Obama and the Contraceptive Accommodation

I guess one of the things I find most appealing about Facebook is the access to information and opinion from my friends that I don’t find elsewhere. And I think the impersonal dialogue that exists through the site gives people incentive to write things they might not normally say during a conversation. For me personally it provides a gateway to my friends’ point-of-view that normally I do not think I would know. The contraception “controversy” dogging President Obama through the last couple of weeks has again provided a basis for some personal introspection on my part, some friendly banter on Facebook, and some evolving perspective on the issue.

It started with a link of mine to an article on Truthout.Org describing how this contraception issue is mostly being drummed by a partisan right-wing agenda to shift the upcoming presidential election towards social issues rather than the economy. The reason being this issue of having employers (including religious institutions) provide birth control care in their insurance plans has been law since 2000 and the Bush administration coming into office did absolutely nothing to appeal the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ruling that denying contraceptive care is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination based on sex. So, clearly, this was never a problem until a democrat was in office and then it became an ‘example’ of “government overreach by this administration”.

My point in linking the article was to highlight this GOP hypocrisy, but a friend commented about the ruling itself, having also fallen into the trap that the government is only now overstepping its bounds (and never did in the previous 8 years of the Bush presidency). He mocked that toothpaste will be the next thing the government will require employers to cover in their insurance plans. I responded that that was ridiculous because toothpaste is over-the-counter, and further tried to make my point that I was not addressing the contraception issue per se (for my views on it were initially that I think religious organizations should be allowed to deny birth control coverage based on freedom of religion), but, again, the hypocrisy of the GOP to make this an issue now. My friend then posted this:

“Here’s what I think. I read an article about how England lost their right to own firearms. It started slowly and pitted gun owners against each other. The government first outlawed automatic firearms. This only affected persons who owned automatic firearms so everyone else who owned semi-autos, bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Next the government outlawed semi-autos. So everyone that owned bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Then they outlawed bolt actions and so on and so forth. In England, all firearms owners should have stood together to fight the bans whether it affected them of not, but they didn’t and the government was able to break them down piece by piece. I see this contraception deal as the same thing. Non-Catholics are saying, 'Why do we care? We believe in contraception and preventative pregnancy.' What non-Catholics should be saying is, 'We do not share the Catholic Church’s belief on contraception, but we stand behind them in their Constitutional right to believe and practice their religious views.' This isn’t about me being Republican and you being Democrat. This is about a slippery slope. This is the first step toward the Government impeding the free exercise of religion. This isn’t some conspiracy theory,[sic] it’s just what governments eventually do.”

After pointing out that my friend should read Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came...” quote on the rise of Nazi Germany, I dove into an argument showing how I think President Obama’s shift to exempt religious organizations/businesses from this Affordable Care Act requirement was a “slippery slope” inclined the other way. (Note: the administration is now shifting the burden of covering contraception to insurance companies.) In my view, offering this accommodation to businesses with religious affiliations creates the opportunity for other businesses to deny contraceptive coverage, not only because they might have a moral/religious objection to contraception, but because they might want to save a little money instead of provide care to their employees. What were to happen if one of the largest insurance companies in the country decided that they had moral objections to contraception because some of their top executives suddenly became devout 'Catholics'? And when businesses are granted special privileges, why can’t a state or local government not be offered these same exemptions to discriminate against women for contraceptive use? And the current GOP front runner for the presidential nomination is Rick Santorum, who has been running on a staunchly evangelical platform and wants a Constitutional Amendment banning all contraceptives. This outcome seems like the next step in accommodating one religious group, or in reality what we should classify the Catholic Church as, this one business. The more I think about this issue, the more I side with President Obama’s initial take on this (and the one the EEOC deemed in 2000) is that no one group should be allowed to discriminate from any one group.

And I think it bears to mention, that Ron Paul, who has a strong backing all over the country for the GOP nomination, believes the Civil Rights Act was itself unconstitutional and should be repealed, and by extension would disagree with the EEOC’s ruling. Paul, a long-serving Texas Congressman, seems to me a very dangerous individual to have in office. Congressman Paul thinks that if a business, a person, or really anybody, wants to discriminate against a race, a sex, or any other group they have it within their rights to do so. Paul does not seem to understand that one individual’s freedom cannot be limitless. According to Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher, individual freedom extends only to the cusp of infringing on another’s freedom. Sure, you have the right to own a gun, but if your right to have that gun to kill me infringes on my right to life, then you should have to relinquish that right. Such are the basis for laws. Such balance is the basis for the Civil Rights Act, and the mandate in the Affordable Care Act to require employers to cover contraception. Government has an obligation to protect the citizenry no matter of race, religion, or creed. It has an obligation to thwart any person or entity who wishes to restrict the autonomy of another.

Rand Paul Must Hate Education

Since Tuesday Rand Paul, the winner of the Kentucky republican primary has seen a lot of press. The son of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has had a bit of controversy flare up in response to some comments made about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its relation to the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause's requirement of the states to provide said protection under the law to all citizens of its jurisdiction. The primary winner stated ambiguously that he would have passed the Civil Rights Act "differently" because of "Title II" of the act, which prohibits private businesses from discriminating against people based on race. Rand tried to back his position by leaning against what has become, for some reason, an infallible, sacrosanct Bill of Rights. Rand's defense was to say we shouldn't trample freedom of speech and that basically should one want to discriminate against another, that's all well and good and we'll not say anything, or do anything cause it's their right to discriminate.

Surely this view will not, and did not, sit well with many in the media. Political analysts, serving congressmen and women, and bloggers erupted over his comments. (Hey, here's another one!) I want to focus my attention on something that I haven't seen much of however. There's been scores of articles, opinions on just how close to racism Dr. Paul is approaching with his comments, but I think there is something more missing. Dr. Paul is stating, by saying that it's okay to discriminate and that we should allow people to do so, that people do not change, and we (or government) ought not try to change them. In other words, Dr. Paul is making an argument against education and its ability to shine light in the darkest recesses of thought, reason, and prejudice. Education is supposed to change us, to show us right when we are wrong, and to strengthen our beliefs when it validates what we already know.

Rand Paul's view of humanity seems bleak to me, stated perfectly by his Democratic opponent Jack Conway: "cold and callous." Paul stated, in response to the uproar, that he "unequivocally" does not condone discrimination, nor discriminates himself, but that others do, and it's okay for them to do so. This is simply illogical. If Dr. Paul isn't discriminatory towards other races then somewhere throughout his life he has learned that all people are equal, and valuable to society and humanity. But allowing others to hold beliefs that say otherwise and purporting that that is okay is unequivocally stating that other people cannot learn the same as he did and is excusing their behavior. I wonder if Paul thinks God will sort out the righteous non-discriminators from the impious discriminators in the end, relieving him and others of moral judgment. Paul should know about religion and God; he's been attending the Presbyterian church in his town since his family moved there and calls himself a Christian. Must have slipped his mind, that oft repeated obscure passage about, jeez, what was it, oh right: Mark 12:31 "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Too bad the Bible can't teach us how to be better people...

Dr. Paul does put a lot of faith in Christianity and its ability to teach humanity saying we do not need laws so long as everyone is Christian (I'd really like to pick his brain about The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the persecution of the Jews in World War II!). Though he must think, since it's okay to discriminate and others can't be taught not to be prejudice as he was taught, that missions and the missionary work being done in hundreds of countries across the globe, and indeed in our very own country, is a big waste of time. I mean, these non-Christian people "discriminate," or don't believe, in the Christian life so we might as well let them be and not worry because it's okay for them not to hold the same beliefs as everyone else. He must think missionaries trying to teach a Christian, moral code is pointless, and violates the non-believers' rights of opinion, and freedom of religion. I can't believe Rand Paul isn't standing up and saying "Hey, don't try to change them. They're individuals and have their own thoughts and we need to respect that and God forbid [pun intended] we try teaching them otherwise." I can't wait for Rand to come out in favor of gay rights (government shouldn't discriminate either, right Rand?), as this article opines the issue.

Dr. Paul, the Bill of Rights was the foundation of law for our country, but even our founding fathers knew the laws were not perfect, and that history, societies evolve, and with that evolution, the law should change as well. The allowance of amendments to the Constitution was a necessity to ensure we can fulfill the requirements of our present time, any present time, with the notion of liberty and justice for all men and women. The Bill of Rights, our initial Constitution, was the building block to a great society, but was utterly flawed from the outset (no person is 3/5 of a whole). Just as we no longer believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Civil Rights Movement and the laws associated with it should teach us that freedom is the inherent right of all citizens and none should infringe on the rights of another in a fully just society. Your draconian, antiquated ideals logically do not support the current world in which we live.