HHS-Mandate

Okay. A friend of mine just posted this on Facebook, and I just really need to say something.

For starters: no one is trying to ban contraception. Can we please just accept this and move on? All the religious organizations are asking for is a conscience clause to be added so we don’t have to pay for someone else’s contraception. It’s just like we would never expect a Jewish rabbi to buy a year’s worth of pork for us, but we don’t claim that he’s trying to “ban pork." 

Going onto the argument at hand, comparing saving someone drowning to someone getting an abortion is unfair. From the viewpoint of someone who is against abortion, the act of getting an abortion is killing a human life (and science nor anything else has suggested or proven otherwise). So in order for the lifejacket comparison to be fair, one must include that if that person wearing the lifejacket begins to drown, a human sacrifice must be made in order to save that person. Although we are not trying to ban contraception, I believe that if this were the case in order to make lifejackets effective, there would be a movement to ban lifejackets. 

But no, comparing saving someone’s life in a situation where no one else has to die in order to do so, is not the same as an abortion. Studies have shown that the use of sunscreen increases one’s likeliness to spend great amounts of time in the sun, because they feel safe, even if it says to reapply every two hours, and they’ve been on the beach for four. This is comparable to contraception. Sex would not be so readily acted out if there were no such thing as contraception. The thing is, studies show that it is only 99% effective when it is both the pill and a condom used at once. We all know that it isn’t perfect, just as sunscreen isn’t perfect. No one laughs at the study that shows sunscreen encourages unsafe sun exposure, so why is it laughable that contraception would encourage unsafe sexual behavior? 

All the while, with lifejackets and sunscreen, you are not putting anyone else’s life at risk. I would be willing to bet that if someone tried to develop a lifejacket that included a baby carrier, it would be banned, because then someone, who cannot do anything to save themselves, else’s life is in jeopardy if a situation arose where the lifejacket needed to be used. 

No one is trying to fight adoption. If you find yourself "in this mess” of an unwanted pregnancy because the contraception failed, or you were “pushed” into the water, no one is suggesting you be forced to drown. It is disgusting to live in a world where the idea of giving a baby away is much less tolerated than ending the baby’s life. If a mother were to have a baby, and six months into the baby’s life, decide that it was too much work and making her depressed, no one would find it acceptable for the mother to then kill the baby.

Also, it is true: the only 100% effective way to prevent drowning is to avoid the water. Why is this a ridiculous idea? 

In a society where everyone’s beliefs are considered ultra sensitive and worth protecting, I cannot understand why the religious people are seen as the crazy ones. It does not make sense to me that those who do not want to distribute contraception or pay for another person’s abortion are somehow worthy of less respect and tolerance than people who religiously follow PETA or other organizations that actually want to make everyone follow their set of rules.

Certain religions believe that contraception is an act of evil. If you disagree, fine. Go ahead and use contraception. It’s similar to how Muslim women wear certain garb. What do you think would happen if feminists or others decided that this garb was oppressive to women, and tried to make them wear the same clothing we do? I understand that it’s not a point-for-point comparison, because those who want religious organizations to provide their contraception do not expect those who are opposed to contraception to use it, but the concept still holds through. Those religions who want an exemption believe the use of contraception is not good for the body, the soul, or society, just like many people believe that if someone were to go to work buzzed or hungover every day, it would not be healthy. If someone wants to go to work buzzed every day, that’s their prerogative, but do not expect those who think it is wrong to provide to those who do not see any problem with it.

If you’re in the water and begin to drown, by all means, use the lifejacket, so long as you do not pull the boatman into the water, take off his lifejacket, and force him to drown in the process. 

If we, as Catholics, decided to open a hospital right now, in order for us, under the present government definition of a religious institution, to remain Catholic enough to be a Catholic Institution, we would have to limit how many non-Catholics we admit and treat and how many non-Catholics we hire. Think about that. We would be forced to say to people “We can’t help you because we have already hit our ‘Catholic quota.’ You have to go somewhere else.”
—  Bishop Christopher Coyne (Indianapolis, aux.)
youtube

On February 27, the Catholic Information Center and the women’s web-magazine Altcatholicah cosponsored the panel discussion, “Women Challenging the HHS Mandate.” Here, panelist Gloria Purvis discusses how the HHS Mandate is anti-Woman and how Catholics need to get speak up on the issue.

The truth is beautiful. Worth the watch. 

youtube

Saw this video on Facebook and said “Hey I know that guy!” (I actually do.)

Catholic + Conviction + Camera = THIS.

Just a Few Questions

If Planned “Parenthood” is a private “charity”, as they call themselves, WHY THE HELL is the government supposed to fund them? 

If what goes on in your bedroom doesn’t affect me, then why should I have to pay for it? I guess it only affects me when you’re too lazy to pay for it yourself.

If there really IS separation between church and state, why is the state foisting all these frickin’ mandates on the Church and demanding that we comply? I guess it works only one way, huh?

Why don’t you just call these mandates what they really are? They’re not about “women’s rights,” “reproductive health,” or “supporting Planned ‘Parenthood.’” Why not just say what they really are? An attempt to dismantle the church! But no, you loving, tolerant, open-minded, diversely-opinionated people are just too fond of religious freedom to just admit to it. Religious freedom for the Muslims! Get the Christians outta here! And NO, I’m not against Islam! But the ONLY religion that is TRULY being attacked is Christianity, and specifically the Catholic Church. 

Let me just get this out there. 

When you mess with a Church that’s been around for 2,000 years, survived persecution from the Romans, the English, and the Mexicans (just to name a few), you’re gonna have one heck of a bad time. 

youtube

Congressman Gowdy makes a fool of Kathleen Sebelius over the HHS mandate.

Just because YOU don’t think it’s wrong to buy contraceptives for the general public, Sebelius, doesn’t mean WE have to believe it’s right. Stop forcing YOUR beliefs on US.