The “War on women” and who’s forcing whom…

Do an Internet search on the phrase “war on women” and you won’t be directed to articles dealing with China’s mandatory child limit, or Islam’s hijab requirements, or even to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and the Salem witch trials.

Instead, you will find articles and websites devoted to the idea that the 2012 “war on women” is now solely and exclusively about birth control: women need it, men possess it, wanna fight about it?

To hear the proponents of government-mandated health care talk, you would think that “war” has broken out because men — in the meme of the hour usually old, religious, white men — want to prevent women everywhere from using birth control (“contraception” sounds so much more health need-ish) and seek to impose their will on women everywhere by legislating it out of existence.

Curiously, birth control could not be legislated out of existence entirely — even should the old, religious, white codgers want to — because the two most effective forms of birth control (consider the human claims to divine power even that phrase entails!) are sex within a marriage relationship and abstinence. In that context, we might consider the strategy of the gun-rights lobby, when it spins the counter-argument with the philosophically-loaded slogan “Gun control is hitting what you aim at.”

But the inconvenient truth about the matter is that no one is attempting or even suggesting that birth control be made unavailable.

Let me say that again: no one is attempting or suggesting that birth control be made unavailable. The issue is who will be required to pay for it.

Inherent in this brouhaha is the matter of force. Those who characterize their opponents as waging “war” on women suppose that women are being forced to not use contraception. But that is a blatant falsehood that the majority of media is happy to perpetuate.

It is Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat-controlled Congress that forced government healthcare on the nation, arguing that “we must pass it to know what is in it.” It is Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services who forced employers to provide coverage of birth control in health insurance policies. It is President Obama whose “compromise” was to force insurance companies to provide those same coverages, all the while continuing to force religious employers to pay for it.

Who, as they say, is forcing whom?

If it strains credulity that those who are doing the forcing accuse others of using the force, consider the sort of statements made by a prominent representative of this strategy. On March 1, 2012 before House panel, Kathleen Sebelius said:

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception.” … “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”

Here is the sort of philosophy being forced upon the American people, and the transparently twisted logic that is used to support it. In Sebelius’ world — which she and the Obama administration would force the rest of us to occupy — fewer humans is a good thing. And, fewer humans is a good thing both because fewer humans saves us money, and also because fewer humans means that the populace can disregard the church’s teaching on sexual morality without suffering the natural outcome of procreation.

What is the most astounding about Sebelius’ comments is that birth control is a benefit “for women and for their children.” What children? Should Sebelius, Obama, Pelosi and the rest of those alleging a “war on women” have their way, they will have succeeded in preventing the existence of the very children they claim that their birth control mandate benefits.

Amazing.

American citizens are being forced to pay for the birth control of students. Religious organizations are being forced to provide a service and a product that their tenets explicitly forbid.

Liberty for religious people is attacked. Liberty for all is threatened.

 

Blunt amendment, contraception, and Georgetown Law

U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi’s office recently invited a Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, to testify in Congress regarding the need for the government to mandate insurance coverage for contraception. This is all part of an apparent attempt to shore up support for the government healthcare bill, otherwise known as ObamaCare.

Ms Fluke lamented the fact that contraception for a typical law student costs about $3,000, and without government intervention, her student health insurance would not cover it. Having to pay for it on her own would make it difficult for her to make ends meet, and likely put a crimp in her style.

Do the Democrats and others pushing for the United States government to mandate the coverage of contraception in health insurance policies really believe that they will garner support for government mandated health care by parading a student to whine about her $3,000 law school contraception bill? Really?

President Obama beat a strategic retreat from the administration’s initial position mandating that all employers — including religious ones — provide contraption coverage in their health policies. In a sort no-compromise compromise, President Obama then allowed that the religious employers would not be required to pay for contraception coverage, but that their insurance company providers would. As anyone can see, this is a distinction without a difference, and under this “compromise” the religious employer is still paying for contraception, against their religious objections.

The U.S. Senate today presented the Blunt Amendment to provide a conscientious objector escape for just such religious employers. It was closely defeated along partisan lines.

In explaining the government’s position, Barbara Boxer (D, California), explained that permitting religious employers and others to exercise a conscience objection would be tantamount to giving them a “veto” over women’s health.

Among the many unbelievable aspects of this continually unfolding story, two stand out:

1) That the U.S. Senate would veto a provision allowing for religious objections to government mandates — regardless of the political mechanics involved in presenting the bill — displays a woeful ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and a signal disregard for both the rights of religious people in this country and any attempt to restrict government power.

2) That Barbara Boxer would classify a religious objection not to an individual’s use of contraception — as in a ban — but to the requirement that the religious organization pay for it as a “veto” of women’s health displays precisely how certain elements of this government views things: the ability to be free from the natural result of procreation and from the consequences of a runaway libido are tantamount to inherent rights, and rank above rights stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Additionally, the ordinary use of contraception and abortifacent drugs relate to “women’s health” only to the extent that pregnancy is deemed a disease. In such a view contraception — which we must acknowledge consists of tools to defeat new life — is thus the inoculation against a parasite that takes over the womb of females.

Thus the U.S. Government is deceiving its citizens by a blatant perversion of language, a gross violation of the Bill of Rights, and a callous disregard for the will of the governed.

Yet, still, the Government is not completely anti-religious: it simply wants us all to bow the Bacchanalian knee to Aphrodite.

Incongruity alert: government IS limited (sometimes)

The current administration and its pundits protest their collective helpnessess in the face of rising oil prices and the concomitant spike in gas prices at the pump. “There is no quick fix” they say.*

Not too long ago, the same administration oversaw the closing of hundreds of automobile dealerships and took control of GM, micromanaging the production of an electric vehicle called the “Volt.” The administration subsidized the expense of the Volt’s production in order to affect retail prices at the dealer level, and at present propose even larger subsidies.

Not too long ago, the current administration pushed passage of government-managed healthcare (flashback: “we have to pass it to know what’s in it”) claiming that government control of that sector would reduce insurance premiums for everyone.

*The President and his energy secretary have both expressed their hopes that gas prices in the U.S. would rival those in Europe.

Incongruity alert: politicians and the spirit world

Maxine Waters (D) refers to John Boehner (R) and Eric Cantor (R) as “demons” to the approving hoops and hollers of her partisan audience.

Republican presidential candidate and former Senator Rick Santorum refers to Satan as, well, Satan, before an audience of Catholics.

Media assessment: it is Santorum who has the dangerous spirituality.

Kid’s art reveals Dad’s enormous bald head

Children’s art sometimes reveal interesting things about their outlook on life, family and significant events. Our kids have been on an artistic binge of sorts, coloring up a storm. Here are a few my daughter, 7 years old, recently drew. See if you can discern a pattern.

Above is her self-portrait. Kids’ drawings of themselves are usually more detailed and colorful because they have a fairly developed self-image. (Although I’m not so sure if she didn’t give herself a soul patch).

This is her brother, age 9, who is depicted here as a prince. Note the jester-like costume and multi-colored fabric scheme.

This is Mom, and although there is a definite Picasso-life feel to this image, Mom is given most facial features and clothing. All these were drawn on the same day, including the following of dear old Dad, yours truly:

What?!

Note here that there has been a definite break in the pattern, a veritable u-turn of graphic depiction. While she and other family members were given care and attention, her image of Dad is austere, to say the least. Enormous, bald head. Beady eyes. Thin red line for a mouth. Talk about grim. Even my low-ride shorts aren’t given a complete color treatment.

Ah, well…

Pastors as Counselors (and other believers, too)

Many preachers don’t consider themselves counselors, but as David Powlison points out in The Pastor as Counselor, all of us are, to one degree or another, either for good or for ill.

Even if you don’t do much counseling officially, all preachers should welcome the return of the excellent counseling resource, The Journal of Biblical Counseling, now available online. And counseling is not only for pastors, but is also for any believer who takes seriously the “one another” commands of Scripture, which should be all of us.

Take advantage of this good resource.

Marks of True Conversion

There have been many Christians who attempt a list of those marks that distinguish true conversion from none, real believers from nominal believers, and so forth. Jonathan Edwards devised a list of marks that would distinguish real revival from spurious emotionalism, and the Resurgence has modified it as a set of marks for true conversion.

In short, the marks are:

1). you love Jesus

2) you hate sin

3) you love God’s word

4) you love truth

5) you love believers.

Loving Jesus, of course, is more than putting a fish symbol on the bumper of your car. It is also remembering his words “if you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Hating sin means hating your own, not merely that of the “bad folks” or that other guy who could have really benefited from the pastor’s sermon today. Loving God’s word includes, well, reading it. Loving truth means that we are not exempt from using our minds to think about things. And loving other believers means we should love those on the other side of the world, but also those on the other side of the table, in our own congregations.

Brian Croft has modified the list to help parents and pastors in discerning if children have experienced true conversion:

1) a growing affection and need for Jesus and the gospel

2) a heightened understanding of the truths of Scripture

3) an increased kindness and selflessness toward siblings

4) a greater awareness of and distaste for sin

5) a noticeable desire to obey parents.

Croft recommends steering a middle road between the extremes of recognizing conversion in children when they are too young and waiting too long to recognize it.

In addition, parents should avoid using these marks (or others like them) as something that children should parrot back: a child who says on cue “I have affection and need for Jesus and the gospel” or who claims kindness and affection for siblings while beating them up might not actually have a changed heart.

How do parents avoid teaching only to parrot or addressing behavior only as performance? Preach the gospel: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration or God, Man, Sin, Redemption. When the Holy Spirit has — through God’s word — changed a child’s heart, parents will notice.