Seriously, GOP? Really?

[DaShi]

The man is a genius. He's coming out smelling like a rose on this one, like he does everything.

[Uncle Sparky]

I believe you are confusing the Department of Labor's jurisdiction over health plans with the state or federal government being able to prosecute crimes under criminal law.

Well, can the Dept. of Labor intervene in a union dispute at a Catholic hospital? Can religious hospitals even have unions? I'm not trolling (yet), but i'm curious. As you have expertise in this area, I'd like to learn.

[Dinner]

'

Does this mean Obama is not one of the 90%?

Why would you think Obama is a woman? Seriously, that's dumb even for you.

[Uncle Sparky]

Why would you think Obama is a woman? Seriously, that's dumb even for you.

Now who looks dumb.

[Boris Godunov]

Boris Godunov, let me get this straight:

You are saying that by mandating that the Catholic Church provide condoms and birth control pills to its employees, there will be a significant decrease in the number of abortions carried out in the United States, and therefore Hauldren Collider's simultaneous claim that this is unjust and ridiculous and that abortion is wrong is disingenuous?

1. The Catholic Church isn't being mandated to provide contraception to its employees. All employers are being mandated to include contraception in their insurance coverage, except for those directly employed by the churches. Nobody is singling out the Catholic Church here.
2. It is in no way disingenuous to highlight the moral hypocrisy of those claiming to be anti-abortion by noting their unwillingness to seriously prevent abortions from actually taking place. Legal prohibition does not accomplish this.

First: there is no data-driven basis to believe that mandating health insurance provide condoms and the pill to people will actually have a substantial impact on the number of people who use contraception correctly, to the point that there are fewer pregnancies, such that there are also fewer abortions. Second, holding the simultaneous ideas that abortion is wrong and so is forcing a church to give its employees contraception that they can easily acquire anyway is in no way contradictory. Even if they work across purposes, it is still consistent to hold the ideas that one violates religious freedom and the other violates the right to life.

Yes, data does indicate such, as I've already provided a couple of times. And if you want additional evidence, there's a pretty dramatic case in Russia. Prior to the 1990s, while abortion was state-funded in the USSR, there was virtually nothing in the way of family planning and contraception provisions. The Russian government started giving out free birth control in 1992, and that led to a massive 61% decline in the abortion rate:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

Another thing to note is that of the countries where abortion is legal and relatively unrestricted, the U.S. stands out as having a dramatically higher rate than other such countries. The difference? Those other countries all provide contraception to their citizens as part of their universal healthcare coverage. While your insinuation that women are too stupid to use birth control properly when it's easily available is amusing, the data available shows otherwise.

The "violate religious freedom" argument doesn't wash. I'll quote a prominent Catholic American jurist on that front:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis,310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Id. at 166-167.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a
valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, supra, 310 U.S. at 595 (collecting cases). In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), we held that a mother could be prosecuted under the child labor laws [p880] for using her children to dispense literature in the streets, her religious motivation notwithstanding. We found no constitutional infirmity in "excluding [these children] from doing there what no other children may do." Id. at 171. InBraunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) (plurality opinion), we upheld Sunday closing laws against the claim that they burdened the religious practices of persons whose religions compelled them to refrain from work on other days. InGillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 461 (1971), we sustained the military selective service system against the claim that it violated free exercise by conscripting persons who opposed a particular war on religious grounds.
Our most recent decision involving a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual's religion was United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 258-261. There, an Amish employer, on behalf of himself and his employees, sought exemption from collection and payment of Social Security taxes on the ground that the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs. We rejected the claim that an exemption was constitutionally required. There would be no way, we observed, to distinguish the Amish believer's objection to Social Security taxes from the religious objections that others might have to the collection or use of other taxes.
If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.
Id. at 260. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner,490 U.S. 680 (1989) (rejecting free exercise challenge to payment of income taxes alleged to make religious activities more difficult). [p881]

--Antonin Scalia, Oregon v. Smith 1990

The "religious freedom" argument fails because this doesn't in any way force an individual to use birth control against her beliefs, and the obligation being enforced is not singling out religious entities for persecution. Furthermore, considering that the RCC's objection to birth control is because it makes sex for fun instead of procreation, it's entirely reasonable to point out how silly and backwards that idea is to a non-Catholic and is utterly trivial if one does indeed believe that abortion is murder.

[Boris Godunov]

The Catholic Health Association and the NETWORK social justice lobby are progressive Catholic groups however.

I was specifically referring to the USCCB in my reference.

As for the CHA--since you were so concerned about what Sister Keehan thinks, did you note that she found the new non-compromise compromise to be "glorious?"

That was the point of citing them among others. If it wasn't politically uncomfortable why would they be coming out against it rather than walking in lockstep with their party if it is as costless as you allege.

Then that's a silly point. Politicians are often wrong about the pulse of the electorate and act prematurely in such regards. Again, we've got actual data showing Catholics overwhelmingly are OK with this. Kaine in particular is also dealing with an electorate that has large numbers of white evangelicals, the only group to really oppose the measure. And not likely to vote Democratic anyway.

[Boris Godunov]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

Well, it's official, Obama has once again caved even though he had the support of the majority of the country's population including virtually every woman in the country. The man is a wuss.

Did you even read the details, or are you just reacting to headlines?

This "compromise" is a fig leaf, as Elok would put it. The goal of the rule was that employees of church-run hospitals, universities, etc. would have full coverage of contraception. This still achieves that goal, it just superficially transfers the burden to the insurance companies rather than the churches... that are paying the insurance companies for the plans. Since money is fungible, this really makes zero difference.

The only way to consider this a "cave" is to buy into the stupid smear that Obama is somehow waging a war against religion, and that their primary aim was to stick it to the church. While YOU might like that idea, that was never the administration's goal, so this change really doesn't make a difference in the matter hand: contraceptives being covered.

This whole situation has been full of political win for Obama, whether he intended it that way or not (and I doubt he did). Contraceptives get covered, the election focus is shifted to social issues (giving a huge boost to Santorum), women and liberals are galvanized in support of the president and the objecting Republicans will be painted into the "unreasonable social demagogue" corner if they keep harping on this.

[Hauldren Collider]

2. It is in no way disingenuous to highlight the moral hypocrisy of those claiming to be anti-abortion by noting their unwillingness to seriously prevent abortions from actually taking place. Legal prohibition does not accomplish this.

This is ****ing nonsense. Allowing one wrong to take place in order to prevent another isn't necessarily right. I don't blame our lack of freebies on people's propensity to commit murder. Certainly banning abortions would reduce abortions. And anyone stupid enough to do the whole coat-hanger-closet thing doesn't have my sympathy.

I am totally in favor of seriously preventing abortions from taking place. Jail time

[Boris Godunov]

In the meantime, Santorum has moved into a significant lead in the GOP primary race:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/santorum-surges-into-the-lead.html

Other polling has shown him leading Romney in Michigan, which is supposedly Romney's "second home turf." Although, given his "Let Detroit Die" editorial, I sincerely doubt he's very popular there anymore.

The GOP is the gift that keeps on giving, it seems. While I still think Romney's money, organization and institutional backing will win him the nod in the end, the trend is that this is killing him for the general election. Good times.

[Boris Godunov]

This is ****ing nonsense. Allowing one wrong to take place in order to prevent another isn't necessarily right. I don't blame our lack of freebies on people's propensity to commit murder. Certainly banning abortions would reduce abortions. And anyone stupid enough to do the whole coat-hanger-closet thing doesn't have my sympathy.

A "wrong" that is utterly trivial ("Birth control lets people enjoy sex for sex's sake! EVIL!") and, as cited above, not actually a wrong according to the SCOTUS.

And why is it countries with more restrictive abortion laws have much higher rates of abortion than those who don't? Now, I'm sure Saudi Arabia has a very low abortion rate, but is that the model to emulate, hmm?

And you just gave away the game: "And anyone stupid enough to do the whole coat-hanger-closet thing doesn't have my sympathy." Oh? I thought we were talking about the "murder" of babies? Isn't that where sympathies should like? You just admitted that isn't your actual concern, it's actually having authoritarian control over people's bodies!

That's great logic: Freedom means not expecting a non-church religious employer to follow the same rules as everyone else while forcing women to endure pregnancies they don't want...

[giblets]

This is ****ing nonsense. Allowing one wrong to take place in order to prevent another isn't necessarily right. I don't blame our lack of freebies on people's propensity to commit murder. Certainly banning abortions would reduce abortions. And anyone stupid enough to do the whole coat-hanger-closet thing doesn't have my sympathy.

I am totally in favor of seriously preventing abortions from taking place. Jail time

You claimed in the past that killing someone is the right thing to do if it will save multiple lives.

[Boris Godunov]

Old data, but still:

EDIT: Hmm, still haven't figured out this internet thing. Can't paste a simple chart?

Anyway, the link I provided above shows how abortion rates were highest in countries with the more restrictive laws.

If one's concern is *really* to save babies, then prohibition simply doesn't work. Family planning and widespread contraception availability does. There's no way around that.

But at least we see what HC's real agenda is!

[Elok]

This "compromise" is a fig leaf, as Elok would put it. The goal of the rule was that employees of church-run hospitals, universities, etc. would have full coverage of contraception. This still achieves that goal, it just superficially transfers the burden to the insurance companies rather than the churches... that are paying the insurance companies for the plans. Since money is fungible, this really makes zero difference.

I seem to recall reading somewhere (The Economist, maybe?) that the deal actually prohibits the companies from charging dissenting employers more to cover the "free contraceptives." Now, I only read that detail in that one news report, wherever the hell it was, nowhere else. So it may very well be a mistake. But if it's true, it basically means non-dissenting companies are going to wind up absorbing costs for dissenting ones. Either that or the insurance companies will wind up taking a hit on their profit margins just to be nice. I don't think so, though.

EDIT: Hah, it is true!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/10/fact-sheet-women-s-preventive-services-and-religious-institutions

So, there's a little win for the Catholics in there too.

SECOND EDIT: Wait, I'm not sure if I'm reading this sucker right. Who the hell winds up paying for this? From the Economist blurb making the claim:

Instead, insurers would be obliged to offer contraception free of charge, with the guarantee that the religious employers’ premium would not rise accordingly.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/barack-obama-catholics-and-contraceptives

But I can't find anything in the fact sheet cited to clearly support this.

[Boris Godunov]

I seem to recall reading somewhere (The Economist, maybe?) that the deal actually prohibits the companies from charging dissenting employers more to cover the "free contraceptives." Now, I only read that detail in that one news report, wherever the hell it was, nowhere else. So it may very well be a mistake. But if it's true, it basically means non-dissenting companies are going to wind up absorbing costs for dissenting ones. Either that or the insurance companies will wind up taking a hit on their profit margins just to be nice. I don't think so, though.

You don't think insurance companies have figured out by now how to include such costs in their premiums without making it obvious?

[Boris Godunov]

You claimed in the past that killing someone is the right thing to do if it will save multiple lives.

I'm sure he would have been tickled to see Gisella Perl sent to the chair.

Of course, that means Rick Santorum's wife needs to be prosecuted, too...