Contraceptive Debate, Part 2
[Program Note: When I wrote yesterday's column, I did something I rarely do -- I cut a big chunk of it out. When I had finished writing it, I realized that I was making two separate arguments, and that the second one interfered too much with the point I was laying out in the first one. So I cut it. Because the debate over yesterday's article has moved into some things in the section that I cut, I thought I'd just run that part of it as a standalone article today. It may have a bit of an "unfinished" nature to it, which is why I thought I'd write this note as a preamble, by way of explanation.]
The other thing largely missing from this debate is the previously-mentioned fact that 28 states already have this rule on their books (NARAL has a handy map you can use to see these 28 states). This is a political misstep, more than a journalistic failure. News stories about the controversy have begun, in the past few days, to include this fact by at least mentioning it in passing. Obama and supporters of the White House's decision should focus on this fact when responding to the decision's critics. When faced with a quote from a bishop from New York, for instance, the immediate response from the administration should be: "I'm not sure why the bishop would say that, since his own state already mandates this coverage for these workers. Nothing will change in New York state -- this is actually the status quo there. The Catholic Church in New York already pays for contraception, so please tell me what, exactly, will change?"
The administration's opponents have succeeded (so far) in making the case that this is some sort of "attack on religion" which is unprecedented in American law. It isn't. Opponents of the president's new policy have made it sound as if this policy is some radical overreach, when in fact the majority of Americans already live in states with this law. It undercuts the critics to point out this fact, which is why it should be one of the central defenses the White House uses to frame the argument: "In fact, this new policy changes nothing in 28 American states, with a total of over 57 percent of the American population -- it merely standardizes a rule which the majority of America already lives under, so that all American women have the same opportunities for health insurance which covers their medical needs. How can you call something 'radical' when the majority of states have already passed the same law? By definition, a law which 28 states already have is pretty mainstream."
Barack Obama's White House has made two rulings in the past few months on women's health issues. The first was seen as a slap in the face to many on the Left. The second was seen in identical fashion by many on the Right. A few months back, the Obama administration overruled its own scientific advisors and refused to allow over-the-counter access to the "morning-after" pill to women of all ages. There was absolutely no medical or scientific reason to do so -- only a political one. The Obama administration now has accepted the advice of its own scientific advisors and ruled that universities and hospitals are not the same as churches, when it comes to offering health insurance. This was also a political decision, in a different direction.
Legally, there is a shifting borderline between religion and civil law. Obama's decision shifts this border slightly. It does not "force" the Catholic Church to do anything that they're not already doing in 28 states -- a situation they've apparently been living under without enormous public political outcries. These legal boundaries shift all the time -- a recent Supreme Court decision shifted the boundary in favor of the churches on who qualifies as a religious employee and who does not -- with repercussions over the right to sue the church for wrongful termination under civil employment-rights laws.
The "religious exemption" or "conscience clause" is not absolute, it bears pointing out, even for church employees themselves. The Catholic Church, for instance, is free to discriminate in its employment on gender grounds by refusing to hire women as priests. This would be illegal if they weren't a church. Churches are free to ignore certain laws when it comes to their own religious employees -- but not all of them. A church, for example, which advocated chattel slavery as part of their religious beliefs is free to exist in America, but it is not free to own slaves as "employees" -- even for religious jobs. A religion is free to advocate prayer-only medicine (in other words, the denial of any actual medical treatments other than praying), but they are not free to set up an ambulance company and respond to 911 calls by arriving on the scene and praying for people with medical needs, rather than hiring Emergency Medical Technicians to provide actual medical care. At some point, the religious exemption is trumped by secular law. Where that point exists is the entire debate we're now having. When churches enter into the secular business world -- such as when they set up a hospital or university -- they can lose their religious exemption to ignore equality laws every other similar business must operate under.
Mainstream American churches have, in the past, used Biblical passages to advocate the rightness of slavery. Mainstream American churches have also refused to allow blacks to join their congregations with the same status as white worshippers. Mainstream American churches have used the Bible to justify wife-beating, and corporal punishment for children. That is all fine and good (well, it's not, really; but it's legally all fine and good) -- the Constitution does not permit government to have any sort of sway over a church's beliefs in any way (except possibly if the church were mounting armed resistance to the government and calling it religion).
But it also doesn't mean justifying something religiously is any sort of trump card in American law. Nobody is allowed to own slaves anymore, whether you think the Bible approves or not. Nobody is allowed to beat their wife or children, whether your religion tells you it's OK or not. If you open a business -- even if you are a church -- you are not allowed to use child labor, and you are not allowed to discriminate by not hiring black people for secular jobs.
When a religion's tenets are in conflict with the greater society's laws, sometimes the secular government dictates what is allowable and what isn't. If this weren't true, then all anyone would have to do is slap the label "religious" on any illegal act, and it would be transformed into a legal act -- which, it's easy to see, could lead to all sorts of mischief.
Churches are free to set up secular businesses. In doing so, they must abide by the same federal laws that other similar businesses follow. That is the choice the church makes in entering that business field. Slapping a church's name on a business doesn't mean they can ignore labor laws and discriminate freely, no matter what their faith's tenets have to say about it. This is not unprecedented, it has been going on for a very long time in American law.
But, having said all that, it seems the White House has been caught a little flatfooted in this debate. You'd think they would have been more prepared for it, to put it another way. I think they've realized this now, but they need to redefine the debate on their terms -- for instance, by making the case that all women workers are about to get free birth control from their insurers (which Obama has strangely not made a big deal of yet). Most women aren't even aware of this change yet, but that doesn't mean they're not going to be for the idea.
The White House needs to do a better job of getting their message out in general. There are three or four states with very high Catholic populations which could decide the fate of the next presidential election (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, for example). The opponents of the Obama decision sure don't look like they're going to let the issue fade any time soon, so the president's spokespeople need to fight this battle on the airwaves. Quoting polls of how many Catholic voters favor the new policy (53%), or the percent of Catholic women who have used birth control (98%) helps, but the first fact quoted should be "28 states." If the debate shifts to "should we make 22 states conform to laws the other 28 states have already passed" it sounds a whale of a lot different to the average voter than "Obama is attacking religion with his radical, secular agenda!"
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It looks like the Spin War is already lost for Democrats..
Obama birth control policy divides Democrats
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIRTH_CONTROL_POLITICS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-09-17-37-24
Many Democrats are taking their cue from the Right....
Obama should cave sooner rather than later to minimize the fallout...
It's a foregone conclusion that Obama will have to back-pedal..
By doing so sooner rather than later, Obama has an opportunity to prevent a minor kerfluffle exploding into a major SNAFU...
Michale.....
But there IS a silver lining for Obama..
By stepping into the kaa-kaa hip deep with this contraceptive/Catholic issue, people are forgetting how Obama stepped into the kaa-kaa neck deep with his embracing of the Citizens United/SuperPACs ruling... :D
Michale.....
Legally, there is a shifting borderline between religion and civil law. Obama's decision shifts this border slightly. It does not "force" the Catholic Church to do anything that they're not already doing in 28 states...
I keep hearing this "28 states" quote, but God forbid a newspaper reporter should actually explain the details. From what I can gather, it seems there's more to it than meets the eye: "Even liberal states haven't gone this far," says the reporter in this WSJ commentary. The "28 states" discussion is around the 3:00 mark: http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-catholic-epiphany/D6F8A5D8-AF25-400C-9CF7-E509F7FFA8D8.html
I'm also reading articles with Bishops and other Catholic Church leaders of various states contending that Obama made promises to them which he's now renegging on, with this "mandate" announcement of his. (Sound familiar, my liberal friends? How many times has O promised something and then pulled the rug out from under you? I suspect that has something to do with Church leaders having agreed to whatever these state laws are, based on assurances from Obama that never materialized. That would explain why these leaders are only NOW up in arms about this "mandate," upon realizing that they've been Obama-duped.)
Y'know, if I might return to this "28 states" quote again, there really is a LOT more to this than the Left is implying. For instance, West Virginia is one of those "28 states" and, according to Joe Manchin, Catholic institutions can opt out of it (which is not the case with O's federal-level "mandate"). Check out the 1:50 mark of the first video: http://rundown.msnbc.msn.com/
By stepping into the kaa-kaa hip deep with this contraceptive/Catholic issue, people are forgetting how Obama stepped into the kaa-kaa neck deep with his embracing of the Citizens United/SuperPACs ruling... :D
conservative slant notwithstanding, that's actually an incredibly good point. the contraception issue is basically a side-show, while the super-PAC argument actually has teeth. by continuing to harp on the awful crime of insisting that contraception be covered if a doctor prescribes it, the public attention has almost completely left the obama administration giving in and embracing the super-PAC game.
Joshua,
conservative slant notwithstanding, that's actually an incredibly good point.
I have my moments.. :D
the public attention has almost completely left the obama administration giving in and embracing the super-PAC game.
Oh, I am sure we'll see this issue again... and again and again and again before Nov...
As you say, it's a good issue that really has bite...
Michale.....
Ya know, I think the BIGGEST thing missing from this Birth Control debate is the most glaringly obvious fact of all..
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama promise recalcitrant CongressCritters (Stupak et al) that CrapCare would not have any contraceptive coverage mandated??
I seem to recall that Obama promised this to gain support of the Stupak faction for CrapCare...
Joe Wilson was right when he said, "YOU LIE!!" to Obama....
Michale.....
Obama must be reading CW.COM again... :D
White House to Announce ‘Accommodation’ for Religious Organizations on Contraception Rule
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/
Did I call it in {#1} or what!???
"I think you two are going to be insufferably pleased with yourselves for at least a week. Sir."
-Spock, STAR TREK, Friday's Child
:D
Michale: Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama promise recalcitrant CongressCritters (Stupak et al) that CrapCare would not have any contraceptive coverage mandated??
Y'mean I'm not the only one who's noticed how veeeeeeery far out of the way the leftie press is going to keep that topic out of its coverage? You have to go to good ol' FOX to get that side of the story: http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/02/09/pro-life-ex-dem-congressman-betrayed-contraception-mandate The leftie news orgs will eventually be shamed into covering it.
Y'mean I'm not the only one who's noticed how veeeeeeery far out of the way the leftie press is going to keep that topic out of its coverage?
Joe Wilson's got a sheet-eating grin on his face today, I reckon... :D
Michale
Michale: Joe Wilson's got a sheet-eating grin on his face today, I reckon...
Hahahahaha!!!! OMG, I forgot all about Joe Wilson. That guy is totally vindicated. If you'd like to take a stroll down memory lane, there's a scene of his shout-out in this PBS documentary... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid ... along with a few more of O's more memorable whoppers. ;D
The House has passed a line-item veto bill, HR 3521.
Anyone have any opinions?
The House has passed a line-item veto bill, HR 3521.
Just the House? Or Senate too?
My first thought is I don't think that's such a good idea. I think it shifts the balance of power too much in the President's favor.
-David
michale/CB,
between the stupak deal and rep. wilson's outburst, neither had anything directly to do with contraception. wilson was shouting about medical services provided to illegal immigrants. connecting that to this is a leap of logic i'm not able to entertain seriously.
stupak's provision and the associated executive order (13535) were against abortion, not contraception. at least that's in the same stadium complex, and stupak himself may well wish his deal had been broader. nonetheless, abortion and birth control are still pretty darn far from being the same thing. anyone who believes they are both murder is free to confess to genocide themselves, or turn in to the authorities any friends or family members who have ever tried to have sex without getting pregnant.
~joshua
between the stupak deal and rep. wilson's outburst, neither had anything directly to do with contraception. wilson was shouting about medical services provided to illegal immigrants. connecting that to this is a leap of logic i'm not able to entertain seriously.
Obama did, indeed, lie... The fact that he did it in both areas is double damning..
nonetheless, abortion and birth control are still pretty darn far from being the same thing.
The current issue also includes drugs that are considered abortive. That's my understanding anyways..
anyone who believes they are both murder is free to confess to genocide themselves, or turn in to the authorities any friends or family members who have ever tried to have sex without getting pregnant.
Don't get me wrong.. I am not siding with the hysterical Right-To-Lifers who thinks life begins with "Damn, she's hot"...
My only dog in this hunt is the continued over-reach of government control in the private market...
Michale.....
Just the House? Or Senate too?
Just the House. My guess is DOA in the Senate, but that's pure guess.
I am not siding with the hysterical Right-To-Lifers who thinks life begins with "Damn, she's hot"...
Not siding with them, except for, y'know, being on the same side as they are.
I have sort of the same problem with various embarrassingly-clueless lefties and horrifyingly-conservative Democrats. On various issues I'm not on their side, but I am on their side of the political dichotomy. It's an inevitable feature of any two-party (single-seat plurality) system. I want majority voting for president, keep the plurality system for the Senate, and have a more proportional system for the House.
But there's a difference: the lunatic anti-abortion crowd is running the show on your side, at least with regard to their issue.
Not siding with them, except for, y'know, being on the same side as they are.
Other than that...
Their reasoning is illogical and hysterical..
My reasoning is sound and logical..
But there's a difference: the lunatic anti-abortion crowd is running the show on your side, at least with regard to their issue.
Tis true, tis sad. Tis sad, tis true.
Michale....
nypoet between the stupak deal and rep. wilson's outburst, neither had anything directly to do with contraception.
O's penchant for promising something and then renegging on it falls perfectly under the heading of "YOU LIE!" Obama does, indeed, have a penchant for lying. Like so:
As Barack Obama battled Hillary Rodham Clinton over health care during the Democratic presidential primaries of 2008, he was adamant about one thing: Americans, he insisted, should not be required to buy health insurance.
“If things were that easy,” Mr. Obama told the talk show host Ellen DeGeneres in February of that year, “I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/health/policy/insurance-mandate-may-be-health-bills-undoing.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Wilson's "YOU LIE!" sums things up perfectly, IMO.
“If things were that easy,” Mr. Obama told the talk show host Ellen DeGeneres in February of that year, “I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”
He was right. A mandate isn't enough.
He wasn't deeply opposed to the mandate. You'll never find a quote showing that he was (not a real one, anyway). He knew the insurance companies wanted a mandate, so he didn't want to include a one in the initial offer but keep it as a bargaining chip instead. The thing about a bargaining chip is that you intend to spend it.
He argued against a mandate mostly because it was the most noticeable difference between his policy positions and Hillary Clinton's.
dsws: He wasn't deeply opposed to the mandate. You'll never find a quote showing that he was (not a real one, anyway).
Then why are you saying that he wasn't deeply opposed if nothing exists to back your contention up? That boils down to nothing more than your personal opinion, not a "fact" about O's intentions. All I know is that he promised one thing and then promptly sold out to the insurance lobbyist, as illustrated in that PBS Frontline clip. Wasn't he the guy who also wasn't going to be giving in to the same old special interests? Or was he never really deeply opposed to that, either?
Sorry, but I'm with Joe Wilson. Obama does indeed lie, and that's based upon quotes you can find.
Michale -
It is to laugh, no? [done in a French accent]. While Fox News may have thought this a big deal, I don't think there's a single Democrat who is upset about Obama's embrace of Super PACs, realistically. Oh, sure, the campaign finance reform absolutists will bitch, but nobody's going to pay attention to them. Obama is announcing "I'm not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind my back" and his supporters are going to cheer him for doing so. Sorry.
Chris1962 [3] -
Some of those 28 states don't even have an exemption for churches themselves -- everyone has to play by the same rules for employment. Period. Still an advocate of states' rights? Just wondering....
nypoet22 -
I somehow think this is going to pass over the heads of most voters, myself...
Michale [6] -
Who, exactly, on the Right is going to bring this up? They've all got their hands dirty as well... takes clean hands to take that moral high road, don't forget...
Michale [7] -
I think you're thinking about abortion, not contraceptives. I'm too tired to Google "Stupak amendment" but feel free to do so...
Joe Wilson will not be remembered by history. Obama will. Bet the farm on that....
dsws [12] -
I actually support this, if it can make it past SCOTUS, which has already knocked it down once. I was suprised to see a Republican House offer this power to a Democratic president.
akadjian [13] -
Ah, but read the details. Both houses of Congress have to vote on any revisions, which they're hoping will pass constitutional muster...
nypoet22 [14] -
Aha! A voice of sanity! And one who has done his research!
:-)
Michale [15] -
[Insert Spock quote here] "...considered abortive" is a political qualification. Doctors disagree. Just the facts, Ma'am. So to speak.
Although I have to admit your "...who thinks life begins with "Damn, she's hot"..." was pretty downright hilarious...
Michale [17] -
Now that's why I like you, because you can admit when your side has a beam in its eye. I know, most Lefties can't do the same, but far too few Righties have even remembered how, too.
-CW
CW,
I don't think there's a single Democrat who is upset about Obama's embrace of Super PACs, realistically.
But that's exactly my point..
They SHOULD be upset.
This was a man who said that Citizens United/SuperPACs are a "threat to our democracy"...
Even here on the pages of CW.COM, the Citizens United ruling took a real beating...
But, just as I predicted, if the ruling could be used to help Democrats, then all of the sudden it would become no big deal..
Joe Wilson will not be remembered by history. Obama will. Bet the farm on that....
Depends on whose writing the history books.. :D
Although I have to admit your "...who thinks life begins with "Damn, she's hot"..." was pretty downright hilarious...
I was kinda proud of that one myself.. :D
Michale.....
takes clean hands to take that moral high road, don't forget
By "clean", you mean "washed in the blood of the Lamb"? In politics, moralism is a perfect substitute for morality.
I actually support this, [line-item veto] if it can make it past SCOTUS, which has already knocked it down once.
It's certainly possible to make a line-item veto that would be constitutional.
Spending bills must originate in the House, and the House has unlimited power to make its own rules. All you need is a House rule fast-tracking any budget bill that includes a line-item-veto provision in it (affecting the items in the bill), and throwing barriers in the way of any budget bill that doesn't. It wouldn't be technically a veto: it would just authorize spending at the discretion of the president, rather than appropriating money outright.
Or you could expand "demon pass": instead of one budget bill, let congresscritters vote yes-to-all on a whole package of bills. That certainly falls within the "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" power. Since they're separate bills, they can be vetoed separately.
Chris: Some of those 28 states don't even have an exemption for churches themselves -- everyone has to play by the same rules for employment. Period. Still an advocate of states' rights? Just wondering....
I've yet to see a newspaper article breaking these 28 states out, so I don't know who has what going on. But I'm gonna take a wild guess that an awful lot of those states are blue, with liberal/Dem legislatures, governors and residents only too happy to pay for morning-after abortion pills. Get into those heavy-duty pro-life states and I don't think you're gonna find the same warm-fuzzy reception.
I also understand that most of those states provide exemptions:
BACKGROUND: While almost all insurance plans cover prescription drugs, some still do not provide coverage for the range of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. More than half of states, however, require insurance policies that cover other prescription drugs to also cover all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices, as well as related medical services. Some of these state policies allow employers or insurers to refuse to cover contraceptives on religious or moral grounds. Other states have limited mandates requiring coverage of contraception that apply to either specific types of insurers, such as health maintenance organizations (HMOs), or coverage written for a segment of the insurance market... http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/spib_ICC.pdf
And, yes, I'm for state's rights. You'll notice 28 states have this going on, not all of them, as O's federal CrapCare "mandate" has dictated. If liberal/Dem administrators want to violate their Church's doctrine and go along with it — if not outrightly support it — that's one thing. When Big Mommy Government starts dictating it, that's quite another.