A lot of people have told me that out of all the Congresspeople in Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney’s most at risk. He won by a large margin last election, but had a Tea Party “birther” candidate running against him, Bill Hudak, who thought President Obama was a Kenyan Muslim terrorist, or something…
That’s why a lot of people have taken former State Senator and Lt. Governor nominee Richard Tisei, who’s challenging Congressman Tierney in the upcoming election, seriously. Because he’s a “moderate” and “reasonable” Republican.
Well, Richard Tisei wanted to take a break from the rest of his busy day to inform everyone he’s officially joined the lunatic fringe:
“Requiring employees who work for the church to carry insurance that reimburses for things that are against the teachings of the church just shows how big and intrusive government has become,” Tisei said, adding, “With all the problems facing the country, I don’t understand why the Obama administration has made this a priority.”
I’ll be waiting for him to speak out about how he thinks nonprofits affiliated with Jehovah Witnesses should be able to ban blood transfusions, Scientologists should be able to ban depression meds and Christian Scientists should be able to ban… the practice of medicine.
The good news is Congressman Tierney’s staff had a far more rational position:
“As our middle class families continue to struggle to make ends meet, it is critical that they are able to afford basic health care, such as contraception, regardless of which hospital or university employs them.”
I’m glad to see Richard Tisei wants to take the Tea Party approach toward victory as Bill Hudak did before him, instead of the much more rational path of fellow New England Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. It’s good to know Tisei hasn’t learned anything from his epic defeat in the 2010 Governor’s race.
Most of all, I’m glad Tisei’s outing himself as a Tea Party conservative now, so he won’t be able to fool the public later — and that he’s giving some great reasons for people to get behind Congressman Tierney.
If the former he’s not being that unreasonable, if the latter then yes.
This article (though the Lynn Item is so fringe-right it’s not even funny, so it’s not terribly clear) was written *post compromise.*
So, yes, post-compromise.
Tisei is trying to be sneaky about it but it’s post compromise. A good follow up question would have been if he would back the Blunt amendment like Scott Brown.
In case anyone missed this entertaining nugget from Boston.com:
Bill Hudak pivots from congressional run to selling age-reversal system
that he wants to run with the DC boys, and behaving like them, with their “Crazy Town” rhetoric is seen as the way to do it.
You should copyright it.
Another good fact filled post Ryan — you’re on a roll
Crazy Town
It does look like it contains an appropriate theme song, though:
Picture this: you’re out in Boston for an evening with your significant other, enjoying dinner and a show. It’s late as you go get your car in the parking garage, and you are accosted by a meth addict who’s jonesing for his next hit. Even though you hand over your wallet and other valuables, he stabs you anyhow and runs off. You’re lying on the pavement bleeding, and your SO calls 911. 10 minutes later, the ambulance arrives, but the EMT is a Jehovah’s Witness, and he refuses to start a blood transfusion on religious grounds. You’re told that will have to wait until you get to the hospital, where a non-JW doctor will take over your care…
…but I can understand if a JW hospital chooses not offer transfusions among its services.
If I see Ryan claim one more time that limiting coverage for contraception is the moral equivalent of allowing Jehovah Witnesses, Scientologists and Christian Scientists to block reimbursement for emergency medical procedures I think that I’ll head over to the local ER in search of a transfusion of sanity! By the way, I believe that Christopher properly debunked this silly analogy in an earlier thread.
If you seek a “transfusion of sanity”, then you’d better hope that your local ER is not provided by any of these religious cults.
I think Ryan is right on the money. Thankfully, recent polling suggests that a 60% majority of Americans share our view:
Here is the relevant portion of the fascinating poll referenced above (p23 bottom and p24 top):
That’s 66% supporting the mandate, and 61% supporting the decision to impose that mandate on religiously affiliated employers.
There’s been a lot of outraged handwaving but no intelligible argument.
How do you draw the line between one kind of religion-based medical malpractice and another?
Such an institution should not receive any public funds. It should not be offered any tax breaks. Public emergency services should exclude it from their list of ambulance destinations.
When we open the door to this kind of superstitious nonsense in our health care facilities, we destroy our health care.
In my view, this whole fiasco buttress the arguments in favor of government-funded single-payer health care. We are demonstrating that private enterprise (permeated with this kind of religious nonsense) cannot deliver modern science-based health care.
And more like compelling blood transfusions.
The consistent description of the issue as a “ban” on contraception is pure propaganda, in the sense of a lie chosen for rhetorical value. Fox News tactics.
Contraceptive products and services have long been and will continue to be available. Your issue is with people’s “right” (invented last month) to have someone provide these products and services for free.
The inability to distinguish actual civil rights from these invented privileges (which are then called “rights” as a rhetorical device) to get free stuff paid for by someone else is the source of liberal Democrats’ seeming departure from a belief in constitutional government.
The overwhelming majority of Americans view contraceptives as a necessary component of health care. Insurance statistics compellingly support that view.
Yes, insurance coverage for blood transfusions are and should be compelled. Exempting Jehovah’s Witnesses from mandatory coverage for blood transfusions is precisely analogous to exempting the Catholic church from mandatory coverage for contraception.
I note, again, that the Catholic church doesn’t have a problem with providing health insurance coverage for gonorrhea and syphilis treatment — it’s enthusiasm for punishing sin is entirely restricted to women. The pervasive misogyny of that institution and this debate is reminiscent of the pervasive racism of the Jim Crow laws.
A bus is at least a public accomodation, whereas health insurance is a private service. More like a seat in your car.
Health insurance is mandated. The issue here is not whether the health insurance is private or public, the issue is whether or not the employer — a Catholic hospital, for example, is a public service.
A Catholic hospital fails three of the following four tests of whether it qualifies, under the law, as a “religious” institution:
* 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”.
A Catholic hospital is in fact, a public service, even if not a “public accommodation”. It could not discriminate against employees based on race. It should not be able to discriminate against women by denying them contraceptive coverage.