Rush's slut-slander and Friess' aspirin nonsense!

Recently Republican candidates and legislators found an advantage when conservative Catholic bishops objected to the Obama-care requirement for contraceptive provisions.

Citing an “assault on religion”, these bishops and Republican politicians joined forces to attack the new Health Reform Act as a violation of religious freedom.

However, many Catholic leaders were satisfied when the President engineered a compromise which required the insurance carrier to cover the cost of the provision, allowing it to be removed from the health plan “officially” offered by Catholic owned non-profits.

Not to be outdone, the political right reacted with an indignation which ranged from ridiculous (“Just place an aspirin between you knees”) to cruel (the attempt to defame a potential congressional witness, (calling her a slut and prostitute) because she sought to tell the real life story of a women whose health  was actually impaired by the refusal of her insurance plan to fill her doctor’s prescription.)

Suddenly Republicans are attacking the use of birth control, not so much on constitutional grounds but rather as a moral issue, while claiming great concern for the Second Amendment’s separation of church and state. ”

Yet such presumed moral high-ground is not high nor is it noble.  It is nothing less than an effort to impose a religious view about contraception upon people who do not subscribe to it.

The government simply cannot impose the religious views of the Catholic Church (or any other church) on the masses.

Yet the interesting shift from a focus against abortion to a focus against contraception suggests that some presidential candidates along with federal and state lawmakers feel otherwise.

The Second Amendment was designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion.

While it serves to protect religion from government interference, it also protects the public from religion, whether that be Islamic Sharia Law or some flavor of the Christian Religion.