The Wrong Fight

And the Massive Political Fallout Likely to Ensue

     Contrary to popular belief, some women love their catholic leaders- not all of them, but  lots of them. Even some Jesuit leaders don't love all of them but they are working on it.

    The issue with forcing catholic hospitals and schools to provide contraception is still something that irks people even if the consortium of jesuit colleges thinks it is OK.

    Recently there was a lively discussion regarding whether the health care plan Georgetown Law Center offers its students should, as Sandra Fluke wants, cover contraception in the health plan.

   First, let me state that 'contraception' is not 'health care' and it misframes deceptively the argument to call it that. Even the National Cancer Institute has noted the link between oral contraceptions and liver cancer. As the liver regulates a lot of other health functions, like removal of fat lipids from the body, prolongued use of the Pill can also increase risks of Type II diabetis (adult onset) and other health complications. It's use statistically increases risks of blood clots, heart disease, strokes and related malfunctioning. So no, ingesting chemicals that so dramatically alter one's cycle have hormonal implications that are profoundly negative to ones overall health.

     Any simple google search of 'wrongful death' and contraception will demonstrate that there has been and continues to be litigation on the point.

    Forcing a school to offer such an intrinsically dangerous product is nonsense of an orwellian absurdity magnitude. Just not wise.
Additionally, a Catholic school that has as its founding mission statement a decidedly Catholic identity which promotes catholic values for what it views as spiritually healthy development of students as part of its educational mission should not be forced to act against its mission whether the government agrees or not with the mission. The mission is legitimate. Georgetown is incorporated properly as a non profit educational institution in the District of Columbia under a religious and educational mission. The law school is not incorporated separately from the main University in that regard.

   The law school is often hailed as not having much of a catholic identity. I beg to differ. There is a Chapel in the middle of the lower level of the main building where daily Mass is offered. This is at the Center of the main building of the school where prayers are offered every day. There is a statue of a prophet outside the Chapel.  There are aspects of the curriculum also that can be found to be catholic inspired. There is a full time Priest on staff in campus ministry. There is a graduation Mass celebrated for graduating persons who wish to attend (or at least was when I graduated.) When I went there the most famous Jesuit in the country Father Drinan was on faculty. The entire school is profoundly Jesuit, and is the oldest Catholic college in the country founded by a Bishop named John Carroll whose statue sits front and center in the main campus to greet everyone coming in the main gate. The Jesuit residence which houses Jesuit faculty is just off main campus. It has priests teaching and priests in the administration. There is an office of ministry and mission headed by a Jesuit priest. It is a very Catholic school. There are several chapels on campus.

    The Hospital is on the campus and not separate from the school. There is a chapel in the hospital.
There are statues of the Blessed Mother all around the place and crosses in examining rooms. This is unmistakably a catholic hospital.

     Forcing catholic hospitals and schools to provide something that they have a well thought out deliberate objection to on moral grounds is not something that the government should be doing. It should be doing it less when the 'health care' they are talking about isn't really. I survived 50 years without being on 'the pill' and it didn't hurt my health any. I can honestly say that not being on the Pill has never landed me one day in a doctor's office with any issue caused by my not taking the pill.
In fact I have statistically less liklihood of developing heart disease, stroke, blood clots, liver cancer, type II diabetis and other health problems than women who took the pill for prolonged periods of time. 

     This has been a ridiculously bad political miscalculation which is not based on clear science.
It is not based on anything other than an agenda that disguises itself as a women's reproductive freedom 'health' issue when it is not really.

     If the Commerce Clause can be extended to force these sorts of mandates what's next? What is the limiting principle here? The government can force everyone who sees a doctor anywhere to get a chip implanted under their skin with their medical records into which signals may be electronically transmitted for mind control? Forcing anyone to pay for or provide or promote contraception is just Orwellianly absurd.