Report: Obama doubles down on new contraception rule at Democratic retreat

posted at 9:35 pm on February 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

But … what about the big climbdown? Ah well. Maybe he took a second look at what Planned Parenthood did to Komen and thought better of it. Even the man who leads the greatest army in the world needs to know when he’s outgunned.

Besides, how many divisions does the Pope have?

President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

The retreat was closed to media.

Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned…

“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”

Anyone want to field that question from ObamaCare supporter Kirsten Gillibrand? Also, I’m pretty sure religiously-affiliated groups don’t claim the power to decide whether women employees should “use” contraception; if they did, we wouldn’t be having a conversation over who should pay for the contraception that their employees use. (Answer: You should, of course, by paying higher premiums to subsidize the cost of birth control to the insurer.) If you missed it at the Weekly Standard, go read the Hawaii “compromise” proposal that’s kicking around in Democratic circles. In lieu of making religiously-affiliated groups pay, the new rule instead would … force them to tell employees where they can go to get birth control — i.e. “the Catholic Church must directly send women to drugs and devices that are morally wrong and can do harm to them.” It’s as if HHS’s supporters don’t understand the core objection to the policy. It’s not the money, it’s the compulsion applied to the group to promote activity that it considers immoral as a matter of faith. Or maybe they understand it just fine and that’s the real point of all this — to pressure religious holdouts into promoting contraception, however grudgingly, in order to remove any last lingering bits of stigma attached to it. After all, if the Hawaii compromise is on the table, then it’s not really about the money for HHS’s supporters either.

The GOP is already working on a bill to rescind the HHS rule, which means political war until this is resolved. How eager are swing-state Democrats to end up in no man’s land? Over to you, Tim Kaine:

“I think the White House made a good decision in including a mandate for contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act insurance policy, but I think they made a bad decision in not allowing a broad enough religious employer exemption,” Kaine said, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by his campaign.

“This is something that’s been talked about a lot today and I have definitely expressed my grave concerns to the White House about that. I support the contraception mandate but there should be a religious employer exemption that is broader than the one they proposed.”

Kaine, who is Catholic, has spoken frequently about the importance of faith throughout his career. He has cited it in discussing his opposition to the death penalty and his position on abortion. Kaine says he is personally opposed to abortion and has supported some restrictions, but he does not believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Remember, this is a guy who was handpicked by Obama to lead the DNC in 2009 who’s now inching away from him. Bob Casey, another pro-life Catholic Democrat from a swing state (Pennsylvania), also called on O today to rescind the rule for groups with faith missions. Can’t wait to hear from other vulnerable Dems like Jon Tester as the battle is joined, just like I can’t wait to hear how lifelike talking-points robot Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ends up finessing her comments here down the road when O does finally start to climb down. Exit question: Who’s going to pay for the employees’ contraception when some of these religiously-affiliated groups end up shutting down in protest, as some Catholic charities have already begun to do vis-a-vis considering gays for adoption?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Just saw Barbara Boxer on a news clip claiming that Republicans were trying to take away “women’s medicine”. What. an. idiot.

First off, by her math all “medicine” should be free. So maybe the government should just nationalize drug companies ala Hugo Chavez and enslave some of us citizens to work in them like coal mines. I mean, seriously. There’s no such thing as “free” medicine.

Secondly, why should any taxpayer or any business be required to pay for somebody else’s choice to fornicate? Boxer and others like her must think we’re all a bunch of mouth-breathing morons if we can’t see that we’re being expected to FUND other people’s sexual practices. They wanna play?… let them pay for themselves.

And finally, I have to wonder what kind of behind-the-scenes lobbying these drug manufacturers have done in order to get guaranteed payment for their products. The imagination boggles.

Murf76 on February 9, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Hyperbole aside, this president is a tyrant.

The Count on February 9, 2012 at 8:46 AM

It’s a matter of choice.

That’s the argument pro-abortion. Now it’s the dishonest argument mandating provision of contraception. Via mandate, “choice” is monopolized by those presuming the “rights” of oligarchs. Elitists know best how to abuse authority, and determine all things regarding what you may and may not be allowed.

Obama’s management chose to throw all into this latest infringement upon the human right of the individual’s free will, EUGENICS.

“Will you walk into my parlor?” said the Spider to the Fly.

Following the projected course from Obama’s leadership, mandates will not stop at the provision of contraception through every organization and employer regardless of personal beliefs and religious doctrine. Given that economization and efficiency sells vicious policy ever so well to the willing masses of ‘gimme’ constituents, the future Marxist mandate imposed is the rationing of birth via required contraception. Grotesque precedence: China.

Choice. Prohibit “the Government” CHOICE that officials translate into opportunism to abuse authority. Demand Constitutional Governance that limits the powers of government. Protect your Liberty.

Economically, contraceptive Rx is cheap, and there are private organizations that provide free contraception. There is no reason whatsoever for US Citizens to be taxed in order to provide contraception. That is the role of private institutions, to meet their own agenda without absconding with public funding aka your taxes paid without choice to select where the tax appropriations be directed. The Tea Party Experience proved that Congress does not listen, neither party altered course from their establishment agenda even subsequent to the Tea Party 2010 election results. “Victory”–hollow. The only recognition that Rockefeller Republicans attribute to the Tea Party Movement (not counting jeering at rubes) is the campaign season appeal for votes while wearing false smiles.

And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne’er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.

maverick muse on February 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Remember, [Kaine] was handpicked by Obama to lead the DNC in 2009 who’s now inching away from him. Bob Casey, another pro-life Catholic Democrat from a swing state

Kaine says he is personally opposed to abortion and has supported some restrictions, but he does not believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Tim Kaine is not another pro-life Democrat. He is a pro-choice Democrat. “Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are about laws and policy, not personal-only preferences.

jarden on February 9, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Above and beyond the religious debate (which is immensely enjoyable to watch) where does “freeeee!” stuff mandated by the Feds stop? Why not make aspirin “freeeee!”? How about toothpaste? Antibiotics? Soap? These are all beneficial products which help humanity…

Buy Danish on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

As the vast majority of Catholics (both practicing and not) fully reject the church’s teachings and position on contraception – perhaps they should maybe be looking inward here – and not having a hissy fit. And the immense irony that they would pursue a policy that could only result in more unwanted pregnancies and therefore more abortions, well…zowz.
I don’t see any political risks her for Obama. Maybe he loses the vote of some some bishops…but again, most Catholics are fine with this.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

As the vast majority of Catholics (both practicing and not) fully reject the church’s teachings and position on contraception – perhaps they should maybe be looking inward here – and not having a hissy fit. And the immense irony that they would pursue a policy that could only result in more unwanted pregnancies and therefore more abortions, well…zowz.
I don’t see any political risks her for Obama. Maybe he loses the vote of some some bishops…but again, most Catholics are fine with this.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Yes you’d think that unwanted pregnancies might be worth preventing given the low cost of birth control pills- even if the women on birth control are in fact engaging in satanic premarital sex. But don’t kid yourself- this has very little to do with reality and everything to do with political games.

bayam on February 9, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Why not make aspirin “freeeee!”? How about toothpaste? Antibiotics? Soap? These are all beneficial products which help humanity…
Buy Danish on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Those are all more arguably “health care products” than something designed only to provide consequence free recreational sex. Contraceptives used only as contraceptives have no real “health care” application I can see.

tommyboy on February 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Above and beyond the religious debate (which is immensely enjoyable to watch) where does “freeeee!” stuff mandated by the Feds stop? Why not make aspirin “freeeee!”? How about toothpaste? Antibiotics? Soap? These are all beneficial products which help humanity…

Buy Danish on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Not sure you’re following. The policy here is that it would be a mandated benefit as part of a Health Insurance policy.
Which is paid for.
Now are are you cool with it?

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I would be curious to know, since I can’t remember the ruling by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the ObamaCare case that originated in Virgina, how this political position taken by the Administration impacts the question raised by Liberty University on religious freedom in that lawsuit. As I vaguely recall from some of the briefs I read, the Justice Department did not contest the facts on their Motion for Summary Judgment, and the it was on appeal on the Law, not the facts. At the time, the arguments against ObamaCare on the basis that it discriminated against some religions by providing waivers to some and not others, therefore violating the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, seemed very persuasive. I just don’t know if that issue is before the Supreme Court now, or if procedurely it is not under consideration yet. If it is before the Supreme Court now, it will be interesting to see what impact this current political kerfluffle will have on the Oral Arguments in March.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2012 at 8:10 AM

The 6th Circuit ruled against Liberty, in Liberty University v. Geithner. The majority decision essentially dodged the ObamaCare-specific questions due to a tax question. My understanding is that SCOTUS is considering cases from the 11th Circuit. The issues there are not religious freedom questions but instead 1.) Whether Congress has exceeded it’s powers relative to the states 2.) The Constitutionality of the individual mandate under the Commerce Power.

OptionsTrader on February 9, 2012 at 9:27 AM

If “liberals” want the taxpayer and consumer to pay for contraceptives so people can engage in pleasureable activities, what’s stopping them from forcing us to pay for recreational drugs?

darwin on February 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM

“Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are about laws and policy, not personal-only preferences.

jarden on February 9, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Stop it! I’m sick and tired of people who advocate, encourage even, the murder of unborn life hiding behind euphamisms like “pro-choice” when the only choice is really whether or not to murder innocents. It is cowardly. People like you are not for choice because if you were you’d be in favor of all the choices including adoption and or keeping the child. Yet all those of your ilk care about when using “pro-choice” is that Planned Parenthood abortion factories remain open.

Happy Nomad on February 9, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Murf76 on February 9, 2012 at 8:41 AM

When she was running for her seat in the last election…Barbara Boxer told us all on camera, that the Stimulus package was “An almost 1 Billion dollar TAX CUT for the American people!” No one in the room had a question! Crickett’s! And I thought Joe Biden was smart!

KOOLAID2 on February 9, 2012 at 9:46 AM

“What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”

I don’t know, how about forcing other people to subsidize the usage of your twat?

FineasFinn on February 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

As the vast majority of Catholics (both practicing and not) fully reject the church’s teachings and position on contraception – perhaps they should maybe be looking inward here – and not having a hissy fit. And the immense irony that they would pursue a policy that could only result in more unwanted pregnancies and therefore more abortions, well…zowz.
I don’t see any political risks her for Obama. Maybe he loses the vote of some some bishops…but again, most Catholics are fine with this.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

As expected, spoken like someone who is completely clueless about Catholicism. But, then again, you’ll support any liar who is willing to give you free stuff.

You now have the attention you desperately seek. Maybe you should stop posting lies and spend more time with other people, other than your mother and your hand.

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Which is paid for.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Who pays for it, numbnuts?

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Those are all more arguably “health care products” than something designed only to provide consequence free recreational sex. Contraceptives used only as contraceptives have no real “health care” application I can see.

tommyboy on February 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM

They prevent pregnancy, which liberals believe is a disease. I detest the term “reproductive health” that they have appropriated to talk about all these issues.

They also refuse to acknowledge the solid research which shows that long term use of oral contraceptives greatly increases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer, that women using oral contraceptives have a much higher incidence of STDs, including HPV which causes cervical cancer, etc. The real “preventive” medicine for women is NOT to take oral contraceptives, but to use condoms or use natural family planning if they do not want to get pregnant.

Quite interesting that under this new rule insurers are not required to pay for condoms. That’s because Planned Parenthood doesn’t sell them and Big Pharma doesn’t make them.

This rule is about a lot of things, but women’s health is not one of them.

rockmom on February 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Prezbo is most passionate about class warfare but this is a close second. Normalizing kid-killing and access to it through a mandate disguised as ‘equal access to preventive healthcare for all women’ is as reflexive as voting present. Of course he’s going to double down.

It’s like pedophiles normalizing their choices by calling it man-boy love.

LetsBfrank on February 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I would be offended if the government decides to exempt religious organizations from paying for contraception but continues to make the individual person with religious objections to pay for other people’s choice.

katablog.com on February 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

If Obama gets away with this the repercussions will be incalcuable. I hope the Church is prepared to go to the mat on this one. O’s been boning up on Henry looks like. I’m not even Catholic and I’m mad as hell about it. How did we ever end up with this horror in the WH. And what kind of magalomaniac does it take to contemplate this.

jeanie on February 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM

“We have nothing to fear from an Obama Presidency,”

Ain’t that right, Captain Rino?

SnarkySam on February 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Or maybe they understand it just fine and that’s the real point of all this — to pressure religious holdouts into promoting contraception, however grudgingly, in order to remove any last lingering bits of stigma attached to it.

Yes, they understand it just fine but the real point is bigger than contraception. This is about bringing the Church to heel and into submission to a godless secular State.

Threshing Flora on February 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I would be offended if the government decides to exempt religious organizations from paying for contraception but continues to make the individual person with religious objections to pay for other people’s choice.

katablog.com on February 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Good point. I’d quibble that religious organizations should be, and are, exempt. The question in dispute is which schools and hospitals are “religious organizations”. Seminaries would be exempt but Notre Dame would not.

OptionsTrader on February 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I’m curious – when did YOU become the point man for “most Catholics?” When did the RCC become a democracy basing its beliefs on a poll of people whose actual committment to RCC beliefs may be questionable?

Given the casual attitude many cafeteria Catholics have about the Church’s beliefs it seems like a good think that for a change the hierarchy is standing up and saying NO – we’re following the Church beliefs. Hopefully they don’t wimp out or get sucked into believing some line of cr*p BO spews.

Not having free bc in one’s insurance plan does not prevent someone from obtaining bc. Haven’t we just read about how wonderful & considerate PP is, how essential they are to “womens reproductive health? Why don’t they provide exams & bc pills, etc for free?

katiejane on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Sealed his certain defeat in November, along with his denial of the Keystone Pipeline project. Does not “deserve” another term as he has made things worse off in America. One term and out the door.

Amazingoly on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Murf76 on February 9, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Consistent with Gillibrand’s remarks last night after a private conference with other Congresswomen and Obama.

The coordiated message is being rolled out. Target women emotionally, isolate everyone else – then bang the drum about women “dying in alleys”… or something.

Its Social Issue 101 for Dems. Make it emotional, namely with women and hope everyone doesnt pay attention to the assault on the Churchs Doctrine and Protection through the 1st Amendment.

There was some dope on Hannity last night going full speed ahead stupid claiming “if there wasnt contreception – women wouldnt have professional lives and would be barefoot and pregnant” My 6 month pregnant, MBA honors professional wife was giving the finger the whole segment.

Oh yeah – its full “emotional social issue” steam ahead for Dems.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM

How did we ever end up with this horror in the WH. And what kind of magalomaniac does it take to contemplate this.

jeanie on February 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Because the Independents and Sheeples were either suffering from guilt or asleep and not engaged enough to make rational decisions about who they put in charge of their lives.

They were caught up in the mass euphoria of finally getting the Racist Society monkey off their collective backs. We can see how that worked out.

The MSM still carries the water and the sheeples still drink from the koolaide fountain. If you want to make a difference and make sure the current occupant of the WH doesn’t take the rest of your liberty and freedom away, talk to neighbors and friends and encourage them to do the same. Truth and facts trump lies and propaganda. You have to have multiple sources of information to discern for yourself fact from fiction. Do your own due diligence you can’t rely on others and above all else, do some critical thinking before making this up coming important decision.

belad on February 9, 2012 at 10:26 AM

“We have nothing tobut fear from an Obama Presidency,”

FIFY

katablog.com on February 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I guess this means that CA employers will now need to pay for the “medical marijuana” for its employees. How about Viagra? We certainly don’t want employers mandating that a man can’t get it up when he wants to!

katablog.com on February 9, 2012 at 10:34 AM

He’s going to carry on pandering to the hardcore leftist elements in his party. He is certain that his awesomeness will deliver his re-election, so why not just carry on going full bore communist?

CorporatePiggy on February 9, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I love it when our great leader doubles down, he just digs himself deeper in muck. Nothing good has or will come of this guy. He just keeps getting worse. I think people will remember him telling us that if we like the care we have we can keep it. As he approaches election time, this mess and many other will accumulate and continue to fester. Obama fatigue, I’ve got it. I’ll bet many do.

StevC on February 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM

This was the plan all along. The liberals have spelled this out in detail, frequently. Obamacare will allow them to seize all religious hospitals that oppose them and secularize the rest. It will keep Christians from practicing charity, and weaken it. Then the state will be on its way to being the one, true God.

theCork on February 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM

PLEASE, LORD, let us vote these people out of office.

Rohall1215 on February 9, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1965 document by Pope Paul VI called Humane Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

1. General lowering of moral standards
2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.
Stolen from http://www.punditandpundette.com/
1,2 & 3 are already happening here in the USA, China is doing # 4.
just a matter of time till it happens here. Funny how the Catholic church could tell the future some 47 years ago.

ColdWarrior57 on February 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM

uh oh! I just realized what the next mandate will be. Employers will be forced to hand out free Peas for everyone and green beans will be removed from the super market shelves.

katablog.com on February 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Who pays for it, numbnuts?

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Clergy and devout Catholics. But, you know, according to this clown, it’s ok for Obama to force them violate their core principles in order to pay for that which is cheap and widely available because it benefits one of his key constituencies.

Obliterating the 1st Amendment is irrelevant, you see, because most Catholics use birth control – which has now been expanded to include morning-after pills.

The Count on February 9, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Cork is correct — Obama is seeking to destroy the Catholic Church.

matthew8787 on February 9, 2012 at 11:30 AM

The question in dispute is which schools and hospitals are “religious organizations”. Seminaries would be exempt but Notre Dame would not.

OptionsTrader on February 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM

No individual should be forced to do things that their faith holds to be sinful. Unfortunately in our secular society the individual who objects is told to stuff it. But the jug-eared monster and his administration have taken this to the next level and has decided that the state has the ability to FORCE religious organizations to do the secular will of government- as dictated by the radical whore who runs HHS and her faithless jug-eared boss.

The fix is easy. Congress needs to pass laws that protect religious organizations. An awful lot of idiots are defending this on the grounds that they themselves are pro-murder but this isn’t about contraception. It is about who gets to dictate what constitutes basic preventative health services. The whore at HHS says that such services include your employer paying for your condoms and birth control pills.

But what is next? By the same logic, why not mandate that employers have to pay for health club memberships to fight obesity? Why isn’t good health a basic “right.” Seriously, the fight is much bigger than just Catholic organizations being forced by a Muslim to provide services that the church considers immoral. Something the pro-murder crowd should understand instead of bleating in defense of the indefensible.

Happy Nomad on February 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Congress needs to pass laws that protect religious organizations
Happy Nomad on February 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Why? Is a religious organization’s right to freedom of religion stronger than that of an individual employer? Why shouldn’t an individual’s right to believe as they wish be honored (and therefore exempt)? I would put forth that my faith based beliefs are stronger than many religious organizations. Why should I have to pay for anyone’s contraception when I believe sex before marriage is a sin against God?

katablog.com on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 AM

BTW, does ObamaCare mandate that an employer pay for fertility drugs and treatment?

katablog.com on February 9, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Mr. Obama and his ilk no better than any archaic institution that stands on the rights of women. and therefore Catholics and other religious groups should not be able to exercise the tenants of their beliefs.

“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?

Using the same logic as Ms. Gillibrand, women should not be allowed to make intrusive business decisions of any religious institution affected by this ruling. And anyone working for one of these institutions is welcome to find employment elsewhere.

PA-Cman on February 9, 2012 at 11:50 AM

What about Jehova’s Witness’s???

They have a pretty strict doctrine against many medical procedures and programs – that currently are allowed under their religious Freedoms within the 1st Amendment. I know they aren’t a huge block – but this mandate clearly spans all religions – also known as a robust assault on the 1st Amendment.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 11:50 AM

doubling down on a loser argument! what an idiot. owe’bama has the LSM media behind him. that’s how fast and furious is being suppressed. but this is an issue with a bigger group of victims of owe’bama’s tyrannical policies.

not smart for the one. he has given the feckless republicans something to finally fight over. let’s see if they join the battle and finally fight.

btw, i told my congressman that the repubs need a war room. crickets still chirping.

Dr. Demento on February 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I hope the Catholic Church (notoriously liberal) and the Rino Republicans in Congress don’t agree to some “compromise” with the Regime which would provide exemptions or something.

The Republicans in congress and the primary candidates should be attacking the entire Obamacare law rather than focus narrowly on this particular issue because you know Obamacare is rife with other mandates as onerous as this one or worse.

ncjetsfan on February 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM

The Catholic cult does have a remedy: it can shutter the universities and hospitals or change them into religious institutions which only serve and hire believers. Some of the Catholic universities, like Georgetown, have such large Arab financed Islamic studies centers that it’s hard to identify them as Catholic anyway. Privatize them and use the profits to help compensate the victims of holy pedophilia.

Annar on February 9, 2012 at 11:54 AM

OptionsTrader on February 9, 2012 at 9:27 AM
So the rulings by the 6th Circuit or the 4th Circuit are not under review yet by SCOTUS, only the 11th Circuit?

txmomof6 on February 9, 2012 at 11:55 AM

BTW, does ObamaCare mandate that an employer pay for fertility drugs and treatment?

katablog.com on February 9, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Or how about sex change operations?

txmomof6 on February 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Remember when the left actually supported conscience objectors? Granted, this was regarding Iraq but the left held them to high esteem claiming that they were standing by their principles.

Now we’re supposed to bend over and smile as we take it.

Hillary Clinton: “Dissent is patriotic [only when you're a liberal. If you're a conservative then dissent is treasonous!]”

Simply put, if you’re a liberal then you’re a selfish bast@rd!

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Privatize them and use the profits to help compensate the victims of holy pedophilia.

Annar on February 9, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Would they receive the support of Nancy Pelosi the ame way she supports NAMBLA?

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The Catholic cult does have a remedy: it can shutter the universities and hospitals or change them into religious institutions which only serve and hire believers. Some of the Catholic universities, like Georgetown, have such large Arab financed Islamic studies centers that it’s hard to identify them as Catholic anyway. Privatize them and use the profits to help compensate the victims of holy pedophilia.

Annar on February 9, 2012 at 11:54 AM

How about you just go and fuq yourself, bigot?

The Count on February 9, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Which is paid for.
verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Who pays for it, numbnuts?

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM

and

Not having free bc in one’s insurance plan does not prevent someone from obtaining bc.

katiejane on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Do either of you have health insurance – and understand how it works? You are confused about what’s being debated here – it isn’t about ‘free’ birth control. If you do have insurance, do you think your visit to the doctor is ‘free’?
Maybe some of those here who oppose bc it being a provided policy benefit can explain this to you – as I doubt you’ll be willing to get educated by me.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 12:02 PM

BTW, does ObamaCare mandate that an employer pay for fertility drugs and treatment?

katablog.com on February 9, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Or how about sex change operations?

txmomof6 on February 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM

As soon as Sebelius gets around to writing the regs, probably in time for the Dem convention.

Annar on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 PM

How about you just go and fuq yourself, bigot?

The Count on February 9, 2012 at 12:01 PM

High road intellectual here.

Annar on February 9, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Do either of you have health insurance – and understand how it works? You are confused about what’s being debated here – it isn’t about ‘free’ birth control. If you do have insurance, do you think your visit to the doctor is ‘free’?

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Dear flatulence,

The only one confused here is you. What your insurer covers is built into your premium. Since clergy and devout Catholics will not need the contraception coverage but pay for it in their premiums, insurers will use the money they receive from them to pay for Obama’s base of hussies demanding to spread their legs for free.

Got it? Good.

The Count on February 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Just repeal Obamacare and there won’t be a problem! The Republican establishment is just so very stupid . . .first they want to push a Democrat (Romney/Romneycare)onto us and then they bleat about Obama being anti-Catholic. . . they should be screaming about the repeal of Obamacare but nooooo! they are afraid to jeopardize the position of the fraudulent so-called ‘front-runner’ Romney. . . .disgusting!

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM

High road intellectual here.

Annar on February 9, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Just responding in kind to you, jackass.

The Count on February 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM

This will greatly damage Obama, but conservatives need to keep the discussion about the federal government intruding into the church rather than the Church’s teaching about contraception and abortion.

If social conservatives decide to jump on this and make it all about their hobby horse issues, we’ll lose.

BradTank on February 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM

This will greatly damage Obama, but conservatives need to keep the discussion about the federal government intruding into the church rather than the Church’s teaching about contraception and abortion.

If social conservatives decide to jump on this and make it all about their hobby horse issues, we’ll lose.

BradTank on February 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Agreed . . .all the Republicans have to do is to focus on the repeal of Obamacare . . .if they take up that mantel in earnest. . .they will not only address THIS ISSUE but gain supporters . . .however, it will become even more clear that Romney is a bad choice . .. .so they probably won’t do it.

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Do either of you have health insurance – and understand how it works?

A lot better then you.

You are confused about what’s being debated here – it isn’t about ‘free’ birth control. If you do have insurance, do you think your visit to the doctor is ‘free’?

The debate is about forcing a religious organization to violate one of it’s sacred beliefs. You’re the one who has no clue.

You also made the claim that the majority of Catholics reject the Church’s position on contraception which shows that your IQ is somewhere in the single-digit range.

as I doubt you’ll be willing to get educated by me.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I find that humorous considering that we’re far more educated than you. Let us know when you decide to grow up and act like an adult.

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Woe is America . . .Republicans = Democrats who are for limiting the rights of women (this is the perception . . .like it or not)!

Obama’s team is very clever in this . . .they suspect that the Republicans will focus on the ‘anti-Catholoic’ aspect of this and fail to focus on the larger anti-liberty issue of Obamacare . . .thus, the Republicans will come out looking like Victorians and Obama will emerge as the winner!

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM

This will greatly damage Obama, but conservatives need to keep the discussion about the federal government intruding into the church rather than the Church’s teaching about contraception and abortion.

If social conservatives decide to jump on this and make it all about their hobby horse issues, we’ll lose.

BradTank on February 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Agreed . . .all the Republicans have to do is to focus on the repeal of Obamacare . . .if they take up that mantel in earnest. . .they will not only address THIS ISSUE but gain supporters . . .however, it will become even more clear that Romney is a bad choice . .. .so they probably won’t do it.

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I think that sort of goes against what Brad was saying, though I cannot speak for him. Repealing Obamacare as a target during the race will not do it, but will be riddled with Dem social double speak.

Focus on the 1st Amendment assualt of freedom of religion – not just Catholics – but all religions.

Once you get into a macro issue – Obamacare – that is ripe with social “gotcha” moments – the thrust of the 1st amendment assault is lessened.

Odie1941 on February 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

But … what about the big climbdown? Ah well. Maybe he took a second look at what Planned Parenthood did to Komen and thought better of it. Even the man who leads the greatest army in the world needs to know when he’s outgunned.

!

Besides, how many divisions does the Pope have?

!!

You nailed it. Someone is doing the spreadsheets

It is also very possible the mandate itself was not a slip but a calculated move. Heck, more than possible, it is likely the mandate was staged – knowing it would create a useful backlash.

Can’t say Komen triggered the stiff neck response from the WH. However, Komen solidified the base.

In the slimey Obama World of ChumpCraft, so much is staged, one might even be tempted to trace back the source of the original moves by the Komen pawns and who planted the first bug in the Komen ear

entagor on February 9, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Off topic, AP is most worthy

entagor on February 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Bloomberg has a MAJOR story up on the decision:

President Barack Obama ended months of internal White House debate by siding with a group of mostly female advisers who urged him not to limit a health-care law mandate to provide contraceptives, even at the risk of alienating Catholic voters in November, people familiar with the discussions said. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic and a two-term governor of Kansas, was joined by several female Obama advisers in urging against a broad exemption for religious organizations. To do so would leave too many women without coverage and sap the enthusiasm for Obama among women’s rights advocates, they said, according to the people, who spoke about the deliberations on condition of anonymity.

Vice President Joe Biden and then-White House chief of staff Bill Daley, also Catholics, warned that the mandate would be seen as a government intrusion on religious institutions. Even moderate Catholic voters in battleground states might be alienated, they warned, according to the people familiar with the discussions.

The administration’s decision, announced Jan. 20, has quickly entered the presidential campaign. Republican rivals accuse Obama of trampling on religious freedom and Catholic bishops have ordered lectures from the pulpits across the nation.

Link

rockmom on February 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Hey, its fund raising time again

entagor on February 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM

It’s important that those of us who are NOT Catholics support the Catholic church in this.

Look at what happened to the Episcopalians. My church is Methodist, and the fights over lib issues at the upper levels are more and more of a problem for us in individual congregations. There is the gay marriage issue coming down the pike, of forcing churches to marry gay people.

But bottom line is govt. control over churches, diluting then removing the constitutional protections religion has always had. By fragmenting the religious community over issues we don’t all share, they hope to fight a bunch of small battles rather than one large one. They feel strong enough to take on the Catholics – does this mean they are not very worried about the rest of us? I hope we are not as fragmented as they think we are.

jodetoad on February 9, 2012 at 12:42 PM

The Catholic cult does have a remedy: it can shutter the universities and hospitals or change them into religious institutions which only serve and hire believers. Some of the Catholic universities, like Georgetown, have such large Arab financed Islamic studies centers that it’s hard to identify them as Catholic anyway. Privatize them and use the profits to help compensate the victims of holy pedophilia.

Annar on February 9, 2012 at 11:54 AM

The catholic religion has a remedy, civil protest. Go to jail. That way they have the moral high ground. They love the sinner, hate the sin. You appear to hate catholics and thier sinner gay priests?

Do you really lay claim to the moral high ground?

Dr. Demento on February 9, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Even better:

The public debate follows a struggle within the White House that dragged on for months. White House advisers hunted repeatedly for a middle ground that might accommodate both sides, only to run into legal obstacles.

Sebelius was backed by adviser Valerie Jarrett, Tina Tchen, the first lady’s chief of staff, and Melody Barnes, then director of the Domestic Policy Council, the people said. Among the ideas considered and discarded because of legal objections was an option modeled on a Hawaii law that provides broad exemptions for religious agencies while requiring private insurers to offer contraceptive coverage to the employees.

Pressing the Administration

Reproductive rights groups, such as Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Democratic U.S. senators Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Boxer and Murray, pressed the administration to stick with a preliminary rule announced by Sebelius in August.

Shaheen spoke to Obama about the issue when he visited New Hampshire in November. Her communications director, Jonathan Lipman, said she talked “several times with senior White House staff,” including two conference calls with other senators.

Advocates countered warnings of alienating Catholics with arguments that an exemption might depress enthusiasm for Obama among women, a disproportionate share of Democratic voters. Women’s advocates intensified their efforts after Obama met in November with Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York.

Judith L. Lichtman, a senior adviser with the National Partnership for Women and Families in Washington, among the groups that favored minimizing religious exemptions, said the ruling would help Obama in November.

‘Energizing Issue’

“Contraception is not a politically controversial issue in this country,” she said. “It’s an energizing issue for all women reflecting all demographics.”

Sebelius, in a three-minute interview in Washington on her way from a speech to her car, said Obama was “briefed along the way” before the Jan. 20 announcement. She said that she and Obama had met privately on the issue. She declined to discuss internal deliberations, including divisions among the administration or details of her discussions with Obama. “The decision was made by our department,” she said.

Asked how the decision and response has affected her as a Catholic, she said it was a policy decision and that the administration balanced the needs of millions of women who rely on contraceptives with the concerns of religious organizations.

So this was decided by Sebelius and Obama just voted “present.”

rockmom on February 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM

The ignorance of the 48-50% who support this man is frightening.
They don’t even recognize evil when it’s staring them in the face.

Obama has joined the global war on Christianity. He has started a Holy War in America. I’m beginning to think God is our only hope to stop him.

God has exposed Obama over and over again but people refuse to see.
Perhaps Obama is like Judas–he is part of God’s plan to save us.
Did God send a madman to wake America up before it’s too late?

The Catholics are furious but will they vote against him? No matter how many times Obama betrays Israel the Jews in America still support him. What will it take?

What will this madman do if he gets four more years? Today it’s our religious freedom, tomorrow our guns. He hates the bitter clingers. No one seems able/willing to stop him. Not the media not the Republicans—I’m asking God to do it.

bailey24 on February 9, 2012 at 12:52 PM

“What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”

Oh, I dunno, maybe letting a gang of un-elected bureaucrats make medical decisions for someone who never elected them??”

oldleprechaun on February 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Religious freedom is the first freedom listed in the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

See that semicolon? That denotes that this is a complete clause. The HHS mandate isn’t about health, not really. This mandate will close Catholic schools also, and what have they to do with health? This is about destroying Christianity; Catholics are only the first. This is obviously a deliberate destruction of any conscience clause.

Do you liberal think you’ll have a conscientious objection clause after this? You will not. And Obama loves starting new foreign wars.

theCork on February 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Dear flatulence,
The only one confused here is you. What your insurer covers is built into your premium.
The Count on February 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Right…the premium…that you pay. With money.
So we are not talking about free bc here.
Glad you understand.
(And it’s ‘Verbaluce’ – don’t read/type so fast – thanks.)

You also made the claim that the majority of Catholics reject the Church’s position on contraception which shows that your IQ is somewhere in the single-digit range.
Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Well no. The only thing in the single digit range is the % of sexually active Catholics who don’t practice birth control.
But really…you think most do, huh?
If that’s the case, the Church need not worry that anyone will be using this benefit – right?
So maybe this is all moot.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Well no. The only thing in the single digit range is the % of sexually active Catholics who don’t practice birth control.

Interesting how you changed the topic from your previous post (verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM) after that smackdown I gave you because that’s not what you said before. That’s OK, the truth hurts.

If that’s the case, the Church need not worry that anyone will be using this benefit – right?
So maybe this is all moot.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 1:05 PM

So when (not if) Obama loses and we start dictating how Planned Parenthood is to operate, we’ll obviously get your full support since it seems to be OK for the federal government to tell people what it should provide.

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Interesting how you changed the topic from your previous post (verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM) after that smackdown I gave you because that’s not what you said before. That’s OK, the truth hurts.
Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM

This was all re: my post here:
verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM.
Seems you got confused – completely forgivable as the threads can get squiggly here.

So when (not if) Obama loses and we start dictating how Planned Parenthood is to operate, we’ll obviously get your full support since it seems to be OK for the federal government to tell people what it should provide.
Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM

That hypothetical is in no way analogous here.
But it’s also a little incoherent – so if you wanna try again…

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Ok, I’m seeing Obama conflate two arguments here… which he does a lot.

1) Women deserve the right to have access to contraceptives, Plan B, etc.

Nobody’s debating that with you… nobody. I’m not sure why you think this is the argument we’re in.

2) Contraceptives ($15/month) or Plan B ($20-30) is FAR too expensive for someone to pay on their own and they must have insurance to handle this passive cost.

Last I checked I don’t have “oil change” insurance or “battery replacement” insurance or “radiator fluid change” insurance on my car. All of those are used by nearly every driver, often necessary, and more expensive than the contraception we “must cover or women won’t be able to have it”?

Why does anyone believe this?

Do women make so little money at their jobs that they can’t afford this minimal cost? Or are women so bad with budgeting that expecting them to maybe have an extra $20-30 a month is inconceivable?

Or maybe this could be handled without making it part of your health insurance? Why raise the cost of health insurance to cover a minor cost you can get yourself?

Would you pay me $10/month for oil change insurance? I’ll promise to pay for a $20 Jiffy lube oil change for you once every 3 months with this coverage… but no premium oil, wiper blades, or other adjustments allowed. That extra coverage costs $50/month.

You get insurance to cover things that might occur that are a surprise, and that you might not be able to cover without insurance… not things you buy all the time, or things that are inexpensive.

OR does someone want to offer me “cell phone insurance”? Are you going to charge me less than my monthly cell phone bill to insure my Cricket bill of $45/month (unlimited, so always the same)? How does that style of “insurance” work exactly? How can it possibly SAVE anyone any money?

It can’t, it won’t, it’ll cost more than paying for it yourself, and it’s a stupid idea financially regardless of the religious, moral, or ethical reasoning.

** emphasis added because I don’t see any argument against that point.

gekkobear on February 9, 2012 at 2:08 PM

That picture is the thousand words.. it shows the attitude and tantrum laden way liberals think and act..

my way, or else..

like a child so spoiled and out of control, his parents have to call the cops to get him on the school bus.. I’ve seen it, wouldn’t have believed it otherwise..

Obama really does HATE anybody who tells him no.

He’s really gonna love this country when he’s shown the door in November…

you thought he was a monster before?

He’ll set new records for outrageous acts by a lame duck president.

mark81150 on February 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The People seem to approve.

Constantine on February 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM

wishful think much?

gee, that ought to shut up those religious types! NOT! good luck with that.

Dr. Demento on February 9, 2012 at 2:37 PM

So the rulings by the 6th Circuit or the 4th Circuit are not under review yet by SCOTUS, only the 11th Circuit?

txmomof6 on February 9, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Apparently, the Virginia case was not included.

OptionsTrader on February 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

OptionsTrader on February 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Thanks for that! So it can still be brought up no matter what the Supremes decide on the individual mandate. I hope they are keeping this in the back of their mind when they do decide on the individual mandate. Life would be so much simpler if they just overturned the whole thing.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

This is too simple . . .just repeal Obamacare….strike while the iron is hot!

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Is Viagra covered under the Affordable Care Act?

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM

If the Republicans aren’t going to fight for the REPEAL of Obamacare, why should I care about this narrow issue . . .there’s the contraciptive issue .. . . but there’s even more wrong . . .why put a bandaid (carve out an exemption for Catholics)on cancer (anti-individual liberty Obamacare otherwise will stand)?

What a bunch of no-count idiots the Republicans are . . .they are getting sucked in on this one . . . BIG TIME!!!!!

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 4:17 PM

The People seem to approve.

Constantine on February 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM
wishful think much?

gee, that ought to shut up those religious types! NOT! good luck with that.

Dr. Demento on February 9, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Poll a population of women (Catholin and non-Catholic) and then give me your opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you a woman Dr. Demento?

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 4:19 PM

The catholic church should just stop accepting government money and end this controversy. The Vatican has billions of dollars and there shouldn’t be a need for federal aid. If you accept money from the government you have to play by their rules.

Mr. Neaux Nonsense on February 9, 2012 at 4:20 PM

The catholic church should just stop accepting government money and end this controversy. The Vatican has billions of dollars and there shouldn’t be a need for federal aid. If you accept money from the government you have to play by their rules.

Mr. Neaux Nonsense on February 9, 2012 at 4:20 PM

This mandate applies to everyone. It is not based on the reception of federal aid. The church could do as you suggest and they would still have to comply.

Next time, try reading up on a topic before commenting.

PackerBronco on February 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The People seem to approve.

Constantine on February 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM

And John Kerry was supposed to win the presidency. What’s your point?

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Seems you got confused – completely forgivable as the threads can get squiggly here.

I see you’re avoiding the issue again. Not surprised.

Kingfisher on February 9, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Obama continues his own personnel Jihad against America.

Axion on February 9, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Yeah yeah, I think I should get my season ski pass for free since that keeps me healthy , and my hunting gear free too since that keeps me in shape…

Free for me, some one else can pay for it…

Plantnerd on February 9, 2012 at 7:34 PM

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Either you’re incredibly dense, or you’re actually CHOOSING to ignore the counterpoints made against your ridiculous argument.

CanofSand on February 9, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Pragmatic on February 9, 2012 at 4:17 PM

You’ve got to be joking. This is a matter of religious freedom. It’s a basic violation of something at the very foundation of this Republic. And talking about it is a great way to wake people up to the evils of Obama, Obamacare, and the Left. And you’re upset because to you this somehow means they’re not committed to repealing Obamacare as a whole?? Don’t be ridiculous.

CanofSand on February 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1965 document by Pope Paul VI called Humane Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

1. General lowering of moral standards
2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.
Stolen from http://www.punditandpundette.com/
1,2 & 3 are already happening here in the USA, China is doing # 4.
just a matter of time till it happens here. Funny how the Catholic church could tell the future some 47 years ago.

ColdWarrior57

Amen. By their fruits you shall know them. The left has taken over the culture in sexual matters since the 60s. Early and comprehensive sex ed.; flood the world with contraceptives; co-habitation; no-fault divorce; the list goes on.

The fruits: 40% of births are to single mothers; massive abortion; uncaring and often dangerous step-parents; rampant pornography; runaway venereal disease; that list also goes on.

The left’s answer: double down; ridicule the opposition; suppress it as much as you can; claim that a secular paradise is around the next corner; that list too goes on.

By all means, let’s argue about our first amendment rights. But in the process, there’s no need to be defensive about the merits of our case.

Ronald Wallenfang on February 10, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4