Oh yes, let's make the governor's race all about birth control
Barb ShellyMissouri Republicans are gearing up to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a bill that, as Nixon correctly noted, would enable health insurers to omit birth control coverage from insurance policies, even if employers and policy holders want it.
You can bet that every House Republican will be called upon to vote for that override in order to achieve the required two-thirds majority. It won’t be optional. The Senate appears already to have the votes.
But what will that prove? Only that the Missouri legislature is so extreme, so political, and so out of step with ordinary people that they will overthrow a governor’s veto that makes ultimate sense.
Lest anyone has slipped into a time warp, let us remember that this is the year 2012. Is the electorate really going to buy into the Republicans’ mission to make birth control an issue in the gubernatorial campaign? Outside of the capitol, I think we are well beyond that point.
Republican legislators and Nixon’s Republican opponent will waste a lot of oxygen huffing about the governor’s assault on religious freedom, which is nonsense. As Nixon noted in his veto message, state law already enables employers and consumers to opt out of insurer-provided birth control coverage if they have a genuine religious or moral objection.
The difference with the bill that Nixon vetoed is that employers could opt out just because they don’t feel like covering contraception, and so could insurers. Nixon didn’t cite this as a reason for his veto, but there’s also the small matter that Missouri can’t really empower people to defy federal law, much as the nuttier Republicans in the legislature would like to do so.
Nixon was going to anger significant numbers of people no matter what he did about Senate Bill 749. Democrats, unions and women’s groups would have been furious if he had signed it, or even allowed it to become law without his signature. Now conservatives and religious groups are upset with the veto.
But give the governor credit. He vetoed the bill publicly, and delivered a reasoned, coherent argument, the crux of it being that “the moral, ethical and religious beliefs of Missourians, that are currently honored, should not become secondary to the will of an insurance company.”
Phil Cardarella
10 months, 2 weeks agoYou mean our GOTPers slipped in a little “conscious clause” for the INSURANCE COMPANY? As if any had one.
This is obviously political grandstanding by the GOP. And by the Catholic bishops — who apparently think that sex should be punished — unless it is with an altar boy.
Contraception freed women to be equal partners in our society — and it is a pretty good deal for us men, too. Problem is, empowering women was done at the expense of the religious ayatollahs’ CONTROL of society by punishing sex (except as above-mentioned).
This is NOT a question of religious liberty — any more that requiring these “religious” businesses to install sprinkler systems or pay minimum wage to their school janitors.
Jay is no firebrand, but he acted appropriately to protect the employees of Missouri from religious tyranny in disguise.
Robert Copher
10 months, 2 weeks agoCome on Phil, you know we should be punished for sex. It what Jesus would have wanted. lol
Good job guys!!!
Yes it is 2012. Abortion and contraception have been deemed appropriate by the rest of the world. Yet our politicians keep bowing to the vocal religious zealots that just won’t shut up. The religious tyranny you speak of is real and we must all continue to point out the difference between freedom of religion and religious freedom. They are not the same and these zealots do not have the right to religious freedoms. If we are going to start passing conscience laws, we might as well make slavery legal again. The color of your skin and the conscience or religious beliefs you hold should never be considered in our laws. Our laws should be blind to race and religion.
Charles Jogues
10 months, 2 weeks agoIt is heartening to see so many new voices emerging to challenge the myth that the sexual revolution and contraception have been a good thing for society.
Jennifer Fulwiler, “The Contraception Trap”: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-contraception-trap/#ixzz1sixRqAcS
1Flesh: http://www.1flesh.org/category/arguments/
Mary Eberstadt, “Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good for Women? No.”: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577297422171909202.html
Lila Rose, “Battle hymn of the anti-abortion feminist:” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74739.html
Tom Hoopes, “The Truth About Natural Family Planning:” http://www.kofc.org/en/columbia/detail/201207nfp.html
Mister H, “Why the Catholic Church Opposes Contraception:” http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-catholic-church-opposes.html
Janet Smith, with the classic “Contraception, Why not?” http://shop.mycatholicfaith.org/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=17
Michael Giesler, “Contracepting America: the real war on women” http://lifesite.net/news/contracepting-america-the-real-war-on-women
Mark Hastert
10 months, 2 weeks agoIf you haven’t noticed obfuscation and diversion seems to be de rigueur in politics these days. It’s a tactic usually used by pols with nothing else to offer in terms of real issues or solutions.
Contraception and abortion are religious issues yet people who disagree would be, in essence, forced into compliance with the religious practice of others.(some would argue that it’s the christian equivalent of sharia law) Religious freedom is a double edged sword.We should not play with sharp objects.
Johnathon Busby
10 months, 2 weeks agoContraceptive legislation is put forth by the GOP to pander to their socially conservative base. The politicians are somewhat less guilty than the base itself; the suits merely desire votes, while their base would institute a Christian-derived legal structure and force all the world into it if allowed. Though, they would have to come up with another name for the system, Sharia is already taken. Many Christians even claim openly, today, that this is a “Christian nation”; by that, they feel entitled to control what others do with themselves. No, not just entitled, but obligated… these Christian extremists truly believe that God Himself called them to oppress and control their fellows. (Never mind the Bible calls upon them to take care of the beams in their own eyes before the splinter in their neighbor’s…)
The political elite does not truly respect the Christian base that elects them… their only god is political power. But they will lie to the Christians about it all day, and hide behind the Lord’s name in a sad attempt to justify their actions.
Phil Cardarella
10 months, 1 week agoPerhaps when the Chinese government sees the way in which our Catholic bishops have inserted themselves into public policy, seeking to impose Catholic dogma on a secular government, it makes them all the more wary of allowing the Vatican to appoint bishops.
Freedom of religion is an INDIVIDUAL right, not the right to impose your religious dogma on society as a whole. Not even if you can win an election. Fact is, lots of place? The majority would approve of the death penalty for anyone who converts to Christianity — just like the majority in Europe used to think it was admirable to hang people for blasphemy or burn them for heresy.
Which is WHY Messers Jefferson and Madison wrote our Constitution the way they did. We are not just luckier than the poor folks under the yoke of the ayatollahs. It was planned that way 200+ years ago.
Besides, none of this has anything to do with religious freedom — any more than requiring fore sperinklers in any business, regardless of who owns it.