43 Comments

• eiriamach | Feb 28, 2012, 05:24 AM EST

  Correction: Women will NOT let the politicos get away with their lies. (Or maybe women will let them get away with lies-- until next November, when the US will see a demonstration of the wrath of women at the polls. A political tsunami on the way.)

• eiriamach | Feb 25, 2012, 03:04 PM EST

  Women will let the Catholic politicos, i.e., the bishops, get away with their organized campaign of lies. As Sarah Posner writes on Salon, 2/23, "The opponents of legal abortion and readily, widely available contraception have already made extraordinary gains— enormous setbacks for women — at the state level. This week’s developments in Virginia, where pro-choice opposition prompted Gov. Bob McDonnell to back off his pledge to sign into law a bill that would mandate transvaginal ultrasound before abortion [legalized, high tech rape], demonstrate how robust, unabashed activism can expose the right’s extremism on these issues. But it also showed how the long game has paid off for the right, as the ultrasound bill may nonetheless become law, just without the vaginal intrusion. 'Pregnancy care centers,' some affiliated with evangelical and Catholic churches, teach that birth control is harmful and doesn’t even work. The Catholic Church— which is claiming that the federal government is infringing on its rights— disseminates false information that contraceptives do not prevent unintended pregnancy and harm women. In the ever-shifting goal post of sin, the emergency contraceptives Ella and Plan B are now falsely depicted by Obama foes as 'abortifacients,' opening the door for opponents to claim the contraceptive coverage requirement compels them to cover abortion, too." It seems there's no alternative but to call this campaign what it is: a coordinated set of lies motivated by the need to retain church power at the cost of integrity and real moral leadership.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 23, 2012, 02:06 PM EST

  No, I'm not, Eiriamach. The Ella pill like it's close relative RU-486 can get to work within a woman's body for up to 5 days after it is ingested. Sperm have been known to fertilize eggs as soon as 72 hours after intercourse and in theory these pills can prevent the implantation during this time. I realize that the medical studies on this are not decisive on this matter but more long-term data is required before we can say for sure. The ability of these pills to prevent implantation is still present due to the heavy doses of hormones that it carries.

• adrienrain | Feb 22, 2012, 06:15 PM EST

  If altar boys could get pregnant, this controversy would never have arisen. For that matter, women who have had sex with priests and conceived, report that the priest pressured them to have an abortion. Celibacy is the most artificial form of birth control there is, and every bit as virtuous as constipation.

• eiriamach | Feb 22, 2012, 05:49 PM EST

  Gearoid4, You're simply wrong, and perhaps youy should read the research. It seems rather simple: research has shown, quite conclusively, that ella works by delaying ovulation, not by preventing implantation as heavy-dose, earlier, "morning after" pills worked: if ella delays ovulation, there can be NO fertilized ovum; if there is NO fertilized ovum, there is NO implantation. If there is NO implantation of fertilized ovum, then there is NO pregnancy and hence NO chemically induced abortion (there's nothing to abort). In order to show that ella is an abortifacient, you need to show not just that it thins the uterine lining, but that the research demonstrating ella's suppression of ovulation is wrong. Can you do that? Hint: Most likely, the reason why no clinician has demonstrated an abortifacient effect is that pregnancy does not occur during the first five days of ella's effect (in other words, ella works by suppressing ovulation). As for choice, of course no one I know of in the USA would try to force a woman to abort a pregnancy. However, parents generally have the right to decide in the case of their pregnant child. MDs often advise evacuation of the uterus because of common life-threatening complications of pregnancy in children (and the genetic anomalies common to fetuses in childhood pregnancies) and to avoid the surgery that would be necessary if the child could carry the pregnancy to term (children's bodies can become pregnant but cannot naturally give birth in most cases).

• Gearoid4 | Feb 22, 2012, 02:45 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, We know that as the Ella pill, while ostensibly an emergency contraceptive, works like it's close cousin RU-486 in preventing implantation as it works for up to 5 days after use. Thus it can be said to have an abortaficient capability, which most modern contraceptive pills possess anyway. The enforced rape and impregnation of minors or women of any age is a horrific crime and the full weight of the law should be used on the criminals who commit such atrocities. In this type of situation, the victim should always be treated with the utmost sympathy and care. As regards the fate of the life in the womb, it is very hard to be dispassionate in such a situation. But if one is consistently pro-life, then they cannot recommend the destruction of that life. Being "pro-choice" does not mean that one restricts the available options for pregnant women experiencing some difficulties, to a trip to the abortion clinic. If this term is used in it's proper context, one would include such invaluable choices as pro-life counselling, after-birth natal care or even adoption services. That is REAL choice.

• hollabackgurl | Feb 22, 2012, 09:45 AM EST

  Santorum believes that women shouldn't serve in the Armed Forces or work outside the home. They should not have access to contraception of any kind. They should be barefoot and in the kitchen. 'I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated.'

• JosephOCasey | Feb 22, 2012, 07:04 AM EST

  Nice of you to attribute a quote to Rick Santorum that he never made, it was Foster Friess who made the Bayer aspirin comment..not Santorum. If you are going to smear him, at least get your quotes straight.

• eiriamach | Feb 21, 2012, 09:24 AM EST

  @Gearoid4, I forgot to mention that Justo Aznar *cannot* conduct clinical trials because his degree is not in medicine-- Ph.D, not M.D. He read the medical journals, articles written by real clinicians, and he did some guesswork about ella on the basis of what he read, but in ignorance-- or deliberate disregard-- of how the medical profession prescribes ella. Anyone who can read can do the same, but most who are lay people in medical science have enough integrity not to speculate wildly about research in the sciences. Again I am compelled to say that the Catholic establishment is deliberately citing pseudo-scientific, religiously-biased tracts to keep its war on women's health in play.

• eiriamach | Feb 21, 2012, 09:01 AM EST

  Justo Aznar is a doctor at the Catholic University of Valencia; he wrote for the journal 'Medicine and Morality,' and he theorized-- with NO clinical trials-- in 2009 about the effects of ellaOne, an early version of the current pill: "It appears that its mechanism of action will depend on the time at which the drug is taken." Of course! That's why physicians do not prescribe ella for pregnant women! He speculates, "Endometrial changes may also play a role." Nice guess, doc, but guesses are not science. And endometrial changes are irrelevant since ella has been shown highly effective in delaying ovulation past the viability of even young, vigorous, teenaged sperm in the uterus. "Therefore, after evaluation of the previous studies, in our opinion, it can be reasonably concluded that ulipristal acetate (Ellaone) may inhibit or delay ovulation, while altering the endometrium, actions which explain its contraceptive effect; undoubtedly however, how the drug acts in each specific case will essentially depend on the day of the female cycle on which it is taken." He guesses that if ella is taken two days before ovulation BUT 72 hours after intercuorse, "the mechanism by which Ellaone **may** prevent unwanted pregnancies will be by an anti-implantation mechanism, in other words, abortive." Using guesswork about highly unlikely scenarios, Dr. Aznar has done the best he could for the Catholic anti-choice movement, but his conclusions ignore known facts and medical restrictions about who may take this pill and when.

• eiriamach | Feb 21, 2012, 08:28 AM EST

  Each year in the US, more than 25,000 pregnancies result from rapes. And half of all US pregnancies are unplanned (resulting from unprotected sex). It is beyond the pale that anyone would oppose use of a medication like ella in medicine's effort to deal with these horrendous statistics, especially when one considers the number of children-- teenaged or younger-- whose lives are forever altered by rape and early pregnancies. WHERE is the concern for our children, if not for women of childbearing age? The serious risks of pregnancy, to both the pregnant woman and the fetus, do not begin to diminish until about age 20. THINK about the fate of the children who could be subjected to a Catholic regimentation of American health care for females!

• eiriamach | Feb 21, 2012, 08:21 AM EST

  @Gearoid4, Ella can cause a thinning of the uterine wall that WOULD act against implantation BUT since we know for sure that ella delays ovulation, it is virtually impossible for a fertilized ovum to be present. And the 30mg dose, as Dr. Glasier points out, is "unlikely to be strong enough to prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg" (2010 Lancet 365: “Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised noninferiority trial and meta-analysis). The ella pill is "chemically similar" to the earlier "morning after" pill (RU 486), but the amount of active chemical is far less than in RU486; hence it lacks abortifacient action. Doctors use ella to treat fibroid tumers also. The web sites you've visited to get your "information" use phrases like "arguably" and "in theory" and "possibly" to suggest that ella might be abortifacient. BUT Physicians must test for pregnancy before administering ella, and if the woman is pregnant, the MD will not administer ella! "Emergency contraception prevents ovulation. It has no impact on pregnancies that are already underway" (Van Look & Stewart, 1998). Your search for reasons to oppose the HHS mandate is more than strained; it is fanatical. Thousands of conditions interfere with implantation of fertilized ova, from a mild cold to unknown chemicals in the air or water. Many thousands of unimplanted fertilized ova flush down toilets every day, usually before women ever suspect they might have become pregnant--that is a fact of nature--though not a convenient fact for your religion.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 20, 2012, 04:36 PM EST

  Okay, Eiriamach, here is a little sample of that much needed proof that you require which gives the lie to the claim that Ella is not an abortafacient pill- CBS News notes ella’s “chemical similarity” to RU-486 (which will not be “free” under Obamacare). The New York Times describes it as being RU-486’s “chemical relative.” The Washington Post describes it as being RU-486’s “close chemical relative.” WebMD says that it works to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg — in other words, as an abortifacient. Dr. Justo Aznar writes that between 50 percent and 70 percent of the time, ella “will act by an abortive mechanism.” The European Medicine Agency acknowledges that the drug has the "ability to delay maturation of the endometrium likely resulting in prevention of implantation." For the umpteenth, pregnancy is a very natural condition that contraception seeks to prevent, thus when one applies logic to that situation, one can dismiss the "health" angle as regards it's prescription in the majority of cases. Well, you think that Mary is no model for women to follow because she give her willing consent to God's plan to bear His Son. This is a very revealing comment. You ridiculously describe my "metaphysics as very dehumanising of the female". It is the complete opposite in fact as it is a celebration of the wonderful maternal gift of giving birth to children and rearing them in a loving family, unencumbered by the false promise of freedom from those who preach about having "control over one's body" through frustrating the natural life-giving potential of one's body. @Ephraim, the rights of religious bodies are covered by the First Amendment of the US Constitution which the Obama Administration is figuratively driving a horse and coach through.

• Harliemt | Feb 20, 2012, 03:24 PM EST

  Two thumbs up hollabackgurl!

• hollabackgurl | Feb 20, 2012, 02:11 PM EST

  Rick Santorum DOES beleive that women should not work. He believes they should not be in the Armed Forces. He believes that life begins at last call in the nightclub. He believes that if you're not Christian and Catholic you're not qualified to be president. He's much more of a fanatic than this quote, if anything.

• eiriamach | Feb 20, 2012, 01:22 PM EST

  Unless American32 is required to hand $21.58 (contraceptive insurance cost) to each American woman worker in a church-affiliated hospital or school, the HHS mandate does no violence to his or her "moral beliefs." There are no abortion-inducing drugs included in the mandate: get the facts and don't fall for the spin!

• American32 | Feb 20, 2012, 11:41 AM EST

  Rick Santorum NEVER said that. The financer of his superpac said that. To attribute the quote to Santorum is irresponsible. More importantly, the argument isn't whether American women have access to birth control, its whether the government can force anyone to pay for Abortion inducing drugs, sterlization, and actual birth control when it is against their moral beliefs. Obama promised this wouldn't happen and then he renegged, violating the fee practice [of religion] clause in the first amendent that the government shall make no law ". . . prohibiting the free practice thereof." .

• EphraimKibbey | Feb 20, 2012, 12:08 AM EST

  @Gearoid4 - Has the RC now sunk to relying on nature for its tenents. I always thought that one of the church's main lines of belief was that we were to rise above our animalistic nature. What is so natural about celibacy?

• EphraimKibbey | Feb 19, 2012, 11:53 PM EST

  Sorry, Again, are't = aren't. stste = state. I REALLY do proof read these before I post and my wife bought me a new big screen monitor for Christmas but my 62 year old eyes can't keep up with my numerous hunt and peck typos.

• EphraimKibbey | Feb 19, 2012, 11:45 PM EST

  @eiriamach - Thanks, I was going for obfuscate (are't v and f transposed in some languages?) but I'll give your half the bragging rights to our new word for your inventive definition. I think we are all missing something in this argument. Rights are for individual PEOPLE. Organizations and corporations are not people! (Sorry, Mitt - you're wrong as the laughter of the crowd should have told you.) They are not granted any rights by the constitution. They are governed by the laws of the United States. That is why the courts have found against the RC everytime it challenged one of the similar state laws. Most of those stste laws, by the way, were enacted by GOP lawmakers.

• eiriamach | Feb 19, 2012, 06:11 PM EST

  Gearoid4, it's false that ella is abortifacient. You've cited no reputable medical journal for that claim because no research has shown it. Birth control frustrates no "natural order of things." Childbearing is given by nature to women to plan judiciously, not to engage in sex as though its consequences do not matter. The "so be it" said by Mary to the archangel Gabriel is no model for female sexual behavior, not if she remained a virgin, as your doctrine holds. Every woman knows that she may be solely responsible for her offspring and that God will not rain down baby powder, strained peas, and Pampers from the clouds, much less money for schooling. Again, contraception is a health issue for women because effective contraceptives are available only by prescription. If you wish to avoid getting a cold, you take Vitamin C; if a woman wishes to avoid pregnancy, she uses a contraceptive. Pregnancy is more natural? Sure, so is a really bad cold! It would be completely "natural" for human beings to capitulate to nature and die. But we don't. We resist nature in a multitude of ways every day just to stay healthy and responsible. Your notion that women should do nothing and let God manage their childbearing so completely objectifies the female body that it leaves women devoid of either free will or spirit, and such a condition does not fit my definition of "human." Your metaphysics of the female is dehumanizing; as Harliemt suggests, it's just a pretext for male control.

• seanomelb | Feb 19, 2012, 05:41 PM EST

  If gearoid4 wishes to hold health insurance which proscribes contraceptives so be it. I do not wish to have Gearoid or a bishop in my bed at night or in my doctors surgery.If the minority christian right wish to dictate terms they should refuse federal funding and pay income tax on their $100 billion dollar earnings each year. An Innocent man was executed last year and the USBC stood silent. It's a pity their concern for human live ends at the pre natal stage the hypocrites.

• Harliemt | Feb 19, 2012, 03:45 PM EST

  As an RN working in a psychiatric hospital prior to Roe V Wade, I was witness to far too many brain damaged children who were the result of coat hanger abortions. Is this really what they want us to go back to. Being Pro Choice is not being pro abortion. Once again it's the male gender wanting to controll our minds and bodies. Enough.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 19, 2012, 02:57 PM EST

  The part that stipulates that the insurance payments (without co-pay) has to be paid by employers for certain procedures that go against the tenets of employers with a deep religious ethos. The grounds for employers to be excluded are so narrow, as to be completely worthless. The encyclical "Humanae Vitae" is pretty clear on it's prohibition of artificial contraceptive as it constitutes a clear rejection of the connection between procreation and the mutual union between the married couple. It is deemed to be a serious sin according to the Ordinary Magisterium. To receive this teaching correctly, one's conscience has to be properly informed as opposed to one which rejects the inherent truths of it. Studies have indeed proved the Ella pill to be abortifacient in it's effects i.e the forced ejection of the fertilized egg from the Uterine wall. Again, how can contraception be classed as a "health" issue, when it is prescribed in the vast majority of cases for those who deliberately want to avoid pregnancy(which is clearly a normal condition which arises from the sexual act). I accept in certain cases that the contraceptive pill is effective against certain medical complaints but these only constitute a small number of instances overall. Clearly contraception is not God's will when it frustrates the natural order of things that He designed. It is telling Him that He is not in control of events, but only the woman or the couple involved. The Bible unambiguously celebrates fertility and in the O.T the Creator encourage His people to go forth and multiply. In the Annunciation when Mary is told by Archangel Gabriel that she is pregnant, the child(John the Baptist) jumped for joy in the womb of Mary's cousin, Elizabeth. Barrenness was thus not seen as an advantage in ancient Judaic society or indeed the Bible.

• eiriamach | Feb 19, 2012, 05:34 AM EST

  Gearoid4, what part of the Obama policy prevents Catholics from "acting on the foundational tenets of the Faith"? I do not recall in the Creed "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and we will accept no government-mandated insurance coverage for contraceptives." Rejection of contraceptives is papal teaching, just as support for slavery was church teaching in earlier eras. It is not inerrant, not infallible, not ex cathedra, not dogma, and also never *received* by the laity or all clergy; in other words, consciences of Catholics around the world reject it. Abortion does not "lurk" in the background; there is no evidence that the ella pill is abortifacient. A woman does not know that contraception has "failed" until she is pregnant, and physicians do not prescribe the ella pill for pregnant women! Rape victims need the ella pill to delay ovulation in order to avoid becoming pregnant as a result of the rape. It's barbaric to withhold such a health measure! For women, birth control IS a health issue: effective contraceptives are available only if prescribed by physicians on the basis of medical exams and subject to health monitoring. It is not only a God-given right to use contraception; in most cases, it is essential to moral responsibility. You've done nothing but distort the facts!

• JoePatAl | Feb 18, 2012, 08:43 PM EST

  EXCELLENT ARTICLE & TO THE POINT!!! As I have often said, "Lincoln is the only republican worth a penny." As bad as the current gop folks running for or being in office are, gov666-tie from NJ is the absolute worst. BIGot(even beyond his wasteline) that he is lead to the veto of equality this week, ensures that he is on the wrong side of history. I only hope he does get a national nomination (I guess in 2016) so I can be sure to vote against him and his dreadful philosophy!!!

• hollabackgurl | Feb 18, 2012, 07:39 PM EST

  Rick Santorum is perhaps the biggest theocrat the GOP have ever run and look what he says about Protestants: "We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic (*It was not - many Chritians live here, but this is not a Christian nation). But the Judeo-Christian ethic - sure the Catholics had some influence - but this was a Protestant country," said Santorum. "And the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

• Gearoid4 | Feb 18, 2012, 07:20 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, It is nothing to do with enforcing Catholic teaching as the law of the land. It boils down to the intrinsic right of Religious body to act according to their own moral beliefs without a diktat from the State compelling them to act otherwise. This right has been respected since the creation of the American state. The practice of religion is much more than going to Church and preaching. It also involves acting on the foundational tenets of the Faith to which you belong. This is under threat from the latest Health Care Act drawn up by the Obama Administration. Abortion is indeed lurking in the background as represented by the Ella pill which is covered by those controversial Insurance plans. Also it is used as a backup measure by many when contraception fails. You erroneously describe contraception as a "health" issue when logic tells us that pregnancy is the sign of a healthy woman who is blessed with fertility. It is as though the womb is now seen as a very inconvenient part of some people's anatomy due to it's life-giving potential.

• eiriamach | Feb 18, 2012, 05:58 PM EST

  Gearoid4, the Obama administration is not "encroaching on the liberties of religious bodies to act according to their core beliefs." It is refusing to allow you to establish Catholic "moral" teaching as the law of the land. It refuses to allow the Catholic bishops to ride roughshod over the rights of non-Catholic and Catholic women to reproductive health care that includes contraception. Obama's policy leaves you with all the same religious liberties as every US citizen, nothing less and nothing more. You're free to preach and teach and practice whatever you wish about sexual morality, and the rest of us are equally free to follow our consciences on sexual morality. The Obama policy does not interfere with your religious liberty, and it has nothing to do with abortion. The abortion issue is a red herring, thrown in to the discussion by bishops and ideologues like you because Americans overwhelmingly reject the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception as immoral. However, the nation is split on the abortion issue, so you try to make abortion the topic. That dog won't hunt. Health insurance that covers contraceptives is the issue. Health care for women! You're so irrelevant.

• seanomelb | Feb 18, 2012, 04:51 PM EST

  Some countries have religious priest snooping into peoples private lives.If the extreme right wing GOP gain power they may wish to do the same (headed by christian inquisitors of course).

• Gearoid4 | Feb 18, 2012, 04:21 PM EST

  @Jamthecat, It is very much the reverse of what you are stating. It is the Obama government which is acting in a totalitarian manner, encroaching on the liberties of religious bodies to act according to their core beliefs. The so-called "compromise" was nothing more than a sleight of hand to divide the opposition. It is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the U.S constitution which protects both State and Religious from interference. @joanxis, a "woman's right to choose" is nothing more than a code for selecting abortion. Let there be real choice, e.g pro-life counselling session with mothers considering abortion or adoption. Any civilized society worthy of that description offers legislative protection to all of it's citizens, including the tiny life within the womb.

• eiriamach | Feb 18, 2012, 02:44 PM EST

  That should be "eviscerate" *plus* "obfuscate." The plus sign did not show up.

• eiriamach | Feb 18, 2012, 02:42 PM EST

  @OBPiper, nah, I'm just dizzied by all the sexual politicking in the news lately. @EphraimKibbey, have you given the English language a new word? "Obviscate" = eviscerate obfuscate? I'd vote to put it in the dictionary! billyboie is right, and Friese contributed to Santorum's PAC $300,000, which is proving to be very costly for the candidate.

• joanxis | Feb 18, 2012, 02:41 PM EST

  jetsnoone - What an awful, untruthful thing to say. Does that mean that all people who believe in a woman's right to choose are baby killers - or just President Obama? I don't even think that the president does believe in abortions. He just believes in a woman's right to choose. But, whatever ...your comment is cowardly.

• jamthecat | Feb 18, 2012, 02:33 PM EST

  The GOP and RC do not want to end abortion. I don't care what they say, they know perfectly well that making a practice illegal does not stop it. It never has and it never will; all they will achieve is driving it underground, like it used to be. If they are so intent on ending abortion, they'd do everything they could to increase sex education, make contraceptives easily available, and let males know they are just as responsible for a child once it's born as the female. But they don't do that. Instead, a group of men (with a few acquiescent women) are trying to force their antiquated beliefs down the throats of everyone. That is what communists do, not Americans. The government has no right to tell anyone what they may or may not do with their body so long as that person is not harming another person, and these totalitarian bastards have yet to provide any evidence that a sperm and an egg meet that criterion. It's like they're taking lessons from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Ayatollahs in Iran, and name-your-leader in North Korea. If they like that kind of governmental system so damned much, they ought to move there and leave our democracy alone.

• Chicago1 | Feb 18, 2012, 02:21 PM EST

  You attribute the aspirin quote to Santorum, which billyboie correctly pointed out was made a Santorum supporter, not Santorum. Then you insinuate that if he becomes President he will ban contraceptives? If you did any research at all, you would know that this is completely false. You don't like Santorum, fine. Tell us why you don't like him, but this time throw in a couple of real facts and the truth.

• EphraimKibbey | Feb 18, 2012, 02:02 PM EST

  Sorry - O'bama has caused no deaths that were not direct threats to the lives of the American forces in his charge. Strange how one line of thought can obviscate all others!

• EphraimKibbey | Feb 18, 2012, 01:56 PM EST

  @jetsnoon - It is factless statements like that which make civil discourse with the reactionary right pointless. People have different beliefs as to when, during human embryology, the fetus can be considered a human life. Some people go as far as to believe that sperm and unfertilized eggs are sacred. While I support their right to hold those beliefs and to use them to guide their own life choices, I can not understand why the GOP, the RC and evangelicals believe they have the right to put their theocratic rules into laws that prevent the rest of Americans from acting according to their very different theocratic or personal beliefs. What don't they get about freedom of religion in America? Your righs can not deny my rights! I will vote for O'bama because he still believes in individual liberty and because he has killed no one, unlike those in the pro-life movement. Imagine the increase in abortions that will be the direct effect of the personhood amendments and ban on contraception. I am old enough to remember when abortions were illegal and remember that they still happened in back alleys or at home.

• jetsnoone | Feb 18, 2012, 11:39 AM EST

  When you consider who to vote for in November, please remember that Obama is a baby killer....

• OBPiper | Feb 18, 2012, 11:03 AM EST

  Eiriamach, you are a very talented writer! "Now there's the Chris Christie veto on homosexual connubial sex, the Rick Santorum veto on hetero sex, the Newt Gingrich veto on other people's sex, the USCCB veto on protected sex...."

• OBPiper | Feb 18, 2012, 11:01 AM EST

  I found this to be very well written, capped with the aspirin highlight! But, this lawyer adds note of the Law of Celibacy, and how that law (like Murphy's Law) brings out the worst in Catholic celibates the greatest authorities on which are the clerics. I'll also add that I've grown through the "liberal" view of abortion into a Buddhist view of killing whether it be fetuses for birth control or mammals for unnecessary meals. To claim that non-abortive contraceptives are religiously anathema is intellectually and morally dishonest at best.

• billyboie | Feb 18, 2012, 10:09 AM EST

  I couldn't agree more, however for the sake of accuracy, Mr. Sanatorum did not utter the moronic aspirin phrase, but rather his wealthy financier, Mr Friese, felt obligated to offer that little ditty. Sanatorium later called it a stupid joke, told in poor taste. I have little admiration for Mr. Sanatorum but we can find plenty of idiotic, backward thinking quotes for which he is wholly responsible.

• eiriamach | Feb 18, 2012, 09:59 AM EST

  Now there's the Chris Christie veto on homosexual connubial sex, the Rick Santorum veto on hetero sex, the Newt Gingrich veto on other people's sex, the USCCB veto on protected sex.... In New Jersey, an Episcopalian Bishop, a rabbi, and an Evangelical Lutheran bishop got together and wrote the following about marriage equality, but their words apply equally to women workers' right to insurance coverage for contraceptives and other bedroom issues: "Thanks to the wisdom of the First Amendment, differing theological notions ... will continue to flourish across our diverse religious landscape. But a state has neither the right nor the competence to promote one of those theological understandings in opposition to others— particularly when doing so deprives some citizens of the rights enjoyed by others." (Beckwith, Gewirtz and Riley, Jr./Star-Ledger, "A Faith-based case for marriage equality," 2/14.)