Religious Freedom. Sure!

http://nyti.ms/zOz7Ic

Lets see. The worthy gentlemen cannot persuade a majority of their own parishioners to eschew contraception; not with their own eloquence nor with the pretended authority of the word of the Almighty, so they want to use the power of the almighty dollar to impose a monetary cost on women who want to avail themselves of access to contraception.

The rights of a powerful group of men to discourage contraceptive use through monetary pressure is "religious freedom", but the religious convictions of women who think contraception is right for them has no weight and no protection.

The right to pressure others to conform to one's own view of morality ,not simply by moral argument or example, but by the power of the purse is surely a sacred right protected by the US constitution; whereas the rights of women to affordable access to contraception is no right at all.

Tell me another, and while we're at it, tell me again why women are more religious than men?

This has never been about the "conscience" of religiously affiliated employers: they didn't raise a hue and cry when the requirement to provide this sort of coverage was imposed on them as an interpretation of Title VII back in 2000. They fussed over state provisions that mandated that they make such coverage available at no additional cost, but they've lost every case they litigated (and some states don't even exempt houses of worship from having to provide the coverage). But now they make a big fuss.

What's the difference? The bishops don't like Obama, and want to gin up a political issue. They lost the legal battle over this years ago, but they just don't like the president, so they'll try to make it an issue.

And the issue is not that their "conscience" is being violated. The issue is that they want to control the reproductive choices everyone makes. Not just the reproductive choices of their own flock, but anyone they come into contact with as well. They want the right to dictate their morals on to people who don't share their faith, and they want their adherents to be able to do the same if they happen to own a business.

The Catholic hierarchy is, simply put, nothing but dog shit that the U.S. needs to wipe off the bottom of its shoe.

I am not Roman Catholic, probably not especially catholic much either - my recitation of the creed each Sunday notwithstanding.

I don't think the motivation for the objections to contraception are to keep women barefoot and pregnant either.

Nevertheless the religious implications of contraception yea or nay escape me. I do not know the reason it is made to be a religious issue.

3: Oh, it's definitely to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Let's quote Santorum on the subject:

"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. The whole sexual libertine idea that many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they’re supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal but also unitive and also procreative and that’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen."

The message is clear: Sex is about procreation. Keep those women pregnant and keep the babies coming.

The right to pressure others to conform to one's own view of morality ,not simply by moral argument or example, but by the power of the purse is surely a sacred right protected by the US constitution; whereas the rights of women to affordable access to contraception is no right at all.

When did the right for women to control their own bodies get twisted into the right to demand free condoms from a church? That's one serious mangling of the issues.

Stormraven,

I still don't think it is about oppressing women, even Santorum's thoughts. I think it is more about sex as a sin outside of marriage. He is worried about too much license out there. Sex outside of marriage is too much license. I think it leads to marijuana. And I have seen those movies that show what marijuana leads to.

It is possible, if you want, to argue that marriage is an oppressive institution. I think I have heard arguments along those lines. And if marriage is oppressive to women and sex is only to supposed be within marriage, then sex is part of the overall oppression.

I don't think marriage is necessarily oppressive to women. The idea that sex between consenting people is a sin, I think is oppressive. But not specifically for women.

ref #5

When did the right for women to control their own bodies get twisted into the right to demand free condoms from a church? That's one serious mangling of the issues.

When these two thing happened::
1. When it is the norm for health care to be provided indirectly through the mechanism of an insurance policy underwritten (is that the proper term?) by private for-profit companies and paid for by the employer, instead of, as in God's True Plan, by the government.
AND
2. When, under the above arrangement, a church becomes an employer,

I suppose one could add a third enabler "When relatively safe, cheap , unobtrusive and effective contraception came into the world"

"When did the right for women to control their own bodies get twisted into the right to demand free condoms from a church?"

It hasn't. The right being demanded is the right to have the health care coverage one desires, regardless of the nature of your employer. As long as employers are going to be in the business of providing their employees health care coverage, they shouldn't be able to impose their own religious preferences on them.

"I still don't think it is about oppressing women, even Santorum's thoughts. I think it is more about sex as a sin outside of marriage."

I think you are hopelessly naive. If it was about sex as a sin outside of marriage, then Santorum and the bishops wouldn't be worried about the use of contraception within marriage. They are concerned about sex without procreation.

Not only that, given the bishop's rejection of the compromise position adopted by the administration that takes them out of the payment loop, it isn't even about the fact that they might have been asked to pay for health care in a manner their employee directed, it is about preventing their employees from having access to contraception as part of their health coverage no matter who is paying for it.

And they want the ability to deny this sort of health coverage extended to any business owned by someone who is Catholic, not merely Catholic-related institutions.

This is about controlling women and imposing their religious views on people who do not share them.

After seeing this, I'm going to say that anyone who doesn't realize that this is about controlling women is simply being willfully ignorant.

> 10

Especially when insurers cover Viagra without controversy.

"Women hold up one - half of the sky" -Mao

I don't think McConnell's statements are about anything but pandering for some votes. The same as Santorum and any other politician.

I have been called much worse than hopelessly naive. Willfully ignorant is a new one though. But what the hell, stormraven, call me whatever you wish.

One of my biggest issues with this discussion (not the LT topic here, but the national discussion over contraception and religion) is that I don't see the religious implications of birth control.

What does that have to do with worshiping God? Why is that a concern of a bishop?

I don't even like the idea of a bishop having any say on our church worship service.

Moving to the larger law issue. Can any religious organization make a claim that anything is a religious tenant and thus dictate away any government requirement?

It comes up frequently with some faiths denying medical treatment. You can probably list other examples. Is there a restriction to what a religion can remove from government regulation on the basis of faith claims?

14: Because the Catholic church has staked out a position (at least in the U.S.) that contraception is sinful, because it is an attempt to control reproduction with is supposedly the sole purview of God.

This is not just a Catholic position, several of the more fundamentalist-oriented Protestant denominations hold to this view as well.

Secondarily, the Catholic church (and others) oppose contraception because it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, and as a result they claim it is tantamount to abortion.

15: I have addressed this on LT before. In the U.S., the Supreme Court has ruled that a law of general applicability that happens to affect religious practice is a valid law and may be enforced notwithstanding the religious objection. The First Amendment's protections have been held to not apply in such cases.

And the thing is that God should be able to circumvent our feeble contraceptive efforts in order to have humans produce the offspring he wants according to his will.

How is it known that contraception is not a gift from God?

18: Don't ask me. Ask the people who are opposed to contraception. Me, I'm a big fan of contraception.

First, contraception is an issue for Catholics, and not for most other religious people. Protestants I know who oppose it have totally different reasons that Roman Catholics.

Second, from the Bishops point of view this is not about contraception; it is about whether the government can mandate that religious organizations provide services that are in opposition with their long held beliefs.

They feel about this program the same way an atheist might feel if the government required insurance companies to insist that doctors pray with patients before doing surgery on them. Or how Jews might feel if the government suddenly banned circumcision.

As to why women are more religious than men, that has to do with something I have been saying for a while, and that is people are religious for a variety of reasons, and some reasons (the pastor was the only person who was there for me when I needed help, I feel at home at this church, I enjoy the people who go there, I find God there) often trump other reasons that even they perceive as negative.

"Second, from the Bishops point of view this is not about contraception; it is about whether the government can mandate that religious organizations provide services that are in opposition with their long held beliefs."

Well, first off, given the legal precedents established by the Supreme Court, we know that the government can, and has done so many times. Right now 28 states require religious organizations to do what the HHS decision demands. Some of those state provisions have been challenged in court, and those challenges have all failed.

Second, given their opposition to the revised policy in which the organizations are taken out of the loop and yet employees can still get contraceptive coverage, it is definitely about contraception.

First, contraception is an issue for Catholics,

That may well be so, but the position of most Catholics, if statistics are any guide, is that they are in favor of it. It is the Hierarchy which frowns upon conception.

If the Bishop's view deserves to prevail, why shouldn't the Moslems have the right to plural marriage (up to four wives according the Koran and long custom), and why shouldn't those who object on religious grounds to all doctoring whatever (Would that be Jehovah's witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists? Or is it only transfusions that they should be excused from paying for?) have the same right to not provide any medical coverage at all?

Where does reasonable accommodation to strongly held feeling end, and appeasment of bullies begin?

>21 Some of those state provisions have been challenged in court, and those challenges have all failed.

But isn't that a good example of the democratic and legal process working well? Citizens (and their pressure groups) make all sorts of challenges for all sorts of reasons. The courts decide, based on existing legislation. If some citizens (and their pressure groups) disagree, they then lobby to change the legislation. Then, in theory, the will of the majority, through their elected representatives, decides whether the legislation should be changed. Would you prefer that citizens were not allowed to challenge things in court nor to lobby to influence legislation?

#7: When it is the norm for health care to be provided indirectly through the mechanism of an insurance policy underwritten (is that the proper term?) by private for-profit companies and paid for by the employer, instead of, as in God's True Plan, by the government.

The reason employers have over time become the purchaser of health plans for their employees and that individually-bought healthcare plans have pretty much bitten the dust owes to a host of government interference over the years. You never hear about it being the norm for auto insurance to be provided by employers. Most recently, the Obama healthcare thing has the government explicitly mandating healthcare coverage.

#21: Mandatory coverage was ruled unconstitutional by the 11th circuit last summer. Not that I put any stock in the whims of the priesthood of the gavel.

#21: Second, given their opposition to the revised policy in which the organizations are taken out of the loop and yet employees can still get contraceptive coverage, it is definitely about contraception.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Bumping the cost up the chain to the insurers doesn't mean that the religious institutions buying the plans aren't paying for it. As long as people inanely insist on forcing others to buy things they don't want to buy, it doesn't matter what the church's motives are. I have a right to a freedom of the press: Now go buy me a publishing company.

I was thinking that hospital administrators and university professors can afford contraception more readily than cafeteria workers and custodians, never mind unintentional pregnancies. According to article below, "The cost of birth control is one reason poor women are more than three times as likely to end up pregnant unintentionally as middle-class women."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/kristof-beyond-pelvic-politics....

Mandatory coverage was ruled unconstitutional by the 11th circuit last summer. Not that I put any stock in the whims of the priesthood of the gavel.

Was that a ruling on an individual mandate, or on a coverage option requirement? Because it would be a distinct change in the law for them to have said that required coverage options were unconstitutional.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Bumping the cost up the chain to the insurers doesn't mean that the religious institutions buying the plans aren't paying for it.

If you take this logic to its end point, the employee is ultimately paying the cost of the coverage, and the religious employers had no basis to complain about anything to begin with.

I said: First, contraception is an issue for Catholics,

Modal said: That may well be so, but the position of most Catholics, if statistics are any guide, is that they are in favor of it. It is the Hierarchy which frowns upon conception.

I was actually being more precise with my language than I usually am. Contraception IS an issue for Catholics. It is an issue precisely because the laity is at odds with the clergy.

In 1981 I went to an Engaged Encounter with my soon-to-be wife. The crowd was heavily Catholic, since the dioceses of Los Angeles decreed that every couple married by a priest had to undergo either six months of premarital counseling or a weekend of Engaged Encounter.

At the end they had a question and answer period, and out of 22 questions, 21 were about birth control.

This is actually a pretty good example of how the "leaders" of a denomination have little impact on the thoughts and ideas of the people they lead.

Unfortunately, the mass media are perfectly willing to let the Catholic clergy speak "for" the Catholic laity, on an issue where they should be confined to speaking to the laity. If they can't sell their own flock on their agenda, what business do they have trying to impose it on the rest of us?

I was not taking issue with AS over the issue of whether the question of contraception is, for Catholics, an issue.

I think we are all agreed as to what "the facts on the ground" are.

But if there is strong disagreement among persons of good will (we include, in an uncharacteristic burst of generosity, the category of "Catholic Bishop"
, or some of them, at least, into the set of "people of good will" ) even within a single denomination, how can one rationally make reasonable accommodation to a contradictory set of opinions within and between denominations?

Lets see what that would look like in another field: politics.

But if there is strong disagreement among persons of good will (we include, in an uncharacteristic burst of generosity, the category of "Democratic Elected Officials"
, or some of them, at least, into the set of "people of good will" ) even within a single political party, how can one rationally make reasonable accommodation to a contradictory set of opinions within and between parties?

> 30 Lets see what that would look like in another field: politics.

More accurate than I would like these days.

But seriously, US politics is putatively constituted with a primary purpose of accomplishing negotiation and cooperation between disparate interests. I don't think one can honestly say that about most hierarchical religious bodies, and certainly not about religious institutions as an aggregate -- no matter how much ecumenical smoke is blown!

(I make this observation as a ranking member of the clergy in the hierarchical religious institution to which I belong.)

#26: Was that a ruling on an individual mandate, or on a coverage option requirement? Because it would be a distinct change in the law for them to have said that required coverage options were unconstitutional.

Individual mandate, but same difference. Whether you're an employee or you run an insurance company or a religious institution, we're all individuals. My point was to refute the magic consensus on the subject of mandates. In any case, argumentum ad populum doesn't cease to be a logical fallacy just because the people cited wear black robes.

If you take this logic to its end point, the employee is ultimately paying the cost of the coverage, and the religious employers had no basis to complain about anything to begin with.

You mean we're not talking about employer-based healthcare? I didn't know that the employees in question were paying in-full themselves as single-payer.

"Individual mandate, but same difference."

No, it isn't. The government may not be able to require that you purchase something, but it can (and does) regulate the methods by which employers may compensate employees. Hence, your 11th Circuit opinion is entirely off-point. Citing it in a legal challenge to the proposed HHS regulation would not be a winning argument.

"You mean we're not talking about employer-based healthcare? I didn't know that the employees in question were paying in-full themselves as single-payer."

You know as well as I do that "employer" contributions are nothing more than shifted compensation.

#31 Given my current experience this week, I would apply that school officials; District superintendents, school board officials, principals and teachers. The goal is to educate kids, but the turf battles become the focus.

What kind of ranking member are you?

> 34

A bishop.

Interesting. I wonder, sociologically, how different your group is from the groups I worked with.

> 36

Me too. But please don't limit my experience to the church that I serve. We are, after all, a tiny minority. I was raised Lutheran (LCA, at that time), and have studied religions widely.

One thing I have learned is NOT to limit people's religious experience!

As a woman over a certain age....I will say this. Sexism, much like racism in this country is not gone, it has just hidden underground. In some ways this is far more insidious than when out in the open.

The fact that we are even TALKING about the issue of contraception as applied to women in this the year of 2012, speaks for itself.

How dare anyone deny a woman equal opportunity to have a medication that let's her have control over her own body ? I don't care who the heck you are....priest or bishop or what ever. And secondly, how dare they use our bodies for political games ?
If you do not believe in birth control than don't use it.....leave the rest of us alone. If the norm in this country is for insurance to cover contraceptives and you are an employer who covers people with health insurance, than suck it up.

Did not "God" provide us with the smarts and the means to protect ourselves from over populating or having more children than we feel we can handle ? If so, than the Catholic church is thumbing their noses at the gift God gave us.

This is nuts ! Really. Remind me again what year we are living in ?

As a bishop from Another Mother (i.e. a different Mater Ecclesia), I strongly support the right of all individual women to a full range of health care, including contraception and abortion, according to their own various consciences.

On the other hand, I am skeptical about the moral value of boner drugs. Frankly, if you're a fellow who can't get it up, I suspect that the Lord disapproves of you procreating (with that partner anyhow), or is trying to protect you from cardiovascular stress, delayed backache, etc.

>40 LOL

Yep.....God's will when inflation is not an option.

You will get an arguement on this as contraceptions are not for treating a "medical" condition while Viagra is intended for such.
Only a fool doesn't know that Viagra is also a pretty dandy "recreational" drug as well. The amount of money the drug company makes on Viagra strongly suggest that this is the case. OR we have an epidemic of some sort going on.

Fixed Noise had a segment on the other night about this subject. About twenty people gathered to discuss this the church and contraceptives. All men...may have been one woman but the group was, for the most part, made up of men.

Have to google around and see if I can find it. Amazing really. The moderator was a man talking to a group of men about THIS issue.

Added : Even my husband noticed this and believe me, he isn't prone to picking up on stuff like that.

#33: No, it isn't. The government may not be able to require that you purchase something, but it can (and does) regulate the methods by which employers may compensate employees.

So much for equality before the law, eh?

Hence, your 11th Circuit opinion is entirely off-point. Citing it in a legal challenge to the proposed HHS regulation would not be a winning argument.

Pointing out logical fallacies are generally understood as useful in making an argument. Mandates are OK except on the waning crescent of Midsummer's Eve? Judicial nonsense.

You know as well as I do that "employer" contributions are nothing more than shifted compensation.

You know as well as I do that it's a purchase made by the employer regardless of in whose name it is purchased for. You can't prop up employer-based healthcare and then complain when the employer has misgivings.

#39: How dare anyone deny a woman equal opportunity to have a medication that let's her have control over her own body ?

Oh, grow up. The catholics may be sexist, but that doesn't make them wrong. You've decided that the expense of controling your own body should be outsourced to a third party. The moment you make your own rights someone else's responsibility is the moment you have given up your rights. That's not a contract. You are forcing them into the arrangement. Your anatomy is irrelavent. No matter what the issue, the dissenter is always right and the aggressor is always wrong.

>43
Would guess that many American's would be more than happy to have a single payer system, leaving the employer out of the equation all together.
Clearly you have no problems obtaining health care insurance. Maybe ought to check out how many people in this counrty are working just for coverage because a "group" will cover you when you are "uninsurable" Some of the employees in question may be working ONLY for the insurance. Many individuals are on disability because of the inability to afford private coverage. One is better off quitting a job that does not provide coverage and living on disability with state funded insurance, which costs nothing to themselves but raises the cost for everyone else.
Employer's did not create this problem but neither did someone unfortunate enough to have a health condition.

" The catholics may be sexist, but that doesn't make them wrong."

They would be less wrong if they were to drop the insurance altogether, then to start dictating to insurance companies based on religious beliefs who and what can or can not be covered. Especially on something as hypocritical as this.
They are playing a political game ....using religion and insurance, with women in the middle.

We have been down this road before. Your view is far too simplistic as you seem to think that what you do does not affect anyone around you or visa versa. Doesn't work that way.

Romance is in the air for the GOP and the Catholic church (Guardian)

#44: Is my view really too simplistic? Or is it that you're making it too complicated by insisting that employers should be forced into the arrangement? I agree that one way out is for the religious institutions to drop their healthcare plans entirely, but I'm not even sure if they'd be legally allowed to do that.

>46
I don't believe this discussion is about employers having to provide insurance, it is about business purchasing insurance for employees and then dictating what the insurance can cover based on religion, personal beliefs or what ever they see fit to use to discriminate against.

No doubt we have a flawed system....extremely flawed...add the above to the mix and it will take another step in a negative direction.

A "...measure*, proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) would amend the Affordable Care Act to allow any employer to exclude any health service coverage, no matter how critical or basic, by claiming that it violates their religious or moral convictions. Moreover, according to the National Women's Law Center, the amendment would remove critical non-discrimination protections from the Affordable Care Act. For instance, an insurer could deny maternity care coverage to a same-sex couple, an interracial couple or a single woman for religious or moral reasons..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/birth-control-obama_n_1277587.html?ref=...

* http://blunt.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/12ca4c96-d98c-4b37-920a-cdb15edb24d4...

>48
So, we get ever closer to a single payer system. Government run health care. Since we seem unable to insure and care for ourselves without prejudice and greed.

This is not the fault of the government, this is the entire system from top to bottom. We continously fail to do the right thing.
It will come, stuff like this brings it closer.
Wait until the whining starts about that ! As a country, we will simply have too many people needing healthcare and too few left who are paying into the system. Right now....it is extremely painful to still be on the paying end. Especially if one is self employed and does not have the advantage of being part of a bigger business group.

Question: why is any company being forced to offer free contraceptives, anyway?

1. There are plenty of over the counter options available
2. There are places like Planned Parenthood that probably still distribute condoms for no charge
3. No one is banning contraceptives, nor are they likely to

Contraceptives are available all over, and at low cost. We went without insurance coverage for years, and we managed to have less than 10 children. ;)

I see this issue as a smoke screen, a "red herring" for something else the government wants to mandate.

I am not amused.

ref 50
Well, you may be correct. While we're at it, why should any company be forced to offer coverage for an epidural or other pain relief during childbirth?

After all, doesn't the good book specifically say that it is the judgment of the Most High on Eve and her descendents that "In sorrow shall you bring forth children" (or words to that effect, and not pretending to replicate the quasi archaic grammar of the KJV ) ?

Isn't it an impious gesture against the Almighty's explicit intent to take away or meliorate the pain of childbirth?

>50
Birth Control makes sense from the stand point of the insurance companies...it is cheaper than pregnancies.

The norm in this country is that health care insurance covers contraceptive care for women. Should the church decide that women should be denied this because of a belief that contraception is a sin ? Nobody is forcing the company or business to do anything. The healthcare insurance will be the ones who have to provide the pills. Should the church decide what the insurance companies can or can not provide to women ? I think if you were to check, you would see that the profit margins of the insurance companies are doing just fine. Handing out birth control is a good way to see to it that those profit margins continue to do well. I don't think that the insurance companies will have any issue with this at all.

Conversly, the same people who are "against" the insurance company handing out birth control pills are the very same people who would like to do away with Planned Parenthood. (an evil source of help for fallen women) Nothing in this whole debate seems credible.
And yes, to a great extent this is a red herring, I said that from the get go....this is a BS issue.
For as long as I can remember, women have often been charged more for health care coverage and contraceptive care was not covered until somewhat recently. This push from the government, in part, was to insure preventative care for women without charging them more.

I would mention the federally funded "abstinence programs" that cropped up during the early 2000s . It seems that particular "birth control" prevention method did not meet with any bally hoo from religious groups at all and was paid for with tax dollars. Another BS issue.

This just in. A pew poll shows that 65% of those polled support the Obama administration's proposal on contraception.

Ditto a majority (but a smaller one than 65% if I remember correctly).

So its only Catholic Bishops whose morals are offended. OK. Let them not use birth control.

Obama isn't facing opposition only because of contraception. The Church fears sex discrimination suits just as much as it fears sexual liberation.

Abstinence works, abstinence programs don't work. Realistic Education about sex and sexuality work best.

>54
"The Church fears sex discrimination suits just as much as it fears sexual liberation."

Explain ?

"Obama isn't facing opposition only because of contraception. The Church fears sex discrimination suits just as much as it fears sexual liberation."

That ship has sailed. The EEOC issued a position in 2000 stating that health care plans that refused to offer contraceptive coverage violated Title VII.

#51: While we're at it, why should any company be forced to offer coverage for an epidural or other pain relief during childbirth?

Well, yeah. That would just be another effect of perpetuating this employer-based healthcare nonsense.

#52: Birth Control makes sense from the stand point of the insurance companies...it is cheaper than pregnancies.

You know I wasn't joking in the other discussion thread (in the other Pro and Con forum) that there's this guy proposing a drinking age for soda pop. I don't care how beneficial you make out a course of action to be. Having a good idea and forcing it on others are two completely different things.

#53: A pew poll shows that 65% of those polled support the Obama administration's proposal on contraception.

Not quite as high as the number of people who once thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, but still illustrative of the fact that opinion is cheap (and emotional opinions doubly so). The only people whose opinion counts are the people flipping the bill.

"This strong and structured religion has found itself in clubby cahoots with the Republican party over contraception."

I'm reminded of Broadcast News' "A lot of alliteration from anxious anchors placed in powerful posts."

>57
Don't much like it either that people have to be told how to act but time and again, they have proven unable to govern themselves.
Providing birth control is not as intrusive as instituting a "one" child law. Unfortuantely there are many individuals who are unable to see how their actions have the potential to affect the whole.
Let me add as well, IF they do see it, it is obvious that they don't give a rip.

At today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on religious freedom and contraception directive, all ten witnesses were men. Unbelievable that Republican Committee chairs and staff apparently never considered optics: http://ow.ly/i/sLRU/original

> 60

In fact, the chair had asked the Democrats to invite one opposition witness, and then didn't allow her to speak.

Not only that, but the witnesses were all religious leaders. Having a religious leader or two is fine, but if, as the Republican Committee chair proclaimed, the issue was whether this rule improperly infringed on protected religious liberty, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have some Constitutional scholars testify?

So, lets be clear about this (favorite new buzz phrase of the political machine) not only did the election of a Black man for President, bring out racism and all of it's ugly faces, but the fact that this President wants women to have reproductive rights in the eyes of insurance companies, brought back sexism as well ?

Loss of control alert ! White guys, of a certain mind set, must be terrified ? Visions of an all Black and/or all female Congress must haunt their dreams at night.

>62
Clearly they are not thinking. In panic mode I would guess.

Then again, speaking from the other side of the fence....they don't necessarly have to think or reason, their's is only to declare how things "should" be.
Women of an age can not be too happy to see this debacle. Carries a distinct feel of the 60's.
Must we always have to rewind ?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-09-02-womenwork_N.htm

Realize that this article is dated but if anything, I think the statistics would be even higher as to the percentage of women who are working today. Many of these women carry the health insurance coverage if the husbands are self employed as the cost of family coverage is prohibitive.

My suggestion ? Women, girlfriends, mistresses, wives and mothers....flush the birth control down the toilet and quit the job. Let the men handle it.
My guess is that the debate would soon be over. That "all male" panel would be run out of town in short order.

> 62 the witnesses were all religious leaders

Actually, the witnesses were all religious leaders who
opposed the recent rule (and so implicitly, who oppose contraception, or at least the right of individuals to determine their access to contraception as a form of healthcare).

um, guys. The majority gets the set the agenda for the committee. It is a rather time honored tradition, and should not shock anyone. No committee chair in his (or her) right mind would invite witnesses who are opposed to any legislation he or she supports.

Their are few people in the country more powerful than legislative committee chairs. It may not be fair, but is it the way the game is played. The minority expresses umbrage, and life goes on.

Which why you want a) your party to be in power to appoint committee chairs, and b) the chair of a committee to be friendly to your interests.

One of the worst things a committee member can do for their career is to roll the chair, even if, especially if they are in your party!

So feel free to express outrage, but it happens on a very regular basis.

May be true, Arctic, but it sounds like the party in charge just managed to engage in some very bad political theatre.

well, there is that. Which is why the party in charge changes every once in a while.

Actually you can blame Johnson for messing up the committee structure. Before him it was all due to seniority. When he became Senate majority leader, he changed all that, which is a pretty incredible story. But the end product is that now chairmanships are awarded according to party loyalty, which can produce some really dumbass moves.

> 67

Also, in my #66 I wasn't trying to make any point about "fairness." I was only offering a fact to undermine any notion that the witnesses in the hearing represented a full spectrum of religious opinion on the issue.

I was not referring to any one post in particular, but the general tone of the discussion.

71: My post was pointing out the difference between what the committee chair said the hearing was about, and the nature of the witnesses. If you announce that you want to know what the Constitutional implications of a particular policy are and invite no one with any particular expertise concerning the Constitution, then there is a natural skepticism about what you are doing.

Funny that the party that didn't want government between you and your doctor
is willing to let your boss in there?

73: The Republican Party gave up on having any integrity at all long ago. The Democrats aren't a whole lot better, but the current crop of Republican leaders are a pack of unprincipled wolves.

Freedom of and from religion

http://billmoyers.com/content/bill-moyers-essay-freedom-of-and-from-religion/

Senator Santorum: because amniocentesis might reveal a birth defect that tempts parents to abort, it should not be insured. If Mr. Santorum consulted medical experts or even googled the web, he might have learned that amniocentesis may also provide info that can save or improve prospects of the baby once born. For example, it can confirm prenatal diagnosis of mild spinal bifida, the kind most likely to respond to prenatal surgery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/health/10fetal.html).

With candidates like Mr. Santorum, it may be another 50 years before we see a Catholic entrusted with office of President...

>76

He's not going to win.

> 77

May everyone who can, vote to that effect!

As someone who finds the Republican party to be the grosser of two evils, I'm must admit to some schadenfreude to see the strong challenge to Romney, when Republican primary contests are so often a ceremonial affair to validate the "next in line." But not only don't I want to see Santorum have a chance at the presidency, I don't want to see his positions validated by the nomination of a major political party.

> 77 Santorum is leading in Michigan polls! Hope Romney doesn't ask him to run for VP... a social conservative offering. This is personal--my youngest brother died 20 minutes after birth of spinal bifida. I don't remember much about his birth and death, but I do remember trips to the cemetery, where I watched my mother grieve and weep. No parent should have to go through that: today there is much that can be done to allow a virtually normal life for these kids.

>79

I don't think he'll get the nomination, but if he does there's no way he wins. He'd be the social-conservative Goldwater.

There are two competing narratives making the rounds:
According to the one, the back room boys of the Republican party favor Romney and the fix is in.
According to the other, there are no back room boys, or if there are, their power has been sufficiently diffused that "nobody" is in charge and anything can happen, even the nomination of Santorum.

Whichever of those stories is the better predictive model will be shown in a few months, but either way polls indicate that in the general election, Obama is likely to win a hypothetical Santoram candidacy by a comfortable margin.

The world is full of surprises, and strange things do happen, but the "smart money" is betting that Santorum will not be the winner of the 2012 US
presidential election.

> 76. Mr. Santorum consulted medical experts or even googled the web

Santorum doesn't like what happens when he googles.

We have not had a "back room" nomination since Adlai Stevenson. Goldwater was the first time a convention was snookered by the participants (Rockefeller was the heir apparent.)

Clearly the backroom boys (whoever they are) want Romney, but not enough to make it a real issue. I think for the party bosses a Romney win is a long shot, and a Romney loss would be a major blow. It would only empower the Tea Party folk, who would argue that a "REAL Conservative" would have won, which would allow them to hold the party hostage for a long while. A Santorum loss, on the other hand, would tend to discredit the Tea Party, thus putting power back in the hands of the business segment of the GOP.

And, as much as they rant and rave about Obama, most of the is more smoke and mirrors than piss and vinegar. At least it has been. Lately though Obama has been playing the game well, and is more dangerous. On the other hand, four more years of Obama and the nomination is wide open, because either a) R's would love to see Biden get the nod, or b) Biden will NOT get the nod, in which case things are...well, wide open.