So many times this week, I have read blogs where people attack conservatives with exaggerated or even false claims which have no truth whatsoever. Now, I am trying to keep this blog more or less apolitical, but I know myself. I love politics.
So, here goes my best shot at being political without being super conservative about it! Also, if you don’t like what I have to say at first, skip down to the end because I have valuable things to say about parenting.
So, to keep it apolitical, know this: If you are a conservative who dishes out miss-information to support your position, I LOATHE you. Anytime people give out miss-information, I find it abhorrent.
While I do believe conservatives tell some miss-information, I see and hear many more liberals lying to the American people in order to further their political agenda.
Again, John Boehner is guilty of trying to pursue his personal agenda’s, however, I am looking more at the extremism I see in the liberal politicians. PBO, for instance, has run on being ‘change you can believe in”, but instead became less transparent than any other president in recent history and has accomplished very little in the way of trying to listen to what conservatives have to say.
Same goes for Hillary R. Clinton. She has been working to show how much she understands the poor people. The middle class. She is NOT- nor has she ever- really been in the middle class (at least, according to the information I have read)! People who have worked hard and earned their millions by providing a product or a service are the people who understand the middle class.
How many people earn millions by giving speeches? And how many of those did something great in order to earn the right to give such speeches? And what has Hillary R Clinton done to deserve so much money?
Many other people have blatantly distributed miss-information or lied or even slandered conservatives. Planned Parenthood, Martin Bashir, CNN, ACORN. The list could go on.
For a more concrete example, let’s look at this blog:
What she said: “The idea that religious beliefs of some are more important that the religious beliefs of others.”
First of all, define for me ‘religious beliefs’. If you are telling me that it is a religion to have an abortion, then Planned Parenthood is in violation of supporting political parties (something churches CAN’T do), schools cannot talk about abortions because that is ‘religion’. To define religious beliefs like that changes the way we MUST look at religion. And rightly so. If you look at Merriam-Webster, they define religion, basically, as whatever you choose to believe as your guiding principles.
Secondly, SCOTUS is NOT saying that one persons beliefs trump another persons beliefs. What they ARE saying is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will NOT tell people how to worship God. And this is the point of the Constitution. Note, the Constitution does not say that city gov’ts can’t dictate religion. State gov’ts could also dictate a religion. It just says the Federal Gov’t won’t dictate a religion.
Lastly, the decision does not say a woman cannot purchase those things on her own- only that an employer is not required to purchase them for her (or for his wife, as the case may be).
What she said: “Legislating a belief over science.” Actually, I am surprised she says this because it is science which shows us that genetically unique people begin when the male and female gametes (think sperm and egg) join inside her body.
Click here for more information and other links for proof:
And the point of Plan B and other abortifacients is that they prevent a potential zygote from attaching itself to the womb. It is not a matter of which chemicals it uses to do the job, it is a matter of what the affect will be.
What she said: “A slippery slope for other contraceptives.”
First of all, I would like to point out that many of my liberal friends have disregarded any argument that mentions “slippery slope”. But as far as I am concerned, there is a strong argument supporting the logic of such claims- but only when supported properly.
Actually, this is completely false. The company in particular here (Hobby Lobby) has and still does provide other means of birth prevention- such as the daily birth control pills.
(Now, as far as I am concerned, women shouldn’t take those pills because of the affects they have on their bodies, but I am not going to argue banning them with the little evidence I have read thus far on the subject.)
What she said: “A slippery slope for other medical practices that infringe on religious beliefs.”
Actually, this argument is valid. However, let me ask you something. If you like getting free health care, you will look for a job that provides it, right? So the worst case scenario that this case-law will produce is needing to search through and find out what your employer does or does not cover as far as medical reimbursements.
I, for one, would choose to NOT work for a company that doesn’t provide me with the coverage I want.
What she said: “That contraception isn’t really health care.”
Again, she makes some very good points. However, I would like to counter that companies such as Hobby Lobby actually pay their employees far more than other companies similar to it, so even if they stopped paying for the 16 forms of birth control they already pay for, their employees should be able to afford the $10 to purchase it on their own.
What she said: “Restricting access to IUDs increases the risk of unplanned pregnancies and thus paradoxically the rate of abortion. ”
Her argument here is that IUD’s don’t cause abortions, but as I pointed out above, it actually does result in pregnancy because you are not allowing a genetically unique life to develop to the point it can exist outside the womb.
Also, I would like to point out that sex is one of the few things that we understand what the logical result should be. We are taught in school that having sex is how women get pregnant. So to say that a pregnancy is unplanned is not really logical. You have sex, pregnancy may result. Condoms break, the pill isn’t completely fail-proof. Many things happen when having sex which may allow for a pregnancy to result.
So she has given misinformation in order to support her argument. I try not to do that (as everything I have said I have either assumed it to be common sense, known by you, easily researched by you or have given you a link to see where I got my information).
She ends her article by restating (basically) that this is all a part of the war on women.
Here is where I start the more neutral ideas:
I find the idea of this being a “war on women” reprehensible. There are many reasons why abortions are actually bad for women.
Abortions can cause depression (from women who have had abortions).
Abortions can cause sterilization (don’t remember my source).
Abortions create the concept of control. If you can control your body, then why should I care about if you’re pregnant or not?
Since abortions and pornography became readily available, we have seen a HUGE spike in single parent homes. This actually INCREASES poverty and low-income households. There is a wealth of information regarding children raised by single moms or dads and the detriment it had upon the lifestyle and wage-earning potential of those children.
Most importantly, we are finding now that the first three years of a child’s life will be the biggest predictor of their future educational levels as well as future income. If a child has a parent who provides pre-early child education, the child will be far more likely to go on to succeed in school and go on to college.
Two links to support what I have said:
So basically, we need to end the mentality that single parent households are good and move to having both parents active in the child’s life. But I have started a completely new blog post now so I will end it here!