But, if you are interested in my opinion, then basically it comes down to whether one finds it acceptable to pay women less than men for the same work. It's an equal pay for equal work scenario. I don't find it acceptable for an employer to ostensibly pay the same amount of money for the same job to women as they pay to men, except for that the pay for women does not include a major item of routine health care that requires an office visit and a prescription (which pretty much is what differentiates it from say, toothpaste or athlete's foot spray) and the pay for men includes all major routine health care (that requires a medical professional's intervention, etc, see above).
That's a load of crap. What are men getting that women aren't getting if the Catholic church doesn't pay for their birth control? Equal pay means equal pay. It doesn't mean women get a special bonus because they have different expenses than men. Unles you are arguing that equality means equality of outcome.
Even if it were, this is a matter of religious freedom. If you don't want to be bound by the dictates of a religion that is not your own,
do not go to work for that relgion. So, it all comes down to whether one considers it appropriate for the fedgov to require that women be paid the same amount as men for the same work. There is a legitimate difference of opinion on this point that tends to split along the line between liberal/conservative. However, the argument that women who take this sort of job should suck it up because they knew it was not fair is pretty silly. Thanks for noticing that women's lives, like everybody else's, are not fair. But in the immortal words of Calvin "Why can't it ever be unfair in my favor?" Women, just like people, tend to try to make our lives a bit less unfair for us. Wanting to get paid the same money for doing the same stuff is a far cry from whining for free stuff. And this pretty much comes under the heading of the principle behind the post-civil war amendments: It is simply not enough for gov't to say "Hey, y'all are free, go forth and prosper." When there's institutionalized discrimination denying equality to a specific class of people on a fairly broad scale, saying they're free to work where they want, study where they want, live where they want, is meaningless so long as those institutions persist in denying that class of persons equal--or even reasonable--access to work, study, or reside.
Not giving women an extra benefit that men don't get =/= THE PATRIACHY IS HOLDING TEH WOMYN DOWN!
Obviously, this is on a much smaller scale, but the same principle applies. The "and be glad you have a job [that pays you less because you have women's health needs they don't like]" is pretty disingenuous. One is permitted to want, and demand, what one wills from his employer. At my last job, I was very glad to have a job, but pushed my employer pretty hard to keep the office open later in the evening, to make my life more convenient. I was glad to have a job, but appreciated it when a colleague who was in a slightly more secure position agitated for overtime pay. If one believes that fedgov interference to ensure equal pay for equal work is acceptable, then absolutely, agitating for this particular benefit is a legitimate expression of a reasonable and ethical desire.
Only if you believe that equality of outcome is your goal. FURTHER you have to completely ignore the fact that the religion for whom these women are working is firmly opposed to this "benefit". Again, there are hundreds or thousands of other jobs than to go work for the Catholic church. To force this upon the Church in the name of "equality" is completely disingenuous. This is about forcing the Catholic church to abandon their beliefs in favor of your own.
Heck, I'm glad to have a roof over my head, but I want my landlord to clean my funky carpet. I'm entitled under my lease, and therefore I want it. I'm glad I have a left arm, but want to have less pain using it. I'm not entitled to it, but I want it, and I'm going to do what I can to get it. People strive for stuff. People want more than what we have. It's what landed men on the moon, it's what settled the West, and it's what built this weird place we call the USA. It's what makes us people. Even those of us who have vaginas.
But, if after signing a lease that says you'll clean your own carpet, you petition the government to force your landlord to clean your carpet for you, that would be more the case here.
And speaking of having vaginas, I like to use mine. To have sex. Kind of like most of you like to have sex. But that's utterly irrelevant. In fact sex in general is utterly irrelevant. There's an unequal benefit and there's a religious principle. That those two things involve sex does not matter. The issue isn't the sex, it's the unequal employment benefits. But as it was raised, so sure, I'll go there. Seems that according to the Catholic Church (and most others), having sex is pretty much a duty spouses owe to each other. It's also a pretty vital component of most non-sucky spousal relationships. Do you gentlemen really want women to stop having sex? Cuz you'd get tired of jacking off pretty quick, one would think, no? And if you don't actually want women to stop having sex, why do you keep saying so? Why is this a part of the issue? Seems to me that if a woman wishes to not pay for birth control to keep her pay (as close as possible to) equal to her male colleagues', she simply needs to insist he use a condom. Personally, aside from the taste, I have no issue with condoms, but haven't met too many guys who really enjoy them. And the latex taste issue is resolved pretty easily, but again, have yet to meet a guy who thinks my solution is a particularly great plan. So, I'm assuming that most of you do actually want your wives, significant others, less-significant others, etc., to use the sort of birth control that y'know, doesn't generally decrease your enjoyment of sex.
No, the issue ISN'T sex. It may be the Catholic's issue, but as I am not Catholic, I don't have the same beliefs. It IS about forcing the Catholics to conform to your beliefs because you think their "issues" are wrong wrong wrong and must be put down in the name of "equality!!11"
But of course, there are principles at stake way bigger than whether you like to wrap it or not. It's about issues of government and religion and other big issues. And reasonable minds can differ on that point. Especially since it's really about equitable application of job benefits, and not about sex at all.
Yes, and it's about FREEDOM, not equality of outcome. That's why those of us (and as far as I can tell, not a single Catholic has opined yet) who are not Catholics take this so seriously. This is an abridgement of the first amendment.
So, why, for the love of the gods and all that is holey, why have so many men made this about smearing women who like/have too much sex? Why has this become about jokes about aspirin between the knees and name-calling? What purpose does it serve?
In a democratic republic, the rights of two parties to be free to do as they will tend to bump heads an awful lot. This is another instance of that. No more, no less. Equal pay v. religious freedom. Ok, so it's a biggie. But sluts? "Keep your pants on"? "Any woman who spends more than $3000 on birth control is a slut"? "whinging"?
Rush's point (and my own when I adopted it) was that she was LYING. The slut reference was to call attention to the absurdity of her claims. Further, if Ms. Fluke didn't want her sex life the subject of national scrutiny, perhaps she shouldn't have made it a topic of a congressional photo op/press conference.
Double-yew-tee-eff, gentlemen. Please find some civility and use it, because throwing your weight around about how much more sexual freedom you ought to have than women is a-stupid, b-incorrect, C-NOT THE *expletive deleted*ING ISSUE.
Civility begins with honesty. I think dishonesty should be treated with disrespect.
As for the rest, I completely agree that the employer based health insurance is a very stupid arrangement. However, until that is rectified, further government intrusion on freedom should and will be fought. The precedence of abridging the first amendment in the name of "equality" is not some light thing.
