« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

How Dumb Do You Think I Am?

By: Michael Hammond (Diary)  |  February 10th, 2012 at 05:12 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

From the diaries by Erick

We don’t have all the specifics. But it is pretty apparent that Obama’s “deal” on contraceptives is a trick.

As to Catholic institutions, Catholic hospitals and universities would pay insurance companies premiums, which would pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. Evil doesn’t become good because it’s laundered through a third party.

But, says HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, premiums would go down because, inter alia, you would not have to provide health services to those pesky babies who would have been born, had you not aborted them.

But if this was a theological defense, it would have applied, whether or not contraceptives and abortifacients were specified in the insurance policy.

Incidentally, the 98-99% contraception usage figure which is being thrown about unchallenged?  It is from the virulently pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Finally, what about individual Catholic or fundamentalist or other employers who have religious objections to abortions and contraceptives? The “deal” would throw them under the bus.

Unlike some in the Catholic hierarchy, I vigorously fought against ObamaCare and predicted the abortion-related problems they are now facing.  Am I now to go to prison for exercising my conscience? And does the First Amendment apply any less to my religious beliefs.

by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89 and a Dunbarton, New Hampshire resident.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Ned Reck

    “How Dumb Do You Think I Am? ”

    Michael, it depends if you are a Democrat or Republican. If you are a Democrat… since you believe in nothing, you will believe in anything that Mr. O tells you to believe… and you will voluntarily “parrot” Mr. Obama’s speeches to others.

    If you are Republican, you will always question what you hear… and analyze everything for logical and Constitutional reasons. And it appears that you have gone through this very process because you have made this good post.

    Ned

  • Scope

    I’ve just listened to a segment on CNN where it was pointed out that some insurance companies already cover the cost of birth control. I believe the insurance provided to the employees of Fordham Univ, a Catholic Univ., includes coverage for birth control. It was stated that it was already covered with no co-pay as it is considered a part of “preventative healthcare.” Yes of course the insurance companies would cover the cost of “the pill” as it is far less expensive than covering the cost of pregnancy and childbirth.

    If I am not mistaken, the health insurance companies have long been charging more in premium payments to those of child bearing age. No?

    • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo

      Egads!!!!

      • Scope

        When it comes to the election, and our candidates, CNN, in my opinion, has been a little more fair in their coverage, as they have talked about all of the candidates, and have covered their events more evenly. They don’t seem to favor one GOP candidate over the others. They are obviously against all of them, and therefore are not cheerleading or shilling for one over another. Fox has been largely responsible for the Romney is the “inevitable” meme, even though he was not personally appearing on Fox almost at all until recently. They refused to even mention Gov. Perry’s name, unless it was to disparage him. For a good long while they had Cain on so many times, at all times of day, I thought he had been hired as a regular. I also credit Fox for giving Ron Paul the microphone all to often to spew his insanity, as though he was a very credible candidate. Paul had been on Cavuto’s show at least a few times a week for several weeks, despite the fact that Cavuto is a Romney supporter/donor.

        When it comes to policy, legislation, current topics such as the contraception debate, the president’s new budget etc., I usually switch back to Fox. That is until I am stuck listening to the views of Jhemu Green, Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers and some of the most liberal of the liberals. Then it is 6 of one, and a half dozen of another between CNN and Fox. In many cases Fox has crossed the middle, and is beginning to be more left of center.

        • carolynr

          on your post. I am also very interested in what goes on in the UK and with Rupert. I think that many of Fox’ contributors are left of center…if not left.

          • Scope

            what the connection is between Ruperts UK problems, and shortly after those reports started coming in, Ailes had his meeting with the senior hosts of Fox to announce that they were going to be moving more to the center. Apparently Ailes gained more control of Fox with the onset of Murdock’s problems. That also coincided with the GOP campaign season getting under way, and the early debates were just starting to be held. It is my contention that Fox moved more to the center, if not outright left of center, to make Romney the moderate appear to be more in the mainstream. Fox certainly couldn’t push a conservative agenda while getting behind Romney all the way. Most recently they have hired more and more liberals, such as though I mentioned above, which surely do make Romney appear to be their antithesis. Too bad it is not working as most of us are not that blind and dumb.

    • remalimo

      of VA stated this a.m. on Fox that the Catholic churches as well as other institutions are Self Insured.

      • streiff

        the federal regulation finalized last week cover all insurers, self-insured or not.

  • dogfan

    I posted this on another thread but I’ll post a slightly amended version here in hope of answers. I admit I am behind on this issue so I don’t know if my questions are dumb or not (if not, it may be the policy “change” that is dumb).

    I haven

    • bonnman

      1) Yes. Except the previous policy didn’t require affiliated institutions to provide contraceptives directly but rather provide insurance that did.

      2) Basically yes. It allows affiliated institutions to not be directly supporting contraception coverage.

      3)The insurance company does still set the premium. And insurance companies arguably save money because contraception is less expensive than childbirth. Is this de facto payment? Not really, at least not anymore than if a Catholic priest were to buy something at Walmart, as Walmart also provides contraceptives. Because the insurer now has to contact the employee directly and offer for free, the Church has nothing to do with the transaction.

      4) See 3)

      5) If you are self-employed and have your own insurance than the insurer would offer you free contraception, at which point you would just decline.

      • Kyle-MI

        I will give you points for craftiness, but you are still completely misleading with this information.

        Nothing Obama did changed anything in the relationship between religious organizations and contraception coverage. Under this rule change, the health insurance (paid for by the religious organization) must provide contraception coverage FREE OF CHARGE. But there is no free lunch. Who is paying for the medicines and the doctor’s visits? The insurance company, of course. Where are they getting the money to pay for this? Increased premiums to the religious organization. What has changed? Nothing, the religious organizations are still on the hook to cover contraception coverage.

        You just don’t waive a magical wand and make the cost disappear. What Obama has proposed to closer to the way real world magicians work: it is all smoke and mirrors.

        • bonnman

          but the burden has been shifted from the religious affiliate to the insurer. It is really that simple.

          • JSobieski

            The religious affiliate will continue to pay a premium which will pay for contraception coverage. Nothing has changed.

            Clever . . . like payroll taxes. Tricks people into thinking that they pay taxes when in actuality, it is the employer who pays the taxes.

            Clever . . . like baseline budgeting. Allows the government to brag about “cuts” when spending goes up by 7%.

            Clever . . . like bragging about green energy jobs that require government subsidies of $100,000 per job.

            At some point, cleverness is a luxury that can no longer be afforded.

          • jakeofalltrades
          • dogfan

            I’m still unclear, however.

            It seems you are talking about a distinction without a difference. Before the policy change, the organization paid the insurer, and the insurer had to cover contraceptives. Now that still seems to be the case, except the coverage is not explicitly part of the policy. Your Walmart & priest example does not seem analogous, because in this case the organization pays an insurer who knows it will have to, in effect, provide that coverage, and presumably will adjust premiums accordingly (up or down) if premiums are set individually for that organization (not community rated).

            Also, you misunderstood what I meant in #5. I meant a self-insured organization (acts as its own health insurer).

          • bonnman

            If the Church buys goods and services from Walmart they exchanged money for those goods and services. Money that contributes to the ability of Walmart, an entirely separate entity from the Church, to offer contraceptives. The Church knows that Walmart sells contraceptives and that Walmart, can use its own money to do whatever it wants, including give away things for free. There really isn’t any difference. Anyone objecting mustn’t really understand how business and the exchange of goods and services work. Blue Cross and Blue Shield offers some policies that cover abortion and some that don’t. If the Church buys policies from Blue Cross and Blue Shield that don’t do they really think that their money isn’t being used to pay for abortions of other policy holders that do? If they don’t thats just idiotic and they don’t understand the concept of the insurance business.

            In this situation I don’t think the Church is responsible for creating an environment for the potential of sin, which seems like their concern here. This environment already clearly exists and having insurers offer contraceptives directly to the individual allows the individual to exercise their own free will which is exactly what the Church teaches us is our responsibility for our own spiritual selves.

          • dogfan

            It would be analogous if the Church paid Walmart a fixed monthly fee for a “policy” covering all purchases by the priest, and if Obama initially required the Church to buy a “policy” that included Product X in the list of available goods, then in his “revised” approach said the Church didn’t have to buy a policy that included Product X, but Walmart has to provide it anyway “free”.

            Well, what has changed? Either way the Church is paying a monthly fee to Walmart and Walmart is obligated to provide Product X to the priest, and presumably Walmart would price the provision of Product X (whether the net effect on cost were positive or negative) into the monthly fee it sets for the Church either way. That’s why the “revision” approach (and your prior comment, unless I misunderstood) seems to be a distinction without a difference.

          • dogfan

            After posting my comment above I came across the following from Greg Mankiw, who expresses essentially the same thing I did above. If Mankiw also sees it as a distinction without a difference, I think I’m in good company.

            Semantics at the Highest Level

            Consider these two policies:

            A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.

            B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.

            I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B. But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy. Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.

            Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A. The whole thing leaves me scratching my head.
            http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/02/semantics-at-highest-level.html

          • funwithknives

            is entirely paid by her company. IT IS True self-insurance, administered by Blue Cross Administrators as a service but all payouts are directly financed by Co. funds. No insurance Co. is involved.
            Please understand that this Co. has in excess of 4,000 employees,and I am informed by an actuarial of my aquaintance that this is not a rarity.So if this Cos. owners are pro-life, Barry’s Dodge does not apply in the slightest.
            *One Size Fits All* would again seem to have a few holes in it. Do we all really look that much alike, from Barry’s Temporary Lodging?

          • Kyle-MI

            Answer that question and you will realize that the Obama shift on contraception coverage is just smoke and mirrors.

      • dennis1111

        Your # 3 argument is specious. The contract is dwarn up individualy between the parties. If it is agreed upon then the employer pays. The new law mandates the service and thereby forces payment and supercedes agreement. This is more of the use of force instead of voluntary association. Our economy is being made slave to coercive government pograms. Best, dlc

    • greyeagle

      This insurance is supposed to cover abortions and medicines that cause abortions. Catholic and other religious hospitals would also be expected to provide abortions to patients. This is additional what I understand. Obama considers this to be a woman’s preventive health. What nonsense.

      • cbartlett

        It is one more choice that we as individuals or employers no longer have. I used this example in explaining this to my kids: in the early 80′s, my husband’s employer (a very small business) paid for the employees’ cost of health insurance, but we had to pay for the dependent coverage. One year, the dependent coverage nearly doubled in price and I said forget it – I’ll find an individual policy for me and the kids on our own. I was able to obtain a policy that was much less expensive, in part because it did not cover maternity benefits. Even though I was not quite 30, we were “permanently” not having any more children and it seemed rather silly to have to pay for that. Several years later, Texas passed laws that required all health insurance policies sold in the state to have maternity benefits. Our premiums, of course, increased – across the board for everyone – all ages. Hence – one less choice all of the citizens of this state are able to make – a loss of liberty. Anything Obamacare mandates is a loss of liberty and the contraception mess is just one of many mandates in it. The scariest part of it to me is the fact that many policy details and the implementation of them is in the hands of ONE, UNELECTED human being – the HHS Secretary. Nobody should have that much power – ever.

  • stephenf

    Greetings all; first post, long time viewer. One of the things that conservatives waste time on is trying to understand liberals in general and Obama in particular. People in their right mind simply cannot understand how a sociopath thinks and behaves. It is like listening to a serial killer explain life and death.

    Obama thinks 6 steps ahead of most other people. He plays us all and eventually gets what he wants. The goal here is to energize his base, position himself as reasonable, and maneuver the country into a single payer system.

    • racetraitor

      Excellent points. This is the most succinct and correct observation I’ve seen regarding this issue. Obama IS a sociopath, and he IS playing all of us. But, please, God, don’t let him get what he wants on this one. If he does, then not only will hundreds of Catholic schools, hospitals, and service organizations close their doors; but then Obama will be able to paint Catholics and other people of faith as “the real problem” in this country. Then a full-scale religious persecution wouldn’t be far off. Call me crazy, but that’s what I see coming if this HHS thing isn’t reversed.

  • rubb

    Do you think the left wing understands that if the government can order employers and insurers to cover this stuff, then the next president would have the authority to forbid them from offering these services? When it comes to using government power , we must find a way to explain to them that the power can be used against them too. Once government takes away a liberty, it is gone, and usually people realize way too late what they have granted in search of an easier life.

    • vancouverite

      Although, in certain circumstances, the government can compel an otherwise legal action to be taken, it can not generally ban an otherwise legal action from being offered.

      At least limited laws against birth control would have to be passed before the Federal government could compel insurance companies to not offer birth control as part of their coverage. However, if this rule is rescinded, then at least in theory states could ban such coverage.

      Of course, if insurance across state lines is legalized in the way some conservatives have called for, having just one state that allows the coverage would allow anyone in any state to get insurance with contraceptive coverage.

      • rubb

        It is true, the law allows the Sec of HHS to dictate what is allowed, and what is mandatory for insurance coverage. That is the whole point! The law that was passed leaves all these decisions in the hands of the executive branch of the government. It even allows the HHS to dictate that health care providers limit or not offer specific treatments, or they will lose the privilege of participating in federally run healthcare programs like medicare and medicaid.

        • grannysan

          It is unconscionable that this woman can carry out the HHS duties under this administration. I do believe that Sebelius’ maiden name was Gilligan, the daughter of a former governor in Ohio, also known to be one of the children in a large Catholic family. She’s Catholic like Nancy Pelosi.

          • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo

            You are correct. She IS Catholic JUST like Nancy Pelosi.

      • lgbpop

        The government can not compel an “otherwise legal” action to be taken, because “otherwise legal” implies illegality and an illegal action is not a legal action. Your tautology is faulty and intellectually lazy.

        Many people forget that the Constitution does not confer rights on the citizens of the various States; the premise is that those rights are given by God and that the Constitution protects those rights of the citizens of the States from a government whose natural inclination is to accumulate power.

        Now, I’ve read plenty here and there about the preventive healthcare to be provided women of childbearing age. Would someone be so kind as to address how much preventive healthcare should be provided to the unborn who are targets of the women of childbearing age, just for the sake of convenience or hedonism?

        • vancouverite

          I lose you right there.

          I believe you are referring to my poor grammar in typing “Although, in certain circumstances, the government can compel an otherwise legal action to be taken…” You are correct that this grammar is poor – this should have been written as “Although, in certain circumstances, the government can compel a legal action to be taken…”. The rest of the sentence remains correct. The government can not generally ban an otherwise legal action. It cannot ban the possession of guns, for example, while guns are legal to own (and that one is constitutionally protected).

          It can, however, make a specified action illegal. This happens all the time, from murder to jaywalking to identity theft.

          Hopefully, this clears things up. Sorry for any confusion this bad grammar caused you.

      • dennis1111

        Each contract is agreed to by both parties. Unless, the law necessitates the outcome. If the government stays out and the law is neutral the Church will simply agree to what it is willing to pay for. This new law forces the insurance company and the Church.

        • vancouverite

          However, compelling an action, even in a contract, is not provably unconstitutional. Otherwise, fraud statutes (which compel compliance with a contract’s provisions, among other things) would be unconstitutional.

          The question is: Where is the limit of compulsion? What can not be compelled.

  • WarEagle01

    Just like they did with Obamacare. Timothy Dolan is out there saying “it’s a great first step.” Yeah, great first step towards a million more dead babies. Can’t these guys grow a pair?

    • racetraitor

      with some of the Catholic bishops. Trust me… as a Catholic myself, I’m with you. But please don’t paint all of the Catholic bishops as cowards or sellouts. A great many of them opposed Obamacare, and vocally so.

      Cardinal-designate Dolan is a rock, and he’ll go to jail or to martyrdom before complying with anything that offends Catholic teaching or that furthers the culture of death. The same can be said for Archbishop Vigneron, Bishop John Myers, Bishop Bruskewitz, Bishop Sartain, Bishop Ricken, and many, many others. Yes, we’re frustrated with and angry at the ones who are weak. But all of the bishops–ALL–need our prayers. After all, on the night of His agony in the garden, didn’t even Christ Himself ask for the prayers of His little flock (“Watch and pray”)? Let’s pray for our bishops, that they be willing to follow the Lord to Calvary rather than Judas to perdition.

      • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

        Nt

  • Spartan4Life

    If leadership doesn’t have the courage of their convictions then how can we, as the flock, follow the tenents of the Church?

    Is there any question that the Obama administration is the most pro-abortion in the world, other than the Chinese? Ws it not obvious that one of the aims of ObamaCare was to lead to more abortions?

    How can the Church stand idly by?

    • weyland

      …goes a bit further than the issue at hand. I don’t need to spell it out, do I?

      • lgbpop

        Go ahead and show all the readers what you think of the entire Catholic church, based upon the actions of a few of its members.

        Just be prepared to do the same for Islam, based upon the actions of just 19 of its members just ten short years ago.

        This oughta be good…

        • weyland

          …if you’re going to go down the comparative theology road, at least let’s have an apples to apples comparison!

          I think you’ll agree that the parallels to the case of Aisha are quite striking — both in the act itself, and in the subsequent excuse-making, rationalization and coverup by the leaderships of both religions — no?

    • racetraitor

      Nearly 100% of the Catholic bishops have spoken out against the HHS mandate. Several have said, “We cannot and will not comply.” Period. Many are willing to go to jail rather than betray the Lord, the Church, and the unborn. The Catholic Church was at the forefront of the pro-life movement before any other Christian group got much involved. This is not to minimize the contribution of pro-lifers who are Protestants, Jews, Muslims, or even atheists; but the Catholic Church has been fighting this fight since the day after Roe v. Wade. Have some (even many) of the bishops been naive in buying into Obama’s rhetoric and the Democratic Party’s “let’s help the poor” schtick? Sure. But it looks like their eyes are wide open now. Let’s support them in this fight, and let’s pray for them daily so that they may have the wisdom and courage to do what is right in this and in all things.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        “…the Catholic bishops have spoken out…” High sounding cymbals.

        They talk. Do they take action? No they don’t. The Catholic Church is dramatically different in it’s structure than Protestant congregations. It is the very definition of a “top down” organization. The Bishops have absolute authority in matters of faith and practice and the standard for both are supposed to be set in Rome and carried out uniformly at the local level. Papal representatives said, in 2009, that under no circumstances should a politician who professes to be a Catholic and votes in favor of abortion be allowed to take Holy Communion.

        Please provide a list of Bishops who have publicly denounced a politician for their pro-abortion votes and publicly denied them communion. It’s a short list. As in zero.

        All talk. No action. Fifty million dead. The definition of hypocrisy.

        • mcb508

          This is all about the Obama Administration issuing a dictate that religious institutions must do something that is against their teachings. It doesn’t matter what the specifics are. What they are trying to do is a direct violation of the Fist Amendment.

          This so-called compromise is nothing. The church must buy the insurance policy that covers the objectionable services. However, now, the Obama Administration is claiming that the objectionable services that are part of the policy that the church must buy are “free”. Really? This is nothing more than an accounting trick.

          • norris

            How many women don’t have access to birth control? Most could find a couple of bucks and a drug store , it’s about control .

        • racetraitor

          to which you are referring. I’ve never heard of such a document, but I always like to be educated.

          And there are at least 2 Bishops who have publicly denounced a politician for their pro-abortion views an denied them communion: Bishop Leo T. Maher (died 1991) and Archbishop (now Cardinal) Raymond Burke (former Archbishop of St. Louis, who in 2004 ordered all the priests of his archdiocese to refuse Holy Communion to John Kerry should he present himself for communion during the 2004 presidential campaign). I’d provide links, but I’m not too good at computers. But you can read about Bishop Maher’s actions on Wikipedia.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I don’t need a link for your cites, I believe you. And, I’m happy to see at least a couple of Bishops have made an effort. On the other hand, while I love the idea that Cardinal Burke stopped Kerry, has he said a word about the local Democrats?

            Please don’t think I’m throwing stones, I’m more ticked off at my Protestant brethren than I am the Bishops. I’m just fried that when people are given virtually absolute authority they refuse to use it.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            It’s here LifeSiteNews.com…

            And you’ll be pleased to know that Cardinal Burke is featured in the story.

            ROME, January 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Raymond Burke, in an exclusive interview last week, told LifeSiteNews.com that the issue of pro-abortion politicians continuing to receive Holy Communion is still one of major concern and that it is the duty of bishops to ensure that they are refused.

            He told LifeSiteNews.com, “I don

      • Spartan4Life

        If the Pope and all his subordinates had the true courage to take on these measly politicians they would do much more than just “speak out”. Why not denounce, by name, the people responsible for these abhorrent policies?

        It isn’t even about abortion, much less contraception. It is about religious freedom. If the Church decide it wants to play ball with the Democrat Party than they deserve whatever they get.

        I’ll believe they have the courage of their convictions when a few ec-communications start happening.

    • dennis1111

      From what I have heard: The Church is neither idle nor standing. I think Obama will back down on this coercive policy. The Church should and probably will, have it’s way. I suspect Obama was just handing out goodies to his abortion happy constituents and didn’t consider the possible backlash. Losing this one would divert a lot ot those 50% of Catholics who voted for him last time. He is too savvy a politician and tea leaf reader to go down that way.

  • vancouverite

    Being from Oregon, I remember broadly the case Employment Division v. Smith, where the Supreme Court, led by Justice Scalia, ruled:

    “It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]…to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended….To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’ – permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’ contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.’ To adopt a true ‘compelling interest’ requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.”

    This ruling in the negative (not allowing an illegal act) may equally apply in the positive (not allowing the ignoring of a required act). This is, of course, dependent on the law being constitutional, but still the ruling has parallels here.

    • gmscan

      Just last month the Supreme Court ruled unanimously

      • vancouverite

        I see your point. However, the ruling in Hosanna-Tabor v. Smith can not be read to apply in this case. In fact, the Court explicitly state so, writing in its opinion that the holding in the case is limited to

    • lgbpop

      “This ruling in the negative (not allowing an illegal act) may equally apply in the positive (not allowing the ignoring of a required act). This is, of course, dependent on the law being constitutional, but still the ruling has parallels here.”

      If the act of requiring an action is illegal – and in most all cases, it’s unconstitutional as well as illegal – by definition your example is silly and illogical. Our Constitution is a document of enumerated powers.

      • vancouverite

        … in Federal law. Such things as Selective Service registration, filing a tax return, or meeting specific regulations for your business are affirmative actions required of you. Thus, it can be stated that the act of requiring an action is not blanket illegal, nor unconstitutional.

        The question is more, is it illegal or unconstitutional in this case. There are currently differing legal opinions on this – and that’s why we have courts.

  • gmscan

    1. What about self-insured employers? Most large employers are self-insured, so there is no “insurance company” to slough it off to. I expect this ncludes many catholic organizations.

    2. More important is the excess power we are putting in the hands of one man. If on Thursday he can require it and on Friday he can un-require it, what happens on Saturday?

    • rubb

      The HHS has ruled that companies can continue their self insurance programs. The exception to the waiver is if a company significantly changes their coverage, the new coverage must meet HHS standards. The HHS can decide what is a “significant” change.

  • BlueLandRed

    >But, says HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, premiums
    > would go down because, inter alia, you would not have
    >to provide health services to those pesky babies who
    >would have been born, had you not aborted them.

    While the ObamaCare et. al. is a horrible solution to America’s healthcare crisis… attacking this particular law from an economic point isn’t a winner. Anyone that’s experienced the hospital bill for the birth of a child knows that it costs far more to bring a child into this world than a life time supply of contraceptives.

    • GregInFla

      And that is just plain dumb. Guys buy condoms, and women will buy birth control pills. And it happened long before it was covered by insurance. And if birth control pills are preventive, then that makes Pregnancy a disease (or at least an ill condition), and that, my friends, is what the liberal devils want us to believe.

    • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo

      Is there some crisis in care that I have been blissfully unaware of these past 40 years?

      What happened in the last 4 years that made it a crisis? From what I understand, I could go to any hospital in the country and not be refused service – life saving HEALTHCARE – for any reason, whether or not I had a nickel to my name.

      This crisis in which they speak…Do surgeons knives no longer cut? Are all medicines placebos now? Rectal thermometers no longer reading accurately? From what I gathered from “Greys Anatomy,” “Private Practice,” and “Scrubs” reruns, health is still being cared for.

      Where is the CRISIS?

  • red_refugee

    So any religious organization wanting to offer health insurance has to get it from an insurance company that’s forced by our Dear Leader to offer contraception for free, but that’s not the same as the organization paying for contraception?!? How does he read this off the teleprompter with a straight face?

    • Kyle-MI

      Anytime we hear Orwellian doublespeak it should set off alarm bells indicating the user is just plain dishonest. So on top of forcing people to violate their morals, Obama is being a big phoney in the way he is handling the situation. And he wants the religious organizations to join in on the deceit.

  • patrickdalroy

    Even his detractors (and believe me, I am one) have got to give Obama credit, in a Machiavellian way, for this “solution” to the controversy. This was probably the plan all along. He is like a chess player who is able to see 10 or 15 moves ahead and outmaneuver the opposition every time. This move will divide the bishops and mollify the Catholic left who objected to the mandate. Those bishops who continue to object will be labeled as strident, intransigent, etc. – insert your favorite MSM derisive adjective here. I hate to keep going overboard in my praise of it, but it really was a brilliant strategy to get everyone focused on the religious liberty aspect of it, and completely overlook the economic argument, i.e. the fact that ANY type of mandate on insurance coverage drives up the cost for everyone. It’s obvious that they will be paying for the coverage, albeit indirectly through higher premiums rather than directly.

    I don’t know about the legality of this idea, but if I were a bishop or someone running a Catholic institution, this is what I’d do: offer employees a partial subsidy of X dollars if they agree to forego health insurance coverage and join a health care sharing ministry instead. HCSM members are exempt from the Bamcare mandate to purchase insurance, and since they are not insurance, there is no mandate associated with them to cover contraceptives. Imagine tens of thousands of Catholic employees dropping insurance coverage to join HCSMs, and how many millions in lost revenue for insurance companies. It would leave those who want contraception coverage holding the bag, paying those higher premiums. Bishops – if you have leverage, you can’t be afraid to use it.

  • demsaresatanic

    The answer is; as dumb as the simple-minded democrat welfare plantation voter who elected him in the first place.

  • joeyjojoshabadoo79

    I disagree with pretty much every domestic policy decision Obama has made, but anyone who thinks this guy is a dummy is fooling themselves.

  • sharrondeer

    This isn’t new. The states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Mass., Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

    As you can see, it’s not even a red state vs. a blue state issue.

    • quill67

      I am reminded of every Mom tells their kids: “Would you jump of a bridge if the other kids did it?”

    • JSobieski

      will eventually make social conservatism impossible.

      When the government is invovled in everything economically, the public square becomes a secular and valueless.

      On another note, we need massive health insurance deregulation at the state level, and need to use tax incentives to drive people towards catastrophic coverage with low premiums coupled with HSAs.

      Instead, we just keep moving leftwards.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      considering that 2/3 of the states you name have Dem governors who aren’t going to challenge Obama on anything. The breakdown of state legislatures is about the same.

      At least a couple of the R governors in those red states aren’t that conservative, and a couple of the R controlled state legislatures have a very slim margin.

      • renl57

        …maybe a reporter would ask Perry about this birth control mandate in TX. Evidently he and the TX legislature have no problem with it.

        • cbartlett

          Employers must be OFFERED the OPTION of including contraceptives with prescription coverage. We have had a legal policy for years that doesn’t have prescription coverage and therefore no contraception coverage. Note religious exclusions below in law. This SHOULD be a state right issue – NOT FEDERAL.

          Tex. Insurance Code Ann.

  • Michael Dugas

    A game of words to help tone down the resulting uproar until after the election. If Obama were to get elected again any and all deals, smoke screens or temporary band aids will disappear and the attack on religious freedom by the imposition of Obama’s abortion doctrine will continue unabated with no pesky need for re-election getting in the way.
    Obama and his leftwing minions would like nothing more than to have religious organizations get out of the healthcare and charity business so they can take over completely and bring those helped by those organizations into the “government” fold. The more who are dependent on the government the more who will vote for the party of big brother government. It’s all part of the Totalitarian Control Plan the Democrats are engaged in.

  • elizaliza

    “But, says HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, premiums would go down because, inter alia, you would not have to provide health services to those pesky babies who would have been born, had you not aborted them.”
    The writer seems confused about condoms and abortions. How does wearing a condom constitute abortion? It DOES NOT!

    Listen, I’m a regular conservative, but I let my husband wear a condom, when it’s necessary. There’s nothing wrong with that. These aren’t the 50s no more.

    Abortions, I am against those. Contraceptives? All for it. And how dumb do you think women are? We are the ones having the babies, and WE are NOT confused about the difference between contraceptives and abortion. I warn you, we’re gonna lose women big time if this is pushed too far.

    • Uma Richie

      Sorry, honey, but your messiah is going to lose on this one.

      1. This isn’t just about condoms and you know it. Drugs that cause early abortions are part of the deal. A lie doesn’t become the truth just because you repeat it loudly, over and over again, and wish on the magical unicorn that it would be true.

      2. This isn’t about controlling what people do in their bedrooms. This is about YOU DEMANDING THAT I PAY FOR WHAT YOU DO in your bedroom.

      3. With the baby boomers, the biggest voting bloc of them all, almost completely out of the child-bearing stage and into the cancer/heart disease high risk zone, you should be worried that Obama chose birth control, which is cheap and available and divisive, as the “health care crisis” to stake Obamacare on.

      4. The angle you took in your concerned little post with its reference to, “These aren’t the 50s no more,” shows your ignorance of your audience. It makes you look dumb and insulting. Next time, try hanging around a while before posting. You’ll find out how to blend in better.

    • mcb508

      elizaliza:

      It’s About the 1st Amendment, Not Contraception.

  • deVere

    nt

  • elizaliza

    Micheal, i dunno.
    how does following YOUR conscience make anything okay? For all we know your conscience tells you to impregnate as many young girls as possible, because, YOUR conscience tells you are the return of our Savior on earth…

  • elizaliza

    Understand me correctly, I am severely PRO-LIFE. So don’t go accusing me to be something I am NOT. I’m against any abortion inducing drug.

    “This is about YOU DEMANDING THAT I PAY FOR WHAT YOU DO in your bedroom.” ???
    Then it must be that I don’t get the health care funding in this country at all, but unless you and I work at the same place, you don’t pay a thing for me, and I don’t pay a thing for you.

    And assume good faith, If i got this wrong, I’d like to be enlightened.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

      It will make it possible to follow the comment thread and see to whom you’re responding.

      “Leave a Comment” at the very bottom is for replying to the diary author.

    • Uma Richie

      It just makes women look dumb.

      For the benefit of people who truly haven’t been paying attention for the past 21 days:

      1. On January 20, the Obama administration announced that only a strict group of religious organizations would be allowed conscience exemptions for what types of drugs and services they must provide their employees under Obamacare.

      2. The exempt religious organizations did not include church run schools, hospitals, television stations, or community organizations, among others. It offered conscience protection strictly to church worship functions.

      3. The insurance coverage required by Obamacare include contraceptive pills and devices as well as pills that cause an abortion by preventing an already conceived person from implanting in the womb. The Catholic church holds that use of any of these devices is gravely immoral.

      4. When Obama pretended to reposition himself yesterday, he decided that all insurance companies in America must offer contraceptives and early stage abortifacients as part of there coverage. The estimates published this morning say that the additional cost for this coverage will be about $2.8 billion. This additional cost will be passed on to the people purchasing the insurance.

      5. The pseudo walk back that Obama announced yesterday means that Catholic organizations will be required under Obamacare to buy health insurance for their employees from insurance companies that provide contraceptive and abortifacient coverage with every basic package. The churches will still be paying for drugs and devices that violate their consciences; however, under the new rule, the cost of these devices won’t be itemized.

      ***Warning for dumb people, the following is an analogy. That means that I am using a situation familiar to you to make a point about the insurance industry, which is not so accessible to everyone.****

      6. It is like you going to Walmart, today for three items, with your receipt showing Tylenol for $5, cold medicine for $6, and condoms for $7 dollars at a total cost of $18. Under the new Obama rule, you will go to Walmart tomorrow and your receipt will say $8.50 for Tylenol and $9.50 for cold medicine, for a total of $18, but you will also walk out of the store with condoms and think Obama is cool because, free condoms.

      7. Catholics will walk into Walmart today and buy Tylenol for $5 and cold medicine for $6 and pay $11 for two items. Tomorrow Catholics will walk into Walmart and buy Tylenol for $8.50 and cold medicine for $9.50, and will pay $18 for only two items. And that is how WE WILL PAY FOR WHAT YOU DO in your bedroom.

      ***Analogy over****

      8. In short, there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as free birth control. The cost will be borne by all Americans, including me.

      • Bill S

        .

      • Uma Richie

        I should never type in a hurry. Apologies for all other usage errors and typos.

      • Scope

        elizza is a Ron Paul supporter, and is making her point that it’s her body, therefore her property, and no one has the right to tell her what to do with her own body, and that’s it. She has no clue or care about insurance, costs, birth control, condoms, or who or what pays for whatever for whoever, it’s all about her “freedom” to choose for herself and it’s no one’s damn business what she does, just get out of her bedroom already. That’s as deep as elizza’s thinking gets, just as much as a surface scratch.

        • Uma Richie

          : )

  • elizaliza

    Scope, Uma,
    You’re right, I don’t have a clue about insurance or whatever, that’s because we pay our own way. NOBODY pays a dime for me or mine, whatsoever.

    but thanks, I know now where you stand on government overreach.

    “Be respectful, or be banned.”

    ???

    Calling me shallow is apparently respectful in your eyes.
    Oh wait, it’s OK to do so, because you ASSUME I am a Ron Paul supporter. Way to go.

    • texashistorian

      government overreach? I buy insurance. It is a product which I freely consume because I believe the service received is value for money. It has jack-all to do with government. I pay my own way just like you do. The problem is not buying insurance, but rather now my insurance is going to cost more because the Obama admin is requiring all companies to offer additions to their products whether they want to or not. The insurance companies aren’t going to eat this- I am, and everyone else that buys health insurance.

      Sorry, but Eliza, but you should know about insurance because it affects you. Those retail prices you are proud to pay for medical services are going to go up, too. Not buying insurance on some principle that you “pay your own way” (I do too, by the way, the government doesn’t give me free stuff) doesn’t exempt you from rising costs nor give you proper grounds to criticize those that don’t believe the government ought to dictate what products and services a private company offers its customers.

    • Uma Richie

      This includes paying for other people’s abortion causing drugs, which you say above you don’t believe in. Doesn’t that bother you?

    • Scope

      Paul is the only one

      “Paul is the only one who IS SMALL govt conservative, and his whole Iran thing?
      Do you really think Paul will let us be attacked by Iran? That

  • ombd

    “How dumb do you think I am” is the perfect response to Obama’s distinction without a difference. Thank God

  • guidvce

    are continuing with this administration. Shift the focus, and continue on with the parlor tricks. This seems to be the modus operandi of this current potus.
    Thank you, Mr. Hammond, for the well written article.

  • Juggernaut

    at county health clinics. Target and Walmart offered $4 for pills. There’s no need for coverage that will drive up costs like every other gov sponsored program, expect insurance premiums increase no matter what HHS says..

    The tomfoolery of Obama and his liberal minions is damn right insulting. Makes me wonder if dems will get campaign contributions from participating companies. Could also be a plot to ratchet up ideological fights on settled issues to expose candidates as too rigid. Regardless it will be forgotten by super Tuesday as most mainstream voters don’t follow politics close at all.

  • rockymtn1776

    How dumb ? Dumb enough to let this continue this long without putting a stop to it.

    • carolynr

      There…now I am not being politically correct…am I. Is it not the same. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Contraception (which I believe in and I should pay for myself)??? This is a violation again and it crosses the lines of Church and State.

      Obama points that finger and says that we can’t have references of God in the government but he has no problem with the government telling the church about it tenets. Therefore…I got bold…Let them eat pork…it is the same difference.

      This entire argument has nothing to do with contraception…nothing. It has to do with the government taking more and more freedoms away from its peoples and its institutions. Well…equal equality under the law. Bishops…want to make your point and be called Islamophobic….get some shock language into this so every the MOST STUPID can understand this.

      So…under this mandate of his (thank you Romney)….having to live free from pregnancy is a Right? Further to this point…where are the Republicans on this issue? Surely…there must be some people in government that still believe in the Constitution! Is this the last sticking point and then we just throw it away for Obama’s manifesto? Hey…maybe he will just do away with term limits…after all…why bother to adhere to ANYTHING in the Constitution.

      Washington DC is a Sewer…and this is not about contraception…it’s about not adhering to your oath of office..all three branches who swear to do so and then violate their oath. And we thought Fannie and Freddie’s fraud was a big thing…Nope…this is the example…and these idiots on TV are talking about contraception….dumb…it is not about that.

  • norris

    I have been told that a large portion of the population is homosexual.