Local Member of Congress Embarrasses Himself

This time it's Representative Tim Murphy (R-PA).

From the Maddow Blog:

And in an unfortunate exchange during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on contraception, a confused Republican congressman, Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, falsely accused HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of lying about the administration's policy, and argued that understanding whether the morning-after pill is an abortification is a "religious" question, not a scientific one.

Embarrassingly, to Murphy religious opinion trumps science.

State v. Church (Trib-Style)

From today's Tribune-Review:

It's shaping up as the most important church-state battle of our time. And should the state prevail, the Constitution will be pushed further down the slippery slope of becoming a dead letter.

The issue is birth control and whether the federal government can force religious organizations (that, as a matter of doctrine, oppose artificial birth control) to include, with limited exemptions, free contraception and related services in the private health-insurance plans they offer their employees.

For the record, the Tribune-Review is in favor of both birth control and Planned Parenthood. The problem they say is:

The issue is whether the government, in pursuit of a state-determined "greater good," can truncate, if not traduce, constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. Simply put, it cannot. But if the government prevails, where does it end?

After setting up a strawman argument, they dance with The Supremes:

Unless the Obama administration rescinds this clearly illegal rule, it should be prepared to be spanked by a Supreme Court that's already affirmed (in its recent "ministerial exemption" ruling) that the church-state line is neither gray nor sloped.

Let's start at that last part first.  The Supreme Court's decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, was about

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday for the first time that federal discrimination laws do not protect church employees who perform religious duties, a major church-state decision that recognizes religious groups’ constitutionally protected right to select their own leaders.

The justices ruled unanimously that the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion means that even neutral laws intent on banning workplace discrimination may not be applied to a religious institution choosing “those who will guide it on its way.”

And while Scaife's braintrust says that this HHS decision will be invalidated by the "ministerial exemption" of this Supreme Court decision, the decision itself includes this sentence:

We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct.

So...maybe not.

Anyway, from the HHS statement, we learn that:

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

So the braintrust's use of ironical quotation marks ("greater good" instead of greater good) is actually wrong.  One the one hand there's "significant health benefits for women" and on the other there's an organization that's sheltered pedophiles looking to make it harder for women to access those benefits.

Yea, this is a First Amendment issue.

National Guard Shortages - Not Much of a Surprise

From the NYTimes.

I'll begin at the end of the article:

Late Tuesday, in a statement, Ms. Sebelius repeated her message:

“I have said for nearly two years, and will continue to say, that we have a looming crisis on our hands when it comes to National Guard equipment in Iraq and our needs here at home.”

The "Ms Sebelius" quoted there is Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas. Kansas is where on Friday a tornado touched down and basically wiped the town of Greensburg (pop. 1574) off the map. The National guard was called in to help, but:

“As you travel around Greensburg, you’ll see that city and county trucks have been destroyed,” Ms. Sebelius, a Democrat, said Monday. “The National Guard is one of our first responders. They don’t have the equipment they need to come in, and it just makes it that much slower.”

For nearly two days after the storm, there was an unmistakable emptiness in Greensburg, a lack of heavy machinery and an army of responders. By Sunday afternoon, more than a day and a half after the tornado, only about half of the Guard troops who would ultimately respond were in place.

It was not until Sunday night that significant numbers of military vehicles started to arrive, many streaming in a long caravan from Wichita about 100 miles away.

Tornado hits on Friday, and it's only Sunday night that military vehicles of "significant number" began to arrive.

And of course, the White House deflected any criticism:

Ms. Sebelius’s comments about the slow response prompted a debate with the White House on Tuesday, which initially said the fault rested with her. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said the governor should have followed procedure by finding gaps after the storm hit and asking the federal government to fill them — but did not.

“If you don’t request it, you’re not going to get it,” Mr. Snow told reporters on Tuesday morning.

While things have settled down between Kansas and the White House, the problems with the Guard remain. From Jennifer Lowen of the AP:

Sebelius has long spoken out about the fallout from sending National Guard units and equipment overseas. She says the war in Iraq is damaging domestic disaster readiness, because needed manpower is drained from states and the Pentagon is not replacing equipment at a fast enough rate.

And across the nation, the problem seems to be one of equipment rather than personnel. From the GAO this past January:

The high use of the National Guard for federal overseas missions has reduced equipment available for its state-led domestic missions, at the same time it faces an expanded array of threats at home.

Just some more fallout from dubya's mistake.