Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Elok]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Boris. I was under the impression the RCC actually gave a **** and wasn't just using this to make a fuss. Now, it's not just a Catholic thing--there are other churches with similar beliefs, and I don't think they should be made to violate them either--but that pretty much eliminates the argument from the Catholic end, I think.

[gribbler]

Obama's re-election chances are up to 61% on Intrade. Is he some kind of evil genius who masterminded a Santorum surge in the midwest?

[Boris Godunov]

An even larger percentage of Catholics ignore the church's teaching on contraception in the first place. Irrelevant. A religious organization doesn't want to act against its own teachings. That a large percentage of its flock is disobedient is neither here nor there. As is my own belief, and yours, that those particular teachings are utter nonsense.

Wait, if it's irrelevant what Catholics actually think, then why'd you bring it up first?

The administration has achieved a largely symbolic victory at the price of pissing off the RCC, conservative Catholics, and even a few moderate Catholics.

Which works out to the same thing. Their money is paying for contraception.

There's a BIG difference in terms of public perception, and you know that. Tell someone that the government is forcing their church to buy condoms for people, that's pretty incendiary. Explain to them that, no, what's happening is that the government is requiring all employers (except churches, but including church-run hospitals and charities) to provide healthcare insurance that covers contraception (not just condoms) to their employees (who aren't necessarily of the faith of the organization), and you'll get a much different reaction.

Reasonable points, but still not justification for requiring a church to go against its own teachings. And $50 per month IS pretty damned cheap, and your report said that was at the high end. You pay more than that for cable, FFS. If you can't afford that, that's an argument for raising the minimum wage, not for insurance covering the pill.

What if part of a church's teachings is that it shouldn't pay its janitors more than $5/hour? And if the government requires a religious entity to pay its workers more with the intent that it will allow the employees to buy birth control, how is that practically any different?

And $50/month is a big deal to those making very little, yes. Did you read the study I cited? Increased subsidization to birth control leads to dramatic increases in its use. It's easy to sit from a perspective of privilege and poo-poo that amount, but it's not at all insignificant.

This is assuming the government doesn't just subsidize the bloody things itself, or pay for an NGO like PP to do it. That might open up a "not with my tax dollars" can of worms, but I doubt it. Most objections I've heard to government funding of PP involve its abortion activities and the silly fig leaf that is the Hyde Amendment (though at $500 a pop I doubt the abortion part really needs funding anyway; odds are all the funds are in fact going towards other services).

Considering that the forces screaming about this provision are largely the same ones who oppose universal healthcare, that seems very much like a Catch-22. And yes, they would make just as as much political hay out of that. Don't you remember Bart Stupak's gambit during the healthcare debate? At any rate, under this logic, since employees have to contribute to their insurance plans, even if provided by an employer, they can just assume that "insignificant" cost of the birth control is coming from the employee's contribution. Problem solved.

[Boris Godunov]

Most of all, though, I don't like the specious distinction between churches and church-run institutions. It's not their place to say what is or isn't part of the church's core mission.

I don't like that distinction either... but in the opposite direction. If I founded a secular social club or charity based on my personal values, I wouldn't get exemptions from federal regulations like you think churches should. It's bullshit favoritism for religious people.

What's to stop a church from designing any number of things as its "core mission" to avoid any regulation it didn't want to follow? Keep in mind that church-affiliated hospitals, charities and so on already have to follow a ton of employment regulations for which they aren't exempted. Can't use slave labor just because you're a church, nope. Can't exploit children. Can't discriminate based on gender, race, etc. Why should we tolerate them discriminating against employees who don't follow their beliefs when it comes to their providing insurance like all other employees have to do?

[Boris Godunov]

Not necessarily, if it's viewed as a matter of religious liberty. However,

I don't think that argument is working, considering there is strong public support for the requirement. And it's just as likely to motivate folks in favor of the rule as it is against it.

There are a good number of religious leaders coming out in favor of this rule because it's about coverage of an essential part of women's healthcare. Those opposed to it don't speak for religious people as a whole.

[Boris Godunov]

Wait, Romney is dismissing last night's disasters by comparing himself to John McCain in 2008.

I'm all in favor of that comparison, Mitt.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe that is correct as written in the health care reform bill which passed a couple of years ago.

The point is that it shouldn't be.

There is an American tradition of religion as a private affair, but this is hardly the traditional m.o. of all religions. Certainly not for Catholicism, which has had its schools and hospitals for centuries.

Which is another reason Catholics are pissed off. The government is basically mandating a Protestant view of what religions should be (I have heard a lot of, admittedly overblown, rhetoric comparing this to what Catholics had to deal with in the late 19th and early 20th Century).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Considering that the forces screaming about this provision are largely the same ones who oppose universal healthcare

They aren't. IIRC Catholic Bishops were for Obamacare, as it advanced the Catholic mission of providing for the poor - with some being very worried it could mean they'd be required to fund abortions or contraception, but the Progressive Catholic Bishops said that'll never happen. Some of those folks are pissed because they stuck their necks out to be told "I told you so".

[gribbler]

If this is pissing off Catholics who like to shove their religion in everyone's faces then maybe this isn't so bad

[Boris Godunov]

They aren't. IIRC Catholic Bishops were for Obamacare, as it advanced the Catholic mission of providing for the poor - with some being very worried it could mean they'd be required to fund abortions or contraception, but the Progressive Catholic Bishops said that'll never happen. Some of those folks are pissed because they stuck their necks out to be told "I told you so".

Progressive Catholic Bishops aren't the ones screaming about this move, it's the same group that opposed the Affordable Care Act in 2010. You can check the USCCB site for a slew of links and commentary against the act. At any rate, as cited above, Catholics as a whole are NOT the ones screaming about this. It's White Evangelicals who form the greatest opposition.

[Boris Godunov]

It's a good rule of thumb that anything that pisses off William Donohue is a righteous, moral and just thing.

[DinoDoc]

They aren't. IIRC Catholic Bishops were for Obamacare, as it advanced the Catholic mission of providing for the poor - with some being very worried it could mean they'd be required to fund abortions or contraception, but the Progressive Catholic Bishops said that'll never happen. Some of those folks are pissed because they stuck their necks out to be told "I told you so".

I wonder how Sister Carol Keehan feels right now given her PR work in favor of the law. I'm genuinely curious why the Admin is trying to openly pick a fight with a voting block he won last go around. What's the upside here given that they even have liberals either speaking out against it or saying the policy has been badly mishandled?

[DinoDoc]

Progressive Catholic Bishops aren't the ones screaming about this move,

Top Catholic bishop feels betrayed by Obama

it's the same group that opposed the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

Tim Kaine, Bob Casey and House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson all opposed Obamacare?

[Dinner]

I wonder how Sister Carol Keehan feels right now given her PR work in favor of the law. I'm genuinely curious why the Admin is trying to openly pick a fight with a voting block he won last go around. What's the upside here given that they even have liberals either speaking out against it or saying the policy has been badly mishandled?

The claim that Obama is waging a "war on religion" is complete bullshit and he's probably going to win the Catholic vote this time just like he did last time because 98% of Catholics use birth control and support birth control.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202080001

[Jon Miller]

I don't see how Catholics using birth control matters in this discussion.

JM

[DinoDoc]

The claim that Obama is waging a "war on religion" is complete bullshit and he's probably going to win the Catholic vote this time just like he did last time because 98% of Catholics use birth control and support birth control.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202080001

This post is wrong for 2 reasons. 1) I never made the claim that Obama is waging a so-called war on religion. I said it looks as if he is picking a fight with a voting block he won last go round for no good reason. 2) Private use of birth control by Catholics is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Dinner]

1) You didn't come out and say it, you'd never be that straight forward or free of double talk, but you used the same language as Fox News and others who constantly spoke about "Obama's war on religion" and you clearly were trying to build on that discredited meme. 2) No, it is not irrelivent. If 98% of Catholics use it and support it's use privately then a discussion about how evil and immoral contraceptives are by the Catholic church is clearly colored by this fact.

[DinoDoc]

1) You didn't come out and say it, you'd never be that straight forward or free of double talk, but you used the same language as Fox News and others who constantly spoke about "Obama's war on religion" and you clearly were trying to build on that discredited meme.

Your desire to read things in others posts that aren't there is noted.

2) No, it is not irrelivent. If 98% of Catholics use it and support it's use privately then a discussion about how evil and immoral contraceptives are by the Catholic church is clearly colored by this fact.

The discussion in case it has missed your notice isn't about the private behavior of Catholics but in forcing the Church itself to violate its teachings or not allowed to go about its mission.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Progressive Catholic Bishops aren't the ones screaming about this move

Plenty of them are.

[OzzyKP]

http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/01/...rapy-for-gays/

What if the Government Ordered the Human Rights Campaign to Cover Conversion Therapy for Gays?

Posted by Thom Lambert on January 23, 2012

A thought experiment:

It’s late January 2016. Newt Gingrich is President. The House of Representatives is solidly Republican, and there’s a slight Republican majority in the Senate. Because Republicans lack a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) remains on the books. (The reconciliation process, which allowed the law to be enacted without supermajority support in the Senate, could not be used to repeal the law.) The Act continues to require employer-provided insurance to provide full coverage for all preventive care measures.

Secretary Rick Santorum of the Department of Health and Human Services has determined that conversion therapy for gay males will help prevent all sorts of costly health problems. HIV and related health problems, it seems, are extremely costly to treat and are far more common among gay men than among straight men. HHS has determined that the most modern conversion therapies can cheaply and successfully alter sexual orientation or, at a minimum, reduce homosexual impulses so that they can be managed by homosexually oriented patients who would prefer not to engage in homosexual activity.

President Gingrich and Secretary Santorum have therefore mandated that employer-provided health insurance policies cover gay conversion therapies. Claiming to be sensitive to the concerns of gay groups, they have included a narrow exemption for employers who don’t employ or serve significant numbers of straight people. In reality, though, none of the major gay and lesbian advocacy groups (e.g., the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD) or publishing organizations (e.g., The Advocate, OUT Magazine) could qualify for this exemption because all employ a great many gay-affirming straight people and include outreach to heterosexuals as one of their objectives.

Can you imagine the howls from the New York Times, the television networks, and basically every other political commentator in America? Andrew Sullivan might just explode. And rightly so. Forcing gay groups to pay for a procedure that so deeply offends their core principles would be beyond the pale in a liberal society that respects personal conscience and the right of individuals to associate in groups that share their values – a right that can exist only if groups are allowed to express those values and, to the extent they aren’t hurting others, order their affairs according to them.

So why do President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius get a pass when they order Catholic schools, hospitals, and social service agencies to cover birth control, sterilization, and the morning after pill? The ridiculous “exemption” they created shows how little they know about what churches actually do: Christ’s apostles themselves wouldn’t have qualified because they, like any church worth its salt, served multitudes of nonbelievers. Providing an extra year to come into compliance does nothing to alleviate the fundamental problem (Is the doctrinal conflict going to disappear next year?) and is a transparent attempt to deflect media attention until after the 2012 election. There are lots of Catholics in Ohio and Pennsylvania, after all.

One might say that my analogy fails because the science doesn’t show that gay conversion therapy actually works, and it therefore wouldn’t reduce total health care costs. But that’s beside the point. Even if there were a therapy that could cheaply and effectively make gay people straight (i.e., a pill or a quick surgical procedure) it would still be inappropriate to force groups whose central objective is to affirm gay people and fight anti-gay bias to provide coverage for such a therapy.

My point is not to defend the Catholic Church’s views on birth control (with which I disagree), to defend gay conversion therapy (which I think is a harmful crock), or to question the mission of gay rights organizations. Instead, I mean to point out that governments in liberal societies do not force individuals or voluntary associations to violate their consciences where their conscience-following does not violate the rights of others. Yet another example of Obamacare’s heavy hand.

[dannubis]

...., as it advanced the Catholic mission of providing for the poor - ....

Dude... seriously, but

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ozzy

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dude... seriously, but

... I'm confused as to why that's funny.

[Guynemer]

Santorum surge

PHRASING

[Guynemer]

Ozzy

Oh come the **** on. Show me the evidence-based support for conversion therapy, and THEN feel free to use the thumbs up.

[OzzyKP]

Oh come the **** on. Show me the evidence-based support for conversion therapy, and THEN feel free to use the thumbs up.

If there were, would you support a requirement that it be added to health plans?

[DinoDoc]

Oh come the **** on. Show me the evidence-based support for conversion therapy, and THEN feel free to use the thumbs up.

My point is ... to point out that governments in liberal societies do not force individuals or voluntary associations to violate their consciences where their conscience-following does not violate the rights of others.

[Guynemer]

That is a complete line of bullshit, DD. I was forced to violate my conscience by paying for preemptive wars and assassinations this past decade.

[Guynemer]

If there were, would you support a requirement that it be added to health plans?

1) There aren't.

2) If there was, sure. It's not like gays would be forced into conversion therapy, just as Catholics are not forced to take contraceptives.



This is much ado about nothing, another completely manufactured faux-outrage by America's #1 industry, Faux-Outrage 'R' Us.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh come the **** on. Show me the evidence-based support for conversion therapy, and THEN feel free to use the thumbs up.

What does any evidence matter. This is not about the effectiveness of the treatment.