SCOTUS VS. POTUS VS. MOTHRA
Hey! Good to see you folks again. I've decided to start using this ol' debbil blog page again, for no particular reason beyond my love of my own voice, and the fact that, for some unknown reason, people actually listen to what I have to say. Go figure.
TROY HICKMAN'S TWO RULES OF HUMAN SEXUALITY!!!
There are only two of them, and a lot of folks will love me for the first, and hate me for the second, but they are inextricably bound, and you can't have one without the other.
RULE #1: What consenting adult human beings do in the privacy of their own bedroom is NONE OF MY DAMNED BUSINESS.
Pretty simple, right? I think it's something on which MOST of us can reach (wait for it) Common Grounds. Now...
RULE #2: Because what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my damned business, you cannot expect me to SUBSIDIZE any of those activities with my tax dollars. That means it's not my business to pay for (A) your birth control, (B) your abortions, (C) the treatment of STDS, and (D) the care and upkeep of any children that are created as a result of what goes on in that bedroom.
Got it? This country is based on the concept of NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. If what you do in your bedroom is none of my business and not something you want me to be able to affect through my elected representatives, you therefore cannot confiscate my moolah to pay for it. Simply put, if you want me to keep my big nose out of your bedroom, you have to keep your fingers out of my wallet. But the minute you start making me pay for it, I have a right to a say in what goes on there. Now me, I don't WANT a say in what you do there, so just don't ask me to pony up any dough for it, and we'll get along fine.
(Usually this is where dissenters raise one of two issues. Some will say "but it's cheaper to pay for the birth control and abortions than to pay for all those kids!" To those folks, read point D above. Others will say "But...but there are all kinds of things in this country we don't get a say about but still have to pay for...like...like the military!" Bzzzzzzt! Oh, sorry, you've failed the lightning round. In fact, you DO have the ability to affect what the military does through your elected representatives, and we can see myriad examples of this. But most of the folks who disagree with me DON'T want people's reproductive choices to be put up to a public vote or be able to be affected by legislation, so it's not the same, is it? You argue all the time that you don't want "women's health choices" to be changed by political forces. OK, so if you put them outside my ability to affect them through my vote or other political action, you also put them outside my responsibility to fund through my hard-earned dollars through taxation.
So which do you want? Do you want me to pay for your stuff and have a say in your bedroom, or do you want me to keep out of your bedroom while you keep out of my bank account? Because those are your only two choices, as far as I'm concerned.
And yet I keep seeing all these folks, who apparently eschew reason for talking points, claiming "this is limiting women's access to birth control!" Uh, no. Hobby Lobby pays their employees wages, which can be used for the aforementioned birth control. This will not stop anyone from going to a doctor, a pharmacy, etc. and getting some protection. Not picking up the tab for someone's wants is NOT the same as stopping them from getting it. No one is buying me a new car, which would certainly improve my life more than birth control, but if I can come up with the bread for it, there's no one stopping me from walking into a dealership and driving out with one (well, there isn't CURRENTLY such a force; these days, you never know when a new law will come down the pike).
According to the Planned Parenthood website, the Pill costs from $15-$50 a month. If you can't afford to spring for that much, why are you taking part in an activity that, even with protection, might cause you to have a child, which is one hell of a lot more expensive?
But, but Troy, you monster, that's a lot of money to some folks! What do you expect them to do...abstain from a natural human activity?!! Well, yeah, actually, if they can't afford a couple of tenspots a month to pay for their pleasure, maybe they should abstain until they can. Y'know, after my son was unexpectedly conceived and consequently delivered, my then-wife tried to get a tubal, but they told her she'd have to wait a couple of years. So, since we were afraid that other means of birth control might not be 100% effective, and we knew we could never afford a second child (we couldn't even afford the first), we decided not to have intercourse until after the tubal. Yes, gasp, we actually abstained for a couple of years! Oh, my god, what kind of a Superman of self-control must I have been?! The answer is I'm just a normal guy, with no more self-control than anyone else, but I decided to take self-responsibility. Unfortunately, these days that's become a dirty word.
Look, if this means that much to you, and if you want to help lower-income folks (like myself, btw; thanks to other Obamacare regulations, my employer had to cut my hours by 40%, and I'm at poverty level) with their birth control, abortifacients, etc., that's great. Just take a twenty out of your wallet and fork it over to Planned Parenthood or other such organizations. Or just hand it to someone who looks poor but still wants to engage in sex, and cut out the middleman. If as many people care about this issue as the left is claiming, they can easily raise all the money needed with just a small donation That way, you get what you want and no one has to feel like they've thrown their conscience under the bus But either way, you don't have the right to demand that ANYONE ELSE spring for it without having a say in how its used. That's TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
When it comes down to it, this finding from SCOTUS doesn't keep a single person from getting contraceptives and abortifacients. It just keeps business owners who disagree with the use of those things from being forced to pay for it (and truth be told, the Obama administration is already looking for other ways to force companies to do it, probably through unilateral "executive orders").
It's funny, y'know. In our culture, we already make allowances for people who care about their fellow man, but don't want to betray their heartfelt beliefs. It's called "conscientious objector status." But then, those folks aren't going against The Big O's agenda, nor are they reaching into anyone else's pocket, so we'll let them slide.
Oh, and this bogus "this is discrimination against women" silliness? Look, nowhere did the Supreme Court or anyone else say "companies can be forced to pay for men's reproductive services but not women's." In fact, unless I'm mistaken, Obamacare regulations don't even require insurance to cover the cost of condoms at all, so who is really being discriminated against here? Is it a war against men? And, y'know, given that condoms can help stop AIDS, and given that there's a higher than average occurrence of AIDS in the gay community, does that mean Obamacare discriminates against gay folks? Is it a war against them? Hmmm...
Look, the fact that this is even a controversy is terrifying to me, because it's indicative of what we've become, and what we'll continue to become if we don't put our foot down. I'm sorry to say it to folks who have the mantra of "government social programs uber alles," but sometimes the right answer to entitlements is "no."
Anyway, if you disagree with me, feel free to have at it; I'd like to hear why I'm wrong. Bear in mind, though, that you'll want to use logic, reasons, and facts. You probably don't want to just say "I FEEL that it's wrong" or spout sound bytes or call me names, as I'll just mock you mercilessly until you cry...