Thursday, July 10, 2014

Finally - Common Sense from a New Feminist amidst the hysterics ...

After the last Supreme Court decision in favor of religious freedom for Hobby Lobby, there has been an insanity of uproar on the side of radical feminism. To which so many everyday women no merely yawn and roll their eyes - but it is ah! so refreshing to here a breath of sanity on the subject. [Enter new feminist Helen Alvare stage left]. In this eloquent piece she breaks down the reality that radical feminists do NOT speak for all women.

"Prior to the 2012 HHS Mandate, there were no “runs” on birth control suppliers, nor were there demonstrations in the streets by women demanding free birth control. Nowhere was there observed a dearth of women willing to work for businesses informed by a religious conscience on matters of contraception or abortion..."

"Justice Ginsburg Doesn’t Speak for All Women
"There is also a sizable cohort of women who dislike (or even hate) the side effects of some forms of contraception—especially those of hormonal methods such as the pill, Depo-Provera, and IUDs. Ironically, these are the more costly methods that Justice Ginsburg and other activists hope the mandate will most promote. You can find women hating hormonal birth control for decidedly nonreligious reasons in books like Holly Griggs Spall’s Sweetening the Pill, or inarticles on popular news sites.
"Then there is the significant group of women who have suffered some alarming health effects from their birth control. Think of the 10,000 women suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals for blood clots or strokes related to the Yaz pill (Bayer has paid more than $1.6 billion in settlements so far), or the 3,800 women suing Merck & Co. for the blood clots, strokes and heart attacks related to the Nuva-Ring. Even birth-control cheerleaders like Vanity Fair, theWashington Post, and the New York Times acknowledge the serious or fatal effects of some methods for some women, or their role in increasing AIDS/HIV transmission. Not to mention the World Health Organization or the American Cancer Society, organizations that label some forms of the pill carcinogenic to some parts of the body, while noting that some forms might mitigate the risk of cancer in others.
"There are also women with religious objections to contraception, including not only a surprising number of young Catholics, but also some groups of Evangelicals.
"And what of women who are infertile, menopausal, fond of natural methods of fertility management, or not sexually active? What about women who have no moral objection to contraception, but either respect the good of religious freedom in a free society, or even appreciate, substantively, the thoughtful witness religious people offer on matters of sex and marriage? What about women who fear the heavy hand of government and the slippery slope that Justice Ginsburg fervently constructs? That is, they fear the idea that all government mandates become baseline “rights,” impervious to religious or other exemptions.
"What about women who are just sick and tired of the obsession with contraception and abortion—women starving for concrete policies allowing them to manage the costs of education and the demands of work, and also to marry and have kids?
"This adds up to a lot of women who are not nodding their heads in agreement over the “you can take my free contraception out of my cold, dead hands” tone of the Ginsburg dissent, or other frenzied post-Hobby Lobby laments.
"How Birth Control Became a Proxy for Women’s Freedom... READ THE REST AT THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE"
Have a blessed day!  xo

No comments:

Post a Comment