One way to figure out which side of an issue you should be on is to see who else is on that side. I learned this when living in California, the land of the ever-expanding propositional ballot. Those measures were often written to purposely confuse and confound the voter, so I would always check to see who wrote the proposition and who was for and against it.
So, let’s take a look at Pres. Obama’s so-called “compromise” on the HHS mandated “free” contraception coverage. Does this regulatory language presented to us on February 10 actually do what the White House said it would: remove the obligation from churches and religious institutions to provide and pay for birth control coverage, including contraception and abortifacients?
On the “for” side (Obama has given us something we can live with/something we like/we’re happy, very, very happy), we have:
On the “against” side (Obama continues to violate the First Amendment/this “compromise” was no compromise/this is insulting), we have:
Okay, time to pick your side; I know mine.
Okay, this has gotten incredibly confusing–full of conflicting stories and vague press releases, so at this point, for me, I’m requesting a refund of the donation I sent the Susan G. Komen Foundation and will wait this out.
Here are some links–see if you can make sense of it all:
CatholicVote.org may be right in that this is not a complete reversal of their decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood by Susan G. Komen. All I know is that the MSM is sure reporting it as if it were–celebrations galore that PP is getting more Komen money. This will teach me to contribute to an organization before I really know what they’re doing.
This was first written about in 1958 by Leonard Read in his essay, I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read:
…My family tree begins with what in fact is a tree, a cedar of straight grain that grows in Northern California and Oregon. Now contemplate all the saws and trucks and rope and the countless other gear used in harvesting and carting the cedar logs to the railroad siding. Think of all the persons and the numberless skills that went into their fabrication: the mining of ore, the making of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors; the growing of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to heavy and strong rope; the logging camps with their beds and mess halls, the cookery and the raising of all the foods. Why, untold thousands of persons had a hand in every cup of coffee the loggers drink!…
There is a fact still more astounding: the absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work. This is the mystery to which I earlier referred….
I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles: a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles which manifest themselves in Nature an even more extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies—millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human master-minding!…
The above is what I meant when writing, “If you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing.” For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand—that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive masterminding—then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith….
Read emphasizes the necessity of faith in the freedom of man to create what is needed and desired without the overarching regulation and mandates of a central government while Friedman emphasizes the pull and push of the marketplace, riffing off of Read’s essay.
But then again, Friedman did write the introduction to Read’s book:
…I know of no other piece of literature that so succinctly, persuasively, and effectively illustrates the meaning of both Adam Smith’s invisible hand—the possibility of cooperation without coercion—and Friedrich Hayek’s emphasis on the importance of dispersed knowledge and the role of the price system in communicating information that “will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do.”…
Whatever the pressure, [Read] stuck to his guns, refusing to compromise his principles. That was why he was so effective in keeping alive, in the early days, and then spreading the basic idea that human freedom required private property, free competition, and severely limited government.