ContraceptiMelt!
Thank Jeebus for this…
The White House is “all talk, no action” on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,” Picarello said. “We’re not going to do anything until this is fixed.”
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.”
“If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate,” Picarello said.
…because it gives me the opportunity to link to this 1997 classic…
Hot on the heels of last week’s FDA approval, on Monday PepsiCo subsidiary Taco Bell launched its controversial “morning after” burrito, a zesty, Mexican-style entree that prevents unwanted pregnancies if ingested within 36 hours following intercourse.
Developed by a team of top Taco Bell gynecologists, the $1.99 “ContraceptiMelt” burrito creates an inhospitable environment within the womb, causing fertilized ovum tissue to be flushed from the body.
Also available are ContraceptiMelt Supremes, featuring sour cream and extra cheese.
Could someone please alert the office of Rep. John Fleming? The People must be told.
So does this mean Obama’s playing 11-dimensional chess, acting like the reasonable guy in the room and letting the other side put its extremist cards on the table? or will he fold? Stay tuned.
are we running a book on it?
What’s on TCM?
That’s not eleven dimensional chess. It’s just plain old chess. The idea that thinking a couple moves ahead is an impossible braniac feat is some special kind of nonsense.
And yes, I think the President is playing the Republicans, offering them the possibility of a deal he knows they’ll never take.
Out-thinking these Republicans is not exactly a feat.
According to a couple of WH correspondents, the administration thinks the new regulations are a political winner. The view is that whatever support they may lose from Catholics who usually vote D will be offset by greater support from suburban white women who usually vote R.
By these same accounts, the administration was not ready for the speed of the backlash and admits to stumbling a bit on the issue in the last week. However, the political team is now hoping the controversy helps Santorum beat up Romney on the issue.
This is encouraging news. Thanks.
And yet the media’s reaction was almost universally favorable to the religious conservatives.
This is the Schiavo episode all over again.
Right, but these things aren’t just a battle of wits.
Yeah. Some actual intestinal fortitude might help, but I’m not optimistic.
Then you’re going to be as wrong as you were about the debt ceiling “concessions.”
And just as unlikely to admit it.
True, but “eleven-dimensional chess” is the reigning cliche, and I felt obliged to use it.
Nobody actually uses “eleven-dimensional chess” seriously anymore, to describe a political strategy that involves thinking ahead.
It’s pretty much only said with a sneer, in an effort to make the claim “I don’t believe that politicians engage in strategic posturing in order to get what they want” sound like it’s not actually a profoundly naive sentiment.
Republicans outraged that healthcare law provides healthcare.
More at 11.
“And don’t get me started about Taco Bell managers being subject to sexual assault laws, either. What is this, Nazi Germany?”
Why, do you know that if you open a Taco Bell, you are not even allowed to rape the young boys that purchase food? This is what happens when you let nanny state liberals start down the slippery slope…
Why, do you know that if you open a Taco Bell, you are not even allowed to rape the young boys that purchase food?
Well, you can’t get more anti-Catholic than that!
What Taco Bell has more than 50 employees?
With 300% annual turnover, how can you tell how many employees you have at any given time?
(But seriously, most of these franchises own a bunch of Taco Bells, not just one. And then you have a main office to take care of accounting/payroll/promotions/franchisor relations, so it adds up pretty fast.)
Bet if altar boys could get pregnant, the Catholic Church would be all for contraception.
Meanwhile, the dead can’t be called to the witness stand:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120210_Coroner_probing_Bevilacqua_s_cause_of_death.html
“Montgomery County authorities asked the county coroner to examine the body of Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua last week to ensure the 88-year-old prelate died of natural causes, not foul play.
Coroner Walter I. Hofman said county prosecutors made the request because Bevilacqua died barely a day after a judge said the former leader of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia might have to testify at next month’s child sex-abuse and endangerment trial for three current and former priests.”
With 300% annual turnover, how can you tell how many employees you have at any given time?
On the assumption that this is a serious question, you take the total hours worked per quarter and divide by 500 to come up with an FTE number. At least in MA, all the health care regs are based on FTEs, not physically counting heads.
But Picarello did say “a” Taco Bell. He didn’t say “a Taco Bell franchise with 10 units” or “a Taco Bell area license with which I open five Taco Bells.”
I bet he doesn’t know, or chooses to ignore, that the ruling covers only large businesses.
I grant that Picarello might be trying to pull a fast one, but anymore, it’s not literally possible to “open a Taco Bell”, you must open three. A Taco Bell franchise is simply not a small business.
Rubio is going to introduce legislation so that no religious man who owns a business ever has to comply with any law regarding women that is in conflict with his religious beliefs.
That’ll preach!
Here’s a compromise for the Catholics. How about the priests wear condoms during their sexual antics, and the taxpayers will cover that too.
I don’t understand why this discussion isn’t taking place in the context of existing state law exemptions?
Per Linda Greenhouse NYT today:
“The regulation doesn’t require anyone to use birth control. It exempts any religious employer that primarily hires and serves its own faithful, the same exclusion offered by New York and California from the contraception mandate in state insurance laws. (Of the other states that require such coverage, 15 offer a broader opt-out provision, while eight provide no exemption at all.) ”
So, who is playing chess and why? The bishops know they can just keep pressing and they learned from Congress that saying “no” to Obama will get him to offer more compromises.
Then the Jehovah’s Witnesses need to start lobbying for not having to pay for blood transfusions. And the Christian Scientists need to start lobbying for not having to pay for their employees’ health care at all.
Or Scientologists for Prozac.
Exactly.
Funny, I was going to make the slippery slope argument that if we allow Catholic Hospitals to opt out then everyone would want the right to do so… For the Catholic bishops to make that argument for me is pretty nice. Talk about mission creep!
Does the federal government have the right to mandate that Catholics obey the law. The Bishops have clearly demonstrated over the years that they believe that the Catholic clergy is above the law. This appears to be an expansion that philosophy they have applied to crimes committed by pedophile priests over the years. The church is above the law. Perhaps all Catholic business owners are as well.
Does the federal government have the right to mandate that Catholics obey the law.
Am I bad person to say that I wouldn’t give a crap if Anthony Picarello were to be run over by a cement mixer?
Yes. Because that’s too good for him.
I can’t believe the G.C. for the U.S. Conference of Bishops can be this politically inept.
The White House has been trying, since this came out, to frame the debate as being about women’s access to contraceptives through their insurance companies, not just the scope of a religious exemption, while their opponents have been trying to frame it as being about organizations with a strong religious identity.
And now this guy comes out and changes the subject to whether businesses with no religious mission or identity at all should offer the benefit?
Serious own-goal there.
not if you’re goal is to have everyone who employs a Catholic follow the same rules as the Catholic church
I don’t see how losing this fight by shifting it to indefensible ground is supposed to accomplish that.
Imagine if, during the 2008 elections, while the Democrats were making the case for Iraq withdrawal and the Republicans were claiming that the Democrats hate America and want us to surrender to terrorists, the GC of the Obama campaign came out and said that withdrawing from Iraq wasn’t enough, we have to end all American military operations.
It might make you feel good, but it would also lose the debate over Iraq withdrawal.
Ah, but to make the comparison accurate, you have to have the Republicans ceding the largest part of the argument.
…where “the largest part of the argument” is determined only after seeing what policy is announced, so you can make sure you can pretend the largest part has been ceded.
As always.
Serious own-goal there.
There’s a lot of that kind of thing going around lately.
ContraeceptiMelt?
We’re having snow this weekend, so I can have sex AND clear my sidewalks????
It’s also a floor wax and a dessert topping.
Now that we know the details of the “compromise”- in which nothing is actually given up on women’s health coverage- I will give Obama a lot of credit for playing this well. Looks like win’s sources had it right.
It will be interesting to see if Rubio goes forward with the legislation to place all Catholic business owners above the Title VII civil rights laws.