on the abuse of labels in the recent contraception blowup

[marta_bee]

Whatever else the recent blowup over the ACA contraception mandate might have shown, it's that Americans need a better epistemology. The news story has interested me on many levels and will probably pop up in blog posts from time to time. But one philosophical idea kept seeming to float to the forefront, at least in my mind as I read the different

Comments

I wish the mandate was for "well care" not "preventative care"

[julifolo]

Just because pregnancy is "normal" doesn't mean it's without medical repercussions. Which is where "don't call pregnancy an illness" goes towards.

And the Catholic hierarchy idea of pregnant women -- where the bishops (not the hospitals) -- going on a rant about the abortion that saved a woman's life, I forget the state, was the same as saying: if a woman's body can't sustain a pregnancy, then better she's culled. The word usage of "pastoral care" and "flock" is one of "human husbandry".

"Where are the women?" was, I believe, a licit question because the is hiding their misogyny & classism behind their religion. If you follow the money, I believe that the healthcare act is funded by a tax that applies mostly to the rich. Despite the fact that they're corporate welfare cheats and take from the system they don't want to pay their fair share. Besides, the more burdens the state can put on the poor means it's easier to profit from them & they're too vulnerable to fight back.

And I'm writing about politics rather than discussing your point, ... but I'm afraid trying to take their position "seriously" is politically dangerous because that means participating in their distraction. They aren't arguing in good faith (pun intended).

Re: I wish the mandate was for "well care" not "preventative care"

[marta_bee]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. There is misogyny and classism hiding behind the way a lot of people use religious dogma in fights like this. But the way to handle that issue is to, you know, address the issue. The whole question of what proportion of Catholic women accepted this doctrine in their lives was a distraction, and a dangerous one. And the claim that a woman testifying before the committee on an issue unrelated to the central point, are there religious freedom problems with the law, is also a dangerous distraction. It seems to say that is that witness had been allowed to testify, that the issues of sexism in religion would have been addressed.

Put it another way: the problem with the committee wasn't that it didn't look at the impact this law had on women's health. The problem was that it didn't address the central question, is this law forcing one group's moral or religious ideas on people who don't accept it? The gender of the people testifying is really irrelevant to that point.

(As I explained to Dwim above, I don't think this is a religious freedom issue. But acting like the "truth" of Catholic or any other group doctrine is decided by popular vote doesn't really prove that fact.)

The question of validity, approached obliquily

[julifolo]

Since this is politics, not religion or philosophy ... the woman who was not allowed to testify *absolutely* had testimony related to the central point.

Someone who agrees with the talking point that Washington does have a "War Against Religion" is hard to convince otherwise. It's a tactical decision to focus on "Catholics in general don't believe that" rather than "this is religious overreach" because it's easier to PROVE "Catholics in general don't agree with the bishops/pope about birth control".

Instead of "it's persecution!" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" that can't be won, the oblique attack of "that isn't popularly accepted doctrine" is a stronger tactice to question the validity of not only whether the bishops can claim there is religious persecution when their congregations aren't being harmed. In addition, it's calling into question the whole non-democratic nature of what the bishops are claiming their religion is.

Someone who would stand would the bigotry without any self-reflection if the argument is Yes! No! Yes! might find reason to question the politics if the unfairness is approached obliquely.

I'm reminded of a discussion on a totally different topic where someone was trying to win the arguement by stating "USA stole the land from Mexico" -- and the other side just laughed and replied what did that have to do with the question of land tenure of farmers that were on the same land for generations? Some questions are illegitimate on their face.