Two Americas With Two Legal Departments

There is an interesting divide on legal analysis of Obama's contraception decision.  On the left, at least as exemplified by Linda Greenhouse of the Times, we are told that the law says one thing; over on the right, the law is presented with an important difference.  Spoiler Alert - we will eventually see that the reality-based commuity has not yet made a full reconciliation with reality.

Here is Ms. Greenhouse on the background to the relevant religious freedom issues:

In the escalating conflict over the new federal requirement that employers include contraception coverage without a co-pay in the insurance plans they make available to their employees, opposition from the Catholic church and its allies is making headway with a powerfully appealing claim: that when conscience and government policy collide, conscience must prevail.

...

What they now claim is a right to special treatment: to conscience that trumps law.

But in fact, that is not a principle that our legal system embraces. Just ask Alfred Smith and Galen Black, two members of the Native American Church who were fired from their state jobs in Oregon for using the illegal hallucinogen peyote in a religious ceremony and who were then deemed ineligible for unemployment compensation because they had lost their jobs for “misconduct.” They argued that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion trumped the state’s unemployment law.

In a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court disagreed. Even a sincere religious motivation, in the absence of some special circumstance like proof of government animus, does not merit exemption from a “valid and neutral law of general applicability,” the court held. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion, which was joined by, among others, the notoriously left wing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

A broad coalition of conservative and progressive religious groups pushed back hard, leading to congressional passage of the tendentiously titled Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It provided that a free exercise claim would prevail unless the government could show a “compelling” reason for holding a religious group to the same legal requirements that applied to everyone else. After a Catholic church in Texas invoked that law in an effort to expand into a landmark zone where no new building was permitted, the Supreme Court declared the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional as applied to the states. The law remains in effect as applied to the federal government, although its full dimension remains untested.

First, very modest props to Ms. Greenhouse, who at least acknowledges the relevance of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At the Daily Kos, the legal clock stopped in 1990 with Smith; the ensuing Congressional pushback (under a Democratic Congress and President) is not mentioned.  TPMDC notes that the 1993 Act exists and might apply but finds an expert to assure them that, since the insurer provides the contraception coverage "for free!" (all the premiums collected from the employer carefully being applied elsewhere), the act won't be relevant. 

Over on the right, the WSJ offers analysis from two prominent righties, Ed Whelan and David Rivkin.  They amend and extend Ms. Greenhouse's explanation of the 1993 act:

The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may "substantially burden" a person's "exercise of religion" only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.

Wait a second - that "least restrictive" qualifier seems to loom large.  It is not enough that the goverment has a compelling interest - it needs to demonstrate that other methods of advancing that interest won't be adequate.  That caveat makes a bit of a hash of legal anaysis such as this from Ms. Greenhouse:

The question would then be whether the case for the mandate, without the broad exemption the church is demanding, is sufficiently “compelling.” Such a case would pit the well-rehearsed public health arguments (half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those end in abortion – a case for expanded access to birth control if there ever was one ) against religious doctrine.

Really?  Maybe the case will hinge on whether the insurance mandate is the best way to advance this interest.  Back to Rivkin and Whelan:

Does the mandate further the governmental interest in increasing cost-free access to contraceptives by means that are least restrictive of the employer's religious freedom? Plainly, the answer is no. There are plenty of other ways to increase access to contraceptives that intrude far less on the free exercise of religion.

Health and Human Services itself touts community health centers, public clinics and hospitals as some of the available alternatives; doctors and pharmacies are others. Many of the entities, with Planned Parenthood being the most prominent, already furnish free contraceptives. The government could have the rest of these providers make contraceptive services available free and then compensate them directly. A mandate on employers who object for religious reasons is among the most restrictive means the government could have chosen to increase access.

The mandate also fails the "compelling government interest" test. Given the widespread availability of contraceptive services, and the far less restrictive other ways to increase their availability, the government can hardly claim it has a "compelling" interest in marginally increasing access to birth control by requiring objecting employers to join in this effort.

Ms. Greenhouse simplifies the 1993 law down to a rule that says the government can trample any religious belief it chooses if the objective is good.  Rivkin and Whelan find the law to be more nuanced.  As to the actual text, well, no prizes for guessing who is right:

(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Interestingly, Ms. Greenhouse was aware of this nuance when she wrote about the law back in 1997:

Supported by President Clinton and defended by his administration in court, it provided that no level of government could enforce laws that ''substantially burden'' religious observance without demonstrating a ''compelling'' need to do so and without using the ''least restrictive means available.''

For purposes of evaluating ObamaCare from the left, "least restrictive" seems to have become water under the bridge since 1997.  Well, we have all passed a lot of water since then.

Going forward, a lot of earnest liberals who still take the Times seriously will insist that, based on the analysis of the Times leading Supreme Court reporter (and supplemented by the DKOS or TPDMC), the contraception mandate is A-OK.  And righties will cite the WSJ and insist the opposite.  I see Two Americas clashing at cocktail parties all over this great nation.

MORE:  The White House was advised of the issues:

Ambassador Douglas Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University School of Law, does not agree with the president's decision, but his analysis of Supreme Court rulings suggests that it is uncertain how courts will decide these cases.

"I would have to tell [President Obama], that my honest answer about the law is that I think it is unclear as to what is required here," Kmiec said, because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

...Congress attempted to overturn the Smith decision by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. The Supreme Court then overturned RFRA, at least as it applies to state law, which leaves its application at the federal level unclear, Kmiec explained.

There has been one case, though, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao de Vegetal (2006), in which the Supreme Court did say that RFRA applies to federal law. That case "would be taken account of," Kmiec said, but "I don't think it's clear, it's unmistakable, that it does."

Kmiec, who worked in the Obama administration as ambassador to Malta, presented his legal opinion to the White House in November.

"I think there is an argument both ways. So, I'd have to say to the president, that one is a question mark," he said.

Nevertheless, Kmiec has communicated to the president that a broad religious exemption should be given, even if it is not required.

"The way I put that … when I gave him my advice in November was, this is an opportunity for you to do more than the law requires. You could have said that you admire the millions of people that have been helped and assisted and continue to be helped and assisted by the work of the Church and you want to go the extra mile, even if the Constitution doesn't demand it of you."

Interesting - as described by Ms. Greenhouse, the 1997 decision was about Federalism and the power of the states versus the Federal government, not a separation of powers scuffle between Congress and the Supreme Court:

Rather, this was the third major Supreme Court decision in as many years, grounded in three separate lines of constitutional analysis, to reject Congress's expansive interpretation of its own powers and to take a generous view of the role of the states in the Federal system.

Justice Kennedy said that by requiring ''searching judicial scrutiny'' of any state law that had the effect of making it more difficult for people to practice their religion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a ''considerable intrusion into the states' traditional prerogatives and general authority to regulate for the health and welfare of their citizens.''

And the 2006 case seemed clear enough as to the applicability to Federal law.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER:  Presumably this has been beaten to death at the Volokh Conspiracy.  Does anyone have links to especially cogent articles there?

JUMP BALL:  From Thomson-Reuters:

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at University of California Los Angeles, said different courts could reach different conclusions on those questions. He said the latest revision to the rule doesn't necessarily defeat the religious groups' claims, which he described as plausible.

"I suspect that many institutions will find the compromise inadequate, because they'll still see the new rule as requiring complicity with sin," Volokh said.

But timing is everything:

The challengers also face the burden of proving that the issue is ripe enough for a lawsuit. Until the government finalizes the rule, no one can bring litigation, said Laura MacCleary of the Center for Reproductive Rights, adding that courts would likely dismiss the suits.

 

Comments

[Melinda Romanoff]

I wonder what the Administration's Director of OMB thinks about this line of argument.

[daddy]

In Holder's America he turns over 80,000 Fast & Furious documents to his Justice Department cronies to censor.

In Isaa's America Holder turns over only 6,000 documents to the Congress subpoenaing those same 80,000 documents.

Guess which America is being called a Witchhunt?

[Clarice]

Since something like 99% of women surveyed said they used birth control and neither access nor cost problems stopped them, the "compelling" interest is hard to find.

[Porchlight]

half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those end in abortion – a case for expanded access to birth control if there ever was one

A case, perhaps, but a weak one. The problem is not one of access but one of use. We already have broad access to cheap (if not free) birth control. But people don't use it, or they use it carelessly. "Expanding access" by making it "free" won't change that.

[Danube of Thought]

I think the Rivkin and Whelan analysis is certainly correct. I'd love to see any legal memoranda at HHS on the subject.

[MarkO]

They don't need no stinking memoranda.

[Clarice]

The green scam is falling apart..when is someone on the republican side going to note that we threw Billions of tax dollars to Obama's friends on projects that yielded zip at the same time the feds did everything they could to make petroleum products scarcer and more expensive?

C'mon guys--this isn't trigonometry or rocket science.

[matt]

we hung a bunch of Nazis in 1946-47 because they did not follow their consciences.

With the amount of money channeled to pro-contraceptive alternatives, it can hardly be argued that should someone want to obtain contraceptive services, they can do so at minimal cost.

Thus it becomes harder for the feds to argue that there is a compelling case for said fiat.

[Clarice]

Oh, yes, DoT. I imagine in such a well-staffed administration we'd see a compelling memo on the law.

[MarkO]

We need the equivalent of the USDA minder to make certain the sexually active use the free contraceptives. Now, that’s a jobs bill.

[Danube of Thought]

Seems to me that male homosexuals are late getting on the bandwagon to demand free condoms. But I'm sure it's coming - it's a men's health issue if ever there was one.

[Robertgbob]

I don't think anyone at Volokh has really delved into the matter. I'm not sure why they've avoided it. Maybe they just aren't subject matter experts.

Adler mentioned almost a year ago and it doesn't seem to have come up again.

[Ignatz]

--Maybe they just aren't subject matter experts.--

Most of the Volokhians do strike me as chaps likely getting little to none at all.

[Fred H.]

This is a repeat of the (RIP) Terry Schiavo dynamics that contributed to the Republican wipeout of 2006.

So we come back on Tea Party economics in 2010, and what since then?

So now we're back to religious hysteria and lose again in 2012. Brilliant plan indeed.

[Extraneus]

I might not be as critical of the bishops, considering the Church's otherwise "social justice" bent, but I still nominate this for Comment of the Day:

This is NOT a "Catholic" issue, but as usual the Bishops are looking out for their own interests and leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. They want exemptions from the rule instead of demanding its complete rescission.

What about the lay Catholic business owner? Or the Baptist? Or the agnostic who opposes abortion? Do their consciences not matter?

Posted by: Adjoran | February 15, 2012 at 03:12 PM

I don't remember if he/she has commented here before, but I hope Adjoran sticks around.

[matt]

so now the department of Newspeak tells us that the public backs Obama by a wide margin in the birth control controversy. LUN.

What I find interesting is that @ 35-40% of the public is opposed to Obama on a wide range of issues. Why would that change on mandated contraception benefits, especially when a heretofore silent constituency is up in arms?

The article then notes that his support is higher than it is when Afghanistan or foreign policy support is polled.

That it is a CBS/NYT poll would seem to indicate that the bias is off the charts on this one.

[Danube of Thought]

"So now we're back to religious hysteria..."

Was the 1993 Act an act of religious hysteria (it passed in the Senate, 97-3)? Is its enforcement religious hysteria?

I believe Obama will be re-elected, but not because of religion. And I would attribute the 2006 election results a wee bit more to the Iraq war than to the "Terry Schiavo dynamics."

[jimmyk]

Fred, I agree that the focus needs to get back on economics and the joke of a budget that Barry submitted (late). I disagree that Terry Schiavo had much to do with 2006.

The difficulty is going to be that the MSM will be pounding the drums that the economy is "improving," and may convince enough of the muddle that it won't be as easy to gain traction on the fiscal trainwreck that Barry is conducting us toward. The Repubs better be prepared to confront that. It shouldn't be hard to see through the little declines in the unemployment rate to make the case that the economy is still in the crapper, but it may be beyond the powers of at least some of the current crop of candidates.

[Fred H.]

Well agree or disagree whether the Schiavo (RIP) affair had anything to do with Republican losses, it sure didn't contribute to any Republican victories.

The best thing we could do for religious liberty is get a Republican in the White House. I'm not a socal conservative only an economic one, and I think this is a loser issue. So be it.

[MarkO]

"some of the current crop of candidates."

I still want to know who's hiding the weeds, waiting to be brought forth in the brokered convention to lead us to glory. I have no clue nor have I read anything that suggests there is such a candidate and that such a one could win in those 60 days.

Who and how?

I'd love to know.

[Ben Franklin]

"(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

How about; ......Promote the general welfare....?

[AliceH]

Re: Adjoran's comment Feb 15; The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement on Feb 10 noted they previously urged that a mandate exemption must be available to all insurers, employers, and individuals for reasons of religious liberty and conscience. After the "accommodation" they hardened their position, now stating "The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services." LUN

[Clarice]

What is it now--67%-69%-- of the public thinks the media is biased? And how many families do not have someone unemployed or underemployed? Do you suppose the press which they do not beliee can make them doubt their own eyes?

[Old Lurker]

I'm with MarkO about not needing any stinking memo. How have we come to a time where thousands of words and law after law, and lawyer upon lawyer are needed to translate simple statements of rights writ large in our Constitution?

[Extraneus]

Kmiec, who worked in the Obama administration as ambassador to Malta, presented his legal opinion to the White House in November.

So they've been working on this since at least November. In the spirit of not underestimating these scumbags committed leftists, we probably should refrain from underestimating them. This is a fight they obviously chose, for what they thought were good reasons, and maybe they were right to do so.

[MarkO]

In fairness, OL, I was mostly referring to the old west lawlessness of Obama, but your point is even better. I've made a living doing exactly what you rightly suggest should not be needed.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I believe that the muddle will definitely go with their lying eyes over the MFM cheer leading as you note. If there were a chance that Uncle Bob, Aunt Sally and kids were actually going to move out of the rec room in the basement, then BOzo might have a chance.

The big question now is whether gas will hit $4 by the Ides of March - the muddle tends react to that one without reading a word about it.

[ME]

Adjoran wrote: "This is NOT a "Catholic" issue, but as usual the Bishops are looking out for their own interests and leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. They want exemptions from the rule instead of demanding its complete rescission."

That's flat-out false, as 3 seconds of googling could have told him. The Bishops have said that rescission of the mandate is required, *and* they have demanded protections for individuals. (LUN)

Oh, and the bishops in the end opposed passage of Obamacare precisely because these conscience protections were not included, and they did not trust Obama's executive order. Look it up!

[henry]

Those following the Catholic Bishops, an interesting take on the Walker Recall.

Listecki gives his blessing to Walker but not the recall.

[Janet]

IIRC 2006 was the "culture of corruption" meme with Abramoff & Foley...& I think Delay resigned. The Iraq war. High gas prices (which is such a joke cause they are just as high now...only no sob stories).
The MFM won the day.

[Extraneus]

Thanks for the LUN, ME.

[jimmyk]

Regarding that CBS/NYT poll supporting Obama on the BC mandate, here's the wording:

Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?

How many of those saying "support" understand that they will be paying for the extra coverage? Especially when they have a president who seems to think that insurance companies can be required to do stuff for free.

[MarkO]

This is a fraudulent question: "Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?" It has no rational relationship to the facts of Obamacare.

JFC

[Danube of Thought]

"How about; ......Promote the general welfare....?"

1. Not an independent grant of power, merely a qualification of the taxing and spending power, which is not involved here. In any event,

2. Never held to be a compelling interest, and

3. Not the least restrictive alternative.

[jimmyk]

It has no rational relationship to the facts of Obamacare.

MarkO, I've had a long day--can you elaborate?

[Rick Ballard]

Gosh, MarkO, you're suggesting that a polling company colluded with the MFM in order to produce a headline that would mislead the muddle into believing that BOzo's power grab had broad support.

I hope I can make it to the fainting couch in time.

[Danube of Thought]

Given the obvious statutory and constitutional issues that the regulation implicates, I'd be amazed if there weren't internal legal memos addressing it. I'd just like to see them.

[Janet]

Gas prices in 2006 -
"It quickly rose to an average May to September of $2.90, an increase of .62, peaking at $3.02 in August. 42 percent of Americans thought Bush did it."

[Clarice]

Maybe like Holder Sebelius never reads memos.

[jimmyk]

42 percent of Americans thought Bush did it.

Not bad, considering 100% were told that he did it.

[Extraneus]

Surely Kmiek, who "presented his legal opinion to the White House in November," provided a memo, or at least a PowerPoint.

[MarkO]

jimmyk,it makes the issue sound innocuous, silly and like matters decided years ago. That is exactly the framing of the argument that lets the Dems win. It needs an “irrespective” clause to give the other side of it. Not there.

An answer to it might come without a clear understanding of any controversy. Unfair to ask that way.

[Ignatz]

--I'm not a socal conservative only an economic one, and I think this is a loser issue.--

I'm so sick of this BS.
Somebody show me some compelling evidence socially conservative issues have ever cost a Republican the Presidency or even Congress.

[Danube of Thought]

I suppose it would have been too confusing to insert "including those of religious institutions that object on grounds of conscience" after "plans" and before "cover." Don't want to strain the respondents' powers of comprehension.

[Ben Franklin]

"Not bad, considering 100% were told that he did it."

58% of households have catboxes...

[jimmyk]

True, they pretended to address this with a followup question:

And what about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university - do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that their health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees?

No words like "who object on religious grounds," for example. Or the question could have been worded, "Do you think employers should be free to decide whether to require all employees to pay for birth control coverage in their medical insurance, notwithstanding the fact that many people have objections to such coercion."

[Clarice]

Don't you think if the Administration had decent legal arguments we might have heard them? Even if thru third party op eds. Instead we have fruitcakes like Babs Boxer arguing the "right to insurance" is of greater significance than the the right to follow your own religious conscience/

[Barbara]

The big question now is whether gas will hit $4 by the Ides of March...

It's already well over $4.00/gal here in the wilds of So. California.

[Porchlight]

'Tis the season of major poll manipulation/media coordination. I mean more than usual. Anyone else get that sense, especially since the SOTU? We had the jobs report and then bam bam bam - poll after poll showing the Great Obama Comeback!

Let them. He'll peak too early.

[jimmyk]

Clarice, this administration doesn't seem to feel any obligation to justify anything it does on legal grounds unless forced to do so. It does what it wants, and the burden is on the opposition to prove that what they do is illegal or unconstitutional.

[Clarice]

well, lets see if they take the Rivkin/Whelan wSJ bait.

[AliceH]

"Thanks for the LUN, ME" Extaneous.

Guess my link wasn't good enough for ya? *Sniff*

[Gmax]

I swapped e-mails with the parish priest today, and came away assured that this is not over, its not even halftime. Another letter from the Bishop to be issued in a day or two. I have to believe this is going to be written about in the history books as what you dont do when trying to get reelected...

[Janet]

2006 was also the year of the macaca story that brought down Sen. George Allen.
The MFM ran screaming negative headlines 24/7.

[AliceH]

Another tidbit re: that poll: Sample size on that question was 1197 adults. Just a subset of those were registered voters,and no attempt to determine likely voters.

Also, distribution was 34% Dem, 27% Rep, 32% Ind.

[Extraneus]

Sorry Alice! I meant to thank you too.

[Extraneus]

Or at last I should have!

[narciso]

True, Haditha, Katrina, 'the war is lost,' the 'innocent' US attorneys, that's just off
the top of my head;

http://www.therightscoop.com/sarah-palin-surprise-guest-on-the-five/

[AliceH]

No worries, Ex. I'm usually more a lurker but I was compelled to make sure that more up to date evidence countering Adjoran's comment was posted. Should have known that around here it wouldn't be long before someone else made the point!

[Rick Ballard]

Thank you, Alice. Rasmussen Partisan ID percentages are 36%R,33%D,32%I to provide the proper contrast to the 27%R,34%D,32%I which you cite from the very rigorous, although hysterically loaded poll.

[narciso]

I think I pointed that fact about the poll, on a much earlier thread, mind you I 'borrowed' that insight from Protein Wisdom,

[MarkO]

narc, Jeff has done good work over time, but I find him a bit cranky these days.

[Clarice]

Just as an aside, Rick, my man, I have now perfected=really perfected, Ciabatta and filoncini and strega Italiaan breads. Don't you have business in D.C. so we can have a blow out Italian fiesta?

[jorod]

The power to contract is an important right. I don't know of any law that says the government can force someone to enter into a contract to sign away one's right to religious freedom. Imagine if the government could force you into a contract to enter into involuntary servitude. So, what good is the Constitution anyway.

[narciso]

He has labored in the post modern semaneutic stew of academia, that can make you cranky.

MarkO, the nominating system is broken, in part because of the deferral to the MSM, with those every helpful morale boosting debates to
the hangers on, in the Fnork, to the sadly less dynamic NewsCorp,

[narciso]

You don't have a teleporter handy, do you Clarice. in that all with the Thermomix?

[Clarice]

You know, narciso..I might not have unpacked all the attachments,

[Barbara]

There is a very interesting interview with Rick Santorum right now on the Hugh Hewitt program - that's the 5:00 pm hour on the West Coast - for those who want to listen.

[Rick Ballard]

I'd love to, Clarice. I have no current plans to travel to DC but the offer is very enticing.

[Ignatz]

--Don't you have business in D.C. so we can have a blow out Italian fiesta?--

WTH? I'm a wop too you know.

[Clarice]

Maybe you guys could travel together.

[centralcal]

WTH? I'm a wop too you know.

I have an Italian last name, does that count for anything?

[Clarice]

http://www.rusticocooking.com/bread.htm
Absolutely.
You can find the recipe at rusticocooking.com.

Don't spray the bread with water though. That releases too much heat from the oven. You can get the steam by putting a pan of boiling water on the top shelf.

[jimmyk]

Dunno, sounds very high carb, our host may object.

[Old Lurker]

and I live nearby!

[Clarice]

Yes, you do. OL.Call. Any time. We miss you and Mrs, OL.

Jimmyk, we just won't tell TM.

[ME]

Sorry, Alice and Extraneous! I usually lurk, but I was so annoyed at Adjoran's falsehood I posted intemperately, before I'd seen Alice's corrective. I think I'm becoming oversensitive to the anti-Catholic stuff. But the Bishops have been rather good this time -- so good that Obama didn't even tried to work with them. Sr. Carol and the magisterium of nuns are useful idiots, but they have NO authority -- none. And insofar as they stray from the Bishops on matters of faith and morals, they are not behaving as Catholics at all. Most people don't seem to understand this, and Obama exploits our ignorance. Card. George explained this so clearly:

"This is the first time in the history of the United States that a presidential administration has purposely tried to interfere in the internal working of the Catholic Church, playing one group off against another for political gain. What isn’t always understood is that the Bishops of the Church make no attempt to speak for all Catholics; they never have. The Bishops speak for the Catholic and apostolic faith, and those who hold that faith gather around them. Others disperse."

Sr. Carol doesn't seem to care about individual rights of conscience, as long as she gets her magical (and imaginary) exemptions, but the Bishops have expressed concern about every person's right of conscience. Theologically speaking, conscience is vitally important, but legally the Bishops are on firmer ground when they speak of religious freedom. IANAL, but I doubt that RFRA will protect the conscience of agnostics, which is a shame -- and should be corrected. Which is why the Bishops are calling for passage of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.

[narciso]

Didn't somebody ever cue him to TANSAAFL;

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-fortenberry-well-let-courts-decide-if-its-constitutional-force-companies-provide

[Porchlight]

Thanks narciso for that link to Palin's surprise visit to The Five. That was the first time I'd ever seen the show. I didn't find it too awful but then again, Palin was on. She charmed them all, of course, even old Beckel.

[Ignatz]

--I have an Italian last name, does that count for anything?--

As long as it ends in an "I" like Ratzkywatzky or an "O" like Ballard you're good.

[Porchlight]

To be fair to Adjoran, ME, he/she might have been simply unaware that the bishops had called for individual exemptions. I know I was, and I've been staunchly with the bishops ever since this went down. My own mistake, I admit, to not be up on things.

[Ignatz]

This issue must be a bigger problem for Barry than people think if it's bringing lurkers like ME and AliceH out of lurking mode.
I hope they stay out.

[A Casual Observation]

Well, it has begun ..., Romney's slimy PACs are viciously attacking Santorum with their massive TV ads campaign, just like they did with Gingrich in Florida. Romney believes that he can [buy] the presidency. Which isn't any big deal, I suppose, if you perceive that Santorum is as shitty as Romney is.

But the Republicans can forget about regaining the presidency. Their only hope is to retain control of the House and perhaps to regain control of the Senate.

But in their immorality and their stupidity, they will screw that up, too. They [deserve] four more years of Obama. They're as immoral as Democrats are. Independents are just batty.

[narciso]

'Mr, Chambers, to serve man, it's a cook book'

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/eu-catherine-ashton-office-confirms-yahoo-news-received-163311765.html

[Rocco]

Guys, just stay away from D.C.'s Urbana Restaurant and Wine Bar (Via Dave Barry)

Hmm, do you suppose Red Wine or White would go with those nuts? Might I suggest Woolite instead?

[narciso]

'Goggles they do nothin' Rocco,

[Clarice]

Tongue is good. Beef cheeks, also. And I guess anything cooked escargot style (in garlic butter that is) would be tasty,Rocco, though I confess I've not had the valentine's special and wouldn't drive there to try it.

[ME]

You're right, Porch, I shouldn't have been so quick to judge. As I said, I'm oversensitive to the anti-Catholic stuff these days.

Perhaps lefties are more attuned to what they perceive as threats to the abortifacient mandate; certainly, *they* have been aware that the Bishops are calling for individual exemptions (or really, for rescission of the mandate for all employers). For the last week, lefties have been blogging furiously about this statement from the Bishops' general counsel, Anthony Picarello: "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate." LUN

[OldTimer]

"But KNOW this,

that in the last days

perilous times will come . . .

Evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse,

deceiving (lying) and being deceived."

(2 Timothy 3:1, 13)

[Porchlight]

ME,

Thanks. I think there is still some general frustration among non-Catholics opposed to Obamacare - both because of the Stupak betrayal and because many Catholics went along quite happily with Obamacare even though 1) it's horrific and 2) they should have seen this very specific thing coming. I do share some of that frustration. Obama needed their support, he courted it, and he got it, at least until now. We all have to suffer this monstrosity thanks in part to that support at a key time.

That said, I admire the strong stand that the bishops are making and support them wholly.

[Danube of Thought]

Poor ol' ACO has sunk faster than an Italian cruise ship. Somebody throw him a line.

[Fred H.]

@Ignatz

Well if Santorum gets the nod, we'll get to see.

[narciso]

Woops, this is so unexpected;

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/100000-200000-ficticious-wisconsin-voters-cant-be-wrong/

[Barbara]

I have to say that Santorum did well in his interview with Hewitt. He was poised, knowledgeable and didn't pander with his answers, although he did hedge a bit with his comments about a potential long term involvement in Afghanistan.

One interesting question was whether a sort of Chapter 11 process should be created for bankrupt states. I'm not sure how such a thing would work and neither was Santorum. He did note the problems faced by Gov. Walker as well as the repercussions of the actions he took in Wisconsin, and said that he would be willing to work with Congress on developing such an option.

[narciso]

They are racing to beat Sheila Jackson Lee, for inanity;

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/15/dear-mr-president-just-talk-with-iran/#comments

[A Casual Observation]

@ 9;07

Yeah, shit-for-brains, that is why you
continue to read whatever I post here,
and that is why I continue to be, um, a
thumbtack in your fat ass, you blowhard.

[matt]

More on how Obama is waging his war on conventional energy. From Wheeling, WV

LUN

We have to organize the Catholics and the coal miners and power plant workers and everyone who has lost a job or been oppressed by this administration, and that is the way it has to be portrayed.

Obama wants class warfare. This has to be shaped into the message that he is at war against American values, American greatness, American jobs, and the American people.

[ME]

Porch,
I fully share that frustration against those Catholics who supported Obamacare *against the counsel of the bishops.* (After Stupak stopped talking to the bishops and betrayed pro-lifers, he seemed to lose his ability to speak rationally. I thought for a second that frogs would start jumping out of mouth. His affect was just so uncanny.) And I wish more bishops knew something about economics, because Obamacare would be a disaster even if the Stupak amendment were retained.) Looking further back, it's a disgrace that a majority of Catholics voted for Obama in 2008, when anyone who paid attention knew his record on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, etc. (Mass-attending Catholics voted for McCain.) But the media helped Obama dissemble about his appalling record in the Illinois statehouse, and most people don't waste their time on legislative minutiae. They have families, and more important things to do.

[SWarren]

Mitt is unleashing attack here in Michigan. I think Santorum's ad is pretty novel.
View here:

Michigan Ad battle

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/15/146915764/mich-tv-ad-battle-pt-2-santorum-humorously-attacks-romney

[MarkJ]

"That it is a CBS/NYT poll would seem to indicate that the bias is off the charts on this one."

CBS/NYT poll, 1937: "95% of Germans think Jews shouldn't fear Hitler."