Last Word host Lawrence O’Donnell came in to the office early today to talk birth control mandate on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner.
As Lawrence pointed out, most people support birth control these days. "I think it has made America a very happy place to live since it was invented by men who desperately desperately desperately wanted to stop using that old fashioned rubberized contraception," he said.
O'Donnell told Wagner the argument is more political and more big picture: the government's involvement in your heath care and where voters live. He suggested President Obama, who is currently in reelection mode, would also pay specific attention to where voters against this mandate live. Should he rush to please if they wouldn't vote for him in the first place?
"You're not running for President of the United States," he said. "You're running for the President of Pennsylvania. You're running for the president of about eight states that matter." He added, "As someone running for president, you say, 'tell me where they are."
President Obama's health care reform law requires all employer health care plans to offer coverage for birth control. But, religious institutions, particularly those affiliated with the Catholic Church, are concerned this new law would forces them to violate their beliefs. (Constitutional expert David Boies called that B.S. from a legal standpoint).
Will the election dialogue shift away from the economy to cultural issues? Tweet me your response or drop me a line in the comment section below.
Leave a Comment:
The Republicans are desperate to find something to derail the debate over jobs and the improving economy. They are and will jump on everything they hope will do that. They are fielding such a sad group of possible candidates, they need to try to get people all worked up emotionally over issues they have and will deliberately misinterpret. It has worked well for them in the past; they are pretty good at it.
You are right. It is just a distraction from the real issues.
The administration is not forcing religious organizations to cover for contraception. The administration is defining a law that has been already in place for the longest.
Employers cannot discriminate in employment and/or benefits against anyone because of religion or political affiliations. Or the lack of religion for that matter.
Lawrence mentioned last night a good thought on that.
The Catholic Church is all over the world and this has not been a problem anywhere but in the US. Why? Because the US allows employers to have a say in the relationship of doctor/patient/insurance. If we had single payer law or program we would not even be thinking about it. Birth control is a matter of conscience and conscience is between God and the individual.
In other countries where Catholics have churches, there is also state regulated health care and they are more advanced in the social part of it. In my humble opinion, since this country has a law that applies to all employers there is no reason for the state to give a different application of the law just because of religion.
If you cannot discriminate against a religion you cannot make special provisions to any employer based on their believes or conscience. The free will that God gave all, is more important even to God than birth control. In His word, the Bible birth control is not mentioned, but God never went against people's free will. We all know that consequences are God's and not man's. We can see that when Cain killed Abel, of which God had foreknowledge and He did not stop Cain from committing murder.
If a church decides to be an employer then it has to abide by the law by which all employers abide. Now, look at the Jehovah's Witnesses, they do not have employees, but volunteers from the same religion. They are not employers. In this country we have other religious groups that are not employers. The law has to apply to all. Just imagine if their is an employer who is very religious and decides to hire only people of their religion. Imagine that Google, or GE or any auto company has a CEO that belongs to the JW and decides only to pay insurance only to JWs or to hire only JWs, because they do not on conscience ground do not go to war and do not accept blood transfusions. Will the discrimination law apply to them or should the government make a special law for them?
Republicans desperate? LOL! I pity Dummicrats.. All we will ever need is Obama's record.. And the Senates.. November just can't come fast enough..
Unfortunately, the least informed of the voting populace will run to the dog whistles blown by those on the far right.
Providing standard health coverage, allowing women and families to plan their families and family size is not an assault on anyone's religious liberties and the exceptions are clearly spelled out. The Roman Catholic Church wants to have extra exceptions based upon nothing more than their own religious dogma though their own faithful have agreed with the President that woman shouldn't be singled out to pay $600 - $1200 more per year out of pocket, just so the Pope can sleep at night.
The Roman Catholic Church does not want equal rights, they want extra rights.
The best contraception is educating women and providing them work that pays enough to live on.
If your big concern is birth control than economic times for you must be pretty good.
Boston Bruins goalie (and tea party nut) threw his $.02 in...by comparing the Obama administration to Nazis.
Could the GOP be any more desperate? In addition to language that's amazingly stupid ("attack on religious freedom"), the GOP's miscalculation of the intelligence of the American voter is sure to blow up in their pious faces - and blow up their campaigns.
Where does this idea of religious exemption of religious affiliations stop? If the RCC were to buy a store or factory, would the religious exemption extend to those workers? This could be a back door way to strip worker's rights. The workers also have rights to their own religious freedom. This is a worker's rights issue.
When I was in college I was taught that "conservative" in a political sense meant to hold back or slow down progress, or to turn back to an earlier way of doing things. This is proof of that to me. The Republicans (Grand Old Party) want to turn back to a time when they controlled women. If women are good they will shut up and stay in the kitchen, bare-footed and pregnant (all the time) and just lay down for men. I'm am so sick and tired of this "BS" it makes me want to cry (like a woman)! Here's the deal, men, you don't use my tax payer money to pay for my contraception and likewise you can't use MY tax payer money to pay for Erectile Dysfunction. Laws that get men "up" and keep women down -- that's conservatism!!!
There were 10 kids in our family. Almost all of us went to Catholic school through High School. My mom was a practicing Catholic & my dad was a lapsed. My older cousin, who was very close to my mom, told me she wished some one had taken my dad aside & explained birth control to him. After all a women must do what her husband commands.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That says it all. The government cannot support the views or beliefs of any religion, nor can it restrict anyone from what ever religion they want to have, or in any way prohibit the free exercise of it. My religion requires that I smoke 2 marijuana cigarettes at each of the 5 prayer sessions every day to pay homage to Mother Earth for her gifts to human kind. Where is my religious freedom? All of these right-wing nut-jobs can shut up about their religious freedoms until I get mine. It says in the Constitution that government shall not have a religion or it's beliefs, that means they can't mandate any of the beliefs of any religion on the rest of us. It is also against my beliefs for people to be millionaires, arrogant, ignorant and fat. I want to see the government make laws that support my beliefs as well.
These "christians" that have been fussing about how bad religious law is for Islamic countries and all of it's restrictions, need to look in the mirror sometime, it seems that they need to listen to their own BS before they try to force "religious" law here, no matter what religion. Didn't Jesus say that humans are all sinners? Also he said " let ye without sin cast the first stone" in a case where men were passing judgment upon a woman. Doesn't that make all humans who are judges sacrilegious to what Jesus taught? Thus against christian beliefs. It is safe to say that all human judges all over the world are sinners. So that means that our court system is again christian beliefs as well. So, I say to all of you loud mouthed christians who are so uptight about abortion, same sex marriage, birth control and drug prohibition, and other things that you call "sins" or evil acts. You need to look at all of murders you have committed by supporting all of our wars. You all are guilty of mass murder worse than what Hitler ever did. Turn yourselves in to the nearest police station, and write and sign a murder confession for every person killed in every war we have been in since you started voting for candidates that voted for any wars. That makes you an accessory to murder. Or none of you are really, truly as christian as you brag you are. None of your said "values" mean anything if you cannot follow them all, all the time. The Quakers are the closest we have to true believers in this country, and I don't always agree with them on every point. Yes I blog with the Quakers too. They love me, and I love them, no strings attached. Ain't life strange!
The one thing I have noticed in these United States is that ONLY Christian values are to be upheld. That's it. No others.
Who decided that this country can only be run by a person who is Christian? And why?
Learn our History.. Should be self explanatory..
Why should Catholic hospitals and universities that compete with non-Catholic hospitals and universities be allowed to avoid some employment-related costs while their competition has to pay those costs? IS that a fair playing field? No.
Having gone to college in Kentucky I have had many discussions regarding church and state and most of those discussions were quite heated. I always tried to use the teaching of 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's' and that we are obligated to obey the laws of the realm etc..
The same applies here. The church should not be exempt from provided complete women's health care insurance policies to all thier employees. Having to provide such coverage does not curtail their right to teach what ever they will or to hold tight to their religious beliefs. The rule just simply protects those who are employed are to be given full coverage without any religious discrimination toward their employees.
Hmm. Try forcing a law mandating everyone must eat pork once a week. Perhaps only then will you get it..
No one is forcing anyone to use contraception just because insurance covers it.
Does anyone know: What is the Catholic Church's position on vasectomies?
Lawrence talked about the misinformation surrounding the issue. He should pay attention to himself. He continually described the issue as forcing organizations to provide birth control. The issue is that organizations must provide insurance that covers birth control. They do not have to provide birth control in any form. The money for the insurance presumably comes from the profits of the organization in question, not directly from the church.
Tim Tucker is a perfect example of the confusion surrounding the issue. No one is forcing anyone to eat pork or use contraception. The issue is an issue of labor law, and relates to the insurance employers are required to provide.
Can someone please explain why noone ever disusses the male portion of healthcare? Under the church doctrine men are not to have vasectomies becuase it does not allow for procreation. This is a large and more expensive prtion of healthcare as it requires surgery. Where is the churh codemning this aspect? Why are women always the scapegoat.
What's next can someone claim they do not want to cover a homosexual, (possible medications), because it violates their doctrine?
Why isn't the church going after vasectomies? It violates their doctrine on procreation?
Women are always the scapegoat.
What's next to deny coverage to homosexual, ie., meds, because it violates that portion of the doctrine?
Something really cool happened with the camera work during the big board graph display segment. Obviously anything to break up the monotony of talking heads at table visual language is nice. But there was something personal about the tight shot of Hayes and Wagner sitting from the opposite perspective.
The unusually intense impact was due to the combination with the ideational shift of perspective- O'Donnell's behind the scenes explanation of how the graphs do not feel comfortable to seasoned politicians like Reid.
Anyway my compliments to the visual and content guys bringing it together to synchronize visual and conceptual language when shifting perspective. This is opera.
Oral contraceptives are used for a multitude of health conditions. Dysmenorrhea- extremely painful periods, mental health problems, fibroids, etc. Would the church just then deny women treatment for these conditions because the same drugs happen to also be used to control fertility? Besides, all that I think women have a right to control their fertility as well. This is a women's health issue, plain and simple. Stop discriminating against women, particularily poorer women.
Fighting having to give women full medical coverage that they afford men is the Catholic church's way of keeping women covered in the invisible burka of the Catholic church. Because something isn't visible to the naked eye doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
What if the poll question was asked only of women who could
not afford contraceptives themselves, who rely on insurance or aid?
What if it were asked of women who already work for Catholic
hospitals and colleges?
What if it were asked of women who work at these kinds of
institutions in states that already require the coverage be provided?
There are so many wonderful comments here i don't know if you even need mine. BUT: this is not a political issue, why should a candidate's position be based on whether it will cost him votes?
There are 600 Catholic-operated hospitals and 200 Catholic-operated colleges. How manyemployees? Don’t know that figure but I didsee that 1 in 6 of all hospital workers work for Catholic hospitals. But it doesn't matter if the number is minuscule. What's right is right; you don't deny someone their rights because they are few in number, or might not vote anyway.
Here is what the Obama administration is going to do. They are going to make it so that all insurance companies must offer access to birth control. That way non-catholic women working at Catholic hospitals and universities will not be at a financial disadvantage. If ALL insurance offers birth control this issue will fade from view.
Challenge the republicans to pay for all these babies without taxpayer dollars. As women will NO choice, ask the Federal Accounting Office and US Health and Human Services to give estimates on how many babies will be born and increasing costs EACH YEAR for: maternity care, full pay for the mothers on FORCED maternity leave, child sick days, lack of daycare (the FMLA laws will have to changed); the # number of babies being born, cost of the care (food, clothing, medical care, child care, everything); housing in decent neighborhoods where every child has their own room; special education, transportation, everything. Now challenge the republicans to get all the religious organizations to accept financial responsibility for paying for all these children, and their children, and their children's children. Make them put trillions of dollars into a non-raidable trust fund. These churches have to hand the money over to all these women, which is all of them who claim their baby was unplanned. These religious organizations can not require any of these women to have any affliation with their organization or use their services (hospitals, schools, etc...). All women who ID themselves as "catholic" will receive all their family expense support from the catholics account within the FORCED FAMILY Trust Fund. and any woman that IDs herself as Morman will get a huge monthly support check from the morman account within the FORCED FAMILY Trust Fund. Any woman that does not ID a religious afflication will be paid from ALL the reglious groups accounts within the FORCED FAMILY TRUST FUND. Demand that the republicans come up with their plan and the religions put their money where there mouths are in an unraidable trust fund. THEN put this on a national referendom.
Currently Catholic employer plans cover Viagra and other ED medications. Is there a system in place to prevent the dispensing of these medication to any unmarried men? If not the church is financially supporting premarital sex which is against church teaching. So where is the outrage over this?
They argue about stuff like this when we're still trying to keep the economy on a roll. Which way do they want it. One day, the GOP wants the government to GET OUT OF THE WAY, so that businesses can grow and jobs can be created, then they scream "WHERES THE JOBS", MAKE JOBS.... They make me sick. What happened to the portion of the GOP party that you can respect.