Chris Matthews and his Trained Baboons

February 23, 2012 By Elizabeth Scalia

I couldn’t believe the headline so I had to see it for myself and yeah, Chris Matthews actually said this:

“There are a number of people who have chosen to convert to the Catholic faith because they don”t like the liberal positions taken by their sectarian groups,” said Matthews, “that’s a fact, you can write that down. . . .I’m saying that some people who are bigoted against gay people have changed religions, yes.”

This is a guy who profoundly misunderstands his own faith and its teachings, which are all about saying “yes” not “no” but in ways that challenge us in our earthly brokenness and are just difficult, sometimes. Not only is he contributing to a fashionable new trend of anti-Catholicism (and for all I know, he’s doing it deliberately) but here he is being lazy — really, almost unforgivably lazy — in subscribing to the intellectually dishonest and cowardly idea that to have a different opinion than others, or to simply say “I love you but can’t go there” is “bigotry.” That’s what “progressives” have “progressed” to. If you disagree with Obama, you’re a “racist.” If you can’t get behind gay marriage, you’re a “bigot” and if you think employers should not be ordered to cover contraception (or ordered to cover anything) you’re a “sexist.”

They spit out the vituperative labels because it is frankly easier to muddy up the water with name-calling than actually try to swim the rougher currents, together. Call someone a name and pretend that you’re somehow more noble than the other person because you don’t even have to engage in thought or weigh a philosophy, and you may be a hero to some, but you’re ultimately a coward, hiding behind slander tossed as easily as a rock.

But as idiotic, nasty and gratuitously ignorant as Matthews is, here, it’s his audience that really turns my stomach; watch the video and listen to them howl.

Baboons. Mindless trained baboons, responding on cue.

But don’t get me wrong. I fully expect we’ll hear some trained baboons on the right at some point in tonight’s GOP debate, as well — probably hooting at precisely the wrong time, because if the left is horrid, the right is just hapless.

Still, it makes me sad to see Matthews like that. I used to watch his show every night and really enjoyed it. That was back when our kids were younger and would wander around the house parroting, “yer watchin’ Hardball!” It’s a shame that this is where we’re at. A society of grotesques.

Of course, one of the good things about Lent is I get to spend some time thinking about how I may have contributed to our shared baboonery, with this blog, so…there’s that.

I wonder if Matthews will also take time to wonder about that, this Lent.

Filed Under: The Fourth Estate, Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

WH never “botched” contraception question

February 13, 2012 By Elizabeth Scalia

I have my own thoughts about last Friday’s “accomodation” by the White House and the HHS, but I am saving those for my First Things column, tomorrow, so here is what has developed over the weekend on that front:

Law Prof William Jacobson remembers the “odd” debate question:

Remember when George Stephanopoulos, at the New Hampshire Republican debate on January 7, brought up and harped on whether the candidates thought states could ban contraception?

Everyone, at least on our side of the aisle, shook their heads in disbelief as to why Stephanopoulos was bringing up the issue. There was no active controversy over contraception, it wasn’t in the news, and there were far more pressing political issues, yet what seemed like an eternity of debate time was devoted to the subject at the insistence of Stephanopoulos.

Read it all; watch the videos.

Oh, and in case you have not heard, over the weekend Catholic Charities has walked back its initial approval of the Obama “accommodation” which the press insists on calling a “compromise” and the administration calls a “negotiation”, as in “we are done negotiating with the Catholics”.

Which leads one to ask, “negotiating? When did you negotiate?”

Kind of like that moment in Friends, when a terminally dishonest Rachel says to Ross, “I’m over you!” and a stunned Ross asks, “you’re over me? When…when were you under me?”

Ace: Explaning the Shell Game

Francis Beckwith: The Right not to do Wrong and the Politics of the Ruse

Rod Dreher with a MUST-READ: Quoting a “liberal Catholic” friend (you know, one of the “good” ones to the bigots) who has seen enough of the administration:

I do not see how anyone serious trusts him now. What can be done by executive fiat can be undone by executive fiat.

Read it all: Democrats to Catholics: We Don’t Want You!

WSJ: The “Accommodation” Makes it Worse

Kathryn Lopez applauds Obama for the clarification he has brought. She’s not the first to say it, but she brings it up to date!

Boxer’s bad stats

Phil Lawler: Analysis of the “accomodation” and the Bishops second repsonse

Archbishop Chaput calls the “accommodation” — hey, it’s the first word the White House used — “insulting and dangerous

Today is a busy day of writing for me, but check back — I’ll add more links as I find them.

HHS Mandate and the Cloud of Witnesses

Filed Under: The Fourth Estate Tagged With: ,

Bishops to ‘Bam: “Nice first step…” -UPDATED

February 10, 2012 By Elizabeth Scalia

Rocco Palmo at Whispers in the Loggia has it:

BISHOPS STUDYING INITIAL WHITE HOUSE MOVEMENT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

*New opportunity to dialogue with executive branch, obtain details :::

*Too soon to tell whether and how much improvement on core concerns:::

*Commitment to religious liberty for all means legislation still necessary:::

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.

“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

Emphasis mine. The USCCB is signaling that it is not backing down and that while the Obama administration spends the next months (up to and perhaps past the election) finalizing the language of this new “accommodation” the bishops expect to have input. This is a game of chess and they’re studying their next move.

Essentially Dolan has said, “yes, we see you have made a move; we acknowledge that you have engaged. That is a good first step.” Now, it’s going to get interesting. Right after Dolan gets back from Rome! :-)

And scholars and the universities are not fooled.

And so the story is not over, and no matter how much time and effort the mainstream media, the democrats and some of your own Catholic friends tries to tell you otherwise — it is not over. It is just going to recede to the backburners in the minds of many, while pressure is applied here and squeezes are put there.

We need to pray for our bishops in this time. And for the president, too, that his heart will be turned. They’re all certainly under pressure.

In particular, pray for Archbishop Dolan who is the head of the USCCB, and in the midst of all this is heading to Rome, for his elevation to Cardinal.

UPDATE Having had time to study the President’s move, the Bishops have issued a second statement: USCCB to Obama: Rescission of mandate only complete solution.

Too bad it’s a Friday night:

*Regulatory changes limited and unclear:::
*Rescission of mandate only complete solution:::
*Continue urging passage of Respect for Rights of Conscience Act:::
[...]
[The President] has decided to retain HHS’s nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty. . .

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. . .But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services. [Emphasis mine]

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

Te-Deum blog has lots more including excerpts from what appears to be a leaked internal memo

But I’ll let you go find out what it says, for yourselves.

UPDATE II: “We were getting killed” – the inside story of the “accommodation”

For more check out The Shell Game and the Magical Thinking!

More Catholic reactions to today’s drama: in a roundup, here.

At Bad Catholic: A coolness that will be short-lived

Filed Under: 'Remaking' America, The Fourth Estate, Timothy Dolan Tagged With: , , ,

Obama “Accommodation” Reactions

February 10, 2012 By Elizabeth Scalia

This morning I wrote what I had anticipated in the Obama “accommodation” and the reaction.

I expect President Obama will come out and say something that sounds wonderful and conciliatory and that seems reasonable to people who are eager to reconcile with the president and give themselves permission to vote for him again in November. I also expect that beyond the words, what the President offers will be too little — the government miserly granting to us pieces of freedom we are utterly entitled to own outright — but it will be “enough” for some.

And with that, Obama will have done the thing he needs to do, here, which is re-divide the Catholics who have apparently surprised him with their nearly unanimous condemnation of his HHS Mandate.
[...]
But the thing to remember is this: Obama has now demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to deal in good faith with the churches. Even if he gives a “full exemption”, one needs to worry whether he can be trusted if he wins re-election, and is no longer constrained by the need to please anyone.

I think I called it pretty close. While we wait for the bishops, let’s look at some reactions — and keep checking back; I’ll add to them as I find them!

Grant Gallicho at DotCommonweal: Saying Obama “fixed” the mandate, but still leaving room for Bishops:

Given that religious institutions will not have to pay for policies that include contraception, and they there is no requirement that they refer employees for such services, the new policy directly addresses the legitimate objections raised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

We’ll see. More details as they come.

Diane Korzeniewski, OCDS at Te-Deum Blog: wonders why Sr. Carol Keehan did not leave room for the bishops but stepped out ahead of them?

Does she really think she is going to influence the U.S. bishops by going public with something that has the potential of being in opposition to them – again?

I can’t imagine anything more damaging to the fight for religious liberty and conscience protection than to have such public division. The U.S. bishops, who have finally found their voice, deserve to be heard before dissent hits the ground.

Well, but that’s precisely why she was given a heads up before the bishops (her statement and EJ Dionne’s lavishly approving column went out over the White House religion press portal) so the spinners could hit the ground running while the bishops are still trying to find their shoes. I’m disappointed that she consented to do that.

Robert Destro, law professor at Catholic University of America: “it’s a shell game”! Well, duh. That piece has other responses, as well, including this:including this:

Marie Hilliard, director of bioethics and public policy at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a registered nurse and a canon lawyer, noted that the administration has not changed it’s definition of who is exempt. Instead, Obama just established a special provision for “non-exempt religious groups.”

It’s still a narrow definition focused on churches that employ and serve people of their faith, not schools, hospitals, social services or other ministries that are recognized under the tax code as exempt religious organizations. Until that’s changed, Hilliard said, the government is still “cherry-picking to see which groups will be seen by our government as worthy of exemptions and which won’t. “

At NRO, Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes a law professor from Notre Dame, who pronounces it “unacceptable”:

Today’s rule still requires religious institutions (on pain of ruinous treasury fines) to purchase insurance that covers these same objectionable services. It is irrelevant that the rule requires the insurance company (rather than the religious institution) to explain to employees that the policy purchased for them by their employer includes the 5-day after pill. For institutions that self-insure, the situation is even worse; they will be forced to contact their employees and pay for such services themselves.

It is no answer to suggest that the religious liberty of such employers is being accommodated because they are not “paying” for the objectionable services. First, it is naïve to imagine that the services are truly cost-free and that these costs will not be passed along to the employers who purchase these plans. More importantly, the simple fact is that under this policy the government is coercing religious institutions to purchase a product that includes services that they regard as gravely immoral.

We should ask ourselves why President Obama has sustained the narrow exemption for churches, religious orders, and auxiliaries? This is tantamount to the admission that this policy, just like the previous one, runs afoul of religious liberty.

The Beckett Fund: “This is a false compromise”

Stephen White at Catholic Vote says “POTUS Fail!”:

Then: All employers that don’t meet the narrow “religious exemption,” including Catholic hospitals and universities, are required by law to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception and sterilization procedures with no out of pocket costs cost to the insured.

Now: All employers that don’t meet the narrow “religious exemption,” including Catholic hospitals and universities, are required by law to provide insurance coverage. All such coverage must include contraception and sterilization procedures with no out of pocket costs cost to the insured.

We need details.

Robert T. Miller at First Things:

Thus far, the bishops have argued that, since the Church believes that abortion, sterilization, and contraception are morally wrong, it is wrong for the government to force the Church’s institutions to fund such things through its health insurance plans. By what logic, however, does the Church restrict this argument to just religious institutions? If these practices are morally wrong in the way the Church clearly says they are, how may the government force any employer who objects to them to funding them?

Vincent Miller at America Magazine is “thrilled”. . .but…:

The details of the solution are very important. They manifest great attention to the nuances of Catholic moral reasoning. As described by the Administration, this is a very substantial solution that is enormously attentive to the details of Catholic moral understanding over cooperation in immoral acts. [. . .] The details of this solution matter. There may yet be important moral snags that emerge with the details when the new regulation is published.

EJ Dionne: seems to be privy to details I’ve not yet seen elsewhere?:

“. . .the administration lifted the requirement that objecting religious organizations had to pay for contraception themselves. The health care policies they issue will not have to include contraception. Moreover, responding to another Catholic concern, they will also be under no obligation to inform their employees that they can receive contraception coverage in other ways or refer them to such coverage.

Instead, the requirement to inform will rest with the insurance companies who will be required to provide such coverage free of charge if individual employees ask for it. Since contraception coverage in effect saves insurance companies money (covering contraception is cheaper than covering pregnancy and child birth), the insurance companies will be required to offer this coverage free of charge. Under Obama’s proposal, responsibility for asking for contraception coverage falls to individuals.

As I said, Dionne (and for that matter Sr. Carol) seem to be privy to more details than the rest of us. Both the CHA statement and Dionne’s column went out under the White House religion list. So, they have been helping the White house to have a package ready, to shape reaction.

Ed Morrissey:

Let’s just take this one step at a time. Where do insurers get money to pay claims? They collect premiums and co-pays from the insured group or risk pool. No matter what the Obama administration wants to say now, the money that will cover those contraception costs will come from the religious organizations that must now by law buy that insurance and pay those premiums. Their religious doctrines have long-standing prohibitions against participating in contraception and abortion, and nothing in this “accommodation” changes the fact that the government is now forcing them to both fund and facilitate access to products and services that offend their practice of religion.

Basically, the Obama administration told religious organizations to stop complaining and get in line. This “accommodation” only attempts to accommodate Obama’s political standing and nothing more.

Predictably, the media narrative is Obama reconciled this and the story is over. If the bishops object, they’ll blame them. And, just as predictably — if comboxes are to be believed — it’s going down like mother’s milk to the public.

So, Obama has managed to reduce this to ideology and “right” vs “left” again, and the point everyone seems content to miss is this: it is not the President’s job to dole our rights out to us!

EWTN: Not dropping lawsuit:

EWTN is particularly concerned that the proposed rules for non-exempted religious organizations will still not be finalized until later in the coming year. This leaves EWTN and other such organizations very uncertain about what the future may hold with regard to this mandate. We will continue to consult with our legal counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to determine the implications of this revised approach; however, our legal action against the administration will continue.”

USCCB: this is only the first step “in the right direction”. They want more.

More:
Yural Levin: This changes nothing
Dan Collins: What are the functions of the church?
Fr. Dwight: United we stand Divided we fall.
Mark Shea: Obama attempts a head fake
Just One Minute: I still want my “free” lunch
Mary’s Aggies: Biggest issue since Roe v Wade and here is why
Kim Priestap: It’s not the money…

Filed Under: The Fourth Estate, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,

Gerson and Douthat Must-Reads

February 5, 2012 By Elizabeth Scalia

Michael Gerson: you may be tempted to dismiss it as hyperbole, but he makes a strong argument that, with his HHS mandate (which, his Press Secretary Jay Carney has confirmed, he will not subject to further review) a strong argument that Obama has declared war on all religion. Read it all, but if you haven’t time, at least absorb this:

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.

The implications of Obama’s choice will take years to sort through. The immediate impact can be measured on three men: Consider Catholicism’s most prominent academic leader, the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame. Jenkins took a serious risk in sponsoring Obama’s 2009 honorary degree and commencement address — which promised a “sensible” approach to the conscience clause. Jenkins now complains, “This is not the kind of ‘sensible’ approach the president had in mind when he spoke here.” Obama has made Jenkins — and other progressive Catholic allies — look easily duped.

Consider Catholicism’s highest-ranking elected official, Vice President Joe Biden. Biden had encouraged engagement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on conscience rights. Now he will be remembered as the Catholic cover for the violation of Catholic conscience. Betrayal is always an inside job.

Consider Catholicism’s most prominent clerical leader, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, head of the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Dolan had pursued a policy of engagement with the administration. In November 2011, he met face-to-face with Obama, who was earnestly reassuring on conscience protections. On Jan. 20, during a less-cordial phone conversation, Obama informed Dolan that no substantial concession had been made. How can Dolan make the argument for engagement now?

[. . .] Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.

Emphasis mine. Read it all and pass it around!

Meanwhile, Ross Douthat reviews the tag-team-tantrum acted out last week by our elites in the press and the government, as they bullied one non-profit entity for declaring an intention not to give less than $700,000 to another non-profit entity, here in America, where we’re supposed to be free.

But if you’ve followed the media frenzy surrounding the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision — which it backpedaled from, with an apology, after a wave of frankly brutal coverage — to discontinue about $700,000 in funding for Planned Parenthood, you would think all these millions of anti-abortion Americans simply do not exist.

From the nightly news shows to print and online media, the coverage’s tone alternated between wonder and outrage — wonder that anyone could possibly find Planned Parenthood even remotely controversial and outrage that the Komen foundation had “politicized” the cause of women’s health. [. . .]

Mayor Michael Bloomberg just pledged $250,000 to Planned Parenthood; that’s obviously his right. Before Komen backtracked, the Yale School of Public Health said its invitation to Brinker to speak at commencement was “under careful review”; that’s certainly any school’s prerogative.

But reporters have different obligations. Even if some forms of partiality are inevitable, journalists betray their calling when they simply ignore self-evident truths about a story.

Three truths, in particular, should be obvious to everyone reporting on the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy. First, that the fight against breast cancer is unifying and completely uncontroversial, while the provision of abortion may be the most polarizing issue in the United States today. Second, that it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place. Third, that for every American who greeted Komen’s shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.

Indeed, that sense of relief was quantifiable: the day after the controversy broke, Komen reported that its daily donations had risen dramatically.

But of course, you wouldn’t know that from most of the media coverage. After all, the people making those donations don’t exist.

Emphasis mine, again. I have no particular feeling for the Komen foundation — I neither love nor hate it. But I despise bullies.

We have an extraordinarily interesting year before us.

Filed Under: The Fourth Estate Tagged With: , , ,

PP on Komen Debacle: “A learning opportunity”

February 4, 2012 By Elizabeth Scalia

Charlotte Hays writes at the Register that the Komen decision was about a Planned Parenthood shakedown:

“What happened this week was nothing short of a mafia shakedown by Planned Parenthood of the Komen Foundation,” said Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a New York and Washington, D.C.-based research association that works exclusively on international social policy. “Planned Parenthood’s message was: ‘Give us money or we will shut down your organization.’”

While the Komen announcement won the praise of Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, who called the episode a “learning opportunity,” some observers have suggested that Komen’s latest statement is something less than a complete reversal.

I just need to stop right there. There’s more in the article, and by all means read it all, but let’s linger on that for a little bit. I want to think more about Cecile Richards’ comment, because it sort of sounds like she’s saying, “good girls, Komen, you’ve backed down; a little learning opportunity for you; try that again, and we’ll crush you…”

But obviously, she couldn’t have been saying that. Right?

I need context. Here’s ABC’s The Note:

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation apologized today for cutting off funding from Planned Parenthood and vowed to revise the policy that led to an intense backlash against the nation’s largest breast cancer organization.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” president and founder Nancy Brinker said in a statement today. “We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.
[...]
Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, praised the move and the “outpouring of support” her organization has received since the news caught fire. She also dubbed it as a watershed moment and a “learning opportunity.”

“Bullying and trying to make political women’s access to health care is a losing political strategy,” Richards said in a conference call with reporters today, adding that she looks forward to resuming a partnership with the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Ohhhh…I see, I see. A huge, politically-connected non-profit bringing the full power of the press and the fury of Democrats in the Senate (and by extension the powers of the government) against another non-profit — one that simply doesn’t want to donate, anymore, to the first — delivers a “learning opportunity” to the smaller foundation.

And the lesson they deliver is this:

You’re bad bullies! You and all of your pro-life pals who are largely ignored by the powerful media and hated by the government (who loves us), you’re bullies. Hope you’ve learned your lesson, bullies.

Because the next time you try to step out of line, we’ll put you out like a cigarette stub beneath the soles of our designer shoes.”

By which they mean, “welcome to the jackboot.”

I see, I see…

Such interesting times in which we live. Why, over at the National Review, we read that Army Chaplains were Silenced Last Sunday; a member of the administration also “edited” a Bishop’s text.

The government shouldn’t be inserting themselves in Bishop’s texts, should they? That’s sort of…jackbooty…isn’t it?

As we head into the weekend, I offer a variety of reading material for your enjoyment, in no particular order:

Kathleen Parker: The Cost of Conscience; like grace, it’s not cheap.

African Genocide: Planned Parenthood to Ramp Up African Abortion Services by 82%. Margaret Sanger would be so pleased.

Get Religion: Pod People: Birth Control or Religious Liberty? and, on a completely different note: LA Times fails to draw religious blood. It’s a good thing.

USCCB: White House misrepresents it’s own mandate

The Pope: drinking beer; but it’s okay because he exorcises, too!

In Light of the Law: Evil’s Sense of Entitlement

Catholic Guilt: It’s a heavy grace

Nancy Pelosi: More cunning than she sounds. Giving the impression that the administration is doing something Catholics love.

Unemployment numbers: they confuse me

Crisis: Keepers of the Lost Ark

Summit Dominicans: A solemn profession

David Brooks: How to fight the man!

OSV: A Protestant woman makes peace with the Crucifix
Joanna Brooks: Mormon Numbers not adding up

Te-Deum: Bishop Slattery’s Wholesome Response
Voter Fraud: because it’s evil to ask for ID.

Inflammation Pain: Slow Carbs might help!

Mitt Romney: Obama v Religious Liberty.

A Vespers Homily: From Papa

Daniel Foster: You should find anti-Komen backlash disgusting even if you’re pro-choice

Daily Caller: Some “Fast and Furious” coverage. PP v Komen got more, of course.

WSJ: Being a Catholic priest, and married

Filed Under: Serving up hot links, The Fourth Estate, The Pelosi, The Perpetual Adolescents, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Komen and HHS: The Day of the Bully Dawns – UPDATED

February 3, 2012 By Elizabeth Scalia

In just about 24 hours the “non-political” billion-dollar entity known as Planned Parenthood — which does not itself do mammograms, despite how ABC News frames it — managed to leak the news that the Susan G. Komen Foundation would no longer be contributing $700,000 dollars to its coffers, get the two stupidest women in the US Senate to go into public hysterics, bring out the heavy guns of the mainstream media and apparently win Komen’s surrender!

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

You can read the rest here. They are chastened and offer tearful apologies, because tearful apologies are required when one has transgressed the party and wishes to be allowed, cowering, back into its good graces.

Understand what has happened, here. Komen did not break the news that they were defunding; Planned Parenthood — the “unpolitical” operation — leaked the news in order to sic their buddies in the senate and in the media on Komen. The assault was readied and rolled out, and damn near rabid — all out of proportion to what it should mean for one charity to decline to give $700,000 to another charity worth a billion! The message was clear: get back in line, or we will destroy you; we will bring the full power of the elite media and the government against you.

And so, like a good but weak soldier, Komen has essentially destroyed itself: hardline leftists will never forgive it; hardline rightists will never trust it. But feel a little sorry for Komen. They were trying to do the better thing, and they got mauled for it. They’re not cowards, they just weren’t strong. Not everyone can face the lions, especially if they’re being pounced on in their first steps.

In this, however, Komen has helped put panache on institutional bullying; it’s demonstrated that the one-two punch of the press and a mere calling out from DC is enough to buckle the knees. The press and the Democrats have made an example of Komen — with Komen’s permission: this is what we will do to you, if you dare step out of line.

Yesterday’s insane reaction to Komen, by the press and the government gave me a mental image of Moloch, enraged and stomping and roaring because there was a threat of less meat coming to his fire.

Today, Moloch is appeased; the media’s heartbeat and respiration are returning to normal. They and their pals in DC can take a nice, deep cleansing breath and sit back and smile, understanding what they have just demonstrated to themselves, their enemies and the world: you don’t have to fall in love; just fall in line, or you will fall, altogether.

The Day of the Bully has dawned. Institutional aggression, carried out by mobs is the ascendent modality, and they’re feeling emboldened. If the brouhahas of Wisconsin toned them, this was a stinging punch.

The have something else to feel really good about today, as well. As Deacon Greg points out, the latest polls indicated that despite the Obama/HHS assault on religious freedom and conscience, despite the public outcry of 145 US Catholic Bishops and representatives from other religions, President Obama is still enjoying support among Catholics.

Why? Because most Catholics — unless they are online or in the pews — have heard little-to-nothing about the story, and if they have it’s been framed by the press as a “contraception” issue, not an Obama vs Religious Liberty issue; not a “freedom of religion and conscience” issue.

This is the other side of the Bullying Dawn. Like it or not, the mainstream media still controls what gets talked about and understood; they still control the national conversation. And we can see now that if the government wants to hurt you, it will use the press to do so, either by its noise, as with Komen or by its silence.

On their weekend evening news shows, the three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) all ignored a Friday mandate from the Obama administration forcing non-profit religious employers to provide for contraception in their health insurance for employees. Critics had condemned the rule as a violation of religious liberty.

Face it: if this decision by Obama (who, the WH has confirmed, will not be reconsidering) was a wise or a just or a constitutionally-sound idea, wouldn’t the press be talking about it, playing it up, especially in an election year?

The press is not talking about Obama’s assault on religious freedom because they do not want you to know about it; they do not want people thinking what they’re not supposed to be thinking. They don’t want to talk about the Obama administration’s recent attempt to take from the churches the right to decide who is and is not a minster. They especially don’t want you thinking about those two stories together! You might begin to believe that this president — who is suddenly writing policy in the expedient name of Jesus — doesn’t actually like the churches, or the first amendment.

But the press doesn’t mind mischaracterizing the whole HHS story and framing it in “the Catholic Church is going to force you to be pregnant!” hysterics. Once they have their narrative in place, once they can distort it to their needs, they’ll finally talk about it. Even if they understand nothing of which they speak

The story, and the truth, gets turned upside down, because that’s what spin is: it makes you dizzy. Diabolical disorientation.

So, if you’re reading this, it’s up to you to let people know what’s going on. Because the press won’t. And people are going to start becoming afraid to speak out, or to sign a petition, because the day of the bully is upon us.

Related:
Thomas Peters says: Komen hasn’t caved, take a breath:

This is more than a pro-life, pro-abortion debate. It’s a culture war between the powerful liberal elite and grassroots pro-life conservatism. It’s also a battle of identity for the pro-life movement. Will we listen to our own, trust our instincts and remain focused? Or will we allow the pro-abortion forces to knock us off our game and play by their rules.

As I’ve been saying since this story broke, we need to be doing two essential things: 1) support Komen in their bid to cut Planned Parenthood out of their funding streams and 2) place the focus on Planned Parenthood‘s hypocrisy and lies.

If we do these two things, we win. If we get distracted and cease supporting Komen or focusing on Planned Parenthood, we lose. It’s as simple as that.

As for what is happening at Komen: I’ve received a crash-course education in the foundation over the past couple days and I can say without doubt that one thing motivates their President: ending breast cancer. That’s why she decided to cease funding Planned Parenthood, because they are about the lousiest group to help if you are serious about ending breast cancer. Second, that’s why Nancy is worried about the damage to the Komen brand being done by Planned Parenthood and it’s pro-abortion allies. Nancy knows if Komen is weakened it will be less able to pursue it’s objective of ending breast cancer.

That’s why we need to make common cause with Komen and support them. That’s why we need to expose Planned Parenthood’s scurrilous move to destroy Komen.

He’s much more optimistic than I am, but then again, I’m watching Moloch dance today. I know he loses in the end, but today, he feels triumphant. Komen won’t dare not to fund PP in the future, not after what they just tasted.

Unless, perhaps, the Christians have mercy, as Thomas says.

UPDATE: Pressure makes diamonds? Many are looking at the ambiguous language of Komen’s statement and saying, Planned Parenthood loses; this is no cave:
Da Tech Guy
Ed Morrissey
Greg Sargent

UPDATE II:
Wow, is this hateful: Planned Parenthood video from a few years ago

James Taranto: Totalitarian Feminism and the Smearing of Komen

More on these topics:
Obama vs Religious Liberty
The press doesn’t cover what it hates and wants to suppress
Grassley Says Obama Behaving Dictatorially
Creative Minority Report
Restricting Political Speech
Can Catholics Unite?

Filed Under: Obama Good?, The Fourth Estate, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »