It really grits my buns when people are intellectually dishonest when arguing an issue. Take for example the Opinion piece in the NY Times titled "Trump Takes Away Fundamental Health Care for Women" written by the Chief Medical Officer for Planned Parenthood, Raegan McDonald-Mosley.
Ms. McDonald-Mosley* starts her article with an insult, saying the "Trump Administration revealed its disdain for women," with the Administration's decision to modify the rules adopted to implement the Affordable Care Act's provision to cover birth control. Really? So that is the only possible reason for what the Trump Administration did? The fact that the original rule was overturned by the Supreme Court and further Court cases are pending has nothing to do with it?
Next we move to the real whopper - Ms. McDonald-Mosley claims "Birth control is not controversial." Really? Are you kidding me? Contraceptives are highly controversial in many respects. Ms. McDonald-Mosley's own Opinion piece links to another article in the NY Times ("Trump Administration Rolls Back Birth Control Mandate") that provides two examples of the controversy. First, it states the Obama Administration's rules on contraceptives created 5 years of litigation. Second, the article quoted the Little Sisters of the Poor as to why they oppose having to fund contraceptives.
Finally, we have Ms. McDonald-Mosley stating "Let's be clear: this change is not about religious freedom." If that were true, then why has this provision been tied up in Court for the last 5 years and why did the Supreme Court mandate changes to the previous rule? The latest lawsuit was brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor during the Obama Administration and they had a legitimate chance of winning it and overturning the latest rule. The Little Sisters of the Poor sued entirely on religious freedom grounds and not about "taking away women's right to make basic decisions about their health..." or "...giving bosses power over their employees' most personal decisions."
There are legitimate reasons for Ms. McDonald-Mosley to be upset with the Trump Administration's decision. For example she talks about the challenges women had paying for contraceptives before this law passed. She also states "the United States is experiencing the lowest rate of unintended pregnancy... lowest rate of pregnancy among teenagers... and lowest rate of abortion" in various periods of time. Why does Ms. McDonald-Mosley feel it necessary to resort to insults and untrue statements to make her case? Why can't she acknowledge that the other side has a legitimate cause for concern and instead argue that the facts supporting her position outweigh those concerns? Could it be because they don't?
Finally, I will digress to another point that irritates me to no end. If everything Ms. McDonald-Mosley says is true about the importance of contraceptives they why not get the government to pay for them? Why is it necessary to use the back door of forcing employers to cover the cost of these through their health plans? If the Government pays for them then we remove from the "bosses" any "power over their employees' most personal decisions." I'm so sick of government shifting responsibility to the private sector and then blaming private companies for everything that goes wrong as a result of the gutless transfer of responsibility.
* Ms. McDonald-Mosley is described as the Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood and a practicing health care provider. However, the article does not say what type of provider and did not state that she is a physician so I chose to refer to her as Ms. rather than Dr. Apologies if I have used the wrong title.
Ms. McDonald-Mosley* starts her article with an insult, saying the "Trump Administration revealed its disdain for women," with the Administration's decision to modify the rules adopted to implement the Affordable Care Act's provision to cover birth control. Really? So that is the only possible reason for what the Trump Administration did? The fact that the original rule was overturned by the Supreme Court and further Court cases are pending has nothing to do with it?
Next we move to the real whopper - Ms. McDonald-Mosley claims "Birth control is not controversial." Really? Are you kidding me? Contraceptives are highly controversial in many respects. Ms. McDonald-Mosley's own Opinion piece links to another article in the NY Times ("Trump Administration Rolls Back Birth Control Mandate") that provides two examples of the controversy. First, it states the Obama Administration's rules on contraceptives created 5 years of litigation. Second, the article quoted the Little Sisters of the Poor as to why they oppose having to fund contraceptives.
Finally, we have Ms. McDonald-Mosley stating "Let's be clear: this change is not about religious freedom." If that were true, then why has this provision been tied up in Court for the last 5 years and why did the Supreme Court mandate changes to the previous rule? The latest lawsuit was brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor during the Obama Administration and they had a legitimate chance of winning it and overturning the latest rule. The Little Sisters of the Poor sued entirely on religious freedom grounds and not about "taking away women's right to make basic decisions about their health..." or "...giving bosses power over their employees' most personal decisions."
There are legitimate reasons for Ms. McDonald-Mosley to be upset with the Trump Administration's decision. For example she talks about the challenges women had paying for contraceptives before this law passed. She also states "the United States is experiencing the lowest rate of unintended pregnancy... lowest rate of pregnancy among teenagers... and lowest rate of abortion" in various periods of time. Why does Ms. McDonald-Mosley feel it necessary to resort to insults and untrue statements to make her case? Why can't she acknowledge that the other side has a legitimate cause for concern and instead argue that the facts supporting her position outweigh those concerns? Could it be because they don't?
Finally, I will digress to another point that irritates me to no end. If everything Ms. McDonald-Mosley says is true about the importance of contraceptives they why not get the government to pay for them? Why is it necessary to use the back door of forcing employers to cover the cost of these through their health plans? If the Government pays for them then we remove from the "bosses" any "power over their employees' most personal decisions." I'm so sick of government shifting responsibility to the private sector and then blaming private companies for everything that goes wrong as a result of the gutless transfer of responsibility.
* Ms. McDonald-Mosley is described as the Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood and a practicing health care provider. However, the article does not say what type of provider and did not state that she is a physician so I chose to refer to her as Ms. rather than Dr. Apologies if I have used the wrong title.
Comments