data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/99b27/99b27dabe7898ddbbb093bce9ffb4bde80bc6dcd" alt="Domestic_violence : Woman shielding her face while stopping the camera"
The recent scrum involving Catholicism, Obamacare and the stellar Republican candidates is a perfect example. It began as the Obama Administration's effort to create an insurance rule, and ended with a discussion of the societal benefit, or lack thereof, of contraception.
An examination of the constitutional arguments about this rule would be silly. The constitutionality of Obamacare and its mandates awaits not just this year's hearing, but many to come. The law in this area is largley uncharted territory. Johnny R and the Supremes will wade through the mess, rule however they rule and then there might be clarity. Or not. Right now, even seasoned constitutional scholars are scrambling for anything other than educated guesses.
So the discussion evolves into an argument over Catholic doctine (opposed to its members using contraception) and - I hope I'm getting this right - whether adherence to that position represents a "war on women."
You can believe whatever you want about contraception (which, I'm sure, sets your mind at ease). It's a tremedously peripheral discussion. But...a "war on women?"