BC in DC

•April 25, 2012 • Leave a Comment

guest blogger: ffr

Over the past couple of months the Obama administration has adopted a rule requiring employers to provide “free” birth control (the employee’s health insurance pays) to all of their employees. This rule provides an exemption for “religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith” but not for religious employers who employ people of other faiths. In other words, the rule also mandates that Roman Catholics and other religious affiliated hospitals and colleges provide birth control through the institutions’ insurance companies. Although this policy has gained the support of many women, as well as a large majority of Democrats, there is a large opposition to this new controversial issue.

One major opposition towards this rule is caused by its requirement for religious institutions to provide free contraception. Among the largest opposition groups are men, although there is also a significant number of women against free contraception in regards to religious institutions as well.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News, under Republican pollster Bill McInturff, conducted a poll asking whether the government should mandate that Roman Catholic and other religious affiliated hospitals and colleges offer birth control paid by the institutions’ insurance companies. Results showed that American’s were opposed—although only by a small plurality—45% to 38%, with women split down the middle with 40% approval and 40% disapproval.

When the poll asked more specific questions such as whether these religious institutions should provide birth control such as the morning after pill, the opposition rose 49% with women’s opposition rising as well to 46%.

However, in the same poll, when asked if employers should provide overall free birth control the respondents favored the rule 53% to 33% (with women specifically approving 58% to 28%).

Surprisingly enough, Catholics who were surveyed generally approved of employers providing free birth control, but opposed the requirement of Catholic institutions to provide such means of contraception.

Obama’s attempt to create a new birth control law is a perfect example of how the executive branch can create administrative laws and policies through bureaucratic decision-making.

Administrative laws are laws that govern administrative agencies of government (i.e. bureaucracies). Therefore, bureaucracies are required to carry out any policies that the president creates through administrative laws—thus creating new public law.

But will religious organizations be able to challenge this upcoming policy through freedom of religion in the First Amendment and the free exercise clause?

As displayed by this poll, Obama’s attempt at a new birth control policy is unquestionably a very controversial issue both among Republicans and Democrats, as well as women and men, and will most likely be taking a prominent role come election time.

Analyzing a Liberal Stance

•April 24, 2012 • Leave a Comment

guest blogger: jat

As consumers of information, we have it a little rough. When we are searching for information on a candidate or a proposed bill, we can’t accept everything we read at first glance.

For example, in the Washington Post article, “Romney, Santorum and archaic ideas on fertility”, the bias becomes evident with the word “archaic.” By using the word, the author is portraying the conservative view of birth control as outdated. She might strengthen her argument by explaining why some people consider birth control to be wrong, rather than using negative phrases like “smug fecundity” and Republicans’ “broods.” More people would be open to the author’s opinion with just these two changes. Of course, by asserting her opinion, the author is automatically succumbing to her bias.
Continue reading ‘Analyzing a Liberal Stance’

WoMEN’s Health?

•April 23, 2012 • 11 Comments

guest blogger: ffr

On February 16, there was a Capitol Hill hearing discussing whether or not president Obama’s new birth control mandate violated religious freedoms. Interestingly enough, a panel of nearly all men was testifying on the issue. Take a look at the video clip below from The Ed Show (up to 1:32):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/46436137#46436137

How can men go about trying to influence decisions about women’s health in regards to abortion and birth control? Men cannot become pregnant, men do not have to carry a baby for nine months, and men cannot be put at risk because of a pregnancy. The only thing men are responsible for involving pregnancy is getting women pregnant.

To have this panel of all men discuss the Obama administration’s rule mandating insurance coverage of birth control seems both outrageous and irrational. Where is the woman’s voice? This is, after all, a women’s health issue. Men do not solely deserve a say in what women do with their body without, in the very least, consulting with women and their wants first. Perhaps it would be more reasonable if there were collaborations of both men and women, rather than a panel consisting entirely of men.

Continue reading ‘WoMEN’s Health?’

Obama Tackles Federal Deficit

•April 23, 2012 • Leave a Comment

guest blogger: actg242

Early in 2012, Obama presented a new tax proposal to Congress with the intent to solve the federal deficit problem. The new rule, known as the Buffett Rule, requires individuals who earn more than $1 million to pay a tax rate of at least 30%. It also prevents them from claiming deductions to decrease their taxable income. For the first time, the President is proposing to increase dividend taxation on families that make more than $250,000. As a result, it’s becoming more difficult for high-income families and individuals to escape from higher taxes in the future.

Congressional Republicans strongly disapproved of Obama’s new budget proposal. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) responded by stating, “the proposal isn’t really a budget at all; it’s a campaign document. Once again, the president is shirking his responsibility to lead and using this budget to divide.”
Continue reading ‘Obama Tackles Federal Deficit’

Cheeseburgers: The New Cigarettes?

•April 23, 2012 • 11 Comments

guest blogger: dietetics101

During the early 1990’s, tobacco companies targeted youth with “glamorous” and “cool” smoking advertisements. These advertisements portrayed smoking as the “it” thing to do, but would never show the dangers of using these products on health. We now know there are direct correlations between smoking and certain types of cancer.

Can junk food have a similar devastating effect on young peoples’ health?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying junk food causes lung cancer. My point is, overindulgence in junk food causes obesity; which causes a world of other devastating problems, including diabetes and hypertension. If left untreated and lifestyle changes are not made, obesity can kill. And if junk food can cause life threatening diseases, as can cigarettes, then why are we still allowing food advertisers to target youth?
Continue reading ‘Cheeseburgers: The New Cigarettes?’

Emails an Attack against Assange… or the US Government?

•April 23, 2012 • 1 Comment

Guest blogger: jat

WikiLeaks has yet again proved its intention to sway people’s minds and influence the public agenda, drawing the attention of government officials, by publishing [on February 28 of this year] 5 million alleged emails, The Global Intelligence Files, and internal documents from an intelligence firm, Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.). The emails claim to reveal that Pakistan knew where Osama Bin Laden was hiding. Athar Abbas, spokesman for the Pakistan army, said the Intelligence Files’s allegations “are nonsense and not credible.” According to Stratfor, the documents were tampered with before being released publicly on WikiLeaks.

Stratfor handles the “business of intelligence gathering and assessment.” But, according to WikiLeaks, the Stratfor documents reveal

the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

So why did WikiLeaks publish this information? Here’s a possibility:
Continue reading ‘Emails an Attack against Assange… or the US Government?’

Voter Identification Laws: Silencing Minority, Elderly, and Low-Income Voters?

•April 20, 2012 • 16 Comments

Guest blogger: anonymous2

On Sunday, March 4th, Alabama demonstrators commemorated the 47th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the historic nonviolent civil rights march of 1965. Met with extreme violence on the part of Alabama’s law enforcement officials, the 1965 march sparked the attention and uproar necessary to fuel the passage of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Working to reinforce the Fifteenth Amendment, the Voting Rights Act outlawed discriminatory voter registration and election rules commonly used at that time in the South to hinder African American voter participation.

Recent issues have cast a shadow over what should have been a celebration. Chuck Dean, senior political reporter for the Birmingham news, acknowledges that “The commemoration is partly solemn event.” As activists draw a connection between the struggle of 1965 and contemporary battles over voter identification laws, many begin to question the Act’s place in our modern context.

In several states, including Texas ,South Carolina, and Virginia, state legislatures are calling for more aggressive voter ID laws. Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas have in fact passed new voter ID laws. These proposed changes in election laws have often been thwarted by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires the Department of Justice to pre-approve this sort of legislation in several, mostly Southern, states. (Currently the act as a whole and this section in particular are threatened by impending lawsuits, as I discussed in my previous post.)

Continue reading ‘Voter Identification Laws: Silencing Minority, Elderly, and Low-Income Voters?’

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.