Contraceptive Debate Reporting Omits Important Voices
The Obama administration recently ruled that churches and other religious organizations who provide health insurance to their workers at their non-church businesses must include free birth control, as indeed all health insurance plans are now required to do. This decision does not affect the churches themselves, but instead such satellite operations as hospitals and universities. The churches still have a "conscience clause" which allows them to choose not to provide contraceptives to church or other religious employees, and the new federal rule mirrors laws already on the books in 28 states. Even so, the new policy has engendered a huge debate from the pulpit, from politicians, and from the media. The real glaring omission from the media reports, however, is the lack of the voices of women who work for religious hospitals and universities -- in other words, those directly affected by the new rule.
Pro and con, the people I see being interviewed and otherwise weighing in on the debate are not the ones directly affected by it. I have no idea why this gaping hole in what should be a basic journalistic assignment exists, personally. As I've been watching the debate rage, I see a lot of older men debating women's sexual morals. I see a lot of celibate priests and bishops being interviewed. I see old, male lawmakers weighing in. To be fair, I also see a lot of women being interviewed, usually from either a pro or con advocacy group. I've even seen some doctors and health policy officials of both sexes offering up scientific reason and logical advice.
You know what I have yet to see either on television or in print? A poll of the workers affected. Maybe that's too tough a thing to ask for -- polls are time-consuming, after all, and the debate hasn't been raging all that long. But I have also yet to see in the media even a single woman interviewed who actually works for a religious hospital or university. Not a single "woman on the street" interview, not a single union representative who speaks for these women, not a single spokesperson for the women themselves. Not one. No nurses, no janitors, no administrators, no security guards... nothing.
American journalism has failed to answer a very basic question in this debate: what do those actually affected by this decision think about it? This is preposterous and shameful. Lefty media who support the Obama administration's decision (at least, the ones that I've seen) are no exception -- they haven't bothered to get out and question the people affected, either.
We hear from religious experts, morality experts, women's rights advocates, contraception advocates, legislators, politicians on the campaign trail, doctors, health insurance experts, and even sex experts -- all their voices are deemed valid and important to the debate. But, apparently, the affected women are simply somehow not valid or important to the debate, because nobody in the mainstream media has bothered to even make the attempt to find out what they think about the decision.
What can be done about this, other than griping about it in a blog post? I'm not entirely sure. Writing, emailing, and/or calling up your favorite media outlet and asking why they haven't bothered to find out and report this important information -- which is not just relevant but actually key to the debate -- might be a start. Feel free to forward this column to them, maybe it'll light a fire under some intrepid editor somewhere. It's certainly worth a try.
If the media were doing the job they're supposed to be doing, we would have those quotes and statistics by now. The fact that we don't speaks volumes about how the average person's voice can be completely drowned out in the public infotainment shouting match which passes for our political arena today.
It's really not all that hard to do. Send a reporter down to a university or hospital which would be affected. Station the reporter on a public sidewalk outside the organization, and randomly start asking people exiting the institution a few questions: "Excuse me, Ma'am, do you work for [organization name]? Can I ask you your opinion on whether you agree with the decision to provide you with health insurance which fully covers birth control, or whether you think such coverage should not be provided because [organization name] is run by [church name] who has religious beliefs that such coverage not be provided?"
It's called "journalism," and it ain't rocket science.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I would think, even before one asks someone if they feel they should be provided birth control free of charge, one would have to know how they VIEW birth control.
In other words, what would they use birth control for? Or even more basic, what's the purpose of birth control...
That information is certainly relevant to the overall question of whether or not the government should be providing Birth Control free of charge..
Just musing here...
On the other hand, I do completely agree with you that the MSM certainly has dropped the ball in the debate...
What a shock, eh?? :D
Michale.....
So, Michale, you envision a world in which someone who can't afford a medication should pass a loyalty exam before receiving it? Sounds pretty familiar to those of us old enough to remember reading George Orwell's Vision of a totalitarian state. ". . . what would they use birth control for?" How disingenuous can one get? If someone comes into an ER with a broken ankle, should they be asked to swear loyalty to some local ordinance or State Law to receive treatment?
In other words, what would they use birth control for? Or even more basic, what's the purpose of birth control...
Trick question?
Or do you mean beyond Putting the basilisk into the Chamber of Secrets and not ending up with a bun in the oven?
Let me see...balloon animals or muling heroin? Not sure about other uses for pills, rings and diaphragms...
Michale -
Um, not having babies while enjoying sex?
Is there any other answer to that question? You feeling OK? Been getting enough sleep?
Heh.
-CW
the overall question of whether or not the government should be providing Birth Control free of charge..
Disingenuous much lately?
The question is whether employers should get to choose what medical coverage their employees can have, or whether employees should get to exclude coverage they don't want their employees to use. There's nothing at all in the current kerfluffle that's even tangentially connected to having government provide anything.
Ideally, of course, medical coverage wouldn't go through the employer at all. Government would provide it, or even better, medical services would be cheap enough that ordinary people could pay out-of-pocket. But as is, we're stuck with the options of having employers tell employees what medical services they have access to, or having government tell employers what medical services they must allow access to.
This being the US, we always lean toward letting the powerful interfere in the private lives of the less-powerful, rather than policy interfere in the public actions of the powerful. There's no real question: one way or another, sooner or later, this will be settled in favor of letting employers exclude contraception.
But how far do we as a country want to take that? Suppose a boss doesn't like team sports. Suppose that boss is just as sincere in disapproving of sports, as various prudes are of disapproving of sex that's not strictly for procreation. Should that boss then be able to tell employees they can only get insurance that excludes treatment of injuries incurred on the field?
HO,
So, Michale, you envision a world in which someone who can't afford a medication should pass a loyalty exam before receiving it?
Nope. I envision a world (or, more accurately, a country) where the prevailing attitude is NOT, "I want it so the government must force insurance companies provide it for me free of charge"...
Sounds pretty familiar to those of us old enough to remember reading George Orwell's Vision of a totalitarian state. ".
SuperPACs are not a threat to our democracy.
SuperPACs were NEVER a threat to our democracy.
So, it seems we already have an Orwellian government, no?? :D
If someone comes into an ER with a broken ankle, should they be asked to swear loyalty to some local ordinance or State Law to receive treatment?
How in the hell did you get there from my comment??
CW,
Um, not having babies while enjoying sex?
And why, exactly, should the government force insurance companies to give you this for free???
dsws,
Disingenuous much lately?
Yer absolutely right. I mis-spoke my point..
the overall question of whether or not the government *should force insurance companies* to be providing Birth Control free of charge..
Better???
My point is a simple one, once the clarification is in place..
At what point do we, as Americans, quit demanding a free ride and actually start working for ourselves??
If you can't afford kids and you can't afford birth control, here's a thought.... Don't have sex... Or, better yet, get creative and have sex in a way that guarantees no one will get pregnant..
Nothing..... Abso-tively and posi-loutly NOTHING in the US Constitution guarantees that people are entitled to be happy...
NOTHING...
Michale
Um, not having babies while enjoying sex?
Bigger titties makes enjoying sex even more enjoyable..
Should insurance companies be forced to give boob jobs for free because some people want bigger boobs...
Come to think of it, I *LIKE* that idea... :D
Michale.....
Above and beyond the question of whether or not providing free birth control is a good idea.....
I think the Obama Administration made a big mistake in pushing this issue during an election year.
Recent SCOTUS rulings provide a good indication as to who the Court will side with when it's the Church vs the Government..
Michale....
Let me ask just one simple question.
WHY should people be entitled to free birth control?
Michale
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.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/209553-white-house-struggles-to-contain-uproar-over-birth-control-mandate
Ya see?? Bad fight to pick in an election year...
Michale
“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman, not her boss.”
-Sen. Gillibrand
No one is disputing a woman's right to choose whether or not to use contraception.
What is at issue is whether or not women get a free ride or not....
Er.... No pun intended... :D
Michale....
Grrrrr... That's twice in one commentary..
CW, would ya??? :D
Michale.....
WHY should people be entitled to free birth control?
this line of argument parallels the question of unemployment insurance and other things the government provides free of charge. you seem hung up on whether or not people deserve those things; in my view, it's not those people's interests that ought to concern us. the government providing said things has nothing to do with anyone actually being entitled to them, it's just in the public interest to have as few as possible hungry, desperate, unwanted children running around. it's like the reason why we build and staff prisons. we don't build them for the people on the inside, we build them for the people on the outside.
"deserve's got nothing to do with it"
~clint eastwood - unforgiven
the government providing said things has nothing to do with anyone actually being entitled to them, it's just in the public interest to have as few as possible hungry, desperate, unwanted children running around.
Where does it end???
Free housing?? After all, it's "in the public interest" for everyone to have a home so they are not on the streets??
Free mates?? After all, it's in the public interest for everyone to have a spouse so they are not out raping and pillaging...
Speaking of pillaging, maybe I should make all my laptops free so as not to encourage people to steal them...
Pretty ridiculous, iddn't it...
Isn't it MORE in the public interest to have a hearty and viable society that can stand on it's own two feet, instead of a bunch of fat and lazy citizens sucking on the government's ti... er... teat???
Where does it end???
Where do the handouts end and the self-reliance begin??
Michale
It's all academic anyways..
The Obama Administration is going to be forced to back-pedal away from their position...
You know how I know??
Because re-election is more important than any principle....
"They elected a warrior, but they got a wimp.."
INDEPENDENCE DAY
Michale.....
the overall question of whether or not the government *should force insurance companies* to be providing Birth Control free of charge..
Better???
Better, but still not quite right. The insurance companies charge premiums that pay for whatever services they cover. It's not "free of charge". It's paid for through insurance.
The question is whether government should force insurance companies to cover contraception, or whether employees should be forced to pay for insurance that doesn't cover it.
Just because of the low-frequency/high-amount nature of medical costs, we're inevitably paying via some form of insurance, i.e. making the what's-covered decision as a collective decision, one way or another. It can be by unaccountable, unchecked, just-because-we-can, raw economic power, or it can be via democratic process.
Should insurance companies be forced to give boob jobs for free because some people want bigger boobs.
Of course, my gut reaction is no. But that may be unduly influenced by the fact that I like boobs and I don't like unnatural-looking plastic thingies where boobs used to be.
So I have to reconcile my gut reaction with my position on contraception: you have correctly identified a question I'm obligated to answer.
For starters, I insist that it's an appropriate question for public policy. We should jointly decide what we want included in our joint expenditures, and we should do so by legitimate political process rather than by economic might-makes-right.
Reconstructive surgery after breast cancer should be covered, if the cost is reasonable. By "reasonable" I don't mean something a typical individual could afford. If that were the kind of cost involved, we wouldn't be in this fix to begin with. I mean something a typical individual can easily afford to have included in their coverage, with the cost spread over all policy-holders.
But that doesn't answer it about elective cosmetic surgery.
There's an issue about disclosure: it's virtually impossible to tell ordinary insurance customers exactly what's covered. Insurance always covers a range of possible events. In the case of medical coverage, there are tens of thousands of possible situations, of which a typical person will only ever experience a very few. If you know about them all, you're a doctor, not an ordinary customer. Insurance companies have an incentive to carve out minor unexpected exceptions, saving money on claims while not making the exceptions big enough to make news and lose customers. That's in the gray area bordering on fraud. So insurance should be forced to pay for everything a reasonable customer would have expected it to pay for. Contraceptive procedures are iffy on this criterion, whereas elective cosmetic surgery is clearly in the not-necessarily-expected category. But it might be expected on a premium plan described as including most elective procedures.
There's an active effort, pursuing political ends through economic means, to coerce people not to use contraception. That needs to be countered. There's no such effort to keep women from being able to get boob jobs. In the absence of any such effort, for a completely elective procedure, I lean toward letting it be covered or not according to what a typical customer would expect for the sort of plan being purchased.
Chris: Since the ever-lovable HuffPo mods have evidently decided not to allow me to answer your questions, I'll do it here. ;D
>>>OK, if I'm a church that believes that prayer is the only acceptible way to treat injuries or disease, can I set up an ambulance company and instead of EMTs employ "prayer technicians" to show up and pray at the site of a car accident?>>>
I don't know what your scenario has to do with a hospital's health care plan, and I doubt someone in the throes of a life-or-death heart attack would be leafing through the Yellow Pages instead of dialing "911." But I suspect that in order for you to even categorize your company as an "ambulance" service, you would have to be prepared to dispatch trained emergency medical technicians when called, for public safety's sake.
>>>would you want one of these amublances to show up if you dialled 911 for a heart attack>>>
I don't think the Weigant Prayer Mobile Service would be part of the 911 system in the first place. And if a person wanted the Weignat Prayer Mobile Service to attend to them, they wouldn't be calling 911. However, if I were a person who agreed with the beliefs of the Weigant Church and wanted a prayer team dispatched, I would call the Weigant Prayer Mobile Service INSTEAD of 911. That would be my choice to make.
>>>The First Amendment forbids government to establish a religion.>>>
OR prohibit the free exercise of religion. Why is it that liberals always tend to leave that part out?
>>>Here's another tangent: should Catholic Charities be able to run adoption services which discriminate against gay families and single parents, and continue to recieve state money to do so? >>>
Yes, since gay families and single parents aren't required to use those services if Catholic values don't jive with their own. They can go to a secular adoption agency, if they prefer. And Catholics can go to a Catholic agency, if they prefer. Catholics have the right to own Catholic businesses, Chris. If you own a company that sells St. James bibles, the federal government has no power or authority to force you to ALSO sell the Koran. And it also is not allowed to punish/persecute you if you dare to disobey a "mandate" that you do so. That's what our first amendment/freedom of religion is all about. Our framers went to war with the King to free themselves of the very type of dictarial "mandates" that O is presently trying to push.
Here's O's infamous political tin ear in action, once again. This is the guy who started out last week with a good jobs report, mind you:
Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth-control rule
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/209553-white-house-struggles-to-contain-uproar-over-birth-control-mandate
OR prohibit the free exercise of religion. Why is it that liberals always tend to leave that part out?
But who is getting the free exercise of religion, the organization or the individual? I think you are wrong in that liberals tend to leave that out, rather they are favoring the individual over the organization in this case.
Beyond that I think this is good public policy. Cheap preventive care that will save the government money in the long run, and well covered by promote the general Welfare in the constitution...
CB,
Your presence is sorely missed around here... :D
Michale.....
Here's O's infamous political tin ear in action, once again. This is the guy who started out last week with a good jobs report, mind you:
Whoever advised The O'ster that this would be a good fight to pick should be fired... :D
You KNOW Obama is going to cave.. He is going to fall back on the tried-and-true EXEMPTION method..
You heard it here first....
Michale....
Where does it end???
Where do the handouts end and the self-reliance begin??
the slippery slope argument is a valid one; you're right that there does need to be a line drawn somewhere. the government sometimes goes way beyond its constitutional mandate to promote the public good. but each case is different. on the previous thread, you're probably right, unemployment insurance perhaps shouldn't run out, but once they get back what they've paid in, they should not make more for not working than they'd make for working.
in the case of subsidized birth control, i think there needs to be a balance reached between the considerations of different individuals within society. on this issue, there are three parties whose rights need to be respected and balanced against one another, in addition to serving the public. first is the patient, second is the physician and third is the institution. i think the religious views of the institution should be the last ones considered, because birth control isn't just used to prevent procreation, it has other medical uses. medical decisions should not be economically forced upon medical professionals by insurance companies, regardless of the religious views of whoever funds them. if some employers use an insurance company run by a church who believes that AIDS is God's punishment for wickedness, should they be permitted to deny government funding for HIV treatment, under the umbrella of first amendment religious freedom?
if a doctor genuinely believes that birth control is wrong, he or she should be free to make a medical recommendation consistent with those beliefs. however, i think it's also a professional ethical obligation not to put one's own religious beliefs ahead of the needs and beliefs of a patient. doctors whose recommendations disagree with a patient's desired treatment on religious grounds should be able to negotiate the best options with the patient, or recommend a different doctor. regardless, i don't think religious institutions have any business using economic means to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.
~joshua
Your presence is sorely missed around here... :D
Thanks, Michale. <3 The libs keep me pretty busy over at the HuffPo. They don't seem to like my opinions.
Whoever advised The O'ster that this would be a good fight to pick should be fired... :D
That O isn't able to figure it out all by himself is what's startling to me. Never in my life have I seen a pol with a tin ear like this guy's. You can be sure that he and the administration never saw this freight train coming. Then again, these are the same folks who never saw the "tsunami" of 2010 coming, either. And that's despite this country's foremost election analyists and predictors warning about it MONTHS beforehand.
You KNOW Obama is going to cave..
That's a given. Provided he wants another term, that is. What cracks me up is that the administration is continuing to use the word "mandate" in their public statements. Despite the great shellacking of 2010, and the fact that the majority of Americans, to this day, want the "mandate" repealed, O and the administration still don't seem to realize that "mandate" is not exactly what you'd call one of those POSITIVE buzz words. ;D
BashiBazouk: But who is getting the free exercise of religion, the organization or the individual?
When it comes to the first amendment protection, BOTH should be protected. Our framers went to war with the king to STOP having their religious views and practices violated by a ruler. And all of sudden, we have a new ruler who seems to think he's entitled to "mandate" that Catholic business owners violate their beliefs and Church doctrines and participate in the facilitation of birth control and abortion pills. Has King Obama lost his bloomin' mind?
and well covered by promote the general Welfare in the constitution.
"Promote" is the preamble. If you want something that's part of an actual enumerated power, you need "provide for" in Article I section 8.
Our framers went to war with the king to STOP having their religious views and practices violated by a ruler. And all of sudden, we have a new ruler who seems to think he's entitled to "mandate" that Catholic business owners violate their beliefs and Church doctrines and participate in the facilitation of birth control and abortion pills. Has King Obama lost his bloomin' mind?
Either that or your revisionist version of history is a bit off...Something about taxation without representation ring a bell? Though I think it was more about economics than representation in the end. The religious part was covered by Chris late last year. Turns out those early colonists were not fighting for religious freedom, but the exact opposite.
Either that or your revisionist version of history is a bit off...Something about taxation without representation ring a bell?
You mean the straw that broke the camel's back? That isn't the ONLY reason they went to war. They had quite a few grievances. Check their Declaration of Independence: that little "Dear John" note they sent off to the king.
Turns out those early colonists were not fighting for religious freedom, but the exact opposite.
Yeah, that sure would explain why they went to the trouble of creating a freedom-of-religion right for themselves (and us). Maybe they were just bored that day and threw it in to pass the time. Or perhaps they never wanted to find themselves in a position of having a ruler dictate who/what they were and weren't allowed to freely worship and practice, and be persecuted and punished if they didn't obey their ruler. Maybe that's why they made We, the People, the ruler of the government, not the other way around.
Joshua,
You raise very valid points about whether people should have access to birth control or not.
And believe me, the fact that I am speaking in defense of religious institutions....??? Well, the irony is not lost on me.. :D
But, in this case, I don't think the issue is whether or not people have a right to birth control..
IMNSHO, the issue is whether or not people have a right to FREE birth control...
Or, more accurate, does the government have the right to FORCE insurance companies to give people free birth control..
This is simply one more example of Executive over-reach by the Obama Administration..
Because, if this is allowed to stand, what ELSE can the government force businesses to give free, in the name of the public good..
Dear Mr Worley,
It has come to my attention that there has been a rash of laptop thefts in the St Augustine area.
In keeping with my "Public Good" campaign and in an effort to prevent such thefts, I am directing you to give free laptops to anyone who asks. Surely you can see the logic of this action as necessary to promote the public good.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Signed
Barack Obama
President & Emperor Of The United States
:D I had fun writing that... :D
Again, the slippery slope argument...
CB,
Then again, these are the same folks who never saw the "tsunami" of 2010 coming, either.
I believe the technical term was "shellacking"... :D
and the administration still don't seem to realize that "mandate" is not exactly what you'd call one of those POSITIVE buzz words. ;D
I think they MIGHT get a clue once the SCOTUS rules that CrapCare is DOA...
Maybe they were just bored that day and threw it in to pass the time.
That's sarcasm... I recognize that. :D
Michale
Chris, would you like to hold our HuffPo conversation on your board instead? Your last (four?) posts are still "pending approval" (LOL!) and lord knows how many hours that will take before I can even respond to them. And, of course, there's no telling if the mods will even let my PERSONAL OPINIONS through. The mod situation has gotten a little ridiculous lately; not to mention, the "comments" pages have been temporarily disengaged, for days now, and it's hell to even find your posts, much less get responses approved by the HuffPo Speech Police.
Chris1962 -
Heh. Fine with me. Hang on a moment, I'm posting today's article, which is "part 2" to this one. Then I'll get to these comments here.
Everyone else -
Gimme a minute, gotta post the second half of this article...
-CW
OK, new article is up. Go read it, everyone.
:-)
-CW
Michale [6] -
No, but we are allowed to "pursue happiness," right?
Heh.
[7] -
Google it. I think some public money actually does go for boob jobs. Not reparative (after mastectomies, for instance), either -- just flat-out "I want them bigger." [OK, feel free to make your own "flat-out" joke here, if you must...]. I don't remember the details, but I remember the story... maybe it was military women? Can't remember, but like I said, do some searching on Google (the NEWS part, not the IMAGES part... heh), and I bet you find that public money does go for boob jobs.
[8] -
You may be right about the election year thing, we'll just have to wait and see. And you are right about SCOTUS, the last case they took they ruled that a teacher in a religioius school wasn't allowed to sue for wrongful termination because they led the students in prayers -- meaning they were a religious employee not covered by labor laws. So we'll see.
[9] -
You asked this question in a slanted manner, but let me answer it in a weaselly way, off on a tangent. Providing birth control for free to women actually SAVES insurance companies money. It's cheaper, in other words, than not providing birth control. The reason? In large pools of the insured, it means fewer pregnancies (unwanted or not), and pregnancies are expensive for insurance companies. So, in the end, this actually saves them money.
dsws [16] -
Actually, I think it's that birth control is now classified as "preventative medicine" which is ALL now free. Under Obamacare, everyone who has insurance covered gets, for example, one FREE general physical checkup a year. This prevents expensive medical problems from not being caught early-on, and saves EVERYONE money. This is the category birth control now falls under as well, which is why it's free (see comment to Michale on cost, above).
Chris1962 [17] -
I answered this over on HuffPost, but didn't save what I wrote. The ambulance came from the article I just posted, so I'm going to wait until you've read it, because your objections will likely become more focused after you read what I wrote.
One comment I did remember -- you're right, I should have cut and pasted the full 1st Amendment, it was late and I was lazy, sorry.
nypoet22 [22] -
Good AIDS example. Just had to say that.
I go further, myself -- I don't think pharmacists should have ANY "conscience clause" at all. If you don't agree with every drug that is legal for the public to use, then you should not be licensed as a pharmacist and should choose a different line of work. Period.
What a lot of people miss in this debate -- and that includes 100% of the pundits on teevee -- is that there are places in America (many of them) where there simply IS NO CHOICE of hospital or pharmacy -- there's only one of them in the whole county, and the next one is 150 miles away. People in New York City and Washington almost always COMPLETELY MISS this part of the equation. Which also annoys me, but I forgot to include it in this article.
Chris1962 [23] -
I wouldn't be counting those chickens all that fast. Seen Obama's poll numbers lately?
Admittedly, the polls haven't reflected the birth control debate yet, and won't until around the middle of next week, so we'll see what happens when they do.
[24] -
Um, no, no we didn't. There was actually a whole lot of anti-Catholic rage spewed out by our Founding Fathers before, during, and after the Revolution. Granted, they were afraid an Anglican bishop would be installed in the colonies by the King, but they also used the issue of Quebec (with all those formerly-French Catholics) to fearmonger.
Don't believe me? Here's just a taste, most likely written by Sam Adams:
"...by the Charter of this Province it is granted ordained and established (that is declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all christians except Papists..."
"The only Sects... which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach Doctrines subversive of the Civil Government under which they live. The Roman Catholicks or Papists are excluded by reason of Doctrines such as these: that Princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those they call Hereticks may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing of the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of Government..."
That's just a taste. There's plenty of other examples. Catholics were persecuted for around the first 150 years of our country. It's a historical fact. There were actual "Anti-Catholic" political parties, even, right alongside the "Anti-Masons".
Besides, what we went to war over (in terms of religion) was to STOP the government giving money to one religion. That's what "establishment" means in the first amendment, after all. Back then, your taxes PAID the local Anglican minister. That was what the Revolution ended. Now, you're arguing that Catholic Charities have some sort of inherent RIGHT to government money to do adoption services, when they want to discriminate against gays and single folks, which is illegal for a public agency in many states. They have no right to government largess. They can do adpotion if they want, ON THEIR OWN DIME. That is what the first amendment is all about -- there is NO RIGHT to government money for ANY religion. Period.
[27] -
It's in "dog whistle" language, but here you go:
"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies."
That's from the Declaration. The "neighboring Province" was Quebec. The subtle fearmongering was that Catholicism had been allowed to continue in Quebec, and the fear of the King doing the same thing in the Colonies was a strong rabble-rouser at the time. In other words, in today's language: "The King allowed Catholics religious freedom, and he could do the same here! Be afraid, be very afraid!!!"
Look into the history of anti-Catholicism in America. It stretches back further than the Revolution...
[Whew! I got to the end!]
OK, looking forward to comments on today's article, everyone...
-CW
Here's just a taste, most likely written by Sam Adams:"...by the Charter of this Province it is granted ordained and established (that is declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all christians except Papists..."
Regardless of whomever (likely) wrote this, Chris, it isn't what ended up in the Constitution/BoR freedom-of-religion clause. That's the point. Lots of those men held lots of different views, but what was agreed upon by them is what is written, signed and ratified. That's what gives us our constitutional freedoms today; not some lone statements or opinions held by one or five or ten of them but the words that they all agreed to and signed off on.
As an aside, that's a big problem I have with liberal interpretations of the framers' intent, in general: they have a tendency to myopically fixate, IMO, on something said by ONE framer (usually Jefferson), as if that one framer's words or sentiment(s) therefore represent the intent of ALL the framers. (And, to be clear, I'm not saying that you, personally, engage in that. I think you're a good student of history and give things lots of thought. I just see it happening a lot, in general, among the liberal crowd.)
And, yes, as a Catholic, I'm acquainted with the anti-Catholic sentiments back then (and, frankly, right up to the day of JFK.) But, again, the religious freedom clause, at the end of the day, came down to this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The very first words of the very first amendment speaks to religious freedom, Chris, and it says nothing about Catholics or Papists or any other faction of worshippers. That's We, the People — the rulers of our government — telling our federal public servants what they may and may not do when it comes to our religious beliefs and practices. It's saying "stay the hell out of it."
And here we have Obama, "mandating" that Catholic institutions (hospitals, schools, etc.) toss their 2,000-year-old Church tenets to the wind, against their will, and start FACILITATING the distribution of morning-after abortion pills.
[26] BashiBazouk:
Turns out those early colonists were not fighting for religious freedom, but the exact opposite.
[27] Chris1962:
Yeah, that sure would explain why they went to the trouble of creating a freedom-of-religion right for themselves (and us).
The framers, advocates, and ratifiers of the bill of rights in 1791 included a bunch of Deists who wanted freedom of religion for everyone. The political push behind it also included some Baptists who were too Pentecostal for the dominant denominations, and thus feared for their own freedom of religion.
But the early colonists of 1620 came to set up a theocracy with no religious freedom whatsoever.
But the early colonists of 1620 came to set up a theocracy with no religious freedom whatsoever.
That's a fun trivia fact, but it's got nothing to do with the first amendment right that the framers ultimately agreed to and signed off on. They didn't want a Henry VIII situation, or a "Church of England" establishment, to ever occur in America, with religious groups being persecuted and punished if they dared to practice THEIR own chosen faith against the "mandates" of a ruler. They were perfectly aware of how power-happy pols could become, too. Fast forward, and here we have precisely that: Obama dictating to Catholic institutions that they must violate the principles of their faith and the doctrine of the their Church and actively participate in getting the morning-after abortion pill into their hands of women. Really, O?
Chris1962 [33] -
Yeah, a lot of folks (left and right) tend to cherry-pick from the Revolutionary writings. You can find whatever you look for, if you look hard enough, I guess.
The founders had very different, and very divergent, opinions about religion. The anti-Catholic thing was mostly used by folks (Tom Paine springs to mind, too) that likely didn't personally have any great anti-Catholic feelings, but were using it as a wedge or hot button issue to rabble-rouse. In other words, much like a cynical politician today would use the public's prejudice about some issue or another to get elected.
You have a point about what made it into the Bill of Rights, versus what somebody said or wrote at some point. Even so, a lot of that lofty language wasn't made reality for a VERY long time (ask a black person about when "all men are created equal"... or for that matter any woman).
What I find annoying (I'm not lodging this complaint against you, this is a general comment) among people talking about the Founding Fathers today -- again, both on the left and the right -- is some sort of assumption that societal rules that exist now were the same back then. Like I said, this happens from both sides of the political divide, and it's annoying (it also happens to folks who quote Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy In America" quite often, I've noticed).
Anyway, where was I? Back to your comment. The Catholic Church hasn't had a 2000-year-old policy on birth control, I don't believe. I don't even think their anti-abortion stance is anywhere near that old.
I guess it all boils down to how you define "the free expression thereof." Is the free expression of religion running a hospital? Would the founders have thought so? [I don't have an answer to that, it was rhetorical.]
In your comments over at HP, you keep bringing up the fact that employees can go find another job. OK, but turn it around: the Catholic Church can get out of private business if it doesn't like the rules it must follow to operate such a business.
If some Catholic entities are providing birth control coverage in their insurance today (before the new rule), how is that squared with the Vatican? I don't have an answer to that question, but it's another one I'd like to see the media at least ask or find out. It could be central to the debate. If a Catholic university provides such coverage now, there must be a theological reason why it can do so and still keep in good standing with the home office.
Since you dinged me for not quoting the 1st in full, also, I've got to say that statements like the one that ends [35] don't admit that (1) the church itself is not being forced to do this -- churches are exempt, and (2) insert after the word "Church" the phrase "if they want to run hospitals and schools in America" because that is some needed context.
-CW
CW,
No, but we are allowed to "pursue happiness," right?
Exactly..
No where in the US Constitution does it say that happiness must be handed to Americans on a silver platter..
Can't remember, but like I said, do some searching on Google (the NEWS part, not the IMAGES part... heh),
Kill joy! :D
and I bet you find that public money does go for boob jobs.
And, if I recall correctly, insurance covers Viagra..
I disagree with that as much as I disagree with free birth control and free boob jobs...
Actually, I think it's that birth control is now classified as "preventative medicine" which is ALL now free.
"Do you have any sexually transmitted diseases?"
"Yea, two. A boy and a girl."
-DiResta
:D
Michale
You may be right about the election year thing, we'll just have to wait and see. And you are right about SCOTUS, the last case they took they ruled that a teacher in a religioius school wasn't allowed to sue for wrongful termination because they led the students in prayers -- meaning they were a religious employee not covered by labor laws. So we'll see.
Yea, that's kinda what I was getting at... In a real big test of Religion v Government at the SCOTUS, the government lost and lost big..
Which is why Obama picking this fight is all the more perplexing.. He has to know that, if it goes to the SCOTUS, it's likely that he will lose.
You (or someone else, not sure) made a point early about if religious organizations shouldn't be allowed to make something that is illegal, legal just by slapping a "Regligion" label on it.
But isn't that just what occurred in the previous SCOTUS ruling?? The ruling that sided with religion... The ruling where something that would be illegal had it been ACME Garage was made perfectly legal by the fact that it was ACME *CHRISTIAN* Garage...
Of course, redefining things ("slapping a label on it") to fit a particular agenda is not the sole purview of the Right... The Left does it all the time... And with great success I might add...
Michale
Yeah, a lot of folks (left and right) tend to cherry-pick from the Revolutionary writings. You can find whatever you look for, if you look hard enough, I guess.
"I did everything in the bible. Even all the stuff that contradicted all the other stuff!"
-Ned Flanders
:D
Michale....
I guess it all boils down to how you define "the free expression thereof."
Exercise.
No where in the US Constitution does it say that happiness must be handed to Americans on a silver platter.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about pursuing happiness, either.
if I recall correctly, insurance covers Viagra.
Does it have to, or is that a decision the insurance companies made? If the latter, well, you're free to start your own insurance company and issue yourself a policy that doesn't cover it.
Real plausible option, huh?
I'm not finding anything to suggest that insurance companies are required to cover Viagra.
"Insurance coverage of ED depends upon the type of treatment prescribed. If there is a documented medical condition that is shown to be causing ED, insurance will usually cover at least some of it."
http://www.webmd.com/erectile-dysfunction/guide/erectile-dysfunction-basics
"Access to reimbursable erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs for American men (i.e., the conditions under which they are prescribed, the number of doses deemed appropriate, and the amounts of copayments) depends on where they live, whether they have health insurance, and with whom they are insured."
http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v89/n1/full/clpt2010265a.html
So, if you don't like what an insurance company does, either go start your own insurance company or STFU, right? Isn't that the conservative line?
The Constitution doesn't say anything about pursuing happiness, either.
True, it's in the Declaration Of Independence.
So, we're agreed. No where in the US Constitution or the Declaration Of Independence does it state that the country owes the individual a living..
Does it have to, or is that a decision the insurance companies made? If the latter, well, you're free to start your own insurance company and issue yourself a policy that doesn't cover it.
Or, the government mandates that Insurance companies must provide it free of charge..
Real plausible option, huh?
Oh wait.. That's just what happened with Birth Control... :D
Michale.....
No where in the US Constitution or the Declaration Of Independence does it state that the country owes the individual a living.
The Declaration was about separating from Britain, and the Constitution is about the structure of the government and some basic limits on it. Even if every single American in the entire founding generation had considered the question of what should be done if the country ever became so rich that just transferring some money could completely end poverty as they knew it without noticeably inconveniencing the few super-rich people that the money was transferred from, and even if every last one of them fervently believed that such a policy was an absolute moral imperative --
It still wouldn't have been in the Constitution. Because the Constitution is about structure and limitations, not policy.
So whatever moral authority you hope to derive from the founders, you're not going to accomplish it by saying that the Constitution doesn't compel charity.
Or, the government mandates that Insurance companies must provide it free of charge.
You keep saying "free of charge". Insurance companies don't provide anything free of charge. They charge premiums, and then pay the agreed-upon benefits.
But you were replying to the "if the government doesn't mandate it" clause by saying 'or the government would mandate it'. That's just plain incoherent.
You don't like having insurance companies pay for erectile-dysfunction medication. Do you want to have government forbid them to do so?
If so, it's a huge step away from your doctrine of economic-might-makes-right and democratic-process-makes-wrong.
If not, your course of action is clear: as a conservative you must either start your own insurance company and not cover the drugs in question, or else STFU the way your doctrine says we all ought to do when we don't like the way economic pressures curtail people's freedom.
D'oh. My previous post contained two links, and is therefore held for moderation, creating a tiny bit of additional work for CW. Sorry about that.
You keep saying "free of charge". Insurance companies don't provide anything free of charge. They charge premiums, and then pay the agreed-upon benefits.
And the Obama Administration is telling businesses that they must provide insurance that includes Birth Control w/ co-pay (hence, free) even if said businesses have a moral stance against such offerings..
No matter how you want to spin it, it's Executive over-reach.. AGAIN...
It's a moot point, since the White House has back-pedaled on the issue...
Michale
It's called "journalism," and it ain't rocket science.
Unfortunately, it tends to disagree with certain political beliefs.
So a war was fought against journalism under the guise that it was "liberal" and journalism has gone the way of the dodo.
Under the new rules, research is out. Why research or ask people who might be affected?
All you have to do is go to the conservatives, ask them for their spin. Then, go to the Democrats and ask them for their response. Then, make sure to give equal space to both unless you give more space to conservatives (this is ok).
Instead of journalism, we have entertainment and endless Left/Right folly. What used to be journalism is now largely re-runs of Hannity and Colmes. A strong conservative response and a watered-down liberal response. You decide! :)
And since it's an election year, it's only going to get worse. Any guesses what the next big hyped controversy is going to be?
*yawn*
-David
p.s.
I only wish Democrats would pursue a law outlawing teenage boys from the Catholic church ;)
Chris1962 -
I read a good op-ed today on the whole cherry-picking among the Founding Fathers subject, that you'll probably find interesting.
Sorry I don't have a link, Google "Colin Woodard" and "Founding Fathers" and it'll pop up.
-CW
dsws [42/43] -
Did you mean "links" or "html tags"? I fixed the italics thing... but I didn't see a comment with any hyperlinks in it... let me know.
-CW
David [45] -
Maybe I should run a contest. Um, let's see... nope, I got nothing. Anyone?
I will venture a guess, though, that the next wedge issue appears right in the middle of the upcoming debate over extending the payroll tax holiday for the rest of the year.
In other words, before the month is out.
Sigh.
-CW
David,
So a war was fought against journalism under the guise that it was "liberal" and journalism has gone the way of the dodo.
Don't lay this all at the feet of conservatives...
I mean, Liberals did the same thing to journalism via their attacks on FoxNews...
Michale.....
I will venture a guess, though, that the next wedge issue appears right in the middle of the upcoming debate over extending the payroll tax holiday for the rest of the year.
It's an election year...
".... nature of the beast."
-Col. Hadley, THE FINAL OPTION
Michale.....
You keep saying "free of charge". Insurance companies don't provide anything free of charge. They charge premiums, and then pay the agreed-upon benefits.
The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/white-house-religious-employers-wont-have-to-cover-birth-control-but-insura
I'm just sayin'.....
Michale.....
Did you mean "links" or "html tags"? I fixed the italics thing... but I didn't see a comment with any hyperlinks in it... let me know.
I'll obfuscate it in case the software "recognized" it as an ad for you-know-what. I tried twice to post the following, with the links in their original intact form and the V word spelled out:
I'm not finding anything to suggest that insurance companies are required to cover V_____.
"Insurance coverage of ED depends upon the type of treatment prescribed. If there is a documented medical condition that is shown to be causing ED, insurance will usually cover at least some of it."
http(colon-slash-slash)www(dot)webmd(dot)com/erectile-dysfunction/guide/erectile-dysfunction-basics
"Access to reimbursable erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs for American men (i.e., the conditions under which they are prescribed, the number of doses deemed appropriate, and the amounts of copayments) depends on where they live, whether they have health insurance, and with whom they are insured."
http(colon-slash-slash)www(dot)nature.com/clpt/journal/v89/n1/full/clpt2010265a.html
So, if you don't like what an insurance company does, either go start your own insurance company or STFU, right? Isn't that the conservative line?
So, if you don't like what an insurance company does, either go start your own insurance company or STFU, right? Isn't that the conservative line?
I wouldn't know...
*MY* line has to do with the government forcing insurance companies to give away freebies...
That's not within the purview of the government, but it IS a very disturbing pattern that the Obama Administration has been displaying in the past 3 years..
Michale
If there is a documented medical condition that is shown to be causing ED, insurance will usually cover at least some of it.
and PMS/PMDD aren't legitimate medical conditions?
and PMS/PMDD aren't legitimate medical conditions?
"That's why there should be a woman president. There would never be any wars. Just every 28 days, some intense negotiations.."
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET
:D
PMDD?? That's a new one....
"Endangered dirt?? That's a new one."
-Christian Slater, BROKEN ARROW
:D
Michale.....
Chris: Terrific article. Thanks for pointing me to it. http://www.sunjournal.com/news/columns-analysis/2012/02/12/colin-woodard-regionalism-united-we-stand/1153040
Chris: In your comments over at HP, you keep bringing up the fact that employees can go find another job. OK, but turn it around: the Catholic Church can get out of private business if it doesn't like the rules it must follow to operate such a business.
Well, therein lies the entire problem with "mandates." Catholics have as much right to own businesses as anyone else, and to receive the same tax credits that any other business in the same field is entitled to. The government doesn't get to single them out and persecute them, OR force them to go against the tenets of their religion (in this case, participating in the dissemination of contraception and morning-after abortion pills, etc.) This is why the federal government — our public servants — have no place "mandating" a purchase from the private sector in the first place. That's what I've been saying from the get-go, if you'll recall. ;D And I think the administration is finally beginning to catch on: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72094.html
Meanwhile, have liberals given any thought to just how dangerous a "mandate" precedent is? What if a Republican White House and congress decides that it would be in your best interests if you were "mandated" to purchase a handgun, to better protect yourself from someone who may wish to break into your home and do you and your family harm? How would that sit with liberals? How about rolling that into the CrapCare law, since physical harm to your body MIGHT occur? How about having Czarina Sebilius decide that all Americans must wear a hat outdoors to protect against the threat of skin cancer? How about if a Republican congress decides that Muslim women should be "mandated" not to wear their head coverings, such as we see going on in France?
Once a "mandate" precedent is set, this becomes a very different country. Liberals need to do a little more long-term thinking before they so quickly surrender their freedoms to their federal public servants, IMO. Because their federal public servants can someday be Republicans in the White House and in control of congress.
What if a Republican White House and congress decides that it would be in your best interests if you were "mandated" to purchase a handgun
Don't you mean a musket? That was the original "mandate", after all. Of course, the White House hadn't been built yet, and the "Republicans" of the time were the political ancestors of today's Democrats.
Chris: Anyway, where was I? Back to your comment. The Catholic Church hasn't had a 2000-year-old policy on birth control, I don't believe. I don't even think their anti-abortion stance is anywhere near that old.
Just so you know, "pro-life" in the eyes of the Catholic Church stems from the belief that life is a gift from God, and God shouldn't be prevented/deterred from giving that gift. That's why the rhythm method is perfectly acceptable to the Catholic Church, because there are plenty of days in the month when a woman isn't primed to receive that gift. And sex for sex's sake is fine on those days. Catholics can swing from the chandallieres all they like. But during those couple of prime gift-receiving days, a husband and wife can either opt to receive that gift and have the baby that God gives them or abstain from sex for a big two or three days, or so.
Y'know, the contraception issue and the unemployment issue do show that both sides are consistent.
I'm a liberal. I want people to be free and productive. I believe that these goals are broadly compatible: people want to be involved in something worthwhile. Lottery winners often quit their current jobs, but then they go back to work, able to afford to be a bit more picky in what job they take. One-percenters on Wall Street don't quit at age 26 and spend the rest of their lives sitting in front of the tv, even though they could easily afford to. I also say that people should be free on religious questions. If you disapprove of contraception on religious grounds, don't use it. But if your bosses disapprove of contraceptions on religious grounds, they shouldn't get to exclude it from your insurance.
Conservatives consistently say that people should be controlled. They want government to sponsor the dominant religion, whether that be engraving the Ten Commandments on courthouses or having municipal crèches. They think ordinary people can be made to work only if bludgeoned into it by the fear of starvation. And they're all for giving you freedom of your boss's religion, when it comes to deciding which medical procedures you have access to.
Conservatives are consistent about their side, same as we liberals are about ours. The question is, why do they hate our freedom? Do they really believe that the only people who would continue working when rich just providentially happen to be those who are? That those in power are always right (unless the power comes via the ballot box)? And so on -- do they honestly think any more freedom for ordinary people would be a disaster?
dsws: Conservatives consistently say that people should be controlled.
You're stating your personal opinion/observation/characterization in the form of unequivocal fact. And have a look at what you just said: Here we have Obama handing down a MANDATE to every American, and you're claiming that conservatives are the ones who say that people should be controlled???
dsws: Don't you mean a musket? That was the original "mandate", after all.
Were ALL Americans required to arm themselves with muskets? No, just those in the militia. And, in fact, they weren't even mandated to purchase one; rather, just to have one in their possession. So what's your point?
Michale: It's a moot point, since the White House has back-pedaled on the issue...
They haven't backpedaled enough. Now they've got Catholics paying for contraceptives right out their pocket, in the form of premiums. The only way to resolve this mess is to kill the contraception "mandate" entirely.
Are we all beginning to see why "mandates" don't work in this country, my liberal friends?
Chris [58] -
I read that right after reading your comment on the Founding Fathers, so I thought it was worth pointing out. Glad you enjoyed it! Definitely a good read, no matter where you are on the political spectrum. And thanks for providing the link!
Here is a quote from James Madison, from a letter to Thomas Jefferson. I include it, because it is so ambiguous -- it's one of those things you can read anything you want into, should you be so inclined:
"My opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights... [but] I have not viewed it in an important light... because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power [of the US Constitution]. One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests, opened a door for Jews Turks & infidels."
It's hard to understand exactly what was going through his mind when he wrote this, and what position he was even taking. And it's easy to see how any snippet can be taken out of context. Just wanted to say that.
[59] -
Were you intentially making this point, or was it serendipitous? The example of purchasing a handgun may actually be one of the constitutional and Supreme Court precedents which get quoted in the ACA ("Obamacare") mandate case before the Supremes. In early America, there was a militia mandate somewhere up in New England (CT? not sure) which mandated that every household (or maybe every adult male, you can tell I haven't done my research, but I'm typing fast and Craig Ferguson's about to come on teevee, so you'll have to excuse me) had to purchase a long gun (musket or rifle, one would think) and ammo and powder -- in order to be ready to be part of the militia. In Switzerland, such laws exist today -- a gun must be in every household to protect the country, with serious penalties if the gun isn't used in defense of the country. Here in the US this law was revolutionary-era, but look for it to be cited in the upcoming SCOTUS arguments about government mandates, that's my guess...
But your larger point is indeed appreciated, and it's one that I often make here: be careful what you wish for, because your favorite party will not always hold the reins of power in Congress, or the White House.
dsws -
Aha! Someone else with historical memory!
:-)
Chris1962 -
Ah, but when did such thinking become papal and infallible? In Ireland, 1300 or 1400 years ago, there were female bishops in the Catholic Church... things change...
And here's a big question you've been avoiding: why now? Why did the Catholic Church and its subsidiaries (universities, hospitals, etc) not make a honkin' big issue of this -- when it has been state law for over a decade -- until Obama brought it up? How can they square the fact that several large universities have been paying for this coverage for YEARS and not complained about it until this precise political moment? That smacks of a whole lot of hypocrisy, to me at least.
Seen the polls recently? Obama doesn't seem to be hurting as a result of this issue. Republicans should beware of doubling down on it... because it may hurt them in the end.
=CW
Were ALL Americans required to arm themselves with muskets? No, just those in the militia.
All able-bodied adult males, iirc. Married women didn't exist in the eyes of the law anyway, in the days of "coverture".
Chris: And here's a big question you've been avoiding: why now? Why did the Catholic Church and its subsidiaries (universities, hospitals, etc) not make a honkin' big issue of this -- when it has been state law for over a decade -- until Obama brought it up?
Well, it has to do with the difference between state and government "mandates" and ALSO the difference between a person voluntarily sinning and being forced to sin by the government. So let's see if I can explain this:
First of all, there's no shortage of liberal/Dem pro-choice administrators in blue states, who (like many a pro-choice Catholic woman) is only too happy to violate Church doctrine when it comes to contraception. Also, in many of these states, all sorts of opt-outs and third-party arrangements (such as O is trying to do on the federal level) were hammered out so that the liberal/Dem Catholic's "conscience" could live with.
However, a state and a federal "mandate" are not the same animal. Although these "conscience" agreements have been hammered out with pro-choice Catholic administers across 28 states, this FEDERAL mandate would render them all null and void, because everyone would have to obey the FEDERAL rules, which are a lot stricter. And that "everybody" includes pro-life administrators, whose conscience isn't quite as flexible on the issue of birth control.
Here's where the entire Catholic Church itself comes in: States have their own constitutions. And while those states' Bishops may scream at these pro-choice Catholic administrators... (wait for it; here it comes)... every Catholic is entitled to SIN. All the Church is there to do is to try to get them not to; to guide them in their faith.
So here we have SINNING Cahtolic administrators across 28 states, with their Bishops screaming at them and praying for them, and with a flock of pro-choice Catholic women who have no problem having their state funds spent on contraception. You're not gonna find those pro-choice women taking this to the Supreme Court. Not until you take this issue to the federal level does a serious constitutional issue arise. Because now you've got the federal government forcing EVERY LAST CATHOLIC IN THE COUNTRY to sin, including the pro-lifers. And there's a mighty big difference between individuals choosing to sin and the federal government FORCING them to. That's a horse of an entirely different color. That's when the entire religion is under attack. And now you've got EVERY Bishop invoking the Church's constitutional right that protects Catholics (read: the ones who really do refuse to have anything to do with contraception) from being forced to violate their religious beliefs and Church doctrine.
And THAT'S why a federal (repeat: federal) "mandate" doesn't work in this country. Romney's STATE "mandate"? No problem, because when it's state-to-state, involving state constitutions and people choosing to sin, that's one thing. But when it's nationwide, with every last Catholic being forced to sin, that's a literal unconstitutional act on the part of the federal government.
Nice mess O got himself into, eh? Mind you, he's going to try to win the POLITICAL battle, but he's destined to lose the constitutional war, which is gonna go down BEFORE the election. So why even engage in the battle BEFORE he even knows if he possesses "mandating" power to begin with. I mean, isn't he — a former constitutional law instructor — gonna look silly enough if his mighty "mandate" is ruled unconstitutional??? And why wage this battle NOW — in an election year — when the "mandate" doesn't even take effect 'til about a year from now? Those are MY questions to you. ;D
Chris: In early America, there was a militia mandate somewhere up in New England (CT? not sure) which mandated that every household (or maybe every adult male, you can tell I haven't done my research, but I'm typing fast and Craig Ferguson's about to come on teevee, so you'll have to excuse me) had to purchase a long gun (musket or rifle, one would think) and ammo and powder -- in order to be ready to be part of the militia.
I know Craig was about to come on (LOL!) and that you generally research a topic, but this isn't exactly a precedent-setting mandate with respect to CrapCare's. I'm shocked the administration is even planning on using it. First, it didn't mandate a purchase by ALL Americans, as CrapCare does, so that immediately knocks it out of the "precedent-setting" box. And the militia men didn't even have to purchase those things; they just had to show up with them. Guys could've brought the stuff they already owned, or borrowed from a neighbor, or been given the stuff as a gift, or MADE it themselves, with their own two hands. So not even ALL the militia men had to make a purchase.
Putting aside the "all Americans" part, are We, the People, allowed or able to make your own insurance policy with our own two hands? Uh, no. We HAVE to purchase that product from an insurance company. And we're not even able to decide which coverage items WE want. Czarina Sebilius is dictating that to us. What's wrong with that picture?
If it's against your boss's religion to let you have the insurance you want, what you want doesn't count. Mmmkay. So, how about if it's against your boss's religion to let you continue breathing? After all, your choices about your own body don't count, when they violate your boss's religion.
dsws: If it's against your boss's religion to let you have the insurance you want, what you want doesn't count. Mmmkay. So, how about if it's against your boss's religion to let you continue breathing?
Do you know what a person in that position has every single right in the world to do? Seek employment elsewhere. They KNOW the Church's stance on these things. If you interviewed for a Kosher Jewish company, would you expect pork to be on the menu in the employee cafeteria? To listen to liberals, it's like a woman taking a job at the Playboy Club as a cocktail waitress and THEN deciding that she doesn't want to wear the bunny uniform. Life doesn't work that way. You're not entitled to anything you wish — and you're certainly not entitled to have somebody violate their faith in order to give it to you. Not in this country, anyway. If you don't like Catholic values, don't work at a Catholic institution... OR work at the place, but be prepared to buy your own contraceptives, just like you've been doing all along. Budget for it. Give up a cup of Starbuck's coffee.
Insurance coverage is necessarily a joint decision affecting all policyholders.
If your religion forbids you to hire people and let them have normal insurance, don't hire people for non-religious jobs. Have your church stick to being a church. Hire a priest: you can insist that your priest follows the strictures of your religion.
But don't have your church run a university, if it's against your religion to hire people for non-priest jobs on non-priest terms. Don't have your church run a hospital, if it's against your religion to hire people without shoving your religion down their throats.
dsws: Insurance coverage is necessarily a joint decision affecting all policyholders.
Yeah, and the perfect example of why "mandates" don't work in this country.
If your religion forbids you to hire people and let them have normal insurance...
It doesn't. It forbids a run-amok federal government from forcing Catholics to violate their faith and Church doctrines. Folks need to remember that the Constitution was written in the voice of We, the People, telling our public servants — Pelosi and Reid and O — what they may and may not do. And one thing they may not do is force us to pay premiums that cover something that is 100% against our religious beliefs and doctrine.
Another thing they may not do is single us out as business people and deny tax exemptions given to every other business within whatever given category. THIS is why the country was never structured for "mandates." Our public servants were never authorized to award themselves "mandate" power and then start dictating, based on their opinion of what's best of us, including imposing a secular law upon a nation that consists of 90% of people who believe in a god, 76% of whom are Christians.
Rather, We, the People — which includes Catholics — are their bosses, and we gave them very limited power to call shots. And forcing us to even purchase a product from the private sector, in the first place, is not among the powers they were given, no matter how freely liberals take it upon themselves to interpret the "welfare" statement to make it mean anything they want/need it to.
It forbids a run-amok federal government from forcing Catholics to violate their faith and Church doctrines.
The government is entirely right to force Bible-believing Christians to violate Exodus 22:18.
Chris: What I find annoying (I'm not lodging this complaint against you, this is a general comment) among people talking about the Founding Fathers today -- again, both on the left and the right -- is some sort of assumption that societal rules that exist now were the same back then.
Well, let's not forget that the framers included the right and ability to AMEND the Constitution. The problem liberals have, IMO, is that there aren't enough liberals in this country (21%, self-defined, and outnumbered 2-to-1 by conservatives) to scrape together the required votes to get a constitutional amendment passed that creates the kind of America that they would like to live in. And that's why they're forever trying to make the "welfare" statement mean whatever they want/need it to. Look no further than this unprecedented "mandating" power that a Dem president and congress just awarded to themselves and, if I might remind, against the will of the majority of Americans, who had said "no" to a mandate when Hillary was peddling it on the campaign trail and continued to reject it all throughout the crafting of CrapCare. And here we sit today, with every last Catholic in America — Bishops included — being "mandated" to pay for (in the form of premium payments) morning-after abortion pills. If that ain't a run-amok government, I don't know what is.
dsws: The government is entirely right to force Bible-believing Christians to violate Exodus 22:18.
Yeah, because We, the People — which includes Christians — allowed our public servants to create a law that precluded people from murdering them. We, the People, rule the government, not the other way around.
Yeah, because We, the People — which includes Christians — allowed our public servants to create a law
So when we, the people, allow our public servants to create a law that precludes people from meddling with their employees' insurance ...
dsws: So when we, the people, allow our public servants to create a law that precludes people from...
Otherwise known as the federal government dictating to people in the form of mandates, which We, the People, were dead-set against, yet had it forced upon us anyway? That's when We, the People, have a little constitutional problem with our run-amok public servants, which is the reason O's self-awarded mandating power is about to be reviewed and ruled upon by the Supremes.
dsws Insurance coverage is necessarily a joint decision affecting all policyholders.
And then came O's "mandate," which is changing all that, isn't it? There isn't gonna be any more personal decisions, i.e., to opt to have contraception coverage attached to one's coverage... or not. That's why we have a constitutional problem going on now. Devout anti-abortion-pill Catholics are being forced by Big Mommy Government to finance it anyway, in the form of premium payments, in violation of their first amendment protection.