Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said the House will push to repeal the rule entirely, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Republicans will force a vote on legislation permitting any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plan by claiming a moral or religious objection. "This issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down," McConnell said Sunday on CBS' Face The Nation.
]]> Obama's new policy permits religious nonprofits such as universities, charities and hospitals to opt out of the requirement and instead force the insurance company to pay for their employee's contraception. (Churches were always exempt.) Republicans dismiss that as a gimmick and not good enough. Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel called on Obama to "take up the Bishops' offer to find a resolution that respects all Americans' Constitutional rights."The GOP persistence could come at a cost, as the new rule bolsters Democrats' efforts to portray the freakout over religious freedom as a Trojan horse for restricting access to contraception generally. If Dems succeed in that effort, it's an easy battle to win: Americans overwhelmingly believe contraception is morally acceptable, according to a litany of surveys, and even a majority of Catholics agree that insurance plans should be forced to cover free birth control.
Some Republicans want to wage that battle regardless. Surging GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum told the blog CaffeinatedThoughts.com back in October that contraception is "not okay," and called it "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." Rep. Steve King (R-IA) likened birth control to abortion Friday on MSNBC and said he isn't convinced contraception helps prevent pregnancies.
But others in the party appear wary of letting the debate become about birth control. McConnell, who's known in Washington as a master political strategist, was eager on Sunday to keep the focus on religious liberty. "The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion, it's right there in the First Amendment," he said. "What the overall view on the issue of contraception is has nothing to do with an issue about religious freedom." McConnell went so far as to accuse Obama of being "rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else's religion is."
On the issue of religious liberty, Obama finds himself in more comfortable territory. His policy tweak placated Democrats and moderate Catholics who had voiced concerns, without alienating his constituencies that championed the original rule. The accommodation also makes it more difficult to argue in court that the rule substantially burdens religious freedoms.
If the debate becomes about contraception coverage, it has the potential to drive a wedge between the GOP. For instance, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have in the past championed a birth control mandate similar to Obama's, and were in no rush to exempt religious groups. Even prominent conservatives like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) have voted for legislation that included a contraception mandate in federal employee health care plans.
The firestorm over the birth control rule has captured the attention of voters who otherwise pay little attention to politics. Republicans have largely held the upper hand so far by keeping the focus on religious freedom, but Obama's new accommodation for faith-based nonprofits weakens that argument. And as some moderate Republicans have already warned, wading into a no-holds-barred culture war over contraception could be a political disaster for the GOP.
]]>At a town hall event in Maine on Friday, an antagonistic questioner asked Romney, "Do you think it's patriotic of you to stash your money away in the Cayman Islands?"
In response, Romney correctly noted that money U.S. taxpayers invest offshore is largely taxed just as it would be if they invested it in the states. But he once again denied avoiding any U.S. taxes by investing offshore -- a claim tax experts openly doubt.
]]> Every dollar that's in any enterprise, whether it's foreign or domestic, you have to pay U.S. taxes on it. You might think you can put your money somewhere else and you don't pay U.S. taxes - of course you do. And the blind trustee, meeting with the media, said, Mr. Romney has paid all U.S. taxes, I have not saved one dollar by having an investment somewhere beside this country.But this doesn't always have to be true. As we've explained here repeatedly, Romney's massive individual retirement account could very easily have avoided a significant (35 percent) tax called the unrelated business income tax (UBIT), if it is invested in any offshore entities that finance their own investments with debt. Tax exempt vehicles like the IRA are subject to the UBIT when they invest in companies that use leverage here in the U.S. But they can avoid the UBIT altogether by investing in companies that use leverage in other countries.
Romney's camp has declined to address this question directly, despite growing attention from segments of the media -- most recently the New York Times. If it turns out he has avoided this tax, it will puncture the central defense of his offshore investments.
]]>This year's will technically be no different -- but the long-term stakes will be much higher than they usually are and clarifying that fact for voters will be key to President Obama's appeal in 2012.
The document is intended to stand as a moderately progressive alternative to the infamous budget House Republicans adopted overwhelmingly last spring -- and are set to readopt with some tweaks later this year. That budget calls for reducing taxes on high-income Americans, and for filling the revenue hole by slashing or phasing out key support programs -- most notably Medicare.
Neither the GOP budget nor Obama's counteroffer will -- or are even intended to -- become law. But they represent fresh bids in the ongoing fight between the parties over the scope of the safety net, and the question of whether the wealthiest people in the country contribute too much, or not enough, to the public purse.
The policies Obama will advocate are broadly popular; the GOP's counter proposals are popular among their conservative supporters. But despite the enormous differences and extraordinary implications for public policy, the winner of the November election will claim a mandate to enact their party's agenda in toto. In other words, the choice facing voters this election year is much starker than it has been in the past -- and much more likely to become law in the future.
Budget season therefore has significant implication for legislative politics in the weeks and months ahead. On CBS' Face the Nation Sunday morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell laid it out. "The only budget votes we'll have in the Senate, which refuses to follow the law and pass a budget of its own, would be a House-passed budget and the President's budget, so I intend to offer the President's budget for him so he'll have a chance to get a vote on it," McConnell said.
A similar story played out last year. This year, the ending will have to be different. In 2011, nearly every GOP senator voted for the House GOP budget, but Senate Democrats voted unanimously against Obama's plan. The clumsy tactic, meant to keep the focus on the GOP's budget and its controversial plan to phase out Medicare, resulted in some embarrassing inside-the-Beltway headlines for Obama. This year, Senate Dems won't be able to abandon the President en masse, or ignore the broader fight underlying the votes themselves.
House Republicans are already broadcasting their next move. Vulnerable Senate Democrats -- and there are several of them -- will face a choice themselves in the weeks ahead: Will they align themselves with President Obama and engage in the most critical domestic policy debate of their time? Or do they labor awkwardly to keep their hands clean?
]]>"If we end up having to try to overcome the President's opposition by legislation, of course I'd be happy to support it, and intend to support it," McConnell said. "We'll be voting on that in the Senate and you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible."
]]> The Blunt amendment he was specifically referring to would "ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions" under the Affordable Care Act. Similar legislation was introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) before the White House announced Friday that it would allow religious nonprofits such as charities, hospitals and universities to opt out of paying for contraception coverage and force the insurance company to do so instead.White House chief of staff Jack Lew, asked about the Blunt amendment after McConnell's remarks, declined to delve into the issue but predicted that "it's not going to come to pass."
A debate over access to contraception could be politically problematic for Republicans as polls show Americans overwhelmingly support the use of birth control and want insurance plans to cover the service for free. Tellingly, McConnell was eager to keep the focus on religious freedom as opposed to contraception itself.
"The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion, it's right there in the First Amendment. You can't miss it -- right there in the very first amendment to our Constitution," McConnell said. "What the overall view on the issue of contraception is has nothing to do with an issue about religious freedom."
McConnell went on to embellish the argument, claiming Obama is being "rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else's religion is." He said that "this issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down."
House GOP leaders also said Friday they will move forward with legislation to repeal the birth control rule in its entirety. Republicans from both chambers are aligning themselves with the Catholic Bishops who say the new policy remains unacceptable.
The push indicates either that Republicans believe there's still an opportunity to score political points against Obama, or that they've simply calculated they cannot back down now. Regardless, the success of the strategy now rests on the gamble that Republicans will be able to continue framing the issue as one over religious liberty and not contraception, despite the new accommodation Obama carved out.
]]>The new rule shifts the onus of coverage from employers to insurers. "The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge," an administration official told reporters on a conference call.
Women's groups are taking the administration at its word that the change will not cost women coverage. "In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women's health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work," read Planned Parenthood's statement. "We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman's ability to access these critical birth control benefits."
]]> NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan echoed that sentiment, "Today's announcement makes it clear that President Obama is firmly committed to protecting women's health," she said in a statement. EMILY's List president Stephanie Schriock stressed the importance of electing pro-choice women to act as a "firewall" to protect access and is pleased that the new rule will hold the line on contraceptive coverage.However, pro-choice groups stress the need to continue to protect access. "Unfortunately, some opponents of contraception may not be satisfied" Keenan wrote. "These groups and their allies in Congress want to take away contraceptive coverage" for women at religious organizations. Likewise, Planned Parenthood promised to be "vigilant" in ensuring that "the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy."
Another important endorsement of the rule change came from the Catholic Health Association, whose president, Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, said in a statement that the CHA is "very pleased" with the change, which "protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions. The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed." Their endorsement should help insulate the administration from pro-lifers unsatisfied with the compromise.
One pro-choice group that was also unsatisfied with the fiddle was Catholics for Choice, whose president Jon O'Brien sees the accommodation as a victory for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "The devil is in the details," O'Brien told TPM, which takes the position that only time will tell if the new rule preserves access for all women. O'Brien also noted that there are now three tiers of coverage: rules for churches whose plans will not provide coverage for contraception, rules for religious organizations like hospitals, and rules for secular employers.
Image from katielittle/ Shutterstock
On Friday, President Obama announced the plan, which senior administration officials described in detail on a conference call with reporters.
"All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services," one official said. But if a religious institution declines to provide coverage that includes contraceptive services, "the insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge."
]]> The administration argues further that because contraceptive services prevent the costs of unintended pregnancies, the rule comes with no financial costs to either the insurer or religious employer. A similar rule resulted in no premium increases in the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan, officials noted, and the White House argues this moots the charge that religious money will be indirectly footing the bill for birth control and other contraception.Ultimately, though, President Obama says he won't cave on the underlying principle: "no woman's health should depend on who she is, or where she works, or what her health is or how much money she makes. Period," he said in Friday White House remarks.
Women's groups and legislative leaders reacted positively, if with a bit of dismay, to the development -- a policy shift the White House refers to as an accommodation.
"I stand by my support for the original recommendation offered by the independent Institute of Medicine," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) in a statement sent our way, "but I am glad that we can move forward with an acceptable accommodation that addresses the concerns raised and, most importantly, protects women and supports their health care needs."
The White House also settled on language that key Catholic organizations, including the Catholic Health Association -- one of the biggest stakeholders in this fight -- approved, leaving hardliners like the Conference of Catholic Bishops somewhat more isolated.
It wasn't immediately clear how far the compromise would tamp down the vitriol flung in the administration's way from congressional Republicans. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) was one of the first to release a statement in response. In it he dismissed the change and vowed to push on:
"Just because you can come up with an accounting gimmick and pretend like religious institutions do not have to pay for the mandate, does not mean that you've satisfied the fundamental constitutional freedoms that all Americans are guaranteed."
Here's the video of President Obama's announcement:
The Obama administration is already facing lawsuits challenging its requirement that insurance plans cover birth control as a violation of religious freedom. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has flatly called the regulation unconstitutional. But although it's unclear how much traction the legal challenges will gain, especially in light of the White House adjusting the mandate Friday, the President and his backers have one unlikely man to thank for helping their cause: Justice Antonin Scalia.
"One thing I think is crystal clear -- there is no First Amendment violation by this law," Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. "The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws."
]]> The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state."To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself," wrote Scalia, an avowed Catholic and social conservative, quoting from a century-old Supreme Court decision and giving it new life. His opinion was cosigned by four other justices.
Thanks to this decision more than any other, Winkler said there's no reason to believe the constitutional argument against the rule has any legs. And while the high court later ruled to create a ministerial exception in anti-discrimination laws (to shield the Church from liability in forbidding women to become priests), it has not altered the Smith precedent insofar as it applies to the birth control rule. "So it would seem extremely difficult" for the courts to overturn it on that basis, Winkler posited. "I don't think there's any real argument."
Critics have posited that the application of drugs in Smith was a motivating factor in the decisions of Scalia and the other conservative justices. "Sure, I think there's something to that argument," Winkler said. But 'stare decisis' (court-speak for judicial precedent) applies all the same. And it wouldn't even be the first time Scalia has handed down a decision that the Obama White House can use against conservatives.
Sadly for liberals, though, the legal basis for a challenge doesn't end there. Apart from the First Amendment option, there's another, more substantial judicial route that opponents of the birth control rule can take. After Smith was handed down, Congress passed a law to push back on the ruling, which Winkler said "attempts to provide more protection for religion than the Supreme Court was willing to give."
The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act said any law that burdens religious freedom must satisfy strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court later said it cannot apply to states (which is why the 28 states that already have the birth control rule the White House wants to take nationwide are in the clear), but held that those requirements shall apply to federal laws. First, the law may not be a "substantial burden" and can only be an "incidental burden" on religious practices; second, it must be justified by "compelling government interest"; third, it must be narrowly tailored to pursue that interest.
Although it was an open question whether the original birth control requirement would pass this level of scrutiny, the White House's announcement Friday allowing religious nonprofits to opt out (in which case the insurer would be forced to pay for birth control without a copay) appears to restrict the RFRA argument to overturn it.
"This neuters the RFRA arguments entirely, it seems to me," Winkler told TPM after the announcement. "Now that religious institutions are no longer required to [pay for employees' birth control coverage], it's hard to make the argument that the contraception mandate substantially burden religious beliefs."
Conservatives are less than satisfied with the White House accommodation and it's unclear how the entities suing over the birth control requirement will react. But either way, one of their two possible routes to pushing back has had a huge impediment thrown in its path by none other than Antonin Scalia.
]]>"They are practically mirror images or each other," John McDonough, a professor of public health at Harvard, said on a conference call organized by the Democratic National Committee. "They completely reflect each other."
Romney has embraced the shocked, shocked tone of leading Republicans on this issue in recent days, and Democrats have acted swiftly to flag up inconsistencies in his position.
]]> McDonough said the only distinction between the two is that Massachusetts' exemption includes some Church-controlled primary schools -- but not religious universities or hospitals. He added that while Romney's law did impose a short-term moratorium on new mandated insurance benefits, Romney broke that moratorium 4 months after enactment by issuing a mandate unrelated to contraception.Romney's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and for now he's keeping the focus on Obama. He predicted Thursday that the President will be forced to "retreat" from his regulation or "suffer enormous consequence."
The birth control issue has become the subject of a Catholic community firestorm, fueled by Republicans, over the Obama administration's requirement that employers providing health insurance (with the exception of Churches) include birth control coverage. Congressional Republicans have threatened to reverse the rule through legislation -- which could make things awkward for Romney.
The same mandate existed in Massachusetts before Romney became governor, and he did not widen the existing coverage requirements. But McDonough said that contrary to Romney's claims, he made no effort to roll back the contraception part during his four years at the helm, whether in his original proposal or during the debate. Ultimately, the professor said, Romney emboldened it by expanding insurance coverage subject to the rule.
"I think that is demonstrably true," McDonough told reporters on the Thursday call. "The uninsured individuals [in Massachusetts] who got access to insurance because of the health care law... all got access to contraceptive coverage because of that law."
Phil Johnston, a former Democratic health secretary in Massachusetts, added that roughly 400,000 Massachusetts residents now have health insurance thanks to Romney's law, and each one of them has access to birth control.
Earlier this week after Romney joined the GOP chorus and attacked Obama's mandate, the White House pointed to the ex-governor's own prior support for a similar provision, to which Romney said he had "fought to remove" the contraception requirement.
"The record does not match a lot of the claims that are being made on it," McDonough said.
]]>"Any employer could deny birth control coverage under Rubio's bill and all the employer would have to do is say it's for a religious reason," said Jessica Arons, Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at the liberal Center for American Progress. "There is no test to prove eligibility. It's a loophole you could drive a truck through."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday the measure would grant the exemption to "not just Catholic employers -- to all employers."
Rubio's spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. His bill has 26 GOP cosponsors and the support of Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (WV).
The relevant section of the bill, under the title "Conscience Protections," is below.
`(1) IN GENERAL- No guideline or regulation issued pursuant to subsection (a)(4), or any other provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, or the amendments made by that Act (Public Law 110-148), shall--]]>`(A) require any individual or entity to offer, provide, or purchase coverage for a contraceptive or sterilization service, or related education or counseling, to which that individual or entity is opposed on the basis of religious belief; or
`(B) require any individual or entity opposed by reason of religious belief to provide coverage of a contraceptive or sterilization service or to engage in government-mandated speech regarding such a service.
Forty-three percent of respondents said a group of random people selected from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation's problems than their current representatives. Thirty-eight percent of respondents disagreed and 19 percent weren't sure.
]]> "We have a situation in which the American people don't think Congress or anybody in Washington is listening to them," Scott Rasmussen, founder of Rasmussen Reporters, told TPM. The numbers also represent a "deeper cynicism" toward Congress, Rasmussen said.Yep, Congress is pretty bad. And according to the poll, voters agree that both Democrats and Republicans aren't helping. In fact, a phone book could probably fit in the gap between Congress' approval and disapproval ratings in TPM's Poll Average:
Speaking of, why use the phone book analogy? "That's been a line that people have brought up over the years," Rasmussen said. "It's a fun way to test just how fed up people are."
See the full poll results here.
]]>It should not have come as a shock. Planned Parenthood is no stranger to such controversies. TPM spoke with two former Planned Parenthood presidents about why the women's health group had chosen to fight back, and to fight hard.
With AT&T's decision to cut off funding, Planned Parenthood faced a set of problems beyond an immediate loss in funding. First, the fact that the company pulled the funding sent an encouraging signal to anti-abortion groups that their pressure tactics were working. Second, AT&T's decision provided cover to other companies feeling similar heat from activists. The Komen incident today raises those same concerns.
When AT&T decided to cut its funding, Planned Parenthood's president, Faye Wattleton, asked them to simply do so quietly. "I requested that they do so in a manner that would not encourage other corporations to back down," Wattleton told TPM, "that would not empower the anti-choice organizations." Instead, AT&T went public, and as Wattleton had warned AT&T over the phone, Planned Parenthood retaliated.
The women's health group launched a national campaign, running ads in major newspapers with the headline "Caving to extremists, AT&T hangs up on Planned Parenthood." Planned Parenthood received an outpouring of support and AT&T had to battle a public relations crisis similar to what the Komen Foundation faces now.
"I'm stunned by the similarities 20 years later with the two incidents in terms of the high profile withdraw of funding and the public response," said Wattleton, who served as president from 1978-1992.
For all the turmoil created, however, the funding never returned. Wattleton said they were extremely close to getting AT&T's shareholders to vote on the issue, but the incident came at the end of her tenure as president and pressure on AT&T eventually subsided. The AT&T incident is not unique; as Wattleton stresses, it was one of many events during her time at Planned Parenthood. Feldt says she saw corporate funding decline during her tenure.
Even though Komen now says it will re-consider Planned Parenthood for future grants, it's possible that money never will return. The AT&T fallout shows why Planned Parenthood pushed back, and likely will continue to.
"If you go to kill the king, the king must die," says Gloria Feldt, who served as president of Planned Parenthood from 1996-2005, on the impact of the AT&T decision, "because if he doesn't, you will." It's imperative for Planned Parenthood to show that it's either too strong to be touched or at least that it can only be abandoned with significant consequences. In reference to Komen, Feldt says, "Planned Parenthood has to play really hardball or else, I guarantee you, there will be no funding from Komen in a few years." Over the past week, Planned Parenthood has emerged strong. But as Feldt warns, "you may win a battle, but you can lose the war too."
]]>Back in 2001, six Republican senators sponsored legislation decreeing that health insurance plans may not "exclude or restrict benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration." In other words, they would be required to provide birth control. The bill never made it out of committee, but that wasn't for a lack of effort from the GOP.
The measure's lead sponsor was Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and cosponsors included Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME); the other four have since left Congress. Counterpart legislation in the House was introduced by former Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA) and cosponsored by 14 others Republicans including incumbent Rep. Todd Platts (PA) and now-Sen. Mark Kirk (IL).
]]> Spokespersons for Snowe and Collins did not respond to TPM's requests for comment by press time, and the two senators have not weighed in on the controversy thus far.Republicans have fueled the religious firestorm over the administration's rule, and said Wednesday that they intend to act to roll it back legislatively if the White House does not reverse course. And while Democratic leaders have sought to downplay their own divisions and portray the GOP push as an attack on women's health, the controversy has split off some key allies of President Obama including Tim Kaine and fourth-ranking Dem Rep. John Larson (CT).
Behind the political haze is a new poll showing that a majority of the public -- including self-identified Catholics -- favors the birth control rule when told what it actually entails. It exempts churches and houses of worship that primarily employ persons of the same faith and grants religious nonprofits that employ and serve persons of different beliefs one additional year to begin complying.
Senate GOP leaders took turns bashing the decision Wednesday. "It violates our First Amendment to the constitution," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). "This is not a women's rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue." But Ayotte's state of New Hampshire already has the same mandate without a religious exemption, and she hasn't expressed concerns with it. Twenty-seven other states have the same requirement.
For now Republicans have stuck together without any divisions spilling out. But that could change if members are forced to take votes as GOP support for contraception mandates have even been backed by staunch conservatives in the past.
A Republican-led appropriations bill in 2001, passed by a GOP Congress and enacted by President Bush, included a mandate that federal employee health insurance plans include contraception and birth control coverage. The legislation cleared the Senate by a voice vote and passed the House 334-94, winning the votes of incumbent Republicans including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (VA) as well as Sens. Rob Portman (OH), Lindsey Graham (SC), Roger Wicker (MS), Kirk and others.
"The Administration believes that all federal employees should have access to a wide range of health care insurance options, including access to prescription drugs such as contraceptives," the Bush White House said in a statement at the time, noting that it did not ask for the contraception mandate but wouldn't object to it either.
Federal employee health plans requirements are, of course, a different animal than mandates for religiously affiliated entities, but enactment of the bill goes to show strong prior GOP support for expanding access to birth control for women.
With the White House struggling to explain its decision and said to be weighing a compromise, Republicans could still gain from the issue in the short-run. But as pro-choice Republicans and GOP strategists warn, the public is becoming more socially liberal and stoking culture wars could ultimately be a bad move for the party.
]]>"If the president does not reverse the Department's attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must," Boehner said. "This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand."
The Speaker said the House would take matters into its own hands with committee hearings and legislative action to push back if the administration declines to act.
"In the days ahead, the House will approach this matter fairly and deliberately, through regular order and the appropriate legislative channels," Boehner said. He called on the Energy & Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the issue, to take steps against the rule and "consider all possible options."
Boehner last week called the regulation unconstitutional. The White House is weighing options to appease religious concerns.
Watch Boehner's speech below:
]]>The idea of using unspent Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funds from troop withdrawals Iraq and Afghanistan has the support of top Democrats as well as influential Republicans like Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (AZ) and GOP Doctors Caucus chairman Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA). While President Obama and Dems want to tap into the $838 billion fund for infrastructure as well, GOP backers say it shouldn't be used for anything other than a doc fix.
But two former Republican staffers turned health industry lobbyists say House GOP leaders are now opposed to tapping into the money even for that.
]]> One of the sources said he heard directly from House Republican leadership that the prospect of using OCO money for a "doc fix" is moot. The second source added that leaders have issues with it from a messaging and process standpoint. Both agreed the GOP caucus is divided on the idea and making things tough for leadership -- while also exacerbating headaches for physician and hospital groups that are relentlessly pushing for the offset."The provider community is still salivating about it as the silver bullet," one of the lobbyists said. "The desperation is palpable. In their view, this like passing up an opportunity to go to confession and start with a clean slate."
TPM reached out to multiple House GOP leadership aides, who would not confirm their position but declined an opportunity to deny or challenge what the sources said. Speaker John Boehner dodged a question about it at his press conference last Thursday.
The current Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula contains steep 27.4 percent reductions to physician reimbursements that take effect March 1, which could destabilize the health care system and which both sides overwhelmingly want to avoid. But many Republicans prefer to fix it with real spending cuts, and see the war savings fund as fake money that shouldn't be used as an offset because it wouldn't otherwise be spent anyway.
On one side of the GOP divide are Kyl, Gingrey and other members who have close ties to the physician community and see OCO as their best opportunity to fix the problem for good -- they argue that both OCO and SGR are gimmicks so they can cancel each other out. But that view is opposed by staunch conservatives who see OCO as a sleight of hand and fear that it could open the door to letting Dems use the fund for additional stimulus measures. Some GOP lawmakers also want to use the "doc fix" as leverage to cut health care reform and Medicare, which House Republicans passed in their December payroll tax package.
Top Republicans say they want at least a two-year "doc fix" if not a permanent solution, although the lobbyists TPM spoke with fear the current polarized climate could lead to yet another short term patch of between two and six months, despite their hopes to the contrary.
The split on the war savings offset is one of many reasons negotiations over the payroll tax cut package have hit a brick wall this week. Senate Democrats have indicated that they intend to push forward with the OCO offset in the fallback plan they are developing to save face in case the negotiations fail. Dems have been quick to note that House Republicans counted OCO savings in the Paul Ryan budget they passed last year.
The idea is seen as dead in the payroll talks unless House GOP leaders sign off on it.
]]>If the cancer charity is hoping to draw a line under the firestorm, then it doesn't seem the manner of Handel's departure will necessarily help. Although she attracted intense media interest in the days following the decision, with many speculating that she played a large role in the move, her interview, much like her resignation letter, left many questions dangling for the charity.
"The only group that made this political is Planned Parenthood," Handel said, claiming that no organization should face pressure over grant-making decisions. She then went on to explain that the Komen Foundation had been under pressure from pro-life groups over their association with Planned Parenthood, including pressure because of the Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood. "It's no secret, Megyn, Komen and other organizations funding Planned Parenthood had been under pressure long before my time that had been going on, the pressure around the controversy...this organization had a right to make what it felt was the best decision for the mission."
As in her resignation letter, Handel argued that Komen had wanted for a long time to distance itself from "controversy" associated with Planned Parenthood. Handel referred specifically to the investigation launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) late last year, although that investigation started after Handel joined Komen in the spring of 2011.
Handel's position therefore seems to be attribute at least some of the decision to pressure from pro-life groups to dissociate with Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions: "There is this kind of controversy, Komen was doing its best to move to more central ground. I was asked to look at options. I looked at it and I did," she told Fox News.
Part of the argument between Komen and those attacking the charity comes down to how they are defining "political." Handel -- and Komen -- say their decision was not political because it was not based on ideology: they were just making a practical move to distance themselves from controversy. Conversely, Planned Parenthood's defenders argue that it is inherently political to give ground to a political movement in order, as Handel put it, to "move to more central ground."