Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
October 2014
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Massachusetts Conservatives Boston Maggie
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Miss Kelly

Mass Video Blogs Catch of the Day Video

Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Left in Lowell
Hester Prynne
Mass Marrier

Non-Partisan Massachusetts Blogs
Preti Minahan
Mass Politics Profs

Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Young Americans for Liberty

Hyper Local
My Dedham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Worcester Herald

Mass. Media
The Lone Republican
Pundit Review
Dan Kennedy
WGBH.org's "The Scrum"
WGBH's Adam Reilly
WGBH's "Beat The Press">
WGBH's "Greater Boston">
David Bernstein at Boston Magazine
NECN's "Broadside: with Jim Braude"

National
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State





Sorry David, The Language is the Same, and the "Kennedy Clause" has the Same Meaning

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno

Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 19:58:42 PM EST


Our good friend David Kravitz over at Blue Mass Group is trying to argue that the words "Moral Conviction" in a conscience clause when used by Senator Kennedy are not the same as the words "Moral Conviction" when used by Senator Blunt in his amendment.  It's actually quite difficult to follow the logic.

Yes, that's the same broad "conscience" language in the Roy Blunt amendment.  But the context is completely different.  In Kennedy's bill, the concern was forcing, say, a doctor who believed that abortion was murder to nonetheless perform an abortion.  Or to require that Catholic hospitals offer abortions.  But Ted Kennedy - who was famously pro-choice despite his Catholic faith - would no doubt have expected that a woman who wanted an abortion would simply go to a different doctor.

That, of course, is miles away from what we are talking about with the Blunt amendment.  Under Blunt/Brown, it doesn't matter where the woman goes, because if her employer has a "moral conviction" that she shouldn't get an abortion, or AIDS treatment, or a blood transfusion, then it doesn't matter where she goes; her insurance won't pay for it.  Kennedy's concern was that doctors and hospitals not have to provide services that conflict with their faith.  But the Blunt amendment says that any employer (religious or not) can make it effectively impossible for his employees to receive health care services to which he objects (by exempting them from insurance coverage), even when the patient wants, and the doctor is willing to provide, those services.

David, but the employer is not willing to pay for those services, because of the same conscience exemption.  Much like you say in your post just as the person wanting an abortion can go to another doctor, the person wanting his or her employer to pick up their $9.00 per month birth control prescription (page 4 of the pdf) can find another employer.  It truly is that simple.  

This is about the government forcing private individuals to do something that they don't want to do, and is against their beliefs. Whether that is providing an abortion or paying for procedures they do not feel comfortable in paying for.  

To further the abortion analogy, we are not just talking about the pill here.  We are talking about abortofacients and sterilization.  The Obamacare mandate covers abortion inducing drugs.

This fight is not about cheap access to birth control, for that is already available via the private sector.  This is about an ever increasing encroachment on our liberties by an ever expanding state.  An encroachment even Senator Kennedy did not share, or he would have never have authored the "Kennedy Clause".

Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno :: Sorry David, The Language is the Same, and the "Kennedy Clause" has the Same Meaning
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Can't you argue this from the other point of view? (0.00 / 0)
David, but the employer is not willing to pay for those services, because of the same conscience exemption.  Much like you say in your post just as the person wanting an abortion can go to another doctor, the person wanting his or her employer to pick up their $9.00 per month birth control prescription (page 4 of the pdf) can find another employer.  It truly is that simple.  

If a Catholic affiliated organization doesn't want to employ people who may do non-Catholic things, then why don't they hire only Catholics (if they can)?  I also don't see how there is that big a distinction between an employer providing a salary to an employee which the employee can spend in any manner they see fit and an employer providing an insurance package that the employee can use in any manner they see fit.

It doesn't seem like Gary Wills is that far off when he says this:
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/n...

The bishops' opposition to contraception is not an argument for a "conscience exemption." It is a way of imposing Catholic requirements on non-Catholics. This is religious dictatorship, not religious freedom.


---
"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back." - G.K. Chesterton
http://red.ma.altercate.net


No it's not. (0.00 / 0)
In the case you cited above the church isn't directly paying for that which it deems immoral.  The employee is, by purchasing their own health insurance.

You'll see upstream I said the same thing.  I said that the employee with their own money could purchase a $9 birth control prescription.

This is a more fundamental issue.  It is an issue of whether the government should be able to force anybody to purchase anything they don't want to.  Or if the government is able to set the terms of a private compensation package.


Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...


[ Parent ]
So you are upset with all mandated coverage? (0.00 / 0)
http://healthinsurance.about.c...

Coverage of adoptive children
Certain health plans must provide coverage to children placed with families for adoption under the same conditions that apply to natural children, whether the adoption has become final or not.

Minimum hospital stays for newborns and mothers
Under The Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996, health plans may not limit benefits for any hospital length of stay related to childbirth for the mother or newborn child.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Disabled and nondisabled individuals must be provided the same benefits with regard to premiums, deductibles, limits on coverage, and pre-existing condition waiting periods.

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
Gives an employee the right to continuation of health coverage under the employer's health plans while absent from work due to service in the uniformed services.


---
"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back." - G.K. Chesterton
http://red.ma.altercate.net


[ Parent ]
Yes in principle (0.00 / 0)
As a Ron Paul Libertarian aren't you?  What Would Ron Do? WWRD?

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...


[ Parent ]
Not really. (0.00 / 0)
I'd be interested to see how Paul voted on some of those mandates.  I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. No voted yes on a few.

---
"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back." - G.K. Chesterton
http://red.ma.altercate.net


[ Parent ]



Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox