Does the Republican party really want to go into a national election as the anti-sex party? All but one Republican Senator voted for "The Blunt Amendment," and she is retiring and therefore free to buck orthodoxy. When a Republican claims that the amendment has nothing to do with contraception, the proper response should be, with apologies to Shakespeare, "Methinks the party doth protest too much."
Thanks to Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo), Representative Darrell Issa (R-Ca), and Rush Limbaugh, this anti-sex crusade is becoming the news cycle that would not die. I left out former senator and current presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who believes that states can ban contraception (though he doesn't think they should). He appears to be ignorant of the Supreme Court decision in Griswold V Connecticut (does anyone else see the irony of the state's abbreviation CT?), which should disqualify him from serious consideration, but these are Republicans we are talking about.
Santorum is so extreme that he thinks even married couples should only have sex when they intend to reproduce. If his wife is not keeping track of her cycle and taking her temperature to know she is probably ovulating, are they hypocrites when they have sex? Just a little liberal concern trolling. But I digress. If everyone who uses, has used, or believes in the use of contraception votes for Democrats, the Endangered Species Act will apply to Republicans.
The point of this post, however, was not to ring the death knell for Republicans. All this attention to the issue made me think, and than think some more. I previously posted a diary here on the subject with regard to our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. After some reflection, it occurred to me that this is NOT a First Amendment issue. The relevant amendment is the Fourteenth. The last time, I argued that it was about women's health and not men's religion.
The truth is that this is a question of equality. During the hearings on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), one Republican senator (was it Kyl?) mentioned that he did not need reproductive care coverage in his insurance policy, so why should he be forced to pay for it. The Democratic retort was to mention that his mother did require it. It did not dawn on me that day, and in fact only now did I have this epiphany. Male citizens of the United States are free to have sex without fear of getting pregnant. Women do not have that luxury.
Making women pay more for health insurance because they need this protection is essentially taxing them for being women. The primary purpose of government is to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens. Because women need this extra margin of protection that men don't falls directly under the government's purview. Pursuit of happiness is one of the enumerated unalienable rights. Yes, sometimes pursuit of happiness involves sex. Men can pursue that happiness without fear of pregnancy. Women, by definition, are endowed with that same right.