26401
General Discussion / Re: American Election Megathread
« on: March 04, 2012, 10:30:26 am »
So I was hearing TV in the distance again and wanted to fact-check m'own understanding of the situation, specifically re: this contraception foofaraw.
From what I understand, and the first time I heard about anything large-scale involving it, it started(?) with the feds withdrawing funding from institutions (such as catholic hospitals, yes.) that did not provide contraceptive access (along with a few other things, of course, but contraceptives is what I'm specifically interested in, here.). There wasn't, so far as I understood, any other (or any, period, really) coercive aspect to the decision -- nothing forcing institutions that didn't want to provide contraceptives to provide them. They just couldn't expect federal funding if they didn't.
Did the situation change when I wasn't paying attention? Was my initial impression inaccurate? I'm asking because, from my understanding of the situation, the general public message getting out against the federal decision seems like a baldfaced lie, and given the at-least media pervasiveness of the message, that seems a bit bold even for the normal rabblerousers. Can someone a bit more up to date on the situation clarify?
From what I understand, and the first time I heard about anything large-scale involving it, it started(?) with the feds withdrawing funding from institutions (such as catholic hospitals, yes.) that did not provide contraceptive access (along with a few other things, of course, but contraceptives is what I'm specifically interested in, here.). There wasn't, so far as I understood, any other (or any, period, really) coercive aspect to the decision -- nothing forcing institutions that didn't want to provide contraceptives to provide them. They just couldn't expect federal funding if they didn't.
Did the situation change when I wasn't paying attention? Was my initial impression inaccurate? I'm asking because, from my understanding of the situation, the general public message getting out against the federal decision seems like a baldfaced lie, and given the at-least media pervasiveness of the message, that seems a bit bold even for the normal rabblerousers. Can someone a bit more up to date on the situation clarify?


