May 21, 2012

The Right wants to bring back the scarlet letter

Politics are funny.

The left is so much better at spinning the narrative than the conservative side. Could it be that Truth and honesty are occasionally more important than the political ideal?

One thing I find amazing.  The liberal left always portrays themselves as the party of freedom. And free stuff, but that is another post. Here is an example of the progressive attack.  Liberals have managed to frame the abortion debate as "Pro Choice".  Heck, on the surface we all want more choice.  But doctors and pharmacists who have moral issues with abortion are not permitted that same "pro choice" stand.  When Kansas passed a law allowing pharmacists to opt out of filling abortion on demand pills, the lefties go crazy. As usual, with the progressive agenda you agree with their position or else.  They will compel you through law, through force or through intimidation. In this case, allowing pharmacists to not do something, equates to  heading towards a ban on contraception altogether.

Just as with the Georgetown student a few months ago, when the narrative magically became a "war on women" and that "conservatives want to ban contraception" instead of "Hey, why should I pay for your contraception".  Again, let us not let Truth interrupt the narrative.

Look, the Kansas law may make life a little more difficult for some women.  A little planning may be in order. If you local druggist does not choose to overcome his morals, then the lady in question will have to get her prescription on-line or in the next town. Sometimes life is difficult.  Improvise, adapt and overcome. Indiana does not allow carry-out alcohol sales on a Sunday.  This is an inconvenience, but with a little pre-planning it is a problem that can be overcome. Either I buy my beer in advance, or I don't drink. If you don't have your contraception on hand, don't diddle.  It all seems kind of simple to me.

There are many, many conservatives who are not Catholic.  In fact, I suspect Catholics make up a small percentage of conservatives. The Church has long been a bastion of liberalism. Many of us have used contraception. Our wives and daughters are on the pill. I have yet to see a single lawmaker or candidate who has called for a ban on contraception. NOT ONE. Even the Catholic Bishops have not advocated for a ban on contraception for us non-Catholics.  I do not mind debate. I have real issues when the debate is formed by outright lies and misdirection.

Finally, before you lefties go nuts, you should understand my personal position. I am against abortion for me. I am against abortion for my wife or daughter, but it is really not my call.  I think abortion is the deliberate killing of a baby. I also think abortion is a personal dilemma. In the end, I think the decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her Maker. I am really for personal choice here. Have one or don't. 

By the same token, a pharmacist or doctor should not be forced to participate. Who is taking the real Pro Choice stance in the end? Once again our friends on the left prove that liberal 'tolerance' is really just code for intolerance of any other position.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Over at EOB again? You should know better than to argue with idiots. JOG

Joe said...

I know, I know

Nathan said...

Interesting that Rush was talking about liberals, far from being the party of freedom, as being the party of "no". He's said that before and it continues to resonate.

Rita said...

Yep.

Anonymous said...

The only thing that liberals want to free, is you from you hard earned money so they can give it away and keep theirs.
JOG

Erin O'Brien said...

Hey, why should I pay for your Cialis?

Nathan said...

Why should I pay for your birth control?

Nathan said...

By the way, that's not a "no" -- that's a philosophical argument. You haven't convinced me yet.

But you're right, you shouldn't have to pay for my Cialis. Notwithstanding the fact that I don't need it.

Rita said...

Did I miss where someone was forcing someone else to pay for anyone's Cialis??? It's real simple. If you don't like the choices your potential employer has in VOLUNTARY benefits, go find another employer. Why does the left not understand no one is forcing you to work anywhere or forcing you to attend a college you don't agree with? Instead they insist on forcing their beliefs on everyone else. Lib, "You are free to do what I tell you to do.".

Anonymous said...

You should not pay for my Cialis.

Joe

Anonymous said...

See Joe's comment about misdirection when evaluating any comment from a liberal. There is a chance I am in error judging from the well thought out and mannered comments on this subject over at EOB area.
James Old Guy

Rita said...

Well the left are sure demonstrating their version of "tolerance" over there, eh? Nasty bunch. Joe has more patience than I do.

Erin O'Brien said...

Y'all can bellyache all you want about what your Medicare and insurance covers, it really has nothing to do with my post or Joe's post for that matter.

My point is this: A woman's reproductive right--or any civil right--should not be curtailed under the guise of someone else's religious or moral beliefs. It's bullshit and if you no likey me saying so, ask James Madison.

If you're going to have "moral" problems with a legally prescribed substances, you shouldn't be a pharmacist.

Joe said...

Erin, Person A's rights are never superior to Person B's rights.

The bottom line is you do not NEED the Pill or Plan B pills. (yes there are some medical necessities for birth control pills, we are not talking the exceptions). You can prevent pregnancy by not doing anything. If you don't want to get pregnant to get fucked. No pharmacist is infringing on your reproductive rights.

Go somewhere else and get the stuff. See my analogy to Indiana's alcohol laws in the original post.

What if there was a law that said before you could publish an article or book you had to get permission from the Catholic Church? Your moral objections are irrelevant. If you don't like the law get out of writing.

Taking it to another step, assume the mutant issue from the X-Mmen was real. Say Congress passed a law indicating all mutants had to take a prescription drug that suppressed the mutant genes. Would a pharmacist have the moral right to refuse to issue that drug?
After all if he does not want to issue a legal prescribed drug he should not be a pharmacist...

Believe it or not your complaint is exactly why the framers envisioned a limited Federal Government.

Rita said...

So the left's version of tolerance is screw anyone's moral objections if they both agree with theirs. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Rita said...

*don't* not both.

Erin O'Brien said...

Joe, your examples are silly. This Kansas law is real. And do keep this in mind:

The law also allows doctors to refuse to refer patients to pharmacists who will provide such drugs.

Source.

Mail order? Emergency contraception has to be taken within 72 hours (I think).

Joe said...

I suspect there is another town with a willing pharmacist within 72 hours.

Joe said...

Erin,

what about this scenario?

http://hoosierboy.blogspot.com/2012/05/government-says.html

Anonymous said...

It would seem to me, if you don't like the laws of a state don't live there. Has Erin actually read the law? I doubt it.
James Old Guy

Consider everything here that is of original content copyrighted as of March 2005