How to End the Argument Over Birth Control

From the Wall Street Journal via Hot Air:

…As an unapologetic pro-life Republican, I also believe that every adult (18 years old and over) who wants contraception should be able to purchase it. But anyone who has a religious objection to contraception should not be forced by government health-care edicts to purchase it for others. And parents who believe, as I do, that their teenage children shouldn’t be involved with sex at all do not deserve ridicule.

Let’s ask the question: Why do women have to go see a doctor before they buy birth control? There are two answers. First, because big government says they should, even though requiring a doctor visit to get a drug that research shows is safe helps drive up health-care costs. Second, because big pharmaceutical companies benefit from it. They know that prices would be driven down if the companies had to compete in the marketplace once their contraceptives were sold over the counter.

So at present we have an odd situation. Thanks to President Obama and the pro-choice lobby, women can buy the morning-after pill over the counter without a prescription, but women cannot buy oral contraceptives over the counter unless they have a prescription. Contraception is a personal matter—the government shouldn’t be in the business of banning it or requiring a woman’s employer to keep tabs on her use of it. If an insurance company or those purchasing insurance want to cover birth control, they should be free to do so. If a consumer wants to buy birth control on her own, she should be free to do so…

That is Bobby Jindal.  Have I mentioned that he’s smarter than the next 100 Republicans?  And also smarter than the next 1,000 Democrats?  Just make birth control an over-the-counter medication.  Personally, of course, I think the whole concept of “birth control” to be the most idiotic of twaddle – but its not for me to decide for anyone else whether they want to participate in it.  And if we make it over-the-counter then its like going to buy Nyquil when you’ve got a cold…just go buy it.  And as Jindal points out, if we make it over-the-counter the massive competition for market share which will result will drive down the cost of birth control to the point where if you can’t afford it then its likely because you blew all your money on drugs or gambling.  This takes it entirely out of the debate – no need to mandate it for religious institutions; no need to worry if a woman working at a religious institution should get coverage because any working woman will be easily able to afford it entirely on her own, without the risk of forcing religious people to participate in what some believe to be an evil.  Problem solved.

Now, of course, our liberals won’t sit still for this – and they’ll naturally start to demand that abortion be covered by all insurance plans, but that is a fight we can win as America is becoming increasingly pro-life.   But, meanwhile, by applying our free market principals as well as our demand for individual liberty and freedom of conscience, we can totally destroy this argument which did so much to fuel the Democrats absurd claims of a “war against women” this year.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “How to End the Argument Over Birth Control

  1. dbschmidt December 14, 2012 / 2:23 pm

    From a previous post but better suited here. I feel it is something that just needed wider exposure at this time of year;

    Getting an Abortion in December
    By T.S. Weidler

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/getting_an_abortion_in_december.html

    Worth the read including the affidavit of Norma McCorvey, aka. Jane Doe among the other included documentation. Now the Liberals can “make their arguments” while the rest of us have a Merry Christmas.

    • neocon01 December 16, 2012 / 11:28 am

      birth control is a private matter.
      rather lets discuss those who refuse to use it then dump ten babies from ten baby daddy upon us taxpayers.

  2. Amazona December 14, 2012 / 5:18 pm

    I like Jindal a lot, and hope he is smart enough to take preemptive action, along with Rubio, to find a legal authority qualified to make a final, specific, definitive ruling on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen before we get any more Jindal fan clubs ramped up.

    We opened this topic, quite rightfully I believe, regarding Obama and the definition of Natural Born Citizen. I started off scoffing at the NBC crowd, but when I researched it I found compelling, if not conclusive, evidence that the Founders intended this term to mean only citizens born to citizen parents or at least to a citizen father.

    It is an important detail, both as a significant part of our Constitution and as a potential land mine for conservatives, as if we pursue presidential aspirations for either Jindal or Rubio we are setting ourselves up for the very accurate accusation of being hypocrites, objecting when something relates to someone from the opposition and accepting it when it is about one of our own.

    Personally, I don’t care which way the ruling might go. I just want a ruling, so we can move on.

    • dbschmidt December 14, 2012 / 6:33 pm

      This is posted more of an affirmation of Ama’s post an the need to define what the Constitution really means on NBC. We all know Liberals and the Progressives love the Constitution or is that just another liberal myth.

      5 Myths Liberals Have Created About Themselves (Part 2)
      by John Hawkins

      http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/12/14/5-myths-liberals-have-created-about-themselves-part-2-n1466816

      Has as in part of number 2 today:
      2) Liberals respect the Constitution: You can’t claim to value and respect the Constitution while saying that there is such a thing as a “living constitution,” which in practice is nothing more than calling the whims and prejudices of liberal justices “Constitutional Law.”

      Also has a link back to the first part for those of you that may have missed it.

    • M. Noonan December 14, 2012 / 6:44 pm

      Amazona,

      “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…” – 14th Amendment.

      Bobby Jindal was born on June 10th, 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As Baton Rouge is indisputably in the United States and Bobby Jindal was indisputably born there, there is no question of his natural born citizenship of the United States. Whatever the Founders might have intended, the 14th amendment clearly states that if you are born inside American territory, you are an American citizen. That it should be re-written to state that all persons born to an American citizen are citizens of the United States is obvious – when the 14th was adopted, it wasn’t really possible for someone to show up here late in their pregnancy just to have an “anchor baby”. But that is a matter of reform, not something which concerns Jindal’s eligibility.

      • Amazona December 14, 2012 / 7:15 pm

        Mark, we went over this in great detail in a recent thread and lengthy exchange of differing opinions. You may not have been following the blog at that time. It was probably the best exchange of ideas I have seen in my seven years or so on the blog, and I suggest you check it out. I believe the topic was posted by Cluster.

        The 14th Amendment does not contain the same language as the Constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility. There is abundant evidence that at the time the Constitution was written, there was an established and accepted definition for the very specific term NATURAL BORN citizen, and the Founders were quite careful to use that precise term and no other when they laid out the requirements for eligibility. For the 14th Amendment to affect the requirement to be a Natural Born Citizen, I think that would have to be stated in the Amendment.

        There is compelling evidence that the terms Natural Born and Native Born are not one and the same, do not mean the same thing. There is compelling evidence that according to the accepted and unchallenged definition of the term Natural Born Citizen at the time the Constitution was written, it would have been quite possible to be a CITIZEN by birth in the country, but not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN if the father was not a citizen at the time of the birth.

        Just as some terms have been so established by usage that there doesn’t seem to be a reason to define them, this seems to be the case for the term Natural Born Citizen, and just because it is no longer a part of our daily vernacular does not mean it was not chosen precisely because of that understood meaning back in the late 18th Century.

        The issue has been exacerbated by the casual interchanging of one term for another, even in court rulings. But there has never been a court ruling ON THIS ISSUE. Those who argue that Native Born is the same as Natural Born cite rulings that were on other issues of citizenship.

        I always wondered why the Founders, who were so careful in how they expressed themselves, used such a clumsy-sounding phrase as “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” but when I started to look into it I could see that they did so for a specific reason—-and I now believe that reason was to establish a narrower category of citizenship than merely being born in the country would establish, and furthermore that they did so for a clear and concise reason.

        Thank you for pointing out that Louisiana was a state when Jindal was born there. I also understand that Florida was a state when Rubio was born there. I happen to think both of these men are superstars and I would hate to have them disqualified due to the wording of the Constitution. But I would hate even more to have the integrity of the conservative movement tainted by the very real hypocrisy that would be plain to see, if we were to suddenly abandon the Natural Born Citizen argument once it became inconvenient for us.

      • Amazona December 14, 2012 / 7:22 pm

        Mark, the thread was on May 3, and it was not posted by Cluster but by a visiting author, Federalist 2012. It got 259 comments, and as I said was the best exchange of information and ideas I have seen on this blog, and I highly recommend it if you believe that merely being born in this country is the same as being a Natural Born Citizen. It may not change your mind but will offer a different perspective.

      • Amazona December 14, 2012 / 7:39 pm

        Mark, I don’t intend to re-argue the extensive arguments made in May, but here is a sample of the information on which some arguments were made, (emphasis mine)

        In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a “natural born citizen” as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758), but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated:

        “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”

        Wong Kim Ark & the 14th Amendment

        Two quotes from Justice Grey on this matter should suffice to give the general gist of this SCOTUS case;

        Question: But doesn’t the Constitution use the term “citizen” rather than “subject?”

        Justice Gray: “The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

        Question: So what was existing law under the original Constitution?

        Justice Gray: Well, “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.” However,”[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Hence, “[i]t must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….” as“[t]he interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

        What is a “Natural-born” citizen?

        Under the language used at the time of the founding this would require two hurdles to be met; 1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) whether within the confines of ‘America’ at the time of adoption, or within the laws as adjudicated later, and 2) Jus sanguinis (law of the bloodline) which in the case of American jurisprudence is the rights of the father transferred to the children (normally the eldest living son.) With consideration that, at the time, the wife received her “rights” from the husband and “rights of the father” also required that he was an active “Citizen of the United States” there are still many questions to be answered and it is a personal belief that the SCOTUS take any case in order to answer once and for all this question.”

  3. dbschmidt December 14, 2012 / 10:02 pm

    Remember Mark,

    Even though both of John McCain’s parents were US Citizens serving the US on the American portion of the Panama Canal–it took a resolution from Congress to approve his run for Presidency. Obama got a free pass and many folks still wonder where his allegiance lies (with his father’s country or at least anti-colonialist beliefs is my best guess). Nevertheless, that is water under the bridge at this point and I would like this cleared up at the SCOTUS long before Rubio or Jindal attempt a run–if they choose to do so. If nothing else–the Liberals and their media lapdogs are real good at throwing mud to smear the view of voters if this is not clearly resolved.

Comments are closed.