Courtesy of Helen Alvaré over on the Public Discourse site:
Professor Gerry Bradley made a spot-on observation here at Public Discourse that
one of the underlying forces driving the HHS abortion, contraception,
and sterilization mandate is the current federal ideology of “equal
sexual liberty,” embracing the notion that “women will and should have
lots more sexual intercourse than they have interest in conceiving
children. … [that] sexual license should never impede a woman’s
lifestyle, at least no more than it does a man’s.” Elsewhere, I have
identified such a position as “sexual expressionism” or “sexualityism”
and have defined it to include also the suggestion that sex should not
only be free of the slightest reflection on its link with procreation,
but also free of commitment, or even the real possibility of a
relationship between the man and the woman involved.
In this essay, I propose to examine this
ideology, not only from a woman’s perspective, but also from the best
scientific evidence we can currently lay our hands on. I will suggest
that the insidious “twofer” the White House is currently
proposing—trampling religious freedom in order to promote
sexualityism—is even worse than doing the latter alone.
First, it should be noted that sexualityism is no more than a theory about a claimed cause of women’s happiness—i.e.,
that its growth is directly proportional to women’s ability to express
themselves sexually without commitment and without the possibility of
children. The HHS mandate stands on this theory. In a world of easy
availability of birth control and abortion, the only reason for a
federal mandate for a “free” and universal supply is to try to send the
sexualityism message. The White House has all but come out and said:
“women of America, vote for the incumbent this presidential election
year because he supports women’s equality and freedom, which he
understands to include at the very least nonmarital and nonprocreative
sexual expression.” Why else choose Sandra Fluke—an affluent, single,
female law student, who demands a taxpayer-subsidized, 365-day supply of
birth control as the price of female equality—as your spokeswoman?
While every savvy media outlet understands the political theater going
on here with the whole “war on women,” anti-Republicans message, still
when the White House uses its powerful bully pulpit to send such a
message, cultural damage is done.
Read the entire essay.