Political Animal
Blog
There are a fair number of mixed signals coming from the White House on the contraceptive coverage mandate dispute. The President reportedly told a closed session of Senate Democrats that he had no intention of backing down from the mandate. But reports continue to proliferate of “uneasiness” in the White House (particularly among its Catholic men) and of interest in some sort of compromise.
But the Catholic bishops, who have squarely placed themselves at the head of the parade of people denouncing the mandate, in close alliance with Republican congressional leaders and presidential candidates, don’t seem particularly interested in a compromise, even if one becomes available. USA Today reports Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the Bishops, as saying nothing less than total repeal of the mandate, not just expansion of the “conscience clause” to include church-affiliated hospitals and charities, will suffice:
“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.
Now as it happens, the bill being sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio, which is widely being described as intended to “reverse” the administration’s decision for a relatively narrow “conscience clause,” appears to widen the clause to the point where it would deal with the “Taco Bell” issue, since it enables any individual employer citing religious objections to contraceptives coverage to evade the mandate.
But it’s entirely possible the Bishops have rejected half-measures and are determine to overturn the mandate for everybody. If so, as Alec MacGillis notes at TNR, the Bishops will be accepting the exact framing of the issue that defenders of the mandate prefer: it’s a matter of guaranteeing access to contraceptives, not a matter of “religious liberty.” Looks like an over-reach to me.
Facebook
Twitter
DJ on February 09, 2012 12:17 PM:
It's no surprise that the collection of moral and mental mediocrities that are the US Conference of Catholic Bishops are inept politically. What's sad for the faithful -- who because of the greatness of Catholic education are as well versed in faith and morals as the bishops -- is that they are equally inpet pastorally.
Michael W on February 09, 2012 12:20 PM:
Gawds. When will xtianity finally go the way of Zeus and Hera, the Aztec deities, the Incan deities, and so on. Humanity would be so much better off if religion had never been invented.
T2 on February 09, 2012 12:21 PM:
the Bishops need to stop hiding child molesters in their ranks first. Until then, I don't need to hear anything from them.
Greytdog on February 09, 2012 12:23 PM:
Americans love sharia law as long as it's wearing a bishop's miter.
TCinLA on February 09, 2012 12:24 PM:
What these child-raping assholes need to learn is that "religious freedom" means I can't make them use something they don't believe in, and they don't have the right to pass laws that don't allow me to use something I do believe in.
You would think after 1,500 years these morons would have learned the lesson that they are no longer the church supported by the Emperor.
Watching the opportunistic con artists in the GOP waving the flag on this one makes me long for possession of an M-60 and a 500-round belt of full metal jacket.
Nick Baumann on February 09, 2012 12:28 PM:
The bishops overreached, and lost, during the health care reform fight. They're good at policy and doctrine but terrible at politics. So this should come as no surprise. It's all well and good that they're driven by moral conviction (not that I agree with their position on this). But politics is the art of the possible, and that means compromising sometimes.
bdop4 on February 09, 2012 12:36 PM:
Actually, this issue is about religious freedom: our right to be free from their religious dogma.
A business is not a church. You do not get to have your cake and eat it too.
Rinse and repeat.
MACV507 on February 09, 2012 12:37 PM:
It seems to me, Congress is taking its orders from Catholic Bishops and the Pope in Rome. Isn't this what the founders were afraid of?
BillFromPA on February 09, 2012 12:38 PM:
This is the catholic clergy here, it's not 'over reach', it's a reach-around.
Sgt. Gym Bunny on February 09, 2012 12:39 PM:
In addition to these pooh-bag Bishops, who else is seriously outraged by this business? If this bull don't stink of "manufactured outrage", I don't know what does. Seriously, ACA happened a hot minute ago and many religiously affiliated institutions have been offering access to contraception in their employee health plans without raising a stink. Why now? (Election year?) It's like we went to bed and woke up in 1902 or something.
Maybe right-wing doom is already upon America already, but I definitely thought legislation like ACA was to protect the PEOPLE, the CITIZENS from organizations, corporations, and intitutions who would deprive us of access to health care. When these Bishops start parading out actual people who can testify to the ecclesiastical damage that access to birth control is doing to their souls, I'll maybe consider their concerns with a grain of salt. Actually, I won't, but they could still try to convince us that we should give two-shits about what they think of BC in the 21st century.
Mitch on February 09, 2012 12:39 PM:
@Nick Baumann
"But politics is the art of the possible, and that means compromising sometimes."
Not if you're a Conservative. For Conservatives politics is the art of using every dirty trick in the book (and if necessary sabotaging the entire system) to get what you want. Conservatives may have been able to compromise once-upon-a-time; but I'm only 31, so I've never seen it.
They won't compromise; the bishops have no reason to do so, and their GOP allies will actively refuse to seek middle ground.
As an aside, whenever any of my Theocratic friends or family tries to excuse their vile words/actions by saying,"that they're driven by moral conviction" and follwing their religious beliefs, I always reply:
"So was Mohamed Atta."
RepublicanPointOfView on February 09, 2012 12:42 PM:
What's the BFD? No contraceptives for Catholic women is ok with me! Just don't stop Anthem from paying for my Viagra!!!
T2 on February 09, 2012 12:43 PM:
I'm not quite sure the Bishops and the Church understand the depths of disgust they have generated with their continued protection of Child Molesters and Rapists in their dioceses. Catholics wince and bear it, but the rest of us see the horror for what it is - Church approved molestation. The Bishops have now moved into Komen territory - risking a huge public backlash for wading into a political/cultural battle with little public support.
rea on February 09, 2012 12:45 PM:
"So was Mohamed Atta."
Exactly. Once you start saying that religious convictions trump religiously-neutral regulatory laws of general application, how can you even claim that what Atta did was illegal?
Gretchen on February 09, 2012 12:45 PM:
Take it from this (ex)Catholic: the laypeople in the pews either don't care about this, or are eagerly waiting for health care reform to pay for their pills, just like everybody else. The bishops are all alone on the ice floe on this one, and don't realize that everybody else has cut them loose. and is looking forward to seeing them drift out to sea. Catholics use birth control at the same rates as everybody else, and are looking forward to a break on the cost. I don't know who Chris Matthews and E.J. Dionne are talking to, but there aren't any regular Catholics who would have voted for Obama until this came out. I just hope the administration stands firm, and doesn't believe that somehow this will cause them to lose the "Catholic vote". There were plenty of walk-outs from mass last weekend when the priests read the bishops' letter.
g on February 09, 2012 12:45 PM:
Against birth control? don't use it.
Practice your religious freedom on yourself, not on me.
internet tough guy on February 09, 2012 12:45 PM:
If your goal is political martyrdom, there is no such thing as overreaching.
Fall Line on February 09, 2012 12:50 PM:
Last time I checked, Catholics weren't real into women being in charge, either. So, Bishop Picarello, if you opened that Taco Bell, should you (or any other "good Catholic business people") be able to claim a religious objection to hiring a woman as a manager? (Hint: the answer is no.) How is this any different?
Tired Liberal on February 09, 2012 1:00 PM:
Let us see a list of all church-affiliated universities, colleges, hospitals, and social service organizations that serve non-members and see how many of them already consider family planning part of health care. I suspect the bishops would be surprised to find that many already provide this service.
If the bishops still insist on enforcing their religion on their employees, then ask how many of these institutions are willing to give up all government support in the form of Medicare payments, Medicaid payments, research grants, contracts to provide social services, access to subsidized loans or grants for students. Give up your government assistance and you can do what you please.
Trollop on February 09, 2012 1:06 PM:
Please Jesus, go the way of the dodo and take your pederastic goonsquad with you.
Twerp on February 09, 2012 1:07 PM:
I hope every Catholic woman who has ever used birth control will get up and walk out of church if the bishop starts talking about this or maybe even boycott church until this blows over. With over population a major problem banning birth control and insurance for birth control coverage makes no sense at all. Catholic women stand up for yourselves.
Tom Dibble on February 09, 2012 1:20 PM:
If you quit your job working for the Catholic Church and open up a Taco Bell, surely the fact that you now fall under the rules of the secular world with respect to what your insurance plan covers is the least change you are buying into, right?
I mean, are we expected to allow anyone who leaves the Catholic Church to run a Taco Bell to continue to enjoy tax-free status, enjoy special "counseling" rights with his employees, and preach to them for an hour each day?
Personally, I think if you change jobs, you change jobs. It's not unreasonable to expect that if you choose to take a job you are also choosing to abide by the regulations and laws associated with it.
On another note, I can barely see a rationale for this exemption for religious institutions engaged actively in religious activities (churches, synagogues, etc), and definitely can not see it for religiously-affiliated institutions who claim to NOT be actively proselytizing so that they can obtain other tax dollars.
Health insurance is for THE EMPLOYEES, not the employer. There should be no conscience objection for the employer, only for the employee. And, damn! There it is! If the employee doesn't believe in contraceptives, THEY DON'T TAKE THEM!
Tom Dibble on February 09, 2012 1:23 PM:
On the note of the division between Catholic lay-people and the Church hierarchy here, I know several Catholics who are quite openly disgusted with their priests' pushing of this issue during services.
Frank Wilhoit on February 09, 2012 1:26 PM:
@rea gets it: this is about faith-based nullification.
ShadeTail on February 09, 2012 1:29 PM:
This *IS* about defending religious liberty. Specifically, it is about defending the religious liberty of us non-Catholics who refuse to be bound by Catholic doctrine. Neither the church (spit) nor the government have the right to force us to live as if we were Catholic.
B W Smith on February 09, 2012 1:33 PM:
Tom, I agree with your statement and will go a step further. The Church is not actually using their money to purchase health insurance. That money is part of the employee's compensation package and therefore, actually belongs to the employee. Offering health insurance is an incentive for employees to become employed and stay employed. It is part of the compensation and benefits package. Republicans always add compensation and benefits when screaming about union members, so that rule should apply here.
FlipYrWhig on February 09, 2012 1:39 PM:
At a certain point, evn though you may own the business, it ceases to be your money, and you stop being able to dictate how it gets spent. Should a vegan business owner get to exclude from the company health plan treatment for illnesses arising from consuming meat and dairy? Should the John Lithgow character in Footloose get to have a business whose health plan doesn't cover dancing, because it's sinful? This is total bullshit.
Anonymous on February 09, 2012 1:41 PM:
On the note of the division between Catholic lay-people and the Church hierarchy here, I know several Catholics who are quite openly disgusted with their priests' pushing of this issue during services.
While this is probably true, I don't see Catholics taking on the hierarchy on this. That is what the Church counts on, that objectors will be silent, while the news is full of 'progressive Catholics' like E.J.Dionne and the usual wingers.
Texas Aggie on February 09, 2012 1:58 PM:
The problem here is that the bishops want to shove their religion down everyone else's throat. It is the same problem that all fundamentalists suffer from, and it is as unAmerican as you can be. You want to talk about people trampling on the Constitution and hating America, you need to start with these people.
George on February 09, 2012 2:04 PM:
Wish the Bishops were as concerned about decades of sexual abuse of children by Catholic Clergy, and the cover ups of such abuse by Catholic leadership.
deejaayss on February 09, 2012 2:05 PM:
It is important to religious fundamentalists of All Faiths to out breed each other. Borne, not converted, to the faith works best.
Expansionist nationalists like Napoleon and Hitler rewarded big families with the need for young soldiers, too.
Why expect otherwise?
CDW on February 09, 2012 2:22 PM:
Did Obama have to do this right now? Certainly, the Democratic Party has lost the RC voters already along with the south, but does it make sense to really tick them off before a crucial election if it could avoided?
Hedda Peraz on February 09, 2012 2:31 PM:
Contraceptives are irrelevant; alter boys don't get pregnant.
MJ on February 09, 2012 2:33 PM:
Hey Ed,
I know you're new here, but I first started checking out this blog when your predecessor, Steve Benen (PBUHN)started the remarkably effectivem"Pass the Damn Bill" campaign.
Now I know that you don't want to step on his toes by co-opting his catch phrases so I won't suggest that you start a "Support the Damn Regulation" page. However, it would be extremely helpful if you would consider including with any additional posts on this issue a link that would allow us to easily get in contact with the White House and our Congressional representatives (http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml).
I think that it would be a way for your readers to take direct action on an issue many of us are passionate about. It also would bolster the White House's resolve to stay the course if they got some encouraging feedback from supporters (to balance out all of the angry critiques they probably are already receiving from the opponents of the regulation).
Thank you.
wvmcl2 on February 09, 2012 2:54 PM:
This is one of the reasons I support single-payer health care. De-link health coverage from employment and all of these silly, time-wasting issues go away overnight.
When are we going to hear from the Christian Scientists? I suppose in any of their organizations (like the Christian Science Monitor) it would be against their religion to pay for any health care coverage whatsoever, so their employees must not get any coverage, right?
Kevin (not the famous one) on February 09, 2012 2:55 PM:
bdop4 @ 12:36
A business is not a church.
In the same way a corporation is not a person.
MACV507 @ 12:37 nails it
It seems to me, Congress is taking its orders from Catholic Bishops and the Pope in Rome. Isn't this what the founders were afraid of?
There is plenty of history to paw through that will convince anybody that "clearly, it is" can be substituted for "it seems to me".
One religious entity has been in the separation of church and state arena for at least 100 years. http://www.adventistliberty.org/
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
vast federia (and intrusive!)
Jose Padilla on February 09, 2012 3:20 PM:
So the owner of a company who happens to be Church of Christ can get insurance that doesn't provide for surgery or prescription medications. Interesting.
AMS on February 09, 2012 4:09 PM:
Ha! The Rubio bill has just handed the administration back the high ground and gone a long way to mute the effectiveness of the backlash against the Obama's policy and change the conversation.
I was worried---still am---about the emotional nature of this issue and the GOP has not disappointed me in the way they've attempted to exploit it. But Rubio has just shifted the debate from the ability of Catholic-affiliated institutions to deny this coverage to the ability of EVERY EMPLOYER to invoke his/her religion to deny it. While many Americans might be sympathetic to the former, I think a huge majority will be VERY uncomfortable with the latter. This is tremendous overreach on Rubio's/the bishops' part and will shift the debate back in Obama's favor. Thanks, guys!
JEA on February 09, 2012 4:16 PM:
I don't know about anyone else, but when I go to Taco Bell I don't mistake a burrito for the Eucharist or believe the going through the drive-thru counts as attending Mass.
Regis Reynolds on February 09, 2012 5:01 PM:
If only these clerical hypocrites had been as concerned about the molesting, sodomizing, and raping of the Catholic children in their care... Proudly ex-Catholic
schtick on February 09, 2012 5:09 PM:
Since when did the tealiban ever care about Catholics? If catholics are going to run businesses and hire employees, they have to follow the laws of the land just like everyone else. No exceptions. No exemptions.
Obama better not back down an inch or he will open the door for every religion to shove their beliefs down our throats, like they have been trying to do with abortion.
The tealiban has been trying outlaw one religion while trying to make another the law of the land. The separation of church and state means that religion isn't going to rule the country and religious freedom doesn't mean religion is going make the rules.
I'm with Hedda on this one, as long as the bishops get their viagra and the alter boys, nothing else matters.
SKM on February 09, 2012 6:07 PM:
This is something interesting, at least, I think how the GOP really feels about children.
Last night (2-8-2012) I was listening to rightwing talk radio, KFI640 AM, the Tim Conway Jr. radio show (I do listen from time-to-time, just to hear what they are saying). At about 9:30 P.M. (2130 hrs), this is what he said (from how I remember), "Next, we have the 911 calls of the man who killed his children. This should stop people from killing their STUPID CHILDREN." Note. He did not say 'stop stupid people from killing their children.' He said, 'stop people from killing their stupid children.' In other words, I took this as he was saying the children were stupid.
I was deeply offended by this. Especially in light of what is happening to the children today. Here in California, we have a teacher that was arrested for allegedly putting his semen in cookies or on a spoon and giving it to the children of his classroom. In different states, their are parents that are killing their children, but, initial reports from the news is the kids/babies are missing and possibly stolen...it is hard to raise kids and expect other people in positions of trust to do the right thing and here you have these people telling women what to do with their bodies. In addition, I find it hypocritical to tell women they must have kids, when, at the same time they say "if you are poor, blame yourself." On the other hand, they say women must have children even if they are victims of rape. Perhaps, they haven't heard about the man in Europe that kept his own daughter in the basement and impregnated her numerous times. I remember when I was in 6th grade and junior high school, some of the girls had gotten pregnant by their stepfathers - and the babies was raised by the girls mothers' and told they were siblings instead. This is bad.
Mitch on February 09, 2012 7:21 PM:
@SKM
Don't worry, it's okay for people to kill their stupid children, according to the Bible.
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deuteronomy 21:18-21
mark on February 10, 2012 7:11 AM:
This is one reason the Catholic Church does not want to ordain women--about 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control, and a majority of American women favor the rule.