Liberal's "Inception" Moment and the War on Women

During the January 7th debate between Republican hopefuls, hosted by ABC, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos managed to pull a genuine "Inception" moment that may very well provide a better script than the fantastic Christopher Nolan movie by that name. During the debate, Stephanopoulos injected a question that greatly deviated from the main points that the nominees had been debating over the past several months. Out of nowhere, he asks this question:

Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

to which Romney responds:

if I were governor of a state-or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you're asking, given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so, and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so.

OK, let's take that as a solid answer and move on...right? Hehehe...oh you trusting Republicans, you! Much to the confusion of the candidates and the audience, Stephanopoulos kept hammering on contraception. Not two weeks later, on the late Friday afternoon of January 20th, the Obama administration quietly announced that all businesses, under the Obamacare laws requiring that they provide insurance, will also be required to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs at no cost to the insured. Now, I'm not a genius, but that is just so ironic, is it not? How nice of George and his friends at ABC to frame up this question for the Republican hopefuls, just before Obama, Sebellius, et al rolled out this mandate.

Before we could even bat an eye our country witnessed the effect of this "Inception" moment. At the turn of the year not a single Republican was talking about contraception. Stephanopoulos mentions contraception during a Republican debate; Obama's regime announces that they will mandate all businesses to provide contraception; many Americans and especially Republicans and faith-based organizations protest...and by February the GOP was being painted as anti-contraceptive, anti-women, and finally as waging a "War on Women" for supposedly wanting to ban women's access to contraceptives. Much like the man who is accused of murder, tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty, only then to be proven innocent in court...his good name has been slandered by a monologue pushed by the media and accepted by the un-critical masses.

Since January I have seen more slogans, signs, cartoons, etc decrying the "Republican War on Women." It's genius! It's like me going out in the street and yelling at the top of my lungs that I saw that guy I dislike trying to take advantage of some pretty girl. "He did it! He tried to take advantage of some girl! I saw him do it!" and everyone around me takes me at my word. If I yell a lie first and loudest, I will be taken at my word by those who are unwilling to challenge my claims and seek the truth.

This is truly a shameful moment for Democrats. Rather than coming forward and saying that they support a law mandating American people to violate their consciences, Democrats have turned the argument on their opponents and claim that Republicans, Catholics, and various other conservative groups want to bar access to contraception for all women, simply for opposing the mandate. "Republicans hate women! They're distracting from the economy to attack the females of this country!" So, you want us to stand here and take your lies, mandates, and restrictions on personal freedom and conscience rights without a fight or you will accuse us of changing the subject from the economy and jobs? Where did this even come from? No conservative I've ever heard of ever called for banning contraception. Many conservatives, like myself, desire to better educate the public about the dangers of contraceptives, but we see no reason to further tether citizen's freedom by making contraceptives illegal.

The fact is (and I know some of you reading this are going to dislike what I'm about to say) that the majority of elected Democrats are, by and large, a bunch of do-nothings. Our Democratically-controlled Senate, with more than enough seats to easily pass a budget, has universally rejected all of Obama's budgets they have received, as well as the House-approved budgets the Republicans have sent their way, to the tune of 3 years without a budget passed. You wanna talk about distracting from the economy? Let's talk!

The Democratic party, currently caught between their opposition to some of Obama's policies and their allegiance to their party, have taken the low road and began a shouting match with the Republicans over whether or not conservatives are trying to strip "womens' rights". All the while, conservative Republicans (for the most part) are trying to pass a balanced budget, protect Americans' constitutional freedoms, and focus on real issues while working to oust Obama from the White House in November. And for good reason. Obama has led the charge for outrageous deficit spending and undemocratic diktat over the past 3 1/2 years, all the while stumping for his unintelligible policies on the taxpayer's dime.

I know what you're thinking: Chris, you've managed to bring this discussion back to Obama and why he should be de-throned in the general election. Yes, I have brought it back. It's his fault. Republicans and conservatives at large had no intention of mandating anything, banning anything, etc. Obama does. His idea of American freedom is that we're free to do what he thinks is best. End of story. And so, with a simple, out-of-nowhere question during an otherwise innocuous debate, George Stephanopoulos pulled a Leo DiCaprio and planted that seed, deep in the public subconscious, that Republicans and conservatives at large want to take away contraceptives, keep a tally of how many babies we are or are not having, ban sex, take women out of the workforce, or whatever...all in the name of distracting from the real issue, the contraceptive mandate, the bloated deficit, the failed energy policies, etc that Obama has proffered on all of us. In essence, the Democrats have followed their old recipe of: 1) find an old, meaningless, nationally irrelevant horse, 2) beat viciously until dead, 3) keep beating. All in the name of distraction.

And inception.

A Day to Rejoice

Dear Friends,
As I write this, Catholics the world over are celebrating Christ's victory over death; either currently celebrating the Easter vigil mass or, thanks to the beauty of time zones, already celebrating Easter day. As a Christian, we see a very special significance on this holyday that marks the point at which Christ proved His divinity by rising from the dead. Christ, the very God we adore, died on Good Friday. God literally died. Can you even begin to think through this? We don't understand the mystery of it, so far beyond the scope of my limited human intellect is the fact that my God died for us to redeem our fallen nature. But He did. He hung on a cross and died. Yet, on the third day He rose again. Christ, fully human and fully divine, rose to life from a death he freely undertook because He loved us so very much.

So incomprehensible is the fact that He loves us to the point of death...His body sat in a tomb while the world trembled...and much to the joy of heaven and earth He rose again. Without Good Friday there would be no Easter Sunday. And without Easter Sunday, the value of Christ dying on the cross is meaningless. We cannot separate the value of either day without trivializing either aspect. So foundational to our life and faith is this mystery of the God-man's death and subsequent resurrection.

The beauty of the redemptive act of Jesus is that His self-sacrificing love applies to all. Whether we believe in His divinity and give credence to His teachings makes no difference. He died for those who do and those who do not follow His way, so great is His love. While we will never be able to love others in the infinite way that God loves us, it is essential that we follow the single commandment that Christ gave us while on earth: to truly love God and love others, even when love is not easy.

"Before you pluck the speck from your brother's eye..."

"Remove the plank from your own..." - Jesus Christ

Difficult words to live by, especially in today's world. Christ's call to look to our own faults first is a real conundrum, especially for those of us who are easily fired up by real or perceived injustices, societal immorality, and all manner of illogical thought. I understand where Christ wants us to go with these words: if we truly desire the good of our brother (fellow humankind) then we must remove those things in our lives that keep us from our own goodness.

The issue, though is that Jesus didn't just use this little parable to point out that we can't look past our own glaring faults when seeing the faults of others...He also mentions in the gospels that we're supposed to "turn the other cheek" when someone wrongs us, essentially saying that we must not retaliate, but should show real love by forgiving the trespass of another without personal recompense. This can be especially difficult when people or groups we might count as our "enemies" throw insult after insult toward people with beliefs similar to ours, and the temptation to go blow for blow with those folks is strong.

So the Lord really threw out a difficult pill to swallow. For those of us who were raised with a keen eye for morality and ethics, we probably tend to see a lot more "specks", because our eyes are trained to. The problem is that this can easily result in the growth of a large "plank" in our own eye that we hardly see as we become too focused on the faults of others and not on growing our own capacity for love. Of course, love does not mean license and if we truly want the best for another we must at times speak up. The challenge Christ gave us is to balance love, justice, and humility as we seek the good of all. And that's a challenge worth accepting.

Obama, States' Rights, and the Constitution

[Editors note: This post is a collaborate effort between me and my brother-in-law, Erich. I look forward to writing future articles with him.]

During a December interview on "60 Minutes", Obama was asked how he would rate his presidency. The president said: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history." I'm not going to attempt to define exactly what he meant by "modern history", but for the sake of argument let's look at modern history as 1776 to the present, shall we? With that in mind, we'll review the significance of Obama's comments as they pertain to the United States of America; particularly to "the Republic, for which [the flag] stands, one nation, under God, indivisible; with liberty and justice for all".

I recently had a conversation with a brother-in-law of mine, recounting a story that scares me more than a little. Not too long ago in the history of civilization there was a country that broke into factions and began to war with itself. One side wanted to split off and create their own independent nation while the other side wanted to keep unity for the sake of power. Rather than look to the law of the land, the bigger, more powerful side declared war on the smaller, weaker side that wanted to create their own country. Many men fought, suffered and died and in the end the side desiring to keep their little country together won. Sound familiar? It should, it was the Civil War...known to some people as the war to end slavery but to others as the war for state's rights. This was the point at which the power of the national government began to take precedence over the power of the states. Subsidiarity, for a large part, was gone. [I want to clarify that I don't think states' rights are more important than granting individual liberty to all people. Slavery is evil no matter what. The Emancipation Proclamation was necessary to guarantee freedom for slaves, but it did not require a war.]

So, let's tie this back to the flag and its pledge. The true reason for allegiance to the flag is obviously not allegiance to a physical starred and striped item, but to the "republic for which it stands" ...so what does "the republic" mean? It is the concise political word for the nation - the One Nation for which the North fought the Civil War to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, the Pledge specifies that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. We generally take indivisibility for granted, probably not giving our 50-state union a second thought. The fact is, our constitution specifically provides for national solubility, should one or more states desire independence. Practically speaking, states speak first for its citizens, not the federal government. Our current president has little respect for state's rights (or citizens rights, for that matter) that don't align with his agenda; he inflicts his presumed power on all citizens without regard for their voice. Would this still be the case had the Civil War gone differently, or not occurred at all?

No respectable historian would argue that Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. In truth, even his Emancipation Proclamation was only a "war measure" that would have become defunct if the war ended the next day – and it was written so as to avoid actually freeing any slaves since it only applied to "rebel territory." Both Lincoln and Congress announced publicly that their purpose was not to disturb slavery but to "save the union"; as a union is not compulsory, but voluntary, they actually destroyed that union philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature that was established by the founders. All states, North and South, became wards or appendages of the central government in the post-1865 era.

The Civil War was really fought over the issue of self-governance and state autonomy that our federation of states, our "United States of America" was founded on. Does this mean that I think the South should have seceded? No, I don't think they should have, but I agree with them on constitutional principle. As Erich stated during our conversation, "The Civil War is the point at which we went from being a constitutional federation to a national government." In the current system the federal government's rules trump everything else.

So how does this relate to Obama and his self-placement as 4th bestest behind FDR, Johnson, and Lincoln? Those of you that follow history will remember that these three presidents are some of the most prominent champions of national government's authority over the country's citizens that our country's highest office has ever seen. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and dismissal of the southern states' right to secede, FDR's New Deal, and Johnson's Great Society were progressive steps toward centralization of government power that has continued to build throughout the last 150 years and is currently being manifest in diktat by our current executive. Obama makes no secret of his willingness to impose laws, mandates, and sanctions upon the people that he was elected to lead. Abroad he has been both hawkish at times and sheepish at others, simultaneously throwing our troops under the bus and aiding wars or potential conflicts in Libya, Syria and Iran. We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq, contrary to his election promises. Our economy is stagnant at best and permanently weakened at worst, and for all his blaming of others Obama is the president and he has done nothing tangible to improve our global economic leadership. While promising to use a "scalpel" on the budget, he racks up more and more debt onto our shoulders and those of our children, with national debt significantly higher than ever before. Our constitutional rights as citizens are looked at by Obama as executive-defined, as he picks and chooses who qualifies for what rights. If you take his list and turn it upside down, Obama would certainly be closer to the number of 4th worst, but he didn't do this by himself. We have given our federal government and its "leaders" unprecedented and undeserved power. If our states, as constitutionally independent and self-governed units, began to exercise their rights and power, we would see a day in which the federal government's willingness to impose mandates at will upon we the people would greatly decrease. For all our sakes, I hope that day comes swiftly.

Faith and Public Life

After I wrote my last post in which I went through my opinions regarding the use of contraception, specifically hormonal contraceptives, I took quite a bit of heat from a variety of individuals. First, those who critiqued me as being "medieval" in my views, sexist, and trying to control women. Second, those who thought that my post tipped the scales on the border of arrogant and irreverent, since I wrote with a heavy dose of sarcasm and with a shortage of respect for the sensitivity of the subject. To all those comments I have this to say: I am passionate about furthering the respect for all persons and the unique dignity that they possess. While I stand to everything I said, I admit that it did come off with a self-righteous tone and for that I am sorry. In light of all this I went through the post and made some adjustments to ensure that my message and sincerity was clear. My meaning is the same, my delivery...less brash. For the entire post, click here.

As much as I mentioned early in that last post that I would try to leave doctrine out of the argument, the fact remains that I cannot entirely remove my faith from any debate which I undertake. Nor should I. In today's secular-driven world we are told be believe that our faith should be private, that we shouldn't "force our views on anyone else". If this is true, where should our faith be manifest? I, like many others, desire to live my life in a way that mirrors my beliefs in a God-centered worldview. How can I be expected to believe something, then leave that belief behind completely in my public life? Furthermore, why would I? If faith really exists in our life, it's because we truly believe it and desire to draw closer to the will of our God.

This doesn't mean that we intend to shove our beliefs down the throats of anyone within earshot. Those who argue that, by allowing faith to influence our public life we are somehow forcing our beliefs on others, insult the intelligence of everyone. By asserting that individuals cannot determine whether or not they agree with the beliefs of someone else, detractors of faith in public life are basically saying that anyone with genuine faith does not belong in the public sphere or they will subvert the vulnerable masses. There has been particular rancor directed at Catholic and Mormon politicians by those who claim these men would try to force their faith into policy. This narrow view would only have any base in reality if politicians began drafting laws that directly benefited their religion, the faithful of their church, or made a particular religion directly tied to the government. In contrast, people of faith typically realize that faith and the American Constitution share common principles: the welfare and betterment of all peoples, a just society in which all persons live as equals, and where respect for all humans from conception until natural death exists. In this light we see that faith may indeed foster a worldview that benefits all of society, not seek theocratic power for a particular church.

This broad understanding of faith and public life applies to all denominations in America. As a Catholic, I can only offer my own experience of how my faith is misunderstood from the perspective of secular society. For example, many people today view Catholicism as an out of touch, sexist, and controlling institution that seeks to somehow overtake the world. From a practical standpoint, I think that the Catholic hierarchy, and the pope in particular, have a pretty limited ability to actually enforce Church doctrine. I mean, compare them to every elected official. If a Catholic ignores a teaching of the Church, no church official comes knocking on their door to drag them to confession or demand higher weekly donations. Then we have our government officials who are more than willing to fine me, tax me, or even jail me for disobeying their civil decrees. Faith is not a compulsory affiliation; no one's forcing you to agree with doctrine. The common and condemning narrative of "you can't tell me that what I'm doing is wrong" is actually an intentional replacement of the more accurate "don't make me question or feel guilty about my choices". Since many people today have an issue with any kind of authority figure telling them the difference between right and wrong, they begin saying that people of faith are trying to strip them of their free will. I'm tempted to pull out a big "PLEASE..." here, but I won't. Instead, I'll reiterate what my picture above is trying to convey - that faith is voluntary, no matter what religion you ascribe to. Hearing the beliefs of a person of faith can neither coerce you to do something or make you believe. It's time society stopped fearing religion and embraced the positive aspects that faith brings to the public sphere.

Demographics

I've added a poll to my blog, in an attempt to better understand the demographics of my blogites. Please take a moment to vote.

To All My Female Friends:

I love women. I am by no means the perfect guy and have many shortcomings, but I do put a heavy emphasis on respecting the beauty, grace, and dignity of the female half of the world. In light of this, I decided to write about my personal opinion on a very hot topic in our country today: contraception and it's role in society and the lives of individuals. This post will not be theological. I do not plan to go into scripture or church teachings. It is not a commentary on current political events involving contraception. What this post contains is reflections on my personal opinion regarding the use of artificial (hormonal) birth control and the affects that I have witnessed and have been reported. (If you're tempted to stop here...DON'T!)

To begin, I think it's appropriate to give the facts on hormone-based contraceptives. Some of you probably know about about them so I'll make it brief. Hormonal contraceptives use either a single hormone (progesterone) or a combination of two hormones (progesterone and estrogen). Both types use artificial replicas of the actual hormones. The two-hormone combination works to both make the uterine lining uninhabitable for a fertilized embryo and to prevent ovulation. There are differing strengths available, some to completely stop the woman's cycle and others that prevent menstruation for 12 weeks and then allow for 7 days of menstruation. The single-hormone version does not prevent ovulation; rather, by preventing the proper buildup of uterine lining cells, the embryo is unable to properly implant and dies. In the most plain language possible, hormonal contraceptives shut down or severely impair the proper function of the woman's reproductive system.

The first pills were introduced in 1957 following requests by prominent feminist leaders of the time. Some serious dosage reductions occurred after early pills were reported to cause side affects such as nausea, weight gain, blood clots, and stroke; the FDA approved the use of the pill after dosages were lowered. The pill was touted as a major leap in women's rights, because it "equaled the playing field in sexuality" and allowed women to have casual sex without fear of getting pregnant. This very superficial view was short-sighted and ignorant on the ways that the pill would actually affect women. Rather than empower them and make them "equals", it did quite the opposite. (KEEP READING!)

I'm going to assert that women today are respected less than ever before. Margaret Sanger and her lot thought that because women had periods and were the child-bearing sex they were not of "equal status" (and women have historically been mistreated in various cultures, there is no doubt) and the pill would help level the playing field. Unfortunately, the emergence of the pill has often reduced women to objects of pleasure since women can be, in a sense, chemically "sterilized". Aside from the simple fact that I disagree with contraceptives on the basis that they detract from the true meaning of our unique human sexuality, I also abhor the vast negative side affects they have both physical and psychological.

In our world of modern medicine it's unfortunate that hormonal contraceptives, are as pushed as they are. It seems like a simple solution, right? Pop a pill! You'll be so happy! The contraceptive commercials today make you think that you're buying happiness pills, not mentioning the hormones that flood your body and alter its function.

According to cancer.gov oral contraceptives reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, and increase the risk of breast, liver, and cervical cancer. It would seem that if there are any treatments that the government would mandate as integral to women's health, it would be things like cancer screenings and yearly heart assessments, not cancer-causing artificial hormones that are part of a woman's voluntary choices. Preventative health services? If the government is trying to prevent diseases why don't they say "The pill causes more cancers than it prevents...we won't discourage its use because you're free to make your own decisions, but it can potentially kill you." Remember, this isn't a case of a life-saving drug such as chemotherapy having negative side affects. Contraceptives are not necessary for life and health, regardless of what an administration or for-profit organization tells you.

In our all-natural, organic-crazed society that freaks out when we hear apples have toxins in the peels and not washing your grapes can cause, umm, something...why are we so excited to gulp down chemicals that alter our body's function? If we took our ability to make independent, logic-driven decisions and combined that with our modern desire to be chemical free, wouldn't it make sense that we leave outdated, artificial hormone, cancer-increasing contraceptives in the dust? Shouldn't we take a look at the whole picture? It's really no wonder that so many women are getting married, chemically preventing children until their later reproductive years, then become completely astounded at the fact they can't get pregnant.

My take on the main reason contraceptives are so prevalent? People don't understand or aren't aware of other options, like natural family planning (or NFP). Or they have heard of it, but are sure that it cannot be effective enough to ease their mind about the possibility of pregnancy. This method should not be confused with the "rhythm method" that simply guesses at the woman's fertile time each month. Instead, NFP measures physical signs that point exactly to fertile and non-fertile times. It's not easy, but it's effective. The downside? 7-10 days per month of abstinence to avoid pregnancy with 98% effectiveness. It's a totally different mindset than contraceptive use, but it's less intrusive on the body and allows each woman to refocus on the uniqueness of her physiology and the natural signs that are expressed. An added bonus, did you know that couples who use Natural Family Planning to space their children have a 2% divorce rate? True Story.

OK ladies (and gentlemen), I've said quite a bit. You can tell I'm passionate about this. Eventually I want to use this passion to do professional education on the dangers of hormonal contraceptives. In the meantime, please don't allow yourself to be merely an object. Wouldn't it be great to know that your man respected you so much that he wanted to follow your biological clock, rather than change your physiology so your body is available for him whenever he wants? Wouldn't it be liberating to let your own body tell you when you're fertile, not some pharmaceutical company's product? Wouldn't it be cool to see society move just a little back in the direction of respect and dignity? I know it's a stretch, but it starts with you. Think about it.