As a Catholic, Fox's Peter Johnson Jr. must be in line for a ultra, super, mega, plenary indulgence (for all you non-Catholics, this is a ticket for reduced time in Purgatory) for his shameless shilling of the Catholic bishops' talking points The world's oldest men's club The US Council of Catholic Bishops was very unhappy about the HHS contraceptive mandate and needed to get the word out about their views. And who better than Fox News' Catholic Maltese Knight who has done a series of segments which are straight of the playbook of the men in black. These prelates are still not happy with the Obama administration's "accommodation" on the issue; and as such, Peter Johnson is there to help out his priestly pals for whom he does legal work (something that he has only acknowledged once.) This morning, on Fox & Friends, he did his lords' work in pushing the bishop's propaganda - including the Fox "fact" and Catholic dogma that the contraception mandate includes abortion drugs. But for those outside the Catholic, Fox world, that's just not true.
As with all of Johnson's segments, regarding the contraception mandate (He mentioned it with Gretchen Carlson but Komen was the main focus of the segment), his fellow talker was a male which is appropriate given that that those who represent the teaching authority of the Catholic Church are all male). The title of the segment, "Prescription for Truth" was ironic given that truth, once again, was a casualty.
After reporting the back story, Dave Briggs gave the pulpit to Catholic knight in shining armor, Peter Johnson Jr. Briggs asked the uterus free Johnson if free contraception is a right. Johnson wasted no time in bashing Obama for making a "broad partisan statement" to his base regarding the proposed policy. He mentioned Planned Parenthood as part of the group that Obama consulted with "to infringe on religious liberty" and protect the health rights of women. (Silly women want rights?) The Fox chyron told the audience what it needed to know: "Clashing With Catholics, President Offers 'Accomodation' to Mandate." What Johnson didn't mention is that both Planned Parenthood and Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Hospital Association, were in agreement with the "accomodation." Johnson also ignored medical findings that say that if contraception keeps women health and lowers costs for contraception.
Despite the real fact that there have been no legal findings on the mandate, Johnson cited Fox fact that Obama has "backed off from an unconstitutional action." Johnson continues to ignore the fact that "Courts in two of the 20 states that offer exemptions to contraceptive coverage for insurers and employers, New York and California, have found conscience clauses like the HHS interim rule affecting only houses of worship to be constitutional." After questioning the effect of the recent decision on insurance carriers, he mentioned that those who are exempted from the rule won't be able to get "abortion producing drugs..." More agitprop with this chyron: "Smoke and Mirrors? President: Religious Orgs Exempt From Mandate." Johnson repeated his lie when he complained that the president is saying that insurance companies have to provide "abortion inducing drugs" for free. The Cavuto marked chyron reflected Fox's and the bishop's sentiment that women have no right to birth control: "The Right to Contraception? President Argues That It Must Be Free for All Women." Johnson said "it's a Ponzi game" and a "bait and switch." He added that the bishops should be commended for defending Catholicism and the Constitution.
The HHS mandate DOES NOT COVER ABORTION INDUCING DRUGS. RU 486 is not part of the package and emergency contraception, outside the purview of the Vatican IS NOT ABORTION INDUCING as it merely prevents a pregnancy. No pregnancy - no abortion. It also doesn't affect the fetus if a woman is pregnant. And I can't believe that it's 2012 and we're talking about a woman's right to birth control. The last time I heard this argument was around 1961 when Catholic priests used their pulpits to condemn Planned Parenthood and women who used the sinful birth control pill.("Every Sperm is Sacred!") I was appalled then and I continue to be appalled at how this church uses its power and wealth to try to impose its misogynistic views on all women. And unlike the old days, it has a national news network from which to spread its, IMHO, archaic, misogynistic views. Fox News "fair & balanced" thanks be to Roger Ailes, Fox's "version of God."
That’s funny. Why does the church feel the need to insert it’s ‘power’ into the field of contraception?
After all,the bible doesn’t say anything about contraception. Not even the frequently quoted scripture about ‘masterbation’ is about masterbation.
And what other choice is the church offering? Are they going to offer a seperate but equal plan that includes contraceptives for their employees,or will they just sit back,smile their fat papist smile and say ‘religious objection!’.
That’s why the government is involved. this isn’t the 12th century. Workers have rights.
The Catholic church should know this since its empire reigns far and wide. For centuries, there have been all sorts of folk remedies, poisons, and superstitions to avoid pregnancy all across its empire.
But NOOOOOOOOO! The Catholic church won’t have part of it.
To the woman he said, âI will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.â
Following the line of wingnut “logic” then ANY AND ALL sexual activities leading to “conception” must be avoided.
For ages, literally, the issue of avoiding pregnancy has been with mankind for ages. During the same time, women are always to blame.
So, according to outraged xtian Taliban wingnutz “Virgin” Mary bore the J-man through “immaculate conception”
Now, please keep children off the vicinity before you continue reading.
Who was the a-whole f-ing Virgin Mary’s mom?
America needs to see the birfh certificate!
Are we really, seriously, in 2012, debating the use of contraception?
Do we really, seriously, in 2012, have a front running presidential candidate who wants to radically diminish and/or abolish contraception?