SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (181185)2/3/2012 4:40:38 PM
From: Sam  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542125
 
More on Romney's past actions and contraception. Compare what he did back in 2005 with his words in the op-edit piece that came out under his name today. There just is no "there" there with this guy. It is like he is constantly saying, "Who do you want me to be today? That is who I am." If the Mormon Church wants him to go tell one of the people he is supposedly shepherding to give up her child (see the recent Vanity Fair article on him), he will do that. If the people of MA want him to require even Catholic hospitals to give emergency contraception to rape victims, he will do that.

Romney’s contraception stance has changed since 2005
’05 contraception stance similar to Obama’s now
By Tracy Jan | Globe Staff February 03, 2012

bostonglobe.com


WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney accused President Obama this week of ordering “religious organizations to violate their conscience,’’ referring to a White House decision that requires all health plans - even those covering employees at Catholic hospitals, charities, and colleges - to provide free birth control. But a review of Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor shows that he once took a similar step. In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.

He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law - one passed by lawmakers despite his veto - but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception.

Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney’s criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it.

“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’

Other Catholic leaders say they are inclined to give Romney the benefit of the doubt and have faith he will uphold his promise to overturn federal health regulations that they say impinge on religious organizations’ rights.

Romney’s more recent position on the issue - as reflected at his Tuesday night victory party in Tampa, where he vowed to “defend religious liberty and overturn regulations that trample on our first freedom’’ - is echoed by many Republicans. Among them is House Speaker John Boehner, who yesterday called upon the Obama administration to reconsider the decision to make most religiously affiliated employers cover contraception in their health plans.

Romney’s campaign has touted endorsements from prominent abortion foes such as Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard law professor and founder of Women Affirming Life.

But GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, a Catholic, has accused Romney of trampling on “religious liberty’’ at Catholic hospitals, apparently for his 2005 decision as governor.

“You want a war on the Catholic Church by Obama?’’ Gingrich said at a rally earlier this week in Tampa. “Guess what: Romney refused to allow Catholic hospitals to have conscience in their dealing with certain circumstances.’’

The Romney campaign, asked this week about his past actions on the issue, issued a statement Wednesday noting that he had originally vetoed the bill giving rape victims access to emergency contraception.

“The governor’s position on this law was that it never should have gone into effect in the first place, which is why he vetoed it,’’ the statement said. Asked yesterday to explain his 2005 comments in a Globe interview about believing in his “heart of hearts’’ that rape victims were entitled to emergency contraception, the campaign did not respond.

The series of events in 2005 involved several legal and political turns at a time when Romney was shifting from moderate positions on social issues he had taken when running for governor to prepare to run for president in a Republican Party that is far to the right of the Bay State electorate.

Romney had angered reproductive rights advocates in July 2005 when he vetoed a bill to make the morning-after pill available over the counter at Massachusetts pharmacies and to require hospitals to make it available to rape victims, even though he had supported emergency contraception during his 2002 campaign for governor. He justified his veto in a Globe op-ed article in which he clearly accepted the view of some opponents of emergency contraception that it can be a form of abortion. Nonetheless, the Legislature overrode his veto.

In December of that year, days before the law was to go into effect, Romney’s public health commissioner determined that a preexisting statute saying private hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception gave Catholic and other privately run hospitals the right to opt out of the new law on religious or moral grounds.

That ruling sparked widespread criticism, including some by Romney’s lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey. Days later the Romney administration reversed course. His legal counsel concluded the new law did not provide any religious exemptions.

Further confusing voters on his position, Romney said he supported the use of emergency contraception by rape victims. “My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information,’’ he said.

Doyle, of the Catholic Action League, said that Romney should have fought harder to reinstate the religious exemption and that he now doubts Romney’s sincerity in advocating for religious freedom if he becomes president.

“Governor Romney afterwards lamented that and campaigned around the country as someone in favor of religious freedom and traditional morality,’’ Doyle said. “He is very consistent at working both sides of the street on the same issue at the same time. His record on this issue has been one of very cynical and tactical manipulation.’’

Other Catholic leaders praised Romney’s evolution.

Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate, a national grassroots organization with the goal of motivating Catholics to support policies and candidates consistent with church teachings, said that although he has not endorsed a candidate, he applauds Romney for his “progression on these issues’’ over the last seven years and “for recognizing that you’ve got religious organizations being forced to violate their conscience.’’

“I try to be charitable in this regard,’’ Smith said. “You better hope that he’s going to stay true to his word.’’

Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, also said she does not doubt Romney’s evolution and does not fault him for the 2005 position his legal counsel recommended. She plans to back whoever ends up being the Republican nominee.

Senior Obama administration officials said yesterday their decision to require Catholic institutions to provide birth control in their insurance plans struck the appropriate balance. It both respects religious beliefs and ensures women have affordable access to birth control, given that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception. Churches are exempt from the requirement.

A spokeswoman for the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, whose members include the College of the Holy Cross and Boston College, said yesterday that the association does not support the White House mandate.

The decision “violates a basic right of religious freedom,’’ the association said in a statement. “For our Jesuit faith-based institutions, this regulatory mandate violates the very essence of our mission and deeply held beliefs.’’

Other Catholic-affiliated organizations, including the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, offer birth control as a part of their employee health insurance plans.

The six hospitals, now owned by Steward Health Care System, also provide emergency contraception to rape victims following a pregnancy test to ensure they are not already pregnant, said Chris Murphy, spokesman for the hospital system.



To: JohnM who wrote (181185)2/3/2012 5:48:02 PM
From: Sam  Respond to of 542125
 
GOP's doublespeak on the NLRB
By John Logan, professor, San Francisco State University - 02/03/12 12:55 PM ET
thehill.com

On Tuesday, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce will hold a hearing on the President’s recess appointments to the NLRB – the latest of
a series of wasteful, politically motivated hearings attacking the board since the GOP assumed control of the House in January 2011.

Even in these days of hyper partisanship, it is rare for a party to engage in such rank hypocrisy as has the GOP on the NLRB. Republican criticism of the board falls into three categories: the legitimacy of Obama’s recess appointments, the supposedly biased nature of his nominees, and the NLRB’s “activist agenda” that has enraged the right-wing.

First, let’s consider the legitimacy of the recess appointments. On January 4th, President Obama made three appointments, two Democrats and one Republican, to ensure the board had a quorum and was able to continue functioning. The reason he had to make recess appointments – despite the GOP’s efforts to block him through gimmicky pro-forma Senate sessions, in which no business was conducted – was that obstructionist Hill Republicans had vowed to oppose his nominees in order to incapacitate the board.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel asserted that the White House had the authority to act, and the Bush Justice Department had previously reached a similar conclusion. The president had little alternative, moreover, because, according to one constitutional expert, “recess appointments appear to be the only feasible means by which these positions will be filled in the foreseeable future.” Whatever uncertainty has been caused by legal challenges to the president’s constitutional authority – anti-union groups are challenging the appointments in federal court -- is more than outweighed by the uncertainty that would have been caused by leaving the positions unfilled.

Second, there’s the background of the appointees themselves. Contrary to GOP claims that Obama’s appointments demonstrate a “total disregard for normal policies,” the president has followed past practice by ensuring the board has 3 members from the administration’s party and 2 from the opposition.

Are his Democratic nominees mostly from a “pro-union” background? Of course, but “bias” on one side or the other has been the norm for NLRB nominees since President Eisenhower first politicized the appointments process in the 1950s. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) believes that the current NLRB has “lost all pretense of objectivity,” but past Republican boards have voted overwhelmingly with the “employer side” on cases that come before them.

Would we be better served by if the board were composed of neutral experts, as happens in the UK and elsewhere? Perhaps, but the past five Republican administrations have not followed that practice, so it’s unclear why GOP leaders expect it from this president.

Hill Republicans have also ignored last week’s report by the NLRB’s Inspector General. He found that Republican board member Brian Hayes held
employment discussions with a management law firm that is suing to block the board’s new election rule at the very time Hayes had threatened to resign to prevent a vote on the rule. The Inspector General also concluded that Hayes sent a letter to members of Congress complaining of irregularities in the rule-making process – which was cited repeatedly by Hill Republican -- that contained false statements and misrepresentations. GOP House leaders have not yet apologized for attacking the NLRB based on incorrect and misleading information.

Third, there’s the board’s “activist agenda” in the area of union certification elections and employer notice posting. Hill Republicans have cried foul over NLRB chairman Mark Pearce's plan continue to modernize and improve union election procedures by cutting down on unnecessary delay. Like the union avoidance experts who counsel dilatory tactics to undermine employee choice, they recognize that lengthy anti-union campaigns are key to the stranglehold that employers exercise over the current system.

Supported by House Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce and others have filed suit to block the rule that requires employers to post notices informing employees of their rights under federal labor law. The Chamber’s argument is revealing: the “forced speech” rule violates employer free speech because employers disagree with the content of the notice. But what they are required to post is not dangerous propaganda but the law of the land.

Last week the Bureau of National Affairs released union membership figures for 2011. Collective bargaining coverage fell again to 13%, which contrasts with an average in most northern European nations of about 80%. The US has tens of millions of workers who want union membership but, due to weak legal protection and strong employer opposition, can’t get it. It also has by far the largest “representation gap” – the gap between those who say they want union membership and those who actually have it – in the developed world.

If the NLRB is truly in the pocket of “Big Labor,” as the GOP and far right groups allege, unions should demand a refund, because the board is clearly ineffective at counteracting aggressive and illegal anti-unionism.

If Hill Republicans are in the pocket of extreme anti-union organizations, on the other hand, the kind of hypocrisy and doublespeak we will likely hear from GOP leaders at Tuesday’s hearing is providing excellent value for money.

Logan is professor and director of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University.