The Nunslap and the GOP's War on Women: Coincidence? I think not.

this would be me after 2 weeks.

I'm still pretty chapped about the Vatican's recent Nunslap against the LCWR, a group representing most American nuns, by the papal powers that be.


Garry Wills wrote an excellent article recently on the reason for the US nuns' and the Roman bishops' division.  It is, simply put, the pastoral versus the juridical.  Nuns serve those in need; bishops enforce Rome's rules. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/apr/24/bullying-nuns/


One of many terrific quotes:  Now the Vatican says that nuns are too interested in “the social Gospel” (which is the Gospel), when they should be more interested in Gospel teachings about abortion and contraception (which do not exist). Nuns were quick to respond to the AIDS crisis, and to the spiritual needs of gay people—which earned them an earlier rebuke from Rome. They were active in the civil rights movement. They ran soup kitchens.


But here's my bigger worry:  that now, having let the monster out of the box on this nun thing, more stuff I'm pissed off about will start coming out.  Oh no, here it comes.


To wit:  it's hard to look at the Nunslap and not see echoes of the same thing in the situation certain factions of the GOP would like to put American women in, at least to hear the media frame it.  How is it possible, for example, that we can be having conversations in 2012 limiting women's access to contraception?  I understand fully the whole Church position that life begins at conception, BUT it's also true that during Vatican II, a papal birth control commission made a careful study of all the issues and theological angles, and recommended to Pope Paul VI a complete lifting of the ban on birth control, only to have the decision reversed due to machinations by a highly placed ally of the Pope.


If birth control, which the Church was ready to put to rest 50 years ago as an issue, is widely available, are the powers that be unable to do the math and see that abortions would go down due to so many fewer unwanted pregnances? - which would mean precious astronomical healthcare cost savings, at a time when we've got aging Boomers aplenty.


On different yet related note, on what planet does it make sense for insurers to provide coverage for Viagra but be reluctant to do so for birth control?  Listen, babe, my Insta-Boner is covered, but if it gets you pregnant, that's your deal, not mine. I'm not done being mad about that one but will save it for another post.


Don't get me wrong:  this isn't some rant from a member of the She-Woman Man-Hater's Club.  I like men, on a lot of levels.  I really do.  It's just that I keep getting the sense that if, for some of these well-heeled (mostly) gentlemen trying so hard to get these uppity women back in line and shut them up, if they could switch places with a woman for a while, some of this nonsense would never have been on the table.