Political Animal
Blog
The quick reversal today of the Komen Foundation’s decision to stop funding breast cancer screening services long provided by culture-war-target Planned Parenthood was an impressive testimonial to the power of rapid reaction. While there will undoubtedly be additional wrangling over this issue within Komen’s leadership, at the very least the charity has decisively avoided the precedent of rewarding anti-choicers who have sought to make Planned Parenthood an institutional leper by holding political show trials in Congress.
The quick push-back on Komen may provide an important lesson for reproductive rights advocates in the increasingly toxic fight against new Obama adminstration rules requiring access to contraceptives in federally subsidized employer-based health insurance plans, with a “conscience exception” for plans directly sponsored by religious organizations for their own members.
With the active support of the Republican Party, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has sought—and to some extent have already succeeded—in framing this dispute as “Obama versus Catholics,” instead of “the GOP and the Bishops versus preventive health care.” The dispute, meanwhile, is being hitched to the “War on Religion” wagon that the Christian Right and Republican opinion-leaders are laboriously hauling through the streets with lights flashing and horns honking.
If progressives respond to this campaign by mocking Catholic sensibilities or religious-based politics generally, it will play directly into the hands of those who are trying to use it to“wedge” Catholic voters into the GOP column, even though the vast majority of Catholic women do indeed depend on contraceptive services as a preventive health measure, and the vast majority of Catholics generally do not agree with the Bishops on contraception. And that’s aside from the fact that on issues other than birth control, abortion, and same-sex marriage, traditional Catholic teaching is hostile to the pro-corporate, anti-labor, pro-war, and anti-immigrant views of the GOP pols who are trying to exploit this manufactured dispute.
As in the Komen case, conservative overreaching may help expose the game. The self-appointed front man of the campaign to fight the administration’s preventive health rules is none other than the front-runner for the GOP vice-presidential nomination, Sen. Marco Rubio. His bill on the subject goes far beyond “overruling” the administration and creates a “conscience exception” for the preventive health care mandate that extends to any individual employer claiming a religious objection, not just to church-affiliated institutions.
This isn’t an effort to protect Catholics against a “war” on them by the president and his Catholic HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius. It’s a cynical effort to undermine health care for Catholic and non-Catholic women alike, led by politicians who not only oppose reproductive rights, but oppose universal access to any kind of health coverage as a matter of fundamental principal.
If the fight is aggressively waged from this broader stance, and not from the defensive crouch of half-apologetic promises to pay more attention to the opinions of “Catholics” and “people of faith,” as though they are co-extensive with the opinions of conservatives—then it will perhaps turn as quickly as did the fight over the Komen Foundation’s policies.
Facebook
Twitter
walt on February 03, 2012 3:21 PM:
Let's be clear about this war. It really has nothing to do with women, contraception, and individual choice. It has everything to do with the American right jazzing low-information voters with culture-war crap in order to win elections. It's why there's an imaginary "war on Christmas". It why the ACORN non-story became a flashpoint. It's why middle-aged white men imagine themselves to be victims while cruising internet porn sites. The American right is a vehicle for deflection where liars construct faux outrages in order to manipulate dimwits.
I'm sorry if I've offended Catholics or Mormons or Evangelicals. But if you tend to believe fairy tales, you'll find it very easy to believe the Republican Party.
Trollop on February 03, 2012 3:23 PM:
If only we could take the men and the amen out of the equation..
John Iwaniszek on February 03, 2012 3:27 PM:
I don't think you can really call their action a "reversal". They are making soothing noises, but the public statement leaves too much wiggle room for them to refuse funding to PP, and they are not admitting that the 'wingers were the impetuous behind their action.
Altar Boy on February 03, 2012 3:31 PM:
Are these the same Bishops that presided over children getting screwed? There have been no mass firing of their own clergy as of yet. I do not see how anyone can take any thing from that church, as coming from any point of moral standing.
Ron Byers on February 03, 2012 3:34 PM:
I read AmericaBlog too John, but I think Ed's point is different. I think what he is trying to say is if Democrats and/or progressives seize the initiative frame an issue correctly they can win a public debate. If they don't they lose. The Republicans are masters at framing issues. The Democrats have only rarely been successful. We need to respond quickly and firmly with our own frame if we want to win a public argument.
I happen to think the Administration has been doing a better job of framing ever since the debt ceiling fight. I only wish the rest of the progressive movement would follow Obama's lead.
Stuart Shiffman on February 03, 2012 3:35 PM:
What angers me is the failure to discuss this issue in its real terms.
Why won't anyone ask these questions. Who gave other people the hecklers veto over these issues . This is America. I am a citizen and I have a right to have my wishes respected as much as anyone else.
Second I am sorry to say it in crass terms but abortion is not murder and indeed it is not even the taking of a human life in the sense that those are legal terms. Legal terms govern our debate. If your argument is based on non-legal terms then you cannot force me to accept your terminology unless you force me to accept your religious viewpoint a fundamental violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Lex on February 03, 2012 3:37 PM:
Komen's "reversal" was no such thing. And this thing isn't over until Komen has dried up and blown away.
geg6 on February 03, 2012 3:44 PM:
Koman has backed down on nothing. They never were going to end the current grants that PP was awarded. The point is that they were never going to give them any more in the future. What, exactly, did they say in that statement that leads anyone to believe that is not exactly what they will do when the spotlight is off of them? Sorry, I'm done with SGK, pink ribbons, and any products or services that sport them. And I anxiously await the premiere of "Pink Ribbons, Inc." so that the pressure continues until SGK is dead and gone, no longer grifting off the suffering of others.
bob h on February 03, 2012 3:55 PM:
Why are the Bishops deadpan on Romney's statement that he doesn't care about the "very poor". Isn't this right up Jesus's alley, ought it not to have brought a sharp reaction from them?
paul on February 03, 2012 3:59 PM:
What John and geg6 said. Every reporter who styles this as a reversal is getting taken. It's a rebranding.
(And in general, when you make a grant to someone to provide services, you may be entering into a binding contract, so that up and changing the terms in the middle and saying "no more money" exposes you to all manner of liability.)
Mimikatz on February 03, 2012 4:11 PM:
For some large portion of the people on the anti-choice side of this fight it most certainly IS about controlling women and their reproductive and sexual choices. The Bishops and far-right anti-abortionists are closed-minded people who want to maintain male domination and can't stand the idea that everyone doesn't agree with them--it makes them terribly insecure. True, most GOP politicians just want to gain and keep power (most politicians period) but there are a significant number who do want emphatically to control the lives of women and/or seem believe that the Bishops have the power to send them to hell.
Most Catholics and most Catholic women do indeed favor contraception if not at least early abortions for adult women. The Right always tries to put the wedge on one extreme end (late-term abortions) but pro-choice and pro-health people would better off putting the wedge at the contraception end to flush out those who really do want to control women and their sexuality, since they are a shrinking minority.
Robert on February 03, 2012 4:31 PM:
Generally good analysis but I agree with Walt when it comes to parsing the pols motivation. Please don't suppose any of these republican electeds have ever met a "fundamental principal" they would not betray for dollars to buy votes."My ass in office" is their 'fundamental principal'.
Sgt. Gym Bunny on February 03, 2012 4:36 PM:
While SGK may not arise from this kerfluffle as bruised as they should, I'm really hoping that Planned Parenthood has gotten on the radar of a lot more potential donors. It's disgusting that this had to happen but at least it started a front-page dialogue about the many services PP provides for women and men--not just back-alley abortions as the right would have us all think.
KarenJG on February 03, 2012 4:46 PM:
I agree with John and geg6 - this is likely a feint, not a reversal - but also agree with Ron - we should read what Ed wrote after that word. (It was only the first sentence, after all.) Regardless of whether Komen backed down or punted, we should take the *template* of this reaction and apply it to the upcoming effort to gut the contraceptive-access rule. So what are the elements of the reaction that caused Komen to backpeddle so furiously?
Hit fast - don't let the initial outrage from an announcement fade before harnessing it.
Make the "face" of your effort personal and sympathetic - it wasn't 24 hours before Planned Parenthood had created a petition using a personal letter from a sympathetic breast cancer survivor.
Use humor where appropriate. People like laughing better than frowning or throwing a tantrum, and are more likely to pay attention to, and respond to the underlying appeal.
Don't let up. Keep it going by continually introducing fresh, new material so people don't start feeling it's going stale, or "skipping over" your message because they've already read it.
schtick on February 03, 2012 4:48 PM:
Now that Komen has been exposed for what it really is, money-grubbing zealots that give 20% for research and a huge chunk for their salaries, and around 10% for litigation against anyone trying to use the word "cure", people are starting to research what they really do and not liking what they are finding. I don't think if they really did change their tune they will get many people back to support them again. They got too big for their britches and people don't want to buy them another pair. This is one of the reasons I always donate locally. Brinker gives me the chills anyway. She looks like Leona Helmsley.
On the political side of things, I'm sorry, but the tealiban and their blind sheep are not pro-life. They are anti-abortion and nothing else. It has nothing to do with saving life and everything to do with control.
Make that woman have that baby no matter what and when it's born, no food stamps, no welfare, no education, but send that grown child off to die in a war they started on lies and if they happen to live, let them come home to no jobs, no VA, and to die in the street.
That is the tealiban pro-life.
crapcha....erionsuc Kautz....uh what?
gdb on February 03, 2012 4:49 PM:
Since when do Progressives mock Catholics? That's a straw man comment by a non-Progressive named Kilgore.
MNRD on February 03, 2012 5:19 PM:
gbd, Ed is reacting to what happened to Americanist on a previous thread. Go back and look, and you will see that Americanist's feelings were dismissed by other bloggers. Ed is simply warning us not to be dismissive of the heartfelt feelings of others just because we happen to disagree with their opinions.
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 5:26 PM:
The real insights come from parallels between the Komen Foundation and the Obama administration on this issue.
1) Both of them initiated a fight unnecessarily, attacking their allies.
2) Neither anticipated the intensely negative reaction.
3) Neither one filled in the blanks "On behalf of....we're going to stand up for...."
4) Both mischaracterized the issue involved.
Komen first claimed that this was a new, standard policy to cut ties with any organization under investigation. When that was shown to be false, they shifted to questioning Planned Parenthood itself, and then they collapsed altogether.
To understand the Kaiser-in-July-1914 thinking of the Obama administration, it's necessary to distinguish between the policy issue, and the politics of it.
On the policy, it's simple: this is NOT about access to contraception. The more pro-choice folks climb into the echo chamber to talk themselves into the idea that this is a matter of pro-choice principle, the less capable of resolving this the Administration will be. The substantive issue is whether Catholic institutions, as employers, will be required to pay for contraception, abortifacients and sterilization when they offer health insurance. Period.
The politics begin with the Obama administration having reached out to Catholic (and other religious) institutions for support on health care reform. Those institutions, led by the Catholic ones, understood that they had a deal -- they would support health care reform, and in return they would continue to have a conscience exemption to paying for contraception, etc. So the first political lesson here is: don't trust the Administration because they will turn on you.
The second political issue is that no one asked: what is the problem we're trying to solve by doublecrossing our allies on health care reform? That is -- pro-choice voters are already fairly solid for the President, regardless of whether Catholic institutions pay for contraception. Was there some tidal wave of employees of Catholic institutions demanding that their employers violate their character as Catholic institutions?
The third political issue is how this plays with Catholic voters. There were 27 million Catholic voters in 2008, who broke 15-12 for Obama. For analytical purposes, it is NOT important that most Catholics are pro-choice, nor that they used contraception. That's because the issue is not access; the issue is whether the US government can force Catholic institutions, as employers, either to drop health insurance, close entirely, or to cease being Catholic.
The last political issue will determine how this plays with Catholic voters. Much like Komen, pro-choice folks are doubling down on a rapidly eroding strategy -- now, as Ed puts it, the idea is that if you take the King's shilling (e.g., "receive Federally-subsidized health care") then you do the King's bidding.
Having started this, the Administration has now handed over the initiative to the Bishops. The White House seems to assume that the Bishops will back down because... well, because what the Vatican insists is core doctrine is simply not going to be that important. There isn't any evidence for that, but nobody seems concerned about it because no one is challenging the assumption.
The simple fact that if just 3 million Catholic voters decide that the US government has no business telling Catholic institutions to choose between being employers and being Catholic, Obama loses Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Indiana doesn't seem to have factored into this one -- which is perhaps the most damning consideration of all.
Folks who are soooo sure this is a matter of principle as policy, tend to ignore the politics of it: it's principle, after all -- the politics be damned.
Just remember that those 27 million Catholic voters are the chunk of the electorate called Reagan De
Tired Liberal on February 03, 2012 5:33 PM:
The Komen "reversal" is full of weasel words and their statements have been all over the place. They have admitted that the one man investigation in Congress is not sufficient grounds, but now they are making noises about the need to make sure that the grantees actually perform the mammograms on site rather than paying for a referral. Sending patients to a referral center (as PP does) is more cost effective and results in better mammograms. Sorry, but I don't trust SGK. My funds still go to Planned Parenthood.
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 5:57 PM:
It's important to realize just how Kaiser-in-July-1914 Ed's thinking on this is:
"...the vast majority of Catholic women do indeed depend on contraceptive services as a preventive health measure, and the vast majority of Catholics generally do not agree with the Bishops on contraception. And that’s aside from the fact that on issues other than birth control, abortion, and same-sex marriage, traditional Catholic teaching is hostile to the pro-corporate, anti-labor, pro-war, and anti-immigrant views of the GOP pols who are trying to exploit this manufactured dispute. "
None of this matters AT ALL.
Roman Catholicism is an authoritarian religion. If you don't like that and think the government shouldn't accept the fact -- stop right there, because it's none of your fucking business.
It is a matter of faith and doctrine for Catholics that contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization are morally wrong -- whether individual Catholics, or a majority of Catholics actually use them doesn't matter a damn.
This is not about access to contraception. Catholics can buy them, like anybody else -- which is a matter of US law. (No thanks to the Church, since that's where the Griswold decision came from in the first place.) Whether a Catholic commits a sin in using contraception is between that person and their faith -- NOT the government. So those who want their employers insurance to pay for them can find employers who will do that.
Folks who approach this issue as if the Roman Catholic Church has no rights --- well, stop right there, cuz you've just leaped off the bridge.
This is simply a question whether the US government can force Catholic employers to either go out of business, or to cease being Catholic. You okay with that?
Remember, the latter question is NOT up to you, Ed. It's not up to the government. It's not up to American Catholics, either. There is a reason we're talking about CATHOLIC institutions, Ed. Ands the best of them, frankly -- did you even read Cardinal McCarrick's observation that limiting the exemption to only services provided by a religious institution to people of that faith means workers at a Catholic soup kitchen asking, not 'are you hungry?' but 'are you Catholic?'
And you're OKAY with that?
The fucking terrifying prospect you're opening up, Ed, is that the US government should force a schism on the Roman Catholic Church in the US -- hey, if you American Catholics want to run your own hospitals according to your own moral judgment, just take them away from the Vatican: who are those old men to decide, anyway?
That's not about contraception. It's about the separation of Church and State. 'Take the King's shilling/do the King's bidding' ...
Why the fuck would you even want this fight? Remember, the Kaiser thought the Belgians would just let him through.
max on February 03, 2012 6:49 PM:
Tired Liberal - I agree with you. The apology/reversal that wasn't leads me to distrust komen even more then I did already. Donate to Planned Parenthood. They walk the walk.
theAmericanist - Planned Parenthood, the Kaiser in July 1914, President Obama, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, Roman Catholics, contraception all in one conflated basket? I think even Solzhenitsyn would throttle you if he could stop laughing long enough.
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 7:03 PM:
Good thing I left out Ludendorf and JPII, huh?
rrk1 on February 03, 2012 7:16 PM:
This seems like another example of Obama and the illusory Democratic Party allowing the Right to define the issue. Obama has done the right thing. He seems to think that will speak for itself. Well, it will for the more informed and intelligent among us, but not for the low information, undereducated types. Who has Obama's back on this? We all know the answer: no one.
Allowing all the self-neutered men parading around in fancy dresses to have any say, let alone continue to wage their misogynistic war against women's health and reproductive rights, is a crime against humanity. As is their centuries-long predation on pre-pubescent boys.
Is the Democratic Party capable of anything? Other than taking corporate money?
batavicus on February 03, 2012 7:57 PM:
The Komen reversal isn't quite a reversal; read the text carefully. Still, it might be an important moment. Perhaps those of us who are tired of the constant and ubiquitious Gleichshaltung have found in social media a potent antidote. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, said Justice Brandeis. Would-be Karen Handels take note. SGK, you'd do better to clean house (and reduce your administrative and expense account costs, which strike is as rather high for a non-profit).
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 8:36 PM:
gbd: "Since when do Progressives mock Catholics? "
Rkk: "Allowing all the self-neutered men parading around in fancy dresses to have any say, let alone continue to wage their misogynistic war against women's health and reproductive rights, is a crime against humanity. As is their centuries-long predation on pre-pubescent boys."
Doug on February 03, 2012 8:41 PM:
Sorry, theAmericanist, but you can't have it both ways and neither can the Bishops. The Catholic Church is authoritarian, you say? Fine, that's the choice of the Catholic Church and its' communicants, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the matter at hand, which is CIVIL control of legislation.
As far as I can tell, and I could be mistaken, the ONLY religious group that considers taking/using contraceptives to be a sin, is the Catholic Church. We have to make special rules for Catholics running hospitals and charities? Were special exemptions made in the PPACA for Jews, Moslems, or Episcopalians? How about Buddhists or Baptists? No exemptions were made for any of those religions, their hospitals or charities, nor should any be made for the Catholic religion, its' hospitals or charities.
IF the Bishop's cannot "render unto Caesar" and conform to the LEGAL requirements of the PPACA, then they can retire from directly operating hospitals and providing particularly Catholic charities. The former can undoubtedly be sold, while the latter can be divided up among other charity providers.
This doesn't mean the Catholic Church has to cease providing help for those in need of such services. There's nothing preventing the Catholic Church from continuing to provide funds, DIRECTLY, for medical care, housing, education, etc. to ANYONE that needs such assistance. Which would certainly meet anyone's standards for being good Christians. It WOULD mean, however, that the Catholic Church would no longer be in charge of highly visible, "see all the good we do" projects.
Who knows, if it goes over well, maybe OTHER denominations will follow suit...
Perspecticus on February 03, 2012 8:57 PM:
"...but oppose universal access to any kind of health coverage as a matter of fundamental principal."
*ahem-cough!*Viagra*coughcough*
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 10:04 PM:
"and I could be mistaken.."
Which you are. I keep noting that it'd help if you guys acquired facts before you formed opinions. Doug remains Exhibit A.
Your example of Buddhists is one of those things you should have thought of. Supposing there were Buddhist schools, the way there are Catholic schools -- or, for that matter, Jewish schools (which there are). Supposing these parochial schools were very good, often much better than the public schools in some cities. Supposing that they got by on nickel and dime budgets, making do with donated paper, etc.
So -- let's really make up something outlandish -- supposing parents who weren't Buddhist or Jewish in such cities sent their kids to these schools, which was fine with the temples and synagogues that ran 'em. The parents were delighted, because their kids in these schools LEARNED, and were safe.
So -- let's just say -- the cities where these Buddhist and Jewish parochial schools provided parents decided to extend some Federally-funded school lunch programs to those schools.
But then, the US government decided that even though none of those parents were complaining, some Principle was involved: so no Buddhist or Jewish school could get any school lunch money, unless they served bacon and beef.
LOL -- let's face it, Doug: you have no principle worth defending, and you don't even know what the facts are.
MNRD on February 03, 2012 10:42 PM:
@theAmericanist, don't lose sight of the fact that Ed put in the following warning to progressives in reaction to dismissive responses to you on that earlier thread:
"If progressives respond to this campaign by mocking Catholic sensibilities or religious-based politics generally, it will play directly into the hands of those who are trying to use it to “wedge” Catholic voters into the GOP column."
chi res on February 03, 2012 10:44 PM:
popeboy: The fucking terrifying prospect you're opening up, Ed, is that the US government should force a schism on the Roman Catholic Church in the US
Kilgore: conservative overreaching may help expose the game
Exactly.
exlibra on February 03, 2012 11:03 PM:
As far as I can tell, and I could be mistaken, the ONLY religious group that considers taking/using contraceptives to be a sin, is the Catholic Church. -- Doug, @8:41
Can't be sure, but I think Mormons are, too. Years ago, my gynecologist/obstetrician -- a Mormon -- refused to prescribe the pill for me, because, although I was married, I had no children as yet. Never mind that my husband is an Episcopalian (very lapsed) and I'm an atheist; the doctor's conscience just couldn't square it. After my son was born, he recommended a 12-18months break between children and did prescribe the pill, after he failed to persuade us that keeping legs crossed (for me) and a knot tied in the willie (for my husband) was a preferable solution. He and his wife had 8 or 10 kids; pretty much what the traditional Catholic families had (my father was the youngest of 12 born, 10 living).
gaardvark on February 04, 2012 1:25 AM:
@theAmericanist As a lapsed Catholic, I simply don't find your arguments persuasive. You are of course correct that the Catholic church is an authoritarian institution and that what comes from the Vatican is not open to discussion. However, Catholics, despite their loyalty to the church are not all as dogmatic as you portray.
Yes, there are many who will accept the Bishops edicts and carry them into the voting booth. But there are still many who see the hypocrisy of voting in those that would do much damage to the social justice mission taught to us also as a tenet of faith.
Maybe you're right that there are enough Catholics that will take offense at the government imposing a rule that is seen as violating their faith. But maybe enough will see if differently.
JoanneinDenver on February 04, 2012 6:20 AM:
@theAmericanist
This is a fundamental clash of rights. In the United States, a woman has an absolute civil right to an abortion during her first trimester, by any legal means including the morning after pill. That right begins at a female's first ovulation. She also has the right to access birth control. Also, in the United States, the government can not interfere with the free exercise of religion.
In this case, the free exercise of religion involves limiting the ability of women to exercise their civil rights, as a condition of employment with a church affiliated institution. Furthermore, because this involves a federally mandated insurance program, the free exercise of the religion requires that the government intervene to protect the right of the religion to limit the ability of a woman to exercise her civil rights. Uh?
Questions:
1) If a school participated in a school lunch program, why shouldn't they offer bacon and beef? They are not forcing children to eat the bacon and meat. That would the violation of the First Amendment. Of course, public school kids had to eat fish sticks on Fridays for generations to accommodate catholic kids.
2) No federal funds can support abortion. However, some states do fund abortions for poor women using state tax monies. Should catholic church employers be allowed to refuse to collect a portion of a state income tax via payroll deductions so as to not fund abortions?
theAmericanist on February 04, 2012 9:42 AM:
Joanne: you're confusing accomodations with a mandate.
I'm not sure how far the analogy can go without making up rules for a hypothetical publicly-subsidized lunch program for parochial schools run by Buddhists, but you do state the basic confusion clearly -- no, this is NOT a fundamental clash of rights. You're wrong.
But you'd be right, if for example, the LDS Church was able to use the US government to enforce its rules, e.g., if a Mormon went to buy condoms and the clerk said -- wait, aren't you Mitt Romney? and called the cops: "We have a Mormon attempting to violate a Commandment at the Piggly Wiggly..." That would be an unConstitutional establishment of religion.
Likewise, requiring a Buddhist school to serve beef for lunch would be an unConstitutional violation of the freedom of religion.
What confuses pro-choice folks about this one is that they can't (or won't, more likely, Ed being Exhibit A) distinguish between the POLICY of refusing to exempt religious institutions as employers from the mandate to pay for contraception in health insurance, and the POLITICS of it. That requires evaluating whether the principle (which folks keep getting wrong, since this isn't about access to contraception) is worth the effort.
The analogy I was making to a publicly-subsidized lunch program at a parochial school run by Buddhists (to highlight it out of the pro-choice/pro-life context) DOES raise your question -- take the King's shilling, do the King's bidding. As you put it, it's a simple question: why shouldn't the government require a Buddhist school to violate Buddhism by serving beef or bacon when the government pays for the lunch?
The answer is also simple: because it's a bad idea. It defeats the purpose of paying for the lunch. That wasn't to make the school LESS Buddhist. (Ask yourself if that it isn't the real purpose of many pro-choice folks defending this one -- gee, now we can finally force the Catholic Church into the 21st century -- let's go!) Paying for lunch wasn't to force the school to choose between remaining Buddhist, and feeding the kids. The purpose of the government paying for the lunch is to feed the kids. The government figures -- kids are kids, it's a school, and the parents seem happy with the Buddhist education their kids are getting, since they are CHOOSING to send their kids there. They could have sent 'em to some other school, including the free public ones where they could have gotten beef and bacon lunches. (yum.) But the idea is that the PUBLIC purpose of feeding the kids is not altered in any important way by providing lunch to kids at a Buddhist school -- so confusing the essential (feeding the kids) with the in-essential (the Buddhist nature of the lunch at a Buddhist school) would force an unnecessary and counterproductive choice (feed the kids, or stop being Buddhist). What would happen is the school will turn down the lunch -- and possibly close because the parents may not be able to afford to feed the kids AND the tuition-that-doesn't-cover-the-costs, but the school won't take the lunch money and cease being Buddhist. That is its purpose, after all: Buddhist education.
Sorta like Catholic health care. Or schools. Or soup kitchens. Which serve people who aren't Catholic. That's the power in Cardinal McCarrick's observation, which takes this out of a merely Catholic perspective -- the government wants to make workers at a Catholic soup kitchen ask homeless people, not if they're hungry, but if they're Catholic.
Now -- lots of folks (you see it in these threads) insist that IS the proper choice: the government should have NOTHING to do with religious organizations. They confuse freedom OF religion with freedom FROM religion -- and they are far more authoritarian that the Pope, frankly. Consider the woman who was mortally offended when a Mormon pharmacist refused to fill her prescription for birth control pills -- "thro
JoanneinDenver on February 04, 2012 1:04 PM:
@theAmericanist on February 04, 2012 9:42 AM:
posted the following comment.
"Joanne: you're confusing accomodations with a mandate."
No, Amnst, you are wrong. I am right. Let me prove this.
The Affordable Care Act mandates that employers provide insurance for their employees and that insurance must include no cost contraceptives as part of the preventative care offered. Employers in institutions affiliated with the catholic church want to deny this particular coverage to their employees. They cite their first amendment rights to the free exercise of religion as the justification for denying their employees equal protection of this law.
You are confusing soup kitchens and voluntary participation in school lunch programs with civil rights. You are also presuming that all employees of such institutions are catholic; that is not necessarily true.
You say that employees can buy contraceptives "on their own." Let's look at the practical consequences if the church prevails. Those institutions of which we speak, such as soup kitchens, very expensive private colleges and hospitals, all have housekeeping staffs. The housekeeping personnel are overwhelmingly women, low income women, in many cases minority women, and women who are supporting their families with their wages. This is precisely the population most in need of access to free contraceptives. It is one of the populations the Affordable Health Care Act identified as being able to benefit from access to free contraceptives. While they may be able to purchase contraceptives on their own, the cost represents an economic burden. The church would establish these women (and men who would provide these contraceptives for their wives) as a special class denied coverage available to all other women.
Far be it from me to impede the church on its struggle to achieve economic justice within its own ranks. But, I welcome a constitutional resolution of this clash of rights. I stand with the women.
Now, may I ask, amnst, are you a Jesuit? It wasn't the logical process, but the patronizing attitude towards me, as a woman that prompted my inquiry. If the question is inappropriate, then I apologize.
theAmericanist on February 04, 2012 1:57 PM:
No, it's not inappropriate. It's a bit silly -- there's nothing particularly patronizing in what I've said to you. I know from patronizing: when I want to insult folks, it's not like I'm shy. Ask around.
1) Whether an employee of a Catholic institution is Catholic doesn't matter. This isn't about THEM, it's about the employer.
2) You are mistaken to argue as if it is about them, e.g., when you point out the housekeeping staff is made up of women who really ought to get contraceptives from their employers health insurance. I gave a couple examples of situations where the principle really would be about the employEE. For example, if the government tried to enforce the Catholic Church's rules -- hey, you: don't you work for a Catholic school? Then buying condoms is illegal: for you. That'd be an unConstitutional establishment of religion. The employee has the right to buy contraception. So this isn't about that.
3) You want it to be a practical matter -- well, the effect is that people who don't make a lot of money working for Catholic institutions.... means that those Catholic institutions will just have to stop being Catholic. WTF?
4) I'm not confusing soup kitchens and school lunches (the latter was an ANALOGY, I made the point I was trying to illuminate the issue by taking it out of the pro-choice/pro-life context) with civil rights. Nobody has a right to work in a soup kitchen, just as nobody has a government-enforced right to work for any particular employer. Whether an employer hires me (or you) is up to them, and whether we work for them is up to us.
5) There are circumstances -- it's an EXCEPTION -- where a religious organization has rights as an employer that other employers don't have. For example, when an unmarried teacher at a Catholic school becomes pregnant, the school can fire her. That's not true for a public school. The question is whether paying for contraception is something a Catholic institution MUST do, as an employer. There is a very real prospect here that if the Administration sticks to this astonishing act of anti-Catholic policy, refuses to extend the exception that religious employers have ALWAYS had, then Catholic hospitals, clinics, charities, and schools will simply close. So it's unwise to get the principle wrong.
6) It is not true that "the church" would be establishing a particular class of people (underpaid women employees??) who would be denied employer-paid-for contraception. I dunno what the top civilian executives of Catholic Charities get paid, but I imagine they can afford a box of Trojans now and then -- they'd just have to pay for them out of their own pockets. So it is simply false to assert as a PRINCIPLE that the Catholic position here is to deny poor people access to free contraception. They deny the same contraception coverage to well-paid employees. Never make false arguments is good advice.
It's important in a matter like this to beware of making stuff up.
7) The new law COULD easily have been interpreted in regulations (this isn't statute, you know, this policy isn't required by Congress, which is quite likely to vote on it: and Obama will LOSE, catastrophically ) to provide for the same exception that religious employers have always had. Even in the 28 states which have a similar rule to this one, there is an easy way around it through self-insurance. This policy BARS religious institutions from continuing to do what they have always done.
8) I've made a point of distinguishing the policy, from the politics here. The POLICY says that this is just such an absolutely critical principle that it must be done -- as you put it, just think of all those underpaid housekeepers.
Um, have any of them been speaking up, demanding that their employers cease being Catholic? Cuz I haven't heard of any. Remember, if they had wanted their employers to pay for their contraception, they would have pic
JoanneinDenver on February 04, 2012 2:39 PM:
@ theAmericanist
1) I used the housekeep staffs as an EXAMPLE of the economic consequences for one group if the church prevails.
But you are absolutely right. I should have noted that if the church prevails, it will have created a special class of employees who are denied the contraceptive converge available to all other employees. This class would not be limited to the housekeeping staff or other low income employees.
2)" For example, when an unmarried teacher at a Catholic school becomes pregnant, the school can fire her." I believe this was recently litigated and the Supreme Court found for the church. My position is that the conflict created by the Affordable Health Care Act tis a clash of constitutional rights. I hope that is it resolved, legally, not politically. I expressed my personal hope that the employees of catholic organizations will be able to participate in the Affordable Health Care Act on the same basis as employees of non-catholic organizations.
LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and said that the Democratic Party had lost the South for a generation. He was wrong, it has been two generations.
I hope the Obama administration will act to protect the rights of all employees, regardless of the political cost, whether that is through negotiation or litigation.
You are becoming redundant. I am not going to response anymore. I have had my say.
theAmericanist on February 04, 2012 2:56 PM:
You note that you used the housekeeping staff as an example of the economic consequences for one group if.... what?
You've stated you've had your say, but I wonder if you realize how little you've been listening.
For example, there would be NO economic consequences for the housekeeping staff if the new policy is reversed, because nothing would change. There ain't any consequences when nothing changes.
But if the housekeeping staff is employed by a Catholic institution that CLOSES because they cannot continue to be Catholic and employ people under this rule, well -- what do you make of THOSE economic consequences?
2) You're simply wrong. There was a Cincinnati case in 2010 when a Catholic school fired a teacher for violating her contract, which included what used to be called (and maybe still is) a "morals clause" -- if you get pregnant without being married, you can't teach in a Catholic school. The courts have held for the school. The teacher has tried a different argument, which is that even though she violated her contract, the contract is invalid on equal protection grounds: she was artificially inseminated, and a man who participated (is that really the right word?) in an artificial insemination would not have been fired.
The Supreme Court precedent for this is Bishop vs. Ross (1987), in which SCOTUS held that religious institutions must be ""free to select their own leaders, define their own doctrines, resolve their own disputes, and run their own institutions."
KarenJG on February 04, 2012 2:59 PM:
@ theAmericanist
You have posted several long screeds, which generally boil down to the same argument: The Catholic Church, as an institution, should have the right to act in accordance with its beliefs.
Let me ask you a different question: Do you believe that all American citizens should have the same federal rights, regardless of their religion?
theAmericanist on February 04, 2012 5:47 PM:
Yes.
KarenJG on February 04, 2012 6:12 PM:
@ theAmericanist
Okay, then, under what circumstances should one American citizen be able to deny rights to any other American Citizen?
theAmericanist on February 04, 2012 8:38 PM:
In what way do you suppose that is happening here?
theAmericanist on February 05, 2012 8:48 AM:
Ya ever notice how folks who are so impressed with themselves cuz they ask questions can't answer them?
I'd guess the unspoken premise of JG's question is that somebody is being denied their rights when an employee of a Catholic institution has to pay for their own contraception.
If someone can explain just how that it is so, it'd illuminate how counterproductive this policy shift is going to be.
KarenJG on February 05, 2012 11:57 AM:
@ theAmericanist
I didn't say that I thought this was happening here. I'm just trying to get a grasp on your concept of the limits of individual rights, to see if we have any basis for discussion. It could be that your view of individual rights is so restricted that there's no point in discussing how it may or may not related to institutional rights.
Sorry I didn't answer last night. I'm not particularly impressed with myself, I just had a dinner date with the Hubs.
theAmericanist on February 05, 2012 12:32 PM:
The Hubs?*
'Pologies for the snark.
Basically I think of this one (like I keep saying) as a policy fight that isn't that important, with a political price that is waaay higher than the actual stake involved.
I DON'T think it's a matter of principle that employees of religious institutions have to buy their own contraception. I don't quite understand why anybody thinks it is. This strikes me as sorta like the guy who sat down for a cross-country flight, saw that the plane had Wi-Fi, and said "Sweet!" An hour later when the WiFi went out, he started bitching: "This is such bullshit, man!" And the guy sitting next to him says -- look, you're at 30,000 feet going 600 miles an hour in a comfortable chair, and you didn't even know you could check your email up here an hour ago. Lighten up.
I might have a different view (even if all the rest was the same) if there was some tidal wave of employees at religious institutions who were demanding that their employers give up their religious character. But I don't see any of that here. My mom went to jail in a teacher's strike, so I know a little bit about teachers' unions, and I was struck by one such blogger sometime back who couldn't understand why anybody would work for a parochial school, considering all the rights you give up (and he cited the Supreme Court case I quoted). Since I know a fair # of parochial school teachers (as that particular blogger did not), I could have told him: they WANT to work there.
So I dunno who the White House thinks they're defending here, since the ostensible beneficiaries (employees of Catholic institutions who have to pay for their own contraception) have all CHOSEN to work for employers who can't pay for their contraception.
I think it's important (like I've also repeated a buncha times) to remember that nobody is being denied access to contraception. People who work for Catholic institutions can still buy it, or get insured in some other way so the insurer pays for it. So I'm not persuaded by arguments that skip over that, to insist that the underpaid household staff of some Catholic hospital is being denied condoms and morning-after pills, etc. I'm extremely skeptical of arguments that insist the principle is so important that facts (much less constituencies) don't matter.
So the simplest answer to your question is: I think individual rights are INDIVIDUAL rights. EmployERs have 'em, just like employEEs do. Like I said above, I don't have a right to work for anybody I want, under terms I choose, because they don't have to hire me. (Or else I'd run the Yankees.) When I choose to work for somebody, they agree to my terms -- and I agree to theirs.
That's why this one is not a matter of principle. Nobody is being denied anything. Institutions are being forced to pay for something that their PURPOSE requires that they cannot pay. Congress did not intend Medicaid and affordable health care to drive Catholic institutions out of health care, charity and education. That is a PRACTICAL policy decision, not a Constitutional question. (And to the extent it becomes one, it's likely to give this Supreme Court the chance to throw out the whole health care reform.)
As a practical policy question, like I said, if there was a tidal wave of the employEES at Catholic institutions who had no choice about their employers, who were demanding that their employers give up their Catholic character because otherwise they'd starve (not because they were having babies cuz they were too poor to pay for contraception, but because there was no other place for them to work), then I could see an argument that said: the US government has to force these Catholic institutions to pay for contraception, or else force them out of business.
Then I suppose the immediate question would be -- is there going to be some OTHER employer who takes their place, and hires these folks back, AND pays fo
theAmericanist on February 05, 2012 12:34 PM:
I forgot to explain the * on "the Hubs".
"Domestic tranquility" is in the Constitution. Employer-paid contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization are not.
KarenJG on February 05, 2012 1:09 PM:
Working on a response, but it's complicated, and I want to say it right...
KarenJG on February 05, 2012 2:11 PM:
You are focusing on institutional rights, I'm focused on individual rights under federal law (not just the constitution, but also laws duly passed by the federal government). I think our beliefs are so different that we have no basis for a productive discussion. However, in the interests of promoting understanding (although, not agreement!) I'll tell you what I believe.
For me, it *is* a matter of principle. I think any American citizen should be treated the same under federal law, regardless of the state they live in regardless of the religion they follow, regardless of the employer they work for. I should note that I don't think there even *should* be a conscience exception, but "my side" lost that fight a long time ago. I'm a proponent of universal, government-sponsored health care. But, that's not in the cards, either.
Where we are right now is, the federal government made a law that says that employers with more than 200 employees must offer health insurance that meets the law's standards, or pay a penalty. This law applies to all employers (with different provisions for small employers). Part of the standard is, it must include certain benefits, one of which is "first dollar" coverage of preventative care, which has been defined to include contraception.
I think that The Catholic Church's only "choice" should be to either provide insurance that meets the standard (i.e. includes contraception), or not provide insurance that meets the standard, and pay the penalty.
If I'm reading your post above correctly, you think that the Catholic Church's right to "maintain its Catholic character" trumps or supersedes the individual's right to receive the benefits of the Affordable Care act. I don't agree, and I can't imagine any argument that would make me agree with it. Conversely, I can't imagine any argument I could make that would make you agree with my position.
So, there we are. Disagreeing - but without, I hope, being disagreeable.
Oh, wait! There might be one possible agreement - we could both fight for universal, government sponsored health care, paid for by taxes. Since the Catholic Church doesn't pay taxes, they wouldn't be paying for the contraceptive coverage, either. Care to join me in that fight?
KarenJG on February 05, 2012 2:31 PM:
Oh, yeah, and Domestic Tranquility RULES!
JoanneinDenver on February 05, 2012 2:54 PM:
@KarenJG
Beautifully written! Well worth waiting for.
KarenJG on February 05, 2012 3:27 PM:
@JoanneinDenver - Thanks! I didn't think anybody else was still reading!
theAmericanist on February 05, 2012 4:06 PM:
We disagree, but I don't think you realize what it is we disagree about.
1) "the federal government made a law..." No kidding? Nobody is disputing that Congress passed a law which the President signed. I HAVE noted -- more than once -- that Congress didn't actually require the President to require that Catholic employers choose between remaining employers or remaining Catholic. You might speak to the actual point, if only for practice. Congress and the courts will have the last word here -- and you won't like it.
2) I find it a bit more significant than you (probably because I do this sorta thing for a living) that the Administration asked for critical political support for folks like Keenan, making assurances that the longstanding conscience exemption that religious institutions have as employers would be extended to include contraception. People like Keenan stood up to the Bishops at considerable personal cost, insisting that the Administration would keep its word. Without their support, the ACA wouldn't have passed. But the Administration didn't keep its word. These key allies were double-crossed. Why don't you speak to that?
3) You are correct when you say that as far as you're concerned: " The Catholic Church's only "choice" should be to either provide insurance that meets the standard (i.e. includes contraception), or not provide insurance that meets the standard, and pay the penalty." But what YOU want is not, strictly speaking, the issue. (I want to run the Yankees.)
4) That's because Congress did not write the law to REQUIRE that religious organizations as employers should be run out of business -- which is the choice that you applaud. As it happens, Congress writes the laws. The executive branch has considerable latitude to interpret 'em, which is largely a political dynamic. But it's vital to distinguish between the PRIMARY purpose of a law -- to reform health care, particularly financing -- and a secondary or even tertiary goal for some folks, especially one that goes beyond or even contradicts Congressional intent, thus risking the primary goal. That's what we're looking at here. One reason Ed is so worried about Rubio's 'conscience' bill is that it could pass the House and Senate, expanding the conscience exception far beyond what is was before.
5) You probably read yourself correctly that you cannot imagine any argument that would persuade you that an individual could be unable to get contraceptives paid for by any employer health plan: you see that as an individual right, now enacted by the Congress -- as if REAL rights depend on the Congress to enact them.
I suggest you re-read the Declaration of Independence, which is based on the truth that governments don't grant rights. We're born with them, and we establish governments to protect those rights -- governments that can only derive their powers from our consent, and even then, only their JUST powers.
The First Amendment is very clear that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. The Supreme Court has been very clear (as recently as 1986) that religious institutions are exempt from government coercion about their doctrines and practices.
See, where you and I part ways -- note I'm not talking about conclusions, but analysis -- is that you figure since the Administration did this, it HAD to do it, it;s "the law" -- and you approve.
If the Administration had kept its word, though, and written an exemption for religious institutions that allowed for self-insurance per Catholic (and Mormon, etc.) doctrine: would you have gone to the Supreme Court and demanded that the entire ACA be thrown out?
Congress didn't write the ACA to require this decision. That alone suggests that maybe the Administration made a mistake, since Congress can re-visit the issue and, I suspect, you won't like what they do with it.
Nor does it follow SCOTUS precedent -- do you
KarenJG on February 05, 2012 6:27 PM:
Wow. You're just made of snark, aren't ya? So much for not being disagreeable.
Look, all your typarrhea aside, your argument still comes down to saying that institutional rights trump individual rights - in this case, the Catholic Church's right to "maintain its religious character" vs the individual employee's right to receive the benefits of the ACA, as determined by law. And I disagree.
theAmericanist on February 05, 2012 10:16 PM:
The individual employee doesn't have the right to be employed by a Catholic institution, do they? Just like I don't have the "right" to run the Yankees.
I realize that you are absolutely determined to avoid the issue, but you should know that you're adopting the classic rationalization for ANY government action that you'd support -- and you will find, sure as shit and sunshine, that it will be applied against you for actions you don't support.
LOL -- hell, what you DO support (driving the Catholic church out of health care, charity services and education) isn't exactly a principled or popular position. You make the Komen folks look shrewd.
You figure that because the Obama administration went much further than the Congress wrote the statute, in a direction you like, that it's a perfectly legit choice to force on a Catholic institution: after all, the individual right to have an employer pay for contraception is real (says who? it's not in the statute), and trumps the religious character of the employer. Hey, if they don't like it, then they just close.
THAT's a goddam serious line to cross. What makes you so happy to cross it?
During the Iran-contra mess, I used to ask Republicans (in print): if President Jesse Jackson hocked an aircraft carrier to buy an army to fight apartheid in South Africa after Congress explicitly refused, would you be so comfortable with what you're sure -- for now -- is within the powers of the Presidency?
If a Republican President decided that no institution that sells contraception can get Federal dough: you'd gonna be okay with that?
Same 'principle'. You just figure that you have the votes now, so it doesn't matter. But I'm also pointing out: you don't have the votes.
See, what's actually gonna happen here is:
1) Congress is going to vote on this, and the administration will lose.
2) The Supreme Court is going to drag it into the Constitutional case on the mandate, and the administration will lose.
3) Both of these are going to happen during an election season where -- otherwise -- the Ds should run the table. But by going out of the way to force the Catholic church -- which was an ALLY for health care reform -- into this 'stop being employers or stop being Catholic' position, the 27 million Catholics who went 15-12 for Obama could easily wind up going the other way: costing Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Indiana. You don't think there are 3 million voting Catholics who might find your position to be an alarming view of the separation of Church and State? Changing it to freedom FROM religion?
So it may just be that this bit of pro-choice overreach is gonna cost the entire ACA, plus keep the House in Republican hands -- and it could do worse damage than that.
Be careful what you wish for, cuz you're likely to get it.