Outrage fatigue

There's a very long article in the NYT magazine about the anti-contraception movement. It's interesting but not necessarily earth-shaking - mostly a discussion of catholics versus non-catholics, with some analysis of the intermediate evangelical position.

But then, about seven pages in, it discusses legislation introduced last month by Sens. Hillary Clinton (yay!) and Harry Reid that would require health insurance companies to cover contraception. The right-wing response was (I'm paraphrasing from the article) that any government support of contraception would be equivalent to government support of promiscuity. It wasn't until I reached the following quote that I hit my maximum disgust threshold:

An editorial in the conservative magazine Human Events characterized the effect of such legislation as "enabling more low-income women to have consequence-free sex."

Because certainly, when these women have sex, they must be punished for it!

Don't worry, Human Events, how many low-income women can afford health insurance anyway?

Bastards.