MSNBC's O'Donnell Debunks Liberal Claims Some States Already Require Catholics to Provide Contraception
On Thursday's The Last Word, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell disproved claims by liberals that eight states already have regulations that require Catholic employers to provide health insurance coverage of contraceptives for their employees, as the liberal host informed viewers that his staff had looked into the laws of these states and found the assertions to be untrue. (Video below)
O'Donnell declared to his viewers:
You've also been told, and I've been told repeatedly on television, that eight of those states have absolutely no exemptions to the law, none. No religious exemptions at all, no way out for Catholic churches, Catholic schools, Catholic hospitals. They're stuck.
And I got to tell you, when I heard that, every time I heard it, just didn't sound right to me. And whenever I hear people in Washington or New York telling me what's happening out there in the states in some state law in a place where they've never been, I just don't believe them. And you shouldn't either.

The MSNBC host then read the text of Georgia's law as an example and pointed out that there was indeed a loophole which a Catholic employer could use to avoid being required to pay for contraception. Regarding the Georgia law, he explained:
You are exempt from it if your policy simply does not provide for prescription drugs. And so all the religious institutions have to do in Georgia to avoid the requirement to providing birth control pills is to just not provide any drug benefit in their policies. Which is true of an awful lot of insurance policies out there anyway.
Below are video and a transcript of the relevant portion of Thursday, February 9, The Last Word on MSNBC:
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Now, you've heard many, many times in the last couple of days that there are now 28 states that have passed laws similar to the regulation in the Obama health care law and that has, all of that has become so suddenly controversial.
You've also been told, and I've been told repeatedly on television, that eight of those states have absolutely no exemptions to the law, none. No religious reexemptions at all, no way out for Catholic churches, Catholic schools, Catholic hospitals. They're stuck.
And I got to tell you, when I heard that, every time I heard it, just didn't sound right to me. And whenever I hear people in Washington or New York telling me what's happening out there in the states in some state law in a place where they've never been, I just don't believe them. And you shouldn't either.
And so, in a Last Word exclusive investigation, we spent the day today studying the statutes in the eight states that everyone is saying provide absolutely no exemption. The other 20 states, everyone agrees, provide bigger, more comfortable exemptions for the Catholic church, including Massachusetts which has falsely been reported as being identical to the provision inserted in the federal law.
In all of those other 20 state laws, there's an exemption big enough for the White House to drive through.
Let's look then at the Georgia law which you've been told and I've been told repeatedly has absolutely no exemptions, and does have that astonishingly liberal-sounding prose introduction. The Georgia law actually says: "This code section shall not be construed to require coverage for prescription coverage benefits in any contract policy or plan that does not otherwise provide coverage for prescription drugs."
And there is the huge exemption to the Georgia law. You are exempt from it if your policy simply does not provide for prescription drugs. And so all the religious institutions have to do in Georgia to avoid the requirement to providing birth control pills is to just not provide any drug benefit in their policies. Which is true of an awful lot of insurance policies out there anyway.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
something strange
Submitted by dan iroticiv on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:11am.
MSNBC is the mouthpiece of this white house. Chris Mathews and now Crazy Larry have come out to poke holes in the white house talking points. Mathews was on Morning Joe today calling the white house "bullies" and took a strong stand defending the Church's position. I don't trust either one of them, they work for the white house. Awfully strange that this issue, plan parenthood and the gay rights issue all came out at the same time and seem to energize the Santorum candidacy.
The one thIng Chris and Larry have in common
Submitted by Marsh on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:47am.
other than being big Libs, is that they are both Catholic. The Catholics on MSNBC are having as hard time with this Obama decision. Notice MSNBC people like Al Sharpton. a non Catholic, are still 100% behind Obama on this one.
Even the most lapsed Catholic will get irritated when the government steps in to tell the charity wing of the Church what to do.
Conspiracy?
Submitted by ArcherB on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:25am.
Awfully strange that this issue, plan parenthood and the gay rights issue all came out at the same time and seem to energize the Santorum candidacy.
Do you think that may have been the goal? The second that Romney seems to have it locked up, the WH does something like this that will boost the Santorum candidacy and extend the primary season right up to the convention. Looking at the political hit the WH took I don't know if it was worth, assuming that this was part of some big scheme.
(Note: I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it does make for a neat little thought exercise)
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Actual investigative and truthful reporting from MSNBC??!!!
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:12am.
No one would have bet on this. I guess it's true that if you wait long enough anything is possible.
Time to check in on those chimpanzees with typewriters?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Yeah, that's a great solution.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:21am.
Screw EVERYBODY out of ALL prescription benefits so Obama can have his way on this one issue.
Remember the goal
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:49am.
The goal is to implode the private health insurance system to force a single payer system into existence.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
That's right
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 12:48pm.
OBama will likely backdown, but once he does, NBC, the NY Times, Huffington Report, et al will begin reporting anecdotes of employees at RCC-run facilities facing bankruptcy because the RCC won't cover their contraception. They will specifically look hard for the non-Catholic woman who gives birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome -- with the underlying message being, "This could've been avoided had it not been for the RCC."
Then after (and if) Obama gets re-elected, you'll see him push for a single-payer system to replace Obamacare, knowing that the Congress will never delivered that bill to his desk.
O'Donnell shows some journalistic integrity
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:50am.
Note the reactions of the MSNBC'ers who were raised Catholic and may still be - - -
1) Matthews is a practicing Catholic and blasts the WH for being bullies.
2) O'Donnell reveals the truth about state health insurance mandates and the RCC
3) Mika Brzezinski expresses concern that the policy may have overreached (Though she still wields WH talking points explaining that the WH is willing to work out a compromise.)
Meawhile, Maddow, Schultz, and Bashir are insisting that it's not a religious issue but a women's health issue.
A curious split.
Coded language and dog whistles
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:18am.
"Women's health issue" is acceptable public coded language for "keeping abortion safe, legal, and free."
Didja notice that the new diktat is that contraception coverage is FREE?
Doesn't that have a discriminatory effect? Are there any similar free services or medical products for men? I don't think so. ("Here, son. Take these quarters and get a rubber from the vending machine in the convenience store bathroom.") Isn't this a textbook example of "disparate impact"?
What i didn't realize until
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 6:26pm.
What i didn't realize until recently is that abortions, if they weren't subsidized, would actually cost a lot of money.
Something to think about: if birth control and abortion were at their natural market price would it have an effect on how people think about sex?
Not that I think that alone is a reason for the rates to be raised (You want to try to help people as much as possible), but its something to consider.
As Rush would say
Submitted by gs-425 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:58am.
A random act of journalism.
Still, religious
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 1:04pm.
Still, religious organizations should have the option of plans with drug benefits without including contraceptives.
Who is this fellow and what
Submitted by poseA on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 4:49pm.
Who is this fellow and what has he done with, the White House lap dog, Lawrence O'Donnell?
Random act of journalism,
Submitted by rickster0130 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 5:35pm.
Random act of journalism, anyone? I'll take it (even from them).