The language of the opponents of the Catholic Church in the case of the HHS mandates is telling. In a recent editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and two others opine that:
So let’s remember who this controversy is really about—the women of America. Already too many women struggle to pay for birth control. According to the Hart Research survey cited above, more than one-third of women have reported having difficulty affording birth control. It can cost $600 a year for prescription contraceptives. That’s a lot of money for a mother working as a medical technician in a Catholic hospital, or a teacher in a private religious school.
Already too many women truggle to pay for birth control. But, if I follow this logic, they are entitled to it. And someone must pay. Other than themselves.
What I see happening here is an evolution of what is a "privacy right" given to us - and it is moving from being permission to provision. Such rights used to mean having the freedom to act in such a manner, with some limitations. Now it is being redefined to mean I deserve to have something. And as it is a "right", it must come to me without any effort on my part.
Those who have studied Constitutional law as it applies to sex and reproduction are familiar with the seminal US Supreme Court case, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479. In Griswold, Connecticut had a law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives. This case, in a nutshell, held that law to be unconstitutional as it violated a "right to marital privacy." Married couples should be able to buy contraceptives - not have them provided to them, but to choose to exercise a freedom and stroll into the corner pharmacy for a package of French letters (an antiquated slang term for condoms). In a subsequent case, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) 405 U.S. 438, the Supreme Court held that the same privacy extends to unmarried couples as well. Even the initial abortion case, the now famous Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113 held that the right to privacy extnded to a woman's choice to seek an abortion - and not to be provided with one.
However, that is simply not good enough for the social progressives. To them, a right should not be an individual's liberty to act, with that individual's weighing of the consequences - because not every right is absolute, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and be held blameless for any consequential panic that triggers a stanpeded where people are hurt - and understanding the limits of such a right. Rather, it is a handout to which the individual is entitled.
This is what the opponents of the Catholic Church really want - "it's about the choice of the individual," they cry, but they want a private entity - such as Notre Dame University or St. Joseph Hospital - to foot the bill for that individual's decision. Whether to procreate, how many children to have - yes, those remain protected by privacy rights. But by shifting the responsibility for the consequences, we see a diminishing individual in favor of another mouth to be fed by government - or, in this case, by a private organization forced to do so by government. No one would suggest a mother with 15 children should be denied welfare or asked to undergo sterilization as a condition to receive future tax-funded benefits, and in some cases, the attituide adopted is that such government largesse is an entitlement, a "right" that cannot be denied.
I wonder how far this evolution will go? We have seen already in the Occupy movement demands for public space to meet and plan their overthrow of Big Money/Capitalism/Koch Brothers/Wall Street and, when the local municipality fails to provide that by allowing them to take over an abandoned building and supply it with utilities, as has been seen in oakland, the hue and cry goes up that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech are being denied.
However, that is simply not good enough for the social progressives. To them, a right should not be an individual's liberty to act, with that individual's weighing of the consequences - because not every right is absolute, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and be held blameless for any consequential panic that triggers a stanpeded where people are hurt - and understanding the limits of such a right. Rather, it is a handout to which the individual is entitled.
This is what the opponents of the Catholic Church really want - "it's about the choice of the individual," they cry, but they want a private entity - such as Notre Dame University or St. Joseph Hospital - to foot the bill for that individual's decision. Whether to procreate, how many children to have - yes, those remain protected by privacy rights. But by shifting the responsibility for the consequences, we see a diminishing individual in favor of another mouth to be fed by government - or, in this case, by a private organization forced to do so by government. No one would suggest a mother with 15 children should be denied welfare or asked to undergo sterilization as a condition to receive future tax-funded benefits, and in some cases, the attituide adopted is that such government largesse is an entitlement, a "right" that cannot be denied.
I wonder how far this evolution will go? We have seen already in the Occupy movement demands for public space to meet and plan their overthrow of Big Money/Capitalism/Koch Brothers/Wall Street and, when the local municipality fails to provide that by allowing them to take over an abandoned building and supply it with utilities, as has been seen in oakland, the hue and cry goes up that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech are being denied.
But freedom of religion - well, despite the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the US Constitution, the State is loathe to say what constitutes the exercise of religion. It is "above their pay grade." So their solution seems to be . . . just ignore it. The churches, temples, meeting houses, mosques are being kept open and no one has told you that you cannot attend your services.
Tell you what - I will stay out of your bedroom, when you stay out of my wallet.
0 comments:
Post a Comment