Is free contraception a core constitutional issue?

I've seen a lot of letters and editorials that are just plain ignorantly wrong about the contraception issue.  Today's San Mateo Daily Journal had two.

In a letter, Jorg Aadahl writes that "religious zealots ... (want to) deny women access to contraceptives." as part of a "war on women".  In case you missed it, Jorg then repeats that they are "trying to deny others the right to plan for their own families" and that this is a "war on women's rights".

In an editorial, Michelle Durand writes that, under a potential President Santorum, aspirin would "be the only contraception available", and, repeating the "war" analogy, "reproductive rights are in the crosshairs" and decries "attacks on women’s rights"

Nobody is proposing to outlaw contraceptives!.  Catholic bishops, and their supporters, just don't want to be forced to pay to provide free coverage, on moral grounds.  Women will still be able to obtain contraceptives, just like most Catholic women do today.  The letter and editorial are pure political posturing.

I have to believe that these writers know this, but are harping on a political point.  Why not, Obama is using the issue to woo women voters.

For the record, I think the Catholic position on contraception is silly, and their justifications for it unconvincing.  But  that doesn't matter.  I don't get to decide which religious position is "right", nor does the US Government, unless it has a "compelling interest".  See also the RFRA, which applies to Federal laws.  It clarifies that "A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues."  Now, I'm not on the Supreme Court, but it's hard to imagine that free contraception is a core constitutional issue.

For those on the left who are knowingly, unconstitutionally bashing religion to woo women voters, I say shame.  And for women voters who buy into their argument, shame on them too.

Was this a "victory" for Gay Rights?

The Ninth Circuit Court overturned California's Prop 8, which banned gay "marriage".  For the record, though I lean conservative on fiscal issues, I am for Gay Marriage.  Ideally, I think the state should get out of the "Marriage" issue completely, that is a religious term, but that barn door has been open too long to be closed.  So, as a fallback, I am for Gay Marriage.  Should I be cheering?

The strange, narrow basis for the ruling really concerns me.  And it seems unfair to both sides of the argument.

The appeals panel's majority said Tuesday that Proposition 8 must be invalidated because California's existing laws related to domestic partnerships already give gay couples the same state rights as opposite-sex couples. So in effect, they said, Proposition 8 took away the significant designation of "marriage" while leaving in place all of marriage's legal rights and responsibilities.

So, because California was liberal/generous/open enough to offer a fully equal legal status for domestic partnerships, the ruling says that it must also allow these to be called "marriage".  Imagine yourself as a religious conservative opposing this decision.  Your only logical conclusion is that you should never have been "nice" enough to give any ground and allow domestic partnerships.  Next time a minority group wants "just a few" more rights, screw them, because, as proved by the 9th Circuit Court, it really is a slippery slope.  This decision will rally and harden conservative opposition.  I don't know if any conservative states still prohibit domestic partnerships, but, if there are, the chance of gays obtaining that right just went way down.  Or, if their domestic partnership laws aren't quite equal to marriage rights, they will darned tooting remain unequal, otherwise these "liberal judges" will force them to allow marriage.

The Obama administration is already in a fight with Catholic institutions, attempting to force them to provide contraception coverage.  So, a religious conservative can easily imagine their church, mosque or synagogue being forced to perform a gay marriage.  While I support Gay Marriage, forcing others, against their conscience, to perform the ceremony is a violation of religious liberty and the First Amendment.

And, if I were Gay, I'd be worried by this decision.  The right to "marry" is based upon a very narrow legalistic interpretation of existing laws, not a fundamental right of equality.  And, in any case, it came through the courts, not through acceptance of the general population.  Which ultimately should be the goal, even if that will take time.  And, IMO, this decision pushed that acceptance further into the future.

ADA Shows that America is more polarized, and who is causing it

Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal advocacy group, rates House and Senate members for how well they vote for liberal interests.  All perfectly fine.  A recent study and explanation can be found here.  The graphs (also below) clearly shows more polarization.

So, who is causing this polarization?  Both the Democrats (blue) and Republicans (red) are voting more "in lockstep", as shown by the narrowing bands of color.

However, liberal papers like the New York Times constantly complain of the Republicans moving to the "far right", to the "extreme".  Are they?  From the picture, it appears that they may be moving slightly to the right (down).  However, in comparison, what is immensely clear is that the Democrats are moving strongly to the left (up).

So, according to a liberal advocacy group, and their data, it is not the Republicans, but the Democrats who are moving to the extremes.