Category: Public Policy

One Comment

Why is This Mandate Different From All Other Mandates?

  By Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties, Health Care

One of the central concerns that conservatives have about the individual mandate is that it would lead to unlimited federal authority over our individual lives. If Congress can require us to purchase health insurance, conservatives sometimes ask, can’t it require us to purchase cars or broccoli or cell phones? Defenders of the mandate have been so concerned to show that it is justifiable under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses—and there the argument seems quite straightforward—that we have not been focused enough on making sure that we don’t prove too much. And that’s partly because we tend to be political progressives and are not as worried as conservatives about limiting federal power over our economic lives. We are not libertarians, after all. While we progressive are adamant about defending civil liberties, we generally don’t believe that there is a general right to economic liberty. And thus, unless government forces… Continue reading

No comments

The Founding Fathers and Health Care

  By Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties, Health Care

Revised version of an article published in The Philadelphia Public Record, March 15, 2012 under the title The Founding Fathers and Health Care Later this month the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). There is a narrow question concerning the Commerce Clause and the individual mandate. Most lawyers who have thought about the issue or read the decision of conservative judge Laurence Silberman understand that the mandate is constitutional. There is also a larger debate about not just the ACA but much else the government does. Contemporary right wingers say that the Federal government has gone far beyond its constitutional limits in regulating, taxing and subsidizing economic activity. Libertarians such as Ron Paul argue that the Founders wanted to create a “limited government” that protects our “liberty.” They suppose that by “limited government” the Founders meant what libertarians mean today, a government that does… Continue reading

No comments

The New Sexual World We Have Made and the Return of the Culture Wars

  By Culture War, Feminism, Love and Sex, Sexual and gender equality

In the last fifty years, we have seen a dramatic transformation in both relationships between the sexes and our relationship to sexuality. No one thinks that there is any likelihood that we will return to traditional practices and beliefs. But in the last few months Republican candidates have tried to reignite the culture war that has accompanied these transformations.

One reason that traditionalists continue to call the changes of the last fifty years into question is that of those of us who have turned away from traditionalist ideas don’t give as deep a defense of the new world we have made as we could. We defend sexual freedom, feminism, and the acceptance of homosexuality mostly by talking about the ideals of freedom, individuality and autonomy. The traditionalists answer that those modern ideals are empty and low, a mere excuse for doing whatever we want to do. And they claim that the changes in our lives are deeply in conflict with the ideals of love, marriage, and the care of children. Of course we, too, seek love, marriage and the care of children. But we haven’t asserted as strongly as we should or could that our ideals are not only fully compatible with but enhance our prospects for love, marriage and the care of our children.

This essay sketches a new theory of sexuality that underlies an account of the new sexuality we have been creating as we throw off traditional ideas and build a new way of integrating sexuality into our lives. It’s based on my forthcoming book, Civilization and Its Discontents: Reflections on Sex and the Culture Wars. focus in the essay on Continue reading

One Comment

In Philly, We Need Transparency in Criticism As Well As Budgeting

  By Budget, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Budget, Taxation

Some critics of Mayor Michael Nutter are calling him out for hiding a real estate tax in his new budget since the budget proposes that after the new market based system of setting property values is put in place, tax rates will be set so that the city takes in an additional $90 million in real estate tax receipts. There is a just a little bit of truth in the criticism. But most of it is really just hogwash. Continue reading

No comments

Why the Debate About Contraception is So Important

  By Women and Health Care

I’ve heard from some people in the last few weeks who have asked me why I’m so focused on issues like contraception when we are in the middle of a titanic struggle over economic inequality in this country. This is what I tell them: Two hundred years from now, when the historians write about the time of my life, the first, second, and third things they will discuss is the impact of feminism on ending three millennia of oppression of women. Compared to the changes on our lives wrought by feminism, the rise and fall of communism and the travails of social democracy are historical blips. I care deeply about economic inequality. But the central moral issue of our time is the status of women. And that is what makes issues like abortion or even contraception hard. Some politicians who are otherwise progressive supporters of the rights of women are not… Continue reading

No comments

To Put it Bluntly: the Amendment Undermines Health Care For Women and Everyone Else

  By Women and Health Care

Sometime this week, Senator Blunt’s amendment to the transportation bill that addresses the contraception issue will be taken up by the Senate. The Blunt Amendment allows employers and insurance companies to refuse to cover any health care service required under the new health care law if they object to it on the grounds of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Under this amendment a business or insurance company could  Refuse to cover HIV / AIDS screening or counseling on the ground that the disease is the product of immoral activity, whether gay sex or intravenous drug use. Refuse to cover any illnesses that are the result of or have been exacerbated by smoking or drinking on the ground that these behaviors are contrary to their moral or religious beliefs. Refuse to cover maternity care for unmarried women on the grounds that sex is permissible only for married couples. Refuse to… Continue reading

One Comment

What the Contraception Issue Is and Is Not About

  By Women and Health Care

In politics the most important thing is to understand what the argument is and is not about. So let’s get clear about the dispute over the administration’s decision that contraception should be covered free of charge by all employer provided health insurance plans. This issue is not about freedom of religion. It is about providing all women with access to effective and safest contraception. That is important to the health of women and their children, to insuring equality for women, and to the family. The rule is good for the health of women, which is why it was called for by the non-partisan medical organization that advised the administration. When pregnancies are unplanned, women are less likely to get prenatal care and they and their children are less healthy. Women and children are also healthier when pregnancies are spaced out. There rule is good for the equality of women, which… Continue reading

No comments

Catholics, Contraception and President Obama

  By Health Care, Women and Health Care

The Catholic Church claims that President Obama’s decision to require health insurance plans to include contraception violates its First Amendment right to freedom of religion. What Freedom of Religion Means This claim rests a mistaken understanding of that freedom. The freedom of religion clause protects our right to practice our own religion. That means the government cannot enact laws that aim at interfering with religious beliefs or practices. But the First Amendment has never been understood to grant us a general exemption from legislation that aims at a legitimate secular purpose even if it conflicts with our religion. Congress and state legislatures have granted institutions that perform religious services and teach religious doctrine limited exemptions from general laws. A church may give preference to members of its own denomination in hiring, even for non-clerical positions. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the Americans with Disability Act does not apply to… Continue reading

No comments

Fighting for Our Health

  By Health Care

During the 18 months of the Health Care for America Now (HCAN) campaign in support of what became the Affordable Care Act, I gave over a hundred speeches to thousands of activists who were working us in Pennsylvania. I frequently concluded my speeches this way: “Who is most responsible for the most popular domestic program in our history, Social Security? (Someone would, of course, shout out ‘Franklin Roosevelt.’ Or a history buff would say Senator Wagner.) No, that’s not really true. Franklin Roosevelt was President when Social Security was enacted and his support was crucial. But he came late to supporting it. Long before he did, the Townsend Movement made retirement security an issue of national importance. The Townsend movement held meetings, just like this one, in living rooms, in church basements, in fire houses, in union halls, and in public libraries. It never brought 100,000 people to a rally… Continue reading

No comments

The Imaginarium of Pat Toomey and Kevin Ferris

  By Federal Budget, Health Care, Taxation

Today in the Inquirer, Kevin Ferris channels PA Senator Pat Toomey, who has been providing a Republican spin on the failure of the Super Committee. In the imagniarium of Pat Toomey and Kevin Ferris, the Senator courageously broke with fellow Republicans to propose a balanced, bi-partisan deal that would combine $450 million in tax increases along with $750 million in budget cuts to meet the Super Committee’s ten year goal. In rejecting this proposal, President Obama and the Democrats showed that they don’t truly want a balanced bipartisan solution to the deficit problem. This is what the proposal looks like when you take off the funny glasses. Toomey’s proposal would have raised revenue slightly—no more than $45 billion a year. But most of that increase would have come from the middle class not the rich. Toomey proposed to reduce the marginal tax rates for everyone by 20%. However, the absolute… Continue reading