This article is the main topic of discussion here. It is Ms. Cecile Richards, proclaiming that 99% of women use contraception anyway, so what's the harm in HHS mandating its use?
She is so wrong!
Every once in a while I get truly upset (and that means angry). When that happens, I start posting things all over facebook and twitter about all the bull statistics that people love to falsely tout as if they were proving their agenda was correct with the backing of the masses. Last time I checked, biology is not actually a democratic issue. In other words, one cannot change something that deals with life and death simply by gathering enough votes.
That would only work if natural law did not exist. Oh wait! That MUST be the premise that Planned Parenthood is operating upon. More than that, I believe it is the end that Planned Parenthood has been striving to achieve for decades! What great leaps of discovery (and what lucrative business) will be possible if natural law isn't there to "get in the way" of progressive science?!
This is in no way as simple as "the left" or "the right" of politics. It is actually far
more simple, because, as I have pointed out, it is not a
political issue. It is, of course, because man has made laws concerning biology, and so constituents are called upon to vote in one way or another. At the end of the day, however, and for that matter, at the beginning of the day too, this is still a biological and natural issue, that comes before legislation and politics.
I recall about ten years ago when I was first entering the "teenage" scene. I heard comments from my parents and others' parents about "relativism" in the media. Movies, especially, were "relativistic." At the time, my comprehension of what they meant was limited. I understood that they meant that some "bad" things were being allowed when they shouldn't be. I did not really understand what "relativistic" was.
However, as an adult who can look over the progression of what was a 90's PG movie and what is a current PG movie (do they even make those anymore?), I understand the concept. I understand it, because I see it alive all around me. Particularly in
any are that deals with personal/private issues (which typically are biological/natural). Health care, family planning, marital relations, sexual activity, etc...these are "taboo," but flipped upside down. These things were once taboo as far as they were considered inappropriate or improper for the public sector. Now, they are taboo in that
no one should have a say about
anyone else in their behavior, habits, preferences etc...to the extent that all public portrayal and licensing of these behaviors is completely acceptable SO THAT no one is excluded or isolated in negativity.
Ok, first of all, that is a ridiculous sentence. Second of all, it's sickeningly circular. No one gets anywhere in relativism. Relativism is NOT progressive. It's not exactly regressive either. It's just a status quo. That is the entire concept! Maintain some absolute LUKEWARM status quo so that everything and anything is acceptable and nothing is unacceptable.
See, even if you aren't Christian and don't find that disheartening or sickening, someone who is simply LOGICAL can understand the concept that when "anything" is acceptable and "nothing" is unacceptable, you enter into a sort of "black hole" where the vacuum of reason is constantly being sucked away, leaving nothing but the abyss of stasis. Stasis is not healthy, because it is not growing, and as it is not growing, it's more like a state of existing (which is always struggling to survive) rather than living (which is proper to the beings we are). Maybe I've lost you.
If I could put some cartoons in here, I would. Picture the following.
Little plant begins to grow.
Other little plant tries to come up next to it, but plant A is not thrilled.
Plant B needs more soil/nutrients/sunlight to continue to live.
Plant A is not sharing.
Person who is growing these plants (pretend that is all of us voters/leaders/people who decide things about our culture) tells them to share evenly, because everything is acceptable and nothing is unacceptable.
Since that clearly doesn't work well, both A and B cease to grow, because there is not enough for either of them. Why? Because the one who had the reason and logic to determine that there is a "right" and "wrong," a better answer and a poorer answer, decided to choose neither the good or bad answer, but some lukewarm crap in the middle. Death followed.
Granted, I'm not on a tirade about sharing resources or anything like that. While I do care about important social justice issues, those are not very applicable when the people themselves are dying because of legalized infanticide and other lovely forms of killing innocent children.
That is what relativism is, my friends. It says "we're all ok," and since that is not actually possible in a human society (you know, sinners and saints), the cultural theme (relativism) tries to stuff down the saints so they aren't so good and make the sinners look better so no one feels too guilty, etc...
Remember that time that everything had to be "equal opportunity," and we all have the same rights as everyone else? Too much of a good thing, is a bad thing. These concepts, when appropriately enacted, are good. I'm certainly not advocating that we pick some group of people to be "inferior" or "superior" and return to the feudal system. I am advocating that "equality" taken to an extreme actually hinders growth and health in a culture because we aren't actually the
same. We do have equal dignity, of course. We are also different, though, and that is a gift that should allow us to thrive. But relativism is scared of thriving.
Ugh, anyway, the major issue I raised within the relativism umbrella is that we don't even blink an eye when people are LYING outright to the world about things that really ought to matter... you know, killing babies. 99% of women do not use birth control. I promise. That is a fabricated statistic. Beyond that, even if they did, it still wouldn't make it right to kill children (assuming that many birth controls are abortifacients, which they are). Other fabrications by Ms. Richards and Planned Parenthood include that the Catholic Church is trying to take over and force our laws upon the poor, unsuspecting world, and PP is there to work with HHS to defend everyone (that's a summary, not a direct quote, of course).
But here is a direct quote from Ms. Richard's article: "The beauty of birth control is if you don't want or need it, you don't have to use it. That's a decision women can make perfectly well on their own, without the interference of government or religion. And that's something on which we should all be able to agree." The funny thing is, and sense my sarcasm if you will, mandating that health care plans carry birth control and abortion services even in religious institutions that conscientiously object
is absolutely the "interference of government." What else is it? Is HHS not a government organization? I am at a loss here. Of course women can or cannot use birth control.. they were able to before this law. I fail to see how this argument is in her favor. I think that's because I'm trying to use REASON. (Remember, in a relativistic culture, you aren't really supposed to do that.)
Here, I brought in another article, in case the first one wasn't convincing. Here, Ms. Richards states, "According to the
Guttmacher Institute, in 2011, state legislatures passed more than triple the number of anti-women's health provisions than in 2010 -- the highest ever." Oh no! I'm sorry, I thought those were laws to
save lives, I failed to see how they were anti-women's heath. In fact, based on the many statistics about how dangerous abortions and contraception can be for women, I thought those would be laws that were pro-the lives and health of babies and mothers. I guess I'm just dumb.
This is more for the laughter, but this is further in the same
article quoted above: "But now, due to anti-women's health laws passed in that state last year, those women will have to travel long distances ─and presumably go out of state in some instances -- for safe, legal abortion care. That means time away from work, transportation costs, someone to take care of the kids -- it all adds up to an additional burden on women who are already going through a very stressful experience." Well, here's a thought, Ms. Richards. Maybe the women who are pregnant might understand that the act of making love has the power and potential to bring forth new life. Maybe they would understand that even better if we are assuming that they already have kids who they are going to need to have a babysitter for, while they go have their new baby killed???
One more, than I'll stop. Here she says, "Opposing Roe and essential women's health care isn't just bad policy -- it's bad politics. That's because Americans agree with the protection that Roe provides. Polling consistently reaffirms that a majority of Americans support a woman's right to make her own decisions about pregnancy in consultation with her doctor and her family." Interesting. Here's a nice
Gallop poll that disagrees with this.
Anyway, she's turning into a political issue, which means that she too misunderstands the fundamental issue that is at stake, or she willfully chooses to try to destroy it. I will certainly not pretend to know her agenda. All I can see is that these facts are not factual, and that the issue is life and death. It is black and white. It is non-negotiable. As relativistic as our culture wants to be, this isn't something that can fall into the vortex and "just be ok." The vortex will spit it back out. That is because people understand, inherently, that we come from somewhere, and go somewhere, and this experience of being born and dying is one that every person must face, whether they are in agreement or not. It cannot be "voted" away. While mankind tries to find ways to conquer or dominate life and death, he continues to be born and to die. Because natural law is what it is. It is part of the divine law, and it is based in the Truth. God has created us, and we cannot escape the reality we live in.
This blog made me very happy, because people aren't really that stupid. Moreover, it does seem that the younger generation of Americans is rather aware that life and death are very, very real things. It is full of hope, and that is what real progress is about. Living in hope, and not accepting a status quo where relativism eats us alive.
Anyway, as Padre Pio said, "Pray, hope, and don't worry." In this case, I'm praying, hoping, and writing a blog post to try to get other people to shake off the slumber and
wake up.
