Following up on an earlier item, here was the witness table at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as discussion about contraception access and health care got underway.
You'll notice, of course, that all of the witnesses are men. What you can't tell from the photo is that the second panel will feature four more men, and the combined total of the nine witnesses will include no women, no experts on contraception, no experts on health care, and no experts who might say something Republicans disagree with.
As ThinkProgress noted, this proved to be a bit too much for some of the Democratic woman on the committee. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked a sensible question under the circumstances: "Where are the women? When I look at this panel, I don't see one, single woman representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need coverage for basic preventive health care services."
As the farce hearing progressed, nearly all of the Democratic women on the committee left the room in protest.
There is one Republican woman on the committee, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.), who has not expressed concerns about the one-sided nature of the hearing.
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who rejected the one witness Democrats asked to participate, claimed this morning that the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and a progressive voice, had been invited to participate, and would have provided balance to the hearing (balance, in this case, would mean nine conservatives and one liberal).
In reality, committee Dems had considered Lynn as a possible witness, but instead invited a young female law student at Georgetown.
Rev. Lynn [disclosure: Lynn is a long-time friend of mine] explained in a statement, "I was open to testify at today's hearing, but I understand and support the minority's decision to ask a woman to take part because this issue would affect women's access to contraceptives and the right to conscience. I appreciate that I was given the opportunity to provide written testimony. I am disappointed, however, by the imbalance on the panel and the lack of women's voices on an issue that has terrific impact on them. When the claim of 'conscience' by large religions collides with that of an individual woman, her right to make her own moral decision must be saved."
Leave a Comment:
The insidious Republican big government agenda marches on. The "outrage" manufactured by Republicans over birth control are the most egregious and disturbing example of government intrusion and religious intervention imaginable in this country. The GOP would shred the Constitution and places the health and lives of unconsenting women at risk. How does this help create jobs or boost the economy? It's a massive waste of time that has severe repercussions. That these morons would pick a fight on an issue widely seen by the public as uncontroversial is mind boggling. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The Republicans are fine with money having access to contraception. They are not fine with churches and religious organizations practicing their faith of long standing teachings having to provide contraception against these teaching. They are trying to get the government out of religion, so this is about less government not big government.
Also, the Republicans did not "manufacture" this "outrage," the administration brought it on themselves, perhaps on purpose. They knew the Catholic Church were vehemently opposed to this and would protest it, yet they chose instead of working it out or even proposing the compromise now in place, to go forward anyway.
I say religion should get out of the government.
Understood, newsblog, and you have every right to pursue that end.
The first amendment, though, was designed to protect the church from the government, not the other way around.
I know what the 1st amendment says. On that note how does the state of Virginia get away with pushing a ultrasound test on women who want/need an abortion? Where is the 1st amendemnt when the tables are turned?
Wrong. You do realize that this country was founded because people were fleeing state run religion, right? That is what the first amendment in regards to religion is referencing.
Yes, they did not want the state to run the religion. So, the first amendment was designed to prevent that from happening. Today argument is that the state (the federal government) is trying to tell the church what to do as it relates to their beliefs.
newsblog, I'm not familiar with the specifics of what you are asking. But it sounds like they are not preventing the woman from having an abortion. You may have a sound argument. That is why the government does not need to run healthcare.
Thank you, *CAF*: your interpretation is the correct one. This is the first country founded NOT along state-religion lines, and we should try by every possible means to keep it that way.
After all, WHICH religion would be turned into a state religion, when religious diversity in the country is so large? And ONLY a state religion would have an interest in persecuting churches of other faiths. And would there not then be a civil war, such as that between Catholics and Protestants in England to determine which one would rule?
The weird conservative perversion of this as 'protecting the church from the government' is very odd indeed.
No RobDon- that is why religion should not run health care.
Religion is not trying to do so. Just because religious organization refuse to not offer a small portion of healthcare coverage, this is NOT denying anyone those services. The government IS trying to run healthcare.
In the end, we may just disagree. The courts will probably be the arbitrator of the differences.
Unfortunately, those whom the church "serves" do not all believe what the Bishops believe. Even 98% of Catholic women have admitted to using contraceptives of some form. If the Catholic church only hired consenting "flock" Catholics, served consenting "flock" Catholics, and affected consenting "flock" Catholics you'd have the beginnings of a point. They do not.
Tell me, do the Catholic-run hospitals in your area perform vasectomies? offer perscription birth control? treat STDs? Treat endometriosis, cervical cancer, hormone problems, menopause? I bet they do, and I bet they rely on a patient's insurance to cover it.
1:9 This is not a small portion of health care coverage. It is a major part of health care especially for women. To dismiss it as just a small item is totally demeaning.
I believe the government should run health care that way non-sense like not providing contraception would not be an issue and religion could go back to the cave from whence it came.
No, they did not want the Church to run the government. For this reason, we do not have a national religion.
If an organization is going to take taxpayer money then they have to follow federal law. One example, in 1978 the Mormon Church reversed their policy and allowed Blacks into the Church because their tax-exempt status was threatened.
I actually thought these Right-wing bats would be happy that the "fringe" rational folks in society WANT to limit their numbers, and willingly!
The pilgrims fled because one church had taken control and was pushing thier religion. The Church of England was the Governing body for the masses at the time.
The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the
devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of
the church from the state.
James
Madison
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison_3.html#ixzz1mZPOxIqq
RobDon, try to tell us with a straight face that they would apply that same "long-standing teachings" rule to a Muslim organization applying its rules to Christian employees in the USA.
Newsblog, I think we found your true motivation. You do not want religion to have a voice.
From my understanding, Catholic hospitals do not provide these services. They, most, follow a directive from the Catholic Bishops. See this notice on a Catholic hospital's website:
Not about my life I don't. Not about my health care. Why should they?
DC, what specifically? I've already stated that the church does not have the right under our constitution to stone someone because it infringes on their rights. (In the contraception controversy the Church is not saying women can't have or use contraception, just that they should not be mandated to provide it, directly or indirectly. Thus the woman's rights are still in tack.)
I do agree with your underlining assumption that the Christian faith has become very hostile and vocal against the Muslim faith.
Newblog,
They are not trying to do so. Can a woman working for a Catholic hospital still get contraception from dozens of other avenues? Sure.
RobDon you are woefully misinformed about the history of church/State separation. Your comment "[t]he first amendment, though, was designed to protect the church from the government, not the other way around," is just plain wrong. Madison himself, acknowledged as the primary source of the Constitution, wrote "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." In other words, the first amendment was clearly intended, by the person who wrote it, to keep religion out of government as much as keeping government out of religion. Your lie about it not being so doesn't make it true that the intent wasn't to keep religion out of government. Reading the writings of other founding fathers, including Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin will further illustrate this point.
I believe that the Obama administration issued the ruling that they did because in order to have a national health care plan it is important that all citizens have access to various forms of health care, even if they happen to work for a religious organization. There are many non-catholics who work for catholic universities and hospitals. If a woman needs hormonal birth control for medical reasons, the moral objections of her employer should not prevent it. What if someone worked for a christian scientist organization? Should they be denied all health care because their employer doesn't believe in it?
No, this ruling was the right thing to do, but in reality it just shows how relying on employers as the source of health care coverage is a bad model. While I don't think that the administration purposely did this to start a political firestorm, they certainly did so. This ruling caused republicans to all jump on the crazy train of being anti-birth control, and as long as they continue in this fashion will help increase the President's chance of re-election.
They are paying for it.
"You'll notice, of course, that all of the witnesses are men...."
I want to know which of these men has a womb?
Don't you find it just the least bit hypocritical that the panelists want to impose religion on the state?
You can start with Sullivan's example: an employer whose health care and other benefits do not cover women being treated by men, men being treated by women, or anyone treated by a provider which employs both men and women.
Absolutely no question that this is a fer-sher religious doctrine, just as much as are Catholic objections to contraception. Are we obliged to give legal sanction to both, neither, or just one?
RobDon,
That is not the point nor should it be. If she/he worked at Safeway, they wouldn't have to use other avenues for a work benefit.
I have to take issue w/ your earlier points: The Administration released this rule proposal in August and said they would take a year to tweak and finalize to work out any issues. So, in January/February of this year, it was not the HHS who made an issue of the rule - it was the Catholic Bishops who wanted to bring attention to it and the rate of movement on the government's acquiescence to their position.
Also, the 1st Amendment was NOT designed to protect the church FROM the government; it was the other way around - to protect the government from undue influence of any religion. See Brooke Allen's MORAL MINORITY -Our Skeptical Founding Fathers. In it she says, "Religion, like slavery, was a topic so divisive as to threaten orderly government and any chance of creating an inclusive constitution. Hence the policy finally arrived at by the architects of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: to keep religion, Christian and otherwise, entirely out of the legal framework of the United States. Therefore, there is no reference to God in the Constitution, and religion is mentioned only for the purposes of ensuring its absence in government." Notice the word "in", not "from".
The government agency HHS is trying ensure that all Americans can get the healthcare they need by showing employers what the law requires each employer to provide...a choice of policies which include variations of required, minimum coverage plus additional coverage as the employee might also want. The churches who have fleets of vehicles for their agencies don't have the option of buying vehicles without seatbelts b/c it has been established as basic equipment for auto design and safety by government rule.
If church agencies are going to have employees, they are expected to follow labor laws: if they offer insurance as part of compensation to employees, they have to provide minimum basic coverage...which now includes contraceptive services for medical needs, whatever they might be and for the employee and/or his or her family members. It is not the "state telling how to run religion or what to do as it relates to their beliefs". The Catholic, LDS, Jewish, and Evangelical religions may have their beliefs and preach them to their members. What they cannot do is impose them on the rest of us or those members who trust their own consciences and their own God to understand their decisions.
This committee hasn't chosen "experts" who are trying to bring divergent views together in consensus; they only want their view adopted and repeated by all as if it were a righteous view held by all citizens, half of whom are not represented or whose views are not respected.
outstounding argument
Judy,
You are incorrect on your time line. Here's two articles from Politico that demonstrate that DHS and President Obama made this "new rule" the first of February. The August announcement was in general without specifics, the administration had been in talks with how it affected religious institution and that decision was announce the first of February...THEN the Catholic church responded.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72345.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72489.html
On this we are in agreement. This is often the practice of which ever party is in charge. The Republican leadership only want to hear from those who felt their religious liberty was being violated.
And by the way, the President acknowledge in his "compromise" that religious liberty was a concern in this issue. He just proposes that his solution avoids the conflict.
RD - the Aug 1 HHS press release did say contraceptive services would be covered as "preventive services without cost sharing." The 1/20 HHS release said they would be covered w/o exempting religiously-affiliated social agencies, hospitals, and universities, but if not part of current plans would be given until Aug 2013 to comply, even though the same rule was part of the laws of 28 states. Then, the release of last week when the President announced the compromise to be provided by insurance companies instead of religious non-profits who were employers. But in regards to the rule issued 1/20/12, I concede the timeline you provided puts the responsibility on the HHS instead of the Catholic Bishops...my error.
I am glad you see agreement with one point I raised though I don't think Rep. Issa was as magnanimous as you describe.
Mr. Issa,
For someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, you sure like to waste the taxpayers money!!!!
Times are changing. Either join us or get out of the way.
What a perfect example - as if we need more - of what Republicans think of women!
They should just rename themselves the "He-Man Woman Haters Club". LOL!!
How appropriate..They are all STOOGES.
No offense to Moe, Larry, Shemp and Curly...oh yes and Curly Joe
If you listen to the hearing, they are not discussing contraception or women's health. They are discussing the 1st amendment and the role of government as it relates to religious organizations. Listen and then comment.
If religious institutions weren't still operating out of the Bronze age when women were considered mere chattel they may be relevant in today's government. But they are not! If religion wants to play politics then they should pay taxes.
Well, maybe they should lose their tax free status if they're unwilling to follow U.S. law. I think they should anyways since they spend millions to keep people afraid "teh gays." AND they got their damn exemption from supplying birth control. Furthermore, are you saying women have no business discussing the 1st amendment? Or is that over the "ladies pretty little heads?"
The courts have already defined the boundaries in this arena. Churches are free to express opinions on issues. For that to change, either the constitution/law or the courts would have to make that change. If you don't like this guidance, work to change it.
No, I am not saying that. My guess is you can often find panels even before a Democrat majority committee of only men. This panel was not attempting to be gender diverse but faith diverse. That's why there a rabbi, protestant pastor, catholic church representative, etc.
The fact that religion can not tolerate women in any of those positions just goes to show how backwards they are. This entire debate is bringing to light the inequities of religious belief. The inequities need to stay in churches/temples if that's where you want them and stay the hell out of government. We certainly don't need the "He men, woman haters Club"' in government.
"This panel was not attempting to be gender diverse"
No kidding! And you don't see a problem with that? All religious leaders are predominately men. Sorry Rob, this IS a womans issue whether you can see that or not. Listen, I was raised Catholic and the reason I don't practice it is because I don't need a bunch of old white guys telling me what I can do and the limits on women. It is 2012, not 1612. I'm tired of letting these old farts treat women a chattel. This is just a right wing wedge issue that is going to backfire. 98% Catholics admit to using or have used contraception.
CAF exactly
The one of the great things about our country is your are free to choose your faith. Isn't that a good thing? There are many denominations and faiths that do not adhere to this "1612" practice.
I noticed neither of you could make the case that every Democrat panel is completely diverse.
"They are discussing the 1st amendment and the role of government as it relates to religious organizations."
1st amendment rights aside, the reason this whole thing came up is because of the issue of whether religious organizations beyond the churches themselves - hospitals, schools, etc. - should pay for contraception coverage for their employees. So the question becomes "What is the definition of a 'religious organization'?"
Maybe there is such a definition, but if not, a church could theoretically call anything a 'religious organization' and then stand behind that shield and claim it does not have to follow federal laws. Someone could open up "St. John's Steel Mill" and perhaps avoid paying taxes and following health care and other laws. Where do you draw the line? I think the logical point is at the church itself. Beyond that, the hospitals and schools are generally engaged in interstate commerce by providing goods and services beyond the church's membership. And again, any hospital, school, regardless of religious affiliation, who takes federal funds for anything should follow federal laws.
"I noticed neither of you could make the case that every Democrat panel is completely diverse."
RobDon, we're not talking about a huge diversity effort here; we're only talking about two options - men and women - to make this panel appropriately diverse. After all, women have 1st amendment rights too.
Before you come back with "they're talking about religious organizations' 1st amendment rights, not those of men versus women," remember that women are important members of religious organizations too.
3:11 Democrat, Republican is not the issue RobDon. Panels need to be made up of people who have the expertise to add to the debate. A panel of all men on religious/contracptive issues needs a woman on it.
I notice that "etc." doesn't include a mullah, nor a Witness, nor a Christian Scientist. I would think that those might have a word or two on the whole idea of blanket exemptions from the law for anything that bothers the management.
And what about an agnostic!
Apparently that freedom stops when someone hires you.
Apparently, they're not Real Americans(TM)
The law and courts have already put boundaries in place regarding this and they have not, as of yet, drawn the line at the church itself. But, I do see your logic.
To others regarding diversity: Not every panel has both women and men (two options). Not every panel is completely diverse, meaning a panel of religious experts may not have someone from Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical...), Muslim, etc...that would be so impractical.
I would think it would be a just question to ask who these were determined and why they were picked and not others.
Please don't take this as piling on Robdon, I do appreciate the actual dialogue on the issue, even though most of us disagree with your points here. I would ask in regards to your statement above, where are the atheists represented. If you are going to discuss the role of government and religious organizations, it should be considered "balanced" to have someone discussing why religious institutions should not have the benefits that they do, i. tax status, etc.
We are a country of laws to which all are accountable, not accountable to only the ones we believe in
You are the best D.C. :)
ItsJustMyOpinion, I never mind dialog and conversation. To your question,
I would assume because it is not a large organized religion and, I think, all those invited were those who saw the latest action by the President as a violation of religious liberty and, my guess would be that, most atheist do not. Most panels on political issues, rather when the Democrats are in control of the House or the Republicans, lean hard in one direction or is totally bias. That is not necessarily right but is the history.
(blush)
I see it as a violation of govermental liberty!
It is a well established factoid that Men know much more about the care and feeding of vaginas than do women.
I hate to destroy your cherished values, but gee, with the invention of sophisticated sex toys, women now get to enjoy the feeling of a penis without the dicks that are attached to them.
RF, the lab called. Your sarcasmometer is overdue for recalibration.
D.C. Sessions, thanks. I wondered why it appeared to be absolutely dripping. :)
GOP-------Old and in the way!!!!!
"As the farce hearing progressed...". AMEN TO THAT!
Join me in calling it by its new name: POG (Party of God)
It's the INQUISITION! It's the WITCH HUNTS! They're back! It's open season on women. Stoke the fire, get the whips and chains. LADIES run for your lives! How far behind is the enforcement of the Christian version of the burka?
Just look at that panel!!! This entire fiasco is an abomination.
All this is coming from reps who worship the almighty dollar. Strange brew.
My first question (actually my only question) to the distinguished clergy would be:
You obviously feel very strongly that the use of contraception is morally wrong. But you don't think that, given the opportunity, the people who work for your institutions would make the same moral choice. That's why you want to take the choice away from them. Why do you have so little confidence in the strength of your religion's teachings?
My son walked into the room as the picture of the "panel" came up - I explained that this was the panel on contraception - his comment? "Where are the women? What do those old men know about pregnancy, having a baby, or raising a child?"
My response? "AMEN"
Sigh... They couldn't even dig up some Catholic Nun (who would agree with them) to come testify? Maybe the bishops wouldn't let her come in fear that she might say something out of place. Can't have women voicing any opinions that might make a gang of old dudes look bad.
I have never been prouder of my choice to leave the Catholic Church.
Does anyone know if these same health plans cover Viagra? If sex is for the purpose of procreation, it seems that Viagra would be unnecessary unless one was trying to conceive.
Wait, wait. I thought Obama was tramping the religious freedom of women by this policy. Isn't that what Sanctum Santorum said? So... let me get this straight... when a woman wants to toe the line drawn by a bunch of buggering old men in Rome, and consent to being used as a reproductive warehouse (sex having no other purpose) -- THAT is religious liberty. But when a woman wants to think for herself, and make a principled decision that she doesn't want children (sex having other purposes including intimacy), she doesn't have the personal freedom to do that?
These guys seem to define religious freedom as the responsibility of women to adhere to rules made by men that force them back into the 12th century. Hard to believe people like that could get elected (and re-elected) in this country.
You can't explain logic to the people who think like the "distinguished" panel members (distinguished at what, I can only speculate)...logic just confounds them. Probably as much as the female body does.
This seems to NOT be hearing about contraception but on religious freedom. I've looked for a list of those testifying but have not found it yet. My guess is these are representing faith organizations and/or 1st amendment experts.
As a matter of fact, as I listen now one of the members is stating exactly what I thought, they are not discussing contraception and women health issues, they are discussing what the government has a right to require of religious institution.
And women are obviously too stupid to have a say? Religion is only for men? If religion would not crawl in bed with right-wing politicians we would not need this panel to begin with.
Are you suggesting that all Democrat panels always have a completely diverse representation? In this panel there is a vast diversity of faiths and even racial diversity, just no women.
RobDon you just keep stepping in @!$%#. No matter how you slice it or dice it this is about religion versus women's issues. There need to be women involved in this particular debate. Unless you are saying that women need not have a voice in religion or women's issues or government?
Definitely not saying this. Are you saying that every Democrat panel is completely diverse?
Women are speaking out. There are many on both sides of this issue.
To repeat: 3:11
Democrat, Republican is not the issue RobDon. Panels need to be made up of people who have the expertise to add to the debate. A panel of all men on religious/contracptive issues needs a woman on it. There is NO woman on the panel!!!!
My impression of this is that both issues (and more) are under the lens in this hearing. The less controversial, control issue of religious freedom is being used as a more neutral sounding 'stand by' talk track to argue the heated, trigger issues of contraception, abortion and general healthcare.
As religious organizations often have strong dogma concerning all of these, it is nearly impossible to reasonably separate them. Should the religious freedom argument win - the others will fall in line under the umbrella of that freedom. The arguments become more classic 'bait & switch' games where interested parties use the faithful to argue their points, gaining the veneer of propriety, even when it doesn't exist in the minds of the majority of the nations electorate.
Religious freedom has never been a blank check for the faithful to get everything they want. Even where religion is concerned, our nation needs balance between the individual rights it was founded on and the sacred rights the faiths claim.
Birth control is health care. @RobDon - I invite you to view the testimony Issa excluded and judge its merit on your own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCPU0Qsv9wM
Also, you keep saying a woman can just buy contraception. Can you please explain: why is it not a violation of religious liberty when a Catholic institution pays a woman's salary, which she then uses for contraception? how is this different than allowing her to obtain contraception paid by her insurer?
Once again the entire @!$%#ing point of this discussion is being missed. The Church is getting to whine about it's freedom, but the people whom they represent don't have a voice. The Church's freedom does NOT get to supersede and individual's freedom unless there's a damn good reason. When birth control is a health care issue and a potentially live saving health care issue the Church loses any and all ability to claim that their infringement of liberty supersedes their employees. The fact that no liberal talk show host or TV pundit is saying this shows just how patriarchal and screwed up this conversation is. The fact that no one gives a damn about the individual employee, but gives soooo much concern for an organization is also disgusting and something that everyone who is against Citizens United should be concerned about. I mean don't you people see the writing on the wall here? If they win the right to say that the organization trumps the individual they will set a precedent to overturn law that has governed this nation for at least 50 years. It just blows my mind that no one can see this.
Once again: It is not about the issue. It is about CONTROL.
The Mouzer has seen through the scam.
Because the insurance is offered by the religious organization, is their position. The policy offered includes it. The insurer is not going to pay for it. Where do they get their money? From those who pay for the policy.
The Catholic church believes people have free will. If a woman wants to purchase birth control, that is her right. The Catholic church is saying that they do not want to directly or indirectly offer it. It is a legitimate argument, is it better than the other side? Either the court of public opinion or the US courts (or both) will decide.
Mouzer, I do understand your frustration. I really do. But in general, the people do not tell the church what to believe, the church tells the people. Let me explain that further because in simple form it leaves a lot of doors open.
The Catholic church is much more hierarchical than most religious institutions, so much that the Popes word is the final say. So even if 99% of the members believe otherwise, it is the Pope who is right in the eyes of the Church.
Now, they would work to change that if they like, but that is its history and current operation. People are free to participate or not. We don't get to tell it what to believe. I didn't set it up, they did.
Other denominations and faiths are much more democratic or autonomous, but still usually speak as one voice on some issues. I don't think most faiths have a problem providing some forms of contraception.
It does NOT matter what the church believes when it comes to the laws that they have to abide by, Rob. This is what you are uncomprehending. The law does not deal w/ morality the law deals w/ ethicality. There is very little legal precedent in place that says that the Church can discriminate against whom it employs or the benefits that it provides. Their hierarchy has nothing to do w/ this conversation and the fact that you cannot understand that is the problem. What they believe is segregate from the laws that they abide by. What employees believe is segregate from what the Church believes regardless if some are Catholics or not. The Church does not get to discriminate against it's employees on the terms of health care simply because it 'believes' it's entitled to. The employees have a right to receive healthcare benefits and either you have to take the employer out and go directly to the employee (which you could argue, as we've already discussed) OR you have to apply benefits equally among employees. The Church does not get to disobey this law. If it doesn't want to then it is free to cease participating in general public services. The second they stop being exclusive and start operating as a business that is open to the general public then they, by law, must conform to federal regulations and rules.
What constitutional amendment gives employees the right to employer provided healthcare?
From another of your posts:
I think this is where we agree and disagree. We agree with your statement above but disagree as to if this is one of those exceptions.
It isn't a constitutional amendment. Rob the constitution is not the only entity that establishes rights. By that mentality then you would have to admit that the constitution doesn't give the church the right to run a hospital either. Le sigh. There is no precedent that I know of that has been upheld that says a church can deny healthcare or certain types of healthcare services to individuals. Show me the precedent and I'd be tempted to move your way.
Or rather I should say that the constitution establishes rights in verbatim and then those rights are expanded on by the laws passed by the legislature. If you're talking about literal interpretation of rights- which is what I was talking about- then the church doesn't have a right to run a hospital, a school, or anything else. People don't have a right to healthcare. And black people don't have the right to shop anywhere they want. By a literal interpretation then yes the constitution is the singular entity. But it's been well established that the law can interpret extensions of rights using the legislature based on what is written in the constitution. We (meaning our government) has a proclamation to provide for the general welfare of our population. Therefore we can infer that providing healthcare is a fundamental right of the citizenry since w/o healthcare access...you die. If the government cannot provide this directly then it must facilitate access to healthcare by whatever means possible. We have decided to do that by allowing the private sector to provide insurance, but demand that everyone who is employed or unemployed get coverage. You either must have insurance through your employer or you must have insurance as an individual. Since the employer promises their employees healthcare as part of their contract of hire then the church is stating that it agrees to provide healthcare as it's commanded to under federal law. If the church doesn't want to follow this law then the church is free to become a private access institution.
Here's a good neutral source with lots of information about the ability to refusing to offer certain health services. This is narrowly focused but has lots of good info at the end, too.
I haven't been making this stuff up, really...
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPHS.pdf
Good lord Rob stop taking my words out of context. This is really starting to piss me off now. You've done this 6 @!$%#ing times now.
Mouzer, my humble apologies. I thought you were saying that religious organizations had to offer all healthcare services, that they couldn't deny a patient (or employee) certain services and I was attempting to show that they could.
Please tell me one more time what you were looking for in post 12.13.
Thanks...
Alright I'm done w/ this debate. It seems at this point this isn't about discussing things so much as it is your insistence that the Church has the right to make it's employees conform to it's doctrine. OK fine you can have that belief. I invite you to have the last word
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
http://american-business.org/3230-bowen-v-kendrick-487-us-589-1988.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-10-01-130074828_x.htm
The court let stand a New York court ruling upholding a state law that forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer employees.
The last link is the most applicable to me. And this gives credibility at the state level to President Obama's position.
A lot of similarities. Curious that the Supreme Court did not take it up. They sometimes refuse cases not because they necessarily agree with the decision but the case will not make good case law for some reason. But this seems exactly like the federal situation now.
Good thing we can argue and still be friends...good night for now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/claremonttheology/2012/02/from-peyote-to-contraceptives-free-exercise-the-political-process-by-bryan-cottle/
The Religious Exemption and Religious Freedom
hell: http://www.enotes.com/family-law-reference/family-planning-abortion-birth-control
Bottom line: the courts exempt religious institutions from some federal requirements and does not exempt them from others. This case has yet to reach a final conclusion.
OF COURSE, they saw nothing wrong with an entire panel of MEN.
These men have no balls, tinsey-tiny dicks. They are nothing but ass holes who need to demean women to make themselves look strong. This too is a form of rape. The rape panel. errrr I guess you can tell I'm really, really, really mad!
Yup. And, I completely understand that. However, you shouldn't let your anger diffuse your argument. When you start with the insults, it reduces your credibility significantly and makes others who may have been persuaded to take your side question its validity.
Unfortunately, there are some who will never be convinced. I think the object here should be to ensure that the those who do agree, or might agree with reasonable discussion, come together to block these efforts on a local, state and national scale.
I know. Sorry, after I posted I realized I used this site as a sounding board. Next time I will go outside and scream at the top of my lungs instead.
newsblog, I find it very therapeutic to channel rage into sarcasm.
D.C. Unfortunately, I was not being sarcastic in post number 13 just venting my spleen! Bad me. :(
newsblog, as Solomon wisely advised us,
"there is a time to weep and a time to snark."
I love you D.C. You cheer me up!
Newsblog and D.C. sittin' in a tree...
Join in, Mouzer. Flirting is a party game that anyone can play.
Aww I was just teasin' you two. I think it's adorkable ;-)
(pout)
Rejected again :-(
We could go for a threesome? Oh wait, someone would want to hold a hearing about that. Forget I mentioned it.
How lonely that must be. I say that without sarcasm.
I am well past my childbearing years but I am appalled at the intrusion into our lives by the Republicans. This transvaginal ultrasound mandate is akin to rape and I do not understand why more women are not in an uproar over this! The GOP wants to make government smaller? HAH! Outraged is not strong enough to state my opinion!
It funny how there can be a special Inquisition panel when religion feels slighted but there is no special panel when women's rights are abused. Total double standard.
AFrank, because Rachel is the only one covering it! There's the problem with only having one sane woman on cable (until Melissa Harris-Perry's show debuts). Those bobble heads at Faux will say anything the men folk want. They probably see nothing wrong with state enforced sexual assault.
No question women are under-represented. However, it's not like there aren't any more or less enlightened men speaking up. Jon Stewart and Chris Hayes are not the only ones.
I thought that Freedom of Religion also bars one religion from getting special treatment from the government over any other religion. I thought that each person's and/or religious institution's rights END where someone else's BEGINS... That no one can impose his or her religious dogma on another in the name of religious freedom.
I thought that when there was a conflict between U.S. LAW and CANON LAW or SHARIA LAW, that U.S. LAW wins. Doesn't the Constitution specifically bar the Congress from instituting Canon Law?
Unfortunately, most people in America are so busy with their own lives that they don't even know that their liberties are being threatened by the religious right. All they hear are Catholics crying fowl on Television simply because they cannot impose their own "misguided", "out-dated" "out-of touch" dogma on the rest of the country. Where is the outrage? Even Chris Matthews who’s Catholic seems to agree with the Bishops. The only man on Television who seems to get it, is Al Sharpton.
Why can't we have a conversation and a brief history lesson on how, not only the Catholic Church, but also all the other Male dominated religions (Judaism and Islam) systematically repress all Woman's authority, knowledge, self-esteem, and especially their sexuality.
Long before Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the Pagan Culture worshiped Women and celebrated their sexuality. In fact, ancient texts and archaeological findings confirm that the earliest advanced pre-historic civilizations were Matrilineal societies until the invasion of the Male-dominated clans who were intimidated by a Woman’s sexual nature which gave her power over men. By suppressing a Woman’s knowledge, sexuality, and self-esteem, man was finally able to maintain control. A Man's God given strength is his physical power, a Woman's God given strength is her inner strength and sexuality. Why can’t we have that conversation?
President Obama should have never backed down from the Bishops and allowed them to impose their religious dogma outside of any “place of worship”. By doing so, he has opened up a Pandora’s box of religious dogma. There are labor laws and civil liberty laws that Employers must follow in order to protect Employees who work in commercial “for profit” public institutions that are not actual physical “places of worship”. To deny those protections on the grounds of religious freedom over basic labor laws, criminal laws, and civil rights laws is unconstitutional.
If religions were stoning women for being impure & the government tried to stop it, that would be infringing on religious liberty too.
This panel looks like the ruling class of Iran.
No, they would not. In your scenario, the church would be infringing on the liberty of the individual by taking her life.
The church is NOT infringing on the rights of women as it relates to the current debate. They church says that every woman has free will to decide if they would like to use birth control. But, the church or religious organizations should not be mandate to provide it to the woman, either directly or indirectly.
So what about erectile dysfunction coverage RobDon? Is that ok because it's broken boy parts? It is fully covered.
For many women contraception IS a matter of life or death! This is a MEDICAL ISSUE and NOT a religious one. The church has a choice as well, they can sell off their businesses, ie schools, hospitals & "non-profits" and stick to running CHURCHES!!! Then they wouldn't be in the position of being dragged into the 21st century with the rest of us. All tax exemptions MUST be revoked! If they wanna have a say they are gonna have to pay to play!
I don't know the Catholic church's official view, but I do know what they believe about sex. That it is a gift from God for procreation and that it should be limited to marriage (I know that's really 1612). They believe contraception prevents the reason for the gift, procreation.
You notice how loudly they scream when they think Sharia law is being utilized. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
@RobDon - yeah, if we went by what the catholic priests feel about sex we'd have a different story I imagine.
I think this contraception thing is pretty popular. Americans like to @!$%#.
Bull@!$%# Rob. And we have already discussed why this is. The Church is infringing upon the rights of their employees just as much as the employee (via the health care mandate) is infringing upon the Church. You cannot argue that the woman can go buy healthcare somewhere else and that therefore makes her free w/o also acknowledging that the Church could stop providing public services and that also makes them free. That is disingenuous and a lie. If the Church is being barred from practicing religious freedom by the government then guess what? so too is the individual employee being barred from religious freedom by the Church.
It is not that the woman has to buy all healthcare somewhere else. These organizations, as I understand, provide very good healthcare, just not contraception. If the church stopped providing services to the public there would be a HUGE whole in care and services...HUGE.
The church is not trying to force the individual to do or not do anything. If you disagree, what and how is the church FORCING a someone to do something in this situation?
The government IS trying to force religious organizations to do something. Now, does the religious organization, not the church, have the same protection as the church. I think the courts, the IRS, and others have said yes. We may have to wait to find out in this situation.
Yes they are. That is the whole point. They are forcing the employee to provide their own coverage as a form of discrimination on the basis of the services they promised to provide. The employee is forced to purchase another product in addition to the one they were promised and supposed to have supplied to them. If the Church doesn't want to do this then it can cease to provide services to the public. You cannot make the argument that their ceasing to provide services to the public would leave a hole in healthcare, therefore they get to discriminate against whomever they want. The law is NOT held hostage by this dichotomy- that is a false argument.
Yes. And legal precedent says that churches, w/ some exceptions, must conform to federal law. As an example it is illegal for the church to refuse to treat someone convicted of murder just because they disagree w/ the crime of murder. They cannot say that they don't want to provide contraception to their employees simply on the basis that the employee can go somewhere else to purchase it. That is not fair to the employee and infringes on the rights of the employee. The Church does NOT get preference over the employee when it comes to rights. How long the Church has been established or how long it's doctrine has been in effect does not determine whether or not the Church has to follow federal law. We have been over this 6 times now. How are you still not understanding this issue?
Several states already demand that churches conform to their state laws regarding healthcare coverage. And yes Rob contraception is healthcare. It is not ethical for an employer to tell an employee that they have to either purchase their own private plan or purchase the employee plan+additional coverage simply because the employer doesn't want to cover contraception. Such a law, if it were to be put into place, would ridiculously and unethically infringe upon women (although it would harm men too, ftr) in such a way as to render it discriminatory. Churches do not get to do this. Additionally the tax status of a church is not relevant to this discussion.
Other laws that the church has to follow:
In certain states the church cannot discriminate against gays who want to adopt
In certain states the church cannot discriminate against gays who want to attend their school
In certain states the church cannot refuse to perform abortion services to women who need the measure to save their lives or reduce risk of health injury
The church cannot refuse to treat people of other faiths in all 50 states
Doctors are not allowed to refuse to perform life saving surgeries because it 'goes against their conscience'
These laws and many others have already been established as precedent. It is the church who is asking for an exception here, NOT the government.
Who promised? The religious organization didn't "promise." What you described is NOT a violation of someone's rights, sorry, it just is not...IMHO.
And, I agree, the church does have to follow federal guidelines and laws and does. The church also has special designation under the law and in very few situations, the law is not applicable or is modified.
If we don't like that, we can work to change it.
This is where we completely agree and I think where this whole discussion rests. Is this one of those exceptions and do religious organizations (not just the church) fall under these exceptions. We could probably discuss this until the cows come home but neither of us would budge.
Argh comp crashed >.< neeed a new one so bad. Sigh. Anyways you can argue that breaking from precedent is OK, but you have to prove why it's OK. That is the whole point and no one has been able to prove why it is that the Church gets precedent. Until then it stays w/ the individual. You don't have the right to take rights and privileges away from individuals unless there's a reason. The church's beliefs do NOT get to supersede the individual's.
The employee is promised health care when they go to work. That has been set up by federal law. The church does not get to say 'w/ exception to us' and then force the employee to go purchase additional benefits. Doing so is a violation of the rights they are entitled to via federal law. If you don't like that then you have to amend the federal law to take the employer out of the equation: which is OK to do. But you cannot say that the church gets an exemption to federal law simply because it disagrees w/ this one clause. That's not fair to the employee and since the employee has more to lose the church doesn't get to supersede them.
So all those states mandating that the church conform- that the church did/does NOT have a problem w/- should also have to conform? This is hypocrisy of the highest order on behalf of the Catholic Church. It violates the basic tenants of the federal laws that we have established and asserts a right over employees that the church has never legally been able to to assert. Unless you can justify why this is OK the church is at fault here. I am still waiting for that assertion. Either show the precedent or admit that the church is the one acting out. They don't get to say 'well just because we believe it's an infringement' and then deny rights. If that's the case then the employee has the right to push back and say 'well I don't believe the church gets to tell me what to do' and we're left in the same place. There aren't a lot of laws that say that the church gets to have priority over individuals. If you want to move away from precedent, fine, but prove why it is so.
The Repubs have NOTHING ELSE. They are on the wrong side of history. They do not care about women, children, the poor, gays, jobs, people without jobs, the environment, the economy (unless it affects their bottom line), healthcare (anybody else's), the rest of the world, seniors.............the ONLY thing that matters to them is GET THAT BLACK GUY OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. and they are NOW using the Catholic church to hopefully achieve that end. (They will dump the bishops too, If and WHEN they accomplish this. But don't hold your breath on THAT outcome......)
RobDon the problem here is not that churches have an issue. Churches are already exempt. the problem lies with catholic bishops angry cause colleges like georgetown and notre dame and hospitals will have to allow their employees the option of having birth control. two things: first, non catholic people work at these institutions. second, if you are going to be a business (especially those that take money from the gov't.) you have to play by the rules. and those rules state that birth control should be available to all employees that want it. if we follow the logic here of the GOP then sharia law/honor killings/poligamy are all fine cause those are religious freedom issues.
Bingo. Hospital, universities or any other institution offering products and services (including labor) to the general public ARE NOT CHURCHES. The RCC wants to extend "religious freedom" to every affiliated institution, no matter how tenuous the connection.
The line between church and state if firm and must be reinforced: if you enter the public domain, you must abide by its laws.
As a persuasive voice, the RCC is an abysmal failure. Most of its own parishioners ignore its dictates, yet it seeks to portray itself as a moral authority. That's fine if you are Catholic and have voluntarily submitted yourself to their authority. But for those of us who just want to do our jobs, we shouldn't have OUR healthcare choices subordinated to the dictates of our employer.
The liberty to be defended is that of the employee, not the employer. Healthcare coverage has progressed from being an optional fringe benefit to a socially mandated necessity. This is the primary reason that employers need to be removed from the healthcare coverage equation. Compensation due the employee for healthcare should be used to give the widest access so they can choose what's right for them.
Does anyone expect more from this obstructionist Republican House? These guys put in most of the Health care Reform Act language, then pledged to overturn it. They just want to block US government and it's working. How the American people could have voted in a Republican majority after the Bush years is beyond belief.
A mind numbing and egresses error...but with great upside. Let's see, more than half the Nation's population is women. 99% of all women use birth control at some point in their lives. 98% of all Catholic women use it at some point. And the Republican's make it abundantly clear, they just don't matter much. In fact, they don't at all! Oh, and the icing on the cake, so perfect. Are there really 3 catholic priests at the table? As in celibate males? As in may never in their entire lives have enjoyed physical intimacy with a woman? Now that's just got to be soooo comforting to woman. Who better to discuss such things? Outstanding. Really I don't know if I should vomit or write a thank you letter to the entire RP party. "Dear RP, thank you ever so much for doing all you can to insure the re-election of Pres. Obama. Love, Me.
This is a war on women's health!
Not at all. Women need to be healthy to bear lots and lots of healthy baby boys.
(Head exploding) There are THREE PRIESTS on the panel!! Do any of them have a condom in their wallet?!
No. And they won't either. At least not until altar boys can become impregnated.
Today, I am embarrassed to call myself an American.