FU - FairAndUNbalanced.com

In reply to Burr Deming's
It Can't Get Worse for the GOP - Then News from Missouri

Not only had the religious issue been removed by shifting the burden directly to insurers...

- Burr Deming, March 7, 2012

I feel like I have fallen down the rabbit hole. How is it that incredibly brilliant people fail to see that President Obama’s “compromise” is not a compromise at all regarding freedom of religion rights? Specifically in the case of some of the Catholic Church’s charitable organizations etc, under the new law they are required to provide insurance that covers contraception and abortifacients. This compromise is nothing more than a silly game of semantics. Now with this “compromise” in place, the Catholic Church still has to provide insurance which still covers contraception and abortifacients. Where the hell is the compromise, sir? Do you think that just because the church doesn’t have to “pay” for the contraception that it removes them from their moral obligation? They still have to offer insurance that covers something which goes against one of the primary tenets of the faith.

Continuing, “He was trying to keep the focus on the vanished religious issue, not on women's rights.” This whole debate had indeed been a masterful job of political jujitsu by the left. How in the world did requiring free contraception become a woman’s health issue? That is patently the most absurd argument I have ever heard. The fact that so many people are buying the silly argument further proves that the ability for critical thought in this country had seriously waned. I could understand this being a women’s health issue if Obama was requiring that insurance companies cover with no co-pay for things like mammograms or pap smears--- you know, things that actually can detect cancers and legitimately be preventative measures. Ironically, Obama is requiring free contraception, when the pill has been clinically linked to causing a lot higher probability of breast and other cancers in women. The world has truly gone mad.

As for Ms. Fluke, I don’t know if she is crazy like a fox or flat out stupid. How does an obviously intelligent young lady enroll in one of the most prestigious CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY law schools in the country at Georgetown University knowing that she is required to purchase health insurance from the CATHOLIC university that does not offer contraception and then have the audacity to complain about not having someone else pay her $3000 contraception bill while attending?

As for Mr. Limbaugh, I will categorically state that what he said regarding Ms. Fluke was stupid and wrong. He did far more harm to the cause by having done so, and unfortunately he gave the hypocrites of leftist free speech a huge target. As for putting a bust of Limbaugh in the capitol rotunda, well despite the fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a Missouri native, it strikes me as a rather foolish and unnecessarily incendiary idea.

T. Paine writes for his own site, where faith is never false.

Please visit Saving Common Sense.

In reply to Burr Deming's
Conservatives Hate Obama and the Healthcare Shovel

Yet there it is for all to see. Missouri has abolished religious freedom of employers to determine the insurance-covered religious practices of women employees for years. Missouri law dictates that group coverage of prescription medications must include contraceptives. I weep for my state.

I don't necessarily blame our legislature. In fact, I was there recently as a part of a religious group, and most of those representatives came across as fairly decent folk. It must have been the evil influence of neighboring Illinois, which requires group coverage of prescriptions to include contraceptives. Arkansas, to our South, does as well. So does Iowa to the North.

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington state, Oregon, Scott Walker's Wisconsin, West Virginia, Chris Cristie's New Jersey, California, Maine, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

Mitt Romney's Michigan is part of the conspiracy. So is Mitt Romney's Massachusetts.

It is sad that so many places lack simple religious liberty.

- Burr Deming, March 5, 2012

Ah Mr. Deming, you seem to have been channeling your inner John Myste for this devastating rebuttal, my friend. Despite my complete inadequacy in debating the subject, as I am sure I will fail to convince you of the correctness of my stance, I will nevertheless endeavor once again to engage in this Sisyphean task.

Let’s begin here:

“The issue began when the Obama administration, after hearings and arguments, prepared a first draft of insurance regulations that would have required employers to cover contraceptives. Many employers are houses of worship. Some religions bar contraception. So there was an outcry about religious freedom.”

First, throughout the Obamacare debate (and I do not use “Obamacare” as a pejorative that the un-Constitutional “law” so richly deserves) our President repeatedly assured all of us that “if you like your current health insurance, you can keep it”. He further promised that there would be transparent and open debate of the health care reforms on C-Span so that we could all see what we were fashioning. Never mind then-Speaker Pelosi’s comments that we would “have to pass the bill, so we could find out what was in it.” Evidently she missed the inter-governmental memo from the President to televise the debates for public consumption on C-Span. Then, the final straw was when our dear leader assured us that the new health care law would still include conscience clauses so as to protect those Americans who would object on religious or moral grounds to certain aspects of the wonderful new cost-reducing law. Why Archbishop Dolan, who heads the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, had the audacity of hope to think that our President would keep his word when he was told that such exemptions would be included as recently as last November, if memory serves me. It would seem that these less than transparent hearings and arguments were just meant as a going-through-the-motions-of-legitimacy actions to quiet any critics. It further seems that there really was little intention of actually listening to the contrary arguments against conscience clauses, let alone Obamacare on the whole.

BUT...but…but… President Obama and the marginally Catholic HHS Secretary Sebelius made a compromise, you say! Never mind that the mandate stated before the compromise that the Catholic Church had to pay for insurance and the insurance companies would cover contraception including abortifacients and AFTER the compromise the Catholic Church had to pay for insurance and the insurance companies would cover contraception including abortifacients. Yep, that seems like a great compromise, if you don’t let your religious convictions get in the way.

But, as Mr. Deming points out, “Initial public opinion, however, seemed to be on the side of the administration. There was little political incentive for the Obama folks to back down.”

For the sake of argument we will assume that this dubious assertion is correct. Does this mean that the tyranny of majority mob rule should dictate America’s laws, even when violating clearly spelled out Constitutional freedoms? Seems to me there was a time when a majority of southern states thought it was okay to own people as property too. I guess we really needn’t worry about the rights of a minority of the populace though, huh? (Even if those rights are explicitly spelled out in our Bill of Rights.)

Continuing, Burr makes some wonderful arguments about all of those states having passed similar laws requiring insurance companies to provide contraception. Never mind the fact that most of those states’ laws do include conscience exemptions and none are quite as draconian as the new federal mandate is, the fact of the matter is that they are all morally and freedom-usurping wrong. Yes, there is indeed a tenth amendment right for states to do those things that are not explicitly authorized or denied to the federal government; however, I seem to recall having read somewhere that the states do not have the right to supersede those rights spelled out in our United States Constitution.

The fact that some number of states have done so does not make it right for the federal government to make sure that ALL states must now do so; on the contrary, these states’ laws are in violation of the U.S. Constitution and should be summarily nullified as well.

I know… I know… why is T. Paine making such a fuss over an anachronistic piece of paper drafted by a bunch of dead white guys? Good question! Well, it seems to me our country has functioned much better in the past when we have actually followed the rule of law, including our supreme law of the land instead of just winging it as we go. I know slippery slope arguments irritate our friend John Myste, and while that is a bonus in my using one now, that really isn’t my primary objective. If we continue to ignore rights codified in the Constitution for whimsical or even majority-says-so reasons, at what point is a right YOU care about going to be affected, Mr. Deming?

Finally, we come to this: “We long for those halcyon days of long go, the days of corporate liberty. The days before government regulation, mud raking, and Upton Sinclair's meatpacking interference.”

I do indeed long for those days when private property was still treated as such. That does not mean that the government does not have a right and indeed a duty to ensure that products or services sold by corporations or individuals is safe. What it does mean is that if there are no monopolistic concerns, hazards created towards others in sales or production of a widget, then the government should let businesses and their private property succeed or fail on their own merits. It is my contention that the government has no business picking winners and losers in either private property rights (corporate property rights as you would characterize it for this argument) or individual constitutional rights. But then what do I know? I seem to be turning into as great of an anachronism as the America I once knew and loved.

T. Paine writes for his own site, where he is far from an anachronism, and where America remains great.

Please visit Saving Common Sense.

In reply to T. Paine's
Healthcare Assault on our First Amendment Rights

It amazes me that this is disingenuously characterized as a "womens health issue" instead of the unambiguous assault on our first amendment right that it really is.

- T. Paine, March 4, 2012

It has been quite a week. For the first time in memory, Rush Limbaugh has apologized for an attack on a member of the opposition. "In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."

The poor choice of words were contained in an elaborate bit of reasoning: that women who take birth control pills paid for by insurance are being paid to have sex. Therefore, the young woman in question, and women generally who use such insurance coverage, are prostitutes. More specifically, the woman he was attacking is a slut. The words for which he apologized were "slut" and "prostitute."

He did not elaborate what synonyms would have more exactly described his meaning. We can only imagine a similar apology from the streets of nearly forgotten youth. "When I called your mama a ho it was a poor choice of words. I should have just said she was a garden utensil." Maybe a shovel?

The Rush distraction aided those of us who are guilty, as our friend T. Paine points out, of having "disingenuously characterized" the controversy as a 'womens health issue' instead of the unambiguous assault on our first amendment right that it really is."

The issue began when the Obama administration, after hearings and arguments, prepared a first draft of insurance regulations that would have required employers to cover contraceptives. Many employers are houses of worship. Some religions bar contraception. So there was an outcry about religious freedom.

Initial public opinion, however, seemed to be on the side of the administration. There was little political incentive for the Obama folks to back down. To some observers, by which I mean me, it was a sign of openness to religious concerns that the administration reviewed and issued a compromise. Insurance companies, not employers, would be required to provide coverage. This was okay with insurance companies because medical costs for birth tend to eclipse those of providing birth control.

T. Paine alerts us to the danger of all this. This new compromise removes only by a degree the involvement of religious institutions in a morally reprehensible decision by women to practice birth control. The assault itself is against the very concept of religious liberty. It is, as Mr. Paine points out, unambiguous.

We need only look to history to verify his dire predictions about the future of religious freedom. Places far from the America we know and love have launched similar attacks on freedom.

Like the sovereign State of Georgia.

Georgia has been requiring contraceptive coverage since the 1990s. When that law was passed, the Georgia General Assembly included highly objectionable, incendiary language. "Maternal and infant health are greatly improved when women have access to contraceptive supplies to prevent unintended pregnancies."

Forgotten was the religious freedom of corporations. In fact, as Mr. Paine put it, this is yet another instance of distortion, "disingenuously characterized as a 'womens health issue' instead of the unambiguous assault on our first amendment right that it really is." Georgia legislators disingenuously inserted this anti-Religious freedom assault: "While virtually all health care plans cover prescription drugs generally, the absence of prescription contraceptive coverage is largely responsible for the fact that women spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket expenses for health care than men". It was indeed characterized as a "womens health issue." Quite disingenuous.

This assault on religious liberty did not happen in Georgia alone. Without any notice from T. Paine or other conservatives, the secret plot against religious freedom has, over the last several decades, taken root across the nation. It has all been "disingenuously characterized as a 'womens health issue' instead of the unambiguous assault on our first amendment right that it really is."

Arizona has assaulted religious liberties by requiring insurance coverage of contraceptives for women from companies offering any prescription group coverage.

Montana has abolished religious freedom, telling those insurance companies providing group prescription coverage that contraceptives must be included.

North Carolina and Colorado tell group carriers their prescription coverage must provide contraceptives.

None of these states require women to get permission slips from their bosses, a clear violation of the religious freedom of corporate employers.

When I discovered that, here in Missouri, there is no religious freedom, I was surprised. Every week for years at worship, I have been deluded into thinking the First Amendment applied. I even thought it applied to non-Christians, despite attacks on Mosques. I bought into the illusion even in the face of talk about freedom of religion not including freedom from religion.

Like most Christians here, I was unaware we have no freedom to engage in the worship we have been practicing. I now await the fateful knock on the door. For when they regulated my employer's group coverage I did not object, and now they may come after me.

Yet there it is for all to see. Missouri has abolished religious freedom of employers to determine the insurance-covered religious practices of women employees for years. Missouri law dictates that group coverage of prescription medications must include contraceptives. I weep for my state.

I don't necessarily blame our legislature. In fact, I was there recently as a part of a religious group, and most of those representatives came across as fairly decent folk. It must have been the evil influence of neighboring Illinois, which requires group coverage of prescriptions to include contraceptives. Arkansas, to our South, does as well. So does Iowa to the North.

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington state, Oregon, Scott Walker's Wisconsin, West Virginia, Chris Cristie's New Jersey, California, Maine, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

Mitt Romney's Michigan is part of the conspiracy. So is Mitt Romney's Massachusetts.

It is sad that so many places lack simple religious liberty.

As T. Paine points out, this is a pattern that also includes the tragic infringement on corporate freedom. It is government "dictating what private companies will be selling (contraception this time) but they are doing so in direct violation of one of our most sacred constitutional rights." We long for those halcyon days of long go, the days of corporate liberty. The days before government regulation, mud raking, and Upton Sinclair's meatpacking interference.

The days of religious liberty, when women covered their heads during worship, and secretarial employment.

As T. Paine points out, the Tenth Amendment makes all the difference. When the state assaults religious freedom, ordering an employer to leave some decisions up to employees, even those without a permission slip, the level of the authority is the key.

It's not personal.
It matters whether the ability to determine your covered medication is determined by the federal government or the state.
Or the boss at work.

When states do it, it's strictly a garden utensil. When Obama does it, it's a shovel.

In response to Burr Deming's Sexual Health Wedge

If the idea of drastically increasing regulation of women's health is to become a wedge issue, convincing voters to switch allegiance, the intensity is undeniable. It is easy to envision voters changing sides.

It is only difficult to imagine those votes flowing in any direction except away from Republicans, the imagined political party of aspirins and chastity belts.

- Burr Deming, March 2, 2012

Burr, I recently wrote a post on this issue of contraception and the abortifacients that the latest HHS regulation mandates. It amazes me that this is disingenuously characterized as a "womens health issue" instead of the unambiguous assault on our first amendment right that it really is.

First, it doesn't matter if anyone else believes as Catholics and other folks of like mind do regarding abortion and contraception. It is enough that we believe it. The sanctity of life is not some peripheral doctrine of the Church but is rather a core tenet of the faith. As such, it is protected under the right to the free exercise of religion as stipulated in the first amendment.

Second, once again, by what authority does the federal government have the right to tell a private company, such as insurance companies, what services they must provide? Please point to the section in the Constitution that allows this. I was under the impression that all powers not specifically given to the federal government were reserved by the states or the people. But, if you are willing to disregard the first amendment, what the heck is stopping one from disregarding the tenth as well, huh?

It was bad enough when our President took over private car companies, fired the executives, told them which cars they were going to make going forward (no more Pontiacs, Hummers, etc) and then gave majority ownership to the UAW instead of the bond-holders of the company's debt. Why that didn't cause enough outrage to impeach a President with no regard for private property is one thing.

Now, President Obama and his willing allies such as Harry Reid, are not only ensuring that once again the government will be dictating what private companies will be selling (contraception this time) but they are doing so in direct violation of one of our most sacred constitutional rights.

I have come to the conclusion that if this is allowed to stand, we have indeed finally lost this once great country and "Reverend" Wright is correct, because even if God has not technically damned America, God must certainly have removed His blessing from this once free nation, and deservedly so.

We are pleased to welcome back our T. Paine with his conservative challenge to our delicate liberal sensibilities. He comes out of retirement, we hope for more than this single rebuttal. He elaborates on his dissent on his own site.

Please visit Saving Common Sense.

"I like Transvaginal," said a woman on a comedy show. "I fly that airline every chance I get." It's becoming a new part of the national vocabulary. Virginia's Bob McDonnell cannot have wanted to be known as the transvaginal Governor.

The abortion debate has long provided Republicans with a wedge issue. Wedge issues are those in which majority opinion falls on one side, but advantage falls on the other. Intensity is great among the minority, and that intensity happens to fall heavily on those who are in a position to switch their votes.

It does matter electorally if voters for candidate A will be voting for him with more intensity than those who will be voting for candidate B. It affects voter turnout. Highly committed voters are more likely to vote. But if an issue appeals strongly enough to those who usually would vote for candidate B so that a significant number switch their votes to candidate A, that matters a lot more. Every switched vote does double duty, increasing votes for one candidate, while decreasing votes for the other.

Abortion is an issue that sometimes does that. Working folks who are quite religious, for example, might view life as beginning at conception. They might feel strongly enough to vote for someone who would not appeal to them in any other way.

Wedge issue voters are usually single issue voters. They will vote against their economic interests our of principle. The majority believe decisively but not with enough passion to change their votes.

Although abortion was one such issue, there have been others.

Gun control has been such an issue. The majority of Americans favor some regulation of firearms, if only to keep murderous firepower out of the hands of small children and maniacs.

Until recently Obamacare was such an issue. Although polls show a plurality of voters still don't like the new health care insurance system, only a minority want to see it abolished. Those who support it become a majority when combined with those whose criticism is that it does not go far enough. But abolitionists were able to peel off just enough in the last election to build a powerful force.

Abortion has been an issue waged in theory until laws come close to fruition. When viewed in principle, it becomes impossible to find a position that does not approach absurdity. I cannot come down on the side of making women's rights subordinate to those of a zygote. But I recognize that I cannot escape the same lapse of sense of anyone who attempts to draw a rational line. Such an environment gives more weight to intensity.

But when regulation of abortion comes to what it must come to, the brutal treatment of women, stark reality takes hold.

Our own United States Senator from here in Missouri, Roy Blunt, has taken the debate several giant leaps beyond even the abortion debate. In the name of religious freedom, he proposed a bill that gathered support from nearly half the Senate.

The bill would have required insurance companies providing group insurance to get approval from employers if those were religious institutions, before providing birth control coverage to women employees.

The bill would have required insurance companies providing group insurance to get approval from employers even if they were not were religious institutions, before providing birth control coverage to women employees. The employer could stop coverage of contraceptives even if the objection was not religious, but simply one of principle.

In fact, if any employer objected to any coverage on the basis of conscience, a woman would be denied coverage. In fact, female employees, male employees, spouses, or children, would be denied coverage of any medical procedure or prescription medication if an employer objected.

Employers would be given control, by exercise of corporate conscience, over individual decisions. Women would bear the brunt.

Republicans are presenting it as a religious freedom issue. It is possible to agree with them only by defining freedom of religion as the spiritual right of any corporation to instruct employees on coverage of the most personal matters. Medical coverage is now to depend on permission slips from the boss.

The religious argument gives way to sexual antagonism as Rush Limbaugh weighs in.

What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.

Rush has become the ostensible head of the Republican Party, at least to this extent: Conservative officeholders who disagreed with him have had to abase themselves publicly in servile repentance.

It would be wrong to automatically smear opponents with the words of allies. The opportunity for Republicans to denounce or disassociate themselves from such talk is only fair. So far no Republican office holder has taken that opportunity, but today is another day. Perhaps by tonight? Or tomorrow night? Or next week?

If the idea of drastically increasing regulation of women's health is to become a wedge issue, convincing voters to switch allegiance, the intensity is undeniable. It is easy to envision voters changing sides.

It is only difficult to imagine those votes flowing in any direction except away from Republicans, the imagined political party of aspirins and chastity belts.

"That would increase the use of food stamps," the Missouri legislator told me, with some vehemence. "Too many people are on food stamps now." He spoke of a culture of dependency and ended with a firm statement. "I'm voting against it."

We were a faith based group. Catholic priests and parishioners were joined by Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and others. A pastor from our worship service had been deeply involved in pushing the one day excursion.

50 or so folks from churches around the state converged on Jefferson City, here in Missouri to talk with as many of our representatives as we could. One of the bills we had in mind dealt with a remnant of a Clinton era policy. In the 1990s, drug related offenses became a special class of crime across the United States. Once it was legally established that a person was guilty of a drug felony that person was prohibited from ever again receiving certain benefits. One was food stamps.

Once a criminal served the proscribed sentence, the debt to society was repaid. Felons were free to travel, to work whenever work could be gotten by someone with a record, to marry, to live normal lives. As years went past and rehabilitation was demonstrated some felons could even vote. And they could be protected by what remains of society's safety net.

Rapists, murderers, corporate fraudsters, child molesters, mobsters, corrupt politicians were part of society. The safety net applied to them.

It did not apply to once-upon-a-time drug offenders.

The option was given to individual states to exempt drug offenders from the exclusion. All but a handful have. Missouri is one of that handful.

A while back, a Missouri Representative, Republican Bob Nance encountered a fellow shopper in line at the market. They chatted as they waited. She had lost her job and was relying on food stamps to feed her two infants while she looked for employment. She could not get food stamps for herself, "and I have to stay healthy to take care of my babies."

Food stamps for drug felons is not what you'd call a winning campaign issue. But Nance, horrified at her desperation and at the injustice involved, began working on changing the law. He met with a group of us and suggested how we could change minds. He talked about personal stories, about people we might think of who we knew. He told us about his own experiences in appealing to his individual colleagues. He talked in plain words about fairness and what is right.

We went in small groups, usually in twos or threes. When we had appointments we were ready. When we didn't we paid visits in hopes that representatives might spare a few minutes. Some did.

A pretty young woman, blind from a rare illness, talked of becoming a productive member of the community after serving her time. She raised two children. When she unexpectedly lost her job, she was unable to get food for herself. Her eloquence was striking. She smiled every second, and the combination of pride and pain was powerful.

I told one Senator about meeting a young man after hours while I worked late one evening years ago. He was part of a cleaning crew and he had just finished our building. He showed me bullet wounds the calf of his leg and on one arm. When he had gotten out of prison, he had turned his life around, joining a church, marrying, starting a family. His son was just getting to the age of asking questions. He told me he was hesitant about telling his son about his past. He was afraid that the youngster, admiring of his dad, would try to follow in his footsteps.

It became a classic example of I-should-have-said. I wish I had told him his son would have every right to look up to his father. That I was much older than he was and I looked up to him. He had done one of the hardest things a human can do. He had changed the direction of his life.

It hurts a bit to think about how differently changes might hit either of us. If I become unemployed, I will not be nearly endangered by hunger. If that young man is ever jolted by similar bad fortune he would not have the same benefit of a helping hand, a hand up. It isn't fair.

The cost to society of putting that sort of primal pressure on anyone on the way up could be substantial. Helping someone to clean survival is less costly than putting someone away once they have been pushed away from a better path. The cost was something lawgivers must take into account. But our concern was the cost in our souls whenever we address budget concerns by choosing who we might throw aside, who we might decide was of no worth, once we decide that human value is not intrinsic.

I told the Senator that I could only imagine the temptation a legislator must experience, the temptation to view policies through ideology and cost spreadsheets and to lose sight of human faces. He told me he thought about that every day. He told me he had not seen the bill, but had heard his Republican friend talk about it. He would try to find his way to support it.

Some Senators worried about drug addicts using any benefit to feed a habit, but most felt that could be overcome. It had been overcome in most of the rest of the country.

The legislator who was adamant in opposing an increase in food stamp enrollment was still sympathetic. Yes, he acknowledged, the exclusion was unjust. And even there, I felt, his ideological imperative was combined with some desire for fairness. We would not have his vote.

The partisan divide was apparent. Democrats were generally more receptive, but the lines were not wide, and the exceptions were noteworthy.

Legislators were responsive. Several did sign on to co-sponsor Representative Nance's bill. Others seemed swayed.

The effect went both ways. We were impressed with the degree to which elected representatives came across as ordinary folk struggling with budget limitations, their beliefs, and their own witness to the struggles of humanity.

I'll continue to vote for Democrats. I'll just feel a bit less righteous about it.

I doubt I'll ever vote for Republican Bob Nance. Unless he does something unusual.

Like run for State Attorney General.
Or Treasurer, or Governor, or the US Senate.

Or President of the United States.

It isn't simply a women's issue. The proposed Virginia law, the one which would mandate a vaginal probe of any woman seeking an abortion for any reason before such abortion will be authorized by the state, is of concern to women, of course.

It is also a concern for a certain group of men: those men who have wives, women friends, daughters, or mothers. Or men who know others who have such contacts.

It is also a concern for those, regardless of gender, who see it as symptomatic of a more general tendency of the Republican party to dash madly toward an authoritarian cliff. The party of deregulation sees cause for ... what to call it ... intrusion into what women have historically decided for themselves.

Those who aim such at women are not necessarily caught in a contradiction. The debate on abortion provides no position for any position that does not become, at some point, absurd. Draw the line anywhere, or draw no line at all, and you find yourself taking a stand that is not easy to defend.

Practicality, not theory will drive the issue. As a practical matter, the horrific nature of the Virginia bill, the reaching by the state into the most private of concerns, would be minor if any level of government enforced the view that personhood legally begins at conception.

You would think that, politically, Republican office holders would be horrified by the public reaction to the proposed law. And some of them have backed off. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is trying to get the Virginia state Senate to moderate the law into something milder, gentler, less invasive.

The anger has produced rhetoric, the level of which does provide a sort of window of opportunity. Some folks have likened the invasive procedure to rape. Many of us agree with the aptness of the analogy, but it does leave conservatives a debating point or two.

William F. Buckley once chided the Jesuit teachers of his youth for taking advantage of the rhetoric of their opponents. He quoted with approval George Tyrell: "Accuse them of killing three men and a dog, they will triumphantly produce the dog alive."

Most conservatives, at least those in office, are not truly out to score debating points. Republican politicians, for the most part, have recently taken to adopting the understandable public position of hiding under their office desks.

But not all public figures hold office. And some have not been so reticent. Consider CNN's very conservative Dana Loesch:

Uh, there were individuals saying, 'Oh what about the Virginia rape? The rapes that, the forced rapes of women who are pregnant?' What?

"Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy."

Well. That was certainly bracing. So much for the Bill Buckley approach.

She is joined by actual occupants of public office. The conservative backers of the proposed law in Virginia have been resolute. Legislators refuse the Governor's request to back away from voter fury.

In fact, the ideological isolation of the Republican right has been brewing for a long time. It has been accelerated by the individual cocoon-like enclosure that technology provides. Conservative voters no longer are forced by circumstance to participate in general public debate. Republicans have increasingly taken to talking and listening exclusively to each other.

Talk radio is abetted by cable news choices and alternative internet outlets. It is now possible for Republicans to remain only in contact with those who share their opinions. When those opinions turn to fantasies of widespread public support, there is no reality test that can intrude, probe-like, to give an accurate ultra-sound picture of reality. It is a mega-trend that will implode the GOP into what physicists call a singularity.

One nagging mystery is why the same fate does not seem to befall the Democratic Party. The intuitive view is that simple symmetry must force Democrats to the same self-destruction. It does not seem to be happening. No sign of it appears on the Democratic event horizon.

When the Republican Party dies as a national entity, it will not be the result of a Democratic strategy. Technology will be the culprit.

From the Baltimore Sun:

Gov. Martin O'Malley's bill to legalize same-sex marriage quickly won approval in the Maryland Senate Thursday night. The measure now needs the governor's signature.

Cheers erupted in the Senate chambers after the 25-22 vote was read out loud and the group of seven gay and lesbian lawmakers from the House of Delegates rushed to the middle of the floor to embrace supportive senators.

- more -

From the Baltimore Sun:

The two sides in Maryland's fight over same-sex marriage agree on this: It won't be over until November.

With the state Senate's approval Thursday night of the governor's bill to legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples, opponents are expected to mobilize quickly to gather the signatures to petition the legislation to referendum.

- more -

In response to Burr Deming's
Rick Santorum Fights Against Weather Reports

But lives have been saved. Property has been protected. Rescue efforts have been coordinated in advance. Life has been more convenient. Sometimes they get it real right.

If that is not enough, you can take comfort in knowing that we may soon have a Republican President who will kill such federal intrusions. We can still pay for our satellite photos and five day forecasts. As my tea party friends might point out, free weather is like critical medical care. It is not mentioned in the Constitution.

- Burr Deming, February 22, 2012

I am going to have to reluctantly agree with Santorum on this one:

If it is not in the Constitution, it is not allowed, plain and simple.

There is plenty of precedent:

1. Right to bear arms. We have arms. The Constitution cannot deprive us of our arms. We may need to kill something at any minute, as the Founders knew, blessed be He.

2. Right to free federal healthcare. It is unconstitutional. Protecting citizenry in this way is not a Constitutional principle, no!

3. Forcing someone to purchase a service, uh, no. We can force people to purchase one or more ID's, but not a service. We can require someone to purchase an ID to vote, but that is not making them buy something. The government recently forced me to purchase enough arms to demolish Iraq because if they had weapons of mass destruction it would be horrible, even though I did not want the service; but that is OK because the Constitution allows it. The Government recently forced me to pay Santorum for his services, campaigning against contraception and against personal liberty for all non-hetero males, even though I am completely against it. That is OK, however, because the Constitution allows it. The Constitution forced me to pay the salary for the services of the Supreme Court justices as they rule against my wishes. What the Constitution does not allow is forcing someone to purchase a service.

4. Forcing someone to save money in the form of SSA, ummm, nope. That is like forcing someone to purchase for a service.

5. Forcing someone to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I don't think so. The Constitution does not speak of abortion. Allowing abortions is clearly not allowed, as shown by the lack of enumerated permission.

6. Allowing homosexuals to have sex with men. Um, no, the Constitution does not authorize the authorization of that, so the Federal government should not allow it.

7. Allowing gays to marry. Nowhere in the constitution are Gays acknowledged as having any fundamental rights, period. They are not even mentioned and I and Santorum don’t think this is an oversight.

So you see, interpreting the will of the Founding Fathers, Glorified be His name, is not a difficult task. Just read your Constitution, thump it, and stop trying to interpret it. It is only complicated when we make it so. If you are still confused about Constitutional law, just ask Santorum and he will tell you what it means.

John Myste also writes for his own site, where Constitutional questions are unraveled without complication.

Please visit John Myste Responds

Years ago, before Rick Santorum's primary financial backer joked about aspirin and the inherent immorality of women who use birth control, before the candidate's own remarks on contraception created a controversy, before he became known for bold assertions that Protestants were agents of Satan, before he lost his Senate seat for man-on-dog arguments about homosexuality, the then Senator from Pennsylvania was widely known for attacking a grave threat to Free Enterprise. He went to war against weather reports.

It seems that one night, Senator Santorum stayed up to watch the late news. To his amazed horror, the local television meteorologist put up satellite images and quoted information that came from the National Weather Service. They were using information provided by a government agency, rather than purchasing it from a private business.

Senator Santorum was outraged. He introduced a bill designed to reduce the National Weather Service to issuing reports only after checking to be sure that the same information could not have been produced by private enterprise at fair market profit.

Senator Santorum's interest was not entirely accidental. A major constituent in Pennsylvania was the founder of a major broadcast center for weather predictions, AccuWeather. The Senator made the case for private providers of weather information.

With the support of my colleagues, we can pass this legislation to modernize the description of the National Weather Service’s roles within the national weather enterprise, so that it reflects today’s reality in which the National Weather Service and the commercial weather industry both play important parts in providing weather products and services to the nation.

Some lawmakers responded with incredulity. A United States Senator wanted to privatize the weather? The nation had just gone through several major hurricanes. Warnings had saved lives. Katrina had claimed a major city just a few months before. And Santorum wanted to restrict the public flow of information? There were businesses who could profit buy selling information on developing weather patterns, but this seemed like an idea doomed to bad ending for a lot of folks.

Supporters pointed out that Santorum's proposed law would allow for exemptions when weather patterns grew into situations of clear and present dangers to the public. When weather patterns developed into hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and other imminent hazards, exceptions could be made. After all, there could be times in which emergency information would not be available for private purchase quickly enough for the market to work. Santorum acknowledged that there was a role for the National Weather Service to play.

All the bill would do would be to protect private companies. It make it against the law for the National Weather Service to providing any information, including marine, public and aviation forecasts, to the public, to schools and colleges, to researchers, to the media, or to emergency management personnel employed by states or local governments, if private businesses could sell similar information for profit.

And severe weather warnings would be an exception.

The bill was generally liked by large corporations like AccuWeather, the Weather Channel, and WeatherBank. Small companies like the Weather Underground opposed it.

In the end, it went pretty much nowhere. You still can see your local weather anchor show satellite images, and charts with fronts and low pressure areas. And if you write and angry letter to your local station about how you just finished shoveling large amounts of partly cloudy from your driveway, you can include the National Weather Service in your complaint. Nobody is perfect, especially regarding the weather. It still is an inexact science.

But lives have been saved. Property has been protected. Rescue efforts have been coordinated in advance. Life has been more convenient. Sometimes they get it real right.

If that is not enough, you can take comfort in knowing that we may soon have a Republican President who will kill such federal intrusions. We can still pay for our satellite photos and five day forecasts. As my tea party friends might point out, free weather is like critical medical care. It is not mentioned in the Constitution.

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was, with apologies to Vice Presidents, a big freaking deal. When the US Supreme Court said corporations can spend unlimited amounts to support politicians, that you can't put limits on the amount corporations use for political campaigns, they relied, in part, on a statement of fact.

When you're changing what it takes to campaign, you're messing with democracy itself. Your reasoning had better be compelling and the facts had better back you up.

The idea behind restrictions on corporate and union campaigning was to combat corruption of democracy. That's pretty compelling.

But a majority of five all agreed on this key finding:

...this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

This was an extraordinary decision. It overturned enough precedent for Chief Justice John Roberts to defend overturning established law. After all, the minimum wage would be illegal and segregation in schools would still be the law if respect for precedent went to extremes.

But it was the facts on which the case rested that seemed a bit weird. Unlimited anonymous financial backing would not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That was akin to watching one cigarette executive after another testify before Congress, the American viewing audience, and the Lord God of all, that tobacco is positively not addictive.

It was like the arguments of conservatives that Photo IDs must replace traditional identification in order to prevent massive voter fraud. That such cases, nationwide, number literally in the tens, while the number of legitimate votes who would be denied their right to vote would number in multiple millions is simply not worthy of consideration. So it seemed with the corrupting influence of a tsunami of corporate cash.

There was another case in the courts concerning cash in campaigns. The Montana Supreme Court in the last few days of December looked to its own history and found a set of facts truer than what the US Supreme Court viewed through a glass darkly.

At issue was a Montana law that told corporations they could not use their funds to influence elections by spending on behalf of political campaigns. The law is a hundred years old. The Montana law was challenged, and the state Supreme Court took into consideration a set of facts not considered by the US Supreme Court.

The Montana "Copper Kings" of the gilded age made democracy in Montana into a shell game. Mark Twain once wrote about just one of the small group of wealthy manipulators, William A. Clark.

He is said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment. By his example he has so excused and so sweetened corruption that in Montana it no longer has has an offensive smell. His history is known to everybody; he is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs. To my mind he is the most disgusting creature that the republic has produced since Tweed's time.

Clark eventually went so far as to order his state legislators to elect him to the United States Senate. About a century ago he became Senator Clark.

Two United States Supreme Court Justices last week overruled the Montana Supreme Court. For the first time in a hundred years, corporations in Montana can go back to their old practices. But, as critics of the Montana law pointed out, you can't just ignore established national law, regardless of the facts supporting the logic.

The two Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, pointed out that US law must prevail. But they also took note of the facts that the Montana courts had taken into account. Montana's gilded age corruption seems to be replicating itself across the nation. This year, a year less than two months old, seems already to have borne out the simple observation that the massive tidal amount of anonymous cash does less to inform than it does to deafen. Money is already corrupting democracy.

Sometimes legalese is obscure, considered even by Republicans to be too remote for anyone except a new credit card applicant looking through a finance interest agreement. One suggestion, that the United Supreme Court should revisit the Citizens United case and the facts, produced uncommonly understandable dialogue. Translated into standard English, the response of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer to that suggestion was "Well, duh yeah!"

"Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."

- Foster Freiss, interviewed on MSNBC, February 16, 2012

It has been a thunderous few days. Republicans, having vowed to put aside cultural issues to focus on the economy, focused once more on ... well ... you know.

Foster Freiss, THE major financial backer of Rick Santorum, contributes heavily to other causes as well. He is a six figure level donor to Republican Governor Scott Walker's efforts to avoid a recall effort at the hands of outraged constituents in Wisconsin. But mostly he boosts former Senator Santorum. Mitt Romney is forced to battle for conservative souls by raging against any effort to interfere with employers who merely wish to exercise their religious freedom, standing against the immorality of women employees who may want to use birth control.

You would think the latest effort of Foster Freiss on behalf of Santorum, an appearance on MSNBC to joke about the promiscuity of modern women who use birth control, would produce a tidal reaction that would last for weeks. It still might. But, for now, there are other amazing events that eclipse it.

For one thing, the Honorable Darrell E. Issa (R-CA), Chair of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the entire contraceptive controversy. You can kind of get the tone by the official title of the hearing: Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?

If you wonder toward what opinion the Chairman is disposed, you are just the movie goer to pay top price for the best seats at the premier showing of Rocky 9, just to find out who will win the final round.

Representative Issa had an impressive line of witnesses. Religious leaders and conservative college professors. They all had in common a disdain for the administration compromise that would provide contraceptives to women employees without requiring church related employers to do the providing.

That the witnesses were all men was a fact not lost on Democratic members of the committee. They asked that one lone woman be included. Their prospective counter-witness was a college student prepared to testify about serious health effects among her classmates because of denial of contraceptive coverage. One cancer victim lost an ovary. Contraceptives are a major part of treatment for ovarian cancer.

Issa and other Republican committee members insisted the issue does not concern contraceptives. They narrowed the focus to religious objections by their witnesses to contraceptives for women employees. The woman proposed by Democrats as a witness was turned away. She was not allowed to testify. Several Democrats boycotted the hearing.

Public opinion is so far away from conservatives on this issue Sarah Palin can't see mainstream America from her window at Fox News. It is the political equivalent of The Producers, the Mel Brooks musical about efforts to embezzle financial backing by making a Broadway production fail. "Springtime for Hitler" becomes a shocking hit in the fictional account. This new effort at GOP self-immolation does not seem destined for similar success.

It's like some sort of Mack Sennett silent film. A Republican sets his hair on fire. A conservative supporter helpfully hands him a hammer.

In response to Burr Deming's Religious Freedom and Contraceptives

For conservative legislators, freedom of religion means freedom for financial providers of salaries and benefits. They should control the extent of group benefits. If you want to violate the private beliefs of your employer you ought to pay for it yourself, without the benefit of group membership.

- Burr Deming, February 14, 2012

The question of what health insurance covers should be determined, first and foremost, by its effect on one’s health.

If I belong to a religious sect that teaches that we should not use medicine, but that we should let God treat our children, and then my child falls off a house and dies because I did not call an ambulance, should this be allowed in the name of religious freedom? If so, who else should we kill in the name of religion?

Should any religious fanaticism be a factor when deciding a health matter?

Catholic companies are free to deny their patrons coverage via religious authority. They should not be free to opt out of coverage based on religious doctrine. Their religious authority means they can forbid the use of birth control. Any employee that agrees with the backward concept, will obey, and will not use birth control. Any employee that disagrees with the notion will use her health insurance and will use birth control. She was not bound to Catholicism because she works for company X, so there is no conflict of interest.

Backward Company X did not buy her birth control by providing part of her insurance that provided birth control any more than they would have if they had paid her salary directly and she used her earnings to purchase birth control. There is no difference. Either way Company X provided funds for her birth control.

This entire debate is complete political hypocrisy. The Catholic Church learned a long time ago that the masses that follow it are easily duped, easily told what to think, and easily convinced what not to think. This is what they label “Freedom of Religion.”

What’s next? Should we start drowning witches again?

John Myste also writes for his own site, where religious freedom is more than a label.

Please visit John Myste Responds

Our United States Senator from Missouri, Republican Roy Blunt, moves decisively against President Obama on whether contraceptives should be provided to women.

It's still clear that President Obama does not understand this isn't about cost — it's about who controls the religious views of faith-based institutions

The administration started last week in a bind over mandating Catholic run non-church hospitals and other institutions to allow for contraceptives as part of health care. There was a ton of push-back. The principle at stake was freedom of religion.

From the beginning, religious institutions, like churches, were not required to include contraceptives in health coverage to employees. The problem was not with religious institutions. Not directly. The issue had to do with whether non-religious institutions, like hospitals, that were owned and administered by religious groups could be subject to health insurance requirements, if those requirements were counter to religious teachings.

It pretty much looked like a no-win political situation for the administration.

Women's groups lined up pretty solidly for providing what has become a daily necessity for sexually active women, and even for women who are potentially active. The idea of seeking approval from religious authority for contraceptive use is regarded as medieval. The notion that this would be required by law was greeted with outrage.

Religious groups, in particular Catholic authorities, objected to being explicitly complicit in a practice that went against long held religious principles. You didn't have to be against contraception to hesitate about requiring something from a religious group that violated a tenet.

Polls came out that clarified things a bit. The proportion of people who supported the requirement was overwhelming. It turned out to be a huge political plus for the Democrats.

Still, the administration seemed to waver. Some folks sensed an impending sell out. Sure enough, an announcement came. there would be a compromise. At the heart of what seemed a settlement was an important fact. The cost of pregnancy is much greater than the cost of prevention. Pregnancy is a financial loser for insurance companies. Insurance providers live by cost-benefit analysis. Insurance company cost turned out to be a key to a proposal that surprised all sides.

Catholic authorities would not have to provide contraceptives.
And the institutions they run would not have to provide contraceptives.
But their insurance companies would have to provide contraceptives.

At least some Catholic officials were happy. Insurance companies were okay with it. Women's groups were enthusiastic. Democrats were great with it.

Even Catholic Bishops cautiously pronounced the modification a step in the right direction. After some deliberation they hardened their hearts. The policy change was "unacceptable and must be corrected." Republicans quickly joined in the opposition.

Which brings us to the Republican alternative. Senator Roy Blunt leads the charge. He proposes legislation forbidding insurance companies from providing contraceptives as part of group coverage if it violates the religious teaching of a church. Or the beliefs of a religious group running an institution. Or the beliefs of an employer who is not a religious group. Or the conscience of an individual owner of a business.

If an employer says he doesn't like it, the insurance company must keep it back. Senator Mitch McConnell, leader of Senate Republicans, is enthusiastic about the Blunt approach. Other Republican legislators are joining in, promising to bring to a vote the new restriction on contraceptive coverage for women.

The heart of the matter is the nature of religious freedom. How far outside of the workplace should an employer's decisions go?

The administration proposes that religion is a matter of individual choice. A woman gets to decide.

For conservative legislators, freedom of religion means freedom for financial providers of salaries and benefits. They should control the extent of group benefits. If you want to violate the private beliefs of your employer you ought to pay for it yourself, without the benefit of group membership. Think of it as a sort of dress code. After hours, you can express yourself at your own expense. During business hours, you had better dress as your boss instructs. Whether casual Fridays are optional will be decided by company policy.

As Senator Blunt almost points out, the issue is about who controls religious views and religious practices: You or your severely conservative boss.