Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Hauldren Collider]

WTF Santorum?!

How the hell...?

QFT

[Dinner]

Brokered Convention, here we come?

Well, one big change is that now that Trump has officially endorsed mittens he can't really make another independent run.

[Krill]

...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have also read speculation that the Administration's decision on not exemption Catholic hospitals from requiring contraception in their health plans, and especially the 9th Circuit's ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, focused the primaries yesterday on social issues. And on that, Santorum wins big time.

[Krill]

I have also read speculation that the Administration's decision on not exemption Catholic hospitals from requiring contraception in their health plans, and especially the 9th Circuit's ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional

How? Actually quite interested in the reasoning on that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is a thread on it (Oerdin's horribly titled "Suck that Mormons"). Basically asserting that since civil marriage has the same benefits of marriage without the name that denying the name doesn't survive rational basis (If I read it correctly).

[Elok]

Which means, in essence, governments can still deny gay marriage, they just can't allow gay marriage under the name of "civil unions." Or something like that. Odd.

The contraceptive bungle is more serious, I think. The policy essentially requires Catholic employers other than churches to pay for something they have moral objections to. It might be less silly if the coverage were for something expensive and vital--if they objected to organ transplants, for example. But it's contraceptives. They're not all that expensive, employees can simply pay out-of-pocket. Condoms in particular are dirt-cheap. The administration has achieved a largely symbolic victory at the price of pissing off the RCC, conservative Catholics, and even a few moderate Catholics. Plus energizing social conservatives in general, who are inclined to see this as a First Amendment issue and circle the wagons whether they oppose contraceptives or not. I mean, I'm all for increased contraceptive use and I think it's over the line. Lord only knows how real conservatives feel.

[giblets]

If they're so cheap why are Catholics getting so pissed off?

[DinoDoc]

If they're so cheap why are Catholics getting so pissed off?

They are morally opposed to them regardless of price.

[Imran Siddiqui]

... yeah. Did you think the Catholics were pissed because it'd cost more?!

[Krill]

Which means, in essence, governments can still deny gay marriage, they just can't allow gay marriage under the name of "civil unions." Or something like that. Odd.

The contraceptive bungle is more serious, I think. The policy essentially requires Catholic employers other than churches to pay for something they have moral objections to. It might be less silly if the coverage were for something expensive and vital--if they objected to organ transplants, for example. But it's contraceptives. They're not all that expensive, employees can simply pay out-of-pocket. Condoms in particular are dirt-cheap. The administration has achieved a largely symbolic victory at the price of pissing off the RCC, conservative Catholics, and even a few moderate Catholics. Plus energizing social conservatives in general, who are inclined to see this as a First Amendment issue and circle the wagons whether they oppose contraceptives or not. I mean, I'm all for increased contraceptive use and I think it's over the line. Lord only knows how real conservatives feel.

Oh, sorry, the Prop 8 I knew about, I meant the contraception.

I think that's interesting, though. So the healthcare benefits the employer gives to the employee means that the employer has to pay for contraceptives? Isn't that the same logic that makes a Jehovah's Witness employer have to pay for blood transfusions?

[Elok]

Yes, and IMO both policies are rather silly. Almost everyone, including most Catholics, agrees that the RCC's reasoning WRT contraception is convoluted and goofy, and of course religious opposition to all healthcare is pretty well universally derided. It'd be more complicated in the case of the JW because blood transfusions are more expensive and often absolutely necessary for patient survival. The utter pettiness of the contraception mandate actually makes it worse. Making an employer pay, against his conscience, for optional preventative care that was already perfectly affordable? That's a big ol' "**** you" as far as Catholic hospitals and universities are concerned. I might add that the mandate includes certain contraceptives which the RCC (and my own church) regards as abortifacients; they can prevent embryos from implanting.

There's an exemption for churches, but only churches, not religious charities or other institutions. They've also made a "compromise" allowing religious employers an extra year to comply with the rules. Which, of course, means that they can't employ civil-disobedience tactics before the presidential elections. Clever.

EDIT: Wait, I'm not sure when exactly the regs kick in for employers in general. Scratch that last bit.

[giblets]

They are morally opposed to them regardless of price.

If contraceptives are cheap then making employers pay for them won't have much effect on how frequently this "immoral" activity occurs.

[DinoDoc]

If contraceptives are cheap then making employers pay for them won't have much effect on how frequently this "immoral" activity occurs.

Are you stupid? The uproar is due to the requirement they religious organization/employers pay for them.7

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seriously. This is either deliberte obtuseness or just stunning ignorance.