I’m with Yuval. Those who call this supposed compromise an accounting gimmick are giving it too much credit. It doesn’t change anything.
The White House fact propaganda sheet states, “Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.” But the second clause contradicts the first. There is nothing “direct[]” about this approach. Exactly as with the January order, once an employer selects an insurance company to provide coverage to its employees, that insurance company will provide coverage of contraceptive services to those employees. The employer who objects on religious grounds to providing coverage of contraceptives and abortifacients is still being compelled to do exactly that.
This isn’t even a matter of different form, same substance. It’s the same form and the same substance, with some obfuscatory semantics. Anyone who falls for this is a dupe.
Anyone who uses the term "dupe" to describe the imbeciles who fall for this nakedly shameless ploy is giving the imbeciles "too much credit".
As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., once said:
"Three generations of imbeciles is enough."
So, when is the polite crowd going to wake up to the evils of socialism?
My guess is that it will be when clinics sprout up to abort the lives of the elderly infirm. "Planned Aging" clinics.
That is the point -- the killing of the elderly at Dachau -- when polite German society woke up to the evils of a bad artist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClinics to euthanize the elderly will certainly NOT wake up the "polite crowd." By the time they spring up the MSM and years of brainwashing in the education system will create a DEMAND for these centers. Certain elders will themselves go on the talk show circuits to exclaim how humane euthanasia is compared with whithering away and becoming a burden to friends, family, and society. I would not in any way be surprised that many of the Baby Boom generation do not die of natural causes. The State will not need them, they will be a liability to the social welfare system and the national healthcare system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe same flaw afflicts most "spread the wealth around" programs. Smooth-talking politicians assure you the freebies will be paid for by someone behind a tree.
But those "free" benefits cost a lot, and not just for the sap who gets stuck with the bill.
They cost even more when they require us to put aside our inalienable rights. But smooth talk just might be enough to keep some on their knees... hiding behind the trees.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe apoplectic reactions here on NRO are pretty amusing. The fact is, the compromise does a very reasonable thing: allows women who want birth control (and 97% of American women do) to have free access to it, and allows religious organizations to not include it in their insurance plans or pay for it. Those who still object will simply not be satisfied unless women who work, say, as a nurse at St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital, will be denied birth control. And the more strongly the GOP insists that denying women birth control is the only remedy, the worse it will look - remember virtually ALL women use birth control... and a lot of them vote too.... this article kinda says it all:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is so stupid - premise, conclusion, everything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the kind of thoughtful analysis I'm getting used to around here. Too bad...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Bmore Liberal:
Ok, I'll bite. In the case where the employer objects to the purchase of contraception/abortifacients/etc, who ends up covering the cost of the "free" medicine/procedure?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll bite too, so if there is a right to free birth control, why stop there? Shouldn't there then be a right to get all medications free? Pregnancy is a "preventable" condition, while other conditions are not. But other conditions can kill you if untreated, while pregnancy can be avoided.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe insurance companies do. WHY? Because it actually lowers their costs. Babies and complications due to childbirth are expensive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, yes, we're the dumb ones for not agreeing with your brilliance. Why do you continue to haunt this site if no one stimulates your brain like it needs to be stimulated?
And the more strongly the GOP insists that denying women birth control is the only remedy, the worse it will look
Idiotic, BL. Truly. This isn't the point, as much as your supercharged neurons think it is. You live in a leftist fantasy world. You could at least try to figure out what the real objections are, instead of making them up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can call me an idiot and stupid all you want. In two posts, you've managed to say nothing of substance.
Yes, access to birth control is precisely the issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho was denying birth control access before this controversy? Point it out. When and where was the great birth control crisis? I missed it. Of those who've opposed Obama on this, who was denying birth control access? Who was trying to wipe it out? Good Lord. You put forth a theory with zero evidence, which is why I called it idiotic and stupid. I don't care how many times you repeat yourself, you're flat out wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBmore - that's amusing, considering you ignore Whelan's argument in its entirety. The rule still will effectively force Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, including contraceptives that have abortifacient effects, and sterilization. Employees at such institutions will not receive "free access" to these things. The cost will be built into the premium Catholic institutions pay for the insurance coverage they are forced to carry. It is a shell game, not a real accommodation. And, of course, it invites the larger question - where on earth did the federal government get the authority to do any of this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSimple laugh test.
Bmore, 99.99% of people want an ipad. Should the government compel Apple to provide one for everyone?
A simple Yes or No, please.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo.
But 99.99% of Americans also want basic healthcare. Should the government compel private companies to provide it for everyone?
Decades of American administrations left and right have said "Yes" over and over again, with Medicare and Medicaid. And that is a more fair comparison to the current question.
Yes, the government is requiring private employers who provide healthcare coverage to include birth control, which doctors and the public OVERWHELMINGLY regard as basic health care.
Honestly, I think the men who overwhelmingly populate the boards here should go home and talk to their wives about how essential birth control is to American women. Think about a scenario that would be repeated thousands of times if the GOP has it's way. A nurse at a hospital, a janitor at a university, a case worker in a non-profit office—all denied access to birth control pills (if they're not covered by insurance, they're largely unaffordable, and thus, access is denied), something that 97% of American women use on a daily basis. Seriously, I hope this stays near the top of the agenda. It is a guaranteed loser for the GOP...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlenty of us women do just fine without it. Plenty of us are wary of chemically suppressing our fertility for years at a time. It's not just religious conservatives either. There's an entire green movement, too. That side is concerned about long term effects on both users and on the effect that all of those hormones excreted in our water supply are having on the environment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo in Bmore's world, he thinks the government has the ability to compel people, but only when he wants it. Nice try.
The OP is right, only a dupe would support this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse97% of women want birth control??? Seriously? Link, please. I assume that does not include minors, but does that include post-menopausal women? Celebate women? Lesbians? And of those 97%, how many want it free? Of those who want it free, how many cannot afford to buy a box of condoms? Of those who can't afford to buy their own birth control, how many actually work for any of these religious institutions that are insisting on remaining faithful to their beliefs?
You and so many liberals are spending lots of pixels questioning every explanation for why we protest this mandate. Pray tell, what is the actual benefit -- TO WOMEN -- to insist on imposing it here, and not on, say, small business or any of the 1000+ business who've received waivers?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe WH "propaganda sheet' also includes their claim that "99% of women have used contraception." If you check the CDC report on that (here's a link: External Link
), lo and behold, ABSTINENCE is included as a method of contraception... undoubtedly the FIRST time this administration has included abstinence in anything it's done. But I would bet that they will never acknowledge that little glitch in their argument - after all, abstinence is free!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm glad you can quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. And I think the logic of your conclusion that allowing women to have access to birth control will lead to death camps is air-tight...
But really, I wish would actually talk some sense here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse