The pill or the cross? A trumped-up debate

This is a carefully balanced proposal. I think it's high-minded, but I think it's fair-minded. In other words, it's got something to offend everyone. -The Firm (1993)
     Today in the teacher workroom one of my colleagues declared that President Obama is attacking the Catholic Church with a vengeance. And this teacher is not alone. Obama is currently envisioned by many as the contemporary incarnation of the Roman emperor Nero, burning Christians in the backyard of the White House, feeding them to starving circus beasts at the local amphitheater, and cackling gaily all the while. Recent polls show more than half of Catholics taking issue with the President's recent decision regarding enforced health care coverage of contraception.
     Nevertheless, there is no great conspiracy by the current administration to aggravate one of the largest voting bodies in the country. There is no secret plan to undermine the Amendments to the Constitution in order to install an oppressive bureaucracy to control hard-working American men and women. Obama is not a Jew-hating, anti-papal Muslim brother. For the record, he's an intellectual Christian drawing from many traditions. He's not Jacobean.
     What is going on is a centuries-old war between the current liberal landscape, whose crown jewel is the utterly dispassionate and fair medical establishment, and the awkwardly-defunct-but-in-denial religious establishment, codified supremely as the Catholic (=universal! at least claiming such) Church. Sadly, this much more interesting issue will not be addressed in this article. Another time, perhaps. (In the meantime I will refer you to a related issue I wrote about last month.) The scope of this post is simply to outline the facts of the debate and argue its present status as being no longer front-page news material.
     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which constitutes the chief legislative reform to the American health care system, is known pejoratively as "Obamacare." It requires health care providers to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions and preventative services. It also increases nationwide coverage by thirty million. The majority of states have appealed PPACA as unconstitutional, hearings in the Supreme Court will take place in late March, and a decision is supposed to be reached by June.
     The health care controversy is obviously complicated enough to reach the highest Court in the land, and I only wish to address the issue of requiring religious organizations to provide contraceptive coverage. This issue has been raising hell for a month or so, now, and like the proverbial bad penny, won't take a hint and go away.
     Let's look at the facts first.
     Before PPACA, women were protected from paying higher premiums for medical coverage just for being women if they received that coverage through their employer. However, if they were shopping for individual coverage, no such protection existed. Women paid higher premiums on average (legal in 37 states), even though they did not receive a corresponding increase in service. Since women are more likely to be unemployed or only employed part-time and in 2010 made up 55% of the individual health care market, this is a substantial problem.
     Let's be clear why. Women who got pregnant could suddenly lose their health insurance coverage without remuneration. Other cost sharing such as additional deductibles because they were treated as a rape victim or got a C-Section (regularly required by a medical doctor as the safest procedure for both mother and infant). Because of this legal discrimination, many women chose not to get any health coverage at all.
     I believe that one of the fundamental marks of authentic civilization, alongside universal education and transparent political system, is a universal health care system. When a society lets its poorer and more vulnerable members suffer physiologically, it is violating their right as human beings to physical dignity. I don't care if you're a crack addict, a pedophile or a jobless ninny. As long as you're a citizen of my country, if you have a disease - even one you suffer from because of your vice - you have the right to receive quality medical treatment for your ailments.
     PPACA stopped this gender-discrimination and requires all employers to provide women with preventative services such as gestational diabetes screening, regular gynecological checkups, contraceptives and related counseling, breastfeeding supplies and relevant support. An exemption to this rule (for contraceptive coverage only) exists for for employers defined as religious institutions.
     The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
     This exemption is rife with potential for abuse. Let's say I'm a health care provider and I want my individual rates (not through an employer) to be competitive. Covering women raises the average cost of my plans because women require more medical service than men. I need to find a way to offset that additional cost. PPACA prevents me from raising premiums for women simply for being women. However, if I can legally choose to withhold certain medical coverages that women typically want, they will be less likely to purchase health care coverage from me. In this way I can still encourage them to find coverage elsewhere. To benefit from the exemption clause, all I have to do is claim that I morally oppose contraception on religious grounds. According to the First Amendment, the government cannot legally force me to freely exercise my religious beliefs. I get to exert my religious beliefs over my employees' and beat my competitors' rates.
     Thankfully the writers of the PPACA were smart enough to limit the exemption to religious employers. To qualify as a religious employer, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, the institution must "(1) Have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization[,in other words,] churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order."

     In the case of a religious employer and a woman who needs contraceptive care we have a conflict of interest. Both parties have rights. Women as human beings have a right to quality health care (as stated above) and that includes contraceptive treatment. If you are an employer and you deny that coverage, you are discriminating against an employee. That's illegal. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs." Many women sincerely believe that it's morally right to have an active sexual life without overpopulating the planet with additional mouths to feed, that it's morally right to enjoy sex for the purpose of interpersonal intimacy rather than procreation. An employer must respect that belief. That's the law. Otherwise, why shouldn't an employer choose not to hire you because of your religion? your lifestyle? your ethnicity? your sexual orientation?
     The EEOC has been around for more than fifty years, and it's the reason employers are no longer allowed to discriminate in covering their employees. In 2010 PPACA took that same principle and extended it to health care providers, because even though they aren't employers, they shouldn't have the right to discriminate either.
     So how do we uphold both the woman's individual rights and the institution's rights? The solution is simple. Provide coverage to the woman without going through her religious employer at all. The health care provider must offer it without charging the church. Now the church is not spending its monies for what it perceives to be a sinful action. No cost sharing on the part of the employer or the employee.
     And that's exactly what the rules are.
     So why are people still accusing Obama of attacking the church?
1. People think the definition of "religious employer" is too narrow. Catholic universities and hospitals should be included, it is said.
Response. Maybe the definition could be widened. But we still need to provide contraceptive coverage to the woman. She has her rights too, as explained earlier. And in no way does the nuance of the definition of "religious employer" constitute "an attack" on Catholics. It's something to be considered by people of intelligence and experience.
2. People generally want to blame the President for everything. This is especially bad during a recession, and especially especially bad during the last year of his first term in office.
Response. People love to complain and find someone to blame. Frankly I can't think of a perfect solution to this problem, but I certainly can't think of a better solution than the one currently in place. Every alternative I've seen crushes the rights of either the employer or the employee.
3. The President doesn't have a positive religious identity. As a Democrat, Obama is already on the back foot, and worse, was labeled a closet Muslim, despite clearly being a liberal Christian. Contrast Obama with Bush Jr., who during his first term claimed to read Oswald Chamber's classic My Utmost For His Highest (a daily reading of wishy-washy Christian moralisms) on a regular basis.
Response. Personally I don't think Obama's religious beliefs are a problem. I'm betting he's fairly non-committal, which means as a politician he's looking to create and maintain a system in which the beliefs of all are respected, as long as they don't impinge on the beliefs of others. And that's exactly what the government of a religiously free country is supposed to do.
     Since representatives of the Catholic Health Association and Mount St. Mary's University not only accepted the accommodation (while reserving the right to negotiate certain minor details), but praised the President's willingness to listen and respond to legitimate concerns, we can confidently declare that the rest of this nonsense is no different than the long-winded spectacles of Obama's birth certificate, Solyndra, and the Ground Zero Mosque.
     Ongoing questions: The battle between the medical establishment and the old, defunct religious establishment.

No Child Left Behind, left behind

     It's the end of an era.
     The 2002 law dubbed No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which mandated states to set measurable standards for public school education and rendered federal funding contingent on achieving them, is no longer binding. As 2014 looms ever nearer, states may apply individually for relief from NCLB provisions, providing they demonstrate they are on track to improving education even if they won't attain freakishly high proficiency levels tomorrow in English and Math. On February 9 ten states (including Oklahoma) were granted such wavers.
     Thank God, right?
     NCLB asked every state to find a way to climb Mount Everest without telling them how or giving them any equipment. Only two years after the bill was signed into law, a series of meetings were held to identify its flaws and pave the way to its reform. 135 national organizations originally signed the Joint Organizational Statement, which recommended we:
     1. emphasize academic growth alongside objective and universal standards;
     2. move from relying solely on standardized testing to employing multiple types of assessment;
     3. find effective ways to increase accountability on all levels;
     4. design effective methods of assessment and decrease the frequency of national tests;
     5. increase quality of professional development for teachers and administrators;
     6. apply sanctions only if they don't undermine existing, effective reform efforts, and otherwise replace them with constructive interventions;
     7. ensure necessary state funding to meet federal requirements, especially with respect to schools serving low-income populations.
     20 more organizations appended their signatures since the statement was originally published.
     It's been eight years since then. With all these great recommendations and practically the whole country in agreement on them, it should be a fairly straight and sunny path to reform, right?
     Wait. What exactly has Washington done since 2004 to address the education crisis and salvage NCLB?

      2009: Race to the Top. Over $4 billion dollars of Obama's Stimulus were allocated to reward states able to execute specific educational policies and demonstrate high quality education through testing. Result? Most importantly, nearly every state adopted common national standards. Monies were split between twelve winning states, each receiving between $75 and $700 million. Certain states changed their education policies to be more competitive in the Race. (By the way, the Race is over, in case no one told you.)
     And... that's it? Sorry, President. Big speeches don't satisfy me here. The DREAM Act was never signed into law. And even if it had been, it would have joined a painfully short list of approved bills that address secondary issues. Student loans. Various re-authorizations and extensions of older legislative material. Nothing revolutionary.
     Of course, due to the current political climate, Obama has no choice but to remain largely inactive with respect to his grand promises to reform education. In this, he follows in the footsteps of those before him -- every president since... Nixon?... has promised to deliver in this area, and nevertheless, in every term education continues to stagnate. One by one, countries around the world pass the United States.
     NCLB will remain my generation's cautionary tale for education. Everyone's optimistic right now, because the general consensus is NCLB was a Big Mistake, and that admission creates possibility for the future - at least on paper. NCLB, we say, reacted impulsively and even destructively to a disappointing reality. It saw the problems, yes - but did it understand them? Did it take the time necessary to see the true nature behind the nation's failings? Like doctors, a law can address symptomatic pain or structural problems. If you see a long line of infants floating down a raging river toward a waterfall, you can wade in a save a couple babies from certain death, or you can head up the bank and stop the one who's sending them down the river in the first place.
     As an inner-city educator, what do I see? I see a lot of frustration in our students and in our teachers. I see huge administrative paychecks and little accountability. I see lot of people so used to failure that they have lost the confidence needed to step forward without stumbling backward. I see a broken network between families and schools. I see a lot of passing the buck and finding someone else to blame. I see children (who were, legally, considered property of their parents not long ago) rebelling openly against those whose vocation it is to oversee their transformation into adulthood, whose hands are tied, who are thus unable to effectively direct their own institution.
     And what, then, is the solution? As educators, we've been patient but not pragmatic. We've been dedicated but not diligent. We need to raise the teaching profession to the same level of dignity and expertise as doctors and lawyers. This, in turn, requires a complete overhaul of the way teachers are trained, and the kind of people hired to teach. Earning the responsibility to oversee the development of the mind should be no less taxing than earning the responsibility to oversee the health of the body. (After all, don't these two areas together constitute the chief evidence of a truly civilized society? Why isn't Obama putting the same energy into education that he put into health care?) Let master teachers be supported by apprentice teachers still studying for full certification. And so on.
     In terms of ongoing bureaucratic issues, well, I don't think the problems caused by unions and lobbyists and poorly-constructed hierarchies and departments can be addressed satisfactorily until our political system is reformed. Until then, money will continue to have more power in deciding the fate of our children than it deserves.
     This is my gut instinct. I'll be the first to admit that I'm still pretty ignorant about the systems that determine who and what gets funding and what rules the games are played by. When I look at countries with higher student academic achievement, the same frustrations exist but on a significantly smaller scale.
     The Joint Organizational Statement is something I'd sign, but unless we find people strong enough to create a road map of how to get there, and give them the resources and authority to do so, it's not worth the paper it was written on.

Probably; after all, they're poor

     Humanity is increasingly becoming a civilization that tries to control complex social patterns so the race progresses. We try to find ways to intentionally encourage desirable traits and discourage undesirable traits. In essence, now that we've adopted the Darwinian vision of natural evolution, we seek to control our own evolution to ensure our future existence.
     The primary way to understand large-scale traits and patterns is through statistical analysis. While often useful, this technique is fundamentally at odds with the rights of the individual as enshrined, for example, in the Bill of Rights.
     That is why, for at least the past couple of years, American legislators and judges have been fumbling with the vague language employed in our Fourth Amendment (the prohibition of "unreasonable" searches and seizures).
     Let's look at an example in the news right now.
     In 2010, Governor of Florida Rick Scott introduced state legislation that would require those seeking welfare (under the federal program TANF, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) to submit to a drug test. Applicants must pay for the $30 screening but are reimbursed afterward, provided they don't fail. This bill was signed into law in June 2011.
     Scott said that it was unfair for taxpayers to support the addictions of drug users; conversely, welfare can now act as an incentive to not use drugs.
     Shortly after Scott signed the bill, a delegation of Democratic representatives attacked the new legislation, calling it "downright unconstitutional." Rep. Alcee Hastings argued that the bill could set a precedent to require drug testings for all federal assistance programs, from Medicaid to education to emergency relief.
     Similar legislation in Michigan was overturned in a federal court in 2003. Moreover, in 1998 a pilot project in Jacksonville, Fl., tested almost 9000 applicants and found that less than 4% failed the test. Given that each test costs around $50 and applicants are awarded, on average, $250 per month, the program would be lucky to pay for itself.
     Besides the financial cost of the program, what about human rights? The Fourth Amendment states:
     The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
     "Probable cause" is a term that has been debated, but most agree that a warrant must be obtained as a result of information submitted by a law enforcement officer who has sworn an Affidavit. (A minority view suggests that "probable cause" means the same thing as "reasonable cause" and no evidence need be submitted or sworn in.)
     On Thursday The Daily Show ran a special segment that highlighted the sheer prejudice and hypocrisy of Scott's program. The stereotype is that, as Daily Show correspondent Aasif Mandvi put it so well, "The poor love drugs," which is actually false. (I wonder if this suggests that there is, in fact, "class warfare" raging in America.) The inconsistent behavior is that state dollars spent on welfare deserve the attention of drug screening - but what about state and federal employees, and social service programs whose benefits are not reaped primarily be the poor? A dollar is a dollar, and if Rep. Scott wishes to make sure no taxpayer money is rerouted to fund destructive and addictive habits, everyone who receives state monies should be required to submit to similar screening.
     Of course, that's not the case, and that's why the bill was rightly overturned. Preliminary results show that 2.5% of applicants tested positive for drug use and 2% declined to take the test, whereas around 6% of Americans use drugs. (Earlier research revealed that government-assisted families were 50% more likely to report drug use than families receiving no assistance.) Scott is appealing the decision and I'm guessing that the case will end up in the Supreme Court, which means it will finally get the attention it deserves.
     In the meantime, Pennsylvania is advancing similar legislation - but in this case, drug testing is only required of felons with a drug-related conviction in the past five years. Does this constitute "probable cause"? In terms of statistical likelihood, absolutely. People with a history of drug abuse are more likely to return to drugs - that correlation is practically uncontested.
     But how likely? Is over 50% enough? What constitutes "probable"? Am I as an individual ready to be defined legally by the normative behavior of my supposed social class? I don't think I am. Regardless of what people like me have done, I want to be judged according to my own behavior. And if there's not much to go on, give me the benefit of the doubt.
     Ironically, I'm siding with the Democrats (who normally champion social engineering) against the Republicans (who normally champion the rights of the individual). The reason for this reversal, I suggest, may be because Republicans treat poor people as an isolated group and not as individuals. But what do I know?
     So, there are three questions to ponder:
     1. Does statistical probability count as probable cause? Read these two articles (1) (2) if interested. (This is the same problem in Arizona with respect to identifying "likely suspects" of illegal immigration).
     2. Are poor people really more likely to use drugs? My very brief online research, linked earlier in this article, turned up conflicting results.
     3. Is class warfare a myth or a reality? This is a pretty polarized issue right now so it's probably best just to mull it over and not post on it.
     You're welcome to share your thoughts and opinions - I'd like to hear them!