Friday, February 10, 2012

Komen and Planned Parenthood; HHS Mandate

In my mind the background music for the contretemps of the last couple of weeks is Cyndi Lauper’s “I see your true colors” although it isn’t what I love.  Yet again, we saw that what goes by the name liberalism is anything but.

In the case of Komen vs Planned Parenthood what stood out was the staggering impertinence, the astonishing rudeness of Planned Parenthood.  A charity dedicated to breast cancer makes a donation to another organization—which is only tangentially involved in regard to breast cancer-- but in due course decides it will no longer continue to do so.  In what corner of the civilized world is the appropriate response to this on the part of the recipient and its supports an outraged, public, how dare you?  Most of us have been in this situation and have enough basic decency to know that the only course is to say something along the lines of “we certainly regret your decision, is there anyway we can get you to reconsider, if not we understand….”  From their actions I wouldn’t give Planned Parenthood, the time of day, let alone some of my money, if they supplied puppies and unicorns to orphans.

In the HHS mandate that will require religion institutions to provide health care services which go against their religious doctrines, the first question that comes to mind is why the shock?  Why the surprise?  To paraphrase from Monty Python “now we see the repression inherent in the system.”  While one recognizes the special position of religion, there is the sense in which you think why should that area be excluded from having things rammed down their sensibilities by the state when it is de rigor everywhere else?  This mind you is a political philosophy, and political administration that believes that citizens shouldn’t be allowed to decide on what kind of light bulbs to purchase.

Finally one is taken aback by the relative triviality which is supposedly behind all of this.  Abortion perhaps aside, where are we that we need financial support for contraception?  When fortune shines upon me, I don’t view it as an undue burden that I have to spring for the protection.  In my wildest dreams I wouldn’t consider the cost of contraception to be a burden that someone else should cover (pun sort of intended).  Best and worst case scenario, I’d have to give up cable—no problem.   Even on economic grounds it fails, as the point of insurance is to cover not the routine but the extraordinary; those expenses and eventualities that arise that you can’t pay for without a significant level of hurt. 

No comments:

Post a Comment