Liberal Mark Shields Hits Obama for Pressing Catholic Employers to Provide Birth Control
On Friday's Inside Washington on PBS, as the panel discussed the new Obama administration rule that requires even Catholic employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception to their employees, both liberal columnist Mark Shields and conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer hit Obama for the decision, while NPR's Nina Totenberg claimed that there were valid arguments in both directions as she made a flawed analogy between contraception and immunization as a defense of the Obama position.
But the blunt criticism directed at Obama by the liberal Shields, who is also a longtime regular on the PBS NewsHour, was the most surprising part of the show. After host Gordon Peterson noted that some Catholic leaders had supported Obamacare, and asked if they are "being hung out to dry," Shields responded:
They've been hung out to dry. I mean, this is a dissing, in common parlance, of Catholics. I haven't noticed thousands of people in groups lined up to provide services to the poor and the hungry and the left out and the left behind, and that's what Catholic Charities has done, that's what Catholic schools do in big cities.
And the idea that somehow that they're not doing societies - they aren't in it for the bucks. They're in it because they provide these services, and it's their mandate by their religion. I just, I don't understand Barack Obama on this, and I think that politically Catholics have voted on the winning side in every presidential election (INAUDIBLE).
Totenberg soon jumped in:
There's a very good argument that is being made by the Catholic Church, but if you take it out of the area of contraceptives and you said supposing you had a preschool that wouldn't do immunizations because its religion didn't allow immunizations, or wouldn't insure for immunizations. We're not talking about paying here, we're talking about insurance and insurance that people can avail themselves of. The board of health would be in there. It's a very tricky question. There are very good arguments to be made on both sides.
Krauthammer ended up knocking down Totenberg's argument and attacked "liberal secular arrogance." Krauthammer:
Look, immunization is a matter of public safety; birth control is not. It's a huge difference, and what this is doing is saying, as Mark indicated, the Catholic Church isn't only a church. It's an institution that actually has outreach and social serviesa dn does good works. Liberals say, okay, "In the church, you can appoint anybody you want and we'll leave you alone, but once you step out into society, you have to be under our heel and you have to provide a morning after pill, which for Catholic, a believing Catholic in the hierarchy of the church, is an abomination. Otherwise, you're cut off, and that is liberal secular arrogance and has no place in this society.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the the Friday, February 3, Inside Washington on PBS:
GORDON PETERSON: New Obama administration policy requires all employers, including Catholic employers, to pay for FDA-approved contraceptives regardless of the Catholic Church teaching on this issue. Now, during the debate over the health care law, the president of the Catholic Health Association supported the President. Now, the President's critics say - Sister Carole Keehan and others who supported this bill - are being hung out to dry. Your take, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS: They've been hung out to dry. I mean, this is a dissing, in common parlance, of Catholics. I haven't noticed thousands of people in groups lined up to provide services to the poor and the hungry and the left out and the left behind, and that's what Catholic Charities has done, that's what Catholic schools do in big cities.
And the idea that somehow that they're not doing societies - they aren't in it for the bucks. They're in it because they provide these services, and it's their mandate by their religion. I just, I don't understand Barack Obama on this, and I think that politically Catholics have voted on the winning side in every presidential election (INAUDIBLE).
PETERSON: Is it relevant or irrelevant that the vast majority of Catholics practice contraception in violation of this teaching?
SHIELDS: It is irrelevant because what you're doing is you're closing down Catholic institutions. That's what you're basically (INAUDIBLE).
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Can I just say something here? This has been the law actually since 2000. There's an EEOC ruling; 28 states have laws like this. There's a very good argument that is being made by the Catholic Church, but if you take it out of the area of contraceptives and you said supposing you had a preschool that wouldn't do immunizations because its religion didn't allow immunizations, or wouldn't insure for immunizations. We're not talking about paying here, we're talking about insurance and insurance that people can avail themselves of. The board of health would be in there. It's a very tricky question. There are very good arguments to be made on both sides.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, immunization is a matter of public safety; birth control is not. It's a huge difference, and what this is doing is saying, as Mark indicated, the Catholic Church isn't only a church. It's an institution that actually has outreach and social serviesa dn does good works. Liberals say, okay, "In the church, you can appoint anybody you want and we'll leave you alone, but once you step out into society, you have to be under our heel and you have to provide a morning after pill, which for Catholic, a believing Catholic in the hierarchy of the church, is an abomination. Otherwise, you're cut off, and that is liberal secular arrogance and has no place in this society.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I'll repeat myself
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 6:01am.
I hope the Catholic Church comes out, perhaps a month or so before the election, and asks all it's members to vote for the Republican candidate in November.
I left the Catholic Church about 20 years ago.
Submitted by David Kramer on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 6:13am.
For the same reason my father did at the same time. The Church has been infiltrated by marxists just as every other institution has. They allowed baby killers to remain within the Church.
I find it hypocritical that the Catholic Church is now going to make their stand on contraception when they have allowed the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent babies. Think about it, over the last 40 years the US has slaughtered 50-60 million babies. At the same time, the US has allowed or let in on average, 2.5 million immigrants both legally and illegally yearly. They have allowed natural born citizens to be slaughtered while they bring in third world immigrants not familiar with individual rights and protections. They have been fundamentally changing the country for decades.
It is the communist plan to balkanize the country. It is already too late, this country is probably toast. The moral depravity implemented here is unfathomable.
Ann Barnhardt is absolutely correct, there is no way to turn the tide against them, except to no longer contribute to the society they have created.
I most respectfully disagree.
Submitted by Soldat44 on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 9:57am.
I most respectfully disagree. You left the Church in 1992 because of 'marxists'? OK - could be.
I have a feeling that there other reasons for you and your father leaving. But that is a private matter and I do not want to question that. God Bless and remember you can always come home. We can use you right now.
Unless you personally know this person
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 11:23am.
I respectfully suggest you're some kind of troll to project your bias on someone else.
This piece of shiite........
Submitted by old cro on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 6:42am.
in charge sees all is according to plan.....First divide........
What a ridiculous comparison.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 8:11am.
.....supposing you had a preschool that wouldn't do immunizations because its religion didn't allow immunizations, or wouldn't insure for immunizations. We're not talking about paying here, we're talking about insurance and insurance that people can avail themselves of......
Even leaving out the public health argument, preschools don't "do" immunizations, nor do they "insure" anyone.
We're not talking about paying here, we're talking about insurance and insurance that people can avail themselves of.
Of course you're talking about paying!! You are talking about the employer providing an insurance plan, for which they pay a significant portion of the cost. That's what an employer-provided insurance plan does!
As for Shields' comment about Catholic leaders supporting Obamacare, they were naive if they thought the government would come in and take over health care and not try to force its own views on it.
Just wait until this thing comes into full flower; those Catholic leaders will get more rude awakenings.
Well, mb
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 10:46am.
If you recall, I started the original Health Care Reform forum about three years ago, when someone here posted a link where a representative of the Catholic Church said they were considering closing down all of their health care facilities rather than submit to a repeal of the Conscience Clause by the Obama administration.
This latest dictatorial attempt, to my way of thinking, is the exact same thing. I would suggest all Catholic employers let their employees know that as of, oh say, October 1, 2012, the employees will now have to contribute 60% of their monthly premium, to cover these additional "birth control benefits". Furthermore, if they have a problem with that, to contact the White House and their Congressional Representation.
It's time to fight fire with fire.
Oh, and excommunicating Nanny Pelosi and Joe Biden would be a nice gesture, too.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Catholic Church in Sedition?
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 8:30am.
All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church “cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law.”
Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter.
But after he did, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief.
Sedition? The claim that the phrase "unjust law" might encourage civil disobedience by solders is laughable on its face. Soldiers don't insure anyone.
I'm disappointed that the Catholic Chaplains agreed to remove that line. It's the heart of the argument.
I too am disappointed
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 10:48am.
Because, fact is, it is an unjust law. Methinks these guys lack a backbone.
I saw that yesterday
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 10:49am.
If the most non-political person around cannot see the danger in THAT, we are truly too far gone to turn this around.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~"Seditious against the CIC"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 11:19am.
is what jumped out at me. Creepy. The military doesn't swear allegiance to the President, personally.
I believe that chaplains, as commissioned officers, take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, and to obey lawful orders, as in, those that do not violate the Constitution. I haven't done any research on that, so I don't know if I have the particulars right. I'm sure someone around here can fill us in on it.
You are correct ma'am -- good point!
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 11:51am.
United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
[emphasis mine]
As usual, the Founders knew exactly what they were doing. The allegiance is not to a mere man, but rather to a set of principles, established in a fundamental system of government that "constitutes" (i.e., defines) the United States of America.
~That's what troubles me about this
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 12:13pm.
Obviously, military members are not free agents and must conform to military codes or face prosecution or expulsion. But, it seems to me that any order backed up with the threat of facing charges of sedition against the President clearly goes against the spirit and intent of the Constitution.
why the susprise?
Submitted by oldfart on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 1:42pm.
Remember Fort Hood? The Chief of Staff was more concerned that this would damage relations with followers of Islam than for the victims families. He had a lot of lettuce on his chest. Was it for brushing his teeth every day?
if they had eyes to see
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 8:42am.
The obamabots can't bring themselves to admit that obama is an inexperienced politician and is breaking apart the democrat party, which is not a real party but a coalition of special interests. obama has nothing to gain from alienating Catholics during an election year but he is a fool, a dangerous fool.
that is the formula for success for the gop
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 1:14pm.
Show each group how little they are getting from the democrats, compared to all the other groups combined.
Of course, the real reason
Submitted by cristo on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 9:47am.
Of course, the real reason for this attack on the charitable works of the Catholic Church is to see these entities closed. The Left seeks to get rid of Catholic schools, hospitals and agencies and replace them with ones it can control from Washington, D. C. Not as dramatic as Joseph Stalin, but equally effective.
Totenberg's Analogy is not flawed, Brad.
Submitted by Timothy H on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 11:13am.
She is spot on in her comparison of contraception to immunization.
Remember that you're talking about another Sangerite in Nina Totenberg. Her associating contraception with immunization is right in line with the ideal to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." In that sense, Nina was right. The two (birth control and immunization) are one and the same. You just have to broaden your vision a little more to see exactly what contraception would help immunize....
Looking at it from the proper (liberal) perspective pulls the association into it's clear disgusting focus.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
Your comments
Submitted by oldfart on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 1:11pm.
One word summary - Eugenics.
With the self-appointed elite making the determination of who is acceptable and who is not.
The philosophy is not of itself racist (based on the color of skin) - but racist nevertheless based on social position and standing and being able to mouth the correct PC words at the proper time.
What if ?
Submitted by ohio granny on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 11:30am.
What if the Catholic Church decided to close all of its schools? There are approximately 2 million students in Catholic Schools. Where would all these students be educated if the Catholic Schools closed?
What if they closed all the Catholic Hospitals ? All Catholic Clinics? How much stress would that put on all other health care providers?
When my grandchildren were in Catholic Schools, I made the point several times that if all students or even half of them, from private schools and home schooled students were to enroll in the local school system, they could not even start to handle all of these students.
It is not only Catholic Hospitals that disagree with abortion, it is other religious hospitals. If all of these were to suddenly close their doors, hundreds of thousands of people would be put out of work and it would overwhelm the other providers.
We are guarenteed freedom of religion as well as THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF. That last part is what secularists don't want to admit. They may have reached their Waterloo with this edict however. If it turns out that is so, all I can say is its about time.
As a Catholic I agree with the position
Submitted by katiejane on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 12:01pm.
however part of me thinks - "what a bunch of DA's the Church is. They swallowed Obama's lies and half-truths and now when it is biting us all in the kister they act indignant Shame on them for their blindness.
Not Catholic
Submitted by Model850 on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 4:00pm.
Although I am not Catholic I agree with your assessment that the Church "swallowed Obama's lies" and is now all indignant when things turn on them.
They gathered the snake to their bosom in a warm embrace and now are stunned that the snake bit them.
(h/t Al Wilson)
The Catholic Church has been
Submitted by Edward Cropper on Sat, 02/04/2012 - 5:39pm.
The Catholic Church has been of no significance politically for years . They ride the fence or take liberal stands almost always. The Bishops have been a liberal clack of no nothings who have been on the left for as long as I can remember.
The only time they get involved is when they are going to be affected financially.
There was a time when the Church had the respect of most other faiths because they went toe to toe with political entities on any issue that was contrary to their teachings. Morality in movies, birth control, abortion,
you name it they were there. To day they are a bunch of wimps who give you nothing but platitudes.
'Shielding' Obama from himself
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sun, 02/05/2012 - 12:01am.
Shields was correct but expressed dismay because he's worried and sees such an issue as alienating some Catholic voters. He wants Obama to avoid unnecessary problems in November and can't understand why he'd do something so dumb. IMHO.
Obama doesn't really care, however, because he is aware that not all Catholics follow the teachings of the Church and figures the temptation to get more freebies will be too hard to resist.
He gets to put it to the Church leadership and create conflict in its membership ... especially with the "social justice" crowd beating the drums for a more liberal agenda.
They're everywhere!
Voters have short memories anyway ... remember Obama's executive order guaranteeing ObamaCare would not cover elective abortions to get the bill passed?
Catholics have voted for the Abortion Party in most of the
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sun, 02/05/2012 - 3:58am.
Presidential elections. I suspect that included the majority of U.S. Catholic leaders. It seems quite hypocritical to me that Catholic leadership should complain now. They got what they voted for.