Finally, some sense on the "oh no he didn't" contraception issue...

[spooky3]

David Boies is spelling it out very clearly to Lawrence O'D and all the other pearl clutchers why employers can't use religious affiliations as an excuse to be exempted from labor and tax laws.

Rachel Maddow of course pointed out earlier how many beltway pundits are wrong, in her view, about whether this will hurt Obama's re-election chances.

[spooky3]

1. a DailyKos post notes that liberal pundits who are Catholic men are the ones going nuts over this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/08/1062888/-Catholic-Male-Spokesmen-Butt-Out-?detail=hide&via=blog_2

"There's only one problem with these guys and the whole contraception Kabuki theater they are playing out on TV and in newspapers across the country. They are guys. Look closely, and see if you can find any women who are not right-wing conservatives weighing in on the subject. You remember women, don't you? They're the ones who will be saving $600-$1200 dollars a year if insurance companies are made to cover the cost of contraception. They're the ones who actually will be affected by and benefit from President Obama's policy if it goes into effect. Since they also represent a majority of the electorate, the predicted doom and gloom blowback to Obama from Catholics across the country seems highly unlikely."

[Angry Dragon]

4. Why is this portrayed as a catholic issue

The law reads all employers. That is being fair.
If the catholics ask for special rights then they are hypocrites.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. Yeah, what's that all about

I thought that right-wingers don't believe in "special rights" for anybody, right?!

[Ilsa]

2. I was just about to post this!

Lawrence did great in booking DB on tonight's show to explain this.

It really is the media making a firestorm out of this when it is already law in many states, just for starters.

[elleng]

3. Both were ok discussions, but sorry they didn't discuss, specifically,

the perceived effect of requiring Catholic institutions to include in their health insurance choices, for employees, contraception options, which it is assumed costs those Catholic insitutions something. I am not sure that it does, in fact, cost them anything, but it might. I do think that's a legitimate concern, but quite marginal.

[spooky3]

5. I think Boies indirectly covered this in his analogies.

It really is irrelevant whether contraception coverage options cost the institution something (in all likelihood it costs less than pregnancy coverage), because discrimination against women (in denying them contraception coverage on the same grounds as other health care coverage) would be similar to discrimination against age, and cost is generally not a defense to these. For example, if a religiously-affiliated org. such as a university or hospital (but not a church) said it wanted to force people to retire at age 60 contrary to law, it could not do so. It also couldn't argue that because 60 year olds cost the org. more to cover because of health care costs, that this was acceptable.

[elleng]

7. I think cost to the religious institution is the only possible connection,

and reason institutions are complaining. I don't think its been covered in discussions.

Government is saying these institutions must provide, among other types of coverage, contraception coverage. There's no concurrent argument about denying contraception going on in this 'debate.'

[spooky3]

8. I do not agree that the cost is the reason the institutions are complaining.

I think they are trying to argue on "principle", that the church opposes the coverage.

And it certainly is not the reason that the otherwise liberal pundits who are sympathetic have given for supporting the opposition to coverage.

But I do agree with you that it would be interesting if the pundits would explicitly discuss this issue.

[jeff47]

12. Cost isn't going to be a factor

It's much, much cheaper for the insurance company to pay for birth control than pay for a birth. My insurance company paid jaw-droppingly large amounts for my daughter's birth last year. The cost would cover about 70 years of birth control. For one birth.

[elleng]

16. Of course.

What I mean is religious institutions requirement to include contraception coverage may add something to cost of insurance to institution.

[spooky3]

22. I think his and my point is

That the cost of coverage of pregnancy is higher than the cost of contraceptive coverage. The only way the org saves money is if the employee pays the cost of contraception out of pocket rather than get pregnant. And that's presuming there are no costs of losing good recruits or employees over the unfair discrimination, essentially lower compensation, and poor coverage.

[kestrel91316]

15. Nothing whatsoever requires the Catholic church to be in the

medical insurance business. It's sort of like the pharmacists who want a religious exemption so they can deny women birth control. If they don't like what the job entails they need to find another effin' career.

Catholics can find some other way to expend their time, energy, and money than selling medical insurance.

[GoCubsGo]

32. They aren't in the medical insurance business.

They, as employers, purchase medical insurance for their employees. If they want to employ people, then they need to adhere to the law of the land, or stop hiring people and get out of whatever businesses they are in.

And, yes, the Catholic church needs to spend their time, energy, and money elsewhere. I suggest they spend it on cleaning up their child molestation scandals.

[rurallib]

6. Another great reason to divorce health care from work

Gee, if the gummint had an option, would this even matter?

[spooky3]

9. yes, good point

[Honeycombe8]

17. Yes, good point. nt

[Gman]

10. Pearl clutcher?

I suppose you also use the term "porch monkey".

[WhollyHeretic]

14. I assume your the same person who made the ridiculous alert on this post

Pearl clutcher is not a Catholic slur but your attempt of trying to compare this to racist terms is truly offensive.

[Gman]

19. I find the post highly offensive

Which is good enough. DU continues to baffle be these days with the hypocrisy.

[WhollyHeretic]

21. It's really not good enough

At all

[Gman]

39. Dont matter.

I think it is. End of story.

[SaintPete]

27. Why do you find the post highly offensive?

I'm not looking for a debate, I'm looking for understanding.

[justiceischeap]

30. Pearl clutcher is used to demean both women and the LGBTQ community on DU

That's my guess why it would be considered offensive. And it is offensive.

[SaintPete]

31. Urban Dictionary entry

pearl clutcher

An uptight person, usually but not always female, usually but not always of conservative mores, who reacts with shock, feigned or otherwise, at other people's violations of decorum, propriety, morality, and so forth.

Someone got up at the PTA meeting and suggested the school hand out condoms to teenagers. The pearl clutchers in the audience nearly went into cardiac arrest

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pearl%20clutcher

How does this demean women or the LGBTQ community?

[justiceischeap]

33. I apologize, I should edit my post

What I meant to say is, "Pearl clutcher is often used on DU to demean women and the LGBTQ community."

[SaintPete]

34. Well, I wrote I wasn't looking for a debate

so I have to step away from the keyboard and stand by what I wrote.

[WhollyHeretic]

35. I didn't know that history but I don't think that's why this person finds it offensive

I believe they are the one that sent the alert.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"Pearl clutcher" as a reference to Catholics? I suppose if this stands the use of "kike

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:36 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: "Pearl clutcher" is not a Catholic slur and to try and compare it to "kike" is offensive and ridiculous.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I've never heard of Rosery beads made out of pearls or any reference to "pearl clutchers" as a Catholic slur. This PC garbage has gone too far and is stifling discourse. Enough!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't see anything especially wrong with this post. The term "pearl clutcher" is often used to refer to someone who is perceived as overreacting to something (as in the overly-sensitive Victorian lady who clutches her pearl necklace as she dramatically collapses on her fainting couch). I can't figure out how it would be considered to be a derogatory reference to Catholics.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I went and checked Urban Dictionary to make sure I was right. "pearl clutcher" is not a reference to Catholics. It's an uptight moral majority type. More Jerry Fallwell than Catholic. The pearls in question, I believe, would be a June Cleaver type necklace (maybe the alerter thought it was a rosary reference?).
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[justiceischeap]

37. I think it's easy to say, this phrase probably isn't the best to use

on many levels.

[tblue37]

18. How on earth can you compare "pearl clutcher" to such a vile racist term?

Calling someone a pearl clutcher is like saying that person has gotten the vapors--or that he or she needs smelling salts. The reference is to the pearl necklaces that very proper little old ladies would wear--and that they would clutch whenever they were shocked about some newfangled attitude, behavior, or contraption.

How does that justify bringing up a vile racist slur?

[Gman]

20. Because I find the OP just as offensive

Which is good enough.

[spooky3]

24. It has nothing to do with religion, as the

Other poster said. It does not make sense to misinterpret a term in order to get offended at it, at least not if one hopes that others will agree.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. beyond this pearl clutching non-issue, what do you find offensive about the OP?

Do you believe that Catholic-run organizations that provide health insurance to their employees should be exempted from providing contraceptive coverage?

thank you

[jeff47]

25. ....How sheltered are you?

The proper old woman clutching her pearl necklace when shocked has been around a very, very long time. It has nothing to do with race nor anything to do with religion. It has to do with old women in the 1950s and 1960s who were easily shocked at society around them.

How, exactly, are you turning this into a racist or otherwise derogatory term?

[spooky3]

26. and it can refer particularly to people of privilege (pearl owners)

in this case, where they do not "get" how adversely affected lower income women would be if contraception is not covered.

But I have never encountered an instance where it was used to refer to Catholics because of their religion. Why would they be any more likely than anyone else to have pearls?

[Rosco T.]

11. Does anyone know of a link to a transcript

of that segment? I need to shut someone up.

[jeff47]

13. Shut 'em up with this:

If it was a Muslim-run hospital, would you be OK with Catholic employees being forced to comply with Sharia Law?

[spooky3]

23. Maybe at the MSNBC site.

[spooky3]

28. here's the transcript--you have to scroll down to get to the Boies segment

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007220&docId=l:1600826471&isRss=true&Em=4

[Rosco T.]

29. thank you! (n/m)