Can you imagine if the government pasted "catering reform" and mandated that all caterers and institutional service providers had to provide pork and beef dishes.
Now imagine if various religious groups (Hindi, Jewish, Islamic) got angry at being forced to provide food that their religion forbade. And then the state declared that it wasn't a religious violation because the food would be served in their schools cafeterias and not during services.
And when people continued to push the point the State went with the "You want to ban bacon!" angle. Then let some morons that want to ban bacon step forward.
Yeah... just replace catering with health insurance and pork sausage with well... a different kind of sausage wrapping.
That's what's going on. Sure it's an assault on the First Amendment but what's the big deal about that?
It's really a brilliant move, by defining a "ban" as "not free from the government". The Statists can argue for well... anything.
Glenn Reynolds responding to Michael Brendan Dougherty at Business Insider.
The big lie behind all this is that somehow allowing some employers not to pay for this kind of coverage amounts to a “contraception ban.”
Republicans are coming to steal your ladyparts!!!!!!
Meanwhile, I think we should require every employer to buy every employee a gun. Otherwise, you’re being denied the right to bear arms.
I've got no problem with whatever contraceptives you wanna take. But I have a problem when you expect the state should be able to extort someone else to cough up the money to pay for 'em.
Both Tam and Bobby have some cheery thoughts today.
A taste. From Tam:
Palin, Christie, Thompson, or Daniels could have beaten Barry like a pinata. What do they know that I don't?
The only rational supposition is that anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that the brass ring has 100,000 volts flowing through it and therefore wouldn't grab it on a bet.
Tam's post itself is good too. Heh, tennis ball.
As the "compromise" offers were described, it occurred to me that none of the principals involved in figuring them out had grasped the futility of offering what amounts to plausible deniability and a system of cut-outs to people who operate in the certainty that an omniscient Deity is keeping track. This kind of mess is exactly what the First Amendment was supposed to cause the fed.gov to avoid. See what happens when you try to cheat the operating system? --No, they don't.
Really what's the worst that could happen? It's not like anyone other than a good progressive could take up the organs of the state.
As Robb Allen explains.
But you, as the “All hail the mighty government who is the only one who can decide how we should live every last part of our lives (except guns because I like guns)” have NO reason to bitch about Santorum. YOUR kind continue to vote more and more power to the government to make sure people make the right choices, stop fucking complaining when Mr. Jesus gets elected and decides he wants to use all that power in ways you don’t like.
I have a Canadian friend that does the same thing with Harper. You see it's really, really bad when a Conservative PM uses the organs of the state to his own ends. What did he think that there's certain government powers that only the Liberals or New Democrats can wield?
If your plan for governance relies on having only “the right” people in office who pinky swear to not abuse their vast power (or at least only abuse it in the “right” way), then you’re no better than a monarchist rooting around for a “good king”.
Robb Allen Again
It’s dishonest, but that’s to be expected when you cannot remain philosophically consistent (ie. the gov’t has no place in our bedrooms unless Uncle Sam is there to place a condom by the pillow).
No company should be required to provide you with X. If you disagree with that, don’t come bitching to me when the gov’t requires these companies to start providing Chic Tracts with the Trojans because you allowed them the power to do so.
It's just like those Progressive ideas to get at Fox news and Koch. They don't realize the pandora's box they're opening with this stuff.
Then again they were never against "Bush's Unconstitutional War for Oil and Gitmo." They were against "Bush'sUnconstitutional War for Oil and Gitmo."
53% of liberal Democrats support keeping Gitmo open. Just a coincidence that they saw the light I guess.
Gee... it's almost like giving the State unrestrained power invites abuse.