TPM: Kerry Becomes Latest Dem to Oppose Obama on Contraception

[beachmom]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/kerry-becomes-latest-dem-to-oppose-obama-on

TPMLivewire
03:02 PM EST
Kerry Becomes Latest Dem To Oppose Obama On Contraception

According to Ed Henry, Chief White House Correspondent for Fox News Channel, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has signaled that the Obama Administration will need to adjust its stance on the contraception mandate.

As TPM reported earlier today, there is already a burgeoning group of Democrats who have countered the administration on the increasingly controversial issue.

Um, I totally disagree. And I'm a Catholic. It is an especially unfortunate position for the Senator to take, given that his most reliable supporters and voters are women. This is not the Catholic Church but institutions like universities and hospitals. And John Kerry has come out for women being treated unequally by these employers in the name of "religious freedom".

Good post here on why Obama is right and Kerry is wrong:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/controlling-birth-control-controlling-liberty.html

Full insurance coverage is a critical part of the picture. Birth control is an expensive product - $81 a month is considered a steal with no contribution from your insurance, but that number still prices out many women. Even insurance plans that have copays can be prohibitively pricey. Cheaper alternatives like condoms have significant failure rates. Insurance, overwhelmingly provided by employers in the American system, that covers birth control with no copays is a woman's best bet.

The Administration's critics are saying that, in the currently existing health care system, protecting that right would create a grave threat to equally important rights of free association. Seems like a classic rights conflict. However, churches and institutions that serve only co-religionists are exempt from the requirement. The only institutions covered by the birth control mandate have chosen to participate in the broader market, a zone of private life governed by political rules. It's incumbent on critics to explain why this particular rule is a dangerous expansion of state power over market actors as compared to, say, forcing a Randian executive to follow minimum wage laws. If they can't, then it seems like the coverage requirement protects women's rights without appreciably increasing the state's threat to private associations. Critics would have to fall back on the pure religious liberty argument, which is itself problematic.

[Angry Dragon]

1. All employees to be covered

if you do not want to cover everyone, do not hire anyone

[ProSense]

2. Quote

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, also weighed in Thursday, suggesting the White House change its stance.

"What I am urging is a compromise that respects the substantive goal of making sure that women have access and that no person is without the care, but at the same time that finds a way to respect issues of conscience and matters of religious belief. I think there is a balance," Kerry told reporters.

"I do know the president is sensitive to this," Kerry said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/09/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html

Seriously, why go there?

The rule already includes an exemption.

[beachmom]

3. Yup. I edited my post to include more arguments.

And Catholics are for the mandate on birth control 58 - 37.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/the-great-contraception-battle-of-2012.html

Maybe someone should scare up a Mass. poll of the issue. I bet you they also are for this and Kerry is out of touch with his own state.

[ProSense]

5. Related:

Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama ended months of internal White House debate by siding with a group of mostly female advisers who urged him not to limit a health-care law mandate to provide contraceptives, even at the risk of alienating Catholic voters in November, people familiar with the discussions said.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic and a two-term governor of Kansas, was joined by several female Obama advisers in urging against a broad exemption for religious organizations. To do so would leave too many women without coverage and sap the enthusiasm for Obama among women’s rights advocates, they said, according to the people, who spoke about the deliberations on condition of anonymity.

Vice President Joe Biden and then-White House chief of staff Bill Daley, also Catholics, warned that the mandate would be seen as a government intrusion on religious institutions. Even moderate Catholic voters in battleground states might be alienated, they warned, according to the people familiar with the discussions.

The administration’s decision, announced Jan. 20, has quickly entered the presidential campaign. Republican rivals accuse Obama of trampling on religious freedom and Catholic bishops have ordered lectures from the pulpits across the nation.

- more -

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-09/obama-weighed-religious-politics-in-contraceptives-decision.html

Sigh!

[beachmom]

4. Oh, and THEY will never be happy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101612823#post19

Why pander to them?

[wisteria]

19. Exactly. n/t

[marsis]

6. Hey John,

do you still believe in this church that called for thier flock to vote against you and vote for Bush? Do you remember that?
Dazed and confused in ILL.

[karynnj]

11. Why go to anti - Catholic rhetoric on a completely unrelated issue

The Obama administration has ALREADY said they are working on a compromise - and I didn't see you complaining.

I think I will wait to see what the compromise is before blasting OBAMA for making it. The fact is that Kerry is supporting the administration here. Now, if Kerry demanded Obama do something BEFORE Obama spoke of compromising, you would have a case. However, Kerry is following Obama by at least 3 days.

Not to mention, this is not a gratuitous attack by the Catholic church. It has been their position at least since the 1960s! The fact is the church members have not followed that guidance. I would have more of a problem if the church said that they fought this provision for EVERYONE. It is a bit different when they are the ones negotiating the healthcare plan offered and paying for all or most of it. They are being asked to pay for something that they oppose. (I know many of us pay through taxes with wars we disagreed with, but this is closer to home - they are writing the check directly.) However, if there is no compromise, they will have to do this - and I have no doubt they will - just as I paid my taxes.)

[beachmom]

15. They ARE fighting the provision for everyone.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-02-08/catholics-contraceptive-mandate/53014864/1

The White House is "all talk, no action" on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed."

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

I'm sorry, but it's not anti-Catholic to point out the past sins of the Church, and as I said downthread their position on birth control is immoral and against the rights of women. I'm not going to just sit here and be "respectful". Although I'm pro-choice, I respect that others are pro-life and am fine with no government funding of abortion. But there is no moral reason in modern society to be opposed to birth control. It is good for women, good for families, good for society, and yes, good for men. The Church has many rules that make no sense and we should be able to point them out without fear of being called "anti-Catholic" or disrespectful of religion.

[karynnj]

17. I think they are going far too far here

I really do not think that the sexual abuse has any place in this discussion. You did not mention it - instead making an argument for insisting the law remain as it was announced. I have no problem with that.

I actually think that is where they will end up. As I said, I really do not see how you compromise when the positions are essentially A and (not A). But, as long as the Obama administration is speaking of a compromise that meets women's needs and considers the Church's needs, I don't see why Obama is to be praised, and Kerry criticized for the exact same position. I would consider part of Kerry's goal was to not make news by not being opposed to the administration, especially on Fox. It also may be that he sees Obama as wanting to be seen making the effort to listen - even if ultimately the ruling stays the same.

I have read Senator Gillibrand's strong support for the measure. What I don't know is whether her comment was before or after the administration spoke of working with the Catholic Church. I assume that was closer to what you would have preferred Kerry's position to have been.

From other sources, it appears that many Catholic universities and hospitals already cover birth control. That likely indicates that there is economic pressure to do so.

[global1]

7. How Many Of The Dems That Came Out Against This Are Running For Re-election......

and their constituency is mainly made up of Catholics?

My guess is they really don't care about the issue as much and whom this issue is touching. What they are concerned with is their job and being re-elected.

That's why they've come out against this.

[beachmom]

8. John Kerry is not up for re-election

To be clear, this is a JK support group, and this is a tough love post. We support Kerry. He's just really, really wrong here. But he has a record of supporting some boneheaded stuff regarding "religious freedom". That employee conscience bill from a number of years ago.

I also would like to note that he said this on Fox News. It is possible that he hadn't completely prepared for the question, and perhaps we will learn more in the next couple days of what his exact position is.

[karynnj]

12. What would you want him to say - given that the Obama administartion is working on a

compromise?

Had he said 3 or 4 days ago that he agreed with the Catholic position and thought Obama should move, I would agree with you.

Instead, what he said was:

In a statement, Kerry said, "I think the Administration is working towards a final rule that reflects a reasonable compromise. I think there's a way to protect everybody's interest here. I think you can implement it effectively in a way that protects women's access, but at the same time protects people's religious beliefs, and that should be everyone’s goal.""

That is as neutral as can be. This is a mess because we have insurance partially paid by third parties. I don't think what Kerry tried to do on "religious freedom" was boneheaded. I think that there is a need to protect people of all religions - which is what he was trying to do.

[ObamaKerryDem]

23. But he will be, in two years..

If he doesn't become SOS first But in order for him to even have that option, this President must be reelected-allowing the Repubs the upper hand in press exposure and talking points about these "Culture Wars" doesn't help that..(Not aiming that at JK alone or even him specifically perse but Dems in general are letting them win the message battle on this with this public friction-undermines the provision as it stands currently imo. Big mistake I think).

Though I believe this will ultimately benefit the POTUS in the long run-and that he will win re election by a more sizable margin than many pundits believe. But they need to be careful not to compromise to the point of self defeat here.

JK needs to be mindful here too,especially if he does run as planned in two years . Women, progressive and yes, Choice inclined women comprise a huge part of his base. As I understand it his victory over Weld in 96 was largely due to his huge win and advantage with women voters. Mass is not necessarily of the same mind on these things as Bob Casey's PA. Not that I think JK has sold out on this-his statement was actually quite nuanced. But I am interested in hearing his-and VP Biden's definition of "compromise" on and for this.

I actually don't think JK meant to directly oppose the POTUS on this but the perception unfortunately is there-I'd love to hear him go into a more indepth explanation of that aspect of it.

[karynnj]

18. Kerry absolutely did NOT come out against this

Read his quote. It is NOT against the ruling. It supports the Obama position. Consider that this was apparently on Fox News, would you prefer that Kerry is seen as attacking Obama's administration saying they are trying for a compromise? Does that help Obama in any way?

[karynnj]

10. Kerry is BACKING the current adminstration position here

The Obama administration has been speaking of a compromise for the last three days. So, no, it is not "obama is right and Kerry is wrong."

The only Kerry quote in the article is:
"n a statement, Kerry said, "I think the Administration is working towards a final rule that reflects a reasonable compromise. I think there's a way to protect everybody's interest here. I think you can implement it effectively in a way that protects women's access, but at the same time protects people's religious beliefs, and that should be everyone’s goal.""


Now, I am less sure that can be a compromise here. The two sides are not willing to accept anything other than polar positions. Women will be angry if women working for these institutions don't get free birth control from their insurance. The Church is unlikely to accept any compromise where they pay for birth control. It may be that the Obama administration, with many people far more clever than me, has found a "reasonable compromise".

My daughter worked as a volunteer in 2009 and 2010 for a Dorothy Day Catholic Worker organization. She is not Catholic. They paid for health care coverage when in 2010, after she no longer qualified to be on our plan. She has used birth control for several years for medical reasons. The insurance was very good and they paid the entire premium, but it did not cover this - something my daughter did nothing to question, understanding the problem. It did cover her visits to various doctors with very little out of pocket cost and the other medications she needed. (There was no deductible to be met)

The quality of all plans differ widely. I seriously think that the health care plan that volunteers and workers of Catholic Charities might be better for people, even without birth control covered, than the average plan I have seen WITH birth control - IF birth control could be purchased at the rate that the insurance companies actually pay. It could be that the federal government could negotiate prices for contraceptives and develop a card that could be used for anyone on a plan given a waiver - including the churches themselves - or - the cost could be borne by the government. Just comparing my plan from AT&T, which I have to go through first before my husband's, my daughter would be better off on the Catholic Worker plan even if she paid $81 a month - because the AT&T plan has a deductible before it pays anything on doctor's visits. (Her current plan is better than either - She is studying in London and on the NHS - and was shocked at how easy it was!)

This will result in a windfall for the Catholic Church. If half of the policies written include one person using birth control, the average cost of a policy for any company that does not now cover bc will be .5 (the cost for the insurance company). Assuming they pay half the going rate without insurance, this would mean about $20 more a month on every policy. It is entirely likely that some of that additional cost will be passed through to the employee.

I can see both sides of this. I do think that there should be requirements on what constitutes adequate insurance. In the past, the quality of a company's insurance plan was mostly driven (I think) by the need to offer a competitive compensation package. If the organizations are given a waiver, if all else were equal in the offer, they will lose potential employees - if they or their spouses use birth control. The only way to change that is to raise the salary by the cost.

[beachmom]

14. Well, let's wait and see what they say.

At this point, they are not the same position. The Obama Administration have announced nothing. We only hear of "compromise" type stories in the newspaper with no specifics.

And your main point is correct: there is no compromise here. Either it's covered or it isn't. Obama already compromised by delaying the implementation. Any further compromise would be pure and simple caving to extremists. Which John Kerry is fine with.

The Church is not only wrong constitutionally, they are wrong morally. Their position is DEAD wrong, and I say this as a Catholic. Their position leads to suffering especially in third world countries where being a "good Catholic" amounts to getting the AIDS virus. In a bigger picture point of view, their position DEPRIVES women of their rights. We're not talking something controversial here like abortion; we are talking about birth control. How nutty is that?

It's like no matter what Kerry does he's right according to you. That's crazy. And yes, Kerry's religious conscience bill which would allow pharmacists to object to filling prescriptions is bad policy. I said so at the time, and I continue to say so. Why do religious people have the right to disobey the law while any other group would not be allowed to do so? As said upthread, if a fan of Ayn Rand decided to no longer pay his employees the minimum wage because it went against his principles do you think he would be given one second of consideration by the government? Nope. Because the law is the law. He would be depriving his workers of basic labor rights. Yet women are afforded no such rights in the face of a Church which is still embroiled in a horrible systematic child abuse cover up scandal that spanned the whole globe? Ugh.

[karynnj]

20. There are things I disagree with Kerry on, but on thsi, it really seems that you are

seeing more in what he said than I think is reasonable.

Kerry is not saying that he agrees with a not yet public (if there even is one) compromise. Note that he says "I think" that the Obama administration is near a compromise. He also speaks of women's need for access. His comment is completely a diplomatic nothing.

While there is no final Obama administration position, Joe Biden was more explicit than Kerry that they were working on it and would work it out - and he said Obama agreed with him.

As to the pharmacist/ perscription issue, Kerry's bill required that a pharmacy MUST fill all prescriptions in a timely manner. This meant that if there were 2 or more pharmacists, ONE could refuse to fill it - and the other would. This was the same as Boxer's rule in another bill.

I also do not see this as depriving woman of their rights. I agree that this is a good addition to the health care bill, and it certainly should be covered. I don't know if I believe that there is more reason to make it without copay than it is to make ANY medicine without copay. How do you compare it with - insulin for children with juvenile diabetes, who will die without the drug?

[beachmom]

25. There are also medical reasons to take birth control pills.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/obama-contraception-rule_n_1267672.html

14% of prescriptions, actually. And women's rights are violated here because it means they are getting unequal medical treatment from men. This is basic stuff.

[beachmom]

27. Also, if a pharmacist has a religious conscience objection

to filling a prescription, then they really should choose a different career. Again, think of all the things we find immoral, but we can't just be running around saying this violates our conscience and begging a Senator to write a bill for us. Again, quoting Kevin Drum:

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/why-im-so-hardnosed-over-contraception-affair

So why am I really feeling so hard-nosed about this? The answer goes back a few years, to the controversy over pharmacists who refused to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill. I was appalled: If you're a pharmacist, then you fill people's prescriptions. That's the job, full stop. If you object to filling prescriptions, then you need to find another occupation.

But of course, the entire right-wing outrage machine went into high gear over this. And it was at that point that my position shifted: if this was the direction things were going, then it was obvious that there would be no end to religious exemption arguments. The whole affair was, I thought, way over the top, and yet it got the the full-throated support of virtually every conservative pundit and talking head anyway. This was, in plain terms, simply a war on contraception.

You really should read the whole piece. I also am hard nosed about this issue and you don't seem to understand why. Maybe Kevin's piece will better explain it. Like Mass I think this is a stunning betrayal by the Senator on us, his supporters, and Obama, although disappointingly compromising at this point, at least took a brave stance when faced with the objections of Biden and others in his circle. Kerry never even did that.

[ObamaKerryDem]

28. Could not agree with you more,beachmom!

On most all of the above-and the fact that this affects women in ways unrelated to contraception (though of course very important) as well. For example, I have a good friend who has a chromosome disorder that requires her to take the Pill for hormonal reasons-she could literally have a heart attack without it. So it's not even solely about contraception-this is an overall women's health issue.

Btw my friend is a practicing Catholic.

IMO this whole situation makes a compelling case for the Separation of Church and State-and single payer, which would effectively neutralize these issues.

Though imo this is not and should not be a religious issue-it's simple labor law!

As for the WH "accommodation"-we shall see..I'm waiting to hear what the President says.

I do however think there is a definite gender gap and divide here. Rachel Maddow broke it down really well on her show the other night: the Democratic men (even Lawrence ODonnell apparently!) Are worried about the so called Catholic swing vote; the women tending to look instead to the overall women (majority!) Vote. Including Catholic women who some recent polls show to be even more supportive of the original measure than their non Catholic counterparts!

The Dem men-JK I hate to say included-are or seem to be acting on nerves about the perceived politics of this. I frankly think the WH would've been better served to have female admin members of the admin or supportive Dem women in Congress to be surrogates on this-I know JK was independently approached but I mean instead of Biden, Axelrod etc The fact that no women leaders were 'in' on the just reported admin meeting with the Bishops at the Wh was imo a misstep Looks out of touch imo This is after all a women's issue. We have plenty of women in the admin and Congress. I'd frankly rather hear from Sebelius or if it's to be in Congress, someone like Boxer than Biden or JK on this-as much as I obviously support admire and respect both men-JK of course especially! I just differ with him here Though I think he had good intentions-just a little misguided imho

[beachmom]

16. Maybe I'm not being eloquent here but this sure is:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/in-birth-control-debate-religious-beliefs-dont-trump-rights/252801/

But conscience or refusal clauses are also reminiscent of policies allowing white-only hospitals to refuse treatment to black patients, or accommodations to black travelers, in the segregated South. What if belief in segregation were an article of faith, a matter of conscience, for some? (Some clergymen once defended slavery.) I'm not comparing opposition to birth control with racism, much less slavery. I'm simply pointing out that religious beliefs can, and often do, conflict with civil society and individual rights.

Would we tolerate a religious right to refuse treatment or accommodation on the basis of race as readily as we tolerate a religious right to refuse reproductive health care? Of course not. Your right to act on your religious beliefs is not absolute; it's weighed against the rights that your actions would deny to others. Today, and perhaps for the foreseeable future, claims of religious freedom tend to outweigh claims of reproductive freedom. But that is a consequence of history, politics, and culture and is subject to change. The balance of power is not divinely ordained.

This is why I'm not so quick to say, "oh, respect for religion, I'll shut up now." Sometimes their positions are immoral. I live in the South, and I can tell you a lot of immoral preaching takes place in some churches not far from me. Real right wing nutty stuff. Just because someone says it's their religious belief does not mean they can skirt the law automatically. On abortion, I'll show some latitude since it is a deep philosophical argument, but not on birth control. They need to convince me why they shouldn't pay for that preventative care. The Church and religious people say they don't feel respected. Well, as a woman I am feeling deeply disrespected by a lot of religious MEN at this point.

[Mass]

21. I think he is wrong on this. And sad he would take this.

And btw I think the WH is wrong to work on a compromise. They should not.

This said, there seems to be a total disconnect between men and women catholics. It seems only men are calling for this compromise. Could it be that women already knows the Catholic Church as no respect for them?

On a different note, this ridiculous position concerning contraception and sexual relations is pretty much what made the Catholic Church irrelevant in France in the 1970s-1980s, when they were insisting that you should only have sexual relations after being married and that no birth control/STD prevention was acceptable right in the middle of the AIDS crisis. It is interesting that this question is still existing in this country and that pols still pander to them.

The other point is that this pseudo crisis should be a sign that single payer is the way to go.

[ObamaKerryDem]

22. Just heard this on the Ed Show on MSNBC tonight..

..The last segment, an interview with a lady from NOW. Ed flatly described it as the Senator "breaking rank" with the President on this altogether. The NOW lady said she wanted to "sit down" with JK and "find out what he's thinking about".

I am less disheartened after reading this thread. I really wish Ed would've reported this more carefully! Though I still think the Senator walks a very fine line here when it comes to "compromise" on this. As does ultimately the Admin. I am frankly a bit "nervous" as to what this "compromise" may entail. That's why I was,quite frankly,rather surprised JK got in on this in this way though I feel better about it after seeing what he actually said,in context. However I do agree that they all need to be careful not to let the fringe, Santorum type extremists get the upper hand here, forsaking the interests of women and their health in the process.

The current provision by the Admin is where the mainstream or most of it is already(even most Catholics according to poll after poll!). Any "compromise",however arguably inevitable, must be gone about very carefully so as not to fold for the sake of pandering to certain segments who are,I'm sorry, on the ideological fringes-and if this is about politics-how can it not be,this year especially?-and will stay that way,irrespective of any said "compromise".

But then again, I am a non specifically religious Separation of church and state liberal (though I was raised Catholic-and with all due respect,know at least on one level the pressures more progressive minded Catholics like JK can and often do face from the more rigid set) I do agree that this is a great case for Single payer,which would effectively neutralize such dilemmas.

I stand with the President, and beg to differ with my favorite Senator and political hero on this one,though I do think his stance is much more reasoned than presented on Ed and in the press (surprise,surprise! I do hope the Admin doesn't "compromise"-this is simple labor law,imo not religious-but if they do I hope it's more in the direction of Kerry than Santorum!

[Mass]

24. Here is a post by Kevin Drum that explains what this is about.

http://www.google.com/reader/view/?hl=en&tab=my#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmotherjones.com%2Fkevin-drum%2Ffeed

In any case like this, you have to look at two separate issues: (1) How important is the secular public purpose of the policy? And (2) how deeply held is the religious objection to it?
On the first issue, I'd say that the public purpose here is pretty strong. Health care in general is very clearly a matter of broad public concern; treating women's health care on a level playing field with men's is, today, a deep and widely-accepted principle; and contraception is quite clearly critical to women's health. Making it widely and easily available is a legitimate issue of public policy.
On the second issue, I simply don't believe that the religious objection here is nearly as strong as critics are making it out to be. As I've mentioned before, even the vast majority of Catholics don't believe that contraception is immoral. Only the formal church hierarchy does. What's more, as my colleague Nick Baumann points out, federal regulations have required religious hospitals and universities to offer health care plans that cover contraception for over a decade. (The fact that some such employers don't cover birth control is mostly the result of lax enforcement.) It's true that the Obama regulation tightens this requirement, but only modestly: it covers organizations with fewer than 15 employees and it bans copays. Dozens of states already have similar rules on the books. So when Kirsten Powers says, "One thing we can be sure of: the Catholic Church will shut down before it violates its faith," that's just wrong. They've been working under similar rules for a long time without turning it into Armageddon.
Some matters of conscience are worth respecting and some aren't. If, say, Catholic doctrine forbade white doctors from treating black patients, nobody would be defending them. The principle of racial nondiscrimination is simply too important to American culture and we'd insist that the church respect this. I think the same is true today of the principle of nondiscrimination against women, as well as the principle that women should have control of their own reproduction. Like racial discrimination laws, churches that operate major institutions in the public square have to respect this whether they like it or not.
This new policy doesn't apply to churches themselves or their devotional arms. It applies only to nominally religious enterprises like hospitals and universities that serve secular purposes, take taxpayer dollars, employ thousands of non-Catholic women, and are already required to obey a wide variety of secular regulations.
...

So basically, the administration is asked to allow exceptions to organizations that are not devoted to religions, but just happen to be managed by religious groups (not even necessarily priest). The relevant doctrine is ignored by most catholics, who would probably be surprised to learn that even married couples should not have sexual relations if they do not intend to procreate. Many of these organizations already offer the relevant coverage.

I am not surprised by the reaction of the Church hierarchy itself, which is in line with at least 1600 years of history, starting at St Augustine, that sexual relations are bad except in one specific goal. This explains the opposition to birth control, homosexuality, use of condoms even in the midst of an AIDS epidemic, sacrificing the life of a mother for saving the baby, ... It probably explains the inquisition when it came to witchcraft as well, given that they tended to be women with strong personalities that wanted to be more than baby carriers.

What surprises me is the insistence of progressive catholics that we should "accommodate" them (seems to be the word of the administration these days, but there is nothing to accommodate here, as we are talking about one of the oldest Church doctrine that women are on earth to have babies and nothing else), whatever the accommodation is. (I should say progressive catholic men, because I do not think there are that many women thinking that). Why continue to support a deeply anti-woman institution?

What bothers me is that for many (cant say if this is the case for Senator Kerry), it seems a purely electoral thinking: dont make wave. This is dangerous because they seem ready to through women's rights in order to avoid losing votes (same reflex that made them refuse to call a vote against Bush tax cuts)

After reading the FOX quote, I think I am going to take a leave from supporting Senator Kerry. I only have a question: if, instead of something that is mainly for women, the Catholic Church opposed something that is mainly for African Americans, would senator Kerry still support a conscience clause?

[beachmom]

26. Well said, Mass.

I just read Kevin Drum's post and was going to post it here, but you beat me to it.

The compromise is out, and it's something about having the women deal directly with the insurance company and leaving the institution out of it. (this is based on a Hawaii state law) I'm not happy with it, but more importantly, the Catholic Bishops will reject it out of hand because they don't want anyone getting birth control in this country.

Meanwhile, laugh of the day in Georgia:

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/02/10/your-morning-jolt-callista-gingrich-steps-out-front-and-center/

A bunch of nutty Republicans in the legislature (to be clear they're ALL nutty) introduced a bill about protecting the Catholic Church from the government, blah, blah, blah plus a weird "whereas" statement that birth control apparently is a chemical abortion. But there is a bit of a conundrum there:

But over at Georgia Politico, Dustin Baker notes the irony that Georgia already has long had an insurance mandate almost identical to the one on the federal level. Specifically, Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 33-24-59.6:

(c) Every health benefit policy that is delivered, issued, executed, or renewed in this state or approved for issuance or renewal in this state by the Commissioner on or after July 1, 1999, which provides coverage for prescription drugs on an outpatient basis shall provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use as a contraceptive.

So what Obama proposed is already the law of the land in Georgia.