Rick Santorum is picking up steam these days in spite of himself and some ardent supporters. After all, I think the whole aspirin between the knees bit is a bit worn out. Santorum suggested there was a double standard in how Obama was treated following the Jeremiah Wright flap. Apparently, Obama was given a pass. I don't seem to remember it that way, but let's just take the man on his own words.
He said that Obama was the most hostile president towards religion that we have ever had. He had a theology that was no based on Christianity but based on something else. This is of course in response to the whole flap about contraception and whether Catholic organizations should be forced to pay for contraception through insurance. They'll pay for Viagra, but that is besides the point. The issue for Santorum is whether the federal government should be spending federal dollars on something that is morally questionable.
Indeed. He may be a good Christian, but he ain't much of an historian or constitutional scholar. If the litmus test on the legality of spending was based on whether there were moral objections then the federal government wouldn't spend a dime. Who knows, maybe that is what he is after. We would never go to war because those same Catholics find most wars to objectionable. I surely don't want my tax dollars going to some effort to maintain our economic interests abroad.
Furthermore, I don't like guns and find them to be morally objectionable. So, I suppose we should scratch that second amendment off the books. I think everyone is getting the picture. There is a significant different between subsidizing something that some people may disagree with and forcing people to do it. Make no mistake, this isn't about religious beliefs. Most Catholics and most Catholic organizations are already on board with the compromise. The Republican party and American bishops are not. As an ardent Catholic I fully understand and support the bishops' rights to defend something they fervently believe. Heck, some would even call that freedom of religion and speech. The difficulty comes in the fact that the majority of their flock (in particular Catholic women) do not agree with them and certainly do not practice what the bishops preach.
This is really an extension of the rest of the first amendment and how much government chooses to support that expression. It is similar to the National Endowment of the Arts and its support of controversial artists. Yes, a majority may not approve, but in this case I think the vast majority is on the side of Obama. Poll numbers certainly suggest that much. Just because the government supports contraception financially doesn't mean you have to avail yourself of it. No one is going to stuff the pill down your throat, so you can still continue to believe what you want.
No one is going to arrest you if you speak out about it and say you don't agree with contraception. No first amendment rights have been violated. Moreover, all women's 14th amendment rights to equal rights under the law supersede that. If I have the right to have my insurance pay for Viagra, Cialis, Extenze, or the Swedish penis enlarger then women should be able to get coverage for the birth control pill or whatever form of contraception they feel is appropriate for them. Just like I don't have to take a pill and lie in a bath with my wife, women don't have to avail themselves of those measures either. It's this wonderful thing called choice.
Thanks! Would you please forward your comments to the numbskulls in Congress?
Well said, Scott. Great post.