I've yet to see a newspaper article breaking these 28 states out, so I don't know who has what going on. But I'm gonna take a wild guess that an awful lot of those states are blue, with liberal/Dem legislatures, governors and residents only too happy to pay for morning-after abortion pills. Get into those heavy-duty pro-life states and I don't think you're gonna find the same warm-fuzzy reception.

I also understand that most of those states provide exemptions:

BACKGROUND: While almost all insurance plans cover prescription drugs, some still do not provide coverage for the range of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. More than half of states, however, require insurance policies that cover other prescription drugs to also cover all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices, as well as related medical services. Some of these state policies allow employers or insurers to refuse to cover contraceptives on religious or moral grounds. Other states have limited mandates requiring coverage of contraception that apply to either specific types of insurers, such as health maintenance organizations (HMOs), or coverage written for a segment of the insurance market... http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/spib_ICC.pdf

And, yes, I'm for state's rights. You'll notice 28 states have this going on, not all of them, as O's federal CrapCare "mandate" has dictated. If liberal/Dem administrators want to violate their Church's doctrine and go along with it — if not outrightly support it — that's one thing. When Big Mommy Government starts dictating it, that's quite another.

By "clean", you mean "washed in the blood of the Lamb"? In politics, moralism is a perfect substitute for morality.

I actually support this, [line-item veto] if it can make it past SCOTUS, which has already knocked it down once.

It's certainly possible to make a line-item veto that would be constitutional.

Spending bills must originate in the House, and the House has unlimited power to make its own rules. All you need is a House rule fast-tracking any budget bill that includes a line-item-veto provision in it (affecting the items in the bill), and throwing barriers in the way of any budget bill that doesn't. It wouldn't be technically a veto: it would just authorize spending at the discretion of the president, rather than appropriating money outright.

Or you could expand "demon pass": instead of one budget bill, let congresscritters vote yes-to-all on a whole package of bills. That certainly falls within the "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" power. Since they're separate bills, they can be vetoed separately.

I don't think there's a single Democrat who is upset about Obama's embrace of Super PACs, realistically.

But that's exactly my point..

They SHOULD be upset.

This was a man who said that Citizens United/SuperPACs are a "threat to our democracy"...

Even here on the pages of CW.COM, the Citizens United ruling took a real beating...

But, just as I predicted, if the ruling could be used to help Democrats, then all of the sudden it would become no big deal..

Joe Wilson will not be remembered by history. Obama will. Bet the farm on that....

Depends on whose writing the history books.. :D

Although I have to admit your "...who thinks life begins with "Damn, she's hot"..." was pretty downright hilarious...

I was kinda proud of that one myself.. :D

Michale.....

It is to laugh, no? [done in a French accent]. While Fox News may have thought this a big deal, I don't think there's a single Democrat who is upset about Obama's embrace of Super PACs, realistically. Oh, sure, the campaign finance reform absolutists will bitch, but nobody's going to pay attention to them. Obama is announcing "I'm not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind my back" and his supporters are going to cheer him for doing so. Sorry.

Chris1962 [3] -

Some of those 28 states don't even have an exemption for churches themselves -- everyone has to play by the same rules for employment. Period. Still an advocate of states' rights? Just wondering....

nypoet22 -

I somehow think this is going to pass over the heads of most voters, myself...

Michale [6] -

Who, exactly, on the Right is going to bring this up? They've all got their hands dirty as well... takes clean hands to take that moral high road, don't forget...

Michale [7] -

I think you're thinking about abortion, not contraceptives. I'm too tired to Google "Stupak amendment" but feel free to do so...

Joe Wilson will not be remembered by history. Obama will. Bet the farm on that....

dsws [12] -

I actually support this, if it can make it past SCOTUS, which has already knocked it down once. I was suprised to see a Republican House offer this power to a Democratic president.

akadjian [13] -

Ah, but read the details. Both houses of Congress have to vote on any revisions, which they're hoping will pass constitutional muster...

nypoet22 [14] -

Aha! A voice of sanity! And one who has done his research!

:-)

Michale [15] -

[Insert Spock quote here] "...considered abortive" is a political qualification. Doctors disagree. Just the facts, Ma'am. So to speak.

Although I have to admit your "...who thinks life begins with "Damn, she's hot"..." was pretty downright hilarious...

Michale [17] -

Now that's why I like you, because you can admit when your side has a beam in its eye. I know, most Lefties can't do the same, but far too few Righties have even remembered how, too.

-CW

Then why are you saying that he wasn't deeply opposed if nothing exists to back your contention up? That boils down to nothing more than your personal opinion, not a "fact" about O's intentions. All I know is that he promised one thing and then promptly sold out to the insurance lobbyist, as illustrated in that PBS Frontline clip. Wasn't he the guy who also wasn't going to be giving in to the same old special interests? Or was he never really deeply opposed to that, either?

Sorry, but I'm with Joe Wilson. Obama does indeed lie, and that's based upon quotes you can find.

He was right. A mandate isn't enough.

He wasn't deeply opposed to the mandate. You'll never find a quote showing that he was (not a real one, anyway). He knew the insurance companies wanted a mandate, so he didn't want to include a one in the initial offer but keep it as a bargaining chip instead. The thing about a bargaining chip is that you intend to spend it.

He argued against a mandate mostly because it was the most noticeable difference between his policy positions and Hillary Clinton's.

O's penchant for promising something and then renegging on it falls perfectly under the heading of "YOU LIE!" Obama does, indeed, have a penchant for lying. Like so:

As Barack Obama battled Hillary Rodham Clinton over health care during the Democratic presidential primaries of 2008, he was adamant about one thing: Americans, he insisted, should not be required to buy health insurance.

“If things were that easy,” Mr. Obama told the talk show host Ellen DeGeneres in February of that year, “I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/health/policy/insurance-mandate-may-be-health-bills-undoing.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Wilson's "YOU LIE!" sums things up perfectly, IMO.

Other than that...

Their reasoning is illogical and hysterical..

My reasoning is sound and logical..

But there's a difference: the lunatic anti-abortion crowd is running the show on your side, at least with regard to their issue.

Tis true, tis sad. Tis sad, tis true.

Michale....

Just the House. My guess is DOA in the Senate, but that's pure guess.

I am not siding with the hysterical Right-To-Lifers who thinks life begins with "Damn, she's hot"...

Not siding with them, except for, y'know, being on the same side as they are.

I have sort of the same problem with various embarrassingly-clueless lefties and horrifyingly-conservative Democrats. On various issues I'm not on their side, but I am on their side of the political dichotomy. It's an inevitable feature of any two-party (single-seat plurality) system. I want majority voting for president, keep the plurality system for the Senate, and have a more proportional system for the House.

But there's a difference: the lunatic anti-abortion crowd is running the show on your side, at least with regard to their issue.

Obama did, indeed, lie... The fact that he did it in both areas is double damning..

nonetheless, abortion and birth control are still pretty darn far from being the same thing.

The current issue also includes drugs that are considered abortive. That's my understanding anyways..

anyone who believes they are both murder is free to confess to genocide themselves, or turn in to the authorities any friends or family members who have ever tried to have sex without getting pregnant.

Don't get me wrong.. I am not siding with the hysterical Right-To-Lifers who thinks life begins with "Damn, she's hot"...

My only dog in this hunt is the continued over-reach of government control in the private market...

Michale.....

between the stupak deal and rep. wilson's outburst, neither had anything directly to do with contraception. wilson was shouting about medical services provided to illegal immigrants. connecting that to this is a leap of logic i'm not able to entertain seriously.

stupak's provision and the associated executive order (13535) were against abortion, not contraception. at least that's in the same stadium complex, and stupak himself may well wish his deal had been broader. nonetheless, abortion and birth control are still pretty darn far from being the same thing. anyone who believes they are both murder is free to confess to genocide themselves, or turn in to the authorities any friends or family members who have ever tried to have sex without getting pregnant.

~joshua

Just the House? Or Senate too?

My first thought is I don't think that's such a good idea. I think it shifts the balance of power too much in the President's favor.

-David

Anyone have any opinions?

Hahahahaha!!!! OMG, I forgot all about Joe Wilson. That guy is totally vindicated. If you'd like to take a stroll down memory lane, there's a scene of his shout-out in this PBS documentary... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid ... along with a few more of O's more memorable whoppers. ;D

Joe Wilson's got a sheet-eating grin on his face today, I reckon... :D

Michale

Y'mean I'm not the only one who's noticed how veeeeeeery far out of the way the leftie press is going to keep that topic out of its coverage? You have to go to good ol' FOX to get that side of the story: http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/02/09/pro-life-ex-dem-congressman-betrayed-contraception-mandate The leftie news orgs will eventually be shamed into covering it.

White House to Announce ‘Accommodation’ for Religious Organizations on Contraception Rule
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

Did I call it in {#1} or what!???

"I think you two are going to be insufferably pleased with yourselves for at least a week. Sir."
-Spock, STAR TREK, Friday's Child

:D

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama promise recalcitrant CongressCritters (Stupak et al) that CrapCare would not have any contraceptive coverage mandated??

I seem to recall that Obama promised this to gain support of the Stupak faction for CrapCare...

Joe Wilson was right when he said, "YOU LIE!!" to Obama....

Michale.....

conservative slant notwithstanding, that's actually an incredibly good point.

I have my moments.. :D

the public attention has almost completely left the obama administration giving in and embracing the super-PAC game.

Oh, I am sure we'll see this issue again... and again and again and again before Nov...

As you say, it's a good issue that really has bite...

Michale.....

conservative slant notwithstanding, that's actually an incredibly good point. the contraception issue is basically a side-show, while the super-PAC argument actually has teeth. by continuing to harp on the awful crime of insisting that contraception be covered if a doctor prescribes it, the public attention has almost completely left the obama administration giving in and embracing the super-PAC game.

I keep hearing this "28 states" quote, but God forbid a newspaper reporter should actually explain the details. From what I can gather, it seems there's more to it than meets the eye: "Even liberal states haven't gone this far," says the reporter in this WSJ commentary. The "28 states" discussion is around the 3:00 mark: http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-catholic-epiphany/D6F8A5D8-AF25-400C-9CF7-E509F7FFA8D8.html

I'm also reading articles with Bishops and other Catholic Church leaders of various states contending that Obama made promises to them which he's now renegging on, with this "mandate" announcement of his. (Sound familiar, my liberal friends? How many times has O promised something and then pulled the rug out from under you? I suspect that has something to do with Church leaders having agreed to whatever these state laws are, based on assurances from Obama that never materialized. That would explain why these leaders are only NOW up in arms about this "mandate," upon realizing that they've been Obama-duped.)

By stepping into the kaa-kaa hip deep with this contraceptive/Catholic issue, people are forgetting how Obama stepped into the kaa-kaa neck deep with his embracing of the Citizens United/SuperPACs ruling... :D

Michale.....

Obama birth control policy divides Democrats
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIRTH_CONTROL_POLITICS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-09-17-37-24

Many Democrats are taking their cue from the Right....

Obama should cave sooner rather than later to minimize the fallout...

It's a foregone conclusion that Obama will have to back-pedal..

By doing so sooner rather than later, Obama has an opportunity to prevent a minor kerfluffle exploding into a major SNAFU...

Michale.....