From Politico.com:
This spring, Republicans were on a mission: repeal the Obama administration’s rule to require employers to cover birth control.
House Speaker John Boehner even stood on the floor of the House in February and promised that Congress would act. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand,” Boehner said.
But now, with the rule set to take effect Wednesday — part of the “Obamacare” law the GOP hates so much — the fiery repeal rhetoric has fizzled. In fact, few on Capitol Hill are saying anything about it at all.
And that House vote to block the rule? Never happened — and isn’t in the works either. A group of die-hards on the issue asked for it again in a closed-door meeting Wednesday with House leadership but said no promises were made.’
Even Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), one of the most vocal critics of the rule and co-sponsor of a bill to eliminate it, has gone quiet now that the rule is about to kick in.
It’s a reminder of how fast things changed for Republicans this spring.
What looked like a great attack line against the president on religious liberty — and a chance to rally evangelical and Catholic voters against President Barack Obama — quickly morphed into another example of what the left dubbed the Republicans’ “war on women.”
And it seems like House Republican leadership took the attacks to heart. A small group of House Republicans and religious liberty groups are trying to get the issue going again — including attempts to get the courts to halt it — but they’re not getting any traction with top Republicans.
“The administration’s mandate is an attack on religious freedom in America and that it needs to be reversed,” Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, told POLITICO. “We’re working closely with the Catholic bishops and others committed to religious liberty to find a path that will undo this attack on religious freedom.”
The House did vote earlier this month to repeal the entire health care reform law, which includes the requirement to cover contraceptives as a necessary preventive health services. But it has yet to take a vote that singles out the contraception policy itself.
So it looks like the contraception mandate stays. It was all chest thumping. No one is forcing contraception on anyone. It is simply available to those who want or need it. Contraception is much cheaper than the alternatives.
So what has changed?
Beginning August 1, 2012, all new insurance policies must cover contraceptives without a co-pay. For many people with employer-covered or sponsored health insurance, the policy won’t go into effect on Wednesday. It will go into effect the first day of their next insurance plan year — often Jan. 1 or July 1 of the next year.
It seems like a silly thing to fight, if you ask me.
I like the tag “women’s issues”. They wrote a whole book about the topic…the DSMIV. 🙂
See my digits struggling to keep that middle one form creeping up and waving at Pokie.
😈
The battle is not over just yet.
http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-us-judge-lets-catholic-owned-firm-cut-002942551.html
A Deloitte survey reveals that one in ten U.S. employers plan to drop health coverage when Obamacare kicks in and more are considering doing so. Companies are concluding that it is cheaper to pay the “tax” or to transfer more of the cost to employees than to implement the provisions of the Affordable Heathcare Act.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html#articleTabs_article
Perhaps they don’t understand it very well. All sorts of people are shooting off their mouths without knowing the facts. I sure witnessed that over VRS.
Interesting. Federal Court rules against ObamaCare with regard to a for-profit corporation owned by 4 catholics who are opposed to their company paying for contraceptives.
Federal Court ruled that that provision of ObamaCare violates the 1A rights of the Corporation.
…almost like a Citizens United-type ruling.
Interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/28/a-federal-court-ruled-against-the-contraceptive-mandate-heres-what-happens-next/
Who knows where it will go. I still say if the Catholic church is the employer, then it employs and goes by the rules. If it is a church, then it churches.
It sounds to me like it wants to wear 2 hats.
Of course, it doesn’t help that I think that the church is immoral in its stance on contraception. I believe that no one should have children they can’t take care of.
In this case the for-profit company does HVAC..
…in the Lords name, of course.
marin, the reality is, if women aren’t able to afford the children they have, you end up paying for them. I don’t see why this is so hard to understand.
In this country, we don’t allow children to died in most cases. That is not to say that it never happens but that is not the goal. We make sure they have food and a roof over their heads. Somehow, the American people are going to have to see that this is pay me now or pay me later.
Obviously “The Church” does very little in the long run in helping sustain its go forth and multiply edict. There are simply too many children living in abject poverty around the world for me to think otherwise.
Then there is the abortion. Common sense tells us the best way to end abortion is to end unwanted pregnancy. Now there’s a concept. If “The Church” and other churches worked as hard to end unwanted and unintended pregancy as it does to stamp out abortion, I could easily support them.
Again, what we generally see is this overzealous attempt at control before birth and then the big dissapearing act once a kid is living and breathing on its own.
Shame shame shame!!
I would totally deserve it!
that should have been fRom, not foRm/ Its hard to spell right when giving someone their just rewards.
“marin, the reality is, if women aren’t able to afford the children they have, you end up paying for them. I don’t see why this is so hard to understand.”
Because we set up the system that way. It was not always that those women and children were on the taxpayers dime.
“Somehow, the American people are going to have to see that this is pay me now or pay me later.”
That used to be accomplished via charity.
“Obviously “The Church” does very little in the long run in helping sustain its go forth and multiply edict. There are simply too many children living in abject poverty around the world for me to think otherwise.”
…right. The Church doesn’t operate missions or orphanages to take care of the sick, the dying or the unwanted. What are you smoking and why aren’t you sharing?
“Then there is the abortion. Common sense tells us the best way to end abortion is to end unwanted pregnancy.”
Well then using that logic the best way to end unwanted pregnancy is to avoid sex.
“Now there’s a concept. If “The Church” and other churches worked as hard to end unwanted and unintended pregancy as it does to stamp out abortion, I could easily support them.”
Wouldn’t preaching abstinance then qualify under your metric?
“Because we set up the system that way. It was not always that those women and children were on the taxpayers dime.”
“Accomplished through charity”
Yea, kids used to get nutritional diseases and die and have horrible nutrition that caused qualitiy of life issues their entire lives. Netflix: The Southerner is a good illustration of this point.
No, charity was not that widespread. It didn’t really feed hungry children on a regular basis. Often people refused to take charity. I knew a girl who used to bring goose lard sandwiches to school for lunch. It was very sad. When the teacher offered free lunch the father became furious. Not everyone had their hand out.
Many churches operate missions, not just “the church.” It has been my observation that they far under reach. Now, let’s talk about some church outreach I approve of. I try to give a small sum of money monthly to a church supported Indian School. they do a good job of outreach. In fact, Wolverine and I both contribute to it. I do because it preserves the Lakota culture. But…notice I said we give….I believe in feeding and educating people. Most of these kids come from dysfunctional families of alcoholics. So you want the church to go out and tell a bunch of drunken Indians to stop having sex. OK. I am not so sure any church has the right to preach against sex to anyone but its own parishioners. I think you live in a dream world if you think it will work on most people and I also really think perhaps you have a hell of a nerve.
I wonder if that ‘very Catholic’ HVAC contractor makes (forces) their employees work on Sunday and other days of religious obligation? Probably. But no one is being forced to take the contraception. How can a company be Religious?
You want cost control – stop the unwanted pregnancy, and it is a lot cheaper than a woman having an unwanted child. Stopping the funding to Planned Parenthood does not help either.
And, what is the Mormon’s want to take up Polygamy again – was that not a ‘religious freedom’ that the SCOTUS took away by affirming the Morrill Act?
Pat, is there a link to the polgyamy source? Why do they need to have it legalized? Cant they just do church marriages?
@Moon-howler
How do we pay for all of that? Do you think farmers, supermarkets and dining establishments should offer their services for free because as you say — you believe in feeding people.
How do we as taxpayers pay for all of those things? We need to clothe people, feed them, take care of their healthcare, education.. Where do you see the line between what the government can do and what they should not do?
@Pat, if we look to the civil rights debate of same sex marriage could not a case be made for marriage across multiple consenting adults? Would that not be a fair ‘evolution’ on this issue?
We have been feeding people for years. Where have you been? For example, the free lunch program started right after WWII. We have been educating people for at least a century in nearly all areas, some areas far longer than that.
I go back to contraception. Its a lot cheaper than the alternative. I don’t think most people want a house full of kids they can’t afford. Operative word here is most.
I am going to suggest that perhaps you are too young and too locked into northern Virginia to realize that 50 years ago in this country kids died of malnutrition. Most people want to see that children don’t starve. Perhaps you don’t. Perhaps you are only interested in your own children. but I maintain that most people feel some sort of social responsibility for those less fortunate. I want to make sure those less fortunate don’t have other little less fortunates. Its a good investment. It cuts down on social programs, the need for more schools, prisons etc.
If I could suggest a book, I would do so. It just seems like common sense to me. Pay now or pay later.
So, how do we pay for everything? We keep adding things to the list. We keep on adding the number of people that should get coverage. How do we pay for it?
So, even assuming your right (you are not) how do we afford to do all of this?
Social responsibility is me willingly sacrificing my time, money or property. When the government FORCES me to do so that’s theft and its wrong.
Telling me I am not right on this topic is like sending up smoke signals that you want to be kicked across a room.
Who do you think you are coming along and telling me or anyone else that this country has not taken care of those less fortunate? It most certainly has.
We have been paying for it. Its something that people living in civilized societies do. Those who don’t chose to do it should probably resettle in some third world country where those less fortunate are gunned down and exterminated, pretty much like what happens in Somolia.
You ask how we afford all this? One of the ways is to make certain that everyone of reproductive age has access to safe, reliable contraception. That way we aren’t pouring all the nations resources in to taking care of social problems that arise from lots of unwanted and unintended pregancies. Smart people think the best thing to do is prevent them. Now, a few of those people abstain, as you suggest. Many others, being human beings, use contraception.
Churches can preach and screech all they want. They have been doing it for years and years and years…you can see how effective that has been.
I would prefer to not pay for someone else to have a pack of kids they don’t want and don’t take care of. That’s the reason I encourage the use of contraception. And no, I am not wrong.
As for me being wrong, bite me. Prove I am wrong.
@marinm
Everyone gets coverage. Actually lots has come off the list. Bill Clinton certainly reformed welfare.
One way you afford it by preventing unintended, unwanted pregancy. Marin, why are you making this complicated? Obviously the govt. isn’t going to watch babies and toddlers dying in the street, nor should it.
You should know by now that babies are expensive little rascals and it keeps getting worse, the older they get.
Where do you draw the line? I think we have it pretty much down to bare bones as it is. Certainly we don’t let children die from malnutritian. Lets start there.
I dont feel compelled to make sure everyone has an HD TV and a smart phone, if that is what you are asking.
I would be more than willing to subsidize contraception though, especially since so many culture warriors want to defund Planned Parenthood. I guess that is their way of saying don’t have sex.
Hint: sex was invented long before you and I came on this earth, marin and I doubt there is much you or I can do about it.
I would just like to see some proof that making contraception available for free actually leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies. Surely the government or Planned Parenthood has conducted a study to verify that free contraception leads to the desired effect.
Beats me. If either had, I would expect you to be suspicious of it.
What do you considered the desired effect?
I actually don’t care if it is for free for middle class people or not. I don’t think the free is as important as available at low cost.
@Moon-howler
I’m tickled that you are upset. It means on this issue that I’m more moderate and looking at this more objectively.
So, let me frame this a little more. I am a pro-choice catholic. Not because I support killing babies but because our current law allows for it and I’m loathe to have the state throw dictates to people over what they can and cannot do. I recognize that the act of abortion itself is the killing of a human being. We can say it’s the killing of cells, we can say its the killing of a fetus. Let’s all be honest – it’s justified murder. It’s one of those things that the State allows as a permitted action. Knowing all of that – I still support a womans right to choose within the constraints of our laws.
Now having said even if I agree that they have a right to it doesn’t mean I ought to be obligated to pay for it or support it in any way. I don’t put my hat out asking for people to feed my ammo addication. I have a right to a firearm but I don’t have a right to ask you to buy me a Colt 1911.
The right of an abortion or contreceptions isn’t what this is about. Those services exist in the free market and can be obtained by anyone that can legally contract for them. I’m just saying leave me out of it. Leave anyone out of it that doesn’t want to pay for it. That doesn’t want to support it. That doesn’t believe in it. That doesn’t want anything to do with it.
I have no issue with Planned Parenthoods existance. They can abort any baby without regard for gender, disability or race. Whatever – I don’t care. But I *do* care that they are provided government money to do anything. They want to provide abortions? That’s fine. They can do so but then they should not get ANY public money.
Giving money out freely has not done anything but create a more dependant society. Don’t believe me? Show me how food stamps have gotten people to be less dependant and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Contreception is more available now than ever before and yet the money we provide out to social programs keeps climbing…. What gives? It appears that the ‘system’ isn’t working as it was intended — unless of course it was the intended that people would suckle on the teet of govt from birth to death.
You haven’t upset me, I just think what you are saying is lacking in all logic. You can follow that natural progression without me spelling it outl.
I don’t argue abortion with anyone and have stated so many times. It is a deeply personal matter. I also don’t recall talking about abortion on the blog other than to say that contraception prevented the need for it. You seem awfully obsessed with it.
All I can do is repeat the reality. The reality is that contraception prevents unwanted and unintended pregnancy.
I can’t help it that you have been brain washed and cannot see that not everyone has your advantages. However, I will not let you tell me I am wrong without plenty of backlash.
What backlash?
That you avoided answering any questions posed? That you bring up abortion and then say you won’t argue it. That you have no problem spending my money but then get angry that I would want a say in it?
I’m only amused and disappointed.
I said that contraception eliminated the need for abortion. Now there’s a no-brainer. If th4ere is no pregnancy, then no abortion.
You haven’t asked a question. You have blathered on about something that is dogma with you. I suggest channeling some of that energy into one of those fake clinics ro even Operation Rescue. You sound very conflicted to me.
Meanwhile, I contend that opposition to contraception is immoral and costly. I feel it is morally wrong to bring children into the world that are unwanted or that can’t be taken care of.
That is my opinion and I base it on what I have personally witness as well as what I have read.
If you are disappointed and amused, even that sounds conflicted.
Marinm,
I am amused by you! I think you say stupid crap just to get a rise out of us! Just wondering, how do you leave out your taxes that go to support women on welfare because they didn’t have the resources for contraception? Let me know, I’d LOVE to know that answer.
Furthermore, I call Bullshit on your “I am a pro choice catholic”. No pro choice catholic calls abortion murder. Were the right to abortion denied for women legally, you would support that wholly! You clearly have no understanding of what being a pro choice catholic means. Abortion is not murder. Women who have abortions are not murderers, doctors who perform this service are not murderers and it’s language like yours that invites violence towards women and doctors.
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/catholicsandchoice/CatholicsandChoice.asp