I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.This is a woman who wants to live a consequence-free sexual lifestyle on your dime. She's certainly not representative of any significant percentage of students at Georgetown or anywhere else.
In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.
Joshua Trevino pointed out something very interesting. I'm not Catholic and do not believe artificial contraception is immoral, but the Pope in his letter from 1968 pretty accurately predicted what would happen when artificial contraception became widespread (Section 17):
Consequences of Artificial MethodsPretty much everything that was predicted has come true.
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
This whole thing is a smokescreen. The economy is still stumbling with no signs of improvement on the horizon and Obama doesn't want people talking about any of that. Consequently, he needed something to take the people's minds off their troubles and create a bogeyman that would get women back on his side (his poll numbers were badly slipping among women). And here we are. Scare women into believing Republicans want to take away their birth control and toss in some inflammatory statements by Rush Limbaugh. Perfect storm.
If there's one thing I've noticed in the last few years it's lefties are obsessed with their crotch. Their world revolves around their private parts, and frankly they want their parts to be anything but private and if they can get the government to pay for their jollies, so much the better. That's what's driving this debate, it's what drives much of the gay "rights" debate and demands for the teaching of "gay history" and other nonsense, and frankly I think it's been a driving force behind the never-ending demand for increasing funding for AIDS. AIDS funding is less about saving people than it is about restoring a no-consequence lifestyle of anonymous sex and other perversions that were rampant before the AIDS epidemic broke out. And they want you to pay for it.
The moral slide continues unabated.