Gender specific insults denote low IQ and history of sexual rejection. In short, it makes you an ASSHAT! A gender neutral asshat. The “Rush” issue and the original Church and State issue in this case have been horrifically intertwined when they are in fact completely separate issues.
1960 called, they want their politics back
A few of the most obvious conflated policy questions I see as obvious:
1. Should preventative care be covered for men and women free of charge under our new health care regulations?
2. Should religious institutions with employee health care benefits also have to abide by the new healthcare regulations regardless of the institutions religious dogma?
3. Should our culture passively endorse an attitude which analyzes the content of a woman’s testimony relative to her sexual behavior, and then further reduces her to a vessel for men to transact with sexually?
These are completely independent issues that have been insidiously enmeshed and given a thick coat of cultural shenanigans. To make any rational intelligent case for one position or the other, these issues need to be looked at independently.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree. Unfortunately it is politically convenient to paint with large brushes.
As a Christian I do not want to be forced to pay for contraceptives. As a Christian I care about women’s health just as I do my own (I am male). As a Christian I think Rush Limbaugh’s comments were sad and disgusting. I do not care for him at all.
The religious groups are not suggesting that women should not have access to certain things, they just do not want to be forced to pay for them.
This is just another example of the media and politicians trying to frame the discussion and to paint certain people as hatemongers, racist, or sexist, etc.
Nobody has said that women should not be able to have contraceptives. But if you can frame the narrative that way it alienates certain people who have to run for office. That can be very, politically advantageous to someone, whether it is fair or not.
I agree with you 99% The exception being the idea Religious institutions do not want to directly pay for contraceptives for you to have sex on their dime.
However, the original intent was for preventive care to be covered for ALL women in this country. If an institution compensates employees with a mix of salary and benefits, once the employee takes possession of the compensation (i.e. paycheck, health insurance coverage, 401k matching) It is theirs to do with what they wish.
I feel it’s akin to deducting the cost of 3 condoms a week from a male employee’s paycheck. We would never entertain that as a possibility, because we view the employees pay as belonging to him.
Once the coverage is included as part of a comp package, the Church has no say whatsoever on what sins it is used to commit.
I see your point, but I think the church is conflating a number of issues here in an effort to control culture.
(btw, I’m not a fan of societal controls, lol)
But this is a new issue. If I were a church and was NOW forced to have to pay for it, I may decide not to offer health insurance as a benefit so that I do not have to feel morally compromised.
My main point is that it is not a women’s right issue. I believe women (or men) have a right to drink alcohol in excess but I don’t want to be made to pay for it.
The story is just turned into something people can politicize.