RH Reality Check's Comments - Talk Back!

So it's not really about the behbays, is it?

Damiana Raven — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:46:02 +0000

Although I am militantly pro-choice, I find it somewhat more respectable for people to oppose ALL voluntary abortion than to make exceptions for rape/incest. Why? Because making exceptions shows less concern about human life than about how it was conceived. You'll magnanimously grant someone your permission and blessing to kill as long as the sex they had was horrible and traumatizing, but if they enjoyed the freedom and pleasure of it then they should "take responsibility." Nice way to show what you really care about.

The JJJ Club

ProChoiceFerret — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:14:20 +0000

OK: thanks again for your insight; it is invaluable. (I was very glad to see you on Democracy Now last week, the day after(?) the SG Komen debacle broke; A Goodman & staff do know where to go to get to the heart -- the underlying cause, the truth -- of any issue.)

I see you're a Jodi Jacobson junkie, too ^_^

Your move, Bishops

Stacey Burns — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:48:32 +0000

Looks like President Obama plays a mean game of chess.

Now, why can't we see this sort of accommodation when it comes to abortion care?

religious freedom

Lon Newman — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:37:56 +0000

We have to change this frame to point out that we ARE standing for the protection of religious freedom and the bishops, quite consistently, support institutional intrusion and coercion.

FPHS did a video public affairs promo: Please see it at www.belowthewaist.org/2012/02/don't-take-it-back/

excellent analysis -

jer.rry — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:49:06 +0000

Thanks Jodi, for laying it out so eloquently & incisively (like you always do).

You know, I was just thinking that if this weren't an election year, perhaps Axelrod, Messina, et al wouldn't be playing politics with what is -- as you stated -- a reproductive health issue ... a health issue ... a human rights issue. (Then again, every year is either an election year or a startegizing-for-the-next-election year.)

Yes: it will be another cave by Obama & crew unless (is it already too late?) the case is made firmly & unequivocally that this is not a religious issue (i.e. "we made a mistake by agreeing, conceding that it is") -- but that it is a basic health issue, based on science (scary word, that one) and it is every (minus 2%) woman's reality. What -- or how -- does Michelle, Jill (Sibelius & HRC for that matter) think and what are they saying, telling the men ...

Again, I feel it comes back to wanting the four more years more than most anything else.

Although in a more just & honest society they'd be concerned solely with the primary truth you wrote above:

"It is not about the religious freedom of religious ~~corporations~~ institutions a la Citizens United, but about the health and religious freedoms of individuals, the vast majority of whom clearly disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church."

OK: thanks again for your insight; it is invaluable. (I was very glad to see you on Democracy Now last week, the day after(?) the SG Komen debacle broke; A Goodman & staff do know where to go to get to the heart -- the underlying cause, the truth -- of any issue.)

weakness of the allegations

Lon Newman — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:45:14 +0000

Thank you for a thoughtful and careful reply. I'm happy to respond in that way.

On the main thrust, I want to say as clearly as I can that the constitution protects the rights of individuals to religious liberty and to privacy. There is no constitutional protection for the rather abstract right of institutions to exercise their rights of 'conscience'. Most importantly, it is infringement of rights to religious freedom and to privacy by the government and by institutions that the constitution protects the individual against.

1) patient information to insurance companies is under a voluntary contract that the patient has entered into, I agree. The point I tried to make is that the employer seems to be imposing restrictions that are invasions of patient privacy based, not on medical standards or best evidence, or patient need or choice, but on "institutional religious beliefs".

2) Catholic hospitals, clinics, physicians, and pharmacists are engaging in these services because reimbursement records from the Medicaid program show reimbursement for those services. The alternative would be that providers are billing for services they are not providing.

3) I meant to offer an example of jeopardizing public health and children's health for inappropriate reasons.

4) There is no reasonable dispute - contraceptive coverage is law in Wisconsin now.

5) The point is that the bishops can make fine distinctions to distance themselves from responsibility for the criminal behavior of priests in their parishes, but seem to be unwilling to make these kinds of distinctions for employee health care in even less directly affiliated institutions.

No more deal, no more compromise

kittyarmy — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:39:07 +0000

If I was in any position to tell them to go shove it, I would! For all the righties cries & fear over "Sharia law" what is this if not a bunch of religious minorities trying to impose their "law" over the rest of the population? you don't want to use birth control - don't use it! You don't want to have to deal with other people who want to use birth control - then go live somewhere where the rest of us don't have to deal with you either! I'm pretty sure even Jesus himself is shaking his head over these idiots.

We have deleted the comment by Johann7

Jodi Jacobson — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:54:31 +0000

Dear Johann and Friends,

We have deleted the comment by Johann7 because it contained language suggesting violence against specific persons. We do not publish or condone such comments.

Please remember you are welcome to comment passionately and vigorously, but please refrain from suggesting violence against persons.

Thank you.

Jodi

Weak

waterjoe — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:43:02 +0000

Very little of this post addresses the question of religious liberty. What the post does provide is a list of weak allegations, mostly unrelated to the issue.

Taking them in order:

(1) Actually, many insurance companies do it now and many more did it in past. As with all insurance matters, there is no right to privacy between the insurer and the patient. The insurer has a right to know the reason for the prescription to determine whether it falls under a covered service.

(2) Irrelevant unless you can show that the Catholic hospitals and clinics are engaging in those services covered under the program that are contrary to Catholic teaching. Even if you did, then you would have to show that bishops knew of that violation. Even if that were shown, you have only shown “wrongdoing” by the Catholic hospital or acceptance by the bishop, not that providing the acts is acceptable under Catholic teaching.

(3) If you want to know, look around. Just about every state allows parents to opt-out of immunizations for religious reasons. Moreover, necessary vaccinations are heavily subsidized by the government now so that children do not need to rely on the availability of insurance.

(4) First, the link you provided does not say anything about how many Catholic employers now have birth control coverage in their policies. Second, assuming it did, there is a big difference between having no choice to cover it because of the market and being forced to cover it because of a government mandate. Third, the rest of paragraph again alleges that Catholic hospitals provide contraception, something you have not established as true.

(5) First, it is not about the bishops' employees. It is about the other religious entities out there. Second, priests are not employees of a bishop. That is a matter of canon law and was always the case before the clergy abuse scandal. In any event, it is irrelevant since, as noted, it is not about the bishops' employees.

Guys, as none of you have a

VeggieTart — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:47:04 +0000

Guys, as none of you have a uterus and therefore will never be pregnant, perhaps you should stop telling those of us who DO have uteri should do with them. If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it.

And I fail to see how the USCCB gets away with screaming about policy when they are supposedly a tax-exempt organization.

Important Update!

LucyPanza — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:58:02 +0000

See here for excellent footage of the author and other Catholic school students advocating for full implementation of the HHS regulation providing for contraceptive coverage without co-pays: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Catholic-Students-Respond-to-HHS-and-Catholic-Bishops-on-Contraception/10737428197-1/

....it also includes a heart-breaking update on the student that the author profile who lost her ovary as a result of the contraceptive coverage ban at Georgetown.

Become?

Johann7 — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:04:15 +0000

When are bishops NOT bullies? Isn't their whole deal coercing people's behavior with threats of eternal damnation?

Komen likely won't be around anyway

crowepps — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:02:45 +0000

Komen likely won't be around anyway, because every "defense" of their actions that I have seen has been as inaccurate and mean spirited as your own, generally summing up to "of course Komen was right to defund PP, all these women who support PP are either deluded or stupid!"

This 'support' has the unfortunate effect of inextricably linking Komen / Pink / ProLife fanaticism / the belief that women are too stupid to understand their own experience, and none of that helps to rehabilitate the 'brand'.

Tin ear @ WH?

naomi dagen bloom — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:38:10 +0000

Listening to the hysterical religious right is a mistake for Obama. They are not the hardworking women who elected him along with progressive men. The war against women has been fed by the disproportionate attention the media continues to give the uneducated who dream of a return to the 19th century.

If the WH and the Democrats

colleen — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:05:39 +0000

If the WH and the Democrats cannot make the case for something as popular and practical as contraceptive coverage they have no business being in politics.

maybe this will help I hope

Freetobe — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:02:03 +0000

From MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell's "Last Word" (last night's broadcast):

**Constitutional expert David Boies said there's no basis for a constitutional fight with the birth control mandate. On The Last Word, he compared the current debate that's heating up in Washington to simple tax law or labor laws.

"There isn't a constitutional issue involved in this case," he told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday. "You don't exempt religious employers just because of their religion. You are not asking anybody in the Catholic church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal law that every employer has to comply with."

Boies, who represented Vice President Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, said "this case would have trouble getting to the court." **

Seeing that two constitutional lawyers were involved in this Obama and Boies I can't see how that any others can argue with them. This was done according to law.

The republicans and the Catholic bishops are on the warpath but they know they must follow the laws . This is somewhat of a distraction and also proves the dire hatred these men have for women in general. Obama had better not cave on his own knowledge it really will make him look the weakling at least in this womens eyes. If he does cave the the Catholic bishops (special interests I might add) will walk all over womens rights in this country anything they can get away with they will push for. I hope women are contacting their representitives and signing all the petitions they can. We cannot let them destroy our lives any more than they already have!

Well at least you are no

colleen — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:26:57 +0000

Well at least you are no longer pretending there is anything but the thinnest thread of connection between Planned Parenthood and the mammograms themselves.

Your attempts to derail the conversation and insult others have reached the point of incoherence. I have no interest in further conversation.

Um, to help women?

PC person — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:50:46 +0000

Duh. Planned Parenthood isn't competing in the nobility contest you just made up - they're doing the same thing they've always done which is providing service to women who need medical care and who don't care about the funds.

Remember that Komen only said that PP could apply for grants - it still remains to be seen if they will actually be given any. Perhaps if the donations continue to pour in, then PP won't need to apply anyway. It's beginning to look as if it would help PP's image to distance itself from the likes of Komen. Oh, the delicious irony of it all!

Again, time will tell.

Well at least you are no

cmarie — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:48:58 +0000

Well at least you are no longer pretending there is anything but the thinnest thread of connection between Planned Parenthood and the mammograms themselves.

Colleen, if Planned Parenthood is so principaled (and even if they did have some direct connection with providing mammograms to women in need) why would they take funds from any organization that, in your words does the following:

:targeted Planned Parenthood and only Planned Parenthood for defunding. For political reasons. And that made a few million women look more closely at them. We looked at the foundation's financials and noticed what a small % of their donations went to research and prevention and how they had 'moral' objections to stem cell research. We noticed that sgk downplayed the environmental causes of breast cancer. We noticed the bloated salaries of the upper level executives and we noticed their enormous political contributions to the GOP and their candidates. We noticed that that paragon of religious right masculinity, 'Diaper' Dave Vitter claimed responsibility for the decision and we noticed that Ari Fleisher had been hired as a consultant. As a result it's clear that anyone with the goal of 'finding the cure for breast cancer' tm (and here's hoping I haven't infringed upon a trademark there) had better find another organization because this looks more like an annex of the Heritage Foundation than an advocate for 'the cure' tm. Meanwhile, like it or not, Planned Parenthood is the only medical care some people (and mainly women) can afford in some areas. There just aren't that many clinics offering a sliding scale fee structure. When sgk cuts off funding for PP they are saying these women don't matter. What a person taking that action is saying is that, because those women cannot afford the most expensive healthcare in the world, they don't deserve to live."

Certainly if Planned Parenthood is so noble and the Komen Foundation believes poor women don't deserve to live then it won't matter if they (Planned Parenthood) are now eligible for future grants or not, because certainly they won't accept the money from such an organization regardless.

Sometimes, women can also

ved12 — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:30:22 +0000

Sometimes, women can also consume a cocaine during pregnancy. It is really very dangerous for health and can create number of serious issues during pregnancy. Cocaine addiction during pregnancy may also cause of death. Women's should gat aware of such risk and try to take care of health.

There is a petition at the

wran — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:10:11 +0000

There is a petition at the White House website to abolish abstinence-only education:

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/abolish-abstinence-only-education-us-public-schools/LVkFfWBV

dook dook dook dook dook

ProChoiceFerret — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:02:27 +0000

It's not hatred or ignorance or indifference towards women who need routine gyn check ups; its just an expectation that a donation towards Komen will go directly and specifically to health care providers who either provide the mammograms themselves or fund breast cancer research themselves.

So actually, it's ignorance, of the real-world measures needed to fight breast cancer. But that's to be expected---after all, edumacating the public is one of the big things breast-cancer fighters have to do. And as your confused and speciously-reasoned comment illustrates, they still have a long way to go.

Breast cancer doesn't care

colleen — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:31:49 +0000

Breast cancer doesn't care how you vote, it threatenes us all.

Yes. That's certainly sgk's foundational speech too. But then they went and targeted Planned Parenthood and only Planned Parenthood for defunding. For political reasons. And that made a few million women look more closely at them. We looked at the foundation's financials and noticed what a small % of their donations went to research and prevention and how they had 'moral' objections to stem cell research. We noticed that sgk downplayed the environmental causes of breast cancer. We noticed the bloated salaries of the upper level executives and we noticed their enormous political contributions to the GOP and their candidates. We noticed that that paragon of religious right masculinity, 'Diaper' Dave Vitter claimed responsibility for the decision and we noticed that Ari Fleisher had been hired as a consultant. As a result it's clear that anyone with the goal of 'finding the cure for breast cancer' tm (and here's hoping I haven't infringed upon a trademark there) had better find another organization because this looks more like an annex of the Heritage Foundation than an advocate for 'the cure' tm. Meanwhile, like it or not, Planned Parenthood is the only medical care some people (and mainly women) can afford in some areas. There just aren't that many clinics offering a sliding scale fee structure. When sgk cuts off funding for PP they are saying these women don't matter. What a person taking that action is saying is that, because those women cannot afford the most expensive healthcare in the world, they don't deserve to live.

I've explained all this because I want you to understand what i mean when I say that after someone announces the intention of destroying Planned Parenthood, they don't have any right to emotional pleas and lectures about how breast cancer "threatens us all".

sgk is dependent on

cmarie — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:19:13 +0000

sgk is dependent on volunteerism and donations from women period. Some are pro choice, some are anti abortion, some are anti abortion only after the first trimenter, some are actual self discribed pro lifers but all are worried about breast cancer and know that mammograms, preventative care and medical research are vitally important in the fight against breast cancer. Breast cancer doesn't care how you vote, it threatenes us all. I've only ever had two mammograms and never needed a gyn referral. Does everyone remember the scandel involving The American Red Cross after September 11 2001? Millions of Americans were anxious to help the families of people who had been killed in the terrorist attacks. A lot of people donated through the Red Cross with the understanding that the money would go towards those families and they were angry to hear that not all of their money went to them. The money wasn't stolen or wasted or lost. It just went to other people in need. The doners had no evil intentions towards the survivors of fire, floods or tornados in the fall of 2001, but they expected their money to go to 9/11 families and were angry to have been misled. Yes, Planned Parenthood provides routine gyn check ups. Routine gyn check ups by definition include breast exams and doctors providing those are obviously going to provide referrals for mammograms. Maybe your argument is that Planned Parenthood provides the routine gyn check ups. That's not in dispute but when people donate to Komen they expect their donation to go towards fighting breast cancer, not towards routine gyn's. It's not hatred or ignorance or indifference towards women who need routine gyn check ups; its just an expectation that a donation towards Komen will go directly and specifically to health care providers who either provide the mammograms themselves or fund breast cancer research themselves.

It might work as a proper noun

ProChoiceFerret — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:09:22 +0000

Uhh... "siege" is the correct spelling. "Seige" isn't a word.

Nice Article

malik4you — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:39:07 +0000

you article is really appricateable, the story about student was intersting to read.

Eerie Solutions

whoops!

Jodi Jacobson — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:38:18 +0000

Thanks! Fixed!

three articles worth knowing about

sschoice — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:33:17 +0000

Here's three articles worth knowing about, and reading if you have time:

Insight: Komen charity under microscope for funding, science

Wed Feb 8, 2012 12:22pm EST

Reuters | By Sharon Begley and Janet Roberts

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE8171KW20120208?sp=true

After Susan G. Komen Debacle, Senators Launch Women's Rights Campaign

mike.mcauliff@huffingtonpost.com | Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/susan-g-komen-senators-womens-rights-campaign_n_1262512.html

After Outcry, a Senior Official Resigns at Komen New York Times | By JENNIFER PRESTON | Published: February 7, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/after-outcry-a-top-official-resigns-at-komen-cancer-charity.html

This is an important article

mavenhaven — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:53:52 +0000

This is an important article about a serious problem--so please correct the misspelling of "siege" in the title so that people can find the article!

You are right

Jodi Jacobson — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:17:28 +0000

You are right on all counts.

I had to make a judgment call about what and how much to include here about mammograms per se, rather than about the politics of the whole thing, and I struggled with it for two days, which is why the piece got published later than I wanted it to be... I erred on the side of more information on mammograms and prevention than a straightforward piece on the politics might have needed, but still could not figure a way to get all the nuances in. I think this is the subject of a stand-alone piece on mammograms per se.

Thanks a ton, though for making this point.