What is Mitch McConnell's problem with contraception?
As far as the White House is concerned, Friday's compromise on contraception coverage effectively ends the matter. Religiously affiliated institutions won't be required to pay for birth control, but women who work for these employers will still have access to the same preventive care as everyone else. As Tricia noted earlier, the West Wing doesn't see anything else to talk about.
Congressional Republicans strongly disagree. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) raised quite a few eyebrows yesterday when he endorsed a controversial proposal to allow all American employers to deny women contraception coverage altogether.
"You know if we end up having to try to overcome the President's opposition by legislation, of course, I'd be happy to support it and intend to support it. It would be difficult as long as the President is rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else's religion is. I assume he would veto it. But yeah, we will be voting on that in the Senate. And you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible."
Even McConnell couldn't believe the president wants to "decide what somebody else's religion is." It's such a strikingly dumb comment, chances are, the senator just got carried away in the moment.
But the larger concern has nothing to do with rhetoric, and everything to do with the GOP's increasingly-aggressive war on contraception. McConnell told CBS's Bob Schieffer, "The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion."
At this point in the debate, that's just absurd.
As of Friday, Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were pushing measures to allow all private-sector employers, including those completely unaffiliated with any religious institution, to start denying health services that businesses might find morally objectionable.
The proposals are aimed at blocking access to contraception, but as Igor Volsky noted, they're so expansive, "an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an 'unhealthy' or 'immoral' lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer."
The Obama administration's underlying goal is entirely straightforward: the law already makes preventive care free for all Americans, and officials believe access to contraception must be included as part of this coverage. If faith-based employers don't want to pay for this directly, the White House has already changed the policy to ensure they won't have to.
The Republicans' underlying goal, at least of yesterday, is equally clear: no American employer should have to cover contraception, ever.
As Jonathan Cohn explained, this is simply untenable.
The Bishops' position, which the Republicans have now adopted as their own, is that religious leaders have the right to override that decision, even though it will affect employees who have no moral or religious qualms about birth control. Writing in Newsweek, Andrew Sullivan captured the Bishops' thinking perfectly: "Catholic doctrine should, according to the bishops' spokesman, also apply to non-Catholics." [...]
[T]he principle seems pretty clear to me. The Bishops want a veto over public policy. And the Republicans want to give it to them.
The "it's about religious liberty" talking point effectively died on Friday. The longer the GOP keeps up this fight, the more obvious the party's war on contraception will be. Given the support contraception access enjoys with the American mainstream, it's a fight Republicans are very likely to lose.
Leave a Comment:
Oh please you disconnected old white men , Please go with an anti contraception stance . You don't need any votes from women. Stick with the guys who wear red beanies and dresses . They are a powerful voting block.
Let's stop covering Viagra and see what they say then. It is all about control over women and I am sick of them denigrating women.
"It's such a strikingly dumb comment,..."
And what else do you expect from "Yertle the turtle" - he does hate women after all!!
It's all about keeping women in their place. Barefoot and pregnant and most importantly, home.
Remember to stay away from the polls in November. It would be a sin to prove how revolting these republicans have become.(good thing the diebolds still believe in them)
Could they pick a better fight over which to shoot themselves in the foot, AGAIN? Bwahaha. Oh, no, they attack medicare and SS, which what...some 70 pct of Americans don't want touched. No, that wasn't good enough. Now they pick a fight over contraception...which 98 pct of women use, and likely a vast majority of men support also. Can this get any better?
Ugh! Hate the "click here to reload the page so you can finish reading this." Just, ugh.
I don't think McConnell got carried away at all. His entire career has been one long deeply dishonest performance art project, where no matter what the input is, the output has to be 'the Democrats are bad,' from falling deficits to rising ones, etc. He doesn't 'misspeak,' when he does this. The whole, entire point is to obsfuscate so that the truth is always so mangled that weak-minded reporters can't easily tell if he's lying.
The "religious liberty" point only died Friday amongst those for whom words matter. For the GOP, 'religious liberty' is a backdrop for many a future press conference.
Oh I so hope you're right. Talk about picking a losing fight.
Despite my affection for them, the President, Maddow and Hayes are dead wrong on this subject.
It is not fair to claim that the White House Compromise meets the Bishops' original objection. The Church is in the moral situation of Double effect- This is not some arcane religious principle, it's just a well accepted mechanism for evaluating one's moral complicity when taking an action. The same principle is in effect when you buy an iPad which is built by Chinese workers suffering inhumane working conditions.
As long as there is a causal link between the Church's purchase of health insurance and people acquiring contraceptives, they are morally complicit in something they regard as evil. Nevermind that contraceptives are not evil- they certainly aren't- but if anyone believes a zygote is a person then they are morally obligated not to cooperate.
Now, if the White House said, "We understand the Bishops position on moral complicity, but they must understand we cannot allow them to force their moral views on contraception use on their workers whose religious views do not agree with theirs on this question. Our legislative proposal is that the federal government provide the contraceptives for free. The Church will not be morally complicit in the distribution of contraceptives, and there will be observance of the rights of their workers who do not share the Church's religious views on this question."
Certainly, there is a solution that relies on raw exercise of power. It is easy to demonize the Church (especially regarding their hypocrisy on pedophilia). It is easy to point to the absurdity of the position that a zygote is a person. These are the patterns of war, where you use coercive tactics to force your opponent into submission.
Obama's point at the National Prayer breakfast and his 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech point out that we can't do that in a pluralistic society. We must try to find solutions that reconcile the positions an ever diverse set of moral positions, without forcing people to act against their conscience.
@JohnMesserly
If we accept your logic, then the Church could use the same reasoning for paying any type of taxes going to the federal government since it indirectly provides funding for contraceptive and abortion services through funds for Planned Parenthood. The same logic applies to the state and local governments. Where do you draw the line when trying to defend the "moral" decisions? The compromise is that the Church is not funding the contraceptive service as part of the insurance premiums. It is the insurance companies that are paying for those services not the Church.
I stand by my statements that this is merely an exercise by the Church to extract concessions during an election year.
That's the most understated sentiment. Thank you John.
The Church's claim of being forced to act against their conscience is a case of false piety. They issued a public statement and had each church read a letter at the Sunday mass. When it came to the Iraq war, the Bishops Conference did not have a letter read in church asking their members to write or call Congress. If the Church wants to claim it is against their conscience for contraceptives, then it is a selective conscience and that is gross hypocrisy. The Church should get out of all politics which is what this issue is about.
@JohnMesserly
It is a long-established legal principle that when religious institutions operate businesses (including nonprofit businesses, like hospitals), they are subject to government regulation of those businesses. As even Scalia has written, if religious belief can trump law, then we do not have law. If a church interprets morality such that "any causal link" is unacceptable, it does not therefore follow that they must be exempt; they can choose to follow such regulations or not operate businesses that are subject to regulation.
But the evidence is very strong that the bishops are not actually arguing in good faith, and set out looking for a political fight. For example, as has been pointed out on the show, numerous Catholic hospitals, universities, and other institutions already operate under similar requirements from the states without fighting them. It's reminiscent of the 2004 election, when some conservative bishops declared that a Democratic candidate should be denied communion for going against Church teachings on abortion, but, oddly, no one suggested that Republican candidates should be denied communion for going against Church teachings on war.
There's a reason the Founders wanted separation of church and state -- when churches try to get involved in government, it's bad for the state *and* the church.
No Mike. Double effect does not work that way. We all are involved in a world that engages in things we regard as evil. As moral people we are obligated not to cooperate with evil. Double effect does not say that we do not pay taxes if we disagree with what the government is doing something. The 4th factor to consider is proportionality. Given that there are outweighing positive things the government does (fire, police, programs for the poor and environment, defending the country against those who would destroy it), then our action of paying taxes is lawful despite evil double effect of doing so. (Lawful here means: the action cannot logically be faulted on moral grounds).
Similarly, an iPad might be used by a doctor that would allow him to save lives he otherwise might not do if he was unable to use such a device. If there are no similar devices that are made under humane conditions, then buying the iPad is a lawful double effect because the good (saving lives) outweighs the unintended effect (causing suffering of Chinese workers).
Similarly, if the President has exhausted all options at reconciliation with the Bishops, then the solution described Friday is lawful. The administration has not exhausted such options. If they ask the Bishops, I am sure they would say that they violently disagree with the government giving away contraception. But if they were asked if this program were already in place if they would have objection to providing the Health Insurance, they would say no. They have to because there is no double effect. Notice that the wording is essential. If you ask them if proposing the legislation would be an acceptable reconciliation, then they would be forced to say no. Why? Because that negotiation would make them complicit with putting the legislation into effect- which is an evil.
Get it? It seems to me the President has no policy advisers that have any inclination of understand the logic of Church. This stuff is not hard to understand. The administration may proceed unilaterally on proposing legislation for example, and exhausting all other options at reconciliation. The President also has a moral position of protecting the rights and views of those who do not share the religious views of the church.
Contrary to Maddow's theme, this very much is about religious freedom, but up until now it has been consideration of the rights of institutions, not individuals. (Sound familiar? It is as if the GOP is saying, the Catholic Church is a person too my friend.) Let's not forget that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, if that is the individual's spiritual view. My religious view is that a zygote is not a person. The Church feels otherwise. If I worked for a Church organization, my religious view that it is perfectly moral to acquire contraceptives would not be respected.
The GOP's position is essentially theocracy masquerading as religious freedom.
@redshift In their heart of hearts, the Bishops may well be bigots bent on the continued subjugation of women. Analysis of their practice of selective application of the principle that a zygote is a person leads me to the conclusion that they are arguing from a position of weak moral authority on this question. They may sincerely not be conscious of the fact they are participating in the evil subjugation of women, but as far as I can see, they are.
Let us recognize that this radical analysis does not engage them in the political process though using any other means but the raw exercise of coercive power. Without question this is sometimes required, but this is violence and all options at reconciliation must be exhausted first. It does not require that we be fanciful to assume good faith on their part and so we are compelled to do so.
I briefly mentioned the principle of double effect in my response to Mike. Take a look at the link I provided. Consider their point of view. If you accept their premise (that a zygote is a person), then buying the insurance makes them complicit in murder. If you would like me to more fully elaborate the logic of the Bishop's position, I would be happy to so so. I don't agree with their premise and so therefore I do not agree zygote death is anything more than dying skin cells. But if a person did, then the chain of logic that they would be complicit in evil is solid.
Let's face it, the Obama admin made a foolish mistake, even going against the advice of some of their insiders. This issue is not about contraception, but about separation of Church and State.
Catholics believe, among other things, in the infallibility of the Pope on matters of doctrine. They believe in free will. And, they believe in the sanctity of life. It is the Bishops responsibility to adhere to these responsibilities and ensure all Catholics understand.
The initial HHS mandate would have forced the Catholic Church and it's affiliates to violate the separation doctrine by forcing them to go against their beliefs and infringing on a religious organization.
The "compromise" does not solve the problem. What about organizations that self insure? We'll have to await the details. And by saying insurance companies will pay, do they believe in free lunches?
You may not agree with the Catholic Church, but please respect our beliefs and allow us to exercise our freedom of religion.
As for the argument that most Catholic women use contraceptives, that's where free will comes in. They must follow their conscience.
Tom, there is no constitutional guarantee that church corporations are above the law if their religious doctrines conflict with the law.
This subject very much is about contraception- whether workers may be denied a particular service which their employer has a religious objection to provide. This is like saying a church that believed on religious grounds that another race was inferior and insisted on paying them less that the issue was not about racism. It is irrelevant whether the individuals believe the doctrine is infallible. There are US court cases of religious organizations in conflict with the law due to their religious views on race. Are you suggesting that such court cases were a constitutional violation of the "separation of church and state"? Surely not? Then which laws do they get to opt out of, and which laws are mandatory? Think about it- your formulation is flawed
This is not about separation of Church and State, but rather religious liberty- About the state remaining neutral towards all religious and non religious beliefs. This does not mean what most people mean by "secularism" This does not mean Godlessness. It means neutrality, and respect for the moral dominion of churches and individuals on matters of conscience and that no citizen may legally project such dominion over others.
The latter portion is essential. Because what the GOP is giving a wink to is the principle that religious freedoms of institutions are respected while those of individuals are not. That is, that institutions are entitled to bully workers who do not share their religious views.
The President successfully defended the religious liberties of the workers from the start. He made no error there. The administration's error is in not exhausting all options that would not allow the Church a path where they would not be morally complicit in the evil they see. Unfortunately, the only path I see would require legislation. If the administration makes a good faith effort to exhaust all such policy options, Friday's clarification is morally just.
I can accept your argument about the double effect because my point is a question of degree of connection. However, it still does not address the selective pangs of conscience of the Church. Their actions are blatantly political and people should challenge that aspect.
The Catholic Bishops will not win this current war on women. Contraception is not evil, it is a godsend, and the people know this.
Tom- this would also mean that the Church's not wanting to be enforced infringes on the individual. You do not get to excuse the Church's infringement on the individual as if it's more viable when it comes to liberty and the separation of the church and state. Just as the Church has to be protected from the State, the State also has to be protected from the Church. You cannot frame it as an either/or situation when it is not.
Why should I be legally mandated to protect your rights when doing so legally mandates that you are violating my rights? Your liberty as an organization does not get to infringe upon my liberty as an individual. You even admit to this openly when you talk about free will. I do not think you have thought this argument through.
This is a critical point. It needs to be repeated.
Often.
Well that's the whole problem here: this is a situation in which one entity's liberty (the Church's) is at odd w/ another entity's liberty (the individual employee). This is a black and white situation in which someone is going to lose and the law will have to make it so. This is because the individual employee having his/her rights asserted will step on the rights of the Church and vise versa. There is no way to get around this. So the question becomes to whom should the law side? Whose rights get precedent in this situation? The most logical way to determine this is to take out morality (defined here as personal belief/philosophy) and only talk about this in terms of ethicality (laws we establish as a society and the enforcement therein). As an ethical body the law is not in a position to decide morality in this particular instance: the law does not determine whether it's right or wrong for someone to be on birth control or whether it's right or wrong to believe it's use is right or wrong. All the government can do is establish the law and in this particular case that means falling back on the ethical mandate we've already established regarding the law: that the government exists to mitigate harm. The harm the Church suffers in conforming to the law is inferior to the harm that the individual suffers by conforming to the Church's belief. Which means that the law has an ethical mandate to protect the individual in this particular instance. There are probably other circumstances in which the conclusion would be different, but in this particular instance the law cannot force the individual to abide by a moral belief exterior to his/her own beliefs. This is especially true if subjecting them to that moral belief increases their risk of death or bodily harm- which it will in this particular case.
If Tom wants to argue that the Church, instead of the individual, is the one to whom the ethical mandate belongs then OK. But then Tom must prove why this is so. So far I have not heard a single argument by conservatives that establishes why the ethical thing to do is side w/ the Church and not the individual. And that's the whole problem.
Could this possibly be the beginning of a marginalization of the religious right, especially the catholic church?
So they've been fighting abortion for five decades, I get that. With contraception, I truly think they've stepped WAY over the line. Is there one, sane, group of women in the US who believes that contraception is wrong?
I think it's a mistake to make this about men vs women. Men don't want unwanted pregnancies, either. Different reasons, but I doubt there are a lot of men thinking, "screw the ladies. I can always use a condom."
Especially since like 98% of Catholic Women use or have used birth control. Tells me they are doing a piss poor job with the birth control education with their own flock.
chocolatekat,
It isn't education, it's living in the real world.
I remember when birth control pills first started coming into the marketplace and the catholic church took a stand against them.
The going joke at the time. "Do you know what they call a catholic woman who practices the rhythm method of birth control? Pregnant."
The church has fewer members who violated their ban on no-meat Fridays than they have on this issue.
Wonder why? (sarcasm)
If I ran a business, I would morally object to covering ED drugs such as Cialis and Viagra. Why? Because men like McConnell use them.
I doubt McConnell uses these products. He would, but nobody wants to have sex with him anyway.
It's like George Carlin always said - "Did you ever notice that the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to f**k anyway?"
Yo mama it's about religion! It's about McConnell and his brand doing the stupid in public!
The Republican party is merely taking prophylactic measures in its attempt to stop the 21st century birth of American liberalism - their rhythm method isn't working too well as of late!
And, there's a 99% chance the birth will be a beautiful set of twins - Working and Middle Class babies!
Due date: First Tuesday in November, 2012! -Kevo
it's not about religion, it's about the religious vote. it's about telling a small, but very vocal and very active segment of their party exactly what they want to hear. End of story. It's just shocking to me that the defenders of freedom are so quick to take away the freedoms of others, the protectors of liberty are so quick to pass judgement, that people so comfortable with absolutes are so good at carving out exceptions, and those so intent on protecting religious liberty are only thinking about one religion. Keep talking, republicans. Keep talking. See you at the polls in November.
Used to be GOP: Beautifully said.
True! And keep pretending that making contraception available is the same as forcing women to use it. The only offense the administration is guilty of is allowing women the freedom to make their own decisions - the horror!
The only offense the White House is guilty of is the sin of being Democratic - remember how dearly they loved Bill Clinton? Something else is going on here besides the manure the Republicans are shoveling. Lyndon Johnson knew the south would be lost to the Democratic party when he signed civil rights legislation into law. Likewise, reliably Democratic blue-collar workers in the north felt jilted when the party turned its attention to minority rights and increasingly anti-war sentiments. The old party base feels cheated, and they want props!
For that matter, one might have a religious objection to hiring women (or to having women and men share the same room, making the hiring [or promotion] of women impractical for the business). This runs counter to federal fair hiring practices. Where, oh where, is the freedom of religion in THAT? Better get rid of all of those anti-religious fair hiring practice laws while you're at it! [sarcasm]
Welcome home Rick Santorum! this is something he would support...and guess what? That would definitely eliminate the unemployment problem...because women would not be included in the numbers!
People say that it is about religion, it's about the family, it's about women, it's about what health care should cover, what freedom is...but for some people, like Mr. McConnell, does it matter? He will dwell on anything that he thinks will be advantages to his side.
Milk it for as much as it is worth....
Another historical point to remember: The Puritans first came to our shores for the purpose of practicing "religious freedom." But what we don't think about is that THEIR form of religion was very controlling, oppressive and extremist. Europe was SICK of religious extremism and what it had done to their continent, so people like the Puritans were not welcome there any longer. So they came to America so that they could be free to be true to their "Fundiwack" selves. And they've managed to set the tone for religion in this country ever since. "Freedom of Religion," for a fundamentalist, means "freedom to religiously-oppress others." This means, among other things, that their children should have the freedom to bully their gay classmates and that no women should have the freedom to refuse the "gift" of a potential child, either before or after conception. I talk to Europeans all the time, and they think that we (that is to say, "American culture") are completely NUTS over this whole religion thing. And I agree with them.
Oh, this is coming from them--this is just the beginning. Of course, THEY know better what is good for us. My, My, MY, I thnk I could be gettin' the vapors!
"Europe was SICK of religious extremism"
Umm, not so much. Europe was in the throes of enormous religious extremism at the time. However, the individuals who fled to the Americas were of various cults that weren't in favor back in the Old World. Puritanism was extremist, just as you said, but so were Anglicans, Lutherans, and Catholics - and the Puritans were given a choice: convert or leave.
They left, and they practiced their own form of extremism when they came to America.
T
Thanks Thomas. You said it better than I would have.
Should there be required mental health screening for Republican legislators?
Alcohol and drug testing too.
They need drugs, that's the problem. A little serequel or lithium might help.
Did anybody really think the McConnells of the world were going to stop with abortion? They are going to push it back, and back, and back until the sex act has only one purpose and only one legal definition. And it is being pushed forward in this case by a man who himself is rumored to be not entirely straight. Or maybe not straight at all.
true. if marriage is only for sex, and sex is only for procreation, that's a really good plan to save the institution and the entire human race.
Please PLEASE remove that opening pic of Mitch. Just the sight of him makes me want to puke.
LOL I know! Then I hear his voice in my head and it makes me want to puke again. I swear it's like he has chewing tobacco in his mouth or a mouth full of marbles all the time.
Sour lemonade?
I think this is an attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Recently insurers have had to demonstrate that they're spending 80% of premiums on actual health related costs. Perhaps the GOP believes they can chip away at what is covered, thus reducing health related costs... whaddya think?
I don't doubt it. Basically that is what they have said. They will keep chipping away at it till it falls apart.
Insurance companies want to pay for birth control. Do you know how much it costs them for a covered client to have a baby. Birth control save them a ton of money. I'm surprised the insurance lobby isn't screaming blood murder to the Republicans. Could be they are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Indeed, the only people who "benefit" from objecting to the President's compromise proposal are the folks who are trying to gain power and control for themselves.
I think you're right. To me, the 50K foot view of the republican party is this: Party is country. From that perspective, anything a liberal, progressive or moderate under the democratic platform (and some in their own party) is a pretender to the throne, an illegitimate hijacking of our country and our way of life. It allows for no compromise because on it's face the opposition has no grounds to be participating, let alone contributing. That alone should have independents, and right leaning moderates heading to the polls and voting democrat in huge numbers. Big picture people!!! If you vote on one issue, the ruling party still gets to drive the agenda on all the others.
There is a precedent for the Catholic Church NOT getting involved in American politics, and it comes from the late Cardinal Cushing:
http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/spring_2011/features/legal-aid.html
A worthwhile read.
Think on this one politics came after them.
This is the President's battle on unwanted pregnancies.....he has always advocated preventative measures that would bring down the numbers of Abortions.....Jeez....I would think these anti abortion GOP's would be pleased with this direction....but NOOOOO....they hate anything the President wants.....in this case....Common Sense.
Not to mention having a baby is way more expensive than BC.
The issue also seems to be that these people believe freedom of Religion only applies to them and their particular religion...
The Founding Fathers had good reason to keep Religion Separate from the running of the Gov't...
I wonder what the American right would say if, for instance, a Muslim employer wanted to deny coverage for trichinosis or alcoholism. Or a Jehovah's Witness wanted to deny coverage for anything that might require a blood transfusion.
i have been wondering what people would be saying if Tebow was a Muslim with a prayer mat. I totally get what you are saying, and I agree- it would be a whole different story then.
I am gravely concerned about overpopulation and taxing the world's resources -- especially in this country which already uses more than its fair share of resources -- and I find it morally objectionable that a family would have more than two children. Therefore, as an employer, I would deny health coverage to the third, fourth, fifth, etc... children in a family. Their mothers would not be able to get prenatal care through my insurance plan, nor would I pay for the hospital and delivery costs of such "extra" children. Of course, I would never force my moral beliefs on my employees by insisting that they use birth control: I would simply ask them to pay the cost of their "choice."
Here's what I don't get.
You run a business. You pay your employee a salary. She uses part of that salary, which you paid for, to go to the drugstore and buy contraception. That, as far as I know, is perfectly okay.
You run a business. You pay your employee certain benefits. She uses some of those benefits, which you pay for, to go to the drugstore and buy contraception. That is tyranny and an assault on your religious freedom.
Why? What's the difference?
The difference is---it's an election year.
Icekat - good point. Part of the Church's argument is that they have to pay for something they are against. I am against senseless, imperialistic wars. Why did I have to help pay for the Iraq war? (Of course the Bush administration got away with that one by not paying for the war.) I am against subsidising the big oil companies in their rape of the planet (our Mother Earth) for profit.
If we all got to opt out of paying for those things we find morally objectional, the government would be more disfunctional than it already is.
hi icekat, may I disagree?
Birth control isn't a vanity procedure like plastic surgery or teeth whitening.
It's preventative medicine, like mammograms and prostate exams.
You are asking your employee to pay extra, on top of the health care costs SHE pays, to use a preventative measure that YOU perhaps don't believe in, but she does for her own reasons.
YOU chose to hire her, not for her religious ideologies, but for her skills. SHE does that job for you and then goes back to her personal life, she wasn't hired to assimilate your religious beliefs.
Separation of church and business is VERY big here in the South. lol
Icekat
In every fulltime job I have had, money has been taken out of my paycheck to pay for health insurance. My employers pay the lion share but I am also paying for the health insurance.
Obama is trying to "decide what somebody else's religion is." Really? Isn't trying to force the Catholic view on everyone else doing exactly that! Republicans are only concerned with religious liberty and personal freedom if it matches their own tiny viewpoint.
But let's see this for what it really is - discrimination against women.
Exactly, SpiralT. I've been wondering if Democrats could change this
debate if they just switched from calling it "contraception" or "birth
control" and, instead, referred to it as "family planning." When it's solely
a Women's issue ( or a Minority, or an Immigrant or an LGBT's) it's always
fair game for conservatives. The White, Right Boys club is not so eager to
attack it's own kind.
So, are these 'religious organizations' also going to cease coverage of vasectomies, or will they find a convenient reason why they can cover one but not the other?
“Conservatives want live babies so they can train them to be dead soldiers.” ― George Carlin
Actually the Catholic Bishops are against vasectomies also. They're against birth control of anykind even condoms.
Except if condoms will prevent HIV/AIDs...then it might be plausible for it to be morally OK
Eventually we will learn that this bill was written by the insurance lobby and the chamber of commerce, using the religious right as cover. Its purpose is very simple: Deprive people of coverage who get expensive diseases. Health Reform removed a very common practice among insurers: Raising the rates of employers who have an employee who develops an expensive disease, like cancer. In California, insurers were heavily into the practice of "rescinding" coverage of insured women who were diagnosed with breast cancer. Health Reform stopped them in their tracks. This is an attempt to legalize that, and women would be the first victims. This is truly an attempt to create "death panels." Luckily for us, it will never pass the Senate and could not get past the president's veto pen. But its another warning of what to expect if the president is not re elected.
birth control costs a couple hundred dollars a year having a baby costs tens of thousands of dollars. I don't think the insurance companies are for this. I can't figure out why they're not screaming about it.
If this were not the platform of those in charge of governing this country, I would be sitting here laughing my behind off. Do these people not know that most women in this country use contraceptives other than the rhythm method, which I gather is allowed. How on earth do they see this as representing their constituencies--even Republican women (and I'll bet evangelical Republican women, too) use the pill to avoid pregnancy. What a bunch of dummos!! As someone else said--a bunch of old white men--men who are apparently way out of touch with the realities of THIS century! A vote for Obama is a vote for women's rights. And let's get the Dems back in charge in the House!
I welcome a Republican election campaign on contraception. That is a winning ticket to a lot of election losses. We should encourage the idiots to make it a part of their party platform.
I've been following the GOP war on contraception (and women's rights for that matter) and I find I get so angry and tense and anxious. Then I remember I'm Canadian. Phew. That said, if a GOP candidate wins the election, I really worry about what will happen to women's rights in the states. Tell me they won't win!! Or at least that this is just all hot air and nothing will come of it!!!
That's exactly how it goes in our house too. I do worry about my US friends though and how badly their lives will go if any of these GOP loons wins in November. Maybe if that happens, Citizenship & Immigration Canada will be hiring as I suspect they'll need the extra help dealing with the applications from the USA!
Illegal immigrants OUT of the US? lol
No, we'll stick. Tea went into the harbor once before, it can go in again.
I have a strange conspiracy theory. They want women out of the workforce. All the Equal Opportunity laws are based on women's control of their fertility. If there's no access to contraception, employers can once again refuse to hire women. Then the Right will eliminate the minimum wage, and increase enforcement of child-support. Women will be saddled with more children than they want, and men will be forced to work all the time to support them. The unemployment problem will be fixed by eliminating 50% of eligible candidates for each job, and people will be too busy struggling to pay attention to politics.
It's not a conspiracy theory. Conservatives have just dropped the pretense of not hating women.
That's just a start. Rethugs believe that those who can't afford contraception will, obviously, have more children. More children in the family means less likely to go to college. Couple that with reducing funding for Pell grants and they have a whole generation that hasn't learned to think for itself. Instant sheeple!
@Vlamb to answer your question YES!!....
I agree, health insurance plans shouldn't cover Viagra, after all, old men don't need to have sex, they shouldn't be procreating at their age!