THE MASSACRE THAT NEVER WAS

As for college riots over conservative speakers.

I don't need to listen to conservatives dreaming up excuses for discrimination against Muslims (Trump), making up massacres for Bowling Green (Kellyanne Conway*), letting people pick and chose which parts of a law they don't want to follow because of religious reasons (contraceptives and abortion), and trying to find legal reasons to prevent certain people from voting (voter ID laws).

There are conservatives, however, that I love to hear talk or read such as David Brooks, Arthur Brooks, Robert  Gates, and Condoleezza Rice.  I've read Gate's whole book "Duty."  I also like to listen to Ohio Gov. John Kasich.  At least he says things like we need to help those less fortunate than us.  He is not mean spirited though he is a strong opponent of abortion and contraception,  but you can't be a Republican politician these days without opposing them.

Here is Kasich's view against abortion and even contraception:
The ruse that the anti-choice movement is about "life" has been harder to maintain in recent years, as lawmakers have starting attacking contraception access (which reduces the need for abortion, duh). Gov. John Kasich of Ohio took it a step further Sunday night and signed a bill that merges his party's anti-contraception and anti-abortion agendas into one. The budget bill (of course!) packs a one-two-three punch of making it harder for women to prevent pregnancies, harder for women to terminate pregnancies, and harder for low-income women to keep their babies. ****

* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/02/trump-travel-ban-kellyanne-conway-made-up-a-fake-terrorist-attack-by-iraqi-refugees-to-justify-presidents-move.html
**http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/01/john_kasich_of_ohio_signs_hb59_the_bill_cuts_contraception_funding_restricts.html

THEY JUST CAN'T LET WOMEN'S BODIES ALONE

I'm late to the party on this, but Mike Huckabee really said the following on January 23, 2013:

I think it’s time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a war on women. Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women. For them to be empowered; to be something other than victims of their gender. Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for them birth control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war onthem, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, Enough of that nonsense.*

No one says that women HAVE to use contraceptives.  Perhaps the Religious Right can generate a 
sympathetic attitude on abortion, especially last trimester abortion, but contraceptives?  But the goal actually is to get rid of contraceptives.  This is why they have pushed for life to begin at conception when there are a few cells involved.  One morning after pill (ella) is said to be a very effective contraceptive with Plan B being less so.**  As for me, life begins when the baby is out of the womb and has taken a breath.  This is the conventional definition of birth.  When in doubt, I favor the born over the unborn.

* Quote taken from:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178064/mike-huckabee-actually-said-about-women-today?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20-%2020140123
But it will also lead you to a video clip with Huckabee saying it.
** http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN AGAINST CONTRACEPTIVES?

The whole argument against some religious faiths rebelling against paying for contraceptives has been, to the best of my knowledge, men. Where are the women against contraceptives being covered in health insurance plans? Even Sarah Palin is for pre-conception contraceptives (http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/sarah-palin/21/abortion-and-birth-control/16/). Better yet, where are the Roman Catholic women against them? I have heard , even from a Catholic Bishop, that 97-98% of Catholic women have used contraceptives at some point in their life (but he felt that made no difference). Rick Santorum says it is not a matter of contraceptives (though he is against them*), but of religious Freedom and economics. Whose freedom is he talking about: the freedom of the Bishops and the Roman Catholic hierarchy or the freedom of women to control their own health.

As to economics, the expenses of pregnancy and child birth are more expensive than the cost of contraceptives and insurance companies will actually save money (by as much as 15%, a figure claimed by some to be too high). No rule says that the Bishops must advocate contraceptives, and no rule says that anyone (nearly all women) must use them. There are many things in my health insurance policy that I have not used (There are those who have been unkind enough to say I should have my head examined.). And even in the original edict by HHS, people working in churches and seminaries and other religious organizations may not be covered by contraceptives. So should non-Catholic women or even Catholic women working in a Catholic hospital be denied contraceptive coverage whereas if they worked in a private hospital or, say, Presbyterian hospital they would be? I think not.

The greater availability of contraceptives has also been credited with the lowering of teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).**

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/12/tthe-republican-primaries.html and particularly the reference to http://www.ricksantorum.com/pressrelease/senator-santorum-launches-“faith-family-and-freedom-tour” ("Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans").

**http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html

CHURCH & STATE

Recently two problems have occurred to put into question what is the role of church and state. The major problem is a directive by the Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) that states that church run secular services like health insurance and employees of hospitals, schools, etc. must provide for contraceptives being paid for by their health plan. Mind you, nothing requires the church to cover such matters within the church. It is said that this is interference of the state upon the church. Is this the first instance in the country where the state has interfered with church based operations? I think not. For example the state made the Mormons give up polygamy. One still finds Mormons and others who disobey the law, and the law keepers often overlook disobeying the law, but it is still against the law and occasionally the state takes action.* This controversy continues, pro and con: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202080008

It also occurs to me that Quakers are pacifists, but they are given no exemption from paying the part of their income tax that goes to the military.**

The prohibition of polygamy seems to me particularly relevant ( "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."). The edict by HHS does not interfere with the belief that contraception is bad. It only refers to the action of prohibiting government payment by churches of contraceptives to non-members in secular operatons. The Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are strongly opposed to providing contraceptives to non-member employees. Often the First Amendment is appealed to,*** to support the Bishops; however, the Mormons also appealed to the First Amendment to justify their permitting polygamy. But it is also possible to object to the HHS edict on the secular basis that one doesn't feel the government should be involved in such things as well as for religious reasons. Some further legal discussions on this matter can be seen at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/whose-conscience/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1.

The second uproar came from the California where Proposition 8, that prohibits marriage between same sexes, was struck down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.**** The basis of doing this was that a right was being taken from people who had the right, i.e. same sex marriage was legal in California for awhile. The verdict would not apply to other states, only California.

** http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/us/us-sues-quaker-group-over-taxes.html

"In spite of the law, the Mormons continued the practice of polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment. In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States,^[3] the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."^[2]"

"Quakers were not permitted to bear arms, appear "arrayed in a warlike manner", join the militia, or pay war taxes." (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~quakers/quakinfo.htm)

*** http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-29/justice/hamilton.polygamy_1_polygamy-marriage-argument?_s=PM:LAW

**** http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/07/BA1H1N3T1H.DTL