2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

[Craig P.]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Tebow is not Catholic.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Some good points out here. Having a debate about adults & contraception is a disaster for the GOP. Its like if the debate is about minors getting abortions for the Dems. People who are too young to remember the 60's don't want to refight the battles of the 60's and its amazing how many times Republicans keep trying to go back to the well. Remember how pathetic it was when McCain tried to link 60's radicalism to Obama, a guy born in 1961?

Look, the only people this appeals to are either 1) really devout Catholics such as Mr Tebow who are few and very far between, or 2) people who haven't gotten laid in so long they've forgotten that they were using contraception when they were. Both of these constituencies are solid conservative anyway, so no harm there. Its the people in the middle who most likely think the church's ban on birth control is stupid and unneccesary that matter, and as I've metioned before pushing right wing social issues is planning for an election in the past, not the upcoming one.

EDIT: Forgot to mention about the Senators. Its simply good politics. Nip a potential issue in the bud lest it festers on you. Casey is pro-life anyway, so he's not being hypocritical on this one. Kaine is in a really close race where perhaps a swing of .5% of the vote does end up costing him. Scott Brown has been forced to do the same thing on some issues leading up to his race in Mass too that I doubt he would if not locked in a close contest.

The point is not about contraception, its about the state telling a religious institution that it must comply with the law even if it violates their tenents. If allowed to happen, then you have the state intruding in religion.

The libs who keep screaming about religion in the state (or public square) would seem to be hypocrites to support it.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

The point is not about contraception, its about the state telling a religious institution that it must comply with the law even if it violates their tenents. If allowed to happen, then you have the state intruding in religion.

The libs who keep screaming about religion in the state (or public square) would seem to be hypocrites to support it.

Personally I think the idea that it violates their tenents is silly. No one is forcing anyone to use birth control. All that is being mandated is the insurance offer birth control as part of it's preventative care. No one says because it's offered that the person has to use it. Also the Catholic institutions that are affected hire many people that aren't Catholic.

That being said I think it was dumb of the Obama administration to even bother with such logic with our electorate. They can't handle it. I would have just took the easy way out and said, "Sorry women. If you're job is at a Catholic University or Hospital (etc.) you don't get this as part of your health care package. If you don't like it, don't work there."

That would have diffused the entire controversy.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

The point is not about contraception, its about the state telling a religious institution that it must comply with the law even if it violates their tenents. If allowed to happen, then you have the state intruding in religion.

The state does that all the time. Religion does not get you a free pass from complying with the law, even if the great landlord in the sky disagrees.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

The point is not about contraception, its about the state telling a religious institution that it must comply with the law even if it violates their tenents. If allowed to happen, then you have the state intruding in religion.

The libs who keep screaming about religion in the state (or public square) would seem to be hypocrites to support it.

Yes, you must comply with the law in a secular arena such as health insurance which I'm pretty sure isn't mentioned in the bible. Otherwise, why just stop at birth control? Why not stem cell treatment? Or organ transplants, which IIRC there's some angst in the church about also. Why couldn't a religion deny coverage to someone purely on the basis of them not being of the same faith (say an employee is Catholic but their spouse is not)?

Slavely is condoned in the Bible, but churches can't keep slaves and hide behind religious freedom. You have to comply with the law. As a Catholic living under the disasterous reign of Cardinal Law, I can tell you the problems that happen when people start believing the laws don't apply to them because they belong to a religious order.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

A useful tool for exposing the hypocrisy of the left in political matters is to substitute the word "Nixon" for "Obama," and see if the attitudes change. Similarly, in any matter involving religion, just substitute "Jew" or "Muslim" for "Catholic" and ask yourself if there's a chance this cheesy, anti-Catholic administration would display the same attitudes and adopt the same regulations.

Personally, I'm pro-choice, but His Magnificence isn't just firing a shot in the culture war. He's attacking the First Amendment rights of American Catholics. And even some of the condom using, abortion supporting Catholics see it.

At Vanderbilt, university administrators have decided they know best what the requirements for membership in student religious organizations should be. Now if B'Nai B'Rith wants to admit goys into membershp, that's surely their business, isn't it? Or if they want to limit membership only to Jews, again, surely that is their business. But not the university's. Vanderbilt, or any university, has no business involving itself in these matters. Ever.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

It's not a first amendment issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/o...-E-FB-SM-LIN-LST-020912-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

Key part of Gail Collins well written piece.

The churches themselves don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage. Neither do organizations that are closely tied to a religion’s doctrinal mission. We are talking about places like hospitals and universities that rely heavily on government money and hire people from outside the faith

We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body?

Organized religion thrives in this country, so the system we’ve worked out seems to be serving it pretty well. Religions don’t get to force their particular dogma on the larger public. The government, in return, protects the right of every religion to make its case heard. .

Despite the well written article I'm pretty sure the electorate is too stupid to comprehend it.

Excellent questions posed in the comments section of the article.

BTW, do the employees at THE WATCHTOWER ( Jehovah's Witnesses) have insurance excluding blood transfusions? Does the Christian Science Monitor offer health insurance excluding doctors?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

It's not a first amendment issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/o...-E-FB-SM-LIN-LST-020912-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

Key part of Gail Collins well written piece.




Despite the well written article I'm pretty sure the electorate is too stupid to comprehend it.

Excellent questions posed in the comments section of the article.

The arrogance is comprehensive and very nearly hard to believe. Except it's expressed forcefully on these threads and elsewhere, every day. Any disagreement with liberal orthodoxy results from "stupidity." Next you'll lecture us on raising the tone of the debate.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

The state does that all the time. Religion does not get you a free pass from complying with the law, even if the great landlord in the sky disagrees.

Except when it does.

The government must stay out of hiring and firing decisions by a religious organization, even if a minister sues for employment discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

Religious freedom groups praised the decision, and especially the fact that it came from a unanimous court....

Not drawing any lines between that decision and what the court would hypothetically rule on this contraception thing, but it's pretty clear that religion is different in many cases.

 

[bronconick]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Except when it does.



Not drawing any lines between that decision and what the court would hypothetically rule on this contraception thing, but it's pretty clear that religion is different in many cases.

I'm pretty sure the actual ruling on that was because she chose to become a "called minister" instead of a regular teacher because being a minister at the school got her better jobs and higher pay.

They'll probably have another case just like that one when some IT guy who is clearly not in a teaching/leading position in such an organization gets fired.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Cavers gonna cave

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

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

Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.

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

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

Like Tapper says, doubt it appeases everybody, but I think it will probably give the Senate Dems against it (a list that now includes Casey, Rockefeller, Manchin, Kerry, Nelson, Nelson, Carper, and McCaskill) some cover to change their minds.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Employers shouldn't be offering health insurance as a fringe benefit in the first place. Before WWII, they did not. During WWII, the federal government imposed wage / price controls. Employers could not raise wages but they could expand fringe benefits. So health insurance became a tax-deductible benefit for employees while people who bought their own health insurance had to use after-tax dollars.

Did anyone learn that government interference in an attempt to control outcomes ALWAYS has unintended consequnces, and so decide that to focus on core principles of proper behavior would ultimately lead to more optimal results for everyone in a way no one could predict?

Yeah, right.

One jury-rigged claptrap "solution" to the original unintended consequences produces additional unintended consequences leads to another jury-rigged claptrap "solution" to the new problem, which in turn creates even more unintended consequences which produces another jury-rigged claptrap "solution" and on and on ad nauseum.

Now we have a "system" that is so arbitrary and illogical that the only way to get by is to legally bribe legislators for favors: they get re-elected and keep proposing absurd laws so that they can keep getting campaign donations to "adjust" the language of absurd laws once they are re-elected so that they can be legally bribed again so they can stay in office indefinitely and exempt themselves from the consequences of the rules they force down upon the rest of us.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

It would be so much easier if we joined the rest of the industrialized world and had single-payer health care it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Interestingly I learned that the problem isn't that religious groups have to offer this coverage, as that has been the law since 2000. Its that there is no co-pay for these services now. Churches are exempt, but church run hospitals or schools are not as if the primary focus of the place isn't religion you can't use religion to deny coverage.

So, much ado about nothing. Obama does some small tweak, most people are satisfied and only the "birth control should be illegal" crowd (all 100 of you) is left to whine.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

It would be so much easier if we joined the rest of the industrialized world and had single-payer health care it wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly. But that will never happen cause we have a backwoods electorate.

Employers shouldn't be offering health insurance as a fringe benefit in the first place. Before WWII, they did not. During WWII, the federal government imposed wage / price controls. Employers could not raise wages but they could expand fringe benefits. So health insurance became a tax-deductible benefit for employees while people who bought their own health insurance had to use after-tax dollars.

Did anyone learn that government interference in an attempt to control outcomes ALWAYS has unintended consequnces, and so decide that to focus on core principles of proper behavior would ultimately lead to more optimal results for everyone in a way no one could predict?

Yeah, right.

One jury-rigged claptrap "solution" to the original unintended consequences produces additional unintended consequences leads to another jury-rigged claptrap "solution" to the new problem, which in turn creates even more unintended consequences which produces another jury-rigged claptrap "solution" and on and on ad nauseum.

Now we have a "system" that is so arbitrary and illogical that the only way to get by is to legally bribe legislators for favors: they get re-elected and keep proposing absurd laws so that they can keep getting campaign donations to "adjust" the language of absurd laws once they are re-elected so that they can be legally bribed again so they can stay in office indefinitely and exempt themselves from the consequences of the rules they force down upon the rest of us.

I agree. Employers should not be involved in Health Care. Either single payer or individual.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Well, Obama steps up to be the bigger man.

"The source, who asked for anonymity because the president has yet to make an announcement on the decision, bristled at the suggestion that the new plan was a compromise."

You're right - it's a not a compromise. It's complete capitulation.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Well, Obama steps up to be the bigger man.

"The source, who asked for anonymity because the president has yet to make an announcement on the decision, bristled at the suggestion that the new plan was a compromise."

You're right - it's a not a compromise. It's complete capitulation.

From your article.

"It's a dangerous game when dealing with a fundamental American right protected by the Constitution such as religious freedom," the RNC said in the memo.

Statements like that crack me up. It's a blatant lie and falsehood that this law imposes on religious freedom.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Blech. What profiteth a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul, Barry.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Statements like that crack me up. It's a blatant lie and falsehood that this law imposes on religious freedom.

Completely agree. I wish Obama could have stood his ground, but I understand why it was a political loser for him.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?

Blech. What profiteth a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul, Barry.

It's weird. I mean, he's never capitulated like this before. Oh.

Anyways, he has a presser coming up at 12:15. Maybe he'll throw a curveball.