More bad news for Obama’s woo on women: 57% oppose forced religious contraception coverage
I wrote yesterday that President Obama’s strategy to attract women voters with his HHS contraceptive mandate isn’t working. Both a New York Times/CBS poll and Bloomberg poll showed a huge drop in support among women for Obama since 2008.
Here’s more bad news. Another NYT/CBS poll, conducted March 7-11, shows 57% of Americans think religious affiliated employers should be allowed to opt out of mandated contraceptive coverage, even if misunderstanding the genesis of the controversy…
Also note 51% of those polled thought any employer should be able to opt out.
Apparently Americans are pro-choice on contraceptive coverage.
There has been a huge opinion shift on this issue in the last month. The numbers have almost reversed. Or perhaps it has to do with the framing of the question. A February 12 NYT/CBS poll showed 61% agreed that “religious employers [should] be required to cover contraception,” while 31% disagreed.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Well at least President Obama was woo’d the Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain:
Hal,
What about the economy? Not important?
sure. Thankfully, Obama has been working on the economy too.
I think I posted Senator Hagel’s quote here yesterday.
You can pretty much predict how the poll will swing based on how the questions are asked.
…”he [mr. b o-jangles] has pressed the reset button on the moral authority of the entire free world.
Surely this pilot for a re-make of the Monty Python show.
Take care where you walk. Don’t step in the oompah!
Sounds like Cam and Barry have been doin some lines together and got a smokin hot bromance goin on.
“Well at least President Obama was woo’d the Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain”…
I have to agree with you on this one Hal. Excellent choice of word: woo’d
Camerons gushing adulation sounds more like the mindless babbling of a teenage girl enfatuated with her first puppy love.
[Did Cameron faint as well?]
Cam’s going to be embarassed when he sobers up and views that video.
He sounds goofier than the twitterpated GOP Governor Mark Sandford gushing over his Agentinian mistress.
“You can pretty much predict how the poll will swing based on how the questions are asked.”
Very true Ex-GOP. I’ve seen polls with questions akin to:
“Do you think a baby, before being born, has the right to live?”
“Do you think a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?”
Not surprisingly, the results to the first question suggested ~65-70% of people were pro-life, while the second question suggested 65-70% of people were pro-choice.
Hi Hal 5:03PM
You’re not serious, right? Hal, the British PM, Cameron, has a history of relentless slobbering over Obama, to the point of nausea. This is just another example.
Like so many people, Cameron has been shnookered by this con artist.
Foreign leaders fawnd over Hitler too. Out leftist liberals like to fawn over dictators like Castro and Chavez.
This proves what??
Hi Ken 10:08PM
LOL. Great post. Hey, how come no guy has ever slobbered over me like that?
What’s Obama got that I don’t?? :)
Cameron won’t be the first guy mortified at what he found out when he sobered up!
Hi Eric 11:08PM
That reminds me of another poll question I saw after medicaid funding of abortion was cut off.
Do you support medicaid funding for poor women’s abortions, thus providing poor women with safe abortions? Or…
Do you oppose medicaid funding for abortions, thus forcing poor women to seek out dangerous backstreet abortions?
Mary,
The authentic HAL would never post something like that.
This must be son of Hal, or some other wannabe HAL.
Maybe HAL is on paternity leave and this post was the product of HAL’s designated substitute.
It’s just beneath HAL’s standards, especially in the verbostiy.
HAL’s single greatest strength is his conistent brevity.
HAL is not a man to waste word.
Ken,
True
Greetings! I wanted to give a huge thumbs up for the fantastic information you have got here on this blog post. I will be coming back again to the blog for more very soon.
It’s crazy how easy it is to get a poll of random individuals to go along with the way you want the results to be shown for your survey.
I do beleive regilious organizations should have the rigth to opt out of funding things they find morally wrong. I am a person that still beleives in the US Constitution where it address seperation of Church and State.
Hi Joe 12:37am
Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution does not address the issue of seperation of church and state. The First Amendment states only that the government will not interfere in the free exercise of religion and will not establish a religion.
Obama violates this by interfering in the free exercise of religion. He has no Constitutional authority to issue such mandates.
Joe:
Just religious “organizations?”
So the bill of rights only defends organizations that have enough clout to raise a fuss? It’s not there for plain ol’ everyday Americans?
Since when does the Constitution only work for organizations?
Joe, should I assume that was a slip of the pen? But what bothers me is this — what have we come to when that kind of slip of the pen is even possible?
Joe/Rasqual -
I find our military spending in wars to be a moral issue. Furthermore, though I live in a non death penalty state, the feds are able to pursue the death penalty in certain circumstances.
Do you believe anybody who has a moral issue with war should be able to dodge taxes?
No, Ex. There’s not a bill of rights amendment that covers that.
Sorry.
You’re welcome to work for an amendment if you wish.
That’s constitutional government for you. You have a franchise. You can change things.
Meanwhile, the country was FOUNDED with religious liberty as a prime concern.
Argue it all you want — it’s enumerated.
What bothers me — not a little, really, Ex — is that you trot this out as some apparent implied objection to the idea that religions might object when their consciences are violated — as if an ostensible absurd notion that you might be expected to legitimately refuse to pay taxes is a reductio ad absurdum on issues of conscience with respect to burden of free exercise of religion. It’s not. You’re welcome to protest all you wish. You simple don’t have as good a case. But your not having as good a case does not magically mean that others do not have a good case. Yet you seem to wish that. Do you really?
Rasqual – I enjoy that you use words like ostensible – and use it like it is used commonly in every day conversations. I think you know your arguments aren’t as strong and bullet proof as you’d like them to be, so you try to hide behind big words.
At the end of the day, you and I both know that the courts have found limits to freedom of religion and already, courts have decided in other cases to allow the government to mandate birth control coverage. So you can dial up all the fancy phrases that you want, but the bottom line is, the bill of rights don’t contain language such as “Within the laws that congress is forbidden to make is in regards to contraceptive use…” It is all interpretation – so don’t get all snooty that the issue is 100% clear.
Have a great night – snuggle tight with your Oxford English Dictionary. Make sure and use a book cover. :-)
“I think you know your arguments aren’t as strong and bullet proof as you’d like them to be, so you try to hide behind big words.”
Nice to see the cyberpsychiatry field booming with such confidence.
But weird to see “ostensibly” singled out as if it were esoteric.
Anyway, your reply is showcasing what bothers me — you really seem to wish that religious folk be burdened by this violation of conscience. You point out what you consider an unlikely scenario — that peaceniks be given a pass on taxes — but your point isn’t to amen religious conscience by suggesting expanding conscience provisions to include peaceniks. Your point is that we shouldn’t expect protections for religious conscience protected by an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights, because we already don’t expect protections for peaceniks on some general, non-enumerated grounds.
In other words, not only do you not adopt an attitude of “let’s expand liberty from enumerated protections (religious conscience) to unenumerated protections (peaceniks)” — you adopt an attitude of “let’s sneer at enumerated religious conscience protections by pointing out that protections aren’t afforded peaceniks on unenumerated grounds.”
And BTW, since you KNOW my writing doesn’t depend on dictionaries (but like anyone else who wants to understand others, my reading often has), isn’t that kind of lame snark? Coming from someone who wants to see less, and not more, religious liberty, it’s REALLY lame.
My snark is lame – I will admit it.
I don’t think those on the right really care that much about funding contraception – they just hate Obama so they are making a bigger stink about it. There are similar laws all over the country on the state level, and I’ve never seen fox news, drudge, and everyone else up in arms about it. The majority of people use contraception, don’t care about contraception….but it is being made into a campaign issue to try to win points.
I mean, do you honestly feel like the government is interfering with and making your relationship with the Lord harder if the general pool of insurance money you pay into is used, partially, for contraceptions? As a Christian – I look at the western church and think – if that is the persecution that we’ve got to deal with…we’ve got it too easy!
EGV wrote, in reply to Rasqual:
Rasqual – I enjoy that you use words like ostensible – and use it like it is used commonly in every day conversations. I think you know your arguments aren’t as strong and bullet proof as you’d like them to be, so you try to hide behind big words.
(*heavy sigh*) You’re consistent, EGV… I’ll give you that. You’re also rather insensible to the (hopefully unintentional) irony that you use. On the one hand, you insinuate that Rasqual is using erudite language in order to hide alleged “weaknesses in argument”; on the other hand, you’re oblivious to the fact that your sudden “morph” into a “grammar mocker” serves the very purpose which you attribute to Rasqual (i.e. hiding your own weaknesses of argument). Perhaps a good command of the English language means merely that: a good command of the English language.
If Rasqual’s argument is so staggeringly weak, surely you could dismantle it without flinging putrefying red herrings hither and yon, and running in tight little logical circles (as you are often wont to do, when backed into a corner)? You’ve used this sort of tripe with me, as well… and, my obfuscating friend, your incessant penchant for semi-unctuous, supercilious grammar- and -syntax-baiting is utterly extraenous to the point at hand.
There. Now, perhaps, you’ve been sated with enough non-colloquial verbiage as to address the actual points, rather than veer off at every conversational equivalent of a squirrel-sighting?
Ex-GOP says:
“I mean, do you honestly feel like the government is interfering with and making your relationship with the Lord harder if the general pool of insurance money you pay into is used, partially, for contraceptions? ”
This is one aspect of the problem and each individual will have their own answer, according to their conscience. The other huge part of the problem that you seem to be ignoring could be phrased like this:
Do you honestly feel like the government is interfering with and making your relationship with the Lord harder if the employee benefits you are mandated to provide include coverage for contraception and sterilization?
Yeah, some people have a problem with this.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/18/first-private-lawsuit-filed-against-contraception-mandate
“Well, THIS persecution certainly isn’t that bad, so we should gladly tolerate it!”
I suppose Native Americans should’ve been glad for their smallpox blankets, because at least they weren’t being raided or forced to work at a mission, right!
The fact that a lot of people break their religious tenants doesn’t give the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (yes, the Fed. The branch of government that affects EVERYONE, so that you can’t even just move to a different state to escape such nonsense-hence the lack of protest from the entire USA) the right to codify something be done by them which breaks the tenant. I bet a lot of Jews eat pork sometimes: that doesn’t mean the government has a right to create Mandatory Bacon Day.
As an ex-Catholic, I can safely say that you are obviously pretty ignorant about the Catholic Church. But, forcing others to give up freedom so that you and others like you can get more stuff seems to be your modus operandi, so I can’t say that I am surprised.
Ex-GOP: “I don’t think those on the right really care that much about funding contraception – they just hate Obama so they are making a bigger stink about it. There are similar laws all over the country on the state level”
…where pols are often within walking distance of a pitchfork mob of citizens, as opposed to the national level where pols are within lobbying distance from well-heeled shills and are remote from their constituencies. And where an administration exercises non-legislated regulatory powers with increasing scope in every successive administration. Also, if the Constitution actually does apply, it begins with its applicability to the federal government. The stakes are high, with stare decisis regarding fourteenth amendment issues of incorporation determining the future of how enumerated rights are respected in the states for the foreseeable future.
The civil rights movement understandably views the federal courts as a valuable way to change law, however much we conservatives may wish that our deliberative bodies would lead the way and relieve the courts of the burden of undue activism. Pro-choice feminists obviously enjoyed their one night stand with the court in 1973. These were celebrated — in the case of civil rights, rightly by constructionists; in the case of Roe, penumbrally by revisionists — as great victories of the Constitutional rule of law.
But now we hear how unseemly it is for conservatives to be concerned that the Constitutional rule of law should be respected. We’re told that since unenumerated wishes of peaceniks aren’t respected, we ought not regard so highly the enumerated rights to which we’re entitled. Why? Because they are already not being respected in the states.
This is the stuff of high stupidity.
Obama’s supporters have been remarkably attenuated in their reactions to his expansion of Bush era executive over-reach. Whatever you might think of right-leaning disapproval of Obama motivating criticism, the same can certainly be said of left-leaning tribalism keeping mum with respect to his abuses of power. But they’re not mum when others object to his abuses of power.
Tribalism. Those who live in that glass house can’t very well throw stones, either.
Paladin: “without flinging putrefying red herrings hither and yon” — well, it’s better than the proverbial monkey-poo. At least I like seafood. And though I’m Norse (well, half), I testify that putrefying red herrings are at least better than lutefisk. At the very least.
Ex-GOP,
I don’t think those on the right really care that much about funding contraception – they just hate Obama so they are making a bigger stink about it.
Obama broke a promise he made to the U.S. Bishops (Dolan) when he chose to ignore conscience protections. Our religious freedom is worth fighting for. If we Americans don’t react, we deserve whatever comes our way in terms of other freedoms lost. It should be a concern of all Americans, not just Catholics.
Ex-GOP: “I mean, do you honestly feel like the government is interfering with and making your relationship with the Lord harder…”
I’m bothered by this too — again, because of what it seems (to me) to imply. That you don’t credit those offended with mere concern for their civil liberties — that you spring to the idea that they’re ill-advised to be concerned because surely this matter doesn’t affect their piety — suggests to me that you see religious citizens’ place in the civitas as being some kind of reservation where they remain closed-eyed in prayer, oblivious to their franchise as citizens of the Republic. The civic order is properly left to their fact-based betters, and such children should content themselves with whatever diligence the secular guardians of their benighted existence might exercise on their behalf.
Oh heck, no one said it better than R. C. Sproul: “Wearing a benign mask, the secularist loudly proclaims his commitment to religious tolerance on behalf of those weak-minded souls who still cannot bear to face a hostile, or worse, an indifferent universe, without the narcotic effect of ecclesiastical opium. The church is safe from vicious persecution at the hands of the secularist, as educated people have finished with stake-burning circuses and torture racks. No martyr’s blood is shed in the secularist West – so long as the church knows her place and remains quietly at peace on her modern reservation. Let the babes pray and sing and read their Bibles, continuing steadfast in their intellectual retardation; the church’s extinction will come not by sword or pillory, but with the quiet death of irrelevance. It will pass away with a whimper not a bang. But let the church step off the reservation, let her penetrate once more the culture of the day, and the Janus face of secularism will change from benign smile to savage snarl.”
EGV 7:41am
How many times must you be told this mandate is a violation if the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, of our Constitution? The president has NO authority to issue such mandates. The issue isn’t contraception. The issue isn’t paying for contraception. The issue isn’t what anyone thinks of contraception. The issue isn’t what anyone thinks of Obama.
The president has NO such authority. This ain’t rocket science, EGV.
States make all kinds of laws. People can at least speak through their electred representatives.
If a law violates constitutional rights, it can be challenged and often is.
EGV 7:41am
Tell me EGV, if Obama mandated that Hindu merchants must sell meat, and Muslim storeowners and Kosher butchers must sell pork, would you not view this as interference in their relationship with the God of their faiths? Would mandating that the Amish use electricity not be interfering in the Amish people’s relationship with the Lord?
Hi Janetforlife, 12:28PM
Of course Obama broke a promise to the US bishops. One does not take the promise of a sociopath seriously. The promise served his purpose when necessary, so did kicking Catholics in the teeth. This whole farce was to create and issue, and he succeeded. Whether or not it works, he will not back down. Our only hope is major backlash and sending this petty tyrant packing in November.
Paladin -
Good day sir!
Two of my favorite things about you:
1) The sighs, and the heavy sighs. It makes me feel like I’m there with you, in your living room, sighing together. I love it – don’t stop.
2) I enjoy the man crush you and Rasqual have going on in regards to your word usage. I truly wished that you two had differing opinions on things, because I’d like to see a debate where you two slugged it (though slugging it out seems so much more civilized with you two).
In regards to the question – I don’t think poking a hole in the argument takes 500 words – I just don’t see how the limited language in the constitution leads one to believe that mandates regarding birth control are easily a violation of one’s religious beliefs, whereas the other things that I mentioned could never be a violation. Interpretation is involved – so I’m not going to pretend that this is a black and white issue. Rasqual is pretending it is. I just don’t agree.
Lrning – and your answer is yes? If you buy a product from a store, and the profits go towards somebody’s insurance coverage in which they buy birth control – you think that is affecting your personal relationship with Jesus?
Again – the horrors and troubles we in the Western Church are burdened with!
Mary – post the presidential mandate – the official mandate – then we’ll talk.
Rasqual -
So some religious folks are too lazy when it is only a matter of the state, but they get fired up when it becomes a federal level? Really? Yeah – me thinks that people get fired up whenever Obama does something. Heck, even when we got rid of an evil man that attacked the US, the right complained in how the decision was made, the length of time, the burial, and documentation…I’m just saying.
On your second post – all I’m saying is, it has been clear, through time, that the government can mandate activities to a certain point. Now, I agree with some of the religious exceptions allows to mandates. But I certainly don’t believe that anybody can opt out of anything they find offensive just because they find it offensive. While I think the left goes too far in saying that anything religious is offensive and a violation of their freedoms (for instance, prayers leaving off a public function – I see offense to that as being hyper-sensitive) – I also think that the right can have a tendency to get equally hyper sensitive in regards to when they think their freedoms are being squashed.
Again, do you feel that your free practice of your religious beliefs are being tramped on because the company you work for pays another company money, and that other company offers a product that you find offensive (that you yourself aren’t going to have to use).
I know that you are bothered by this, and expressed it at great lengths…but come on – don’t you see how this could be just a wee bit of searching out something to be offended about?
EGV,
Post where in the Constitution it says that the president has a right to mandate that people violate their religious convictions and then we will talk. You know darned well the mandate I’m referring to. We’ve been incessantly discussing it.
Come to think of it EGV, this isn’t the first time I’ve asked and I have yet to get an answer.
Mary…if congress passes a law that says certain things can be mandated as coverage, the announcement of any said item isn’t a Presidential mandate.
EGV,
Congress cannot force Americans to violate their religious convictions any more than the president can. Still a violation of the First Amendment.
Oh yes, Princess Pelosi did say that we would have to pass Obamacare to see what was in it.
King Barack did promise “conservative” Democrats theological protections. Certainly EGV, you remember Bart Stupak and Co. I hope Obama at least kissed them first.
Last month Obama’s HHS finally got around to determining that “what’s in” Obamacare is a requirement that employers provide contraceptives for free. I’m sure its no coincidence that this occured after the failure of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement.
Anyway former Democrat congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper(D-Pennsylvania) stated specifically that she would not have voted for the bill knowing what she knows now:
“I would never have voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for contraception. We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices.”
That is certainly correct Mary, and if it goes to the supremes, they’ll decide if the act is unconstitutional. Declaring that it is 100% unconstitutional is jumping the gun.
On the rest of your post:
– On Stupak…millions of Catholics use contraception, and millions are in plans that cover contraception. This is not a new thing.
– I see absolutely nothing remotely connected between OWS and this requirement. That movement seems as much excited about the Democrats as true Tea Party people are excited about the Republicans.
– I would expect Dahlkemper to say that – she’s out of office and on the board of a catholic charity.
EGV wrote:
Paladin – Good day sir!
…and a good evening to you, sir.
Two of my favorite things about you:
1) The sighs, and the heavy sighs. It makes me feel like I’m there with you, in your living room, sighing together. I love it – don’t stop.
:) My dear fellow, I couldn’t pick a reply better than the one given by a certain commenter on this very thread: your snark is most decidedly “lame”. Allow me also to practise my pseudo-foot-note notation: (“More Bad News for Obama’s Woo [etc.]”; Voter, Ex-GOP, http://www.jillstanek.com, March 19, 2012 at 7:41 am)
2) I enjoy the man crush you and Rasqual have going on in regards to your word usage.
Voter, March 19, 2012 at 7:41 am.
I truly wished that you two had differing opinions on things, because I’d like to see a debate where you two slugged it (though slugging it out seems so much more civilized with you two).
Ibid.
In regards to the question – I don’t think poking a hole in the argument takes 500 words –
Nor does running about in tight, little logical circles, apparently. You do know that it’s possible to be too brief for the situation? It’s called “reductionism”, among other things… and you’re quite accomplished at it.
I just don’t see how the limited language in the constitution leads one to believe that mandates regarding birth control are easily a violation of one’s religious beliefs, whereas the other things that I mentioned could never be a violation.
I see. Well… you’ll need to remind me of any points of yours which I’d overlooked, but… let me have a go at the ones I’ve found:
I find our military spending in wars to be a moral issue.
Perhaps you could be more specific. Painfully vague terms such as “[x] is a moral issue” says nearly nothing. Do you mean to say that you find military spending in wars to be a flat violation of one of your non-negotiable religious tenets? (And could you explain why, and at what moral proximity, and under what conditions? Or would that require you to be too verbose for your tastes?)
Furthermore, though I live in a non death penalty state, the feds are able to pursue the death penalty in certain circumstances.
Believe it or not, I come closest to sympathising with you on this matter; but even here, you misunderstand. You (as a moral relativist) view things mainly in terms of politics and pragmatism, so you can’t help but see *every* last religious objection with the same “mental spectacles”, whether the complaint is based on the objective moral law or not… whether it is utterly privatised (such as a fellow who objects to paying taxes, on the basis that he dislikes the brand of toilet-tissue being purchased by the armed forces), or whether it is based on the teachings of Christ. When, sir, are you going to allow your own Christianity (and your somewhat erratic and half-hearted appeals to the “show me in the Bible” idea) to inform these sorts of choices for you? When will you stop spinning circular abstractions, and nail down your ideas with firm logic and fact?
[paragraph break inserted, for fear that too many words in a paragraph will lead you to skim and ignore the content that follows]
Try this as a test: we point to the fact that God commands us “thou shalt not murder [Hebrew: “ratsach” = kill unjustly]”, the fact that St. John the Baptist was capable of leaping in his mother’s womb for joy [and was therefore a person capable of experiencing joy], the fact that Our Lord had a special solicitude for children [cf. Matthew 19:14, etc.], the fact that Our Lord had a special hatred for the slaughter of children [cf. Leviticus 20:2, etc.], and the like to lead us to the conclusion that God abhors and forbids all types of infanticide… including abortion. Perhaps you could show us in the Bible (and in your deductions thereof) where you think God forbids war, and the support of war?
Do you believe anybody who has a moral issue with war should be able to dodge taxes?
Again: spoken as a true relativist (i.e. “my truth for me, your truth for you, all perspectives are equally valid). Perhaps you’d like to engage your Christianity, and try again? Or have you given up using the Will of Christ as a standard for such things? For myself, I believe that those with “moral issues” should have sound reasoning, and a solid appeal to objective moral truth, to back up their complaints.
Beyond this: has it escaped you (despite the manifold reminders by many members of this board) that this is NOT a mere issue of “government taxes going to pay for [x]”, even though that is a significant concern in itself? Rather, this is a
Interpretation is involved – so I’m not going to pretend that this is a black and white issue. Rasqual is pretending it is. I just don’t agree.
Your word “this” is a word broad and sweeping enough to make all of your past broad-brush commentary proud! Surely you can realise that some aspects of this issue ARE “black-and-white”? If you oppose and hate abortion, and if you consider it to be a hideous evil (as you claimed, in the past… or have I misunderstood you?), then why do you not consider a “government mandate that all health insurance plans supply abortifacients, sterilisations and contraceptives” to be evil and unconscionable, at least with regard to abortifacients (such as “Ella” and “Plan B”)?
You also relentlessly fail to realise the utter difference between “health care” and “health insurance”, but: let that go for another time.
EGV,
I spoke of Obama’s mandate being unconstitutional. I told you how Obama bamboozled members of Congress.
Whether or not millions of Catholics use contraception isn’t the issue. If they do, then obviously people can get it with no help from Obama. The issue is that the president, hiding behind the skirts of HHS’ Kathleen Sebelius, has no constitutional authority to dictate that religious institutions provide it in violation of their religious convictions.
I didn’t say there was a connection. I said that when OWS failed, Obama went after the Catholics to create an issue. The OWS doesn’t have to be excited about the Democrats, but such Democrat cheerleaders as MSNBC sure love OWS. Obama embraced OWS, stating the OWS “expresses the frustrations that the American people feel”. “I support the message to the establishment” said Nancy Pelosi.
You would expect Dahlkemper to say that? EGV, whether she’s on the board of a Catholic charity isn’t the issue here. Why don’t you address what the woman actually said, you know, the part about forcing Catholic hospitals and colleges and universities to pay for contraception.
Mary -
Okay, then wait for the Supremes to rule on it. They had a chance a couple of years back, and declined hearing the case and let the lower court decision stand, which was that it was allowable.
I don’t watch MSNBC, so I wouldn’t know their views on OWS. Seems like the only people talking about OWS though is the far right. I haven’t heard it mentioned in months except by a couple of people on this board.
On the last point, I’d expect Dahlkemper to say that – she’s on the board of a Catholic organization. I’d be surprised if she didn’t say that. In regards to your question, if the insurance company can offer a plan at the same price to a person that isn’t in the normal pool, then I see no difference in relation to your insurance company having other plans with contraception. Quite frankly, your money, right now, is going to companies that pay for contraception, abortions, sterilization – all sorts of things. It’s a reality of the world we’re in. You can’t control that. You can control your own life though – so if you feel that it is a big deal, don’t use contraception.
Paladin -
– What you call reductionism, I call three small children!
– In regards to war (you can do some research on Just War Theory if you’d like to understand more in regards to the possible religious objection to war – you seem to be asking that in one of your later paragraphs) or death penalty spending…my only point is that it is certainly plausible that individuals would have (and do have) issue, based on their religious beliefs, with both of these things. Yet we don’t allow people to simply opt out of their taxes. This isn’t new here folks – the government for a long time has mandated things that individuals have issues with. So when people on this board say that this is 100% unconstitutionally bad – I don’t agree with that – that’s all I said earlier, and all I’m saying now. I’m not saying what was done was 100% constitutional either – I’m just saying that those folks spouting that it was an unconstitutional act should do some more reading.
– I find your next paragraph to be a bit offensive. I realize you get upset, but there’s no need to start sounding like an elegant version of truthseeker. I think it is certainly justifiable to ask somebody for Biblical backing if a person is going to use phrases such as “a good Christian would do such and such”. I’m not going to simply say though that everything in the Bible should be made law of the land. In my own life, I strive to love one another, and in doing so, uphold Biblical law. I’m not going to say that if somebody has an affair, lies, or is disrespectful to their parents, that they should be thrown in prison. You seem to think that makes me a relativist. My guess is that you pick and choose which Biblical passages you’d like to see legislated, and ignore others.
– In regards to the contraception and your question on Plan B/Ella – Health Progress, a Catholic health magazine stated that Plan B does not cause abortions – has that thinking been reversed? That was just a couple of years ago.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
Paladin – What you call reductionism, I call three small children!
(?) Er… no, that would actually be called a “non sequitur”… unless you can “unpack” that statement a bit?
In regards to war (you can do some research on Just War Theory if you’d like to understand more in regards to the possible religious objection to war
I’m already familiar with the Just War Theory; one of the principal points of it is that the prudential judgment must be made by the rightful civil authorities, not by the religious leaders. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2309)
my only point is that it is certainly plausible that individuals would have (and do have) issue, based on their religious beliefs, with both of these things. Yet we don’t allow people to simply opt out of their taxes.
And again: you’re so fixated on the pragmatic present that you neglect what is morally mandatory. The question is not “DO we allow people to opt out, etc.” (that is already known, and/or can be found out easily enough), but “SHOULD we?” More on the “constitutionality” angle, below.
This isn’t new here folks – the government for a long time has mandated things that individuals have issues with.
And you have, of course, already read my response to that point (i.e. having an “issue” is not the defining characteristic, but one must find out whether that “issue” has valid basis in the objective moral law), so I needn’t repeat myself, yes?
So when people on this board say that this is 100% unconstitutionally bad – I don’t agree with that – that’s all I said earlier, and all I’m saying now.
As per the raw issue of constitutionality: even the secular government has used more of a test for “exemptions” than merely finding one or two odd (in the numerical sense) individuals who object to thus-and-so; established religions have been given far greater weight than have fly-by-night whimsies such as “flying spaghetti monsters”, and the like. But again: despite the wishes, fears, etc., of secularists, this country was founded (read: the Constitution was designed with this in mind) on Judeo-Christian principles, and the founding fathers explicitly and repeatedly said that the given frame-work would never suffice to govern a people who were not already morally upright (i.e. in keeping with the law of God). Google the references, if you like.
I’m not saying what was done was 100% constitutional either – I’m just saying that those folks spouting that it was an unconstitutional act should do some more reading.
(??) My dear fellow, did you read what you just wrote? First, you say that impositions by the government on the beliefs of the country’s members were “not necessarily 100% constitutional”; then you say that the current complaint (which certainly seems to be a flagrant contradiction of the 1st Amendment, to me… certainly with regard to Catholics) was weak enough to require “more reading”. Does this make any sense to you, when you re-read it? You’re obviously not declaring that this act is “constitutional, by definition”; and you’ve supplied nothing more than your raw opinion to support your contention that “government mandate of Catholic organisations to supply sterilisations, contraception, and abortifacients” is somehow not a violation of that amendment. Do you not understand that this is not merely the federal government supplying its own employees with those evil things? That would be bad enough (at tax-payer expense)… but now ALL Catholic organisations which supply health (or other) services to the general public will be forced, on pain of fines and criminal conviction, to supply such evils THEMSELVES (with the “fig leaf” of a “compromise” not being worth a refutation, here). As such, your metaphor doesn’t even apply.
I find your next paragraph to be a bit offensive. I realize you get upset,
(*sigh*) He says, as he explains why he is upset (while being condescending, at the same time). The irony continues, apace. If it helps, my dear chap: I was not upset or angry, at the time. You merely said something which needed refutation, and I obliged.
but there’s no need to start sounding like an elegant version of truthseeker.
My dear fellow, do you realise that you just attempted to parry what you thought to be an ad hominem “jab” with an attempted cluster of ad hominem “jabs” of your own? Are you being self-contradictory deliberately, just to see if I notice?
I think it is certainly justifiable to ask somebody for Biblical backing if a person is going to use phrases such as “a good Christian would do such and such”.
That was not, however, my question. Can you cite for me your Biblical support for an utter prohibition of war (or any financial support of the same)? I have cited (some of) what I use for my own position; now, fair is fair. Turn and turn about, friend; your turn.
I’m not going to simply say though that everything in the Bible should be made law of the land.
Nor, as you’ll note, did I ask anything of the sort of you. I limited myself to asking you about the specific and sole issue of “supporting war”. Did you miss this fact? And if not, could you address it? I’d rather you not dodge it… especially since it probably does not require 500 words, or anything like it, so it should suit your alleged taste for brevity.
In my own life, I strive to love one another, and in doing so, uphold Biblical law.
Very good. I trust, however, that you’re aware of the importance of a true and right definition of “love” (as opposed to sentimental Hollywood-esque pablum, a.k.a. “Wuv”)?
I’m not going to say that if somebody has an affair, lies, or is disrespectful to their parents, that they should be thrown in prison.
All right.
You seem to think that makes me a relativist.
No. I take you to be a relativist because you deny, at every opportunity, all importance for an objective moral code… and you pursue utter, raw political pragmatism, instead (and even that is self-refuting nonsense, without a moral code to sustain it, but… that’s another issue), along with appealing to polls, political trends, personal opinions, and flavour-of-the-moment enthusiasms. Your hypothesis is quite wrong, here.
My guess is that you pick and choose which Biblical passages you’d like to see legislated, and ignore others.
How generous of you! And how, exactly, do you come to that conclusion?
– In regards to the contraception and your question on Plan B/Ella – Health Progress, a Catholic health magazine stated that Plan B does not cause abortions – has that thinking been reversed? That was just a couple of years ago.
Mirabile dictu! A “Catholic magazine” has pronounced on the matter… and one which is run by none other than the uber-Obama-fan (and keeper of a souvenir “Obamacare-signing pen”) herself, Sr. Carol Keehan! Surely you don’t expect me to take this example seriously?
EGV 10:30PM
Allow me to explain what Dahlkemper’s words mean. She, like Stupak, foolishly believed a sociopath determined to use whoever he must and whatever means necessary to get what he wanted, which was Obamacare. This same sociopath went on to kick the Catholics who were equally foolish enough to trust him in the teeth when it would serve his political purposes.
Paladin – A couple of thoughts:
– You jumped into this argument when others had said that the law was plainly unconstitutional. Based on previous Supreme Court decisions, this is not the case. It is open for interpretation. You seem to think I’m making a position on the constitutionality of it. I am not.
– I would like to correct you though when you say that “all catholic organizations which supply health services to the general public will be forced…to supply such evil THEMSELVES. That is not the case, until your wording is just vague. In my understanding, catholic health facilities will not be required to dispense contraceptions – just have them covered in health care plans. So the word supply is one I don’t agree with. Any health care plan you are in now goes to a company that has other plans that have contraception in them (if you are insured by any major carrier).
– Biblical laws against war? How bout thou shall not murder. I’m intentionally trying to be brief about this because I think you are trying to stray off topic – if a country simply wants to kill people, and as an agressor, invades their land and kills people, you don’t need to put together a long theological essay regarding the topic.
Now, why I say that is the original discussion, which I think is straying far from. I simply said this isn’t a slam dunk constitutional issue – there’s all sorts of things the government mandates, and has been upheld, that people might and do find offense to. Just because somebody finds offense doesn’t mean it is a slam dunk first amendment issue. If the government has a compelling reason, that is a factor.
– I disagree on your statement regarding relativism. You seem to think I’d be better off if I simply jumped on the bandwagon and said “shame, this is a 100% violation of first amendment rights!”. What is an example, besides lying and affairs, in which I’ve said we shouldn’t legislate against Biblical beliefs? I’ve said many a times, if I ran this country, abortion would illegal. Sorry I’m not jumping on the contraception bandwagon – I don’t see a cut and dry Biblical case on it as something fundamental to Christianity. On the picking and choosing passages – should we legislate land distribution every 50 years? Clearing of debts? Marriage laws? Which ones do you think we should legislate?
So who cares? We disagree. Just because I support health care reform and think people should have insurance coverage doesn’t make me a relativist. It seems like you are threatened that I’m a Christian that doesn’t walk step in step in your political beliefs. I don’t understand that.
Ex-GOP: “Biblical laws against war? How bout thou shall not murder.”
How does a law against murder weigh against war-making? In the least?
As for picking and choosing Biblical passages, of COURSE we must pick and choose. I’m not a Jewish citizen of the nation of Israel, so there’s not a chance that any of the 613 laws of the Torah have jurisdiction in my life. Being a Christian who recognizes the Old Testament as “God’s word” doesn’t oblige me to be ruled by laws that God’s word does not intend Gentile believers in Messiah to be concerned with.
“The Bible” is not some verse-dispensing flat landscape where we should consider it witty to make ignorant retorts about the year of jubilee and such.
Rasqual -
– In unprovoked war – for instance, Iraq invading Kuwait – I don’t feel that you need to put together fancy theological arguments do explain what Iraq did wrong. They went in and murdered people. I’m fine with that simplified verse and justification. It doesn’t war for ALL war, of course not.
Understood. I had forgotten your mention of just war theory, and this was a bunny trail anyway.
But did you read my concern that you’re using the fact that we don’t exempt people from paying taxes as a way of exploring why we shouldn’t be too concerned to give religious folk a pass on this issue, when a concern for civil liberties would be expected to look more like someone seeing the religious claim in this case as a way for pushing for a tax exemption of conscience as well? Bracket the practical issues for a moment; it’s the direction of your argument, such as it is, that I find troublesome. Not “aha! yes, that’s a good point for liberty — and here’s another we should push!” — but “heck, the states are already offending your sensibilities, so why be so intolerant of federal stepping on toes?” and “heck, people of conscience with regard to point A are not being respected, so why should folks concerned with point B raise such a fuss either?”
I’d much rather you say “good point, let’s take on the state stuff too, fellow libertarians!” or “rally to the point A people, all you rightly-concerned point B people!” At least the direction of the argument — it’s drift — would be libertarian and not statist.
“Obama’s woo on women”?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0320/Alarm-bell-for-Mitt-Romney-New-poll-shows-Obama-surge.
Women voters are a huge problem for Romney.
“There is a cavernous gender gap in the horse-race poll…. Obama leads Romney by 20 points among female voters. And leads Santorum by 26 points among female voters.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2012/0319/Election-poll-Cavernous-gender-gap-gives-boost-to-Obama
Wow, Doug, that’s some really bad news for the country!
Well, Rasqual, I grant you that some people (more men than women ;)) feel that way.
Doug – Romney is just an etch-o-sketch anyways – so who knows what candidate he’ll be after he secures the nomination! He’ll probably be pro-choice again.
Rasqual -
So let me ask this – where is the line in what a reasonable person can object to and we should give them claim?:
1) Government puts birth control drugs in the water (like floride)
2) Government mandates every 16 year old takes birth control daily at school
3) Government mandates that every health care plan in the nation covers birth control for those that want to use contraception
4) Government mandates that all organizations offering health plans have to offer a plan that covers contraception, though from a different pool of money
5) Government mandates that all organizations offering health plans have to offer a plan that covers contraception, the money is from a different pool of money, and then plan costs $1 a month
6) Government mandates that you have to pay taxes on purchases made at a store that offeres their employees contraception coverage
7) Government mandates that you have to pay state or federal taxes, and some of that money goes to organizations that fund birth control
8) Government gives tax subsidies or breaks to an organization to build a store, and that store carries contraceptive products.
9) Government allows contraception to be legal at all
I thank you for reigning back in the argument. I simply am having a hard time finding anything that Obama is going to say about contraception that *some* Catholics are going to ever accept – I think the line of outrage that they’d like to draw is pretty far down the list – and I don’t know how far we should let one’s offense inconvenience others and infringe on their rights.
Maybe it’s just not my practice of Christianity to feel that I’m mortally sinning or having my rights squashed if a co-worker takes advantage of free contraception in a health care plan. I just don’t feel that my relationship with the Lord is going to suffer there.
Ex-GOP: Romney is just an etch-o-sketch anyways – so who knows what candidate he’ll be after he secures the nomination! He’ll probably be pro-choice again.
There would certainly be a “chuckle” factor there. ;)
I figure that with him being criticized for not being “conservative” enough, he’ll be pretty hardcore, at least for the first couple years if elected.
Ex-GOP: I think I stated it — the issue is which direction the liberties are going. Are we gaining, or losing them? Are we becoming more, or less dependent, on government? Is the power of private-sector institutions where people freely associate increasing relative to government, or decreasing? Is central planning growing, or fading, as a government practice?
Forget which lines are what. The question is how fast we’re crossing whatever lines there may be, and from which side of these lines to which side of them are we crossing.
Needless to say, many lines will seem just peachy to cross. It’s not by fighting against citizens’ interests that governments ultimately subvert liberty. It’s by casting government actions as being in citizens’ best interests.
Of late, private insurance is being turned into an instrument of increasing dependency in the name of fairness, or whatever. Do we want fairness? Sure. Do we want liberty? Sure. Which are you willing to not gain, quite so much, to retain the other?
It really is as simple as coaxing an animal into a trap with food. Every line you cross is justifiable — then there’s a point of no return when you’ve conceded more than can ever be restored. You simply can’t crash your way back through so many closed and bolted doors.
How many laws, each year, does Congress take off the books, for each 100 they add?
QED
Rasqual, excellent post. We’ll disagree on this line or that line, but we’ve gone a long way down the road to “big gov’t” and “too big of a gov’t.”
Ex-GOP says: Maybe it’s just not my practice of Christianity to feel that I’m mortally sinning or having my rights squashed if a co-worker takes advantage of free contraception in a health care plan. I just don’t feel that my relationship with the Lord is going to suffer there.
For a while I thought you were truly trying to read up on and understand this HHS mandate situation. Your statement above tells me either
a) you didn’t read anything
b) you read but didn’t understand
c) you read, understood, and just don’t give a crap so you’re going to continue pretending this is about the relationship between the Lord and an individual employee whose health plan happens to cover contraceptives
What you seem to have pretty consistently ignored:
a) NO state law is as sweeping as this HHS mandate. If you disagree, please tell me which state mandates coverage for both contraceptives and sterilization in ALL health plans (including self-insured plans and plans that do not include prescription drug coverage) with a religious exemption as narrow as the federal mandate.
b) Employers are entitled to practice their religion, follow their conscience, and not have employee benefits mandated by the government which violate the employers religion and conscience.
http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/pdf/aclj-complaint-obrien-v-hhs-obama-abortion-pill-mandate.pdf
Rasqual – I agree to a point – but I also like minimum standards in plans and not giving too much power to companies – on the far extreme end, what if companies could simply opt out of well baby coverage – or covering pre-natal checkups and maternity care. I like that some things have to be covered – and you see that as an infringement on a business owner – I see it as a benefit to employees.
So yes, we have to be careful of where the line is – I agree with that – but in this case, I feel that there are some who want to (hiding behind religious liberty), take more power away from individual employees and give it to business owners.
Lrning -
…to an extent. The government has never said that any religious belief that a business owner has takes authority over all other laws.
In this case, why do you feel that the rights of the business owner and not having coverage in a plan trumps the rights of employees (who don’t practice the same faith) to have something that is federally mandated as an option for them? I can see at a Church, where you’re signing up to be part of religious organization. But last time I checked, universities first jobs are to educate, and their employees come from a lot of different faiths (and non-faiths). In a church, it is the religious mission above all else – not so in health care or universities.
In this case, why do you feel that the rights of the business owner and not having coverage in a plan trumps the rights of employees (who don’t practice the same faith) to have something that is federally mandated as an option for them?
In this case, the free exercise of religion is an enumerated right in the First Amendment. Where does the “right” to free sterilization come from? Are you saying it comes from the federal mandate itself?
“the rights of employees (who don’t practice the same faith) to have something that is federally mandated as an option for them”
Isn’t that question-begging? Whether it should be a “right” at all is in part the question, not the assumption your question can count on. That health insurance is related to employment at all is an accident of history; there’s no logical connection whatsoever. Forcing employers to do anything that has no sound basis other than accidents of history is legitimately in contention.
”But last time I checked, universities first jobs are to educate”
Um . . . isn’t what an institution is — and what its purposes are — something for them to decide? Since when is a government the definer of purpose for any voluntary association of people in creating and sustaining any institution of any kind?
There’s often been a struggle over “Catholic identity” at some universities. “BC” is wryly called “Barely Catholic” by many of her own faculty. Is it the government’s role to settle that argument? Wow, if so, we have yet another first amendment issue to contend with.
“on the far extreme end, what if companies could simply opt out of well baby coverage – or covering pre-natal checkups and maternity care.”
Well then when that bogeyman rears its head, we’ll deal with it. Just now another villain is the problem. The actual problem. The actual wolf howling at the door. And your argument relies on inducing worry about imaginary wolves which, were they existent at all, would be counties away, contentedly lying about the forest floor, snoozing. You’d have us fear something unreal as a form of therapy for our concerns about letting an actual threat damage us? Please.
You seem to believe that if we respect enumerated first amendment rights, something that’s not protected in law at all as a right will suffer. Even supposing these imaginary wolves would awaken far away and come to our door — so what? If it’s no big deal for people to lose their first amendment protections, what’s the big deal about losing some insurance benefits? I don’t really care how “precious” you try to make them sound by way of selection. If we can shrug off enumerated Constitutional rights, the “what if” hypotheticals you like to enumerate like red herrings will seem trite someday, compared with actual liberties we’ll have lost, in contrast to mere benefits that might have been curtailed.
But that’s just conceding your hand-wringing for purposes of saying “so what.” In reality, I think citing imaginary and relatively benign bogeymen to get people not to concern themselves with the actual thug in the room is ridiculous.
And you’re proving that teat-sucking constituencies can easily be bought and paid for with chicken-in-every-pot policies. Such policies create entitlements whose loss is feared, and anyone whose concerns seem to jeopardize such entitlements (even if only in the fear of the beneficiary class, and not in actuality) — even if their concern is government abuse of Constitutionally enumerated rights — becomes a political opponent. “Give us free stuff! Screw the Constitution!”
Hastily penned, probably flubbed some point. C’est la vie.
Rasqual wrote:
Hastily penned, probably flubbed some point. C’est la vie.
:) At the risk of being labelled a flatterer: if my best efforts were as efficient, cogent and incisive as your “hasty” example, here, I’d be quite content!
Anyway… carry on!