text:
Is the contraception mandate constitutional?
Probably, argues Joseph D. Becker.
Churches that preach the immorality of contraception are excused from federally imposed obligations to promote the practice. But federal law will soon require that the employees of hospitals and other charitable institutions run by such churchesnotably, the Catholic Churchhave the option of adding coverage for contraception to the health insurance offered by their employer. Whether or not the cost of such coverage is passed to insurers, the question remains, does the requirement violate the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion by such churches?Let us suppose the formation of a new religious sect centered in, say, Florida. Seeking novel forms of worship, the sect, misunderstanding Exodus 32:16, elects to pray to a golden calf, made of melted jewelry donated by the faithful.
Read the rest here.
About the Author
58 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Becjer us assuming that the government's right/duty to make laws of general applicability s absolute. Granted, it has the power to enforce any law, but that does not imply that the enforcement is constitutionl in all cases. The First Amendment is also a law, one of the most basi in the Constitution. Whe it conflicts with generla laws it would seem to me that the feds are constitutionally obliged to seek a compromise that does the elast harm to both the government and the persons covered by a conflicting part of the Constitution.The Constitution is not a mathematical deductive system that whose implications are all consistent. The lawyers could learn a lot from the mathematicians about deductive systems and how they work and don't work.
I think a reasonable comparison to the "contraceptive mandate" is the proposed referendum in California (which was stricken from the ballot) to ban male circumcision. Though some of the people who supported it were tainted by anti-Semitism, there are many people who feel that male circumcision is just as much mutilation as female circumcision, which is illegal in the United States even though it is practiced by some for cultural and religious reasons. Quite frankly, I think it is paranoid to maintain that the contraceptive mandate was devised as an instrument to weaken and divide the Catholic Church. That doesn't mean there is no issue of religious liberty involved. But clearly the recommendations that led to the mandate were based purely on concerns about the health of women individually and collectively.
As American citizens, the Catholic bishops in the United States are free to exercise their religious zealotry against artificial contraception in the public square.The Supreme Court is already scheduled to hear arguments about Obamacare.If the Catholic bishops want to bring another challenge to Obamacare that the Supreme Court would have to hear, regarding the constitutionality of the contraception mandate, they are, as American citizens, free to pursue this goal.For a long time, I have thought that the Catholic bishops are religious zealots. I do not admire their religious zealotry. So I hope that their religious zealotry against artificial contraception inspires strong opposition from people who support artificial contraception.
Arguably, however, the current mandate is more like the deliberate targeting in Hialeah than the neutral law in Smith. To make your analogy bear any real resemblance to the current situation, it would have to be the case that virtually everyone in the entire country was already selling/melting their gold except for the sect, that applying the law to the sect would make no difference to Congress's objective, and that there was therefore no purpose for the new law except to target the sect in everything but name. That's what we have with the contraception mandate. We've been assured by the administration and its supporters that almost all insurance policies already cover contraception and even that insurance companies will save money by doing so. In addition, contraceptives are universally and cheaply available, and are even handed out by thousands of government-funded clinics for free. It is safe to say that modern Western society has the most contraceptive "access" of any society in human history. All of that being the case, the only reason for issuing a mandate is precisely to target the few lone Catholic employers that have so far declined to cover contraception. This is not a neutral law at all, if one looks at it beyond a surface level.
Aspirin is even more widely available than contraceptives, yet insurance covers aspirin in all kinds of cases. I think Studebaker has it backwards. The reason there is a mandate is because the health reform law attempts to provide universal coverage -- or the closest thing Congress can get to it without trying the effective thing, a single-payer system, which would give half the country a case of the vapours.If there is going to be (nearly) universal coverage, there has to be a standard for what will be covered. Contraception went in -- the bishops hadn't fought that -- while abortion stayed out. Given current moral attitudes of the majority of Americans and given common medical practice, that conclusion made sense. Until the bishops mounted up.What they are saying now -- especially with their paragon Taco Bell owner -- is that individual employers should be able to opt out of what Congress decided everyone should have. The Taco Bell employee is left out of the decision. (I don't mind paying for something I am not going to use; I do it every time I write a check for my homeowner coverage.) The decision on who gets what rests, in the bishops' argument with Christian employers who can confidently be expected to decide what is best for their help.That being the case, the bishops have quietly abandoned their decades-long lobbying for universal health care coverage and joined the states in demanding individual (employer) decision-making, which, of course, leaves no universal standard. I mind that, but I mind more that they are jumping through logical hoops to avoid saying so.
If the Catholic bishops want to bring another challenge to Obamacare that the Supreme Court would have to hear, regarding the constitutionality of the contraception mandate, they are, as American citizens, free to pursue this goal. The Becket Fund has already started that process by bringing four cases to trial. They will have to work their way though the federal district courts and appeals courts before they can ask the Supreme Court to hear them.
Becker's article ignores the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies only to actions by the federal government, not the states. It was passed by the Congress in response to the Supreme Court decision in Smith, which is the case Becker bases his article on. The RFRA provides:Government may substantially burden a persons exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as it applied o the states but it still applies to actions of the federal government itself.
I should have stopped the italics before the last sentence.
Actually, aspirin is almost never covered by insurers in the outpatient setting. The only exceptions I have seen are some state Medicaid plans which cover OTC meds. Your example proves Studebaker's point.
@Mary Russell (3/17, 1:44 pm) Good point about aspirin. Although aspirin isn't a good example, Tom Blackburn's point is a good one. Insurance (health, auto, home, etc.) is always about spreading risk. Anyone who pays for insurance is paying for expenses they most likely will not (and do not) incur. Jonathan Cohn, who covers health care for The New Republic, frames the insurance question this way: "Do we think responsibility for medical expenses should lie primarily with individuals, even if that means some wont be able to afford it? Or is it a burden we wish to spread more broadly, across society, so that everybody can get the care they need, at a price they can afford?"Then there's the question of whether contraception should be part of a basic health insurance package. Cohn points out that women using contraception for whom cheap, over-the-counter contraceptives would not be appropriate are a minority of the population. He goes on: "But thats always the story with health care and health insurance. At any one time, most people dont require expensive medical care. Only a small number of people do. Its precisely for the sake of that group the ones who face high expenses, and could face financial or medical turmoil without assistance that insurance exists.Keep in mind that, at some point or another, pretty much everybody falls into that category. Maybe youre not a woman who needs expensive birth control. You might still be a woman, or a man, who ends up with heart disease. Or allergies. Or a chronic gastro-intestinal problem. Or cancer. Insurance is there to take care of you, so why shouldnt insurance be there to take care of a woman who needs more expensive forms of contraception?"The argument that contraception is low-cost, routine, preventative care? Cohn points out that the same could be said for regular eye exams, or blood pressure checks---both of which are usually covered by insurance.The argument that pregnancy isn't a medical condition? "Pregnancy is a wonderful thing, but its also a serious medical condition that requires serious medical attention. (Those of you unfamiliar with what pregnancy entails might want to consult this page from the American Academy of Family Physicians or ask a woman who has been pregnant.)"See the whole article here: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101784/birth-control-pill-insuranc...
I think it is paranoid to maintain that the contraceptive mandate was devised as an instrument to weaken and divide the Catholic ChurchOh, Mr. Nickol, you are smarter than that.You know that Planned Parenthood and the rest of the "reproductive rights" faction have long considered the Catholic Church to be Public Enemy Number One (as have their comrades in arms in various other countries in modern history), and that they have long pursued various efforts to undermine the Church whenever possible.This particular effort has absolutely NOTHING to do with increasing access to contraception -- those are already inexpensive and plentiful for anyone who wants them, even given out free at many places -- and this has nothing to do with increasing pecuniary benefits for employees and students -- any increased costs to insurers or employers will be passed onto the employees and students in the form of lower wages and higher tuition -- and this has everything to do with forcing Catholic institutions to be involved, to make them get their hands dirty.The Church is The Enemy. No one can seriously deny that.
"But clearly the recommendations that led to the mandate were based purely on concerns about the health of women individually and collectively."David N. --But the bishops and theier Republican cohorts simply cannot admit to themselves that Obama can be sincere about anything. He is a demon out to cause the downfull of the nation and must be exorcised from the body politic. He's really a Muslim Communist, you know, not an American at all.Sheesh. And double sigh.
Ann Olivier: As I've stated, I do not agree with the actions that the Catholic bishops have undertaken to protest against the contraception mandate. Nevertheless, I do not think that most of the Catholic bishops consider President Obama to be "a demon," as you say, or to be "a Muslim Communist," as you say, or to be "not an American at all," as you say.
Bender seems to think this BC plot was hatched when Catholic colleges and hospitals started BC coverage about a decade ago. He thinks that Obama, then 'a super powerful' Illinois state Representative who was able to reach out to the many states and got the BC mandate enforced by channeling long dead Saul Alinsky. Pray that the bishops don't adopt this idea.. 'and this has everything to do with forcing Catholic institutions to be involved, to make them get their hands dirty"...Paranoia is the most unattractive of mental illnesses..people don't rally around to help paranoids.. they flee.
Thomas,No, I don't think that they think that Obama is a Muslim Communist, but many of their cohorts do. Because of their behavior when Obamacare was being debated and now this mandate problem I can't help but think that they trust him about as far as they can throw a hog. They almost scuttled the health care bill (which they claimed to be for) because they couldn't believe that he was telling the truth when he said he would not force them to pay for abortions. (I wonder what Bart Stupak thinks of the bishops now.) Obama has already offered not one but two compromises in the mandate matter while the bishops have only expanded their almost hysterical complaints against him. I can only conclude that they are scared to death of him and what they imagine he might do to religious liberty.
Ann Olivier: The Catholic bishops are religious zealots, and, as such, they tend to get carried away with their religious zealotry. Their religious zealotry gives them a Manichaean worldview. But to spell out the obvious, the Catholic bishops are not politicians. By comparison, President Obama is a politician. Moreover, he does not appear to have a Manichaean worldview. President Obama has his hands full trying to deal with the Catholic bishops because of their religious zealotry and because he clearly does not agree with them about certain significant issues such as legalized abortion in the first trimester.
Well, contraception is a distraction here. The core issue is the government's claim to define and limit religion however it likes.Yes, Grant, I read the article.
As I explained in my comment to the article itself, Smith does not apply to the mandate because of RFRA and because the deference to the government applied to the law at issue in Smith applies only to laws that are neutral and generally applicable. The exclusion of employers who have so-called grandfathered plans, small employers and others from the scope of the mandate for secular reasons means that the mandate isnt neutral and generally applicable. For more info, see the discussion of the free exercise in this recent 6th circuit case: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0024p-06.pdf
Justice Alito, when he was a Third Circuit Judge authored an opinion that makes this same point with regard to a police department policy against beards that had an exception for medical reasons. Because of this exception, smith did not apply because the policy was not generally applicable. See the opinion here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1022700.html
A case that is even closer (regarding pharmacists who did not want to dispense the morning after pill) was recently decided in Washington State: http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stormans-Opinion-fr..., because of exceptions that we're in place for secular reasons, the refusal to grant the exception for religious reasons was deemed a violation of the First Amendment. In light of the applicable jurisprudence, I am questioning how this article can be taken seriously as an a opinion of the current law applicable to the mandate. What is Mr. Becker's background in constitutional law and religious exemptions?
What is Mr. Beckers background in constitutional law and religious exemptions?MikeD,We know something about Mr. Becker:
Joseph D. Becker, a founding partner of Becker, Glynn, Melamed and Muffly, a Manhattan law firm, is author of The American Law of Nations (Judis).
But we don't even know your name.
My name is not important and the reasons I don't use my full name are similar to Unagideon's, but if you need to know anything about me, I am a graduate of Notre Dame law school (learned contracts from Professor Kaveny, con law from professor Charles Rice and First Amendment law from Prof. Rick Garnett). I am not the one who wrote the argument that failed to address the relevant statute (RFRA) and case law that any court would use to evaluate the HHS mandate.Mr Becker is also "a graduate of the Harvard Law School, he was formerly Assistant General Counsel of Allied-Signal Corporation engaged in corporate acquisitions and litigation, and served for 12 years as Adjunct Professor of International Commercial Law at New York University School of Law." http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Directory/Biography.aspx?g=6682dc1... Frankly the reason I asked about his background was because I was surprised commonweal could not get someone who is more of an expert on this topic to write a more comprehensive article that actually engages in the relevant legal arguments against the mandate. As a lawyer who knows a small bit about this issue and typically respects the substance of what appears in this journal, even if I often disagree, I was expecting something better from commonweal.
On Friday afternoon, 3/16, several Federal Government Departments and Agencies (including Treasure, HHS and Labor) published an "Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)." http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-06689_Pi.pdfThis ANPRM launches a 90 day comment period for "stakeholders" and the general public. The focus is on the regulation that will define the accommodation to be given religious organizations which have religious objections to including coverage for contraception in their employee benefits plan. In addition, the ANPRM suggests several alternative ways this accommodation might be achieved for institutions which self-insure. . The Catholic Bishops now must decide whether to respond -- or to ignore.
Frankly the reason I asked about his background was because I was surprised commonweal could not get someone who is more of an expert on this topic to write a more comprehensive article that actually engages in the relevant legal arguments against the mandate.MikeD,Such an article would of course be interesting, but however the legal battle is fought, the focus of the criticism from the USCCB and elsewhere is that the Obama administration if trampling on the First Amendment. If opponents of the contraceptive mandate have to rely on RFRA instead of the constitution, most of the anti-Obama rhetoric is hot air.
The more I think about this mandate, the more convinced I become that if the administration really wanted an accommodation, we would be discussing broadening the exempted institutions as opposed to forcing a different third party to supply the 'benefits'. Btw, the better way to think about risk sharing in auto or home insurance where you pay a premium and hopefully, never have to make a claim. Thats real insurance. Paying for aspirin or contraceptives is more like a lay-a-way plan than insurance.
MikeD: You make it sound as though the editors of COMMONWEAL actively solicited the article from Becker. You say, "I was surprised commonweal [sic] could not get someone who is more of an expert on this topic to write a more comprehensive article . . . ."I suspect that Becker took the initiative to write and submit his essay for consideration for publication in COMMONWEAL.I wonder if Grant Gallicho might be able to clarify this issue for us.
David, RFRA is just extra protection. The mandate is unconstitutional under the first amendment standing on its own because Smith does not apply to a law that is not generally applicable. Read the cases I cited, it really isn't that hard to follow.
j p farry: If the Catholic bishops respond to the draft of the rules, as I expect they will, they might publish their response at the USCCB website. However, I also expect the Catholic bishops to figure out other public ways to respond to keep up their grandstanding in public about the contraception mandate.
No it is not. In a layaway plan you are building equity that you will later withdraw in the form of whatever product you're purchasing. That is not how health coverage works. Not at all.
Ann Olivier et al.It is not a stretch to observe that the U.S. bishops have had an antagonistic relationship with this president from the beginning of his presidency (and perhaps, even before he was elected). The issue took off very early when he was invited to speak at the 2009 commencement and given an honorary degree at Notre Dame. Eighty-three bishops wrote letters of protest to Fr. Jenkins. They were all posted on the Cardinal Newman Society website and some come off to me as rather nasty. Then there was the uproar over the Affordable Health Care Act and now the contraceptive mandate. More significant for me is the establishment of the ad hoc committee for religious liberty. Eight of the 10 bishops on the committee wrote letters of protest to Notre Dame. Two of the 10 consultants have held positions in Republican administrations, viz., Carl Anderson and Mary Ann Glendon, who is now doing radio promos for Romney. My take is that the U.S. bishops are driven by forces (vindictive and political) that may be much more significant than constitutional and legal matters.
Bender brings up an interesting point. Most insurance is seldom if ever used. It's strictly for emergencies, disasters - just in case - peace of mind. Health insurance has come to be something that's used all the time - every time we have contact with a medical professional or need prescription medication. It allows us to obtain services, materials, and medicines that we could not afford without it. It makes us all beggars. And the free-contraceptives thing is hardly insurance at all - it's really just a freebie given away by the government - sort of like the free toothbrush you get with your dentist visit.
Whether or not contraception is healthcare, what the purpose of insurance is and whether or not the bishops only care about politics are distractions from the subject of this article, because these issues have little or nothing to do with whether the mandate itself is constitutional.
MikeD,Isn't it the case, however, that in New York and California, those challenging the constitutionality of state contraceptive mandates lost in state supreme courts? The courts found the state mandates constitutional applying Employment Division v Smith, and the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals. One other point. The regulation we are attempting to discuss hasn't been written yet. As j p farry points out above, the process of collecting comments on the proposed new regulation has just begun.
Cardinal Dolan had a letter read in every parish on the HHS Mandate. Notably, it read that the bishop's opposition is not anti-health care and anti-woman. Projection indeed.
Helen --I think you're right. It bodes ill for the future of the Church in the U. S. I can't imagine Pope John XXIII behaving the way the American bishops have been acting recently. Given the recent ascendancy of C. Dolan, I fear he has made the difference. He's not the sweetie-pie his persona projects.
"It makes us all beggars."No, David S., it definitely does not. Insurance is not free, and it purchases pace of mind if nothing else. It makes us sharers of bad luck, distributing the costs over the group. Kind of like the grace of God -- everyone gets what he/she needs regardless of whether or not the amounts are equal. A very Christian concept, I'd say.
Ann, helping people pay for what they can't afford otherwise is nice, but is it "insurance", properly speaking? Seems to me that it's basically the insurance industry - and, more recently, in a big way, the government - enabling the health-care industry to grow by leaps and bounds in a way that it could not have otherwise. If we had to pay for our own CAT scans and colonoscopies and heart transplants, the health-care industry would shrink dramatically.Something funny's happened in the insurance industry and in government entitlement programs in the past several decades. Together, they've made health care an enormously expensive proposition for everybody - something that was definitely not the case before. We can blame it, instead, on "progress", but that's really not the case. We could have a lot of progress without all the super-expensive machines and treatments that we've come to expect. This could have been prevented - or, at least, much better managed. Interesting.MikeD - I know this topic is a distraction, a side trip off the main topic of the propriety and legality of a specific governmental reach for more control over churches, but I don't think we're officially forbidden to think outside the blog box. If that's wrong, I doubt Grant will fail to upbraid me.
If we had to pay for our own CAT scans and colonoscopies and heart transplants, the health-care industry would shrink dramatically.David Smith,And that would be a good thing?
David Nickol 03/18/2012 - 2:25 pmIf we had to pay for our own CAT scans and colonoscopies and heart transplants, the health-care industry would shrink dramatically.David Smith,And that would be a good thing?
Maybe, David, yes. Think about it. Everything that's medically possible is not available to everyone now. In effect, medical care is already rationed. It has to be. Follow that up and see where it goes.
Follow that up and see where it goes.David Smith,The answers here are not obvious to me. It is arguably the case, for example, that although colonoscopies are rather expensive for an individual, and few would want to pay for them out of pocket, nevertheless they are cost effective in the overall scheme of health care for both society and insurance companies. If colonoscopies catch enough cases of easily treatable, precancerous growths, they relieve the health care industry of treating very expensive cases of colon cancer in the future, and consequently pay for themselves. It is cost efficient to encourage people to take advantage of preventive medicine (colonoscopy, mammography, vaccinations, smoking cessation programs, and so on) even if it does require an investment up front and even if it requires the government or the healthcare system to pay for some things an individual wouldn't pay for on his or her own. It makes little sense to argue health care insurance should be modified to be more like car insurance. People aren't cars. Cars have an easily determined monetary value and depreciate as time passes. People do not. The older a car gets, the less it makes sense to spend money repairing it. This is not the way it works with people. We don't say, "Grandma is getting old. It doesn't make any sense to keep investing money in her. Let's get a new grandmother." This is not, of course, to say that there doesn't come a time when treatment that is expensive as well as burdensome should be reasonably discontinued.
I think the old saying has direct relevance here:An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." -- everyone gets what he/she needs regardless of whether or not the amounts are equal. A very Christian concept, Id say." Acts 11:29 to be precise. And maybe Marx wasn't so far off, no matter how abhorrent "socialism" is to rugged individualists who are perfectly happy to take the government benefits that THEY want (mortgage interest tax deductions; deductibility of charitable constributions; etc. - middle class socialism) but not make available the ones they don't want to pay for.
If I may be so bold as to pipe in from north of the border, the Becker article was very interesting as to how this issue might be resolved if taken to the Supreme Court.Of more interest to me is the sheer hypocrisy of the Bishop's position. If the bishops position is that they do not want to cooperate in a sinful act them why is such a situation not then transnational? In Ontario, we have huge publicly funded Catholic schools. They are much like your Catholic hospitals of which we too have a few. Catholic school boards hire Catholic teachers but other staff can be any denomination or no denomination. They also carry and share the cost of supplementary drug plans which cover contraceptives. Here the bishops have never raised the issue in any way shape or form. Obviously it can't be okay in Canada if it can't be okay in the USA. That is why I think the American bishops are being hypocrites. From my perspective, this is a silly situation...just so quintessentially American...resulting in volumes and volumes of words. The bishops are blowing this all out of proportion, I suspect for political points of some sort.
@John Borst (3/18, 5:04 pm) Many thanks for your perspective from north of the border. I would welcome more perspectives from other countries---whether from citizens, current residents or former residents---on this issue.It's surprising to me that, for a group of men who've worked in a global organization their entire professional lives, so many US bishops seem ready to take a stance on this issue that (seemingly) ignores the lived experience of the Church and their brother bishops in other countries.
The Catholic bishops in the United States are conservative Catholics.
As John Borst notes there are political reasons. It is loud and clear that the American bishops have decided to be partisan and to interfere with a presidential election. To say they are misguided would be too charitable. Tell it like it is. They are corrupt.
"People arent cars. Cars have an easily determined monetary value and depreciate as time passes. People do not."Oh, yes, we do! :-( And that does bring us to rationing . . .
John and Luke, this is not the rest of the world. What happens here happens in a social and legal framework and context uniquely American. Some compromises that might be necessary in other places ought not to be necessary here.Also, although it's always interesting and educational to learn how similar dilemmas are handled in other cultures, it's important to remember that they are never the same dilemmas because the social and legal contexts are different.
Ann Olivier 03/18/2012 - 9:32 pm SUBSCRIBERPeople arent cars. Cars have an easily determined monetary value and depreciate as time passes. People do not.Oh, yes, we do! :-( And that does bring us to rationing . . .
Indeed, Ann. I don't know the numbers, but a high proportion of health-care expenditure here today is for old-age care. In the cold calculus of the bean counters - whose priorities push most social "progress" in secular societies - that has to change. The calculus would be very different in societies motivated primarily by Christian morality, but there's less and less of that around. Which is one very good reason, I'd think, for even forward-thinking Catholic progressives to view the bishops' efforts sympathetically.
Thomas the Catholic bishops of Canada are also Conservative Catholics. Here they have themselves all in a tizzy over the establishment of Gay Straight Alliances in our Catholic schools.The Government of Ontario has brought in a new piece of "anti-bullying" legislation and one of the grounds in sexual orientation. The legislation grants students the right to form clubs to promote safer environments for students who are bullied, hence the legislation supports the formation of Gay-Straight Alliances (you know an import from America of course) Anyway last year an outed young female student from St. Joseph's High School in Mississauga (west of Toronto) attempted to form a GSA and was told by the principal she could form a club but it could not be called a GSA nor could they use the term "Gay" in any posters or literature or the Gay flag symbol (although that flag is front and centre in the foyer of St. Michael's Hospital in Downtown Toronto - oh but that is right next door to the heart of the Gay village which of course is a term Bishops dare not utter.) Now with the bishops guidance the Catholic School Trustees' Association has issued a statement that schools may form Diversity clubs - Quite frankly I hope some parent takes the bishops to the supreme court on this because I think they will lose this case. They will argue that the term gay violates our faith belief about homosexuality and by its a very nature promotes the "homosexual" lifestyle...a bigoted over generalization if there ever was one. In Canadian jurisprudence this is called a "denominational right" and works in the same way as the American bishops are claiming the government is not recognizing their right to an insurance plan free of contraceptive drugs.So David Smith you are part of the rest of my world and although the terminology may be slightly different the principles involved are very similar. It is the issues that those conservative bishops wish to address which are different. Also although many Americans wish to believe in their exceptionalism, judges at the highest level are more and more aware of and review rulings in other Countries for guidance prior to making decisions in their own especially in new and novel field like both of these cases. Even American Supreme court judges have been criticized by Americans for this practice.
@David Smith (3/18, 9:38 pm) We agree, I think, that there is something unique about what happens in the US---just as there is something unique about what happens in Canada, Poland, Nigeria, the Philippines, Brazil, etc. What (still) surprises me in instances like this current issue is that the US Catholic bishops have the rich resources available to them of the experience of dozens of national Churches (including Canada) in dealing with universal health care---and yet appear to ignore or discard that experience. And to do so without explanation, even to their own people.
John Borst: Thanks for your reply regarding the Catholic bishops of Canada being conservative Catholics in certain other ways.
I see no reason for anybody to view the Catholic bishops sympathetically.They still have not come clean about the role of Catholic bishops in the U.S. in bringing us the priest-sex-abuse scandal. Instead, the current Catholic bishops are still covering up the role of the bishops in bringing us the priest-sex-abuse scandal.For this reason, I see their present interest in protesting the contraception mandate as yet another way for them to try to distract attention from their ongoing cover-up of the role of bishops in bringing us the priest-sex-abuse scandal.
Isnt it the case, however, that in New York and California, those challenging the constitutionality of state contraceptive mandates lost in state supreme courts? The courts found the state mandates constitutional applying Employment Division v Smith, and the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals.Here is a contemporary analysis of the case is CA. Note the last line describing the sort of idea which was rejected 9-0 in the recent Hosanna-Tabor case. The outcome is arguable.In a 6-1 decision, the California Supreme Court disagreed, giving short shrift to Catholic Charities's constitutional claims. The court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith for the proposition that sincerely held religious objections "do not excuse compliance with otherwise valid laws regulating matters the state is otherwise free to regulate."Justice Janice Brown, nominated by President Bush to the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote the masterful dissent. She noted that Smith applied directly only to individual religious claimants, not to the religious conduct of religious organizations. Religious organizations are clearly entitled to an exemption from government regulation when they are engaged in "ministerial" activities central to their religious mission. One could hardly imagine, for example, that the government could force the Catholic Church to hire female priests without violating the Church's free exercise rights.Indeed, the California legislature exempted churches from WCEA, implicitly acknowledging that church activities are constitutionally protected from government regulation. However, WCEA was drafted to ensure it covered Catholic Charities and other religious social service agencies. By failing to exempt Catholic Charities from WCEA, the legislature implicitly determined that ministering to the poor is not central to Catholicism, a conclusion the Church itself would undoubtedly dispute.
Missing from all this splitting of fine legal hairs is a definition of "religion" that non-lawyers can understand. If it is generally accepted among the ruling class that the Constitution is so murky that only legal experts can understand what it means - or, worse, that it means only what the group in power wants it to mean - then the democratic foundations of the country have been seriously eroded. Perhaps, though, the problem is simply that we've given lawyers far too much control over our lives. If that's the case - and I'd guess that even many lawyers would say it is - how can it be fixed?
Surely Mr. Becker's article is published in jest. He does not consider what the Supreme Court required be considered, that the Affordable Care Act's many exemptions, waivers, and exceptions, notably even in this very mandate (the exception for insular churches), which makes the mandate *not* generally applicable. He fails to even mention the obvious alternative the government could use to achieve this same goal: give away contraceptive coverage for free itself instead of forcing objecting employers to do so. And he fails to mention RFRA, which requires strict scrutiny regardless of Smith. Then at the end he suggests that other people, and not himself, are playing politics with legal analysis? Why would you present a non-legal audience with shoddy legal analysis that just happens to reinforce their support for their favored party's political attack on religious freedom? Serious journalism would at least offer the legal perspective from both sides. But in that format Mr. Becker's inadequacies would be exposed, and that might interfere with playing politics.
Btw, regarding the mandate itself: there have been a couple of developments:" After repeatedly stating that it will not back down on its controversial contraception mandate, the Obama administration has announced a 90-day comment period on possible ways to implement its Feb. 10 accommodation. ..."The administration simultaneously issued a final rule on student health plans, which will require colleges to treat student health care plans like employee plans, making them subject to the mandate as well."Under the rule that the administration is considering proposing, insurance issuers would be required to provide "separate coverage" for contraception and would not be allowed to charge a premium for this coverage to the religious organization, plan participants or beneficiaries."Instead, it said, the issuer would pay for the coverage from "the estimated savings" of eliminating the need for "services" that arise from not covering contraception. It did not acknowledge a recent survey of insurance companies indicating that the mandate will not actually cut costs."For self-insured religious organizations, which were not addressed in the Feb. 10 accommodation, the notice outlined several possible approaches to having a "third-party administrator" assume responsibility for the coverage."These suggestions included using revenue from drug rebates and service fees, credit from a reinsurance program, funds from a private non-profit organization or a contract between the Office of Personnel Management and an insurer offering a multi-state plan."http://stlouisreview.com/article/2012-03-19/hhs-announces-comment
I thought the letter from Georgetown law professors to the president about implementing contraception coverage as a health issue was an interesting aftermath of the latest administration posture.
... [Trackback] ... [...] Read More: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=18032...


text:
Trojans Sweep Brevard, 9-0March 20, 2014
ANDERSON, S.C. – Posting its first shutout of the season, Anderson University men's tennis blanked South Atlantic Conference opponent Brevard, 9-0, Thursday afternoon at Max Grubbs Memorial Courts.
With the triumph, the Trojans improve to an even 4-4 mark for the year, but continue their winning ways in conference matches, moving to 4-1. Brevard falls to 1-9 overall and 0-2 in league play.
In the doubles round, the freshmen duo of Juan Carracedo and Mateo Rivas earned their second straight victory with an 8-2 win over Brevard's David Taggart and Rory Northam at the No. 1 spot. At No. 2, sophomore Paul Michael Calhoun and senior Danilo Faria added an 8-2 win, while the sophomore team of Tomas Passalacqua and Inaki Iriberry claimed an 8-6 win at No. 3.
AU continued the momentum in the singles round, as five of the six Trojans recorded straight-set wins. Passalacqua cruised to a 6-1, 6-0 victory over Northam at the No. 2 position, while Rivas tallied a 6-2, 6-1 triumph over Brevard's Nathan Sabate at No. 3. Calhoun blanked Plasa 6-0, 6-0 at No. 4, while Iriberry defeated Guilherme Prophirio 6-4, 6-1 at the No. 5 slot.
Rounding out the singles round, Faria (No. 6) knocked off George Finch 6-4, 6-4, while Carracedo fought his way back to a 1-6, 6-1, 10-6 victory over Taggart at No. 1.
Anderson looks to continue its winning ways on Friday when it welcomes GRU Augusta to the Upstate. First serve from Max Grubbs Memorial Courts is slated for 2 p.m.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Say: al-ur-jun
An allergen is a medical word for anything that causes an allergic reaction. Allergens can be many different things, including grass, dust mites, or animal dander — the stuff that flakes off dogs' and cats' skin.
Note: All information is for educational purposes only. For specific medical advice, diagnoses, and treatment, consult your doctor.
© 1995-
Images provided by iStock, Getty Images, Corbis, Veer, Science Photo Library, Science Source Images, Shutterstock, and Clipart.com
For a full list of Rady Children's Programs and Services, click here or call Rady Children's Customer Service and Referral Center at 1-800-788-9029 for more information.


text:
Children of the Seasons rule the city-state of Ohndarien, a bastion of freedom and justice in a brutal world. But their brightest star, Brophy, the Heir of Autumn, has been falsely accused of murder, and the utopia falls to treachery and deceit. Exiled to an enemy kingdom, Brophy's only hope for survival lies in the deadly gladiatorial game of Nine Squares—and in the uncertain favors of a beautiful queen. And Ohndarien's struggle for peace and liberty falls under deeper shadow when evil powers, lost for centuries, wake in the wilderness, and an ancient terror walks the world again.
About the Author
Todd Fahnestock and Giles Carwyn met in high school nineteen years ago. Within an hour of meeting, they started a philosophical conversation they haven't been able to finish yet. Their nomadic lifepaths have crisscrossed again and again. Through the years they have dated the same women, been best man at each other's weddings, and attended the births of each other's children. They currently live twenty-five blocks from each other in Littlewood, Colorado, with their stunning wives, Lara and Tanya, and their freakishly well-named children: Liefke, Elowyn, Luna, and the Dash-man.


text:
THANK YOU so much! God is good!
You may have heard the shocking news about the Americans that were killed in Afghanistan yesterday, sadly that attack took place at the CURE Hospital in Kabul that we served at a couple years ago. K-LOVE listeners helped to change a little boy's life by providing for his surgery to repair his severely cleft lip and palate. One of the doctors we worked with was Jerry Umanos, one of the victims in yesterday's attack. Jerry was a K-LOVE listener from Chicago, who spent his life caring for children and for the last several years, he served at the CURE hospital in Kabul. Jerry and his wife loved the Afghan people and in response to the attack, his wife, responded with such kindness and forgiveness, even for the shooter. Her response echoed the love of Christ in the midst of one of life's most difficult moments.
On ABC World News last night, Diane Sawyer used video that we shot while serving alongside Jerry in Afghanistan, the K-LOVE family made that possible. What's amazing is that Jerry always worked so hard to spread the word about CURE's work around the World, ironically enough, it's in Jerry's death, that World is learning about the live saving work of CURE around the World.
Like everyone else who listens to K-LOVE, we, as DJ's, are on the receiving end of what God does through the music on K-LOVE. Yesterday was a beautiful reminder to me personally of how God uses the right song at the right time! Yesterday driving in, heavy hearted about Jerry's death, God spoke to me so clearly about his love, through the music of Crowder and Kristian Stanfill. I was reminded that God's love never fails, never gives up and carries us through life's storms. Those reminders carried me through a very tough day yesterday, and I am forever grateful for those of you who give and make the ministry of K-LOVE possible!
Why Incredible Story Of Stowaway Teen Is Raising Eyebrows
High School Students Sacrifice Cellphones For Kid With Leukemia
Boston Marathon:
Boston Marathon Bombing: Brothers Who Lost Legs Find Hope
What The Boston Marathon Means For One Grieving Husband
Now Playing: Christ In Me
Artist: Jeremy Camp
On-Air: JD
Thanks for listening to the Scott and Kelli Show! You can listen online weekdays from 5-9pm Eastern at www.klove.com/listen.
Like Us
Scott Smith
Kelli Caldwell


text:
Mirror, Mirror
By Josh Simons on Feb 12, 2010
Today is my last day at Sun, so I write to say goodbye to all my friends and colleagues who I will dearly miss.
I believe Oracle plans to maintain all previous blog content, but just in case I have made a copy of this entire blog, which is called, fittingly, the Mirror of the Navel of Narcissus. Yes, even more references to self-indulgence.
Follow the link to find out what I'm doing next!


text:
Nike Polar Tech Men's Jacket
Buy Online & Pick Up In-Store
The Nike Polar Tech Jacket will bring you that everday warmth and durability you are looking for in your next jacket. Meet the elements head on in this classic full zip top that has a versatile athletic look. Don't let the weather slow you down this winter, get yourself into this plush fleece Nike Polar Tech Jacket.


text:
This RAM Handlebar Mount kit fits Garmin's StreetPilot III cradle, Garmin's 176, 276, 376, 378 and 478 cradles, and the Zumo 450/550 series. This kit will mount to handlebars up to 1.25" in diameter.
This is the correct RAM mount for Garmin motorcycle brackets for the Zumo 450 and 550.
No instructions are currently available for this product.


text:
Following the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voseo is my understanding correct that the only difference is replacement of 2nd singular with vos and 2nd plural with 3rd plural in Indicative, Imperative and Subjunctive moods?
Can you provide correct full conjugation of all forms e.g. for hablar, comer, vivir and some reflexive and irregular verbs like:
yo hablo nosotros hablamos
vos hablás ustedes hablan
él habla ellos hablan


text:
Welcome disc golfer! You can login or create an account.
Questions? Call us: (785) 258-2494
The Latitude 64 Opto and Opto Air Bolt is an understable distance driver. The flight of the Bolt is like an understable Halo. It goes very fast and has an understable flight path with good glide. It will fit the player that does not have the power for the Halo. Beginner friendly.
Speed 13, Glide 6, Turn -2, Fade 3
Opto Line is the most durable plastic with beautiful translucent colors. It can withstand severe punishment and extreme conditions better than other plastics.
Opto Air – Opto plastic with microbubbles make lighter weight discs; a bit less stability in the wind


text:
I know it was a great scene and established where the Dr. came from but it wasn't really necessary. If you take that scene out, Bane's first reveal is in the sewer. Was the opening plane scene an added action sequence to start the movie with a bang rather than a speech about Dent?
Imagine it's a week before the opening scene. Bane is scheming on how to destroy Gotham, learns of Wayne's fusion reactor/neutron bomb via Miranda/Talia, and decides it will be his main device to hold Gotham in fear while he lets them destroy themselves from the inside.
Bane also comes to learn Dr. Pavel is the only living person who can defuse this bomb. He feels it will be easier to capture Pavel earlier than later; that way no one will be able to call on Pavel in Gotham's upcoming dire moment of need. (It's likely at this point that Bane already had some plan to fake Pavel's death, albeit in a less grandiose way than what he ends up having to do.)
But wait. Uh-oh. The CIA is looking for Pavel too! Bane and his men quickly adapt to this new information. Little does the CIA know that the man bringing Dr. Pavel in is actually Bane's top lieutenant, injected into the operation by Bane when he realized the CIA might capture Pavel first, severely diminishing the chances for his operation's success.
Now we're at the opening scene. Bane and his militia don hoods and fake their own capture, and Bane's lieutenant hands off Pavel to the CIA. In this dialogue, we hear Bane's lieutenant explain, "They were trying to rack a price [on Pavel]. They worked for the Masked Man [Bane]." The CIA agent, being the smart cookie he is, realizes he has an opportunity to track down a lead on Bane, probably hoping to eventually capture him. Little does he know that the hooded men are actually Bane and his militia, who have anticipated his wanting to board them on the plane after hearing such a juicy tidbit.
This is where things start to go sour for our poor CIA agent.
Some more of Bane's militia now take control of the CIA's plane from the outside, necessary for two reasons:
Bane now breathes a huge sigh of relief. He can rest easy knowing that when the plane goes down, a body containing Dr. Pavel's blood signature will go down with it, thus tricking whatever poor sap has to investigate the plane wreckage into thinking Pavel went down with the plane.
The only remaining task: make sure Pavel stays alive. Bane grabs a hold of Pavel, fastens him securely to the rope extending from Bane's plane, and, just before releasing the CIA's plane from any further duty, assuages Pavel's concerns:
tl;dr: This scene was necessary because it foreshadowed later events.
Also, it brings up the theme of intentionally being captured. Bane was intentionally being captured so as to have access to Dr. Pavel. Later on in the third act, Bruce gets intentionally captured so as to have Lucious Fox access R&D, and then Selina Kyle saves him.
In 'The Dark Knight' the Joker is also intentionally captured so he can help Lau escape and access all the mob's money. Perhaps a coincidence, but as we just learned, we're not allowed to believe in coincidences anymore.
Notably the plane scene was screened as a special prologue "before Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol on only 70mm IMAX theaters." (source)
Perhaps the filmmakers had the plane scene in mind for somewhere more toward the middle of the movie (where I think it would seem to fit more neatly) but then found a way to make it work as the opening scene so they could release it as the prologue mentioned above.


text:
How can I export the attribute information for the shapefile/feature class to Autocad Annotation/Text. I'm able to export the shapefile to autocad but unable to get the attributes in annotation. Need you help its really urgent. Also Let me know if there any any way we can append attributes in autocad without using blocks. Thanks and have a great day.
regards, Ramakrishna Billakanti


text:
Neighbourhood Advice and Information Services
Access to City Council services and advice on income maximisation is provided through the Neighbourhood Advice and Information service. This includes:
- The network of Neighbourhood Offices
- Home visits to people who cannot get to offices
- Contact Birmingham
- A network of surgeries
Each year the service deals with over 800,000 enquiries from citizens. Just over half of these concern welfare benefits - help with claiming, identifying entitlement and take-up and problem solving. A further one fifth are about other financial matters concerning debts and money advice and a similar amount are about accommodation problems both in the public and private sectors. All Offices offer appointments in order to avoid lengthy waits.
- To provide information, advice and local access to all council services
- To provide information, advice & problem solving assistance with income maximisation
- To provide a means of communication between citizens and departments on the provision of their services
- To provide a service that supports the involvement of local people in the decision making process that effect them
Contact Birmingham 0121 303 1111 (International Dial: 00 44 121 303 1111) provides a service from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, Monday to Friday. It aims to offer a full advice and information service to people who prefer to access the service in this way.
See PDF attachments below for our Information in other languages.
Vietnamese (PDF) (Size: 41.5 Kb Type: PDF )
Copyright: Copyright Restricted
Gujarati (PDF) (Size: 51.6 Kb Type: PDF )
Copyright: Copyright Restricted
Bengali (PDF) (Size: 103 Kb Type: PDF )
Copyright: Copyright Restricted
Urdu (PDF)
Copyright:Copyright Restricted
Panjabi (PDF)
Copyright:Copyright Restricted
Arabic (PDF)
Copyright:Copyright Restricted
Chinese (PDF)
Copyright:Copyright Restricted


text: The New Manchester Elementary School February Students of the Month include Rylee Stevens, Jackson Neville, Austin Freeman, Peyton Davis, Kaylee Wright, Corey Molnar, Tyler Mozingo, Elijah Craiger, Natasha Ward, Hayden Crago, Lydia DiBiagio, Joshua Lytle, Camden O'Connor, Samantha Love, Ashley Yost, Elizabeth Staub, Garrett Wright and Kaden Lundy. Each student received a certificate, ribbon, book and a Roma's Pizzeria gift certificate courtesy of Roma's Pizzeria. -- Contributed


text:
Earnings Not Yet a Viral Sensation
When Facebook Inc. FB -0.85 % boss Mark Zuckerberg announced first-quarter results, he didn't break the news with a Facebook post. He stuck with an old-fashioned news release.
Across the U.S., earnings season came and went with few signs that companies are taking advantage of the Securities and Exchange Commission's green light to tweet or post market-moving information.
On April 2, the SEC announced that companies "can use social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to announce key information…so long as investors have been alerted about which social media will be used to disseminate such information."
Since then, only about a dozen firms have said they might break news on Facebook, Twitter and the like. And few of those companies make much noise online.
Nielsen Holdings NLSN -0.54 % NV had fewer than 70 followers on its investor-relations department's Twitter account when the tracker of what consumers watch and buy said it might disclose financial information with tweets on that account. A Nielsen spokeswoman declined to comment.
A Facebook spokesman said the company plans to "disseminate information as broadly as possible, and that will include using Facebook." He wouldn't say when that would begin or if Facebook will ever use its own site as the primary place to report earnings.
On Wednesday, Zillow Inc. took questions submitted via Facebook and Twitter during the real-estate website's earnings-related conference call. Zillow got questions from 11 accounts, mostly using tweets, according to a company spokeswoman.
Some securities lawyers say the tepid response shows some corporate executives still are concerned they might get in trouble because of their tweets. One reason: The SEC's guidance was more general than specific, leaving the agency wiggle room to pursue enforcement action.
As companies and their lawyers dug into an eight-page report laying out the agency's logic, some were bothered by the sentence, "Every case must be evaluated on its own facts." The SEC also said that social-media channels need to clear the same hurdle of "broad and non-exclusionary distribution to the public" as other media in order to comply with the 13-year-old rule known as Regulation Fair Disclosure.
Amy Goodman, a partner at law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, says the agency's guidance on the use of Facebook and Twitter suggests that companies "could still be vulnerable to enforcement action if that channel has very few followers and it's used as the sole means" to disclose financial information.
The SEC has taken 13 enforcement actions against companies and executives for alleged earnings leaks and other rule breaches of Reg. FD, according to an analysis by Stanford University law professor Joseph Grundfest. One way to land in hot water is by tipping favored analysts to market-moving information. The same thing could happen now if a company's tweets are read by just a few investors.
"I don't think the SEC is trying to trap people," says Steve Quinlivan, a lawyer at Leonard, Street and Deinard PA in Minneapolis. "But if they think somebody crossed the line, they're not going to wait five minutes to bring an enforcement action."
The SEC declined to comment on the minimum number of Twitter followers needed for a company to safely tweet its earnings. "We do not comment on specific situations," Lona Nallengara, acting director of the SEC's corporation-finance division, wrote in an email to The Wall Street Journal.
In 2008, the SEC issued guidelines on how Reg. FD applies to corporate websites. Mr. Nallengara says companies "were able to figure out how to disclose information on their websites using our 2008 guidance," and so "we believe they should be able to do the same with social media" using last month's announcement.
For now, though, "companies are still taking a wait-and-see approach," says Broc Romanek, editor of TheCorporateCounsel.net, a website for corporate lawyers.
Last month's announcement by the SEC followed an investigation into a post by Netflix Inc. NFLX -0.44 % Chief Executive Reed Hastings on his personal Facebook page. In December, the SEC warned the streaming-video company that the agency intended to take enforcement action over the posting, where Mr. Hastings said monthly online viewing had surpassed a billion hours.
Some senior SEC officials had misgivings about the potential Netflix lawsuit, and at least one of the agency's five commissioners questioned whether the agency should punish the company when there were no clear and up-to-date guidelines, no evidence the company acted in bad faith and no apparent harm to investors, people familiar with the probe say.
The concerns were exacerbated when Mr. Grundfest, a former SEC commissioner, published a paper saying the agency faced a "significant risk" of losing to Netflix. Meanwhile, Netflix refused to enter settlement talks, arguing it had done nothing wrong, said the people familiar with the probe.
George Canellos, the SEC's acting enforcement director at the time, recommended that the agency resolve the matter with a report that sets out the agency's thinking without taking enforcement action.
In contrast to the SEC's typical practice, last month's announcement on the use of social media was made without any input from Netflix or a heads-up to the company, people close to the probe said.
Corrections & Amplifications
In an earlier version of this article, Lona Nallengara, acting director of the SEC's corporation-finance division, was incorrectly described on second reference as Ms. Nallengara, rather than Mr. Nallengara.
Write to Jean Eaglesham at email@example.com


text:
Topeka, Kan. (WIBW) -- The 10 Americans accused of trying to take 33 children out of Haiti illegally appeared in a preliminary hearing with a judge today. (VIDEO INCLUDED)
Officials say today's hearing is to draw up charges for the Americans and send those charges to a tribunal judge.
Topeka firefighter and youth minister Drew Culberth and nine others are still behind bars.
Officials say they found the 33 children hungry and thirsty, and some were crying for their parents. Now the Haitian Prime Minister wants to make an example out of the Americans, to crack down on child trafficking. "There is a law. These people are supposed to know the law. They violated the law," Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive said.
Culbreth and the Americans are maintaining their innocence. "We showed them where they were going. They were excited to go with us. We spent a great deal of time literally holding them in our arms," imprisoned missionary Laura Silby said.
They say they thought they had the right paperwork and permission from the Haitian pastor in charge of the orphanage.
Topeka Reverend Max Manning has made several trips to Haiti. He says the group is using The Bible as a crutch.
Manning says he hopes Culberth is the first to come home but he thinks all 10 Americans should have their passports revoked. "They'd be very fortunate if they get off that easy because this is a very serious violation. it's child trafficking," he said.
The Americans will eventually appear before a tribunal.
Manning plans to make another trip to help in Haiti on Monday.


text:
50 Best Celebrity Parenting TweetsAmelia Bienstock
Neil Patrick Harris 1 of 50"Gideon & Harper are 9 months old today. Having a low key party. 400 people. Viper room. Slam dancing. Pitbull is performing. Should be dope." @ActuallyNPH
Mark Hoppus 2 of 50"timeouts don't work, so my new threat as a parent is 'i'll send you a request to join me on linkedin!' works every time." @markhoppus
Conan O'Brien 3 of 50"Children grow up so fast. One day they're taking their 1st steps, the next they're taken away after a judge rules you're a negligent parent." @ConanObrien
Michelle Branch 4 of 50"My daughter is begging to do math problems before bedtime in leui of reading a book. Huh!? #NotMyChild" @michellebranch
Jewel 5 of 50"Just used the spoon I used on George's canned dog food, to stir my smoothie #Gross #MommyBrain" @jeweljk
Rachel Dratch 6 of 50"Heading back to ny after a month away. Trying to entertain baby on 4hour car ride. Playing w the string on my shirt only kills 5 mins, max" @therealdratch
Busy Philipps 7 of 50"When I told my daughter we were taking her to the Happiest Place on Earth today, she deadpanned, 'London?' Genius." @BusyPhilipps25
Pink 8 of 50"just tried 2do yoga class w/ a 6 wk old.even dressed her in buddha onesie thinking it'd keep her calm. wrong. so wrong. no dwnwrd dog 4 me:)" @Pink
David Schwimmer 9 of 50"what up! been buried in diapers, but having a blast... btw, don't piss my little girl off — she's got great aim and projectile poo." @DavidSchwimmer
Bethenny Frankel 10 of 50"Bryn met a 6 yr old boy who picks her flowers&she calls them "wawas."Can I arrange their marriage?he said he'll marry at 20 when he's OLD!" @Bethenny
Denise Richards 11 of 50"I asked my daughter Lola why she's so messy she said "I was born that way" I didn't quite know what to say after that..lol!" @DENISE_RICHARDS
Ivanka Trump 12 of 50"Forgot to cancel my training session this AM. Weight lifting 2 days before my due date was semi comical..let's say that I wasn't at my best!" @IvankaTrump
Deanna Daughtry 13 of 50"Noah was a party animal last night so mommy didn't get enough sleep which means mommy didn't do her workout & mommy is now craving pancakes." "& mommy may need a nap cause she is feeling a little grumpy & keeps calling herself mommy on twitter." @Mrsdaughtry
Alyson Hannigan 14 of 50"What did I do at work today you asked? Well I ate a popsicle (mango with mint) and that's about it. Okay you didn't really ask." @alydenisof
Cash Warren 15 of 50"my daughter looks like me but her personality is all @jessicaalba - one look at Jessica's closet and you'll know why Honor shares sooo well" @cash_warren
Jessica Alba 16 of 50"Teaching my daughter 2 stop saying "I want...." And sharing w her friends -Im finding is nearly impossible. She's def related 2 @cash_warren" @jessicaalba
Gwyneth Paltrow 17 of 50"Just leaving super fun production of the wizard of oz. Apple saw the sign and called it wizard of ounce. Brilliant." @GwynethPaltrow
Drew Lachey 18 of 50"Why do my kids seem to always know when I need to get up early and decide that those are the nights that they don't want to sleep? #tired" @thedrewlachey
Elizabeth Banks 19 of 50"Joining J Lo, Cameron Diaz and the rest of the awesome cast of What To Expect When You're Expecting! Let's have babies together!" @ElizabethBanks
Idina Menzel 20 of 50"qjkqiuq" "sorry my son is tweeting for me lately. i swear i just noticed it. so funny." @idinamenzel
Joey Mcintyre 21 of 50"1st nite watching the baby...Oy! My wife must be a robot cuz I'm a little fried today. But I wouldn't trade Kira sleeping on me all nite :)" @joeymcintyre
Kate Gosselin 22 of 50"GN now all! My big girls have offered to massage my back! I'm thrilled! So off to la la land I go... Tweet ya tomorrow!" @kateplusmy8
Kourtney Kardashian 23 of 50"Just saw Shrek the musical with Mason! Wow what an adorable show...we had a blast!! Such a magical night. Sleeping with our Shrek ears on." @KourtneyKardash
Lisa Rinna 24 of 50"I think my child is the only one who is excited to get braces! Loves it!" @lisarinna
Melissa Joan Hart 25 of 50"I feel like I've graduated from baby mom to big boy mom 2day.Soccer camp, swim camp, speech lessons and karate.I'm an official chauffer mom!" @MellyJHart
Pete Wentz 26 of 50"Yawn immediately followed by "I'm not tired!" lil peep in the back seat is super funny" @petewentz
Tony Hawk 27 of 50"Me (annoyed, sternly to my 3-yr-old daughter: 'Please stop hitting me in the head with Aurora." Her: "Ok, but can you give her a high-5?'" @tonyhawk
Tori Spelling 28 of 50"O-M-G! Liam just said 'mama wanna hop on and take a ride on my magic snake?'" @torianddean
Alicia Keys 29 of 50"Whew! It's eeeearly! and i've already been up for an hour and a half!! Good morning motherhoood!;-)" @aliciakeys
Cindy Crawford 30 of 50"Last day of school — I don't know who's more excited — me or the kids!" @CindyCrawford
Lindsay Davenport 31 of 50"At movies w/ my daughter for 1st time. Winnie the Pooh. My boys are next door at Cars2. Let's see how long we last in here." @LDavenPort76
Emma Bunton 32 of 50"Thought we cracked Tate sleeping through the night, so why have I been up for the last hour! Tired!" @EmmaBunton
Stephen Colbert 33 of 50"Easter egg hiding tip: most kids aren't allowed on the roof ;)" @stephenathome
Mariah Carey 34 of 50"FYI- if my feet get any bigger I'm gonna start chargein 'em rent!!! (NY gansta voice:) uggggghhhhhhh" @MariahCarey
Jennie Finch 35 of 50"Wearing all black, started my workout w/ a cup of Joe in hand, convincing myself walking IS a workout! #mypregnancy;)" @jfinch27
Emily Maynard 36 of 50"Oh man... Ricki asked me if its true that Justin Bieber only likes brunettes. Does it really begin the DAY she turns 6?!" @RickisMommy
Kelis 37 of 50"Happy 4th of july! My baby boy pooed in his swim diaper! Lol" @iamkelis
Tia Mowry 38 of 50"This guy sitting next 2 me smells like pickles! My heightened sense of smell is kicking in! Bad timing!!!" @TiaMowry
Jenny McCarthy 39 of 50"Evan just said he's tired of people calling me Jenny McCarthy. He said, 'tell everyone 2 call u Evan's mom, that's really who you r.'" @JennyMcCarthy
Taye Diggs 40 of 50"What up, folks. No idea what to get the wifey for xmas. Will probably buy out Toys R Us for Walker. So much for 'not spoiling him'." @TheTayeDiggs
Soleil Moon Fyre 41 of 50"Questions from my 5 year old today. How many years is school? What happens after college, what's life all about?" @Moonfrye
Brooke Burke 42 of 50"we're totally laughing about our romantic honeymoon, with 4 kids all over us!!!" @brookeburke
Sherri Shepherd 43 of 50"Jeffrey –'Sal R U my stepdaddy now?' Sal –'Yes Jeffrey' ... Jeffrey –'what shall I call U? Stepdaddy? Hmmm... I think I'll call you Daddy'" @SherriEShepherd
Trista Sutter 44 of 50"Hysterical quote of the day = 'if we get struck by lightning, we turn into lightbulbs'. Who told u that Max...Knox. smart boy. :)" @TristaSutter
Melanie Brown 45 of 50"my humps my humps my lovely pregnant humps!!!" @OfficialMelB
Victoria Beckham 46 of 50"I have been told to wear something waterproof for my baby shower!!!!I'm now very nervous!!!!x vb" @VictoriaBeckham
Nia Vardalos 47 of 50"In bed cuz 4 am call. Ian just texted: found giant Disney store with daughter. Um" @niavardalos
Alicia Silverstone 48 of 50"Just walked into bathroom where husband and baby are taking a bath together....doesn't get cuter than that!!!" @AliciaSilv
Jamie Lynn Spears 49 of 50"I try doing maddies hamster (Olivia) a favor and clean her cage - she tries running away in the process #ungratefulLilbeast" @jamielynnspears
Padma Lakshmi 50 of 50"Standing on the dreaded X of my first post-baby bikini shoot for the cover of Cosmo India. Ready for giant bowl of ice cream after!!" @PadmaLakshmi
Article Posted 5 years Ago


text:
I have a Fujifilm HS10 and I'd like to put the camera somewhere and take a photo from a scene every say 1 min. How can I do it? Is there any option in the camera to do it? If I connect to the camera via USB, can I shoot the picture by sending a command from my laptop?
The Fujifilm HS10 doesn't have any built-in mechanism for doing this.
There is a chap on the myFinePix forums who has built a bracket to allow a remote shutter trigger. This could (in theory) be hooked up to a mechanical intervalometer.
I could not find information about a way of remotely controlling the camera from a computer using the USB socket.
Most cameras are accessible via ptp. I do not know of universally usable gui tools that work with every camera, but if you don't fear console applications you can use gphoto (at least under linux). With gphoto you can access almost every setting on most cameras via usb.


text:
Halperin: There's no doubt press failed to scrutinize Obamacare until now
posted at 8:51 pm on November 21, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham
Laura Ingraham had Time Magazine's Mark Halperin on "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight to talk about the magazine's new cover:
new @TIME cover: Broken Promise http://t.co/K5ILuhs2sW pic.twitter.com/RJZ5CQr027
— Dan Hirschhorn (@DanH_TIME) November 21, 2013
The cover, and what I've heard of the story read like, well, this site did about five years ago, and four years ago, and three years ago, and you get the point. But back then, any knock on Obamacare from critics was mean-spirited, lies, fear-mongering, and possibly racist. Ingraham asks about that.
INGRAHAM: That's part of the issue, is it not? The President always seems to see things in terms of political solutions or political responses. So the response here is we have got to rebrand. We have got to sell it differently. We have to have a new ad, have to have the website have more colors, whatever it is. Isn't it more of a branding problem? This is a technical problem. It's a policy problem. It's a substantive problem. It's not just about whether Obama's big legacy is intact or progressive ideas in the future are doing well. These are real concerns that were expressed frankly back in 2008, 2009, and into 2010. Forgive me, but I don't think Time Magazine was doing cover stories on a lot of concerns that were raised back then that were routinely dismissed by many in the media, ideological, as just mean-spirited, turns out most of the Republican concerns about Obamacare were right.
HALPERIN: Laura, there is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program at the time of passage and during the context of the president's re-election. Any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand. As we write in "Double Down," the problem for the Republicans in the re-election context was you nominated, Republicans nominated Mitt Romney, a guy who was not very well positioned, to say the least, to make the case against Obamacare because he passed the healthcare plan in Massachusetts.
I'm always amazed how detached someone like Halperin can be while criticizing the media for an historic dereliction of duty. He is part of the Washington press corps. As "Game Change" and "Double Down" illustrate, he's one of those with the highest access. And, yet, he couldn't possibly ask more questions about Obamacare back when it mattered? No. Because Mitt Romney.
Of course, Mitt Romney was nowhere near the picture when the law passed, so how does he explain that? He doesn't. Maybe he'll write a book with all the dirt in it a couple years from now and make a bunch of money on the HBO adaptation. Journalism.
Laura presses and he blames Mitt Romney again, but again mentions it got no scrutiny at passage, when Romney was not a factor. WHAT IS THE POINT OF YOU, MARK HALPERIN?
HALPERIN: Barack Obama knew he wasn't going to run for re-election defending the program. Part of the flaws of the way the media works. If the candidates aren't talking about it gets less coverage. No doubt a disservice was done to the country and to liberals. It didn't get scrutiny on passage and then again when the president was running for re-election. Our cover story in the magazine lays all this out just how deep the president's predicament is now politically and substantively.
Now you tell us.
Update: I'm having a technical problem with the video but will have it up for you ASAP. (Fixed!)
Meanwhile, liberals huddled at the White House with Barack Obama. I would love to be a fly on the wall at this meeting. First to see everyone look at Juan like, "Who the heck invited him? He works for Fox." Second, to see if Ezra Klein or any of them had the guts to ask this guy how he managed to so thoroughly ruin the biggest liberal entitlement program in decades that even the likes of Klein himself can barely defend it.
President Obama held an off-the-record meeting with MSNBC hosts and liberal pundits on Thursday, POLITICO has learned.
Present at the meeting: MSNBC's Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell, Washington Post economics blogger Ezra Klein, Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn, Talking Points Memo editor and publisher Josh Marshall, ThinkProgress editor-in-chief Judd Legum, Atlantic senior editor Garance Franke-Ruta, Salon political writer Brian Beutler and Fox News contributor Juan Williams.
The participants agreed to an off-the-record classification for the meeting, though sources familiar with President Obama's remarks said that Williams later appeared on Fox News and cited some of the president's remarks, which he attributed to administration officials.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment regarding the meeting.
Breaking on Hot Air
TX cop claims there was no reason for Sandra Bland to be arrested
The press shouldn't hold their breath waiting for Hillary Clinton to take any questions
- November 22, 2013 Grumpy Daily Headlines | Grumpy Opinions
- Halperin: There's no doubt press failed to scrutinize Obamacare until now | Expound & CSocial Content Test
- Friday Free-For-All: A Sucker's Deal With Iran | Nice Deb
- Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » Mark Halperin, Trinity Wells and The Reporter Race
- What's hot, what's not … as we approach the end of the year | Liberty Unyielding
- Breitbart Poll: 70% Do Not Trust the Media to Inform about Obamacare | Political Thrill
- Champion News | Breitbart Poll: 70% Do Not Trust the Media to Inform about Obamacare
- Breitbart Poll: 70% Do Not Trust the Media to Inform about Obamacare | Sharing Liberty