I continue to be appalled that the Administration consistently refers to contraceptive services as a right. I want to know who is baring people from using contraceptive services.
Even the Catholic Church practices contraception, it’s called not having sex. Everyone has a right to practice free contraception. For women that would mean keeping your legs crossed and for men that would mean keeping it in your pants.
I’m not interested in paying for anyone’s contraception when it’s already available for free.
If it’s mandated in insurance coverage then we are all paying for it. I’m a woman and I’m more than willing to pay for my choices in contraception. I don’t want anyone else paying for those choices.
If other people pay be sure that at some point they will dictate your choices. What disturbs me the most is the idea that the we are mandated to provide contraceptive services because it’s a right.
Owning a gun is a right but I don’t see the Government buying me a Glock anytime soon. A Government that becomes the ultimate arbiter of rights is tyranny. Rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator.
You are spot on. The most telling statement you make is “If other people pay be sure that at some point they will dictate your choices.”
For whatever reason, sheeple on the left are more than willing to surrender both their and your liberty for bread and circuses. If they want to shackle themselves to the man for free stuff, that’s their foolishness, but Dr. J. draws the line were their foolishness impacts his liberties.
Regarding Guv’mint firearms, Dr. J. would much prefer a crossbow to a glock. You know when they are loaded and any intruder will be freaked if he finds himself with a bolt through his thigh…
Operative FJR wrote again since then (on the back of the prior email, no less):
Don’t know if you have been following the bill before the VA State legislature but there has been a lot of media “buzz” about the bill. The short story on the bill is that it requires a woman to have an ultrasound 24 hrs before an abortion and the ultrasound data must be made available to the woman. There are a few exemptions but those are the basics of the bill. You can read the actual House bill here.
The media and the “pro-choice” people have created a firestorm over the bill. Not unlike the firestorm over HHS mandate the pro-choice folks have demonized the conservatives. “Conservatives are restricting a women’s right to health care, they are mandating invasive medical procedures, they are coming between and woman and her doctor” and to quote a poster on friend’s FB page “ Because women cannot be trusted to make decisions without an extra cooling off period. ‘you just go on home and think about this some more, little lady.’ Totally insulting to women.”
When I responded that the bill is about making sure women make informed decisions and folks like to pretend like this is all about the woman but there is another life involved I got accused of wanting to shame women. When I suggested that this had nothing to do with shame it was suggested that abortion was safer than pregnancy to term. I cited a Finnish study that concluded that abortion was not safer than pregnancy to term I got accused of using poorly researched data and called “anti-choice”. I finally threw up my hands and said “This little game of my statistics are more valid than your statistics is amusing but we are still talking about the destruction of another person. I don’t think that is a statistic that can be ignored.”
It’s hard for me to understand how someone refuses to see that this decision involves two other people besides the woman. There was a man involved at conception and now there is a baby involved. This isn’t about choice, this is about life. I’m totally frustrated and fear I may not have any FB friends left after this election cycle.
Dr. J. doesn’t know much about abortin’ but he knows a thing or two about ultrasound.
His understanding is that ultrasound (surface or transvaginal depending on the age of the baby in utero) is routine to make sure that the baby is in the uterus, rather than ectopic, and also to determine the age of the baby. Apparently that information is important in order for the provider (because Dr. J. can’t bring himself to call the abortionist a doctor) to decide if and/or how he or she is going to terminate the child.
To be intellectually honest, the purpose of the bill is to decrease the number of abortions, a good thing. The bill does this by showing the mother what her child looks like before she lets a provider kill it. It is hoped that this would shock her to her senses that a living breathing (ok, living, and ventilating via placenta) human being is growing inside of her and that her maternal instincts will drive her away from killing it.
Now Dr. J. is deliciously evil, and a big fan of imaging technology, so if he were drafting this law, he would have mandated that a 3D ultrasound be performed, paid for by the abortion provider regardless of the abortion provider’s beliefs regarding whether the baby is a living being or a clump of tissue.
Thanks for writing in.