Shifting Sands in the Contraception Debate
I thought these comments from the chief counsel for the USCCB were interesting, and suggest that the bishops are, as Grant suggested below, not going to be satisfied with a Hawaii-type compromise, or even with a total exemption (without conditions) for Catholic institutions:
The White House is “all talk, no action” on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,” Picarello said. “We’re not going to do anything until this is fixed.”
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.”
“If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate,” Picarello said.
Proposed congressional action on the issue is similar in its apparent intention to extend the exemptions debate well beyond the domain of religious institutions. According to this report, the Rubio/Manchin proposal in the Senate would allow any employer (and not just religious institutions) to avoid having to provide contraceptive coverage by citing religious objections.
This strikes me as the logical extension of the arguments that some have made on behalf of allowing Catholic institutions to obtain an extension. If forcing them to pay into an insurance fund that covers contraception violates their religious conscience, I’m not sure why a private Catholic employer who accepts the Church’s position on contraception and on the impermissibility (but see Madison, Wis.) of paying into such a fund is differently situated in some fundamental way. Now, the law frequently distinguishes between religious institutions and private citizens (e.g., religious institutions that own property are allowed by the Fair Housing Act to discriminate in the housing market on the basis of religion, whereas other private owners are not), so I’m not saying that one cannot, as a practical matter, make the distinction. But the argument from religious conscience has a tendency to take on a life of its own.
Hair splitting, Eduardo. Meaningless to anyone but a lawyer. I suppose hairs and babies alike routinely get split multiple ways in the political process, but it’s essentially word games. So long as everyone gets to save face, it probably matters little.
Clearly, there’s no such thing as a pure Catholic position, any more than there is a pure progressive or “liberal” position. It’s all shades of unacceptable. Something workable will emerge from the sausage grinder. We’ll just have to wait, then hold our noses.
As a voter and a Catholic, I am currently on the “bishops side” of this debate. If the exemptions were extended to all employers- and I understand the logic behind arguing for that broader exemption- in that case I would have to switch sides and go with the administration.
Two important factors, I think, are enforceability and, also, balancing of rights. I do believe all women should have access to affordable, effective contraceptives. And I believe if we can achieve that goal while making reasonable accommodations for employers’ religious beliefs, we should. But if we can’t reconcile the two, for me the public policy goal of access to contraception trumps any employers rights not to pay for it.
What has me so ticked off about the Administration’s new rule, is that we could so easily achieve the policy goal without having to erode the religious exemption, so why go there?
But while exempting religious institutions doesn’t pose any great challenge, extending conscience exemptions to all employers does: it would be difficult to determine who is legitimately entitled to the exemption and who is not; who is just using “conscience” as an excuse to not pay for benefits. A more expansive exemption would undermine the policy goal of universal access to contraceptives, so I would oppose it.
This issue has made me seriously wonder for the first time about our system of using employers has the primary vehicle for paying for health insurance. If these benefits are so important, the government should pay for them directly. Maybe that’s what we should all be advocating for, rather than carve outs.
Irene, do you mean all women, or just poor women? Surely, middle-class and working-class people can afford to pay for their own pills? Or do you believe that “free” access to contraceptive devices or pills (“free” in quotes because, of course, nothing is free) has become a social right, like potable water, fire protection, safe streets, and good roads?
I’m not being sarcastic. I really don’t have a good handle on what people believe they’re entitled to these days.
@Irene Baldwin (2/10,5:05 am) Thanks for your thoughtful and nuanced comment. Among other things, it exemplifies what some of the public opinion polling on this issue suggests: if the issue is defined as whether women should have access to contraceptives, the bishops and their allies end up on the losing side, politically speaking.
On a different note, here’s some data that may help explain why that’s so. I got this from the “Doctors For America” website (http://act.drsforamerica.org/sign/contraception_petition/#.TzM_luOXQqT):
*Over 11 million American women aged 15-44 use oral contraceptives.
*58% use contraception at least in part for reasons other than family planning (e.g., menstrual pain and regulation, acne, endometriosis).
David- I meant all women. My comment said “affordable” which is different than “free”. This would be a topic for a different thread, but it means doing something about the retail cost of the pill for self-pays; there’s no reason Loestrin should sell for $1,000 a year here when it goes for a fraction of that in Canada. Why does it cost more than $10 or $20 a month anyway? If it were priced fairly, and were OTC,, you wouldn’t need insurance to cover it all.
But “affordable” also means providing further subsidies where needed: yes, it should be free for poor people, and there should be a reduced price for moderate-income people.
Irene, watch this: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/46321122#null
I did not realize that part of the problem is the sheer expense of contraception in the USA.
It is paradoxical to defend the right of women to contraceptives and defend the right of men to block their exercise of that right.
I am sure that the vast majority of the men who have come out frothing on the bishops’ behalf have either used condoms themselves or have had their sexual partners use contraceptives.
Here’s some more evidence to support the “this-is-nothing-new-why-the-big-freakout” side of this multi-faceted debate: http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law
Nick Baumann writes, “In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don’t offer prescription coverage or don’t offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC’s interpretation of the law, you can’t offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
“It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles,” a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. “All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It’s a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial.”"
Unless I’m missing something, the major changes in the new HHS regulations are 1) small employers (those with fewer than 15 employees) would now be covered, and 2) co-pays would be banned.
I’m afraid that some people in the USCCB have been leading them astray in the wrong political game. We will see claim X met with Y, but then it will be said “that’s not good enough” even though it meets the original complaint. Will the Obama administration’s decision to work for a compromise (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/obama-birth-control_n_1267677.html?ncid=webmail1 ) be good enough? Why is it that he does what others have done before him (like Bush) he is the one always given extreme demonized rhetoric? There seems to be a political opportunist manipulating the USCCB, and I am quite sure most of us know who and where it is (having seen him work and change things around before during the health care debates).
Religious conscience “took a life of its own” 20 years ago when President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (not to mention, for 200 years until 1990). RFRA contains no clause saying that only “church” entities or persons may claim a burden on religious beliefs, and not businesses. It contains no clause saying religious beliefs can be burdened by requiring believers to refer people to the things they object to doing. Any “accomodation” less than a universal exemption is not merely “unacceptable” according to the USCCB, it is President Obama committing an illegal action under RFRA. Of course the USCCB has made this exact point from day one. Meanwhile people like Mr. Karlson can do nothing but offer excuses for Obama to break the law and force people to break their conscience. Do you consider that position consistent with Catholicism?
Leftists ask for the moon and Right-winger compromise and in the end the Leftist settles for socialism.
The Left does not like it however, when others use their tactic of heading immediately to an extreme and then begin the “compromise”
I agree with the Bishops that no Catholic should be forced to pay for abortions or contraception/sterilizations pills and procedures.
I like it that they have found some sort of spine and are playing hardball. Without putting too fine a point on it, it is high time that decent Americans unite and tell Mr. Obama and the hags pushing all this grubby, culture of death agenda (i.e., Planned Parenthood and their ilk) to shove it.
Hair splitting, Eduardo. Meaningless to anyone but a lawyer. I suppose hairs and babies alike routinely get split multiple ways in the political process, but it’s essentially word games. So long as everyone gets to save face, it probably matters little.
Eduardo, I know lawyers must pick things apart, but dissecting a living organism is almost certain to kill it. When a thing has long ceased to be self-evident, it’s probably died.
David Smith:
I think you are insulting Eduardo and lawyers and the legal system in general.
This writer (excerpt below) hits the nail on the head. She goes on to highlight Sangers eugenics and racist connections and plans; her legacy continues today via the outrage that is PP.
“If you aren’t creeped out by the No Birth Control Left Behind rhetoric of the White House and Planned Parenthood, you aren’t listening closely enough. The anesthetic of progressive benevolence always dulls the senses. Wake up.
When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling.
As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket. She conspired with eugenics financier and businessman . . .”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290717/lsquoto-stop-multiplication-unfitrsquo-michelle-malkin
Anitra Williams — really? Is that all you can do? It’s all Clinton and Obama? Nothing about Bush and what policies he did which went against religious conscience and freedom? All you see is Obama, not the reality, all you see is a political debate, not the underlying religious liberty question. How many people now crying religious liberty have been actively working to deny religious liberty for others (like Muslims)? Or religious liberty for Catholics when Catholics want to help illegal immigrants while Republican legislators have been trying to make helping illegals also a criminal offense, which included but was not limited to, giving them sacraments? Do you put any blame on Scalia and his active on the bench and off the bench attacks on religious liberty? Is religious liberty or Obama your real concern? The fact that people want to have an honest, holistic assessment doesn’t mean they are making excuses for Obama. What is happening, however, is people are making excuses for their all or nothing mentality, their demonizing of Obama, while ignoring the FULL Catholic teaching on issues (which is not simplistic, it allows for remote material cooperation with evil with proportionate reasons, allows for prudence and different ways of trying to enact principles, etc). Seriously, the way people want to make this only about Obama show they don’t really care about the issue at hand (otherwise they would be consistent and it would not just be about Obama, but the loss across board).
When you have something to say that is responsive to the question at hand, whether the Mandate, or a less-than-universal accomodation thereof, is illegal under RFRA, let me know.
While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket.
Ken,
Margaret Sanger advocated only contraception, not abortion. She is on record as having opposed abortion. You should get your facts straight before making such serious accusations.
Oh and David N; while nobody should insult Eduaro, I think we all know it is almost impossible to insult a lawyer –
;-)
Serious accusations? Really.
I just quoted the article. Check it for yourself:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290717/lsquoto-stop-multiplication-unfitrsquo-michelle-malkin
Ken:
Wow. So no decent American can disagree with you and women who disagree with you are “hags.” Arguments like this will make me get off the fence on this quite quickly on Obama’s side.
http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/
from the article “..How Does Planned Parenthood Celebrate Black History Month?
The following statement appears on Planned Parenthood’s website: “In observance of Black History Month, Planned Parenthood is celebrating the leadership of African Americans who led the fight for reproductive freedom.”
This is all very touching — that Planned Parenthood would take time from their busy schedule of killing black babies in their Abortion Clinics — to proclaim their appreciation for the African-American community. . . .”
And Ken, it sounds to me that the principles in play here mean quite little to you. You wanted the bishops to pick a fight with Obama and they have. Would it really have made any difference what the issue was, or is the fight all you needed?
Anitra–
May I presume, if this (broader and broader, apparently) exemption is granted and fundamentalist Mormons claim their religious exemption for polygamy and (as David Nickol coined) someone starts the Church of Anything Goes where God has told them to sell heroin from their basements, you’ll be as quick to the barricades in their defense, righteous defender of religious liberty you are? Or is this mere tribalism, where conscience matters simply because it’s mine? This is not really a conservative/liberal question either, since I’d pose the same to Michael Sean Winters and his increasing self-righteousness on NCR’s website.
Sorry, but I think that there has been much ‘mis-information about this whole situation.
It is understandable that the use of contraception use is a sensitive issue for the Catholic Church, but it is hard to stomach this level of outrage when the bishops have been relatively silent on so many pressing issues of our day.
Where was the public outcry over our nation’s past use of torture or our involvement in unjust wars? Why aren’t the bishops reading letters at Mass about the moral scandal of unemployment and poverty in America? And why aren’t more bishops divesting themselves of their lavish mansions—and moving into simpler dwellings?
On top of this, many bishops are using misleading statements and unnecessarily heated rhetoric to intensify the conflict. So let’s get some facts straight.
Churches are exempt from these rules: The new rules require that institutions that employ and serve non-Catholics, such as hospitals and universities, (and many Catholic universities already have this coverage) are required to include contraception coverage in their health insurance plans. No Catholic parish office or diocesan office will be affected.
No one is being forced to use contraception against their will. The new rules simply require that employees have access to these services. Individuals who are opposed to the use of contraception do not have to make use of the coverage.
There will be fewer abortions because of this decision (as it stands at this writing). Regardless of you your believs about contraceptiion, everyone should recognize that greater access to prevention services will result in fewer unplanned pregnancies. Fewer unplanned pregancies will result in fewer abortions. And despite many false claims to the contrary, the contraception covered by this rule does not include abortifacients, like RU-486, that induces abortion.
I become very angry—when at a time that so many American families suffer from unemployment and poverty, the leadership of the Catholic Church in America reserves its loudest voice of moral outrage for issues related to human sexuality. I would hope that American Catholics would be able to bring pressure upon our Church leaders to tone down their heated rhetoric, refocus their priorities, and begin to use their voice to address the vast economic insecurities and conflicts in the world. By doing so, they would honor the rich heritage of Catholic social teaching.
Mr. Buechel, the question is very simple. President Clinton signed a statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, prohibiting President Obama’s bureaucracy from forcing a religious person or group of any kind to in any way fund or advocate abortifacients, contraception, sterilization and education about it that it religiously objects to. You either disagree with President Obama’s illegal mandate, or you defend not only his freedom-attacking mandate but his breaking the law to accomplish it. Not that you merely favor repealing RFRA–you favor the President breaking it with abandon.
Anitra–
As I think my question pointed out, and you patently did not answer, Catholics are not the only groups with freedom of religious both under the First Amendment and RFRA (much of which was struck down). By your lights, and under the law you cite, you clearly support the things I just pointed out above, correct? Or else “not that you merely favor repealing RFRA–you favor the President breaking it with abandon.” I am unclear what I think on that matter, you are not. I don’t see how I can subscribe to what you’re saying and NOT subscribe to the Fundamentalist Mormon position and the Church of Anything Goes. Can you?
That is, I cannot see how I can subscribe to it without conflict if I am really committed to the principle of religious liberty and not simply special pleading for my group.
Anitra,
Save your voice. I have mentioned RFRA on several of the prior threads about the HHS Mandate and it has been completely ignored. People here do not care about the legal implications of the mandate and whether it violates existing law. They want to debate the Church’s position on contraception and get into politics. The presumption appears to be that those that oppose the mandate or question any of the statistics or talking points put out by the administration or other supporters of the mandate must be doing it for political purposes. There is so little attention to detail in the posts (on both sides) that most of these threads devolve into personal attacks and debates about tangential issues. (e.g., Henry Karlson used the fact that you pointed out that Clinton was president when RFRA was passed to go into a diatribe about partisan politics and how bad Bush was … completely ignoring the point of your post).
RFRA and the case law interpreting it is very specific about the test that applies to federal government actions that infringe on religious liberty. RFRA provides that the federal government cannot substantially burden the exercise of religion unless doing so is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling government interest. Most of the argument on this site and elsewhere is about how expanding contraception coverage without co-pay is a “compelling government interest.” Many (including NYT’s Linda Greenhouse) are ignoring the requirement that the mandate be the “least restrictive means.” This is where the mandate fails. By using religious employers as the vehicle to deliver coverage and using such a limited exemption, HHS has actually used the most restrictive means to achieve the government’s interest. I’m sure we could all think of countless other means (expanded medicare coverage, vouchers, direct regulation of pharmaceutical companies, etc.) whereby the government could achieve its goal of contraception coverage. The HHS mandate fails RFRA.
This entire discussion illustrates what a mistake it was for President Obama messed to handing all the heavy lifting off to the likes of Pelosi and Reid.
Rather than investing time and effort developing a single-payer, basic plan that most could agree with and presenting it to Congress as a mostly finished product, the President pawned the whole thing off on Congress – a gigantic mistake.
It looks more and more like we will need to scrap all of ACA and start over.
I just quoted the article. Check it for yourself:
Ken,
The article contains no information. Please justify the accusation that Margaret Sanger “oversaw the mass murder of black babies.” It is simply false.
Sanger said the following on abortion:
Margaret Sanger never promoted abortion. Her statements on race and eugenics were not unusual at the time, although the sound appalling today and must be repudiated. But she championed contraception, not abortion.
Anitra Williams said: “it is President Obama committing an illegal action under RFRA.”
The RFRA says that the federal government can “burden a person’s exercise of religious” only if it meets this exception:
“b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Only the courts can decide if the HHS regulation “burdens a person’s exercise of religion” and, if it decides it does, whether it meets the two tests in the exception.
The Becket Fund has made that argument in the three lawsuits it has filed. We won’t know the answer until there is a final court ruling.
@Ken (2/10, 11:21 am) What’s the evidence that supports your assumption that President Obama could have developed a “single-payer, basic plan that most could agree with”?
(And if you don’t have evidence that supports the assumption, why make it?)
MikeD–
You raise an interesting case. Assuming your interpretation of the parts of the law that were left standing is correct (I will assume it is) I still think an argument can be made that the “vehicle” that is providing the coverage is not primarily religious employers, but the insurance company, which usually have no problem covering contraception and actually finds it cheaper to do so (as compared to childbirth and possible complications). It would seem to me your case would stand if a Catholic/Christian/whatever Insurance Company did not want to provide contraception services, but I’m not convinced that simply paying a third party to do so meets these criteria for the contracting group.
Ken–
You’ve just described what Bill Clinton tried (and failed) to achieve with “HillaryCare.” I must confess I am surprised to find you among its supporters.
Andy,
Why did HHS not regulate that all insurance companies provide a free contraception/sterilization rider (paid for by the feds) to any individual whose employer provided plan doesn;t include such coverage? That way, it is the feds that are paying for the insurance coverage rather than the employer. This would certainly have been a less restrictive means to achieve HHS’s interest in universal contraception coverage. BTW, case law has held that taxpayers in general cannot object under RFRA for government expenditures (see, Adams v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 137 (1998), where a Quaker objected to use of taxes for military expenditures).
@MikeD (2/10,11:58 am) Well, it looks like that’s what’s going to happen. According to TPM, “…a senior administration official announced that the White House will move the onus to provide women free contraceptive services to insurance companies if their religiously-affiliated employers object to providing insurance coverage that covers birth control.”
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/white-house-announces-contraception-accommodation-for-religious-orgs?ref=fpa
Everybody happy now? Or not—and if not, why not?
MikeD–
Apparently the administration is releasing some kind of accommodation today modeled on the Hawaii plan. So we’ll see if that meets some objections once it’s realized. I’m not sure that your idea is necessarily workable, since the money has to come from somewhere and is, as yet, unbudgeted and I have difficulties believing that Congress wants to authorize funds for federal contraception coverage. And would this have to include a federal rider for employers against blood transfusions? Against vaccinations? The cost could get quite high quite quickly were that applied uniformly.
Also, despite that case law, as a matter of principle I’m far from clear what the makes the Quaker case substantially different. Why do they have to pay for what is objectionable under their consciences, according the broad rhetoric the bishops are adopting? Why are taxes fundamentally different than paying for anything else, at least from the perspective of the payor?
I just think a single-payer, basic (no frills) national plan would be better. It would only cover the basics of course, just enough to fulfill our Christian duty; it would be designed to be minimal to the point where most people would want to either buy riders to the national plan, or bargain with their employers to purchase riders so they would have the level of care they wanted.
It would be a foundation upon which people could build their health care plan.
Everyone living here (yes even Mexicans) would have the floor-level, national medical plan (the safety national net plan) and insurance companies would still be in business a reasonable type of market.
Under ACA we have this situation where the government, rather than ponying up any money to buy BC pills and the like, are sitting up high and mighty dictating to employers what constitutes insurance. If the federal government is going to try and tell me what constitutes medical insurance, why don’t they step up to the plate and buy it?
Here you have the Catholic Church for many decades, running Catholic social services, providing healthcare to their employees (that alone is more than many businesses do) and important charity services for millions, and now the federal government via ACA comes romping in like some big German circus horse, trampling on religious freedoms and generally wanting to push everyone around from here on out ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Small wonder people are beginning (they are only just beginning) to be upset; nobody will or should tolerate this sort of heavy handed government.
And this is not to even mention the sort of opportunities for (eventuality of) all sorts of corruption that ACA establishes for sweet and dirty deals between Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Government.
Ugh -
If a “Hamaii-like” compromise is reached, it should be done in a way that objecting employers could satisfy the requirement for referral to another source by simply sating something like “Because we are a(n) [Name of Ecclesial Affiliation] institution, there are some devices and procedures offered by some medical providers for which we are not able, in clear conscience, to subsidize insurance coverage. For further information please consult your insurance provider.” (hat tip to Robert Hockett at Mirror of Justice – http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/). Any requirement that religious employers provide information on planned parenthood or other sources of direct access to contraception could run afoul of the First Amendment prohibition on compelled speech, which is why the USCCB is leery of the Hawaii-like compromise until it sees the language.
MikeD–
At least from what is posted on the America site, it looks like it’s doing better than that: no referral needed at all from the institution, the onus is on the insurance company to both contact and cover the meds. If that is in fact what is announced, I certainly hope the bishops acknowledge it and end this.
@Ken (2/10, 12:14 pm) Thanks for the detailed response. It’s good to know your personal preference for a national health care system.
I’ll assume from your lack of response to my question (11:26 am) that you have no evidence to back the assertion that a single-payer plan was a viable political option in 2009. (Either that, or the big German circus horses caused so much turmoil that you just plain forgot about the question as you were scrambling to safety. If so, please feel free to elaborate.)
Ha, ha Luke – good one – have to watch those horses!
To answer your question though, I do not recall it being much discussed. In fact the discussion was not held in any rational manner. One the D-side we had the spectacle of Pelosi and Reid marching onward, trotting out one thing after another until they had a 2,000 page bill that few of the people voting on it actually read.
It should have been presented like the interstate highway system. That is something we all use, but it is only a skeleton system. If a particular town in South Dakota was 50 miles distant from the interstate path (for example) but still wanted a divided highway that led to their town, it was up the locals to build and pay for it; the federal government would not.
Now to healthcare, nobody presented or discussed a national single-payer plan; nobody weighed the pros and cons of such a plan as compared to this insurance-exchange scheme ACA uses. Nobody sat down and said, what is it that we want? Everyone knew that for the most part everyone – whether they had insurance or not – gets medical treatment when necessary, albeit via the costly and ineffective ER system. Nobody talked about things like; do we want a system that covers everything for everybody, or do we want a national system that only covers the minimum, the basics.
Nope, the administration would have not of that. From the get-go Democrats were not listing to anyone, but instead just hurled insults questioning conservatives’ motives. Republicans on the other hand, were equally ridiculous in that their main worry seemed to be that some indocumentado Mexican might receive a free flu shot.
In short, ACA is a nightmare because nobody was willing to make the effort to give this important matter the sort of thoughful consideration it deserved.
@Ken (2/10, 2:58 pm) Thanks for your reply. My strong recollection of the health care debate in 2009 is that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party had a single-payer plan but they didn’t have the votes to get it passed. I don’t recall (then or, well, ever) Republicans proposing a single-payer plan.
Have a good weekend. I’ll catch up with you on another thread.
While Catholic men have secured a brilliant victory for Catholic ideology, it is strange and troubling that so few of them have based their advocacy on acceptance of Humanae Vitae, preferring to speak vaguely of religious freedom.
“If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate,” USCCB’s Picarello said.
He would not be forced because Taco Bell people have no insurance .. and the cheapo lawyer would keep it that way.
FOX news ‘no spin take’ is that all Catholic owned businesses profit or not, be exempted.. Goal posts have been removed not moved.
I’M willing to believe any mans Catholic conscience against birth control serious only if he has 10+ children.. and one wife.
Little Bear –
The reason tribalism (adherence to the moral code of one’s tribe or political in-group) is selective about moral issues is because tribes formulate their laws and codes in response only to the particular issues their own history. Tribes do not try to discover universal moral truths. Having their main goal the survival of the tribe, they focus on their own own welfare. And the members of the tribe (lets call them tribalogues) are not allowed to criticize the tribal code because such “disloyalty” is thought to weaken the group’s strength.
So tribalogues do not end up with ethical systems with foundational principles that are applicable to other tribes, though some of their codes can be accidentally applicable to tribes with similar histories. Tribes whose codes include taking other tribes territories, on the other hand, do not find it necessary to form anti-landtheft laws. It is not unusual to find political tribes, therefore, forming strong but not long-lasting alliances with tribes with similar backgrounds and histories.
In reality, Tribalism is unwittingly an intense sort or relativism — according to tribalogues what is right is what *we*, the tribe, says is right. Different tribes have their own peculiar combinations of attitudes and laws, and none of them aspire to universal principles applicable to all tribes. That is, they are not interested in the universal laws such as are found in natural law theory, though some make alliances wit natural law theorists when it suits their survival. Thus, they sometimes strongly adhere to certain natural law principles but ignore others.
Given their main purpose to preserve the group, the virtues of loyalty to the group and preservation of the code become their primary virtues, and any sort of ‘self” criticism becomes anathema. From this it follows that the other tribes, the other fellows, are the ones who are viewed as the cause of everyone’s (i.e., the tribe’s) trouble. Scapegoating by the tribe then focuses on a scapegoat who is, of course, someone *outside* of the tribe. “We” are never seen to be at fault. See the ACT (the American Conservative Tribe) and its scapegoating of Barack Obama.