Chris Wallace Decides: It's Not About Contraception, It's About A Government Mandate
February 09, 2012 6:15 pm ET by Andy Newbold
The recent announcement that the Obama administration would require most employers to provide birth control caused immediate outrage throughout Fox News and the right-wing media. (Churches and other religious institutions are exempt.) Today on Fox News' Happening Now, Jon Scott explained to fellow Fox News host Chris Wallace that critics are calling "the birth control mandate an attack on religious freedom" while "supporters say it's about woman's access to family planning and health care." Chris Wallace -- supposedly part of the network's straight news division and anchor of Fox News Sunday -- decided that the supporters of the mandate were totally wrong.
Wallace said: "I don't think it's just about birth control. I really think this controversy is about government intrusion. There are a lot of people who aren't Catholics who are very upset about this because they think the government shouldn't be in the business of telling anybody in any religion what they have to do. And so it becomes a question of government limits or government intrusion in the lives of institutions or of people." Wallace also said: "This idea of mandates is something I think you don't have to be Catholic to be upset about."
Wallace's comments directly contradicted comments that Democratic senators had made about the contraception issue. For instance, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) said: "We have news for Republican: This is about contraception. The attacks on women's rights never come without being disguised as something else."
And it's ridiculous to suggest that this isn't about access to contraception. According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, "[e]mployer-based coverage is the primary form of health insurance for 64% of women of reproductive age, but a sizable minority of women lack coverage for contraceptives." Notably, poorer and college-aged women are the ones who struggle the most with the cost of prescription birth control.
But that's Fox's straight news division for you: always ready to rebut the progressive position regardless of the facts.
This is a media generated outrage.
I heard Chris Matthews gleefully cheering Santorum's wins yesterday because he was afraid that the GOP primary season was over. He was afraid that they wouldn't have any more fun. The media is disgusting . . . ALL of them.
I'll repeat, this is a media and GOP generated talking point which has no basis in fact.
This is a media generated outrage.
I heard Chris Matthews gleefully cheering Santorum's wins yesterday because he was afraid that the GOP primary season was over. He was afraid that they wouldn't have any more fun. The media is disgusting . . . ALL of them.
Mike wept.
What's ridiculous is Newbold's pedantic assertion that this is an all or nothing issue. Certainly for some...the issue is contraception. And just as surely for others...the issue is about govt. intrusion.
For those on both sides of the contraception issue...have at it. Nothing in the decision forces a woman to use contraceptives or do without them...it's their choice to make concerning their religion, lifestyle or employer.
But for others, like myself, Wallace has it exactly right when he says, "I don't think it's just about birth control. I really think this controversy is about government intrusion...And so it becomes a question of government limits or government intrusion in the lives of institutions or of people."
Wallace stated both sides clearly and staked out his position...unlike Newbold and mmfa.
mmfa's staff...for obvious reasons...supports anything anti-male, secularist, and more govt. control on the lives of Americans. And it's dishonest to paint this as only a woman's health issue.
So Catholic-affiliated hospitals and schools should be exempt from civil rights laws, safety codes, child labor laws, environmental regulations, zoning restrictions, taxes codes, et al?
I know it's a fine line, and nobody should make a blanket statement either way.
But, on occassion, yes, religions institutions probably should be exempt from certain regulations. Which regulations, which institutions, and which circumstances is a matter for debate, and that's the debate we're currently having.
I would argue this is a situation where there need to be some sort of allowances.
Overall a pretty good statement and one I agree with except...
I would say THIS is a situation where NO, if religious institutions want to do business they should do it according to the rules business is done by. If they are employing people they should have NO SAY in the medical decisions of their employees. Healthcare in our society is not GIVEN. It is part of the benifit/wage package that the employee pays for. All medical decisions should be between the doctor and patient and insurance can be regulated, as commerce. The employer should have NO SAY in this whatsoever
And that's the issue in a nutshell.
Think of someone you care about that you're not legally responsible for - an adult child, niece, nephew, best friend.
Think of a perfectly legal activity that person might want to engage in that you are personally opposed to or would advise them not to participate in.
You're not legally responsible, they're of age, like it or not, it's their decision and you can't stop them.
So far, everything is fine. You have your opinion and they have their decision.
Now, you are told that you are going to pay for that activity. Or, you used to pay 50% and now you're going to pay 100% of the cost for that activity.
To me, that is the issue.
Think of THIS. Should an employer say that their employee cannot use the money they make, the wages they have earned to go see a movie that the employer doesnt approve of? Health insurance is EARNED it is just like the WAGES they earn. It is not a GIFT given by the employer.
I suspect that wesley has never come to grips with the idea that men should have anything less than a monopoly on the control of women's sexuality and reproduction.
Are you a male or a female?
You are a punk and you are a liar. Since you have gone full troll mode your stupidity is simply epic. The ignorance embodied in that last statement is so mind boggling that it approaches performance art.
If I was HALF as stupid and pathetic as you I would die of embarassment
Would you mind pointing out anything that is openly "anti-male" from MMFA?
As simple as that.
Whether these services are used or not is between the individual and his or her doctor as well as between the individual and his or her conscience (God?).
It is my understanding that this employer supplied healthcare is part of an overall remuneration package. As such the employer has no business - morally or legally - deciding what legal and therapeutically appropriate treatment is to be covered just as the employer has no authority to decide what food or clothing may be purchased.
Why the selective outrage ?