I can't keep this huge, friggin question out of my mind. If this is really a religious debate, as the religious right would like it to seem, then why exclude the women from panels like this?

I mean, c'mon. It's an honest question. If you want me to even grant you an itssssy bitssssy bit o' leeway on the possibility of this being a genuine "religious liberty" issue rather than a "deny women medical coverage as it fits your political agenda" issue, then why not include at least one woman? What about a female preacher? I've been told there are an increasing number of them! Or how about a Buddhist woman, maybe? Or maybe just one church-going lower-income femal-io. Maybe if she had a mustache it would help? No problem.

Just get your slightly mustachio'd religious lady to walk up there and state: "This is primarily a religious liberty issue, and has nothing to do with the thousands of women who are being forced into a position of having fewer and fewer choices about fundamental life issues like their own health and having children. No, this is about churches having the right to establish their own position and involvement in moral debates such as those swirling around abortion and contraception(, and then force these positions on their employees)."

Why not?



Frankly, I'm not buying your bullshit.

And this past year of politics has been enough to make me puke and keep on puking until my mouth tasted just as bowel-ridden as those of the candidates participating in this year's GOP primary. Here I was criticizing Obama for being even more conservative in his moves than I thought he would be, while also being far less of leader than I thought he would be... and as if to inspire me to rote adoration, the GOP pulls out the most gut-gnashing, humiliating (this is America?), appalling diarhetoric I've ever heard in my life. As a general rule, I'm not a hater... but starting to feel some...

P.S. I like this article. Rock on.