Haven’t we learned that capitulating to the right wing extremists of this country doesn’t get us anywhere?
For those who haven’t read about it, President Obama already gave into the extreme-right-wing bishops of the Catholic Church, exempting religiously-affiliated institutions from having to cover contraceptives in their health care plans.
He did this even though it’s a completely made-up issue, given the fact that most of these institutions already cover contraceptives today. He did this even for those institutions which receive federal money to operate on a daily basis, funds these organizations couldn’t exist without.
He gave into the bishops driving the fight, bishops who are acting the part of spokesman for the GOP, when those bishops are completely divorced from reality when it comes to the opinions and beliefs of catholics, the large majority of whom supported Obama’s original policy and when 98% of sexually active Catholic women use contraceptives.
And what does it get him?
Catholic Bishops have sharply criticized a compromise President Obama offered on Friday over a health care regulation… declaring that the new plan remains “unacceptable and must be corrected.”
Exactly where we could have predicted it get him. No where.
Catholic bishops have been using their institutions as hostages against policies they don’t like for years now, mostly centered around same-sex marriage.
Every time a state planned to legalize marriage equality, the church would threaten to shut down its adoption services, which collectively received hundreds of millions in government money and in almost all cases were adopting to gay parents for decades.
It only ever became an issue when marriage equality became an issue, as the bishops saw an opportunity to manipulate the political process, using and exploiting these institutions in an arena they were never prepared to be engaged in, political sport.
To at least some extent, bishops have used these wedges successfully, carving out extra exemptions as often as they fail at it, and using it as part of a public campaign to delay and deny legislative votes.
Usually, though, the end result wasn’t that same-sex marriage was denied. Rather, it was the nonprofits who paid the price, ran over by the back of the bus from bishops and cardinals who never had anything to do with running or funding those institutions on a daily basis in the first place.
These bishops, who shuttled deviant priests from parish to parish to rape and molest ever more children, now try to lecture the President on morality.
They are expanding their hostage taking into new arenas, showing how little they care for these institutions that have grown over the course of a century or more.
Their actions are supremely selfish, yet continue to this day because they’re rarely called out on it and, even if they were, are completely unaccountable to both the public and the rank and file members of the church.
The bishops saw an opportunity fall into their hands, yet again, to help out their social conservative friends in the GOP in the midst of an election season, when those GOP friends would much rather run on social issues than Obama’s improving economy.
Even more important, though, was that in doing so, they’d receive a real gift — and what’s become their real motivation in all of this: getting rid of all requirements for employers to cover contraceptive services. They’ve already made it clear: nothing less than total victory will appease them.
And like when it came to marriage equality and adoption agencies, the only losers in these fights can be the institutions who are being used as the hostages.
Almost all of these affiliated institutions that are being talked about today already cover contraceptive services, but that doesn’t matter. The facts never matter in a manufactured crisis.
What will matter is if the bishops lose and they act on their threat to close the hospitals, patients and employees will suffer. If the bishops win and Obama caves in, giving a complete exemption to these institutions (or worse, every employer), patients and employees and people will suffer.
In fact, these hospitals, which would then likely be required by their bishops to get rid of the contraception coverage they’ve already had for decades, would have a very difficult time attracting the staff necessary to ensure quality care at the hospital, as the right wing plunges our country ever deeper into the American Taliban.
The question is, are we going to let them? Will we give them the Teajadist dream that the social conservatives in this country have been thirsting for, or will we recognize their attempts to throw women’s rights back into the stone age and fight them tooth and nail, every step of the way?
They will demand the President go back to the drawing board over and over again until they get what they want, all the while the President only serves to continue to stir up a GOP, driving up their enthusiasm, and shove a dagger into the back’s of the largest and most important constituency within the Democratic Party: women.
What we need to realize now is that this kind of a wedge issue is an issue that we’ll win, as long as we keep fighting and don’t capitulate. The President must be made to realize that his eminently reasonable compromise being rejected is a sign that there can be no compromise with the rightwing forces in this country. To compromise, to them, is to capitulate — and they don’t deal with capitulators, they conquer them.
The President’s had years in office to prove to us that he has a spine — and he’s been found lacking. We can’t trust that he won’t give in any further, so we have to be the spine for him. The only way we can ensure women are insured for the most basic of things, contraceptive services, is to be louder than the over-privileged, unaccountable and unrepresentative bishops.
They have PR reps, media contacts and money on their side… we need to be millions of people calling our President and telling him to protect the health and rights of all women.
The President found a different way to achieve essentially the same result. I for one am pleased and see this now as a winner for everyone except the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, who in my mind went very quickly from sympathetic to petulant. I don’t think the President has any illusions that either the Bishops or the Christian Right will start singing his praises, but this new stance should blunt any inclination swing voters might have had to their message and should also be fully embraced by liberals.
This has been a non-story since day 1 with the vast majority of the public, it’s just with the right wing fanatics that it was a big litmus-test type issue.
What this will do is 1) make Obama look weak, 2) feed the raccoons of the right so they come back for more and 3) piss off core parts of the democratic constituency, when those people are sick of being pissed off and are just coming off a big win on a similar issue and aren’t going to back down.
I will admit where we’re at now probably won’t hurt too much on #3, because (as I understand it) it won’t effect a women’s access to contraceptives, and that’s the most important thing.
However, if the GOP and their right-wing allies (including the American Conference of Catholic Bishops) sense blood on the water, they’re not going to stop. If Obama capitulates anymore, then we really start to risk #3 and still gain nothing from appeasement with the right wing.
Precisely because “swing voters aren’t listening,” this does not signify.
Maybe some Dems will be pissed, though it’s not clear they should be. (Same result and all.) But where are they going to go?
Similarly maybe some racoons will be pumped at how “weak” Obama is, what else is new, but we already know where they are going to go.
The swingers, as you point out, are not listening. If they ever do–if it becomes an issue in the general election–Obama’s surrogates will point to this whole business to say the substantive objection has been bet and what’s left is about denying health care to women.
if Obama caves in any further, which I think is likely if we aren’t vocal about it, and it could really hurt us with our base.
God’s nose I am no fan of Obama’s serial-caving history, but I don’t think this will do him any damage.
I think it’s one of the few of his compromises that doesn’t do that, even on close examination. I think it makes him look reasonable, and makes the bishops look like idiots.
They weren’t going to stop doing that, no matter what he did.
I doubt it. The parts of the base who would likely be pissed are also the parts that are more likely to look at this closely, and see that it isn’t a terrible outcome.
Which, if it was the plan all along, was a great trap. We now have the right driving a significant portion of its party to oppose not just Roe but Griswold, and thats putting them to the right of even the MS electorate. Not a good place to be. Bravo Mr. President.
The president gets a big news cycle of Republican candidates falling over themselves denouncing the requirement for birth control to be provided free as part of the insurance offered by certain faith-base organizations. The Republicans come across as having views about women and women’s reproductive freedoms somewhere in the same century as the Taliban. Birth control is now controversial in the Repulican altered reality?? Something even a strong majority of Catholiic women use?? Meanwhile the President cuts the legs out from under the substance of the objections by making providing birth control a requirement on insurance companies directly, not the institutions. He gets to look statesmanlike and reasonable to independents and women , key constituencies for him, women get their free birth control, and the Republicans get boxed even further into creepy reactionary positlons.
I actually had the same initial reaction as Ryan, but upon further reflection it looks like the substance of the policy hasn’t changed. Ultimately, it’s the American Taliban of the Republican party that is going to end up looking the fool (along with the American Catholic Bishops).
It is certainly true that this episode spotlights the institutional Catholic Church — and the Republican Party that panders to it — as the American Taliban. That is a great metaphor.
The political question is whether that is an asset or a liability. Sadly, in much of the US outside Massachusetts, I fear that a fearful and insecure public clamors for an American Taliban to impose Christian sharia.
I’d like to think you’re right. You certainly could be right.
But, to me, this can go one of two ways.
1) Pretty much how you described. The President protects contraceptive coverage for women, while making the Republicans look bad.
2) Or, the President continues to capitulate to the Republicans and their friends, the out-of-touch bishops, and things go more closely to how I’ve described.
My basic point, all the way at the end — and hinted at by asking “what’s next?” in the title of my diary — was that we can’t just assume the President’s playing 11th dimensional chess on this one. At least I won’t assume it; as the saying goes, it’s not my first time at the rodeo.
I think it’s important to hold the President’s feet to the fire on this one, because complete capitulation is absolutely in the realm of possibilities when it comes to this President.
From Borowitz Report last Thursday:
“Welcome, CPAC Attendees. Please remember to set your clocks back 700 years.”
To give a comment a ‘6’!
Obama’s open to criticism for backtracking on some commitments, but this surely isn’t one of them.
Indeed, they way he’s handled this is a case study in how to outmaneuver your opponents — make yourself look reasonable by offering a compromise that does not actually change the fundamental policy one bit (free contraceptive coverage is still in place), splits your opponents (the Bishops rejecting the compromise, many other Catholic groups embracing it), and marginalizes those maintaining their complaints (by making it clear that their real concern is contraception, not religious liberty). As a bonus, having this in the news helps Santorum against Romney, at least at the margins.
You make it seem like right-wing social conservative activists are this powerful force that will stop at nothing to “conquer.” That vastly overestimates their traction with the American public. By embracing a position rejected by the vast majority of the American public, they’ve completely marginalized themselves on this issue. I’m surprised you don’t see that.
The President, unfortunately, thinks it’s his job to make friends with the Republicans, continually moving in their direction until the policy issue at stake has been so significantly watered down that it becomes questionable whether it should be put forward at all.
I’m hoping he’s getting how incredibly dangerous that’s been to his administration, the democratic party — and, most importantly, the people of this country. His rhetoric has certainly been sharper of late and he’s been promising to go it alone more often, if he has to. We’ll see if he’ll walk that talk and your confidence in him on this issue is justified.
Personally, I think we should hold his feet to the fire on this no matter what, and make sure he knows his base and the vast majority of this country will not tolerate any further watering down on this issue… because any further is truly capitulation.
But direct the outrage at the Republicans for being completely out of touch with women’s lives and how critical contraception is for women, even a huge majority of Catholic women; don’t direct the outrage at the President. Help create the space for the President to stand up for progressive values (not that safe, effective birth control is an especially progressive value; I would have thought we could take for granted it’s a part of women’s health care!) by going after the creepy reactionaries trying to control women by making it harder for them to have access to contraception. Yuck!! Those folks are the ones we need to be fighting by ensuring that even politically disengaged women know that it’s the Republicans who want to deny them access to birth control through their health coverage and the President who wants that access to be universal and at no cost.
the less likely he’ll be to water this down further.
Angry calls is how you “create the space” for a democratic president to “stand up for progressive values.”
The only real way to go after the “creepy reactionaries” (I love that term, btw) is through the ballot box. Most of them are in safe enough districts that they aren’t going to care about angry calls from women and democrats in their district… and the Catholic Bishops Conference certainly won’t.
I tend to be a results oriented person, and while insisting on free birth control is not one of my priorities, that IS still the result here even if achieved by other means.
Though, perhaps Obama really is starting to fight back, in which case I’ll be more than glad to eat my words and start thinking of Obama as someone who’s willing to take on the GOP and their stone-age agenda.
I’m giving myself a few more days to see if he’ll continue to dig in and keep this new policy, because it wouldn’t be the first time he’s said he won’t give in… and then gives in. We’ve seen it with everything from tax cuts to the rich to the public option. So we need to make sure the policy is rolled out officially and definitively.
Abortion and womens rights in general seem to be areas where the President has been an unflinching and consistent progressive. And again as Christopher and others point out. whether or not you felt this compromise was necessary it has led to the Republicans and conservative Catholics in particular going on record favoring letting your employers religious beliefs interfere with your healthcare coverage in the broadest sense, something most people, even conservatives, must be against. Similarly swing voting women, even Catholic ones, will appreciate that Obama respected the Church while also ensuring improved access to crucial womens healthcare. The only people who look bad in this are Republicans who are siding against Griswald and the Bishops who are still insisting America should resemble 1830s Ireland.
Whether intentional or not, this may have a happy consequence of turning up the heat on the candidates and clergy who are way way out of step with at least some of their constituents and laity. Poll after poll shows that overwhelming (as in 98%) numbers of Catholic women use contraception, and majorities (sometimes small) support the contraception mandate.
The focus, so far, has been on President Obama’s maneuvering. I’d like to hear more about how this playing in Peoria. The bishops have been reading letters from the pulpit every Sunday. I’d like to know whether parishioners are meekly nodding and saying “Oh yes, Father Flaherty is absolutely right” or whether they are perhaps grumbling (or even saying out loud) “Doesn’t Father Flaherty have anything else to do?”
What happens if female American Catholics “just say no” to the institution that so relentlessly strives to manipulate and plunder them? Not to put too fine a point on it, but American women can threaten to withhold something far more persuasive than communion. What if American Catholics take back the authority they so readily yield to their ordained overseers?
Do even conservative American protestants really seek to align themselves so closely with most conservative interests of the Vatican? In middle America, where this presumably plays better than here in the Northeast, cultural anti-Catholicism runs nearly as deeply as racism and homophobia. In the Southern Baptist congregations of my childhood, “popery” — even crucifixes — was anathema.
This is aside from the most glaring and obvious reality that if you really want to reduce or eliminate abortions, you want to increase the availability of contraception. Internalizing the denial of this most basic fact of life is apparently one of those “mysteries” accessible only to true believers.
It seems to me that a fundamental question is looming large here: Do a majority of American voters seek an American Taliban who will impose Christian sharia on all of us, or not? If the answer is “or not”, then the “creepy reactionaries” have exposed themselves for what they are, and this will all work very much to the benefit of Barack Obama — and thinking men and women.
No Democrat should ever take advantage of bigotry of any kind, particularly anti-Catholic bigotry. The Bishops have shown themselves time and time again to be out of step with their flock on a host of issues, and in due time, this will be corrected. The Third World will not supply the Church with endless growth and it will need to come to the middle on a few issues. Even otherwise conservative Catholics like Hannity and O’Reilly support birth control, the Bishops continued opposition to this, in spite of the AIDS crisis and the reality of most Catholics trying to live faithful yet modern lives, is only going to hurt them. Good Catholics do not root against the Church, they pray she may be better led.
I’ve said outright that the GOP is attempting to exploit the racism, homophobia, misogyny, and xenophobia that still permeates too much of America. I am observing that anti-Catholic prejudice is deeply interwoven in that fabric. If that is an Achilles Heel of the shameful strategy being practiced by the GOP, I see no harm in exposing it. Bigotry is a key weapon in the arsenal of the right. If this issue ends up causing them to shoot themselves in the foot (or higher) with that weapon, I welcome the victory for the good guys. The GOP does not form circular firing squads as often as the blue team — they’ve done so here.
I think you and I may well be on the same page here. When I suggest that “female American Catholics “just say no” and that “American Catholics take back the authority they so readily yield to their ordained overseers”, I am encouraging these good Catholics to not only pray but act to make their church be better led. It is not “anti-American” for Americans to loudly oppose morally wrong actions of the US government. It is similarly not “anti-Catholic” for Catholics to oppose morally wrong actions of their institutional Church. The systemic and systematic oppression of women by the institutional church is morally wrong. Good Catholics help their church by working to end that oppression.
The author of this post needs to do some soul searching. He has gotten to the point where he would rather “not capitulate” on something than compromise to make the best policy. This is a theme that is prevalent in the Democratic Party at the moment and is very dangerous. Democrats need to care about the policies they enact, and “winning” an argument is much less important than getting it right. Yes the Bishops organization is still upset and the republicans will give him no credit, but most mainstream catholic groups including the American Catholic Organization were very happy with this as a solution. They were upset at a slight, and the President cared enough to listen to their concerns. The author of this post wants to win arguments against republicans, not be part of a reasonable country. This anger, spite, and frustration is the same fuel that has ruined the republican party and make it unfit to govern, lets not let his close-mindedness infect the left as well
You don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.
Next time you want to put words into someone’s mouth… don’t.
here was planned, but I think it will work out fine. I read previously that the cabinet was divided on the issue’s political ramifications. That said, I think the lesson here for us and Obama is that it’s important to stick it out through a few news cycles so the truth has time to get out. People support the President’s policy, and once they have a chance to talk about it, they’ll agree with his actions.
The truth is a lot of states already mandate Catholic institutions to have contraception coverage. ThinkProgress writes,
This is a political issue with the Right defending an unpopular decision. Obama’s offered compromise just makes them look more out of touch.
I was, and am, astonished that the original proposal ever saw the light of day. The Times coverage indicates that the President knew it would be a problem, yet “was unable to convince” various people in the administration, and so out came the proposal. He isn’t even in control of his own administration, which suggests to me that a lot of the “long game” chess-master thing has been, at best, dumb luck.
I was, and am, astonished at how many Democrats seemed to be perfectly fine with using government to enforce their views on private morality, tactics I had– mistakenly, I suppose– thought to be limited to the right wing. I remain astonished that the response to questions about the use of government in this way were generally met with denunciations of the religion, rather than an honest answer to the question.
It is likewise surprising that, with very few exceptions, the Democratic candidates seeking to challenge Senator Brown have chosen silence on the issue, perhaps as was suggested here in an effort to stay on message. This is surprising not least because– I am reliably informed herein– any opposition to the mandate amounted to right wing extremism similar to that of the Taliban, an organization most notable for executing those deemed immoderately dressed, and that the mandate enjoyed overwhelming political support across the spectrum. Given that Massachusetts is not noted for right-wing extremism advocating the execution of people who are immoderately dressed, one would expect no reluctance on the part of Democratic candidates to loudly oppose such extremism, particularly since their opponent was relatively clear about his opposition to the mandate.
The only thing that is not surprising is that the administration had to climb down, and that this inevitable shift does little to repair the rift it opened in its own coalition, and hurts it with its left wing base.
With respect to the compromise itself, it is, as compromises tend to be, a non-ideal position. It is certainly the case that if insurance has to provide X for free, then the cost of X will be built into what is provided for not-free. Which means that the one buying the not-free service must pay in any event. At the same time, this sort of direct/indirect funding distinction is the basis for many 1st Amendment compromises on religious freedom, and therefore, I believe, acceptable. And if it is good enough for the CHO, then it is good enough for me.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is not, and never has been, a useful barometer of the views of most Catholics, who are generally moderates, particularly those Catholics who have been reliable Democrats for three generations. It was the break with these moderate Catholics that made this entire episode so surprising (and so ill-conceived from a political perspective).
“Life begins at ejaculation”
No “moderate” anything strives relentlessly to block access to contraception, especially a “moderate” who simultaneously claims to abhor abortions. The notion that this mandate is anti-religion is preposterous, and there is nothing “moderate” about the lie or those promoting it.
You neither understand Catholicism or Catholics. Evidently, based on this comment, you do not understand the proposed mandate, the reasons for objections to it, or the compromise. You have spent a week mischaracterizing the debate, and essentially defend the comments on grounds that you don’t like Catholics anyway.
It is fine with me that you don’t consider protections of religious freedom to be “moderate”: you are a bigot.
Since when should understanding “Catholicism or Catholics” be a prerequisite for determining the public policy of a secular government? You make my own case for me.
The mandate isn’t complicated, and has nothing to do with “enforcing views on private morality” or government attacking religion — no matter how many times the allegation is repeated.
The mandate says that women must be provided with free access to contraception. No more and no less. Specifically, female employees of Catholic hospitals and schools must be provided access to contraception at no cost to them. The compromise accomplishes that goal, while not requiring the institution to pay for it. Your continued objection only demonstrates that control of those female’s behavior is your real agenda. Sorry, but that is a religious agenda, and has no place in public policy.
There is no “protection of religious freedom” required — religious freedom was never attacked. No believer who chooses not to use contraception is required to.
You can scream until you’re blue in the face, and cast about whatever invective you like — none of that strengthens your baseless argument. This is not now and never has been an attack on religious freedom — unless by “religious freedom” you claim some right to impose your arbitrary religious beliefs on those around you.
When 98% of catholic women use contraceptives and 58% of all catholics supported the President’s original plan, who doesn’t “understand” Catholics and who is “mischaracterizing” the position of Catholics?
A hand full of over-privileged old dudes no more represent the prevailing view of Catholics than SomervilleTom does — or you, for that matter.
you here:
Many of us see insurance coverage for contraception as a matter of public health, not private morality. The Bishops may consider contraception as a matter of morality, but almost no one else, including the vast majority of Catholics, does. I don’t think the policy-makers were unfair.
Spot on!
I don’t care if you see it as a Boeing 747, it still wouldn’t justify trampling constitutional liberties.
Popularity is meaningless in such matters. That is why the first amendment exists.
If it is such an important issue of public health, then let the government pay for it directly. Your consistent failure to achieve this– endless lectures about how popular it is notwithstanding– does not justify a malicious attempt to reach the same end through extra-constitutional means.
Your argument is, in essence, that because YOU see it as “trampling [on] constitutional liberties”, it is therefore an infringement on constitutional liberties. Sorry, but that’s simply circular.
Having said that, I enthusiastically agree that a better solution would be for the government to pay this — and all health care — directly. I think the Bishops would still attack it as an assault on religious freedom, but perhaps you would part company with them in that hypothetical scenario.
As CMD points out Tom the compromise is essentially a form of the Church funding contraception by indirect rather than direct means. This satisfies me from a political and constitutional perspective, seems to satisfy CMD, seems to satisfy Planned Parenthood and NARAL which hailed the compromise alongside pro-life and pro-social justice groups like the CHA and others. But the compromise is still not good enough for you since it recognizes religions right to police themselves and set their own religious policies, I guess like Bismarck you will only be happy when all churches are nationalized and conform to the views of the state. That is alien to every single historic conception of American religious liberty and is highly illiberal. Prominent atheist and classical liberal political theorist John Stuart Mill would argue that freedom should always reign first. His belief was, in a rational society without a state church, religious beliefs would be challenged by reason and eventually secularism would gradually win, but that those with religious delusions, or others, in his view, were free to have them and make them so long as they didn’t harm anyone else.
You obviously have no respect for Catholicism, little respect for other religions, and little respect for religious liberty on its own merits. But at least pretend to be a liberal and abide by the harm principle. How does the original policy defend the harm principle? How does the compromise violate it? Lets take religious beliefs out of the equation and get those two questions answered. Until you can answer them, using reason rather than the emotional bomb throwing you’ve been prone to so far in this discussion, you are just as bigoted as the Falwells of the world.
No logic can be more circular than Catholics don’t deserve liberty because they are evil and I do not like them, therefore they don’t deserve liberty.
This has been the most depressing aspect of this entire discussion and makes me quite depressed about the future of the country. It seems like it is descending into religious and irreligious ghettos and that does not bode well for the future of the nation one bit. Even more depressing to see churches so openly and gleefully intermingle with politics and advocate their affiliation, pretty hard to go to a mainline church or Catholic one in Chicago without it being described as ‘progressive’, ‘affirming’ etc. Hard not to go to one out in the burbs without ‘covenants’ that decry homosexuality and abortion. Similarly those like Dawkins and Maher embody many of the same traits as the Falwells of the world, insisting that they are the only arbiters of truth and reason, that they are an embattled minority threatened by the government and that ‘we’ must ‘take back’ the government from ‘them’. This militant language will only make it harder to craft reasoned and nuanced policies on abortion and a host of issues. I have and always will be pro-choice, at the end of the day prohibition never solves social ills it just sweeps them. under the rug and makes them worse. But simply saying I believe that abortion is morally wrong and a social ill the government should actively try to reduce puts me in the ‘pro-life’ category according to most of my liberal and secular friends. Yet I am not ‘pro-life’ enough for my religious friends. Its like this with gay rights as well, my secular friends are disappointed I still favor traditional marriage within my Church even as I favor marriage equality in the civil sphere, my religious friends are baffled I don’t want to use the state to force my private views on the whole country. With both sides wanting total victory mutually assured destruction is the only outcome.
The nation that is 75% christian is at war with christianity.
I’ve seen this episode of the O’Reilly factor before. /snore
Not your political positions. Those I disagree with. But I believe your stands as you state here are principled. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, who are somewhat on my side, are not principled. They mischaracterize religion to attack it. They are different sides of the same coin.
Did I lump you in unfairly with CMD? Re-reading this thread, I’m not finding your comments objectionable.
I appreciate your correction, for the record I think what has been lost broadly in this discussion is the more important philosophical/moral/and personal considerations that go along with any kind of public policy decision that might affect religious viewpoints or which religious people get excited about.
My own views are that I am fairly left of center on economics, and I think we can all agree that this fiasco shows why employers are bad agents of healthcare delivery and why that burden should not be on their shoulders but the governments. I tend to be libertarian on social issues, its America, everyone should be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the state should do everything it can to maximize personal freedom and minimize intervention unless such personal freedom induces harm to others. Santorum in my view, wants to impose a Medieval Catholic theology on the entire country, that is wrong, the initial decision by Sebelius was going to impose the secular consensus on birth control upon a religious institution and that was equally wrong. Thats the crux of my argument in the last few weeks. I believe strongly in general that contraception is good, it is in fact a vital weapon in preventing abortion, and people should have access to it, particularly women.But to me the secular left is just as wrong as the religious right to impose its morality upon the entire country, to me the best way to ‘win’ the culture way is for our side to stop waging it and to just govern on practical matters. The compromise to me, is Obama at his best, finding an artful way to balance the legitimate concerns of the Church with the equally legitimate needs of women who work for it and its affiliated institutions. A slam dunk. And to the extent that the Bishops and GOP are now wanting to overturn Griswald and disagree with even the electorate of Mississippi so be it another win for Obama. But I definitely felt the cries of ‘Obama is destroying the church’ went too far but the cries of ‘those backward papists deserve to be told what to do’ on the left were just as disheartening, if not more so since I expected better of rational and tolerant individuals.
I’ve already written that I support the compromise. I think the entire episode works to the advantage of President Obama, women, and all of us. In my comment here, I am attempting to argue in favor of the compromise and in agreement with the earlier comment made by mark-bail.
The one aspect of CMDs argument that I find agreement with is when he observes “If it is such an important issue of public health, then let the government pay for it directly”. I agree that it would be better for the government to do all of this directly — there is nothing bigoted or anti-religious about that.
The point is that this compromise does not satisfy CMD, hence his objections here. It is good enough for me, as I’ve written multiple times.
I invite you to offer any words of mine that suggest that I “will only be happy when all churches are nationalized and conform to the views of the state” — I’ve never said anything so preposterous.
The rest of your rant is not worth responding to. All Americans deserve and have liberty. Nobody has assaulted that liberty. I again encourage you to respond to what I actually write, rather than to some made-up words that YOU ascribe to some imagined bogeyman.
On this particularly thread you were quite reasoned, and I am not sure CMD even opposes the compromise which shows how much these threads have descended into different camps talking past one another. On another thread you accused me of opposing contraception when in reality I strongly support it, strongly believe the Church is wrong to oppose it, and strongly believe the Church has a right to be wrong and the state has no business correcting its views, however misguided. So I think we have both traded wide barbs back and forth and broadsides when in reality we are not as far apart. I will promise to be more civil and try to keep my opinions within the realm of reasoned public policy commentary, but I think you can agree there were some wide polemical attacks on your end as well that reflected your own personal prejudices against the church rather than a reasoned discussion. And again we both support the compromise and the President and actually have both been on the same page critiquing him in the past where he has been wrong, I just happen to think religion has an equal place in the public sphere and you have been quite clear that you do not think it deserves such a place on this thread and others. We may just have to agree to disagree on that question, though liberalism in my view always allows a marketplace of ideas and doesn’t strive to silence any viewpoint.
that even the original proposal “tramples constitutional liberties.” In contrast, you make it seem like it’s clear that the First Amendment prohibits generally applicable laws from interfering with religious practice. The First Amendment, of course, says nothing of the sort, and neither the judiciary nor Congress has ever viewed the First Amendment in the absolutist terms you ascribe to it.
Constitutional clauses in a vacuum, as if there were no statutes, case law, or legal tests. Everyone knows you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but they never seem to understand that that particular limitation isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.
In their Burkean protest, neither Conway nor CMD actually considers how the free exercise clause has been interpreted.
In my next life, I’ll come back as a lawyer, just so I know more about this stuff.
The original plan, never mind the current one, wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.
Even Scalia is laughing at you.
entirely. I hesitated when I included the “98% of Catholics” because I knew it would give you something to seize on besides my point, which is that we don’t see contraception as a moral issue.
Notice I’m not even arguing that we are right, just that there is a prinicipled argument to our side of the argument.
Notice I didn’t pick on your word choice when you wrote of “private morality,” in spite of the 98% of Catholics whose private morality allows them to use birth control.
Notice that I didn’t bring up the fact that there are limits to the First Amendment freedom of religion, limits you are clearly and willfully unaware of.
Notice I didn’t bring up the “ministerial exception” again, though you dropped because it didn’t support your broad interpretation of religious freedom.
Notice that I didn’t bring up the fact that 28 states have mandated contraceptive coverage in Catholic institutions without challenge or question. Some have even done so voluntarily.
And finally notice, that I didn’t bring up that, according to your jurisprudence, Brigham Young would have had an inalienable right to multiple wives.
No. All I was trying to do was argue that there is a morally legitimate argument on our side. That we look at things differently.
This is clearly a long standing issue of conscience among certain Catholics. The government sought, through the mandate, to override that conscience.
The Boerne case cited above is (1) a travesty (which is why it was quickly blunted by the enactment of RFRA); and (2) inapplicable, because this mandate was not about a generally applicable law prohibiting anything; but a law specifically requiring actions. A generally applicable law requiring the regular consumption of bacon and shellfish would not be viable even under the Boerne decision, and for similar reasons.
The percentage of Catholics who believe A or B is irrelevant. I happen to be part of the 98% (a figure widely used this last week, and which seems to have been pulled out of nowhere), and disagree with the Church’s stance on contraception. What I do not believe is that this statistic allows the override of the 2% by force of government.
As far as the “compromise” goes, I don’t think it is a compromise in that it doesn’t involve some meeting halfway, but rather a simple accommodation of religious liberty. I wrote the other day that the direct/indirect funding distinction is imperfect, but is a rather well-established vehicle for navigating first amendment issues with respect to religion. That is, in the same way that vouchers are not direct government funding of a parochial school, then the Obama version of the plan is an indirect funding of insurance coverage for contraception. Imperfect. Acceptable (subject to the few remaining kinks with respect to religious-affiliated institutions that self insure, which do not seem like an insurmountable problem).
What has truly chapped my ass over this issue is reflected in this thread: the “compromise” is roundly denounced,even though the only the only “concession” given was one to religious liberty. This kind of outright disdain for pluralism is not something I had hitherto associated with Democrats. It even reached the point in this thread of likening anyone dissenting from the government’s policy to the Taliban– this tactic is something I expected from the supporters of the previous administration, and not this one.
the victim of invective.
I haven’t even paid attention to the details of the “compromise” solution. I’m more interested in the legal and political aspects. That’s why I’ve focused on contraceptive coverage in other states. Obama and HHS based their policy on what other states already have and have tested in the courts; he wasn’t making some bold power play.
I don’t understand what you’re talking about with the Boerne case. I can’t find who cited it. Everyone seems to have been talking about the First, not the 14th Amendment.
It has been a few years since I had a case in which these were relevant. I meant Employment Div. v. Smith.
City of Boerne was the post RFRA case, and since these are federal rules rather than state rules we are talking about, not the relevant case.
Me culpa.
You mean like the government funding institutions that discriminate against employees and patients? The government didn’t ‘enforce’ anything; it protected people’s rights to make up their own damn mind.
Divorced from reality much?
…is the statistics regarding the popularity and frequency of birth control. 98% of Catholic women using it and 58% of Catholics being OK with it, does NOT make it the position of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is most emphatically not a democracy; the Vatican decides what the Church believes and teaches, not the people. I think this compromise is exactly right, but the Church is absolutely within its rights to object to paying for something that runs contrary to their teaching. It is not for the rest of us to judge whether the teaching is logical or popular.
I disagree with your logic.
Many protestant churches believe and teach that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago. They argue that teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution to their children in public schools infringes on their right to practice their religion. It seems to me that this is the same argument that you defend in the context of the controversy about contraception.
We do not allow those churches to block the study of evolution in public schools, even though it runs contrary to their teaching. As ryepower has observed in another thread, we do not allow Jehovah Witnesses to ban blood transfusions, Scientologists to ban depression meds, and Christian Scientists to ban the practice of modern medicine.
Anybody can do whatever they like in their places of worship. In my view, those protections do not and should not extend to the secular workplace.
To the Church their hospitals and schools are emphatically a component of their mission inherent in their interpretation of the Gospel and not secular workplaces. I mean why bother even calling them Catholic schools and Catholic hospitals and adorning them frequently with shrines, icons, and chapels if they are just as secular as PS 110 or County Hospital down the road? That to me is where this conversation went off the rails in defying common sense regarding what is and isn’t a Catholic institution. Seems to me the Church, especially since it literally owns the property, should have the ultimate say on what it can and can’t do with its own institutions? That’s the crux of the argument and that is where Rye is wrong. So long as the employees know they are working for Catholic institutions are are required to follow Catholic values even if they are not themselves Catholic than their personal freedom is not relevant to what their employer can cover since they are agreeing to be subject to its regulations. Fortunately, and to be incredibly clear, this compromise is an incredibly artful one that balances the needs of those employers to exercise their personal freedom to decide for themselves what health coverage to get while also protecting the religious institutions from funding coverage they object to. A win win for all except for the bishops that are now insisting any employer should have the same exemption or for those arguing the church will still be funding contraceptives, those people will not be satisfied until their views are imposed on the rest of us and they are clearly in the wrong. But I did side with their right to maintain those views when, last week at least, the government was going to force them to fund coverage they objected to. To me common sense and fairness prevailed and if Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association agree with me, so be it if Rick Santorum and some on the far left are still unsatisfied.
I heard Andrew Sullivan give a pretty convincing analysis of all this, but it could be just post-rationalization.
Obama puts it on insurers to provide contraception, taking the teeth out of the prelature argument about their oppressed religious liberty. Sanctorum now looks like a hero defending religious freedom all over the place, boosting his poll numbers. He now has another stick to club Romney with; another example of how Romneycare is just like Obamacare.
And who is left standing at the general eection? Sanctorum v. Obama. Beautiful!
I most certainly do NOT think that church teaching should infuse PUBLIC schools, just like I don’t think church teaching should be enforced on non-church hospitals. That is why I find the Bishops’ new push to take away contraception in all cases proposterous. They should stick to defending their own institutional rights just like Creationists should keep their views to their own institutions.
As we’ve agreed before, I think, those Catholic hospitals and schools cease to be “their own institutions” when they fail to meet three of the following four criteria (props to mark-bail:
* The organization’s primary purpose is “the inculcation of religious values.”
* It primarily employs people of that religion.
* It primarily serves people of that religion.
* It’s a registered nonprofit organization.
The primary purpose of a Catholic hospital is NOT “the inculcation of religious values”. A Catholic hospital does NOT “primarily employ people of that religion”. A Catholic hospital does not “primarily serve people of that religion”. I grant you that many are registered nonprofit organizations.
It is the institutional Catholic church that moves from the private to the public domain when it creates these public institutions, and in my view that is why the analogy I drew is sound.