Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-17/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., left, reaches out to Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012, to celebrate as members of the bi-partisan House and Senate conferees on the payroll tax cut extension signed the compromise agreement.
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Congressional lawmakers debated mandated coverage of contraceptives in the health care law. Several Democrats walked out of a hearing on the provision in the House of Representatives. Congress moved closer to ending the fight over the payroll tax cut exemption. The House and Senate are expected to vote today on the $143 billion dollar package. With a narrow lead in Michigan, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum defended his opposition to the auto industry bailout. And more good news on the economy as housing starts rose last month. John Dickerson of Slate.com, Susan Page of USA Today and Jerry Seib of The Wall Street Journal join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Jerry Seib
Washington bureau chief, The Wall Street Journal.
John Dickerson
chief political correspondent for Slate.com and CBS political analyst and contributor. Author of "On Her Trail: My Mother, Nancy Dickerson, TV News' First Woman Star."
Friday News Roundup Video
The panelists discuss the ongoing debate on mandating health care coverage for contraceptives in relation to religious organizations and employers:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Finally a ray of sanity leaked into the show "the meddling of big government" it's hard to believe that any rational person would not look forward to the dismantling of the "affordable care act"
Ms. KFL wrote:
"No one has to use any type of birth control, but for an employer to be allowed to exclude it from available health services is counter to individual freedom and the greater societal good."
Why? Must they also be required to provide dental care? How about vision coverage? Individual freedom? Are you kidding me? Whose freedom is being restricted? Are these women not allowed to walk into PP and get all the bc they want?! The "freedom" argument is absurd!
The key to your post is the "greater societal good". What this says is, "I believe that providing contraception is a good thing, therefore we must make it law". That is your opinion. Others have a different opinion. No ones freedom is being compromised. Instead, the left is using the very personal decision about contraception to create a wedge between people and their Church. It's and attack on the first amendment. Pure and simple.
lala wrote:
"had an unplanned pregnancy after a one night stand. Its really shut down her options for her future. "
Oops, there's the flaw in your whole presentation, lala ... the "one night stand".
As a lifelong Catholic, I am EMBARRASSED by the bishops -- so quick on contraception, so slow on pedophilia! What's wrong with these people?!
Why must the issue be continually muddied?
It's not about the choice being made. It's about preserving the ability to choose. If there is contraception available, due to insurance, with no copay, those who need or desire it can choose to get it.
Those who feel it is virtuous to avoid situations where contraception is an issue, or those who believe it is intrinsically wrong to use it, they can choose not to get it.
It really comes down to something simple. Choose to do, choose not to do, it's a choice.
Impose YOUR choice on others, you're removing their ability to choose. That ability to choose is a basic freedom that should be protected, whichever choice you may personally make.
Edit: In response to those who say 'they can just go buy it'... many of the people in the most danger of being unwilling or unable to handle a pregnancy (or more importantly the child that comes after) may not be able to afford it without insurance. As the coverage for contraception sounds like it currently costs the business provider nothing, and there is no copay for the recipient, it isn't even like the provider is putting any additional resources into the coverage in the first place.
Women's contraceptive care is controversial, and yet mention of the many health insurances that cover Viagra have not been mentioned. Anyone who advocates women putting an aspirin between their knees to discourage sexual activity should also perhaps mention the widespread use of Erectile Dysfunction medicines, and health insurance coverage of them.
A broader question here that is never discussed-- Why are birth control pills so expensive? The pill is a 60 year old technology and should cost maybe $5/month. This is a related question that warrants exploration. One can sense big money drug companies behind price fixing!
The church is not paying for contraception. Insurance is not charging for birth control - the benefits to the insurance companies of not having to pay for an unintended birth far outweigh the cost of the pill.
The greatest advancement for women has been and continues to be control of their own reproductive cycle. This lifts them out of poverty, increases their own life-spans, allows increased opportunity for education, and empowers women in their own homes.
The silliness of some politicians as they discuss allowing states to ban birth control is a dangerous bridge to an earlier and less enlightened place.
That woman lobbying for money with Diane right now is a natural a real natural. WE LOVE SUSAN PAGE TOO. She is so smooth and smart when she sits in for Diane. But do not know any host of a MSM news program as full of grace and grit as Diane. The queen of grace and grit
"Why must the issue be continually muddied? It's not about the choice being made. It's about preserving the ability to choose. "
I agree, ppbensel3. Why must insurance companies, or Catholic institutions for that matter, have their choice compromised by having YOUR choice imposed on them? No woman is being denied their choice to use bc. It's all a matter of who pays for it and who dispenses it. Any woman can walk into PP and get all the bc they need. Anyone who CHOOSES to can support that organization. Nobody's freedoms are being infringed in the decision of the Church not to fund a practise which they believe is wrong.
As a recently retired physician and someone who was raised Catholic (long-retired), I for many years took care of Jehovah's Witnesses, many after heart surgeries. While they had every right to refuse transfusion (and nearly always did), none claimed the right to deny fellow customers of an insurance company THEIR access to transfusions. Would a JW-based insurance company be allowed to deny transfusion services? While we american catholics have perfected cafeteria observance of "eternal" edicts, this is getting ridiculous. Particularly in light of the actual sexual behavior of the Catholic clergy over the last 30 years.
Dr. William Pavlik
Clarkston MI
If this subject is a women's civil rights issue, then why would the President be giving a waver to churches and not the church non-for-profits?
many religions have tenants and convisctions and beliefs that do not comply or agree with U.S. Law - such as the Catholic belief against contracdption and abortion, Muslims right to force his wife to have sex with him, etc. NO RELIGION SHOULD BE EXCUSED FROM FOLLOWING STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. THANKS FOR BEING IN AMERICA!!!!!!
I'm frustrated with this conversation that places the entire responsibility on the woman to use birth control. What about the men? Where is the outrage over Viagra coverage for single men? Or married men who cheat? No values voters commenting on this. People need to realize that many of the women using contraception are married. They cannot afford to have 19 or 20 children during their reproductive years. If men want to limit use of contraceptives, they need to use sex ONLY for procreation purposes. And that is never going to happen. My daughter uses contraceptives to control severe vomiting during her periods. It has been miraculous. She no longer has to miss school when she has a period and will not have to miss work.
Did Obama attack Republicans and President Bush for violating Catholic faith and practice which requires opposition to war by requiring Catholics to pay war taxes in violation of their religious liberty?
Obama stated his reasons for opposing the Iraq war without using a religious liberty cloak while justifying the Afghan war without a religious cloak.
Republicans are perfectly happy to punish those who oppose war by refusing to pay taxes based on their view of religious liberty and a religious moral exemption to paying for the mass murder of innocents inherent in all war.
Democrats take the position established by the Supreme Court in 1879 that limits religious liberty to only applying the same law to everyone regardless of religious belief. Thus those opposed to war on religious ground must pay taxes for war, and those who object to contraceptive must pay for it regardless of faith just like every other person no matter their religious faith.
The only consistent religious liberty position Republicans can take is every citizen no matter their religion and no matter the law gets an exemption based on their claim of religious liberty, and Warren Jeffs can marry as many wives as he wants, Quakers and Brethren and Catholics opposed to war can withhold half their income taxes for religious reasons.
wpavlik write
"Would a JW-based insurance company be allowed to deny transfusion services? "
Absolutely. As long as any subscriber knew the rules before hand, they would have no complaint. I doubt such an insurer would have many subscribers, however.
k2345us wrote:
"many religions have tenants and convisctions and beliefs that do not comply or agree with U.S. Law - such as the Catholic belief against contracdption and abortion, Muslims right to force his wife to have sex with him, etc. NO RELIGION SHOULD BE EXCUSED FROM FOLLOWING STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. THANKS FOR BEING IN AMERICA!!!!!!"
So much for that "church and state" thing, eh k?
I always thought of insurance as protection against the catastrophic. I would not expect my auto insurance to cover oil changes and brake jobs. Health care has become an entitlement program for the middle class, a group of slow witted people who buy into notions of "free" gimmicks. Nothing is free!
psouthward bingo. Andrew Sullivan has been writing about this issue so clearly. Power power power both situations. I am spending a great deal of time with older Precious Blood nuns (80-90) Lots of conversations about the power struggle between Catholic nuns during the 60's...70's. I grew up Catholic. Priest lived across the street, Notre Dame nuns across the alley. I watched. Also went to Catholic schools for 12 years. The Nuns did the bulk of the work by far. I watched the priest living in a beautiful rectory, driving extremely nice cars, had gardeners, cooks, secretary. The nuns lived in a modest house, took care and taught the Catholic school kids and others, watched them pile into their semi beat up station wagon headed off to help take care of a needy family. Also would hear them while playing in the back yard just below their upper level deck out there strumming their guitars singing "Micheal row the boat a shore" and "Where have all the flowers gone" no bs here. Some of these nuns took us to hear Martin Luther King speak, taught us about social and human rights issues. Many of these nuns walked the talk of Jesus and their faith. The Catholic church has lost a great deal when the mostly white privileged males have not moved over and shared the power of decision making and the direction of the church with these smart and compassionate women. A real mistake
Michael Pettengill wrote:
"those who object to contraceptive must pay for it regardless of faith just like every other person no matter their religious faith.
One of the principal duties of the Federal Government is protection of its citizens through defense.
There is no guarantee of birth control for women. Sorry, if you want that, propose a constitutional amendment.
Again I object to the discussion today which limits the definition of religious liberty to only the Republican defined area of religious liberty - reproduction as defined by Catholics - while ignoring the rest of Catholic doctrine that opposes war, and while ignoring the religious doctrines of many other faiths which Republicans reject and attack openly.
Why can't Warren Jeffs have his religious liberty to many wives if Catholics get their exemption from Federal law?
Why can't Quakers, Amish and Catholics get an exemption from paying taxes going to war contrary to their anti-war church doctrine?
Mormons were imprisoned for their exercising what they saw as religious liberty.
Quakers and Brethren and others opposed to war on religious grounds have had their property confiscated by the IRS for exercising their religious liberty.
I hear no Republicans condemning the denial of religious liberty to Warren Jeffs or to war resisters refusing to pay for war. Why are Republicans favoring the Catholic religion over others in violation of the establishment clause?
Why do reporters take the side of Republicans in their attempt to establish the Pope as having veto over Federal law?
To johnandere:
Misleading argument.
The people expending resources to pay for the birth control itself are the insurance companies, not the church. No one is forcing them to, they desire it, because no pregnancy is more financially viable to them than months of pre-natal care, and care after the birth, etc.
The thing being compelled is that the church can't tell their public sector secular employees 'The employer offered healthcare will not cover birth control. Not because it costs us anything at all, but because we will in no way be a party to anything that could possibly be construed as making it an easier option to choose'.
I defend the church's right to practice their religion. I do not defend their right to impose those practices on anyone who does not share their beliefs... and in my view, that is exactly what they are attempting. But again, I think that muddies the core issue, which is about preserving PERSONAL choice. The church is, in fact, attempting to remove the choice of their own followers and make it for them. I believe if those members truly believe it, they will make the choice the church wants on their own, and MUST be permitted a free and fair choice. Even more so for those not sharing the faith.
Jerry made a comment that the arguments over "government intervention" in contraception were going to turn people off government-administered health care. He is wrong. The opposite is true. It is making many more people aware that eliminating both employers and private health insurance companies will eliminate these kinds of disagreements and make delivery of health care, including contraception, more accessible and fairer to all.
Michael Pettengill,
You raise, in various fashion, three issues;
poligamy, pacifism, and contraception.
The first of these was traded by the state of Nevada for statehood.
The second relates to defense, which, under the Constitution, everyone must pay for. If you object to service, you may apply as a concientious objector.
The third is birth control - WHICH IS NOT A RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
What else ya got?
johnandere:
Church and state separation is about keeping the peanut butter out of the chocolate. Keeping secular and religious issues as separate as possible. I think what you meant to say was 'so much for freedom to practice religion'.
And again, I believe you are somewhat offtarget. Freedom to practice religion means a JV doctor could not be compelled to practices they believed violated their faith.
It doesn't mean some organization can use that faith as a bludgeon on people outside the faith.
If an insurance company tried to put a clause in their coverage that said 'If you break a kosher diet, all coverage is void' I suspect it would go directly to court, and the insurance company would lose big.
As well, no matter what the faith says, if you break the law you break the law. A hypothetical "orthodox human sacrificist" can claim religious freedom all they want, but if they go and commit a religiously ordained murder, they're gonna go to jail.
They never think of all the costs. The day off work - unpaid - if you can get an appointment in the next six months. If that appointment is at a time when they will allow you off work, if you don't live in a Jim Crow State, Right-to-work state, like Virginia, where you can't even get off to visit the required teacher parent meetings. It is required and you are then considered 'one of the local uncaring parents" because you want to keep your job. Only people with money have a lawyer to ensure they can document their boss refusing to allow them to take a personal appointment. In Norfolk it is always, "You know what side your bread is buttered on. You choose. You are replaceable" So, birth control on the dole, being cheap. Tell them to get out of their gated communities, shift their nose out of the vertical, to horizontal, and actually look at the lives of the bus takers. Right, Dream On. Sic Semper Tyranus, Commonwealth of Virginia
ppbense13 wrote:
"The thing being compelled is that the church can't tell their public sector secular employees 'The employer offered healthcare will not cover birth control. Not because it costs us anything at all, but because we will in no way be a party to anything that could possibly be construed as making it an easier option to choose'. "
Misleading argument - and repeating what you said before with regard to your opinion about what is happening does not advance the argument.
Public sector? What public sector? How are employees of Saint Luke's Hostpital in Podunk IA "public sector"? NO employer is bound to provide ANY health insurance. Most choose to (which is at the root of the health care issue in our country, but that's a topic for another day). But a PRIVATE institution can craft an insurance program any way they choose. Many of these institutions SELF-insure, so where is their freedom to provide the insurance they choose?
Again, NO ONE's PERSONAL choice is being impinged. Women may walk into PP anywhere and get bc. If their employer doesn't provide it, they may go work for someone who does. I repeat. This is an attack on the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the first amendment and designed to drive a wedge between parishioners and their Church. Nothing more. Birth Control IS NOT a Constitutional guarantee. THAT is the "core issue".
"One of the principal duties of the Federal Government is protection of its citizens through defense.
There is no guarantee of birth control for women. Sorry, if you want that, propose a constitutional amendment."
Sorry, but exactly how do nuclear weapons provide for "defense"?
How exactly did invading Iraq constitute "defense"?
Where do you find any support in the Constitution in support of a standing army?
If you review the history of the debate on the Constitution, the current standing Army which is a "liberal" idea of the Truman era was exactly what was feared by those writing the Constitution because they knew the Federal government would engage in wars of conquest and acquisition that had nothing to do with defense.
And the first enumerated power Congress lists both defense and general welfare and you can't claim that weapons of mass murder of civilians is consistent with the 1790 concept of defense while health care for all is inconsistent with the 1790 concept of general welfare.
(Congress authorized funding for a hospital in 1800 using the 1800 concept of hospitals - where the sick and dying were cared for which was the state of the art for the time in health care, so Congress in 1800 saw health care as within general welfare.)
ppbensel3 write:
"If an insurance company tried to put a clause in their coverage that said 'If you break a kosher diet, all coverage is void' I suspect it would go directly to court, and the insurance company would lose big."
And I suspect you are wrong. They would lose all their subscribers, but legally, they can craft their plans virtually any way they choose.
pp, I recommend you do the following. Take the phrase below, print it on a piece of paper, cut it out and tape it on your mirror so you see it every morning. Once it sinks in, your understanding of this issue will be improved.
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF BIRTH CONTROL
So, explain to me, how it is that Catholic institutions are using their "faith as a bludgeon on people outside the faith". So far, you have been unsuccessful.
No one is being denied the right to get birth control. In essence, the Catholic Church has proscribed it for centuries and women, Catholic and non-Catholic alike have used it anyway. The only quesiton is, who pays for it, and who dispenses it. And on that question, you don't have a leg to stand on.