U.S. Catholic bishops care more about sex than abortion

It's been nice to see as President Obama continued his streak of standing up for the correct policies by affirming that all employers, regardless of their religious affiliation, would have to provide health insurance that covers birth control at no cost to the employee. The Obama administration did allow one key exemption; which would allow churches themselves to not comply with the law, but church related institutions such as universities and hospitals must comply by next August 2013. Notably Catholic bishops were outraged as they vowed to fight the "HHS Edict," Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York stating, "the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences."

Devout Catholics have every right to be upset with this dogmatically, as any sex that is not for the sole purpose of procreation is a big NO-NO. People always think that the general requirement for sex is that you need one man and one woman to get married for intercourse to be acceptable. Nope, not if that married couple is using a condom, is on "the pill", the "ring", IUD, you name it, it's NOT OK with the Catholic Church. And from a purely religious standpoint that's cool.

But on a policy level, all this proves is that the Catholic Church cares way more about teens having sex than it does about preventing teens from getting pregnant and then having abortions. This new policy is likely to stop hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies from occurring and that means millions fewer abortions over time. You would think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops would be applauding the new regulation, but no, the Catholic Church has shown its cards and it is way more interested in being angry about teen sex than it is about reducing abortion in America.

Not your call to make

With all of the hoopla over Planned Parenthood these past few weeks, I thought I might share my thoughts on this controversial subject. If I were a candidate, here's what I would say when it comes to abortion:

No one from the most liberal senator in the country to the most scared teenager in the heartland is FOR ABORTION. Women choose this option as a very last resort and I'd be willing to guess that few are happy when they feel it's the most appropriate option or choice for them.

Then I would either play the video like above or read one of the "It's so personal" essays collected on Andrew Sullivan's blog during a discussion about the moral challenges and justifications concerning the vilified "late-term" abortions and the D&X procedure (where the baby's head is severed before removing the fetus from the uterus). But for now, I will reference the above video.

(ahem, speech):

Now, if Danielle and Robb had been able to induce labor or perform an abortion, I don't know if Danielle and Robb would burn in hell for their sin. And some people have every religious right to identify that as sin.

I don't know if God would look down at their decision with shame or sadness.

Personally, I don't believe so, and personally I believe that God knows what is in their hearts if they had to make that terrible decision.

Abortion was essentially illegal where they lived, and if they had been able to get one I don't know whether they really would have committed a crime worth penalizing them for. I would feel that they have been through enough pain already.

But here's what I do know.

I know that this decision is NOT MINE TO MAKE.

I know that this decision is NOT MITT's (Romney)'s to make.

In many ways, it's really not CONGRESS's decision to make.

And frankly America, it's not YOUR DECISION TO MAKE.

The ONLY people who should be making this decision and are capable of making this decision are Danielle, Robb, and their doctor. As President Clinton once said, "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." And I wholeheartedly agree that it should be rare, and we should encourage young women when it's appropriate to look into adoption services as there are many families in America who would love to take care of and raise a child. But the choice is not OURS to make, it's theirs. And I'll fight to ensure it stays that way.

Republicans Are Not Serious About the Deficit

News outlets are noting that budget negotiators are "inches away" from a deal to avert a government shutdown, but that the one item holding a full deal back is the Republican's policy rider for fully de-funding Planned Parenthood, under the auspices that no tax dollars should go to fund abortions.

Unfortunately, there's just one small hitch. It is already federal law that no federal dollars go to funding abortion services; it's called the Hyde Amendment. And in fact abortion services makeup only 2% 3% of the services Planned Parenthood provides. So what does Planned Parenthood do, you ask? They largely provide basic health services for low-income women. Things such as mammograms and standard GBYN health exams and drum roll please...birth control! Perish the thought!

Most economists have called the funding of Planned Parenthood a deficit reducer. Why?

What do you think costs more? The $10-15 subsidy a month so a low income young woman can buy birth control? OR... The cost of the Child Income Tax Credit for 18 years? Let's also assume that this young woman is a single mother who has to stay home from high school and will probably never end up paying a tax dollar in her life. Hmmmmm... I wonder.

Methinks the birth control pills are cheaper for the government to help pay for.

Now, you might say maybe teens shouldn't be having sex at all! But your problem is not with Planned Parenthood, but with the man upstairs. It is His PERFECT design (right?) to make teens hornballs with larger and more active amygdalas and less active frontal lobes during this crucial timeframe. Too bad he designed humans so poorly to have intercourse when they were most fertile and physically healthy.

So Republicans, take the deal. We can argue (again) about abortion in 2012. And if you're serious about reducing the deficit, buy the damn birth control. Isn't having fewer poor people walking around the U.S. your favorite thing ever, anyway?

If you're pro-life, you should want the healthcare bill to pass

Although I'm pro-choice, we all want there to be fewer abortions in the United States. T.R. Reid, a great news reporter on healthcare issues throughout the world has a must-read article on expanded healthcare coverage's affect on the abortion rate in rich, modern democracies like ours in The Washington Post.  Key passage:

In Britain, only 8 percent of the population is Catholic (compared with 25 percent in the United States). Abortion there is legal. Abortion is free. And yet British women have fewer abortions than Americans do. I asked Cardinal Hume why that is.

The cardinal said that there were several reasons but that one important explanation was Britain's universal health-care system. "If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it's needed," Hume explained, "she's more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn't it obvious?"