The GOP Answer to “War on Women”: Capitulation

A little while back in Crisis, I wrote about how supposedly pro-life Catholic candidate for a Virginia Senate seat, Ed Gillespie, when accused of wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade and enact a personhood amendment to the Constitution—as well as to “ban certain forms of contraception”—oddly replied that he actually wanted to make “contraceptives easier to obtain” by making birth control pills available without a prescription. At the same time, he skipped over the Roe v. Wade question entirely while in effect denying that he had ever favored a personhood amendment—even though support for such an amendment was included in the Republican Party’s platform while Ed Gillespie was chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The candidate’s reply thus did not seem to fit the charge lodged against him, or at any rate all of it. Accused of favoring typical measures constituting what Democrats characterize as a “war on women,” Gillespie instead hastened to make sure that the whole world knew that what he actually favored was an important element in the anti-life agenda of the Democrats. For some this reply may have seemed to be a fluke or a lapse or an inconsistency on the part of a professed pro-life candidate (who also happens to be a Catholic).

It turns out, however, that for some Republicans this seems to have become the preferred reply to the charge of conducting a “war on women”; it may even signal a trend. Colorado Republican congressman Cory Gardner for example, who is challenging Democratic senator Mark Udall, has not only adopted the same line in favor of the promotion of contraception; he has actually produced a television ad in which he assures a group of women, sympathetically nodding their heads in agreement, that: “I believe the pill ought to be available over the counter, around the clock, without a prescription, cheaper and easier for you.” And not only does Cory Gardner endorse birth control; he waxes enthusiastic about it; his plan, he tells the women in the ad, means “more rights, more freedom, more control for you.”

Yet like Ed Gillespie in Virginia, up to now Cory Gardner has not only had a pro-life record; he has been one among 142 House co-sponsors of a Life at Conception Act. No doubt in anticipation of his switch to his forthcoming pro-contraception television ad, however, he recently publicly abandoned his original position and withdrew from co-sponsorship of this personhood amendment. Again like Ed Gillespie, he seemed to recognize that public championship of contraceptives is really incompatible with support for a personhood amendment. As liberals fear, this type of amendment would presumably rule out the morning-after pill, which operates by preventing the implantation in the uterine wall of an already fertilized ovum (a human embryo).

The connivance of both the FDA and the American medical profession in continuing to call this abortion-inducing drug “emergency contraception,” as if it were merely preventive of conception, represents one of the more notorious examples of today’s institutionalized dishonesty. You can go on calling it contraception, but it still actually involves the destruction of an already formed human life. Thus, when erstwhile pro-life politicians such as a Gardner or a Gillespie come out for the wider availability and distribution of contraceptives, necessarily included today is this form of early abortion. These politicians have thus effectively renounced their earlier pro-life positions, whether they admit or not.

And that some pro-life politicians evidently are now quite willing to do this represents an ominous new sign on the contemporary political scene. All of a sudden, for some politicians who had declared themselves to be pro-life, championing the promotion of birth control now trumps maintaining a principled pro-life stance.

Nor do Colorado’s Gardner and Virginia’s Gillespie seem to be the only Republican politicians now prepared to make this switch. Reportedly, Mike McFadden, who is challenging Minnesota’s Democratic Senator Al Franken, has similarly taken the same public stand. Also, Thom Tillis, running for the Senate in North Carolina, seems to have come out in the same way. And there may be others.

And then there was the 2012 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal penned by Louisiana Republican governor Bobby Jindal in which he argued that it was big government that forced women to go to doctors to get prescriptions for their pills. He too advocated over-the-counter, non-prescription birth control, writing that “I believe that we have been stupid to let the Democrats demagogue the contraceptives issue.” At the time this did seem to be some kind of a lapse on the part of a Republican conservative and pro-life (and Catholic) politician; it seemed incongruous that such a supposedly strong conservative would respond to the “demagoguing” of the contraception issue by the Democrats by adopting one of the major anti-life positions of the Democrats; but now it seems that, unfortunately, it may indeed constitute a new trend.

What seems to be the case here is that this sudden public espousal of greater access to birth control—surely it already enjoys near universal availability in America today—by representatives of America’s officially pro-life party evidently constitutes their answer to the Democratic accusation of a Republican “war on women.” This fake, wholly trumped-up accusation lacks any true foundation in reality, but it has nevertheless proved to be an amazingly successful tactic for the Democrats. The Republicans simply don’t know how to answer it, and have quite regularly floundered helplessly when taxed with the charge that they are engaged in a “war on women.”

It is one of the mysteries of present-day politics, in fact, that when confronted with this false charge, most Republicans seem quite incapable of responding with what is simply the truth, namely, that the election is not about any “war on women.” There is no such war, certainly no difficulty for anybody at all anywhere in obtaining whatever contraceptives they might wish. The government itself continues to subsidize and supply them on a massive scale under various programs. The same thing is actually—and tragically—pretty much true of abortion today as well.

Why cannot these Republican politicians candidly and forthrightly reply, when faced with these false charges, by seizing the occasion to articulate what the election is about, namely, by reiterating the positions that they have all prepared in their campaign literature—but which they often are unable to state because the discussion gets diverted to the supposed “war on women”?

And while they are at it, why couldn’t they take the occasion to point out that, as polls consistently show, unrestricted abortion is opposed by a clear majority of Americans? How are they harmed when “accused” of taking the position favored by a clear majority of Americans? Why they refuse to respond in a principled and persuasive fashion to the “accusations” lodged against them is another one of the great mysteries of present-day politics. As Republicans, they should be proud that, since 1980, the Republican Party has been—honorably—officially committed to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Do the Gardners and Gillespies agree with this Republican policy and commitment? With their advocacy of contraception—which today necessarily and inescapably includes abortion-inducing drugs—they would seem to have abandoned not only the pro-life cause that they formerly said they favored, but the stated official position of their own political party as well. (But don’t look for any criticism of them from party sources on this last score: for the “big tent” policy remains only too actively alive and well!)

However that may be, what we seem to have here with these Republicans who have now gone over to the public promotion of greater access to contraception is their belated answer to the charge that they and their party are engaged in a “war on women.” The press reports on their promotion of their new cause pretty consistently take this for granted. As a Washington Post story described the phenomenon, it constitutes “a way to push back against the perception that their party holds outdated notions about women and sex.”

The usually reliable Republican pollster, Kellyanne Conway, interprets the phenomenon in exactly the same way. She is quoted as observing that “if anything it probably defangs the increasingly concerted effort by the political left to caricature male Republican politicians as anti-women, anti-birth control, anti-rainbow and sunshine.”

It is evidently to counter these very unspecific charges that these Republican candidates are now opting to promote birth control in a public way. Nobody has provided any data to show that they might gain many or any additional votes thereby. Indeed it is likely that they will lose more pro-life votes by their new position than they will ever gain on the other side. Voters favorable to today’s anti-life policies probably prefer the real thing championed by the Democrats to the newly minted views of “conservatives,” which might well in fact be perceived as having been adopted out of pure expediency.

Yet these candidates actually seem to be more concerned with appearing to be respectable in today’s society rather than garnering any additional votes. It is surely a reflection on what our society has become that one is obliged to seek respectability by coming out in favor of what the Catholic Church teaches is “intrinsically evil.”

Be that as it may, we are nevertheless unhappily only too likely in the present social climate to see even more Republican candidates adopting this same line. Indeed, in the absence of any other cogent answer to the accusations of a “war on women”—and the Republicans truly do not seem to have any other answer—this could well come to constitute the typical or even the standard Republican response to the accusations that have so confused and even unhinged them.

If this turns out to be the case, it goes without saying that the official pro-life position of the Republican Party will be seriously compromised and undermined—just as the former pro-life positions of the candidates mentioned above have now been compromised and undermined. If those Republicans who have so unwisely adopted the position of beating the drum for increased birth control imagine that their new position somehow constitutes a strategy for the “war on women,” they are badly and tragically mistaken. For their new positions really amount to a capitulation to the anti-life forces of our day.

Editor’s note: The image above is taken from an internet video ad produced by the Cory Gardner campaign for U.S. Senate in Colorado justifying his reversal of support for the unsuccessful personhood state ballot measure in 2010.

Kenneth D. Whitehead

By

Kenneth D. Whitehead is a former career diplomat who served in Rome and the Middle East and as the chief of the Arabic Service of the Voice of America. For eight years he served as executive vice president of Catholics United for the Faith. He also served as a United States Assistant Secretary of Education during the Reagan Administration. He is the author of The Renewed Church: The Second Vatican Council’s Enduring Teaching about the Church (Sapientia Press, 2009) and, most recently, Affirming Religious Freedom: How Vatican Council II Developed the Church’s Teaching to Meet Today’s Needs (St. Paul’s, 2010).

  • lifeknight

    Many would view their political party as having more pertinence in their lives than their Faith. Lack of formation or lack of real conversion is at the crux of the matter. One cannot be a part of the political world without hacking off part of the soul. Prolife must include no contraception.

    • DE-173

      “Many would view their political party as having more pertinence in their lives than their Faith.”
      So, you know some Northeastern Pennsylvania Democrats, huh? Just remember, voting Democrat is the 8th Sacrament.

  • TERRY

    Let’s start with this – WOW. Aka the War On Women. The democrats use this idiotic NON issue whenever and wherever they want to intimidate Republicans and they keep doing it because it keeps working.

    Here’s the latest in the War On Women – Aka WOW – Boko Haran, Bill Clinton, ritual female genital mutilation as practiced for CENTURIES in many mid-east countries, denying medical coverage to babies who have the audacity to survive abortions (thanks Barry), Marie Kopechne (still the only confirmed kill in the USA in the WOW) – the list goes on and on and on.

    Suggestion – the best defense is a good offense.

    “America is a serious country. We have serious issues and we need serious people to deal with them” – Andrew Shephard, POTUS.

    Where did this idiotic issue come from? IMO it originated in 2010 after the mid-terms. Obama and his adoring minions in the MSM knew that if he ran on his record in 2012 he would be laughed out of office. Solution? Divert voter attention from his record, and one of the moves was making up issues like this one, and voter suppression was always a good one for the many-headed.

  • Cap America

    The Republican Party is in a crisis. . . and at a very bad time. It is now dominated by the fiscal libertarians who care not a whit about the condition of society. But this is very BAD for the Republican Party, since now is the time to make hay—great strides—due to the leadership deficit of the Obama administration and the other Nonsense Democrats out there (e.g., Pelosi, Guiterrez).

    I just don’t run into real life people talking about this “war on women” or even taking it seriously. Why all the concern—just point it out as political folderol.

    • IrishPoet

      The actual real war on women that “Liberals”/Democrats ignore is: Islam, not Christians or Christian principles (founded on natural law & Gospel). It’s ISIS, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran with its Ayatollah, Indonesian Muslims, Muslim groups all over Africa, the Taliban, Al-Qada, Muslim communities in the UK & France, etc. Christianity supports a culture of Life (which is why we want to end the injustices of Abortion & contraception) & the promotion of women. Islam is actually destroying & cruelly treating women systematically, but you don’t see the femi-Nazi Democrats declaring war on them. Cowards.

      • DE-173

        No, you saw Nancy Pelosi sheepishly dawn a veil when she travelled to the Middle East as Squeaker of the House. I wonder if she demanded women the right to drive in the house of Saud.

        • Fred

          Do you really wonder (ha). Funny how comfortable she is attacking Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, but not the purveyors of Sharia Law who would imprison her for crimes against Allah. What a hypocrite and coward, I can barely even stand to look at her, much less listen.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Liberals are usually courageous when there’s nothing to fear.

            • DE-173

              Or when they measure their courage by how deeply they reach into somebody else’s pocket book.

    • DE-173

      “It is now dominated by the fiscal libertarians who care not a whit about the condition of society.”

      Right, that’s why they do NOTHING to stop deficit spending.
      The people that care not a wit about the condition of America are the fiscal linertines who actually think that society must ascend a mountain of debt, who remain committed to providing politicians an endless credit line to sew moral anarchy and dependemce. When Paul Krugman, a diisciple of the moral libertine Keynes screams “more debt”, they actually believe him when he says it is a good and holy thing to pay people to dig holes and fill them up again. Of course in practice, we get this:

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/09/13/348242448/san-diego-school-district-s-new-15-ton-armored-vehicle-creates-stir

      I see the the red breasted econoignoramuses are filling the air with their noxious screeching and littering the public square with their guano today.

      • Fred

        Love the avarian touch. Sadly the other reminds me of Al’s hockey stick, sort of. At least with him I can laugh off as having a bad case of dimentia, but the other has real teeth and dire consequences. Wouldn’t it be novel if they had the same passion for our immoral debt. Well, one can dream.

        • DE-173

          I’m thinking that we need a “just debt theory”, like we have a just war theory. One does wage a war without a reasonable probability of success; one does not issue debt without a reasonable probability of repayment.

          We now have a Gross Domestic Product (16.8 Trillion) that is less than the (acknowledged, the Federal Governments off balance sheet financing would make Enron look squeaky clean) Federal Debt (17.6 Trillion as of 4/4014).

          Over time, regardless of the tax code, federal tax receipts are between 20-25% of GDP. So, even if the “fiscal libertarians” had their way and began running $500 billion dollar surpluses, it would take 30 years to repay the present debt, one that was called “unpatriotic” by the present OCCUPIER of the White House when it was about one half what it it is now, just before he took office.

      • Until we have a universal right to life, debt doesn’t matter.

        • DE-173

          Try walking and chewing gum at the same time.

          • So eliminate the chewing of gum until we have learned to walk.

            • DE-173

              Life requires you to do more than one thing at a time, sorry. Time to grow up.

              • Which is the point. Without the right to life, there is no life to do two things at once in.

                • DE-173

                  Once again, you don’t get to dip into an autistic fantasy where you get to deal with things one at a time.

  • Fred

    I read another interesting article today about how lobbyists are pushing the GOP to spend big and think small. What a great inspirational message to rally behind. Even though the current disaster-in-chief really gets my blood pressure up, my disgust meter with everything coming out of the imperial city is pretty far into the red zone. And so, the only real solution is to turn down the volume on insanity and tune into Christ’s message. Unfortunately ignorance is never bliss so it’s necessary to stay abreast of the mess that is our modern world. However, as I travel this road I find that politics defines me less and less as faith becomes the center of my life and I try to figure out how to bring his message to others not having the gifts on an apostle.

    • DE-173

      P.J. O’ Rourke nailed it when he said giving power and money to politicians is like giving car keys and whiskey to teenage boys. He forgot to mention that the analogy would be more complete if you also handed over your teenage daughter.

      Panem et Circenses knows no party loyalty.

      • Fred

        Panderers, perjurers and philanderers all, oh my. I didn’t use to feel that way, but now every time I hear how they want to help the middle class I want to blow a gasket.

        • DE-173

          In politics, the monsters become apparent in the light, not the dark-because they are real. It’s hard to be the equivalent of the goats in Orwell’s Animal Farm. (Aware of the shenanigans, and unable to stop Napolean and Snowball).

  • American wealth in economics is based on death. For most of the GOP lower taxes on the rich mean more than the lives of children, or, given the side effects of abortive contraception, the lives of the women who take such poison.

    • DE-173

      You really need to stop embarassing yourself with such inane rants. Your prose reads like Howard Dean or Occupy Wall Street on speed.

      Just stop commenting on money and economics.

      • If what I write isn’t true, I challenge you to give your entire tax refund to the nearest Pregnancy Resource Clinic (pro-life, of course).

        It is not surprising that American Wealth exploded after contraception became legal. We, as a country, have stopped sharing with the next generation and just kill them off instead. Why bother with welfare when you have abortion and euthanasia available to kill the poor?

        Here’s the interesting thing- I am having this same conversation in a different thread on contraception in a completely different forum, where I’m being attacked by left-wing occupy types who think because I haven’t missed a meal (in the last 18 years anyway) I shouldn’t talk against contraception.

        Having said that- look at the votes. Personhood for the Unborn- the legislative repeal of Roe V. Wade and federal protection for the unborn- can’t get even 25% of the Republican votes and none of the Democrats. But propose that we lower capital gains taxes, you’ll get 100% of the Republican vote and 50% of the Democrats.

        Until everybody has a right to life- and I mean EVERYBODY- then nothing else we do as a country matters at all.

        • DE-173

          “It is not surprising that American Wealth exploded after contraception became legal.”

          Only not surprising if you think that the world can be accurately measured and distilled to a single proximate cause. Of course It really exploded long before their were contraceptives.

          Why do you insist on trying to make your personal inadequacies so publicly manifest?

          • Up until the 1920s, America was a developing nation. Our economy was based on growth- big families, bigger empires.

            The demographic winter since then is real, and the obvious contraction in wealth ownership is equally real, Why is it so hard to see that wealth centralization comes from limiting the number of one’s heirs?

            But then the question becomes, is wealth centralization worth the cost of genocidal mania?

            • DE-173

              Please just stop. There was no “demographic winter” before contraception.

              Note the drop in the 1960’s.

              http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:USA:CHN:IND&hl=en&dl=en

              • Yes, and contraception happened since the 1920s. Which is what I wrote.

                • DE-173

                  No, there were contraceptives “‘available”, but they weren’t used on a widespread basis. Ask anybody who went to school in the 1970’s how many classmates were from families with five or more children. Ask me, I went to school with a classmate that had 17 (yes, seventeen older sisters). Five was hardly unusual, and and least two that I remember were from families of seven.
                  So this is another one of those threads where you ignore the readily available data and just relentless.

  • Fred

    A little unrelated, but did anyone else read this demote of Cardinal Burke? Made me sad.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/17/Pope-Plans-on-Exiling-Conservative-Catholic-Hero-Cardinal-Burke

  • DE-173

    You have your choice between two parties in the United States. One will invariably do the wrong thing and the other most likely will not do the right thing.

    Of course in Britain, the distinction between Labor and the Tories has all but evaporated.

  • Connie Boyd

    An overwhelming majority of American women of reproductive age, including Catholic women, use forms of contraception the Catholic church calls “gravely evil.” The church’s absurd position on “artificial” birth control seriously hurts its credibility and the credibility of social conservatives who agree with its position. For women, being able to control their fertility and therefore their lives is extremely important. Politicians who try to block access to contraception are therefore naturally seen as at war with women’s interests.

    It also doesn’t help the Republicans’ image with the female half of the population when they vote in lockstep to defeat legislation such as the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. When they oppose something as basic as equal pay for equal work, they are seen as anti-woman extremists, which they are.

    Face it, opposition to birth control is the position of a very tiny minority in this country. That’s why the GOP candidates you denounce have to distance themselves from it. America is a democracy, and they want votes. The purpose of their advocacy of over-the-counter availability of contraceptives is twofold:

    1. to falsely appear reasonable and mainstream on the birth control issue to women voters

    2. to make it harder for some women to actually obtain contraceptives because over-the-counter drugs aren’t covered by insurance.

    The problem is, they can’t communicate about purpose #2 to their conservative constituents without spilling the beans that on purpose #1, they’re a bunch of lying hypocrites.

    • “For women, being able to control their fertility and therefore their lives is extremely important. ”

      All we ask is that while doing so, they stop acting like genocidal maniacs. Without a universal right to life, what does equal pay for equal work matter?

      • Connie Boyd

        Sorry, but that’s not “all you ask.” Using birth control methods like diaphragms and condoms in no way can be construed as “acting like genocidal maniacs.” Yet the Catholic church calls their use “gravely evil.” The church even condemned and blocked the use of condoms by married couples in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS. The church’s position on contraception is indefensible.

        • “Using birth control methods like diaphragms and condoms in no way can be construed as “acting like genocidal maniacs.” ”

          Barrier birth control prevents the creation of the next generation, and is indicative of being unwilling to share with that next generation. Same idea as in the genocide of abortion, when we are unwilling to share our world with the next generation. The intent is exactly the same: to reduce the population of the planet and provide more resources to the greedy and fewer resources to the poor.

          As for AIDS, there is another proven defense that actually works a good deal better- limit your sexual partners to ONE. Monogamy is a far better defense against AIDS than condoms, which can break, ever will be.

          • Connie Boyd

            Condoms = genocide? No. The next generation will somehow always continue to arrive. And, despite your arrogant proclamation that “the intent is exactly the same,” you aren’t a mind-reader capable of discerning the motivation of everyone who uses birth control.

            As for AIDS in Africa, many women who were infected by their husbands WERE monogamous. Who are you to condemn them? MYOB.

            • “Condoms = genocide? ”

              Yes. It shows a hatred for the next generation. Everybody who uses birth control is attempting to prevent the next generation from being conceived, that is the whole intent of BIRTH control.

              One would think feminists were illiterate, but that would be being mean to the illiterate.

              BTW, the men have to be monogamous too.

              • Connie Boyd

                People don’t use birth control because they “hate” the next generation. Hatred doesn’t enter into it, except in your mind.

                • If it was love, they’d allow the next generation to be born- just as their parents allowed them to be born.

                  Hatred does not have to be conscious, and it is not just in the mind, but in the action. Feminists show great hatred of children and the next generation; it was a poison to the argument predicted by Susan B. Anthony at the start of the movement. Too bad nobody listened to her; now there is nothing left to the movement other than hatred of others.

                  • Connie Boyd

                    You’re the hater. You obviously hate feminists and have a very warped, narrow view of them.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      The original, real feminists (Susan B. Anthony, for one) were staunchly against contraception. They felt it was demeaning to them, that men would only view them as sterile objects of sex.

        • Eamonn McKeown
    • Bucky Inky

      “For women, being able to control their fertility and therefore their
      lives is extremely important. Politicians who try to block access to
      contraception are therefore naturally seen as at war with women’s
      interests.”

      We are all very familiar with the (very real) concept of men abdicating their moral responsibility to women. Such abdication by men makes it at very least more difficult (and often all but impossible) for women to choose a rightly moral course in their own lives.

      When women obsessively chase after the delusion that “being able to control…their lives is extremely important,” as per Connie Boyd’s assertion above, they abdicate their moral responsibility to men (and also to other women, by the way) by refusing to acknowledge (and live by) the fact that there is really very little about human life, whether male or female, over which we do have control. In reality, what do any of us have of our lives for which we can say that we sustain it ourselves without dependence upon another, and ultimately dependence upon God? Even our very existence, to say nothing of our merely physical being, is constantly sustained by something outside of us. In a man’s understanding of his responsibility toward God as his Maker and Sustainer, and living in submission to the reality of that understanding, there are few teachers more poignant than a woman who joyfully and docilely submits to the natural physical impediments placed particularly upon her sex, most markedly as regarding the reproductive process.

      In her refusal to submit to her nature, and in her playing the game of commandeering the reins of nature through the delusion offered by artificial contraception, she closes herself from influencing men to affirm the reality of their own dependence upon God. It become much more difficult (and often all but impossible) for men to choose the rightly moral course of living in the reality that they must answer to God for the very life they have been given, for their main inspiration to do so has been withheld from them.

      We are all, each of us, men and women, responsible to do what is right regardless of anyone’s failure in helping us to do so. Yet are we also obligated to each other to help the other in choosing to do what’s right. Women have a special and particular obligation toward men in this way, just as men do to women.

      • Connie Boyd

        The fact that “there is really very little about human life, whether male or female, over which we do have control” makes those things over which we CAN have control even more important.

        Passively breeding like dumb animals is no way to live. God gave women intelligence and abilities beyond child-rearing. Letting them go to waste is the true “refusal to submit to nature.”

        The Parable of the Talents applies to all people, not just the male half of the human race.

        • Bucky Inky

          Thank you for your time in your reply, Connie Boyd, though the substance of it tells me pretty clearly that we will not find much fruitful ground talking directly to each other. I hope I don’t have to clarify to many folks reading this that the absurd characterization of “passively breeding like dumb animals” is not in any way a fair paraphrase of my position, that obviously I find richness where Connie Boyd is only able to see something degrading and impoverished.

        • Eamonn McKeown

          whoa, passively breeding like dumb animals? I hope you’re only talking about us men-folk here!

        • slainte

          “…Passively breeding like dumb animals is no way to live..”

          Your priorities are skewed and you do not speak for all women.

          I am a female attorney and I reject your callous, narrow-minded, and thoughtless comments as an affront to women everywhere.

        • Objectivetruth

          “The Parable of the Talents applies to all people, not just the male half of the human race.”

          I’m going to assume you have no clue what the scriptural passage on talents means, but you just thought it sounded intelligent.

          The “male half”…….thanks for reveling your true position: you hate men.

        • Objectivetruth

          “Passively breeding like dumb animals is no way to live.”

          I’m guessing you probably sat home alone on the night of your high school prom, eh?!

    • DE-173

      You cliche ridden screeds seriously hurt your credibility.

    • slainte

      An overwhelming majority of American women of reproductive age, including Catholic women, use forms of contraception…… which they do not realize have been categorized as Grade 1 carcinogens by the United Nation’s World Health Organization in 2005 and which cause breast cancer.

      Women. like you and me, should make our young sisters aware that the contraceptives they ongest are carcinogenic substances which will one day cause cancer in their breasts and may cause them to die earlier than their natural lifespan would otherwise provide.

      Taking control of your life, as a woman, includes not converting your healthy woman’s body into a receptacle for pharmaceutical experiments. Pregnancy is a natural, healthy and beautiful function only experienced by a woman and always a gift from God. It is not a disease which requires treatment by carcinogens. (see authorities for the conclusions in my post to lawstudent86 in this thread.)

      Wake up Connie Boyd…all women need to be educated about what science has discovered about contraception.

      • Connie Boyd

        If you’re terrified of drugs, use a diaphragm. It works.

        • Diaphragms can break and cause septic shock. But why would you care about that? After all, the intent of contraception is to reduce population, and a woman dying of septic shock accomplishes that goal.

          • Connie Boyd

            Your ignorance is showing. Diaphragms don’t “break and cause septic shock.” That’s absurd.

              • Connie Boyd

                None of these sources refer to diaphragms breaking. Diaphragms are made of thick, heavy material. You would have to stab it with a very sharp knife to cause it to break. The very small number of toxic shock cases reported resulted from diaphragms not being used as directed. You can get salmonella poisoning from eating uncooked chicken. That doesn’t mean all poultry is life-threatening and should be banned.

                • And yet we do not allow chicken that tests positive for salmonella to be sold at restaurants.

                • RufusChoate

                  You’re lack of credibility is stunning. Is there no sophistry you won’t descend to in defense of an obvious evil?

                  • Kristy

                    RufusChoad. That’s a more apropo moniker.

                    • RufusChoate

                      Such funny witticisms from an weird and perverse little Girl. Are you happy in your corruption?

        • slainte

          Young women….the agenda does not care about your long term health or well being.

          Confronted with the scientific facts, it ignores and masks the evidence that contraceptives cause breast cancer and it refuses to affirmatively warn innocent and vulnerable young women about the risks inherent in the toxic substances contained in the birth control pill.

          The agenda is to cause you not to embrace your womanhood, or to delay it for so many years, that you are physically unable to open yourself to the beauty and miraculous gift of life that only a woman can experience.

          No career, no worldly attributes, no amount of money will ever be a satisfactory substitute for holding your own infant in your arms. All women are meant to be mothers.

          Don’t allow the false message carried by Connie Boyd to deter you from claiming the fullness of your womanhood.

          Say NO to contraceptives and YES to pregnancy and new life.

          • OLO101

            No, all women are NOT meant to be mothers.

            • slainte

              You ignore objective reality….woman are gifted with a physical body which if used for its intended purpose, through the grace of God, may beget life and thus continue to replenish the earth. Thus, does a woman become a mother.

        • Objectivetruth

          Or how about having a man treat you and your reproductive process with decency and respect, not some on-demand objectified sexual thrill ride?

          Face it: in a man’s view, contraception turns women in to sexual objects, to be frivolously used as vehicles of pleasure, nothing more.

          Don’t be such an idiot. Unless you want a man to treat you as nothing more important to him than a case of beer or a new Harley Davidson.

    • Vinnie

      It would help if you know why the Church has the position it does. Some hints – faith, creation and joy.

    • Eamonn McKeown

      well I would think these candidates and anyone else need to be reminded that America is a Constitutional Republic that uses democratic processes. It is not as you say a “democracy”.

    • Watosh

      The thing is sometimes there are things we should not do, even though reasons can be marshaled for doing them. The Greek play Antigone by Sophocles is an example. Antigone recognizes this, and even though Creon presents all kinds of reasons to support his actions, Antigone says she must say “No” even if this costs her her life.
      Religion sometimes reflects this feeling and must say “No” sometimes though this must not seem reasonable to the human mind. A religion that is guided only by what seems reasonable to most people, is really no religion, it serves little purpose if reason alone determines what our behavior should be. We can see what that leads to in our modern secular democracies.

      The idea that it appears it is necessary for people to realize that there are some few areas where we can’t do what we want to do and to do what seems reasonable to us. This, I believe is one of the messages regarding the existence of the tree bearing the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. It seems unreasonable to our minds that God would create a garden of Eden full of trees bearing all kinds of fruit for the benefit of his human creations, and then put one tree that if Adam or Eve tasted the fruit of that tree they would die. Why put such a tree in the garden of Eden, a garden that was supposed to be a wonderful place for humans to live in? Why did God do that, it doesn’t seem He needed to do that. If we could have created a garden for Adam and Eve would we have placed such a tree there? This has a symbolism. We can’t expect to understand the mind of God anymore than a dog can understand some of the things his human masters do. What we can reason though that God must have had a reason. One can say they don’t believe in the bible, or God and so these arguments are not persuasive. Yet even some ancient Greek thinkers suspected that there are things above reason that limit what we do. This is a reflection that we sense we need to have constraints not tied to reason alone, but tied to our nature..

      • Objectivetruth

        It’s obvious you have no idea what the Catholic teaching is on contraception, but choose to ignorantly attack it.

        • Objectivetruth

          Apologies, watosh. The above is meant for Connie Boyd.

          • Watosh

            I appreciate letting me know this, because I really couldn’t understand your comment when I thought it was a reply to your comment. I have seen some wild intempret replies in the past and I have had a few of those myself, so I apologize for misjudging your comment.

            Regarding Connie Boyd’s claim that contraception promotes women’s interests, Pope Paul VI certainly was right when he pointed out that in fact contraception would damage women’s interests, which it has. Like when the Universities allowed young women and young men to live together in college dorm to advance equality, and now, surprise, surprise, we are told sexual abuse of college females is rampant. Same goes for the armed forces.

        • Watosh

          Please what statement did I make that is at variance with Catholic teaching on contraception? Did I say that contraception should be allowed in any statement, or by any implication? I certainly unambiguously support Catholic teaching on contraception, and if I, by inadvertently made a statement that could be interpreted as disagreeing with the Churches teaching on contraception, I would like to know so I could correct my poor phrasing of a sentence.

          I fear that my mentioning the play Antigone may have mislead you should you be unfamiliar with this classic in literature, and you somehow gathered that this was in support of contraception and/or abortion. Antigone disobeyed her uncle Creon who decreed that one of her brothers, Polynices’s corpse should be left unburied because he had been a, well, terrorist, as a lesson to the people, and that anyone who tried to bury Polynices would be sentenced to death. Polynices brother, Eteocles, who was just as disreputable and guilty as her Uncle informed her, was to be given a state funeral as a hero just for appearances sake. They had both been killed during civil insurrection, both evil were but there needed to be a public villain and a public hero to calm the people. Antigone, however believed if Polynices was not buried his shade would be condemned to wander the earth forever. Now Creon tried to dissuade her and he showed how these two were both wretched and had mistreated her, and that the ship of state required Polynices should be left unburied. Creon advanced a number of convincing reasons for doing what did. Yet Antigone was not swayed from her belief it was wrong to so treat her brother that way regardless. ANTIGONE SAID NO, YOUR REASONS ARE GOOD BUT MY RELIGION CRIES FOR THE BURIAL OF POLYNICES. So eventually she died for her religious beliefs even if they didn’t seem reasonable under the circumstances. Now this is a very sketchy and oversimplified description of the plot. This story made an impression on me, not that I defend having a blind fate, fideism if you will, but because Antigone realized that reason did not trump a firmly held religious teaching. Now how this could be construed as contradicting any Catholic teaching on abortion/contraception is beyond my comprehension. I am merely referring to an abstract concept that illustrates a deep adherence to religious beliefs.

          However I am not unfamiliar with, after reading many, many past comments in this venue, that there is a tendency by some to make the worst interpretation of things some others say and then use that as an excuse to verbally assault that person and put them down and to publicly embarrass them. Some people apparently are in a permanent attack mode, and get their kicks from smacking down someone. This too is beyond my comprehension. Maybe it is because they are hiding behind their anonymity, I don’t know why they delight in this because it goes against Catholic teaching on charity.

          • Objectivetruth

            See below……my bad….,.it was meant to be in reply for Connie Boyd, not you.

    • Vinnie

      What do you say is the purpose of sexual intercourse?

    • RufusChoate

      You might be surprise that appealing to majority opinion is equivalent to a child’s contention that “every one else is doing it” and hardly compelling or interesting.

      America is a Republic with limited democratic principles. It was never intended to be a democracy which you might be amazed to find that the majority of the founders found abhorrent and tyrannical.

    • I_M_Forman

      Dude, read Humane Vitae and then get back to us. So what year in her teenage years should your daughter or granddaughter be before going on birth control pills? Perhaps there is something to this “virtue” thing?

    • Kristy

      Connie,

      The majority of the commenters are frustrated misogynists who cling to the faux katholik fantasy that Humanae Vitae was some infallible box within which women could be controlled.

      It was rejected by many of the faithful, even a number of bishops and was not infallible.

      And it frustrates the shit out them. Be happy that you are not their “significant other”, and enjoy your god given freedom

  • Lawstudent86

    I question the prudence of skewering these candidates for supporting contraception. While some forms are indeed abortifacient, the Catholic Church is unique among the Christian denominations in its opposition to ANY form of contraception, even those which suppress ovulation. Inasmuch as these politicians are not running to represent just Catholics, I think it dangerous to insinuate that all Catholic politicians who claim the pro-life mantle need to basically push to outlaw ALL contraception, something that even the USCCB hasn’t pushed for. We live in a democracy, not a Catholic theocracy. Most protestant pro-life politicians have no issue with the pill, which prevents ovulation. Catholicism is unique in its teaching that ALL sexual acts must be open to life. I agree with the Church’s position, however the idea that you’re going to impose a uniquely Catholic teaching on all of society and expecting Catholic candidates for office to push for that strikes me as highly unrealistic.

    • slainte

      Perhaps the politicians might consider informing women that the World Health Organization in 2005 classified estrogen-progestagen
      oral contraceptives (the birth control pill) as a Group 1 carcinogen which increases the risk of breast, liver and cervix cancer in women. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf; http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120416/discuss/704169966/

      In 2010, Dr. Angela Lanfranchia, a breast surgical oncologist and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, concluded that the birth control pill, a Group 1 carcinogen, not only increases the risk but actually “causes” breast cancer in women.
      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/surgeon-birth-control-pill-a-molotov-cocktail-for-breast-cancer

      The Mayo Clinic in 2006 reported in its journal “Mayo Clinic Proceedings” that there was a 44 percent increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer
      among women who started using oral contraceptives before first full-term
      pregnancy. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061030143351.htm; http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120416/discuss/704169966/

      All very inconvenient facts regarding a War of Women that is being waged by a pharmaceutical industry intent upon defining pregnancy as a disease to be treated by a molotov cocktail of carcinogenic substances in the form of contraception.

      If the Church’s admonitions against contraception are not compelling, perhaps those offered by science and cited herein make a more compelling read.

      Contraceptives cause cancer which kills women….and our politicians want otherwise healthy women to ingest increased quantities of these substances. The madness needs to stop as does the War on Women conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and its supporters.

      • DE-173

        And you are back with bang.. welcome back..

        • slainte

          Bang back at ya! : )

          • Tamsin

            We’ll roll you from combox to combox as the front moves.

            • slainte

              Ready to rock and roll as and when instructed. 🙂

    • Falls Church Resident

      I don’t think we are asking that they ban it — how about if they just don’t PROMOTE contraception? I was completely revolted by Senator Cruz proudly alluding to his personal use of contraceptives from the floor of the Senate. To quote Breitbart:

      Cruz insisted that Republicans were not interested in restricting access to contraception, in spite of Democrats’ politicizing the issue.
      “In this body, the number of people who would do anything to restrict access to contraceptives to anybody is zero,” he said.
      Cruz also alluded to his own use of contraception during his speech.
      “Mr. President, my wife and I are blessed with two little girls. I’m very glad we don’t have 17,” he said. “Nobody, nobody, nobody is talking about restricting access to contraceptives.”
      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/16/Ted-Cruz-to-Democrats-Stop-waging-war-against-the-Catholic-Church
      TMI, Senator! I hate to be gross, but couples practicing contraception are engaged in the equivalent of mutual masturbation. I don’t really want to know about the sad degeneracy that Senator Cruz and his poor wife practices.
      More sadly, couples using the pill are killing their children (on those occasions when it fails to stop conception but succeeds in stopping implantation), and polluting our rivers with the stuff that gets flushed through women’s bodies. Male fish in the Potomac have intersex genitalia due to this, and the water treatment plants don’t get it out. Ever wonder why there is so much male infertility? What more, younger women using the pill have a much higher chance of getting breast cancer.

    • Tony

      And since when is a law aimed at securing the common good an example of “theocracy,” just because only one group of people is smart enough to see the truth?

      The Pill and the Sexual Revolution go together: all of it, too. If you have the former, you will get the latter. Without the former, you cannot have the latter.

      So if you want a world in which half of the kids are born out of wedlock, keep up the pretense that synthetic sex hormones are natural, and keep pretending too that it does not change the whole sexual order entirely.

  • Vinnie

    You have a choice in the voting booth. Either a Democrat or a (sometimes) fiscally conservative Democrat, also know as a Republican.

    • Vinnie

      Check out the Massachusetts 6th congressional district race. A Democrat, military veteran, pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage. A Republican who is in a homosexual marriage and is pro-choice.
      By the way, for Connie Boyd, what is the purpose of sexual intercourse?

  • wc4mitt

    Seems like the author is pro Democrat like many Catholics. Otherwise why would he be targeting a Republican possible win which is so badly needed against this Obama pro-abortion administration which is also selling our nation down the river? Frankly I don’t care what the author’s bona fides are – we need to get more GOP in office to take back our culture and our nation. Dems have failed irreparably in every aspect and many of them are indeed Catholics like guess this author.

    • The question I raise- are the GOP Catholic? Will they help take back our culture, or will they instead destroy it in different ways?

      Every president in my lifetime, has been less committed to the cause of the right to life. The last four in particular have been like living in an anime whose story line is based on the worship of greed and lust.

      • DE-173

        No, they aren’t Catholic, they are politicians.

      • justk

        How about this?
        Humans are a cancer on the planet. We are systematically destroying the oceans, forests and atmosphere. There are more people than jobs.
        Maybe God gave us birth control, abortion and abortion inducing drugs as a way to slow down this process.
        You can have your reality. I don’t want to change it. I just want you to stop trying to impose your reality on me. Why can’t you exercise your own abstinence program for yourself without taking away my rights to control my own body. I don’t want women to go back to the 1950’s.

        • Do you understand the concept of incompatible worldviews? If you hold to your first sentence, you cannot live by your last sentence. You MUST kill people to achieve the implication of the first sentence.

    • GG

      Republicans are not our friends. Democrats are our enemies.

  • Akira88

    Maybe someone should start bringing up the real war — the war on Men.

    • ColdStanding

      Its Satan against God and we are collateral damage.

  • Eamonn McKeown

    I seem to remember reports of approx. 3 million conservatives staying home and not voting for McCain and similar numbers for Romney. I wonder why?

  • Eamonn McKeown

    I’d have to say whilst a lot of us here would not support Dr Ben Carson 100% of the time I think he’s much more of an 85% friend than most in the GOP and probably the best man for 2016.

  • Too often Catholic politicians fail to point out contraception as the evil that it is. More contraception = more abortions. Why is anyone in favor of making a potentially stroke-inducing drug over-the-counter?

  • We once were told that contraceptives were just a part of exercising an individual choice, but now, just the mere idea of another individual not wanting to subsidize your choice is an act of war.

    The GOP needs more candidates like Reagan, who would have found by now an appropriate one-sentence response to this kind of political thuggery.

  • I_M_Forman

    I am getting tired of the “Democrat Lite” campaigning of those GOP candidates. Hedonism is not a culture but an absence of culture. Families, where self-sacrifice was cultivated, were the bedrock of society, now it is the self-indulgence of the individual.

MENU