The question is, how much will Obama scold people who have different beliefs than him, and how much will he lecture
(ABC News) With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House —possibly President Obama himself —will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.
My money’s on this being all smoke and mirrors, designed to deflect the controversy out of the limelight. ‘Cause the last thing Team Obama wants is to have to discuss his “signature legislation” during an election year.
Update: here we go, via WRAL
Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work, a provision of Obama’s health care law that he insisted must remain. But religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as an unconscionable violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to step in to do so.
Seems to be more of semantics: religious organizations get to say they don’t cover objectionable issues, but, their insurance carriers still have to pay.
“No woman’s health should depend upon who she is or where she works or how much money she makes,” the president said in a statement to reporters at the White House. “Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health, period.”
If someone else is paying, they are no longer in control.
White House officials said Obama has the legal authority to order insurance companies to provide free contraception coverage directly to workers. He will demand it in a new rule.
And there’s one of the problems, government can tell any private entity how to run their business. It’s almost like ….socialism.
Anyhow, Champ had to retreat: the last thing he wants to do is have people think about his fantastically unpopular “signature legislation” during an election year.
This entire FACADE by Obama has one motive.
Listen up.
IF the election is about the ECONOMY…….democrats lose.
IF the election is about social issues then the Democrats win.
Everything they are doing and are going to do is trying to deflect the debate AWAY from the economy and to social issues……
and guess what……
THE RIGHT IS BITING……….
ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. Economy.
2. Obama care
3. Higher taxes.
4. Class warfare.
5. Alinsky Tactics.
6. Senate cesspool.
7. Foreign Policy.
8. Throwing Israel under the bus.
9. World Apology tour.
10. Hope and Change.
11. Recess appointments.
12. Liberal Justice calling our constitution trash.
In short we do NOT need to talk about social issues. Obama and the left has given us plenty of fodder to throw them out.
Its the ECONOMY STUPID….not abortion. Not birth control.
Lastly I was watching MSNBC last night. Yes I watch them to see what the other side is doing.
They had a poll showing that a majority of Americans agree with the president on this decision to force Catholics to pay for these things.
Even among catholics their was a majority who favored it.
This president and this party is a poll watcher. They use polling for everything…..if they can turn the debate to issues where they have a lead and keep it focused on those issues then they will win. If not they will lose.
The right needs to keep this in mind going forward.
[…] Obama To Offer Non-compromise Compromise Regarding … […]
This issue is not a social issue. While you seem to be railing against the right to keep moving forward, you have bought into the left and Obama’s view that this is a social issue.
It is not.
This is a issue on rights – the same natural rights enumerated on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If Obama can force a group to act against their religious and moral convictions, then the Bill of Rights is dead and so is the country.
The issue has to be framed as a battle for the rights of Americans to practice their religious and moral beliefs without interference from the government.
While the right might frame it as a rights issue in reality….Obamacare has NOT even been upheld by the supreme court as of yet. If its struck down this is all moot.
If not….then this will be in the supreme court faster then you can shake a stick at and Obama and the government will lose because they have already lost a case similar to this by a 9-0 decision. NINE to NOTHING in favor of the churches.
This is one of them. While in your view it might be about rights…..in the White House view this is about appeasing the base and women voters by dividing with a wedge issue.
Abortion/contraception.
No matter how you try to frame it as a rights issue this is a supreme court loser and will lose if Obamacare is upheld.
Again its whole design is designed to wedge with social issues….its not about rights to the left….its about making women turn back to Obama and against the right over an issue that polling has women supporting by a margin of nearly 60 percent.
This is unconstitutional. It will fail if challenged. Hence its not about rights…its about Obama using wedge issues to fire up his base and fire up women to support him vs those evil conservatives who want you to “NOT HAVE CONTRACEPTION or ABORTIONS.”
I agree. But denial of the exception will fail because it is a violation of the rights of people.
Which is why the Right has to continue to frame the issue as a matter of a violation of rights. The left has always said they are a big supporter of rights. While Obama may want to frame this as one issue, it is not. It is a solid “stamping on the rights of people” issue. If you want to buy into the left’s view of this, that is your choice.
If you want to actually help in this and support the Right, you will stay focused on the issue as one of a violation of the Bill of Rights.
No I will stay focused on the economy.
You can pretend to be all up in arms over rights being taken away but I still have faith in the supreme court to not let that happen.
Good. I guess there are some of us that can focus on winning the presidency which means addressing issues more than just the economy.
Pretend?
Sorry Word, but there is no “pretend” here. I am sorry to see that someone who claims to be a conservative is unwilling to value the rights of people.
I would hope that I value the rights of all Americans. I cannot presume to suppose that I value them more then you do.
I am sorry that you think because I am not up in arms over something as blantantly political as this is that you think I somehow do not value the rights of Americans.
This is the entire point of the Obama exercise. Its to fire up his base and to wedge the right.
The very fact you and I are debating this proves my point. Libertarians are in a tizzy. Catholics are in a tizzy and the smooth spin on this will be well we tried to get those evil conservatives to give you birth control but they just hate the RIGHTS of women.
So you can take away what you will about me. But I keep myself focused on the prize…..defeating Obama…..and anything so blatant as this had to be a calculated move on their part to wedge and take the focus off the economy……
I don’t see it. I see someone who is willing to allow the left to determine that this is a social issue instead of calling it what it really is – a rights issue.
What you don’t seem to realize is that you are giving the victory to him on this issue. He can stand up and say “when the Republicans wanted to take away your abortions rights, I stood up to them.”
Those of us who see this issue as one that can unite people against Obama because of the threat to people’s rights.
But now that the issue has been “fired up,” as you say, it must be confronted and fought, not ignored.
I am sorry, but I simply don’t understand or agree with your stance of “the left calls it a social issue so let’s move on.” You seem perfectly willing to agree with the Left and Obama on this issue and I don’t understand that at all.
It doesn’t seem that you aren’t interested in defeating Obama if you aren’t willing to hold him accountable for violating people’s rights. It seems that you are willing to walk away and give him the victory in this.
How does allowing him an uncontested victory on this issue (or any issue) help defeat him?
And while I agree the economy is important, there are plenty of people that can focus on multiple issues at the same time.
IM so sorry Gita. The air up their on your high horse must be awfully thin.
I see you go after David from time to time.
Your not going after me. Fuk you. If Capn wants to ban me so be it but fuk you.
Im not going to engage in this bullshit debate when someone is trying to impinge my character because they disagree with me politically.
Fuk you and the high horse you rode into town on.
Is that clear enough for you?
Word,
I entered into this conversation because you claimed it was the “ECONOMY STUPID.”
Notice the word “stupid” there?
People who believe this is an important issue of rights are not stupid. I believe your focus on the economy is noble, but somewhat myopic.
As I said, I don’t understand why people aren’t hitting Obama with everything. This issue has united many people from the Left and the Right against Obama. I see that as a good thing. I am not sure that you do or that you would encourage it because are focused on another issue.