Who are the extremists?

In Part 1, we discussed that objections to the contraception mandate aren't really about money, and in Part 2, I looked at the unreasonableness of religious objections to the proposal. Today, we'll arrive at the true motivation of the opposition, which is opposition to contraception, and more generally, modern sexual norms.

This is not to say that this motivation if every single person who opposes the policy. There are millions who reject the policy out of a true belief that it conflicts with freedom of religion. But as we've shown, to follow the religious freedom argument to its logical conclusion requires complete banning of all contraception; that is, it's no different to limit how one uses their health insurance policy than it is to limit how they spend their paycheck. The continuation of the political attacks on the President's policy requires that people continue to be unable to make this connection. Were the true implications of the line of reasoning behind the "religious freedom" argument laid bare, survey after survey shows that they would be resoundingly defeated.

Perhaps it's cynical to attribute this motivation to opponents of the policy. But the actions and stated intentions of many on the Right betray their true intentions (which, again, aren't necessarily the conscious intentions of every opponent).

Most flagrantly, Foster Friess, the multimillionaire who's by far the main source of funds for Rick Santorum's Super PAC, said that "back in [his] days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly." Friess's comment is of course awful, and it's tempting to dismiss it as simply a bad joke from a loony rich guy. But it's not THAT much more crazy than comments by the Republican Presidential national frontrunner.

Rick Santorum's views on this issue which are undeniably and admittedly extreme. He stated:

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.” It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative.

This is stunning. It is fine that Rick Santorum is personally opposed to contraception. I could theoretically vote for a Catholic with 12 kids who is personally opposed to abortion. But I cannot respect any political support for a man who would talk about this issue as President using language like this. He says, openly, that he will use the office of the Presidency to push his anti-contraception agenda. It is a terrible reflection of the modern Republican Party that such an extremist is getting such support.

It's possible that Santorum is being taken out of context. Judge for yourself. At the bottom of the article linked above (and here is the entire interview the quote is taken from. The section with the quote is at around 18:00. Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong.

My health choices can't damn you to hell

You go to work and get paid. You can spend your money on whatever you want. Even if you work at a Catholic hospital, you can take your paycheck and blow it on pentagrams, Sam Harris books, abortions, or a hamburger on a Lenten Friday. No one claims it to be an affront to anyone's religious liberty if you do these things with your paycheck.

You earn a health insurance policy via your job. Should a religiously-affiliated company desire, that policy need not include contraception coverage. Under President Obama's proposed mandate, your insurance company must offer you a free option to cover contraception (which can be free for reasons discussed in Part 1), but Notre Dame isn't forced to sully itself by paying for contraception.

Just like you're free to use your paycheck on whatever you want without endangering anyone's immortal soul, so too can you make changes to your own health insurance policy without damning anyone. If you and your insurance company decide to modify your plan by adding contraception coverage, it's no business of your employer, who is not involved in the transaction any more than they are involved in your pentagram purchase.

One might point out that there are Catholic institutions which self-insure, as well as Catholic insurance companies. If you really wanted to be extra careful, you could tweak the proposed mandate by allowing these Catholic insurance companies to give their beneficiaries a voucher for the value of their girl-parts insurance (for pregnancy and such), which they could take to another insurer who would provide girl-part insurance which includes contraception. If some think that such accounting gimmicks might save their souls, I suppose we can accommodate them.

So no one's or religious freedom is endangered by Obama's proposal (or a similar proposal with only a very minor tweak on the accounting). Tomorrow we'll discuss that resistance to the proposal is really based in a desire to ban contraception altogether; that is, to ban you from spending your paycheck on contraception. Gotta give 'em credit for at least being internally consistent.

Pills are cheaper than pregnancy

ObamaCare includes an individual mandate to buy, or have provided by provided by government or their employer, health insurance coverage. The plan they get must meet certain criteria; otherwise, they could buy a "policy" for $1 which provides no real coverage. One of the criteria is that health insurance plans must include contraception without any co-pays for the beneficiary.

Initially, Obama's proposed rule would have required any employer that's not a church to provide their employees with insurance that meets the above requirement. This mandate included religiously-affiliated organizations, like the University of Notre Dame and Catholic hospitals. Given the Church's teachings against contraception, this proposal met resistance. In an effort to appease the Church, the mandate was modified to require health insurance companies to offer the coverage. Notre Dame would purchase a plan from Insurance Company X that doesn't include contraception coverage. Insurance Company X would then send letters to each beneficiary offering free contraception coverage. Notre Dame doesn't have to pay for contraception, but women still get access.

Where does the money come from to provide this contraception? It turns out that medical care for unintended pregnancy is pretty darn expensive. The average normal pregnancy costs $7,600, and that assumes everything goes well. Then there are the costs of paying vast sums to all those super-rich pediatricians to care for the kid afterwards; well-child checks cost about $100 each, and about $85 for the average sick visit. On the other side, contraception ranges from about $140 to $800 per year, depending on the type used. An abortion at Planned Parenthood costs $300-$950. One unintended normal pregnancy, birth and childhood can pay for lots of care under the mandate.

Opponents of the bill point to a survey of 15 health insurers which shows a plurality saying that the mandate would increase costs. 6 said it would increase costs, 3 said they budget for contraception anyway, 1 said the change would not increase costs, and 5 said they didn't know. But the question asked of these companies only considered their costs in the first 1 or 2 years of the mandate. Funny thing about kids is that they usually need medical care for more than 1 to 2 years. If it's debatable whether the mandate costs anything in the first 1-2 years, it's a fairly safe bet that it doesn't cost anything at all on a longer time-frame.

Tomorrow, we'll look at who really pays for coverage under the mandate, and why it's ridiculous for Church bishops to have anything to say on the matter.

Deadlines and Issues

This is the final rebirth of The Political Doctor. As I don't have the best history when it comes to sticking with this, I make the following new rules:

1. I will post everyday between now and Election Day in November. That's at least one post every midnight-to-midnight period. It might not be more than "hey, this Rachel Maddow clip is great", but there will be something. Exceptions to this would include days on which a close friend or family member dies, is born, or is seriously injured.
2. More Oxford commas.
3. Should I break Rule 1, I will close down the blog for good.
4. I will attempt to focus more on the issues rather than the horse-race aspect of the campaign. They matter more, they're definitely more interesting, and they might be more thought- and conversation-provoking.

Anyone who knows me knows that, well, that I can be kind of a lazy guy, so I haven't been posting even though I've been following the election as closely as ever. But a deadline will force me to actually sit down and start typing. It will make the blog easier to follow; check back each day for a new post!. I also think regular posting on broader issues will allow for multi-day series of bite-sized, related posts.

Check back tomorrow for the first in a series of posts on the mandate that all health insurance companies provide contraception coverage to all employees. Sneak peek: it's a big winner for the President.

Let Newt be Newt

Just thought y'all should know that Newt Gingrich says we'd have a permanent base on the moon by the end of a second Gingrich term.

This is a clear example of why a Newt Gingrich nomination doesn't scare me in the least. It's a long way to November, and Newt is utterly incapable of not saying a bunch of stupid shit between now and then.

Romney's big fumble

It's stunning how bad this answer is for Romney. He says, directly:

“I’m not suggesting these people are doing that but I know that Democrats will go after me on that basis and that’s why I want to release these things all at the same time."

Well, that's nice. Your tax return is:
1. Something Democrats will attack you on; and,
2. Something which, due to the damage it may cause you, something which must be handled in a certain way; and
3. Something you won't tell us what is until April, when the nomination will be wrapped up.

Huh, that's interesting. I think I'd have to insist, were I a Republican voter, that you go ahead and tell me right fucking now. It's not like you don't have the records already. It's just a matter of getting them out of a file and slapping them on the desk of an AP reporter or whatever.

Catastrophically bad day for Romney today.

Just throwin' this out there

If:
1. Republican voters have proven in recent years that they'll vote for the person who feeds them the most red meat; and,
2. Newt Gingrich is clearly, as evidenced tonight in tremendous fashion, and generally throughout the campaign, the best in the field at feeding the base red meat,

then:
I'm not so sure Romney will be the nominee.

At the very least, it won't be over before Super Tuesday in March.

Newt's response will win South Carolina, prolong Romney's agony

Newt just got another standing ovation during a debate in the first answer tonight, on a question about the allegation by his 2nd wife that he asked her for an "open marriage". He responded by strongly denying the allegation, offering several personal friends who refute the story, and calling the media "despicable" for pushing the story all day today. It turns the story into a win for him, as he has now positioned himself as a victim of the "mainstream media". What are the real proven facts in this story? That Newt cheats on his wives? We knew that. Now he can play the victim card and urge Tea Partiers to vote for him as a slap to the mainstream media.

Brilliant

Perry out, endorses Newt

slow day at work, where the network blocks blog sites, so i'm typing this on my phone, which doesn't seem to get along with the site, so sorry... anyway, rick perry right this minute is dropping out of the race and endorsing newt. although perry has only been polling in the low single digits, the announcement will help newt in his fight against santorum to be the alternative to romney. were newt to come from behind in south carolina (where a new insider advantage poll, the most recent in the state, shows newt with a three point advantage after being down double digits just a few days ago), it's a wide open race. i still think romney would ultimately win, particularly if he won in the next primary in florida, but he would likely be damaged in such a fight, both by attacks from newt as well as having to take ridiculous right wing stances like cutting all funding to pbs, like he did before. huge night tonight, with another south carolina debate as well as the abc interview with newt's ex, where she will reportedly reveal that newt asked her for an open marriage so he could keep fucking his then mistress/now third wife. needless to say, it is a good day for obama

Santorum wins Iowa

Despite initial results showing an 8-vote win for Mitt Romney in Iowa, the official results, which were certified this morning after a careful examination of results from the precincts, shows in fact that Rick Santorum won by 34 votes. So Mitt Romney goes from an unprecedented sweep of Iowa and New Hampshire to a loss to a homophobe and a win in his own backyard.

That being said, he can still just about put the primary to bed by putting up a clear win in South Carolina on Saturday. What will be fascinating to watch over the next 2+ days is how the Iowa result is portrayed in the media and how it affects the results in South Carolina. On the one hand, Romney might get some negative press about the loss and see his numbers take a hit. On the other hand, much of Newt Gingrich's improvements in the polls in the past few days has been the result of conservatives coalescing behind him as the only "non-Romney" with a chance to stop the freight train, but now Santorum can point to an Iowa win as evidence that he too can be the standard bearer.

Once again, it'll be an interesting few days leading up to the voting.