Gateway Pundit has a video of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Fox News, talking with Megyn Kelly about the dire need to have religious organizations ignore their beliefs and kneel not to their God, but to the liberal’s most holy text, the Code of Federal Regulations.
It is a typical statement for Debbie, who is not known for her intellectual ramblings. It’s 91 seconds of stupid:
Let’s break this down, line by pitiful line:
“Contraception, Megyn, and I’m sure you’ve experienced this…”
Is it me or is she calling Megyn Kelly a slut? Honestly, what is she saying here?
“…is about $700 a year. That’s real money. And to say to hundreds of thousands of womyn who work for religious organizations, ‘No, because of your employers objections, whether or not you choose to use contraception, you aren’t going to be able to get the same access as other employers’ employees can get access to,’ that’s not right.”
True. $700 is a lot of money. But that’s a lump sum. I don’t know anyone who buys a year’s worth of contraception. Usually, it’s a month at a time, which comes to less that $60 a month.
This perspective is important. The Democrats want us to think that without the employers sacrificing their beliefs, the poor womyn of the country won’t be able to afford contraception. That’s simply not true.
According to these right wing zealots, birth control pills cost anywhere from $15 to $50 a month. That’s not a deal breaker and it certainly isn’t keeping these womyn from getting needed contraception.
Do I also need to address the fact that these womyn choose to work where they work and can choose to leave if they are unhappy with their benefit packages? It’s not like the Catholic Church is dictating to the members of the congregation where they have to work.
They can quit working for the church. It’s still a freeish country.
“Catholic Hospitals employ hundreds of thousands of Americans. I mean, to cut them off as a potential employer for any womyn who wants to be able to have free access to contraception, that is available to any other person who works at a different employer, that’s really not a choice that those womyn should be forced into making.”
So, in the mind of Debbie, if the government doesn’t mandate that insurance companies provide “free” contraception, womyn are “cut off” from said contraception.
Despite the fact that high school kids are provided free contraception at institutions of indoctrination across the country, or go out and buy their own, womyn capable of holding down a job can’t manage to acquire a box of condoms as frequently as they can acquire someone willing to have sex with them.
Apparently, the Democrat Party’s position is, without having contraception handed to them, womyn are helpless when it comes to getting it. Contraception, that is.
And what’s with this “free” label? The whole issue is about the insurance company being mandated to provide access to contraception without a copay. That doesn’t mean the person and employer are not paying for a policy. The employer still has to pay money for a service they believe is wrong. You might not have to pay for the pills directly, but your monthly premiums go towards it, as do the employers.
It’s not free.
Choosing between continuing to hold their job and being able to have affordable access to family planning, and let me add that 61 percent of Catholic womyn support the president’s, uh, uh, current adjustment and as many, as many as that number supported the original decision,
It’s been a while since I got to use a logical fallacy graphic, but this is known as the appeal to popularity:
‘Nuff said.
because, like I said, contraception’s expensive
So is DirecTV, but you aren’t mandating my home owner’s policy provide it without a copay. And let’s be honest, aren’t they both about pleasure? You can go without both. Just think of sex like a pay per view. You’d really like to get it, but you can wait.
it’s important to be able to plan your family.
Agreed. You should take time to think about having a baby. And if you are in a position where you can’t afford contraception without the using government force to mandate an organization to violate its beliefs, perhaps you aren’t responsible enough to be having sex in the first place.
Ninety-nine percent of Americans use contraception sometime during their lifetime
Really? 99%?
How do they all afford it?
This is a huge flaw in her “logic,” for lack of a better word. In one breath, without this mandate, people who work for Catholics can’t afford contraception, and in the next breath, all these people currently living with insurance policies that don’t offer contraception without a copay somehow manage to find contraception.
How exactly did they get it if they can’t afford it without your precious mandate?
Perhaps they can afford it and this isn’t about helping them, but building a narrative to distract voters from the Democrat failures over the last three years and get them to focus on this instead.
and you know, the flip side of this is that religious institutions shouldn’t be imposing their values necessarily on their employees who don’t necessarily subscribe to those values.”
No, but Democrats and the moral busybodies in the federal government should be imposing their values on employers, even when they clearly don’t subscribe to those values.
After watching those 91 seconds of stupid, there was only thing that came to my mind:
That last line is especially relevant, considering the topic.
Liked your article and agreed with every point, but you need to get someone to proof for you next time. It is hard to come across as more intelligent than she is when you have misspellings throughout your piece.
I’ve looked it over and caught two typos, but I guess I’m not seeing the spelling errors, and neither is my spell check.
Examples?
I’m sure she’s referring to “womyn”. But you should totally have a full time editor on staff for this major business enterprise you’re running here. ;)
The vacuous (il)logic of the Left is at times a wonder to behold. It would be even far more entertaining if it weren’t so fatally destructive to our society, economy and national security, plus individual lives. Other than that…
I used to have some lively political/moral exchanges years ago with a guy who finally said to me, “You make it sound like everything is basically a moral decision.”
I smiled and nodded, “For the most part I’d say that’s true.’
“Well,” he said with a air of triumph, “I refuse to make such a moral distinction!”
“Really?” I replied, “Umm, you just did.”
The moments between his puzzled look and the instant the little light of recognition finally went off in his brain were priceless!
I don’t want to argue with the points you’re making because I agree for the most part. Let me say that there are situations when a woman needs to take birth control pills not for contraception but to regulate her hormones. I know one woman who has been on “the pill” since age 9 so she wouldn’t have to be hospitalized once a month or bleed to death. And she is a Catholic.
So maybe there would be an exception to the policy in this situation – I don’t know. But if an employer refused to cover that medicine, which is most often used as a contraception, that would be a bad thing in my opinion. The cost of the medicine isn’t exorbitant but the reason it’s being used wouldn’t be contrary to the beliefs of the Catholic church.
Just my two cents.
I know what you mean, and I understand that. But even if the insurance didn’t cover it, it is still as affordable as the most basic cell phone package. It’s not like a rare cancer drug that comes with a $1000 price tag per treatment.
Also, the premise the Dems are putting forward is about “family planning.” This is an attempt to brand the Republican party as being anti-woman. That’s why I went after that angle.
Even when I agree with them, they always find a way to make me disagree. They’re uniquely talented like that.
I have a friend who isn’t Catholic but adheres to more or less the same standards of chastity (she’s a virgin at 33), who takes the pill for that reason. According to the Church, if it’s not being used for the purpose of contraception, it’s not a sin.
[...] – Rep. Wasserman-Schultz talks contraception (via [...]
I’m sure DWS has experience in this…How much do condoms cost these days?
She’s missing an important point here:
““Catholic Hospitals employ hundreds of thousands of Americans. I mean, to cut them off as a potential employer…”
Yes, indeed. To cut them off as a potential employer would be wrong. Which is exactly what this frimpin’ mandate is likely to do, because the Catholic Church simply WILL NOT comply, even if it means closing those same hospitals and employing nobody.
I don’t think Little Miss Intellectual Powerhouse understands that the Church is not a political party, and does not bluff. If they say they cannot in good conscience do something, they damn well don’t do it.