20 states already have required contraceptive coverage -- which is already paid by several major Catholic hospitals and universities -- and, mysteriously, the world has not yet ended. Moreover, plenty of existing insurance programs include contraception with a copayment rather than for free... but a copayment is still subsidized by insurance, so the same argument would apply, except that it hasn't been made. This position has no logic, only vitriol.
Moreover, paying for insurance is not the same as paying for contraceptives. You're arguing that having a religious affiliate pay for insurance which might be used by some employees for birth control is a violation of that religion's rights. That is such a tenuous and indirect connection as to be ridiculous. Justice Scalia, hardly a liberal darling, has already written that religious groups engaging in the secular marketplace must be bound by secular labor laws.
What, should we allow religious affiliates to flagrantly violate OSHA guidelines for safe workplaces, or food-safety guidelines, or any of a host of other laws, purely because of religion? Just how much religious involvement does a place have to have in order to acquire a religious exemption from any pesky regulation? Can I just prefix "Baptist" to the second word in "Joe's Garage" and suddenly escape governmental oversight?
|A similar story is HERE , where a preschooler was told she needed to eat a school provided lunch because hers wasn't healthy enough. Another example of the intrusive, almost Orwellian involvement of government in the choices that individuals make.|
There are many examples of strong left or right leaning individuals have been elected.
After Nixon/Ford - Jimmy Carter was elected (very left wing)
After Carter - Ronald Reagan was elected (very right wing)
After W Bush - Obama was elected (who was ranked as the most liberal senator in 2007)
I would also say that while Santorum is definitely conservative, he is FAR from hyper-conservative by US standards.
Reagan was "very right wing"? Perhaps by the standards of the 1980s. By today's increasingly extreme standards, he's practically a moderate.
"The most liberal senator" ploy is such a clear canard that I'm amazed you dare to still use it. Conservative groups have become unbelievably clever in compiling metrics and massaging statistics in order to anoint any convenient Democrat as "the most liberal." Of course, the standards are different every time, purely in order to produce a pre-determined outcome. But that's called propaganda, not legitimate measurement or information.
And if Santorum is "FAR from hyper-conservative," then I'm pretty sure no rational person wants to meet the genuine article. Denying evolution and global climate change, opposing not only abortion but also contraception, calling for secular laws to be based on religious guidelines, disparaging women in the military or the civilian workplace, being so relentlessly homophobic as to provoke one of the most successful examples of Google-bombing? What more does the man need before he can be unanimously acknowledged as an ultra-partisan hack?
Conservatives wouldn't get bashed if they didn't continue to use such sloppy, haphazard rhetoric, at clear variance with actual reality.