Do Republicans think this will be a winning issue for them?
Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.
“If we end up having to try to overcome the President’s opposition by legislation, of course I’d be happy to support it, and intend to support it,†McConnell said. “We’ll be voting on that in the Senate and you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible.†…
…The push indicates either that Republicans believe there’s still an opportunity to score political points against Obama, or that they’ve simply calculated they cannot back down now. Regardless, the success of the strategy now rests on the gamble that Republicans will be able to continue framing the issue as one over religious liberty and not contraception, despite the new accommodation Obama carved out.
I know we’re talking about crazy people, but I can’t see how even Mitch McConnell thinks this is going to help the GOP.
OY!
Letme get this straight – ANY employer can get to determine whether or not they deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans.
The local Jiffy-Lube owner, the local landscaping company owner, the local bar owner, THEY ALL get to decide that.
What about the back-alley abortionist’s, after these people make choice illegal?
So, it’s the person/people, or corporation, who employs you that gets to determine if your wife can take “The Pill,” or get some other contraceptive help without paying for it yourselves.
THEY get to decide whether you can enjoy schtupping, or have to pay to prevent having another mouth to feed – of else have another mouth to feed.
Republicans:
“We need to get government out of our health care, AND BACK INTO OUR BEDROOMS WHERE IT BELONGS!!!”
Yes, please run on that!
Also too – so, a company run by women, who’s religion is based on a Goddess, should also have the right to ask that their health care company not cover the Viagra, or some other ‘quicker-pecker-upper’ that their husband needs get it up for them – or, more likely, to lure a new wife, ala Gingrich?
Birth control, based on religious beliefs.
Oh, yes, THAT’S a winner!
I used to ask if they really believed their own bullsh*t, or just used that bullsh*t to win elections.
Well, it seems that they really DO believe their own bullsh*t.
They haven’t just “jumped the shark” on this one – they’ve ‘humped the alligator.’
If you’re a “moderate,” or “independent,” you now know the true face of Republicans. It is the face of uncaring, cruel, misogyny, in a quest for power and a ‘thousand year right-wing Reich.’
And if you don’t, you’re not “moderates,” or “independents,” but idiots. Or really Conservatives (but, I repeat myself…).
My comment disappeared?
They think O will cave. Many would DADT was a bit of a tactical failure for Clinton. They know if O caves, they score a “victory” they could not have had otherwise and make O look weak.
I just remembered – I can’t spell it out, I have to write something like Vi*gera.
gulag..I had a comment about the effects of zero gravity on Newt’s proposed moon colony and the use of that particular drug just to illustrate some of the potential benefits of moon colonization. But it got swallowed up by the cosmos just like yours did.
Oh well, what are you going to do?
Usually, people complain about some of my word-turds, and I have to clean-up and apologize.
That one, at least, is safely hidden somewhere in the ethernet.
Once more, McConnell proves the Republicans don’t live in the real world the rest of us inhabit.
McConnell’s statement just shows how the Republicans hate women.
Check out this layered map in today’s NYT for an idea of areas where Mitch could be helpful:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us
The R’s offer daily proof that they oppose getting off even more than they oppose getting jobs!
I have only two words for Mitch McConnell – the second word is ‘You’, and the first word is ‘Thank’. That’s not my usual salutation for neanderthal republicans, but I have high hopes that with the economy very slowly on the mend, you and your buddies in the House will make more public declarations that employers should feel free to jam their religious opinions down the throats of the female staff. As I have said before, the 2012 election is more about the Congressional races than the White House. With a bit more foolishness like this from the GOP in the next few months, the House and Senate will be in play. For this you have my gratitude, Bitch… I mean Mitch… typo.
Speaking of foolishness, the tax cut issue has to be decided in the next 10 days or so. The TP crowd in the House, especially right after CPAC will want to kill the tax cuts entirely. Maybe, the democrats will goad them into crossing that line. Here’s what will be fun to watch. Boehner and Cantor. The Speaker knows that the GOP will take heat in November for obstructionism if they fail to pass the tax cut. To get ‘er done, Boehner mahem have to form an alliance with House democrats, and if that happens, Cantor (who controls the Tea Party in the House) will stab JB and try to take the Speaker’s job. All the democrats need to do is hold their ground – insist that the tax cuts be financed with a combination of a millionaires tax, close tax loopholes and end corporate welfare. Then stand back and let the mustards Self-destruct.
My spellchecker thought ‘mustard’ was a better word than what I typed – and I will take it since it got past the spam filter in edited form
But fascism, Adams warned, would
not return wearing swastikas and brown shirts.
Its ideological inheritors would cloak themselves
in the language of the Bible; they would
come carrying crosses and chanting the Pledge
of Allegiance.
I think we knew this but I don’t think we expected them to douse themselves in gasoline and then light a match.
Way to go, Mitch; that’ll learn ’em.
A war on women’s reproductive rights and health.
I think Bonnie is onto something.
‘Gulag; “quicker pecker upper”?
Priceless!
The Republicans are good at doubling-down; but the trouble with doubling-down is that eventually you lose a bet that you can’t cover.
Paradoctor, if there was a like button I would’ve clicked it.
Doubling down is like a vow of ideological purity. It’s no longer about widening the scope of inclusion but rather keeping the faithful in line. I’m expecting them to become blood blothers and sisters next and pass out Bowie knives at the GOP convention for that purpose.
They egg one another on with this form of conservatively extreme one-upmanship…each vying to be the most conservative. This goes back to Goldwater who claimed at the GOP convention that “Extremism in the name of liberty is no vice” (originally from Marcus Tullius Cicero). It’s a badge of honor to be the most extreme and they keep trying to best one another that way. It’s the way they prove themselves to be a member in good standing. It has nothing to do with rationally connecting with others. It’s a political form of the rapture.
Mitch McConnell is a boil on humanity’s ass
This is why the long primary will be bad for them; they are trying to one-up one another in ideological purity rather than selling themselves to the American people.
Apparently, they think this will score points with and energize their base, and perhaps peel some Catholics away from the Dems. Someone needs to tell Mitch that the Catholic rank-and-file, by a large margin, ignore the church’s doctrine on this issue.
Also too – and slightly OT, but not too much:
Hint to the Catholic Church – about the term “lay priest” – you might want to refrain from using if for a couple of centuries.
Also too: “laity” – people might get the wrong idea.
Who did the “lay priests” lay?
Why, the laity, of course.
See?
Here’s my idea of a religious exemption: employers have to provide the standard coverage, with contraception included, and they also can notify their employees of what their religion says about using it. And then they have to let their employees alone to decide whether to use that coverage or not, as their own religion and conscience dictate.
If providing the health coverage is somehow wrong, because it enables the employee to “sin” by using contraception, why isn’t providing a salary wrong also? Enabling the employee to pay for a bedroom where he does the nasty deed seems just as morally questionable. Really isn’t it the employee’s moral choice? I don’t see how the “bad” choices of employees have anything to do with the employer at all.
The alleged moral reasoning here is simplistic and bogus. The employers aren’t buying the contraception, the employee is. Wouldn’t an employee having the coverage and choosing not to use it be the more “moral” choice in a Catholic theology? Resisting temptation and choosing to avoid sin?
Besides, if we make a policy for the Bishops, what about the Christian Scientists? Do they get to have insurance that only covers bible study? Or the Jehovah’s Witnesses only cover plans without blood transfusion?
Mitch McConnell is the Senate minority leader. This is about Senate elections. There is no way the Blunt Amendment will even get voted on in the Senate, much less get a veto from the President. So what are the political drivers? TPM has an article about the ‘enthusiasm gap’. Other pundits have noted the voter turnout for the GOP is way down. More significantly, Romney, the Anointed One, has ONLY won in states where turnout is VERY low, compared to 2008 numbers. On those occasions where turnout was high, Romney got his ass whumped.
So let’s speculate. It’s possible the absent segment of the GOP faithful is the evangelicals. I have no hard numbers. But the hot-button issue for evangelicals is abortion and Mitt is a Mormon who previously supported choice. Overall, Mitt is perceived as a fiscal conservative whose loyalty is to the rich, not evangelicals.
The hot-button issue for the rich besides taxes, is Health Care. Business will either provide ‘real’ insurance or pay if they decline to provide it. Employees who can’t afford insurance will get subsidies, and the rich know their taxes will provide the subsidy. 2012 is Now-or-Never for AHC. ONCE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS ESTABLISHED IT WILL NOT GO AWAY. Bottom line – The GOP is going after AHC with guns blazing and the concerns of social conservatives are being ignored by the establishment while the vote of evangelicals is presumed safe.
Evangelicals are underwhelmed and this threatens Congressional races if Romney Apathy sets in. The GOP is trying to motivate evangelicals to hate AHC like they hate Planned Parenthood. Because AHC is what’s in play this election IF the GOP can get the WH and a supermajority in the Senate. Neither one will happen if evangelicals stay home. My guess is that Mitch is watching turnout numbers in the primaries more closely than the results as a barometer of turnout in November. And he is panicked.
I’m thinking that the wins of Santorum (Mr. Ban Birth Control even for married couples) is making this behavior seem acceptable. I’m proud that I know a few 1% (well, probably 5%), who are donating so much of their saved tax dollars (taxes being for the poor, of course) to Planned Parenthood to fund not just women’s health care, but also abortion.
Clearly, this is a product of the (correct) GOP observation that there is literally nothing that they can say that will assure that the NEXT outrage they make up will be taken seriously. They think this will all be forgotten (IOW, buried under the next phony outrage) by November, and they may be right.
Don’t be silly. Those religions don’t count. This is a pure political move by lawyered-up power players who call themselves religious but simply want to run the country without getting elected to anything. Any connection between the views of the US Catholic Bishops and anything expressed in the Gospels is purely coincidental and wil probably be erased quickly.
I had company supplied insurance at one time and over the years the company was looking for ways to cuts expenses. One such way was me cutting out pregnancy coverage. The need was no longer relevant, so it was omitted in the next billing.
Can’t the same idea be done in regards to contraceptives? That is, the employee having the right to accept the provision or not?
Chris — the employee can just not use the benefit, of course, but part of the reason we’re arguing about this is that the administration wants certain preventive medical things covered so that people will take advantage of the benefit and get preventive care that will (in theory) reduce the need for more medical care down the road. Higher use of birth control correlates to fewer pregnancies, especially unwanted ones. So this saves money for everyone.
Now, let’s think about how insurance is supposed to work. Insurance works by pooling risk. Ideally everybody — old, young, sick, healthy, men, women — all get into the same pool. You want as many healthy people as possible in the pool, because they take out less money than they put in. The more young and healthy people in the pool, the lower the premiums for everybody. Conversely, if only sick people bought insurance, the premiums would be brutally expensive because everyone in the pool would be taking a lot of money out.
If the only people who purchase maternity insurance are people who expect to have a baby, there wouldn’t be maternity insurance. So maybe eliminating maternity benefits saved you a few bucks, but if everyone did that, the benefit would be too expensive for people who do need it.
For years some on the Right have argued that health insurance would be less expensive if healthy and sick people were in separate pools. Yes, healthy people would pay lower premiums, but then sick people would pay higher premiums. Sorry, that does not sound like a solution. It’s just shifting cost around.
One of the things the President is trying to do through the Affordable Care Act is to get broad medical coverage for as many people as possible. This should make the overall health care system less expensive for a lot of reasons I don’t have time to explain. Maybe somebody could link to something that explains it. But the point is that it doesn’t just shift cost around; it makes the whole system less expensive overall.
Maybe I didn’t clarify my point properly. The idea is for the insurance to include contraception, but 1) if the guy already had a vasectomy–or the woman had a hysterectomy–why have it on one’s plan? or 2) if they were still fertile ;), and just perchance they are strict Catholics they can choose to not have that coverage. This way the choice becomes the patient’s and it’s their “sin” if they choose to retain it. This way the church allows the practice of “free will.”
It seems to meet the needs of both the government and the teachings of the church, because in verses from Romans: 13 states that governments are a result of God’s creation and every people is obligated to obey the government. They don’t have to agree with it, but the inclusion of the provision puts the onus on the employee.
Chris — the issue is whether a Catholic employer should be required to provide contraception benefits for any employees. Whether all employees need or want it is not relevant.
Which is why I pointed out the Romans verses.
The dots still aren’t connecting.
xx – Bang Head Here
Chris – To bring you up to date on current events,
1) The Catholic Church is opposed to Birth Control.
2) The Health Care law requires at a minimum, employers offer birth control w/ no deductible.
3) The Church wants a blanket exemption even where they employ non-catholics
4) the GOP is sponsoring legislation which would allow ANY employer to opt out of offering ANY birth control.
5) The cost of birth control is minimal, compared to the cost of pregnancy or abortion.
6) The cost to the taxpayer of supporting children born into poverty makes voluntary birth control a public issue.
7) The ideal is to have birth control available to all for free in the hole you will have fewer surprise pregnancies, fewer abortions, and a more stable family environment for more people.
8)The means to the ideal is that everybody has insurance w/ free birth control included and everybody pays a little because in the end, everyone benefits.
Making it optional for employers to offer, or optional for employees with an attached fee, makes it likely that the people who SHOULD be using birth control and will benefit MOST will get financially squeezed into compromising family planning out of their budget. That costs us all.
Chris, Let’s say you go to the Outback for dinner, and you are an observant Jew, and there is pork on the menu, that don’t mean you gotta eat the pork,
have some nice brisket ! And a bloomin’ onion or two.
Pretty simple.
And just because they serve pork it doesn’t mean they have declared war on the Jewish people.
My brain is aching……..
The dots still aren’t connecting.
That’s because in scripture dots don’t connect.
Let me preface my “dots” with my understanding of how things will be when the healthcare reform goes into full effect. I believe while employers may provide insurance, there may always exist the possibility of employee contributions to their healthcare. (If this is not the case, then it doesn’t matter). But if a mutual cost savings can be found, why is it wrong to opt out of a provision that serves no purpose for you? Would you insist on your company’s insurance to cover male enhancement drugs for you for the pool’s sake? (Oh wait, poor comparison, but I think you get my point).
My first dot begins with the Romans:13 verses where it states that governments exist because of God and they are to be obeyed. To disobey would be a sin. If the government says to include contraceptives in their insurance plans, and if the church is to be true to its teachings, they then should obey. (set aside the fact that many religions pick and choose what verses they choose to promote their ideas).
The next dot gives us insurance that covers contraceptives.
A dot that shouldn’t be: It seems the church is taking the argument of transitive properties as if they themselves are promoting contraceptive use.
Now here’s that dot that the church is connecting:
They are making the issue the same as monks that make a brandy. So, if an individual performs the sin of getting drunk from the brandy, we have to ask, are the monks just as guilty of that sin?
They missed this dot:
They seem to forget that the church preaches “free will” and therefore the sin falls on the one who chooses contraceptives.
The other point (maybe a dot) is that employees of the church, not the church, should be given the option of having that option in their insurance. I’m saying that it isn’t the prerogative of the church, but rather the individual. The pool still exists, but the reality of the situation is that some people either don’t need contraceptives or don’t want them for personal reasons. Otherwise, money is being spent for a provision that isn’t needed. This is by no means a blanket statement to not cover contraceptives for everybody. Quite the opposite, I’m just saying the choice should exist for the employee if they want it or not.
Another dot being injected into this debate, but not by me:
Making an argument about abortion or the cost of pregnancy is not relevant because without a womb, you ain’t getting pregnant. If that changes, then associated costs are the least of my concerns, ’cause I’m thinking I’ll be saying hello to the Anti-Christ.
Chris —
I’ve already explained why that doesn’t work. You paying less means someone else has to pay more. And, anyway, the way it would work out is that you should have to pay higher premiums for opting out of a contraceptive benefit, since experience shows providing contraception as a benefit saves everybody a ton of money.
That’s kind of where we are now. The plan is that if the church isn’t willing to include contraception in their benefit package, the insurance company will provide it gratis to the employees who want it. Keep up.
The theological parts of your argument should be emailed to the bishops; I’m not interested.
erinyes….you know if he was a really observant jew he’d go to Cody’s roadhouse for a better cut of meat at a bargain compared to what Outback would charge.
Swami, that’s what is great about America.
We have the freedom to choose between Outback and Cody’s.
And the free market clearly killed Sam Seltzer’s house O’ beef.
And I’m now sure there is a God because Golden Feedlot has a chocolate fountain!
I can just stand there and dip my finger in flowing chocolate, then lick it off over and over again……..
The market and the freedom and liberty granted by God and our founding fathers.
(How come nobody talks about the founding mothers?)
Is this off topic? No mention is ever made of those handy, dandy, cheap, safe ‘contraceptives’ available to the male population. Has the Church ever considered that even though her ‘supply’ is cut off, his ‘supply’ hasn’t been? That alone should get men to join women in their fight to have free access to their contraceptives.
(Somehow, I think Catholic men, in particular, would be just a tad pissed if forced to ‘use’ the handy-dandies by their Church – remembering that when abortion was illegal the majority of women getting them were Catholic women.)
Forgot to mention that the majority of women were married Catholic women.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen a political party do. I’m not really surprised that they are doubling down on the culture war issues, because if the economy continues to improve, that’s all they’ll have to run on, but the Blunt Amendment is a serious departure from the party’s intended message.
It’s one thing to want to ban birth control; it’s another to push for a company’s right to determine what health care you can and can’t have access to for any “moral” reasons whatsoever.
The only moral imperative most companies recognize is padding the bottom line. That being the case, I would argue that more companies are likely to use the Blunt Amendment to slash coverage for pre-natal care, childbirth, and maternity leave than they are to eliminate it for birth control. Abortion will always be cheaper than paying for all of that. There are still a lot of older women out there who remember the days when you could be fired from a job for getting pregnant or having a baby. At one point, stewardesses could be fired for even getting married. All a company will need to do under the Blunt Amendment to order a woman to have an abortion is make a moral case that a woman has had too many children already (and for certain races, one is probably too many), or that she will not be able to juggle motherhood and her job.
I can see how some conservatives would be cheering this, but it isn’t just inconsistent with the pro-life arguments that are supposedly justifying it, but it is actually fundamentally opposed to them. The Blunt Amendment might be more accurately called the “Have an abortion or be fired” law.
I suppose the GOP is thinking that the culture war stuff is good for getting the pro-lifers out to the ballot box, but this the worst example of poor message disclipline I’ve ever seen. Even fairly committed Republicans won’t be able to avoid hearing about the bill’s other consequences before long. The GOP has basically found a way to highlight the difference between being pro-life and anti-choice, something liberals have never entirely succeeded at, and they’ve produced a bill that eradicates a woman’s right to choose without protecting the unborn at all. It’s a failure on every level.
“the insurance company will provide it gratis to the employees who want it.”
It’s not gratis. Somebody’s paying for it. Otherwise why would you keep insisting that somebody must pay for something they will never use?
It’s actually less expensive to the insurance companies to provide contraception benefits at cost than to pay out benefits for maternity and infant care. All kinds of studies have shown that every dollar spent handing out free birth control saves several dollars in other costs down the road. So it shouldn’t be a problem for the insurance companies to provide contraception at cost.
Dude, that’s how insurance works. Your premiums pay for lots of stuff you will never use. If we only paid for the medical care we use, there would be no insurance.
Chris;
“insisting that somebody pay for something they will never use”
I pay for stuff daily that I’ll never use. So do you.
I’ll never set foot on the international space station, never fly on a military jet,never go into that shiny new high school down the street, never set foot in that new court house (hopefully!) ditto for food stamps.
Besides, it’s a whole lot cheaper to provide birth control than to raise children.
The purpose of insurance, as I understand it, is to cover things that you may need, but hope not to use. I didn’t realize that men need coverage for mammograms and women need coverage for prostate cancer, or to keep it more gender, and topic relevant, require a sterile individual to pay for contraception coverage. So I guess I had this whole insurance thing misunderstood. It is in fact a one size fits all, and you aren’t allowed to reduce your costs by eliminating items you literally will never use.
chris — the issue of health insurance is very complicated, and the fact is that the private health insurance model doesn’t really work to cover health care. But as much as it does work, it’s more fair and cost-effective across the board to offer everyone a standard package. Otherwise women end up paying much higher premiums than men, since we have more gender-specific health care needs than men. However, men are much more likely to get beaten up in bar fights, so I suppose it evens out.
As far as contraception benefits are concerned, it wouldn’t save anyone anything if some people opted out. It’s not worth the extra paperwork.
Chris – Do you pay property taxes? (Everyone does – directly or indirectly through rent.) You are paying for public schools, though you don’t go. Most of us on Mahablog (by average age estimates) have grown kids. But we still pay for schools. Should people be able to ‘opt out’ of paying for schools or libraries? I just looked at my tax statement – my ANNUAL tax bill for county schools is only $108.02 because the cost is distributed. I will be paying $9 per month all my life, but good schools benefit everyone.
How can contraceptives for women ever benefit a guy? Ask the guy who has to pay child support for a fling that also cost him his marriage. The birth control that wasn’t there along with the self-control that wasn’t there bankrupted him completely. But it’s even money that this guy will never stumble onto the fact that family planning, contraception & sex education are the ONLY EFFECTIVE way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I am going to fight any effort to make it harder for kids to learn about the biology and psychology of sex. I am going to fight any effort to make contraception more expensive and less accessible. Low cost and easy access to contraception is the formula to make abortion rare. It should be a no-brainer for liberals and conservatives.