Perhaps the greatest irony today about modern American liberals is that while they attack Republicans for wanting to limit their choices, they support policies which limit our choices.
They’ll lecture us about women’s health and the benefits of contraception, saying that individual women should be free to decided questions of sexual health (as well they should). But, then they praise the federal government for dictating to an individual business owner what kind of health insurance he should provide — even if that provision violates the tenets of his faith.
The same government that call dictate to a Catholic business owner the policies he must adopt can also dictate to a lesbian physician the policies she should adopt in her clinic.
Should a lesbian physician concerned about the inadequacy of health care facilities tending to the particular concerns of women like herself be able to open up a clinic staffed only by women catering exclusively to lesbian, bisexual and transgender women? Could the government, in the interest of “equality,” require that this clinic serve men?
Perhaps, under current law, it could. And if it could, we should take away its power to deprive that woman of her freedom to establish such a clinic–and strip women of the freedom to seek care at a woman-only facility.
Just as this (hypothetical) lesbian physician should be free to establish an institution providing “woman-centered” health care so should a Catholic humanitarian be able to decide the conditions covered in the health insurance policy his institution offers its employees.
Horrible analogy.
The Democrat Party has been infested with Communists who want nothing more to CONTROL everything in our lives; they want the United States to be a dictatorship with their iron rules. The Republicans need to say the current Democrat leadership are Communists.
Levi, please tell me why you believe this to be a horrible analogy. Thanks.
“Women’s health” is rapidly becoming just another synonym for “abortion;” the procedure that liberals absolutely love but are too ashamed to call by its real name.
The analogy is terrific. I guarandamnteeyou that no university would be stopped from having a lesbian, bisexual, transgender women’s center. Nor would it be stopped from having health services that fit the specific health needs for the women who frequent the center.
Furthermore, if the woman adds vegetarian to her list, the center would work with that qualification as well. And if the woman is atheist, they would accommodate that too. But what about Catholic? Would Levi draw the line at that?
Methinks he would.
So, we have this university center for the above described women and the noble university has worked out special health needs coordination for the women and along comes a Catholic bisexual woman who eschews contraception and abortion.
You can take it from there, Levi.
Is a “lesbian lesbian woman” actually straight? Or is she just from the island of lesbos? 😉
The liberal left has this amazing propensity to twist reasonable policy positions into tinfoil-hat-crazy-talk, and it’s amazing how many stupid people fall for it.
A conservative says: “State-run health care is inefficient, deprives people of choices, and is fiscally unsustainable.”
To a liberal, this becomes: “You hate sick people and want them to die.”
A conservative says: “The Government wastes too much money on projects that provide no public benefit and we can’t afford to do that any more.”
To a liberal, this becomes: “Republicans oppose building roads because it’s ‘socialism.'”
A conservative says: “The state has no business forcing employers, especially religious groups, to provide free contraceptives to their employees.”
The liberal twists this into: “Republicans are anti-sex and hate women.”
This is a big reason why it is impossible to have intelligent policy discussions.
Is it just me or does it seem like this whole kerfuffle over alleged “reproductive health” is transparently a scheme to shift the focus from Presidunce Corky McShortbus and his ABYSMAL record on the economy (and, frankly, EVERYTHING else) to something for “progressives” to be outraged about? Discuss.
Bastiat, that’s exactly what it’s about. Obamacrats don’t have a better set of solutions to our problems; hell, Geithner just admitted they don’t have *any* solutions. So, they have to gin up the dupes like Levi by telling them Republicans are racist/sexist/homophobic and get enough people to vote against their economic interests by convincing them that voting our of vengeance and resentment is more important.
It has been a broadly successful strategy. The Democrat and Media elite are made up of people whose wealth and privilege isolates them from the devastation of their policies.
Interesting to note that ObaMarx will smack Catholics around and then fall all over himself to apologize to Islamists in Afghanistan.
What a turd.
In other words, Dr. Dann, you’re spot on.
Since abortion is often used to eliminate unwanted baby girls, is this also a women’s health issue?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9103831/In-the-third-world-unwanted-baby-girls-disappear.-Its-called-gendercide.-And-its-happening-in-this-country-too.html#.T0m74HVf6EU.facebook
In November 2012, abort a Democrat from their office. Tell them it’s for their own good. Then flush.
From V’s link:
Nice.
And no doubt NY liberals adopted the ChiComm kids as fashion accessories while they cheer lead slaughtering of American kids as a “choice”.
I don’t even know where to start, the whole thing is a mess. Why do you think that’s a good analogy? Female anatomy being what it is, there are already clinics and doctors that specialize in women’s health. No one is going to force those specialists to treat men, why would they?
It just doesn’t make sense. You’re comparing employers interfering with their employee’s healthcare plans and healthcare providers that could be forced to treat different kinds of patients? An awful analogy.
??????????????
I don’t know what to say about this, other than that at least being gay or transgendered is a real thing that might have unique healthcare issues that requires physicians to specialize or obtain certain kinds of resources. But that’s hardly relevant. How you bozos can think that physicians denying care to certain individuals is anything like the situation with the Catholics and contraception is beyond me.
Wrong, Levi.
You have stated there are zero differences between the genders and that gender is never a valid basis for treating people differently.
As always, you were lying.
Of course this little nugget sums up Levi perfectly.
Levi, with his belief in undetectable magic rocks, believes that morals, ethics and faith are not ‘real’ and therefore should be ignored.
And how is the employer ‘interferring’ with the employee’s health care?
Uh, Levi, you missed the point:
We are speaking of dictating social justice here.
Levi wants to play the game that contraceptives and treating female patients are not parallel, therefore the analogy fails. But the premise is not the specific treatment. The premise concerns the dictate by the government of who must be served.
The dictate requires Catholic hospitals to serve up contraceptives and abortions to non-Catholics. In the second premise, the dictate forces the physician to provide equal services to men.
In the first premise, employees of Catholic hospitals know they are not covered for contraceptives in their insurance. They “accept” that fact as a part of accepting employment at the Catholic hospital.
In the second premise, women seek a lesbian physician who specializes in female plumbing and special health problems associated with sexual orientation. They accept the fact that their male relatives can not get treatment from that physician.
The government dictates that the Catholic hospital must provide contraceptives.
The government dictates that the lesbian physician must open her practice to men. Even if she, perhaps, hates men.
So, Levi, deal with it.
Apparently, you can not explain the rules by which one government dictate is reasonable and proper and explain the rules by which another government dictate is unreasonable and improper.
By the way, Hillary is saying that Syria has WMD’s. What did Bashar al-assad do to get her all worked up? Time for you to go ballistic before Obambi and Hillary go full-GW Bush on Syria. At least Saddam Hussein had a long record in the terrorism department.
See how analogies work?
Shocked! Shocked I am that Levi fails to comprehend something and then spews talking points.
Anytime the government gets an invitation to dictate anything (hello, Czars and Cabinet Members like Sebilius are not elected…vice actually having your elected officials vote on creating law) you will, at some point, live with those consequences. If, in the case of the lesbian doctor discussed above who has been catered to and supported by the government because it is the politically correct thing to do for liberals, suddenly finds herself operating her clinic under the mandates of an ultra-conservative, Sharia influenced government (look at the spread of Sharia law in non-Muslim countries such as the UK and France), she will have to deal with the mandates issued by that government. Such as clothing herself from head to toe in order to prevent men from making lewd passes at her so as to protect her…or stopping her from practicing medicine altogether unless she has a male family member present…or forcing her to provide a translator 24/7 for any foreign national lesbian who comes to her clinic (oh, sorry…that has already been mandated by a number of state governments…)…or, stones her to death for her sexual orientation, refusal to marry a man and bear his children, having sexual relations outside of marriage, etc. Or an evil man like GW Bush could be president and impose his evil will on everybody he disagrees with…that is why I fail to comprehend the liberal mind. If you grant the government rights over you, whoever is in power, now has rights over you.
YES! Spot on! I’m always saying the same thing about giving the government power. It’s ok until your side isn’t in charge anymore.
@ChrisH,
This is part of the reason I argue about the ‘correct’ way to do things. There’s nothing to prevent a court granted ‘right’ to be taken away from another court ‘revisiting’ the situation. Dred Scott was overturned, Brown v. Board, heck Lawrence ignored precident that was only a decade old!
It’s the concept of a limited Federal government that a lot of people miss.
It’s the difference between Baker v. Nelson and the Prop 8 case.
Baker v. Nelson: “There’s nothing in the federal constitution that defines ‘marriage’ so this isn’t a federal issue.”
Prop 8 “Well it’s clear the Founders would have intended to do this, so we’ll do it for them.”
The tenets of his faith? It’s very simple – as soon as religious organizations and people of faith engage in businesses that involve services to and hiring of people not of their faith, then they have to compromise. Not all patients at Catholic hospitals are catholic and neither are all their employees.
They’ve come into the secular world to do their business and they should adhere to secular rules and regulations like anyone else who work in those businesses. The truth is that more religious based (mostly catholic) are buying into hospitals across the country. In places where hospitals are scarce, it’s lame to believe that women have a choice. Even in metro areas it’s a burden – if a woman has her baby in one hospital, why should she have to go to another hospital for a relative simple tubal ligation?