The contraception mandate and you: the religious debate

President Obama has gotten more than he bargained for with the fire fight he is facing with religious groups over a mandate that even religious organizations include birth control as part of their insurance coverage. What was originally framed as a step in the right direction for woman's rights and universal healthcare quickly turned into a constitutional debate over the president's ability to force specific coverage onto everyone, including religious groups.

The president's so called 'accommodation' was nothing but a shell game: the mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles. The very first amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions. (Texas Attorney General)

The Texas Attorney General's argument is weak at best and I call into question his understanding of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The mandate is not directed at religious groups, but rather the insurance companies themselves. Are religious groups affected? Sure they are but then again they are also part of the greater population so any decision that applies to the United States as a whole affects them. Greg Abbott, as are religious groups, are linking the idea that insurance companies offering contraception methods as part of insurance plans somehow "authorize(s) conduct that conflicts with their religious principles" but I beg to differ. Something like 42% of women use contraception methods for something other than preventing pregnancies (the real reason religious groups are up in arms) - let's just ignore that for the time being since the religious groups are.

Let's take a tangent real quick before we continue and look at my experiences with sex and religion. I was raised a Catholic. Went to Catholic school for 10 years of my life and have a pretty good understanding of the mindset utilized by similar groups. Since sex education was a required thing growing up, we were taught three basic ideas:

1. Only way to not get pregnant is to not have sex. Actually was told numerous time:  "the use of any contraceptive is a sin"


2. You need to wait until you're married to have sex


3. If you have sex with more than one person, you will get a STD for life

Pretty grim stuff if you ask me, but the reality was that it was only part of the truth. If you read into these ideas a little, you sense a fear factor rather than that of love and compassion. Why is that? Why was the church pushing a harsher reality onto students in their early years? Plain and simple - they have always done it. My interpretation of the church is that if the general public were left to their own devices, morality would not exist and the integrity of people would be that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Since the church has little physical influence over the personal lives of their employees (free will), another avenue of control is required - making birth control somewhat fiscally out of reach through not providing it in insurance plans. You won't find any studies published on the cold, hard number of people who classify themselves as religious and their use of contraceptives but I'll go out on a limb and say that more than 80% of married couples practice it in some form.

I'm going to pull the religious card here. I was always taught that people are tested while here on earth but every decision was yours, including the decision to sin or not follow the church. How is the abstinence from contraceptives offered by an insurance company any different? The answer is it's not.

Enough tangent, back to the argument. Religious groups can harp all day on moral issues of offering birth control as part of their insurance plans but the reality that they do not want to face is that, regardless of it being available in the insurance plan, their congregation would still practice contraception methods in some form. The other side of the argument, that some how they are subsidizing the use of contraceptives is totally crazy. The mandate specifically says that rates will not go up as a result of this. Let's look at the insurance company for a minute because this is the best thing that could have happened for them. The insurance costs of raising a child are enormous compared to providing birth control so it's a win-win for them.

Obama is not shoving contraception down the throats of everyone but merely making it financially available to everyone. That's it. It's the person's decision to take it or not. Because it is a free will decision, arguing that this mandate violates the First Amendment is absurd. Now if it was "crazy religious fanatics are required to take birth control every day" then you have something, but merely making something available to the greater public and arguing it violates your rights? Give me a break.

The contraception mandate and you: the religious debate

President Obama has gotten more than he bargained for with the fire fight he is facing with religious groups over a mandate that even religious organizations include birth control as part of their insurance coverage. What was originally framed as a step in the right direction for woman's rights and universal healthcare quickly turned into a constitutional debate over the president's ability to force specific coverage onto everyone, including religious groups.

The president's so called 'accommodation' was nothing but a shell game: the mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles. The very first amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions. (Texas Attorney General)

The Texas Attorney General's argument is weak at best and I call into question his understanding of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The mandate is not directed at religious groups, but rather the insurance companies themselves. Are religious groups affected? Sure they are but then again they are also part of the greater population so any decision that applies to the United States as a whole affects them. Greg Abbott, as are religious groups, are linking the idea that insurance companies offering contraception methods as part of insurance plans somehow "authorize(s) conduct that conflicts with their religious principles" but I beg to differ. Something like 42% of women use contraception methods for something other than preventing pregnancies (the real reason religious groups are up in arms) - let's just ignore that for the time being since the religious groups are.

Let's take a tangent real quick before we continue and look at my experiences with sex and religion. I was raised a Catholic. Went to Catholic school for 10 years of my life and have a pretty good understanding of the mindset utilized by similar groups. Since sex education was a required thing growing up, we were taught three basic ideas:

1. Only way to not get pregnant is to not have sex. Actually was told numerous time:  "the use of any contraceptive is a sin"


2. You need to wait until you're married to have sex


3. If you have sex with more than one person, you will get a STD for life

Pretty grim stuff if you ask me, but the reality was that it was only part of the truth. If you read into these ideas a little, you sense a fear factor rather than that of love and compassion. Why is that? Why was the church pushing a harsher reality onto students in their early years? Plain and simple - they have always done it. My interpretation of the church is that if the general public were left to their own devices, morality would not exist and the integrity of people would be that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Since the church has little physical influence over the personal lives of their employees (free will), another avenue of control is required - making birth control somewhat fiscally out of reach through not providing it in insurance plans. You won't find any studies published on the cold, hard number of people who classify themselves as religious and their use of contraceptives but I'll go out on a limb and say that more than 80% of married couples practice it in some form.

I'm going to pull the religious card here. I was always taught that people are tested while here on earth but every decision was yours, including the decision to sin or not follow the church. How is the abstinence from contraceptives offered by an insurance company any different? The answer is it's not.

Enough tangent, back to the argument. Religious groups can harp all day on moral issues of offering birth control as part of their insurance plans but the reality that they do not want to face is that, regardless of it being available in the insurance plan, their congregation would still practice contraception methods in some form. The other side of the argument, that some how they are subsidizing the use of contraceptives is totally crazy. The mandate specifically says that rates will not go up as a result of this. Let's look at the insurance company for a minute because this is the best thing that could have happened for them. The insurance costs of raising a child are enormous compared to providing birth control so it's a win-win for them.

Obama is not shoving contraception down the throats of everyone but merely making it financially available to everyone. That's it. It's the person's decision to take it or not. Because it is a free will decision, arguing that this mandate violates the First Amendment is absurd. Now if it was "crazy religious fanatics are required to take birth control every day" then you have something, but merely making something available to the greater public and arguing it violates your rights? Give me a break.

Nukes for the environment

So the US approved the first nuclear reactors since 1979 with the Three Mile Island boogie. The real question is why this is the first approval since then? Why does this approval come so close to the near catastrophe in Japan? Heck Germany (the ones trying to tell everyone else how to run their balance sheets) has gone as far to say they are going to shut down all of their reactors to avoid the same potential fate as Japan. Now that the approvals are out in the open, I suspect you'll start seeing more sensational news reporting on radiation leaks at existing plants - heck in VT there were reports of radioactive fish being caught right outside the cooling towers sparking mass hysteria. A majority of media outlets are leaving out details, such as testing at the facilities report no radiation leaks and that other fish in the same stream at the other end of the state, 150 miles away, have the same radiation levels - good little tidbit which changes the severity of the situation. Not to mention, in America we don't build reactors on fault lines or earthquake central.

Not all that long ago, I lived 10 miles from an aging plant. Sure it wasn't the greatest landmark the area has known, but I really didn't mind it. Some of my lesser intelligent friends were even concerned for my life, I was moving so close to a reactor after all. These same friends also think that radiation causes three legged frogs and birth defects: lead and fertilizers cause that stuff, all radiation does is kill you or give you cancer. All I have to say is it's about damn time the flukes on capital hill moved along something that is actually beneficial to the prosperity of this great nation. There has never been a better thing for the environment than nuclear power - it's basically steam on steroids. No real waste products, no hazardous green house gases and jigga-what-whats (see what I did there?) of power for the masses. Sure you need to bury the spent fuel rods in barren deserts forever, but is that really all that bad?

All I can say is, mother nature loves nuclear power and I'm sure the tree huggers are loving this. Plus it just might drive the cost of electricity down to where plug-in electric cars are cost effective in a person's lifetime.

Iranian agression or puffs of smoke

Iran upped the ante in their most recent attempts to catch the ire of the world by conducting a new series of war games - this time in the air. You know, paper airplanes and surface to air missiles that always miss their mark. More than likely this is in response to some of the fluff floating around on the interwebs concerning Israel's likely hood of launch air strikes to delay Iran's ever vigilant quest for the power of the atom. Mr Poopy Pants, otherwise known as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (for those of you living under rocks he's the supreme ruler of Iran not to be confused with Mr Douchebag Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), recently talked about eliminating the state of Israel from the world forum - who would have thunk it?

Every one should really appreciate radical thinkers, you know the ones that think outside the box but Iran might be fingering the wrong country here to pick a fight with. Let's look at war as a pure numbers game: Iran expends roughly $7 billion a year (2010 estimates) versus Israel's $13 billion. Iran certainly talks the big talk but Israel walks the big walk - heck almost their entire air force is comprised of US born jets. Let's not forget Israel's largest backer - the US government (military expenditures on the order of almost $700billion for a point of reference).

Staying on that numbers game, Israel totes a lean 176,000 active troops at any one time versus Iran's 550,000. Money doesn't buy u everything but it certainly buys you the latest gagetry to blow your enemy away with. Maybe a good way to look at it is to compare the dollar per active troop in assessing an all out brawl between the two: Israel - $74k versus Iran's $13k - more than 550% difference. I know if I had to pick the military to join, I'd go with the one spending more money.

Given the recent slue of empty threats coming out of Iran as of late, I wouldn't be surprised by a sudden mass air strike spear headed by Israel (maybe even a little US involvement). Like the little kid in the school yard, eventually he can no longer take it and beats the piss out of the bully. It's not like Israel has really cared in the past about this sort of stuff anyway (see any number of disproportionate responses to aggressions by enemies of Israel - like the 'Gaza War' where ~1100 Palestinian's died versus 13 Israelis, 4 of which were friendly fire).

Pakistan is also in the process of shooting themselves in the foot by saying any act of aggression towards Iran will bring them into the mix. Oh no, we don't support terrorists (see the leaked UN memo on Pakistan's terror involvement or the countless CIA drone strikes for counter evidence) which makes our involvement in something like this more of a religious zeal than anything else. That's going to be an interesting situation when the US suddenly drops all aid to the country (actually $700million is already frozen by lawmakers since Pakistan can't get their act together). Will Pakistan stick to their guns and come to Iran's aid? Only time will tell.

If a fight does break out in the Middle East, it's not going to be pretty. Right now we're talking about Iran, Pakistan, Israel and through association the United States. Remember kiddies, the US is just after Iranian oil afterall...