HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Wednesday, February 08, 2012

 
Ladies interfering in men's business

by digby

What's wrong with this picture?
The White House has been skittish from the start about the new rule, which was announced last month only after internal debates at the White House that, to some extent, pitted women - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is Catholic; Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the deputy chief of staff, on one side, arguing forcefully in favor of the rule, administration officials said.

On the other side, cautioning that the administration tread carefully and look for ways to minimize another major break with the church, they said, were several Catholic men who are close advisers to Mr. Obama: Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and William M. Daley, the chief of staff at the time. Also weighing in, administration officials said, was Denis R. McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, whose purview does not naturally extend to health issues, but who is a Catholic.

"I can't tell you how many times we went over this," one administration official said, speaking on grounds of anonymity.
The article says that Obama himself made the decision to go with public health rather than Catholic men's sensitivities. That's good to know because frankly I can't imagine why anyone in government should give a flying fandango about a bunch of elite Catholic men's sensitivities when it comes to birth control. Of course, the skuttlebut is that someone with "power" forced the poor man to do the wrong thing:
DAVID BROOKS: I hear conspiracy theories. Who switched the president's mind? Who would have the power to change his mind after he had made these vows? I don't know. I really think they should come out and address it a little more, because not getting some of the front -page covers that I think it deserves. But it is out there.
I thought for sure Brooks was talking about Michelle Obama, the shrieking harpy wife. But maybe he was just talking about the shrieking harpy female staffers. Or both, who knows? What we do know is that when you let the bitches weigh in on something like birth control policy, they're going to give the wrong advice.

Thank goodness sanity has prevailed and the men have taken back the reins of this thing. All yesterday we heard word of the White House seeking a "nuanced" compromise" with the bishops. And lo and behold, it's true. Unfortunately, the Bishops aren't impressed by the opening White House proposal. Imagine that?

Here's Sarah Posner:

[T]he primary compromise proposed, known as the Hawaii compromise, has been declared unacceptable by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The National Catholic Register reports:

[A] key official in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says the Hawaii bill — repeatedly cited in media commentary — would not resolve the conference's concerns and would, in any case, be overridden by the federal rule.

"I've reviewed the Hawaii law, and it's not much of a compromise," said Richard Doerflinger of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities and the bishops' chief lobbyist on life issues in the nation's capital. "The Hawaii contraceptive mandate has many of the same features as the new federal mandate."

Like the federal rule, he said, the Hawaii bill "covers all FDA-approved 'contraceptives' (including drugs that can cause an abortion); and the religious exemption is very narrow (though it does not include the requirement that the religious organization serve only people of its own faith to be eligible).

"It adds an extra feature — the requirement that any religious organization that is exempt must still tell all enrollees how they may directly access contraceptive services and supplies in an expeditious manner."

In other words, the Catholic Church must directly send women to drugs and devices that are morally wrong and can do harm to them.
The Hawaii compromise was first proposed in October by Melissa Rogers, the former chair of Obama's Advisory Council to his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She described the Hawaii law, and a similar one in New York, as allowing religious employers that refuse to cover contraceptives to "provide written notification to enrollees disclosing that fact and describing alternate ways for enrollees to access coverage for contraceptive services." However, Rogers also noted that "these state laws are far from perfect. Further, we need more information about how they have worked in practice for all concerned."

Reproductive health advocates say in practice the laws are problematic. Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, says a law like Hawaii's or New York's "isn't something that works well when it comes to women getting services they need." Such a law, he told me yesterday, "puts the onus on employees to jump through hoops" to get the coverage they need.
That's because they've violated their employer's conscience by insisting on having sex at home. You know how that goes. So, I guess it's back to the drawing board. What will appease the all-important elite Catholic men on this?

I don't know if the White House is going to cave on this, but I'm guessing that the current flare-up of the culture war has them spooked. (Santorum's wins last night probably sent a chill down their spines) Democrats are deathly afraid they will lose any campaign where icky lady parts are discussed. But then they also believe they will lose on economics --- which leaves National Security, another weakness. (Gee, how do they ever win?)

If this keeps up, I'll be surprised if they don't do the big el-foldo and try to move on. They obviously do not have their minds wrapped around the idea that these issues are going to be in play. Why, I don't know. They are always in play --- because the right is savvy about when they have an opening and they are always ready to walk through it. And since they the economy seems to be improving a bit and they know they are probably going to nominate someone whose bonafides are very suspect in this area (which will dampen turnout for their congressional true believers) they need to put something on the menu that will get their wingnuts to vote. This stuff works for them.

A lot of people feel very sure that the administration will stick because they know that the voters are on their sides. And they are. Aside from the exceedingly important elite Catholic male vote, it's doubtful that any of the president's potential voters are going to be scared off by the government mandating that birth control be part of the health care law. (As Maddow pointed out last night, these right wingers couldn't get fetal personhood passed in Mississippi.) But that's no guarantee they won't back off anyway. The Republican Catholic Bishops rightly sense weakness and they're going to push it.

Skepticism is the best position in any case, but history shows that when it comes to women's issues in particular, the Democrats have just not been willing to hold the line. It's death by a thousand cuts and the GOP is more than willing to play it out one little betrayal at a time.

Update: Contrary to the article in the NY Times, this WaPo post at Ezra's place by Sarah Kliff says this is a fight the administration is eager to wage and they are waging it to woo Independents. That would be smart. I hope it's true.

.