This page was last updated on August 11, 2014.
We shouldn’t pay for lifestyle choices; O.J. Schlueter; Beaver County Times; July 29, 2014.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Stephen F Kislock III’s letter on birth control is just an example of why we cannot get things done in America anymore.
“Any woman can buy birth control any day of the week and no one is saying that they cannot. The problem is that Mr. Kislock and most of the Democrats are convinced that birth control is a right and not a lifestyle choice and that they want the taxpayers to pay for that choice. Also they want abortions to be treated the same.
“How about my right not pay for your lifestyle choices?”
[RWC] This critique is really to address the comments below on the BCT website. Most of the numerous other comments were of equal merit.
Carl Davidson (KD) wrote (7/29/14 @ 7:45am), “Contraception is indeed a choice, but it’s hardly about ‘lifestyle.’ It’s about reproductive health, especially for women, and some needed forms of it are rather costly, and should be part of any health insurance policy.”
[RWC] Why must contraception – or any specific product or service – “be part of any health insurance policy?” For example, why should a woman past her child-bearing years be forced to pay for contraception and obstetric coverage? If a person doesn’t want coverage for a specific product or service, why should he/she be forced to pay for that coverage? The more stuff covered by the policy, the more expensive the premium and/or copayment.
“If you don’t want it for yourself, don’t use it. But everyone pays into the pool for the consequences of many choices people make, including diet and alcohol. I suppose you might find a boutique policy somewhere that might exclude drinkers, the overweight and such, including those who abstain from contraception. Buy one if you like, but you still have to pay your taxes, even for thing you disapprove of.”
[RWC] “Boutique policy?” When I purchased my non-boutique medical insurance policy, the application asked for my height and weight (to determine if I was overweight), if I smoked, if I drank, if I had pre-existing medical conditions, and probably other lifestyle questions I forgot. The answers to those questions determined if I qualified for a policy and my premium if I did qualify. This is true for most individual medical policies and the same is true for many (most?) life insurance policies.
“Otherwise, why should I, having opposed every war since Vietnam, largely on moral grounds, have to pay for them? I do object, in a way, encouraging Congress to cut off the money to Israel today, but I’m not holding my breath on that matter, unfortunately.”
[RWC] Choosing what we want to pay for in our medical insurance policies is not the same as paying taxes.
Remember, in 2006 the Palestinians elected the terrorist group Hamas to lead their government. Hamas still leads the Gaza Strip government while Fatah (formerly the PLO, another terrorist group) runs the West Bank. When you elect a terrorist group to lead your government, you lose all justification to call yourself a victim.
While the Israelis aren’t saints, we have to remember the Palestinians always start the violence and don’t care whom they kill. Heck, Palestinians even strap bombs on their own kids and turn their kids into targets by storing weapons in or close to schools and hospitals. In this case, Hamas (which also governs the Gaza Strip) on June 12th kidnapped and killed three Israeli teenagers. To date, while KD and his fellow officers at Beaver County Reds have posted anti-Israel articles/comments on their group and personal Facebook and web pages, I have not seen them mention – let alone condemn – the kidnapping and killing of the Israeli teenagers by Palestinians.
If you want to argue whether or not the UN – usually a darling of the left – was right in forming Israel, you have a legitimate argument. The fact is, however, Israel has proven during its 66 years of existence it wants to live in freedom and peace and poses no threat to its neighbors unless attacked. Despite this, Israel has been under attack the whole time, from within and without. Israel has tried to live in peace and make itself an economically viable state while Arab Palestinians seem focused on violence and live in poverty as a result. It’s also important to note Palestinians chose a mix of terrorist groups for their leadership.
To date, no amount of Israeli concessions has satisfied Palestinians. You may recall Muslims told Israel all they needed to do for peace was to leave Gaza and southern Lebanon (aka “land for peace”). Israel did both – even forcibly removing Israeli citizens from their homes. Since Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, Israel has been under constant attack. The breakout of warfare in 2006 started when Muslims crossed into Israel from both Gaza and Lebanon to kill and capture Israeli soldiers. What does KD want Israel to do? Stand back and do nothing when its citizens are killed and taken hostage? Read the Hamas Covenant 1988 and you find Hamas can’t be satisfied as long as Israel exists. For example, the second paragraph of the covenant says, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” How do you negotiate with someone whose ultimate goal is not something like land for a country or liberty, but your “obliteration?”
South Africa was easy to understand; lefties simply pandered to keep U.S. black voters in the Democrat fold. Had black voters been in the Republican camp, lefties couldn’t have identified South Africa on a globe. What I don’t get is why KD and most of the left feign concern for so-called Palestinians. After all, I suspect Arab/Muslim Palestinians aren’t a big voting bloc in the U.S. Using presidential elections as a guide, Jewish voters have always gone for the Democrat/leftist candidate(s) since at least 1916. The most a Republican candidate got from Jewish voters was 43% (Harding) in 1920. Even when Nixon (61%) blew out McGovern (38%), Jewish voters went for McGovern (65%) over Nixon (35%). Why, then, does the American left appear to stick a finger in the eyes of Jewish voters? That said, since Jewish voters comprise only about two percent of the electorate, perhaps lefties don’t care about them. That, however, still wouldn’t explain the left’s love affair with people who danced in the streets when they learned of the 9/11/01 attack. Never mind, I figured it out.
In fairness, though, just because you’re Jewish doesn’t mean you must support Israel, just as not all Catholics support all positions of Vatican City. That’s true of most groups.
In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>
“kevin” wrote (7/29/14 @ 8:41am), “Henceforth, based on the Supreme Court and a deeply held religious belief (in that order), I hereby refuse to pay any taxes that will, might, could, or may fund, support, condone, promote, advertise, enable, help, aid, or assist in any lifestyle choice that I find immoral, amoral, evil, bad, iniquitous, nefarious, rotten, sinful, unethical, unlawful, unrighteous, unsavory, vicious, vile, villainous, or wrong. (Oh, include un-American in there too. I ain’t paying for anything un-American, either).”
[RWC] A review of “kevin’s” comments indicates he’s a lefty. It is possible “kevin” doesn’t know it, but Congress passed and the President signed The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), not the Supreme Court (SC). RFRA passed the Democrat-majority House via a “unanimous” voice vote and Democrat-majority Senate via a 97-3 roll-call vote. President Bill Clinton (D) signed the bill into law. Keep this in mind when you hear Democrats/leftists caterwauling about the SC decision, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY and RFRA’s sponsor when in the House), now-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, voted aye), now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV, voted yea), and Hillary Clinton (Her “co-President” husband signed RFRA.). All the Supreme Court did was rule Obamacare violated RFRA, which it does.
© 2004-2014 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.