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

sweet potato… sigh..

mark81150 on February 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Maybe we’re all wrong and the issue is about power and control? Few have taken on the Catholic Church and won. Obama just might see himself as someone who can do this. His disdain for the Constitution would certainly support this theory. Much of his policy smacks of control thinly hidden by what he calls pragmatism.

jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 11:44 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

You can be whatever you want, but I will not advocate for what I believe to be the killing of an innocent life. I think contraception is ok.
This issue is more than that. It is about liberty.
I asked this question the other day.

Say a Republican admin required every employer pay for their employee to carry a gun in what they determined to be a dangerous work environment.
What would you say to those against guns?

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Thank you, kind masters, for accomodating my religious practices!

Herald of Woe on February 10, 2012 at 11:46 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

Good point. And even if the RCC didn’t self-insure, most (maybe all) large employers chip in a big portion of the cost of the policy, which means they are paying for the contraceptive and abortifacant services regardless. The only other option would be to make the insurer cover it for free without any extra premiums, as in the WH’s fantasy world the woman actually using the contraception should have no responsibility to pay for any of it.

toby11 on February 10, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Toby–read it on either Drudge, Real Clear or Caller.

jeanie on February 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

People don’t seem to understand it’s not this rule that is the problem. The problem is OBAMACARE!!!!!!!!

Repeal this piece of garbage law.

ButterflyDragon on February 10, 2012 at 11:51 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.

THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DETERMINING. What don’t you get about that? The government does not have the Constitutional authority to compell a private organization let alone a religious one that they must purchase anything, up to and especially something that violates their faith, practice, or beliefs.

Insurance is a risk pool. Companies define what they want that risk to be. Not the government.

Your dad may not be some uber lib but he’s dead wrong on this.

StompUDead on February 10, 2012 at 11:54 AM

@verbaluce:

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

Okay, great – now let’s take this concept further and say “if you want to leave the mosque” for the muslims, and “if you want to leave the barn” for the Amish, and “if you want to leave the space ship” for the Scientologists- all of whom are exempted from obama’s deathplan 2014.

@verbaluce:
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).

You’re framing the issue wrong. First- contraception is not the only point of contention, it’s both contraception and abortion.

Next- the institution that is Catholicism believes abortion is murder and contraception is wrong- which is their choice as you allude to. They object to it on moral grounds, and judge accordingly…good for them, they have a moral framework unlike the grinning jackal in the white house.

However- the federal government is now trying to force them to PAY for abortions and contraception in their health care plans- it is not the job of the government to determine what someone does or does not include in their health care offerings- or it shouldn’t be.

Sadly, we have a gangly slackjawed would-be fascist in the white house who thinks otherwise.

GrassMudHorsey on February 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM

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

No, her “dad” is saying by “leaving the pulpit” (or doing things outside of their “core” functions)they become run of the mill employers.

My guess is her “dad” was watching C-Span and was merely channeling Rep. DeGette (D-CO) who spoke on this issue yesterday morning.

Of particular concern to me is who, exactly, defines what a core function of a religion is? The government? A panel? Verbs dad?

So the straw argument being formed is one that separates a building where people receive medicine for their soles and a building where people receive medicine for their bodies; both owned, operated, staffed, and supported by a religion.

Watch out folks, Rep. DeGette and others seem to have obtained the power to decide what is and is not a religious function. That must be in a more current version of the Constitution than the copy I have.

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I would tell them to go to hell. While I think it’s a great idea for people to be armed, I only want it to be an individual’s choice. Because we know that if the government can giveth then they sure as hell will claim they can taketh.

StompUDead on February 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM

First sign always, the little minions of mirth scurry off the boat. Next, Barry’ll start smelling smoke and try to talk Biden up on a life boat to make him an easier heave off port side.

onomo on February 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Here’s the Cspan interview with Rep. DeGette. Skip ahead to 3:00 for the pertinent part.

BobMbx on February 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Obama made the mistake of thinking that since the vast majority of Catholics do birth control and, some even abort their fetuses that they would not (hypocritically) support their leaders. Catholicism has this built-in ‘sin now confess later’ thing which, perhaps, encourages such behavior.

Annar on February 10, 2012 at 12:03 PM

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM
I would tell them to go to hell. While I think it’s a great idea for people to be armed, I only want it to be an individual’s choice. Because we know that if the government can giveth then they sure as hell will claim they can taketh.

StompUDead on February 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Exactly, that is my point, this is not the Governments choice to make.

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 12:04 PM

So its okay for Viagra to be covered but covering womans contraception violates your tender religious senses?! Oh, okay…. (o-0)

Politricks on February 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

ButterflyDragon on February 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM

This!!

I don’t want exemptions. What about the devout Catholic who runs a regular company? He shouldn’t have to go against his faith any more than anyone else just because he isn’t running a ‘religious’ business. Anytime a law is only applied to some and not all, it is obviously an unjust law. It’s like that ridiculous law they just passed to make it illegal for members of congress to participate in insider trading. You’ve got to be kidding me. I thought it was already illegal, but apparently just for us schmoes out here. Our overlords can do what they want!! ARGHHHHHH!!!!! This is the United States of America! We aren’t supposed to have a freaking politburo!!!!

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

@nathor:

It cuts into the deepest notions of women’s liberation, of how a woman can determine the contours of her own life.

Absolutely wrong. This issue cuts to the deepest notions of what a government can and can not compel an independent business or institution to purchase and/or pay for.

The lefty smokescreen of claiming the sacrosanct institutions of abortion and contraception are being threatened in this case is laughably absurd. The Catholic Church doesn’t care to be forced to pay for something they find morally repugnant by a fascist regime. End of story.

@nathor:
“for sure being against contraception is a case against female sexual freedom.”

Again, absolutely wrong and a failed attempt at framing the argument.

They are against ABORTION and contraception, two very different things in both tenor and intensity. Trying to sanitize this discussion by saying they’re merely “against contraception” is dishonest and pathetic- but then again we are talking about Democrats so why is that surprising?

Also, being against either or both is a CHOICE. Declining to pay for something they object to is also a CHOICE. It is not the government’s job or prerogative to force them to do this, and by doing so removes any choice they have in the matter.

Ironic that those who claim to be “pro-Choice” would presume to eliminate choice in this discussion.

But then again, we’re talking about the newspeak of the soetero junta, where there’s no such thing as irony.

GrassMudHorsey on February 10, 2012 at 12:10 PM

I swear that these goons have surpassed all propaganda techniques from communism. Pravda is indignant.

This is way beyond contraceptives and abortion; this is a constitutional, freedom and dictatorial matter. Obama could soon say “no more pork to be sold because it offends the Muzzies and some Jews”, or whatever item/issue pushed toward/from us.

I hate the Rs for not being able to argue.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 12:11 PM

We have been fooled into having the wrong debate. The debate should be whether certain medical services are so essential to civilization that they are a “right” and therefore must be offered without any individual cost. To force benefits to be without co-pays means that their costs will be absorbed by other policyholders thru higher insurance premiums. Obama has already won this debate by our framing it as an issue of separation of church and state.

Let me repose the question: Should homosexuals and celibates be forced to pay higher premiums in order that breeders can go thru their silly rituals without fear of any consequences?

Laurence on February 10, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I don’t want exemptions. What about the devout Catholic who runs a regular company? He shouldn’t have to go against his faith any more than anyone else just because he isn’t running a ‘religious’ business. Anytime a law is only applied to some and not all, it is obviously an unjust law.g politburo!!!!

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

This!
Perhaps the Catholic church is giving us a way to emasculate the individual mandate. I we can get the rest of the country as worked up and determined, as Catholics are on this particular piece, over the rest of obamacare we can get rid of this thing.

neuquenguy on February 10, 2012 at 12:16 PM

@Laurence on February 10, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Nicely played, sir.

GrassMudHorsey on February 10, 2012 at 12:16 PM

no compromise….we need to fight to have the whole thing repealed. Government should not be in the business of telling insurance companies what they will cover.

tommer74 on February 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Anyone think that an ‘accommodation’ would still be valid the day after Election Day 2012?

slickwillie2001 on February 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM

If you want contraception it’s free and all women have it right now it’s called “KEEP YOUR LEGS CROSSED”. It is time this country goes back to individual responsibility.

Pomai on February 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM

We have been fooled into having the wrong debate. The debate should be whether certain medical services are so essential to civilization that they are a “right” and therefore must be offered without any individual cost. To force benefits to be without co-pays means that their costs will be absorbed by other policyholders thru higher insurance premiums. Obama has already won this debate by our framing it as an issue of separation of church and state.

I see where you are coming from and you are correct that this isn’t the whole issue. It’s one front in a war. It also happens to be a battle in which some of the left’s traditional allies are happy to join – on our side. This allows us maximum leverage while the whole nation watches.

We are fortunate that Obama has chosen this hill to fight on. It is a battle of primary importance – especially in an election year – but it isn’t the whole war.

Missy on February 10, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Anyone think that an ‘accommodation’ would still be valid the day after Election Day 2012?

slickwillie2001 on February 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Ask Ben Nelson about those Executive Branch “accommodations”.

ButterflyDragon on February 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM

You can be whatever you want, but I will not advocate for what I believe to be the killing of an innocent life. I think contraception is ok.

I also advocate for my beliefs and that is not trolling.

This issue is more than that. It is about liberty.
I asked this question the other day.

Say a Republican admin required every employer pay for their employee to carry a gun in what they determined to be a dangerous work environment.
What would you say to those against guns?

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

so? it does not force employees to carry guns, yes? I would be ok if it was indeed a dangerous work environment and no other security arrangement could be met. However, I think these kind of mandates should not be, not because of moral objections, but because of unintended market distortions.

see the example of polygamy. I am against it and I support the government constitutional right to impose laws that constraint religious freedom for the greater good of society.
the greater good of society is to be decided by democratic means. and my view is that if prolifers would become a large majority of the country, then lets forbid abortion. And if there was a “pro-abortion” religion, they should not have an exception to the law.

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Anyone think that an ‘accommodation’ would still be valid the day after Election Day 2012?

slickwillie2001 on February 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Without having to face another election hand cuffing Obama he would run roughshod over the constitution and anyone trying to stand is his way much worse thatn he already has. Like Paul Ryan said, “you aint seen nothing yet”.

steel guy on February 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM

As to much of the above – I’m pleased to see so much thinking through the issue – and all the reasoning and change in reasoning to assist the stubborn in sticking to their guns, no matter what.
But you guys are all over the place here –

GrassMudHorsey..what is your position on abortion? Do you feel the government/state should have any role at all here…in essence…legal or illegal?
Exactly…so await another thread.

As for the ‘does the govt’ have the right to dicate’ line…sigh.
If one chooses to offer a product and to employ people or to establish and run institutions, at that moments yes – the government certainly has a role…and a ‘right’ to enforce the laws that apply to such products, etc. Now if you want to hold the position that the govt. has no role here…then fine.
But then you’re at the bottom of a slippery slope.

verbaluce on February 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Say a Republican admin required every employer pay for their employee to carry a gun in what they determined to be a dangerous work environment.

What would you say to those against guns?

MontanaMmmm on February 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

In Kennesaw, GA, there is an ordinance that requires every head of household to have a firearm. Of course there are exceptions for the mentally incompetent, felons, etc. so liberals are protected from this mandate.

Also, there is no penalty for violating this ordinance.

Does it count as an accomodation to those against guns if the citizens do not shoot them? Just wondering.
/

WhatNot on February 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM

I just watched the President’s announcement on the contraception coverage requirement, and I think this compromise will sit well with most of the American public. It’s hard to predict whether it will defang this as a political issue going forward.

If it does not –if politicians, cable news and the blogs continue to flog this, I think the President’s position will come out looking like the reasonable one. Not in the partisan media world, course; just the actual world.

Though I still generally oppose allowing religious exemptions to the law of the land, I can live with this.

Drew Lowell on February 10, 2012 at 12:40 PM

In Kennesaw, GA, there is an ordinance that requires every head of household to have a firearm.
/

WhatNot on February 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM

I used to know a lefty from there. She didn’t like me much after that ordinance passed and i offered to loan her one.

Kennesaw, Georgia, a nice place. Mandatory gun ownership and “The General” what’s not to like.

cozmo on February 10, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I used to know a lefty from there. She didn’t like me much after that ordinance passed and i offered to loan her one.

Kennesaw, Georgia, a nice place. Mandatory gun ownership and “The General” what’s not to like.

cozmo on February 10, 2012 at 12:44 PM

The Swiss model.

antisense on February 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

the next Obama mandate:
requiring the Amish to buy Chevy Volts…

burserker on February 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Offering an accommodation on something he had no right to do in the first place. That’s akin to a con man selling you half of a bridge to nowhere instead of the whole bridge, when he knows he’ll be back with the other half after awhile.

Kissmygrits on February 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Kennesaw, Georgia, a nice place. Mandatory gun ownership and “The General” what’s not to like.

cozmo on February 10, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Governments that mandate you must own something?

Oh i forgot, we only hate that when the liberals do it.

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Though I still generally oppose allowing religious exemptions to the law of the land, I can live with this.

Drew Lowell on February 10, 2012 at 12:40 PM

You’re full of it Drew. Nothing has changed except that the jug-eared bastard has decided he is going to force the insurance companies pay for contraception instead of religious organizations. In other words, the filthy socialist is simply shifting costs. He is working outside of the Constitution and that is very troubling.

In short, this mandate is still unacceptable to real Americans and I hope this issue stays in the public discourse until the ignorant sheep like you figure out what exactly is going on.

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM

I am Catholic, but I want Obama to triple down on this. And it looks like he will. More and more Catholics are waking up to vote AGAINST him.

Obama thinks of himself as a tyrant and all his “executive order” power grabs prove it.

If the Republican actually had a spine, they would have long ago started impeachment proceedings. For him and Holder.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Governments that mandate you must own something?

Oh i forgot, we only hate that when the liberals do it.

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Nope, it had an opt out.

cozmo on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

In short, this mandate is still unacceptable to real Americans and I hope this issue stays in the public discourse until the ignorant sheep like you figure out what exactly is going on.

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM

I hope so too, but it is not a strong hope. There are far too many ignorant sheep who believe whatever spin they see and will go, oh look, Obama is so reasonable…

And we will end up with him again, and the full force of his tyranny will come down on us and finally, the ignorant sheep will wake up and it will be too late. /drama but truth.

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Nope, it had an opt out.

cozmo on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

In that case, consider my argument fully retracted.

MelonCollie on February 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Sorry if I am repeating things already said. Will have to come back and read comments later tonight when I have time.

Requiring insurance companies to supply the Catholic organizations with this coverage for free is not Obama “caving in.”

This should also be unacceptable to the Church.

Even if the Church paid zero for all their coverage, they would still be facilitating their employees getting sterilizations, abortifacients and artificial birth control. All sins to the Church.

But insurance companies do not pay for things themselves. Companies pass it on to ALL their subscribers in increased premiums. Like covering all 26 yr old children being required. We all pay a little bit of that.

So, while the Church will be paying less for that coverage than they would have, because it will now be divided up between all subscribers, the Church will still be paying a portion of that coverage in their premiums.

Elisa on February 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Bottom Line , it’s still a dictated mandate outside of the Constitution:(

Sandybourne on February 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Even if the Church paid zero for all their coverage, they would still be facilitating their employees getting sterilizations, abortifacients and artificial birth control. All sins to the Church.

Elisa on February 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

argument can be made that the church is facilitating sterilizations, abortifacients and artificial birth control by paying employees that live in countries where such actions are permitted.

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 1:19 PM

The only other option would be to make the insurer cover it for free without any extra premiums, as in the WH’s fantasy world the woman actually using the contraception should have no responsibility to pay for any of it.

That is exactly what odummy said to do.

ArmyAunt on February 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Oh, no! Obama’s stupid twin rears his ugly head again!

Finbar on February 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Why can we all just do what Dear Leader wants, and quit making a fuss?

/sarc

J.H. on February 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM

“We have to PASS the bill so we can find out what’s IN the bill”…
~Nanzi Pelosi

So, how’s that “pass then find out” thing working out for you?

Strike Hornet on February 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM

see the example of polygamy. I am against it and I support the government constitutional right to impose laws that constraint religious freedom for the greater good of society.
the greater good of society is to be decided by democratic means. and my view is that if prolifers would become a large majority of the country, then lets forbid abortion. And if there was a “pro-abortion” religion, they should not have an exception to the law.

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Saying you cannot do something is very different from saying you must do something. That government can forbid certain activities that certain faiths believe in is not controversial. The federal government telling employers they must include xyz in employee compensation packages is wrong, not to mention unconstitutional, by itself. When that employer is a church and that xyz goes against church doctrine, that’s a whole new realm of wrong and unconstitutional.

NukeRidingCowboy on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

The choice between good or evil should always come down to the individual and their decision as to which path to follow. What the Dems would like is a government mandate which serves as an excuse or justification for their actions. This is the same tactic just a different issue. The approach for the Dems is always the same.

HoosierStateofMind on February 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM

So, when I design my God and the surrounding religious precepts and beleifs, none of which have anything to do with government, and none of which are in violation of any US Laws, and which is an organization where I have to willingly join in; why do I need the government to pass laws saying I must also support those who are not believers in my God? I don’t need, and will oppose, such a governmental edict.

Then, when my organization gets large enough to need employees, can I only hire believers in my God, or is that discrimination? Then when I hire non-believers who just want a job, at which point must all my organizational beliefs be changed to meet the needs/wants/beliefs of the employee?

Sure seems like Obama is moving towards Unionism of Non-believer Employees of Religious Organizations.

dahni on February 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

So its okay for Viagra to be covered but covering womans contraception violates your tender religious senses?! Oh, okay…. (o-0)

Politricks on February 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Viagra corrects a physical dysfunction – which is its primary use.
Correction of physical dysfunctions is not the primary intention of birth control pills nor abortifacients.

You fail. Try again next semester.

Solaratov on February 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

This is just a test.

Solaratov on February 10, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Thank you, kind masters, for accomodating my religious practices!

Herald of Woe on February 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM

THAT is what is so insidiously evil about this. Big government passing laws, rules, and regulations that incrementally destroy liberty and sh*t all over the constitution, then the wise leaders “back off” a little bit by “accommodating” certain groups or “granting” waivers or exemptions. “Accomodating”, “granting”, or “exempting” implies the right to do so and deflects the conversation off of the original issue of constitutionality.

Evil, pure evil. This is how dictatorships start and freedoms die.

AttaBoyLuther on February 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM

So its okay for Viagra to be covered but covering womans contraception violates your tender religious senses?! Oh, okay…. (o-0)

Politricks

Translation: I saw someone else make this lame argument, but I’m not smart enough to recognize how lame it is, so I’m going to use it too, lol.

xblade on February 10, 2012 at 5:40 PM

This single issue is going to lose Obama the election.

John the Libertarian

How can that be? So many republicans keep assuring us that no one cares about social issues.

xblade on February 10, 2012 at 5:59 PM

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?

Ed

Yeah…hopefully the insurance companies still have enough economic freedom to tell O’Bonehead to go fu*k himself. Giving away money is for wealth-redistributing leftists, not free market enterprises.

Jaibones on February 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM

A cynic might question the timing. Who on the Republican side might have benefitted from such a rule imposition? Arguably it was Rick Santorum. Neither Romney nor Gingrich are as closely related to the so called “values” voters as Santorum and he won a sweep this week.

NTropy on February 11, 2012 at 2:42 AM

It’s hard to believe this low life would go against his own kind. Must not have gotten a tingle up his leg. Funny. I get more enjoyment out of watching these idiots than going to a 3 ring circus.

tmgrant on February 11, 2012 at 5:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3