All women are covered and contraception is free, the only thing that changes is who pays for it. Outside of the Conference of Catholic Bishops who are likely to be against this deal as they are against contraception on principle, both sides are happy with the result. And he married Romney to the unpopular opposite. Obama ate their lunch.

Lsherm: Everybody wins.

everybody but republicans, who were trolled into being the anti-contraception party, further fueling their "war on women."

And so ends a tempest in a teacup.

Well that is disappointing.

I can see houses of worship, but anything a church runs outside of that should be considered a for profit business and get taxed to oblivion.

And right now, not everyone can go "Straight to the Insurance Company" We are two years away from Pr-existing condition clause. My friend was denied coverage. because of it.

manwithplanx: So instead of greenlighting one of the two threads that has discussion on this, we get the one publication that thinks this is Obama running from a fight and can only spare a paragraph on the subject.
Better articles here (new window) and here (new window)


Yeah, these are better article that explain the situation a bit clearer. However, I'm thinking the other two are spinning just as bad as The Beast article

Darth_Lukecash: And right now, not everyone can go "Straight to the Insurance Company"

I believe it's the insurance companies' responsibility to reach out to the consumer. Since they are responsible for every other part of the plan, I don't think there will be any hesitation to do that. And these contraception rules take effect in August.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama ate their lunch.

If this whole thing was planned, then it's farking brilliant and the Koch brothers should just save $100 million dollars and not even bother financing whichever dumpster fire decides to run against Obama. Most Catholics were ok with the original rule, and this will turn the last of the reasonable ones while making the Bishops look even more out of touch than they are. Now Obama gets to say he's willing to compromise on tough issues and look like an effective leader, while the GOP shills look even more like weasels as they move the goalposts again.

He's adapting remarkably well. The right will attack anything and everything he does, so make all proposals a little more to the left than you really want, and then compromise by moving to the middle. It boxes the critics in, and while the Fox News faithful won't care, it kills the GOP's ability to win independents who are sick of all the crap. I bet he approves Keystone in September.

The Catholic Church: "Yay! Our freedom to not have to pay the co-pay of birth control products for the people that work for us is intact! This is a great day to be an American!"

The people that work for the Catholic Church: "Well, this sucks."

Here's the compromise I wanted to see: We promise not to make you hand out birth control pills along with Communion wafers, if you promise to stop raping kids.

Catholic leadership got more worked up over this than the whole child rape thing. Glad they have their priorities straight.

manwithplanx: So instead of greenlighting one of the two threads that has discussion on this, we get the one publication that thinks this is Obama running from a fight and can only spare a paragraph on the subject.
Better articles here (new window) and here (new window)

Wendy's Chili: While I appreciate the headline, you should probably go with a different article on this topic, admins.

This article was either written and published pre-maturely or the author purposely ignored everything the President said.

It's Farks form of affirmative action.

Most links that go green are highly anti conservative.

Lsherm: he was losing liberal Catholics, too.

Liberal Catholics who supported Obama despite his stance on abortion were going to flee because of this very popular policy on contraception? H'okay.

Lsherm: He wasn't just losing right wing conservatives, he was losing liberal Catholics, too.

Do tell. The Catholic Church is putting up a stink about not having to pay for birth control, and the majority of Catholics use birth control and don't have a problem with it. How is he losing liberal Catholics over this?

mrshowrules: Catholic leadership got more worked up over this than the whole child rape thing. Glad they have their priorities straight.

Well why do you think they're against birth control? Less children to rape.

mrshowrules: Catholic leadership got more worked up over this than the whole child rape thing. Glad they have their priorities straight.

No shiat... Priests diddling kids is nothing compared to women being able to use contraceptives.

Backwards Cornfield Races: You would think that it would be cheaper to provide birth control than to pay for maternity leave and then hire/train a temp on top of that. Not to mention all the sick days the workers would take to take care of their children and the lack of productivity due to their lack of sleep (taking care of children etc.).

There's your problem... Religious fundamentalists and ideologues don't really have the capacity to think.

This is pretty perfect. Now Romney's on record as being anti-contraceptives. Women get the exact same coverage. The right worked itself into a froth, and they don't even get to say Obama "caved".

Lsherm: It's the Hawaii rule. Why they couldn't have just done this to begin with is beyond me. From a contraception standpoint, absolutely nothing changes, but conscientious objectors can still say they aren't directly paying for coverage. Everybody wins.

Exactly. This could have all been avoided. The religious controversy the rule ignited was as predictable as it was avoidable. If Obama had listened to his chief of staff and others who recommended avoiding the issue during an election year, the focus would be on everything else. Instead, we have Obama backpedaling and the media reporting that he's reacting to save his ass from a political firestorm. Just google reactions to Obama's change of position on the birth control policy and you'll see that the media is happily characterizing this as a political bungle that has left even Obama's supporters scratching their heads in puzzlement.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Liberal Catholics who supported Obama despite his stance on abortion were going to flee because of this very popular policy on contraception? H'okay.

It wasn't that popular actually. Plenty of people were generally supportive of no co-pay contraception insurance, but not for making the Church pay for it.
Link (new window)

So he took the "making the Church pay for it" out of the equation.

The first Republican reaction was to biatch about "fence sitting", which is reminiscent of every time Clinton out-maneuvered them. Even the Church had to back off some.
It's a good sign really. Now instead of hammering about "religious freedom" they're going to have to actually come out against contraception, which would be hilarious... don't see any of them taking the bait. Well, except maybe Santorum.

And outside of all the political chess game B.S., a policy that's actually good for Americans comes out of it.

//and as I said in a previous thread, this is just the kind of logic a Catholic who's on birth control can get understand...

themeaningoflifeisnot: Just google reactions to Obama's change of position on the birth control policy and you'll see that the media is happily characterizing this as a political bungle that has left even Obama's supporters scratching their heads in puzzlement.

That doesn't make any sense. I've been told the media is super liberal.

You and I went back and forth on this extensively over the last few days. As a liberal, are you at least happy with Obama in that all women are still covered and contraception is still free?

Lsherm: He wasn't just losing right wing conservatives, he was losing liberal Catholics, too

A) citation needed and B) When did he ever have right-wing Conservatives? Sounds like you're trying to spin this as being Bad For Obama when really it isn't.

Lsherm: It's the Hawaii rule. Why they couldn't have just done this to begin with is beyond me. From a contraception standpoint, absolutely nothing changes, but conscientious objectors can still say they aren't directly paying for coverage. Everybody wins.

It's not the Hawaii rule at all. There are Catholics who are quite happy with this compromise.

I think the reason this wasn't done in the first place is that nobody bothered to present Obama with a third option until this whole controversy erupted. (We already know that Obama leads by checking boxes on memos his staff gives him....)

themeaningoflifeisnot: Just google reactions to Obama's change of position on the birth control policy and you'll see that the media is happily characterizing this as a political bungle that has left even Obama's supporters scratching their heads in puzzlement.

That's not what I see on Google news. I see headlines that say that the new rule works for everyone, or that Obama compromised, or praise from various groups. Even Admiral Jesus or whatever the church guy's name is called it a good first step.

Of course he could have avoided the fight, but what fun is that? Who looks good now? Who looks bad? Who looks like an effective leader willing to listen to the other side? Who looks like a bunch of whiny biatches?

tallguywithglasseson: mrshowrules: Catholic leadership got more worked up over this than the whole child rape thing. Glad they have their priorities straight.

Well why do you think they're against birth control? Less children to rape.

[i43.tinypic.com image 640x512]

Yes, and unwanted children are typically the best at keeping secrets. A little secret of the trade.

Dusk-You-n-Me: themeaningoflifeisnot: Just google reactions to Obama's change of position on the birth control policy and you'll see that the media is happily characterizing this as a political bungle that has left even Obama's supporters scratching their heads in puzzlement.

That doesn't make any sense. I've been told the media is super liberal.

You and I went back and forth on this extensively over the last few days. As a liberal, are you at least happy with Obama in that all women are still covered and contraception is still free?

Yes, I agree with you that it is good that all women (who have access to private health insurance) are covered and do not have to pay for contraception (although discussion of the new rule-making suggests that insurers may be allowed to require co-pays for non-generic contraceptives). But I hate that the idiots advising Obama blundered their way into an avoidable mess. This revised rule position taken today by the Administration could easily have been the initial rule, but certain Democratic operatives felt they had the power to stick it to religious institutions. Of course, they didn't and now Obama looks like he's retreating.

Just look at this AP article and how it describes Obama struggling with a political storm, backing off his original position to end a mounting political nightmare for the White House, and reacting to defections of Democrat allies.

Link (new window)

This is a message that is being repeated across the country. It's not a positive message. It was completely avoidable, but some ideologues were more concerned about flexing muscle for the hell of it than they were about practical political considerations.

MasterThief: I think the reason this wasn't done in the first place is that nobody bothered to present Obama with a third option until this whole controversy erupted.

Because there shouldn't be any controversy. 28 states require insurers that prescribe drugs to prescribe contraception. Eight of those states have no exemptions. The EEOC has required companies that provide prescription drugs to their employers to provide contraception since 2000. The only reason this is a thing is because Newt made it one. First to go after Obama, then to go after Mitt (thanks btw, Newt). Remember when the debate audience laughed at George Stephanopoulos when he brought this up in the GOP debate? So much for that.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Just look at this AP article and how it describes Obama struggling with a political storm, backing off his original position to end a mounting political nightmare for the White House, and reacting to defections of Democrat allies.

And I can find you an article that says differently. Obama did fine on this one. I don't want to argue with you about how you think it appeared anymore. We've beaten that horse to death. Good luck to anyone else who does.

ignatius_crumbcake: themeaningoflifeisnot: Just google reactions to Obama's change of position on the birth control policy and you'll see that the media is happily characterizing this as a political bungle that has left even Obama's supporters scratching their heads in puzzlement.

That's not what I see on Google news. I see headlines that say that the new rule works for everyone, or that Obama compromised, or praise from various groups. Even Admiral Jesus or whatever the church guy's name is called it a good first step.

Of course he could have avoided the fight, but what fun is that? Who looks good now? Who looks bad? Who looks like an effective leader willing to listen to the other side? Who looks like a bunch of whiny biatches?

Those headlines are repeating what Obama is saying about his change of position. All you have to do is read the articles to find many that are explaining that Obama was forced to abandon his initial position and exempt religious hospitals and other religious institutions because of the controversy the HHS rule change created. The majority of articles I'm reading are not painting Obama as an effective leader willing to compromise. Instead that are describing him as reacting to the opposition in order to avoid further division in his administration and in the Democratic party. These media outlets run the gamut from liberal to conservative. There is a pretty solid consensus that Obama was compromising to avoid further political fall-out.

Wendy's Chili: cman: manwithplanx: So instead of greenlighting one of the two threads that has discussion on this, we get the one publication that thinks this is Obama running from a fight and can only spare a paragraph on the subject.
Better articles here (new window) and here (new window)

Wendy's Chili: While I appreciate the headline, you should probably go with a different article on this topic, admins.

This article was either written and published pre-maturely or the author purposely ignored everything the President said.

It's Farks form of affirmative action.

Most links that go green are highly anti conservative.

Oh, you poor little victim...

1. Twï¿¿as a joke
2. I'm not conservative. I am a Libertarian

This whole story exemplifies the long-distance, marathon approach Obama takes to politics. This will not end well for Republicans.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Obama was forced to abandon his initial position and exempt religious hospitals and other religious institutions

Um...no. Religious institutions themselves were already exempted. The rule change involved religious institutions that run non-church businesses such as charities and hospitals that may employ non-religious persons.

Dusk-You-n-Me: themeaningoflifeisnot: Just look at this AP article and how it describes Obama struggling with a political storm, backing off his original position to end a mounting political nightmare for the White House, and reacting to defections of Democrat allies.

And I can find you an article that says differently. Obama did fine on this one. I don't want to argue with you about how you think it appeared anymore. We've beaten that horse to death. Good luck to anyone else who does.

Thanks for linking that. Though I don't know whether we're allowed to link to a red-lighted TFD thread, it does save me from having to repeat myself. Everything I have to say was said in there at length, so there's no reason to rehash it here. If you're interested, folks, just read the linked TFD debate.

cameroncrazy1984: themeaningoflifeisnot: Obama was forced to abandon his initial position and exempt religious hospitals and other religious institutions

Um...no. Religious institutions themselves were already exempted. The rule change involved religious institutions that run non-church businesses such as charities and hospitals that may employ non-religious persons.

Yeah. Like I wrote, "religious hospitals."

cman: I'm not conservative. I am a Libertarian

That's not necessary better.

You might as well be saying,
"I'm not a Nazi child molester. I'm just a child molester"

themeaningoflifeisnot: But I hate that the idiots advising Obama blundered their way into an avoidable mess. This revised rule position taken today by the Administration could easily have been the initial rule, but certain Democratic operatives felt they had the power to stick it to religious institutions.

Or, a certain about outrage from the religious right was precisely what was required to implement the somewhat convoluted work around which they had in mind from the beginning.

They could have opened with not covering contraception at all (pissed off a huge demographic) and then the current compromise. Obama would be seen as appeasing the left.

If they opened with the compromise, everybody would have been cranky. One side saying, "why am I not being covered because of my employer's religion" and "why is contraception covered at all" by the other side.

If he hadn't done it this way on purpose, I would be very surprised.

themeaningoflifeisnot: There is a pretty solid consensus that Obama was compromising to avoid further political fall-out.

Well, first off, so what? That's how compromise works. He compromised because some citizens were unhappy with his idea? That's not a negative trait in a leader.

But secondly, what fallout? Polls show a majority of Catholics were ok with the original rule. The religious right were the ones making all the noise, but they will never support Obama anyway because of abortion. Anyone who was upset with the original rule wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway, and now the religious right (and therefore the GOP) is in a bad position: admit Obama did something good, or attack contraception in general and drive even more women away.

Wendy's Chili: cman: Wendy's Chili: cman: manwithplanx: So instead of greenlighting one of the two threads that has discussion on this, we get the one publication that thinks this is Obama running from a fight and can only spare a paragraph on the subject.
Better articles here (new window) and here (new window)

Wendy's Chili: While I appreciate the headline, you should probably go with a different article on this topic, admins.

This article was either written and published pre-maturely or the author purposely ignored everything the President said.

It's Farks form of affirmative action.

Most links that go green are highly anti conservative.

Oh, you poor little victim...

1. Twï¿¿as a joke
2. I'm not conservative. I am a Libertarian

A libertarian who loves to pull the race-card-card when no one else is talking about race. You hate big government and the President's skin color, and that's pretty much all you need to qualify as a conservative these days.

So, you are saying, both sides are bad so vote Republican?

/BTW where do you come off calling me a racist?