This is big. Huge. Gigantic. A firestorm.
And Republicans would be idiots for not seizing upon it.
Barack Obama has made the biggest blunder of his political life.
The president’s health-care regulation expanding access to birth control, including abortion pills, impinges on churches that oppose abortion, especially Catholic ones, by narrowly defining their religious activity to teaching only. Government must be wary of determining where the works of faith end.
Reaction came quickly:
Obama administration faces backlash over rule ordering birth control coverage
President Obama’s decision to force employers, including religious institutions, to provide health insurance coverage for contraception is becoming a big problem for his reelection campaign.
GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney launched a petition on Monday against the mandate, arguing it was an attack by Obama on “religious liberty.”
Conservatives, including Catholics such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), are attacking the administration for the decision. And now, nine months before the presidential election, the backlash is growing even among Obama supporters, who say the move was politically tone-deaf.
White House defends contraception rules as criticisms mount
U.S. Catholic bishops have slammed the Obama administration for a regulation finalized on January 20 that would require health insurance to include birth control and other preventative health services for women. The leaders contend that the policy infringes on religious liberty because the Church does not condone birth control of any kind.
Over the weekend, Catholic clergy across the country called for congregations to protest the rule and pressure Obama to back down.
“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a statement last month.
Jim Towey, president of Ave Maria University in Florida, who also served in the administration of President George W. Bush, said Tuesday he would fight the provision using “all lawful means at our disposal.”
“Our non-Catholic employees and students understand fully that the University must adhere to Catholic teaching and they do not expect us to provide such services,” he said in a statement.
The White House sensed the rising storm:
Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth-control rule
The White House struggled Wednesday to contain the growing uproar over its birth-control mandate, with Democrats peeling off one by one in what has become an increasingly divisive election-year controversy.
Pressure to roll back the new contraception policy mounted quickly as the day wore on, driven by divisions among Democrats, mixed messages from President Obama’s advisers and a constant drumbeat from the GOP.
“It’s becoming a thorny problem for the White House and it appears to only be getting worse,” said one Democratic strategist. “The politically astute move would be to modify this thing, and quick.”
Asked if the administration should shift course, a former senior administration official said, “I don’t see how they couldn’t. It’s pretty bad.”
Leon Panetta was incredulous
“What are we doing here?” asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, stepping outside his wheelhouse to ask about a rising storm involving the Obama administration and the Catholic Church. “What’s the point?”
It was the Fall of 2011 and Panetta had read about a proposed Obama administration rule that would require employers – excluding houses of worship but including religious organizations such as charities, hospitals, and schools – to offer health insurance that fully covered contraception.
Panetta – a Catholic, former U.S. Representative, and White House chief of staff – didn’t quite understand why the Obama administration would be stepping into this conflict.
Panetta’s fears have to a degree been realized as White House officials now find themselves taking heat on a policy debate about conscience and religious liberty; the Obama administration is working to find a way to allow religious organizations to not pay for services they find morally objectionable, while also ensuring that, say, the women nurses and doctors who work at Catholic hospitals have full access to birth control. Some officials are discussing a way to introduce something like the law in Hawaii, where religious organizations don’t have to pay for employee insurance that covers contraception, but they do have to inform employees how they can get it on their own.
Obama then dug his heels in
President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.
The retreat was closed to media.
Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned.
Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.
That may prove to be a precious gift for Republicans.
Obama is losing democrats
A handful of Senate Democrats have split with President Obama’s controversial birth-control mandate and slammed the administration’s requirement that church-affiliated employers cover contraceptives.
The five Democrats in the Senate expressing concern about some parts of the administration’s policy include, most recently, Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bill Nelson of Florida, who have spoken publicly about their unhappiness with the mandate.
“This was a bone-headed decision by HHS,” Sen. Ben Nelson said of the new Health and Human Services mandates, according to the Nebraska Radio Network.
Nelson agreed with state Attorney General Job Bruning’s decision to file a legal challenge to the mandate.
Florida’s Nelson has also raised concerns. “My position is that church-affiliated organizations should be exempt, not just churches,” Nelson told the Tampa Bay Times Buzz Blog, adding that he has called the White House to express his concerns.
“It’s a matter of religious freedom,” Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin told ABC News.
Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan says he was betrayed:
Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan says President Barack Obama hasn’t kept his promise, when it comes to the new White House policy on contraception.
Sources told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer that Archbishop Dolan feels betrayed after his meeting with the president on the issue late last year.
A Catholic group in Alabama filed the first lawsuit against the Obama administration’s new birth control regulations as the controversy got even more heated Thursday.
The president ducked questions about the contraception controversy that is bedeviling his administration. The reason may be the latest attack from Dolan, who, sources told CBS 2, feels he was stabbed in the back by the president after the two met to discuss the issue.
“He was worried about being at odds with the Church, especially when it came to health care and education and charitable outreach,” Dolan told Kramer.
That’s called “willing suspension of disbelief.”
John Boehner cried:
“The federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries. This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand.”
As usual, too tepid and lacking heart.
But Marco Rubio got it right
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0by5YCqVhA[/youtube]
The heat was getting so great that David Axelrod jumped in
David Axelrod, a senior campaign adviser for the Obama reelection campaign, signaled Tuesday that the Obama administration may be open to a compromise on a new rule that requires many religious employers to provide contraception to their employees.
“I’m less concerned about the messaging of this than to find a resolution that makes sense,” said Axelrod on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
But the best news for Republicans? Joe Biden says he can fix it.
Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he is “determined” to find a solution to the controversial birth control issue and that the administration is making “a significant attempt to work this out.”
Biden, who is Catholic, broke his silence on the Obama administration’s new contraception rule and said he is “determined to see that this gets worked out and I believe we can work it out.”
Let us not err as to what transpired here. This is a classic redistributionist action- make someone else pay for something Obama wants.
But it is also makes very clear Obama’s contempt for the Catholic Church. While Obama bows endlessly to Islamic leaders he has no qualms about trashing Catholicism. A so-called compromise has been announced. Drudge called it “caving” but it’s not caving at all. Obama has simply re-framed the debate to make people think it is something other than what it is. Someone else will pay for what Obama wants to give away and it will not be acceptable to the Catholic Church.
The episode is very important from a symbolic perspective. It makes clear what a lame duck Barack Obama would do to the country. Obama is already running roughshod over the Constitution. A second term would be a horror show.
UPDATE: Obama has offered a what some call a “compromise” but in reality is anything but a compromise. What Obama is basically proposing is that religious organizations simply lie.
Under the new policy, religious employers that don’t want to offer contraception could exclude it from their policies. Insurance companies instead would be required to provide access to contraception for plan participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker.
Obama’s plan allows those providing insurance to say that aren’t actually providing contraception but the insurers themselves are. See how easy that was?
This has not gone over well:
Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration’s proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers’ health plans.
Over at Think Progress they believe that contraception is a critical to the fight against global warming:
Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women.
Who knew?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
And how’s that been working out for ya, johngalt. LOL
Seriously, I sympathize. As I said, you *might* layer on the Constitutional arguments, but only to the appropriate audience. As libzero aptly displays, that’s generally an approach that is scoffed at by the lib/progs. And since you need a good amount of lib/progs/Dems to support repeal, you’ll have to argue using the common ground.
Allow Santorum and Mittens to frame this as an attack on religion, and you lose. And it’s a guarantee… both of them will. They can’t help it.
Hi Nan,
I’ve heard many pro/con arguments regarding mandatory coverage of birth control, but your post was the first time I’d heard somebody implying that making birth control universally accessible is a bad thing because it will lower our already-too-low fertility rate. Reading between the lines, that is exactly saying that women who cannot afford birth control should be having more babies for our collective greater good (or be self-sentenced to celibacy until such time they’re willing to take on their, dare I say, God-given duties).
Conversely, I’ve heard of many ideas for addressing the declining fertility rates in the US , but never the notion of making birth control less accessible to those who can’t afford it to help boost those numbers upward. Which is why I’m asking, are you REALLY endorsing less-convenient-access-to-birth-control as a means to increase US fertility?
Your point about free condoms is a complete red-herring… You can’t rely on free condoms as a “fixit” for your argument because your argument against universal birth-control coverage works against free condoms, too. After all, if public-clinic or school-fishbowl condoms are paid for by taxdollars, and Catholic doctrine [or the doctrine of *any* religion] forbids the use of condoms, then by your argument, condom fishbowls are forcing Catholics to pay for something against their conscience and must go the same route as universal coverage of birth control. Right?
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Just so that we are clear, Liberal1, no poll matters in this case, even if it showed that the majority were against Obama’s proposal. I state this because the most important aspect of the issue isn’t whether or not people use contraceptives, or support abortion. The most important aspect is that the law, as written, violates the 1st Amendment. And an Obama waiver, or compromise on it doesn’t change that at all. Actually, a waiver issued by Obama, even if it encompassed ALL religious institutions, makes the situation worse, as it then becomes a case of the WH overstepping it’s Constitutionally limited authority, where they essentially are changing, or “making” law without Congress being involved.
Now, you may or may not be, a religious person. And a violation of the religious aspect of the 1st Amendment may not even begin to raise your hackles. However, what you SHOULD be concerned with, no matter who, of what party or political leaning, is in the WH, or in control of Congress, is government violating a right, and specifically, a right listed within the Bill of Rights. Such a violation should not be accepted no matter what one’s personal views are on the subject.
And that is how the road to tyranny starts, Liberal1. You may think that it’s ok, as it doesn’t directly affect you, or might not even interest you. The problem is, that once that kind of power is accepted by the people, the next right getting violated may be one that does affect you personally. That is why the rights of even the least amongst us must be protected with all the vigor and acrimony as we do for the greatest amongst us. And yes, even if it means that your own political ideology suffers a blow in the process.
@MataHarley:
There are many reasons why the main point of Obamacare violating the Constitution has not gained the attention it deserves. The MSM and the lack of Constitutional knowledge by the average voter just a couple. The MSM tends to do as Obama and his WH are doing, that is, focus the argument on a detail of the main debate, thus pandering to the emotions of their supporters, instead of the validity of their position vs. the Constitution. And that is what needs the focus. Unfortunately, as I said, I have no faith that any of the GOP candidates frame the argument as a Constitutional one like it needs to be. Instead, they continue to react in the same detail oriented playground as those on the left, and for the average voter, that is a loser.
Allow me to add one more. The ultimate authority on whether something is unconstitutional or not – most especially when it comes to things like healthcare mandates – is the SCOTUS. Therefore unless it’s something blatantly obvious and unquestionable – i.e. refusing to sell a home to someone based on race or gender – putting forth the debate that an act of Congress is unconstitutional is not necessarily received as fact by the opposition.
Now you can pull SCOTUS precedents, but considering you’re generally dealing with those the IQ level of libzero, the eye glaze response is pretty much what you’re going to get.
I’ve already listened to Santorum attempt to present this, and I have to cringe when I hear it put as an “attack” on Christianity, Catholics etal. It’s not that I disagree. I just look at the opposition, covering their ears and saying “lalalalalalalalala… can’t hear you!” the minute this is brought up.
libzero is your perfect test case. If you can convince him that this contraception issue is an unconstitutional act instead of religious fundamentals and conservatives, attempting to deny free contraception to those who want it, then I’ll believe you can succeed using that argument. Go for it. But I won’t be putting any money on you, guy… good as you are. One need only look at what libzero can absorb about American civics and know that’s a lost cause.
@Kevin:
Keven did you just hear yourself?
Free birth control (apparently ONLY through employers) is the ONLY thing that will work.
Free birth control will never work.
______________________
Kevin, birth control is 100% accessible to any female in the USA who wants it, whether she is working or not!
Catholics (and others of conscience) who own property pay taxes that are used to put free birth control in our public schools and health clinics.
Even renters do, although they might get a renters tax credit to make it seem as if they don’t.
So, it isn’t the paying of TAXES that are used to supply free contraception to people that is objectionable.
It is the paying directly for a service that is birth control/abortion/sterilization that is objectionable to people of conscience, Catholic or not.
In other words, the ”render unto Caesar” aspect has been cut out of the new ObamaCare mandate.
Obama is insisting that people of conscience pay directly (not through Caesar) for things they highly object to.
_________________
BTW, Kevin,
In the world today many countries are filled with women with No Access to any birth control at all.
In the Saudi Kingdom, for example, untreated uterine prolapse is the most common complaint (to the site Web MD) from women who have been having so many children, starting so young.
At that point, their husband simply takes a new younger wife and relegates the old one to babysitter/housekeeper/cleaner.
He can do this as long as he wishes.
Rich Saudi men, like Osama bin Laden’s father, have actually nursed from a useless older wife, thus turning her into a ”sister,” so he can continue to take younger wives…..because they are limited to four at any one time.
You saw the link to total fertility rates.
Odd that none of the super-high fertility rates are in Catholic countries.
(Mexico is at 100, Spain at 198, Italy at 201)
One thing the Catholics have that Muslim majority countries do not is the Confessional.
A birth control using Catholic woman can be forgiven after reciting some words or whatever the system is.
A Muslim who says, ”I’m sorry I sinned,” is told by the leading imam of his country, “Too bad, that’s just between you and Allah! We must kill you!”
That’s why Obama is barking up the wrong tree……as the post here is titled,”Obama Steps in it.”
So what if some researcher claims that 98% of all American Catholic women have, at some time or another, used birth control.
They can be forgiven.
But their system, their belief system is not going to be successfully messed with by amateur hour Obama.
Over 2000 years better men than Obama have tried and all have failed.
Think about that.
@johngalt: Here is what Notre Dame had to say. This includes their legal department. http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Garvey-Glendon-George-Snead-Levin-stmt-Feb-11-2012.pdf
@Randy:
Wow!
Randy, thanks for linking that letter.
A 1&1/2 page letter with 8&1/2 pages of signatories.
All of them A-List!
Obama is a dead duck on this issue.
What was he thinking?
@Nan G: This is a much bigger issue than the left is talking about. Obama and his arrogance caused him to disregard the advice of Biden, Daley, and other Catholics. The voting margin will be slim this election due to the economy. Pennsylvania is highly Catholic and is having severe economic issues. Obama loses PA and he loses.
@Randy: Are you blind? Link was provided.
@johngalt: No, the important thing is what people think—since the First Amendment is open to interpretation according to the law (evidence previously provided). That’s the problem with arguing with people on these sites, they keep arguing theses that have already been falsified.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): @Liberal1 (objectivity): You said:
I said show me the link. You sent a link to a sorry poll that polled everyone and as an after thought mentioned Catholics. That is proof? Are you ignorant?
@Liberal1 (objectivity): The poll didn’t ask if Catholic organizations should carry health care that provides abortion and sterilization against church tenents.. It just asked if employers should carry birth control.
@Randy: In case you missed the point of the first set of statistics, here’s a graph that’s pretty informative about what ‘the people’ think about this issue (providing contraception, not abortion). But I supposed I could find some statistics about that too. Better yet, why don’t you find them. I suggest you look at “abortion rates in countries where it illegal, compared to where it legal”.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/02/09/poll-most-agree-with-obama-admin-that-religious-businesses-must-cover-cost-of-contraceptives/
@Liberal1 (objectivity): Where did you provide evidence that the 1st Ammendment has been falisfied?
@Randy: Your article says A majority of Catholics —
But your graph doesn’t show that. Liberals just make stuff up to meet their agenda. The question that should have been asked but wasn’t because it is the real issue: Should Catholic or religious employers carry insurance for their employees that provides birth control, abortion and sterilization services that is against the tenents of the church. You didn.t link to any site that shows the results of a poll that asks that or similar question.
johngalt, Curt just posted a “Most Wanted” diddy from Legal Insurrection that points out moderation, George Stephanopoulos, at the New Hampshire Republican debate on January 7, brought up and harped on whether the candidates thought states could ban contraception.
Was he prescient? Possibly… but then, it’s been there in the bill for almost two years now. One doesn’t need to be prescient if they read the sections about the health care coverage requirements as it relates to family planning. From pg 460 of the 2409 pg POS law…
Note that the “family planning supplies” mandates extend to any state provided insurance plan as well, which then leads to the question by Stephanopoulos about banning contraceptives (aka family planning supplies) at the state level. Also note that this section of the law was effective immediately upon Obama’s signature.
Want an example of how to frame this as a Constitutional argument so even a libzero *may* understand? Newt’s response to Stephanopoulos about the probe INRE the ban at state levels.
Well… maybe that’s still above libzero’s mental paygrade, but you get the drift. Turning the tables for examples of similar “discrimination” is far more effective than using big words like “1st Amendment” and “constitutional” that most libs don’t understand.
@Randy, your Notre Dame link was a very interesting read. I’m not as confident as they seem to be that a court may hold the same view. A court may, indeed, note that the questionable service/coverage (contraception or otherwise) is a choice for the insured to use… not a mandate.
And, in fact, if an employee works for a religious employer, but doesn’t necessarily share the same tenets, it could also be argued that the employee is going to be discriminated against due to the religious beliefs of the employer.
I don’t see the contraceptive issue as being all that clear cut. I do, however, see mandates for insurance and federal government defining minimal coverage (a State’s power) very questionable in their Constitutional authority.
Now, here’s one more thing to consider. Twenty six states already require insurers cover any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive.
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin
They started doing this back in 1996-97 and got started in earnest when Clinton signed a bill guaranteeing access to contraceptives by federal employees. However most of the states included conscientious objection type exceptions to get it thru. The details of those would be scattered through out all the various different state codes, in case anyone has the inclination and time to see how they addressed it.
Now I’m pretty darned sure there are religious employers and churches in all of these states. So I’d be quite curious as to whether any of those states provided an exception to a religious employer based on his own personal faith.
@MataHarley: Funny you should mention that.
Rachel Maddow pwned by Lawrence O’Donnell
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
If a poll doesn’t show who was polled, and the percentages of various groups that were polled, it is worthless. Are all those polled republicans, democrats, independents?
And by the way…..the Catholic Church is not a democracy.
@johngalt:
Sorry I misunderstood.
I looked up Oregon’s mandate INRE contraceptives:
Kind of interesting… that “primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the employer” bit. One would think that would leave an employer open to discrimination lawsuits for rejecting applicants based on religion. That don’t fly Equal Opportunity Employer federal laws.
But there seems to be no exception for, say, an individual employer of Catholic faith, who doesn’t wish to provide that coverage for his non Catholic employees.
@MataHarley:
Larry and I went round and round and round and round on this here.
Johngalt was pretty engaged in this thread as well.
The thing about laws being passed by a State is that, well, they are passed by a State. A person or entity has a much louder voice at the State level. I didn’t even know Georgia had a law like this, but now I do. And now my State Senator knows I know. And my local GOP knows I know. And they know I’m not happy about it. I’m not really sure it violates the State’s Constitution, which is a question I have asked.
Aqua, to my understanding, any state has the right to regulate minimum coverage by insurers operating in that state. This, however, does not preclude they can infringe on Constitutional rights… i.e. a mandate at the federal level that is found unconstitutional based on Commerce is also likely to unconstitutional at the state level. Unless, of course, they constructed that mandate as a tax. It all depends on how they accomplish it.
There’s only been one challenge to the MA mandate, and it was busted for lack of standing…. that ol standby shuck and jive dodge by the courts to ignore the merits of the argument.
Did you look up your GA statutes to see what their exceptions are?
@MataHarley:
I did, I saw no exceptions:
According to my LexisNexis search of your GA Code, that section was put into place (as my links said) in 1999. I didn’t see any exceptions either, save for no plan that doesn’t offer prescription drugs need provide contraception sans co pay etc.
So here’s the burning question you need to ask yourself and your religious institutions in Georgia…. since this O’healthcare requirement has already been the requirement in the state for 12 some odd years, why hasn’t anyone made a stink about it prior to this? Are there no religious employers, churches etc that have been up in arms all this time? Or did they never know that their health plans offered this as coverage?
Another update, and this from a 2008 article that encapsulizes the basics of contraceptive coverage in the states as of then.
Those with no exceptions: Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont. Romney’ville allows exceptions only for “churches”, not “religious employers.
The more indepth one was from Washington State, who apparently ended up getting an AG opinion that an employer – opposed for conscience or religion – is not allowed to deny the contraceptive coverage to employees who do not object.
Even more interesting, I didn’t see Montana on the list for mandating contraceptive coverage. Didn’t check the state law, but what I did see is that the Montana AG’s office ruled any prescription plan must also cover contraceptives in 2006.
Considering that this has been around in the states, and kicked thru the news before, I’d say that no one really cared about the language in O’healthcare since it resembled about half the nation’s state laws already. And other states have apparently also been trying to get them thru, but I guess haven’t found the right compromise yet.
Like I said, based on the flip view of the non objecting employee vs the objecting employer, I’m not so confident that any court will say any employer can deny those benefits to those employees. And while I haven’t read the actual court opinions, both the NY Appellate Court and the California Supreme court have already ruled otherwise. From the link about containing the Montana AG’s info:
@MataHarley:
Easy…..Congress shall make no law…..
Also… The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Aqua, you miss the point. It comes down to two realities…
1: If mandating contraceptive coverage in insurance is an infringement on 1st Amendment at the federal level, it is also an infringement at the state level. That’s the “nor prohibited by it” part… Our Constitutional rights do not disappear when you cross the state border. So I don’t know what you are suggesting with your “Congress shall make… and powers not delegated” comment. Neither are allowed to encroach on Constitutional rights… period.
2: If the religious institutions, screaming now, have not been bothered by this in your state for almost 12 years, why only now? If the Catholic church is so offended by this, why didn’t the GA Catholic churches not complain before?
@MataHarley:
Mata, the following is the result of some serious research into the issue of “religious freedom” in America, post Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson is generally credited with the phrase “Wall of separation between church and state”. It comes from an 1802 letter of his, while President, to a baptist association.
It is interesting that the phrase seems to have been twisted, then, to mean many things beyond what Jefferson viewed the 1st Amendment to actually say, particularly as the 1st Amendment is based, at least partially, upon the phrase from Virginia’s Constitution, of which Jefferson was the architect of.
If one looks at various Jefferson quotes on religion, and particularly, those on government infringement of religion, a picture begins to come into focus, regarding Jefferson’s view of the 1st Amendment.
Now, those are not the only quotes Jefferson had on religion. Indeed, if one read the majority of his quotes on the subject, Jefferson comes across as an atheist, for his personal religious views. However, that is beside the point I am attempting to make here.
From those last two quotes, it seems that Jefferson had a view, regarding government intrusion on religion, that government had no business interfering in the business of a religion, except where the religious practice, or doctrine, infringed upon the rights of another. This is further exemplified by this quote;
Jefferson’s views certainly were one of a “wall” between church and state. What is interesting to note, however, is how this “wall” has changed over the course of our history. A true “wall” between the two would have no allowance for government intrusion upon religious views and actions, and also no allowance for even the smallest of religious influence upon government. So, was Jefferson right about the “wall”, or is the “wall” a convenience item used by jurists to allow for some intermingling to occur and disallow other intermingling, according to the jurists’ personal religious viewpoint?
Constitutionalists have a somewhat more liberal viewpoint of that “wall” than Jefferson did. I say that because those who believe in following the Constitution in a ‘strict’ manner, or according to the original argument, make allowances for the use of the term ‘God’ within certain government functions. That use in no way is an establishment of a religion, which the Constitution expressly forbids. However, it is a proclamation, of sorts, of the existence of God, which to this day seems to be a sticking point with contemporary atheists.
Regarding this “wall”, and those who consider themselves to be Constitutionalists, and specifically on the subject of government intermingling, the belief is that the “wall” allows for NO law, of any kind, to be made that infringes upon the free practice of a religion, except when that free practice involves an infringement of another individual’s rights. In other words, Constitutionalists tend to adhere to Jefferson’s viewpoints on religion and government and the separation between the two.
However, having said that, the first case involving government intrusion into a religion’s ‘free practice’ was decided in favor of the government. In Reynolds v U.S. (98 US 145 [1878], the case of bigamy in the Utah territory was explored. The defendant argued that Congress should not be allowed to regulate a religious act. The court first, though, had to define the term ‘religion’. To do so, they went to Jefferson’s preamble of the Virginia Act, which is the very act the US used, in part, to establish the 1st Amendment. It states;
The court used that preamble, linking it with the Danbury letter above(where the “wall” phrase was first established, and ruled that Congress did have the ability and authority to prohibit ‘bigamy’ in Utah. Their statement;
So, how does this affect the current issue? Specifically, it has to do with deciding whether or not the Catholic Church’s stance on contraceptives is a religious opinion, or an action, and even more specifically, if that action violates “social duties” and “good order”. My guess is that the courts who have ruled on those cases you cited, involving the state mandates, considered this, in those cases, as an ‘action’ rather than opinion. However, and this is something that wasn’t quite explored in that case, nor in any subsequent similar cases, what about when the ‘opinion’ is inherently reliable upon the ‘action’? To be more specific, how can the clergy of the Catholic Church continue to proffer this ‘opinion’ of theirs to it’s membership when the federal, or state, government forces the Church to engage in ‘action’ in opposition to it’s stated ‘opinion’, and expect the Church at that point to have any standing on it’s membership on the issue?
The case that I cited, of ‘bigamy’, is, in regards to that last, wholly unrelated to the current issue, as at the time, ‘bigamy’ was not a tenet of the faith being practiced in Utah. Rather, it was instead an accepted “lifestyle” being engaged in.
In the currently discussed issue, the ‘opinion’, or “official stance”, of the Catholic Church, is being painted by the administration, and it’s supporters, as an issue of “religious rights” vs. “women’s reproductive rights”, and in that case, will be a loser for the Church and it’s supporters. The Church, to it’s credit, is trying to frame the issue completely in terms of Constitutional violation. That may, or may not be, a winner for them, especially in light of the recent cases involving the states and this mandate that you have brought up.
I still believe that they, the Church, and it’s supporters, can win this fight if they do it right. That is, expand into the realm of individual rights, freedom and liberty, and simply ask the question of whether or not people believe the government can stop at the point they are at, or whether the people believe that government will continue to encroach increasingly upon those rights, freedoms and liberties.
At some point, there has to be a line ‘drawn in the sand’ on the general issue of government encroachment upon rights, otherwise, the result is most assuredly tyranny. At no point in history has it been shown that a government can control, or self-regulate, on this front. In every case I know about, government has continually increased it’s power and influence over it’s citizenry, and in many of those cases, total tyranny has been the result. This is why this issue is important at this time, and should be, no matter how one personally feels about the use of contraceptives or abortifacients. Each successive, and successful encroachment upon our rights emboldens government to further their “control” over the citizenry.
Having said that, I don’t believe that Obama can back down on this issue, either. Meaning, I don’t believe that he can give into the Catholic Church’s demands for exemption via waiver on this regulation. I say this because he has to know that doing so not only weakens government power and further encroachment, but also because it opens up an entirely different can of worms with the “equal protection” clause, which is already being explored due to his use of waivers from Obamacare as a whole, especially as those waivers are granted to, primarily, his supporters.
As that is the case as I see it, I believe this issue is bigger than the liberal/progressives realize, and will have a much deeper impact on the general election than what they believe. Even so, as you keep saying, and as I said in #12 above, the economy will still have the biggest impact on the election. I have no visions of being able to convince any liberal/progressives to side with me on this, because, as I keep saying, they cannot see the forest for the trees, and will continue to support government tyranny over our rights, freedoms and liberties up to the point that it truly impacts themselves. At that point, though, it will be too late.
Personally, johngalt, I think that federal government mandating what items are to be in an insurance policy’s basic coverage is over that line in the sand already. This contraceptive bit is just a drop in the bucket to me. I liken that action to the government mandating what extras a car manufacturer must offer as a standard package … A/C, CD or DVD, leather and heated seats, power windows, etc etc.
Insurance premiums could be much less expensive if it didn’t cover every nickel and dime item under the sun, and focused more on emergency and catastrophic treatments. That way people could choose just those tiers for the big stuff, and handle all this penny ante stuff out of pocket. And if doctors could again negotiate a base fee for things such as regular check ups, outside of insurance reporting etal, they save money on billing and records. They can also make payment plans with some nominal interest for an annual price package. None of that would ever be run thru an insurance providers records.
In other words, government is piling on to the base coverage, and driving the price up unnecessarily. This is counter to the entire supposed reason that dumb arse piece’o’sheeeeet bill was passed to begin with.
The interesting thing is I doubt there is any financial savings involved between a plan that offers contraceptive and one that doesn’t because of the rest of the mandated minimums. Remember that the government cannot demand an insurer lower the premium price for not including the contraceptive coverage.
So logically, if the costs are likely the same, it seems the objecting individual can do one of two things…. send a letter to the insurer requesting that the coverage not be provided on his/her particular policy, or simply not utilize that benefit by choice.
The latter might be akin to a Hasidim family eating dinner in a restaurant that serves kosher foods, but also serves non kosher foods. Should they shun the entire restaurant because they offer more selections than he chooses to ingest? Is it immoral for him to patronize a restaurant that does offer non kosher foods? Or is it only immoral for him to partake of those foods?
We can get bogged down in the details of this contraceptive bit… and obviously the GOP and conservatives plan to do just that, to their detriment. As you even note, that will be a losing strategy.
Playing the 1st Amendment card will not work for one particular phrase you said above:
And that’s exactly what the AG and court opinions have said. That altho one may reject that coverage for themselves, they cannot deny that coverage as an employer to others because that does impose the faith and beliefs of the employer on to the employee.
Perhaps if the argument stopped at an individual’s coverage, and not allowing a religious employer to deny everyone, they may have made a bit more headway in not appearing like religious radicals, bent on stopping contraception to women in general (the way it’s played by media and Dems…).
Hey, my answer to that is quite simple and across the board fair…. NO ONE should have free contraceptives on the taxpayers’ dime. Period. And that’s where the economic issue comes in.
My contention is you can steer away from the loser strategy of lofty 1st Amendment rights (where the court decisions are not in your favor) and avoid evoking fundamental religious beliefs that even most of the faithful don’t share – and just simply present this as two choices:
1: Runaway medical costs with everything from washing your butt with antiseptic covered, and high premiums? or
2: Lower premiums, and a tax credit for a medical savings account to cover the basics such as family planning, doctor check ups, etc.
The answer to #1 is keep O’healthcare. The answer to #2 is to repeal O’healthcare, and come up with a better way to allow insurance companies to offer a la carte coverage that is affordable and crosses state boundaries, and then have riders for each state’s particular mandates. That way you can keep your base coverage no matter where you move, and just swap out your state rider after relocating. Problem solved. Then other tiers for particular ailments… diabetes, cancers, slow and debilitating diseases like Alzheimers, etc…. that require a regular drip feed of supplies and care.
If the math were explained to the math deficient, they’d see that those who don’t use those services anyway would benefit by having lower premiums – not inflated to cover those that do. And the tax credits on the health savings accounts would be great because, if you don’t need it that year, it’s a perk.
I don’t disagree that the creeping encroaching of the central government is disheartening and maddening. Apparently the states have already done just that, and no one noticed over the years. Like you said, people have become accustomed to government interference as acceptable.
And I also agree that those who like increased government and welfare programs will never accept the violation of Constitutional authority… even were they capable of understanding it.
But everyone understands unnecessary debt and spending. Well, let’s correct that… those 50 some odd percent who pay the taxes, supporting those that don’t, understand that.
You’ll never get the hard core Euro-socialists on the side of conservatism and fiscal responsibility. So all you’re left with is conservatives, libertarians, independents and blue dog Dems as potential partners in opposition to the larger problem – O’healthcare. Considering that a majority of all these political sects have no moral problem with birth control and contraceptives, the only way to approach it for a modicum of success is thru the economic argument alone.
And I also agree that the GOP and conservatives will manage to shoot themselves in the foot with this one. Obama will appear to be the “accommodating” adult in the room, and women everywhere will walk away with the impression that both GOP frontrunners want to stop the flow of free contraceptives for religious reasons…. whether true or not. And every bit of that is due to the way the problem has been framed.
WOW this POST IS IN FIRE,
at this rate there is no chance for OBAMA TO WIN, he will be left behind so far, that he won’t be recognize at all, and the new PRESIDENT WILL MAKE SURE THAT HE WILL BE FORGOTTEN AND THE THORN ON THE AMERICA OF THE LAST 4 YEARS,
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, HE IS A GONER.
@MataHarley:
The thing is, Mata, that the people have not drawn that “line in the sand” as of yet. For various reasons, people have supported, unknowingly at times, the continuing government encroachment upon freedom and liberty.
Our Constitution is based on limiting the federal government’s power over our “natural” rights, or, those rights that are considered negative rights. Negative rights are those rights inherent in our very being, our existence. Negative rights are those rights that cannot be subjugated to conditions, such as freedom of speech, and thought.
The other kind of right is the positive right, or, those rights we have to some form of benefit to be gained. An example of a positive right is the right to be paid for employment. The right to health care or to an education are also positive rights.
This particular issue is being presented, by the left, as one of two rights in conflict. However, no distinction is made between the two rights being discussed, that of religious liberty and women’s reproductive rights. Religious liberty is a negative right. As I said, it is inherent in our very being, and, I might add, specifically listed under the Bill of Rights as one Congress “Shall make NO” law governing. Women’s reproductive rights, though, are a positive right, at least as presented in this issue. The left says that women have a right to a benefit regarding reproduction. The Constitution does not guarantee this type of right, but it also doesn’t prohibit against it either.
Forgetting about the judiciary for a moment, the issue boils down to which right is more important. As the left is presenting these two rights in conflict on equal footing, the GOP candidates, and many conservatives, are continuing to allow them to do so, and in the end, as you keep saying, and I agree, that will be a loser for them. Given today’s societal makeup, and attitude towards society, I don’t see how the argument can be presented of the difference between these two rights in conflict, and particularly, how one can argue that religious liberty trumps women’s reproductive rights. And that is what is truly sad for me, and many others, regarding this issue, because if the left gets away with this unscathed, it will embolden them further into encroaching on those negative rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Now, concerning the judiciary of the federal government, as I stated above, the question of conscience(opinion) vs. religious action must be addressed by the court before any justice can be done. Whether or not the court views the unwillingness of the Catholic Church to pay for something they don’t believe in as an action, the actual view of the Catholic Church is based on their conscience.
So, if a court was to rule against the Church, that court would, essentially, be telling the Church that government has the right to invade their conscious thought because women’s reproductive “rights” trump religious liberty. In other words, the court, in that case, would rule that a positive right trumps a negative right. Or, that an arbitrary “right” based on some idealized conception of human interaction trumps a “natural” right, and that, I believe, would have the founders truly turning in their graves and wondering why they even bothered.
And, just so we are clear on this, when I state “women’s reproductive rights”, I am referring specifically to the assumed right to contraception/abortion/abortifacients. I am not referring to the choices a woman has concerning whether to engage in sex, engage in sex for the purpose to have a baby, abstain, etc. Those are conscious choices a woman makes, by herself and with a partner, that are a natural right.
Okay, I’m zoning out on your eye glazing perspective myself here, JG. In the real world of inalienable rights, there is no “one right” that is more important than other. They are either inalienable, or they aren’t. And in this case, I think you are forgetting that rights begin and end when they start encroaching on another’s inalienable right, and that government benefits are no right at all.
The religious liberty is legally hurdled if one can use their faith to opt out. However they cannot use their own faith to opt out for others who do not share their beliefs. That is an encroachment on *their* rights. This is abundantly clear.
Additionally, you have to remember the availability of choice… i.e. if you don’t want to be subjected to mandatory car insurance, don’t own a car and drive. In the same aspect, no employee is forced to use the employers provided plan. They have two other options to avoid muddling their religious conscience.
1: The option of either requesting discontinuation of that coverage from the insurer (or not using it),
2: Purchase their own insurance plan from another carrier who does not include that benefit…. provided there are no state mandates in place that do not allow for their personal exception for religious reasons.
I’d say if anyone has a case for religious liberty in the courts on this issue, it’s those in states with contraceptive mandates, without exceptions offered. However a court is just as likely to say that the faithful are not forced to use the contraceptive coverage, and that they have no power to tell the insurance companies they have to lower the premium to remove that single offensive item.
Again, I have to go back to the Hasidim family in the restaurant example. Is it immoral for that family to patronize a restaurant that sells food their fundamental beliefs says is off limits? Or is it only immoral for them to partake of it. Because I assure you, I’ve seen families in restaurants that offer non kosher foods in my years in LA.
As far as “reproductive rights”, free contraceptives is not a “right”. It’s an economically unsound perk that lies at the heart of our fiscal woes in healthcare premium costs.
@MataHarley:
This is such an interesting issue on so many levels.
I recall a CA supermarket chain (now gone) that was owned by the Mormons.
It was AlphaBeta Supermarkets.
If you went to one you might not have noticed they didn’t have either a tobacco or a liquor section.
Many of their employees were not Mormons.
Many were.
They covered alcohol treatment and also a quit smoking program for employees, however.
They wanted healthy employees.
On another note, I changed doctors (due to a retirement) just as I began menopause.
My new MD wanted to put me on hormones and I objected.
He immediately retorted that I had to have been taking them for birth control.
But I had never used birth control pills and told him so.
I managed to get through ”the change” just fine without hormones.
After a couple more meetings with him and realizing he had a ”just throw pills at them and they will go away,” attitude toward all his patients I changed doctors again.
Birth control is freely accessible if it is what you want.
They practically throw it at you.
Free.
I was especially peeved at my own CA Senator, Babs Boxer, essentially saying the brand-new ”right” to birth control trumps that old-fashioned right to religious freedom.
She was speaking against the Blunt Amendment, #1520, or the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.
But there is also the Fortenberry bill which has the support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators of both parties.
Perhaps those state laws which seem worse than (or equally as bad as) the ObamaCare law will also be overturned now that they are getting attention.
I do recall more than a few fights when some of them became law.
@MataHarley:
Mata, I believe that you are misunderstanding the terms I used in that post. And perhaps, that was my own fault for not clarifying my personal views of what constitutes a right and what doesn’t.
The terms “positive rights” and “negative rights” stem from an examination of the term “liberty” done by Isaiah Berlin, a British political philosopher in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In that examination, Berlin defined two differing types of “liberty”. A discussion of this can be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
That discussion of “liberty”, though, spawned the view of “rights” using the same idea. In essence, a “negative” right of an individual requires others to abstain from harmful interference or influence. A “positive” right of an individual is a demand of another, or others, to engage in action to satisfy that “right”. Negative, for no action, and positive, for action. A simple concept. And discussed more in depth here: http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/06/positive-and-negative-rights.html
Regarding “negative rights”, those can be ascribed as “natural” rights, or the right to autonomy. To do as you will, with free will and choice. “Negative rights” are exactly those contained and protected by the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. Essentially, those rights that require no interference, and indeed, prohibit interference, by the federal government. These are the same “rights” that people generally ascribe to “inalienable” rights.
“Positive rights”, on the other hand, are not really “rights” as much as they are “claims” on others, especially as they require others to provide some thing or action to satisfy that claim. Hence, the “positive” descriptive used in conjunction with this.
Certainly, for me, there is only one type of “right” which can be ascribed the status of a right. That is, “natural”, “inalienable”, OR “negative” rights, depending upon which definition one prefers.
So, as I said in the previous post, the left is attempting to consider both “rights” as equivalent “rights” which is demonstrably not true. The “right” that the left ascribes in conjunction with women’s reproductive rights, that of the right to contraceptives/abortifacients/abortion, is not really a “right” at all, but in truth, is a “claim”. That is, in order to satisfy that “right”, or “claim”, it requires the action of another, or in this case, others. A “positive” right. However, when in comparison with the actual right, a “negative” right, of the Catholic faith, to practice freely, which in this case is an official tenet of that faith, that “positive” right cannot stand.
You described rights as beginning and ending at the point they encroach upon another’s “inalienable” rights. That is, essentially, what I described in the above post, and attempted to clarify here. And that is also why I believe this action, born from Obamacare, and put into directive by Obama and his staff, is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Because it directly encroaches upon individual’s “inalienable” rights. It requires those people to forgo an ascribed religious belief in order to satisfy a “claim”, or “positive right”, by the government.
But, as I said, and have said, this issue, the way it is being argued by the pols on both the right and the left, is a loser for conservatives. The economy has always been the major issue, and will be for every presidential election to come as well.
PS – Not trying to make your eyes glaze over, just trying to be informative and present knowledge to others that is important to understanding the Constitution and the liberal/progressive attack on it.
LOL johngalt. Yes, I am familiar with Berlin’s, and others’, “positive and negative” rights positing. That wasn’t what was eye glazing. It was the context with which you used both of those… i.e. one usurping another. Simply doesn’t happen. Remember that our founding predated Berlin, and a right is, or isn’t, relatively defined by individuals not encroaching on another.
No problem. I know that, in some ways, we are on the same page “post parsing” of the issue. I think you realize that simply claiming a 1st Amendment encroach doesn’t work in this case… at least as presented by the GOP candidates and various readers posts here. In the long run, when it comes to legislation, as long as those who feel their rights have not been trampled do not contest any particular law, it stands as accepted. That is a problem, I agree. However in this case… as it specifically applies to the contraceptive mandate… it’s still as losing battle via both campaign talking points and the courts. And on this, you and I seem to agree.
If not… no biggie. It’s not like I’ve lost respect for you the next morning, ya know.
MATA
hi
I cut something on the news, would you know about ; VOLCKER RULE IN US?
HERE I READ; OTTAWA ,that is the CANADIAN GOVERNMENT CITY,
OTTAWA OBJECT TO VOLCKER RULE, FINANCE MINISTER AND BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR MARK CARNEY, have added their voicesto a chorus of complaints about a key plank of banking reform
in the USA.
IN a strongly worded letter to US.TREASURY SECRETARY TIMOTHY GEITHNER; THE MINISTER FLAHERTY SAID THE SO CALLED VOLCKER RULE could have materials adverse effectson CANADIAN FINANCIALS INSTITUTIONS AND MARKETS,
THE VOLCKER RULE IS INTENDED TO CURB PROPRIETARY TRADING OR THE TRADING BANKS DO ON THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS AND THROUGH SPONSORED RELATIONSHIPS WITH EDGE FUNDS AND PRIVATE EQUITY PLAYERS. IT’S INTENDED PURPOSE is to remove some of the risky behaviour
that led to the financial crisis of 2008.
but during an extended comment period on the proposed reform, the rule has drawn sharp criticism
from jurisdictions including THE UNITED KINGDOM, JAPAN, AND CANADA.
THE MINISTER SAID THAT HE IS CONCERN THAT THE PROPOSED RULE could severely impact the liquidity of CANADIAN GOVERNMENT DEBT MARKETS AND INTERFERE WITH THE RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF BANKS IN CANADA; BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR MARK CARNEY ALSO STEPPED FORWARD ON THE LAST DAY OF A COMMENT PERIOD ON THE CONTROVERSAL VOLCKER RULE WHICH HAS drawn sharp criticism from senior officials around the world;
in a letter to US FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN BEN BERNANKE, CARNEY PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD EXEMPT CANADA FROM TWO OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL elements including restrictions on trading GOVERNMENT BONDS. it would also leave risk assessement largely in the hands of this country’s banking regulator.
I thought you would understand that,’s why I am giving it to you,
bye
Mata’s got this one right. It’s a loser for Santorum and the GOP. Just one complaint, at first, about the original blog post. There are no “abortion pills” covered. Glad to argue the science on this one.
Aqua and I had a spirited go around regarding the various issues. I don’t want to wade into it again, except to say that there’s another shoe left to drop. I cribbed the following from the Commonweal website (Commonweal is a truly excellent Catholic magazine which has a slight liberal slant, but they run stories from all points of view and the comments are at a very high level, generally speaking).
Obama is pretty much insulated from charges of anti-Catholic, anti-religious, govenment-intrusion bias by virtue of being supported by the Catholic Hospitals Association and the Catholic Charities umbrella organization. The Universities seem to be pretty well mollified; polling on the issue favors contraceptive coverage, even among Catholics; so that basically leaves the Bishops. And the Bishops have a problem, to wit:
Jerry Slevin 02/12/2012 – 7:28 pm subscriber
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=17394
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
I’m surprise to see, that you are so interested in THE BISHOPS MATTER only to discredit them
which are fighting for what is right , while you accuse them sighting a link to support your accusations with your intent to protect OBAMA and DEMOCRATS.
I am surprise because you are JEWISH demonizing the CATHOLICS beside working to
to favor the next election for OBAMA to win,
Oh, c’mon Bees. I’m not demonizing Catholics and neither is Obama. As I noted, Obama is supported on this by the Catholic Hospital Association, the Catholic Charities umbrella organization, and a majority of Catholic laity.
I’m discussing the political ramifications of this, dispassionately speaking. Previously, as stated, I had a vigorous debate with Aqua over the merits of the situation; that’s not what I’m doing here. I’m simply pointing out that the idea that Obama basically made a major blunder, which will cost him politically, is not at all clear.
The Bishops are very vulnerable on the charge that they want to see Obama ousted by Santorum or Romney or Gingrich to call off the Department of Justice prosecution dogs. Whether or not they are motivated more by religious “persecution” or DoJ prosecution can’t be known and can be debated, but the fact is that the charge is out there for the making and it almost certainly will be made by someone, at some point, and this will further undermine the position of the Bishops.
Not that it’s relevant to the current discussion, but I’m half-Jewish. My father is a secular, non-religious Jew. I was raised as a Protestant, have been married to a Roman Catholic for 42 1/2 years, and, during the last month, have been going to mass 3 to 5 times per week for personal reasons. I assure you that I’ve got nothing at all against the Catholic Church, on a personal basis; though I think that the Bishops are very misguided in opposing insurance policies paying for contraception for non-Catholics or for non-observant Catholics.
40% of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortion. The Netherlands has free abortion on demand, but they have 1/4 the abortion rate of the most conservative, abortion-restricted American states, precisely because of the universal availability of free contraceptive services and counseling. If you are opposed to abortion, you should support ObamaCare, because reducing the US abortion rate by 3/4 (equivalent to the rate in the Netherlands) would currently prevent the killing of 900,000 babies per year.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Just think, Larry,
If the Catholic Church were a democracy (vox populi) Obama could have his ”win.”
But the Catholic Church is (and has always been) something else:
vox dei.
Obama, as have all the other secular rulers before him, loses.
Hi Nan,
Perhaps, in the long run, spiritually speaking. Maybe Obama will have his “oh wow,” Steve Jobs moment, maybe not. But we are talking short term (i.e. election year) politics, and not ultimate destination of the soul. Anyway, the Church has changed its collective mind before, and not just with regard to Galileo.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Think so, eh? LOL
Poll: Half oppose Obama birth control insurance plan
That’s one strange poll, drj. 50% don’t like it, 44% do. Yet 81% see nothing wrong with birth control, and 70-79% of Catholics also have no problem with birth control
Could it be they do, or do not, know the details? Oh wait… CNN addresses that in their article about the poll results.
Dang… just shy of half of all American’s are clueless. Why doesn’t that surprise me?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, you may want to give up your rights under the Constitution. The rest of us are not. Maybe is a conserative is elected president, he or she can take all of you lefties to a military base in Cuba. After all, you lefties are eager to give up your rights. Why don’t we just imprison you all with out a trial?
Randy, I believe the point most people need to keep in mind is that everyone has – or should have – the right to refuse the coverage for themselves. They do not have the right to refuse it to others.
@MataHarley: But Mata, they do have the right to refuse it to others. The Catholic religion views abortion as murder. By providing the day after pill, that is considered murder. By providing others with the ability to commit murder, that makes them complicit or accessories to murder!
Randy, when did you start believing this become about abortion and not birth control? Contraceptives are not abortion, and it is not murder. Abortion is not involved in the controversy.
The courts and AG opinions disagree with you… and have since 1999.
Morning after pills work by preventing ovulation and fertilization, not by interrupting implantation. That’s why they are only 50% effective.
@MataHarley: Mata, the Catholics believe that the “day after pill” is a form of abortion. I just came from a meeting where they discussed this specific issue. The “day after pill” is part of the Obama Mandated health care for employers.
Randy, tisn’t my fault that the Catholic hierarchy doesn’t understand the different drugs or how they work, Randy. They, along with the rest of humanity, used to believe the world was flat too. But then much of this may be attributed to the bungled marketing and erroneous categorization of all these various drugs (i.e. Ella, Plan B, Next Choice et) as “the abortion pill”. That is a term that is correctly only applied to RU486, which is NOT any of the aforementioned drugs. (You can read about the differences between medical abortions and emergency contraceptives here)
Thus too many believe the “morning after” pill is synonymous with “the abortion bill”.
As Larry states, the morning after pill, if it works at all, only does any of three things… delays your ovulation, blocks the fertilization process, or irritates the uterus lining so that if the egg is fertilized in that time, it cannot attach itself to the walls. This differs entirely from mifepristone, which starves an implanted embryo of needed hormones required for the embryo to continue to survive, post fertilization and implantation. (aka, an existing embryo/pregnancy)
The various available forms of RU486 are *not* included in this package. What prolife organizations are spreading is that Ella, specifically, is a distant cousin to the not included RU486, and thereby is an “abortion pill” that can dislodge an embryo. However the levels for recommended dosage in Ella are insufficient to do so, and their assertions are not generally supported in the medical world.
The sperm only has an average lifespan of 48 hours. So if the woman’s ovulation is suppressed in that period, the sperm has no target. If the egg did not get fertilized, or attach itself to the wall, there is no embryo… ergo no pregnancy. Therefore it’s not even possible to know if there even *was* a pregnancy when a woman takes an emergency contraceptive pill. It is simply a precaution.
An abortion is a termination of an existing pregnancy, and RU486 is generally administered in the first nine weeks of an existing (not maybe) pregnancy.
So if there is no pregnancy because the ECPs prevent one, and the plan doesn’t include Mifepristone and other “medical abortion” drugs, this isn’t entering the abortion debate unless you want to totally discard medical data.
As far as contraception and the Catholic Church’s history, here’s their convoluted history. To my knowledge, they still remain firmly opposed to any abortion, with no exceptions. For the most part, they are addressing known embryos (i.e. confirmed pregnancies). But then there’s the vague phrase, life begins at conception without a definition of “conception”. This is a semantic that can be argued (and most likely will), but it comes down to whether a “pregnancy”, subject to a future abortion, begins the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, or the moment the egg is implanted on the uterine lining wall.
If it’s the fertilization period, the Catholic Church would then have to consider all forms of birth control that affects a woman’s ovulation schedule (or a man’s sperm potency, as this artificially blocks conception/fertilization) a form of “abortion”. If that’s true, and it doesn’t seem to be the case, the Catholic Church might as well just hang the issue out to dry since 70-79% of Catholics (per drj’s provided poll) state they support birth control.
Randy
yes it does make sense, there is no denying , the day after the act of procreation, is in it?
but they change the words to suits their action, without feeling guilty,” that is having sex”
excluding pregnancy, having babies that was the primordial purpose, given to humans
to regenerate their breed, now the woman have learn to not want baby, but only the act of procreate,and the leaders know that and want to change AMERICA FOREVER, SO give the born AMERICANS as much pills as they want, that breed will disappear in a few generations, and will be submerged by those making babies now ARE THE FOREIGNERS, WITH DIFFERENT MENTALITY.
@MataHarley: If you’re going to start forcing religions to make strict definitions to suit government whimsy I think you best reconsider. That will prove to be a truly slippery slope.
drj, it’s the religions making “definitions” for their faithful, not the government. There is no outside “force”, as you seem to think, involved. As I said, if they are anti-“abortion”, then they will have to define what they consider “abortion” to their faithful so they know the church tenets to follow.
If, as Randy alludes, they consider anything that artificially inhibits “conception” (i.e. fertilization) as “abortion”, then the Catholic church considers any drug induced birth control… pre or post intercourse… “abortion”.
That seems to be a problem confined to the followers of that faith.
@MataHarley: Yep. Those bloody Catholics. You and Obama are kindred souls.
@Mata
The Catholic Church is against all forms of birth control, except the rhythm method which is the only form approved by the oft touted (by Larry) Paul VI, affirmed by JP II and Benedict XVI. It really doesn’t matter what you believe, I assure the Church does not care for your opinion. Catholic institutions are mandated to carry insurance for employees, but they should not be mandated to carry any type that violates their conscious. Prior to Obamacare passing, Chritian Scientists that owned businesses were not required to carry insurance, now they are or will be forced to pay a fine.
Aqua, the Catholic Church may very well be against all forms of artificial birth control. I haven’t been a part of that world since that church excommunicated my mother for marrying a Methodist. That, however, is an issue that lies between the church tenets, and their flock of believers. They obviously have a problem since the majority (again, according to drj’s poll) do not agree with the tenets. It is the faithful – of any religion, but since most of you are using Catholics specifically, so was I – that will have to reconcile their deviation from their relative church’s belief. Not me.
Since Randy characterized this as an “abortion” issue, he needed to be corrected that “abortion pills” are not included in this debate. They differ from “emergency contraceptives”. And if the church considers contraceptives a form of abortion, I guess they will have to make that clear to their congregation. Only they can define their tenets to others.
As pointed out above, that isn’t entirely true, considering there are state mandates that offer NO exceptions for any religion. And all of those predate that piece’o’sheeeeet bill called O’healthcare. Therefore, where was the outrage and debate over the past decade? That seems to be a question none of you want to address. Even an acknowledge of a decade of being “asleep at the wheel” would suffice. But one would have to ask that if this is such an important issue, how could they not have noticed when it happened in their respective states?
I see your ugly, hyperbolic side has come out this morning, drj. Apparently, after all my comments above, you still don’t get my position. Let me lay it out for you again in simple bullet fashion.
1: I am opposed to ANY AND ALL coverage of contraceptives and piddly azz shit because it unnecessarily drives up the cost of premiums. I want HSAs for these types of items, with tax incentives for doing so, to enable all this being out of pocket. End of problem.
2: If you.. who evidently doesn’t mind contraceptive coverage driving up premiums,… just wants religious exceptions, I don’t disagree as long as that exception is applied to the individual only, and that individual is not forcing his religious beliefs and limitations on those around him. Your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.
But then, all that requires the belief that healthcare is a “right”… which I find asinine to begin with.