Getty Images
Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) told supporters this week that they should "defy and or break the law" in order to resist the Affordable Care Act. Of course, the opinions of some strange former congressman, booted out of Congress after one term, probably don't carry much weight.
How about a man who may be elected governor of Virginia later this year?
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee and a rising national figure on the right, told an Iowa-based radio show Wednesday night that opponents of a federal mandate for contraception coverage should be willing to "go to jail" to fight the law.
Cuccinelli, who also addressed the Iowa Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner last spring, told conservative radio host Steve Deace that he strongly supports the lawsuit by Hobby Lobby Stores against the Affordable Care Act's requirements for contraception coverage.
In the interview, Cuccinelli shared an exchange he had with his own Roman Catholic bishop who told him, "Well, you know I told a group I'm ready to go to jail" to fight contraception access. Cuccinelli replied, "Bishop, don't take this personally: You need to go to jail."
The right-wing state A.G. added, "What I mean by that is, people need to see it play out all the way to its logical conclusion."
Keep in mind, Cuccinelli isn't saying he's prepared to go to jail; he's just saying people who think the way he does should be prepared to go to jail.
Here's hoping his allies don't take this advice.
In case anyone's forgotten, the policy Cuccinelli finds so outrageous is actually pretty routine, and hardly worth risking incarceration over.
Under federal law, insurance companies must now make preventive care available without copays. It was up to the Obama administration to establish what counts as "preventive care," and officials chose a variety of common-sense policies, including mammograms, HIV screenings, immunizations, and contraception.
No one will be required to have any of these services; they'll simply be available. In terms of finances, the Obama administration exempts churches and other houses of worship from financing care they may find objectionable, and the White House also created a compromise in which religiously-affiliated employers wouldn't have to pay for contraception directly.
That's it. That's the entirety of the "controversy."
For the far-right Virginian, this policy is so excessive, people should simply ignore the law and invite punishment.
The 2012 elections offered a variety of lessons, but one of them seemed to be that the American mainstream wasn't comfortable with the Republicans' bizarre preoccupation with reproductive health, most notably, contraception access. Apparently, some missed the message.
Leave a Comment:
After seeing how crazy this man is, all I can say is that I hope a majority of Virginians realize it as well and keep him as far from the Governor's mansion as possible this year.
Amazingly, he makes Gov. Ultrasound look positively sane in comparison.
Is there no "flying under the radar" with these R-bagsof? Like, he isn't going to be further asked to compare his ideas to the ultrasound stance? This guy, shirley, has already signed on to some previous bill that included banning the birth control pill.
This man is setting himself up to be the poster boy for extremists trying to win statewide elections in swing states.
I truly believe that men who oppose abortion don't feel that way because they are concerned about the child or the mother, it is all about power. When a women can get an abortion, men feel they can't control women anymore. Same reason why men rape--not for sex but for power.
You said it all, Lilarose,,, P,O,W,E,R,,,
absolutely Lilarose...and these are the people pecking away at VAWA...be affraid women...be very affraid.
The GOP is looking more and more like a cult. Total control is the name of the game.
They looking more like the Taliban and supporting Sharia Law. If a dem ever made a comment like that they would impeach them in a NY minute.
You're so totally right!! It's all about power. First they'll take away our contraception and rights to choose ... next to go will be our right to vote, and our right to work outside the home. They're working on "redefining" rape, they didn't renew the Violence Against Women act, they think women need to prove how hard they fought in order to accuse a man of rape. Pretty soon they will outlaw divorce and make a woman stay with the man who cheats on her and beats her regularly, keeping her barefoot, pregnant and as his servant.
There's not enough WHITE babies being born with all this damned birth control! That's why they are so concerned with the subject.
You said it! That's why they're all for rapists, too, since rape is a crime not of sexual passion, but the ultimate effort to overpower and take control of a woman's body.
This has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with the Almighty $$!
Sounds like something a religious-nut would claim.
Conservatives: Lowering the IQ of politics since 1819
What I don't understand about this debate is the inability of the left, those supporting access, to disarm the argument that this is an assault on religious freedom. What is lost is that this is access, not a mandate that contraception be used. Individuals are still free to exercise their right to not use contraception.
And, where is the left when this argument is in direct opposition to the right's position of limited government. This is such hypocrisy. Limited government, except where they feel we need more, such as in a women's uterus. Don't they see that forcing their religious beliefs on us is an infringement on our religious freedom?
Contraceptive access is a civil, not a religious issue, especially for non-religious business like Hobby Lobby.
Reasonably intelligent people have indeed made the obvious observations of right wing hypocrisy in this case. Virtually everything they demmagogue is rife with hypocrisy, it's a given...
There is a difference between having something forced upon you that is against your religious beliefs and not being able to force your religious beliefs upon others. Let me give you an example: Right now young men that are members of the government recognized Peace churches (Quaker, Mennonite, Church of the Brethren) are still required under threat of jail, fines and permanent loss of access to various government programs must still register for the draft. They cannot apply for CO status as that only applies to men that have been drafted or are currently already serving, it does not apply to draft registration. However if you should comply with that and register that is used as proof of a willingness to go to war and is used against any application for CO status. That is an infringement on religious freedom, one that the right has been silent on. What is not an infringement on religious freedom is not being able to deny employees access to contraceptives because of the employers beliefs. The position of power gained by exchanging money for service should not be exploited to force upon those that provide that service personal beliefs. I know there are those that say but I am being forced to pay for that contraceptive access, and the truth is no not so. For this to actually be true costs to the insurance provider would be need to go up and they in turn pass that cost on, then yes the employer would be paying for it ( providing they are not in turn passing that cost on to the employee) but here is where reality steps in: the cost to health care providers is GREATER when there is NO ACCESS to contraceptives because the cost of those contraceptives is much lower than the cost of the increase in unplanned pregnancies that result in the prenatal care, the deliveries, the percentage of complications from
pregnancies and the resulting pediatric services demands. Insurance companies should have been allowed to actually demand an increase in fees if contraceptives are left out of the benefit package but since there are relatively few cases where that has been the case it has not been worth the firestorm of threats of persecution that would arise from having to actually cover the cost of their beliefs that mostly this has not happened. However if things should change and employers were allowed to deny their employees access on a larger scale I would expect a cost increase for that luxury.
As the court said in striking down the Hobby Lobby suit: the First Amendment is a shield, not a sword.
Well Sandra one of the biggest ironies of this whole business is that the contraception is paid through the employee premium. There are 2 ways that this can be done. It can either directly come from the employees paycheck or the employees paycheck can be lowered to reflect the amount the employer is covering in cost. Employers pay you less when they give you benefits than when they don't give you benefits (or at least that's the argument employers use when they are lowering pay- personally as an employer I think it's a terrible argument, but my own feelings are being put aside here). So the complaint really is that employers want to tell employees how to spend their money and that's an entirely new level of intrusion into employee rights. It shocks me how few people recognize this drastic separation from precedence. The employer is essentially stating that because he is the one paying the employee the employer therefore should be able to pick and choose what the employee does with that money. We've slowly seen more and more rights usurped by private entities at the expense of the individual and it just AMAZES me how few people are creeped out by it all.
This is part of why I don't listen when people complain about government invasion of privacy, yet then when I ask them about corporate invasion of privacy they have no problem with it. Well it's OK for Wal-Mart to spy on me just as long as it's not the big bad government. Really? Because in the former instance you're losing power as an individual instead of gaining freedom.
How does that old saying go? Fascism will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a Bible?
Wow, I see the war on women is still in full swing!
And heating up.
Sure, he tells his people to go to jail over this nonsense but you just know he won't put himself in that position, of actually breaking the law and going to jail....Grandstanding hypocrite!
Steve Deace, my man! I miss my afternoon drives with you!
It seems to me this guy needs a sex change and after about a year or so then see how he feels about contraception let alone protection for women from violence equal pay ...But he holds no agenda with or for any woman that have the freedom of the vote and the self esteem to stand up to this kind of bully!!!!!!God blesses us all and we really need it!!!!!
Unfortunately, a sex change does not make a former male capable of pregnancy.
Though, even without a sex change, it appears this gentleman suffers from bloat and PMS (Primadonna Male Syndrome).
So the Far-Right is now vocally advocating for American Citizens to be completely dependent on the Federal Government to take care of them. And by default advocating for tax payers to take care of them. So much for Smaller Government and a less Government Dependent Society.
So much for that idea, because that was obviously not done at all.
I live in Canada we have universial health care which covers contraception and costs relating to abortions.
We have gay marriages and also abortons on demand. and our country since 1968 have been run my Devote Catholic Prime Ministers, and in their memoirs a number have stated that we dont know the battles they fought with their religion and concionce, being Catholic yet what they were proposing for the country was against their churches teachings, but they said they felt God woulod understand as they were the Priome Ministers of all of Canada even those who didnt vote for them, not just their supporters and fellow catholics.
Now I see Catholics like Rick Santorum, make remarks, are our Canadian Catholic lawmakers damn good people or out to lunch? listening to Mr santorum id say out to lunch, he wants the church to be involved in every action of your lives.
Many Americans have on sites like this stated how socialist Canada is such a ungodly country , its funny in many schools across Canada they still say the lords prayer, to start off their days, have religious christmas concerts, every year., many school boards have Chaplins in their high schools, most airports also have chaplins as do train stations,there to deal with any problem that may come up.
Many Americans state how patriotic they are ohh ya they wear flag pins on their lapels hold hand over heart when singing national anthem.
Canadians are as patriotic as Americans are we just don't make a big deal about it Americans state they have second amendment allowing them all to have guns., well in Canada we have laws whidch restrict gun ownership yet per capita in Canada we own almost as many guns as Americans do, we too like our guns,but are regulated in how we can have and handle them they ahve to be stored in large weapon carrying cases when stored must have trigger locks on them before you get either a handgun or long barrel you have to take a course to show you can handle those guns and know how they work, not like in states ya apply get a permit and go buy ur gun ,no training ,no verifying you know how to handle and operate a gun.
Here is a short infomerical with the dispised and hated Micheal Moore about differences to Canada and USA its very interesting and shows hige differences watch and enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3JMSTPSsbU
You might want to invest in a spell-check program.
These businesses just do not want to pay for health care for their employees. What they do not realize is that not providing health care, including contraception, costs them more in the long run. Just look at the current flu epidemic. Without sick leave and health services, employees come to work sick and spread the disease.
Without contraception, women get pregnant and a pregnancy costs a lot more than contraception, and that does not even include the cost of supporting the child and its health care. Without prenatal care and the option of aborting a fetus with birth defects there are more complicated births and disabled people who may have to be supported by someone all their lives. And some of these deformed children suffer terribly.
people of va. you are too smart not to see the hate he has for women . this bigot is another reason to vote demcratic good luck and god bless
Works for me. Put the flakes in jail. Don't even bother with a trial.
Q: Are you going to follow the law and do what it says?
A: No.
I hope your jail cell is comfortable AND we get to ask you the same question again when you get out. If your response again is no, then you go back to jail.
My sentiments exactly. I'm through with trying to reason with these folks advocating breaking the law.
I would love to see them carted off to jail.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Jail is often cited as the proper place to gain a better understanding of the definition of rape too.
unbelievable. where in the heck do these freaks come from?
it's what ten generations of Southern "inbreeding" creates.
They come from religions that teach people that sex is a sin. This is their only form of contraception, based upon a refusal to catch up to scientific and medical breakthroughs in understanding conception, and how it can actually be controlled with birth control pills, IUD's, etc.. The goal over the centuries has remained the same, to prevent unwanted pregnancies (pre-marital, too costly for the family income, dangerous for the mother, and so on), but the methodology is the controversy. Should pregnancy, as a result of sex, be regulated by the sin clause (and its eternal damnation), or by modern medicine (and its non-judgemental effectiveness)?
So this is what our country has come to---if you don't like a law, not only should you feel free to ignore it and break it, you MUST do so; it is a moral imperative according to Cuccinelli. Would he give the same advice to women who disagree with restrictive abortion laws in places like VA? How about to people who disagree with current drug laws? Or maybe folks who disagree with any gun laws? The man is basically advocating for anarchy, whether he has the brainpower to understand that. Though he thinks he is only advocating for breaking laws that he personally disagrees with, (kind of bizarre, coming from the state's Attorney General), he undoubtedly wouldn't want folks who don't hold those same views to follow his advice.
Really - and what about these ridiculous laws about robbing banks? Or robbing mini-marts?
For that matter I just hate when my personal freedom is taken away by these horrible traffic laws! Just listen to my hero Sammy Hagar.
I can't drive 55!
I recently saw a thread on a pro-gun forum regarding what do you do if you need to go into a place that has a 'no weapons' sign, but you're already packin' (legally, of course)? I was disturbed to read that most people would ignore the sign rather than not go in, or secure their gun elsewhere before going in. I keep that in the back of my mind when they talk about how laws only affect 'good guys'.
Any Senator or congress-person who openly criticizes and helps or aids to not implement and shut down passed legislation have violated their fiduciary function for and to the people. They have passed across the threshold and should be jailed as these people suggest. Joe Walsh, Ken Cuccinelli or anyone who openly defies congressional actions, legislation or acts should be held to the highest of standards as they must be shown the federal government has a higher authority than their self-righteous beliefs. They are not above the law. When congress persons begin to impose their religious beliefs onto others in their effort to convert/impose beliefs, they have definitely cross the line. They should be made examples on the national stage.
Wait! Where did the cute puppy video go???!
Hilarious. I love it that the Republican Party continues to be destroyed by its own people. This freak should be the first Republipig to go to jail. I await the day when Republican is a a word used only in the past tense.
Your employer has more control over your healthcare benefits than yourself.
The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government. This man is encouraging people to break the law? We send men and women to fight for Democracy all over the world, but here in the United States we have no respect for Democracy. Since 2009 the Republican Party has decided that they do not respect Democracy when it is not their policies. Republican definition of Democracy:
Majority does not rule unless the Republicans are the Majority.
We only abide by the laws we agree with and break the laws we don't like.
We want individual freedom, HOWEVER we want to Legislate Women's Reproductive Rights, Religious Beliefs and Sexual Orientation.
How today's Republicans disrespect those men and women who have fought and died fighting for Democracy.
Since when does an employer get to tell what benefits a health insurance company will provide? Can a Jehovah's Witness business owner say that he doesn't want the cost of a transfusion covered? Can a homophobic company owner say he doesn't want HIV meds covered? What if the contraceptive is prescribed for a reason other than birth control - does the insurance company have to run it passed the employer? It's absurd.
I don't get the whole anti-contraception thing. Is it that they think it leads to more promiscuity and therefore "immoral" behavior, or is it that they just want to make sure the odds are higher that their employees get knocked up? Either way, an employee's sex life is no business of the employer.
Exactly, lets ask Cuccinelli if it will alright for a Muslim employer to deny insurance coverage for porcine insulin or a pig heart valve transplant to his employees. See how supportive of religious freedom he really is.
As soon as the argument moves beyond Christians denying coverage to women, it becomes outrageous to the RIght-Wing. Of course, your boss deciding what your health insurance covers has always been outrageous.
There are plenty more I can think of, the Jehovah's Witness and transfusions is the best I think, but they include all transplants as forbidden too. What about Scientology and psychiatry?
Christian Science - only prayer is covered.
Brewer Patriot - The answer to your question is yes. That's exactly what these laws (inclu. the original Blunt-Rubio amendment) say and it is what they mean. And as you noted, it doesn't haven't to be a religious objection, a "mere" moral objection will suffice.
I sometimes wish we could bring the "screech" level down just a touch. If one, as you did, asks these questions in a normal tone of voice, the screeching absurdity is revealed.
Cuccinelli, Hobby Lobby and the Roman Catholic bishop “Clown”
should read Romans 13:1 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Interpretation:
higher powers mean “the federal government and legislated laws”… So are these
morons practicing and/or believing in God’s will or their own?
They just make it up as they go along because you know, they are...RIGHT!
I don't know if Virginia will see how crazy he is but in Washington State we voted down a fairly moderate Republican for Governor because of his association with Cuccinelli. It's alright to disagree on issues. It's NOT OKAY to sign up with the batsh#t crazies to get money for your campaign.
I love the idea that these guys (because it's all men) will have their protest out in the full glare of the public eye. If they do this, they will get hammered by the broad public objection to their position, just like Limbaugh and just like the "Rape Caucus".