Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-10/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The White House came under continued attack over the contraception mandate; banks agreed to a multi-billion dollar foreclosure settlement; the House of Representatives passed the Stock Act as the payroll tax debate stalled; Rick Santorum looked to build on his surprising victories in three Republican contests as uncertainty returned to the conservative race; President Obama reversed his position and embraced Super PACs; Proposition Eight was overturned in California; and the Pentagon announced it would ease restrictions on women in combat. Greg Ip of the Economist magazine, James Fallows of the Atlantic and Juan Williams of Fox News join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Greg Ip
U.S. economics editor, The Economist, and author of "The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World."
James Fallows
national correspondent, "The Atlantic."
Juan Williams
political analyst, Fox News.
News Roundup Video
The panelists discuss the Obama administration's decision to allow certain exemptions for religious employers from its new law requiring all employers to provide women access to contraceptives:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
If providing health insurance that covers contraception violates Catholic beliefs, why are so many Catholic-affiliated organizations already providing it? (Georgetown University, University of Dayton, University of San Diego, Catholic Charities in New Jersey and virtually all Catholic hospitals in New York and California.)
This issue is trumped up by opponents of Obama. I notice that very few representatives of the Catholic church are defending its position in public; they are relying on the GOP to do its dirty work for it.
I regret that the only point of view being publicized as a Christian one is that of white Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. I consider my point of view to be informed by reason, scripture, and the tradition of the Christian faith. I believe as a committed Christian that there's an important role for contraception in family planning. Please note that for the purposes of this conversation I am not referring to abortion.
Regarding the issue of contraception coverage and religious freedom, as a Catholic woman I believe that it is the male hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is violating the religious rights of women -- both Catholic and non-Catholic -- by attempting to impose the official Church position on women, via influencing law. This violates the religious freedom of women to consult their own consciences and beliefs in the decision of whether or not to use birth control.
Without insurance, many women cannot afford to consistently use contraception. And it isn't a simple matter of just choosing not to work for a church affiliated school or hospital or social agency in order to obtain contraception coverage. If one quits such a job, one is ineligible for unemployment compensation, and if one is already unemployed, one has to take whatever job one can get to either continue getting unemployment compensation or to find employment before such compensation runs out.
Why is it that when Christians stand up for conscience and religious principles and decry government intrusion, they're called "extreme." In this case by the NPR radio host!! Am I necessarily on the "extreme right" b/c I stand with the Catholic Bishops against gov't mandates, although I'm not a Catholic? Would Ms Rehm have called law-abiding Muslims "extreme" if this were an issue involving them? The answer is obvious.
Nigel Searle wrote:
"This issue is trumped up by opponents of Obama. I notice that very few representatives of the Catholic church are defending its position in public; they are relying on the GOP to do its dirty work for it."
------------------------------------------------
This GOP surely does not have a monopoly on rejecting the latest gaffe from the Obama Administration. Even the redoubtable liberal journalist Mark Shields, a hard core POTUS Obama supporter, endorsed the Catholic Church and its Bishops rejection of the Obama administration demand for Catholic health organizations be required to support birth control.
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2012/02/the_mailbag_blowing_off_steam_react...
Religious liberty is merely a fig leaf for conservative culture war attacks on moderates and liberals.
Name one conservative who supports religious liberty exemptions for
- institutions which have (religious) moral objections to war and refuse to cooperate with the military by allowing ROTC, military recruiters, notifying draft boards
- individuals who refuse to cooperate with the military system by registering with draft board and withholding the portion of taxes funding war making and its mass murder by way of nuclear weapons of innocent men, women, children, and abortion by incineration of pregnant women
- plural marriage by Mormons which considered it a core religious belief
- use of prohibited drugs like peyote and marijuana in religious ceremonies and practice
Note how conservatives claim opposition to gay marriage is a violation of religious conscious and will lead to plural marriage, which today results in prosecution of Mormons who follow the original Mormon faith calling for plural marriage.
Note how conservatives condemn drug use as a violation of religious belief in the body as a temple, and prosecute those who use drugs as part of their religious ceremonies and practice while carving out a religious exception for underage drinking of alcohol.
When conservatives have no rational democratic republican rationale for a political position, one fig leaf they grab to hide their fallacy is religious liberty.
Michael Pettengill wrote:
"Religious liberty is merely a fig leaf for conservative culture war attacks on moderates and liberals."
-----------------------------------------------
Then how do you account for the motivations of the redoubtable liberal journalist Mark Shields, a hard core POTUS Obama supporter, who endorsed the Catholic Church and its Bishops rejection of the Obama administration demand for Catholic health organizations be required to support birth control?
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2012/02/the_mailbag_blowing_off_steam_react...
In light of the fact that we have announced a schedule for withdrawing from Afghanistan, what reason would the Taliban have for negotiating with us rather than with the Karzai regime?
Brian Marshall
The contraceptive coverage for insurance, does make sense. Many Catholics voice that they agree yes it should be included. Though the 'church' may not want to agree, the choice is always on the individual whether you are catholic or not. If they are teaching the Bible and the followers are adhering to what they are taught. Then they have a choice always. (ie.don't use that provision in of the insurance, don't use a contraceptive if that is what they believe). That is what seperates us from the animals. God gave us a free will, which allows us to make our own choices and hopefully the choice's God gives us to do what He wants us to do in following Him. No one is forcing anyone to go against thier beliefs but if they choose to use contraceptives for whatever reason they decide the option is included so it does not cost them so much.
Regarding news stories about the recent mortgage settlement deal, am I the only one who think it's curious that none of the "five banks" are ever named?
What is the problem with making sure employers offer a health service to their employees? If you have a problem with birth control, don't use it. Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood transfusions. Could an employer deny covering those on "moral grounds?" I object to war on moral grounds, but I still have to pay taxes that go to the DOD. Birth control is a basic health service and it is in the common interest to make it as available as possible to anyone who CHOOSES to use it.
This issue has become a political football not because there are so many lay Catholics who are genuinely concerned about it, but because it is a way for the GOP to frame government involvement in health care in general, or anything for that matter, as an attack on freedom. The issue is not about the government mandating that Catholic institutions provide birth control, but that the government "mandate" anything at all.
Providing birth control, and health insurance in general, is in the public interest and the public interest must always be weighed and balanced against "individual freedom/ doing whatever I want." That is what "Obamacare" is about. When we elected the guy a solid majority of this country seemed to be on board with joining the rest of the developed and much of the developing world by offering UNIVERSAL healthcare that covers everyone regardless of their means, like any civilized society should. Then the insurance companies bought out congress and FOX brainwashed the masses to think their medicine was bad for them and it worked. What happened America? Let's use common sense on this issue.
Nigel Searle wrote:
"This issue is trumped up by opponents of Obama. I notice that very few representatives of the Catholic church are defending its position in public; they are relying on the GOP to do its dirty work for it."
------------------------------------------------
"...the GOP (and their dear Friends, the MSM) to do its dirty work for it."
Of course it's anti Obama!!
The Media had plenty to say about the Church's Sexual Abuse Scandals and the Jews have been raging against the Church for years about its alleged Holocaust involvement. Suddenly now, they are Defenders of the Faith.
Here is a sample of what the Wash Post had to say-
Charles Krauthammer: The Gospel according to Obama
Kathleen Parker: A question of faith
Kathleen Parker : Obama runs roughshod over religious freedom
Kathleen Parker: Komen, Catholics and the cost of conscience
Michael Gerson: A compromise on contraception?
John Garvey: Birth-control rules intrude on Catholic values
E.J. Dionne Jr.: Obama’s breach of faith with Catholics
Michael Gerson: Obama plays Catholic allies for fools
Michael Gerson: The poor pay the price for Obama’s politics
George F. Will: Obama’s call of onward civilian soldiers
Employers are not "Paying" for it, those benefits are paid in lieu of Wages!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Drew Kelly wrote:
"Why did we bother breaking away from our benevolent Masters in England if this is what Americans are now to believe?"
A "king" is in the eye of the beholder.
Right now, the one we call "President" is our king. He sits in the oval office and make decrees. "Catholic church will pay for contraception", "Insurance companies will pay for abortion".
What else would you call that but a monarchy?
Marcus Tullius wrote:
"the latest gaffe from the Obama Administration"
This is no gaffe. The edict to the church was never going to fly. So everyone sees Obama as "backing down", when he is really getting what he wants ... insurance-paid birth control INCLUDING abortion services MANDATED by the Federal Government.
See through the smoke screen.
And by the way, the statement "The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services" is simply a lie. Sorry, that's the fact. Does anyone think insurance companies will actually PAY for these services and reduce their profits?! Duh! Religious organizations WILL pay for the services in the form of higher rates that insurance companies will charge because of the mandate. You can bet on that.
Today, the President has insulted the intelligence of every person of faith.
Adam Renner wrote:
"What happened America?"
I'll tell you what happened, Adam. America has allowed its freedom and its self-reliance and personal responsibility to be subverted by the Federal Government since the Wilson administration. That's what happened.
"The issue is not about the government mandating that Catholic institutions provide birth control"
Yeah. It is. What birth control using Catholics think about it is irrelevant. It is government dictating to a religious institution what it must do!!! So separation of Church and State is ok - unless the State wants to dictate to the Church?! Anybody got a knife? The hypocrisy is thick enough that I think I can cut it with one.
Let's use common sense on this issue.
Tiana Richard wrote:
"The contraceptive coverage for insurance, does make sense. Many Catholics voice that they agree yes it should be included. Though the 'church' may not want to agree, the choice is always on the individual whether you are catholic or not."
Let's put this one to bed, shall we?
Cool, Tiana! You've just given license to every meth-head in the country! Let's try this shall we?
Many meth-heads voice that chrystal-meth should be ok to use. Though the "law" may not want to agree, the choice is always on the individual whether you are a meth-head or not.
"johnandere wrote:
Yeah. It is. What birth control using Catholics think about it is irrelevant. It is government dictating to a religious institution what it must do!!!
February 10, 2012 - 3:47 pm"
So, now a religious institution is entitled to Freedom of Religion, but birth control using Catholics are not??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote:
"So, now a religious institution is entitled to Freedom of Religion, but birth control using Catholics are not??"
Huh? What an absurd statement! Or was this a joke? How do religious institutions, as a matter of conscience choosing not to dispense birth control to their employees, dis-entitle Catholic women of their first amendment right?! Unless your religion is sex maybe?
To say that this $25 billion deal with major banks is “a step in the right direction” sounds a lot like the rationale used to “fix” health care: “We really wanted a public option in the proposal, but carving out a market for a monopoly of private insurers, complete with government mandate, is a step in the right direction, isn’t it?” It certainly is—a step in the extremist rightwing, corporate state direction. Contraception issues aside (I can’t even believe that people are concerned about something that amounts to active population control and disease prevention), employers should NOT be required to offer health care services of any sort to employees. Why? Because they will reduce (dump) employees and employee wages to pay for it. If there’s a state alternative, they will price their plans in a way so as to encourage employees to buy into it as a less costly alternative, and the states will do the same, bidding up prices and costs.
Any plan for compulsory insurance must include a public option, with the motivation and ability to underbid private insurers. Otherwise, it should be designed as a public monopoly in the first place, or it will be unaffordable, exploitative, and even more costly than the system we have now, which is the most costly in the world. Isn’t the foreclosure settlement yet another such “compromise” with the abuses of private industry, even AFTER failure and subsequent nationalization (of Fannie and Freddie)? “Well, we really want to rein in the ‘originate to distribute’ securitization process and protect homebuyers from any further abuses owing to rampant Wall Street speculation, but handing those who have lost their homes a couple of thousand bucks while maintaining our faith in market fundamentals so we can get back to business as usual is a step in the right direction, isn’t it?” To be sure: It’s sanctifying, at taxpayers’ and renters’ expense, the same investor-led, supply-side economic model that created the problem in the first place, bringing us one step closer to restoring our rentier regime. Crime that pays is crime that stays.