Republicans desperate for a wedge issue look to religious freedom for their answer.

[rhett o rick]

The Republicans are getting desperate and looking for wedge issues for the upcoming election. Issues that can be used to polarize voters, usually related to religion or dogma. They were more than happy when some Catholic bishops (not parishioners) objected to including contraception with their employee’s health coverage. The bishops claim this is violating their religious freedoms. The Republican candidates couldn’t wait to jump in. Forget the economy, the war in Afghanistan, and bailing out Bank of America, they must protect religious freedoms. But the government isn’t requiring anyone to use birth control only requiring the option (option means freedom to choose which Republicans are know to hate) to be included in health insurance coverage. Women would be free to make their own minds up (OMG, now I know why Republicans are against it). And in fact, over 90% of Catholic women disagree with the church’s dogma against birth control. And with almost 100% of American women using birth control, who is out of touch? If you guess the Catholic bishops AND the Republican candidates, you win.
Now some will argue that the Catholic church shouldn’t be forced to pay for something they don’t believe in (something the bishops dont believe in not parishioners) those that make this argument should be reminded that some of us don’t believe in the war in Afghanistan, yet our tax dollars (and a lot of them) go to fight this unnecessary war.

This post was inspired by Katha Pollitt, “Obama Stands Up to Bishops. Finally.” Feb 20, 2012, The Nation. She does a much better job of course.

[Zambero]

1. Religious freedom for who? The Catholic hierarchy?

They cannot even get their own church members to comply with long-standing doctrine against the use of contraception. So given, a lengthy history of dismal failure they are going "national" with this? We all now how well they have managed the pedophile priest scandal. The only freedom issue in play here is the freedom for Catholics and non-Catholics alike to have unhindered access to affordable birth control services.

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. Ah, the freedom to impose their religious beliefs on everybody

And the 8th amendment has hindered the Spanish Inquisition long enough.

[customerserviceguy]

7. While I do agree they'd like to do that

that's not quite what this issue is about, narrowly speaking. This only affects people who derive their health insurance (either directly or indirectly, through a covered family member) who is working as an employee of a Catholic institution.

Why does the RCC (or any religious organization) run hospitals, universities, or charities? They may answer that it is part of their mission as they interpret in their holy books, but fundamantally, isn't it to promote the religion which is behind the institution? Doesn't accepting a job with such an institution mean that you are endorsing at least that part of their mission? I'd never work for an organization that was sponsored by a fundamentalist Christian church, because I know the damage they cause. And if I was willing to be a hypocrite and take their money, then I sure wouldn't expect them to pay for my beer and wine.

Yes, there is the case of the janitor or the cafeteria worker who is low on the income scale, who might need some quiet help. I'd gladly give money to PP to make an outreach to those folks, but I wouldn't jeopardize a Congressional majority, or even the WH itself on the principle of gloating over getting the bishops to deal with a health insurance company over contraception.

[rhett o rick]

8. You make some good points but...

I didnt understand this, "on the principle of gloating over getting the bishops to deal with a health insurance company over contraception." I agree one shouldnt gloat, but what do you mean about "the principle of gloating..."? I think the WH was operating under Democratic principles. They wanted the Catholic church when it's running a business, to get the same rules as other businesses. IMO the Catholic church hierarchy wanted special treatment to push their dogma. A dogma that most of their parishioners ignore.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Ok, now that I read it again

it was clumsily worded. I do see a lot of the tone here, and when the ruling was first announced, there seemed to be a lot of "that'll teach those old pedophiles" kind of stuff. Now, I have zero use for the RCC, having gladly left them decades ago, but I've been observing the qualms of moderate to progressive Catholics on this issue. They don't give a fig for the RCC's teachings involving contraception, either, but they do have a problem with institutions that are trying to spread the Catholic faith in ways other than just running a cathedral being forced to supply insurance with contraception coverage.

Like I've said, there are those who consider it essential, those who consider it evil, and those who simply want it optional, and that includes the right to be "holier" than everybody else about standing by the principle. Whoever gets the 'optional' folks over to their side in the political debate wins. Last week's compromise was an attempt to do that, but it failed simple economics, you cannot make something free just by decreeing it so. Any insurer writing a contract with a Catholic university for health insurance will just simply factor in the cost of providing the expected expense for contraception into their premium structure.

Then there's the question of those institutions that self-insure, this does nothing for them. I agree, this looks like debates we had back in the early 1960's about people whose faith traditions clung to stubborn notions supporting racism ("God put different color people on different continents, we have the right to associate only with our own kind,&quot but by the time the Civil Rights acts came along, no sizable mainstream religious group was holding on to those ancient falsehoods. Here, we have a situation where if there had been a decent Pope or two since Paul VI, we wouldn't be having this problem at all.

[CatholicEdHead]

3. Yep, they are grasping at straws

I also thought that when I first read about it. Notice also they are giving minimal time and lip service to the poor and unemployed. They are alienating so many Catholics much less the general public and nobody is buying it and going along with it.

[Odin2005]

4. This is going to backfire on them, and I think Obama intended that, LOL.

The timing seems perfect, it sent the social conservatives into a tizzy and pumped up the Santorum campaign, LOL.

[Cosmocat]

5. He did not intend for it to happen like it did

he simply did the right thing twice - passing the legislation the first time, then finding a reasonable fix for something some of his constituents were not comfortable with.

The breaking point on this is likely the right wing overplaying its hand, YET AGAIN, and not accounting for women. INCREASINGLY, women have become a SERIOUS force in politics.

The right for women to have access to birth control in 2012 trumps a hackneyed attempt to gin up some kind of false religious suppression issue.

[rhett o rick]

6. I think we need to push the talking point home that R'cons dont believe in female contraception. nm

[Cosmocat]

10. I think this is a possible way to go

this might be a situation where you win the battle and have a chance to run down the opposition in retreat and pile on. It also can reset the discussion moving forward as they go to their go to move on abortion to reframe the discussion closer to what it really is. It is about abortion to them in good part, but it absolutely is the front for a battle on other people's private lives as it pertains to contraception and lifestyle.

[One of the 99]

11. The religious freedom argument is so bogus

I find it offensive. No one is telling the churchs to change their teachings. No one is even say that churches have to provide coverage to their employees. The rule only effects businesses with religious affiliations that have to pay taxes and comply with all the same regulations that every other business in this country has to comply with.

[Sheepshank]

12. They keep forgetting.....

no one is trying to take away their right to swallow a damned birth control pill...or their decision not to swallow a damned birth control pill.

Of course it really has nothing to do with that. Churches are fighting for their very existance, for relevance. Heaven forbid that their constituents should actually have enough faith in their leaders that they follow willingly...the church authority seeks validation by coersion or compelling obedience via some self appointed theocratic rule. I would be so "not suprised", if many chriches don't secretly hold some level of taliban envy.