text:
Scalia's subtlety
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Shelby County, Alabamas challenge of Sections 4 and 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The early consensus is that the key provisions of the seminal piece of civil rights legislationwhich SCOTUSblog calls historys most successful civil rights lawwill be found, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, not to comport with the Constitution.This being Scalia, there was more. In counter-argument, he also proffered his thesis on why Congress has repeatedly extended Section 5, most recently in 2006 with no opposition at all from the Senate: [It] was very likely attributable to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. Its been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political process. His statement reportedly drew gasps, while outside the Court civil rights groups quickly condemned it. Bert W. Rein, Shelbys attorney, could not be compelled to say he agreed with Scalias assessment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor later took a moment to point out what shouldnt have needed pointing out, remarking that the right to vote is not a racial entitlement.
About the Author
Dominic Preziosi is Commonweal's digital editor.
35 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Do you think that the right to vote is what Scalia had in mind in referring to "racial entitlements"? The news article to which you linked had this explanation: "Under Section 5 of the law, nine states, mostly in the South, but also including Alaska and Arizona, as well as dozens of counties, townships, cities, and elected boards in other states, must get permission, or preclearance, from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington for any change in voting procedures, no matter how small, that they seek to make."
Indeed, Jim Pauwels, but that section of the law is there because those states (etc etc) have a lengthy history of trying voting procedures that seek to suppress the minority vote. The whole question is about the historical difficulty of maintaining the right to vote. That law does not exist in a vacuum (and has hardly been made irrelevant by progress, given various vote-suppression shenanigans in the most recent two national elections.)
We're not talking about some altruistic desire on the part of states to make voting easier and more efficient for all. To the contrary. The Voting Rights Act made it possible for minorities to exercise the kind of power traditional voting blocs always had, and the result tends to benefit the Democrats. In addition to preventing direct racial discrimination, Section 5 complicates life for Republican secretaries of states who want to suppress the Democratic vote in counties where minorities predominate. To call that perpetuating "racial entitlements" speaks for itself. How embarrassing that a Catholic Justice came up with such a phrase; it will undoubtedly follow him to his grave.
Scalia is a good reason for the POTUS to never appoint an "orthodox" Catholic to the SCOTUS.
When I was small child and my family would be driving through the Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia countrysides, it was common to see large billboards calling for the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren, ostensibly because of his opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark civil rights decision that outlawed "separate but equal" schools.Scalia has crossed a line when he voiced from the SCOTUS bench what we all knew was his personal private opinion all along: Whites have inalienable rights. People of color are given entitlements. The only way to evaluate and interpret Scalia's brain-fart in publicly revealing his repugnant opinions of the voting rights of people of color is that Scalia is a racist that would prefer to return to the days of legal segregation.Scalia has every right to these odious opinions. But, he has forfeited any further right to a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. In my opinion, Scalia is now unfit and disqualified to serve on the SCOTUS. Either he should resign, or he should be impeached and removed from the Supreme Court bench ASAP.It's time for billboards across America calling for Scalia's dismissal impeachment: Scalia is NOT omnipotent![I'm not sure how "constitutional" this suggestion is is ... At the very least, Scalia should be subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions and explain his remarks. Probably not a good constitutional precedent to set, but Scalia must be taught a lesson that in a democracy, not even the opinions of a Supreme Court justice are beyond question.]
States, counties, etc which do not discriminate for ten years can be exempted." A jurisdiction that's marked as discriminatory can request that designation to be lifted after ten years, and every single one that's tried has been granted amnesty. "http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/whats-stake-voting-right... article is a good summary of the issues.
Don't forget that when Scalia speaks you will most likely hear a Opus Dei fascist slant. Conclave will hear that slant too.. That's the carrying out of the OD "charism'. get to high places and do your 'duty'.
Some background information might be helpful. Shelby County, which brought this suit challenging provisions of the Voting Rights Act, is southeast of and adjacent to Jefferson County, where Birmingham is located. It is the recipient of white flight from Birmingham, as is Hoover, a suburban city just south of Birmingham. Hoover is mainly in Jefferson County, but some of it is in Shelby County, too.In 1955, the year after Brown v. Board of Education, the population of Birmingham was approximately 325,000. Today, it is about 212,000. [Jefferson Countys population was about 560,000 in 1955. Today its about 658,000].In 1955, the population of Shelby County was about 30,000. Today, it is about 200,000.In 1955, Hoover did not exist. It was incorporated in 1967. Its population today is approximately 85,000. It is the sixth largest city in Alabama.Shelby County is the richest county in Alabama. Its median family income is about $81,500. Its per capita income is about $35,000.The city of Hoovers per capita income is about $33,500, the tenth highest among Alabama municipalities.The city of Birminghams per capita income is about $15,700, the 234th among Alabama municipalities.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_locations_by_per_capita_income
John Hayes: "States, counties, etc which do not discriminate for ten years can be exempted."I could buy that others (e.g., Ohio) should be added to the original list of states to be watched. What makes no sense is calling the Act "unconstitutional" because a few justices (Scalia and Roberts) think the original problem has been "solved" in the South. But Justice Scalia's gasp-drawing reference to perpetuating "racial entitlements" has forever given the lie to any claim that striking down this law as mere legal "housekeeping" (eliminating outdated legislation). Incredible. Literally.
Thanks for this post. It gets worse. Scalia also said, "This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress."Here's hoping that between now and when the Supreme Court rules on the Voting Rights Act, Justice Scalia get acquainted with the text of the 15th amendment to the United States Constitution:"Section 1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section. 2.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."It's hard for me to see how anyone who claims to hold to an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution could (in any intellectually honest fashion) conclude that the Voting Rights Act is not an appropriate exercise of Congress' power as defined in section 2 of the amendment.
If Article 5, which seems to be the subject of Scalia's remarks, is deemed unconstitutional by the Court, would it be severed from the rest of the legislation, which would remain intact?
Jim P: Yes, section 205 of the 1970 amendment is a separability clause. The full bill (original plus various additions over the years) is here: http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_VotingRightsAct_1965.pdf The 1970 amendments seem to have been hastily drafted (sections 203 and 204 are headed JUDICIAL RELEIF" and "PENATLY") but it was passed and is presumably good law nonetheless . . .
Section 5 puts the burden of "pre-clearance" on nine states and assorted jurisdictions (Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn among them); they must apply for Congressional approval for any modification in voting procedures, including, say, extension or reduction of polling hours; procedures covering early voting and mail-in ballots; or the need for voters to acquire and present specific forms of photo identification before being allowed to cast a ballot. Section 2, which puts the burden on the plaintiff, would be left intact, but it's clearly Section 5 that gives the Act its teeth. Congress, to the chagrin of Scalia, was united enough in 2006 to exercise its Constitutionally granted power to extend the act in its entirety (after an evidence-based review led by Rep. Republican F. James Sensenbrenner, who cited a 12,000-page judiciary committee record detailing proven instances of discrimination in the covered jurisdictions). Should Section 5 be struck down, Congress could develop new criteria for deciding which jurisdictions would be covered. But who thinks there's any chance of that happening, given the divisions in both houses? As Adam Liptak writes in today's New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/conservative-justices-voic... ): "[T]he part of the law requiring federal pre-approval of election changes would effectively disappear." But it really is the hostility emanating from the bench that's galling. Ninety out of 110 representatives from the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 voted for extension; overall, it passed in the House 390 to 33 and the Senate 98-0. Does Scalia actually think 488 legislators voted as they did only to feel good about themselves -- or because, as he said, "Even the name [Voting Rights Act] is wonderful"?http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/justice-scalias-contempt-of-congr...
"Should Section 5 be struck down, Congress could develop new criteria for deciding which jurisdictions would be covered. But who thinks theres any chance of that happening, given the divisions in both houses? "The Constitution provides a remedy for a dysfunctional Congress. Should events play out the way you describe, which seems a reasonable prediction, then it's up to the citizens.
"Ninety out of 110 representatives from the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 voted for extension; overall, it passed in the House 390 to 33 and the Senate 98-0. "That would seem to be a hopeful sign that replacement legislation may not be as far-fetched as you fear.
Given the chastened state of Republicans these days, I doubt that enough could be rounded up to block passage of replacement legislation.
Republicans are chastened?
Jim - "chastened state"? Have I missed something? A filibuster on the Hagel nomination, obstruction and obfuscation on sequestration, back-pedaling on immigration and gun violence.... And when it comes to voting, documented and acknowledged intent to make voting more difficult for citizens who might cast ballots for the other party. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/26/pennsylvania-lawmaker-sp... Even this week, certain states have remounted efforts to change the allocation of electoral votes from winner-take-all to an apportionment system that had it been in effect last November would have resulted in a Romney electoral victory. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/25/electoral_vote_schemes_stil... wish I could share your hopefulness, if that's really what it is. But given the continued machinations of a party unable or unwilling to accept the results of a democratic election or the changing demographic of the electorate, and bent on venting its displeasure with those results through obstructionism, I can't.
"Jim chastened state? Have I missed something?"Possibly.* Republicans gave President Obama his tax increase on the rich to avoid the fiscal cliff.* Republicans are showing signs of genuinely working with the President on immigration reform. It's there for the taking if both sides want it to happen.* The nomination of Secretary Hagel has been confirmed after another attempt by Republicans to mount a filibuster failed to round up the necessary votes.While nobody has gotten rich over the last two years underestimating the stupidity of GOP leadership, I'd like to think that even they wouldn't be so daft as to run with an issue that would invite Democrats to try to remount the Civil Rights movement. There is no percentage for Republicans that I can see in standing in the way of legislation that would fix whatever defects the Supreme Court finds in the current law.
Agree with the offensiveness of this remark from the bench.OTOH - he does raise an issue about whether laws do need sunset provisions in them...yet, this law does have to be reviewed and reconfirmed regularly - so what is his point? And to frame it with such divisive language?Rachel Maddow last nite added to some of the facts (such as John Hayes as provided)- since the Senate in 2006 reconfirmed this section 98-0; there have been more than 1,000 suits filed at DOJ in terms of attempted violations or efforts to skirt around section 5 across the states/counties this applies to.Does Saclia even have a grasp of all of the data? Or is he merely focusing on section five in a narrow legal manner?And his suggestion that congress has no place in this? seems to have forgotten the constitution.
@Jim Pauwels (2/28, 12:31 pm) For what it's worth, I can see where there would be some "percentage for Republicans...standing in the way of legislation that would fix whatever defects the Supreme Court finds in the current law".Making it harder for people to register and to vote would disproportionately benefit candidates who attract the votes of the more fluent (in English), the more affluent (in money), the more mobile (car owners), the more settled (homeowners)---all constituencies that make up the base of the Republican Party.As for inviting Democrats to "try to remount the Civil Rights movement", that's pretty much what happened with all the voter ID laws and regulations Republicans passed (and tried to pass) in the last two years. Heck, Florida's Gov. Scott ran last year's election so that a 102 year old woman had to stand in line for several hours simply to cast her ballot.
I served intermittently during the late 70s and early 80s as a federal poll observer in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. It was our job to monitor compliance with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Generally, we observed elections in rural areas. Most of the time, there were no problems.I do recall one time, however, when we had an observer in a small town, and we had no relief for her to grab a quick lunch. When she returned to her polling place where paper ballots were being used, someone complained to her that a black man had been forced to change his vote by a white female poll worker. As the story went, the man checked his candidate preference, folded his ballot, returned to the table to insert his ballot into the ballot box. The woman --- his boss --- thereupon opened his ballot and said, "You don't want to vote for so-and-so, do you?" He changed his voting preference, and his boss placed it in the ballot box. As our team co-captain, I reported this incident to our DOJ attorney back at the county courthouse. She replied this was not the first time there had been a report about the female poll worker. Unfortunately, Uncle Sam was never able to obtain confirmatory evidence to prosecute the worker in federal court: she had always been able to outwit the observers and/or threaten her workers behind the scenes.On another occasion, one of my OPM colleagues in Louisville was dispatched down South to observe a local election. Being relieved to have lunch, he and two or three other observers drove to a nearby cafe. When they later exited the establishment, they noticed all four tires of their rental car had been slashed. (Uncle Sam always used rental cars for these assignments: no need to drive a GSA vehicle with government plates into towns where we generally served.)Admittedly, these were exceptions to the rule based on my ten or so voting rights assignments over the years. I have to wonder what the situation is like today. Every observer was required to submit written and detailed reports to the DOJ attorney during debriefing before returning to his or her office back home. What might these reports reveal, if anything, today?
Scalia gives "activist judges" a newer, more indisious meaning.Some day we will need to have a constitutional convention that puts term limits, either by age or years of service ... which comes first, on all members of the SCOTUS. There would be no politics involved and their equality with POTUS and members of Congress in that regard would be enforced.
Dominic Preziosi: "Ninety out of 110 representatives from the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 voted for extension; overall, it passed in the House 390 to 33 and the Senate 98-0. Does Scalia actually think 488 legislators voted as they did only to feel good about themselves or because, as he said, Even the name [Voting Rights Act] is wonderful?"Scalia really stepped in it, as they say. He, and Roberts with him to a lesser degree, betrayed layers of oblivion with those remarks. No less than Romney commiserating with his wealthy donor base about the 47% of Americans who have the audacity to think they're "entitled" to food and health care, Scalia let it be known how distant he really is from the real problems and recent history of the America the rest of us know. It's as if he was born in a bubble with those Americans who remember nothing from before Ronald Reagan was president, and everything since only "as written" by the conservative authors they trust.
"Does Saclia even have a grasp of all of the data?"With an activist judge/justice, facts do not trump ideology.Scalia might be the mouth that roars, but he is in sync with Alito, Roberts, Thomas and (way too often) Kennedy.And what do all of these conservative justices have in common? (Hint ... religion.)
The right to vote is not a racial entitlement but Sotomayor's question is a classic mis-direction. The real question - Is federal pre-clearance a racial entitlement - is an entirely different issue. A temporary and extraordinary measure enacted 48 years ago, with a final life of at least 66, strikes me as something that might be. FYI, It applies to nine states Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia and to scores of counties and municipalities in other states, including the boroughs of Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx.I live in NYC and certainly think it has outlived its usefulness here.
In recent years I haven't heard of any intimidation of voters at the polls. What concerns me are some of these new registration laws which cut poor people (not only black ones) off at the pass, so to speak -- they end up not being able to vote at all. And gerrymandering, one of the worst temptations in democratic systems, still happens. Those are the imperfections that should be fought tooth and nail.
Luke - you may be right, and the GOP would continue to be the Stupid Party. We'll see how events unfold.Joseph J - those are really interesting anecdotes. My own view, FWIW, is that overt racial bias is primarily a generational thing. (I'm talking now about general bias, not politically-motivated shenanigans; if those African-American voters who were forced to wait in long lines in 2012 were likely to vote Republican, I expect that GOP-controlled legislators would have arranged to get them in and out of the polls in minutes). Even the late '70s and early '80s when you were an observer were at least one generation ago. I was first eligible to vote as an 18 year old in November 1979. In my estimation, my late-Boomer generation as a whole, while far from perfect in its racial attitudes, is nevertheless a post-Civil Rights generation that inherited a legacy of racial equality as a "given" and is far better than my father's or grandfather's generation in this respect. I'm old enough now that some of my children are old enough to vote, and my observation is that their generation's commitment to racial equality (and equality in almost all forms) arguably is even better than my generation's. I don't know what would happen if this section of the Civil Rights act is struck down. I do think that things are not the same now as they were in 1965. But I would predict that the shift in generational attitudes almost certainly would drive a new a just and equitable arrangement if the old arrangement is struck down.
The cover illustration for the latest issue of "Businessweek" at least raises the question of how far we've moved towards racial equality. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/28/racist_businessweek_cover...
Luke - that cover is amazingly offensive. What could they possibly have been thinking?
"Yet Shelby County vs. Holder seems like an odd case to advance the Roberts Courts (and Blums) agenda, because in Shelby County, black elected officials are being pushed out of office by the same racial gerrymandering that once ensured that no black candidate could win an election in the Jim Crow South."This entire article by Lou DuBose is worth reading: http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/The-Court/the-supreme-court... documents in clear, precise, well-reported detail how---despite whatever changes have happened in some parts of U. S. society over the past 50 years---manipulating elections and governmental institutions to create and maintain white supremacy is alive and well in these United States.For what it's worth, DuBose also notes that the father of the lawyer bringing "Shelby County v. Holder" to the Supreme Court chaired the 1948 Alabama delegation to the Democratic National Convention and, along with Bull Connor, led the Dixiecrat walkout because they had pledged "never to cast their vote for any candidate associated with a civil rights program such as adopted by this convention."
Luke - conspicuously absent from that Washington Spectator piece is any mention of party affiliation. Here is a listing of the Shelby County commissioners.http://www.shelbycountyalabama.com/index.aspx?nid=93Here is a sample ballot from the 2012 elections.http://alabamavotes.gov/downloads/election/2012/general/sampleBallots/sh... entire board appears to be Republican.
Coincidentally, Scalia -- nominated to the Supreme Court several years before selecting federal judges became politicized -- was confirmed by a 98-0 vote of the Senate. Does he think his confirmation was a gift or an entitlement?
Angela, in Tawdry Tony Scalia's case ... a horribly, horrible mistake.
There is a bailout procedure in the VRA, under which covered jurisdictions can be freed of the need for pre-clearance. They have to show a history of non-discrimination for the previous ten years and positive steps to ensure the voting rights of minorities. Dozens of jurisdictions have applied successfully.It seems to me that that would be an easier way to get out from under the burden of pre-clearance than a lengthy court case. provided a jurisdiction has actually not been discriminating recently against a porrtion of its citizens.


text:
Ants are one of the smallest creatures on Earth, but their lives are fascinating to all who study them, and the Stauth Museum's newest exhibit; "Farmers, Warriors, Builders: The Hidden Life of Ants" is all about the life of ants we don't see. It will be a great way for southwest Kansas to find out more about this interesting insect.
"It's a really cool exhibit," Kim Legleiter, director of the Stauth Museum said. "We have a bunch of different things to help make things come alive for visitors."
One of the most unique pieces of the show is a model of an ant blown up to 500 times its size, so visitors can get an up close look at an ant.
"It's definitely a unique view," Legleiter said. "And kids can see and touch and feel the different parts of an ant."
There are also many large format photos, taken by Mark W. Moffett, of ants in their habitat, which is usually hidden from human view.
According to a press release from the Stauth Museum, Moffett's photos tell incredible stories about the lives of ants— hunting, communicating, dealing with disease and agriculture— and chronicle the world of entomologists in the field.
There is also an abundance of information on how different ants communicate, work together and find ways to survive.
"Different ant colonies have different ways of getting things done," Legleiter said. "Sometimes one colony will even make slaves of another colony and make them do their work."
Soon, Legleiter hopes to have some live ant farms to display as well, allowing visitors the opportunity to see first hand how ants work together.
"The ant farms were supposed to be here when the exhibit opened," Legleiter said, "but because the weather has been so drastically different day-to-day out here, they haven't been able to ship them yet."
Even without the live ants at the museum there's still plenty of information and detailed photos for visitors to enjoy.
"This is a very interesting and informative exhibit," Legleiter said. "I think both children and adults will learn something from coming out here. And even younger children, who are too young to read some of the information will still learn and enjoy the photos and models we have here."
The Stauth Museum is one of just 15 locations, and the only one in Kansas, to host this traveling exhibit, which was created by the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
"I really encourage anyone who's interested to come see this exhibit while they have the chance," Legleiter said. "There probably won't be another one for awhile."
"Farmers, Warriors, Builders: The Hidden Life of Ants" is currently on display and will run through July 7. The Stauth Museum is open Tuesday through Saturday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4:40 p.m., Sunday from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Admission is free, but donations are gratefully accepted. The museum also asks that if you are planning to visit with a group of five or more, to please call in advance to schedule a tour at (620) 846-2527.
Page 2 of 2 - "Anyone who enjoys nature and environmental shows on National Geographic will enjoy this show," Legleiter said. "Especially the photos which just have the most amazing colors and incredible details."
Location, ST | website.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I occasionally need to cancel a FaceBook graph request, but there seems to be no cancel or similar method in their API to do so. At the moment, crashes sometimes occur as the delegate I assigned to the request has been deallocated. Is there any way to cancel a graph request once submitted please?
We started with Q&A. Technical documentation is next, and we need your help.
Whether you're a beginner or an experienced developer, you can contribute.
I'm assuming you're talking about the facebook-ios-sdk project, and the lack of a cancel method in Facebook.h. I noticed this as well, and eventually decided to add my own cancel method. Just to note, the delegate you assign to the request shouldn't ever be dealloc'd and then referenced, because the request retains the delegate. See this similar question. Now, if you find yourself really needing a cancel method for some other reason...
Adding a cancel method:
Now, to expose an interface in the Facebook class to make use of the new method...
That's all there is to it. The method above will cancel the most recent request, and you'll never hear from it again.
I've followed Matt Wilding's approach listed here, which was very useful, thanks Matt. Unfortunately it didnt quite work for me, so I made some tweaks and now it works... also this revised approach keeps out of the core facebook classes...
Updated on 22/April/2012
I update Matt's version with the most up-to-date Facebook iOS SDK. My Project is using ARC, but I include the non-ARC Facebook sources so that I can modify the codes. (Of Course, we need to set the "-fno-objc-arc" flag for Facebook source files). The tricky part is to prevent the memory leak, and I think I am doing it correctly. But When I test it in the instrument, I still see very small amount of memory leak. Fortunately, the details show that they are not related to these codes, so I just assume they are related to the app resource handling.
Here is the code I implemented:
And in your project which uses FBRequestDelegate
And ...
For those of us who build the static library and are unable to access the implementation files, a category would be the best way to go.
For those of us who did not build the static library, using a category would be optimal as well because you don't need to modify the existing files.
Here is said category.
And then the .m file
For those using any other answer, you are causing a memory leak. The Facebook SDK will warn you through NSLog that you have not removed an observer. The fourth line in the cancelAllRequests method fixes this problem.
Try this instead of using NSTimer:
Since SDK 3.1, it's very easy, as startWithCompletionHandler: returns a FBRequestConnection object, which has a -(void)cancel; method. For example:
I was having a crash with the previous iOS Facebook SDK which was valid in August 2012 whenever I navigated to another view. My solution is based on @staticfiction response:
Make a CURL call to this URL


text:
Jolly Holly Days will add an extra touch of magic to your home this holiday. Measuring 19" tall, this happy elf is wearing a vest with buttons, patches & embroidered trim. All smiles & ready to share his holiday greeting with everyone, this Jolly Holly Days elf has a toy bag in one hand & a candy cane in the other. Pattern includes easy-to-follow directions for elf & toy bag as well as cutting & painting instructions for his wood sign & candy cane. Designed by Mary Kerr
Item : JMI128


text:
"Bad" Samaritans
TheNew York Times carried an article last week on the dispute that is emerging between Democrats in Congress and the White House over Obama's consideration of the Catholic bishops' appeal to widen the religious health care exemption to make it possible for non-ecclesial, religiously affiliated institutions (like Notre Dame) to deny contraception coverage to its employees. In the article, the bishops are quoted making their case as follows:
Under the governments narrow criteria, the bishops said, even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would not qualify as religious, because they did not confine their ministry to their co-religionists. Moreover, the bishops said, the exemption is directly at odds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus teaches concern and assistance for those in need, regardless of faith differences.
First of all, the issue is not over how and to whom religiously affiliated institutions minister, but it is about who is doing the ministering. If non-Catholics are being employed to teach or doctor in a religiously affiliated institution, why should they be denied coverage for services that have been deemed medically necessary by a board of medical experts for all citizens? If the bishops are so scared of being defined out of their "religion" by the state, maybe they should divest themselves of "secular" ministry completely.Secondly, the story of the Good Samaritan is about providing for those in physical need regardless of the religious or ethnic identity of either the victim or the minister. It seems to me that it is precisely this kind of ministry that health care legislation is aimed at supporting. It is the bishops who are asking for the right to walk by those in need, if they have deemed that their needs are not really needs at all. It is the bishops who are the "bad" Samaritans in this parable by opting out of their obligations as members of a pluralistic society.Given that claiming exemption from "secular" authority hasn't worked out too well for them in the past, I'm not so sure the bishops really want to spend their dwindling moral capital trying to do the same now.
About the Author
Eric Bugyis teaches Religious Studies at the University of Washington Tacoma.
67 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
"Secondly, the story of the Good Samaritan is about providing for those in physical need regardless of the religious or ethnic identity of either the victim or the minister. It seems to me that it is precisely this kind of ministry that health care legislation is aimed at supporting. It is the bishops who are asking for the right to walk by those in need, if they have deemed that their needs are not really needs at all. It is the bishops who are the bad Samaritans in this parable by opting out of their obligations as members of a pluralistic society."Boy is this ever a question-begging passage. Imagine that the state demands that hospitals provide assisted suicide services to elderly or ill people, including at the demands of the relatives and heirs. By your reasoning, Catholic hospitals shouldn't be able to opt out, because they have obligations as members of a pluralistic society, etc., etc., etc.
Whatever you think of the bishops' strategy, it's helpful to keep in mind that HHS is changing the rules and not maintaining rules that are already in place.
"First of all, the issue is not over how and to whom religiously affiliated institutions minister"Eric, inasmuch as this is precisely the issue, I am not sure why you posted this.
Jim, How is it the issue? The question seems to be whether religiously affiliated institutions must provide contraception coverage to their employees, not what services they must provide to the persons who come for care. Of course, the two often come together. But the questions as to whether a university must provide health care coverage to it's non-Catholic faculty and whether a church must directly provide similar services to non-Catholics who are not in its employ are different. The issue of exemption currently under consideration has to do with the former and not the latter.Stu, Slippery slope arguments are lazy. If the state made such demands, I doubt that many would say that resisting them is simply a "Catholic" issue. Believe it or not, not all morality must be faith-based.
I fully support cheap and easy access to effective contraceptives, but I'm sympathizing with the religious institutions here. Not to minimize the expense, I don't think it would break the bank for an employee to pay for those expenses out-of-pocket, especially if they could get it at the discounted rate the insurance companies get. (I know the insurer gets discounted rates for medical services, do they also get them for prescription drugs?) I've had employers who covered contraceptives, but who also required huge deductibles and co-pays. I don't think that left me any better off.I would have a bigger problem if there were religious objections to covering life-saving surgery, or a major medical expense, but I don't think the pill falls into that category.
Interesting to go back and read this:http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=5456In just two years we've gone from, "Will the Affordable Care Act cover birth control? Of course not!" to, "Should Catholic institutions have to cover birth control? Of course!"
If other employers can get away with offering no insurance at all, I don't see why some others can't offer partial coverage.The ACLU wants to rule the world.
Politically speaking at this time, it makes sense for HHS to just reaffirm current practice. But, the issue will only be kicked down the road.....Eric's point is well made and is common sense. The USCCB committee is again fixated on "catholic identity" in a narrow sense which, given the behavior of the USCCB across all sorts of issues, is hypocritical, at best, and wanting it both ways, at worst.Studebaker - your response is a non-sequiter. Contraceptives are part of our pluralistic society; part of our medical system currently as defined by experts, research, studies (speaking about something that is current practice) and, in fact, used by more than 90% of all catholics per survey results for years. They are legal and a part of 90% of all employer offered medical plans. To equate contraceptive means to euthansia is a straw man - with a few rigid exceptions, our pluralistic society does not allow euthansia nor is it covered by employer medical plans. Try again.
Rick Garnett correctly notes in his great op=ed in today's USA Today:"A more generous exemption for religious employers indeed, the elimination of the mandate itself would not hamstring the aims of the new health care law because nearly all employer-based insurance plans already cover prescription contraceptives. The belief that drug-induced abortion is wrong and should not be publicly subsidized is deeply and widely held, by people on all sides of the health care debate. This is not an instance in which religious believers are asking the community to compromise a core shared value, to impose harms on third parties, or to endorse an offensive or dangerous view."http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-11-27/hhs-contrace... it's not, as Nancy Pelosi so "ably" put it last week, just a matter of that pesky Catholic "conscience thing."
Thanks, Adeodatus, for reminding of us of the historical arc of this issue. Whether we like it or not, the Church does not sanction the use of birth control, let alone "birth control" that can act also as an abortifacent. Why do we have to bend over backwards to accommodation ourselves to the wider culture. We should stand for a workable plan for universal healthcare for all and we should not have our institutions support healthcare plans which contain elements contrary to Catholic teaching.
Adeodatus writes: "In just two years weve gone from, 'Will the Affordable Care Act cover birth control? Of course not!' to, 'Should Catholic institutions have to cover birth control? Of course!'" To whom does this "we" refer? Two years ago one contributor to this blog wrote a post assuring us that the Affordable Care Act would not be used to force employers to cover birth control. Now another contributor welcomes the new HHS rules that force employers to cover birth control. There is no hypocrisy here, and very little irony. Paul Lauritzen is not responsible for Eric Bugyis's opinions, and neither one of them speaks for Commonweal.Eric tells Stu: "Believe it or not, not all morality must be faith-based." Yes, but some is, and good laws take account of this. Stu's reductio is not sloppy. He is simply pointing out that the form of Eric's argument generates all sorts of conclusions that he himself would reject. The answer cannot be that religious institutions may claim exemptions for only those principles that enjoy majority support from society at large. That makes a nonsense of the phrase "conscience protection."I also worry about that phrase "medically necessary," which appears in Eric's original post. The pill is medical, yes. And it is clearly useful, for several purposes -- including contraception. But necessary? Medically necessary? Well, no, not in most cases. Whatever you think of the church's teaching on artificial contraception, the most that can be said of the pill as it is ordinarily used is that it is medically convenient and morally unobjectionable.
The question for me is whether "religiously affiliated institutions," [such as the Univ. of Notre Dame or hundreds of Catholic hospitals, etc. both of which have diverse employees and clientele populations] whether these institutions are subject to the US constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment's proscription of "equal protection under the law" This means in this case do employees, students or patients have access to the health care THEY NEED, not subject to the whim of religious autocrats consumed with their anti-feminine political ideology?These institutions receive literally $billions of US taxpayer money to support their programs and/or students - over decades. If an institution is going to take US tax money, then they need to act consistent with our constitution and law.No one is forcing ND to take these subsidies mainly channeled through tuition supports. No one is forcing Catholic Health Care West, for instance, to take Medicare and Medicaid money. The fact is that neither of these institutions could even survive without these public, taxpayer-funded programs.If you are going to take taxpayer money, you're going to have to park your religiously inspired prejudices at the door and recognize that the VAST majority of Americans find your anti-contraceptive ideology repugnant. It may not be popular in Vatican circles, but that is our law. God knows, Americans don't always act like it, but ours is a liberal democracy that strives to honor diversity and inclusion.The hierarchs can't have it both ways: either Catholic institutions are part of the American commons, or they are not. If Catholic institutions are not, then they should forego their taxpayer-funded subsidies. This choice, of course, would lead to the demise of these institutions - a cultural "cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face" exercise.Why should the students or employees of these institutions be denied their constitutional rights just so hierarchs can politically posture to shore-up their standing with their Vatican patrons?Don't you think it is just a little bit hypocritical for hierarchs to decry the dissemination of contraceptives when Catholics, at least those who are sexually active, use these very contraceptives at virtually the same rate as the rest of the population despite "official" Catholic teachings? This is all about internal Catholic politics, let's not forget! The hierarchs don't give a wit about women's health care needs, rich or poor.For political reasons, the Obama administration is offering to maintain the same compromise on these issues that has been in operation for decades - WHICH IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE VERY SAME CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS. Personally, I would not make this compromise, but then I'm not up for reelection next year.The hierarchs have made their point. They have scored their "brownie points" with Rome. The hierarchs should take the deal before them, and go find some other way to undermine the legitimate health care needs of women to support their continuing political hegemony within the church.
Employers don't buy health insurance for their employees out of benevolence. Rather they provide health insurance because the tax code and the benefits of larger buying power and risk pools makes it mutually beneficial for employers to take part of their employees' compensation and use it to purchase health insurance. It is the employees' money. Employers shouldn't be meddling with how they use it any more than with how they spend their wages. I don't see any meaningful difference between restricting how someone can use their benefits and how they can use their wages.
A fantasy--I wonder what would happen if Church leadership had responded differently. Instead of saying "Health care? Well, we're not paying for any contraceptives, because that violates CATHOLIC principles!" what if they'd said "Health care! Absolutely! We're CATHOLIC, and our teaching speaks to the basic human dignity of all. Access to health care is essential to that. We're CATHOLIC, so let's beef up provisions that care for the poor beyond the minimum--let's work toward programs that assist in getting people the kind of assistance they need to really improve their quality of life: let's look toward better funding for nutrition, housing, education and jobs programs. We're CATHOLIC, so we believe that public support of excellent pre-natal and childhood health care is a basic need that our society should provide. We're CATHOLIC, so we believe that our health care system should treat all people who need it, not only the documented, because human dignity doesn't stop at the border. We're CATHOLIC, so let's pay attention to the underserved in need of mental health care, which will also help to alleviate the problem of chronic homelessness that endangers the most vulnerable in our society..." Why is CATHOLIC so easily reducible to "no birth control or abortion"? What if we asked to do more instead of less, and led the way in prioritizing the needs of the poor and marginalized? Church leadership has spoken in favor of health care in the abstract, and even to looking to the needs of the poor, but then seems to try to shoot down any actual plan on grounds that the Church might have to pay for access to something it disapproves of. The place for the Church to sell its anti-contraception message is first to convince Catholics of the worth of its teaching. Then whether the Church subsidized access to contraception or not would be moot--Catholics wouldn't use it. As to non-Catholics using contraceptives subsidized by health care plans funded in Catholic institutions, well, do we believe in the primacy of conscience, or is that only for Catholics? Other Christian churches, many others of good will, have discerned the issue differently than the magisterium has. If nothing else, we could follow the lead of St. Augustine, who argued that prostitution should be legal--surely we might tolerate contraceptive use by non-Catholics working in Catholic institutions.
I thought the point of Eric's post (a topic we've talked baout previously) is that we should(mentally) walk in the shoes of the persons to be served, like the good samaritan.I think that's a reasonable frame to consider.I think lLsa's post was quite germane then.
Matt, Thanks for your comment. It seems to me that it is the bishops who are making nonsense of "conscience protections" by claiming that the "conscience" of the institution should be privileged over the conscience of individuals. My point to Stu was that there is a universally accessible moral reasoning to which we must appeal in making laws. The healthcare provisions are just that, they do not require anyone to perform or have performed on oneself any procedures that one finds objectionable. It only allows individuals to act on their consciences under the advice of medical professionals. If the bishops really feel so strongly about the immorality of contraception then they should make the universal moral argument to outlaw it, as they have been doing with abortion. Otherwise, they should continue to appeal to the consciences of individual Catholics and leave everyone else alone.I agree that "medically necessary" is a contested concept. I will just say that I have known people for whom contraception was a medical necessity (i.e. pregnancy would present an undue health risk), and I don't see why they should be denied the benefits to which they are legally entitled because the phantom "conscience" of their religiously-affiliated employer objects.
Eric originally posted, "the issue is not over how and to whom religiously affiliated institutions minister"I replied, "this is precisely the issue"Eric responded, "How is it the issue? The question seems to be whether religiously affiliated institutions must provide contraception coverage to their employees"The legislation, and HHS's interpretation, do make an exception for religiously affiliated institutions. The core issue is that "religiously affiliated institutions" is defined so narrowly under these new guidelines that institutions such as Catholic Charities, Notre Dame or Catholic Healthcare West don't qualify as religiously affiliated institution, because large numbers of their clientele are not Catholic.If this definition is allowed to stand, the obvious recourse - probably the only recourse, short of shutting down the institutions - is for Catholic Charities to serve only Catholics; for Notre Dame to employ and teach only Catholics; for CHW to serve only Catholic patients and employ only Catholic health care personnel. That's not my view of Catholic social ministry. I want the church - which is much broader than the bishops and religious orders - to be able to serve humanity, not just Catholics, and to have the freedom to do so while being Catholic.
Matthew, I am aware that I was using "we" liberally. Just pointing out how much the conversation has changed. Going back to the original discussion about birth control coverage in general, I believe the Affordable Care Act ought not cover it under the guise of preventative medicine. I believe unagidon was correct when he said it was elective.
" Whether we like it or not, the Church does not sanction the use of birth control, --"Tell that to the good sheople who have tried their luck at "Catholic roulette", i.e., the rhythm method, because HMTC has sprinkled holy water on it.
"These institutions receive literally $billions of US taxpayer money to support their programs and/or students over decades. If an institution is going to take US tax money, then they need to act consistent with our constitution and law."Your argument holds only with respect to the monies given by the government for specific purposes. The government has not awarded any grants to any universities to pay for employee contraction and abortion. So the government has no right to require a university to spend *its* money on something against its principles.Another example: when the government grants a neighborhood organization money for an art program for children the government has an interest *only* in that art program. It does not have any interest in the organization's summer swimming program and cannot insist that the program teach every child to swim regardless of what the child wants to do.
"It does not have any interest in the organizations summer swimming program and cannot insist that the program teach every child to swim regardless of what the child wants to do." It does, however, have the right to insist that all children, irrespective of race or gender, have a right to be taught to swim so long as the program receives taxpayers' funding.Other conditions that come with receipt of taxpayer funding must also be met.
Jimmy Mac ==You have changed the example -- I speccifically said that the grant was given FOR AN ART PROGRAM. IF the grant were for teaching kids to swim, what you say would hold. But that is not the issue. With respect to the case at issue -- religious colleges, etc -- the grant ARE NOT GIVEN TO SUPPLY CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION SERVICES.If what you say were cogent, then every time a government grant was made for some particular good, then that would subject the grantee to government supervision of *every* possible good that could be provided by the grantee. This would include an art gallery (which was given a grant for an exhibition of neighborhood artists) being required to have art classes for kids in its neighborhood. It could also include a city park (which has been given a grant for a statue of the city's first mayor) being required if the government so chose, to provide statues of all the mayors. That would be total, absolute nonsense, as is requiring the contraceptive/abortion on the basis of having granted moneies for physics labs, better English instruction, a library wing, etc. One would think that Catholics above all would recognize power and control grabs when they find them. But in the case at issue the bossiness of the ACLU et al seems to be going over our Commonwealers heads. Face it, guys, the ACLU and the Humanists organization members are out to cripple the churches financially. It is YOUR freedom that is being eroded.
What Lisa wrote. Sadly, the Church, religious bodies and charitable organizations use government to fatten their organization, increase its influence and power. If the church did the truly "Catholic " thing and advocated for the poor it would have credibility and following.
Eric,I'll concede it's a little strange to talk about the "conscience" of a whole institution. That's why I prefer terms like "religious freedom" and "religious exemption." I think it's a mistake to say that only individual believers, and not religious communities, have religious freedom. That is not how Catholics, at least, have understood religious freedom; nor can they understand it that way without undermining an important element of their ecclesiology.Perhaps a good compromise on this question would involve a recognition, by both HHS and Catholic institutions, of the distinction you suggest between contraception as a purely elective medical technology and contraception as a medical necessity -- i.e., those cases in which a pregnancy would gravely threaten the health of a woman. But such qualifications are hard to get right and easy to abuse.
"Perhaps a good compromise on this question would involve a recognition, by both HHS and Catholic institutions, of the distinction you suggest between contraception as a purely elective medical technology and contraception as a medical necessity i.e., those cases in which a pregnancy would gravely threaten the health of a woman. But such qualifications are hard to get right and easy to abuse."Conceptually, another good compromise would be to distinguish between prescriptions for the purpose of contraception and prescriptions for the same medications for non-contraceptive purposes. But how the government or insurance companies would monitor that distinction, I don't know.
That might also get you into questions of privacy.
Ann - it might, although the privacy agreement I sign at the doctor's office does give them permission to share necessary medical info with the insurance company.
I continue to think I see two starting points in the discusion:"one) the needs of the institution, noble to some degree, concern with power to somne degre.two) the needs of those in need as primary. Unfortunately, I see this kind of dichotomy jere too frequently for my taste: it strikes me trhat the institution still has a strong presuppositional hold on many of us -despite their weaknesses.
Yes, Bob, and this is yet another reason why we need a single payer health care system -- to protect freedom of religious action.
Well, the "we're a pluralistic society" argument that you and Bill DeHaas make is both lazy and stupid. It accomplishes precisely nothing in establishing that anyone has an obligation to go against their conscience.
I will just say that I have known people for whom contraception was a medical necessity (i.e. pregnancy would present an undue health risk), and I dont see why they should be denied the benefits to which they are legally entitled because the phantom conscience of their religiously-affiliated employer objects.No one is being "denied" anything. If it's a medical necessity in that sense, just go to the nearest gas station bathroom and spring for the 75 cents already.
Tell me why any Catholic (or anybody) has to live in a car when s/he can walk into church and ask for help? Talking about bad Samaritans. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57330802/hard-times-generation-fam... you watch the video, clearly you will see that these are not low lifes or drug addicts. What hypocrites many Christian clergy are!! Translations are absurd when seen in this light.
No one is being denied anything. If its a medical necessity in that sense, just go to the nearest gas station bathroom and spring for the 75 cents already.Studebaker,And you accuse others of making stupid arguments!
Matt, I agree that the distinction you make between "medically necessary" and "elective" contraception might be a place to begin a compromise, but I also acknowledge that it would be difficult for the blunt instrument of the law to adjudicate such distinctions in practice. The same is true, I think, for your distinction between individual and communal religious freedom. Given that modern rights discourse was, in part, founded on the premise that individual freedoms must be protected from corporate coercion (which was often religiously motivated), it seems that the law must side with individuals over institutions, unless the exercise of a particular individual freedom results in a nonconsensual infringement on the freedom of another or an egregious violation of the common good. The former seems to be at issue, for example, in the abortion debate, for those who hold that the fetus is a full person protected by law, and the latter obtains with regard to things like taxes for national defense, infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other civil services. As concerns contraception, I see no reason why corporate freedom ought to be privileged over individual freedom in the eyes of the law. Any argument otherwise, I think, might take us into realms that are, as Obama once said, "above the President's pay-grade."
David -- do you not know what I'm talking about? (Condom machines . . . .) Point being, given how widespread and cheap contraception is, no one is being "denied" anything just because they're paying for contraception directly rather than through higher insurance rates.
Ann, I guess I should not submit your name as a potential donor to the Louisiana ACLU - right?
"I agree that the distinction you make between medically necessary and elective contraception --"Substitute Viagra or Cialis for contraception then we'll see how things roll out.(Of course, we know that no clerics have any working knowledge of any of these things - unless they are members of the Orneryariate or other ministers who have "Poped.")
Jimmy Mac --Actually, when I was young I intended to join the ACLU, thinking it was a very good idea to have such an organization. But I didn't get around to it and as the years went on it became clear that its interpretations of the Constitution pretty much followed the liberal line no matter what the liberal line. So I never have joined.
It's amazing to me that the teaching on contraception, a teaching not based on scripture (that I know of), a teaching that the majority at Vatcan II as well as the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control would have overturned, a teaching criticized by over 600 theologians and other academics, a teaching that has so dramatically failed with 90+% of the faithful, can srill have such a life.
I don't understand why this discussion is being restricted to the bishops or to Catholic institutions. What about individual Catholics. Say I am a Catholic who owns a business and I pay health insurance for my employees. Shall I be forced to pay out of my pocket for things I find morally objectionable? Because some bogus "experts" have decided that health coverage must include condoms and abortifacents? That's simply insane. Or to be more precise, it is a form of soft totalitarian government, except that fellow travelers like Eric think it is meant "to help those in need." Please give me a break.
Crystal, I agree with you, which is why I wonder whether the USCCB's chest-puffing is just an opportunistic attempt to flex its political muscles. I doubt seriously that we are going to start hearing anti-contraception sermons any time soon, because most priests know that they would be alienating 90% of their parishioners. This is also why the bishops are generally focusing on a bundle of issues under the umbrella of "religious freedom" and not actually making the strong public moral arguments on specific issues.
So, let me get this straight...the government has now decided it can tell private, religious communities how they should form their consciouses and run their affairs (by "experts" and technocrats, of course!) and Bugyis somehow thinks that the push back against this infraction of religious liberty is the "chest-puffing" of opportunistic bishops? It this bizarro-land??? I suppose certain "liberal" Catholics only believe in the First Amendment when it suits them...perhaps they even think that the government can force a liberalization of the Church where their internal efforts have clearly failed. There certainly is politics involved here, but it is coming from the left who support such myopic and hyper-individualistic view of religious communities and ever expansive view of the rights/imperative of the state.PS- a millennial, I would say that the pill and sexual revolution of the liberal baby-boomers (many on this board) have been an unmitigated disaster for our generation and that the Church has the correct view of healthy human sexuality and contraception. A typical stat would be that 1-4 teenage girls now has HPV...there are many more stats along those lines thanks to a reductionist, "liberated" and materialist view of sexuality...
re: "No one is forcing ND to take these subsidies mainly channeled through tuition supports. No one is forcing Catholic Health Care West, for instance, to take Medicare and Medicaid money. The fact is that neither of these institutions could even survive without these public, taxpayer-funded programs."Doesn't the last sentence somewhat refute the first two? Of course there is no legal requirement that Catholic institutions accept public funds. However, there is effectively an financial requirement that they do so if they want to continue to exist at all. Once the government begins putting large amounts of money into the system (be it health care or higher education or whatever) a competitive advantage is given to those institutions that accept this funding. In many instances the competitive advantage is so great that institutions that do not accept this money are forced out of the market (in much the same way that American farm subsidies have made it impossible for farmers in some other parts of the world to compete with artificially low priced American crops). Without clear religious exemptions, the government, simply by entering the market, ends up forcing religious institutions to choose between being faithful to their mission of service and being faithful to their moral doctrines. Regardless of whether one happens to agree with the moral doctrines of a given religious social service provider, one should recognize the problematic and coercive nature of such a government action. As far as the church respecting the conscience of individuals who are employed at Catholic institutions, note that the Church has not been lobbying for the criminalization of contraception. Employees of Catholic institutions who desire contraception are free to purchase it. The cost is low enough that it would still be within reach for nearly everyone who chose to do so regardless of whether it was covered in their health care plan.If I worked for a Jain institution, I would not expect them to serve meat in their cafeteria even if some government entity has determined that meat is an important part of a balanced diet. If I work for a Catholic institution, I do not expect that institution to cover abortion or contraceptive services in their health care plan even if these have been designated as essential services by a government agency. If I object to these restrictions, I should find work with an employer who covers them.
"Of course there is no legal requirement that Catholic institutions accept public funds. However, there is effectively an financial requirement that they do so if they want to continue to exist at all. "Why? Why does the church need to be in the health business? Why does the church, if it decides to be in the health business, need to be financially competitive or make a profit by being part of government programs instead of usding its own wealth to fund its healthcare institutions? Why should the citizens of the US, many of them not Catholic, have their taxes go to a religious organization that will not give them all oprions available?
Crystal --Most Catholic hospitals are run by nuns for the sake of other people. Historically they have centuries of experience doing this. They have benefitted humanity greatly. They are not in it for the money.The first public hospital in the U. S. was Charity Hospital in New Orleans, founded in the early 18th century by the Sisters of Charity. The State of Louisiana was glad to have them run it because they did it so well. They had to give it up when public hospitals were required to supply abortions. They have raised some money and have built some neighborhood clinics in poor areas here. I don't think you will find the poor people here saying get rid of the nuns.
Why force out hospitals that serve the public - often with extremely high quality of care compared to public facilities - simply because they do not offer two medically elective and morally controversial practices?Is this what liberal tolerance looks like? This is the same principle for the recent denial of grants by the HHS to Catholic Refugee programs: the denial of funds to the TOP rated agency simply because of politics and the democratic infatuation with promoting abortion at any cost...the common good and refugees be damned.It is simply the political forcing of religious charities and hospitals from the public square because they do not tow the line of liberal dogma. This is not about "neutrality" or medical experts or even popular opinion (the majority of americans are against abortion according to recent polls) - this is about power and the silencing of dissent, hence the question: "Why does the church need to be in the health business?"The next question will be "why do catholics have to be in the education "business" or why should catholics - with their so called "conscious" - be in the public square at all...
Ann,When I asked why the church had to turn a profit, I was responding to the comment above mine which stated that the church needed to accept government money or it would be put out of the health business because it wouldn't be able to remain competitive.I'm not saying the nuns have alterior motives or are in health care for the money, I'm talking about the church in general. I remember a couple of Fr. James Martin's books mentioning nuns working in clinics and hospitals - they were very altruistic.
No one is saying churches should not run hospitals or colleges or refugee programs. All they are saying is that when these programs are run with taxpayer dollars, the government should be able to guarantee that the users will get all legal services available.
Oops - that should be "ulterior motives" :)
The government is also restricting licenses to Catholic groups for the operation hospitals or adoption agencies - MA is a perfect example.Also, considering the fact that hospitals are reimbursed for procedures (from Medicad or Medicare etc.) - what does abortion or contraception have to do with the conversation? If a Catholic hospital treats a elderly woman's broken arm in the emergency room, it gets reimbursed by Medicare for the public service rendered.To say that hospitals must cover all "services" or none is nonsense and a pure political ploy to remove Catholic morality and voices from the public square (of course, in the name of neutrality and tolerance!)
in other words, it is not some sort of blank-check government funding system for Catholic hospitals we are talking about here -- it is reimbursement for medical services provided.
I've read that 5 of the 10 largest hospital corporations are Catholic. There are many people who end up at Catholic hospitals who aren't Catholic - my mom died in a Catholic hospital and she wasn't even a practicing Christian. Imagine a poor woman living in a rural town that has only one hospital, a Catholic one, and cannot use her medicaid to get full reproductive care. There are end-of-life issues too, like the US bishops order to Catholic hospitals about feeding tubes and vegetative patients, which may thwart some patients' wishes. People have the right to expect health care that isn't compromised by one particular group's religious beliefs, especially when they may not have a choice about what hospital they end up in.
Crystal:ooh, the poor woman living in a rural town! Perhaps she should be grateful that the Catholics are running an hospital at all, no? But no, she must get full reproductive care(meaning comdoms and abortions)! Paid by the taxpayer! By me! Do you realize that your idea of what social and political freedom means is completely upside down?
So there seems to be a lot of confusion over what exactly is on the table here in the way of a potential regulation. A lot of heat and not a lot of light. 1. No one is forcing hospitals to provide any particular service to patients -- abortion or contraception. There have been situations in the past where training programs were reprimanded by accreditation bodies for, among other things, failing to provide sufficient training on procedures that are used in both elective abortion AND the treatment of miscarriage. This wasn't the hospital itself, but the Ob/Gyn GME program that it ran, and the program actually flunked a lot of other requirements as well, but it sued over this one and lost. This is the situation that led to (and I can't remember which, sorry) the Hyde or Church amendment (think it's the latter). 2. The proposed requirement under consideration is the definition of minimum benefits for health plans going forward that have not been grandfathered under prior rules. There is no real controversy that these minimum benefits should include contraception; the issue is how wide the so-called religious exemption should be. The administration basically went with the California model, which was unsuccessfully challenged by Catholic Charities. No one is forcing employees to obtain contraception; no one is forcing Catholic hospitals to stock it or dispense it or even prescribe it. Likewise, no one is forcing Catholic hospitals to provide employee benefits. They can up the salaries of everyone involved and force them onto the open market. But that overlooks the fact that benefits are a form of comp that is highly tax advantaged over normal income, even for non--profit hospitals. (My personal view on this matter is the same as Cupcake's.) So while some are laser focused on the exemption, one might also focus on the give and take of a situation in which, like it or not, Catholic hospitals are receiving the benefit of a tax policy that exists for a reason, and that is to assure that people get a minimum level of benefits. To what extent should they get the benefit of that policy if they aren't willing to advance it? 3. The receipt of federal funding does raise issues about the extent to which an institution should be allowed to deviate from minimum standards that are neutrally applied, particularly if they are health and safety standards. All I can say is, it probably does neither side much good to pull too hard on this particular thread. Catholic hospitals operate pretty much like other hospitals on a funding/service basis. There is just so far they are going to be able to go to deviate from public (rather than private) conceptions of the common good. Not being forced to provide services is probably as far as they are going to be able to insist that a religious exemption extend, and that's already pretty far when it comes to some kinds of services. Thus, Catholic hospitals in Connecticut long ago capitulated to the state's requirements that accredited emergency rooms have emergency contraception for the treatment of rape victims. Likewise, if the St. Joseph's situation in Arizona had ended differently (mother had been left to die), my guess is that it would no longer be in the business of offering high risk OB services.
I thought Eric's post was about the Catholic Bishops and their approach to service.I thought about Bernie Fine - CNN thinks no criminal action is posible because the SOL is past.Which made me thinbk of poor Bishop Gumbleton who was ousted from his parish and roles because he argued for opening SOL.He violated the"communio episccpi"Everyone has to be on point in terms of the institution's needs!Bevilaqua continuyes to be deposed in Philly today and Msgr Lynn's attorney says he was just following orders from Bevilaqua."Communio episcopi" passed down the line.From what I see of our new deacons and the diocesan priests coming along (and their admirers) more of the same -you've got to be on point.Defend the institution's emphasis. Minimiuze service unless it fits.Last thing I thought of this morning was the back cover ad of the current America:"46 Million People in Poverty is Unacceptable. Change It Now." -great message!"Donate Today to Catholic Charities USA."I don't want to disparage Catholic Charities.i think though that our leadership (in so many ways) continues its encapsulted view of service that is taken up first in its own self protection.I see the problem growing as we continue to strive to be more"distinctive."How many times we've said here that leadership has a credibiity problem - and are we just deepnening that issue ?
There is no real controversy that these minimum benefits should include contraceptionWhich can only be chalked up to invincible ignorance and a fundamental misunderstanding of what "insurance" even is.
Barbara, Thanks for your helpful clarifications. I agree that there is a lot on the table, much of which I did not address in my original post (i.e. specific services provided by Catholic hospitals). I think that this confusion, however, is being sown by the bishops' attempt to bundle several different issues under the same banner of "religious freedom." For instance, the issue in my original post and the NY Time article had to do with exemption as pertains to the Affordable Care Act, which only requires employers to provide access through insurance benefits and not direct services. This, as you point out, is a different issue than what specific services Catholic hospitals ought to provide to receive federal funds. While this is itself debatable, the exemption claimed in the recent case of the human trafficking ministry seems to have more to do with being exempt from providing direct services while still receiving government awards predicated on providing the full range of services, and it is not about being exempt from providing certain healthcare benefits as part of a universal access policy that applies to any employer who chooses to provide such benefits to its employees. Of course, as I understand it, if the employer elects not to provide benefits, it will be taxed, but this is different than being denied government funding that is essential to cover operation costs. These are all complex issues with specific considerations, but the USCCB is painting them all with the same brush by claiming that in every instance it is the same "religious liberty" that is being attacked. This leaves the impression that either the Church expects universal exemption from all "secular" authority or that the government is trying to wage war on "religion" in general. This kind of either/or can only breed fundamentalist suspicion on both sides of these issues by making it seem like either Catholics are irrational or Obama is anti-religious. This is the same conclusion that E.J. Dionne comes to in his piece, but he places the blame more squarely on the reproductive rights folks who are against widening the exemption and thinks that Obama should preserve the Catholic vote by not being seen as caving to their anti-religious interests. I think the bishops have it wrong here, and I think progressive Catholics will see through their rhetorical subterfuge and side with Obama, and the conservative Catholics who buy the bishops' story that the government is out to kill their faith have been lost for the President already.
But there is this to cosider:http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/740446/contraceptive_covera...
This is not about electoral politics, it is about religious communities and the freedom to participate in the public square without sacrificing their values.The blogger sees an election and a zero-sum game, the rest of us see the reality of the situation and the steady erosion of first amendment rights.
Brett, that you think we are experiencing a steady erosion of first amendment rights proves how far from the reality of the situation your sight has strayed.
I am not imagining things: the closing of Catholic Charities and institutions in D.C,. MA, IL; the politically motivated denial of grants at HHS; the imposition of medically trivial mandates that are contrary to religious conscious. You don't thing that is hampering free exercise according to the first amendment? Creating politically motivated regulations/mandates to force religious communities from the public is not a problem for you? Even liberals like Sean Michael Winters and EJ Dionne think that something is a miss in this administration's treatment of religious liberty...
On a side note, you're at Yale, right? Do you ever make it over to St. Mary's? Great church right by campus.
This thread saddens me.I went back and read the transcripts again from the Fordham Conference on faithful citizenship in an era of spin.Shining through was the importance of and the rising prioirty of serving those in need.As in many areas, say for example the imposed new/old Mass translation, the role of the USCCB seems to be more of it's about us.Arguing aboput rights is not the same as arguing about how right one's position is how effective in the community not only of beleivers but the broader community as well.I posit that the more encaosulated one's approach is, the less likely the effectiveness of what one wants to see accomplished.I guess that's why I previously mentioned issues of sex abuse handling and the disconnect between the policy makers who want to stress how well they do things and the perception of events on the ground in the broader community.I further posit then that what matters here is service and that thge Church does best when it demonstrates loving service in action and not lots of words about its own perogativers.
"The monks of Belmont Abbey College sued because the government left them no choice. The government is forcing these devout monks to purchase certain drugs for their students and employees, in violation of their religious convictions. For example, the government now requires the college to purchase Plan B (the morning-after pill) and ella (the week-after pill) for their students. These drugs likely cause abortions, which is a grave sin to the monks. It is one thing for the government to decide it should distribute these drugs itself, which of course is not part of this new law. But it is quite another for the government to mandate that religious Americans with conscientious objection purchase these drugs and participate in their distribution.The law also forces the college to pay for related education and counseling about these drugs. The monks may preach to their students against abortion and contraception on Sunday morning, but on Monday the feds will make the college pay for a counselor to send the exact opposite message to its students. The First Amendment forbids this type of forced speech and burden on religious exercise."http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284262/conscience-cause-will-presid...
Crystal,I wasn't suggesting that Catholic institutions are trying to turn a profit. Non-profit organizations still exist in a market and they can be rendered financially insolvent by not receiving the subsidies that other providers in that same market receive. In order to provide services (be it health care or education or whatever) to poor people who will not be paying for them, you need some clients who will be paying for services. (It is not possible to run certain types of institutions, such as modern hospitals, entirely off of donations.) You will not be able to attract those paying clients if you are not able offer prices low enough to compete with those of institutions receiving subsidies. Thus, being denied a subsidy for being unwilling to violate one's religious principles will effectively force many Catholic institutions to close.
I think whether Catholic institutions wil be forced to close is a matter of fact to be verified.The issue here was whether USCCB with the abc argument is an effective approach to serving the needy and is the view there about service or protecting self interest.
And then there's the nPR report today -worth a thread of its own?


text:
Brian Deegan, shown here at a March photo shoot at Lake Elsinore in Southern California, has his eyes on a "three-peat" in the Pro 2 Class.
Rob MacCachren and his crew put their Makita Tools to work in the off season: they built a new truck for the Pro 4 class.
Rob MacCachren takes flight in his Rockstar Energy Makita Tools MacCachren Motorsports Ford (Tooele, Utah, 2012).
Wayne Hart
Communications Manager
Makita U.S.A.
(714) 522-8088 x 4410
Makita continues as sponsor of top drivers Deegan and MacCachren, and as a tool of choice in the pits
La Mirada, CA – Makita Industrial Power Tools is continuing its presence in off-road racing as a sponsor of top race teams, and a tool of choice in the pits, as the Lucas Oil Off Road Racing Series (LOORRS) opens its 2013 season this weekend at Firebird Raceway in Chandler, AZ.
Brian Deegan in a familiar position in 2012: out in front and accelerating. Deegan will compete in the Pro 2 and Pro Lite Classes in 2013.
The launch of the new LOORRS season extends Makita's consistent presence in live racing and action sports, continuing in 2013 as a team sponsor of two perennial frontrunners in the series, Brian Deegan and Rob MacCachren.
"Our ongoing commitment to racing and to the fans who love the sport is a natural for Makita," said Brent Withey, Director of Marketing, Makita. "Our customers are not only fans of off road racing, but many of them ride and race on weekends – and just like our sponsored drivers, they rely on Makita tools. For our growing legion of customers who follow action sports, Brian Deegan and Rob MacCachren are icons in their sport and a perfect complement to Makita's best-in-class power tools.
Brian Deegan Seeking a "Three-Peat""The General" Brian Deegan, founder of the Metal Mulisha, is a fourteen-time X-Games medalist and full-time action sports icon. Deegan and his Rockstar Makita Metal Mulisha Ford return to the Pro 2 Class in attempt to make it three-in-a-row after capturing LOORRS titles in 2011 and 2012. Deegan will also compete in the highly competitive Pro Lite Class. See the attached video for an exclusive interview with Brian Deegan.
Rob MacCachren: 200 Wins and Counting
Rob MacCachren is a member of the Off Road Motorsports Hall of Fame and remains one of the most versatile drivers in off-road racing. From the southern tip of Baja to the closed course raceways of the western US and beyond, MacCachren is a fan favorite and always a contender when the flag drops. Rob is coming off a big year in 2012 after reaching career win number 200, and is back for more in the PRO 2 Class with his Rockstar Energy Makita Tools MacCachren Motorsports Ford Truck. Rob and his crew were busy in the off season as they put their Makita Tools to work and built a new truck for the Pro 4 Class, where he'll also race in 2013.
Lucas Oil Off Road Racing Series
The Lucas Off Road Racing Series is the evolution of the long standing support of short course racing by Forrest Lucas and Lucas Oil. Steeped in the Midwest tradition of short course off road racing infused with a West Coast influence, Lucas Oil Off Road Racing brings intense four wheel door to door action to challenging, fan friendly tracks. The 2013 schedule includes stops in Southern California, Arizona, Utah, Reno, and Las Vegas. 2013 also marks the return of regular race coverage on CBS Sports. For more on the Lucas Oil Off Road Racing Series, go to http://www.lucasoiloffroad.com/
About Makita
Makita is a worldwide manufacturer of industrial quality power tools and offers a wide range of industrial accessories. Makita utilizes leading-edge technology and innovation to engineer tools that are more compact with less weight yet deliver industrial strength power and results. Makita U.S.A., Inc. is located in La Mirada, California, and operates an extensive distribution network located throughout the U.S. For more information, please call 800/4-MAKITA or visit makitatools.com. Follow Makita at facebook.com/makitatoolspage, twitter.com/makitatools, and youtube.com/makitapowertools. Makita is Best-in-Class Engineering.
Brian Deegan, shown here at a March photo shoot at Lake Elsinore in Southern California, has his eyes on a "three-peat" in the Pro 2 Class.
Rob MacCachren and his crew put their Makita Tools to work in the off season: they built a new truck for the Pro 4 class.
Rob MacCachren takes flight in his Rockstar Energy Makita Tools MacCachren Motorsports Ford (Tooele, Utah, 2012).
Notice / Recall
Service Update
Choose Genuine MakitaParts & Accessories
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Trademarks: Makita®, LXT®, AVT® and the Makita logo, Teal color
and Black & White color combination are the registered trademarks of Makita.
The other trademarks, service marks and logos displayed in the Website are registered
and unregistered trademarks of Makita and others.
Nothing contained on this Makita site should be construed as granting, by implication,
estoppel, or otherwise, any license or right to use any trademark displayed on this
site without the written permission of Makita or such third party that owns the


text:
22 Jun 2011 5:25 PM #1
Make a scrollable panel position on center of its container
Hello there, I'm new to Sencha Touch and I'm trying hard to get my first app working
There's one problem driving me mad, hope you can help me!! Here's what happens:
My app has a TabPanel, containing 4 tabs. In one of them I need to display an image representing a map of a campus, which needs to be panned/scrolled around by the user.
I would like the map to appear centered within its container Panel, instead of appearing sticked to the bottom left corner. I searched the forum for some advice: found something but it isn't working for me...
mapp.views.Map = new Ext.Panel({ layout: "fit", items:[ { scroll: 'both', width: 1000, height: 792, html:'<img src="img/map.png" width="1000" height="792" border="0" usemap="#Map" />', listeners:{ afterrender: function(thisPanel) { var d = thisPanel.body.dom; d.scrollTop = (d.scrollHeight - d.offsetHeight)/2; } } } ] });
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for your help!
23 Jun 2011 3:33 PM #2
Bumping... Tried everything but still no luck


text:
Do you happen to know whether the Nexus One's battery is charged while being connected via the USB cable to a PC?
If so, is this standard behavior for all Android devices that have a USB port?
I don't know about the N1 in particular, but as far as I know, most (if not all) phones charge via USB so long as the USB port provides enough power. My Motorola Droid and G1 charge via USB. My Nook Color and Motorola Xoom (tablets) do not charge via USB.
However, do note that it is faster to charge with the phone plugged in to a power source instead of a USB port.
Yes, though it will charge slower than if plugged in to the mains supply and some USB ports are powered better than others.
Yes, I own an N1 and this is often how I charge it. I've owned and worked with other Android devices, and all of them will charge from a powered USB port (although slower than from an electrical outlet).
Yes, but in my case, I had an usb hub installed with 7 ports ( which can be put on top of my desk - making it easier to plug in usb devices ). This hub could funtion with or without an electric adaptor (not sure how to call the plug which goes into the electricity outlet).
Using this usb hub with a memory stick was fine, but when I wanted to plug in my Android device (or for that matter my ipod), I had to make sure the external power adapter for this usb was connected to the outlet.
Got some weird things if the hub did not receive enough power. I'm sure some of the guys here at the forum can explain why :)


text:
Orlando Magic vs Indiana PacersWed, April 16, 2014 - 8:00 PMAmway Center in Orlando , FL
We are sorry, the date for this event has already passed. This event took place on 4/16/2014. Click here to view upcoming events for Orlando Magic.
Still unsure? Check out our user reviews for:
Have a question? Need help? Call us at 800.477.5285


text:
Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}
Coming up next:
Skip to this video now
Now Playing:
Play Video
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.
Samuel L. Jackson Reveals His Favorite Superhero Character
And it's not "Captain America: The Winter Soldier's" Nick Fury.
Now Playing: Samuel L. Jackson Reveals His Favorite Superhero Character
Now Playing: Samuel L. Jackson Brings Marvel to 'Live in Times Square'
Now Playing: Mysterious Underwater Orb Baffles Scientists
Now Playing: New Harry Potter Story Excites Fans of the Popular Kids Fiction Series
Now Playing: Keeping Kids Busy During the Summer Months
Now Playing: 'Girl Meets World' Reunites the Whole TGIF Gang
Now Playing: What Would You Do: Rude Ventriloquist Berates Pedestrians
Now Playing: What Would You Do: Black Customer Is Racially Profiled While Shopping In High End Store
Now Playing: What Would You Do: Parents Disapprove Of Daughters Wheelchair Bound Boyfriend
Now Playing: What Would You Do: Married Man Has Affair With Gay Lover While On Date With His Wife
Now Playing: What Would You Do: College Students Peer Pressure Friend Into Abusing Adderall
Now Playing: Mother of Missing Woman and Reporter Credited For Arrest of Man Suspected of Killing Wife: Part 6
Now Playing: Private Investigator Befriends Man Suspected of Being a Killer: Part 5
Now Playing: Young Boy Claims His Father Confessed to Killing His Mom: Part 4
Now Playing: Man Claims New Wife Left, Ran Off to Mexico: Part 3
Now Playing: Suspicions Fall on Husband After Wife's Tragic River Death: Part 2
Now Playing: Woman Dies After Being Thrown Into River While Fishing With Husband: Part 1
Now Playing: Kanye West Says Wife Kim Kardashian's Body Is a Work of Art
Now Playing: Justin Bieber Reportedly Turns Down $5M Offer to Perform at RNC
Now Playing: Nancy Pelosi Suggests Trump Is Sabotaging His Own Campaign
Now Playing: {{itm.title}}


text:
What is your zip code?
How can we help? Please choose a category for immediate help.
Do you need additional help?
Yes No
Related Documents
Field Notes: Providence Housing Authority
Viridian Web-Enabled High Efficiency Pump
How to Read a Pump Curve 101
How to Operate the Viridian High Efficiency Circulator
Set Up IP Addresses for Multiple Viridian Pumps
Select the Right Viridian, Create Submittal Data Sheets
John Hazen White, Jr., Taco the People Company
Need Help?
Eligible Rebates -
Select Your State
Select you state to see what energy efficiency incentives & rebates are available in your area.To see a list of rebates on additional Taco products by state click here
How To Videos:


text:
I'm starting to look at finishing my basement, and am playing with a couple different layouts. I definitely want to put a pool table down there - and later sell the house with this being one of the big selling points. Length shouldn't be an issue, but how wide does my room need to be to properly fit a full-size pool table and comfortably play on it?
You need enough room to be able to properly line up and execute any shot. I would say you need at least 5 to 6ft "elbow room" around the table.
So your room needs to be 14.5' x 19' to 16.5' x 21' (which sounds very large).
Here is another good source for sizing a room for various sized pool tables.
This table (borrowed from that site) is a good rule of thumb when using full sized cue sticks.
Table Size Minimum Room Size Playing surface 3.5' x 7' 16' 8" x 13' 6" 39.5" x 79" 4' x 8' 17' 4" x 13' 11" 44" x 88" 4.25' x 8.5' 17' 9" x 14' 1" 46" x 92" 4.5' x 9' 18' 4" x 14' 6" 50" x 100"
At a minimum, you'll want 5 feet in every direction around the table to have enough room to use a full size stick. They do of course make short sticks for tight areas though. Not ideal, but it's an option if you don't have 15' or so to work with.


text: I don't know if it was done before on other websites, I didn't check the full list from swish-e.org website. But here is a feedback on what we have done: we first worked on a typical search engine using Swish-e on our debian server. It's working fine, it's much faster and efficient than our previous search engine using mysql. Faster and less resources-hungry. We have then decided to see if "on the fly" searching would be possible, as our CPU was sleeping during typical searches. And even on our small server (it's a Celeron 2Ghz I think, with 512Mo RAM), it's working perfectly! The idea is to show the top 25 results as soon as three letters have been typed. For each new letter, you have new results. If you have only one result left, it opens it automatically, you don't even have to click on anything. We used an open source code from another website, and adapt it a bit. But it's still basic Ajax, it calls a PHP page, calling the swish search engine. So technically it's easy, and surprisingly to us, it's not killing our CPU or harddrive at all! You can test it on www.cinemasie.com, search engine is at the top right corner. The popup window has some localization problem, but the idea is there. François Cinemasie.comReceived on Thu Jul 6 06:41:46 2006


text:
Facebook maxes out your friends at 5000. Is there some way to get around this without just creating a second page?
Note: I'm not even close, but I have friends who have maxed out and have to kluge other accounts to try and manage things.
One option would be to create a fan page for yourself and use that. Fan pages have no limit to the amount of "fans"
This article explains how to migrate your friends to a fan page.
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
You have arrived in Istanbul, but how will you get to the hotel? Do not worry, we will find you at either Atatürk Airport or Sabiha Gökçen Airport, and bring you home to Yasmak Sultan Hotel in our private vehicle. Please contact the front desk for more information and price list.
Our front desk and concierge staff will guide you and help you to explore Istanbul. City tours, car rental, detailed information about historical and cultural sights, places to visit, shopping areas, reservations for restaurants, events and activities in the city, and much more.
Wireless Internet connection is available in the rooms and common areas throughout the hotel free of charge.
Everyday from 09.00 to 17.00 we provide laundry and dry cleaning service for our guests.24-hour room service is available for our guests.
24-hour room service is available for our guests.24-hour room service is available for our guests.24-hour room service is available for our guests.
Hotel Yasmak Sultan offers a Wellness Center for hotel guests. Our wellness center will ensure you won't have to compromise your exercise routine while you are our guest. After your work-out, unwind with a dip in our pool, relax in the sauna, enjoy the worlwide famous Turkish Bath or schedule a relaxing massage (by appointment only). Open daily from 8:30 am to 10:00 pm. The swimming pool and the fitness center services are free of charge for the hotel guests and the entrance fee for sauna and the Turkish Bath (Hamam) is 10 Euro per person per day.