On January 20, 2012, President Barack Obama issued an “Executive Order” instructing the Dept of Health and Human Services that religious institutions have a one-year exemption before they must comply with the requirement under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that employers provide free coverage for contraception in their health insurance plans. This set off a firestorm of protest by all religious groups but most notably from the US Catholic hierarchy. On February 10th, after meeting with the various groups, President Obama changed his Executive Order and allowed a compromise which sought to accommodate religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, and instead, put the burden on insurance companies, ordering them to provide workers at religious-affiliated institutions with free family planning if they request it, without involving their employer, Nobody was really happy about it but it did diffuse this powder keg. What are your thoughts?
I don't want to get into the debate (by both the right and the left) of Obama's plan, but only want to mention that I know plenty of religious people (including Catholics) who use contraception and welcome the chance to have that as part of their health insurance. I don't think anyone, especially the government, should force anyone to do anything that is against their tenets, unless those tenets are harmful to others.
Somehow, in this country, we need to get past this idea that religious freedom trumps every other right. We need to move on to the idea that personal freedom is the ideal. Also the gradual eroding of privilege does not equal persecution, no matter what some people think. Not being able to recieve funding for your biased religious organization, isn't the same as being suppressed by the government. If Seventh Day Adventists tried this with blood transfusions there would be a huge furor. Lastly, the religious right is using catholic charities as a tool, most of the more fundamental Christians don't even believe that Catholics are christian. The enemy of my enemy is my fall guy.
PB political take by Dawnmaire, on Flickr Saw this, had to share
I love that image MD! A lot of times when these explosive issues pop up in the US we Canadians ask ourselves, why doesn't that happen here? What is different here? It is just natural I think. So why would that not happen here? Well first, we don't have private hospitals, including church-run ones. We have private clinics doing "nice-to-do stuff", but all essential medical services are done in public hospitals. Second, in Canada, as far as I know, there is no money flowing from the government to any businesses, let alone church-run businesses, to pay for health insurance. Because our essential health care is universal (covered by our taxes), the only extra insurance employers pay is for extras such as if the employees are offered eye-glass benefits or prescription medication benefits (such as birth control). There is no money flowing from the taxpayer to employers for this kind of stuff as far as I know. For some reason in the US, it seems, nothing happens unless businesses are subsidized by the government to make it happen. Universal Healthcare just makes everything so much simpler than the extremely complex US system. Third, churches are granted some exemptions from discrimination laws, but they must be justifiable. For example, teachers in Catholic schools can be required to be catholic, or believe it or not, just act catholic lol (whatever that means... use birth control but just don't tell your priest?). But something as obvious as imposing the church's beliefs on cleaning ladies and EVERY employee, just for the joy of imposing their beliefs on others, would not be allowed. You can't be a business/employer but with the right to discriminate like a church. The Catholic church can't have it both ways. Our Supreme Court would see through that in a second. Fourth difference... Even if there were examples where public money was flowing to church-run businesses, and they were refusing to follow the law about what to do with that money on religious grounds, the church would not have a leg to stand on. There is no way the public would stand behind that church under the banner of "religious freedom". It would be a non-issue. The government would enforce the universal rule for all employers, and the church would be told, you can choose to be a church or an employer in Canada, if you choose to be an employer then you follow employer laws. The church would cave because they could not win in court or public opinion. The (national) community first. I think that is the difference between Canada and the US - I just thought you American folks, and Canadian folks, might be interested in that. By the way, don't get me wrong... I am not saying Canada is better than the US. There are a LOT of great things about the good ole USA! And I mean a LOT. It's just that the differences on issues like this are always interesting to me. - Drew
It is really something----the craziness coming from the religious political rightwing "cultural warriors" these days is just incredible----in Virginia--sitting on the desk of the governor is legislation that if he signs them---one bill would make it mandatory that women who want to have an abortion would have no choice but to submit to the insertion of a vaginal probe that does ultrasound readings of the fetus she carries---something that many are calling "State Rape" because by Virginia's own laws regarding however they specifically define rape, the law doesn't even require for actual vaginal penetration to take place, only that someone tried to do so without the woman's consent, this law would basically mandate that women submit to a medical procedure that is for all purposes--is RAPE--plus---they have laws that make it illegal for anyone but a licensed medical doctor to practice medicine and once again--this law basically by a mandate of the legislature requires this procedure when most doctors are clearly against it saying it can actually in some cases cause a miscarriage to take place and is very rarely medically necessary. http://www.slate.com/articles/double...al_reason.html Another pending law would simply pretty much outlaw abortions the law would make it illegal for abortions to occur even in cases where the baby is not viable, it will die and the mother might as well--once again the state legislature is practicing medicine--the law would also not allow for abortions in the case of true rape as well!! They also have a bill pending that if signed defines personhood to take place at the time of conception--among others and that governor---at a point where he was well into his mid 30s--he attended Pat Robertson's Regent University and wrote a paper that among other things very clearly stated that the government has the moral imperative to seek out, prevent, punish, etc gays, co-habitators, fornicators, etc. The only reason they are saying that the governor has not signed the legislation, since it passed both houses of a Republican dominated legislature-----this guy has dreams of being named as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee and by being so far off the grid on this stuff--he might be backing away from his extremist positions, at least for now. There is just so much stuff coming these days from these nuts all over the place--that it just makes your head spin!!!!
My thoughts, Obama's EO was contrived from the get-go as it was so flawed, it invited controversy. Moreover, people lack of understanding of what an "Executive Order" is, coupled with their misinformation, blew this issue way out of proportion. 1) A presidential "Executive Order", while constitutionally legal, only affects federal employees, those who do business with the federal government and those individuals and organizations that take money from the federal government. An EO can also be removed by the next president, thus becoming null and void. 2) The idea of birth control being a right via employee benefits is ludicrous. While I am the first person to advocate equal rights for women, this issue became a red herring. First off, there is absolutely no law that states an employer must offer any kind of benefits, much less health insurance. Many now don't. There is no law mandating what kind of health insurance an employer must carry and what it will or will not cover. This Birth Control edict covered only those employers with health insurance and nothing in it prohibited an employer from just dropping all health insurance coverage. 3) I've been purchasing BC for years, (on and off) out of my own pocket and it is just not that expensive. If a woman cannot afford BC, there are plenty of organizations that offer it free or at reduced cost, such as Planned Parenthood. 4) I am an unabashed liberal and champion woman's rights, gay rights and human rights. However I may agree or disagree, like or dislike some of them, I also support the rights and liberty for groups and organizations to conduct their business free of excessive government intervention, and this includes religious worship. 5) The objections to this Birth Control mandate came form many religious sources, not just Catholic and Christian. They also included Judaism and Islam. In review; This was an election year stunt Obama did this for his corporate benefactors; the insurance companies and drug providers. They have much to gain by Obama opening up a lucrative but forced, religious establishment market. Obama has both ends covered. It's a win-win for him. All the more reason I'm not voting for him either.
I am just a simple soul and I look at these things simply... silly ole me... Drew mentions universal health care.. which is what we have here, paid for from taxation and it has saved me life twice and has done other less wondrous things for me, my family and millions of others.. imperfect beast as it is, it is a recognition by a society that to keep people healthy it has an obligation to provide good quality health care available to all and where no charge shall be made for use of its services...what tax is paid into the health fund is your insurance whether or not u have ever paid any.. it is a truly altruistic service... The present government in England is increasingly turning to the private sector to run its part of the health service and what a dogs dinner it is turning out to be with deteriorating services and care and ever lengthening queues for treatment... thankfully the Scottish government who are responsible or the NHS in Scotland have far more sense and are keeping as far as they can the private sector at arms length... Regarding things like abortion and contraception, these are looked after by the NHS, not businesses, and certainly not religious groupings... and neither should they be.. it does stick in my craw that there are private abortion clinics which the NHS sometimes uses but it is the NHS that picks up the tab not the woman.. similarly other kinds of clinics exist which do work for the NHS and as with abortion they do not bill the patient but the NHS.. of course this shoots up the bill and cost to the NHS for such treatments because private clinics dont do it free of charge and are more expensive than inhouse NHS hospitals and clinics... In respect of contraception all this business thing iseption? a bloody nonsense.. how do women here get contraception? Nice chat with the quack and a regular prescritpion and their contraception is picked up rom the chemist free of charge.. no church involvement, no business involvement (save those who make the lil pills or whatever and the Chemist shop of ur choice). No one knows ur biz... and that too is how it should be.. my daughter for the very first time has just done that very thing.. no stress, no judgement and no hassle... As I said it all seems so simple to me and probably to those of us who live in societies which have universal health care... the American way of health is an immoral mess where the dollar seems to rule and God help anyone not in work or who cant afford health care. The way other countries deal with health care if adopted by the US would be fairer, cheaper to run and your health care insurance never runs out whether you are in or out of work and no one has to sell their homes or go bankrupt to save the lives of themselves or any of their family... and it would be available to all no matter how ealthy or otherwise they happened to be...imperfect as the NHS is... I love it and so for all its problems do the British people... It does seem so simple, so why make it so fucking difficult?
**** Update **** Limbaugh: Student in contraception debate a 'slut' - Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, took umbrage and sponsored a counter-hearing where Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke testified on the need for contraceptive coverage. Issa had said he didn't ask Fluke to testify because she wasn't qualified. On Thursday, conservative talk show king Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" and mocked her for wanting taxpayers to pay for her birth control, and for insisting that Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, pay for it. "What does it say about the college coed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps." In response, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a website soliciting donations for the cause, saying "standing up for women's rights" does not a slut or a prostitute make. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MN9P1NF29T.DTL ` I can only say one thing...Limbaugh is an obscenity to the human race. `
I read of this today, æon and almost choked on the toffee I was sooking on at the time.. I have heard of some of insensitive and uncaring individuals in my time but this man's inhumanity is among the most obnxious and offensive I have heard of anyone say in a long time., his misogyny beyond belief... as Sandra Fluke has said, "No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices." A nice "gentleman" indeed... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...h-slut-remarks
