-
Restrain the Abusive Administative State
May 22, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Delivering Serbs to the Wolves
May 21, 2013 | 29 comments
-
The Perils of Intervention in Syria
May 7, 2013 | 37 comments
-
America on Welfare
April 25, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Thursday Is Tax Freedom Day
April 17, 2013 | 5 comments
The Public Policy
Mandating Contraception
It is bad for policy, bad for liberty, and today the Senate faces a crucial vote.
When the Obama administration effectively nationalized American health care, it took over medical decisions best left to individuals. The administration also subordinated religious liberty to politics. Today the Senate will vote on an amendment to protect people of faith.
Obamacare’s chief characteristic is substituting a one-size fits all template for today’s imperfect but decentralized system. Washington insists that it knows best for 313 million Americans and intends to impose its will on the recalcitrant. The latest manifestation of Uncle Sam’s soft tyranny is the administrative diktat that abortifacients, sterilization, and contraceptives are forms of “preventive” care which must be provided “free” through health insurance.
The requirement is bad public policy. At the behest of doctors, hospitals, and other providers, states impose roughly 2,000 mandates nationwide. Policyholders have to pay more for unwanted benefits even if they would prefer a scaled-down catastrophic plan.
Now Obamacare has put Uncle Sam in the mandate business as well, hence the contraceptives requirement. But this rule demonstrates another problem with government-controlled health “insurance.” It no longer is insurance.
The purpose of insurance is to guard against the small risk of a major loss. You buy insurance in case your house burns down, not to cover the cost of mowing your lawn. Insuring against recurrent expenditures under your control significantly raises costs.
Subsidizing contraception could save money by reducing unplanned pregnancies, but that can only be determined in the marketplace, not in a Department of Health and Human Services rulemaking process. If so, insurance companies don’t have to be ordered to provide the coverage. Patients also might prefer to prepay medical expenses, even if doing so is more expensive. But then, again, insurers wouldn’t have to be ordered to offer coverage. In fact, today the vast majority of insurance policies cover contraception.
The administration rule is an ideological rather than a medical imperative. Contraception, along with abortifacients and sterilization, has become a wedge issue on the feminist Left.
None of the justifications offered for the rule make sense.
Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the issue a matter of “women’s rights.” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) similarly opined that “We all know how hard the right wing will fight to restrict women’s rights.”
Yet sexually active men likely are as interested in contraception as women. Why doesn’t the administration include coverage for male contraception? Why the blatant discrimination against men?
Of course, men probably prefer that women be the ones using contraceptives and getting sterilized. Indeed, contraception is key for guys hoping “to score,” whether in a one-night stand or extended relationship. The availability of contraception and abortion makes it easier for men to enjoy sex without commitment, historically a prime male objective. Ironically, in important ways — sexually transmitted diseases, for instance — condoms might be a better health bet for women. The mandate is as much a play for the votes of men as of women.
Contraception is not an essential medical service more important than treatment for breast cancer, leukemia, colon cancer, and Alzheimer’s. Or my knee replacement. If contraception should be “free,” why not these other far more vital treatments? Why allow deductibles and co-pays to discourage anyone from getting any medical treatment?
Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend blamed opponents for wanting “to fight about contraception being available for women.” Robert Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State similarly charged that “the Bishops” want “to personally cut off access” to contraceptives.
In fact, contraceptives are available to all and no one is campaigning to ban the pill, IUD, or condoms. Saying that insurance coverage is necessary for access to contraceptives is like saying insurance coverage is necessary for access to aspirin. Anyone can buy contraceptives today.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained that the administration was committed “to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs.” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) declared: “we should try very hard to give women universal access to birth control without going into their pockets.” The New York Times cited “an essential principle — free access to birth control for any woman.”
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (93) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/01/mandating-contraception
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike Hawk| 3.1.12 @ 6:27AM
This is not a policy issue. it is an unconstitutional autocratic power grab that should not be permitted to stand. Unfortunately, the lack of leadership in the Republican party will not permit the appropriate response.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 8:03AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
"In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose -- by force of law -- its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Super Tuesday.
Dick Nome| 3.1.12 @ 9:24AM
Go away you cut and paste putz.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 12:18PM
Make Me RINO-CINO Coward, Dickie Girlie.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Super Tuesday.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 12:22PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand. "
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Super Tuesday.
RJ| 3.1.12 @ 10:43PM
Interesting comment from Dr. Paul. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I agree with Hawk; making contraception a government mandated benefit for someone else to provide is beyond the legal scope of government.
Alan Brooks| 3.1.12 @ 7:33PM
You oppose abortion and contraception even though they are based on free enterprise,
because you are selective about capitalist enterprises.
Quartermaster| 3.1.12 @ 8:23PM
And you make the stupid assumption that morality and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Just because some capitalists are Gordon gecko, doesn't mean all are.
TrueBlue | 3.2.12 @ 2:59PM
I oppose abortion and contraception because of my religious and moral beliefs. However if other people want to use it that is between them and God. My problem with the mandate is that it takes away peoples' First Amendment rights by FORCING them to pay for abortions and contraceptives for others.
I agree with the author, if someone wants contraceptives, they can pay for them themselves. Nobody should be forced to ignore their religious or personal beliefs because someone else doesn't want to have to pay for something.
As soon as the government mandates a product must be purchased it is no longer free enterprise. This one specifically is A VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTS.
TrueBlue | 3.2.12 @ 5:45PM
Here, I even put all the links to throw that "It's about women's health" bull$%^ out the window in one place for you Brooks.
http://truebluevigilance.blogs.....rtion.html
POST American| 3.1.12 @ 6:42AM
Always interesting, as we take in the
devastation of 6-7 decades of full throttle
cultural degradation from the Rockefeller/Carnegie/
Ford/Macy Group EUGENICS 'social engineers
how these issues are framed.
Of course, NO mention of this 'authorized'
takedown, so long in the works. No, just more
of that proper, 'lodge--ick--all' and 'ration-all'
deliberation.
And, while the net's probably just months away
from lockdown on 'un-filtered' opinion
----3 decades and more of unrestricted
cyber porno doesn't even make a talking point
on the fake populist Fox News.
What's happened to music, literature,
theater, movies, courtship, dance ---what
have you, speaks for itself.
And again, NO suggestion that laws be enacted
whereby the responsible male party
be liable for 50% support married or not.
And even further ---NO treatment ---NO
discussion, NO mention of the 'on the go'
forces such as leading capstone EUGENIST
Dr Peter Singer of Princeton who's
calling for selective -uh-- 'easing out'
of children up to 3 years of age ---not
just over health issues ---but even if
the parents feel they 'can't cope' with the
stress.
------Remember folks ---this is all being heavily
and relentlessly funded and promoted and
programmed by our 'good friends' at the
ultra rich, TAX FREE 'benny violent'
foundations.
Remember also ---IT'S YOUR WATCH
and the ETERNAL reckoning of ALL things
is most assuredly ---on the way.
Mike 3/505| 3.1.12 @ 6:36PM
Post,
That one actually made some sense.
Appleby| 3.1.12 @ 6:50AM
An interesting point that forcing women to take all responsibility for contraception is the unspoken "mandate" of this Hippie Scum proclamation ... still trying to promote the idea that men are rabid, uncontrolled and uncontrollable animals and it's up to the women to lock themselves up. If I were a man I would find this extremely insulting. However, it must be tempting to promote the idea that if a woman gets pregnant, it is HER failure, and thus SHE is the one who has to deal with it. The man puts another notch in his wee-wee and moves on down the road, or so the song says.
It's a shame that Obama's parents didn't practice Preventive Medicine way back when, isn't it?
Teaghan| 3.1.12 @ 7:36AM
"It's a shame that Obama's parents didn't practice Preventive Medicine way back when, isn't it?"
Indeed Appleby, indeed.
Rentt| 3.1.12 @ 7:51AM
I agree but just would like to make small word choice modifications. I would say sperm source and egg source. Calling them parents? No.
And therein lies many of our BHO problems.
jothepro| 3.1.12 @ 8:34AM
WOW!!! I agree with Appleby. Watershed baby- Watershed!!
Jeremiah Smirking| 3.1.12 @ 8:03AM
"Congress should grant a religious exemption ..." Oh really? And once they send the exemption to the desk of the President, does anyone in their right mind believe he will sign it into law?
JP| 3.1.12 @ 8:36AM
Good point. The real heresey is that Congress or the President can grant such favors in the first place. Our Rights precede the government. Niether the President, HHS, nor Congress can abrdige the free expression of religion. Our Beltway Masters act like medieval kings dispensing favors to thier peasant subjects.
ObamaCare is unconstitutional because Congress cannot delegate its authority to the Dir of HHS. As Amer Spec noted 2 years ago, there are 300 instances in which Congress gives HHS open ended powers which re-define Constitutionally protected rights of the individual. The dirty little secret is, Congress dispense the same powers to a number of regulatory agencies.
Mike| 3.1.12 @ 9:19AM
Congress shouldn't have to grant any exemption. The exemption already exists in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 8:15AM
Dr. Ron Paul,
" The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Dick Nome| 3.1.12 @ 9:25AM
Go away you cut and paste putz.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 12:19PM
Let's See If You're Man Enough To Make Me, RINO-CINO Coward, Dickie Girl.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Super Tuesday.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 12:23PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?"
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Mimi| 3.1.12 @ 8:58AM
This whole placating to the "LIBBIE-LEFT" will be Obama's waterloo....After the vote on Nov.2012 when the count comes in....when the exit polls are digested and he is starting to pack his bags....He will realize his own " LIBBIE'S were the ones who lost the election....All he had to do if he had a brain was to say..." GIRLS..I can't do this to the country ...to the peoples church it's against the Constitution...I don't have that POWER"
The Dems are at a crossroads...they could be taking their PARTY the way of the dinosaurs.
Not only will the 2012 ELECTION be interesting and critical to our survival....The way the PEOPLE go and why will bring us political changes beyond our imaginings. Will PROVIDENCE BLESS this nation as always?....or will the seeds of destruction continue?
SUBVET| 3.1.12 @ 10:03AM
Seeds of Destruction = Romney
johnadamsxii| 3.1.12 @ 9:40AM
Like any form of price control this will actually create a shortage.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 10:33AM
To understand the actual implications of this issue, simply reverse the mandate. How would many of our fellow citizens react if, in the name of public health, the government prohibited circumcision even for religious reasons? What would be the reactions then? Our Jewish and Moslem citizens would have every right to oppose such an intrusive, conscience violative mandate.
Mimi| 3.1.12 @ 12:01PM
YUP....This could get WORSE! Thats why the PATRIOTS will end it!
Robert| 3.1.12 @ 1:17PM
if the feds circumscribed circumcision and made men pay for not being circumcised, I would certainly not be circumspect in my criticism. It is however with certitude that I say Al Adab, you are certifiable! So sir...short circuit your circumlocutions!
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 2:45PM
Robert:
Very good LOL. Now please, answer the question. A Dhimmi tax is exactly what you jokingly posit.
Jack London| 3.1.12 @ 1:49PM
This is nonsense Al. No one is mandating contraception.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 2:43PM
Friend Jack:
The mandate is however forcing those who oppose it to provide and pay for it. If that is not tyranny, what is?
DRed| 3.1.12 @ 2:57PM
I oppose lots of things I have to pay for. It's called living in a republic.
DLie| 3.1.12 @ 3:51PM
49.5% pay no income taxes
50.5% pay all income taxes
Jack London| 3.1.12 @ 3:18PM
Absurd hyperbole, Al. Apart from the obvious – as DRed, says we pay for many things that many of us don't like (eg. nuclear weapons) – we can do an 'Al' and turn this around - true 'tyranny' is giving an organization with much economic power a mandate to restrict standard employee benefits. Organizations are not people, despite what the Supremes think.
Read this article:
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn......-1202.html
'Moreover, it is not clear why the religious beliefs of any employer or insurer should take precedence over those of its employees or enrollees.'
'It is difficult to see why an employer has any more right to veto an employee’s use of her health benefits than it does to veto her use of her salary, sick leave, or other aspects of her compensation for the same contraceptive services.'
And to cap it all, it saves money too, if that's what you're really worried about.
Jack Stupid| 3.1.12 @ 3:52PM
49.5% pay no income taxes
50.5% pay all income taxes
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 4:22PM
No one my Arctic friend is opposing her ability to spend her salary as she sees fit. In fact, the entire problem with this is the mistaken belief that health care is something which should be funded by someone other than the individual. When it comes down to it, do any of us have a moral claim on the earnings of others?
Jack London| 3.1.12 @ 4:46PM
I think you've lost the plot here Al. Do you understand how insurance works? Are you saying you'll pay for your triple bypass and cancer surgery all by yourself?
As it happens we can probably agree at least that we must get rid of employer-based health insurance. That would mean your bishops can just spout their pope-speak in churches, where it belongs. But then I'm afraid we'll need a single-payer insurance scheme for all.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 5:50PM
Jack:
First paragraph yes either with my own money or through catastophic insurance I buy personally. I do always have the choice to go without. Maybe at age 75 or so I would choose to preserve the family estate rather than my own life.
Second, check out my name, clearly not Catholic.
Employer paid coverage is simply a benefit some provide and others do not. Why not let the self-employed deduct the premium costs from taxable income. Single payer, no. The someone else other than me makes decisions for my health and life.
Jack London| 3.1.12 @ 6:20PM
If you get cancer or another major chronic disease you could be wiped out financially very quickly, so you're taking a big risk. I presume though you'll be on Medicare when the time comes.
There's absolutely no chance that the private market will offer affordable care to the population if the employer link is broken. I expect to see at least a basic single payer system in the next 20 years or so.
Mike 3/505| 3.1.12 @ 6:43PM
"When it comes down to it, do any of us have a moral claim on the earnings of others?"
That is the main issue here. Religion is just a minor part....a small battle in a larger war. The war is about property rights...whether or not, by Government fiat, someone else has a right to your property. If we don't figure this out quick and do something about it, instead of flailing around, we are all gonna end up taking home less than 10 percent of our own paychecks to pay for the moochers.
This theft happened with GM already. The administration is already trying to steal an earned benefit from career Servicemembers. Next will be the administration restricting how much of your 401-K you can draw out...means tested...so it can fund Ms. Fluke's contraceptives.
It's ALL about property rights
Pecos Pete| 3.1.12 @ 10:46AM
Yesterday the government mandated free contraception.
Today the government mandated that all citizens above the age of 12 will do 8 hours of public service a week. Failure to report for "duty" shall result in assignment to a "work camp" for one year.
Tomorrow the government will announce nationalization of all privately owned property.
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.1.12 @ 1:43PM
They practically have, alredy.
Kelo vs. The City of New London.
Jack London| 3.1.12 @ 10:54AM
What a breathtakingly ignorant article. And isn't it always the case that the fascist right evoke a great socialist - George Orwell – to defend the subjugation of vulnerable groups such as low-income women to a collection of sad old men in hats who supported the real Nazis and hid many pedophiles in their midst.
If anyone here is open minded enough to read a proper account of the issues, go here:
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn......-1202.html
Pecos Pete| 3.1.12 @ 11:25AM
Okay, Jack, I read it. Lots of really neat words. And the article, and you, entirely miss the obvious ... the federal government can not constitutionally mandate health care of any kind.
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.1.12 @ 1:50PM
Maybe he's been with the Wolves, too long?
If these SLUTS wanna get LAID? That's their business. If they need Birth Control? PAYING FOR IT is their business, too. Not mine.
I thought these Whores wanted the Government OUT of the Bedroom?
And that's what they are. WHORES. They want everybody else to give them Money, every time they spread their legs.
Give me a break.
Mike 3/505| 3.1.12 @ 6:45PM
Tim,
You knowe the difference between a W.... and a B.... correct?
Newt2012| 3.1.12 @ 1:46PM
Wow, Jack you are an ignorant SOB. It is stunning. Do you have any idea what the definition of fascism is? It is EXACTLY what Obama is advocating.
DRed| 3.1.12 @ 2:35PM
As a point of historical fact, fascists were strongly against both birth control and abortion. They wanted their chosen people to be fruitful and multiply.
Stormy| 3.1.12 @ 11:17AM
If all women are going to have access to free contraceptives, provided by insurance companies, then what about women who are not currently employed? Can they go to any insurance company to get their free coverage, or is that insurance company only required to provide free contraception to employees of companies carrying their coverage?
DRed| 3.1.12 @ 11:31AM
"Of course, the mandate also requires the impotent, infertile, gays, sexually inactive, sexually less active, and those opposed to contraception to pay for those who use contraception, especially in abundance."
Statements like this give the lie to the idea that someone like Mr. Bandow opposes this coverage because of religious conscience. What he seems most offended by is that there may be some women out there who enjoy having sex. One would expect a educated scholar like Mr. Bandow to understand that a woman taking hormonal birth control takes the same amount of birth control regardless of her level of sexual activity. There aren't women who use hormonal birth control (the pill) in abundance. There are women who take the pill and women who don't.
Thomas F. Williams | 3.1.12 @ 12:17PM
Why are violations of the Constitution not treated as treason and the violaters executed? I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. I suppose I and the other oath takers should begin upholding our vow. I read the constitution and only see two real jobs of the federal government. How did we as Americans let it get to this?
W| 3.1.12 @ 12:58PM
We elected Democrats such as Woodrow Wilson, who gave us the income tax, IRS, and WW1.
Then FDR who gave us the New Deal that started the nanny state, then LBJ with the Great Society that expanded the nanny state. Then Carter added the Dept of Education and Dept of Energy. Obma completed it with Obamacare. Along the way we had a compassionate conservative GWB that expanded the Dept of Education and Medicare.
The Dems controlled the House for over 40 years from 1950's to 1994, thus controlling all tax bills and most of the legislation.
Wilson started us on the road to nation building. We got Wilson because in 1912 Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third party to oppose the real conservative Taft, thus ensuring a victory for Wilson. Teddy believed in nation building and exerting American power overseas. Teddy is the hero of John McCain, the Weekly Standard, and the interventionist wing of the Republican party.
With the growth of the federal government many Americans became comfortable with asking and expecting the feds to solve every problem. Everyone running for Congress and President is asked "what will you do about....." ranging from student loans, to education, to housing, and other issues that are not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. We judge politicians by how many laws they have passed.
Every problem must have a federal government solution. That is how we got to where we are.
cybercorrespondent | 3.1.12 @ 1:23PM
Now Obama has law school hookers asking for free contraceptives. They should charge their johns more to cover the cost. Now that I think about it, I wish they were given to Obama’s mother so we wouldn’t have to deal with this problem.
http://youtu.be/8qHmXMMCrlI
purp| 3.1.12 @ 1:44PM
"When the Obama administration effectively nationalized American health care, it took over medical decisions best left to individuals." - since this is not true, and this guy seems to have forgotten the central role insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies play, there's no point reading a pack of lies and misinformation to make a point. Ignore this article, the author is lying to you.
From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.1.12 @ 2:32PM
Pierre "Purp" Pelosi,
We are aware we agreed to refer to you as "Petey" per your request, but our attempts to get your attention, as well as the attention of Brian "Jack London" Cutteridge, have so far failed.
Stop embarrassing us. We are under assault and wish to avoid further ridicule.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know there is no reason why MEDICAL INSURANCE should be part of any employee - employer relationship.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know there is no reason why MEDICAL INSURANCE is not purchased by citizens just like AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE and HOME OWNER'S INSURANCE and LIFE INSURANCE is purchased.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know that HEALTH CARE refers to the behavior that citizens choose and the effect of this behavior on their health.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know we are trying to fool citizens into paying for our MEDICAL INSURANCE in order to cover our health problems resulting from our behavioral choices that have resulted in our rodent-scratched fecal sewer pipes and our teabagged dislocated jaws and our infestations of AIDS and so forth. (And we are well aware how near and dear this is to you.)
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know 49.5% DO NOT PAY income taxes.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know over 70% of federal spending is for DEPENDENCE programs.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know over 91 million are DEPENDENT on government.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know EACH TAXPAYER right now already owes more than a MILLION DOLLARS each.
Stop embarrassing us.
- MM staff
DRed| 3.1.12 @ 2:33PM
Well, he was fired from the Cato institute the first time for taking payments from Jack Abramoff in exchange for writing articles favorable to Abramoff's lobbying clients. But I'm sure this time he's writing from the heart. If the Cato institute can find it in it's heart to forgive, who am I to condemn?
From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.1.12 @ 2:49PM
Sandra "DRed" Fluke,
The above message for Pierre "Purp" Pelosi and Brian "Jack London" Cutteridge applies to you as well.
Stop embarrassing us.
- MM staff
Tex Expatriate| 3.1.12 @ 1:47PM
The only thing wrong with the essay is that today's vote on an amendment was not about contraception. It was about structuring things so that some Democrats can go home on vacation and say that they voted with conservatives. I am constantly, almost daily, astounded anew at the fact that so many bright people can be fooled by Democrats.
runningdeer| 3.1.12 @ 1:50PM
Leave it to the elitist Hollywood media types and this liberal media to love legislation that would provide birth control for every person who is too lazy and stupid to provide it for themselves. Those same people feel that legalized prostitution is a form of slavery and it must be stopped. When you consider the source of the arguments for this it is just pathetic to consider it at all.
Fiscal| 3.1.12 @ 3:04PM
It sounds like a little history is needed hear because TAS and Fox News AND MSNBC all have reframed the issue poorly. Once EMTALA was passed in 1986, it set the baseline for government health mandates by forcing hospitals and doctors to give emergency treatment WITHOUT compensation thereto. All hospitals, including Catholic ones, accepted this because of their need to accept Medicare which pays about 44% of all hospital costs.
Once government mandates are accepted as constitutional, then it becomes a matter of individual belief as to what is religious and what is not.
Furthermore, group health insurance is loaded with state mandates in a multitude of areas. If an institution wants to accept government payment for services, then they defacto must live with the restrictions/covenants. Religious institutions cannot have it both ways. In essence, then, religious institutions get their money from the vast majority of people who accept contraception and have no right, religious or otherwise, to use the money they get from the secular world to determine religious limitations. On the other hand, if they refused to take money from all of us, then they have the right to practice any way they see fit. In essence, I don't want the money I give to the federal government to deny anyone limitations on contraceptives.
Most of you talk about letting the vote of the people decide on things like same sex marriage. Well, if we voted on contraception, you know the results. So don't give me this nonsense about violating an institutions morality -- if they take government money, then they have given up that privilege.
That gets us to healthcare in this country and why individuals should get their own policies and not rely on employer sponsored ones. If you are fiscally responsible, then you would support this solution to this issue. Rather than letting the religious institution make the decision about contraception, we should let the individual make it and not force religion on anyone -- even if they work for a religious institution.
From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.1.12 @ 3:26PM
Robert "Fiscal" Reich,
The above message for Pierre "Purp" Pelosi and Brian "Jack London" Cutteridge and Sandra "DRed" Fluke applies to you as well.
Stop embarrassing us.
- MM staff
Fiscal| 3.1.12 @ 4:10PM
I don't need to embarrass you so called (fiscal) conservatives -- you do a good job of it all by yourselves....
If you were really fiscal conservatives rather than religious zealots you'd understand the issue much better.
Fecal Idiot| 3.1.12 @ 3:53PM
49.5% pay no income taxes
50.5% pay all income taxes
Fiscal| 3.1.12 @ 4:15PM
Dear Fecal:
The numbers you quote are meaningless. Since money if fungible and neither Social Security and Medicare have trust funds, you must look at total taxation rather than just income taxes. Everyone pays payroll taxes which go into the general fund. There really is no difference between payroll taxes and income taxes -- they are just two legislative ways to collect for the government's coffers.
Anyone who is fiscally competent and understands the federal budget knows this, but political operatives on BOTH the right and left feed you this "fecal" matter because you don't want to search for the truth and just reiterate talking points.
DRed| 3.1.12 @ 4:19PM
His numbers aren't even accurate (and, of course, have nothing to do with contraception). But don't bother. He'll just repeat them and repeat them and repeat them. At best he'll come up with a different nickname for you, or post under a different 'witty' alias.
DLiar| 3.1.12 @ 5:00PM
DLiar
www.heritage.org/research/repo.....government
DLiar
DRed| 3.1.12 @ 5:10PM
Oh, you meant FEDERAL income taxes. Why didn't you say so?
By the way, what's that got to do with contraception?
DLiar| 3.1.12 @ 5:50PM
"I oppose lots of things I have to pay for. It's called living in a Republic."
(Stupid @Idiot @ DLiar @ this thread @ above @ 2:57pm @ above @ this thread @ DLiar @ Idiot @ Stupid)
Fecal Idiot| 3.1.12 @ 4:57PM
""Conservatives" have become religious extremists oriented towards whites"
(Fiscal 2/11 @ 5:53am)
"Believing in social welfare and helping the poor is just as "Christian", perhaps even more so"
(Fiscal 2/11 @ 5:53am)
"Fox will blatantly lie"
(Fiscal 2/20 @ 2:44pm)
"True science is silent on when life begins"
(Fiscal @ 12:09pm)
"In fact, it is technically "life" prior to conception"
(Fiscal 2/24 @ 12:45pm)
"...financial companies...was the major cause of the problem -- not the CRA, not Fannie and Freddie, not government"
(Fiscal 2/24 @ 1:04pm)
"Any infringement on personal liberty like banning same sex marriage or interfering with the personal choice of an individual on abortion..."
(Fiscal 2/24 @ 1:12pm)
"It is a mistake not to fault Republicans for forcing more Government on us"
(Fiscal 2/24 @ 3:46pm)
"Markets do not behave well on their own"
(Fiscal 2/24 @ 3:57pm)
"Republicans actually believe that tax cuts can stimulate GDP"
(Fiscal 2/24 @ 4:45pm)
"tell me where in the Constitution you find anyplace to outlaw abortion or restrict marriage"
(Fiscal 2/24 @ 7:26pm)
"I remain unconvinced that any political ideology is more "moral" than any other"
(Fiscal 2/28 2 9:16am)
"The theory that tax cuts stimulate economic growth is just not true"
(Fiscal 2/28 @ 11:31am)
Idiot.
Fiscal| 3.1.12 @ 5:07PM
Really? You are an example of why our country is in trouble -- you don't understand the issues and just listen to talking heads. I can actually prove each of those statements. Since you mentioned it twice, let us see your proof that tax cuts stimulate economic growth with GDP as a measure. Perhaps you can show that the rate of growth of GDP during Reagan was greater than that of Clinton? In point of fact, GDP has shown a steady rise over the years and shows absolutely no correlation to marginal tax rates. Maybe if you actually took a look at the numbers you'd learn something.
Fecal Idiot| 3.1.12 @ 5:44PM
""Conservatives" have become religious extremists oriented towards whites believing in social welfare and helping the poor is just as "Christian" perhaps even more so Fox will blatantly lie true science is silent on when life begins in fact techically "life" is prior to conception financial companies was the major cause of the problem -- not CRA not Fannie and Freddie not government any infringement on personal liberty like banning same sex marriage or interfering with the personal choice of an individual on abortion it is a mistake not to fault Republicans for forcing more Government on us markets do not behave well on their own Republicans actually believe that tax cuts can stimulate GDP tell me where in the Constitution you find anyplace to outlaw abortion or restrict marriage I remain unconvinced that any political ideology is more "moral" than any other the theory that tax cuts stimulate economic growth is just not true you are an example of why our country is in trouble -- you don't understand the issues and just listen to talking heads I can actually prove each of those statements if you actually took a look at the numbers you'd learn something."
MikeBee| 3.3.12 @ 10:36PM
Fiscal,
The issue with Medicare is a bit more complicated than you are making it out to be. You statements assume that hospitals receive "grant"-like monies from the federal government called Medicare, and that, if a Catholic hospital receives these monies, then it must also accept federal government caveats on the money. Sounds good, but it's not the way things are.
I have been CFO and Controller of hospitals in my career. There are actually two different ways that Medicare (federal) monies are paid to hospitals. First, there are payments for Inpatient care. Payments for inpatient care are periodic payments in even amounts. Medicare looks at the hospital's prior year eligible expenses, assumes these expense levels for the next year, divides by 12, and sends this amount to the hospital monthly, for inpatient care. This covers all care for people who stay in hospitals overnight and longer, and qualify for Medicare. This payment scheme is like grant monies, but will not pay a penny for contraceptives, because contraceptives are not considered part of Inpatient care.
The other payment type used by Medicare covers payments for Outpatient care and for Prescriptions. Both Outpatient care and Prescription care are paid on a fee basis. A hospital treating a patient who qualifies for Medicare as an Outpatient, may charge for its services according to Medicare's published fee scale, no more, no less. The only federal Medicare monies given to the hospital are for direct services performed. These Medicare payments are not like grant monies at all. They are payments for services rendered. Period.
The same is true for prescriptions. Medicare has a published fee scale for prescriptions. If a hospital uses a drug in treating a Medicare-eligible patient in its facility, it can charge Medicare only the amount for that drug that Medicare allows. Period. Medicare then reimburses the hospital for that amount, for the prescription used.
Contraceptives would fall under the realm of prescription drugs. If a Catholic hospital chooses not to provide prescription drugs to its patients, then it receives NO FEDERAL MONIES for those drugs. The Catholic hospital can only charge Medicare for, and receive Medicare monies for, the drugs that it has used/given out.
Because of the payment methodologies used with Medicare patients, Catholic hospitals receive NO FUNDS from the federal government for contraceptives, so your argument holds no water. They are not receiving Medicare funds as if it was grant monies, which they are then free to use when providing services. Instead, all Medicare prescription revenues are received from Medicare on an as-used basis only. Catholic hospitals don't charge for this stuff, as they don't give it out to women.
The federal government CANNOT force religious institutions to provide products to women. Catholic hospitals, not having ever received a dime for contraceptives, are free to NOT give them out to their patients. If Catholic hospitals never give patients contraceptives, they will never receive monies from the federal government for them.
This remains a moral issue.
Bill| 3.1.12 @ 4:01PM
War on Christianity must be stopped!
Fiscal| 3.1.12 @ 4:17PM
Then you must agree that the war on Islam and homosexuality must also stop..... Right????
Anthony| 3.1.12 @ 4:22PM
To the morally & intellectually bankrupt left, "access" is defined as someone else paying for it.
Ms. Fluke, the poster-child of the M&I B crowd on the left is indignant that her sexual appetites come at a cost.
Of course she would be a "reproductive" activist, 3rd year law student at the top 25 Georgetown Law School, plucking down $45,000 per year for her law degree, yet purchasing contraceptives are a burden.
A leftist star has been born, a poor turn of phrase perhaps, but the left has another Anita Hill to celebrate.
This woman's legal future is bright, she will, no doubt, end up in a high government position or as a federal judge.
In the mean time, I am attempting to help an old friend and his wife deal with his rapid dementia as his entire world falls apart.
No one has offered to testify before congress that his disease be treated for free. Perhaps I need to call Ms.Fluke.
cicero| 3.1.12 @ 4:27PM
Sexual activity and its natural consequences is not a desease. Sexual activity is not necessary, like food and water, to sustain the life of the individual. This is a voluntary (for the most part) activity. Why the government wanst to insure against it as though it were a malady is beyond conprehension. It is just another freebie offered by the government to be paid for by the "invisible man", in an endless game of "buy me some votes".
Clemmie| 3.1.12 @ 4:39PM
This article brought up something that no one seems to speak about -- birth control pills and and morning after pills are great for men! No responsibility and lots of sex! They could not have asked for more.
As for the morning after pill, I would not give that to a horse. It's an ugly chemical asault on the body. Let's see the results of women taking this after twenty years have passed. My guess is that it ain't going to be pretty.
MikeBee| 3.2.12 @ 12:15AM
Clemmie,
There have already been some studies performed that seem to show a connection between taking the pill and breast cancer.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.1.12 @ 4:51PM
Perhaps this has nothing to do at all with contraception. Perhaps it is a prelude to an attack on the Church. Do not forget that in the French Revolution, and also in England, I believe; the Church properties were siezed by the ruling elites.
At a minimum, we know that it is an assault on our liberty and property. This is what communist do!
DRed| 3.1.12 @ 5:30PM
Do you ever read Reason magazine, VMj? They had an interesting article on Obama and religion a week or so ago. I'd be interested in your take on it:
http://reason.com/archives/201.....f-religion
Von Mises Jr.| 3.1.12 @ 6:31PM
I'm impressed, DRed. I haven't been reading Reason but I followed Nick Gillespie, Matt Welsh and Katherine Mangu-Ward on Freedom Watch before Judge Napolitano exited the scene.
This quote is in the article you cited: "If you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion."
I would be inclined to believe that the liberals strategy is just like how they gave grants to the schools and then commandered the curriculum. I would warn the Churches to be aware of false gods bearing gifts. I think my friend Al Adab read it the same way.
But thanks for your thoughtful question.
DRed| 3.1.12 @ 6:43PM
But do you believe my rights are being trampled? Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. I'm a non-believer. What right does the government have to take my money and use it to help establish religion? As I read the first amendment, the government has no business funding this sort of thing.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.1.12 @ 10:38PM
Absolutely, DRed.It is your right not to believe, as it is mine to believe. This is what much of the founding was based on. The Constitution is a contract limiting government and the Bill of
Rights speaks to religion First!
The colonist came from England where Catholics, Puritans, Separatist, Quakers and others resented paying tithes to the Anglican Church. I am sure there were plenty of atheist and agnostics that felt the same. This is not simply about religion, but being free to choose anything and everything.
Simon Templar| 3.2.12 @ 7:24PM
My lord you are one twisted, red bastard.
If you had a sliver of a brain you would want churches to remain tax exempt. It is that wall of seperation you are always screaming for, dunce!
They start paying taxes, they then start wielding even more influence. This would open the door to a host of problems from the perspective of your shoes. You are not subsidizing anything, anyway. This is just another false premise on your part.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 5:52PM
Jr:
Watch and see what happens to the tax exemptions of the religious hospitals which refuse to comply.
Nottellin1| 3.1.12 @ 6:13PM
Cracks me up when the Prez says its about womens rights. What about a womans right to have a mammogram every year? Oh yeah HHS says we only need one every other year becasue the instance of breast cancer has decreased. HHS does not mention that the decrease ws probably because of yearly exams. Democrats are Hypocrats
Mike 3/505| 3.1.12 @ 6:54PM
"Democrats are Hypocrits."
No...they are criminals...what else would you call someone who uses the power of government to steal property from your neighbor to give to you?
Tony in Central PA| 3.1.12 @ 9:01PM
" Rights " are basically anything people want. People can use the same argument as this Administration to get the gov't to pay for their tats and piercings.
This is a power grab, The Left wants to eliminate all rivals to the authority and power of the central government. This is only the beginning as far as Obamacare.
Bob S| 3.2.12 @ 12:18AM
Mr. Bandow fails to paint the issue clearly and succinctly in the stark colors it deserves.
It's called the First Amendment.
Some employers merely refrain from practicing what the govt. allows. So what?
Well, the govt. is not happy unless it is running everybody's life according to the gold standard of the Kinsey Report. Of course it's not in the constitution, but they have been using it for toilet paper anyway and when I say "they" I am referring to both the Dims and the Repugs..
Furthermore employers are still free to pay people what they want to pay them (provided it is more than the minimum wage, which should be abolished, but regardless). Whether they want to provide health/car/house insurance - w. or w.o. contraceptives/meals/free air miles - along with the hourly wage/salary or not, is a decision that is left up to employers.
And once both the employer and employee agree, they're bound to follow through on their respective parts. End of story.
Except for our Brave New Worlders at the HHS backed up by Geo. W. Obama. It's called a power play. They want what belongs to the people. And some of the people want to give other peoples rights, privileges and freedoms to the govt. all in the name of the same.
Yet the revolution will eat its children, as all revolutions have and they will be the worse for it.
Simon Templar| 3.2.12 @ 7:03PM
I found this on the internet by an anonymous blogger and added my own translations of the recent testimony of the Georgetown student who believes you should pay for her contraception. Remember the statement in quotes are verbatim. These are her exact words.
It is also an answer to Aaron Goldstein, so pass it on Bandow..
"We expected women to be treated equally,
[translation, get free birth control when condoms are not supplied free to the male students. We will begin with a highly charged emotionally loaded accusation that we are being discriminated against and oppressed. That always works pretty well. The idea is to frame the issue and set the narrative, something beyond Goldstein's comprehension]
"to not have our school create untenable burdens that would impede our academic success."
[translation, not have to pay $4/month at Walmart so we can spend all our money on these fancy suits to testify before Congress to further our political careers]
"We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of "Pura Personalis" - "to care for the whole person" by meeting all of our medical needs."
[translation, we expected them to disregard the medical needs of the unborn who are persons according to the beliefs upon which the university was founded and also expect that the university ignore all its beliefs about extra marital sex, promiscuity, and fornication. We are entitled to have you pay for this and we will throw your chritian value of care for people in your face to get you to do something contrary to your other beliefs.]
"We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for us as students, they would help us."
[translation, we expected that we could just go to these universities, KNOWING their policies, and complain, and they would just forget their founding beliefs and established policies and just do whatever we want because we are women and we are liberals]
"We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect OUR choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university."
[translation, we expect this to be a really good soundbite and we expect that most people do not know that when this law goes into effect, the university will have to HEAVILY subsidize our insurance or pay hefty fines. We also have indicated that most of us here are having a great deal of extra marital sex and do not aspire in the least to any of the codes, ethics, or values of this institution.].
"We did NOT expect that we would be told in the national media that 'we should have gone to school elsewhere."
[translation, if/when we actually become lawyers, we do not expect to actually have to READ the contracts we sign because we "know" how things "should" be. We are once again entitled to have and get whatever we want disregarding anyone else's desires, values, policys, views, rules, or freedom to live in accordance with their values and vision. If they object, well tough. I will force myself in here whether they like it or not].
"And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we REFUSE to pick between a qualify education and our health."
[translation, we don't care what beliefs this university was founded upon, WE want to profit from the prestige of attending it, you can take your values and go to hell.]
"and we resent that in the 21st century, anyone thinks its acceptable to ask us to make that choice simply because we are women."
[translation, we expect to be able to inflict OUR moral beliefs on a university which was founded upon a different set of beliefs than our own BECAUSE we are women and liberals. Your values and beliefs are archaic, you are backward idiots, and how dare you even question us. I will have as much damn sex I want to, any where I want to, and you will damn pay for it and shut fuck up.]
Simon Templar| 3.2.12 @ 7:36PM
"This is, historically, the kind of language that is used to silence conservatives..."
POST American| 3.4.12 @ 4:31AM
------------------BOTTOMLESS LINE----------------------
Leading Princeton EUGENIST, Dr Peter Singer's
call for legitimizing the selective extermination
of children up to the age of 3---------
---------------------TALK ABOUT IT---------------------
---------------------EVERYWHERE!---------------------