Matthews: Don’t bring out that false White House spin on the mandate; Update: WH to offer “accommodation” on contraception rule?

posted at 8:40 am on February 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

When a Democratic President loses Chris Matthews … where else can he turn? Matthews rips MSNBC analyst John Heilemann on the air for regurgitating incorrect White House talking points during a discussion of the contraception mandate when Heilemann claims that the HHS order is the same as in 28 states now. Not true, says Matthews, who notes that the states offer various ways for religious organizations to avoid paying for products and services that violate their conscience, which is not possible with the HHS mandate (via Greg Hengler):

Wow. When was the last time we saw Matthews reject White House spin on his program? I don’t watch Matthews often enough to keep score, but I’d guess that it would have been January 19th, 2009.  Matthews isn’t the only one who’s not buying the White House spin, either.  The Daily Caller reports that Obama has angered Hispanics with this intrusion into religious conscience — and not just the Catholics:

President Barack Obama’s campaign to woo growing Hispanic communities in southern states being thwarted by his simultaneous campaign to regulate their neighborhood churches, both Catholic and evangelical.

The proposed regulation “has caused an incredible amount of consternation and angst in the Hispanic community. … It is un-American to tell my pastor, my minister, my priest that they have to violate what they believe in,” said Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

The conference represents 18,000 non-Catholic churches and 15 million Hispanic evangelicals, or roughly one third of Hispanics in the United States.

Even John Kerry is starting to chafe at the new mandate, although he spun this as some sort of work in progress for the Obama administration — despite having already spent months discussing this with faith leaders before publishing the rule:

In a statement, Kerry said, “I think the Administration is working towards a final rule that reflects a reasonable compromise. I think there’s a way to protect everybody’s interest here. I think you can implement it effectively in a way that protects women’s access, but at the same time protects people’s religious beliefs, and that should be everyone’s goal.”

Why would Kerry and other Democrats be nervous?  As Politico notes, Barack Obama just re-energized the culture war and handed Republicans a large amount of credibility for their attacks:

President Barack Obama, with one swift contraception regulation, accomplished something his rivals have struggled to do: unify the Republican Party and fire up its base.

“You never look for a fight, but you never walk away from a fight, and we will embrace this one a thousand percent,” said Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a former head of the New Jersey chapter of Right to Life. …

There’s good reason for Republicans to welcome the fight: It’s one in a series of culture war issues that have surged to the forefront of the political debate and knocked the economy off the front page. For social conservatives, it dovetails perfectly with this weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Rick Santorum’s resurgence in last Tuesday’s caucuses and reaction to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down California’s Proposition 8, which would have reversed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry.

But more than the other rallying points, the battle over contraceptive coverage at religiously affiliated institutions has bound together Republicans of all stripes because it hits core GOP themes: religious liberty, government intrusion and reproduction politics. Perhaps more important politically, it has given Republicans something to talk about other than the economy, just when Obama’s gotten a lift from modest gains.

It’s difficult to recall a more foolish political decision than Obama’s mandate — and in an election year.  If this survives longer than a week, I’d be shocked.  Keep an eye on the wire services late this afternoon for a climb-down.  Obama cannot afford to push Catholics and Hispanics into the arms of the GOP for very long.

Update: It had better be a better climbdown than this one, reported by ABC News’ Jake Tapper:

With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.

The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. …

White House officials have discussed the state law in Hawaii, where religious groups are allowed to opt out of coverage that includes birth control, as long as employees are given information whether such coverage can be obtained. But this accommodation would not go that far.

This announcement would not go that far. Sources say it will involve health insurance companies helping to provide the coverage, since it’s actually cheaper for these companies to offer the coverage than to not do so, because of unwanted pregnancies and resulting complications.

Uh, so the administration response will be tell insurers for religious organizations to take on the costs themselves without passing it along to the religious organizations that pay for the policies?  I’m not sure that even Chris Matthews will buy that as a “compromise.”  Religious organizations whose doctrines oppose birth control are not going to buy insurance policies that cover it — nor should the government be forcing them to do so.


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

The regime must have thought they could win this battle with the church in a few days just like they won the battle with Komen over PP. They must have been truly caught off guard by this resistance and are trying to craft some kind of compromise to offer. If the church doesn’t except it, and they shouldn’t, dear leader can claim that they tried to work it out and somehow blame the repubs for failure.

Kissmygrits on February 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Obama: “Folks, the other day I unilaterally decided to ring the bell. Now, lotsa folks don’t like the fact that I rang the bell. Let me make this clear…the bell was rung, but made no sound”

Obama: “I didn’t inhale”

At the least, Bubba Clinton could lie and it would take a while to figure it out. Jug ears? Not so much.

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM

There is a much larger point to all of this and the Republicans should be banging the drum loudly.

This and much worse is what you’ll get with a second Obama term. It’s not just about Catholic organizations being told they have to pay for contraceptives. This is about the government telling everyone what they can or can’t do.

We need a Republican President to executive order all of Obama’s damage out of existence.

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

My guess is he (Oblama) always calculates these things because he knows the public has short memories. He’ll cave and offer exceptions and probably planned to all along. It’s his way of playing “take, then give a little back, then take some more…”

May backfire (I hope) on him this time, he’s open on a lot of fronts lately, doing the same thing.

Tim Zank on February 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

“Kerry said, “I think the Administration is working towards a final rule that reflects a reasonable compromise.”

This “final rule”, in its final form:

“Shut up, and eat your peas.”

- which is standard democrat compromise procedure.

GrassMudHorsey on February 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

The only ‘accomodation’ I want to hear from Obama is the vow he will stop violating the Constitution!

easyt65 on February 10, 2012 at 9:55 AM

How do you talk sense into someone who’s brain washed?

GeorgieGirl9 on February 10, 2012 at 9:01 AM

My Aunt Rose, may God rest her soul, used to tell me, “Skippy, never argy with a fool. Sometimes folks can’t tell which one is which.”

I’m thinking this decision was a miscalculation that illustrates one of Obama’s most obvious tendencies. He doesn’t seem to want to have women around on the golf course or the basketball court, but he relies on women for guidance regularly. Clearly the most powerful adviser he has besides Michelle is Val Jarrett, and it is widely reported that women like Sibelius inside the administration drove this decision.

But stop and think about his background. For much of his childhood the leading authority figures were his mother and his grandmother. His father was absent and his grandfather was not the head of that household, his grandmother was.

He restricts his contacts largely to a closed inner circle, is continually told what he wants to hear. His sympathy with radical feminist (and Marxist) agendas goes back to his mother. (In the Illinois Senate he voted against a bill that would have required abortion doctors do everything necessary to save the life a child born alive in an abortion procedure.)

So the women are telling him what he wants to hear, and he trusts them more than the men who are warning him of the consequences.

Obama just blindsided himself.

novaculus on February 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Where are our trolls?

*crickets*

St Gaudens on February 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

GrassMudHorsey on February 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I love the fact that the jug-eared bastard comes up with some scheme that still forces religious organizations to pay for contraception and still has the audacity to call it a compromise.
Nothing has changed from the original order but he is pretty much unable to go back after so staunchly defending the indefensible.

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Yeah, they should try to dump this mandate today rather than giving a priest/pastor an easy sermon topic for yet another Sunday.

DumboTheAvenger on February 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down California’s Proposition 8, which would have reversed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry.

It wasn’t a law, it was an overreaching court ruling… Thank goodness for those layers of fact checkers and editors!!

DavidW on February 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I would like someone to point out that no one is forcing women to work for a Catholic institution (hospital, school, Catholic Charities) if they don’t support the Church’s teachings.

No one is putting a gun to the head of any employee. They can quit if they want subsidized contraception and more. If the economy is so great, as Obama repeatedly tells us, then get a job someplace else.

And what about the FEMALE employer who doesn’t want to provide birth control in her insurance package. Boxer et al need to be confronted with WOMEN who oppose this high-handed mandate.

matthew8787 on February 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

So the women are telling him what he wants to hear, and he trusts them more than the men who are warning him of the consequences.

Obama just blindsided himself.

novaculus on February 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Interesting take on why the jug-eared bastard was so tone deaf on this issue. I can’t say I disagree with it other than to add the fact that Obama has no religious frame of reference to understand exactly why it is that people are upset that he has decided to force this issue. The “compromise” as reported will not change the fundamental objections and Obama is too arrogant to actually admit that he was wrong to listen to an evil whore like Secretary Sebelius.

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Wow…the look on that guy’s face after Matthews told him off was priceless.

tinkerthinker on February 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM

You mean I have to think?!? Independently? On MSNBC? That’s not in my contract!

jangle12 on February 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Why would Obama make such an unforced error?

Maybe Obama wants Santorum?

Is all of this in any way connected to Stephanopolous’ question to Romney in that debate last month about whether the constitution says states don’t have the right to ban contraception?

Seemed like peculiar question at the time.

shannon76 on February 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Concur, Obama is compounding his problem with any “compromise” that is not a total capitulation, because he will anger his leftist base — at least temporarily. And he will demonstrate to the Church and its supporters that he doesn’t care what they think, he doesn’t get it, and thinks he can coopt them with miserable crumbs.

matthew8787 on February 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Matthews got pretty hot over the WH handling of the Gulf oil spill. He didn’t think there was any competency involved by the Feds at all.

So, as much as I frankly despise Chrissy, I gotta give him props for at least leaving a few drops of koolaid in the cup.

nukemhill on February 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM

shannon, I share your concern. Obama wants Santorum, which scares the Hell out of me, because I don’t think the base understands how vulnerable Santorum is on this issue.

matthew8787 on February 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Wow, the look on John Heilemann’s face at the end was classic. He thought he was entering an echo chamber, instead Tingles crapped in his mouth.

RMOccidental on February 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM

key west reader

i cant tell if youre being ironic or not.

i never siad he was smart. i said he learned what works and hes not wrong. hes learned that he can do just about anything he wats irrespective of how unconstitutional it is. if nobody challenges the action then hats the way it is. take his recess appointments to the nlrb for example. the only people in the position to challenge it is a party who is adversely affected by a ruling. so a private individual with limited resources must challenge the federal goverment with unlimited resources. the aggrieved party may decide that the chances of winning are good but that a challenge would mea bankruptcy.

the only other party in position to challenge is the us senate. the democrats wont because its their guy and they are unprincipled. the republicans wont because they are timid under timid leadership. mike lee introduced some legislation about these appoitments and only five or six republicans voted for it. what has that reaction taught obama. tha he can unilaterally decide when the senate is in session. that doesnt require any smarts.

casel21 on February 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Is all of this in any way connected to Stephanopolous’ question to Romney in that debate last month about whether the constitution says states don’t have the right to ban contraception?

Seemed like peculiar question at the time.

shannon76 on February 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM

That’s what happens when the media gets their talking points too early.

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

MSNBC analyst John Heilemann??? And he is lock-in-step with the WH talking points? How can this tool be called an analyst? How about mindless zombie John Heilemann.

jake49 on February 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM

@casel21 on February 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM

That has been my thought on Obama….he has done this many times.

He likes to push the envelope in all areas, and in places where he doesn’t get “Push back”, he moves on as all is normal and thus setting precedent either for himself of future presidents.

And on the areas where he does get “Push Back”…..he is fine with that also,
Because now he is standing at the top of a snow covered mountain and dropping the little snow ball…..
So he can “compromise” on these things….but what is happening, is the other party is giving up ground gradually and they don’t realize it.
So later on, they have no ground to stand on, and the government can bulldoze over them.

MityMaxx on February 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM

There are a lot of Liberal “Pundits” who are merely eespousing a differing opinion. These people – misinformed and incapable of rationa thought though they may be – truly believe their opinions which contradict reality. They are helpful participants in the arena of ideas – theirs are just different, or wrong.

Then there are those who are dedicated partisans. They are interested only in thing: Power for Their Side. They will express whatever opinion elevates their Power-Brokers and Demonize Conservatives with Impunity – for ANY reason. These people are MOST of the Mainstream Media – and they are Most of the problem in America.

Finally, there are those who are simply EVIL. These are people who, not only fit into category 2 above, but people who actually CHEER for the deaths of American Soldiers in Iraq and Iran, and are giddy with GLEE at the news of a Terrorist Attack. They ENCOURAGE The Terrorists and CHEER them on – because THEY believe that The Terrorists will help restore THEM to Power if ENOUGH Americans are killed. They MAKE SURE that The Terrorists have EVERY piece of information and Every Advantage they can Muster to HELP them carry out their Murders. They are CHEERING for The Terrorists to help BRING THEM Back into POWER – COMPLETE POWER – Again! These are the people that America needs to see wearing an Orange Jumpsuit in a Video with KSM demonstrating kitchen utensils.

Chris Mattews is the APOGEE of the Archtype of These EVIL people. He make Goebbels look human.

EVERYTHING he says is a LIE with an Agenda!

williamg on February 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Looks like The Chosen One has finally realized how big a mess he’s stepped into. Now he’ll go through his “compromise” BS routine. What’s it take to make The Obamassiah realize that Catholic bishops are not going to “compromise” with him?

GarandFan on February 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I read this in politico now

A majority of Americans still support abortion rights, 57 percent in the latest ABC News-Washington Post poll, and an overwhelming 81 percent think it should be legal in cases of rape or incest. But they continue to express qualms when it comes to a woman terminating a pregnancy because it is unwanted — “if she is unmarried and doesn’t want the baby.” The inference is that a woman is being selfish, her “choice” not defensible.

It cuts into the deepest notions of women’s liberation, of how a woman can determine the contours of her own life. Dealing with pregnancy, deciding when and whether and with whom, to have a child, is at the center of a female life. Despite all the gains women have made, there is still a complicated reaction to the notion of women being sexually free without paying some kind of price.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72689_Page2.html#ixzz1lzZ2ehVg

Social cons, any thoughts?

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Not to brag, but I predicted on my blog over a week ago that Obama would pull back to try to appease angry Catholics. Sometimes, I’m good. :)

But he is only doing this to get re-elected. He indeed is not to be trusted with freedom of religion or just about any Constitutional freedom.

WannabeAnglican on February 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Key West Reader, yes. That really happened. Unbelievable that you’d feign ignorance of recent history.

The Cider House Rules
A well crafted movie touches on this subject, Tobey MacGwyer, Michael Caine, Charlize Theron.

That gruesome self mutilation or that unsanitary reproductive mutilation by “well intended” back ally practitioners did used to really happen, though, is not the current point.

Abortions are legally available. And already, there are well established private institutions well funded by donated financial contributions that offer inexpensive/free abortions to the indigent.

Regarding American Civil Liberties, the “mandate” constitutional point is that no American citizen should be required to make a purchase (ObamaCare) or be required to tax subsidize abortions, just as no citizen should be required to have an abortion. Abortion has been determined by “popular” opinion (democracy) to be a right of a woman to choose. And that principle of FREE CHOICE applies to every American citizen only so long as “social justice” does not trump “Equality Under the Law”. What Obama has again illustrated is the dichotomy between the human’s natural God given right to Free Will vs. Authoritarian Mandate.

Our Constitutional Bill of Rights set in words specific rights that our government may NOT deprive us. That so many Americans forfeited in concept our civil liberties in the vain hope that a more authoritarian federal government would better suit normalcy is where neoconservatives have yet to admit they were wrong. But then, neoconservatives are authoritarian in ideology, trusting closed records without verifying full disclosure, and will never admit that dissolving constitutional integrity has negative blow back.

Btw, Obama’s administration has YET to function according to constitutional principle. In order to gain the Oval Office, he obviously disregarded his dual citizenship as presenting his constitutional conflict of interest. His first act in office was the destruction of Contractual Law. His requirement that US taxpayers fork out additionally from our personal income in order for Obama cronies to abscond with trillions of tax dollars in the guise of “bailing out” this & that proves Obama’s core corruption. ObamaCare Mandated Purchase already invaded the Citizenry, depriving sovereignty over our own bodies and our own minds, empowering the gluttonous insurance industry that’s absolutely corrupt in global magnitude (“investing in derivatives” then requiring US taxpayers bail-out the pirates in order to be serially robbed). His gruesome atrocities abroad, allying our Military with al-Qaeda in the Middle East, insulting decency, proves contemptuous perversion.

America has gone downhill as people choose ignorance as bliss.

maverick muse on February 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Where are our trolls?

*crickets*

Just waiting for the actual “accommodation” announcement. I hope HA starts a new thread for it. There will be chirping.

Drew Lowell on February 10, 2012 at 10:27 AM

shannon, I share your concern. Obama wants Santorum, which scares the Hell out of me, because I don’t think the base understands how vulnerable Santorum is on this issue.

matthew8787 on February 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I thought the same. Obama is on purpose giving santy airtime by and conservative good will in this minor fight with the church.

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I wonder if this goofy SOB still has that TINGLE running up his leg for the MARXIST MOOSE LIMB?

Deacon on February 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Why would Obama make such an unforced error?

Because he views the country through an internal audience (advisers, czars, etc), which creates a nasty bias blinding him to what the majority of this country thinks and believes. Deep down, I believe, POTUS actually thinks one of these days he’ll wake up and see the headline “Country loves Obamacare.” Why? Because everybody he talks to in the White House and Hyde Park says so; it is the same problem Paula Kael had when she declared, “Nobody I knew voted for Nixon.”

This is not the first time this character flaw has bubbled to the surface, just think Obamacare, bitter clingers, high-speed rail, green jobs and arugula. The problem is, except for a handful of politicians and the readers of Hot Gas, nobody calls him on this character flaw or exploits it to its full potential.

Obama is a house of cards, easily toppled, if only the J. Alfred Prufrocks of the Republican Party would just stop contemplating, “Do I dare eat a peach?”

RMOccidental on February 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Does anyone believe this socialist if reelected would not reinstate this and far worse.

logman1 on February 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM

despite having already spent months discussing this with faith leaders before publishing the rule

So there were “faith leaders” who agreed with this? Who the hell were these people? Inquiring minds want to know.

Deanna on February 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Another example of why Obama is a joke. He has no beliefs. He does something and then when it looks like he will lose votes, he tries to backtrack and makes the problem worse.

He is trying to ensure that he doesn’t lose Catholics and make it pretty much impossible to win the election (he loses even 4-5 points from the Catholic vote, and he has no way to win). But is it too late?

If only the Republicans had a nominee right now who could start making this a major issue, especially in heavily Catholic states. Instead we have this joke of a Republican primary with 3 incompetent stooges who are more interested in going after each other than getting rid of Obama.

milcus on February 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM

If a privately funded abortion clinic were to include tying tubes to prevent a client’s serial abortions, they’d economize. Abortion is never free.

maverick muse on February 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM

…the jug-eared bastard…
Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Well now we know you don’t like the guy.

Spoke with my Dad about all this the am.
Die-hard Repub, Catholic, opposes the health care act, and plans to vote against Obama (and ‘not for any of the other guys’).
He’s also a physician who spent his career working in Catholic hospitals – he totally supports Obama’s position on this issue.
He feels the church can make their case in the pulpit – as they can and should on any issue. And he comprehends (as many of you clearly don’t) that in no way does this policy require the Church to provide bc. But ‘if they want to leave the pulpit and run institutions – then they should expect to be treated as any employer’.
Now I know this makes some of you see my Dad as a crazed leftist anti-Cathlic bigot, but that’s just the anti-sensible people bigot in you…

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Compromise means he’ll BLAME those evil gop or other Strawman for this

He’ll say I’m still rigjt on this issue and then blame the folks for HAVING to do this in the first place

Guaranteed

cmsinaz on February 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM

And yet here is his approval today

Rasmussen Reports 2/7 – 2/9 1500 LV 51 49 +2
Gallup 2/6 – 2/8 1500 A 49 45 +4

Either people aren’t paying attention or this isn’t really that big of a deal to most people.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Obama is a house of cards,

RMOccidental on February 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I’ve said this since he was nominated. I firmly believe that’s why he was chosen, an empty suit willing to do whatever people tell him. His master was supposed to be Fat Teddy but fortunately that didn’t work out. Kennedy’s influence got The Won nominated and now others have stepped in to use him as their puppet. I don’t think the man has an original thought or any character at all. He is the perfect example of the Peter Principle.

Deanna on February 10, 2012 at 10:38 AM

So there were “faith leaders” who agreed with this?

Modern Methodists, Episcopalians, Unitarians. Include the (Mormon) LDS First Presidency given the malleable nature of revisionism as “direct revelation”, speaking from both sides of the mouth, as if not recognizing the doctrinal dichotomy between what they teach to be God’s spirit children and the babies their First Presidency allows Mormon females and Mormon doctors to abort by convenient choice, though providing adoptive services.

maverick muse on February 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

So your dad is saying the government should tell employers what kind of healthcare to offer? So he does agree with Obamacare?

Deanna on February 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Sorry goofed the quotes up…I know I know, preview is my friend.

But ‘if they want to leave the pulpit and run institutions – then they should expect to be treated as any employer’.
Now I know this makes some of you see my Dad as a crazed leftist anti-Cathlic bigot, but that’s just the anti-sensible people bigot in you…

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM

So your dad is saying the government should tell employers what kind of healthcare to offer? So he does agree with Obamacare?

Deanna on February 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I’m sorry but this objection to paying for contraception should not be narrowed down to Catholics or even religious institutions. The US Constitution is not about freedom of religious organizations, it’s about INDIVIDUAL freedoms. *I* have the constitutional right to freedom of religion; therefore *I* have the constitutional right NOT to pay for someone’s contraception if that is my faith based belief.

Everyone is now talking about easing the consciences of religious organizations and THAT should not be the issue. The issue should be about individuals religious rights to not have to pay for abortions or contraception if that’s what they believe.

Let’s not let the liberals out of this so easy.

katablog.com on February 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

If we see any indication of taking away control from Dear Leader and handing it back to the religious leaders, it will be no better than a temporary illness. After they get reelected (IF they get reelected) the D congresspeople and Dear Leader will have a “miraculous recovery” back to the far distant left. They will take back the power they temporarily restored to the religious leaders, and add to it an even larger power grab somewhere else. If there’s one thing we can count on it’s that the D’s get “born again” every election cycle; and then revert back to their vomit puddle that they are happiest in afterwards (just as the Bible states in Proverbs 26:11- “as a dog returns to its vomit so a fool repeats his folly”)…

PackerFan4Life on February 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I hope the church does not allow Obama to run away from this. This administration needs to pay a huge political price for their suggestion that the feds re-write the Christian religion.

And who would be dumb enough to believe ANYTHING this administration says? Take it to court and get it on the record, what this administration says is worth much less than dust.

Axion on February 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

So your dad is saying the government should tell employers what kind of healthcare to offer? So he does agree with Obamacare?
Deanna on February 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM

No, my Dad opposes what you call Obamacare.
This issue exists outside of that – as a matter of included benefits in a health insurance policy.

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Archbishop Timothy Dolan promises exorcism of OccupyWhiteHouse in early November.

Buh bye Barack and The Succubi: Valerie, Moochelle and Sebellius.

I think the cats out of the bag on this issue, whatever accommodations are made.

Typicalwhitewoman on February 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Social cons, any thoughts?

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Back when women were considered property, we didn’t have these kinds of problems.

Just saying.

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM

angryred, this battle hasn’t begun to impact the Obama approval numbers. He has reached his peak and his numbers are tumbling down.

He wouldn’t be speeding to an “accommodation” if they weren’t frightened. The reality is way ahead of the polls.

matthew8787 on February 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

It appears that AnninCA has returned.

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Where are our trolls?

*crickets*

Cast your nets…
Got one.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72689_Page2.html#ixzz1lzZ2ehVg
Social cons, any thoughts?

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I’m sorry but this objection to paying for contraception should not be narrowed down to Catholics or even religious institutions. The US Constitution is not about freedom of religious organizations, it’s about INDIVIDUAL freedoms. *I* have the constitutional right to freedom of religion; therefore *I* have the constitutional right NOT to pay for someone’s contraception if that is my faith based belief.

Everyone is now talking about easing the consciences of religious organizations and THAT should not be the issue. The issue should be about individuals religious rights to not have to pay for abortions or contraception if that’s what they believe.

Let’s not let the liberals out of this so easy.

katablog.com on February 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Good points.

OptionsTrader on February 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

If a privately funded abortion clinic were to include tying tubes to prevent a client’s serial abortions, they’d economize. Abortion is never free.

maverick muse on February 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM

its true, abortion is not free and its reprehensible action.

but that author presents the pro-choice argument from a feminist perspective that, made lots of sense to me.

This paragraph is important:

“It cuts into the deepest notions of women’s liberation, of how a woman can determine the contours of her own life. Dealing with pregnancy, deciding when and whether and with whom, to have a child, is at the center of a female life. Despite all the gains women have made, there is still a complicated reaction to the notion of women being sexually free without paying some kind of price.”

for sure being against contraception is a case against female sexual freedom.

anyway, the above is a potent argument and I think that this cultural war might energize lapsed feminists and young women that never gave this issue much though.

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Cast your nets…
Got one.

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

dissent is not trolling dear social con!

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Now I know this makes some of you see my Dad as a crazed leftist anti-Cathlic bigot, but that’s just the anti-sensible people bigot in you…

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM

This issue is much larger than your dad or your narrow-minded bigotry and intolerance. I’m guessing you are one of those arrogant “forward thinking” types who views traditional values of churches as some sort of mythology to be batted down in much the way Obama and the radical partisan whore running the HHS tried to do with this regulation.

It may come as a shock to you but some people actually believe that contraception is immoral. It is akin to a mandate that employees at Alcoholics Anonymous be given free booze or telling PETA that they have to pay for their employees meals at a steak house. But most importantly, this is Obama telling religious institutions that they have no rights. It flys in the face of the Constitution, not that the jug-eared bastard even pretends to care about that document anymore.

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

This issue exists outside of that – as a matter of included benefits in a health insurance policy.

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Since birth control is a right conveyed by a government and not by God, then it is the responsibility of the government to facilitate that right by providing birth control facilities of its own, and not require private entities to make good on a government promise.

“Contents: MK 14 MOD 3 Pill; Birth Control; Qty 21″

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM

There is a much larger point to all of this and the Republicans should be banging the drum loudly.

This and much worse is what you’ll get with a second Obama term. It’s not just about Catholic organizations being told they have to pay for contraceptives. This is about the government telling everyone what they can or can’t do.

We need a Republican President to executive order all of Obama’s damage out of existence.

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Yes! People think this is about contraception, NO, IT IS NOT! It is about subverting our First Amendment rights!

herm2416 on February 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

dissent is not trolling dear social con!

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM

1. I’m not your dear.
2. I am a social con and fiscal con.

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I’m sure that Hugo Chavez gets a lot of push back too, but that’s what dictators/narcissists do folks. Their self-image is do delusional, they are incapable of rational thought. Imposing their will is the only sense of gratification that drives them.

We elected a Marxist dictator wanna be. We shouldn’t be surprised that is exactly what we got.

cajunpatriot on February 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM

If a privately funded abortion clinic were to include tying tubes to prevent a client’s serial abortions, they’d economize. Abortion is never free.

maverick muse on February 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I’ve often said I’m willing to pay, as a taxpayer, for one free abortion per female. Provided, of course, that the abortion procedure also includes a complete hysterectomy.

Otherwise, save your money and pay for your own mistakes, raise a child, or just keep your pants on.

But stay the hell away from my wallet and forcing me to act against my beliefs.

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Dear Vallerie Jarrett, Moochelle & Sebelius (and by fiat Mr. President), “Eat Rocks”

jake49 on February 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM

“His Majesty King Barack I To Decree Special Dispensation For (Some Of) His Subjects” (Ace).

rplat on February 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM

matthew8787 on February 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I don’t think he RCC requires their nonministerial employees to be Catholics rather they expect them to be considerate of church beliefs.

I don’t think the Church has ever stopped some woman from buying bc. I doubt the local parish priest is going to fire a lay teacher if he finds out she is on bc. The issue here is whether the church should be forced to subsidize behavior they consider wrong. Since the womens’ reproductive health movement thinks so highly of PP they should look to that organization to provide low cost/free bc.

katiejane on February 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Back when women were considered property, we didn’t have these kinds of problems.

Just saying.

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM

good times! :) they give so much work these days… :(

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I’ve often said I’m willing to pay, as a taxpayer, for one free abortion per female. Provided, of course, that the abortion procedure also includes a complete hysterectomy.

Otherwise, save your money and pay for your own mistakes, raise a child, or just keep your pants on.

But stay the hell away from my wallet and forcing me to act against my beliefs.

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

he! I agree. lol!

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

“because of unwanted pregnancies and resulting complications.”

Wouldn’t want to be punished by those little complications running around in diapers.

elm on February 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

But ‘if they want to leave the pulpit and run institutions – then they should expect to be treated as any employer’.

Alright. That goes both ways. Our government (Bush’s Faith Based Initiative) over-reaches federal authority in “legal alliance” with a church so as to dictate/manage that pulpit’s message.

Regarding employers (whether private, religious, secular or government), our government is not authorized by the Constitution to abuse the citizen’s civil rights and liberties. No branch or official of our government is constitutionally authorized to abuse the citizen by denying our Bill of Rights.

The argument remains that our government does not have the constitutional authority to mandate a purchase or mandate a market, or a medical procedure. Until Congress votes a new Mandate Authorization Constitutional Amendment, it has no such authority. And the Office of the US Presidency is not that of a dictator or monarch.

The ease to accomplish codified law to effectively (in practice in order to establish precedence) supersede Constitutional Law is a problem.

That this President and this Congress perform in authoritarian concert is the point. As John Stossel recommends, voters need to become educated.

maverick muse on February 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM

katie, you are missing my point. I am not suggesting that the Church is prohibiting any employee from purchasing birth control. Rather, I am simply stating that the Church has a right and responsibility to determine its own destiny and to offer benefits commensurate with those teachings. If a lay employee doesn’t like what is being offered, then they can QUIT.

This mandate is EVIL, and the Church should publicly label it as such.

matthew8787 on February 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM

The alleged “compromise” is a difference that makes no difference.

PKO Strany on February 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

It appears that AnninCA has returned.
BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Really, no. I am relatively new here – and have only ever posted as ‘verbaluce’

It may come as a shock to you but some people actually believe that contraception is immoral.
Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 10:53 A

Well that’s silly and quite pointless (kinda like name calling).
Anyone who sincerely feels that contraception is immoral should by all means not use it…or wrestle with the issue personally however they wish. And you are free to stand in judgment of them (as it’s clear you do).
I suppose you also feel that intuitions run buy Christian Scientists should be able to carve out medicine and treatment of disease from health insurance policies they offer?
As you should, so that you remain consistent – if not all that sensible.

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Well now we know you don’t like the guy.

Spoke with my Dad about all this the am.
Die-hard Repub, Catholic, opposes the health care act, and plans to vote against Obama (and ‘not for any of the other guys’).
He’s also a physician who spent his career working in Catholic hospitals – he totally supports Obama’s position on this issue.
He feels the church can make their case in the pulpit – as they can and should on any issue. And he comprehends (as many of you clearly don’t) that in no way does this policy require the Church to provide bc. But ‘if they want to leave the pulpit and run institutions – then they should expect to be treated as any employer’.
Now I know this makes some of you see my Dad as a crazed leftist anti-Cathlic bigot, but that’s just the anti-sensible people bigot in you…

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Had the same conversation with my parents. They told me a story about how my grandmother went to a priest and asked if she could use contraception because she couldn’t afford any more children (5 already). He told her what the church’s position was, but to act in her own self-interest.

I see the immorality in birth control simply a means for the religion to grow more members. Why starve yourself of new bodies and allow the flock to age and wither away? Makes sense from a logical perspective.

Anywho, they didn’t find this too offensive at all.

antisense on February 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM

1. I’m not your dear.
2. I am a social con and fiscal con.

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

ok. but its still ok to be prochoice and fiscal conservative, yes?

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I think that the only real problem Old Tingle Thigh has when it comes to the President and contraception is that he probably hates the thought of Obama wearing a condom when he fantasizes about sucking him.

PorchDawg on February 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I’ve often said I’m willing to pay, as a taxpayer, for one free abortion per female. Provided, of course, that the abortion procedure also includes a complete hysterectomy.

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Despite your ‘property’ attitude toward women, there’s something I’m totally in agreement with you on. Have you gotten as much vitriol as I have for that position? Dear Lord, the cross-eyed frothing FURY that’s been thrown my way from both sides…

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM

What kind of locution is

since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.

You really had to mangle that sentence to try to make it appear that it is women employees driving the issue. B.S. Check that NY Times story from yesterday; NARAL, Boxer, Jarrett, and someone they called the 101st Senator that I’d never heard of are driving this cram-down, and as Ezra Klein mentioned earlier this week it was for crass political gain.

motionview on February 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Come down of it. You’re just upset that Dr. Paul is tanking.

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM

“off”

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Come down of it. You’re just upset that Dr. Paul is tanking.

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Who let the Joker out of his cell again?

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM

if republicants were wise( which they are not) they’d focus on the core issue that led to this outrageous violation of the inalienable right to worship or not as one wishes. it effects everyone not just christians, catholics and social conservatives: it is the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your own body and dictating how you will be allowed to follow your own beliefs and the dictates of your conscience.

romneycare violated my religious beliefs as a pagan and my belief that the constitution and bill of rights are the law of this land. (the bill of rights is inalienable even to the states, willard.) when obamacare passed, i felt like the world ended with legions of cheerleaders egging it on. cheerleaders like the christian left. obamacare violates the law of the land and the bill of rights- that’s the basis for being outraged by it. all the other specific outrages-religion based or not- just follow .

being taxed and fined for not acting as the government demands one act concerning one’s own body. because you know the commerce clause really does make medical slavery legal and binding. you are now the physical property of the state. the party of slavery rises again. and they used a black man to do it- how very.

remember liberals in particular those involved in women’s health issues chanting ‘hands off my body’? so, why is it ok for kathleen sibelius to dictate to you what forms of health care you may or may not acquire for yourself? isn’t that the same as controlling what should be your decisions about your body? why simply because of all the happy talk about health care for everyone (by denying the free will of everyone) did you hand over all the rights to your body in one fell swoop by shilling for obamacare? because democrats will let you get abortions( even though they’ll let you die if you are ever sick beyond your worth. then no cancer drugs for you grandma!)? obamacare IS the government with it’s filthy hands all over your body-and access to all your medical records. you don’t care about privacy and big brother all of a sudden?

and liberal catholics who supported obamacare- duh. anyone could see this one coming. the truth is you believe you alone deserve an exemption from the funding of healthcare you object to otherwise obamacare is in keeping with your belief that the state should be allowed to use force to carry out your mandate to aid the poor and the sick. some non christians likewise have deeply held moral beliefs concerning romenycare/obamacare- well, screw us. why should i be forced to fund it against my will and in a manner violating my religious beliefs ? according to the constitution you are not more equal than me because of your religion. all of obamacare, the whole premise itself violates my religious beliefs and i am not anti-contraception. where’s my compromise or waiver? you should be demanding repeal of this freedom killing mess-not special treatment for yourselves.

oh the payback… you wanted it, you stuffed it down everyone’s throats with la papessa nancy babbling about jesus, waving her big gavel . some still pathetically stand by romenycare as if its no different in the rights raping and now everyone’s panties are all finally twisted up. people with a conscious and a belief in freedom should be fighting for repeal not compromises and waivers- not stomping that hoof and demanding one’s own right to privileges be carved out special. obamacare isn’t wrong just because parts of it offend catholics- it’s wrong because it violates the freedoms of everyone.

mittens on February 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM

There is a much larger point to all of this and the Republicans should be banging the drum loudly.

This and much worse is what you’ll get with a second Obama term. It’s not just about Catholic organizations being told they have to pay for contraceptives. This is about the government telling everyone what they can or can’t do.

Vince on February 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Agree 100%. This issue is not about contraception. It’s not about religious freedom. It’s all about PERSONAL freedom and LIBERTY.

We need someone on our side that can articulate what’s really happening and present the stark difference betweeen our path for America vs. Obama’s. All the more reason to vote for Anyone But Romney in the remaining primaries.

Common Sense Floridian on February 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM

maverick muse on February 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM

This is an argument against govt’ run health care – and one that many make and articulate as you do here.
But this issue (church institutions and birth control) would be on the table regardless – as there has always been regulation and oversight with respect to products (e.g. a health insurance policy) that exist in the market – esp. with respect to preventative care.

Also – this is interesting – that this ‘mandate’ isn’t really all that new. Aside from it now not requiring a co-pay or deductible – it’s been the law of the land for a while.
Who knew?
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/February/10/NPR-contraception-rules-in-force-for-years.aspx

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM

When a Democratic President loses Chris Matthews

When did they change Mr. Matthews medication?

MessesWithTexas on February 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I guess Chris Matthews’ legs stop tingling.

Bitter Clinger on February 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Sister Carol Keenhan of the Catholic Health Association is reportedly applauding the “accommodation.” If this holds, Obama will have won.

An absolutely sickening betrayal.

matthew8787 on February 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM

You never look for a fight, but you never walk away from a fight, and we will embrace this one a thousand percent,” said Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a former head of the New Jersey chapter of Right to Life. …

Really?? With everything Obama has done or attempted to do, we should be picking all kinds of fights. That’s one reason Newt did so well for awhile…. he showed some fight.

Bitter Clinger on February 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

‘accomodation’ What a snotty, arrogant way to word it. More than anything this wording illustrates Obama’s exggerated opinion of himself. He really does think of himself as Emperor. And,on the lighter side(pun intended),I see that the Empress is going to make the Army eat lite because she says so. When did the military become Michelle’s property? These are a sick pair.

jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

No, my Dad opposes what you call Obamacare.
This issue exists outside of that – as a matter of included benefits in a health insurance policy.

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

You ignored my first question…typical. So does your dad think it’s acceptable for the government to dictate what kind of healthcare employers may offer?

Deanna on February 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Apparently that “Tingle” was just a case of Psoriasis.

The make a cream for that chrissy.

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Now I know this makes some of you see my Dad as a crazed leftist anti-Cathlic bigot, but that’s just the anti-sensible people bigot in you…

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Uh huh except this is a constitutional issue, what does your dad have to say about upholding the rights as described in the U.S. Constitution?


Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Dr Evil on February 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Dr Evil on February 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM

That gives the RCC an exemption for seminaries but not hospitals.

OptionsTrader on February 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Did Matthews recently suffer from a blow to the head?

it’s like sombody finally reached over and slapped that Hi-fi with the skipping record,.. a moment of clearity,.. and we’ll see if he goes back to repeating the WH spin again again again again again again again again again again again…..

THUMP!.

again,…….

“where was I” says a disheveled Matthews..

mark81150 on February 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM

When a Democratic President loses Chris Matthews … where else can he turn?

He didn’t “lose” Chris Matthews. I don’t believe there is anything Obama could do that would stop Tingles from pulling the lever for him.

Dexter_Alarius on February 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I see that the Empress is going to make the Army eat lite because she says so. When did the military become Michelle’s property? These are a sick pair.

jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I hadn’t heard this, do you have a link? TIA.

toby11 on February 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Uh, so the administration response will be tell insurers for religious organizations to take on the costs themselves without passing it along to the religious organizations that pay for the policies?

Only goes to show how absolutely devoid of any actual knowledge of the healthcare system this administration is.

Most large employers (and the RCC is often referred to by angry atheists as “the larget corporation in the world”) self-insure. They hire insurance companies to ADMINISTER their coverage – but at the end of the day, the actual payment for services comes out of the pocket of the company. I would bet my life savings (worth less now than when Obama took office, granted) that the RCC largely insures itself. So – this is not an accommodation at all. It is more spin and semantics from Obama.

CycloneCDB on February 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Be very careful of Obama and his Marxist regime . . . just when you think you’ve caused them to retreat, they’re infiltrating from another direction. There’s only one viable solution and that is to completely get rid of all of them in November.

rplat on February 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM

jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

My 12 year old came home complaining bitterly about the school menu last week.. and Michelle O got an ear full.. seems the school banned regular french fries for seet potato fries which the kids hate…

Because they said Michelle wanted them too… fries is unhealthy..

She better hope not too many high school kids are turning 18 and still fighting mad about some of the high handed games she’s been playing with them.

mark81150 on February 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3