NBC News/WSJ poll, July 18-22 (PDF)
Defending the American Dream Summit schedule
Karl Rove vs. the Koch brothers
Another Stumble for Ralph Reed's Beleaguered Campaign
Panel Says Abramoff Laundered Tribal Funds
Ralph Reed: Christians Need To Beg Forgiveness For God To Show Mercy In Election
Koch Brothers, GOP Mega Donors, Help Bankroll Religious Conservative's 2012 Efforts
Jack Abramoff on his new job as talk radio host
ALEC Disbands Task Force Responsible for Voter ID, 'Stand Your Ground' Laws
New Voter Identification Task Force Announced
Nonprofit Groups Funneled Money For Abramoff
Victims of Voter Fraud: Poor and Disadvantaged are Most Likely to Have Their Vote Stolen
Voter Fraud 'Study' Authored By Republican Who Pleaded Guilty In Abramoff Scandal
Romney, Obama campaigns battle over Ohio early voting
Obama administration gives groups more time to comply with birth control rule
Wheaton College 'Inadvertently' Covered Emergency Contraception Before Birth Control Mandate
Leave a Comment:
Is it true that Democrats only eat their own? Reid doesn't deserve to be parodied for what he is doing. He's actually fighting for our party, and that's a good thing. It's more than most Democrats have done since 2010. I Love the show and watch it every night, but you're providing negative reinforcement when positive would be more likely to ensure that the behavior continues. He deserves encomiums for what he has done, not derision.
Now there is a word that I don't recall ever hearing or reading.
I had to look it up to make sure it wasn't some kind of suppository. :)
Encomium
1. Warm, glowing praise. 2. A formal expression of praise; a tribute.
So - yes I agree that Reid deserves encomiums.
Also, Amardeep Kaleka deserves encomiums for his poise and thoughtfulness during a time of terrible grief.
So - thanks for the new word. I will keep an eye out for people that deserve it.
Too often I see people who could really use .... what I first thought it meant.
maphi, am I seeing this correctly? You want to praise Reid for initiating an unproven assertion, and demanding the accused defend himself from it? Guilty until proven innocent? Are you familiar with Joe McCarthy and how he persecuted Communists real and imagined?
Worse I thought you were one of the few commenters on the left I could respect. I hope I'm wrong here, because "coarsening dialogue" can only go downhill from there. For example, speculation on the right currently is that Obama attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student. And no one knows how he paid for his education. Do you really want to pursue dueling scenarios and demand proof they're wrong?
There's speculation on the left that Romney is a robot. Why is no one investigating that? NPR? Micheal Moore??? Hello???! Where is the outrage? Where are the papers showing he's human?? And!! A robot that wasn't even made in the U! S! of A! Aaaah!!!!!
But seriously...if Obama gave every last person in America a copy of every last scrap of information regarding his birth, his schooling, his church-attendance activities, his marriage license, his DNA and what ice cream flavors he favors...there would still be people, such as the above comment-giver, who would bark and froth and foam about the lips about...it's all faked, where are the REAL papers. And-- positing the theory that Obama is not even American, gasp, is a way of deflecting from Romney's cyborg-ishness. [ Had to. Just had to connect the big floppy conspiracy circle. ]
Watching the Rachel Maddow show and realizing that Reid is to Romneys tax returns is a lot like Trump is to Obama's birth certificate. Only thing is that Obama has complied with the request for proof. Romney has not. Which seems more honest?
I wonder if Wheaton College offers a course in recognizing hypocrisy in those who occupy positions of trust. Who is paying the legal bills of the lawsuit against ACA?
Noah Toly pens defense of Wheaton College Ill stand/objections against HHS mandate.
I believe what you find here, as is the case in many a dilema faced by current laws where Human Resource Departments sift thru complicated paperwork (let's be fair here, Obama Care is one very, very complicated formative law and the process is painstaking in getting to the credentials of the law)ie didn't it take Supreme Court arguments to find that Obama Care was a "tax"?) the discovery coming after February may have been conducive with ACA that Wheaton College fiinds current with 2012 law they do cover contraceptives they do not want to provide. It certainly has been stated by the Becket Fund that these discoveries came after February of this year. That the college waited for the Supreme Court decision in order to make a valid complaint and that it was the direct decision of the "waiting for the process to play out stategy empployed by the college's Board of Trustee's which caused the so called "phony" reaction or as Ms Maddow exclaims, phony "Outrage". Documents provided thru the Becket Fund and the College's site show that in fact this has been a process by which a discovery was made that between January 2012 and July 18 2012, the college was now actively allowing coverage for such contraceptives.
Maybe Ms Maddow should have had someone from Wheaton or from the Becket Fund to get her facts straight first. Instead of jumping the shark to vilify the college's intent, sincerity or genuous intent on objecting to the HHS mandate. Thoroughly investigate instead of "jumping to conclusions" just to meet an end which is inconclusive and not fully supported.
Today’s coverage of Wheaton’s challenge to the HHS Preventive Services Mandate
Posted on August 3, 2012by Noah Toly
This week’s news has included two stories about Wheaton College’s lawsuit challenging the HHS Preventive Services mandate. On Wednesday, Wheaton requested a preliminary injunction that would delay the enforcement of the mandate as long as the case remains undecided. Today, multiple sources reported that Wheaton College included an abortifacient emergency contraceptive in its health insurance plans before the announcement of the HHS Preventive Services mandate, noting that for this reason, Wheaton does not qualify for an extension of the deadline by which it must comply with the mandate.
This seems irrelevant to the fundamental question of religious liberty. Before the HHS Preventive Services mandate went into effect, Wheaton could have chosen to exclude abortifacient drugs on religious grounds, though it may not have had to name the grounds. Under the HHS Preventive Services mandate, given its narrow religious exceptions that extend almost exclusively to places of worship, Wheaton is not permitted to exclude abortifacient drugs on religious grounds, even when it explicitly identifies religious objections.
On the other hand, some would like to use this information to call into question the veracity and consistency Wheaton’s religious objection. While Wheaton College spokespeople have indicated that this coverage resulted from an oversight or mistake they were working to correct before the HHS Preventive Services mandate went into effect, some commentators have insisted that this is evidence that Wheaton College is disingenuous in its opposition to the mandate or in its defense of religious liberty. They have suggested that this is evidence that political motivations are driving the legal challenge. The Washington correspondent for the Daily Telegraph suggests that Wheaton dropped the coverage of abortifacient contraceptives simply in order to be able to “sue Obama,” as if the College would not otherwise have dropped the coverage on grounds of conscience.
I don’t work in our Human Resources department, so I can’t attest to the details of how the pharmaceuticals in question came to be covered in the first place. But I have absolutely no reason to doubt that this was an oversight or mistake. Moreover, none of the commentators on today’s stories are able to provide a reason to doubt the College’s account of an oversight. In fact, all of their arguments are circular. They would seem to go something like this:
“1) Wheaton College just wants to sue the Obama administration for political reasons, because Wheaton College used to cover at least one of the same abortifacient drugs it wants to be exempt from covering.
“2) Even though Wheaton’s spokespeople say it was a mistake or oversight, I won’t believe them. The evidence that Wheaton is being disingenuous is…
“3) … that Wheaton College just wanted to sue the Obama administration in the first place.”
Unless those accusing Wheaton College of being disingenuous can do better–which is to say, “use evidence and reason”–then they should drop this gimmick and stick to other objections.
About Noah Toly
Director of Urban Studies and Associate Professor of Politics & International Relations at Wheaton College Ill
It ALWAYS comes down to a University's "Mission Statement" and the HHS mandate and their own coverages for health ins MUST be conducive with their own Mission Statement. As the HHS mandate has evolves and as it's affects either reverse or make for colleges to revamp their commitments to such coverages, will be a process. Anyone who works the complicated world of Human Resources will tell you. It's seriously complicated. Bottom Line, it's the Board of Trustees who determine what a college or university will do and how that effort must be reflected as it remains conducive with the Mission Statement.
Just saying, do your homework and be thorough Ms Maddow and have somone on the show to tell the "other side" of the story before you fly off to "la la Land" with wild accusations. Be a pro!
Thanks
So, iPat...you're trying to tell us that Wheaton has suddenly had a bout of conscience at a politically significant time because someone in its administration finally just read the university's Mission Statement? And you feel it's wrong for other people to broadcast this on television even when you have admittedly done no research to support your comments about whether or how or when the "abortifacient contraceptives" were previously covered?
The real questions to ask would be when Wheaton College started to cover these drugs in its plan, and why. And what other religious organizations that supposedly oppose these provisions currently offer or have previously offered these drugs in their insurance plans.
I do not believe it is our government's responsibility to legislate religious morality, to spy on our doctor visits or monitor and possibly invade our bodies because some religious sect thinks it should. I can't imagine any man wanting the government to monitor his sexual performance or results thereof. These are private matters and should not involve the government, other than in the function of protecting citizens' rights.
I applaud Harry Reid for his courage in standing up to these legislators who manipulate the system to further a religious agenda (e.g., adding abortion amendments to flood insurance bills). Voters should demand that Congress institute a "stay on topic" rule, requiring any amendment to be completely relevant to the legislation it amends.
No Hyper typer, That is not what I am saying. That is what Ms Maddow told you and you have mimicked her (almost) every phrase here. What you have repsonded is simply what Maddow said last night. Obviously you are convinced. So be it.
What I did say is there is another side to this issue and Ms Maddow has failed to allow her audience a review of that side. Just her own wild assumptions. Which as usual are predicated on half the story and a biased address of the issue. Her conclusions are pre disposed. She had her mind up long before she ran the segment. That I am saying, is not professional journalism. It's politicing.
I am sayiing tha it is possible in this day & age to have the advent of a new health care implimentations (coverage for abortion inducing drugs) that thru Human Resources a client (church or industry or other org.) is not fully aware of because of the complicated language embraced in such documents. Which appears to be the case here or at least a partial reason. Time will disclose the answers for certain. Ms Maddow simply deduces that the college is being "Phony".
Life really begins when you join the tea-party!
What is Rand Paul, an avowed libertarian, doing offering any anti-abortion amendment, let alone a "personhood at conception" one. A short list:
1) libertarians are against govt coercion of individuals
2) libertarian philosophy has virtually no position on the status of children, let alone unborn children
This couldn't possibly be any more philosophically incoherent.
On the other hand, if he is pandering to pro-life voters, it makes complete sense. Of course, violating your personal moral values to pander to voters seems to be exactly what the "new conservative movement" doesn't like.