Sex And The Single Minded

You never know with these guys: whereas I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, cemented as is his mind around 12th century Catholicism, I've sometimes thought Newt and Mitt know they're pandering and lying, while assuming their audience consists of idiots when they say stuff. But I could be wrong.

The contraception froth is a perfect example.

Watching the above clip covers the hypocrisy and deception pretty well. And who could be surprised that Rs are trying like hell to convince people that their dudgeon is about attacks on religious liberty? After all, it fits perfectly with the imaginary Obama they're trying so hard to create. Like Jon Stewart, I'll ignore the obvious: that the administration's mandate for contraception coverage provides exceptions for religious organizations; that churches pay no taxes; that, despite Bill O'Reilly's deep offense taken, we're not talking about taxpayer money. (I suppose there's hard work involved in finding a ghost writer for his books, and maybe sometimes his limo driver doesn't open the door fast enough for him, but bloviating on TV and shouting at people hardly qualifies as "hard-earned money," the way I see it.)

Contortions are required (and ignored) in order to make this about religious freedom. No one is forcing anyone to abandon their religious beliefs and use contraception. To cover birth control for employees who don't follow your teachings is nothing of the sort, although it's pretty easy to convince a teabagger that it is. Nor is contraception the only health care item covered by insurance to which certain people can and do raise objections, or refuse to partake of themselves (while benefitting, in terms of lower health care costs, from the fact that others do: genetic testing, immunizations, blood transfusions...) In my state, it's mandated that such ineffective bullshit as aromatherapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, et al., are covered by insurers. And in that case, by contrast to the aforementioned, the costs to non-participants are raised, for obvious reasons.

So, what is it really about? Here's what I think: it's about trying to cash in on the RWS™ promoted fake sense of persecution by Christians. Jump on an issue, claim religious persecution, let the votes (and money) roll in.

And, of course, it's about undisguised disregard for women, especially outspoken ones. Sexually liberated ones. Corollarily, it's about the ubiquitous, bogus, and hypocritical "family values" so dear to the hearts of so many right-wingers. For them, contraception connotes immorality, whether or not you're a papist. The question, I suppose, is which formulation will take hold with how many people: the RWS™ claim of war on religion, or the Democrats' calling it a war on women. Given actual facts, the ring of truth is with the latter, not that it'll make any difference to those who've been told to believe otherwise.

In fact, you can learn all you need to see the truth of it by asking yourself this: given RWS™ moralizing about contraception coverage (which actually has medical benefits for women beyond birth control), why haven't we heard similar outrage over the fact that most insurers cover vasectomy, which is only about birth control? Think it has anything to do with who's in charge, and what dangles between their legs? Or about double standards when it comes to sexual activity?