Liz Cheney: ‘Political Expedience’ Drove President Away From 1st Amendment
Email
ABC News
ABC News contributor Donna Brazile said on the “This Week” roundtable today that the Obama administration shouldn’t expect to reach a compromise with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on religious institutions providing birth control to their employees given the “zero tolerance with regards to birth control” in the Catholic Church.
“You cannot compromise with the Catholic bishops on this issue. For those of us who know Catholicism — and I’m a practicing Catholic — there’s no, there’s zero tolerance with regards to birth control. There is no such thing as a compromise,” said Brazile. “I had the books thrown at me when I was a little girl. There is zero tolerance. There’s only [one] thing: abstinence. You know, sex is for procreation, not recreation.”
In a reversal last week, the Obama administration announced a revised rule that will make birth control available to employees of religious institutions who want it while keeping the costs of contraception from being incurred by religious institutions. Still the move has not satisfied critics on the right.
“As Paul Ryan said to you, this is an accounting gimmick that they’ve done that in no way ends the complicity of Catholic institutions and individuals in delivering services they consider morally abhorrent,” said ABC’s George Will. “This is what liberalism looks like. This is what the progressive state does. It tries to break all the institutions of civil society, all the institutions that mediate between the individual and the state. They have to break them to the saddle of the state.”
Liz Cheney, the Fox News contributor and co-founder of Keep America Safe, agreed, adding she didn’t think Republicans would be seen on the wrong side of the issue.
“I think there are two things here that people are going to remember,” she said. “One is that, for political expedience, the president was willing to look away from the First Amendment, that the whole issue of freedom of religion was less important to this White House than placating their base on this issue.”
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
LMAO! …….. After the Iraq War fiasco, which will end up costing American taxpayers about $2.5 Trillion when all is said and done, I guess old Liz thinks that whatever a “Cheney” has to say actually holds any water with the rest of middle-class America.
Keep dreaming Liz. Your dad ruined your name. Many of us can care less what you think.
Posted by: Forrest Gump is DEFINITELY a Republican | February 12, 2012, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
I think it was Political Expedience to call this a first amendment issue.
In Bradfield v. Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that a Roman Catholic hospital was a secular institution and therefore the government’s funding of the hospital was permissible.
Now the same institution wants to argue that a hospital is not secular and laws of which they do not approve are a violation of First Amendment rights. This utterly fails to recognize the government has long weeded out faith-based morality – such as polygamy – that failed to overcome the objections of the moral majority.
Posted by: Jon Cameron | February 12, 2012, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
As Jon points out, when a religious order operates in the SECULAR realm (as in operating a public hospital which receives federal and/or state funds) it falls under the jurisdiction of government regulation.
The Constitution empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce (which includes the health insurance AND the health care industry.)
What is being omitted from this coverage is the fact that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) requires that health insurance providers cover ALL preventive care with no co-pay (immunizations, mammograms, AND contraception, which, by definition, IS “preventive”).
No one is being FORCED to USE their contraception coverage. But since this is 2012 and not 1220, such coverage IS considered basic and preventive and so IS included in basis coverage.
On the other hand, the Catholic Bishops are attempting to violate the 1st Amendment by FORCING their religious views on others via meddling in the government realm of the regulation of interstate commerce.
What next? The Jehovah’s Witnesses objecting to coverage which includes immunizations and blood transfusions or the Christian Scientists opposing ANY coverage?
Either don’t offer ANY coverage to your employees or accept that modern-day coverage includes modern-day standards of care. Leave it to the INDIVIDUAL to exercise their freedom of religion and accept or reject that which violates their beliefs.
Posted by: RAVEN | February 12, 2012, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm
I think the administration is on very solid legal ground in this instance. It seems that whenever the government uses its right to regulate the commercial dealings of church organizations they immediately go terminally stupid and flare up with outraged indignation that the govt is infringing on their 1st Amendment rights. What a bunch of dodos. However, it is characteristic of religious groups that they tend to use and promote laws that help them enforce their control over the flock. Allowing catholics the option of getting contraception products if they decide to, gives them too much free will and dilutes the control of the church over its members. There is ofcourse also a financial element that will cause these organizations’ medical insurance costs to rise, but that is a banal issue that obviously shouldn’t be discussed.
Posted by: Larry Jorgensen | February 12, 2012, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
let some of these bishops and cardinale appear on tv and say how much they are against birth control and zero tolerance and them have them explain why so many priests are pedofiles and their acts are constantly being covered up by the church.remember/once a pedofile always a pedofile to move them into a diffrent parrish is only compounding the problen and they should also stand trial as an accompace
Posted by: guy | February 12, 2012, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
Ms. Chaney would do well to keep a low profile when the discussion turns to the Constitution. Given the damage that her immediate forebear inflicted on it and our country, it only serves to remind everyone that the GOP, having inherited an America at the height of its power and prosperity in 2001, presided over its decline to the state in which Obama received it in 2009.
Posted by: Conrad Santini | February 12, 2012, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
LOL! ….. In doctrine, the Catholic church is also against circumcision… but, of course, you sure don’t hear the Catholic church demanding that the PPACA not require their insurance to cover that medical procedure for Catholic employees.
“Pick-and-choose”, “Pick-and-Choose”.
Posted by: Forrest Gump is DEFINITELY a Republican | February 12, 2012, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
The Constitution empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce (which includes the health insurance AND the health care industry.) Raven. You are exactly the kind of idiot that Obama wants you to be. There is a reason the Declaration Of Independence came first. Liberty and freedom from an opressive government. They have NO right to tell you what to do, buy or believe.
Posted by: Zman | February 12, 2012, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
The Bible tells us that God meant sex to occur within marriage and marriage He created to produce godly offspring. Let the godly produce, let the ungodly have birth control. And let the ungodly support their own lifestyle. Let’s all be tolerant. Just think, if we can just let the ungodly have all the birth control they need, in a single generation, there will be fewer to let! The key word is “let”.
Posted by: Rod | February 12, 2012, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm
Pregnancy is a disease for liberals and should be prevented. Please give Obama all the birth control he needs. Someday…
Posted by: Paulletta | February 12, 2012, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
Raven, Try to buy health insurance across state lines ( interstate commerce ) and you can not. And what disease or illness does contraception prevent? I know some women need it to regulate bad cycles which would be preventative, but most use it for contraception which only prevents pregnancy. I’m not aware of pregnancy being an illness or disease.
Posted by: They all stink again | February 12, 2012, 7:01 pm 7:01 pm
they all stink again wrote:”I’m not aware of pregnancy being an illness or disease.”
.
It is to the progressives. Only their type need to be allowed to reproduce.
Posted by: Michelle Shu Jas | February 12, 2012, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
Bishops want to make harder and less certain for ANY and ALL women to get employer based health insurance for contraception. If the Bishops get their way ANY and ALL employers could eliminate contraception coverage from their employee health insurance plans. Of course it wouldn’t happen in reality that ALL employers would drop contraception coverage but nobody knows which employers would and wouldn’t so that means that ANY and ALL women would be potentially at risk of losing their contraception coverage. Also, even if a woman knew for a fact that her employer would not discontinue her contraception coverage for women there is still the chance that she could switch jobs some day and her new employer might not provide contraception if the bishops get their way. The bishops are being unreasonable.
Posted by: russell dee | February 12, 2012, 7:45 pm 7:45 pm
Larry Jorgensen ~~ Actually it might be less of an expenditure for the insurance companies. Birth control pills are indeed expensive, but not nearly as expensive as prenatal care + childbirth + postnatal care for both mother and child + continuing child care from birth to the age of 18 (or 24). So for the insurance companies it might be a welcome tradeoff!
Posted by: Joyce | February 12, 2012, 9:05 pm 9:05 pm
joyce wrote:”So for the insurance companies it might be a welcome tradeoff!”
.
If it is such an economic no-brainer for the insurance companies, one would think they would have been providing birth control pills for free many years ago. But then… its not about contraception as the progressives and the news media want you to think.
Posted by: Michelle Shu Jas | February 12, 2012, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm
Michelle ~~ If it isn’t about the Church’s refusal to provide contraception then what, in your opinion, IS it about?
Posted by: Joyce | February 12, 2012, 9:47 pm 9:47 pm
joyce wrote:”If it isn’t about the Church’s refusal to provide contraception then what, in your opinion, IS it about?”
.
Wow…. listen to what you are saying… the Church is supposed to provide contraception? Unreal… progressives have just absolutely gone off the deep end.
Posted by: Michelle Shu Jas | February 12, 2012, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
Michelle: Maybe you are missing the point. The “Church” is now claiming they no longer believe Catholic universities and hospitals, as they asked the Supreme Court to affirm, are secular. They are claiming these institutions are a church and therefore protected under the First Amendment. Exercising this startling new claim, the government can no longer provide funding to any such institution which is affiliated with the Catholic church.
Under the Lemon test, this would create excessive government entanglement with religion.
The Catholic church should have maybe punched the speed dial for a constitutional lawyer before they pounded the pulpit so publicly.
This could have a staggering impact on the availability of funds on women’s counseling related to conception. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say it was the best played hand by “progressives” in three decades. But, I am not.
Most interestingly, you seem to support that it is exclusively men who are making the choices for women in this matter. Are you listening to what you are saying?
Posted by: Jon Cameron | February 12, 2012, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
Devil’s spawn speaks. Quick somebody check her for sixes.
Posted by: david | February 13, 2012, 12:50 am 12:50 am
The church’s position may not be mainstream, but our country and constitution are based on the guarantee of religious freedom. The “accommodation” forces insurance companies to provide contraception products for free. Since when can the government force ANY company to give away their product? Obama is way out of line, he knows it, and will lose fer more than the Catholic vote over it.
Posted by: david c | February 13, 2012, 8:10 am 8:10 am
This whole topic isn’t about ‘political expedience’ at all and Cheney knows it. This topic is about an employer in the United States of America who wants to be ‘tax free’ and still discriminate against their own employees from a health insurance standpoint. And Americans allow them to hide behind the “First Amendment”. Thta is why we need to get ‘health insurance’ away from employers and have a national health insurance plan.
Posted by: CND FOX | February 13, 2012, 8:24 am 8:24 am
Like FDR, Obama believes the constitution is a charter of negative liberties and demonstrated his dislike by ignoring Congress on several occasions. His attempts at telling the churches what to do is clearly a violation of the first amendment. The women are free to make whatever health choice they want.
Posted by: deanbob | February 13, 2012, 8:46 am 8:46 am
Simple solution, close ALL catholic universities, schools, hospitals and let the government provide FREE everything.
Posted by: Lizzie | February 13, 2012, 10:01 am 10:01 am
David C: The proposed rules aren’t making insurance companies provide anything they don’t already offer. Providers offer both plans with and without contraception today. Plans without contraception are more expensive because of long-term care costs are higher for those not using contraception.
Posted by: Jon Cameron | February 13, 2012, 10:10 am 10:10 am
Ah yes Liz, the words you say are LOST on ears that beheld all your daddy did to bring our Nation into the decline we see today. Also, if you think ANYTHING like Evil Dick, you’re full of crap. I can’t believe that YOU have the nerve to go on national tv as if YOUR bunch had even an OUNCE of truth or credibility to it. WHATEVER you say means NOTHING!
Posted by: demNme5 | February 13, 2012, 10:10 am 10:10 am
(From a NYT article this weekend): A national survey found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives. Moreover, a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute reported that even among Catholics, 52 percent back the Obama policy: they believe that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals should be obliged to include birth control coverage in insurance plans. So, does America’s national health policy really need to make a far-reaching exception for Catholic institutions when a majority of Catholics oppose that exception? I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees? “We offer a standard health insurance package,” John Yemma, the editor, told me. That makes sense. After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith? What if organizations affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics? The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can. But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.”
Posted by: A Cynic | February 13, 2012, 10:11 am 10:11 am
“as if YOUR bunch had even an OUNCE of truth or credibility to it. WHATEVER you say means NOTHING!”………Then there’s the presidents new chief of staff (Jack Lew) who hit the news shows yesterday – telling people the Senate needs 60 votes to pass a budget? NOT TRUE. It only takes 51. But they didn’t even pass a budget when they had the 60 votes (when you include Lieberman and Sanders). Now, its been over 3 tears since the Senate passed a budget.
Posted by: deanbob | February 13, 2012, 10:30 am 10:30 am
DEANBOB: The Senate needs a MAJORITY which IS 60!!! It SHOULD be 51 but it is NOT! These “Lawmakers” saw fit to CHANGE some of the rules over the past few years in order to give themselves more leverage and as we can now see, it was a collossal ERROR! So is the PHONEY fillibuster.
Posted by: demNme5 | February 13, 2012, 11:17 am 11:17 am
I didn’t have time to talk about this topic today but I have read enough and seen enough great commentary on this subject to understand that the President is being applauded for his ability to compromis while the GOP in reaching out to the most extreme of their social/religious conservative types are getting themselves onto the ‘wrong side’ of this issue. LOL…after all when over 90% of the Catholic woment use some form of birth control, I would think a Party would be smarter than to get on the ‘wrong side’ of the ‘woman vote’. That is what happens when you ‘pander to the extremes’.
Posted by: CND FOX | February 13, 2012, 7:51 pm 7:51 pm
The media will come out full force against the catholic church hate and lies will be flying.
Posted by: daniel | February 14, 2012, 9:08 am 9:08 am
….why do you folks insist on having the Democrat Party’s biggrest apologista appear so often on your news programs……ie, Brazile. ..and you certainly don’t need her for comic relief at GOP primaries. We know where she is coming from, and we are not stupid.
Posted by: reggie | February 21, 2012, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm