New attack on birth control: Leaked Trump proposal would give employers unprecedented power over women’s lives…..Bullshit!!

This item appeared in Salon, one of the most dishonest online publications. It went on to say: “This proposal attacks an existing rule known as the “contraception mandate,” which requires federal agencies to include birth control in the list of preventive health care services that the Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover without a copay. This rule, written by Health and Human Services under President Barack Obama’s administration, has long riled religious conservatives, who launched a series of legal challenges to the mandate, on the basis that forcing religious business owners or nonprofits to offer health care plans that cover contraception violates their religious freedom. 

What the Trump administration has now proposed is letting employers block their employees from getting contraception coverage at all. If an employer thinks only sluts use birth control, he can simply refuse to let a woman’s insurance plan cover it — without alerting the government so it can replace the coverage that the boss is blocking. It’s a crafty maneuver: Without repealing the contraception mandate outright, Trump would let employers drop coverage with no government replacement. ‘It’s kind of unprecedented that employers can reach into your health insurance this way,’ said Kelly Blanchard, president of Ibis Reproductive Health, in a phone interview. ‘This is singling out a certain kind of health care for special attention,’ Blanchard continued, adding that it’s both intrusive and a violation of the employee’s ‘rights to their faith and their beliefs about sexuality.”

This is the classic “red herring” argument, diverting attention from the real issue with a false argument. Let’s dissect this particular fish, whose bones appear in red.

  1. They are NOT letting employers block contraceptive coverage, they are proposing removing a mandate on it. The mandate was the REAL overreach, not removing it!
  2. Where in the US or any State Constitution does it empower government to provide contraception?
  3. Removing a gov’t mandate violates employee rights to their faith…?? Come on, the last thing Salon or it’s writers or the government officials they support care about is religious liberty. They only drag it out to support a completely spurious argument.
  4. The article goes on and on in that absurd vein, actually saying that without the federal gov’t mandating that employers’ health insurance cover contraception, women won’t be able to get it. See the next paragraph for the truth.

For those whose employer health plan decided not to cover oral contraceptives, on the website lowestmed.com, a month supply of a common generic oral contraceptive (Tri-Sprintec) was $13.91 at Safeway with a printable coupon. For women who are not employed and who meet the income guidelines, Medicaid covers prescriptions for free. But the truth never counts for Salon and this type of red journalism. Many employers, especially the largest, would want contraception covered regardless of mandate. Even for those who would not cover it, the issue would virtually never be “only sluts use  it.” It would be economics. A woman could purchase generic contraceptives for as low as $14/month, while if she got them for nothing out of pocket via employee health insurance, the pharmacy could charge the insurance way more, possibly over $100. A mandate on covering any condition means every employer (and employees who pay a premium) must pay more for insurance. So who is really trampling on rights?

That being said, I WOULD OBJECT TO REMOVING THE CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE ON THIS BASIS: IF IT WAS GUARANTEED THAT FEWER LIBERALS WOULD REPRODUCE! THIS WOULD DO MORE TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING VIA HOT AIR THAN ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION.

Perpilocutionist, noun: One who expounds on a subject of which s/he has little knowledge.

Hillary (you know the one) gave a commencement speech at Wellesley recently, in which she was introduced as Hillary D. Rodham (HDR). The theme, in so far as I could decipher one, seemed to be about 3 words: integrity, trust and respect.  Except, her definitions weren’t quite what you would find in a dictionary, or more to the point, she didn’t really define them at all, because “Those three words mean different things to all of us.”

THAT’S THE PROBLEM HILLARY! SUBSTITUTING THIS TYPE OF MUSHY SUBJECTIVITY FOR PLAIN LANGUAGE AND SHARED UNDERSTANDINGS.

Here’s her excuse: “Many of the issues that I’ve mentioned—those of sharing power and responsibility, those of assuming power and responsibility—have been general concerns on campuses throughout the world. But underlying those concerns there is a theme, a theme which is so trite and so old because the words are so familiar. It talks about integrity and trust and respect. Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multimedia age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we’re feeling.”

Let’s compare some historical definitions of these three words to her musings.

Integrity: According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values: incorruptibility.

HDR definition: “Integrity, the courage to be whole, to try to mold an entire person in this particular context, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence.”

Merriam-Webster. Trust: assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.

HDR: What can you say about it? What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted?

Merriam-Webster. Respect: A high or special regard: esteem.

HDR: And then respect. There’s that mutuality of respect between people where you don’t see people as percentage points. Where you don’t manipulate people. Where you’re not interested in social engineering for people. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences.

It seems to me that the real national divide is between plain speaking and mushy meanderings.