Time is Running Out for Iran, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Speaking in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had made it abundantly clear that the time for diplomacy to work to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program has come. She stated that talks attempting to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons would resume in mid-April.

Talks will resume in Istanbul, Turkey on April 13. Clinton says that "Iran's window of opportunity for a peaceful resolution will not remain open forever". A successful meeting will likely be the only way to prevent a U.S. or Israeli military strike of their nuclear facilities.

Read full article.

Did Santorum Call President Obama the "N" Word?

Republican Preidential Candidate Rick Santorum

In a speech before supporters in Janesville, Wisconson just days before the Republican primary Rick Santorum has seemingly put his foot in his mouth for what may be the final time.

Mr. Santorum appears to have called President Obama a "government nig", and then immediately changing the direction of his speech to stop himself.

A brief video of the section of the speech in question is available below.

See full story and video.

Obama Ok's New Sanctions Against Iran

President Barack Obama

It is being reported that President Barack Obama is going forward with a series of new sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's oil exports. The President only decided to pursue additional sanctions after it was determined that their is a sufficient supply of oil on the world market to not harm the U.S. and it's allies.

The United States will implement new sanctions that penalize foreign banks that continue to purchase oil from Iran. This action also aims to further isolate Iran's central bank which makes virtually all of the payments made for oil purchased on the open market.

Read the rest of the story.

More Twists in the Trayvon Martin Case, Zimmerman Accuses Martin of Attacking Him

Trayvon Martin

The story of Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of George Zimmerman keeps taking more bizarre twists and turns all in the name of justifying his actions.

Regardless of Zimmerman's claims of self-defense it can't be disputed that he initiated the tragic string of events that lead to the death of Trayvon Martin.

The simple fact that he was following this young man in his car.  The recording of his own call to 911 states that when asked if he was following Trayvon, he said "yes" and was told not to follow him.  Then he exited his vehicle and confronted the boy.  The 911 call from neighbors in the area has the sounds of Trayvon screaming for help, followed by a gunshot and then silence.

George Zimmerman is now trying to turn the incident around and claim that Trayvon Martin attacked him, knocked him to the  ground and began pounding his head on the concrete sidewalk.  Although no evidence is available to corroborate his claim, had Trayvon actually done this it would likely have been out of fear and his instinct to survive in a situation which he perceived to be life threatening.

This police video of Zimmerman shows no signs of any injuries whatsoever.

See the video and read the rest of the story.

Will the Affordable Care Act be Judged by Politics or the Constitution?

Mitch McConnell

As the third and final day of verbal arguments before the Supreme Court commence over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, speaking for his like-minded colleagues says that, "We would want to more modestly approach this with more incremental fixes, not a massive Republican alternative".

This is another way of saying that they are going to let the "free market" solve the issue since the free market knows best.  This my friends, is a load of garbage!

Read the rest of the story.

Supreme Court Considers the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Bowing to Republican Propaganda

As the battle continues in the halls of the United States Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and more specifically the individual mandate portion of the act, both sides of the issue have come out in force to voice their opinions.

United States Supreme Court

The issue before the highest court in the land is concerned with whether Congress has the authority to require all American citizens to have health insurance, or be penalized for not having it.

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

Read the rest of the story.

Afghanistan Should We Pull Out Now?

This a brief, personal commentary on yesterday's tragedy in Afghanistan.

The deaths of Afghan civilians as reported yesterday at the hands of an as yet unnamed American soldier is deplorable, regrettable, and down right sad.  In defense of him, if there is really any defense at all, is that he probably should never have been put back into a combat situation again.

Scene from Afghanistan

Here is a man who more than performed his duty by serving 3 tours in Iraq and somewhere in the process received a traumatic brain injury, had marital problems, was cleared medically for combat, and then was sent to Afghanistan for another tour.  At what point is enough enough?  This man with all he has gone through probably did not need to do another tour of duty in a battle zone.  Clearly he had psychiatric problems which likely presented themselves long before he was deployed for the fourth time.

How many times, and for how long can one be put into these kinds of unusually stressful situations and be expected to come out of them with no side affects?  It only takes one tour to change a persons life forever.  How much damage is caused by repeated exposure?

I know there has been discussion and recent comments by members of both political parties and the Republican candidates for President as to whether we should get out of Afghanistan even earlier than the end of 2014.  Strategy is something that I think we always need to consider and reconsider, but in the case of Afghanistan, we need to try to leave the country, which we invaded, in better condition than when we got there.

Unfortunately they have a president in Hamid Karzai, who is generally unpopular and viewed as a puppet of the United States.  They have and will continue to have tribal disputes as a normal course of business because culturally this is how it has always been and lastly, and most importantly, the Taliban appear to be waiting for our imminent departure so that they can once again begin their reign of terror on the people of Afghanistan.

These are not the things our brave men and women are fighting for and giving their lives for.  As someone with a son fighting the war in Afghanistan, I find that as much as I want him to come home, I also want his sacrifice for our country to mean something.

Walking away now will not make us any safer and would likely result in Afghanistan's resurgence as a friendly terrorist training ground.  Yes, we may need to change strategy and rethink our definition of what a win is, but 10 years into this battle we can scarcely afford to cut and run leaving the country in turmoil.

I mourn for the Afghan families who died at the hands of our service member and I worry about the comments levied by the Taliban threatening to behead Americans.  As a father of a soldier it is natural to be concerned.  What we have to remember is that the greatest majority of our armed forces members are outstanding, brave, and honorable people and that the actions of this individual are not representative of the good works that are being done.

I would ask that we not let the actions of this soldier soil the honorable service provided by the great majority of our men and women in uniform.  By all means lets have constructive dialogue about the course of this war, but not at the expense of the safety of our soldiers.

Keystone Pipeline Defeated in the Senate, Win for Obama

Clearly many of our politicians either think the American public is stupid or they themselves are plain ignorant.

Today, the Senate narrowly blocked an amendment to speed along approval and construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.  The amendment was defeated with a 56 to 42 vote.  Sixty votes in favor were required for passage.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) suggested the amendment was four votes shy of the 60-vote threshold because of President Obama’s efforts to dissuade senators from voting for it.

“President Obama's personal pleas to wavering senators may have tipped the balance against this legislation," McConnell said. "When it comes to delays over Keystone, anyone looking for a culprit should now look no further than the Oval Office."

Senate Republicans, along with a handful of Democrats, 11 to be exact, are hell-bent on getting this oil pipeline originating in Canada, extended into Texas.  Short term, the pipeline will provide jobs to American workers while it is being built, but after it is built many of those jobs will disappear.

In addition, as shown by Mitch McConnell's comments, Republicans think that this pipeline will help reduce our gasoline prices.  I've got news for you, it will not!  The United States is already producing more domestic oil under President Obama than was produced under his predecessor in the later years of his two terms and yet gas prices continue to rise.

As things stand now, for the first time since 1949, the United States exported more gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel last year than it imported, the Energy Department reported.  This means that if oil companies wanted to bring the cost of gasoline down, it would very easy to do being that their is neither a shortage of crude oil nor a shortage of gasoline.

What the Keystone XL pipeline will do, is provide an additional revenue stream for big oil, namely BP a British company and Royal Dutch.  Obviously neither of these companies is American.  This oil, like much of the oil that is produced domestically will be processed into gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil and shipped overseas to Europe, China, and any number of other countries.  The American public will not see a drop of this oil!

“According to reports the President of the United States is personally lobbying senators to oppose a Keystone XL pipeline amendment in the United State Senate today,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a briefing with reporters. He added, “By personally lobbying against the Keystone pipeline, it means the president of the United States is lobbying for sending North American energy to China and lobbying against American jobs."

How does his comment make any sense?  What House Speaker John Boehner is doing, is what the Republican party always seems to do, and that is to try to  instill fear and misinformation into the conversation.  Unfortunately it has no basis in fact and must be completely discounted.

Senate Republicans will continue to blame President Obama for high gas prices and for his failure to push through the approval and construction of this pipeline. What the U.S. would get from this pipeline is the potential for an environmental disaster, not cheaper oil and certainly not cheaper gasoline which we would have today if big oil chose to take care the people at home first instead of their pocketbooks.  

Those that are staunch proponents of unfettered free markets should love the current trend in gas prices.  Let's place the blame where it belongs...on the oil companies, not President Obama.

Mitt Romney's Inflammatory Comments on Iran

In lieu of having facts or any ideas about how to fix the multitude of issues that face this country our Republican candidates, have decided to muddy the waters with fiery comments regarding Iran at a time when President Obama is trying to give diplomacy and sanctions a chance to work..

Former Governor Mitt Romney and current Republican candidate for President of the United States has decided to invoke E.S.P. and claim that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program in an op-ed piece he wrote for yesterday's Washington Post. This claim has come in the face of the facts as presented by the entire U.S. intelligence community and the IAEA inspectors.

According to Mitt Romney :

Republican Presidential Candidate
Mitt Romney 

America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake. The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama, America’s most feckless president since Carter, has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets in the White House, the Iranians are making rapid progress toward obtaining the most destructive weapons in the history of the world. [...]

Until Iran ceases its nuclear-bomb program, I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must.

This kind of rhetoric is not at all helpful. Mr. Romney is neither privy to U.S. national intelligence, nor any communications between the U.S. and it's allies regarding Iran. Based on this, I'm not sure where he received his facts from.

Today, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy said Mitt Romney's gibes at President Obama's Iran policy were irresponsible.

"This means to an Iranian, if you will wait until another few months and there is a change in the White House, then maybe there will be trouble, so the lesson is, let's redouble our efforts to do it as quickly as we can," Halevy said in an interview with The Huffington Post posted Wednesday. "In the effort to demolish the president he is making the situation worse."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has clashed with Obama on Israel-Palestinian issues, said in a conference call organized by the Democratic National Committee that the president's efforts to isolate Iran have paid off and do not merit the GOP shots.

"Some of the Republican candidates for president have been misrepresenting the president’s unwavering commitment to Israel and stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon," he said. "And I find, on something as important as this, when the safety of millions of Israelis and of the whole world hangs in the balance, to be so blatantly political is something that is just so uncalled for."

Romney is not the only GOP candidate to slam Obama for his handling of Iran. He and Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of representatives, and Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, made such attacks the centerpieces of their addresses this week to the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The war hawks need to step back and allow those who are intimately familiar with the situation handle it. I would think President Obama and Mr. Halevy would know more than all of the armchair generals out their including our Republican candidates. War is not a minor issue and must be used sparingly.

Limbaugh's Comments About Sandra Fluke...Beyond His Radio Show

I have to admit that I am appalled by ongoing narrow-minded, ignorant comments regarding Sandra Fluke.  I find the endless tweets, facebook posts, and media commentary seemingly backing up or at the least, standing up for Rush Limbaugh, to be absolutely beyond comprehension.

The distasteful commentary is exclusively coming from men which I find absurd.  These individuals, almost to the commentator, clearly made no effort to read Ms. Fluke's congressional transcript.  Their statements are almost entirely the regurgitation of Limbaugh's words with some of their own personal twists.  Not only are these people dishonest as the transcript is readily available to read online.  I even posted it with my opinion piece done this past Friday.  I have posted the video version of her testimony below for those that are interested.

Sandra Fluke opening testimony before Congress

Sandra Fluke's testimony did not involve the discussion of her's or anyone else's sex life, not even a bit.  Nor did it discuss having the American taxpayer pay for birth control in any way shape or form.  Her comments revolved around women's medical issues that could be prevented or cured through the use of a birth control regimen.  Having insurance companies provide the coverage for birth control is preferable and likely desirable for them.  The government is not paying for this coverage.  Aside from the obvious pregnancy prevention benefits, birth control medications are exceptionally good for controlling terrible acne conditions in girls, helping to regulate debilitating periods, and assist in the prevention of ovarian cysts to name just a few of its uses.  These are things that men have no business in debating or commenting on.

Conservative talk show host
Rush Limbaugh

When women attempt to take a stand on the use of birth control, it gets them unjustly labeled a prostitute or a slut as we have just witnessed.  Why, I have to ask, is this deemed appropriate in any society, but especially ours?

Rush has since apologized for his disrespectful and disgusting comments however Ms. Fluke said Limbaugh’s apology did nothing to change the corrosive tone of the debate over health care coverage and   that Americans have to decide whether they want to support companies that continue to advertise on his program. AOL and Tax Resolution Services Co. on Monday became the eighth and ninth advertisers to leave Limbaugh’s three-hour show and at least one radio station dropped the program as he sought to stem the exodus of advertisers and fellow conservatives declined to offer him support.

Maybe this issue will bring about a much needed change in the right-wing's attitude toward those that don't buy in to the conservative hate rhetoric that we are hearing today.

My hope is that we can get back to creating jobs, improving our economy, getting our national debt under control and strengthening our foreign policy instead of dismantling women's health care.

John McCain Is the First Senator to Call for Bombing Syria - Atlantic Wire

Atlantic Wire - Sen. John McCain will call on a repeat performance of the kind of military operation that dislodgedMuammar Qaddafi from Libya in Syria, asking the U.S. military to begin air strikes to protect Syrian opposition forces. In remarks leaked first to Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin, McCain's speech on the Senate floor on Monday will argue, "The kinds of mass atrocities that NATO intervened in Libya to prevent in Benghazi are now a reality in Homs."

Senator John McCain - (R-AZ)

RELATED: The Story of a Man Behind Syria's Protest Anthem

McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also will add, "The ultimate goal of airstrikes should be to establish and defend safe havens in Syria, especially in the north, in which opposition forces can organize and plan their political and military activities against Assad." He concludes, "If Assad manages to cling to power -- or even if he manages to sustain his slaughter for months to come, with all of the human and geopolitical costs that entails -- it would be a strategic and moral defeat for the United States. We cannot, we must not, allow this to happen."

RELATED: Seven Protesters Killed in Syria During the Holiday

Calling for air strikes is the logical next step for McCain, who just a couple weeks ago used similar rhetoric in arguing for arming the Syrian rebels. With Sen. Lindsay Graham at his side, McCain said then, "I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement." He added that "if Western countries continue to fully support Syria's opposition, then in the end a large-scale civil war will erupt and there will be no way to thus avoid the possibility of foreign armed intervention." Well, it seems like it's too late for that now, as recent violence suggests that a full scale civil war has probably already erupted.

Rush Limbaugh Continues to Attack Sandra Fluke!

Rush Limbaugh

March 2, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh's reprehensible behavior continued today against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke.

On Wednesday Limbaugh emphatically stated on his radio show that Fluke was promoting casual sex. "What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee   and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute," Limbaugh said. "She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

Instead of apologizing for his disgusting mean-spirited comments, on Thursday Limbaugh concluded his sexist rant by insisting that if women want their contraception covered, they should post pornographic videos of themselves online. "So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal," he said. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

To make matters worse, the Republican presidential candidates took very lame positions on Limbaugh's comments.  

Rick Santorum said,  radio host Rush Limbaugh was "being absurd" when he suggested a college student record sex tapes and share them in exchange for contraception.  Santorum told CNN on Friday that Limbaugh is an "entertainer" taking an absurd point of view.

After repeatedly avoiding the issue, Mitt Romney on Friday evening finally stated, “I'll just say this which is it’s not the language I would have used.  I’m  focusing on the issues I think are significant in the country today and that’s why I’m here talking about jobs and Ohio.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) couldn't seem find the time to respond himself. "The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel in a statement. House Democrats have raised $1.1 million off the "War on Women" campaign.  

If the Democrats did raise $1.1 million from this issue then the blame lies completely on the Republicans.  If they took a reasonable stand against this kind of bad behavior they may have been able to stave off this firestorm, but as it stands they are getting what they deserve.

Sandra Fluke

As you will see in Ms. Fluke's transcript below, nothing she said warranted any of the comments that have thrown at her.  Now is the time to let Sandra Fluke know you stand and with her against this vicious attack by this deplorable right wing mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh and the spineless Republican candidates, Romney and Santorum, that he supports. 

TRANSCRIPT OF SANDRA FLUKE'S TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally
unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously. This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover
something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Iran Hold Parliamentary Election - BBC

BBC News - Voters in Iran are taking part in elections to choose the 290 members of the legislative chambers, the Majlis.

It is the first poll since the 2009 presidential elections, which the opposition says were rigged in favour of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Friday's election will be fought by a
number of rival conservative groups 

It is a contest between his supporters and hard-liners close to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The opposition Green Movement is not taking part. Its leaders have been placed under house arrest.

The authorities are urging voters to come out in large numbers, with some posters in the capital Tehran even warning that a low turnout might encourage foreign powers to launch military strikes.

But correspondents say even some of President Ahmadinejad's supporters are quietly calling for a boycott.

Mr Ahmadinejad has fallen out with Mr Khamenei in recent months, and some of his supporters complain that their candidates have been barred from standing.

The respective strength of the different conservative camps after this poll will define the balance of power for what may be a much more important vote - the 2013 presidential election, says BBC Iran correspondent James Reynolds.

However the results of the elections are unlikely to change Iran's stance on its controversial nuclear programme, he adds.

International sanctions imposed over Iran's nuclear programme have been having an effect on the economy.

Obama and the Koran: Was it wrong to say sorry?

By P.J. Crowley, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State

Being the leader of the free world means never having to say you are sorry.

President Obama did not apologise to Pakistan after a raid
accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers stationed along the Afghan border

That appears to be the view of Republican presidential aspirants Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. All three have been critical ofthe apology offered last week by US President Barack Obama following the Koran-burning incident in Afghanistan.

Mr Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, termed the apology an "outrage."

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney thought it would be "very difficult for the American people to countenance". Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested Mr Obama's contrition "showed weakness".

The fourth remaining candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, long ago advocated a US withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Koran-burning is not likely to change his mind.

Are these comments by Mr Gingrich, Mr Romney and Mr Santorum - each vying to unseat the president - all about scoring political points?

Let's hope so. The candidates' arguments don't feel wrong so much as dated: debating points from the Cold War era, 30 years ago.

Mr Gingrich, who has suggested it is impossible to "fix Afghanistan", instead demanded an apology from Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.

He wants contrition from the Afghan leader for the deaths of at least six Nato service members, most thought to be American. The latest two deaths came on Thursday, more than a week after the Koran-burning sparked such outrage. Once again, the deaths were thought to be deadly retribution by Afghan security personnel.

To be fair, the Koran incident has put the unpredictable President Karzai between a rock and a hard place, with little political capital in the bank.

No doubt there should be an Afghan apology as well as an American one - particularly if the Afghan government expects the US Congress and the American people to continue to support this fragile and frustrating relationship.

'Not deliberate'

The fact that President Obama went first is usually considered, well, leadership.

In the Republican debates Mr Romney said he would make decisions regarding Afghanistan based on "conditions on the ground determined by the generals".

The first US official to recognise the danger of the Koran-burning and issue an apology was not President Obama, but Gen John Allen, the commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan.

Gen Allen and his diplomatic counterpart, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, undoubtedly welcomed the political apologies that came from President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

They understand that the future of the US-Afghan relationship is at stake and with it the sustainability of the counter-terrorism mission in Afghanistan (and from Afghanistan into Pakistan). Those are operations that Mr Romney supports.

Read the rest of the story (BBC News)

Blunt Amendment "Respect for Rights of Conscience" Defeated!

Roy Blunt - R(MO)

March 1, 2012 - In a show of logic and common sense, the United States Senate defeated a bill proposed by Senate Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri today that as an amendment to a submitted highway bill would have given not only religious groups but any employer the ability to be exempted from the birth control coverage requirement mandated by 2010 healthcare law due to moral objections.

After further review of this proposed amendment it would have potentially placed any other covered procedure or medication on the chopping block due to objections of conscience.  This would have been a tragic situation were it not for cooler heads in the Senate prevailing.

The 51 to 48 vote to kill the bill, was largely along party lines.  The exceptions were Democrats, Robert Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska who voted for the amendment, and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine who voted against the amendment.

Even after President Obama offered to change the mandate to require insurance companies to offer birth control free of charge, instead of requiring employers and religious organizations to offer it, Republican's insisted on submitting this bill.  By leaving healthcare up to conscience, they would be putting healthcare options completely in the employers hands.  Who is to say what would be exempted due to a moral objection and what would be exempted due to purely financial reasons?  In the end the employee is the one that would suffer at the hands of employer greed or religious belief regardless of the beliefs of the employee.

Fortunately, justice was served today.

Full Text of the Blunt Amendment

SEC. __. RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.

(a) Findings and Purposes.–

(1) FINDINGS.–Congress finds the following:

(A) As Thomas Jefferson declared to New London Methodists in 1809, “[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority”.

(B) Jefferson’s statement expresses a conviction on respect for conscience that is deeply embedded in the history and traditions of our Nation and codified in numerous State and Federal laws, including laws on health care.

(C) Until enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148, in this section referred to as “PPACA”), the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers, purchasers of insurance, plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, such as individual or institutional health care providers.

(D) PPACA creates a new nationwide requirement for health plans to cover “essential health benefits” and “preventive services” (including a distinct set of “preventive services for women”), delegating to the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to provide a list of detailed services under each category, and imposes other new requirements with respect to the provision of health care services.

(E) While PPACA provides an exemption for some religious groups that object to participation in Government health programs generally, it does not allow purchasers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline providing or obtaining coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.

(F) By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates in PPACA jeopardize the ability of individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

(2) PURPOSES.–The purposes of this section are–

(A) to 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, without fear of being penalized or discriminated against under PPACA; and

(B) to ensure that no requirement in PPACA creates new pressures to exclude those exercising such conscientious objection from health plans or other programs under PPACA.

(b) Respect for Rights of Conscience.–

(1) IN GENERAL.–Section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 42 U.S.C. 18022(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES.–

“(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS.–A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because–

“(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or

“(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

“(B) FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.–Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services under this title (or any amendment made by this title) or to fulfill any other requirement under this title because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider pursuant to this paragraph.

“(C) NONDISCRIMINATION IN EXERCISING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.–No Exchange or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall discriminate against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of such plan’s, sponsor’s, provider’s, or person’s unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services pursuant to this paragraph.

“(D) CONSTRUCTION.–Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be construed to permit a health plan or provider to discriminate in a manner inconsistent with subparagraphs (B) and (D) of paragraph (4).

“(E) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.–The various protections of conscience in this paragraph constitute the protection of individual rights and create a private cause of action for those persons or entities protected. Any person or entity may assert a violation of this paragraph as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.

“(F) REMEDIES.–

“(i) FEDERAL JURISDICTION.–The Federal courts shall have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of this paragraph by granting all forms of legal or equitable relief, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, costs, and attorney fees.

“(ii) INITIATING PARTY.–An action under this paragraph may be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States, or by any person or entity having standing to complain of a threatened or actual violation of this paragraph, including, but not limited to, any actual or prospective plan sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering a plan, any actual or prospective purchaser or beneficiary of a plan, and any individual or institutional health care provider.

“(iii) INTERIM RELIEF.–Pending final determination of any action under this paragraph, the court may at any time enter such restraining order or prohibitions, or take such other actions, as it deems necessary.

“(G) ADMINISTRATION.–The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this paragraph and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.

“(H) ACTUARIAL EQUIVALENCE.–Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the Secretary from issuing regulations or other guidance to ensure that health plans excluding specific items or services under this paragraph shall have an aggregate actuarial value at least equivalent to that of plans at the same level of coverage that do not exclude such items or services.”.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.–The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall be effective as if included in the enactment of Public Law 111-148.