Ms. Parker brings the claws out

[barbara]

Whell, contracts between Feds and vendors can, and do, contain anything both parties agree to. Often times specifications are addressed by the requirement of fair compensation for employees that is comparable to other non federally subsidized jobs.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Also, Federal Contracting rules - those that govern the actual terms of the contract and have an economic impact on the contractor - are typically codified in law, not presidential fiat.

Not so. The bible for Federal contracting is the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) that, like all other Federal regulations, is developed and approved within the Executive Branch pursuant to the legislation that created the need for said regulation(s). The birth control mandate for secular church institutions was developed in a draft regulation by HHS pursuant to the PPACA, not by Executive fiat (i.e., an Executive Order).

For the record, I was a Federal Contracting Officer for 5 years and taught courses in Federal contracting and participated in the development of numerous Federal regulations for DoD, Department of Labor and the Department of Energy.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by barbara

I still think every woman should have the choice along with the medical advice of a doctor.

Until men can be faced with the possibility of being pregnant they should stay out of it. Women are more then capable of handling this issue all by themselves.


BTW there are some men who just can't comprehend or tolerate a smart woman. Feel somehow emasculated would be my guess.


Barney

[finnbow]

So far, LegalZoom, Quicken Loans, Sleep Number, The Sleep Train and Carbonite have withdrawn their sponsorships from Limbaugh's show. Let's hope everyone else does as well. That vile, fat prick needs to be sent out to pasture.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So far, LegalZoom, Quicken Loans, Sleep Number, The Sleep Train and Carbonite have withdrawn their sponsorships from Limbaugh's show. Let's hope everyone else does as well. That vile, fat prick needs to be sent out to pasture.

That is probably the reason ($$$$$) behind his try at an apology.



Barney

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

She should have looked at the plan info before she bought it. Maybe she wouldn't be bitching so much now.



Wrong. Even mom and pop employer can design a plan that includes coverage for some procedures but excludes coverage for others.



Wrong The Fed has never specified the terms of a Federal Contractor's health plan. The Fed does specify the terms that contractors must abide by, but specific content of a group health plan, or ancillary health plan, has never been on the table.

Also, Federal Contracting rules - those that govern the actual terms of the contract and have an economic impact on the contractor - are typically codified in law, not presidential fiat.

Besides, that ain't Fluke's beef. She wants the government to push employers - ALL employers, not just Federal contractors - to include free contraceptive coverage in their health policies. She wants the government to support reproductive rights and freedoms and all that, dontcha see.

Guess what. It's not presidential fiat. It's part of the health care reform law. Contraceptive coverage is part of the mandatory coverage that must be included in a health care plan. That's the point. The churches, when they are not operating as churches, but as employers providing services in the non-religious marketplace - are wanting an exemption from coverage that is otherwise required of employers. That's the beef.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The birth control mandate for secular church institutions was developed in a draft regulation by HHS pursuant to the PPACA, not by Executive fiat (i.e., an Executive Order).

While I don't disagree in general terms, in specific PPACA actually creates an exception for religious organization to comply with the rule. As is often the case, he devil is in the details. In this case, I think the devil was written into the details such that the HHS developed a quite narrow interpretation of what a religious organization is. I don't think that this narrow interpretation was accidental, thus the "fiat" comment.

[whell]

Originally Posted by barbara

Whell, contracts between Feds and vendors can, and do, contain anything both parties agree to. Often times specifications are addressed by the requirement of fair compensation for employees that is comparable to other non federally subsidized jobs.

Yes, and the compensation requirements have their basis in law - The Service Contract Act.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

While I don't disagree in general terms, in specific PPACA actually creates an exception for religious organization to comply with the rule. As is often the case, he devil is in the details. In this case, I think the devil was written into the details such that the HHS developed a quite narrow interpretation of what a religious organization is. I don't think that this narrow interpretation was accidental, thus the "fiat" comment.

Obama's approach reflected the specific recommendation of a professional panel with a lot more medical and ethics background than either of us and is the practice of a majority of states. WTF is so radical or narrow about that? I think an exemption for the Church itself, but not for its secular enterprises, is entirely appropriate and this panel and 28 states see it the same way, not to mention a significant majority of American women.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Guess what. It's not presidential fiat. It's part of the health care reform law. Contraceptive coverage is part of the mandatory coverage that must be included in a health care plan. That's the point. The churches, when they are not operating as churches, but as employers providing services in the non-religious marketplace - are wanting an exemption from coverage that is otherwise required of employers. That's the beef.

Regards,

D-Ray

The beef is that Sebeillius and company - either on purpose or without a whole lot of thought - wrote the exemption language in a very narrow manner. They had options, but the choice was made - purposefully I believe - to cast a wide a net as possible.

D-ray, respectfully, many churches have community outreach as part of their mission. One of the shining stars here in Detroit is Focus Hope, an extension of the Catholic Church. They provide education and job skills to disadvantaged youth in the city, but it's faith based outreach. Just because their activities are not limited to prayers on Sunday, should they be forced to subjugate their crore spiritual beliefs based on a Federal Gov't mandate?

Another local shining star is the Capuchin Soup Kitchen. It's another amazing faith based outreach program that does great work, as their motto says, feeding Bodies, stimulating minds and nourishing spirits. They see their mission as spreading the message of God through good works in the community. Should they be subject to government mandates that a counter to their spiritual beliefs?