Over the last few months I’ve been following U.S. Representative James ‘Jimmy’ Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), and the bat-shit crazy stuff he posts here on Patch.
In his latest bout of manufactured outrage, Jimmy’s cause du jour is religious freedom. Perhaps not surprisingly, Jimmy made the leap from health care to religion. Here’s how it all went down.
Lucky Number VII
In accordance with both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a 2000 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
“...failure to offer coverage for prescription contraceptive drugs and devices constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy in violation of Title VII.”
The contraception insurance mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act is consistent with Title VII. Therefore employers that have primarily secular activities or employ people of many faiths — including church-affiliated hospitals and universities — must comply.
Stop Persecuting My Persecution
Despite the fact that churches themselves are exempt from the mandate and that the institutions in question are not primarily religious in nature, many Catholic leaders got pissed. Apparently the notion of allowing women to control their own health-related decisions that contravene church tenants against birth control was just one step too far by the government.
In their view, it seems that discrimination against women by witholding heath care is just fine as long as it’s in the name of religious freedom. C’mon fellas, can I get an “A-MEN”!
Pfff. Give me break. While the constitution gives me the freedom to practice any religion, it does not give the authority to impose those religious beliefs on others.
By insisting that church-affiliated secular institutions are exempt from the contraception insurance mandate, the Catholic bishops who oppose the mandate are doing exactly that — imposing their beliefs on others.
Thou Hath No Moral Highground
And besides, when should a bunch of grey-haired virgins be in a position of influence over women’s heath issues?!
For that matter, why does anyone listen to anything espoused by those who harbor sociopathic pedophiles and don’t even have the decency to admit it in court, take their punishment and give sex abuse victims some sense of closure.
Is not confessing your sins the very definition of being Catholic? But I digress.
Pulling Back the Curtain
If the contraception insurance mandate issue is not about religious freedom, why then is Jimmy so enamoured with these pillars of moral hypocrisy that he speaks so earnestly in their defense?
As you all know, Jimmy is a lapdog sucking at the teet of the Republican National Committee. Jimmy’s GOP overlords see this issue as an opportunity to weaken the Affordable Health Care Act and are using the veil of religious freedom to sell it to the public.
This is why, after President Obama offered an utterly sensible accommodation for church-affiliated institutions — insurance companies would be required to cover contraception costs instead — Jimmy and his GOP pals keep pressing the issue.
I'm With Stoopid
I have long stated that Jimmy treats his constituents like idiots and this thinly disguised misdirection is another great example.
On issue after issue, our representative continually stirs up anger with an emotionally charged issue (religious freedom) and turns that anger towards something popular with the public and morally just (the Affordable Health Care Act) but at odds with the far-right Tea Party platform.
By masquerading as the vagina ideologue, Sensenbrenner strikes yet another blow in his war on intelligence and indeed, the GOP-fuelled assault on basic human dignity and equality for all Americans.
You make a good point. Politicians of any ilk can pander to their constituencies without bothering to really research the issue. But on the flip side, who is currently calling the shots? - insurance executives. So for me - politicians answerable to the voters are preferable to CEOs that only answer to shareholders. And remember that you can always opt out of government healthcare if you have the money. Healthcare should not be a capitalist free market any more than police or firefighters. Having a for-profit healthcare system means you accept having poor people die from illness. Even Reagan could not accept that, which is why he passed the law forbidding emergency rooms from turning away people.
Would you be willing to accept a system that, come next election cycle, decides to no longer cover just this kind thing, because its that's what its "constituency" wants? Currently, if your insurance program changes coverage, you at least have the ability to go elsewhere. With a single payer system, you either take what you're given or you pay out of pocket - assuming you can afford that. I'd rather not have people like Jim Sensenbrenner or Barack Obama making decisions as to what's covered and what isn't, in order to please a constituency that includes the very kinds of special interests everyone complains about effecting other legislation now. Maybe there's a way of factoring that out of the system, but until we do, I can't see having the Government more involved in decisions regarding medical treatment than it already is.
And please tell me how, in the year 2012, birth control pills can be considered controversial?
Again, theoretically the government could do this, but how is that worse than what we have now? The insurance companies do the same thing based on profit calculations. You say I can just change insurance, but that is not the case. I take the insurance my company gives me and I am grateful for it. This still makes me better off than millions of other Americans. Even with the pools that Obamacare is setting up, I would only get to choose between a few state-approved insurers if I declined my employer's insurance. Chances are they would all make the same profit-based decisions about what to cover. If I am wealthy enough to shop around for medical care now then I will be wealthy enough to skip the government healthcare system too.
First, I'm speaking to the "single payer" system which inevitably comes up as the solution when problems with other systems, like Obama-care, come up. Secondly, the "opt out" option I was addressing was St. Swithin's suggested alternative if one doesn't want government healthcare - which in the case of a single-payer system, means you pay for it on your own. Third, as to your last question, see this comment section and the one attached to the article he's referencing. And again, if you're at all concerned that our government now operates to serve special interests to the detriment of society as a whole, why would you want to put it in charge of your healthcare? Do you think lobbyists, political donations and the like are just all going to magically disappear or not go after this particular arm of government in search of lucrative contracts and approvals just as they have it's other arms? Think it through.
"Third, as to your last question, see this comment section and the one attached to the article he's referencing." All I see is ignorance of how hormonal birth control works, and it's being fostered in a cynical attempt to turn this into a political issue. Birth control pills are not an abortifacient.
I share your concern about "lobbyists, political donations and the like". But once again I have to point out all of that _already exists_. Besides all the government lobbying and donations there exists private lobbying and influence-peddling among the insurers, hospitals, drug firms, etc. At least the politicians are comparable more accountable through elections and sunshine laws. My support of government healthcare is based on experience and research. I have used socialized medicine extensively with the military. Yes, it has lots of problems. But it was much better than what most of those soldiers would have gotten at home. Overall our armed forces are a pretty healthy bunch. The research consistently shows that we rank lower than any other civilized nation when it comes to the cost and quality of our healthcare. All those other nations have socialized medicine.
"All I see is ignorance of how hormonal birth control works, and it's being fostered in a cynical attempt to turn this into a political issue. Birth control pills are not an abortifacient." And yet, it's being injected into the conversation regarding government provided coverage, by politicians as well, at the national level. Do you get it, now? This is exactly what I'm talking about AND why I brought it up. Step back from the who's right and who's wrong on this and look at what's going on. Unless you've gone completely Pollyanna-ish on us, why in G-d's name would you expect something like this to never again rear it's ugly head when it comes to government subsidized healthcare?
As to your experience with the government healthcare, mine differs drastically from yours. As such, if the choice is between a single payer system and a system where the government actually provides the healthcare, I'll take single payer, with all it's warts, in a NY second. I'd rather put up with erratic coverage based on who's running the show in Washington than wondering if I'm going to get someone qualified to properly diagnose and treat whatever it is I'm seeing them for.
There are two ways of denying people certain things -- either outlaw them by legislation or simply make them too expensive to procure.
You're basically arguing that something that's happening right now and being addressed right here isn't going to happen going forward, while at the same time you're upset that it's happening now. Let me ask you a question. If it comes down to Obamacare not covering contraceptives and the like in order for it to be enacted, can you live with that? If so, are you going to feel the same about coverage treatments resulting from stem cell research, once they become available?
I'd be happy with contraception drugs devices and surgery being treated like any other treatment into which class it might fall. Stem cell cures -- well, without some form of government health coverage I'm dead either way if I'd need it.
I've dealt with Medicaid (as an administrator not a recipient) and I assume Medicare is almost as bad. But for the recipient, it beats nothing at all, which is what employers will be allowed to do if Obamacare is repealed.
There will be a lot of Republican women who will rethink their politics as a result. And the thing I like about women, is that they tend more than men to realize when they are being screwed over and to do something about it. You guys can gerrymander, voter suppress and run avalanches of hateful, negative commercials. But this time if you manage to win, it will come off as illegitimate.
I see that as different than birth control pills.
He just votes party line and talks smart even against our first lady. No respect.