Tuesday Reads: Silent Protest Slows State Sanctioned Rape Bill, Santorum Knows Best, and Other News

Posted: February 21, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, 2012 primaries, morning reads, U.S. Politics, War on Women, Women's Rights | Tags: , , , , , , , | 32 Comments

Silent protest of state-sanctioned rape bill in Richmond, VA

Good Morning!!

I’m so glad I can begin with good news. We’ve all been enraged about the bill in the Virginia legislature that would require a woman who needed an abortion to be penetrated against her will by a transvaginal ultrasound probe in order for her to view the contents of her womb. The bill would also require the doctor to note in her medical record whether she viewed the image or not.

Yesterday, citizens of Virgina held a “silent protest”, organized on Facebook, outside the Virginia Statehouse. From Fox News:

Hundreds of women locked arms and stood mute outside the Virginia State Capitol on Monday to protest a wave of anti-abortion legislation coursing through the General Assembly.

Capitol and state police officers, there to ensure order, estimated the crowd to be more than 1,000 people — mostly women. The crowd formed a human cordon through which legislators walked before Monday’s floor sessions of the Republican-controlled legislature.

The silent protest was over bills that would define embryos as humans and criminalize their destruction, require “transvaginal” ultrasounds of women seeking abortions, and cut state aid to poor women seeking abortions.

Molly Vick of Richmond said it was her first time to take part in a protest, but the issue was too infuriating and compelling. On her lavender shirt, she wore a sticker that said “Say No to State-Mandated Rape.” Just beneath the beltline of her blue jeans was a strip of yellow tape that read “Private Property: Keep Out.”

In addition, a new poll released yesterday showed that most Virginians do not support changes to the state’s abortion laws.

Virginia voters, by wide margins…oppose mandating that a woman receive an ultrasound before having an abortion, according to a new poll.

The results of the Christopher Newport University/Richmond Times-Dispatch survey put majorities at odds with legislation poised to pass in the General Assembly….

Of those polled, 55 percent say they oppose the requirement and 36 percent support it. The House and Senate have passed versions of the legislation.

“The governor will await the General Assembly’s final action,” said Tucker Martin, a spokesman for McDonnell. “If the bill passes he will review it, in its final form, at that time.”

Andy Kopsa at RH Reality Check wondered a few days ago if McDonnell might be getting cold feet. I bet he is after yesterday’s events. The demonstration apparently made the legislators nervous, because they decided to delay a vote on the bill.

I can’t help but wonder what motivates people to propose punitive, unconstitutional laws like this. Are they sadists? My guess is they had authoritarian parents who had no empathy for their feelings and now they unconsciously want to punish other people for the pain they suffered. Is that what happened to Rick Santorum? I wish I knew.

I’ve spent a lot of time lately trying to figure out how Rick Santorum came to be a religious fanatic. He must be a true believer, because he can’t seem to stop himself from talking about his bizarre beliefs, even though he must know they won’t help him politically. There’s a great summary of the crazy things Santorum said over the past weekend at The New Civil Rights Movement blog. I know you’ve heard about it already, but to read it all in one place is just stunning. Check it out.

Oh, and did you hear that Alice Stewart, who is Santorum’s national spokesperson, on Andrea Mitchell’s show yesterday? She was defending Santorum’s remarks to an Ohio Tea Party audience about President Obama having an “agenda” based on a “phony theology”

The “president’s agenda” is “not about you,” he said. “It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job.

“It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology,” Santorum said to applause from the crowd. “Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.”

I hope someone asks Santorum at the next debate why he thinks government should operate according to the bible or any kind of theology. But I digress….

The former Pennsylvania senator has said he believes Obama is a Christian, and a statement from the campaign stresses that as well, adding that Santorum was talking not about the president’s religion, but political ideology.

“The President says he’s a Christian and Rick believes that and has even said so publicly many times,” National Communications Director Hogan Gidley said in a statement. “Rick was talking about the President’s belief in the secular theology of government — and how believing that theology is dangerous because government theology teaches that it’s perfectly fine (to) take away our individual God-given rights and freedoms. Our founders wrote the Constitution to protect our individual rights and freedoms, but it’s clear that President Obama believes the government should control your life. Rick Santorum believes in the Constitution and will always fight to protect our freedoms.”

But getting back to Alice Stewart on the Andrea Mitchell show and her major boo boo–a real Freudian slip if I ever heard one–here it is, as described by Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches Magazine (with video).

Today, his national press secretary, Alice Stewart (whose previous job was press secretary for Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign), went on MSNBC and also claimed that Santorum wasn’t questioning Obama’s religion. Instead, she said, he was talking about “radical environmentalists, there is a type of theological secularism when it comes to the global warmists in this country. That’s what he was referring to. He was referring to the president’s policies, in terms of the radical Islamic policies the president has and specifically in terms of energy exploration.”

Stewart called back shortly afterward to say that she had “made a slip of the tongue” and hadn’t meant to say “Islamic,” but had intended to say “environmental.” But Posner, the author of a book on the religious right, God’s Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, isn’t buying it.

Of course. Because secularists and Muslims and environmentalists are equally the sworn enemies of anyone with a “Christian worldview” and therefore America. An understandable mistake to mix them up in a torrent of dog-whistles: Theological secularism. Global warmists. Radical Islamic. If you’ve had a “Christian worldview” education, you’ve been taught that two of those—secularism and Islam—are competing “worldviews” in a cosmic clash with Christianity, vying for domination in the world. And you’ve probably been exposed to the false claim that global warming is a hoax, that environmentalism “and its ramifications must be clearly understood by Christians so that we can protect ourselves and especially our children from the unbiblical brainwash that permeates our schools, media, popular culture, and yes, our churches,” according to Christian Worldview radio host David Wheaton.

More right wing nuts that I’ve never heard of. Lately I’ve been reading everything I can about these right wing religious cults–and they are cults. I’ve read about Catholic cults, the Mormon cult (yes, I believe it is a cult), and for the past few days I’ve been reading about right wing protestant movements in a book by Max Blumenthal, Republican Gomorrah.

I spent much of yesterday afternoon reading reports of Santorum’s pronouncements and speculations by various writers on why he’s so obsessed with everyone else’s sex lives and can’t stop talking about his bizarre religious beliefs. Alec MacGillis at The New Republic thinks he has the answer. MacGillis says the pundits

cannot fathom why Santorum would keep veering off a pre-Michigan script that that was supposed to be geared toward the economy, manufacturing in particular. What this reflects, though, is a misconception grounded in our lack of experience with true political ideologues. We talk a lot these days about Washington having been overtaken by conservative ideologues, but this is an exaggeration. Many of those glibly parroting right-wing ideology these days—say, Eric Cantor—are mere opportunists. But Rick Santorum is a rare breed—a bona fide ideologue with a fixed and coherent world view. He can’t just switch some button and turn off the social stuff and talk jobs instead. It’s all woven together. “I’m not going to go out and lay out an agenda about how we’re going to transform people’s hearts,” he said today. “But I will talk about it.”

It reminds me of a quote from a 2005 New York Times Magazine Profile on Santorum, called “The Believer.”

Sean Reilly, a former aide to Santorum in the Senate and now a political consultant in Philadelphia, said that he has come to view his former boss in other than political terms. ”Rick Santorum is a Catholic missionary,” he said. ”That’s what he is. He’s a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.”

You know, I really don’t want a Catholic missionary in the White House.

Something else I learned from MacGillis: Karen Santorum hasn’t really spent her whole married life keeping house and homeschooling her kids.

I’m a little surprised that there hasn’t been more focus yet on the fact that Karen Santorum, who is trained as a lawyer and as a neonatal nurse, has a lengthy work history, and it includes a job that raised a few eyebrows back in the 1990s—working for the media firm that did, and still does, the advertising for Rick Santorum’s campaigns. From a 2003 UPI report:

Federal Election Commission records reviewed by UPI show Santorum’s campaign making payments to BrabenderCox totaling nearly $4 million and $6 million in the 1994 and 2000 elections for media work. Most contracts allow political ad firms to keep around 15 percent of the payments.

Santorum’s Senate financial disclosure forms show a salary from the company to Karen Santorum in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, although Senate rules do not require a disclosure of the amount.

In a telephone interview, John Brabender said he paid Karen Santorum around $4,000 a month, mostly for “client development.”

“She helped us try to get accounts and often acted as our Washington representative,” Brabender said. “She was both a stay-at-home mom and a professional at the same time.”

Brabender said his hiring of Karen Santorum had “nothing to do” with Sen. Santorum hiring BrabenderCox.

Now isn’t that interesting? And here’s something else interesting from Mother Jones: How Rick Santorum Ripped Off American Veterans It’s all about how as Senator, Santorum used an amendment in a defense authorization bill to cheat the Armed Forces Retirement Home out of $27 million in order to help the Catholic Church get some land cheaply. Real saintly, huh?

Well, enough about Rick Santorum. Here are a few more headlines to get you started on the day.

Eurozone seals second Greek bailout

Mitt Romney’s fundraising stagnates, decreasing his financial advantage

Ron Paul’s billionaire sugar daddy, Paul Theil of Paypal

Clint Eastwood says We Haven’t Had a Great President Since Truman!

That’s it for me. What are you reading and blogging about today?

That Thick Glass Ceiling and the role of risk aversion, competition aversion, and cooperation

Posted: February 20, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , | 6 Comments

There’s a short summation of some of the most relevant economic literature on Gender Differences at VOXEU.  Strict micro theory labor models have a difficult time dealing with any form of discrimination because they are based on labor getting paid on its marginal productivity.  Any feature that doesn’t influence production doesn’t really factor neatly in to this particular view of the labor market. This area has been more ripe for study because behavioral economics is now taking into account things beyond the idea that all economic units are rational players.  Theories of rational markets and rational agents do a really bad job of explaining a lot of things including bubbles and busts.  Just like many gender-based disciplines and their studies, the focus usually is on gender specific traits and social learning.  The most germane traits to economic behavior tend to be risk aversion and attitudes towards competition.  Preferences can be modeled through functions and their shape can provide outcomes that vary from the labor market curves of yore.  Many authors find that you have to model female preferences different from male and this contributes to many aspects of what we would call success in business.

Risk taking is generally seen as important to entrepreneurship, investment, and many business undertakings.  It is the focus of a lot of behavior research, some of which can be found in magazines like the Atlanta Parent.

Only recently have economists begun to explore why women and men might have different risk preferences. Broadly speaking, those differences may be due to either nurture, nature, or some combination of the two. For instance, boys are pushed to take risks when participating in risky or competitive sports while girls are often encouraged to remain cautious. Thus, the riskier choices made by males could be due to the nurturing received from parents or peers. Likewise, the disinclination of women to take risks could be the result of parental or peer pressure not to do so.

In recent research (Booth and Nolen 2012), we present a recent experimental study exploring why girls and boys might have different risk preferences. Using adolescent subjects from two distinct environments or ‘cultures’, we examine the effect on risk preferences of two types of environmental influences – randomly assigned experimental peer-groups and educational environment (single-sex or coeducational). The experimental subjects were UK students in years 10 and 11 who were attending either single-sex or coeducational state-funded high schools. We find that the gender composition of the experimental group, as well as the gender mix of the school the student attended, affected decisions on whether or not to enter a real-stakes lottery. But our experiment was conducted at one point in time, and did not track changes over time.

Some important control studies show how women behave in same sex environments.  These studies come from those educational studies that show that many girls do better in girl-only schools because teachers tend to show preferences to boys.  The three authors of this article came up with a way to study this issue in terms of economic decisions.

In recent research (Booth and Nolen 2012), we present a recent experimental study exploring why girls and boys might have different risk preferences. Using adolescent subjects from two distinct environments or ‘cultures’, we examine the effect on risk preferences of two types of environmental influences – randomly assigned experimental peer-groups and educational environment (single-sex or coeducational). The experimental subjects were UK students in years 10 and 11 who were attending either single-sex or coeducational state-funded high schools. We find that the gender composition of the experimental group, as well as the gender mix of the school the student attended, affected decisions on whether or not to enter a real-stakes lottery. But our experiment was conducted at one point in time, and did not track changes over time.

The authors wonder if risk taking behavior evolves over time and differently depending on the school and parental environment.   Frequently, a measurement of  risk-taking behavior occurs while playing some kind of gambling game.   The authors set up a study in a co-ed business university as well as a single sex one.  They provided a gambling game to students and tested students at before the start and after the start of the academic year.   They found differences.

We found that, on average, women are significantly less likely to make risky choices than men at both dates. However, after eight weeks in the single-sex class environment – within the larger coeducational milieu – women were significantly more likely to choose the lottery than their counterparts in coeducational groups. No such result was found for men in the single-sex groups. In other words, after eight weeks, the women in the single-sex classes were no more risk averse than men. Moreover, our results were robust to a number of sensitivity checks, including controlling for cognitive and non-cognitive skills (namely IQ and personality type).

The authors argue that this is an important finding.

The findings suggest, first, that a part of the observed gender difference in behaviour under uncertainty found in previous studies might actually reflect social learning rather than inherent gender traits. Of course this is not to say that inherent gender traits do not exist. Rather it suggests that they can be modified across time by the environment in which a woman is placed. Second, the findings are also relevant to the policy debate on the impact of single-sex classes within coeducational schools or colleges on individuals’ behaviour. Whether or not this outcome carries over into other subject areas apart from economics and business remains a topic for future research.

There’s a list of their references as well as some suggestions as where these authors intend to take their research.  Here is one study that’s in one of the more prestigious economic journals. This is a rather ambitious study that looks at risk behavior, bargaining behavior, and view to competition.  I searched out some of the more interesting conclusions including their elucidation of three preferences where men and women differ.

We find that women are indeed more risk averse than men. We find that the social preferences of women are more situationally specific than those of men; women are neither more nor less socially oriented, but their social preferences are more malleable. Finally, we find that women are more averse to competition than are men

These authors look for reasons for the differences and find a variety of things in both the nurture and nature category.  I suppose the important thing is what can we do about this?  Does this mean that women will have to create more opportunities in their own businesses rather than look for success in places where the male risk profiles dominate?  I frankly wondered if this accounted for the incredible gender gap in my field of finance where risk taking and competition are rampant and well-rewarded.  (As you probably can imagine, even the most pathological risk taking generally is rewarded up to a point.)

Anyway, I found this interesting and thought I’d share it with you.

The God Of Small, Mean Things

Posted: February 20, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: abortion rights, Anthony Comstock, birth control, Feminists, fetus fetishists, health, Human Rights, Planned Parenthood, PLUB Pro-Life-Until-Birth, religion, religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Rick Santorum, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights | 41 Comments

If there’s a positive aspect in the recent skirmishes of the Contraception Wars, it’s the exposed, full Monty view of right-wing political theology.  Rick Santorum, a self-appointed moralist in this ancient battle, espouses views that neatly summarized the public’s [primarily men’s] viewpoint on women’s issues some 100 years ago.

When I listen to Rick Santorum and his carping supporters, who fervently believe that they and only they have a right to determine a woman’s reproductive destiny, I’m certain that the Comstock Laws [back in the day] would have suited them perfectly.

In the waning years of the Grant administration, Anthony Comstock waged a one-man crusade in the US against what he viewed as pornographic, obscene and lewd materials.  He was the judge and jury in this matter and after great effort and energy, the Comstock Act was written into law in 1873, amending the Post Office Act. It read as follows:

Be it enacted…That whoever, within the District of Columbia or any of the Territories of the United States . . .

shall sell…or shall offer to sell, or to lend , or to give away, or in any manner to exhibit, or shall otherwise publish or offer to publish in any manner, or shall have in his possession, for any such purpose or purposes, an obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper of other material , or any cast instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, or shall write or print, or cause to be written or printed, any card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any king, stating when, where, how, or of whom, or by what means, any of the articles in this section…can be purchased or obtained, or shall manufacture, draw, or print, or in any wise make any of such articles, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States…he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court….

For the next forty years, Anthony Comstock wielded a censoring club on all things he deemed smutty and obscene.  That included any and all materials related to contraception, abortion, sex education, sex itself and managed to extend itself not only in posted materials but literature, suppressing the works of DH Lawrence and Theodore Dreiser as well as banning nudity in artworks, even images and text in medical books, describing and illustrating reproductive functioning.

This is where the push to purity takes one, a mindless rejection of the human body and human nature, an extreme Sin of the Flesh philosophy.

Comstock had a particular problem with women, particularly the likes of Margaret Sanger and her supporters, as well as the Suffragettes, who openly defied Comstock’s puritanical attitudes.  These women marched, sent pamphlets to supporters, opened health clinics, smuggled contraception devices into the country, went to jail, went on hunger strikes, put their bodies on the line.  And did not give up.

Women earned/won their right to vote in 1920.  Griswold v the State of Connecticut was decided by the Supreme Court in 1965.  The decision protected the right of married women to practice contraception and demand access to reliable reproductive services.  These rights were eventually extended to unmarried women, the right to privacy established, which later swung the door open to the Roe v Wade decision.

I have no doubt that Santorum and like-minded, right-wing adherents would have no problem, slamming that door shut, hopping into a time machine and revisiting the days of Comstock purity.  Let’s review the latest Santorum Hit Parade:

Telling a crowd at the Ohio Christian Alliance on Saturday that President Obama’s agenda was a “phony ideology” not “based on the Bible,” Rick Santorum has offered two  explanations:  the imposition of secular ideas on the Catholic Church and radical environmentalism that he claims the President specifically and Democrats in general have been pushing to the max.

Where to begin?

On the first charge, Santorum said:

The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine, but it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them.

This is clearly an example of contorted gamesmanship.  When there is no defense to your position, you claim your opponent is doing what you yourself desire to do, in this case, impose your beliefs on the greater population.  Very Comstock-like.

No one is forcing anything on Santorum, the Church or those who agree with their rigid position.   The ‘compromise’ the Administration offered has already been accepted by Catholic charities, hospitals and universities as reasonable and workable.  The fact that Santorum and the Catholic Bishops want to run their position into the ground does not make it right or timely.  It’s simply a narrow, constipated outlook that belongs to an age when women were securely under the thumb of men like Santorum and the whims of Catholic Church.  History has passed; attitudes and positions change.

In defense of the second explanation—radical environmentalism—Santorum had this to say to Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation:

This idea that man is here to serve the Earth, as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a phony ideal… I think a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside-down.

What pops out to me is the phrase ‘husband its resources.’

Change that phrase to the single word ‘extraction’ and we get the gist of what’s being said.  So, anyone opposing the Keystone Pipeline would be deemed a ‘radical environmentalist,’ even though the 1700 mile pipeline endangers America’s bread basket and a major aquifer, would not reduce our dependence on unfriendly oil suppliers [80% of the refined tar sands is contracted for export] and would offer, at best, 5000-6000 temporary American jobs. Even an amendment to this new bill, a proposal that would have ensured that at least the steel for the pipeline would have been from the US, was rejected out of hand.

Color me a Environmental Radical.  The Keystone project benefits no one but the rich financiers behind it.  They get the mega-profits; we [the public] get stuck with a wasted landscape and the cost of any cleanup.

Or perhaps, Santorum is speaking about the WH’s kibosh on the uranium mining deal for the Grand Canyon.  Splendid idea there.  Turn one of the Wonders of the World, a national treasure into a money pit for mining interests.  I’ve stood on the rim of the Canyon, marveled at the grandeur, the colors, the staggering expanse. And this, we would turn into a uranium mine?  What a small, stingy idea!

I suspect Teddy Roosevelt [one of those evil progressives] is turning in his grave.

But Santorum outdid himself with this comment:

He lambasted the president’s health care law requiring insurance policies to include free prenatal testing, “because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”

Culling the ranks of the disabled?

Don’t mistake this comment as a defense of religious liberty because this is a coded charge that what contraception and abortion [presumably determined through prenatal testing and care] really involves is a form of eugenics.  We will cull the herd of imperfections.  Or we will attempt genocide of minorities.  This is Glenn Beck hysteria.  Billboards in Georgia revived the old smear against reproductive rights, charging that African American women were being targeted for abortion services.  Black children, the claim stated, were an ‘endangered species.’

Funny that.  I thought we were all of the same species.

If we truly want to talk about minorities being endangered, why don’t we talk about our prison population, comprised primarily of people of color.  But, of course, that would be uncomfortable, deemed unfair by Republican politicians, who in their infinite wisdom want our prison system privatized, which will ensure maximum capacity for the sake of profits.

These arguments are old and pathetic.  They’ve been leveled against anyone and everyone who have supported basic health services to women.  Prenatal screening is a mainstay in the health of an expectant mother and the viability of any pregnancy.  Problems can be picked up early and corrected before a delivery. The health of an expectant mother translates into the health of the developing fetus. The idea that screenings should be done away with or not offered to low income women is cruel.

The religion that Rick Santorum and his ilk would like us to swallow whole is one dictated by religious fanatics, purists like Anthony Comstock, where it’s their way or the highway.  It is small.  It is mean.  It is unworthy of anything approaching the Divine.

We want a healthy society?  Then we offer health services to all our citizens.  Yes, even women, who deserve to be the arbiters of their own reproductive lives.

Garry Willis, historian, journalist and Catholic intellectual had this to say in a piece entitled “Contraception’s Con Men”:

The Phony “Undying Principle” Argument

Rick Santorum is a nice smiley fanatic. He does not believe in evolution or global warming or women in the workplace. He equates gay sex with bestiality (Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum). He equates contraception with the guillotine. Only a brain-dead party could think him a worthy presidential candidate. Yet he is praised by television pundits, night and day, for being “sincere” and “standing by what he believes.” He is the principled alternative to the evil Moderation of Mitt Romney and the evil Evil of Newt Gingrich. He is presented as a model Catholic. Torquemada was, in that sense, a model Catholic. Messrs. Boehner and McConnell call him a martyr to religious freedom. A young priest I saw on television, modeling himself on his hero Santorum, said, “I would rather die than give up my church’s principles.” What we are seeing is not a defense of undying principle but a stampede toward a temporarily exploitable lunacy.

I rest my case!

Monday Reads: Republican Knock Down, Drag out, Slap Fight Edition

Posted: February 20, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads, Republican presidential politics | 17 Comments

Bon Lundi Gras!  Happy President’s Day!  Tashi Losar!!

How’s that for a great mix  of holidays?  Losar is the Tibetan New Year and it’s celebrated on the 22nd this year.  It’s Lundi Gras today.  That’s the day before Mardi Gras.  President’s Day is officially today too.  Plenty of holiday revelry to give us a break from the Civil War in Syria, the continued attack on Tibetans, the war on US women, and a still fragile economy. Meanwhile, the Republican primary season is turning into a Slap Fight Club.  Which of the four stooges will be still standing after Super Tuesday?

Rick Santorum continued to provide evidence of exactly how far out of the mainstream his views seem to be.  He attacked prenatal testing as something that leads to abortions and continued to lecture Protestants and the President on phony theology.  I think he must be running for Pope and we missed the announcement.

Campaigning in Ohio on Saturday, Rick Santorum displayed his culture-warrior side in full force, as he harshly attacked President Obama by suggesting the president wanted to see more disabled babies aborted and accusing him of projecting his values – which Santorum claimed were not rooted in the Bible – on the Catholic Church.

Santorum recalled his prominent role in the 1990s debates over the controversial procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion. He lambasted the president’s health care law requiring insurance policies to include free prenatal testing, “because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”

“That, too, is part of Obamacare, another hidden message as to what President Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country,” Santorum said.

Prenatal tests are a standard part of modern medical care. The Department of Health and Human Services says such tests “help keep you and your baby healthy during pregnancy. It also involves education and counseling about how to handle different aspects of your pregnancy.”

Paul Ryan suggested that Obama’s goal to provide universal access to birth control in private insurance plans was “paternalistic” and “arrogant”.  Something tells me that Ryan’s not got a very good grasp of vocabulary.  He seems to have those definitions upside down.  Since when is it the role of government to enforce the Bishop’s views on the rest of us?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Sunday blasted the Obama administration’s moves to mandate religious affiliated groups to provide contraception coverage as “paternalistic” and “arrogant.”

“What we’re getting from the White House on this conscience issue, it’s not an issue about contraception, it’s an issue that reveals a political philosophy the president is showing that basically treats our constitutional rights as if they were revocable privileges from our government, not inalienable rights from our creator.” said Ryan on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“We’re seeing this new government activism, paternalistic, arrogant, political philosophy that puts new government-granted rights in the way of our constitutional rights.”

“That’s really not about contraception,” said Ryan of the mandate. “It’s about violating our first amendment rights to religious freedom and conscience.”

Ryan was asked by host David Gregory to respond to GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum’s comments Saturday, saying that President Obama’s political agenda was based on “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.”

“I wouldn’t characterize it that way,” said Ryan. “I would simply say that he has a political philosophy that believes he can mandate certain benefits and activities of the American people that conflicts with their constitutional rights. He believes that these new government-granted rights trump our constitutional rights such as our first amendment right to conscience, to freedom of religion.”

While these guys keep pushing the religious freedom meme, they certainly forget to mention all those supreme court cases that have ruled out specific religious practices.  This includes human sacrifice, smoking pot and peyote as sacraments, bigamy, denying children life saving blood transfusions and vaccines, and a host of other things.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul thinks all this focus on social issues is a “losing proposition”.  However, Pauls’ religious obsession with an extreme interpretation of state’s rights doesn’t seem too far off the marks of the other nitwits. Paul thinks Santorum is a liberal.  Back in the day when political labels were consistent, we would call Santorum a “theocrat” and Paul a “dixiecrat”.  I don’t see any thing remotely conservative about any of these Republicans.  They’re all extremely radical in their own right.

Paul seemed almost baffled that everyone has been talking about social issues at a time when he and others are more concerned with preserving basic civil liberties and the economy. But specifically where Santorum was concerned, Paul argued that he’s been a hypocrite for years now.

“He wants to control people’s social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood. I mean, I don’t see how anybody can get away with that inconsistency pretending he’s a conservative. And his voting record is, I think from my viewpoint, an atrocious voting record, how liberal he’s been and all the things he’s voted for over his many years in the Senate and in the House.”

Paul Ryan is one of those Republicans that also make up American History.  There’s no mention of a creator or “inalienable rights” in the Constitution.  That’s the Declaration of Independence.  He also must thing that it’s okay for any remaining Incas to practice human sacrifice, for Rastafarians to use pot as a sacrament, for Jehovah’s witnesses to deny their kids access to blood transfusions and vaccines, and for Mormons to practice bigamy under that reasoning.  I wonder if he’s even read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any Supreme Court decisions.  But all this Santorum surge has cheered up the Obama campaign.

“The one who can beat Obama: Rick Santorum,” the television commercial proclaims. That boast brings cheers from two quarters: the faithful followers of the conservative Republican presidential candidate, and the Democratic president’s political strategists.

The former Pennsylvania senator is on fire in the Republican contest, threatening the front-runner, Mitt Romney, in the critical Michigan primary next week and nationally.

Still, President Barack Obama’s campaign, the super-PACs supporting it and the Democratic National Committee are targeting Romney. They still believe the former Massachusetts governor is the likely nominee, though they are less certain than they were a few weeks ago. And they calculate, despite the shortcomings Romney displays as a candidate, that he would be more competitive than Santorum in the general election.

Santorum, on the other hand, is a more natural Republican primary candidate, singing the same conservative economic song as the party’s other aspirants, and layering it with hardcore social and cultural views, such as hostility to gay rights, contraception and feminism.

He’s a more problematic adversary for Romney than is Newt Gingrich, who has been savaged for his lucrative links to the federally backed home-mortgage company Freddie Mac and his checkered career as House speaker.

Newt Gingrich? Is any one talking about him at all?  Well, just Callista, the Newster, and Fox News.  The rest of us have figured he moved his campaign to the moon.

WALLACE: Let’s start with the rollercoaster that is the Gingrich campaign. Just three weeks ago, after your win in South Carolina, you were leading — just three weeks ago — leading the Real Clear Politics average of national polls at 31 percent. Now, you’re a distant third all the way back at 14.5 percent.

I would like you to put on your political analyst hat that you used to wear here at FOX News. What happened?

GINGRICH: Twenty million dollars of Mitt Romney negative ads. I mean, it’s not complicated. Look at Florida, outspent five to one. Many of the ads factually false, as the Wall Street Journal and National Review and others have reported. Now, you got to work your way back up again.

As you pointed out, I’ve twice been the front runner — both times over big ideas, developing positive solutions. The first time I was ahead 15 to 21 points in the national polls, we hadn’t bought a single ad yet. So, we’re back doing what I think I do best, which is focusing on things like on energy policy, $2.50 a gallon gasoline, big breakthrough ideas, and we’ll see what happens over the next three or four weeks.

Newt still has the worst negatives of any politician in the country.  However, that’s not stopping him at all.

Public Policy Polling is showing a tight race in Michigan.  Romney’s gaining and probably due to all of Santorum’s religous rants.

The Republican race for President in Michigan has tightened considerably over the last week, with what was a 15 point lead for Rick Santorum down to 4. He leads with 37% to 33% for Mitt Romney, 15% for Ron Paul, and 10% for Newt Gingrich.

The tightening over the last week is much more a function of Romney gaining than Santorum falling. Santorum’s favorability spread of 67/23 has seen no change since our last poll, and his share of the vote has dropped only 2 points from 39% to 37%. Romney meanwhile has seen his net favorability improve 10 points from +10 (49/39) to +20 (55/35) and his vote share go from 24% to 33%.

What we’re seeing in Michigan is a very different story from Florida where Romney surged by effectively destroying his opponent’s image- here Romney’s gains have more to do with building himself up.

Groups Santorum has double digit leads with include Protestants (up 47-30), union members (up 43-23), Evangelicals (up 51-24), Tea Partiers (up 55-20), ‘very conservative’ voters (up 54-23), and men (up 40-28).

Romney is leading the field with women (38-34), seniors (42-34), moderates (35-24), ‘somewhat conservative’ voters (40-34), and Catholics (43-31).

Newt Gingrich’s continued presence in the race is helping Romney a lot. If he dropped 45% of his supporters would go to Santorum, compared to only 29% for Romney and it would push Santorum’s lead over Romney up to 42-33. 47% of primary voters think Gingrich should drop out while only 40% believe he should continue on, but he’s certainly not showing any indication he’ll leave.

These are the primary dates to watch.  Arizona and Michigan have primaries on the 28th. Washington State has a caucus on the 3rd that comes directly before Super Tuesday on March 6.  There are ten primary/caucus states holding elections on that day. I’m wondering if it can get any more insane.  The Arizona Debate appears to be the only scheduled event prior to all these elections.

In no particular order, here are four things you should watch in this week’s desert debate: Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich.

The final four have not shared a stage in almost a month: Not since Romney won Florida, Nevada and Maine. Not since Santorum triumphed in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado. Not since Paul won — well, Paul won nowhere, though he told me on CNN’s “State of the Union,” “It all depends on how you measure winning … the bottom line is who is going to get the delegates … and we think we’re doing pretty good.”

Also not winning anywhere since the last debate is Gingrich, who retains his down-but-never-out storyline. The former House speaker promised recently, “I have been front-runner twice. I suspect I’ll be the front-runner again in a few weeks.”

It is at least arguable that since the last debate on January 26, Gingrich has faded and Paul has hit a ceiling. Still, all four Republican presidential hopefuls have jointly suffered from an increasing Republican anxiety about the field.

Frankly, I’m just going to try to stick to this week’s celebrations.  It has to be less insane than watching politics these days. The biggest screaming lie of the weekend was Michelle Bachmann’s insistence that the Republican Party was pro-women. Between that and Sarah Palin’s offer to rescue the party via a brokered convention I spent most of the weekend cleaning my computer screen.

 Former Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann on Sunday railed against critics who say the recent birth control controversy reflects a Republican Party that holds suppressive views toward women.

“There is no anti-women move whatsoever. The Republican Party is extremely pro-women,” Bachmann said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “What we saw was President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, which is ‘Obamacare,’ demonstrated 3-D tragedy.”

Yeah, right.  It would be so awful if every woman got birth control, prenatal care, and other preventative services with no add-on costs.   That’s a real 3-D tragedy, isn’t it?

So, any good news in your neck of the woods?  Let’s hear what’s on your reading and blogging list these days!

Open Thread: Looking at Employer-Based Health Insurance as Part of a Salary Package

Posted: February 19, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: just because, open thread | Tags: , , , , , , , | 41 Comments

Since it’s a slow news day, I thought I’d throw out a question.

The argument about Obama’s birth control mandate for employers is based to some extent on who will be paying for an employee’s health insurance. As I understand it, health insurance is part of a compensation package offered by the employer in order to attract employees. The package might also include retirement benefits, life insurance, paid vacation, paid sick days, and paid holidays.

Obviously, I’m not an economist, but it seems to me that if health insurance is part of the employee’s salary, then the employee should have some control over it. My boss can’t tell me that I have to buy certain kinds of food with my salary or that I have to live in a certain place. It’s my money, because I earned it by working.

I’ve never had an employer try to tell me where I could go on my vacation time, even though the employer was paying me for the time. No, that vacation pay is part of my salary package. So is health insurance. I’m sure employers calculate salaries based on the total cost of the employee, including benefits. So the benefits should belong to the employee.

According to salary.com, benefits are part of an employee’s salary.

Compensation is more than just base pay. It is a total package that should address your overall well-being – financial, physical, emotional, even spiritual. As companies compete for talent in tight labor markets, many are rolling out better benefits to attract and retain the best workers. Companies often strive to make it easy for employees to balance their work and family lives by offering family-friendly benefits, cafeteria plans, and other flexible options.

Benefits can significantly increase the value of the compensation package. The costs to employers for providing benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, training, vacation and personal days, and perks such as concierge services could be a significant percentage of each employee’s salary. Because benefits boost the value of compensation, always take benefits into consideration when evaluating a job offer or a promotion.

In addition,

Some benefits are required by law. There are also many government regulations that set the minimum standards employers are required to make available to employees.

For example, states can require employers to provide paid sick days and holidays and a minimum amount of paid vacation time. Most states mandate a 10-15 minute break for every 4 hours of work and at least a 30 minute lunch break. Thanks to unions, there are also laws that employees can’t be forced to work more than a certain number of hours per day and week without overtime pay. There are many constraints on employers.

So what is so bizarre about the government requiring that health care plans offer preventive health care that is appropriate for women as well as men? Even though the employer is arranging for the health insurance and I’m getting a better deal as part of a large group, the insurance is still something I’m earning through my work. The employer doesn’t need to know what choices I’m making about my health care and shouldn’t pry into my choices unless they somehow affect my ability to do my work.

The Obama administration is not requiring that any individual use birth control or even that they have to get prenatal testing. But why shouldn’t they be able to specify that these services be available for people to use if they wish? If you look at the question in this way, the Catholic bishops really don’t have a leg to stand on.

Wouldn’t this be a better way for the administration to frame the argument? Am I nuts? What do you think? Feel free to use this as an open thread as well.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →