ThinkProgress Fails Again on Contraception Debate
There are days when you really must wonder if the folks over at ThinkProgress, the opinion site of the left-leaning, George Soros backed think tank Center for American Progress, actually, you know, think about what they’re writing. This recent piece on Rand Paul and contraception just shows they don’t do critical thinking very well.
Although GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has dodged questions about whether he believes the Constitution protects a woman’s right to use birth control, one of Romney’s top legal advisers is a leading opponent of the right to contraception. Robert Bork, the former federal judge who serves as co-chair of Romney’s Justice Advisory Committee, described the first Supreme Court case to protect access to contraception as “utterly specious” and a “time bomb.”
In a surprising departure from conservative orthodoxy, Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) broke with Romney’s legal adviser yesterday, stating that the Constitution does indeed protect a right to birth control:
Really? Rand freaking Paul has stated “that the Constitution does indeed protect a right to birth control”? You mean that he says that the government should be buying people contraceptives using taxpayer money? (Because that is what a “right to birth control” means, guys.)
Except…he says no such thing. Indeed, right in the blockquote from the article they use, and in the part of the blockquote that is bolded to high heavens, it is totally disproven:
Paul said he agrees with the landmark Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut, which first declared that the Constitution protects privacy and invalidated a state law banning access to contraceptives.
“Protects privacy and invalidated a state law banning access to contraceptives.” That’s a big difference from “right to birth control.”
What Sen. Paul is saying is that people should be allowed to go out and buy contraceptives, on their own, without government interference. He is not saying that the government should provide people with contraceptives. This is the same distinction that is made whenever talking about the Declaration of Independence, between the right to the “pursuit of happiness” and the right to just “happiness.” You’re certainly allowed to pursue it, but you’re not allowed to just have a right to it. Why? Because the former not only allows you to go find it on your own, but also allows others to go find their happiness on their own; the latter requires the government to enslave everyone to one another, to take resources from one and give it to another so that the latter may have “happiness,” and vice versa. It is not only completely unworkable, it is also rather immoral.
Not that I expect ThinkProgress’ editors to understand this distinction, considering it was right there in their own article, bolded by themselves (for pete’s sakes), but there it is.