The Obama administration has recently set a policy requiring Catholic institutional employers, except churches and church-affiliated secondary schools, to provide contraceptive coverage and other women's reproductive health services as part of their health insurance plans. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, herself a Catholic, made the plan public. The administration plans to give the institutions a one-year grace period and has said it will work with them to reach some sort of accommodation.
Up until this week, the Republican who has looked the strongest to become the presidential nominee is Mitt Romney. Has the Obama administration intentionally created a "Catholic controversy" to bring out religious voters who favor Rick Santorum, who has now made a largely unexpected leap to the head of the most recent primary elections? Has the administration used the issue to advance Santorum over Romney, thereby advancing a nominee it may consider an ultimnately weaker presidential candidate?
This Skeptical Examiner predicts that the administration will back off its stance on the reproductive health coverage for Catholic institutions long before the November elections, and given the very short memory of the electorate, the issue will be long forgotten by the fall. But there is an outside chance that it could derail Romney's advance and put Santorum in the position of presidential nominee. In terms of money, message, and mentation, Santorum would be a weaker candidate than Romney against Obama. On the other hand, in terms of mendacity, Romney beats them both.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Komen Reversal: The Damage is Done
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation reversed its ill-conceived policy of the past few days and said it was changing its funding criteria (yet again) to allow it to consider continued funding of Planned Parenthood -- all this after a firestorm of protest when it said its new rules would not allow it to fund any organization under investigation. Abortion foe Rep. Cliff Stearns has been investigating PP to see if any federal money was used for abortion services.
Now SGK says it has changed its funding criteria to allow it to fund organizations under investigation and will only definitely exclude those for which the outcome of an investigation was "criminal and conclusive." SGK apologized for its misseteps, and SGK board member John Raffaelli said the original policy "didn't come out very clearly." If the original policy was merely unclear, why did it have to be revised again as opposed to just clarified? Apparently, the original new policy was all too clear, and it caused former SGK supporters, as well as some senators and even its own staffers and affiliates, to strongly take issue with the new policy.
As this observer noted yesterday, if SGK wants to make a clean start, abortion foe Karen Handel, the organization's relatively new Senior VP for Public Policy will have to be thrown overboard. Arthur Caplan, PhD, Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, goes even further, writing, "There is one last step that can be taken to save the mighty Komen from running aground permanently. The entire executive leadership and board must resign. Now. Anything less means that the prominence that Komen achieved will become simply one more in a long list of worthy causes that Americans may or may not choose to support."
Does Dr. Caplan include Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of SGK (and sister of the late Susan Komen), in his assessment of who needs to resign? That would be a strong prescription, indeed. But if she is truly dedicated to the SGK mission, Ms Brinker needs to seriously consider the advice.
But no matter what SGK does, it has permanently injured itself. All it can do is hope to mitigate the damage.
Now SGK says it has changed its funding criteria to allow it to fund organizations under investigation and will only definitely exclude those for which the outcome of an investigation was "criminal and conclusive." SGK apologized for its misseteps, and SGK board member John Raffaelli said the original policy "didn't come out very clearly." If the original policy was merely unclear, why did it have to be revised again as opposed to just clarified? Apparently, the original new policy was all too clear, and it caused former SGK supporters, as well as some senators and even its own staffers and affiliates, to strongly take issue with the new policy.
As this observer noted yesterday, if SGK wants to make a clean start, abortion foe Karen Handel, the organization's relatively new Senior VP for Public Policy will have to be thrown overboard. Arthur Caplan, PhD, Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, goes even further, writing, "There is one last step that can be taken to save the mighty Komen from running aground permanently. The entire executive leadership and board must resign. Now. Anything less means that the prominence that Komen achieved will become simply one more in a long list of worthy causes that Americans may or may not choose to support."
Does Dr. Caplan include Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of SGK (and sister of the late Susan Komen), in his assessment of who needs to resign? That would be a strong prescription, indeed. But if she is truly dedicated to the SGK mission, Ms Brinker needs to seriously consider the advice.
But no matter what SGK does, it has permanently injured itself. All it can do is hope to mitigate the damage.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Cure for Komen for the Cure
Susan G Komen for the Cure has gotten itself in hot water by first dropping its longstanding funding for Planned Parenthood and then not being able to get its story straight. What a PR plan. SGK had to know that the decision would create a firestorm, but the PR messages have been all over the map. First, SGK said it would no longer fund any organization under investigation. Planned Parenthood is under investigation by abortion foe Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida. Of the approximately 2,000 other organizations that SGK finds, are any others under investigation? If so, have any of them lost funding?
This new policy of not funding organizations under investigation came about after SGK hired abortion foe and failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel as its Senior VP of Public Policy. When challenged on its decision, SGK said it was not based on any political motive. And then it said it had instituted new methods about which organizations to fund. So has SGK settled on a motive for its decision, or will it continue to float lead trial balloons?
As a result of all this tumult, Planned Parenthood has picked up many new donors, some saying they have shifted their allegiance from SGK to Planned Parenthood. SGK has also picked up new donations, mainly from abortion opponents who want to express their approval of SGK's decision.
My predictions: 1) Planned Parenthood will enjoy its new-found donors into the future as they continue to fund women's health services through Planned Parenthood (as opposed to giving to SGK). 2) SGK will get new donations in the near term, but these new donors will quickly drift away if they have not been traditional supporters of women's health services. Their approval of SGK will be a one-time gain for the organization. 3) For SGK to regain its credibility among women's health advocates and donors, it will have to admit its missteps and relieve itself of the services of Ms Handel. She has become the poorly grounded lightning rod causing the firestorm.
As a side note, the most prevalent estimate is that 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortion services. The rest funds other women's health services, as well as family planning services other than abortion for women and men.
This new policy of not funding organizations under investigation came about after SGK hired abortion foe and failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel as its Senior VP of Public Policy. When challenged on its decision, SGK said it was not based on any political motive. And then it said it had instituted new methods about which organizations to fund. So has SGK settled on a motive for its decision, or will it continue to float lead trial balloons?
As a result of all this tumult, Planned Parenthood has picked up many new donors, some saying they have shifted their allegiance from SGK to Planned Parenthood. SGK has also picked up new donations, mainly from abortion opponents who want to express their approval of SGK's decision.
My predictions: 1) Planned Parenthood will enjoy its new-found donors into the future as they continue to fund women's health services through Planned Parenthood (as opposed to giving to SGK). 2) SGK will get new donations in the near term, but these new donors will quickly drift away if they have not been traditional supporters of women's health services. Their approval of SGK will be a one-time gain for the organization. 3) For SGK to regain its credibility among women's health advocates and donors, it will have to admit its missteps and relieve itself of the services of Ms Handel. She has become the poorly grounded lightning rod causing the firestorm.
As a side note, the most prevalent estimate is that 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortion services. The rest funds other women's health services, as well as family planning services other than abortion for women and men.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Gov. Christie Wimps Out
Gov. Christie of New Jersey said that if the Democratic-controlled legislature introduces a bill to institute same-sex marriage in NJ, he would veto it. But he has wimped out by now proposing that the issue should be put to the people in a referendum for an amendment to the state constitution on the matter.
This move gives the Republicans in the legislature political cover in that they would now not have to vote for or a against such a bill -- if instead the matter were to be put to a referendum. And it absolves Christie of having to make good on his veto threat. The people of NJ are apparently closely divided on the issue, with one poll showing that 52% favor legalizing same-sex marriage. So it is hard for a legislator to tell exactly which way the political winds are blowing.
Gov. Christie often shows conviction and acts on his convictions, whether one agrees with his positions on specific issues or not. But in this case he is taking the politically safe route, possibly to curry favor with his constituency if he decides to make a bid for president in 2016. But attitudes can change in four years, and what looks like a safe move now may come back to bite him in the future.
This move gives the Republicans in the legislature political cover in that they would now not have to vote for or a against such a bill -- if instead the matter were to be put to a referendum. And it absolves Christie of having to make good on his veto threat. The people of NJ are apparently closely divided on the issue, with one poll showing that 52% favor legalizing same-sex marriage. So it is hard for a legislator to tell exactly which way the political winds are blowing.
Gov. Christie often shows conviction and acts on his convictions, whether one agrees with his positions on specific issues or not. But in this case he is taking the politically safe route, possibly to curry favor with his constituency if he decides to make a bid for president in 2016. But attitudes can change in four years, and what looks like a safe move now may come back to bite him in the future.
It's going to get messy
Newt Gingrich pledged early on not to go negative in his campaigning -- quite naive in the current political climate. That plan went by the wayside some weeks ago.
Mitt Romney's strategy was to run against President Obama, even in the primaries, rather than against his Republican primary opponents. The idea was to be "above the fray" of the primaries. Acting like the nominee was supposed to help him be the nominee. Now that plan is going down the tubes, and things are going to get dirty in Florida -- Gingrich v Romney, Romney v. Gingrich. It should be good fireworks. (It's odd to see "fireworks" and "Romney" in the same sentence. How much more white bread could a candidate be?)
Ron Paul has his ardent followers, and Rick Santorum has his bleating and whining about being largely ignored even though he has now "won" Iowa. But realistically, the field has narrowed to the two top contenders, and the also-ran's are now all-but-done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)