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.
johnandere:
"NO employer is bound to provide ANY health insurance."
By the current law of the land, I think you're wrong. Also a worthy thing to discuss, since I'm sure you're against the (law) Affordable Health Care Act. But they are required to do exactly that, or face fines.
Which is, also, a choice. Had the church chosen to bar any coverage and just take their fine and go home, that would be their right under the law. I personally don't think that's a good choice, but I personally don't see why they're making as huge an issue as they are, because the underlying thing is about CHOICE.
Maybe they should preach more effectively, so everyone will simply choose what they believe is the "right choice". But I believe their own creed gives great weight to free will, redemption, and choosing to do the right thing while choosing to avoid the bad things (and asking forgiveness when they make the wrong choice).
In a personal snipe against the institution, it seems they are institutionally opposed to actually allowing choices where they aren't sure it will go their way. See surveys of practicing Catholic women, the vast majority of whom believe in birth control even if they do NOT support extramarital sex, abortion, or other 'immoral' behaviors. If their own people aren't choosing the 'right' choice, it appears their option is to try to not have choosing be an option and have it default to their desire.
Which circles me back to my belief the core issue is preserving the ability of an individual to make choices where possible. If there was a tangible cost to offering the choice, I could see reasonable debate. If there were direct conflicts, where allowing the choice somehow imposed violations of belief directly on the dissenters, I could see debate.
But the antagonists in this are using sophistry, not actual impact or action, to try to shape the argument away from that foundation.
johnandere wrote:'
" 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"."
There it is, nothing more really needs to be said if one has any respect at all for the Constitution. The presidents cutesy "wink wink" to silence the issue is ridiculous.
johnandere
"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."
Sure I do. Because the people paying for it aren't the Church, so why is the Church getting righteous about it? They aren't providing the birth control, they're at least one step removed if they comply with the mandate. They'd be supplying the mechanism that supplies the birth control, free of charge to Church or Institution or Employee. It isn't, and has never been, like they're being compelled to hand it out directly. They're being compelled to STAY OUT OF THE WAY and provide a channel (insurance) between the provider (doctor/pharmacy) and the client (the employee), funded by the channel (the insurance). Under a law that intends to provide insurance coverage for all.
But! I freely acknowledge that I'm not convincing you. And I'd be surprised if I was... since I can see that you're a person of strong conviction who has thought through an issue and chosen your stand.
My self-appointed task isn't to convince you. It's to rebut your statements with reason, for anyone reading who may not be decided to gain insight into an alternate point of view, and Make Their Own Choice. You have already chosen, and I applaud that you were in a position where you could freely choose. Be glad you're in America, there are a huge number of places in the world this would not be possible.
MIchael, if I were you, I would take your own advice and start by reviewing the Constitution itself, particularly Article 1, Section 8, the duties of Congress:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Provide for the common defense" allows a standing army. I'm not saying it's a good idea or a bad idea. I'm not saying that "defense" has been well "executed". On many of those points, we agree.
The "general welfare" clause, on the other hand, is the liberal's "get out of jail free card". To the liberal it means, "Congress can do anything it wants". If that is the case, why are the powers of the Congress even enumerated? And why does Article 1, Section 8, end with these words, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution THE FOREGOING POWERS." (my emphasis).
It makes me so sad and discouraged that we are having a debate about Birth control in this country...no wonder we are falling so far behind other countries in so many ways...
ppbensel3 wrote:
"By the current law of the land, I think you're wrong. Also a worthy thing to discuss, since I'm sure you're against the (law) Affordable Health Care Act. But they are required to do exactly that, or face fines."
Exactly true. I repeat, NO employer is bound to provide ANY health insurance.
However, as I said, many of these Catholic institutions, particularly hostpitals, are SELF insured. They do not insure through a traditional carrier. So their choice is: 1)provide service that we find morally objectionable, or 2) withhold insurance and lose our employees.
Some choice.
Interesting. And a JW physician denying patients transfusions? I would love to see it tried, as the resulting prior-consent paperwork nightmare, and the public furor which would follow, would illustrate to you better than I can just how fringe your position is. PLEASE campaign on that plank. I'm begging you.
Monte:
"...if one has any respect at all for the Constitution."
How about those clauses about promoting the general health and welfare of the nation?
How about another founding document, the declaration of Independence? Specifically the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The Constitution in particular is very bad about specifically menioning ANY tool or technology in explicit terms. If you read the Constitution in purely literal terms, a great many things that are taken for granted simply do not exist.
The Bill of Rights is chock full of things where specifics are left off, just because. You're guaranteed a right to bear arms (to form a militia,if I recall). It doesn't say pistol, rifle, assault rifle, missile, whatever. That detail stuff was left to the States, if they felt it was necessary (and over time, it definitely was).
Do you deny that effective contraception (in the form of "The Pill" even if you exclude other options) has given women options that didn't exist prior to its invention, that allow them to better pursue their own happiness, live healthier lives, and be free to choose if they want to exercise the option or not?
Do you deny that due to the realities of existing in this world, that contraception has a real-world cost that does indeed have to be paid by someone, and that a significant portion of women do not as a given have the means to purchase this on their own?
Do you deny that, per at least some large subset of insurance companies, those same companies are willing to wholly cover the costs involved in contraception, because, it is cheaper in purely secular healthcare terms to prevent a pregnancy than the alternative?
The Church itself does not appear to be arguing any of these points. Their contention is they believe the use of contraceptives is wrong, is against the tenants of the faith, and so should not be required to in any way assist in its use or adoption.
What johnandere is missing is that insurance companies *want to provide birth control*. It's much cheaper for them than abortion, complications from pregnancy or even child birth, not to mention providing health care to a newborn or minor. Their bottom line is enhanced by helping women. Win/win.
OK, so what's the problem with their providing birth control? The hospitals, universities, etc run by Catholics don't want to provide it. Do they have a *constitutional* right to object: no. They are not churches. They are businesses. If they find that they can't in good conscience run these businesses, they should stop running them.
johnandere is fond of talking about constitutional rights, so maybe he can show me in the constitution where the words "hospital" and "university" are in the first amendment?
Finally, does the government have the right to tell insurance providers what they must offer (e.g., birth control, care for pre-existing conditions, etc.)? Yes, that is the law. You may not like the law, but it is the law. You really need to pin your hopes on the Supreme Court. If they strike down the provisions of the ACA that stipulate what can, must be covered, then your argument will have weight. Until then, the law has been passed and is in effect.
pphensel3 wrote:
"Because the people paying for it aren't the Church, so why is the Church getting righteous about it? "
Sure they are. First, self insurers absolutely are. But other institutions are as well. Do you think that insurance companies are just going to "eat" the additional costs? - whether they support bc or not (which many do), the mandate will cost money. No. They're going to roll the additional cost into the premiums of institutions that refuse to pay and dispense bc.
"But! I freely acknowledge that I'm not convincing you. "
Not so far.
"My self-appointed task isn't to convince you. It's to rebut your statements with reason".
Sorry, not seeing that being done effectively either.
I take you back to one of my original points. There is no Constitutional guarantee of birth control. And when SCOTUS agrees as well that the individual mandate is unconstitutional later this summer, ACA will fall apart, we can put this nightmare behind us, and move on to solutions that will actually improve the nation's health care issues.
"wpavlik wrote:
Interesting. And a JW physician denying patients transfusions? I would love to see it tried, as the resulting prior-consent paperwork nightmare, and the public furor which would follow, would illustrate to you better than I can just how fringe your position is."
Issues come up around things like this periodically. I believe the last one I can point to I KNOW about, was doctors refusing to perform executions by lethal injection.
They were allowed to say no.
The state found doctors who did not say no.
I imagine in the hypothetical I gave, if the JV doctor said it was against his faith, he'd be allowed to not do it. Another doctor would be tasked with doing it anyway, since it was medically necessary and desired by the patient. And the hospital the JV doctor worked for may consider terminating the doctor. Depending on the state, they wouldn't even have to give a reason why.
ppbensel3 wrote:
"How about those clauses about promoting the general health ... of the nation?"
Which one was that again?!!!!
ppbensel3 wrote:
Monte:
"...if one has any respect at all for the Constitution."
"How about those clauses about promoting the general health and welfare of the nation?"
Take the advice from johnandre about reading and understanding the constitution. Look into the meaning of the words 'general health and welfare" at the time the constitution was written and you will have your answer.
I have to head out, though this has been entertaining.
Last thing I have time for:
"There is no Constitutional guarantee of birth control."
There is no Constitutional guarantee of "Freedom to type whatever you want". There is a Constitutional guarantee of "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of the press", neither of which literally cover you.
"Article the third [Amendment I]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"
You're not speaking right now, you're doing something that the founders could never have foreseen. Thankfully, the lawful government understands that as things change, the law of the land will need to evolve, so your Freedom of Speech has been extended to a general Freedom of Expression Through Whatever Medium You Find.
Thanks for staying civil, if there was any temptation otherwise.
Out.
Re: "The Pill" is not just a contraceptive
PLEASE be advised and remind your audience and guests that "the pill" is prescribed by doctors to patients for non-contraceptive treatment of medical conditions as well as for it's more common use.
Employers who seek to dominate the doctor/patient relationship will harm many women in addition to those seeking contraception.
Hormone therapy can literally make it possible to work outside the home.
"What johnandere is missing is that insurance companies *want to provide birth control*."
Excellent points and we were typing them at the same time.
But Catholic institutions will be forced to pay for them in the form of higher premiums.
"johnandere is fond of talking about constitutional rights, so maybe he can show me in the constitution where the words "hospital" and "university" are in the first amendment? "
These are sponsored by the churches and go to the clause that says, "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" (the part that the left leaves out in favor of the "establishment" clause).
"OK, so what's the problem with their providing birth control? The hospitals, universities, etc run by Catholics don't want to provide it. Do they have a *constitutional* right to object: no. They are not churches. They are businesses. If they find that they can't in good conscience run these businesses, they should stop running them. "
Yeah, that's what we want ... fewer hostpitals, fewer universities, fewer food banks ... fewer church-run organizations in general ... that way, the STATE can run them instead! Applause, cwmc, at least ya got it out there on the table!
" Look into the meaning of the words 'general health and welfare" at the time the constitution was written and you will have your answer."
That's the point, monte. The word "health" is nowhere to be found. It's part of that "living, breathing" Constitution that the left likes to claim can mean anything they want it to mean.
"There is no Constitutional guarantee of "Freedom to type whatever you want"."
That depends on your definition of "speech" and "press", but you make a good point. There is no mandate for an Air Force either, yet we have one, because it serves the general welfare to do so.
My biggest problem with health care and entitlements is that they actually fly in the face of the "general welfare" clause - or stretch it so horribly that it's not even recognizable. ppbensel3, I encourage you to consider the thoughts at the link below which I think gets at the heart of the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
http://ecgbertsview.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00:00:00-...
Have a good one.
"It's part of that "living, breathing" Constitution that the left likes to claim can mean anything they want it to mean".
Your a fine debater johnandere. The trouble we have here is we have to start from scratch every week. My knowledge and understanding of the constitution has grown tremendously since I have been involved here and I'm grateful for it.
johnandere wrote: "However, as I said, many of these Catholic institutions, particularly hostpitals, are SELF insured. They do not insure through a traditional carrier. So their choice is: 1)provide service that we find morally objectionable, or 2) withhold insurance and lose our employees."
Yes it is "some choice," but what of it? I have a choice of paying income taxes or going to prison. That's also some choice and it would be great if I could design a third choice of my liking. That's not how the world works.
I do applaud you. Most of the commentary talks about Catholic employers being forced to provide contraceptives. They aren't being forced to do this, as you correctly note. They are being forced to make a hard choice. But, who said being a bishop was supposed to be easy?
"The trouble we have here is we have to start from scratch every week. "
Thanks for that one, monte. It made me laugh out loud!
Hammer ... meet nail head!
"Your a fine debater johnandere. "
Coming from you, that is high praise, monte. I applaud every Conservative here that runs the gauntlet each week. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
@ johnandere: You have repeated several times that women can go to Planned Parenthood & get contraceptives for free. You are wrong. Here in Utah, this is what you will find on the PP website:
"Prices and Payment Information
Please contact this health center for birth control services pricing information.
Payment is expected at time of service unless other arrangements have been previously made.
Some birth control services may be covered by your insurance. If you want to use your insurance, please be sure to bring in your insurance information at the time of your visit."
It's possible that condoms are free, but I can tell you that's NOT the kind of birth control that allows women to keep themselves protected from pregnancy. FYI, rapists really won't use them. And I speak from experience. Luckily, the morning-after pill can be used then. That is, if certain religious believers are prevented from legislating their religious views on when life starts on the rest of us.
It appears that the four year old girl (and the combined listenership of the Rush Limbaugh Show, Fox News, etc...) misunderstood what happened.
http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/lunch-52587-barnes-child.html
Doesn't it seem that, so often, we read things that flatter our prejudices, and we just swallow them whole, without even a moment of skepticism?
Ah, conservatives!
I am really struggling with what it means to be a "conservative" In February 2012 it seems to be a word looking for a definition when it should be a set of firm priciples that can be identified in a single word. Rick Santorum has been identified as the "true conservative" in the primaries, but his record and statements say otherwise.
If Ronald Reagan is the measure of a good conservative and holds these beliefs, what does this say about Santorum and his accepted title of the "true conservative".
Ronald Reagan
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is".
Rick Santorum
"I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.’
Oboe Eobo, looked at your link, I think your the one that missed the point.
Where is tax exempt status for churches in the Constitution? They fund politics more than charity.Shame on them !
UtahOwl wrote:
"@ johnandere: You have repeated several times that women can go to Planned Parenthood & get contraceptives for free."
False. I never said it. I said that contraception is available through PP - go back and read the posts - and that is a fact - up to and including abortion.
I did not say it was free. It could be. If liberals and liberal causes who support the idea that women should have all the bc they need, they can contribute to PP and provide that service. But like everything else, liberals only want to do these things with OPM - even at the expense of the principles of the Church.
Again (broken record, broken record, broken record ...) There is no Constitutional guarantee to birth control. But there is a Constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. In forcing religious institutions to provide birth control for their employees whether directly or through insurance premiums, the state is in violation of the free exercise clause.
I don't know how to put it any planer than that.
1. The Catholic Church should mind its business and quit asserting itself moral agent for its employees. Employees are paid money and benefits for their work. They are entitled to decide for themselves and begs the question why the church sees fit to assert its moral oversight over only contraception. Their employees(Catholic or not) are probably breaking many commandments so I'm not swayed by their need to uphold their consciences.Their employees birth control is NOT SPONSORED. The media should call them on that blatant misuse of the word.
2. Religous freedom should apply strictly to activities concerning religous practice not to any activity performed by a religous based entity. Or perhaps we should let the church pay its employees with those little white wafers.
Patsy Nomore wrote:
"Where is tax exempt status for churches in the Constitution? "
Look there, Patsy, it's right next to that guarantee of birth control.
waveydab wrote:
"Religous freedom should apply strictly to activities concerning religous practice not to any activity performed by a religous based entity."
So if I want to walk into my local mosque-sponsored school eating a ham sandwich, the state should protect my right to do so?
Now, let's put this one to bed, shall we? A religious, church (or mosque or synagogue) -sponsored institution, whether a school, hospital, or food bank, represents, in intitutional form the tenets of its adherents. It's because of them and on behalf of them that the institution deserves protection by the state, based on the first amendment.