The lesser of two CHADS.

My mistake on the gripping Chad v. CHAD issue.  And apologies to CCK. Coat Hangers At Dawn, one of the more hysterical residents on the local blogosphere, got all wired over my contraception post. 

Is Blanchard Really This Stupid?    

He is trying to claim that the Catholic Church has no interest in pushing their no contraception agenda on other people and that the current pro life movement isn't also interested in restricting or outright banning contraception as their next move. Banning contraception is a key agenda item of the "pro life" movement.

I like to think the jury is still out of the first question.  On the second, I will believe that the Catholic Church has an anti-contraception agenda that involves legislation and legal prohibitions when I see evidence.  Given such a large organization, there surely ought to be such evidence. Unless, of course, I am right and no such agenda exists.  To say that "banning contraception is a key agenda item of the "pro life" movement," is nonsense. 

That CHAD has no evidence for the statement is evident from the links provided.  Abstinence Clearinghouse, and One More Soul look to be rather ordinary, religiously based advocacy groups.  They are clearly aimed at persuading people to delay sex until marriage, and not to use contraceptives.  In neither case did I notice any mention of legislation to prohibit contraception of any kind.  Perhaps I should note that I am not politically or personally opposed to contraception, nor am I Catholic. 

The remaining links concern the question whether the state should pay for and help provide contraception.  To say that the state should not pay for X is very different from saying that the state should prohibit X.  The State of South Dakota bans smoking in public buildings, in large part because of the anti-tobacco movement.  Smoking nonetheless remains legal in South Dakota.  Is it part of the agenda of the anti-tobacco forces to one day make smoking illegal?  Maybe, maybe not.  But even if it were, this would have no bearing on whether smoking should be banned in, say restaurants, or whether Congress should stop subsidizing tobacco farmers.  Extreme possibilities can always be imagined and projected by one side on the other.  That is what Coat Hangers is up to here.