18 Comments on “Campus Question – February 10, 2012”

1. NCrissieB

   # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:01:23ZF j, Y at 6:01 pm2012-02-10T23:01:23Zg:i a |

   Today on Campus

   Morning Feature – Not the Same, Part II: Business, Banking and Risk
   Our Earth at 8pm ET – California Coastal No-Discharge Zone

2. Norbrook

   # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:08:24ZF j, Y at 6:08 pm2012-02-10T23:08:24Zg:i a |

   I think it’s a masterful stroke (again). Yes, he put them into a corner, because he’s not “forcing the religious to offer it,” it’s something that any insurance company now has to offer as part of their package. So now they have to switch gears from saying “against religion” to “against insurance companies,” which isn’t exactly a theme that’s going to garner much outrage.

   • NCrissieB

     # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:20:24ZF j, Y at 6:20 pm2012-02-10T23:20:24Zg:i a |

     Catholic extremists are rejecting it because … well … they just are:

     This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

     It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

     It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.

     In other words, Catholic employers own their employees’ bodies. Period. Guess they missed that whole Thirteenth Amendment thing.

3. NCrissieB

   # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:09:05ZF j, Y at 6:09 pm2012-02-10T23:09:05Zg:i a |

   And fish, meet bait:

   GOP Ups The Ante, Introduces Legislation To Allow Any Employer To Deny Any Preventive Health Service

   Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.
   [...]
   Read the full amendment here.

   Oh please, Republicans, please pretty please spend the next nine months arguing that men should be able to block women’s access to birth control.

   • trs

     # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-11T00:25:58ZF j, Y at 7:25 pm2012-02-11T00:25:58Zg:i a |

     This bill is the insurance industries’ dream. They can collect all the fees they want, and aren’t required to cover anything! In fact, they’re discouraged from covering anything! I’m just surprised they didn’t come up with the idea sooner.

   • Gardener

     # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-11T02:00:31ZF j, Y at 9:00 pm2012-02-11T02:00:31Zg:i a |

     Need a heart bypass? Sorry pal, we’re against ‘em…….

4. NCrissieB

   # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:14:24ZF j, Y at 6:14 pm2012-02-10T23:14:24Zg:i a |

   Crooks & Liars‘ Karoli also has an excellent article on this:

   Obama Finesses Furious Catholic Bishops On Contraception Issue

   The bishops don’t need to accept this deal. It’s done, out of their hands. It wasn’t offered as something for them to approve. It was offered as the final cut, and if they want to keep complaining and pulling their puppet-politicians’ strings, let them. It just erodes support for them with women and many independents who agree with the idea of providing affordable (free) access to birth control.

   I mean, is anyone going to be swayed by Bill Donohue’s sputters about this being a secret plot to force the Church to pay for abortions? Really?

5. addisnana

   # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:16:45ZF j, Y at 6:16 pm2012-02-10T23:16:45Zg:i a |

   I can’t figure out if the Republicans are just plain stupid or if they are so anti-woman that they think women will be willingly led back to the days of barefoot and pregnant. I find this perplexing and most entertaining.

   • NCrissieB

     # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:28:50ZF j, Y at 6:28 pm2012-02-10T23:28:50Zg:i a |

     They may be that out-of-touch. That happens a lot on “information islands.”

   • Norbrook

     # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:29:14ZF j, Y at 6:29 pm2012-02-10T23:29:14Zg:i a |

     One of the things I said to a female relative of mine when this sort of stuff comes up is that women – and particularly Republican women – who advocate this way, or state their belief in women being “subservient,” I want ot say to them: “It’s so cute the way you think you have an opinion!”

     • addisnana

       # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:36:30ZF j, Y at 6:36 pm2012-02-10T23:36:30Zg:i a |

       

6. Jim W

   # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:35:38ZF j, Y at 6:35 pm2012-02-10T23:35:38Zg:i a |

   Obama said:

   Today, we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

   The republicans countered. But, can an insurance company develop a conscience that is employer specific?

   • NCrissieB

     # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:40:11ZF j, Y at 6:40 pm2012-02-10T23:40:11Zg:i a |

     That seems to be the right wing’s next claim … that this intrudes on the religious freedom of health insurance companies. Uh huh.

     This entire argument is about men who are afraid their wives might cheat too….

     • Gardener

       # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-11T01:55:36ZF j, Y at 8:55 pm2012-02-11T01:55:36Zg:i a |

       Man: Well my wife finally left for her big trip. I’m afraid she’s thinking I might mess around on her…….

       Friend: Why do you say that?

       Man: She took her diaphram with her……..

7. winterbanyan

   # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:40:53ZF j, Y at 6:40 pm2012-02-10T23:40:53Zg:i a |

   I think this was a master stroke, and played out exactly as intended. After all, the bishops had been holding a “dialogue” with Obama about this for months. I’m sure he knew exactly how this would play out.

   Brilliant. I’m loving it!

8. Norbrook

   # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-10T23:49:02ZF j, Y at 6:49 pm2012-02-10T23:49:02Zg:i a |

   The always wonderful Margaret & Helen weigh in on this:

   And while we are on the subject, let me say a few words about all those Catholic Bishops who say they would prefer to deny healthcare to everyone rather than include coverage for contraception. That law does not force the church to give birth control to women. Churches and houses of worship are exempt. This is about hospitals and universities that serve and employ the broader public, not to mention they receive federal funding. I am sure those Bishops are clueless about these things but the typical woman spends five years pregnant, or trying to get pregnant, and 30 years trying not to get pregnant.

9. Gardener

   # Commented on February 10, 20122012-02-11T01:57:44ZF j, Y at 8:57 pm2012-02-11T01:57:44Zg:i a |

   I think he painted himself into a corner and had to crawdad out of it……. I don’t see any 11 dimension chess here. Shoulda/coulda done this from the get-go……

   • NCrissieB

     # Commented on February 11, 20122012-02-11T08:50:16ZF j, Y at 3:50 am2012-02-11T08:50:16Zg:i a |

     I disagree, Gardener. The way this issue played out made the outcome better for women. Women will get contraceptive coverage without co-pays, and the Republicans have now revealed their radical anti-woman agenda.

Please Help Feed the BPI Squirrel: Support Blogistan Polytechnic Institute by Donating Today

Thank you