A reader writes:


I'd love to see you discuss the following on your blog: in the rhetoric of those pushing for forced contraception provision in health-insurance plans, there seems to be an implicit "fatalistic adversarialism" (to coin a phrase). When you listen to the contraception party's statements, they seem to claim "Women are being restricted from obtaining contraception by this or that employer." What's inherent in such statements is (a) an assumption that a woman employee has no where else to go for employment, that some how she is stuck with the offending employer (this is the "fatalistic" portion); and (b) an assumption that the employer, simply by not providing something for free, is somehow restricting the rights of or trespassing upon the freedom of the employee (this is the "adversarial" portion).

Where do you think this mindset comes from? Is it feigned for the sake of politics, or is it a POV genuinely held by the contraceptionists.

It's bunk. Nobody is owed contraception as "health care" so they can have consequence-free sex just as nobody is owed 2% chocolate milk as "health care" so they can be a glutton. And besides, come on: people who are allegedly desperate for contraception can get it at Wal-Mart for $9. Contraceptives are so cheap and easily available they are screwing up the water supply.

People want Catholics out of their bedroom? Great! Then they have no right to drag us in and force us to pay for what they do there. This is bullying by the God King Administration. That's all.  Caesar is a jealous god.