National Review's War On Women

Obviously behind in my reading, I just read "On A LARC" by Robert VerBruggen in the December 14, 2014 issue of National Review magazine (NR).  You can access all or part of the article here.  

My response in the form of a letter to the editor at NR follows, but there are basically two points so excessively irritating about the article.  One is the writer's, well, his male chauvinism though I hate that expression.  I'm not by any means a feminist, but VerBruggen shows himself to be brainwashed by 50 years of  feminist lies and so is one of those men who perhaps unwittingly, though conveniently, diminishes and takes advantage of the dignity of the woman as a human person.

The second excessively irritating thing about the article is its suggestion that conservatives need to nip a little here, tuck a little there, adjust their beliefs and views so they can get along with the Left.
This is the worst kind of cowardice.  If this is NR's stance, fine, but then it can't rightfully call itself "up to the minute conservative commentary."  

My comments:

All the points in  Robert Verbruggen's article "On a LARC" (December 31, 2014) follow logically one from the other if one accepts his premises, which he finally states halfway through his article.  He writes:  It's not as if we're going to ban birth control, eject women from the workplace, make abstinence until marriage. . . common, . . . .talk today's youth into marrying in their teens or early 20s, . . . . .

 

We're not?  How does he know?  Mr. Verbruggen writes that "many conservatives might prefer to bring back the marriage culture that America enjoyed decades ago,. . . . ."  That's a handy over-simplification Verbruggen makes to allow him to draw the mis-guided conclusions he goes on to promote in his article.  

 

Forget a return to the climate of the pre-60s revolution that Verbruggen implies some of us are looking for.   We seek an awareness of the human person that includes regarding sex, not as some animalistic urge to be indulged at will, but as an aspect of our humanity that yields the most benefits to society and to us as individuals when enjoyed within the bonds of marriage.  We seek a respect for and acknowledgment of the role that marriage plays in reducing poverty and providing the best environment for raising children.  We look to educate teenagers about the value of their sexuality, the benefits of chastity and abstinence, and to impress upon young adults, especially women, the perils of single motherhood both for themselves and their fatherless children.  We seek to re-educate men like Robert Verbruggen who've been bought and sold by the feminists as he writes "Giving women more control over their fertility is the most promising way to address this situation." 

 

No, Robert, women don't need more control over their fertility.  Men and women together will benefit when they control  and respect their sexuality which is the gift and responsibility of both sexes.  When it comes to sex, the commonly-held wisdom, and Mr. Verbruggen holds it in this article, is that rational adults and silly, hot-headed teenagers simply cannot control their sexual urges nor can they be held responsible for them.  Yet, despite this inability, Robert Verbruggen has come to the remarkable conclusion that women alone can shoulder the load for our society's uncontrollable sexual urges by having a health care professional  (I use the phrase advisedly)  shove a piece of plastic into their reproductive organs.  The women-folk won't mind. And don't complain about infections, cramps or other deleterious side effects either, gals.  How convenient that one group in society, women, can bear the burden of responsibility for everyone else, including men.  Mr. Verbruggen illustrates nicely the Real War on Women. 

 

More to Verbruggen's own point I suppose, is his notion that women and their IUDs will bring conservatives, pro-lifers and "religious people" to the bargaining table with the Left on controversies surrounding contraception and abortion. This is appeasement and carries with it the tacit implication that the Left is really right on these issues and that conservatives ought to change or at least massage their beliefs enough to be nice and just get along with everyone else, that they should be moderates.  

It's a large task, changing minds and hearts about foundational issues such as human sexuality, marriage, family and abortion when they've been obscured by the utilitarian, secular and politically expedient values Robert Verbruggen gives voice to in this article. It's a disappointment to read such an article in the pages of National Review.

Light of Day

Some insight into New York state's governor and legislature is provided here by New Yorkers for Consitutional Freedom

ShowSplash

In an abrupt departure from topics normally covered here, I would like to post a short advisory about the company iMovies Ltd and their related company ShowSplash. Have nothing to do with them.

They are supposedly based in London. Based on my experience with iMovies and ShowSplash over the past year, they seem to be a fly-by-night operation, wholly without integrity and a comprehensive rip-off.

I've spent the past year trying to sort out how and why we were charged approximately $50 a month over a 10-month period for supposedly signing up with ShowSplash. No one in our family recognizes this site though our name certainly appears on the account. We must have connected through a site of another name and have failed to check or uncheck the appropriate hard-to-find box which offered us membership in this deplorable operation.

When I called ShowSplash to dispute the charges on our bill, I reached a call center in the Caribbean.
That seems to be all there is to this 'company'--a call center with young women who have a supervisor who is never available. More astounding yet was when I was told that their manager doesn't make or receive phone calls! Nor does he have a telephone number! Really!

After numerous phone conversations to the Caribbean I sent a letter to the London office. No reply. Then I sent several e-mails to contacts listed on both the ShowSplash and iMovies Ltd websites. I got a reply saying they would be happy to help and gave me a phone number. Guess where that number led--yes, the call center in the Caribbean.

I sent another e-mail and received a reply saying that I should feel free to contact them again. Yes!

By some miracle, if not the intervention of a higher power, I received a call today from the manager in Barbados. Yes, he finally returned my call of April 24, 2012, just a mere seven months late. Also today, I received a voice mail from ShowSplash which said that they wanted to resolve the problem, but they couldn't get in touch with me. The woman who called left no return phone number and the call came through as 'unknown number.' Yes, really.

Supposedly, the manager is sending the refund I requested next week.

iMovies Ltd.

In an abrupt departure from topics normally covered here, I would like to post a short advisory about the company iMovies Ltd and their related company ShowSplash. Have nothing to do with them.

They are supposedly based in London.  Based on my experience with iMovies and ShowSplash over the past year, they seem to be a fly-by-night operation, wholly without integrity and a comprehensive rip-off. 

 I've spent the past year trying to sort out how and why we were charged approximately $50 a month over a 10-month period for supposedly signing up with ShowSplash.  No one in our family recognizes this site though our name certainly appears on the account.  We must have connected through a site of another name and have failed to check or uncheck the appropriate hard-to-find box which offered us membership in this deplorable operation. 

When I called ShowSplash to dispute the charges on our bill, I reached a call center in the Caribbean.
That seems to be all there is to this 'company'--a call center with young women who have a supervisor who is never available.  More astounding yet was when I was told that their manager doesn't make or receive phone calls!  Nor does he have a telephone number!  Really!

After numerous phone conversations to the Caribbean I sent a letter to the London office.  No reply.  Then I sent several e-mails to contacts listed on both the ShowSplash and iMovies Ltd websites.  I got a reply saying they would be happy to help and gave me a phone number.  Guess where that number led--yes, the call center in the Caribbean. 

I sent another e-mail and received a reply saying that I should feel free to contact them again.  Yes!

By some miracle, if not the intervention of a higher power, I received a call today from the manager in Barbados.  Yes, he finally returned my call of April 24, 2012, just a mere seven months late.  Also today, I received a voice mail from ShowSplash which said that they wanted to resolve the problem, but they couldn't get in touch with me.  The woman who called left no return phone number and the call came through as 'unknown number.'  Yes, really.

Supposedly, the manager is sending the refund I requested next week. 

Stealth Population Control?

From this article,   "the  American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated its guidelines for teenagers to say that IUDs and hormonal implants should be “first-line contraceptive options” that are discussed at each doctor’s visit."   I'm reminded of what a doctor told me 20 years ago.  He commented that 'government programs' and 'clinics'  favor the IUD as a method of birth control because its success doesn't require much skill or vigilance on the part of the user.  The user whom a government program is targeting is probably not the educated, white, middle or upper middle class female who will get whatever birth control she may or may not wish to have.  The user is probably a less educated, younger female from a lower socio-economic class, possibly with a good chance of being black or hispanic.  

 Why does a government program want a quick and easy solution to pregnancy?  To control the number of births resulting, perhaps?  Population control.   Throwing easy solutions at what are perceived to be problem pregnancies presumes that  the population in question is both sexually active and too irresponsible--too, uh, dumb?-- to control its sexual activity.  That in and of itself is the  soft bigotry of low expectations.  Secondly, there must be a presumption that the children resulting from these sexual unions are not wanted, either by their parents or by the society.  More bigotry and not so soft.  By advocating for 'easy' forms of contraception, society promotes a libertine attitude toward sex at the expense of the health and well-being of women in particular and our society in general.  The article points out the health problems associated with IUDs and the increased availability they will have under Obama's health care.  More wonderful things for liberated girls and women, brought to us by liberated women, with the support of  liberated men. 

Not to be outdone, New York City public schools are also into the population control business with the insidious CATCH program.   Cardinal Dolan notes the tragic irony and comments here that parental consent is needed in New York state for piercings, tattos and tanning salons, but the CATCH program makes hormonal injections and contraceptive drugs available to teen-agers without parental consent.

Dress Code Equality For All

I wasn't sure whether to tag this Inside Higher Ed Quick Take 'For Fun,' 'Weasels' or 'Homosexuality.'  Perhaps a new category, 'Going to Hell in a Handbag' as some put it,  would be required here. 

I reproduce the article in its entirety:

The University of Oxford, responding to concerns about equity for transgender students, has dropped the dress code that has been in place for students at some formal academic events, BBC News reported. The current rules, which will end August 4, require male students to wear a dark suit, black shoes and a white bow tie and a plain white shirt and collar under their black gowns. Women must wear a dark skirt or trousers and a white blouse. The rules were criticized as forcing transgender students into traditional gender roles.

Some Weasels

According to Bishop Jenky of Peoria, Illinois, there is a place where unfaithful Catholic politicians might eventually find themselves. 

Christians Most Persecuted Religious Group

That's what Zenit reports in this article.   According to participants at the International Conference on the Freedom of Religion and Discrimination Against Christians, there are two reasons for this:  "the loss of Christian roots and European secularism where secular authorities are increasingly marginalizing religion from public life; and Islamic radicalism, exacerbated by aggressive missionary work by representatives of different non-Christian sects, and distortions of Christian teaching."
The Obama administration is signalling that it is not much interested in protecting Christians around the world because the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom does not have the support of the Obama administration and will likely not exist past this week.  The article explains: 

The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission. Its Commissioners are appointed by the U.S. president and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. USCIRF's principal responsibilities are to review the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally and to make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and Congress.

But despite its irreplaceable value, the organization may well be shut down on Dec. 16. Two continuing congressional resolutions had temporarily extended its life which had been threatened by budget cuts. But now a re-authorization bill has had a "hold" placed on it by Senate majority whip, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), according to CNS News.

As the Archbishop of Miami points out here, pro-life Catholics have most certainly "been played" by Obama, but I think that goes for all Catholics and Christian denominations as well.  Obama must be not only our most pro-abortion president, but also our most doggedly anti-Christian secular president.

More on Same Sex "Marriage" in New York State

Several sources are reporting on the four New York state senators who delivered the vote on same sex 'marriage' for Governor Cuomo here in New York state.  It seems that they're receiving some handsome campaign funding from Republicans who want to send the message that the Republican party supports same-sex 'marriage.'

The four wayward senators are Mark J. Grisanti of Buffalo, James S. Alesi of Rochester, Stephen M. Saland of Poughkeepsie and Roy J. McDonald of Saratoga County.  Their mentors in the Republican party are gay rights activist Tim Gill along with Paul E. Singer,  Daniel S. Loeb and our own Mayor Bloomberg.      

More on How Gay "Marriage" Happened in New York state

Here is another article, [at 4/25/13 this article isn't available but the quotes below are accurate;  here is a link to a similar account] also from New Yorker's Family Research Foundation, that gives more explanation about how the same-sex "marriage" vote in New York was basically bought and sold and passed under questionable (illegal?) conditions.  Republicans were instrumental in passing this bill.  The author mentions the groundwork that was laid by Republican donors in collusion (shall we say) with Andrew Cuomo. 

The battle really began back some months ago when Steve Cohen and other top staff members from Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration met with wealthy Republican financial contributors in New York City. The governor’s staff proposed that they should work with the governor to see that homosexual “marriage” legislation was passed into law. It didn’t take long for those liberal-leaning Republican Wall Street financiers to get on board with the governor. Billionaire Paul Singer (whose son is living in a gay-lifestyle), and hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb were influential in passing same-sex “marriage” legislation. They wrote six-figure checks, totaling over one million dollars, to fund the public relations campaign for gay “marriage”. This level of support did not go unnoticed by Republicans who normally sought campaign funding from these same sources. 

He mentions the "letter of necessity" that Cuomo used to circumvent consideration of the bill in the Assembly. 

To get a vote this quickly, the governor had to send a letter of necessity to the Assembly, declaring that this legislation was critical to the state, and necessary, such that there was no time for it to go through the normal legislative process. 

 Once the bill was in the Senate, the governor went to work again. 

The Senate leadership and the governor’s staff made an agreement not to permit the same-sex “marriage” legislation to be laid aside or discussed. This blocked any debate and expedited the process. The governor wanted to have the vote pass in a manner that would allow for maximum coverage in that evening’s 11:00 PM newscasts. His staff was in full force on the Senate floor, working with various leaders, expediting the process to make the 11:00 o’clock deadline. It is highly unethical for the executive branch of government to be involved in the operation of the legislative branch.

Senators were locked into the chamber and lobbyists were locked out.

Senators were locked in the chamber so they could not disappear for the vote and be marked absent – or in Albany lingo ‘take a walk’. This is the first time I have seen senators locked in the chamber, forcing them to vote. Again, this seemed to be part of a broader effort to lock down the needed votes, and not let any peel away from taking a difficult vote.

The author makes clear that Republicans could have stopped this bill.

The Republican Party controls the state senate, giving them the authority to determine what to do with the legislation. They did not have to bring the legislation to the floor. The Senate Republican Conference could have stopped same-sex “marriage” in New York State, but they failed to do so. Twenty-nine Republicans voted against the bill on the floor, but it is not clear that they did all they could to keep it from coming to the floor in conference. It only takes seventeen senators in conference to hold a bill. 

How "Gay" Marriage Happened . . .

Here is a good discussion  [unfortunately not available at 4/25/13]of the vote on same sex "marriage" in New York state this past June 24th.   It's written by the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorker's Family Research Foundation.   He singles out a few cowran tim'rous beasties, but to tell the truth, it sounds like all the Republicans had panic in their breasties. 

The Senate GOP convinced itself that it was in their best interest to bring same-sex “marriage” to the floor for passage. They believe this action will remove the issue from the 2012 elections. Senate leadership, working with their Republican conference, devised a plan whereby they would permit a few votes to peel away causing the measure to ultimately pass, while allowing the majority of Republicans to maintain public positions of opposition. Republicans think this will protect their slim majority and allow their conference to return to power in 2013 and beyond. They are mistaken. 

Besides the State Republican Chairman, Ed Cox, and Dean Skelos who allowed the vote, there was Mayor Bloomberg.

When the Republicans were conferencing this issue, they allowed gay “marriage” supporter and major financial donor, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, into the meeting. We now know that other wealthy and liberal GOP donors reached out to the party’s leadership with promises of support in exchange for a vote on homosexual “marriage”. This should be understood as quid pro quo, an illegal action of exchanging one’s vote for some personal gain, but this is just the way corrupt and compromising elected officials get things done on Planet Albany.

When the decision was made to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, Republican leadership conspired with Governor Cuomo and Senate Democrats to hold no debate on the bill. They actually shut down Sen. Diaz (D-Bronx), the lone voice defending the family that night, while allowing openly-gay lawmaker Sen. Duane (D-Manhattan) to go on virtually unchecked.

The timing of the bill’s passage was designed to coincide with the 11 o’clock newscasts allowing Governor Cuomo maximum coverage. 

Republicans, thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin!   Unfortunately, these beasties are taking us down with them.