Catholic furor over birth control rule turns Democrats on one another - Christian Science Monitor

So what does contraception at a Catholic hospital or college have to do with a $109 billion highway bill?

Skip to next paragraph

Nothing, it would seem.  

But US senators can propose amendments on any subject. And the Obama administration’s proposed rule requiring church-affiliated organizations to provide health insurance that covers contraception has turned toxic.

It has thrown the White House back on defense after a rare spike of good economic news. It’s also dividing Democratic ranks at a time when both the White House and top Democratic leaders are urging a display of unity.

And that brings us back to the highway bill.

Senate Republicans wanted to get a vote on the matter as soon as possible. The amendment, proposed by Rep. Roy Blunt (R) of Missouri, would allow employers the right to provide employees with health coverage “consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions,” without risk of federal penalties.

“This bill would just simply say that those health-care providers don’t have to follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles,” said Senator Blunt in a floor speech on Thursday.

The measure, cosponsored by Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, prompted an objection by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, which blocked a floor vote.

“Republicans never lose an opportunity to mess up a good piece of legislation,” he said.

“They’re talking about a First Amendment right and I appreciate that,… but there’s no final rule," he said, suggesting that the rule is not yet set in stone. "Why don’t we just calm down and see what the final rule is.”

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is not waiting. The USCCB, which initially opposed the health-care reform bill in 2010 in the fear that abortions could be federally funded, has called on Catholics across the nation to write to their elected representatives to protest the proposed rule.

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” said USCCB President and Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan.

On Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio pledged to overturn the rule.

While some Roman Catholic Democrats, such as Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, John Kerry of Massachusetts, and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, have called on the White House to back off the proposed rule, others – also Roman Catholics – are rallying around the president.

“I am dumbfounded that in the year 2012 we still have to fight over birth control,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) of New York, in a statement on Thursday.

“It is sad that we have to stand here yet again to fight back against another overreach and intrusion into women’s lives. This is what it is – a political overreach to roll back access to birth control – not a religious issue,” she added. 

View the original article here

Lifting of blogger's story triggers online furor - CNET

A magazine accused of publishing a blogger's story without permission has seen a dramatic rise in the number of its Facebook friends, although they're not all that friendly.

The tale of writer Monica Gaudio hit the Web on Wednesday after she reported that her story, "A Tale of Two Tarts," was apparently lifted and published by the print magazine Cooks Source with her byline, but without her knowledge or any compensation. After tracking down the editor at the magazine, Gaudio asked for an apology on Facebook and in the magazine, as well as a $130 donation to the Columbia School of Journalism.

Instead, she said she received a rather unexpected response from the editor, Judith Griggs, quoted in-part below:

"But honestly Monica, the Web is considered 'public domain' and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offense and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!"

After Gaudio went live on her blog page with details of the transaction, and other blogs picked it up, it didn't take long for the viral nature of the Internet to take hold. Cooks Source's Facebook page, which had only around 100 "friends" beforehand, took on a whole new popularity, though probably not in the way the magazine wanted.

(Credit: Facebook)

From among the more than 3,800 friends who have since "liked" Cook Source's Facebook page in order to vent their comments, many have been telling the magazine just what they think of it, while others have attacked Griggs both personally and professionally. Beyond the Facebook page, stories about the incident have hit top news sources and a host of blog posts.

Faced with the torrent of nasty comments, Griggs or at least someone with access to the magazine's Facebook page, offered a response that just seemed to anger people even further:

"Well, here I am with egg on my face! I did apologize to Monica via email, but apparently it wasn't enough for her. To all of you, thank you for your interest in Cooks Source and Again, to Monica, I am sorry--my bad! You did find a way to get your 'pound of flesh...' we used to have 110 'friends,' we now have 1,870...wow! ...Best to all, Judith"

The frenzy has apparently forced Cooks Source to set up a new Facebook page after claiming that its old one was hacked. The magazine is also cautioning that any posts on its new page considered libelous will be removed.

Beyond the harm to the magazine's reputation, what legal issues does the incident raise? Does Gaudio have a case if she decided to take legal action against Cooks Source?

"The author does have a copyright in her work. That's without question," New York copyright attorney Alex Chachkes told CNET. "The question then is whether the magazine has an argument that their copying is fair use. Fair use is actually a pretty complicated analysis."

But Chachkes took issue with Griggs' claim that anything on the Internet is considered public domain. "It's not correct to say that just because something is on the Internet, it's public domain," he said. "Time Magazine publishes things on the Internet. I don't think anyone's going to say that you can take a Time Magazine article and republish it with or without the byline and then sell it in your own magazine."

Still, Gaudio might face a tough time if she did want to pursue a legal case against the magazine, according to Chachkes. "You know the saying 'Don't make a federal case out of it.' She would have to make a federal case out of it. It would have to be an action of copyright infringement."

Ultimately though, the magazine's trashing on the Internet is likely to be far more damaging than any legal or civil action it might ever face. "You know, the Internet's a funny thing, Chachkes said. "You tell people 'Imagine you're speaking simultaneously to your friends and to your grandmother.' Everything's published to everybody."

View the original article here