Webster must go
Any man who calls himself a Republican but who is actually a counterfeit politician or “Republican in name only” does not belong in the party, much less pretend to be a manager in charge of the Maine Republican caucus.
Chairman Charlie Webster needs to resign his position. The accepted compromise only aids and abets the problem here of failing to count all the votes submitted by voters who thought they could trust Mr. Webster.
The voters’ trust in this matter has been grossly violated. Mr. Webster must step down now. We a manager who isn’t afraid to get the job done right the first time and earn the trust of the much-abused voters.
Peter Carminati
Stonington
Charlie’s way
After having tried to restrict voting by backing the repeal of same day registration, then trying to restrict votes by backing a bill requiring voter IDs, Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster has finally figured out how to succeed. He simply counts only the votes that he agrees with. I don’t think that’s going to work in the general election.
Ken Huhn
Bangor
Meeting requirements of forest land
Does the 10.3 acre parcel Bruce Poliquin claims for a forestry tax reduction of about $5,000 per year legitimately meet the Maine Tree Growth Tax Law requirements for a 10 acre minimum of “forest land” (BDN story, Feb. 2)?
Forest land is defined as “land used primarily for growth of trees to be harvested for commercial use” and the law specifically excludes ledge and “similar areas that are not suitable for growing a forest product.” The diagram of the 10.3 acres included in Mr. Poliquin’s application clearly indicates the east and west property boundaries are the high tide lines. However, as much as 0.7 acres of the included area is ledge bordering the water (appearing white in the satellite images).
Another 0.2 acres is roadway, and there is an additional open area of 0.1-0.2 acres in the middle of the property which may or may not be too rocky for trees. If the validity of this plan is revisited by the Georgetown Board of Selectmen or others, consideration should be given to whether the 10 acres minimum was actually met.
Dave Lambert
Orono
Maine judiciary waking up
The Maine Law School held a groundbreaking conference on Maine’s post-conviction review process Saturday, Feb. 4.
Approximately 100 attorneys and academics, including the Attorney General, law court justices and the original Dennis Dechaine trial judge, Carl Bradford, were given a critical look at the process faced by defendants claiming innocence and seeking exoneration.
Descriptions of the post-conviction review process as far away as Finland emphasized the difference between places such as Maine, where the focus is often lopsidedly on procedural details — as illustrated by Dechaine’s retrial motion remaining unresolved after more than three years — and those where the emphasis is on fact-finding and the search for truth.
Prof. Christopher Johnson of the UNH School of Law described how Finland imposed no limits on the nature of admissible evidence. Dechaine’s attempt to bring before the court time-of-death opinions supporting his claim of innocence, plus the possibility of alternative suspects, would fare better in Finland than here in Maine.
Mary Kelly Tate, of the Institute for Actual Innocence at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia, described “wrongful convictions from the point of view of the harm they do to public confidence in the judiciary.”
One detail of interest emerged, that until sometime in the 1990s, Maine typically assigned post-conviction reviews to new judges in place of the original trial judge, presumably to avoid a conflict of interest such as that faced by Judge Bradford.
Maine is finally waking up. Maybe there’s hope for Dechaine and others potentially wrongfully convicted. Stay tuned.
Bernie Huebner
Waterville
Penobscot, Chesapeake bays
Penobscot Bay is heralded as the premier cruising and sailing destination in Maine. Another such destination that receives similarly high ratings from tourists, campers, sailors and sightseers is the Chesapeake Bay. Compare them and you find enough similarity to make it a worthy comparison.
Chesapeake Bay lays neighbor to Norfolk, Virginia which is not only the largest naval installation on the planet but also one of the integral intermodal cargo ports on the Eastern seaboard. This port is also home to one of DCP Midstream’s terminals, which is proposing a terminal in Searsport.
That being said, I don’t advocate making Searsport and the Penobscot Bay into this image; Virginia will never be Maine and I’m glad of that fact. The question that still lingers with me though, is how do these people drive to work without the fear of certain death? How does Chesapeake Bay still garner its raving reviews with such a neighbor? Why would tourists even consider coming to the Chesapeake Bay? This comparison, in my mind, reveals that it is possible to have a scenic view and the businesses it supports and industry cohabitating.
This opportunity will be a step toward throttling the flow of Maine’s youth out of this state. As a young Mainer just starting his career I can say that the push to leave our state for better career opportunities and the proverbial “greener pasture” is very real and very apparent. I hope the fear tactics used by some doesn’t slam the door on opportunity.
Michael Walker
Searsport
Health care law
All constitutionally valid laws of the United States are mandates. The recently passed health care law is no exception. The first article of amendments to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” How requiring free contraceptives of all health-providing institutions violates the above constitutional “mandates” is beyond me.
The U.S. is a secular, not a sectarian, country. The above article of the Constitution mandates that as clearly as possible.
Sexuality and the full meaning of the freedom to control one’s own became largely available to the whole population of the country, not just the male half, without lasting ill effects of unwanted pregnancy with the birth control pill about 50 years ago.
Efforts to turn back the clock on half the population for sectarian causes is back-peddling of an unredeemable kind. We are a different country than when books and more could be banned openly in Boston.
John Lyman
Orono
Thank you John Lyman. A voice of reason in a wilderness of power plays and religious intrusion in the name of controlling woman’s private reproductivel decisions.
sally it’s about controlling women, not just our reproductive decisions. They are so afraid, that we’ll treat them the way they have treated us, and others, they have treated as less then human. They feel we must go back to the good old days, trouble is it was only good for them.
If the goal of the Catholic Church was to control women, don’t you think they are doing a pretty poor job of it? I mean, if this is their best effort, then I would call the church a colossal failure and officially let all women know they have nothing to fear from such an ineffectual church hierarchy.
Most women do not obey the church’s teaching on contraception. What does the church do about it? Are they rubber hosing women in the confessional, casting them from the church door? No. Sometimes, you might hear a homily on Sunday about contraception, but not often. The church simply maintains its position. You can accept it, or not. There is nothing to fear if you choose not to accept it. Nobody will tie you to the rack and torture you with comfy cushions….
Control and abuse starts out with condemnation. The control of women in this country has become a lot more difficult to achieve because of the laws we have enacted and the educational freedom our women have. Throughout the world where women have gained higher levels of education they have gained more control of their reproductive selves. The Catholic Church has much more power in countries that have a much lower level of educational equality. Much the same as in countries that are Islamic. There were other religions over the centuries that have had that absoulute power over nations or regions of nations. As in almost every case when someone has absolute power, that leads to absolute abuse of that power.
If any religion were to gain absolute power in this country, it would be the end of this country as we know it. We would become an Afghanistan.
Who is condemning? Nobody is condemning any woman for her choice to use birth control in the United States. Let’s stick to issues in the US. Other countries have different dynamics. But in the US, nobody in the Catholic Church is trying to control women. Nobody is trying to deny them access to contraceptives.
Oh, really. Explain to me just why they are trying to defund Planned Parenthood, reverse Roe vs Wade, pass laws restricting access to emergency contraception, support the moral objections exemptions for EC and contraception, promote abstinence only funding, legal rights for a fertilized egg and refuse to pay for full health coverage for non Catholics
Even if they did condemn, it’s not like it’s the end of the world or something. Who really cares what the catholic church thinks on any issue anyway. I fail to see how anyone could follow such an organization anyway. Looking at it’s history of hippocracy and opression over the last 2000 years.
If someone is unhappy with the church, just leave. A persons life would be better for it.
I’m not correcting your spelling, but it tickles my funny bone that a “hippocracy” would be a state governed by horses.
Are you referring to Caligula’s Rome or the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels? The latter would not have kind words for the right wing Yahoos that post on this site. The former would recognize the modern Republican Party which seems determined to nominate the posterior of a horse as its presidential candidate.
… and to the Bishops the Houyhnhnms would say, “Nay, nay!”
More like ~1,700 years. Modern day Catholicism has more paganism in its art, theology, and literature since Constantine took over.
Unfortunately the Church has money and that means power. They use this power to interfere in the politics of every country where they exist. And in every case they hide their political meddling under the cloak of “Religious Liberty”
Thank you, patom1. You write, “If any religion were to gain absolute power in this country, it would be the end of this country as we know it. We would become an Afghanistan.” Although you said it more strongly than I would, I tend to agree with your general point. Fortunately, we are a land of religious liberty, with many Christian denominations of varying sizes and influence, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., plus a growing number of people who have no religious affiliation, many of whom are non-theists, agnostics, atheists, or anti-theists. I think this is a healthy mix, and am glad that our Constitution and traditions generally succeed in separating church and state (although we don’t all agree where the line of separation should be drawn).
I’ve just come back from the Philippines, which is 80% Roman Catholic, and where it is taken for grated that a crucifix is on the wall in nearly every public school classroom. Women there typically marry young, are told not to use birth control, stay pregnant most of their lives, stay poor, and die young.
Wand:the When the great goddess of a religion represents virgin birth you can safely assume that religion lacks lacks understanding and respect for sex and women except as production lines for adherents.
Uh, no.
Ephesians 5:33 (KJV)
“Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as
himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”
Love is based on respect, and you can’t love your better half if you don’t respect her. Real men don’t treat anyone as less than a human. It’s been like this for generations in my family – something my dad taught me, and something his father taught him. How far back that goes, I don’t know, but that about covers the late 1800’s to early 1900’s all the way up ’till now at the very least.
It’s just too bad that evil people ruin it for the rest of us…
Well said.
Thank you Pat. This time I agree with you.
Patriot, Most men and women treat each other with love and respect. The issue of control is not being addressed to them or about them. There are organizations many of them churches that have thrown respect for women out the window of dogma and sacrificed their rights and needs on the alter of control. Would that these churches followed Ephesians.
Oh I know, and I try my best to warn them, too. Jesus came first to the temple to teach, and to rebuke the “religious” Jews, to correct them and set them on the straight path of righteousness. The very same ones that had him killed, were the very same ones he said “forgive them Father, for they know not what they do” to.
Any church system that uses a lie to base a belief in is built on a foundation made of sand. These religious institutions which use lies to subdue women into submission are the “synagogues of Satan” which Jesus spoke of, since Satan is the “father of lies.” They certainly do not speak for the rest of us.
I’m not talking about real men, I’m talking about men who will do anything to control some one or something. Men who think they know want is better for, whom ever they think need controlling.
NO,NO.NO. and once again NO.
The attempt to regain our 1st Amendment Right of religious freedom is NOT about controlling women. It’s about protecting everyone! Your assertion about controlling women is as false as false can be! If the attempt succeeds, women will still be able to obtain contraceptives as they are doing so now. In fact, they will still be able to procure insurance for this coverage if this is what they want. Bear in mind however, that THEY, AND NOT OTHERS who are unwilling to pay for this coverage, will be paying for this coverage.
That said, I am not “so afraid’ that I will be mistreated by women. “They” (meaning people like myself) do not want the 1st Amendment Right to be tramped on by the government. Once the government is given that leeway, then the government can take away all our cherished freedoms under the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Is that what you want for yourself, for women, and for everybody else?
Either John Lyman is extremely naive or is trying to pass one off on the readers. His statement, “How requiring free contraceptives of all health-providing institutions violates the above constitutional “mandates” is beyond me.” is absolutely ludicrous.
Contraceptives are not free. The cost of these is born by insurance companies who must raise their premiums to health insurance providers. So in effect the latter pay the costs for contraceptives, and for abortion inducing drugs and sterilizations that are being mandated as well. Now health insurance providers have no choice in the matter of what coverage they want to provide, unless, that is, they fall in the narrow religious exemption allowed in Obamacare law.
People and the government are free to do as they please providing they do not trample on other people’s fundamental freedoms. Obamacare would force hospitals, schools, and even individuals to pay for contraceptive coverage against their conscience. No one, absolutely no one, is trying to prevent anyone else from obtaining contraceptives. Yet John Lyman continues to propagate that big fat lie. Regrettably he is not entirely to blame for this mass deception. The blame lies directly at the President’s feet who started this scenario of forcing people and establishments to act against their religious conscience. Shame, shame on him.
Michael Walker, those who are spreading fear are the very same ones who think you should be tickled pink to work for under $10 per hour with no benefits. If you don’t like it then you should leave.
Peter Carminati and Ken Huhn, I wouldn’t count on Charlie Webster leaving the scene. The MHPC/ALEC are paying him well to be the front man for their designs on Maine.
Charlie needs to go. Watch this: http://bit.ly/xdRwZm Blaming his spam folder for missing votes. What about the ones you missed that were PHONED in?
Interview with Charlie on Howie Carr: http://bit.ly/x5VOE1
We need a governor like this one!
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/minnesota-governor-calls-out-corporate-front-group-alec-vetoes-its-bills/
Only 1,050 more days……..
We need a whole lot of people replaced in the legislature and the governors mansion. These people have signed pledges to Grover Norquist before they were sworn in to serve the people of this state. Grover Norquist isn’t even a resident of Maine.
I feel the same way about any politician who is elected that would sign a pledge to any organization outside of this state or one that is beholden to outside interests. Be they deemed liberal or conservative. I want my representatives to answer to the voters.
What seems to be the norm is that these new representatives feel that the only constituents that count are those that voted for them.
KEN,
And can you please tell me why anyone would be against voter ID? Could it be they approve of voter fraud?
JOHN,
Your words ” Beyond Me ” . Understanding the Constitution is beyond all liberals, not just you.
No voter fraud was proven. You are one who does not want to change the definition of marriage claiming why change something that has always benn (not that it has) yet you want to change something that has always been (voting process). Just asking?
Fraud or not, there’s no reason not to get behind voter ID. Some states like Texas are giving free state ID’s to those who are poor, and so now that the poverty issue is covered what is your argument? You and I will always see marriage differently. It’s a high stakes voter issue, and we both will continue to want our version upheld. Continue to defend your points on marriage and i will continue to do the same.
Well if Texas is doing it, it must be okay; I mean they have been a champion of minority voting rights their entire history.
Don’t “conservatives” believe that big government should stay out of our private lives? Isn’t that what you constantly say? Isn’t that the foundation of your philosophy? So then why do you people want big government in our bedrooms, in our hospitals rooms, and telling private consenting adults whom they can commit to legally and whom they can’t, dictating private individuals’ reproductive choices, and on and on? You people are walking contradictions who drown yourselves in oceans of hypocrisy, and if you know anything at all about American history you know that we were designed as a secular nation for very good reasons. Kindly keep your religion in your churches and houses and the heck out of government. It has no place there. You people say you are all for just individual responsibility and hate government programs, but you love YOUR Social Security, and YOUR Medicare, and you use public roads, sidewalks, bridges, water systems, schools, parks, playgrounds, public safety, and on and on and on. Yup. Walking contradictions and utter hypocrisy at every turn.
Don’t forget in Va. & Az. they are passing a law against swearing in gov. offices & e-mails, in Va. they now are requiring vaginal penetration before an abortion, this without permisssion from the woman. Also in Va. they are defining personhood so that many forms of birth control will be outlawed. Romney has also stated there should be drug testing on anyone receiving government
money. I am thinking for those of you who may of inhaled back in the 60’s better hope the traces have gone away for if you are receiving SS or medicare you could be up for a drug test. In Mich.
the governor has decided to do away with
democracy by sending in “KINGS, CZARS OR WHAT EVER they are called, to various towns that are in financial trouble, and the elected officals have no say in anything, I guess this is their way of scrinking government.
GOP getting government out of your lives. HA!
Vaginal penetration against the will of the woman is called rape.
Not according to the Republicans, they have their own rules.
There is no reason to create rules and laws when there is no problem. Isn’t it the republicans who cry about over regulation by the government?
There’s a big difference between telling someone who you are and where you live, and proving it. With no rules, lies aren’t a violation. Those against early registration and picture IDs may not lie themselves, but they are aiding those that will. And some certainly will.
EJ, for the umpteenth time, our two Charlies spent much of the last year grasping the hope of proving vast voter fraud. They failed. I honestly believe that if they could have fabricated the proof and get away with it, they would have. To their credit they didn’t. They fell back on the tried and true method of repeating the big lie. I’m sure you have heard the saying about repeating the big lie long enough that it becomes accepted fact.
There is another old saying, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. It obviously wasn’t broke. If it were then there would not be a Governor LePage or a Republican controlled legislature in this state.
That being said, don’t you feel that this opportunity is being squandered on frill subjects of interest to the Republican or whoever is controlling them party? Non productive removal of paintings? etc. etc. etc.
Would you send your kids to school if you knew the school didn’t take attendance or make up class rosters, where kids were allowed to go to whatever classes they wanted, or not go at all? Of course, you wouldn’t.
Would you hire people to work for you that you didn’t know and then send them out to work wherever they wanted to work and do whatever they wanted to do? I think not.
It’s just the same if you open up the polls and allow anyone to come in with no ID or proof of who they are and let them vote. There’s nothing stopping them from going to the next polling place and doing it all over again with a different name. But, without rules, there is no real way to catch those that are defrauding the system; therefore, to those that oppose the verification process, there is no fraud. The truth, however, is that there are those that are breaking the unwritten rules and voting illegally or more than once.
And the reasons the opposition gens up to support their side are empty at best.
Pre-registration and an picture ID should be the minimum. Neither infringe on anyone’s rights.
Its call college. Working is not a right. Do people actually do that? go to different polling stations to vote again? I am going to say no, So you want the Government to spend millions of dollars for a problem that might not exsist?
EJ, I’m more sympathetic with you on this one than I was with same-day registration. Just the same, I agree with patom1’s point: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
No rules = fraud. Of course, as I’ve said many time, if there are no rules, fraud is hard to prove. But, the dishonest will cheat the system as it is now set up in Maine. And the cheaters will be the first to scream when someone comes along and wants to make the system more honest and secure. After all, voting is a privilege that should not be abused.
Pre-registration and an picture ID should be the minimum. Neither infringe on anyone’s rights.
There are rules, I don’t know why you keep saying that. For a party that loves the constitution you guys sure are trying to make it hard to exercise their rights. You would think there love for the constitution, they would want to make it easier to vote. This is simple going to prevent more people from voting then prevent fraudulent votes. If a policy will save 100 but cost you 1000, is it a good policy?
I have to pre-register and show a picture ID. And all I had to do was register and make sure that at least one form of ID in my wallet has my picture on it. I’ve never missed an election, and I’ve never been denied the right to vote.
By the way, if I were home bound or didn’t have something with a picture ID, it would be provided for me.
Far too many Americans demand they have everything their way, without offering anything in return. That’s not the American I grew up in. But, thanks to the lazy, selfish, liberal mindset that now exists, it’s the America of today. Sad.
Well, one you would have to give ID to everyone. You can’t make someone pay or an ID. In the state of Maine you have now show a birth certificate to get an ID. What happens if you don’t have one and was born out of state? There is an added cost. What about old people that were born in a school house and there is not record of their birth certificate? I knew some one that went to go renew there DL and couldn’t without a birth certificate, He couldn’t get a birth certificate with out a valid DL. He had to DRIVE to South Carolina to get it in person.
What happens if you forget your wallet? Also the America I grew up in repected voting, Being lazy and selfish is what the republicans are doing, They don’t want to take the time to see if there is voter fraud so they are taking the easy way out, Which will cost Maine Millions.
What if everyone accepted responsibility for themselves and quit with the “what ifs”?
Nah, they just support keeping your people of you ilk from power.
What voter fraud? Where? Where is your one single shred of proof? Why do you and those like you continue to push this ridiculous delusion? Your right wing buddies Webster and Summers conducted their investigation last summer of over 200 people among whom Webster claimed would surely show fraud. Guess what, NO FRAUD FOUND, or did you miss that detail? Incidents of voter fraud in Maine and the US are exteremely rare. It would take time people don’t have, would have little or no effect, and risks heavy penalties. Kindly get over the fraud hallucination. Maine voters pounded you and your right wing pals out of sight on this issue in November, your own party in the legislature ran away from the voter suppression ID law because they knew it would be political suicide, and the electoral bashing your silly right wing party is going to take in November will put them and their crazy ALEC/MHPC/corporate-worshipping agenda right out of business. As to the contraception issue and the Constitution, please keep up that nonsense too. Keep going back to the early 50’s on this. The Republican Party won’t have a single woman in this nation voting for them except the idiots Palin and Coulter. Asking insurance companies to provide contraception in their health plans or even having organizations do so does not violate the first amendment because it does not impede on anyone’s right to exercise their religion as no individual whatsoever is mandated to USE contraception. Still, the compromise definitely ends the silly first amendment claim and has been accepted by Catholic Charities and many other Catholic groups. Please, keep pushing this issue. Republicans won’t be able to run for dog catcher in November. The GOP (Goofy Old Peanutheads) are going to get seriously thrashed this fall. And if you are anywhere near reality, you know it.
Read the 14th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution and you will understand both the unconstitutionality of requiring a voter to pay for a photo ID and the Constitution that your party seeks to undermine. Then get that test for hydophobia done.
Dave Lambert
You democrats keep throwing stuff at the conservatives that are taking this state back after 30 plus years of mismanagement and outright corruption.
Nothing seems to be sticking.
Keep up the good work Bruce!
Pardon me for being extremely underwhelmed by the performance of the Republican/MHPC/ALEC/Tea Party’s performance since they have got the reins.
Yea, let’s go back to when Baldacci, Violette and McCormick were stealing us all blind. Don;t you ever wonder how New Hampshire can maintain their roads and schools without an income or sales tax?
New Hampshire has about 1/4 the nuber of roads to maintain that we have. They make up for income tax and sales tax with very high property taxes.
I keep hearing that New Hampshire has very high property taxes yet their mil rates are the same as Maine’s. Must be that they pay more in property taxes because they can afford to buy more expensive homes.
New Hampshire also has 3 different toll highways, one of which every person heading into Maine has to pay $1.50+ for 14 miles. another is 20+ miles between their two most populated cities and cost $4 or $5, if my memory serves me right. How much of their highway budget is paid for by out of state travelers and tolls that they pay. I’ll bet it is a substantial part of their highway budget, it doesn’t cost them $1.50+ per vehicle to maintain 14 miles of highway.
We could have more toll roads in Maine, maybe make I95 a toll highway all the way to Bangor. Maybe US route 301 out of Portland headed towards the western mountains and Route 9 from Calais to Bangor toll roads. That would raise plenty of cash.
New Hampshire also relies on many more ‘user fees’ to pay for their schools and other government fees.
“Mismanagement and outright corruption”? Nice hallucination. The GOP will get crushed in November and deservedly so. The GOP is a bought-and-paid-for gang of corporate plutocrats and back-to-the-1800’s neanderthals who exist to line the pockets of the their corporate masters at the expense of everyone else. Bring on November. Bye bye GOP (Goofy Old Peanutheads).
Their misstep with the contraception issue has really hurt them. Picked the wrong wedge issue this time. Women are really pissed off and will mostly not vote Republican this fall.
LOL yeah because Solyndra didn’t happen? Obama and his DNC buddies didn’t bail out a bunch of banks? Get real man, both sides are bought and paid for. “They” have you and everyone else fooled, thinking there is only two “sides” in a political spectrum.
Coincidentally, it’s the same big bu$ine$$ people who own the news corporations that tell you what to think about the (R)’s and (D)’s any given day, who by the way donate to both parties through various foundations and such. They go on TV trying to push us against each other in an effort to spread violence and babel. They’ve tried really hard to get this far in America, being one of the last bastions of religious freedom in the world. It won’t be long now…
Just don’t be surprised when WW3 breaks out, exactly like WW2 broke out as detailed in the book “The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled,” first printed in 1925ish (a full 14 years BEFORE WW2 broke out, I might add). I guess the author was just REALLY REALLY REALLY lucky when detailing how WW2 would break out and the consequences of it afterwards. Now go read what’s detailed for WW3 and look around you, how close are we now? It doesn’t matter if a corrupt Democrat or a corrupt Republican is in office when this happens, they’ll dance like the puppet they are.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for, you’re still voting for “them” every single time.
You want the DEM’s back. (Desperate Extreme M00nbats)
Republicans in this state were lock step behind Herr Vebster when he was bashing everyone else in the state…NOW they turn on him because they realized he’s a snake??? Where were you when you stood by that goon when he desperately tried to prevent non-Republicans from voting? You were largely silent.
Now that he has gooned-up to the national Republican party to give the nomination to Romney by taking YOUR vote away you finally oppose him, yet you were so sure he was amazing not 3 months ago. If you find you were wrong about Herr Vebster, one must wonder what else you’ve been wrong about.
Ven Herr Vebster came for ze Democrats, I said nothing: I vas not a Democrat. Ven Herr Vebster came for ze students, I said nothing: I vas not a student. Ven Herr Vebster came for ze poor, I said nothing: I vas not a poor person. Ven Herr Vebster came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Re the alleged control of women by the US Catholic Church. Yes, thank God (no pun) that Church leaders and their fanatic supporters like Rick Santorum can do only so much. But, as with the ongoing issue of same-sex marriage in Maine and elsewhere, the Church obviously wields great power and will continue to demonize gays even if the Good Bishop Malone is starting a program to try to help them heal to the extent possible. But the analogy to the treatment of women in some Third World countries is not that farfetched. The right-wing GOP clearly wants to control women re birth control and other intimate matters. Not surprisingly, men invariably take the lead here. One wonders about their wives and daughters, if they have any.
The right wing GOP has no interest in controlling women concerning birth control. There are plenty of women in the right wing of the Republican Party.
Honestly, men have such a vested interest in birth control. Wouldn’t you say it is very common for the man to want to have sex, but not have a baby? What possible reason could these right wing men have for wanting women constantly “barefoot and pregnant”? The trend in this country is for small families, not large families.
It’s called control!!! If not, why weren’t any women requested to testify at that hearing?????????
What hearing?
The congressional hearing just held with Darrell Issa as the chairman. All of the panelists were men.
No women or organizations in support of the “new” ruling, including from the Catholic Health Association or Catholics for Choice, were invited to attend. Only those representing the views of the Catholic church were invited. Witnesses brought by democrats were refused permission to testify.
Just google” Congressional Hearing on Birth Control”
Ohh the picture you saw pasted on facebook? Who do you suggest as women on the panel? Only women who support the church paying for women’s birth control? I’m sure you would be supportive of any women who spoke against it. No one speaks for every women or man
Seems that the Bishops do.
True, but it would be nice if a women spoke one way or the other!!! After all it is about women’s reproductive issues not men’s!!!!
If the issue were really about birth control, I would agree with you. But the issue at hand is not whether women should use birth control or not. The issue is whether a church organization can be forced to pay directly for something that violates their religious beliefs. You can take issue with the Church’s position on birth control if you want. But that was not the issue before the Congress.
But they are not ‘paying directly’.
Twenty-eight states already require that church organizations include contraception as part of their insurance package and teh Catholic Church had no issues with those states. This is a trumped up issue to work against Obama by the right wing/religious conservatives.
They require coverage of contraception, but the states vary widely in who is exempted and how this mandate is enforced. And some Catholic institutions do provide coverage. This issue is not about birth control. It is about the federal government mandating something that is in opposition to a religion’s dogma. If the church chooses to forgo it’s teaching and do something, that is within their rights. But the government has no right to interfere in the religion.
The institutions themselves are exempted. It’s when they go outside their role as a church that they loose that exemption. Just as they can’t make religious adherence a condition of providing a service when federally funded, they also shouldn’t be allowed to make adherence to their religion a condition of providing employee benefits, which is essentially what they’re doing. Imagine the public outrage if they demanded that all female employees at their hospital wear a burkha.
Three points: the insurer provides at a cost-savings to itself (birth control costs less than unplanned pregnancies); this applies only to church hospitals and universities, many of which have a majority of non-Catholic employees; the employee makes the choice of whether to select birth control or any other prescription.
Do Jehovah’s Witness hospitals get to prohibit health insurance that covers blood transfusions? Do Quaker hospitals get to prohibit health insurance that covers war wounds? Do Jewish or Muslim hospitals get to prohibit health insurance that covers treatment from trichinosis from eating pork?
I would expect that not only could JW’s prohibit coverage of blood transfusions if they chose, but that their medical facilities could choose not to perform blood transfusions. And Quaker hospitals would not have to worry about covering war wounds…I expect a victim of war (one who was actually engaging in war) would be covered by military insurance. An innocent victim of war–well, I don’t know a Quaker who wouldn’t assist the innocent victim.
The Jewish/Muslim thing is not analogous to the Catholic situation. Catholic insurance would certainly cover a hospitalization for complications due to an abortion, but it would not cover abortion itself. Imagine if the state required that Jewish/Muslim hospitals and colleges serve pork and pay for it with their money. That’s more what this is about. If the Jewish/Muslim institution serves pork willingly, that is up to them. But for the Federal government to mandate they do so is an infringement on religious liberty.
You have shown so much confusion that it is hard to know where to start.
No Catholic hospital is being asked to dispense contraceptive services or abortions to its patients. That prerogative is left untouched. Thus, your talk about covering abortions or serving pork misses the point entirely. We are talking about the micromanagement by the bishops of the details of an insurance policy so that their non-Catholic and Catholic employees cannot “sin.”
No Jehovah’s Witness employer can refuse to cover transfusions. Indeed, the cases are legion that a Jehovah’s Witness parent cannot stop his child from receiving a transfusion. The doctors quickly get a court order and the parents are happy that the decision was taken out of their hands. President Obama, by placing this requirement on all insurers rather than all employers, has taken the ability to micromanage away from the bishops.
You expect that a victim of war would be covered by “military insurance.” The Catholic hospital employee is covered by insurance, as well, so the hospital is not involved in the expansion of coverage imposed upon that insurer.
That the nuns who run Catholic hospitals support the President’s wise compromise is telling. It is now just the bishops and the right wing noise machine that have their underwear all in a knot about this.
Yeah, I know the answer is a mash up, but I think the hypothetical examples you offered weren’t really comparable to this situation. Trichinosis from eating pork? You’d have to diagnose it with a culture in order to be sure, and, by then, you probably would have already started treatment based on general protocol for an apparent food poisoning.
Prosecuting polygamy, requiring blood transfusions for the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses and forcing Quakers to pay war taxes are the closest real life cases. In each case, the government has that power and is not restricted by the First Amendment.
You seem to be talking about two different things. The church and now virtually all the remaining Republican candidates are jumping on this bandwagon of condeming the President for wanting the insurance policies to include birth control as part of the package. In the same paragraph you say that the trend is for smaller families. How do you suppose that happens? I can imagine a lot of men would just abstain from having sex with their wives, even conservative men. I can’t imagine these very same conservative men wearing condoms for sex with their wives, in that they seem to feel that contraceptives are a bad thing.
Small families happen because women use contraception. I am not sure what you are saying here….
I’m saying that the church is attempting to limit the ability of women to get contraceptives. The hard right seem to be jumping on the bandwagon. Could this be an omen of things to come if the hard right gains control of this country? As it stands now, women have easy access to contraceptives. Why would you want to limit that?
The left wants to make this an argument about birth control, the right about religious freedom. In my opinion it goes beyond even that.
We have here a government that feels it can dictate and define what that religious freedom amounts to and what religious tenants the Church has to follow.
This amounts to the establishment of religion and that is expressly forbidden in the Constitution.
It also exposes that true anti-religion nature of the left as many posters here have espoused. History is replete with anti-religious movements. Take a moment and enumerate those movements for yourself.
History is replete with religious movements that have spilt a lot more blood that those of the anti-religious. Isn’t it ironic that the Mongol empire of Ghengis Khan lasted longer, in that it was tollerant of all religions?
I have no problem with anyone who wishes to follow the dictums of their church as long as it isn’t against the law. I will cede tax free status to the various churches. If the church enters into for profit hospitals and and other secular business, they should be subject to the same laws as anyother secular institution.
Why do you set up multiple straw man arguments? Are you on such weak ground? Why don’t you address my points on the Constitution and religious freedom?
You are the one who is setting up ‘straw man arguments’ and on very weak ground… it is about the Roman Catholic Church overreaching and imposing it’s dogma on the United States of America.
If you insist that it is about religious freedom then it is about freedom FROM religion. Follow whatever suits you, but stay out of other’s lives.
Not in the least bit true. It is about the US government placing its secular dogma on the Church. The Catholic Church is not demanding everyone else adhere to its religion. It is the US government demanding that the Church adhere to its secular one. The government is violating the first Amendment. Never before has the US government placed demands on a religion like this.
By the way there is NO Freedom from Religion.
What is becoming clear here is that you really do not know what you are talking about.
Trying to Ban same sex marriage sure sounds to me like its trying to demand its policies on everyone else, BOOM ROASTED!
Also, something like 28 states already require this, so yes it is nothing new, Also BOOM ROASTED AGAIN!
Government passing laws based on religious principles is “establishment”, which is banned by the Constitution.
Which is exactly what is happening. The US is determining what religion is.
Actually 28 states did it first.
Simply not true.
This is a fine line — Ronald Reagan said, “We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief. At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral.” I think Reagan got it right here.
President Obama has been right all along about the churches — neither they nor their insurance carriers are, or have been, required to carry any coverage they disapprove of.
The hospitals, however, are different. They employ people of many different religious traditions or no religous affiliation at all, and they serve the general public regardless of faith. So President Obama is “walking that fine line” that President Reagan spoke of, by saying that religious-affiliated hospitals will not have to cover birth control, but the insurance companies will. Remember, the hospitals serve the general public. Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association agree that this is a good compromise. I honestly think President Reagan would have done the same thing (although Obama stumbled with the hospitals on this at first, before reaching this better solution).
In no way is the Catholic Church being denied the right to require it members to produce large families by eschewing contraceptives. They are being told to that if they hire non Catholics to work in non religious institutions, like soup kitchens, provide non religious services and accept federal, state and local tax dollars that they have to provide full health insurance coverage.
Funny, poor people accepting help from a safety net is an abominations because it’s wasting your tax money but the Church accepting billions in tax money and refusing to provide full insurance for women is OK.
Not the issue. My whole argument is neither a religious one or a contraceptive one.. It is a Constitutional one.
I addressed the Constitutional issue. The Catholic Church is not being forced into changing dogma. The US is not making any laws about denying the Church the right to brow beat women into not using contraceptives. They just can’t do the same to non-Catholics. Issue addressed.
Sorry, But I see no reference to the Constitutional question I posed in your answer.
The churches themselves are not being asked to carry any coverage they disapprove of. Hospitals are a different matter, because they empyoy the general public and serve the general public. Still, they won’t be required to directly cover contraception — only the insurance companies, secular institutions, will do that. Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association both say this is a good compromise.
Where is the Constitutional problem? President Obama has to balance two competing mandates — to not impose a religion one way or the other, and to not interfere in the free exercise thereof. I think he found the proper line dividing the two. Remember, the hospitals employ and serve the general public.
Bishop Cheesecake, this is a constitutional issue of which you are sadly misinformed. Read the cases to which I have referred you in previous posts and then we can have an intelligent conversation. Employment Division v. Smith was decided by Antonin Scalia, a devout Catholic whom I presume you admire. A universal requirement that is imposed upon all and requires no profession of belief is constitutional. I have heard no constitutional lawyer say otherwise.
Not the issue here. The issue is one of “establishment” and “free exercise of” religion.
The cases cited apply. You have your constitutional law wrong here.
go back to school.
Italy is in the process of revoking the tax free status of for profit groups associated with the Catholic Church. Some examples are bed and breakfasts, hotels, restaurants, or any business which sells a product. This is expected to cost the Catholic church billions in taxes. While I support the tax free status of a religious organization which sticks to teaching religion, any that enter the political or business field should be required to pay taxes like everyone else.
Entirely different and not related issue. The US government, for the first time in our history, is requiring and setting certain dogma for the church.
Actually no, the Republicans started it with Amendments to State Constitutions banning same sex marriage. BOOM ROASTED!!!
Bishop Cheesecake, recall the requirement for Utah’s admission: abolishment of polygamy. That requirement passed Constitutional muster, as it was uniformly applied in every state. Indeed, that requirement avoided the establishment of religion in Utah.
This is a demand by a particular religion that government policy be changed as it applies to its non-religious employees. Arkansas fundamentalists made the demand that evolution not be taught in the state’s public schools and Arkansas legislators cravenly complied. In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, the Supreme Court held that legislation that carved out such a special exception to satisfy a particular religion violated the Establishment Clause.
From a Constitutional perspective, you have gotten your analysis completely backwards.
The first two tests for any statute is that it be uniformly applied and not compel any particular belief.
What the Catholic Bishops wish is to facilitate the imposition of their beliefs on the actions of their employees who might believe differently. They can make that demand in Tehran or the Vatican, or any other theocracy.
In America, we do things differently.
The State of Utah was not ruled under the US Constitution before its admittance. It was not a part of the Country to which the Constitution applied. It was a”condition of admittance.” A totally separate thing. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution applied only to US citizens which the residents of Utah were not.
This is a demand made by a “recent” government law that requires religion to change one of its precepts. This “law” by the way, is only a rules interpretation by HHS and was not passed by Congress with their full knowledge. Many Catholic Democrats say they would not have voted forit had they known their directive would be interpreted this way.
This law is also on the books and many states.
Please post information to support your claim. Especially on how the two laws are the same regarding religion. Also how they differ. In the meantime understand that there are differences between states and the federal government.
Its called Google, You are the one going on and on about Religious freedom, Do some research. Found it in less then 5 minutes.
You are making an assertion here. I am asking you to prove it. It appears you can’t. That makes you irrelevant to the discussion.
What I said is, yes I did find the info in about 5 minutes.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/emergency-contraception-state-laws.aspx
Your link is unrelated to my post. Its even unrelated to your own.
The mandate to provide contraception coverage may be on the books in many states, but exemptions, compliance and enforcement vary. In addition, if nobody questions the constitutionality of a law then there is no issue. The government is not required to inform people their rights are being violated. It is up to the people to speak up for their rights when they see an infringement. If none of the Catholic institutions in those states filed a complaint, then there is nothing to be done. It doesn’t make the Obama policy right. And fortunately, people are speaking up on the national level.
Bishop Cheesecake, it is hard to educate you, but I will try.
Utah was Mexican territory when it was settled by the Mormons in 1847, but became American territory at the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848.
The Constitution applies to all American territory. This is beyond dispute and flows from the supremacy clause in Article VI and the regulation of territories clause in Article IV, section 3. We had territorial courts, governments, and law enforcement and still do. Residents of territories are and were citizens. Ask someone from Guam.
The Bill of Rights applies within the territories. Indeed, the only thing the Supreme Court got right in Dred Scott was that the Fifth Amendment applied in the then US territory of Minnesota.
The Bill of Rights also applies to all, be they citizens or resident aliens. Congress has no right to prohibit the speech of a resident alien.
The Affordable Care Act imposed the mandatory coverage of birth control (amid a wide sweep of preventive care) without deductibles and that was well-publicized at the time. I was aware of it and am shocked that you were not.
Congress would not admit Utah until it amended its constitution to outlaw polygamy. Admission came in 1896, so this pattern of what you call “government interference with religion” is fairly long-standing. Note that Mormons could still believe in polygamy, but they could no longer legally practice it. Mitt R-money’s grandfather fled to Mexico so that he could still be polygamous.
Please, measure twice and cut once, lest people think you are a fool.
Many provisions were unknown at the time of the laws passage. You should know that like many laws this one will be put into force over the next decade. Many of the people that will make key decisions in implementing the healthcare law are just now graduating college. The law was not born a whole and complete document.
The recent HHS “interpretation” and its effect on religion was one of those such instances. Only a few months ago was the rule set in place before that the effect on religion was unknown.
The Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 and becomes fully effective in 2014. The last time I checked, a decade did not last just four years.
The EEOC ruled in December of 2000 that an insurance plan that generally covered prescription drugs could not exclude contraceptive coverage. Attorney General Ashcroft, at his confirmation hearings in 2001, made a public commitment to enforce that legal requirement. That EEOC requirement would generally apply to Catholic hospitals and universities if they provided prescription drug coverage, so what the Affordable Care Act did is to broaden pre-existing law. It was neither earth-shattering or ground-breaking.
Interesting. But polygamy was allowed when it was just a US territory? If the Catholic Church willingly gives up its faith when faced with government demands, there is no Constitutional violation. If the Mormons willingly ended polygamy in order to enter the US, there is no violation. Was the outlawing of polygamy ever challenged in the courts? If not, it cannot be cited as precedent.
In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court in 1878 upheld a bigamy conviction when Utah was a territory. The principal challenge was that the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act signed by Lincoln during the Civil War infringed on a Mormon’s free exercise rights. The Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate conduct, but not belief. Polygamy was later made illegal under Utah territorial law, but Congress wanted even further protection against the possibility of it being tolerated and thus demanded the amendment to the Utah constitution.
Mormons were still free to believe in polygamy, but could no longer practice it. Bishops are still free to preach against birth control. Reynolds v. United States is absolutely good First Amendment law. It will be interesting after the Supreme Court rules on the California gay marriage case whether, in 30 years, a successful challenge to bigamy laws is mounted under 14th Amendment equal protection jurisprudence.
More interesting. So perhaps the question might come down to: the government can prohibit an action without infringing on free exercise, but can it force an individual to act against their religion?
It can certainly ask a pacifist to pay taxes to support a war. It can also force a blood transfusion on a child over the objection of his Jehovah’s Witness parents. These were the closest analogs to the Bishops’ complaint until President Obama imposed the requirement upon private insurers instead. As noted in a prior post, the provision of contraceptive coverage for employees is actually a cost savings to the insurer. From a legal standpoint, the Bishops’ argument is now incredibly weak.
Yes!
It’s nice to see someone knows U.S. history. You get an “A”.
Thanks. It helps to have studied Constitutional Law.
Utah was a U.S. territory when they applied to be admitted as a state. Chenard has done a good job with U.S. hsitory here — you have not.
I feel that because the governement allows churches to be tax free, that they are, in their own way, saying that people should go to church. Churches are allowed to play both sides of the fence by not only being tax free and religious, but getting into private enterprises and politics as well.
Time to stop the free ride and pay their fair share of taxes.
No, the government is simply being restrained from the possibility of using tax policy to violate the free exercise of religion, or to violate the de facto establishment of religion through tax code preferences to one religion over another. Look how easy it is for the government to use tax policy to encourage families to have children, to encourage citizens to give to charity, or to encourage the use of green energy. Putting churches into the tax code would entangle the government in never-ending Constitutional entanglements.
The Catholic Church is not into profits. Their hospitals and charities are non-profit. They do not support political candidates. They are free, however, to espouse their beliefs and it is inescapable that those beliefs will sooner or later come into conflict with a political issue.
Wrong again, it is about not denying people their lawful health coverage. Do you really want to go into the Church’s astonishing wealth here ?
The Church is most certainly into profits. How do you think they pay for the ostentation of the Pope and the Vatican. Let’s not kid ourselves.
The church does not make profit. But it does maintain many buildings, monasteries, churches, convents, hospitals, orphanages, shrines, and more. The Vatican maintains a certain level of ostentation, but it hardly compares to what a secular wealthy person would exhibit. For instance, if we were to peek into the Pope’s shoe closet, I doubt it would even come close to the average American’s.
“He may never make the best-dressed lists, but Pope Benedict XVI is nothing short of a religious-fashion icon, riding in the Popemobile with red Prada loafers under his cassock and Gucci shades.”
LOL, You got Prada shoes in your closet? Me either. But the Pope does. You need profits to outfit a Pope properly. LOL
If I lived in Italy, I would hope to have some Prada shoes and Gucci shades…. I fully support buying local whenever I can. ;)
Read the Constitution friend. It is just that sort of thought that forced people t0 come to this country to be free in the first place.
Nonsense. Health insurance represents the employees’ money. Any contribution which an employer makes to health care is considered to be part of their employees’ benefit packages. So the Church is dictating to its employees how their own money should be spent.Why should employees at Catholic hospitals – some of whom are Catholic and some of whom are not – have their medical coverage limited because contraception violates Catholic dogma? Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraceptives – what right do they have to place obstacles in front of others who choose to do so?It is analogous to pharmacists who will not fulfill birth control prescriptions because of their personal beliefs. If you want to be a pharmacist, you waive your right to pick and choose which medical products your customers want to use.
Health insurance does not represent the employee’s money if the employer is paying for it. It is offered as a benefit, but the employer is using its ability to leverage a group policy for better rates than the employee could get on her own. The employer does not have to do this. But if they choose to, they should choose the policy to offer, and if the employer has a religious foundation, they should choose health insurance that does not violate their beliefs on the purpose and nature of sex and the sanctity of life.
Your pharmacist example is a dangerous one to propose. Would you really have the Catholic Church get out of the health care and charitable services business? It would have a devastating impact on American society.
Obama’s proposal is a senseless pandering to the female vote. Women should know better than to be sucked in by nonsense like this.
We, the Taxpayers, gave the Catholic Charities 2.9 BILLION dollars last year. They don’t want to pay taxes but they want to stick their Vatican nose in our lives and our politics. Pay taxes Catholic Church! Any church who owns lots of different businesses (aside from their Sunday meeting places) should pay taxes. These hospitals and colleges take a LOT of federal funds and yet then scream, “You’re limiting my religious freedom”. Can’t have it both ways.
The government gives money to Catholic Charities in exchange for services provided because it is more efficient to offer services through an established charity than to attempt to create a new agency for services. Catholic hospitals and colleges take federal funds the same way a secular hospital or college does. It does not mean that they must check their religious conscience at the door. They still maintain the right to religious freedom.
What if the federal government told a secular hospital that they must pay for faith healing services? Or that they had to serve only kosher food? The secular hospital would rightly declare that the government was interfering in their religious freedom to not practice religious observances, or pay for them. The issue of whether the government gives money to any organization is not relevant, unless the government decides it will only fund Catholic hospitals, but not Jewish ones.
You are wrong and do not understand labor law, which is where this issue belongs. The Roman Catholic Church can do what it wants, but when it employs people at it’s institutions outside of the Church, like colleges and hospitals to name a few, it must follow the law.
Health insurance most certainly represents the employees money, and to say otherwise is foolish. We in the workforce don’t just look at the wage per hr, but the entire benefits package, and health care is a major part of that. Every negotiation I have attended directly pits wages against benefits, if you want better benefits, you forgoe a payraise. So Healthcare vis a vis employer provided health insurance is money directly out of the employees pocket.
The argument is not about contraception, The argument is about government interference in religion.
Wrong, the argument is about religious interference in government.
Like baning same sex marriage?
I have no problem with same sex marriage. I have a problem with government interference in religion which is protected by the Constitution.
Like forcing your tax dollars to kill in wars? I’m pretty sure your religion doesn’t like that either. I think they made a commandment about it.
Also States already have laws like this one, why are they not protesting those state laws? Why is it an issue now?
By wanting to Ban Gay Marriage, they want the government to force religious beliefs on those that don’t hold that belief, How is that not trying to have government interference in a religion?
You misunderstand me I am an atheist. I do believe in the Constitution though.
So do I.
My employer used to provide health insurance before I was hired. When I was hired, my employer discontinued the plan because of costs, and could offer nothing in replacement. My employer did not offer a pay increase to the affected employees to make up for it.
If I take a full time job with benefits, but I don’t use the insurance because my spouse’s plan is better, I don’t necessarily get more pay in lieu of not taking insurance.
Overall, the cost of employer-subsidized insurance is part of the total cost of employing a person. But the insurance portion is by no means the employee’s money, which he or she is free to do with as desired. The employee is bound to accept the benefit the employer offers…or not.
The law states that insurance companies have to provide birth control, not religious organizations. Religious organizations can choose or not if they want to provide insurance to their employees. If they are opposed to providing birth control, simply don’t provide insurance. If the church wants to play in the secular market, they have to play by the rules. There is no legal arguement here.
This is not about religious freedom. Any individual Catholic is free to practice their religion as they choose. I haven’t heard anything about the government forcing Catholic woman to take birth control. We have a democratically elected government that put this rule into place. If the church has a moral objection to the rule, they don’t have to take part in it. The seperation of church and state allows them to exist as such.
I see it much differently. There is no overreach by the government into religion here. The government is not dictating policy in the church. I do see a bit of an overreach by the Catholic church here though. They are entering the market and trying to change policy that a democratically elected government enacted.
Actually no. The problem is that HHS has recently interpreted a part of the health care law to make this change via a rule change.
You are splitting hairs so what can I tell you. you and like minded people should elect representatives to put in place laws that don’t allow this or would overturn this. that’s democracy. it’s a slow and annoying process. If this pissed off enough Catholics and people of similar belief, believe me, there would be an effect in the voting booth. However, most people, men and woman, those who practice religion and those who don’t, really like birth control being readily available. This is a losing issue for my church.
Regardless, as I said earlier, the church should stay out dictating secular policy just as the government should stay out of church policy. If the church does not like the laws that govern our inusrance industry, they don’t have to participate.
It is the government with recnt interpretations of a new law that interferes in religion. This is not secular policy. It is religion. How easily people like you give up your freedoms.
That’s an overly dramatic response. Nobody’s freedoms are being denied. Organized religions can practice as they choose. Their affiliate organizations have to follow current insurance law if they they choose to buy group plans. The catholic bishops sound like chicken little crying that the 1st amendment sky is falling.
Cheesecake, when Bush 43 was president, liberals were very upset about his violations of the Constitution, especially protections in the Bill of Rights against “cruel and unusual punishment” (Amendment VIII) and provisions of the “Patriot Act” that appeared to violate Amendments IV, V and VI. But conservatives just shrugged their shoulders.
Now, conservatives think President Obama is violating Amendment I, and liberals are generally shrugging their shoulders.
I think we need to follow the Bill of Rights both fully and carefully. I also think that while President Obama got it wrong the first time, he got it right the second time.
I agree that Obama’s first plan for religiously affiliated hospitals was a mistake. However, his compromise position strikes just the right chord, and Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association agree.
Churches themselves don’t have to carry any insurance that violates their moral principles, and that has always been the case. Hospitals, which serve the public regardless of their religious tradition — and employ people of various faiths and of no religious faith — will not have to directly cover contraceptives, but insurance companies will do that.
I know the Catholic Bishops are still unhappy, but I think that — the second time around — the president drew the line (the line separating church and state) in the right place.
penzance, I have been opposed to the Patriot Act since its inception. I recall when it was first passed sitting at a dinner table with some well known left members of the community and I brought up the subject. They didn’t seem to have any problem with it at the time. This in November 2002. They were more concerned with their personal safety. I recall my comment to them then that freedom demands some sacrifice and risk at times.
Remember now that the Patriot Act belongs to Obama. It is the left that has made it a tool for expanding government control of its citizens. Now, with nothing more than a strident post in this forum, the US Government has the right to open up a file on you. Investigate your bank account and financial dealings, get a roving wiretap, even if you have no connection to any known terrorist organization. They do this by calling you a potential lone-wolf terrorist.
The Patriot Act frightened me in 2001. It terrifies me now.
Many of these posters grew up under it and have no idea of what liberty they have given up.
Search Warrants
The Patriot Act provides for a
new search warrant, known as a “sneak and peek” warrant. Unlike
conventional search warrants, which notify the property owner a search
is commencing, the “sneak and peek” warrants happen clandestinely. This
prevents the person who owns the property from knowing law enforcement
officials have searched the property. In fact, if someone removes an
item from the property during the search, duplicate items are sometimes
left behind in order to prevent the property owner from being alerted to
the search.
Does this frighten you? It should.
I thought it was apparent from my previous post that I have always opposed the Patriot Act. I think much of it violates the Constitution. It was a Republican proposal, but I’ve been disappointed that President Obama continues to use it (although I believe we are no longer torturing suspects, another Bush violation of the Constitution). As I said above, “I think we need to follow the Bill of Rights both fully and carefully.”
I as simply commenting how ironic it is that the Republicans are now complaining about what they perceive to be Obama’s violations of the Constitution, when most of them simply shrugged their shoulders when Bush violated the Constitution. Each side gives their own party the benefit of the doubt, but fears any president of the other party — and expects the worst of that person.
Really and the right doesn’t want to create and amendment banning same sex marriage? How is that any different?
Bishop Cheesecake, what religion is being established by a uniformly applied requirement that health insurance covers the cost of elective birth control? Even the right wing is only claiming a violation of the Free Exercise clause. That position is untenable and I suggest you read Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872.
By the way, the word is “tenets,” net “tenants.” How are we affecting the beliefs of a single bishop? The bishops can proselytize to their hearts’ content. They have failed in that effort with 98 % of Roman Catholic women.
This policy imposes a duty on insurers to provide less expensive health insurance coverage (contraception costs less than covering an unexpected birth) which leaves the choice of contraception to the female employee of the church hospital or university, a majority of whose employees may not even be Catholic.
I agree. Nobody seems to be outraged that Obama has just told private companies that they will pay for something. Just by Presidential fiat. Instead, they are all wrapped up in gender politics and religion. Meanwhile, the President is making a power grab that will set precedent for future leaders.
So far Obama has killed an American citizen without benefit of trial; he has ordered private companies to provide contraception…people should be concerned.
That is it exactly. People are walking away from their basic freedoms like it will never effect them. These people are sheep.
Congress made this decision in 2010 with the Affordable Care Act. These are simply the implementing regulations. Get your facts straight. Your readers might be drawn to the conclusion that you are a blowhard if you do not.
Uh oh, you are slipping into name calling. NOT a good sign that you have faith in your words. I know Congress passed the bill. And now the agencies in question are writing the rules. But that has no connection to whether the mandates in the law are constitutional. FDR had several of his policies struck down. And while those laws were being challenged, the public engaged in lively debate. Which is what we are doing here. The fact that the law passed through Congress does not mean it is going to pass the constitutional challenge.
What, exactly, is a blowhard?
If you know Congress passed the bill, why, in the prior post would you claim that this occurred by presidential fiat? I didn’t call you a blowhard, but warned you that others might think you one if you posted contrary to known facts. A blowhard does not know what he is talking about, but continues to talk. You have clarified this for me. You knew what the facts were, but elected to misrepresent them.
Oh, I see what you are saying. Right, bills are passed, but then the executive branch works out the actual rules, which can produce some unpleasant surprises for people. In my defense, I don’t think I misrepresented facts. I think you may have misinterpreted my statement. Obama telling insurance companies that they will cover the cost of birth control in a policy issued by a Catholic organization that refuses to cover the cost is not part of the law. It is a decree by Obama. That’s what I was referring to.
There is no “cost.” Providing contraceptive coverage is cheaper for the insurers than covering an unintended pregnancy. No policy can legally refuse to cover pregnancy given the requirements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Obama is actually saving the bishops money on their insurance policy.
Presidential power grab? Tell that to Thomas Jefferson. Before he was president he contended that the president — and the U.S. government — can’t do anything unless that pwer is specificially spelled out in the Constitution. But when he became president he was given the opportunity to buy the Louisiana Territory (which extended from the Gulf of Mexico to present-day Montana) and double the size of the United States at a bargain price. He decided that the government can do it as long as the Constitution doesn’t prohibit it. Since then we also bought Alaska from the Russians, and parts of New Mexico and Arizona from Mexico. Yet the Constitution does not give us the power to purchase territory. So my question is — should we give it all back?
How are they limiting access? Women already have access to birth control–as you stated. Nobody is telling women they can’t, or blocking them from obtaining whatever they want. If the church were trying to stop poor women from accessing Planned Parenthood free or reduced cost contraceptives, I would say you are right. But they are not. They are saying that they can not fund health insurance plans that cover free contraceptive services for their female employees because it violates a tenet of their faith. Notice that these women are all employed, full time, with benefits. I think it is safe to say they can afford their birth control, if it is important to them.
Um….the Republicans have tried their very best over the years to get rid of Planned Parenthood.
The Republicans love using this as one of their talking points. I suspect it’s only to get votes.
Do you remember last year when Jon Kyle, R. Senator (from OK? not sure of state right at the moment) stood on the Senate floor and said that vast majority of Planned Parenthood’s funcion was doing abortions. Absolutely wrong. It’s 2%. When called out on it, his office issued this press release, “That statement wasn’t meant to be factual”.
Tell a lie, repeat it, tell a lie, repeat it, tell a lie, repeat it. That’s the foundation of the Republican Party. And now even their own members in Maine are getting a taste of their shenanigans and they don’t like it much, do they?
Both parties are baron robbers and liars and cheats, etc. The Republicans just take it to such an extreme level that, if it wasn’t so serious and damaging to the country, would be laughable.
Right, but most Republicans are after PP because of its abortion services, not because it provides birth control.
Planned Parenthood’s percentage of abortions is only 2% of all the services it offers to poor women. Jon Kyle can say it’s 98% but that was a lie. His office later said that wasn’t meant to be a ‘factual’ statement. No, just a lie. Lie, repeat, lie repeat, lie repeat…..
I believe that the Catholic Church has come out strongly against Planned Parenthood.
Sure it has. Which just reinforces the fact that the church feels birth control is an intrinsic evil. But the issue at hand is not the church’s teaching on birth control, but the church’s freedom to practice its religion without interference from the Federal government.
If the Chuch accepts federal funds to run their schools and hospitals then the church should also accept the onus of being equal in benefits packages. No body from the government is telling Catholic women that they have to take birth control. They are leaving that up to the individual woman.
It is based on a 2000 ruling by the EEOC which determined if a policy provides coverage for prescription drugs (any), then it must also provide coverage for drugs having to deal with women’s health issues. That ruling itself was based on the 1964 Civil Rights non discrimination laws. Some people have pointed out that employer provided insurance policies cover Viagra, but not birth control. That is the obvious contradiction in the church’s policy, but really irrelevant as the policy must cover all prescriptions, whether or not they have to do with sexual function.
Viagra and other ED supplements are covered by most, if not all, healthcare plans. Notice that these men are all employed, I think it is safe to say they can afford their ED medicines, if it is important to them.
ED and its treatment does not present the same moral issue that contraception does. But, as for secular insurance plans, I agree. It was unseemly to see how quick insurance companies were to cover Viagra…Especially since they had whined and complained about covering contraception.
I actually think it does if you believe it is up to God whether you get pregnant or not then it should be up to God whether or not a man is able to get a woman pregnant.
Edited for too many ‘or nots’
“If the church were trying to stop poor women from accessing Planned Parenthood free or reduced cost contraceptives, I would say you are right. But they are not.”
So, who do you think is behind the political push to defund Planned Parenthood and close it down, little green aliens?
I bet you would love to stop women from having more than a couple of children? Do you look down on the women who has chosen to have a large family and is not taking any government assistance. More crude comments are made to women with large families than any other minority in this country and they’re never invited to speak on diversity day. To some of us obeying God’s first command (be fruitful and multiply) is not an option just like the rest of God’s commands (feeding the poor and clothing the naked).
Why is it always black and white?
What I’m saying is that women need to make the choice. Families need to make the choice. If you wish to have a large family and can afford it, please by all means go ahead. With todays modern medicine you could potentially have children way into your 50’s. Both of my grandmothers had large families, my father was the youngest of 11, my mother was one of 4 sisters and 5 brothers. None of the brothers survived infancy. I neve met either one of my grandmothers, they were dead before I was born. My mothers mother died at 46, 6 weeks after giving birth to my youngest aunt.
I wonder how many couples in Washington County can afford to have large families without asking the state to help support them?
….
What would they be afraid of? I actually think that they just might be the independent thinkers out there, maybe they’re thinking of their future, lots of grand babies and children to care for them when their old and not relying on the government.
….
No one is talking about stopping women from having any sized family. All contraception does is allow women to choose whethter or not to have a large family, a small family or no family. You, on the other hand, are telling women that they should have no say in when they have children or how many children they should have.
I have never heard anyone say something crude about a woman with a large family, wonder about their sanity but never anything crude.
Would you liKe me to tell you things strangers have said to me?
My20: Being free to make a choice, you and your husband chose to support a large family and now you want to put up barriers to keep others from making choices. Why is that? I’m guessing it’s because you don’t approve of their choice of using contraceptives to limit their families. Aren’t you indulging yourself the same hatefulness as those who find fault with your large family?
Life involves choices. You made yours, be happy with it. Let others make their choices.
I’m not saying you don’t have a choice, but don’t ask me to pay for it. You don’t pay for my medication.
It is also common for a woman to want to have sex and not have a baby, not just the men.
The GOP does seem to have an interest in controlling women’s birth control. For example House Republicans invited a panel of five men — and no women — to debate the issue. The five witnesses on the panel were all male religious leaders or professors, including a Catholic bishop.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72971.html
They invited a panel to discuss the religious violation of forcing the Catholic Church to pay for birth control. Since they were discussing the Catholic dogma concerning birth control and how this directive violated the US Constitution’s 1st amendment freedom of religion clause, who cares what gender was there? The issue before us is not whether or not women should use birth control, or whether insurance should cover it or not. The issue is can you force a religious organization to violate its tenets by federal fiat. Anyone out there who thinks freedom of religion, or freedom from religion, is important ought to be concerned by this federal overreach.
Just because you support birth control, don’t think you can acquiesce to this violation of first amendment rights with no consequences. The monster that is biting your enemy will turn and bite you someday, and the precedent will be set. You will have no recourse.
This is not about birth control. It is about the first amendment.
This is not about birth control or the First Amendment. The Catholic Church has been remarkably silent on this before, even though 28 states mandate that contraception be covered in their health insurance coverages. Where was the outcry about 1st Amendment Rights then?
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
This is about the Right’s attack on anything that Obama does. Period.
The problem is that not everyone believes it is a question of religious freedom. Many believe it is a question of birth control access, and more broadly a question of equal access to prescription drugs. The Congressional hearing was formed to answer only one side of the argument, and therefore they refused to invite anyone disagreeing with them. Considering the past history of Chairman Issa, it is not surprising that the opposing view was not allowed. To hold a hearing about religious freedom and then not invite witnesses with opposing views is the height of bigotry.
Listen to ex-Senator Santorum’s words and read Griswold v. Connecticut. Patriarchy demands procreation and always has.
I’ve read Griswold v. Ct..I understand Santorum’s position on birth control. Chances are his votes in the Senate are in line with his Catholic conscience. As president of the US, he would have to abide by the laws. Nobody is interested in forcing women to not use birth control. Not even Santorum.
Matriarchy also demands procreation. Humanity demands procreation.
Declines in population growth rates have, historically and geographically, accompanied the empowerment of women as equals in those societies. These societies are neither matriarchal nor patriarchal; they are modern and, given the carrying capacity of our planet, our survival as a species is not enhanced by adding billions of more people to this planet.
It costs about $80 a month to purchase birth control, not including the doctor’s visit to obtain the prescription. For a young student or a minimum wage worker, that cost is a disincentive to family planning. Santorum would support a health insurance policy that covers delivery of a child but not delivery of birth control. The result of that policy is to encourage more births. It is simple economics. Until Griswold, a number of states outlawed birth control, including Connecticut.
You say women have been empowered as equals, but I would say women have been enslaved by men and the feminists who maintain that equality must be sought on men’s terms. Whose interests are being met by women using birth control, being available for sex on demand with no consequences? On one side, you may have a woman who does not want to be pregnant and I support her in her decision. But you have a lot of happy men who now ditch their responsibility toward their children, or who pressure women into an otherwise unwanted abortion by saying they won’t take responsibility for a child they helped to create. If birth control fails, who is blamed? Who has to deal with the actual consequences? Women.
Not to mention, we have allowed integral female functions to be demonized as “problems”. We take pills, or get shots, wear patches, insert devices all to alter our normal hormonal function. We allow doctors to forcibly dilate our cervix and scrape out our uterus, all to get rid of “a problem.” We deny our instinct to mother our children so we can get back out into work, and let others love and care for our children. We don’t breastfeed because breasts are sexual play things and it is too uncomfortable to be in public nursing a baby. There is a wall between work and family that the male-centered worldview will not lower.
What kills me, is that women accept all this and call it “equality”. My idea of equality would be a lot friendlier to women. All this equality has rendered women as sex objects and not much else. Even if you are a successful, smart, articulate woman, you are judged on your appearance. And if that same woman should decide to have children and stay home to raise them, she is “wasting” herself. Maybe people don’t say that out loud, but it is obvious that people honor and respect Hillary Clinton and Condeleeza Rice far more than they do a stay at home mother.
Women overwhelmingly support President Obama’s wise compromise.
The merchandisers of a sexualized America are not the same people who support family planning. Planned Parenthood is demonized by Fox News. Fox Entertainment has incredibly sexualized programming. Rupert Murdoch’s “newspapers” in England are more about naked women than news. Let’s think about whether we see more ads for Viagra or more ads for birth control. Hmm. Is the Catholic church upset that men married to post-menopausal women are purchasing Viagra? If sex for other than procreative purposes is bad, where is the Catholic church when Bob Dole is out there shilling for Viagra?
The level of support for a law from the population has nothing to do with the constitutionality of that law. You are being selective in pointing fingers at Fox and Rupert Murdoch…that smacks of partisanship. A sexualized America is everywhere, and ads for various birth control pills seem just as common as Viagra today. I don’t really watch tv at all, so I don’t know if the ratio is the same. I just know that even with my limited tv, I have seen many ads for contraception.
You mis-characterize the Catholic position on sexuality. The church loves sex and church teaching tells couples to go at it as often as they want. Well, not in those words, but the end result is the same. Viagra is a drug that treats a condition. I don’t think the church is concerned with Viagra.
Hey, one thing I do know. I get way more spam in my junk e-mail from ED drugs than I do for birth control meds. And that really pisses me off—I’m female what do I want Viagra for? There ought to be a law….
I don’t know how you can say the Church control women. Yes, it does have moral influence, but control?? You’re way of course!
Most of the content of your comment is aimed at demonizing the Church. The Church DOES NOT DEMONIZE gays. But you certainly demonize the Church.
The Church degrades gay people.
If you feel that way, then you might want to explain. Simply saying it considers homosexuality sinful is no more degrading than saying drug abuse is sinful. Quite the contrary, the Church teaches people with same-sex attractions are children of God like everyone else and can be helped to deal with this type of disorder. Don’t listen to those motivated by hatred for the Church to say otherwise.
John Lyman, You obviously don’t understand what it says.
It’s Webster’s time to resign and restore confidence in the GOP with newer leadership.
“Caucus Results Lost in Spam Folder; According to Politico, while
the outcome currently remains the same (Washington County will hold
their caucus at a later date, and its votes will count)
Maine Republican Party chairman Charlie Webster said there were
numerous errors in calculating the final tally. “About half a dozen”
towns were left out and e-mails from some municipalities accidentally
“went to spam” in the party’s e-mail system he said.”
Are the votes that were omitted the night of the announcement from Waterville, Belfast, and other caucuses where zero totals were posted going to be counted? Will someone please report on this?
Thank you!!!
Webster fits right in with this kakistocracy he is a pignorant man but he knows whats best for you Conservatives and that would be no birth control, abortions or any form of pro-creation. We could eliminate an entire political party.
Charlie Webster has embarrassed the Maine GOP in the eyes of the world. If he is not forced to resign, it can only be because he is doing what GOP leadership wants him to do — prevent democracy at all costs.
Unfortunately, Mr. Webster cannot be removed by a citizen recall, but only by the members of his own party. If Maine Republicans do nothing to reclaim the soul of their party, they can expect, come November, to find themselves very blue indeed.
(More than a third of GOP caucus-goers voted for Ron Paul, and Mr. Webster called them all “conspiracy theorists.” How many of them do you think will vote for any GOP candidate in any election ever again?)
If women were really concerned about their health they were flee from the birth control pill and what about condoms does this law mandate they be paid for? Why are women the ones who have to risk their lives taking dangerous contraception? http://www.ditchthepill.org/
You make a point about the safety of the pill, but it is used for very good reasons for many women’s health issues outside of birth control. These are conversations to be had between a woman and her doctor.
Michael Walker,
Good letter. Most people have no idea how beautiful the Chesapeake bay is. Too bad people think that 400 feet of water-front business is going to ruin miles upon miles of coastal beauty.
WEBSTER must be fired! He should also leave the state all together.