Open Letter to Chris Matthews

Chris, you are wrong when you say it is a violation of religious freedom for the Obama administration to require large employers of institutions with religious affiliations to provide insurance that covers contraception for employees. Churches, which are religious entities, are exempted. Universities and hospitals that serve the public and employ people of different religious backgrounds and beliefs should not have the right to deny such coverage to people who do not share the church’s institutional position. In my view, that is a larger violation of religious freedom. Beyond that, it violates the rights of employees to receive the same insurance that the law requires be available to other workers. And beyond that, it is a matter both of women’s rights and women’s health.

I have heard the argument that “liberal” Catholics who helped to pass the Affordable Care Act are incensed that their opposition to Secretary Sebelius’s decision was not respected. They apparently feel their support for ACA earned them policy chits in another area. Why? Presumably, they thought the act was a good idea and a step toward making insurance available to everyone. Did they feel their support was somehow contingent on the idea they would be able to veto the rights to contraception for women who want and need it?

I have long been troubled by the ease with which the church I was baptized in waves its wand over the most deeply personal of human choices. The sexual scandals within the church in recent decades have found clergy and religious throughout the church covering up the most terrible of crimes against children out of a desire to protect the church’s reputation and, I think, out of some sense of loyalty to people who have shared their vocations, in spite of their violations. I think that loyalty could not be more horribly mistaken, but on some level I almost understand it as an empathetic reaction.

It is deeply sad to me that people whose vows and chosen vocations have meant they have not faced real world decisions about child rearing, family size, maternal and infant health, and family financial pressures not only pass down edicts about what is right and wrong in terms of contraception but also show so little empathy for the people whose sexual choices are at variance from those edicts. I find it profoundly immoral that someone in the hierarchy may look the other way when a priest sodomizes a child and yet pound down an iron fist of opprobrium when a woman makes her own very personal choice about family planning. Your ire and sympathies are misplaced, Chris. There is no need to valorize the moral position of institutions (hospitals and universities are people?) over their workers who have a smaller voice but their own moral position and rights.

Laws Are for the Little People

What can you say?  Must be nice to be above the law.    Here’s the story:  The director of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, which is tasked with enforcing marijuana prohibition, isn’t facing an investigation after drugs were found in her home.    I think our homes would be under siege by a SWAT team in a similar situation.      I know the War on Drugs will be hard to kill, but stories like this shows why, until prohibition is ended, we need to be out for justice.

Full story here.

 

Prop 8 ruling

The Ninth Circuit has come out with a ruling on the Prop 8 case. There were three issues before the Court: 1) do the Prop 8 proponents have standing?; 2) should Judge Walker’s decision be summarily dismissed because he is gay and has a long-time partner?; and 3) is Prop 8 constitutional?

The judges were unanimous on the first 2 points (standing, dismissal), ruling that the proponents had standing and denying summary dismissal. The 2-1 majority decided that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, but ruling only on Prop 8 in the narrow sense that it “stripped same sex couples of the ability they previously possessed” to marry under CA law (Equal Protection argument). They do not decide on the constitutionality of SSM.

For the SCOTUS nerds, the majority was written by Judge Reinhardt (Judge Hawkins concurring) and the dissent by Judge Randy Smith. I don’t have the exact stats, but I know that Judge Reinhardt is one of the, if not the, judge whose opinions are most frequently reversed by SCOTUS.

Morning Report

Vital Statistics:

Last Change Percent
S&P Futures 1335.8 -3.3 -0.25%
Eurostoxx Index 2493.6 -14.3 -0.57%
Oil (WTI) 96.21 -0.7 -0.72%
LIBOR 0.52 -0.003 -0.62%
US Dollar Index (DXY) 79.03 -0.048 -0.06%
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 1.93% 0.03%

Markets are a touch weaker on disappointing economic date out of Germany and China.  Greek debt talks continue, and sovereign spreads in Europe are behaving.  Portugal has completely retraced the yield spike from a week ago.  Europe seems to be quieting down. That said, Europe isn’t “fixed” by any stretch, and still has tight credit issues.  The VIX (which is a fear index) has returned to pre-crisis levels, indicating Europe is fading into the background.  Of course contrarians view that as a sell signal.  (VIX is high – time to buy, VIX is low – time to go).

The SEC is trying to figure out a way to deal with money market funds.  It is ironic that the SEC is trying to find out a way to “stabilize money market funds” while the Fed is doing everything it can to destroy them.  The SEC is creating new capital guidelines which will hopefully allow money market funds to navigate the next financial crisis.  Unfortunately, with rates so low, money market funds can’t cover their costs and provide investors a non-negative return.  So the point may be moot – there may not be many money market funds left when the next crisis approaches.

No major economic data on tap today or tomorrow.  We will get initial jobless claims  and consumer sentiment data later this week.  Earnings season is winding down.

A little flavor of Michigan politics

All of Michigan talk radio is a buzz with praise and criticism of Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra’s Super Bowl ad.  He’s running against long time incumbant Debbie Stabenow and well…

To summarize, we have an asian woman…riding a bike…. through a rice paddy… and speaking in less than ideal english…with “asian” music playing in the background. 

 Effective?? Racist??  Offensive?? Politically Corageous?? I report…you decide.