The Other Scandal of HHS (UPDATED!)

 Is that Protestants are not scandalized by it too. I know, I know, some Evangelicals and Jews have told the White House "we support Catholics". That's dope. [pause. fist bump] However, for the Evangelicals, I think saying "let them Catholics be Catholics" ain't enough. It's not like the White House has said:

"All Catholics must no longer hold to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception."

If they did, I get what the Evangelicals would be doing.

Evangelicals:

The new inalienable right

"Hey, we don't believe that Mary was born sinless, but no government can tell someone they can't?  That's the evangelical way, by gollie. It is your God-given right to believe whatever the heck you wanna believe. Sure we don't agree with the Catholics, but let em' go on doing their thing."

But, that is not what this whole thing is about.

The HHS mandate is not about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (IC). It's about the doctrine of the Compulsory Contraception (CC). Unlike the IC, the content found in the doctrine of CC (contraception) is something all Protestants disbelieved for most of Protestant history. Moreover, what's at stake here is not just the Protestant's right of conscience to believe that spraying pesticides on their reproductive organs is their God-given right. No, it is about the right to life, and that is a cause we still share in common. I think. You see, the HHS mandate is not just about rubbers--its about morning after pills. It's about abortafacient drugs; and the lack of Protestant personal and institutional outrage is an about-face to their historic stance for life.

Q: Is this one of the logical ramifications of systemically accepting the spaying and neutering of entire Christian denominations? I'm not sure I can answer that question, but it is a question that interests me and one worth considering.

You may be thinking that I am coming down too harsh. You Catholics always have something to say about what other people are doing. Leave us "Occupy Rome: 491 Years and Counting"-ers  alone. But in my case, I'm a former Protestant of only a few years ago, and I find this issue to be quite personal. I've found myself asking myself:

"Self. Do Protestant employers not care if they have to subsidize chemical abortions?"

Wait a minute Brent, no one is forcing anyone to use contraception.

Not being forced to use contraception is about as
relevant to the HHS debate as a free hat to Colorado

That's a non sequitur. No one is arguing that. The doctrine of the CC is not about compulsory use. It's about compulsory payment. It's about using a gulag-esque power to coerce those--whose consciences reject the use of contraceptions--to pay for the very thing their conscience prohibits. Worse yet, for those that want to use contraception, "preventative services" or other euphemized products or procedures, the buck is passed. Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to prevent life are the new "inalienables", and those that still believe in "life" at that beginning of that string of rights are forced to foot the bill for the society nouveau. That is the doctrine of the Compulsory Contraception.

So again I ask, where is the Protestant--of any ilk--outrage? Not outrage over the principle of "general religious freedom" or fear that the government might control the millions of "para-church" ministries in the evangelical world, but about the principle that they have to foot the bill for chemical abortions.

Where is it?

Somebody, please point me to it.

Please.

I'm outraged, not as a Catholic, but as a former Protestant. Help this former Protestant believe, again, in the virtues of his Protestant separated brothers or for goodness sake (literally) become Catholic.

Then again, you could always just become Catholic either way.

Update: Rick Warren: You. Da. Man.


Consider subscribing to Almost Not Catholic. Click here to make it happen.