Skip to main content

Yes, yes, yes the Catholic Bishops would love to abolish all artificial birth-control, but this is not their end game right now with their high-profile "War on Religion" attack on Pres Obama.  After all, 28 states do have contraception-coverage mandates in their regulations for health care insurers, but the bishops didn't gnash their teeth, rend their garments and make pronouncements of doom upon the governors and legislatures of these states. And, as many diaries pointed out, several large Catholic institutions have contraceptive coverage in their health plans as well, including DePaul University of Chicago. I also saw comments that wondered why the American Catholic hierarchy seems to have "turned" on President Obama after being so supportive of him in other areas. I think a political decision was made to "turn" on Obama to help defeat him in his reelection bid. I think the bishops are frightened to death that, in his second term, he will have one or more SCOTUS judges to appoint, which would further protect Roe from being overturned. Look at what SCOTUS is doing right now....rehearing "settled" issues like the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action. Is it too much to think the conservatives would like another shot at Roe? But overturning Roe would be difficult without one or two more conservative justices. There must be a Republican in the White House to get more conservatives on the bench and overturn Roe. Obama's reelection and ability to appoint moderate justices will either kill overturn of Roe or delay it a very long time. The bishops are so close to the overturn of Roe, they can taste it. And that's the end game here, not attacking birth control, but defeating Obama so Roe can be history.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, jan4insight, raincrow, JohnB47

    This whole world's wild at heart and weird on top....Lula

    by anninla on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:00:58 PM PST

  •  Actually Roe's Middle Game. Also Griswold (6+ / 0-)

    and more. They want birth control outlawed, they want stricter media censorship as they had in the 30's.

    Anything having to do with sex, families and reproduction, they want strictly obeying their commands.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:03:39 PM PST

    •  reading the Catholic take on sin, both venial and (0+ / 0-)

      cardinal, it seems that if we accept Church doctrine for the basis of our laws, masturbation and any other form of sex or sexual practice which is not directly meant for procreation purposes only are cardinal sins.  While wet dreams are currently considered kosher by the Catholic brass, conscious sexual dreaming may be considered a cardinal sin.
      I have not read in detail but it appears that there can even be a conflict in the conjugal bed if the sex, which is for the purpose of procreation, may also be sinful if it is pleasurable and if the primary goal of such activity is pleasure with procreation being a secondary goal.
      It takes a celibate sort of person to dream up some of these restrictions but after all a practicing lesbian was recently denied Communion and it appears masturbators may also be denied Sacraments  

  •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    Since banning contraception is more extreme than banning abortion, overturning Roe is only the first step — far, far , far from an endgame.

    Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

    by anastasia p on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:12:24 PM PST

    •  They have no shot at banning contraception (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow, G2geek

      all together. If Griswold is overturned, only a few states would be able to go against their citizens and ban contraception. But Griswold's "right to privacy" leads to Roe, and that is their ultimate goal. Then they can work on banning contraceptives state by state.

      This whole world's wild at heart and weird on top....Lula

      by anninla on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:26:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it is the strategy of abortion opponents (0+ / 0-)

        they have no plan to ban contraception altogether but plan on using the issue to raise cash and to pressure pols and to chip away at existing laws and statutes so getting contraception is as difficult and embarrassing as possible.  Imagine if all Catholic pharmacists were ordered to cease dispensing all contraceptives under threat of excommunication

  •  They want it all. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, G2geek, Agent99, anninla

    Roe overturned, birth control banned, anything and everything that will take us back to the dark ages and turn the planet into a polluted, industrialized dystopian hell.

    I'm generalizing about who the "they" is - but the various aspects of regressive ideology do tend to be older, white and male in support of the oligarchy.

    Support a starving artisan: Buy My Stuff New bracelets just listed!

    by jan4insight on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:20:45 PM PST

  •  Wrong. End game is Griswold! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:20:48 PM PST

  •  Saw it all coming thirty years ago, when I first (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anninla

    started writing to advocate THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

    In my estimation, there ultimately are only two possibilities. The Right to Privacy is either made explicit, or a reactionary Court takes it away, and, with that, all of the other nicities that we've all taken for granted for so long.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 08:34:54 PM PST

  •  It's the money (0+ / 0-)

    The Catholic church has no future in a truly progressive world so they naturally cling to the only thing they know; power, and their payment to power is their easily controlled followers. The Church has been doing this for centuries, aninia. Roe is definitely a stepping stone and milestone marker, but I'm thinking 'rule of thumb' and 'barefoot and pregnant' are every bit as applicable to the Church's twisted reasoning.
    In the end, however, it comes down to a mutual need to keep things as they are. So the Church is naturally going to side with the oligarchy, where their dogma carries legislative backers, the money is easy and curiosity is outlawed.

  •  How right you are.... (0+ / 0-)
    In the end, however, it comes down to a mutual need to keep things as they are.
    The Church administration has suffered mightily since women left their pregnant-and-cooking status.  Nuns are in short supply; schools have to close because there's no free nun-labor and precious few female volunteers; church activities run by women-volunteers have closed; and in just a few generations fewer Catholic babies has meant fewer parishioners in the pews in the countries that traditionally funded the church world-wide.  Fewer schools and churches means a lower profile for a church administration that really only knows how to flourish at the neighborhood level.

    Keeping reproductive power out of the hands of women means keeping most power out of their hands.

    I think the American Bishops took this opening at the federal level because they truly hate Obama.  But it also feeds their larger agenda.  

    Roe would be a nice stepping stone for the Bishops ... but power over women truly is the end game.

    Disclaimer:  I am a Catholic.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site