Women's Rights

Okay here’s the deal.  I really need someone to explain Women’s Rights to me.  Anyone?

There is a lot of discussion in the media, and Internet these days about “Women’s Right’s.”  At least according to the television press (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et.al) President Obama and the Democratic Party are fighting furiously for them, and the Republican’s and the Catholic Church are against them.  For the record I am all for women having rights, men having rights and even human’s having rights if I only knew exactly what those euphemistic terms really mean, and we use them not as battle cries but as a means to a common understanding.

Within the current context, as far as I can figure out, “Women’s Rights” are almost exclusively limited to control of, and government mandated funding for, her reproductive cycle.  It doesn’t mean she should be equal with men, or not discriminated against in the work place because of her gender, or have the right to vote, or run for public office, although these too appear to be rights women should have.  I know in America they do have these rights, so maybe the women’s rights argument is only about what more to expect and not equality?

Since the government has ruled that a Doctor, in consultation with the woman, has a right to terminate her maternity with an abortion then does she not have Woman’s Rights?  Or is there a legitimate fear among advocates for abortion that if the government does not provide funding for Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers, and mandate that all insurance plans must pay for abortion then the free market system will not provide sufficient business to allow them to make a profit and thereby continue in business?

In August of this year the Department of Health and Human Services issued “historic new guidelines that will ensure women receive preventive health service at no additional cost.”  Among the now provided “free” services are well-women visits, screening for gestational diabetes, testing for human papillomavirus for women over 30, counseling for STD, screening for human immunodeficiency virus, breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling, domestic violence screening and counseling, and, oh yes, FDA-approved contraception methods and counseling.

On January 20^th, Secretary Sebelius issued a statement allowing religious organizations that objected to portions of the August ruling an extra year to put aside their objections, and implement the rule by August 1, 2013.   At about the same time the Catholic Bishops released to the American Congregations their letter of concern with the Administrations assault on separation of Church and State.  In this case the mandate that they as a business must provide their employees with access to FDA-approved contraception, which would include abortion.  In what seems to me to be a splitting hairs type attempt to take the pressure off, the President has gotten involved with an attempt to compromise by saying the Church doesn’t have to provide this, but the insurance companies they contract out to must.

Of course, just as with any discussion that may touch on Planned Parenthood - the liberal, pro-choice spin machine swung into action, flooding the news media and Internet with a load of hysterical adds, signs, and shows making this a church of old men against women, or old Republican candidates are at war with women issue rather than a First Amendment debate.  This is one of my favorites:

Lets talk about this poster for a minute, since this is really where I begin to get confused.

Can anyone explain to me in simple, straightforward, and an easy to understand way exactly what basic right the Church is taking away when it doesn't want to endorse, by payment for, contraception? 

As a commenter to this blog noted on an earlier post, the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, but where is the call from advocates for gun ownership demanding that the government provide weapons to everyone that wants one. 

Our constitution outlines what I’ve always believed to be our basic rights, human and otherwise, and over this past one hundred years or so the government has grown to provide other benefits.  Does the fact  the government provides a benefit mean that it automatically becomes a basic right?

The Preamble to the Constitution says:  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  You can add to these the first ten amendments, known as our Bill of Rights, ratified en masse on December 15, 1971.

1.    Freedom of Religion and the Press – Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

2.   The Right to Bear Arms

3.   The prevention of taking a homeowners house without consent, to house troops in a time of peace

4.   Protection from search and seizure without the establishment of probable cause

5.    Clarification on the citizens rights during a criminal proceedings

6.   The right to a speedy trial and to confront your accusers

7.   The right to a Trial by Jury in Civil Cases

8.   Protection against torture and impossible bail

9.   Clarification that just because a right is not contained in the constitution it should not be construed that those rights don’t exist

10.  The Rights of the State

While the list gets longer with the additional amendments nowhere in those rights do I see a mandated requirement the governments, both state and federal, or extra-government organizations like the church must cover the cost to exercise that right.  Can anyone help me on this?  Why is this issue so special?