... Democrat Obama dominated among Latino Catholics nationally and in key swing states in 2008. He won roughly three out of four Latino Catholics in New Mexico and Nevada, according to exit polls.Wisconsin's Catholics are — as Gilbert puts it — "overwhelmingly white." In 2008, these white Catholics went for Obama by a 4 point margin. But Obama won Wisconsin by 14 points, so the white Catholic vote is more conservative than the state generally. In 2010, white Catholics voted for Scott Walker by an 8 point margin. So influencing this group can be key to flipping Wisconsin one way or the other.
But he narrowly lost white Catholics in the majority of swing states he carried, winning this group in only three battlegrounds with sizable Catholic populations– Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan. In most cases, the "white Catholic vote" was very similar to the "white vote."
Is contraception the perfect wedge issue for Republicans? How strange! It was only one month ago that Mitt Romney was puzzled that the topic of contraception was even being raised.
Posts
438 comments:
1 – 200 of 438 Newer› Newest»Romney was not confused that the topic of contraception was being raised. He was confused about why the topic of banning contraception was being raised.
And I brought up this mandate in that thread at 10:49 am. I remain confused that George's question was about the opposite of the thing that is happening.
Mr Cardboard Man, the lifelong super investor, apparently has no familiarity with politics other than his core understanding that MONEY POWER is all that counts.
The Catholics are becoming the trustworthy group just because they do not flip flop on every issue hourly.
I don't like Santorum's legalistic attitude on many issues, but at least he sticks to his guns while every other candidate runs away from theirs.
If I recall that previous thread correctly, I said questions about contraception were an important issue and Americans should expect their political candidates to inform us of their opinions. If I also recall correctly, almost everyone else in the thread defended Romney's dodging of the question and said questions of contraception were irrelevant and should be ignored and that it was silly that I was brining it up.
As it happens, I think even if there might be a short term advantage for Republicans in this election for standing up for the right of organizations to deny women contraception, that this will eventually backfire on them. I think it will actually backfire on the Republicans even in this election when it becomes clear that people like Santorum and the Catholic Church oppose the very idea of contraception, which is wildly in opposition to the views of normal non-insane Americans.
If the Republicans are dumb enough to think they can win elections based on their culture war issues like opposition to the gays and contraception, I guess we can see how that plays out.
Do most Catholics still care about contraceptives? (The issue, not the pills.)
Are the white Catholics polled active, church-going Catholics, or among the masses that were Catholic by birth and nothing more?
I don't know. I have big, Catholic family and none of this ever comes up.
It's a religious freedom issue, framing it as a contraceptives issue is WH spin. What's at issue is the state compelling Catholics to go against their conscience or close up shop. It's akin to compelling vegan restaurants to sell steak.
Was it originally brought up because it was common knowledge HHS was going to drop the bomb, so to speak, when that question was asked at the debate?
Banning contraceptives (what I think was asked about?) is different from requiring people to supply it.
Dave beat me.
Black letter First amendment versus the penumbra stuff
This issue sticks with Orthodox Jews, Evangelicals, Muslims, and anybody else who doesn't like the intrusion of Government under the 1st Amend tent.
except the ACLU. They think its a good policy.
It shouldn't just be Catholics, but anyone concerned about basic civil rights. The Fed'l gov't going to private businesses and telling them what products they have to purchase and give to their employees.
Obama said a while back: "If you like your current plan, you can keep it". As the man from South Carolina said, "You lie".
I think even if there might be a short term advantage for Republicans in this election for standing up for the right of organizations to deny women contraception
What utter bullshit. Did you take lessons form Goebbels or some other fascist?
If your prospective employer has what you believe to be a shitty plan, go elsewhere with your talents.
But don't use the power of government to deny anyone the free practice of religious beliefs! What will you do next, advocate concentration of dissidents into camps?
The left and MSM are actually framing this is "women's civil rights issue".
So getting free birth control is a civil right? Rev MLK must be spinning right now.
Isn't Wisconsin overwhelmingly white? If so, it would make sense that most subgroups are overwhelmingly white.
And what is so overwhelming about white people?
Trey
which is wildly in opposition to the views of normal non-insane Americans
Hmmm. Sounds like the old Soviet tactic that declared dissidents insane to justify "hospitalization" for their own good until death.
What hate. What typical progressive fascist/communist sentiment.
Is contraception the perfect wedge issue for Republicans?
No, but freedom of reliigion is. The Catholic Church is the largest health care provider in the country. They also provide huge amounts of social services, etc. They serve everybody regardless of religions, ethnicity, etc. When I was a kid in Knoxville, St. Mary's Hospital there was the only non-pubilc hospital that treated blacks.
For this they get attacked by the self-serving, selfish, egocentric feminists and liberals who have no respect for the rights of anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Also the Romney jibe is unfair. Romney was addressing a question that is not seriously at issue anywhere: the legality of contraceptives. What's at issue here is compulsion by the state to provide contraceptives as a condition of running any public enterprise. It's a polar opposite issue.
The left and MSM are actually framing this is "women's civil rights issue".
It's embarrassing. They are also trying to pretend that getting something for free (subsidized by others) is the only way to have "access" to something.
When did women become so dependent? I thought we were supposed to be strong and equal in ability to men.
As far as poll driven policy, O'bama's guys screwed up. He's Irish you know and ought to know better.
While a lot of Catholics use birth control and some number have affairs or abortions, they understand the Church's basic consistent moral code on both.
a Catholic may not like the position her Bishop has on an issue, but she understands from whence the Bishop is basing the decision and will abhor the idea that her Bishop has to take orders from HHS.
I wonder what parish Sebelius attends?
The Catholic Church is the largest health care provider in the country. They also provide huge amounts of social services, etc. They serve everybody regardless of religions, ethnicity, etc. When I was a kid in Knoxville, St. Mary's Hospital there was the only non-pubilc hospital that treated blacks.
But don't you see the danger in saying that Catholics can use their religious beliefs to dictate who they choose to serve or what services they provide?
What if Catholics decide they want to stop offering abortions, even if the life of the mother is at stake? Of if they want to stop offering services to practicing Satanists? Or to offer STD treatment for unrepentant homosexuals who plan on returning to gay sex as soon as they are cured?
At some point, if the Catholic Church wants to be such a strong player in the health care business, then the government is going to say, you actually have to provide health care to people, not just what you think is morally ok. The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America.
Anyone still care who the GOP nom is?
Get this socialist diversity hire out of office before the damage is permanent.
Hell, I'll even vote for Ron Paul if he turns out to be the nom.
the Catholic Church oppose the very idea of contraception, which is wildly in opposition to the views of normal non-insane Americans.
The razor like separation of church and state cuts both ways.
Agree with Matthew. It's a fairly open secret that a large number of "Catholics" do use some form of birth control, whether that be the pill, prophylactics or whatever. That problem, however, has its roots in bad catechesis; for years, the clergy have been extremely wary of clearly stating the Church's position, trying to keep "butts in the pews," as it were. That does seem to be changing a bit, as the new generation of priests tend much more orthodox and see that Paul VI was frighteningly prescient with Humanae Vitae.
But while the Church does not encourage contraceptives, she knows there are many in her flock who use them. She can do nothing about that except repeat her teaching. But she CANNOT be forced to provide abortifacents - the Obamabots would love you to believe that this is a minority of cranky anti-sex reactionaries, but too many people have seen this for what it is: the naked power of the State demanding violation of conscience and ordering obedience.
As I see it, the WH has two options. Either the SCOAMF can lead from behind, as usual, blaming the diktat on unspecified "aides," and promise repeal, while waiting for a second term to really ram it down throats. Electorally, that would be a wise strategy, since there are a number of Obama fanboys who have broken with him on this issue, but are still ready to fellate him if he withdraws the policy (see Doug Kmiec's nauseatingly groveling 'The Barack Obama I knew would never have asked me to make this choice' open letter).
The second option is to double down on stupid and threaten to take away the Church's tax exempt status. This certainly has the potential to cause some of the more weak-spined bishops to back down, but it would be such a blatant attempt at coercion that I can't imagine anyone except Sibelius, Jarrett and Axelrod cheering it on.
OT, hows that soft diplomacy reset working out?
China and Canada declared Thursday that bilateral relations have reached “a new level” following a series of multibillion-dollar trade and business agreements to ship additional Canadian petroleum, uranium and other products to the Asian superpower.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Chinese leadership said Thursday the economic co-operation agreements — and billions of dollars in new private-sector deals — signed by the two countries over the past few days are unprecedented and will open the door to additional trade and investment.
Andy: But don't you see the danger in saying that Catholics can use their religious beliefs to dictate who they choose to serve or what services they provide?
Nope.
You think the Catholic Hospitals belong to the State?
The question was a gotcha thrown at Milton by Steffi about states banning contraception, which none are contemplating doing. Milton handled adroitly.
CJinPA said...
Do most Catholics still care about contraceptives? (The issue, not the pills.)
Apparently, but, yes, as a nmuber have noted, it is a First Amendment issue more than the actual practice itself.
And, as Hatman so helpfully reminds us, "normal non-insane Americans", this is a little piece of back-door Stalinism.
Interestingly, I remember that a part of Herman Cain's appeal was to black Baptist voters, but he washed out early due to his woman problems.
Now a part of Santorum's appeal is to Hispanic voters who are mostly Catholics.
The Black and the Hispanic voting groups are Obama's two secret weapons that the GOP has had no message for.
Here is a winning message to one of them. Thanks Obama.
And what is so overwhelming about white people?
The glare.
"What if Catholics decide they want to stop offering abortions, even if the life of the mother is at stake? "
You are so uniformed. Catholic hospitals are prohibited from providing abortions. there was a recent case in Phoenix where the hospital was stripped of the title catholic by the local bishop.
Also read your own post. can you see how hostile you are to freedom? Why must the state tell me what services I must provide? How overbearing.
No one is forcing you or anyone else to be catholic.
If you disagree with their creed feel free to use another religions services. Or none at all.
The second option is to double down on stupid and threaten to take away the Church's tax exempt status.
Not Possible. Have you considered the makeup of the SCOTUS?
what they could do is cut HHS money to Catholic health and social service organizations.
The loser, the poor.
The Bishops will never cave on this.
Dave says: "It's a religious freedom issue, framing it as a contraceptives issue is WH spin."
I completely agree. I am not a Catholic and this bothers me greatly. I don't know what in my faith this administration will come after but if I don't stand with the Catholics on this than I can not expect them to stand with me when Obama makes a move for something in my faith.
"The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America."
Then the government has to live with losing the Catholic hospitals and charities.
Decisions have consequences.
---
"But don't you see the danger in saying that Catholics can use their religious beliefs to dictate who they choose to serve or what services they provide?"
Don't you see the danger in saying that the government can use their power to dictate people must violate their beliefs?
What is Catholic organizations said they didn't want to offer medical services to Jews because Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus? Would that be ok?
[This is purely a hypothetical, I'm not saying Catholics believe this about the death of Jesus or that this is a likely policy, but I'm curious if there are any limits we should place on Catholic organizations.]
Because Catholicism is a religion does that mean they can do whatever they want? Can religious groups discriminate based on race?
"The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America."
Andy, are there limits to what the government can decide? I'm wondering if you've thought that one through.
Christopher in MA said...
As I see it, the WH has two options. Either the SCOAMF can lead from behind, as usual, blaming the diktat on unspecified "aides," and promise repeal, while waiting for a second term to really ram it down throats.
From what I understand, GodZero's personal fingerprints are all over this one. Gonna be tough to throw Sibelius or anybody else under that bus on this one.
"What is Catholic organizations said they didn't want to offer medical services to Jews because Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus? Would that be ok?"
Why are you comparing two unlike things?
I love guns, so I think the government should pass a law that says all hardware and department stores have to sell guns. And that my employer has to puchase free guns for me.
I am the State thy God. Thou shalt have no other god before Me.
I still have not heard a justifiable reason why birth control should be covered by health insurance.
Basically the only argument that I have heard is people want insurance to cover a product that will protect them from the possible unwanted consequence of having recreational sex.
Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills
"A defining moment in Mitt Romney's post-pro-life-conversion political career came in his third year as governor of Massachusetts, when he decided Catholic hospitals would be required under his interpretation of a new state law to give rape victims a drug that can induce abortions."
Andy: That's one of many reasons people are pulling for SMOD instead of Romney.
Andy
There's world of difference between denial of service to a person and the state demanding that you provide a specific service.
Religious freedom does cover the first in terms of church membership alone, but not more broadly in terms of public services. The state demanding you act against your conscience is so obvious a breach of the first amendment that I can't see any honest defense of it that does not reject the right of religious liberty altogether.
I'm also curious if proponents of this mandate believe if there are any medical services or products that should not be covered by insurance?
CJinPA said, "Do most Catholics still care about contraceptives? (The issue, not the pills.)"
This is something everyone should care about. Because it's not about the contraceptives or the Catholic Church. It's about who gets to decide these things- organizations that are affiliated with a religion, or government?
Federal spending as a percent of GDP has risen to about 25 percent, up from the long-term, post-WWII average of 20 percent. Our federal government has become so big that it is entangled in practically everything, inevitably and irresistably using the power of the purse to offer civic organizations the choice of submission or fiscal ruin.
It surely is not just about contraceptives and the Catholic Church.
If the Catholic church sells off its hospitals, what will be the effect on overall service?
That's one point I'd want to see studied.
I do think there is an argument to make against the Catholic Hospitals that goes beyond Rusty's appeal to "normalcy".
That is, most middle-sized cities don't need more than a few hospitals. More rural areas might have just one for a very wide region. A well-established Catholic hospital may be the only provider of centralized medical services in a particular location and it is economically unfeasible for a group to found a new hospital just to compete.
What isn't unfeasible is for small specialists to provide services outside of the hospital setting. It works for MRIs. It works for hair replacement and all of dentistry. There's no reason it couldn't work for contraception.
Believe it or not, there is hugely well-known organization that does just that.
The idea of religious liberty doesn't mean that religious groups can do whatever they want. If Catholic hospitals are a public accommodation, that would (rightly) place various restrictions and obligations on them
"But it's a religious choice!" isn't a pass to allow Catholics to do whatever they want.
"... I think even if there might be a short term advantage for Republicans in this election for standing up for the right of organizations to deny women contraception.."
Andy can you tell me what organizations deny contraception to women?
"If the Catholic church sells off its hospitals, what will be the effect on overall service?"
I believe that the church won't sell them off. It will close and shutter the doors instead, since it cannot in any way be associated with the practice. Signing over the deed to people who will do abortions is just as bad as doing it themselves, if I recall.
We very well may lose those hospitals in total.
Contraception is not the larger issue. The larger issue is central planning and control by fed bureaucrats who have been mostly lifelong govt & non-profit poobahs who know very little about how the real world works.
This church / contraception flashpoint is just evidence of the bigger battle of whether we should have central planning & control.
Obama, Santorum, Gingrich have supported central planning all their lives. Romney would be smart to make hay of that.
"The idea of religious liberty doesn't mean that religious groups can do whatever they want."
No one is saying that. Why do you argue with what no one is saying?
Because the only club in Hatman's bag is Rhetorical Fallacy.
That, and a hatred of Christians.
What's at issue is the state compelling Catholics to go against their conscience or close up shop
@Dave
Are you referring to their conscience against contraceptives, or their conscience against the government telling them to do anything?
Oh I see what Andy is saying. Not paying for birth control is the same as denying it. Because its impossible for woman to purchase birth control without health insurance.
And liberals wonder why conservatives think their reasoning skills are like children.
"Then the government has to live with losing the Catholic hospitals and charities.
Decisions have consequences."
Have you considering this may be the goal all along? Shutting down the Catholic competition empowers the state and fosters dependence. It's all about more power for the Fed. The Catholic Church and their hospitals are obstacles to the would be tyrants.
But don't use the power of government to deny anyone the free practice of religious beliefs!
Does this mean that the government can't require anything that would be a violation of someone's religious belief? Does this mean that the government can't prevent anything that is a practice of someone's religious beliefs?
I assume people agree that answer to both of those questions is no. If anyone disagrees, let me know and we can use an absurd examples to show that the answer really must be no.
If so, then what makes contraception so special that it needs to fall into a category regarding special consideration of religious beliefs, when many other things do not?
"Have you considering this may be the goal all along? Shutting down the Catholic competition empowers the state and fosters dependence. It's all about more power for the Fed. The Catholic Church and their hospitals are obstacles to the would be tyrants."
I hadn't thought of that, because I assume the best of people. That is, people with opposing views want the best for the country too, they just disagree about how to get there.
It as an endearing fault of mine, I think.
Dave, a lot of people are saying that. The goal by Obama and the hard left is to eliminate private insurance, private hospitals, etc.
Socialists that want Mother Governmment to run everything.
"Does this mean that the government can't require anything that would be a violation of someone's religious belief? Does this mean that the government can't prevent anything that is a practice of someone's religious beliefs?"
Will you allow the government to conscript Quakers? Should all men be required to sign up for the draft, even those who object on religious grounds?
Or is it just contraception that the government can run roughshod over someone's beliefs for?
Anyone here getting paid to educate Hatman?
Where the hell did you go to school, Andy? Detroit?
Are you referring to their conscience against contraceptives, or their conscience against the government telling them to do anything?
Clearly its about being compelled to "formally cooperate with evil" as the phrase goes. The evil is the contraceptives and abortion producing drugs. The Catholic church recognizes the legitimate authority of government in other issues. I thought that was obvious from context.
If so, then what makes contraception so special that it needs to fall into a category regarding special consideration of religious beliefs, when many other things do not?
What makes contraception- female contraception- so special that it falls into a special category requiring it be illegal *not* to own an insurance policy that covers it with no out of pocket costs?
It isn't the Catholic church that made contraception extra special.
Is contraception the perfect wedge issue for Republicans?
______________
Is contraception the perfect wedge issue for Republicans????
What kind of totally f***ed up question is that?
Wedge issue for Republicans?
It is the damned Democrats and liberals who are and have been seeking to separate and divide, it is the Dems and the liberals who have sought to wedge.
Where the hell have Republicans sought to impose a wedge between anyone?
It is the f***ing Dems who are trying to impose a wedge between Catholics and the Church. It is the f***ing Dems who are trying to separate Democrat Catholics from the Church, to follow Caesar rather than God.
Who the hell puts the question like that and points the finger at Republicans for making wedge issues?
Wow. That residual knee-jerking is really hard to get over, isn't it?
I think Andy just likes to rail against the Catholic Church since they still point out that he will be going to hell for his sins of the flesh.
It's not like old hatboy has any reason to worry about knocking a woman up.
I admire your charity Matthew, but evil is real and the lust for power is written across all of History.
Also, states that allow religious exemption for immunizations for children. That seems a better hill to die on for fighting for government supremacy over religion, because most people understand the health risks associated with not having vaccines.
As long as those stand, I find it hard to believe there is not an exemption for contraception.
"... Anyone here getting paid to educate Hatman?."
Well he believes not paying for your birth control is the same as denying it.
Trying to educate someone that ignorant is above my paygrade.
"Does this mean that the government can't require anything that would be a violation of someone's religious belief? Does this mean that the government can't prevent anything that is a practice of someone's religious beliefs?"
Will you allow the government to conscript Quakers?
If you think the answers to both of my questions are yes, then say yes. Does anyone else think the answer is yes?
If we all agree that the answer is no, then we can discuss why providing contraception should fall into the category of things that get a special religious exemption or not.
When we are discussing an issue like this, people can't just say "religious liberty!" and think that answers the question.
"When we are discussing an issue like this, people can't just say "religious liberty!" and think that answers the question."
It does, unless you can prove a compelling reason to violate that religious liberty. If defense of the country is not a compelling enough reason, then, well -- you've got a pretty big task in front of you.
So -- will you force pacifists to join the draft?
The thing about it is that being pregnant isn't a disease.
Tattoos are popular right now. Maybe Obama can order private insurance to pay for tattoos for no cost to their employees.
Make no mistake: the leftists hate the Republican Party.
But they have long held -- here and throughout the world -- that the real enemy is the Catholic Church. Every leftist despot in the world has tried to take down the Church. They have been effective in suppressing the Church in some cases, but it still remains, it still stands, as the Church has withstood countless other persecutions for the last 2000 years, ever since Herod and Nero and other evildoers sought to destroy her.
Teenager: So you're telling me I'm banned from going to the Lady Ga Ga concert.
Father: No. I said I wasn't paying for it.
Teenager: IT'S THE SAME THING!!!
Hint: The compelling reason you are looking for in your extreme examples (such as, human sacrifice) tend to rely on trampling another person's rights, an area where government intervention is right and proper.
That is not the case in the draft, school vaccines (a corner case, actually, if the disease is communicable), or contraception.
Andy R: "...standing up for the right of organizations to deny women contraception"
No one, including the Catholic Church is denying women contraception. The idea is that the CC does not wish to have to provide contraception to women. It is a distinction with a difference. Further, why in the world contraception is a part of "health insurance" to begin with?
I think the church should rethink its views on contraception as it pertains to homosexuals. Perhaps the church should provide contraception free of charge to homosexuals who continue to infect each other with AIDS, a disease less easy to discard than a fetus and a disease that heaps a great financial burden on the healthcare system.
"... When we are discussing an issue like this, people can't just say "religious liberty!" and think that answers the question..."
Well the Catholics aren't Andy. Opposition to birth control and abortion are pretty much standard Catholic doctrine. It's not something they came up with last week.
If you want to abort your unborn child or get your no cost contraception you need to develop a sound argument why health insurance should cover that to begin with. There is no more justification for insurance to cover those optional services than getting breast implants or a tummy tuck.
Andy, do you think a hardware store run by a left wing pacifist in Madison should be ordered to sell guns and ammunition? I mean, the constitution says they have to.
I will answer Andy's question, since it is a valid one.
The answer is that the government surely (under existing Constitutional doctrine) has the authority to do this. That is not really in dispute. The real question on the table is whether it is wise or just for it to exercise its authority in this way.
So -- will you force pacifists to join the draft?
Fen's Law says don't count on it.
IDEA: If you oppose the use of birth control for religious reasons, don't use birth control.
To follow up, Andy, your opponents see two interests being balanced:
1. The ability for the Church to provide charitable services without compromising their religious beliefs,
vs.
2. The ability for women employed by them to get birth control, for free.
Since birth control is not particularly expensive, and there's no real interest in giving people free things other than expedience, most people find that the charitable work is vastly more socially valuable. Obama apparently disagrees, for whatever reasons, as do you. Perhaps you can eluicdate those reasons because I surely do not understand it at all.
Perhaps the church should provide contraception free of charge to homosexuals who continue to infect each other with AIDS, a disease less easy to discard than a fetus and a disease that heaps a great financial burden on the healthcare system.
Obviously, Barack Obama hates gay men and wants them to die of AIDS. He is denying them access to condoms, after all.
Andy's message is clear: Congress can make a law infringing on the free exercise of religion as long as Obama says it is OK.
"... Tattoos are popular right now. Maybe Obama can order private insurance to pay for tattoos for no cost to their employees..."
I'll go one better. The health benefits of a vigorous exercise program are undisputed. As a result, why not a subsidy for my gym membership and a stipend to cover my personal trainer?
Crazy? Not at all. Taxpayers subsidize millions who sit on their ass all day doing nothing, why should I not be paid for my efforts in reducing health care costs?
IDEA: If you oppose the use of birth control for religious reasons, don't use birth control.
IDEA #2: If you support the use of birth control, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
IDEA: If you oppose buying guns for political reasons, don't buy guns.
I bet it works for everything!
"... IDEA: If you oppose the use of birth control for religious reasons, don't use birth control..."
That's pretty good garage. Now take it a step further.
If you oppose the use of birth control for religious reasons, don't pay for it.
In all my years as a Catholic I've never seen the body of the church so united on one issue. There are plenty of people in the church that use some form of contraceptive, I've heard guesses of up to 80%.
But there are almost none that accept the idea that the government can force the church to go against it's foundational teaching on marriage and human sexuality.
When the gay marriage fight was hot a year or so I said then that the next step would be forcing churches to perform gay marriages. It doesn't seem that far fetched now does it?
The church will never, ever submit on this stuff. And what really galls me about it is it's so unnecessary. Birth control pills are generic and we're talking about employees. I read somewhere that Plan B costs $20 at a drug store. The people working at Catholic institutions, even if they use contraception, aren't burdened by having to spend $9 for a 90 day supply of BC at Walmart.
I want to see the Catholic church fire everyone and close the facilities.
Then deny anyone else the use of said facilities.
Something like this is needed now in this election year.
A nice bomb would be, "We regret the Obama administration's position on this religious matter. As we cannot comply due to religious reasons, we will start to let workers go and begin to deactivate the hospitals beginning Monday".
That announcement should of course be made on a Monday.
Aside from being a racist, Andy R plays a valuable role here by expressing so well just how the liberal fascists think.
Instructive.
It's good that he is so out front about his willingness to restrict others' freedom.
As others have mentioned above, a primary good questions is: what the heck is any insurance doing paying for this? Why should the general insurance buying public have to subsidize this? What the heck does it have to do with health care? No, it's just more of getting A to pay for something B wants.
By the way, it's good to see polling data that Catholics agree with the President.
Ya know, I do have a tattoo.
I'd like another.
Gotta go check my policy. I mean, why the heck shouldn't that racist Andy R pay for my tattoo?
Andy R., you're missing the point. The Church is NOT saying that it will not help people who are gay, or practicing satansim. It is not denying help to a class of individuals. This would possibly be protected under the Equal Protection Clause.
Rather, it is resisting the compulsion to provide a particular service or medical treatment that they find morally objectionable.
I consider myself a devout Catholic, and my wife and I have never used artificial contraceptives. It is an important issue to me. I understand that not everyone feels the same way about contraception, and I don't hate those who use it (although I think the practice is detrimental to marriage). But what gives someone else the right to say that those who disagree must be actively complicit in the objectionable behavior?
As others have mentioned above, a primary good questions is: what the heck is any insurance doing paying for this?.."
I'm going to say it again, this is another example of why health insurance is so costly. Sure taken alone, the overall cost of covering BC is small, but its simply one more item that has to be included, underwritten and administered.
I see that chart... but no one gives me the Margin of Error, the way they identified "Catholics," the age/gender break down.
Don't tell me all I get is a bar graph to determine what the poll means.
When I was sitting in the pews listening to our bishop's letter about the mandate, my first thought was "Welcome to my world, Your Excellency!"
This is about power, pure and simple. The bureaucracies we have allowed our politicians to set up are all about power. They exercise unrestricted power outside the checks and balances that our founders so wisely put in place. Once one of these bureaucrats decides something has to be mandated - boom. It's the law of the land without any debate. They've been lording it over small businesses, medicine, public education, finance, and manufacturing for years. This is the first time they have branched out to something that the general public actually cares about - religious liberty.
Anyone who cares about the principles on which this country was founded should stand against this mandate. You can be certain if this stands, there will be more mandates taking away more fundamental liberties in the future. The right
Trad Guy - Do you wake up every morning just to get Rush Limbaughs latest talking points to parrot?? We get it. Rush says Romney is squishy and a "flip-flopper" no Pure conservative, while Saint Santorum pushes all the right buttons on "religious right cultural warrior" issues Rush cares about (while being a huge earmarker and Big Gummint tax and spender that Rush has no real problem with).
You do realize that Limbaugh, the moronic Hannity, Michael Savage, etc,, are just Entertainers and Performers...not Wise Men?? That each will get far more millions if a "colorful conservative" loses huge to Obama, and they can moan for another 4 years to big ratings that Obama continues to destroy the country??
They WANT another Goldwater Debacle.
Shite: "I want to see the Catholic church fire everyone and close the facilities."
I understand the sentiment, but I don't think this would be the best thing for everyone (which is why the Church wouldn't do it).
Maybe people don't realize that the Church will close down its hospitals before complying with this mandate. They most absolutely will. I think the government is actually trying to force the Church to divest itself of these hospitals and get out of the health care industry.
"Nearly half (49%) of Americans say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost. Forty-six percent say they should not have to provide this type of coverage."
Another way to say that is "more than half (51%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should NOT be required." But, you know. Details.
"A majority of Catholics (52%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception... Among Catholic voters, however, only 45% support this requirement, while 52% oppose it."
So, it sounds like it is pretty close... so, why does the graph show 58% to 37%?
"Like other religious groups, a strong majority of all Catholics (59%), Catholic voters (68%), and white Catholics (72%) say that churches and other places of worship should not be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception."
Geesh. It's almost like the data makes the chart meaningless.
http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/
Another way to say that is "more than half (51%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should NOT be required." But, you know. Details.
I guess, more accurately, would be "more than half do not believe or do not have an opinion on"
Andy R. said...
By the way, it's good to see polling data that Catholics agree with the President.
HI Dum-dum.
Have you ever heard of PRRI?
Of course not. But it was fun to review their methodology:
Results of the survey were based on bilingual (Spanish and English) RDD telephone interviews
Conducted between February 1, 2012 and February 5, 2012by professional interviewers under
The direction of Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS). Interviews were conducted among
A random sample of 1,009 adults 18 years of age or older in the continental United States
(304 respondents were interviewed on a cell phone).
Don't worry, you don't understand what that means.
But don't you see the danger in saying that Catholics can use their religious beliefs to dictate who they choose to serve or what services they provide?
No. Don't you see the danger and infringement on rights of forcing a religion to do the bidding of the state?
Of if they want to stop offering services to practicing Satanists? Or to offer STD treatment for unrepentant homosexuals who plan on returning to gay sex as soon as they are cured?
Guess what, dumb ass. Obama's saying if the Catholic church only hired and served Catholics, he wouldn't insist on forcing them to do his bidding. Just what you're afraid of. But, the Catholic church is bigger than that, they want to help everyone. They view everyone as God's children and deserving of his mercy. They can actually see past the end of the bill of their cap. Did yoo know the Catholic church teaches everyone can go to Heaven, regardless of religion or lack of it?
Forcing the Catholic church to perform actions outside of thier religion. Actions, some of which are considered cardinal sins, sins that will send you to Hell if you die with them on your soul.
You've really shown you ignorance and lack of respect for the rights of others. Rights that people sailed from Europe to this continent in tiny boats to enjoy. Rights that people fought and died for. And, you want to toss all that out the window because the "rights" of women are so great, greater than any other rights, that they can't be expected to drive down the street to Planned Parenthood, another hospital, or doctor to get the service they want.
You know it occured to me that the liberals and their preferred political party seem to use 'the children' as their rallying cry quite a bit also simultaneously support any method that prevents or destroys bringing more children into the world.
Weird.
And frankly, who are these people calling themselves "Catholic?" It's not like we have some identifying tattoo. You can stay away from church all year, only go for your Easter and Christmas duties and still call yourself Catholic. What is the percentage of regular churchgoers who approve or disapprove of the policy? It seems to me they would be more useful in judging resistance than the average Joe.
"At some point, if the Catholic Church wants to be such a strong player in the health care business, then the government is going to say, you actually have to provide health care to people, not just what you think is morally ok. The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America."
The incompetent hat mannequin is, not surprising, woefully ignorant on this subject.
TMink said...
Isn't Wisconsin overwhelmingly white? If so, it would make sense that most subgroups are overwhelmingly white.
======================
The difference of course being that the liberals, gays, and progressive Jews in charge of the media would make short work of the career of a copy writer or "face" that described the election of a black mayor or Obama sweeping a deacyed city's vote as "Predictable, given the overwhelming black vote".
Same with descriptions of "overwhelmingly black" rallies for Obama or the "overwhelming black crime problem Philly and Chicago have". Bye-bye job!
But the same media masters are pushing the narrative if "overwhelmingly white" Tea Party rallies, firefighters being "overwhelmingly white"..in a negative context.
"IDEA: if you oppose the use of birth control for religious reasons, don't use birth control."
IDEA: if you oppose slavery for religious reasons, don't have a slave.
"You've really shown you ignorance and lack of respect for the rights of others. Rights that people sailed from Europe to this continent in tiny boats to enjoy. Rights that people fought and died for. And, you want to toss all that out the window because the "rights" of women are so great, greater than any other rights, that they can't be expected to drive down the street to Planned Parenthood, another hospital, or doctor to get the service they want."
You're absolutely correct, of course, but you're wasting your time.
Hat mannequins are no more able to reason than are dairy cows.
But it was a valiant effort.
Hoosier- this explanation works for me:
"Fen's Law: The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about."
People put blinders on race horses to block their peripheral vision.
Some people wear hats to block their vision heavenwards and others can't see the nose in front of their face.
To qualify this comment as "on topic," I offer that there is a clear bright line distinction between condoning contraception and forcing others to pay for it. But we've already been over that haven't we? It's settled science.
"... It's not like we have some identifying tattoo..."
Jesus Christ....don't give them ideas.
At some point, if the Catholic Church wants to be such a strong player in the health care business, then the government is going to say, you actually have to provide health care to people,
wow.
The ignorance demonstrated in that comment is so telling.
Do you ever get embarrassed by making such idiotic assertions Andy R?
The 620 Catholic hospitals across the country make up 12.4 percent of the nation’s 5,010 community hospitals.
They provide 15 percent of the hospital beds and in 2008 accounted for more than 5.6 million -- 15.8 percent -- of the 35.8 million patients admitted to those hospitals that year.
In addition to inpatient hospital stays, Catholic hospitals handled more than 98 million outpatient visits, 15.7 percent of the national total.
I guess they weren't providing "health care" they were just moralizing.
Or something.
You idiot.
I don't see this as helping Obama at all, even with those who approve of mandating birth control. The few who might think this to be good policy will be swamped by those who feel strongly that the Catholic Church is right here - maybe not in their stand on contraception, but rather on their standing up for their consciences.
Which is why I expect that the Dems will find a way to flip flop here, while claiming to be holding steady. Currently, the Senate Dems, even Catholics up for reelection and/or those up for reelection in states that have sizable Catholic populations are being pressured to toe the line. And, most seem to. But, it is further endangering the Dems chances at holding the Senate, and retaking the House. And, this is important, even if it is not enough to lose the election for Obama, himself.
So, with my prediction of an artful flip-flop by the Administration here, it should be quite interesting seeing how they accomplish this, and how critically their supporters in the media try to spin it.
IDEA #2: If you support the use of birth control, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
IDEA #4
If you like wars of choice, pay for them yourself. Why do I have to pay for it?
And weren't Catholics opposed to the Iraq war? Why did they have to pay for it?
Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions. Why do they have to pay for them?
garage mahal said...
IDEA #2: If you support the use of birth control, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
IDEA #4
If you like wars of choice, pay for them yourself. Why do I have to pay for it?
I love that you think this is an "analogy"
You really are dumber than I thought you were.
Andy R. said...
By the way, it's good to see polling data that Catholics agree with the President
Like I said, it is the anti-Catholic bigots and hatemongers like Andy R. who want to see a wedge driven between Catholics and the Church.
Sadly, there will be some who, like those who sided with King Henry VIII when sought to divide and suppress the Church, who will choose politics over faith.
"And weren't Catholics opposed to the Iraq war? Why did they have to pay for it?"
They weren't compelled to join and fight and they only paid indirectly through taxes. That's so dishonest Garage.
It's not like we have some identifying tattoo. You can stay away from church all year, only go for your Easter and Christmas duties and still call yourself Catholic. What is the percentage of regular churchgoers who approve or disapprove of the policy?
So, now we're going to have to meet your arbitrary definition of what it takes to be a member of a religion? Miss church one too many times and we're out. You have no understanding of our rights or don't care about them. We're not put on the this Earth to be slaves of the state, slaves of feminsts, or anyone or anything else. Ever heard of freedom?
Of course, this is the typical trap liberals and the federal government set. Create a system where they control any part of it, money, licensing, accreditation, inspection. At first, it's all OK. Then they start imposing their rules on you more and more. It's called Totalitarianism.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan: "The federal government should do what it's traditionally done since July 4, 1771, namely back out of intruding into the internal life of a church."
And weren't Catholics opposed to the Iraq war? Why did they have to pay for it??
Did the Catholic church pay for the Iraq war?
Anyway, doesn't this highlight the problem with the structure of this law, using mandates on companies and individuals on how they/we must spend our own money vs. a tax that gets collected and then spent by the government?
The bigger question.
What happened to IDEA #3?
"And weren't Catholics opposed to the Iraq war? Why did they have to pay for it?"
Catholics are not opposed to war per se. Members of religions that are do not have to fight in combat. Seventh Day Adventists were drafted during Vietnam, but did not have to fight. Many serve heroically as medics.
And, yes, you are, once again, proving your own stupidity, ignorance, and lack of respect for religous rights.
Garage, I don't think the issue here is so much that the individual Catholics don't want to pay for the objectionable treatment, but that the Catholic institutions will be forced to subsidize/perform it. This is not simply an individual of one taxpayer objecting to what his money pays for--it's bigger than that.
July 4, 1776
The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America.
...drones Andy R's avatar, projected 50' high on a wallscreen in front of mouth agape,placidly seated and like-garbed plebes. Heads shaven, of course.
So arbitrary, Andy R. Progressive ideas are so good, they have to be mandatory!
The government decided that slavery was okay in 1857 in America. No 50' wallscreens at the time, but I'm sure you would have been okey-dokey with the decision nonetheless.
Garage: "And weren't Catholics opposed to the Iraq war? Why did they have to pay for it?"
The argument at hand is about the Catholic CHURCH. The CHURCH does not pay taxes.
You should get the thinker going, Dude, pre typying.
Fen said...
Anyone still care who the GOP nom is?
Get this socialist diversity hire out of office before the damage is permanent.
Hell, I'll even vote for Ron Paul if he turns out to be the nom.
=================
Wrong to argue to an echo-chamber of true believing conservatives that the American People could want anyone other than a litmus test pure conservative. But the problem is most Americans are not litmus test pure conservatives nor are they in a mood to be "educated why Palin is right!" Anymore than they are in the mood to be "educated why the union bosses and Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer are right!".
People in the middle are in no mood for a Right to Lifer, Big Government must enforce Religious Right morality Theocrat dumped by his own electorate in Pennsyvania by 18 points. Or an unstable, sleazy, Inside the Beltway cotton-head blowhard.
Right now, other than Romney, Ron Paul is looking pretty attractive other than his 8 or 9 whacky ideas.
And even in foreign policy where his Isolationism and Open Borders libertarian ideology makes no sense - Ron Paul is still making more sense than Romney on some matters. Like on the matter of borrowing from CHina for spending more for a bigger military with excellent new Neocon nation-building adventures a-waiting....And the Romney pledge that the next 10 years (if necessary) in war in Afghanistan to "help the noble Afghanis" will be better than the 1st 10 years.
if the Catholic Church wants to be such a strong player in the health care business
I'm sure that it would send that mouthfoamer right over the edge to learn that it was THE CATHOLIC CHURCH who established the modern hospital system.
A strong player in the healthcare business? They've been that openly for over 1700 years, since Christianity was legalized, and for 300 years before that in an underground capacity.
The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America.
I love when their inner facist comes out.
I'm sure when the government decided interring the Japense was a good idea Andy's ilk played right along...
For fuck's sake, DADvocate, chill. My comment about 'calling yourself Catholic' was directed at Hat's quoting the poll linked to by Andrew Sullivan, which he took to mean a majority of Catholics agreed with Obama's diktat.
I'm not trying to set up an "arbitrary decision." I'm saying that, since anyone can CALL themselves "Catholic," Sully's poll is useless because it doesn't break down the percentages of those who are regular churchgoers and those whose attendance is spotty.
In other words, who are the "Catholics" who approve, and how faithful are they to Church teaching? It would be good to know.
And I am far, FAR from being a liberal, I can assure you.
The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America.
The Catholic church isn't saying that, although I suspect they might support such legislation. The Catholic churhc is saying, "We shouldn't be forced to provide women (or men) contraception or to perform abortions."
National Catholic Reporter:
The 620 Catholic hospitals across the country make up 12.4 percent of the nation’s 5,010 community hospitals.
They provide 15 percent of the hospital beds and in 2008 accounted for more than 5.6 million -- 15.8 percent -- of the 35.8 million patients admitted to those hospitals that year.
In addition to inpatient hospital stays, Catholic hospitals handled more than 98 million outpatient visits, 15.7 percent of the national total.
They employ about 540,000 full-time workers and 240,000 part-time workers.
I say close 'em down if Obama doesn't back off. He can add that to his list of successes.
"... IDEA #4 If you like wars of choice, pay for them yourself. Why do I have to pay for it?
And weren't Catholics opposed to the Iraq war? Why did they have to pay for it?.."
Meade, you said you met garage, did he look this dumb?
anyone can CALL themselves "Catholic,"
You have to be baptized to be a full Roman Catholic.
And I am far, FAR from being a liberal, I can assure you.
My apoligies. I don't have time to read every post, and sometimes the point of thread misses me.
There is a difference between preventing people from using birth control and mandating that insurance MUST subsidize birth control.
Any libertarian could tell you that.
We're talking past each other, DADvocate. Perhaps I should have said anyone can call themselves a "faithful" Catholic, even if they use contraception. They're not, but they can CALL themselves one.
I think that a poll of "Catholics" who pick and choose among Church teaching and a poll of "Catholics" faithful to the Magisterium would result in differing numbers - that's all I'm trying to say, and why I think Hat's crowing at 12.07 is wrong.
Truce?
I still remember the big role Sanctimonious Santorum had in the Terri Schiavo Fiasco.
Personal grandstanding.
His famous ditching Walmart execs and the Walmart jet to go on a sidetrip visit to the Florida hospice and rally with the RTLrs. Openly calling the court order "murder", the husband a person who wants to kill his wife. He then filed a Congressional subpeona ordering the Judge, doctors, and Terri Schiavi's husk to go to DC to testify before the feeding tube could be removed..(doctors testified, Judge refused Santorum's subpeona, and "Terri" was sort of unavailable....)
In his losing race against Casey, 1/3rd of Pennsylvania voters said that the Terri Schiavo Fiasco made them "less likely to vote for Santorum". In a televised group of swing voters, the Schiavo business was brought up with the interviewer asking if they thought Santorum was a Theocrat. One voter not understanding the term disagreed - calling Santorum a religious nut out to jam his beliefs down voters throats.
You have to go to mass each Sunday (reception of communion only needs to occur once per year) and on Holy days of obligation and confess once year to be a "practical" Catholic. Anything less and you're in need of reconciliation.
Oh big surprise, Obama lied to head of the Archdiocese of New York:
Dolan said the president gave his promise the provision would go away, but it hasn’t. “It seems to be at odds with very sincere assurances that he gave me, that he wanted to continue to work with the church in these endeavors and views and projects he shared a passionate interest in, so I can’t figure it out,” Dolan said.
“When I left the Oval Office, where I was very grateful for his invitation to be there, I left with high hopes. That nothing his administration would do would impede the good work that he admitted and acknowledged in the church,” Dolan said. “And I’m afraid I don’t have those sentiments of hope now.”
Why are these people such Rubes for Obama?
I understand you Christopher. The Pew study showed clearly that among self identified Catholics the frequency of attendance at mass was correlated to Orthodoxy. Hardly surprising that there's a big difference between the casual attitude of many Christmas/Easter Catholics and that of daily communicants.
I wonder if it just eats the Hatted Bigot alive to know that he has a Christian name? that his name, Andrew, comes from the Apostle, who was also brother of (Simon) Peter, the first pope of his hated Catholic Church? and who was later crucified for his faith in Christ?
Andy R said:
The idea of religious liberty doesn't mean that religious groups can do whatever they want.
You're right. It means that the state can't tell them what to do or say.
And in this case, the state is telling them what to do.
Why are these people such Rubes for Obama?
I'm very upset with the bishops about this. There's just no excuse for them being this naive. They should have known better.
And anyway, why are you guys arguing with someone that is so ignorant they don't even know Catholic hospitals don't provide abortions?
I wonder if he also realizes that, despite his hate, the Catholic Church stands ready to embrace him with love as a brother, and seeks only what is good for him?
And in this case, the state is telling them what to do.
What they can and can't say as well. The DoD actively prevented Catholic chaplains from discussing a letter to their congregations for fear being seen to incite civil unrest.
How do you suppose this would all be going over if it were a different, far more touchy, religion?
The DoD actively prevented Catholic chaplains from discussing a letter to their congregations
That is an incomplete description. What fully happened was that the Obama Defense Department prohibited priests from reading a letter from the Archbishop for the Military Archdiocese during Mass. That is, the government directly interfered with what was said and done during Mass, the government made itself dictator of what is and is not acceptable worship.
I love guns, so I think the government should pass a law that says all hardware and department stores have to sell guns. And that my employer has to puchase free guns for me.
@Chuck66
If you want to propose that you should put together a policy analysis showing that it provides a strong net benefit to society. If the numbers add up, I'd support it.
Dave: "Christmas/Easter Catholics"
Growing up, we always called these people "Chreasters" (KREE-sturz).
Nicely stated Bender. Reminds me that the word Catholic originates from "kata" and "hola". Kata meaning offered to or more strictly laid before and hola for "all" or everyone. So come on in everybody's welcomed.
You're right. It means that the state can't tell them what to do or say. And in this case, the state is telling them what to do.
They're probably also required to offer prenatal and obstetric care. I wonder how they handle that charge for women who are celibate. Think they negotiate the terms of their policy based on utilization patterns?
Yoobee
Thanks didn't know that.
I grew up Jewish (I'm a convert). We had an equivalent term "two day Jew" meant showed up on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah.
Traingle Man, you are also missing the point (please refer to my post above to Andy R.).
This is NOT about treating a particular type of patient--this is about being required to perform a particular type of service that the provider considers morally objectionable.
It was only one month ago that Mitt Romney was puzzled that the topic of contraception was even being raised.
From the comments:
… almost everyone else in the thread defended Romney's dodging of the question and said questions of contraception were irrelevant and should be ignored and that it was silly that I was bringing it up.
I wonder, now that the issue has the potential to be damaging to Obama, if anyone from the liberal MSM will continue to ask contraception-related questions of the GOP candidates. My guess is no.
Do most Catholics still care about contraceptives? … I have big, Catholic family and none of this ever comes up.
Just a thought: Perhaps the reason the issue has not been discussed in this big Catholic family is because no other POTUS has ever tried to force the Catholic church to provide contraceptives.
If the issue does not matter to Catholic families then Obama can safely ignore the issue. Right? Anyone want to bet that Obama will not back down on this?
Andy chose this line of argument:
What if Catholics decide they want to stop offering abortions, even if the life of the mother is at stake? Of if they want to stop offering services to practicing Satanists? Or to offer STD treatment for unrepentant homosexuals who plan on returning to gay sex as soon as they are cured?
and
What is Catholic organizations said they didn't want to offer medical services to Jews because Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus? Would that be ok?
Well, what if President Obama turns out to be an advanced scout from the planet Sqzlflyd, to set the stage for invasion?
Because the one is about as likely as the other.
Or to put it another way, WHEN those things happen, you let us know.
(Sorry, lots of metaphors.)
This is an issue that goes beyond just the Catholic church, or religious institutions. The first amendment was considered by the left to be sacred, inviolate, never to be breached for any reason (all while the other amendments were purely optional, depending on whose ox was gored).
Now the left is eager to tear down that firewall--and for what? One more benefit in a health insurance plan? Really, they are willing to punch holes in the first amendment to save a few bucks? Once you decide that religious liberty really isn't important, where do freedom of speech or the press go? (Hmmm, what have they done recently to put freedom of assembly or "peacefully" petitioning government in disfavor?)
I ask myself: are they really too blind to see what they are doing, or is widespread destruction of liberty the actual intent?
There's a lot of talk about the President's arrogance.
Here's an example.
The Catholic bishops were on board for health care reform decades ago. Long before President Obama.
Right or wrong, they gave a lot of help to him getting his bill. Their opposition was narrow. Had they been totally against it from the start, he'd likely have failed to get it, since it was so close.
Not only that; the Catholic Church was building hospitals and serving everyone for centuries before President Obama arrived to cause the oceans to recede.
And he has the unmitigated gall to lecture the Catholic Church on how to provide health care?
Well, what if President Obama turns out to be an advanced scout from the planet Sqzlflyd, to set the stage for invasion?
An advanced scout of that nature would be an elite, highly-trained and immensely competent entity. This debunks your theory.
Anyone want to bet that Obama will not back down on this?
Are you saying that he will back down?
He's not going to back down. Why should he? Who's going to stop him?
By now Obama has learned that he can do whatever the hell he wants and no is going to do anything about it. Oh sure, Boehner whispered something about getting around to maybe doing something, but he made it clear -- "The House will approach this matter fairly and deliberately, through regular order and the appropriate legislative channels. Because it has primary jurisdiction on the issues involved, the Energy & Commerce Committee is taking the lead on the legislative process that will be necessary to enact an effective and appropriate solution. Chairman Upton convened a hearing last year and began laying the groundwork for legislative action when this flawed rule was first proposed. I welcome his efforts to consider all possible options as his committee proceeds with its efforts. This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand, and will not stand."
So, Boehner's going to take his time, not be in any rush. They've had a year to do something about it, but haven't, and they'll spend another year putzing around.
Sure, he then says, "it must not stand, and will not stand," but what is left unsaid is, "unless Obama vetos it, in which case we'll say, 'well, we tried,' and then we'll move on to other stuff that merely perpetuates Obama's policies -- such as Republicans voting again to continue to fund HHS -- rather than actually trying to stop him on anything."
Why should Obama back down? Where has he backed down from any of the despotic acts he's done?
He might -- might -- defer and demur for a bit, until after the election, but the main objective is clear. The main objective of leftists everywhere has been to try to destroy the Catholic Church. He may hate the rich, but the Church is the real enemy.
One wonders if, as is the case in Baaston, the Archdiocese is so in the hip pocket of the machine in Chi-Town that GodZero thought the Church nationwide would just roll over and take it?
It seems the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wants to remove the provision for birth control coverage from the health care law altogether and not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. At least according to Anthony Picarello, general council of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
“(A year's extension to the implementation of the provision) was no consolation to Catholic leaders. The White House is ‘all talk, no action’ on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. ‘There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,’ Picarello said. ‘We're not going to do anything until this is fixed.’
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for ‘good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this.’
‘If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate,’ Picarello said.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-02-08/catholics-contraceptive-mandate/53014864/1
"But don't you see the danger in saying that Catholics can use their religious beliefs to dictate who they choose to serve or what services they provide?"
No. But I do see the danger in the government forcing them to provide services they consider immoral.
I'm still looking for it, but I'm almost positive I remember someone hearabouts, back when the debate was over pharmacists refusing to distribute birth control, saying that it wasn't a slippery slope.
And that "who [sic] they choose to serve" is a straw man.
One wonders if, as is the case in Baaston, the Archdiocese is so in the hip pocket of the machine in Chi-Town that GodZero thought the Church nationwide would just roll over and take it?
The Church has supported many left wing issues, even though they knew the overall goals of the left. Reminds me of two things, "If you dance with the Devil, you're going to get burnt." And, Aesop's fable of the Frog and the Scorpion.
Pete (I think) said something about the Church not paying taxes.
False.
First, Churches pay taxes on property, depending on how its used. It's true we save here, because we often have some very nice properties that would otherwise face steep property taxes. But we do pay some--the house I live in is taxed, but the offices and church are not.
FWIW, the Knights of St. John and Knights of Columbus--two Catholic non-profits here--pay property taxes like anyone else.
Second, we pay payroll taxes and all other employment taxes any other employer pays. Our employees pay the same taxes as everyone else.
Third, we pay any number of other taxes, fees, tariffs built into the things everyone else buys.
No, we aren't subject to corporate income tax; but even if we were, I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up paying nothing, or near enough.
Because I think you have to have profits!
(Just had an idea: some wonky individual could actually calculate the amount of corporate tax that might be due from, say, an diocese--it might be eye-opening.)
We do get exempt from sales tax, but in practice we end up paying a fair amount, because it's a pain to claim the exemption at the cash register.
Clergy--if they do not take a vow of poverty, pay all the same taxes as anyone else. Because we seldom own our own homes, we miss out on the huge mortgage deduction. Not complaining, but I think we pay our share.
To avoid those taxes, you have to take a vow of poverty, and that means you get no pay check.
Finally, all our 70-million Catholics pay their fair share of taxes like anyone else. The "corporation," is a shell; to recall the story of St. Lawrence...
He was told by the pagan Romans to produce the "riches of the church"; and he showed up with the faithful behind him.
Understand also that the covered employee, i.e. the individual policyholder, does not have the right to refuse contraception coverage. And since family members are required to be included in these employee plans, and since places like Planned Parenthood are all to eager to hand out contraceptives to minors, you can easily have the situation of an employee-parent being forced to pay (as part of the employee contribution) for their little 12-year-old girl to get the Pill.
Are you all happy with that? Do you think that parents should have no say in the matter and should be forced to pay for it?
Are you all happy with that? Do you think that parents should have no say in the matter and should be forced to pay for it?
Well, on the up side, we would have a generation of relatively acne-free girls.
One wonders if, as is the case in Baaston, the Archdiocese is so in the hip pocket of the machine in Chi-Town that GodZero thought the Church nationwide would just roll over and take it?
Francis Cardinal George could NEVER be mistaken for being part of the Chicago machine.
Among other things, he harshly criticized Notre Dame when they gave Obama an honorary degree, and he suspended a rabid priest over his pro-Obama rantings.
...Just to be clear, the idea of "abortion to save the life of the mother" is sloppy.
The actual truth is--as I understand from others expert in this area--is that's not what happens.
An actual abortion of the uterus is almost never indicated as "necessary" to save the life of the mother--i.e., as opposed to...
Life-saving treatment that may, or even will, have the unavoidable consequence of the loss of the baby.
The point is, the Church does not, will not, oppose a pregnant woman seeking life-saving treatment, even when it is foreseeable in its effect on the unborn child.
But that's no more an abortion, than to say that if, while you rescue one man from a burning building, another man you couldn't rescue, was "killed" by you.
It's based on the principle of double effect, which--for simplicity's sake, boils down to this:
If you lived in a world where you could save both...you would. But you live in this world, where you save who you can.
But there's a world of difference between causing evil, and doing good that has an unavoidable bad consequence.
They're going after the hospitals, they will be forced to perform abortions. The Bamster's taken the long view. He'll stack the court.
The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America.
Since when can't you buy condoms? How did I miss this?
Fr Martin Fox said...
"No, we aren't subject to corporate income tax; but even if we were, I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up paying nothing, or near enough."
Father,
Do the religious institutions in question receive federal money besides Medicare for hospital and clinic payments?
Do the religious institutions in question receive federal money besides Medicare for hospital and clinic payments?
As a purely objective matter -- no.
Medicare patients receive monetary benefits from the government, which they use at Catholic hospitals and clinics, which are reimbursed for their quid-pro-quo medical services.
Bender said...
"Medicare patients receive monetary benefits from the government, which they use at Catholic hospitals and clinics, which are reimbursed for their quid-pro-quo medical services."
Do these hospitals and universities receive other federal money in the form of grants or other subsidies?
Me earlier: Anyone want to bet that Obama will not back down on this?
Are you saying that he will back down?
Yes. That an attempt will be made to change the policy to something more palatable to voters and to something that can be better defended by the Progressives. But I don’t think it will work. I think that no matter what Obama does now that the issue has blown up in his face Obama will lose votes because of this issue. There’s no one he can throw under the bus to get out of this
No he will promise to change it or it won't be worth the paper it's printed on. They're going after the hospitals. This is a direct attack on Catholics and the country's underpinnings.
I think it will actually backfire on the Republicans even in this election when it becomes clear that people like Santorum and the Catholic Church oppose the very idea of contraception, which is wildly in opposition to the views of normal non-insane Americans.
With this I have to agree with Andy R, it is insane in 2011 to be opposed to contraceptives. What are you people stuck in the Victorian Age?
If Catholic hospitals have to provide abortions, then why do we need PP?
Do these hospitals and universities receive other federal money in the form of grants or other subsidies?
I’m going to guess that yes they do. But I don’t get the point of the question. Is the commentor implying that since these institutions receive federal funds that they shouldn’t object to being forced to provide contraceptives?
There's the power of the State, there's the strings.
What are you people stuck in the Victorian Age?
No, and I'm not Catholic either. That being said, this one of those, "Then they came for the Catholics" sort of things and I'm not going to be a silent protestant on the matter.
This is a direct attack on Catholics and the country's underpinnings.
News flash - America is no longer underpinned by organized religion. We've evolved past it.
Newflash - it's called The Constitution. Direct assault on the 1st Amendment.
How's that separation of church and state working again?
36:
About receiving federal--or, for that matter, state or local tax money...
It depends.
Lots of Catholic organizations have contracts with the government to perform useful things for the government. That counts as "receiving" tax money, but it's not a subsidy; it's a contract. If I take a job teaching history at a public high school, my paycheck isn't a subsidy, but it is tax money--until its my wages.
Colleges end up receiving money via loans and grants, but it's the kids who actually receive them, then bring them to the school. The "gift" is to the student. Yet the government does attach strings to the acceptance of the money by the colleges.
Our parochial schools receive funds from the state, for the provision of "secular" services that benefit the students themselves. The dollars follow the students. Call that what you will. It's true it helps our budget, but it is also true we're providing a very good deal for the taxpayer. Somewhat side issue, but...there is no question that our school's existence saves the taxpayer very large amounts. Because if we closed tomorrow, all our kids report to the public schools. Who thinks the public schools have large, unspent sums, held in escrow against said event?
Our churches themselves receive no tax money.
There may be other aspects to this I'm not thinking of; that's off-the-cuff, obviously.
Ohhh, we are such "bitter clingers." LOLOLOLOLOL
grackle said...
"I’m going to guess that yes they do. But I don’t get the point of the question. Is the commentor implying that since these institutions receive federal funds that they shouldn’t object to being forced to provide contraceptives?"
grackle,
If these institutions are receiving federal money, should they not have to comply with federal laws? I think they should.
How about the employees at these institutions who are not Catholic? Don't they deserve equal treatment under the law?
My guess is George asked that puzzling question because the administration thought they'd get secular women swing voters back to vote for O if they brought up the bogeyman that Reps are against contraception. They figured uninformed swing voters wouldn't know the difference between the banning ofcontraception and the denial of "free" contraception.
Father Martin,
Thank you for the information.
As I responded to grackle, I believe that if these institutions are receiving federal money, they should comply with federal laws.
I'm mostly thinking about those employees at these institutions who are not Catholic. I believe they deserve equal treatment under the law.
My guess is George asked that puzzling question because the administration thought they'd get secular women swing voters back to vote for O if they brought up the bogeyman that Reps are against contraception. They figured uninformed swing voters wouldn't know the difference between the banning ofcontraception and the denial of "free" contraception.
"Opposed to contraceptives"...
You know, I like beer, I like martinis, I like wine. My religion says it's OK to a point. When my fellow Christians make a doctrine of not drinking, I think they're on thin ice theologically and biblically. And I don't know what the basis of anyone else's objection is, but obviously, I don't share it.
So...based on President Obama's logic, echoed by others here, I have absolutely no justification for objecting, if he decides said teetotalers must pay to provide hooch to their employees, because everyone has a constitutional right to free hooch.
I'm still trying to get past why the Federal government thinks health insurance should pay for birth control.
Are liberals that pathetic that they don't think women can procure birth control on their own without a Federal mandate?
I mean seriously, I was buying rubbers at sixteen. It's not that difficult or expensive.
36:
I suspected as much.
The power-grabbing government types always think that way, as well. They always want to use any contact with any money they can non-laughably call government money to trigger any number of mandates. Most natural thing in the world.
So, yes, that's the climate we live in.
But how about this?
Every dollar I ever earn, I get to write my name on it. And from that point on, anyone who ever accepts that dollar, has to do what I say. Destroying that dollar--or erasing my name--is illegal.
Is that a deal? You want to live in that world?
Instead, I'd say if the government gives money, it gives it for something; either it buys something, or it gives a "gift" with strings: "We'll pay you $100 million dollars a year if you'll stamp "Obama 2012" on these condoms."
But that's the conclusion of the contract.
However, when the government gives you money, and you bring your money to me for some reason, the government's strings attach to you; not me.
(Of course, all this is what we small-government types have been on about for decades, if not centuries.)
Father, I have believed this for a few years. Clinics on Reservations. They are sovereign peoples, they don't have to follow all the laws, nor do they.
Father Martin,
Well, as I said I'm mostly thinking about those employees at these institutions who are not Catholic. I believe they deserve equal treatment under the law.
It seems we would be blurring the line between the separation of church and state if the government carves out religious exceptions for laws based on religious beliefs, especially if that exception affects a large number of people who do not belong to the religion in question.
Also, it’s interesting that this issue wasn’t such a controversy back in 2001 when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law
What's really interesting is this follows in the DC abortion debate, I always wondered how those who live in DC managed to get abortions even tho DC wasn't mandated to perform them? It's amazing that the citizens of DC survived these decades w/o the order of the government. Just like 36, how in the world did those employed by Catholic entities ever survive w/o that option?
It's called choice, perhaps some have heard of it?
36,
The issue is not about complying with the law--if it was enacted, the Catholic institutions would comply with the law (by closing up shop). The issue is whether the law is the merits of the law: is it constitutional. reasonable, dangerous, etc.
It's the EEOC
ohhh, wouldn't it be funny if the company was allowed to choose which form of contraception that could be provided under the plan and the company just handed out condoms?
What's wrong with the grocery story?
I think the state of CT mandates toupee coverage. Should we mandate that as well, 36? It's the law in CT, shouldn't it be the law everywhere else
As Chesterton said, fortunately those of us who don't believe in birth control will soon outnumber those who do. The Church is wiser than all the scoffing enlightened people who have predicted her end. Large families have a governance all their own and are thus a threat to both tyrants and libertines. http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2
And some wonder why The Constitution is the way it is, they lived this. The King is mandatating what it perceives should be the law to take total control.
Man doesn't change, those who forget history.......
Every organization (in this case, the hospital, insurance provider, etc.) is guided by its own set of principles guiding what it will and will not do. For Catholic institutions, their principles align with Catholic teaching. The fact that they hire non-Catholic employees does not change the fact that they follow Catholic principles.
It's amazing how hostile--or terrified--some are of real freedom and diversity.
Imagine a world where you go into one business or charitable enterprise, and they do things one way.
Don't like it? Leave...walk down the street past a bunch of others, till you find one that suits you.
Catholics do their Catholic thing, Jews their Jewish thing, etc. Everyone gets along just fine.
No, can't have that! One size fits all. Free condoms are a constitutional right! Here, Father, you must help distribute them--and gimme $100 for the honor of serving Big Brother!
yoobee said...
"The issue is not about complying with the law--if it was enacted, the Catholic institutions would comply with the law (by closing up shop)..."
I don't think that will happen.
Post a Comment