Nearly 500 people from dozens of area churches gathered... beneath a canopy of balloons adorned with the U.S. flag and the word "Life." Many carried signs that said "Stand up for religious freedom."
March 23, 2012
We missed a protest!
Why was I not alerted? Oh! It was anti-birth control. And they went to the federal court building.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 comments:
I swear I read that it was for religious freedom and not "anti-birth control." You see, some religious beliefs can upset you, unless they include killing the infidel.
Shorter Althouse:
"We have met the Moby and he is us."
Why was I not alerted? Oh! It was anti-birth control. And they went to the federal court building.
Nearly 500 people from dozens of area churches gathered... beneath a canopy of balloons adorned with the U.S. flag and the word "Life." Many carried signs that said "Stand up for religious freedom."
It was in opposition to a federal plan requiring religious institutions to cover birth control.
How is that "anti-birth control"? It's no more anti-birth control than you not buying me a car makes you anti-car.
It's more appropriately a "Stuff isn't free, so stop making us pay for your extraneous stuff" protest
No word on where their blown up balloons came from. They could be from a donation of end line rejects fat the Trojens factory...but they did hold air.
It's Wisconsin, Jake,
There's a big difference between "anti- birth control" and anti-being forced to buy bortho control. Professor, I'm very surprised at you. Or were you trying to make some point that I missed?
If it's about religious freedom to not cover birth control for employees who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs, why do the balloons say "LIFE"?
@Lyssa
The religious belief at the heart of the issue is that birth control is wrong.
Professor, I'm very surprised at you. Or were you trying to make some point that I missed?
I think she's trying to needle religious people.
Triangle Man said...
If it's about religious freedom to not cover birth control for employees who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs, why do the balloons say "LIFE"?
Live Free Or Die!
Come on, guys --
Don't be naive. You need to detect these literary devices. Understand that writers/speakers like Althouse have ulterior motives. . . . How will you be a competent citizen in the political arena where everyone's always more or less bullshitting?
I think the point she's trying to make is that if it was 500 people in support of forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control it would have made the front page of the papers and the first few minutes of the local news. But because it was a group of people opposing that policy the MSM refused to publicize it.
Live Free Or Die!
I can get behind both "Live Free Or Die" and "Stand up for religious freedom", but I somehow think the whole is different than the sum of the parts.
Sigh. This national protest
is NOT about anti-birthcontrol. Either this nation respects the conscience of its citizens or it doesn't. How anyone with a modicum of sense can believe that providing birth control pills, which are cheap and readily available, to someone trumps the sincere well-documented beliefs of one of the world's largest religious bodies is beyond me. Especially if they have read the first amendment to our constitution... and I would suggest Humanae Vitae if you are interested at all in the reasoning of some very intelligent people.
Anti-birth control or anti-abortion? A balloon that says "Life" signifies to me anti-abortion. But I'd say a huge number of anti-abortion activists have no problem with the pill or condoms!!!
Triangle Man wrote: I can get behind both 'Live Free Or Die' and 'Stand up for religious freedom', but I somehow think the whole is different than the sum of the parts.
I detect no gap or missing parts however, I can see how someone of your persuasion would want to drive a wedge between the two.
Yesterday, the Prof. told us not to so naively accept what was written here, and to read critically, carefully. Well, it's subtle, but she italicized "anti birth control." The article itself says only that the rally was about religious freedom, and the potential that HHS regs may impinge on religious freedom. Nothing about "anti-birth control."
I conclude, that Althouse was stirring up the inevitable left spin that this will receive, and does not think this was "anti birth control."
Did I really get that from the italics (which it appears some can make appear in the comments. I have no idea how to).
This protest happened in many cities, not just Madison.
Why the pro-life balloons, if it was a pro-religious-freedom rally? Listen, it's not a stretch to imagine that if one administration can force religious groups to provide birth control against their beliefs, a future one can force them to provide abortion services.
I detect no gap or missing parts however, I can see how someone of your persuasion would want to drive a wedge between the two.
I'm sure the "LIFE' balloons had nothing to do with the "grave sin" of birth control or the "intrinsic evil" of vasectomy and tubal ligation.
But I want my insurance to provide health services than in good conscience I may wish to use whether or not my employer agrees with those choices or not. No force is involved here, which is why the Catholic hospitals provide that coverage to its employees.
I conclude, that Althouse was stirring up the inevitable left spin that this will receive, and does not think this was "anti birth control."
@Patrick
These well-meaning constitutional ideologues trying to preserve the establishment clause really should have avoided clouding the issue with the "LIFE" balloons.
"We have met the Moby and he is us."
Yeah, but she's not destroying the blog.
"This is how you do it, Moby."
It's a Moby teaching moment.
I celebrate anti-birth-controlism four times a year, on my kids' birthdays.
Triangle Man wrote: These well-meaning constitutional ideologues trying to preserve the establishment clause really should have avoided clouding the issue with the "LIFE" balloons.
Interesting that you appear to admit that the Establishment Clause is under threat.
The "life balloons" don't turn it into an anti-contraceptive rally. The pro lifers aren't trying to ban birth control. Their ranks would be significantly smaller were they trying to do so.
The "life balloons" don't turn it into an anti-contraceptive rally.
I suspect that part of the reason for the “Life” balloons is that in the views of many of the protesters the line between some of the birth control that they’re being forced to cover (as well as the ones in the future) and inducing an abortion may not be as clear cut.
R-V wrote: But I want my insurance to provide health services than in good conscience I may wish to use whether or not my employer agrees with those choices or not.
In other words, you want a greater say in how your company runs its business. Usually people organize to confront management to do so, or they look for another job. Your entire history of commenting tells me you favor the former.
No force is involved here, which is why the Catholic hospitals provide that coverage to its employees.
Force and coersion make an interesting contrast--as much so as attraction and repulsion. But in the end, the effect is the same: restricted freedom.
Patrick may be right and, then again, Ann may have tripped and, then again, this may be a moby drill.
If this were an actual moby attack, you would be left to figure it out for yourself.
You may now return to your normal blog.
Interesting that you appear to admit that the Establishment Clause is under threat.
I understand that the establishment clause is the foundation upon which the Catholic Church is opposing the effort to require it to include birth control in the health insurance plans it offers its employees.
I understand that the establishment clause is the foundation upon which the Catholic Church is opposing the effort to require it to include birth control in the health insurance plans it offers its employees.
I also understand that the reason the Catholic Church opposes covering birth control is that it views contraception and sterilization as evil, and that its view on this issue is infallible.
I conclude, that . . .
Yeah, but if a fruitful discussion is what one really wants, it helps to simply say what you mean and mean what you say, rather than putting it upon people to assume that she means this or that. Such games of making an ass of u and me are tiresome after a while.
By the way, Patrick, if you want to know how to italicize -- and this goes for everyone else who quotes others without doing so, making it impossible to understand who is saying what -- here is how to do that (and some other basic html commands), see under "Physical tags".
"Stand up for religious freedom."
Excuse me but this is America. We prefer to stay sitting on the couch.
In other words, you want a greater say in how your company runs its business.
Or possibly he wants his employer to have less say in his health care decisions.
Willard has the solution to this dilemma. It's called RomneyCare! :D
Thanks, Bender. That has been one of those things I've figured was easy to learn, but never have. One of those "I never think of it when I have the time" type of things. Or laziness.
If you want to give the prof. the benefit of the doubt (and why not?, she often goes through several tiwsts of logic in her thinking--though she usually walks us through her steps), then we have to consider that the media IS treating the religious objection to adding contraception to insurance coverage (FOR FREE! says the liberals) as an objection to legal birth control.
So she's just playing it the way the media would play it if they bothered to play it at all (this time around).
Oh, for pete's sake. Where's your sense of humor?
I said "anti-birth control" because here in Madison you'd expect a birth-control-related protest to be pro-. Also I'd expect a protest to be at the Capitol, but this one -- against the feds -- is at the federal courthouse.
I thought all that was funny.
Professor, I thought it was funny.
And I'm anti-birth control, my gynocologist is fine with it.
I thought all that was funny.
I suspect you think lots of things in the comments are funny that only a few others do. Most of us are just not at your level.
On the other hand, I personally enjoy most of what I put here in the comments and I think some of it is really funny too so I can sympathize.
Or possibly he wants his employer to have less say in his health care decisions.
If they foot a nice chunk of the bill, why should they have no say?
And, don't worry --- when the government takes over insurance if SCOTUS allows it, I bet that won't lead to any bad results.
The balloons represent sperm, I'd guess.
Why does this bill cover adults up to the age of a 26 on their parents' plan?
That is what the email from Obama's campaign said.
What if your parents don't want to cover you, but if your parents are on the family plan... your ADULT CHILDREN is free!
More free!
"are free!"
Well - to set the record straight. There were not 500 people there. Maybe 300. There were far more balloons with the US Flag and not as many with the word life.
There were 4 police officers in attendance along with guards from the courthouse. One old guy carrying a sign about Robin Vos saying he needed his soul cleansed and one video camera (with no identifying stickers on it) was taping the event. Far more people had buttons and signs that said "say no the the Obama HHS mandate" than any other that were visible. Some hand written signs were around but for the most part this was a group that was for religious freedom more than anti-abortion though of course those words were spoken.
(Just to clarify, I am not a Catholic (I'm Lutheran and we Lutherans have had our problems with Catholics in the past you know)and am personally against abortion but understand it is the law of the land.)
And Ann, I personally have a problem with you making light of this issue("I thought all that was funny".). Or maybe I don't understand what you were trying to say. Because after all I am not a lawyer, law professor, judge, or other type of elitist. Just a normal rube who has a problem with this move by the Obama administration and really dislike when those who should no better try to portray this issue as something it truly is not. In that regards you can be as bad as the MSM.
Triangle Man said...
The religious belief at the heart of the issue is that birth control is wrong.
That is certainly not the position of the Catholic church. They are perfectly fine with Natural Family Planning. They oppose contraception, contragestion, and sterilization.
Correction: Just a normal rube who has a problem with this move by the Obama administration and really dislike when those who should (know) no better (than to) try to portray this issue as something it truly is not. In that regards you can be as bad as the MSM.
I missed the demo because the silly organisers seemed to forget that some of us are working on a weekday....
I thought it was funny, too.
The protest is anti-mandate, pro-religious freedom.
Personally, I think if these protests just stuck to anti-mandate, they'd gain more traction.
Catholics are as guilty of turning this entire circus into a pro-BC v. anti-BC referendum as the left is, and they're actually using this nonsense as a pulpit.
Had they stuck to the political issues, I'd care more. Right now, I don't really care. My insurance has always covered birth control, IVF, abortion, etc. It also covers adoption fees. I've never required any of those things, but I don't begrudge them to the people who do.
And, frankly, I think the Church is full of shite when it comes to these religious exceptions things. You take taxpayer money, you're no longer a strictly religious organization. Also, you stick your nose into politics, as the Church so often has done, and I think you're dancing on the edge of no longer even deserving the tax benefits of being a religious institution.
On the one hand, you have bishops getting their bloomers in a bunch at the thought that an insurance company they work with might provide BC (which, actually, was already often the case), and then on the oher, you have Mahoney down in L.A. saying the state shouldn't pull over unlicensed illegal aliens and impound their cars because it's not faiiiir, wahwahwah. Really?
Maybe the Church should just STFU and stick to providing its members with religious services.
Also, any Catholic who pays into an insurance plan that also covers BC, IVF, abortion, etc., and reaps the benefits thereof, doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to this issue. Not that it would have been an issue if they'd just stuck to the mandate part of the problem and left the religion out of it.
You're a regular laugh riot Ann. I can't believe what has become of your blog in the past 6-12 months, it is all but unrecognizable.
Post a Comment