrestricted abortion is even more so complicit of the same.
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
“As someone who’s written a hell of a lot more about abortion rights”
Like?
Comment by Alex on 18 February 2012:
“Fact is, there is no evidence that Roderick doesn’t support the State’s use of its power to restrict free-market abortion services.”
I’ll ignore the fact that he repeatedly stated his position and state that there is also no evidence that he doesn’t rape pigeons in his spare time.
Comment by zhinxy on 18 February 2012:
Karthik – http://praxeology.net/RTL-Abortion.htm
Abortion, Abandonment, and Positive rights is a defense of the right to abort up to birth. It’s what brought me over from waffling attempts to be “pro-life and pro woman” or “first trimester, but…” to full-on abortion on demand and without apology status. Read that and then make your little accusations about Roderick’s pro-choice commitments.
Comment by Beth on 18 February 2012:
It seems that Karthik has an absolute necessity to convince himself that he is right by continuing to claim he is correct no matter what evidence has been presented him.
You theoretically could very well be correct, yet what use is it to push your views as you do? You are not convincing anyone.
Comment by zhinxy on 18 February 2012:
On the other hand…
Let me make one thing clear – I love Sheldon Richman’s writing.
He’s “one of the good guys” when it comes to libertarians. No question. I don’t doubt that he cares about women, the poor, anybody.
And yes, I think he’s “right” here.
But I do think he doesn’t give enough attention here to just how important contraception is to women’s freedom. On the list of statist evils, yes, “not really free contraception” IS an evil. But in the current political climate, for some of the same reasons Karthik was being a complete ass about, I choose access over employers. Should I have to make that ridiculous choice? Is the system at all defensible? No. Do I think that the very wonderful and yes, technically correct Sheldon is coming off as, perhaps, too dismissive of realities that make women’s dependence on “insurance” for contraception such an issue? Yes.
It’s a terrible situation all around, really. And I frankly think that considering Obama’s awful record of protecting women’s reproductive rights, we are being tricked into a “contraception vs. religious freedom” argument that distracts from the sheer awfulness of Employer-Based Insurance.
Comment by zhinxy on 18 February 2012:
And by “we” I mean everybody.
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
It is a very good article, thanks. I agree with his reasoning and conclusions. I stand corrected on Roderick’s position on abortion.
Having said that…I don’t see why it is not relevant to the contraception topic, that abortion is restricted by individual states. 87% of counties in USA have no access to abortion services. Now, it’s not incumbent on any society local or global to provide services that some of its members may need or seek.
It seems to me however that the high degree of lack of availability of these services is not necessarily because of free market mechanisms, but because of of a combination of :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
and
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-23-anti-abortion-laws_n.htm
So if a woman is unable to get access to contraception, and gets pregnant, and seeks to exercise her right to abort her fetus, she is going to be unable to, or find a lot of additional costs (that might not exist to the same extent with free-market abortion services) in most of USA.
That is partly due to State action, and partly due to individual/mob roguery.
That does not justify forcing other people to pay for birth control, but I do find it acceptable as I see women as the victims here: the perpetration of the crime starts with denial of free-market-access to abortion services, and as much as the unwilling tax-payer is a victim, even more so are the women seeking to use contraception through the contraception mandate.
Comment by Roderick T. Long on 19 February 2012:
“the perpetration of the crime starts with denial of free-market-access to abortion services, and as much as the unwilling tax-payer is a victim, even more so are the women seeking to use contraception through the contraception mandate.”
I agree.
Comment by Mike in MI on 19 February 2012:
Karthik, you missed my point…
I was not referring to abortion in my statement, I was pointing back to when we were still within the four corners of our Constitution, before “Progressivism” began to infect our government, poison the well. I mark that point at sometime around the beginning of the 20th century, after free market capitalism had been so successful at creating wealth that some people began to think that government could be “successful” at doing more things if only we had the “right” people at the helm, and we could give it enough “power”, which translates to tax-money. I believe “Progressives” are folks who have fallen victim to the “Franco-Germanic” school of politics, the historical pedigree of Communism, the end state of where we are going with this socialist BS. I blame the “Progessive” movement for our government breaking it’s Constitutional boundaries and becoming unlimited, which in turn, brings all this argument about group and class warfare, ala Marx. After all, we have only two choices, more government or less government. Given the track record, I prefer less.
The argument about who must pay for someone else’s abortion, house, car, food, college tuition, union dues, etc, would be unnecessary if we had just remained true to the Constitution and the plan the Founders had laid out for us. And we wouldn’t be so confused about what Constitutional rights are, and aren’t.
Comment by Karthik on 18 February 2012:
“Now you’re looking at America, before Progressivism, when it was still a Constitutionally limited democratic republic.”
Actually, the restrictions on abortion from the State did not come from progressives, but from Social Conservatives.
The more you propagate these lies, or try to pretend like Sheldon that these connections don’t exist, the more they show you up.
Comment by Roderick T. Long on 19 February 2012:
In related news, check out this post by Sheldon.
Pingback by Monday Grab Bag of Links … | The Pretense of Knowledge on 20 February 2012:
[...] the Test – Ideas Matter Harsanyi: Your absolute right to free condoms – The Denver Post It’s Not about Contraception Nuclear Weapons on a Highway Near You Mr. Hamilton, Boy Were You Ever Wrong David Barton Explains [...]
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 20 February 2012:
Gee, I take the weekend off and miss all the fun. Karthik, shooting from the hip is risky. Do some research next time, please. Know about whom you write.
People like Roderick and me are not in a position to set priorities in the dismantling of State power. When government violates freedom of conscience in a particular way, we speak out. But that’s not the end of it, because affirming freedom of conscience in one matter strikes a blow for that principle across the board. See my “No One Should Be Forced to Act against His Conscience.”
Comment by Coach Panto on 20 February 2012:
Mama Bear and Papa Bear are sitting at the bar.
Mama Bear says to the bartender,
“Would you be offended if we used brith control?”
Bartender says,
“Nope, but why would bears use birth control?”
Papa Bear says,
“To claim that we have a right to free birth control, and make people think Rick Santorum wants to prevent us from using birth control, to distract the people from the fact that Obama has fucked the economy up the ass with a chain saw.”
Bartender says,
“See, that’s why government shouldn’t be mandating what insurance companies MUST cover. It causes perfectly normal mammals to look for ways to extort businesses, screw the taxpayer…”
Mama Bear jumps in,
“…and force the pharmaceutical companies to INVENT bear birth control! Have you ever tried to put a condom on a bear’s cock! It’s not easy!”
Papa Bear says,
“Yeah, I wanna go raw dog and not worry about cubs! The government OWES me that!”
Bartender shoots both bears dead and says to Dougie at the end of the bar,
“They were gonna be extinct anyway with that dependency mentality.”
This joke was brought to you by Smoky the Bear, whose new slogan is : “Only Government can prevent bear pregnancy!”
Comment by Bob on 20 February 2012:
The real point that goes unstated is that a liberal portion our society has decided that basic health care should be free and even the minor OTC or routine prescription items should be covered.
20 years ago, birth control pills could be cheaply obtained at the local health department. Condoms were widely available.
Then the HMO’s were developed because catastrophic health costs were rising and needed to be managed (read that denied if you didn’t jump through the right hoops). That led to increased regulation.
People couldn’t save enough so Health/Flex Savings Accounts were developed but in typical government fashion; any excess funds at the end of the calendar cycle were forfeited by the wage earner/saver. Who was that helping?
Then, people got wise and started zero balancing the accounts. The government reacted by restricting many of the OTC health care items eligible to purchase.
It’s a vicious cycle where the government is simply going to figure out a new way to screw the people in the end with its hyper regulations. Now, it’s going to mandate to insurers what basic needs are and what to cover at no fee to the end user.
Coach Panto has it right, we’ve sadly become a nation that thinks… “Only Government can…”
Comment by Free Man in Seattle on 20 February 2012:
Actually it about more than contraception. It’s about the potential person in each egg a woman has. God would not have made those ovum unless He wanted each woman to get pregnant as soon and often as possible. Each time one of God’s precious potential is wasted by the sinful act of menstruation, He weeps. Http://wwwgodlovesova.com.
Comment by Jackie Myswag on 20 February 2012:
Oh my …. God, how can you people be such hypocrites and not see it?
Two words: Guns and ….ng VIAGRA!
You are perfectly OK with a government that is forcing us the pay taxes that will be used to nuke ‘dem brown furriners’ but taxes that are curing AMERICANS are all of a sudden demonic? Get real, sheez.
Also, mocking women who stand up for their right to NOT have more kids than they want, as “begging” feminism? I mean, I fully get that right wing extremists are laughing their a… buttocks off, but that is just plain wrong. That’s like saying to poor people: get rich on your own, we won’t help you … as long as it’s not farm subsidies, giving tax cuts to Big Oil, etc etc. What is it with conservatives that they hate the poor and the middle class so much? And now, we can include women in that line up.
“What exactly are the two liberty interests? One is clear: an institution wishes not to be compelled to facilitate what it regards as morally abhorrent. (The validity of that moral judgment is irrelevant.)”
Nice one, calling it irrelevant, because you KNOW that calling wearing a condom “immoral” will get you laughed to bits, and railroaded at that. What’s this, the 50s? A married woman should be ready to have a man’s kids every time they have sex? WHAT? How is this ‘moral’? How is having unwanted kids ‘moral’? It’s not, it’s a way to keep women down, and if you think that’s a vote winner, be my guest. How stupid do you think women are? Lemme clue you in: they’re not as unintelligent as you yourself are.
Also:
Why do Catholic institutions claim special privilige? Just cos they have a centuries old prejudice against women? They want their instrument of keeping women down (unwanted babies) left intact?
Well then, give up you tax-exempt status, and we’ll talk …
Finally, does anyone wonder why insurance companies agreed to this? After all aren’t they the ones suffering? NOPE, they’re NOT. Insurance companies, not even employing simple calculus, CAN use common sense: They know that 20 year supply of pills is a whole lot cheaper that to pay hospital coverage for childbirth, and all that comes with those costs. contraceptive pills PREVENT a host of medical issues in women that they HAVE to pay as well.
also: How’s using condoms immoral? There isn’t such a thing a PRE-conceived life. Standing up for the results of drunken sex is now … moral? Gimme a break.
And yes, I’m not so polished as Susan, God bless her patience. It would be perfectly fitting for you to censor my post, because I wasn’t respecting your authority, I suppose. Or … because you don’t have any real arguments against my points.
Comment by Gwen Killerby on 20 February 2012:
Of course you’d say it’s NOT about contraception, because if you admit the truth, and admit that it IS about contraception, you’d lose this argument. As well you should.
But you don’t get to frame this.
Your post stinks to high heaven of a double standard. We’re forced to pay for wars killing INNOCENTS, but levying fines on employers who claim illegal special privilege is … immoral? Sheh rrright.
“They repeatedly portray opposition to forced financing of contraception as opposition to contraception itself.”
Well, you repeatedly portray contraception as abortion. And not just the morning after pill is endangered, simple condoms as well! I mean, that’s ludicrous. But the best part is that the Catholic church with it’s supposedly celibate bishops, have offerend NO OBJECTION to paying for … drumroll …. VIAGRA! I would’ve rested my case here, but there’s so much more to enjoy.
The deal between the Left and the rightwing in this country used to be: you force us to pay for your wars, and in return we force you to pay for keeping Americans healthy (EPA, 40-hour workweek, Social security, Medicare etc. etc. All those thing conservatives were against at first, but now take to the street for defending it “keep the govt out of MEdicare” was a popular Teapahty slogan)
But now, since Obama became president, the deal has been called off unilaterally and hence the teaparty was born.
My guess was that nobody thought Americans were gonna elect a black president. They did, and the rightwing has started a racist war against him, just not calling it that.
Other people think that it’s cos of the redistricting which produces extremist districts, left and right.
Comment by PeaceRequiresAnarchy on 20 February 2012:
Great article!
I am always surprised how few people in the general public look at political issues this way. I guess one reason why many people may avoid framing political questions like this is because they are afraid of the consequences of accepting such reasoning (Ahh, anarchy!).
If they accept the reasoning that it’s unjust to force people to purchase contraception for others (or for themselves even) against their will, then they must also accept by the same reasoning that it’s unjust to force people to purchase anything for anybody (others or themselves) against their will. The logical implication of this position is to be an anarchist, as all government taxation amounts to forcing people to purchase things against their will.
I see that Mr. Richman referenced a Frederic Bastiat essay again. (This time “The Law”–last time ( http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/snow-plowers-petition/ ) “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen”).
This article mentions how Bastiat mentioned the common erroneous argument that being opposed to government funded X (where X is anything from contraception to schools (as Bastiat mentioned) to anything else) means that one is opposed to X itself in his essay “The Law.”
Also in “The Law,” Bastiat raises the central argument to this article, namely that the positive “rights” for contraception (in Bastiat’s case not contraception, but most other things) are unjust because they violate peoples’ genuine negative property rights.
When I read “The Law” it was not clear to me that Bastiat accepted this argument applied to all things, not just contraception and a number of other “big government” things. Surely if you accept the argument applied to all things then you are an anarchist, right? But, if you say that there are positive rights for SOME things (such as “injustice suppressing services”) then you are no longer a consistent libertarian, but instead support a minarchist tyrannical government. It is still not clear to me whether Bastiat supported such a tyrannical government, or if he was really an anarchist who simply called the voluntary-funded organization that he funded a “government” despite that “governments” voluntary source of funding rather than coercive tax funding.
Frederic Bastiat in “The Law”:
“Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice.”
In my post ( http://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/frederic-bastiats-the-law/ ) I either answer his challenge or conclude that he was an anarchist. Which I do I am not sure because I am positive whether his envisioned government would be funded by taxation or by voluntary contributions.
Comment by Gwen Killerby on 20 February 2012:
“Oh, someone’s money is being used against their wishes for someone else’s birth control? Cry me a river.”
“people who USE the State to impose restrictions on a woman’s ability to have an abortion in the free market are hypocritical when they complain about use of their money to fund birth control.”
@Karthik: Ah, if only I were so eloquent…….’)
This is the core conservative hypocrisy: They whine about the State forcing SOME things, like pay taxes, but clearly wanna use the State to control womens’ wombs. We can all have a discussion about what our taxes should pay for, like killing innocent Iraqis cos they’re in the way, or, curing Americans, but then you can’t be disingenuous and hypocritical and fallacious and argue that one measure (Affordable Care Act) is illegitimate government overreach, while the other (LYING to us to get Halliburton a big fat paycheck and oh say, get us into war, where 4 of my friends got killed in) is not.
I don’t think Sheldon is a true Libertarian. He’s a John Bircher. Many conservatives started to call themselves Libertarians because they were ashamed of Bush. I myself am more of a R.A. Heinlein-Libertarian, not a Ron Paul type of libertarian, who want to use the taxpayer funded police to kick out certain types of customers out of racists’ lunch counters: freedom for (racist?) lunch counter owners, but no freedom for (African-American ?) patrons…
You can say what you will about teaparters, but at least they admit they’re racists, which is refreshing from the right wing.
Oh well. Seems Santorum is winning but I’m betting on rightwing cold hearted pragmatism: Romney will be the contender, win Michigan. Which is funny, because as the ultimate entitled, silverspoon child, he’s begging for blue-collar workers’ votes???
He must think they’re RRRRREALLY stupid. Looking at the neck and neck races everywhere: they kinda are.
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 20 February 2012:
re: Gwen Killerby
“I don’t think Sheldon is a true Libertarian. He’s a John Bircher. Many conservatives started to call themselves Libertarians because they were ashamed of Bush. I myself am more of a R.A. Heinlein-Libertarian, not a Ron Paul type of libertarian, who want to use the taxpayer funded police to kick out certain types of customers out of racists’ lunch counters: freedom for (racist?) lunch counter owners, but no freedom for (African-American ?) patrons…”
Let me guess: you’re the type that thinks a law against racism actually does anything to stop racism, right? And doesn’t cause a whole ton of unforeseen problems in addition to failing at what it was supposed to do?
(And really, Heinlein? He was a Democrat turned militant Conservative, and out of his entire life’s work as a fiction writer, just happened to write one book that resonated well with libertarians. Faux libertarian much?)
Comment by gueppe barre on 20 February 2012:
““a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women.” We need not “choose between individual liberty and basic fairness for all Americans.” Since men’s contraception is not mandated for free coverage, Obama’s remark about discrimination is puzzling.”
What are you talking about? This fool says things that he doesn’t even mean, or doesn’t even know what he’s saying! He’s been lying so long he just says stuff and moves on – he has to read the teleprompter to see what he’s said.
Comment by Gwen Killerby on 21 February 2012:
re: Joe Schmoe (a nick well chosen)
“a law against racism actually does anything to stop racism, right?”
Wait, you’re the type that thinks … oh wait, you don’t! Yep, why have a law against murder … like in the 10 commandments. There’s been a whole lot of murder since then, even more adultery, and coventing the neighbors wife! As is witnessed by David Vitter, McCain, Gingrich, Giuilinani, George Reker, Larry Craig, Ensign, Sanford, you know, all those Family Values hypocrites YOU vote for!!
But pray tell, what other problems are caused by laws against racism? Oh wait, I know! You can’t get to a decent Sunday lynching no more, thanks to those pesky laws against racism. I’m happy we’re not equal to racists like you, but people DO have equal rights … thanks to those laws against racism.
But … it’s cool that you come out and admit you’re racists under the guise of freedom (Randy Paul), a more immoral thing hasn’t been invented yet.
On topic:
All in all, one has to wonder why American women should be denied their health care, because their employer don’t wanna? The bishops take our taxdollars, they should cough up something back.
Or … just shed tax-exempt status. But nooooooooo, addicted to them taxdollars, aren’t we, mr. Bishop?
Comment by Gwen Killerby on 21 February 2012:
“anybody who supports making others pay for something directly or indirectly that violates their morals, is wrong, period.”
But you’re making me pay for wars I think that are HIGHLY immoral. It violates my morals to pay via taxes to kill people I have no beef with and are no threat to the country. So, that’s wrong? Or is that somehow “different”? Don’t make me laugh.
And their morals are silly and ridiculous. Contraception DOES NOT kill anybody. Nuking the Iraqis, DOES TOO kill people.
This blatant hypocrisy is the difference between the right wingers and us.
And just cause there ‘morals’ are centuries old, doesn’t make ‘em right. Child labor used to be a tried and true practice and we also stopped … oh wait, you wanna bring that back via Newt, the serial adulterer, defender of Family Values, hero to all conservatives
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 21 February 2012:
“But you’re making me pay for wars I think that are HIGHLY immoral. It violates my morals to pay via taxes to kill people I have no beef with and are no threat to the country. So, that’s wrong? Or is that somehow “different”? Don’t make me laugh.”
Hold on. You understand you’re on http://www.thefreemanonline.org, right? One of the most vociferous anti-war magazines you can find?
If you would like understand how badly you’re making a fool out of yourself right now, just make a search for “Iraq” or “Afghanistan” and see how many articles demonizing Bush and Obama for starting and perpetuating the wars. Here, I’ll help you out with a nice one written in September 2002 of Bush’s desire to invade Iraq.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/never-enough/
Speaking of right wingers making you pay for wars… don’t we have a Democrat in the office? Wasn’t he supposed to end the “war in Afghanistan”? Funny how that (didn’t) work out.
“But pray tell, what other problems are caused by laws against racism? Oh wait, I know! You can’t get to a decent Sunday lynching no more, thanks to those pesky laws against racism.”
Do you realize your juvenile attacks undermine what little credibility you have left?
You’re not even worth arguing with; it’s clear you’re not actually here to argue, but rather to make personal attacks in a pathetic attempt to boost your own sense of self worth.
Well, I’ll not let you have the satisfaction of that. Nice try, but I’m not liable to be baited in by a troll.
I guess maybe there’s merit in your position: with free access to contraceptives, your mother might have done us a favor!
Comment by Ellis on 21 February 2012:
I agree fully. I oppose the State breaking women’s legs so that means no one can question my support for women’s rights when I also oppose giving them a crutch if it results in a slight increase in my insurance premiums. I’ll just ignore that my premiums are already incredibly higher than they would be due to government interference and the fact that woman’s access to crutches is severely restricted by regulations saying who can develop/produce/sell them. This is very clearly a choice between total slavery and absolute freedom. I mean if I wasn’t forced to pay for those whore’s birth control this would totes be a libertarian utopia & 100% freed market. Harm reduction? Is that some kinda commie code for tax increase? THAT’S THE ULTIMATE FORM OF OPPRESSION!
Comment by D. Saul Weiner on 21 February 2012:
Gwen Killerby,
Do you think that people make racist comments should be thrown in jail? If not, then that just proves that you yourself are a racist. Because anyone who tolerates such acts is giving aid and comfort to racists.
Comment by Vanmind on 21 February 2012:
Wow, the etatist plants were out in force here — phony physicians, risible attempts to obfuscate the difference between contraception (“contra” as in “works to prevent conception”) and whatever might or might not be appropriate after conception (e.g. abortion versus carrying until labor/birth). The worst, as usual, are the planted lies that come straight out of the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism, straight from the standard-bearers of the modern swindle by way of “Woe is me, my calculations confirm that I’m being disenfranchised oh so very much, and so others have an obligation, others do, others.”
Hey, plants: tell your bureaucratic handlers that their crime spree is over.
Comment by D, Genetti on 21 February 2012:
“Women have the right to contraception (and any other product) in the sense that they have a right to spend their money on it or to try to persuade someone else to do so. There can be no right to force (or have the government force) others to pay.”
Isn’t this true of any medical treatment? If this isn’t about contraception, then nobody should be compelled to pay for bypass surgery, neonatal intensive care, organ transplants, insulin for diabetics, antibiotics, blood pressure and cholesterol medications, asthma medications, vaccines, wellness check ups, etc. Using this logic, you can ask the government, employers and insurers to cover these services, but you have no right to force them to do so. And, if they choose not to pay for it, it doesn’t mean you can’t have your quadruple bypass, or that your children cannot be inoculated against sometimes debilitating or deadly diseases, or receive the medications they need. You will still have access; you’ll just have to pay for it out of your own pocket.
Then again, perhaps that was your point. Abolish medical insurance altogether. You pay for the medical services you need, I’ll pay for mine, and if we or the people we love must forgo treatment we cannot afford, so be it. No one else should be forced to pay, and to make certain neither you or I are forced to pay, we will also need to change the laws to ensure that medical debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
You are right that this isn’t about contraception. I think deep down we all know what this is really about, and I think we’ll do anything to avoid opening that can of worms.
Comment by John Billings on 21 February 2012:
Since when have religious institutions become the only holders of religious freedoms. What about the multitudes of employers sitting in the pews? Are they not also entitled to First Amendment rights? Furthermore, since when did only “believers” have a moral conscience? Why should any individual, religious or not, be forced to act against their conscience?
This is Exhibit A for why collectivist top-down government necessarily infringes the rights of free individuals.
Comment by D. Saul Weiner on 21 February 2012:
D. Genetti,
This article is not saying that individuals and groups should not be able to enter into contracts providing for health insurance, only that these agreements should be on a voluntary basis, at terms agreeable to both parties.
Comment by John Billings on 21 February 2012:
Genetti: I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the whole argument. Perhaps it is because the author did not specify that positive rights can be justifiably created under a volitional contractual agreement, like insurance in a free market.
No one is saying you shouldn’t be free to contract for an insurance policy that covers all of those services, or that your employer isn’t free to offer you an insurance policy that covers all of those services. And if the contract does specify those services, and you pay your premiums, than you have a positive right to be provided them.
The fundamental difference is that in that situation both you, the insurance provider, and the employer VOLUNTARILY contracted for them. This isn’t about contraception. This is about individual freedom.
Comment by D, Genetti on 21 February 2012:
John Billings: While I do not disagree with the concept of volitional contractual agreements, in general, I think that when it comes to health insurance, it isn’t a level playing field, and few of us are entering into these contracts truly voluntarily. Individuals are not free to contract with an employer and an insurance company for the specific kinds of benefits and services they think they’ll need. From the employer’s perspective, one can either accept a job and whatever benefits the employer may or may not want to offer, or one can remain unemployed. One can either accept the limited services provided by the insurance policy, or remain uninsured, or forgo necessary treatment due to cost. I agree that the contract is voluntary, but there is no balance of power. It seems rather Draconian to me. What will we do when employers and/or health insurance companies decide that they will no longer pay for chronic and acute medical care, because it is costly, and they are free not to? What will we do when the care we need is out of our financial reach, be it the cost of insurance premiums or the cost of the treatment itself? Will we then say that forgoing medical care was our choice?
Comment by Gwen Killerby on 22 February 2012:
I said: “But pray tell, what other problems are caused by laws against racism? Oh wait, I know! You can’t get to a decent Sunday lynching no more, thanks to those pesky laws against racism.”
josmo replied:
“Do you realize your juvenile attacks undermine what little credibility you have left?”
- dude, you’re making racist comments, do I really care about my credibility with YOU? Not so much.
- I’ve noticed you haven’t addressed my point. Because you can’t. If you’ve been debated in a corner, yes, then the thing to do is to hide behind troll-calling, so brave.
- You assumed more damage from laws against racism than of racism itself, which seems insane to me. But feel free to defend that. Until you do, I stand by me calling you a racist. (if you’re soooooooo indignant about that … don’t be a racist)
If racism isn’t bad, why call Obama a racist then? Not saying you do, but people from your camp have a tendency to call Democrats the “Real” racists, because they support African-Americans.
It’s this pretense of a level playing field which gets you people into trouble. Like Rubio (you like him?), stated that women working at Catholic institutions should go work somewhere else.
Again, you apparently didn’t get that your reasoning is fallacious: because if you assume that any law is useless if it doesn’t prevent whatever it was designed for, we shouldn’t have any laws, which you do NOT want, you just want laws that suit YOU. That’s tantrum throwing.
And anarchy just doesn’t work, never has, never will. Just watch a class of 8 year olds. Or 16 year olds. Or Congress.
But declaring war on women will be a GNOPpy winner in the fall.
Oh wait. I’m sorry. Taking some poor womans 500 dollar a year benefit away from her, when she’s make buck fifty an hour, oh no, that is NOT declaring war, right? WRONG!
Comment by Gwen Killerby on 22 February 2012:
“But you’re making me pay for wars I think that are HIGHLY immoral. It violates my morals to pay via taxes to kill people I have no beef with and are no threat to the country. So, that’s wrong? Or is that somehow “different”? Don’t make me laugh.”
“Hold on. You understand you’re on http://www.thefreemanonline.org, right? One of the most vociferous anti-war magazines you can find?”
Oh really? What does that say about YOU?
Don’t you somehow end up voting for the war-hungry, tax-dollar wasting Republicans all the time? If you do, you haven’t got a leg to stand on. Or do you vote Democrat?
Are you gonna do so again in the fall?
Or, does your immoral indignation on this life saving measure (paying to keep women healthy) prevent you from voting Democrat in the fall? If it does, I’ll give you Rubio’s advice: If you can’t stand to work in a company where the government requires to pay to keep women healthy, go work somewhere ELSE!
If you keep voting Republican, all you anti-war rethoric is just hot air, means F— all, it’s just Jack-S—-
Should VIAGRA be covered, by the way. If yes, why not contraceptive? You don’t need viagra to have kids, we have test tube babies for that.
Comment by gdp on 22 February 2012:
Totally absent from the “Public Discussion” on this issue are two points:
1.) The contraception issue would never even have come up if it were not for the fact that in the U.S., the “Insured” party does not own `their’ Medical “Insurance Policy” — their employer or some other institution does, due to 100 years of perverse FedGov incentives and market distortions caused by the fact that, under the U.S. Tax Code, Salaries and Wages are “Taxable Income,” but “Benefits” are not taxable, and an employer can write off the cost of a “Benefit”as a “Business Expense.” This market distortion plus FDR freezing wages but not benefits in 1942 led to the unintended and perverse consequence that medical insurance ownership was shifted from the person being insured to their employer — with the further perverse unintended consequence that the person would now lose `their’ insurance when they lost their job, because the insurance policy really belongs to their employer, and not to them. (Note that the perverse FedGov incentives toward employer rather than employee ownership of insurance is also the direct perverse cause of the “portability” and “pre-existing condition” problems; as usual, the FedGov meddling in the health insurance market is a disease masquerading as its own cure.)
2.) The function of “Insurance” is to pay for unpredictable and “Catastrophic” expenses that one CANNOT afford to pay for out of pocket — whereas Contraception is a highly predictable and easily affordable expense, that should be dealt with either “out of pocket” or via a sanely structured medical savings account plan (rather than the current insane “Use it or Lose It” Federally Regulated “Savings Plans” that evaporate at the end of each tax year).
Forcing “Medical Insurance” to cover contraceptives without a co-pay is like forcing Auto Insurance Companies to cover “Free Oil Changes” — which would double or treble the effective cost of oil changes, which cost would then be passed on to the policy owner in the form of increase premium costs.
Finally, please note that if one is so broke that one cannot afford condoms or a $10 co-pay for “The Pill” once a month, one has far bigger financial problems than “Free Contraception” alone can solve…
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 22 February 2012:
In case someone had doubts (I can’t imagine why): The government should not mandate “insurance” coverage for Viagra either. I oppose all mandates. Got that?
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 22 February 2012:
“I don’t think Sheldon is a true Libertarian. He’s a John Bircher.”
Evidence please. On what issue do I take an unlibertarian pro-Bircher position?
Comment by RFN on 22 February 2012:
Wow, I think Gwen is looking for help. Any good shrinks in the house? Democrats sure are peaceniks, aren’t they? Hell, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and then went out and killed himself quite a few more of those furriners. And they still buy that pap? The neo-cons are disgusting, but they’re only acting out progressive fantasy. Let’s see, WW, a democrat, got us into WW1. Let’s see, FDR, a democrat, got us into WW2. Let’s see, Truman, a democrat, got us into Korea. Let’s see, Kennedy, a democrat, got us into Vietnam. Yep, the party of peace alright. I don’t want the state to coerce anybody not willing to provide meds for you, Gwen. But, I just might be willing to help you with them. What’s your choice? The purple or the yellow ones?
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 23 February 2012:
“dude, you’re making racist comments”
Do tell. Please point them out; quote me on one racist comment.
“I’ve noticed you haven’t addressed my point. Because you can’t. If you’ve been debated in a corner, yes, then the thing to do is to hide behind troll-calling, so brave.”
What point? I disagree with you so you label me a racist, that isn’t an argument. If you had some other arguments buried there in your comment you’d have liked me to address… well, if you presented a real response, I might have taken you seriously. Given that you’re obviously here to spew pejoratives and labels, this will be the very last response I give you.
“You assumed more damage from laws against racism than of racism itself, which seems insane to me.”
Not really. I simply asserted that a law against racism does nothing to mitigate the damages of racism. If you would like me to justify that assertion, a simple question would have sufficed.
Instead, you got nothing from me, because you acted like a troll.
“It’s this pretense of a level playing field which gets you people into trouble. Like Rubio (you like him?), stated that women working at Catholic institutions should go work somewhere else.”
Who the hell is Rubio?
“Again, you apparently didn’t get that your reasoning is fallacious: because if you assume that any law is useless if it doesn’t prevent whatever it was designed for, we shouldn’t have any laws, which you do NOT want, you just want laws that suit YOU. That’s tantrum throwing.”
First of all, if a law doesn’t do SOMEthing to prevent whatever it was designed for, it doesn’t matter whether we have it or not so it really doesn’t matter if it exists.
That being said, racism is not murder. Murder is a relatively objective action with clearly defined parts that are individually proven. The laws behind racism are loosely defined at best and proving it in court mostly involves a lot of “he said, she said”.
That’s mainly because racism in and of itself is a frame of mind, an opinion inside the brain of the defendant, whereas murder requires a definite action on the part of the defendant to cause a fairly objective outcome. You can offer potential murderers an incentive to not murder by threatening to throw them in a cage for a while, but you cannot do so with racism. Racists either are, or are not, regardless of their actions.
Someone firing someone for racist reasons merely does not have to give the true reason for it. When they don’t, you can’t differentiate between a racist employer and a non-racist employer, which means either you play hardball and throw a lot of innocent employers in jail, or you take it easy and the employers continue to be racist. What you do by making it illegal is to force it in the shadows; something it can do fairly easily, unlike murder or theft. It doesn’t solve the problem of racism or even mitigate it in the slightest: it’s a non-answer to the problem and deludes people into thinking it’s gone when really the problem is worse than ever.
Not to mention that murder and theft are violent actions, and firing someone is a relatively peaceful way of ending your relationship with them, if you had to choose. Hell, the majority of Americans don’t marry outside of their racial and cultural background; should they be jailed for being “racists”? A lynching is assault or murder, and that’s covered under existing laws.
That’s basically my argument in a nutshell: the real crimes are already punishable under existing laws, and those that aren’t shouldn’t be a crime. I merely reserve the right for people to peacefully end voluntary relationships at their discretion, for whatever reason, because I believe peace is a better way to resolve things than violence (you know, like kidnapping the person and locking them up in a cage for a long period of time, or blackmailing them, otherwise known as “arresting” and “fining” them, respectively). My kind of approach will only diffuse racial tension; forced segregation just festers problems. This opinion applies to ALL voluntary relationships and ANY method of peacefully entering or leaving them; it’s not just about race, unless you make it about race. That’s hardly racist.
And once you realize that all laws are merely incentives, you realize that there are many methods of combating racism that are far more effective and far more peaceful. Like, say, social and economic ostracism.
And just to point out one more thing:
“I myself am more of a R.A. Heinlein-Libertarian, not a Ron Paul type of libertarian, who want to use the taxpayer funded police to kick out certain types of customers out of racists’ lunch counters: freedom for (racist?) lunch counter owners, but no freedom for (African-American ?) patrons…”
You should look up the Jim Crowe laws. You know, the ones that mandated racial segregation, particularly at lunch counters. The one’s that actually caused the behavior you’re talking about. And you blamed it on “racist lunch counter owners”, or something. Hah. Racism doesn’t make money; in fact, in today’s world, it loses you money.
Funny how I say NOT to create laws to try and solve every perceived problem and I’m labeled a racist. The racists were the ones who used law in the first place to get what they wanted. I’m the one who says the government should have never had that power to begin with. Laws created for one reason set precedents for laws created for other reasons in the depth and scope of government power.
“And anarchy just doesn’t work, never has, never will. Just watch a class of 8 year olds. Or 16 year olds. Or Congress.”
Strange, because I’m pretty sure the majority of your life is in a state of anarchy. Consider the act of dating; seems to work out fine for the participants, to a degree. Or looking for a job, for example; you don’t kidnap potential employers and lock them in a cage if they don’t give you a job. Funny how that principle doesn’t apply as soon as the state dangles other peoples money in front of you. Am I correct in assuming you’re a woman who stands to benefit from free access to contraceptives, or is that going too far?
“Oh really? What does that say about YOU?”
Says I’m anti-war. Duh?
“Don’t you somehow end up voting for the war-hungry, tax-dollar wasting Republicans all the time? If you do, you haven’t got a leg to stand on. Or do you vote Democrat?”
I vote neither. I’m a libertarian.
And if you’re wondering, Ron Paul just calls himself a Republican because while any republican would rather vote Republican than Democrat, not many of them would vote Libertarian. Also, Republican is more mainstream and more visible than Libertarian.
Also, maybe you didn’t know this, but more wars have been started with Democrats in charge than there were when Republicans were in charge. Strange that you would call Republicans war-mongerers when the vote to sign into law the Patriot Act was unanimous… well, nearly so. I believe Ron Paul was the sole dissenting vote.
You’re carrying a lot of assumptions here that are completely unwarranted. In fact, all of your conceptions of me so far that you’ve communicated to me are simply flat out wrong.
“Should VIAGRA be covered, by the way?”
What the fuck kind of question is that? Of course it shouldn’t. When did I give any indication that that I thought it ought to be? Where are you pulling these assumptions from?
In any case, ignore the question, as it was rhetorical, as this is the last response I’m going to put any effort into, as (like I said) I don’t converse with trolls.
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 23 February 2012:
“I believe Ron Paul was the sole dissenting vote.”
Ah, that was overly hasty of me. He wasn’t a Senator at the time, but still voted against the Patriot Act as a Congressman.
The lone Senator was apparently Russ Feingold.
Comment by Alex on 23 February 2012:
Wow, first time I got censored on The Freeman! And for such an innocuous comment! Bad Richman, bad!
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 24 February 2012:
There is no censorship. WordPress will snag comments that look like spam. (I didn’t write the program.) I release all comments that are not clearly spam. Let’s not be so quick to make accusations, Alex.
Now, have you tried to post something that has not shown up?
PS: If I were censoring, why would have I let that last comment in?
PSS: I suppose bad manners might be grounds for exclusion.
Comment by zhinxy on 24 February 2012:
When basically every 8 or 16 year old I have ever met is in a natural, healthy, positive, age-mixed situation instead of that bizarre, State-and-Corporation-Created social engineering experiment known as “a class,” they’re all wonderful arguments for Anarchy, which is only Democracy realized, actually.
Congress, well, take it up with them, I’m sure it’s an effective strategy to get anything done.
Comment by zhinxy on 24 February 2012:
My “problem” with civil rights laws is that they tend not to do anything, except steal the thunder of the activists that actually brought about the changes. They’re largely after-the-fact bandaids by the establishment, after the brave people engaged in direct action have already effected the change. And then, the establishment credits them with the successes won through more democratic means, further telling us that our only protector is the State.
It wasn’t Title II that desegregated the Lunch Counters –
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/it-just-aint-so/opposing-the-civil-rights-act-means-opposing-civil-rights/
And it isn’t going to be appealing to courts of law that are prepared to turn back the clock on affirmative action any second now that brings about justice.
Comment by zhinxy on 24 February 2012:
But back on topic…
Sheldon, for me the problem is that you seem too dismissive of just how important contraception is for women’s freedom, (I don’t think you actually are), and just how basic it is to women’s health care needs. Yes, it’s got nothing to do with insurance on one hand (Though you can certainly insure against developing, say PCOS, which BC is often used to treat) and in that sense might be comparable to well-baby care, as you mentioned in another article.
Yes, it’s wrong to make anybody pay for anything. But aren’t you, basically, doing something like what Roderick warned about here –
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/09/the-libertarian-three-step-program/
It’s true, everything you say, but is it the right place to start?
Women’s health clinics and programs where affordable birth control is available are failing all around us. Yes, that’s because they’re far too dependent on State funding in the first place, but women are scared. Yes, we’re being manipulated, but our fears are real. Women think of paying out of pocket for birth control, and they’re thinking of the planned parenthood’s getting shut down, and that 500 dollar price tag becoming a reality. And it might, in the current climate.
Yes I want this dealt with by real free markets and mutual aid. Especially the mutual aid part.
Yes I think women’s access to contraception is too important to leave in the hands of the State.
Yes, this whole thing is being used to draw criticism away from how vile employer based insurance is. Yes, religious freedom matters. But just the moral “nobody has to pay for anyone x’s y,” no matter how important a principle it is, with no mention of exactly why and how women have a good reason to fear theocratic interests standing between them and contraception access (In more ways than just this one issue.), and of course, how the State makes health care so prohibitive in the first place. comes off as callous. If I didn’t know who you were, and I didn’t already respect you, I’d think you were just another tone-deaf libertarian standing on perfectly true principle, but missing the context and compassion.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 25 February 2012:
Roderick seems to be on my side here. He posted the Jefferson quote.
You have to fight the battles as they come. I have no power to set the priorities for dismantling the interventionist edifice. If we’re committed to the principle that no one should be used as a mere means — that no one is anyone else’s property — then we must object to this mandates (and all others).
Comment by GrayCat on 25 February 2012:
The obvious and only really workable solutions are: NO TAXATION, NO GOVERNMENT/STATE.
This means no government exemptions or subsidies, no government to bestow them; no rulers making decisions for others and forcing them to obey and pay for them.
Who is qualified to rule others and determine how much of a private individual’s resources that individual will be allowed to keep and manage?
If you want something, figure out how to produce it, pay for it or do without. Your priorities are not mine, and mine are none of your — or the government’s/state’s business.
Simple: mutual respect and peaceful cooperation, without interference or coercion from anyone or anywhere. That’s called freedom. It’s what libertarianism is all about. If you can’t or don’t want to live in mutual respect and peaceful cooperation with your neighbor, without interference or coercion, you not only have a problem, you are the problem.
And no one should be forced to pay you for it.
How do you people who want government to force other people — strangers you’ll never meet and who have their own lives apart from yours — to pay for things you want live with yourselves?!
Libertarianism is first of all the non-aggression principle: no one has the right to initiate the use of force or the threat of force against anyone else for any reason; the other two principles naturally follow from that one: the principle of non-theft and the principle of non-fraud. Government/the state by its very nature does and has a monopoly on all of these things!
Libertarianism is founded on the most basic of rights: the right to life. This includes everything from conception to death. No one has the right to deprive any human being of life, in any way, for any reason. A human conceptus is a human being in its first stage of life. It HAS life, and it will never be anything but a human being. It has a right to its life, it has a right to live its life.
If a woman doesn’t want to become pregnant, she must either use artificial contraception to prevent conception, or keep her legs together. It is up to her to figure out how to pay for artificial contraception or keep her legs together. She does not have a right to choose to terminate the human being conceived in her womb that she allowed to come into being in the first place. Her right to her body does not trump her baby’s equal right to its body.
Unless might makes right; because the woman is bigger, older, and stronger, she can have someone else kill and cut out of her womb her child. Someone is paid to perform murder. This is what voluntary abortion is. Do you define it and describe it as something else? “Clinical” language and euphemisms don’t change the reality.
If an older adult does not want to go through life-extending treatments and procedures at the end of his or her life, it is necessary to make the provisions for avoiding that beforehand, and without involving third parties to “assist” in your suicide, thus making them participants in murder.
Suicide, carried out by the individual, may be a free choice. Enlisting the “assitance” of another person is not; it is murder, making them a participant in your murder. No one has the right to take anyone else’s life, no matter the reason. A willing murderer, who ends life because he/she is paid to, is not performing a mercy, but is a mercinary.
How do we fall so far astray? Convenience nor emotion is grounds for murder of anyone at any time for any reason.
Human life has no permissible delimiting factors; the only legitimate end to a human life is through accident, disease, fatal injury, by one’s own hand or naturally. Human beings need to be more concerned about protecting each others’ lives rather than preoccupied with how to most inoffensively and philosophically find ways to end each others’ lives — especially using government/the state to do it!
The droning of our lives: use faceless government bureaucrats to knock each other off when we’re unwanted or “unproductive” so we don’t have to bother our consciences with bloodying our own hands.
It’s not about contraceptives or “women’s rights.” It’s about the state versus individual liberty. It’s about the coercion and madness of mob rule and theft versus respect for and inviolate protection of every individual’s life and property.
“Leave me alone.” “Live and let live.”
See others as more than mere means to your ends: no one is responsible for your insurance or your health care or your contraceptives or your Viagra but you. You have no right to extort anyone else to accomplish your desires, or even your needs. Only sociopaths see others as objects to be used to accomplish their ends. Only sociopaths think using government/the state for their purposes to force anyone to do anything is a legitimate means to their ends.
On Ron Paul’s desk is a sign: “Don’t steal. The government hates competition.” Which is why greedy, envious sociopaths love government; it makes rationalizing and enforcing their confiscatory greed and envy against others’ persons and property possible, and they can hide behind bureaucracy and anonymity and the mob while doing it.
Why do we allow it?
Please stop with the religious/theocracy garbage. No one is forced — nor can be without help from rulers/government/the state — to belong to any theocratic or other religious institution.
If there were no state, no religious sect could force its “morality” on anyone. Just say NO and choose not to participate. Rome, Luther, Henry VIII nor Calvin rules. You don’t have to belong to the Roman Catholic Church or the Atheist Society. So what’s your problem? No woman has to be under any man’s thumb or any religious sect’s thumb. And no man has to, either.
Stop participating in the farce of the state, and using it as your excuse to rule others “because if you don’t, someone else will.” How about advocating for just walking away from the whole mess and letting every adult choose for him-/herself how they will peacefully respect the lives of others, without imposing their own preferences on them? How about objecting to the use of government force and coercion to take from your neighbors what is not rightfully yours or the government’s? What if we all — even those in “enforcement” — just said NO to the state — just because it’s the right thing to do?
The opposite of “If you build it, they will come” is “if you don’t shore it up, it will collapse!”
Oh, Happy Day!
Comment by Gwen Killerby on 8 March 2012:
Anarchy, or let me be politically correct and call it “Libertarianism”, just doesn’t work. Never has. Never will. You’ve bought into this crazy idea, that government by definition is bad. That’s a load of hogwash. Government, as such is neutral. BAD governments are bad, good governments are … (GASP!) good.
“live and let live”? you get that under any decent democratically elected government.
It seems that anarchists’ view is that because Big Bad Scary Government doesn’t turn everybody into Good Gentle Angels, it therefor must not work, so it’s bad.
Just like that one dude who think laws against racism are bad, because it doesn’t turn people into non-racists
(First off, how do you know that?)
But laws aren’t measures for thought control, as they have been strawmanned by lots of y’all. Laws are about BEHAVIOR.
Let’s take murder and racism. (yeah @ joschmoe) Do we care about a murderous person who doesn’t murder anyone, nor makes preparations for murder? NO.
We care about the behavior: if he murders someone, society punishes.
Likewise racism. Do I really care about the racist thoughts that go through someone head I’m completely unaware of? I couldn’t give a rat’s buttocks about it. But if that person BEHAVES in a racist way, well then yes, I do care, because then it affects me.
That’s live and let live right there for ya.
But you’ve admitted as much, because when I called you a racist, you asked me to point out racist things YOU’VE SAID. Saying stuff is BEHAVIOR. (but i guess you disagree with this, you probably think lynching is the only racist act there is, right? All that other stuff (like refusing some-one a job, wilful segregration, etc, putting up whites only signs … you know all that good ol’ boy stuff) is …. free speech, innit?
What the left by and large wants is more or less the social conditions that exist in Canada, Japan, and Western Europe. Australia, NZ. No one says it’s perfect but it works BETTER than what the US has right now, because NO ONE in those countries will go broke on medical bills.
What the right wants is a return to the 19th century, but then without the social cohesions.
And what libertarians (see? I can be nice
want doesn’t exist.
Not even the Solarians have that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Sun#Plot_introduction
Comment by Heather on 9 March 2012:
But Gwen, in terms of Western Europe, it may be true that no one person is going broke, but entire countries are going broke. THAT is the problem that your statist ideals result in: EVERYONE ends up equally broke.
Trackback by Quora on 26 April 2012:
How do Quora Users feel about the Republican Party’s so-called War on Women?…
Melinda, you are right. I should not have said “Most opponents ….” but rather “Many opponents …” — my only claim is that many people oppose subsidies/mandates to birth control but do not favor legal restrictions on birth control. I include som…