Screw You, ACLU

Dear ACLU,

I read your blog post titled History Is On Our Side: Why the Federal Contraception Rule is Constitutional.

As a Catholic, a woman, and an American citizen, I was grossly offended by your assertions about my faith, my life, and my ability to participate in American society.

You assert the following: Access to contraception is crucial for women’s equal participation in society. 

False. I have not used contraception since 2003 and I participate fully and equally in society. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in English with a minor in technical communication, and I work full-time in my field (and have done so since 2003). I also have four children, ranging in age from seven years to eight months. I vote in every election, primaries included, and stay informed regarding political events. 

Yet you claim that it is impossible for me to participate equally in society unless I use contraception -- moreover, that it is impossible for me to participate equally in society unless my Church pays for contraception! I can assure you that I have survived and flourished in society without anyone purchasing contraception on my behalf. When I was a poor college student and a non-Catholic, I managed to obtain my own contraception, quite easily, and without forcing someone else to violate their conscience to provide it for me.

You assert the following: Controlling whether and when to have children has had a direct effect on women’s ability to make their own paths in terms of their schooling, careers, their families.  

Absolutely, and there just happens to be an excellent way for a woman to control her childbearing -- it's called controlling when and with whom she chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, since sexual intercourse is the biological act intended to create children. 

If she chooses to engage in that act, she should accept the responsibilities inherent in that choice.
My husband and I have chosen to use Natural Family Planning to both achieve and avoid pregnancy during our marriage. We don't ask anyone to pay for our lifestyle, just like we don't ask anyone to pay for our daycare or the other expenses that come with having children. We've accepted responsibility for our choices, and we especially don't ask anyone to violate their consciences so that we can shirk our responsibility for the choices we make.

You assert the following: The contraception rule is also essential to eliminate the gender disparities in health costs: child-bearing women pay 68 percent more for out-of-pocket costs than men, in large part because of reproductive health needs. The contraception rule is therefore essential to gender equality on many levels.

In other words, the Catholic Church, affiliated organizations, and Catholic business owners must be forced to violate their beliefs and their consciences so that men don't have to take equal responsibility for the choice to engage in sexual intercourse, and you call that "gender equality." How is that remotely logical?

Finally, you give a laundry list of cases where the court ruled against religious freedom, and all of your examples cited discrimination based on gender or race. You end your list by saying the following: Fortunately, in all of these cases, the court rejected the claim that religious beliefs can trump anti-discrimination laws.

You have failed to clue into the fact that discrimination based on race or sex is unjust because it is based upon one's inherent state of being. Discrimination in the context of recreational birth control is entirely just, because it's discriminating based on a desire to engage in a voluntary behavior, not on a state of being. The Catholic Church refuses to pay for contraception for everyone -- man, woman, child, gay, straight, black, white, etc., and She has every right to do so. Free exercise of religion -- which includes not subsidizing sinful behavior -- is a guaranteed right in our Constitution. Free birth control is not.

Moreover, there is a large, gaping hole in your argument -- the refusal of the Church to subsidize contraception does not inhibit access to contraception. Condoms are available at the dollar store. Inexpensive contraception can be purchased at Target or WalMart for $4/pack. Drugstores all across the country carry contraception available for purchase. Abstinence and NFP are free or very low cost. The county health department and other organizations -- one of which the government keeps throwing money at for this express purpose -- reportedly provide free or inexpensive birth control.

No one is forced to work for a Catholic employer in the event that s/he is unwilling to take responsibility for his/her own sex life and wants their employer to subsidize it for them. And yet you claim I can't equally participate in society unless I not only use contraception, but force religious institutions to pay for it as well?

I am a Catholic woman who assents 100% to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I am an American woman and a working professional with a college degree. I am a married woman who has been pregnant six times and has four beautiful children here on earth. I am a woman who has taken control of her own fertility, and who takes responsibility for her own sexual choices.

Finally, I am a woman who will fight the HHS mandate with every breath of my body and every fiber of my being because I loathe and resent your pandering condescension. You claim to stand for civil liberties, but you degrade and insult every single woman in this country -- especially those who take responsibility for their own sexual choices -- when you insist that we can't possibly participate equally in this society unless we become exactly like men. That was not the goal of feminism, and never has been.

I can participate equally in society while retaining both my femininity and my fertility, and I can do it without forcing anyone to violate their religious beliefs. You would do women a much greater service if you helped them realize their potential to do likewise instead of telling them that they can't possibly participate equally in society unless they pretend to be men.

Sincerely yours,

JoAnna Wahlund

P.S. I had a different word in mind for the title of this blog post, but restrained myself. You're welcome.

Lies, Damn Lies, and... More Lies.

Elanor at 9w6d.
Also known as an "enemy combatant" according to these loonies.

This is in response to the opinion piece "War rages against women’s reproductive health choices" that appeared in the city of Surprise newspaper this week. I wrote a letter to the editor that debunked the lies told in the second paragraph of the piece only; the 250-word limit did not allow for a more thorough vetting. Thankfully, I have a blog.

Did politicians across the United States declare a war against women's reproductive health choices in 2011 continuing today?

Terrible grammar aside, the answer is no.

These are the facts:

Forget the alleged war on women - war has been declared on truth and honesty, if the following is what passes for "facts" nowadays.

They passed HR 358 that would let hospitals refuse to provide emergency abortion care to a woman, even though she would die without it.

False. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act already requires hospital workers to do whatever is necessary to stabilize the condition of both the mother and her “unborn child” (the wording in the law) in an emergency room.

They passed HR 3 that could force rape survivors who choose abortion to prove to an Internal Revenue Service agent that they were assaulted.

False. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), one of the bill's authors, stated, "The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so."

"They introduced legislation that would force women to have ultrasounds before receiving an abortion."

False. An ultrasound to determine gestational age of an embryo or fetus is standard medical care prior to abortion. The legislation in question merely requires that women be given a choice to view the ultrasound as part of informed consent.

In the five years prior to 2011, there was an average of 1.2 anti-choice bills targeting women in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2011, there were eight.

Ignoring the biased rhetoric (please see my article The Myth that is Anti-Choice), that may be because America is more pro-life than it has ever been before.

Over the past two years, the House of Representatives twice voted to slash federal family planning funds for low-income women [isn't that what Planned Parenthood is for? They're still getting government funds] and moved to prevent women from buying insurance plans that cover abortion.

False. The legislation in question stated that "women would not be able to buy plans that cover abortion using money from President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." As long as their own money is used, there's no restriction.

Twenty-six states enacted one or more anti-choice measures in 2011—twice as many as in 2010. One of the five new anti-choice laws in Kansas almost forced the state’s three abortion providers to close.

They neglect to mention that the legislation in question "ban[s] sex-selection abortion, uphold[s] the civil rights of the unborn throughout gestation to match their protection in criminal law, and protect[s] the rights of parents to accurate medical information about childbirth."How dare you, Kansas!

South Dakota became the first state to enact a law that forces a woman to undergo an in-person lecture from an anti-choice “crisis pregnancy center” before accessing abortion care. A judge blocked the law; however, the state’s governor is requesting $750,000 in taxpayer funds to defend this law in court.

Nice scare quotes around CPC. How dare women be given accurate information about their options from people actually equipped to help them! Why would you be opposed to women being informed of all their options before making a "choice"?

South Dakota also considered a bill justifying homicide in the case of imminent harm to a fetus. Would this bill legitimize the murder of individuals who provide abortions?

No, it would not, as reading the actual legislation would tell you:

Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows: 22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being.

As the author of the bill stated: "'This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide. [...] If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion.'"

Arizona’s law that allows churches to refuse to include contraceptive coverage in insurance policies for workers was expanded to provide a similar right to any “religious affiliated employer." That is defined as any company whose articles of incorporation say it is a religiously motivated organization whose beliefs are central to its operating principles. And while the goal is to cover things like Catholic hospitals, others worry it opens the door to any firm making a similar declaration.

The free exercise of religion is a bad thing? Have these people even read the Constitution?

In addition, HB 2036 passed both houses of the legislature and was signed into law by the governor. It outlaws all abortions after 20 weeks because of pain supposedly experienced by fetuses after that time.

"Supposedly" experienced? Why are pro-abortion activists anti-science? Did they not read the testimony of the medical professionals who testified in support of the legislation? And really, all of the pro-abortion activists who testified against the bill stated that "we can't know for sure" if a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution when it comes to torturing the unborn prior to killing them?

Of all the anti-choice legislation enacted by state legislatures, the bill that passed in Virginia created the loudest, most vehement response. This bill required any woman seeking an abortion to undergo a vaginally inserted sonogram probe prior to receiving the abortion. The national outcry caused the bill to be changed.

The bill was changed so that an abdominal ultrasound can be performed instead. Apparently pro-abortion activists are opposed to giving women comprehensive and reliable medical care prior to an abortion. A transvaginal ultrasound is simply the gold standard of care prior to an abortion, because it accurately determines the number, location and age of the unborn child -- factors which, if unknown, can cause potential complications during or after an abortion procedure.

The new Affordable Care Act requires contraception and other preventative women’s health care to be offered free to all U.S. women. The opposition claimed that first amendment rights to religious freedom were at stake.

Indeed, they are.

As a compromise, churches and religious institutions were exempted; however, insurance providers to Catholic hospitals and similar organizations were required to cover the cost of contraception.

It's not a compromise at all, and the definition of "religious institutions" is so narrow as to be farcical. Under their definition, the Eternal World Television Network (an organization whose stated mission is "to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ world wide not just through television but also through short wave radio, AM/FM radio, and the Internet") is NOT a religions institution. Nor is Priests for Life. Nor are private Catholic colleges such as Belmont Abbey. None of these organizations, incidentally, receive government funding.

Since the introduction of the birth control pill in the early 1060s and the legalization of abortion in 1973, women in America give birth to fewer children. Women tend to marry and have children later, increase their educational achievements, and participate more fully in the work force. The economy benefits by their positive health outcomes, lifetime earnings and political participation.

Regarding the falling birthrate, even the New York Times admits this is not a good thing, and it's not benefiting our economy. Further, abortion and contraception are not necessary for a woman to increase educational achievements, etc. Practicing chastity and personal responsibility can enable women to do the same.

Do the legislative enactments noted above result in moving the clock back to a much earlier time when women’s choices were curtailed and involuntary motherhood frequently resulted?

Apparently, these pro-abortion activists are not aware that feminists such as Susan B. Anthony considered abortion to be abhorrent and an affront to women everywhere.

Moreover, "involuntary motherhood"? Seriously? If you don't want to be a mother, don't have sex. Simple as that. Or, in the case of women who become pregnant due to rape or incest, adoption is an option that does not subject one to "involuntary motherhood". Involuntary pregnancy, perhaps, but that's an issue of justice, in that it's not fair to punish a child for the crimes of its biological father (not to mention that all abortion legislation currently enacted does contain exemptions in the cases of rape and incest, so it's really a red herring).


I am not surprised that pro-abortion activists must turn to lies to garner sympathy, as the facts are not on their side.

I Am the 98 Percent

Doesn't have much to do with the post, but hey, it's funny.

One of the Obama administration's justifications for the HHS' contraception mandate is that “Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute [affiliated with Planned Parenthood - hardly an unbiased source!] most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception.”

First off, this argument is completely irrelevant, as the U.S. Bishops point out:

If a survey found that 98% of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so?

Fr. Andrew over at Shameless Popery also discusses why this justification is both specious and dangerous:

By appealing to the behavior (not belief) of a particular religious group, the Administration (and others) are trying to indict the validity of an actual well-formed Catholic conscience. The claim might as well be: No one really holds that religious view so why should we respect it? This is how a government begins to form a litmus test for who's conscientious objection is worth respecting. We must all be extra careful to not muddy the "conscience" pool further.

However, going back to Guttmacher's "research," their number is quite skewed and dishonest.

You know how I know this?

It's because I am the 98%.

Note that the claim is that "most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception" (emphasis mine).

Those two words are the key to the deception. The statistic is not "98% of Catholic women are in favor of contraception." Nor is it "98% of Catholic women are currently using contraception to prevent pregnancy." It is "98% of Catholic women have used contraception."

That is ME. I used hormonal contraception from approximately June 2001 to February 2003. At the time, I was a practicing Lutheran, not a Catholic. In May 2003, my husband and I converted to Catholicism, and I had already thrown my pills away and started using NFP by that point.

But if a researcher came up to me on the street or called me on the phone and asked, first, "Are you Catholic?" and second, "Have you ever, at any point in your life, used contraception?" my answer to both would be, "Yes."

But is that an accurate reflection of my current views regarding contraception? Does my answer mean that I demand free and available contraception for my especial use? No.

That statistic also does not reflect any of the following facts:

(a) many Catholic women who have previously used contraception at some point in their lives no longer do so (or wish to do so);
(b) many women who self-identify as "Catholic" are not practicing Catholics;
(c) many women who self-identify as "Catholic" and who may attend Mass occasionally or even regularly do not believe the tenets of their own faith (i.e., they are Catholic for reasons of family pressure or family unity instead of a conviction of faith, and thus don't adhere to the tenets of Catholicism).

The CDC, when conducting research into how many Americans smoke tobacco, did not ask "Do you now or have you ever in your life smoked" without any regard as to if that person was currently smoking or had stopped smoking a decade ago. They had very strict criteria for who was considered a current smoker: "In 2010, an estimated 19.3% (45.3 million) of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers; of these, 78.2% (35.4 million) smoked every day, and 21.8% (9.9 million) smoked some days."

The CDC does not consider someone who smoked for a period of two years nearly a decade ago to be a "current smoker," so why does the Obama administration consider me, someone who used contraception for two years nearly a decade ago, to be part of the 98% of Catholic women who are allegedly clamoring for this mandate? Or, in other words, why does the Obama administration think that every single Catholic woman who has ever used contraception is in favor of forcing Catholic institutions to pay for free contraception for everyone else?

It'd be like expecting members of Alcoholics Anonymous to be in favor of forcing Baptist churches to provide free liquor for everyone! After all, those members have had a drink -- and even drank consistently -- at some point in their lives. In that case, they MUST be in favor of free booze for everyone, right?

A better survey for women would ask the following questions:

(a) Do you fully believe in and practice all of the tenets of the Catholic Church?
(b) If the answer to (a) is yes, do you currently use a contraceptive method of birth control?
(c) If the answer to (b) is yes, why did you lie in (a)?

In the fictional survey above, both (a) and (b) can't be "yes" answers, folks. If a practicing Catholic woman fully believes in and practices all of the tenets of the Catholic Church, then she doesn't use contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

If she does use contraception and it's not for therapeutic reasons (i.e., it's not used primarily to treat a medical condition with the unintended side effect of being contraceptive, allowed under the principle of double effect), then she's not a practicing Catholic; she's a dissenting Catholic, or a non-practicing Catholic. She is a Catholic butt.

How does it make sense for the government to make laws that bind a religion to provide something -- free of charge, no less -- that only dissenters or non-practitioners of that religion demand? Not only is it nonsensical, it's unconstitutional.