You are viewing filkertom

Sun, Feb. 12th, 2012, 07:49 pm
They Actually Are Going There

Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.

“If we end up having to try to overcome the President’s opposition by legislation, of course I’d be happy to support it, and intend to support it,” McConnell said. “We’ll be voting on that in the Senate and you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible.”
John Cole nails it. So does Jesse Singal.

If you'd rather not go to those links, well, here's my take on it.

Oh, wait, that's right. I gave my take on it some years ago and took a lot of shit for it.

The word I used to refer to those legislators -- and the people who voted for them, and thus supported their positions and policies -- was "evil".

At the time, I referred to them all with the blanket of "Republicans", and that was wrong, but I do think it applied -- and applies -- to the Republican leadership.

And, bluntly, every day it gets worse.

The Republican party cares nothing for human lives. It cares nothing for the welfare of this country. It cares nothing for the safety of our environment, the loss of jobs, the erosion of infrastructure, the right to privacy, the health of the populace, the image and power of our country overseas, the law, the truth, NO FUCKING THING.

They care about power, and they'll do anything -- or attack anything or anyone -- they think will help them get it.

Their current target is contraception (which they're jumping on because it serves as red meat for their most hardcore base and it serves as a convenient, desperate attempt at distracting everyone from the clown show that is the Republican Presidential Nomination process.) They are attacking contraception because the Catholic Church did -- really, the only church that brought up the subject at all -- and the underlying idea is that the leaders of said church might have their precious fee-fees hurt if they, as employers, have to, y'know, pay for health care that includes contraception.

Because (and yes, there is a song coming to this) when a woman needs advice on her health, the possibility of pregnancy, counseling on pre- and post-natal care and how to afford it, whether she should have a child at all, the very first thing I think is, "She should get moral and medical guidance from the wrinkly old pedophiles in the gold palace."

These rotten, vile old men, who to this moment defend child molesters in their organization all over the world and yet dare to speak with the authority of the Almighty on how, when, and why other people should (gasp!) have sex.

Those fucking old men who will never bear a child, raise a child, afford a damn child.

Those every-sperm-is-sacred asshats who want to impose their will on people who aren't in their church, but merely are employed by companies owned by it.

And those cocksucking jackasses in the Republican party who are now extending their personal war on womens' health and sexuality to adopt this ancient, obsolete, useless canard from A GODDAMN CHURCH and apply it to everybody.

That little First Amendment thing, y'know?

At this point, I am beyond incensed. First goddamn thing, get rid of the tax exemption for churches. It should never have been there -- it's giving a privilege to religions, and just because it covers all the religions doesn't mean it's not a privilege that violates the First Amendment.

Second, SPECIFICALLY get the Catholic Church (for this, and many other similar items) and the Mormon church (for California's Prop 8, to which they devoted a metric shit-ton of cash to pushing down everyone's gullet). They are political organizations; treat 'em like such and tax the ass off their assets.

Third, do you stupid fuckers in Congress actually want to revisit birth control, after we've had the Pill for fifty years!? Do you actually think you'll be able to legislate people to only have sex for procreation? Do you think you're going to limit the number of abortions or pregnancies by getting rid of the surest means of preventing either?

And do you actually think the women (and most of the men) of this country are going to just stand there and let you reduce them to breeding stock?

There's been a joke around for years, based on Cthulhu running for President, with the slogan, "Why vote for the lesser evil?"

Sorry, Big C. The Republican party and the Catholic Church have got you beat.

ETA: Added a point or two I forgot.

This entry was originally posted at http://filkertom.dreamwidth.org/1488689.html. You may comment there or here, although LJ tends to have a livelier conversation at this time.

Mon, Feb. 13th, 2012 01:40 pm (UTC)
hitchkitty: Re: removing the tax exempt status might not be a good idea.

The government is not demanding that *people* do something they find morally wrong. It is making that demand of *organizations*. The two are not equivalent.

Mon, Feb. 13th, 2012 05:12 pm (UTC)
BusyPoorDad: Re: removing the tax exempt status might not be a good idea.

An "organization" is nothing more than a collection of agreeing people. No one is forced into an organization (in this nation) and you still retain your human rights.

If you want to really get out there, the SCOTUS have ruled that organizations are seen by the law as people. (aka citizens united).

Mon, Feb. 13th, 2012 05:57 pm (UTC)
hitchkitty: Re: removing the tax exempt status might not be a good idea.

Yes, I'm aware of that decision, and I disagree with it and look forward to its overturning.

You're right. Nobody is forced to join an organization. Like, say, the Catholic Church. All those conscientious objectors can leave the Church if they don't like where their tithe money is going. Or hey, they can even stop tithing, nobody's forcing them to fund the Church.

Mon, Feb. 13th, 2012 06:43 pm (UTC)
BusyPoorDad: Re: removing the tax exempt status might not be a good idea.

No one is forcing them to fund the Church, what they are mad about was being forced to fund things that the Church is opposed to. Being told "you can support your Church which will be forced to fund the violation of its doctrine or you can stop." is not a choice that respects the human right of religious belief. It is like telling the NAACP that they have to pay for the KKK to be allowed to print signs or the NAACP members could just not fund the organization. After all, the members could object and leave the NAACP rather than have some of their donations support the KKK.

Tue, Feb. 14th, 2012 10:10 pm (UTC)
tarsa

Corporate Entities have no souls.