to protest this and how it's going to be directed in the most constructive way to have an affect i'm not quite as sure but i think and i know just some of the energy that i see going on it can be directed i don't know exactly how we we are going after the store denies that very rally and protest. [applause] >> i think it is a great start in the discussion extended. >> thank you very much. now we are going to turn back over. >> thank you. i would like to think those that helped with preparations for

this. are there any panel director of the war cic, i'd like to thank c-span and their crew for being here i would like to thank richard for coming, david f. ryan williams for moderating. and i'd like to thank the usccb and all of you for coming and joining at the catholic information center here in downtown d.c. to join us for the discussion contesting the mandate again for more information about the center or to donate the programs like these, visit our web site, we cidc.org and join me for thinking our panelists. [applause]

students from catholic university, georgetown and american university former maryland lt. governor townsend waiting on the contraception issue. this book about their support for bup federal health care policy that would require church affiliated employers to cover

birth control. the news conference hosted by the group catholic students for women's health is 45 minutes. >> thank you very much for coming to catholic students for health. my name is mcginn smith and i representing catholics for choice. so we are going to have a great list of speakers for you for local catholic universities as well as other local non-catholic universities followed by a brief question and answer period. we are delayed in august 2007 and the institute of medicine recommended a full package of women's health care services to be covered without co-payments under the affordable care act. this represented a step forward for millions of women and for their families both catholic and

non-catholic. similarly, we are very excited when the department of health -- backlash in opposition from the bishop, conservative catholics and conservative politicians the usual suspect who oppose any rulings that include contraception. we did not expect, however, the backlash from so-called liberal punditry to do the same. all of this is especially concerning to us. however, in light of the fact that the regulations on birth control coverage already represent a severe compromise by excluding church employees, the janitors, housekeepers, cooks, nuns from this important coverage. it's also especially concerning to us, however, because the voices of those who will benefit such as those standing behind me today and who do support the no cost birth control coverage have also been drowned out.

we know from the polls and social science studies that 98% of catholic women who are sexually active have used some form of birth control that is banned by the vatican. we also know 65% of catholics have indicated it the support birth control coverage under government-run or private health plans. the bishops and their opposition to this coverage are rejecting the tenants of our space by ignoring the individual conscience of those who decided that birth control is best for them. by rejecting our catholic commitment to social justice and to the poor folks who will benefit from this the coverage and by rejecting our commitment to religious freedom by attempting to ride roughshod over the belief of those who may feel differently than then and by ignoring our commitment to the idea of religious freedom has two sides, freedom from religion and freedom of religion. we know that the 98% of catholic

women who have used birth control do support this coverage, and we know that millions of americans stand to benefit including not only the 700,000 employees of catholic health care and stick to beat the institutions but many students at catholic universities both catholic themselves and long catholic. i'm going to now read to you the list of speakers as they will appear in order. they will then sit down and we will have them come up and present to you. so, keeley will present first. she's the president of students for choice. she will be followed by kathleen kennedy townsend a former lieutenant governor of maryland, erick orantes catholic and offers an undergraduate, keeley monroe columnist, tanisha humphrey, georgetown university for choice, sandra fluke of georgetown university law center's, all students for

reproductive justice, tea, sefer for american university students for choice. thank you. >> good morning. my name is callie otto and then a senior the catholic university of america. as well as president of the catholic university students for choice, a group unrecognized by my university. we are here today speaking out for the millions of students across the country who applaud the obama administration regulations and demand our right to exercise our individual religious freedoms by using the -- by making personal medical decisions without interference

from religious authority. we will not back down because the belief of religious freedom of individual catholic students no matter what their faith, and the need for comprehensive women's the health care must take parretti's to the catholic bishops. as a student who does not practice catholicism, i applaud the university because it provides the education, a top-notch faculty and the inner city role of opportunities. catholic university prides itself on welcoming students of all faith and all we are asking for is for this value to be upheld in the health care the university provides for its students and staff. we are not here to ask the catholic bishop to support a woman's decision to use contraceptives we are only asking the catholic bishops to let women exercise their individual religious freedom and

to make their own decisions in regards to their reproductive health. during a visit to my university health center and i informed the doctor of my decision not to remain abstinent. i was told i need to start taking care of my body and protecting myself, so i asked how am i supposed to protect myself when my university doesn't allow condoms or other contraceptives? and with catholic bishops do you propose those students who have severe medical conditions which can be helped through the use of oral contraceptives should do? have you ever felt the pain of ovarian cysts or cramps so painful you need a prescription painkillers to get through the day? no, bishops, you have not felt this pan. yet you make decisions for millions of women with such conditions.

the university certainly expects all students to lead a virtuous lives. however, we all know that abstinence proves unrealistic for many college students. the university has acknowledged the sexual activity on our campus. however, it is an attempt to confront these uncomfortable facts of life by mandating single-sex dorms has been less than 100% effective. and it is time for the catholic bishops to consider the health and safety of university communities and provide the same access to contraceptives without co-payment that has been deemed necessary for all women by the institute of medicine. catholic bishops, i suggest think about what would be like to spend a day in the shoes of a 20-year-old woman before abusing your authority by demanding they comply with your values. ausley, as well as thousands of

students at catholic universities across the country support the obama administration regulations regarding birth control coverage. as well as the entire package of the women's preventive care coverage. we will not compromise. we will not back down. a religiously affiliated organizations have the obligation to do what is right by providing women with unfettered access to health care, and we refuse to remain on heard. thank you. [applause] >> this is really the students state. my name is kathleen townsend, the oldest of 11 children, so clearly i know of coming from a time when contraceptive wasn't easily available. i have four daughters, two of whom attended catholic universities.

and i want to say clearly that catholic women of this generation know that they need contraceptive coverage to get the needed because they are women of conscience, they make decisions wisely and they can make decisions about what is in the best interest of themselves, their families and their health. so bishops don't seem to realize that 98% of catholic women use contraceptives. 98%. that means that the bishops have not been able to convince the when they are right. the bishops therefore shouldn't use the power of the government to do what they can't do themselves. the fact is this is a moral question, and a question that women can have the opportunity and the right to decide for themselves. this is what this whole argument is about. it is also about politics. 28 states already require that large institutions, catholic

institutions cover contraceptives. 28 states. so why is it at this time at this moment in this political season that we have heard this problem? i think it is incumbent on the politicians to support the obama administration who are out there supporting women who say that women are people of conscience and as you'll hear men can be people of conscience, too if they are willing to listen to the needs of women. thank you very much. [applause] >> my name is erick orantes, macina catholic university of america. i was born into a catholic university. i was baptized catholic and all of my life, i attended catholic schools. but, as much as katulis as some has been an influential entity in my life, i must say women have also been an influential

entity as well. [laughter] not only my mother who taught me these strong characteristics that i have, but my very first foothold and steppingstones work from women of my city and state and of my country. my first internship at san francisco call up through congress was madam nancy pelosi. live in turned for them all and in there forever grateful and i am forever grateful that i stand here today defending women's health programs on campuses and all over the united states. let us explore how the contraception -- contraceptive is perceived among catholics. we tossed a number, 98% catholic women who are sexually active use contraceptives. this is an overwhelming majority that the catholic church chooses to ignore and the large block of believers cannot be silent any

more. religious leaders are stipulating to radical measures upon a minority that have a leak relies on these medications. their statements and decisions not to support women's health programs correctly affect my colleagues and my friends that have to travel but great length to receive the health care the desire second, we must take on this religious liberty complex that development leaders rallied behind to push and an impressive motion on the minority. as these groups of men decide how to manage women on our campuses, they could themselves behind the first amendment and speak of persecution of their religious freedoms. we'll trampling on the liberties of women. as a male student, i am appalled at such hypocrisy. all men of virtue should stand

up for a quality. especially when it comes to be independent decision making of an individual. male or female. men should rise with women and fight against the injustices that shackle the progress of society. equal access to health care for women is not a religious issue. birth control thus far more than what the catholic church perceives and aides millions of women around the world everyday. religious powerhouses are hijacking our first amendment and they manipulate the american population to perpetuate the facade that the church is the victim to progress. the real victims are the 98% of catholics who have to hide the contraception use and be shunned from an important entity in their lives that should be more accepted and judgmental. this isn't a war on religion.

yet the church has repeatedly denounced the progress of women. the 98% of catholics along with all other contraceptive users and defenders of ecology must stand up against the no rationality that is increasingly becoming the status quo. president obama has done a good deal to protect the women's health care programs and we are forever grateful to what he and the supporters everywhere are doing to keep health care accessible to all. we will continue our efforts to support health care for the women on campuses everywhere. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. my name is keeley monroe and i'm speaking as a university alumni and as a reproductive justice advocate. and i am here as are my fellow

speakers to say that where a woman goes to school or where she works should not determine her access to contraception. we are perfectly capable of making that decision ourselves and bill all should support us in that. oddly remember as an eager 18-year-old ready to forge out into the adult world on leone, thinking there was no bigger decision than deciding where we would go to college because it would help shape what would become to but i chose the university in part because of the catholic teachings and traditions that i learned as a child and because i connected to the traditions of quality education and public service for the promised to nurture my indigent schiraldi, and -- merger am i individual robert d. and promised me to recognize and conference in justice.

and in one day it did a poll that promise. i indicated to the social justice, and i still deeply respect the education i received and the lasting values the instilled in me florida let me down not just as a cheesy personal -- but i would single 18-year-old females the comptroller of my own body looking for affordable contraceptions and finding the contraception was about as easy as finding a good man's -- [laughter] we figured out how to protect ourselves and stay healthy but it wasn't on their account. by denying us access to contraception, they didn't support us as the promised to do. they put obstacles in the way of us preaching our potential and fulfilling our promise to them.

challenging the social injustice. this idea of social justice that exists for me and many catholics seems to be lost in the current battle over contraceptive access. social justice is a value that requires us to recognize the need of others and help them to fulfil those needs so they can lead healthy and productive lives. the u.s. catholic bishops claim the same about us when they say that the hhs decision violates the catholic religious beliefs. but their vision of those values doesn't include women. they say that it violates their religious conscience. but whose conscience really matters when it comes to birth control decisions? as my fellow speakers have said, most women use contraception at some point in their life including 98% of catholic women, and judging by the fact that only 10% of u.s. catholics believe that church leaders have the final say about contraception might think we can

all agree that a woman's own conscience matters the most in matters relating to her health and life. the affordable care act is not fulfilling the need that many women face, helping us to access quality affordable health care. and contraceptive access without the co-payment plays an important role in doing that because it will make women healthy year and families more economically secure. the u.s. catholic bishops want to move us away from the affordable care act aims to do by limiting access to the contras set into the surf and women based solely on who they work for or where they go to school. this is simply wrong and an injustice to all women. i am here to stand with the president and the hhs and their decision to stand up for me and the health needs of today's students on the campuses. thank you.

[applause] hello. my name is tanisha humphrey majoring in georgetown university. i'm the coordinator for choice, a pro-choice organization that is officially affiliated by georgetown university deutsch our stance on abortion, birth control, the vaccine, condoms and most other areas of reproductive health. choice are the only place to get condoms for free or any tall on the georgetown campus. i had a lot of reservations about going to a catholic university, but i chose georgetown because of their belief and pluralism and their founding principles to nurture the whole person. i was assured the points of view that differed from those considered to be the catholic norm would be respected and even nurtured in nine years at georgetown to the band for the

most part, they have been. but georgetown community accepts me as a person of color, as a bisexual, as a person from a low-income background. we're on the field georgetown failed in their mission is respect me as a woman. universities have a responsibility to ensure the health and well-being of their student population. and currently, at georgetown the student population is primarily women. the majority of students at georgetown are women, and for those women from their partners and their families, birth control isn't just a matter of convenience, it is a basic necessity for every woman who wishes to prevent pregnancy. as long as the catholic universities continue to deny access to reproductive health services, they are also ignoring a fundamental part of the women's health. i have heard horror stories of friends who were unable to use their student health insurance plans to access contraceptives

and have been forced to pay all of pocket for these expenses. but not covered by insurance it can be as high as $50 a month or higher, and expense my fellow students and are simply unable to afford. by ignoring women's health and by putting women aside and leasing them to gamble the availability of the necessary preventive services, catholic universities are failing in their responsibilities so when they ask me what i expected and went to the university it's not give it like to many universities, there's an environment of stigma and shame at georgetown no woman should to be exposed to that for making the responsible the irresponsible decision to access birth control. if you have a conflict with birth control, catholic bishops, you can choose not to use at. it angers me that georgetown is

trying to take that decision away from young women. they are violating our conscious. finally, i am happy to be standing among these brave men and women and i am so glad catholics are standing up and saying that catholicism is not synonymous with opposing birth control. we know catholic women use contraceptives. those working or studying at georgetown should have the same right to contraceptives as our peers working or studying at george washington university. i am happy with the obama administration decision to stand with and respect women. i hope that students at the religious affiliated colleges and universities will not continue to be denied the basic rate of contraceptives because our insurance plans do not cover the services. it is not my place to tell the catholic church what to believe. but as a student, i must speak out about what i believe when it comes to a decision that will

directly impact my peers and on. college students trust their universities. it is their job to nurture and support us so that we can be the best people we can be. and as we grow and to those people it is their job to trust us as well. denying the contraceptive services is no way to support your students. women should be able to access both control and universities should be facilitating that access and not restricting it. that is and will close on, georgetown, that is respecting me as a whole person. i am not, nor will i be ashamed of my decision to access birth control. and university the disrespect women and their concerns by denying access to birth control are the ones that should be ashamed of themselves. to those that are trying to take away contraceptives, know that we will not stand down. we will demand contraceptives and we will demand the women's health services. [applause]

>> good morning. my name is sandra and on the third year student at the georgetown university center. i'm also a member of georgetown law students for the reproductive justice or lsrj, the only unfunded unrecognized student group at the law school. georgetown lsrj is here today because we are so thankful to the obama administration for implementing the nonpartisan recommendation of the institute of medicine. this regulation is a critical need for the young vulnerable women on the campuses of some of our nation's largest and most prestigious universities. campuses where female students shouldn't be discriminated against. at georgetown the students struggle with a lack of contraceptive coverage that causes financial, emotional and medical burden without insurance coverage from contraception can cost as much as $3,000 during law school. that is an entire salary for a

law student. for students who can't afford it, they're forced to go without contraception. the risk pregnancy and to be frank abortion that could be easily avoided. other women spent hours sitting in free medical clinics missing a class trying to figure out how they are going to get accessible and affordable birth control. every fall the new female students e-mail georgetown lsrj or find us in the hallway and whispered questions to us as if we are dealers who know how to find illicit drugs. they're panicked and they are stressed because they don't know how to get birth control and as first year law students didn't have time to sleep let alone figured out something like this, let alone spend the time on a bus travelling to the clinics that might not even have the birth control prescription you need on the data you go -- day that you go.

messing with my rhythm here. [laughter] thank you very much. in the worst cases, women who needed this medication for other medical reasons have suffered by her consequences. just one example is a friend of mine. she's one example among many. she has paula sestak overby center and has to take prescription birth control to stop the cysts from growing on her ovaries. it is technically covered by the university student insurance because it is not intended to prevent pregnancy. but when you let my university administrators in your employer's decide and dictate which medical needs are appropriate and acceptable and which ones don't, instead of the women and their doctors deciding the outcome than religious zealotry, and it is when 98% catholic women don't even follow this rule. ..

and she had to stop taking it. i burned about all of this when i walked out of the test and received a message from a friend. the middle of her final exam period, she ran in the emergency room on night and excruciating pain. without her sticking her birth

control, nasa says developed on her. she had throat surgery and had to have the removed. last night i got another message from her. she has an appointment next week because the doctors are concerned that the removal of her may have sent her body into a early. as she put it, if it has come i have no chance of making babies, not at all. what she is a better chance of our health complications that come with heavy at an early age come increased risk of cancer, heart disease and osteoporosis. in the new york times, georgetown's response to my friends tragedy was these situations are rare. well, thank god except they are not rare. nearly 40% had significant financial burdens that the result of a lack of birth control coverage. another student told her she had birth control wasn't covered and neither was emergency

contraception did she assume that is how georgetown's assurance treated all health needs. when she was she didn't go to the doc here. even to be examined or to be tested for infections because she figured georgetown's insurance wouldn't cover some like that. this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sense. this probably set women's reproductive health care isn't a necessity, isn't a priority one student in our survey put it this commits to female students at a school doesn't understand needs and respect their choices. these are not feelings that male fellow students experience and they're not wordnet no students must share. in immediately if the conservative catholic organizations have been asking, what does someone ask back? we can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, duke medical needs met, china school great untenable burden to interfere with their academic success.

we expected we told her university of the problem this policy created for the student body they would help us. we expect did that with 94% of students opposed the policy the university would respect her choices regarding student insurance we pay for entirely of students, totally and subsidized by university. we did not expect that the university would continue to refuse female students as critical medical care. and we did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if they want a comprehensive insurance that met our needs, but not just those that male students, we should time elsewhere. even if that meant a sacrifice or education. and we didn't expect to hear claims of religious sanctity when georgetown provides subsidized health insurance that covers contraception to his faculty and staff and denies only to his students. we didn't expect to be told this was a threat to religious liberty went 77% catholic law

school saturday provide contraception coverage to their students. we didn't expect the voices of conservative, wealthy male donors at the catholic hierarchy would be more important to our universities that matter voices of students in need. that wasn't what any of us expected, but that is what we got. now what we expect is that the law of our country will protect vulnerable students. we expect the obama administration will stand firm in their decision to care for female students at catholic schools. it is the only more fully right thing to do and we are confident they are not going to let us down. [applause] >> good morning. my name is kay a.

i'm lucky and privileged to be able to attend a university and one that respects me enough to trust i can make positive decisions for myself and for my future. i'm here to stay in solidarity with fellow students attending catholic universities. fellow students who deserve the respect and trust i received, students who have the right to make responsible and educated decisions about their bodies, students who went to college so they can grow independently and become successful adults. students who deserve access to affordable birth control. it is found on the birth control saves lives around the globe. it has been practiced for thousands of years. yet we enjoy myself how to fight the young woman to access contraception. while in the latest build to stand here today with other young people in favor of this basic human right, it scares me because of the prevalence of unplanned pregnancies, high rates of transmitted infections in the growing number of young people contracted hiv or who are

living with aids. but that people my age are forbidden from accessing lifesaving contraceptives terrifies me. i went to high school in chicago, where i saw several friends in years experience unplanned pregnancies, contract sti's and discovered they were hiv-positive. girls taking a pregnancy test between coalesces, can have it back then to kiss a friend if kicked out, taking friends to local clinics to get tested for hiv, waiting for the results. and holding his friends and she tells her parents she is pregnant. i've seen it all, but i do not judge anyone of my friends or peers who had this experience and neither should you. not one. we should not blame them for listening to trusted adults.

we should blame the adults in their lives to shame them for having, who lied to them about the effectiveness of and birth control in his positions of power and authority to tell them god would not let them if they use dates. we should place blame upon those who do not trust my friends, me or any of us to make positive educated decisions for yourselves. we are the generation during the first wave of age-related death in the 80s and 90s. we at the information and acted to protect ourselves, to save our generation. here we are told we are acting and morally, are irresponsible, that we commit sin and we should keep or lakes close. well, i believe it is immoral to let another generation we lost to hiv. it is immoral to lie to you and people that regarding health. it is immoral to deny lifesaving measures to young people appeared it is immoral to

infringe upon the rights of another person. while we are living in reality of hiv, we need to acknowledge sex is not a death sentence. it is a natural part of being human and chances are most people are going to have sex at some point in their lives. death, birth control is a master of health and human rights. we need to acknowledge these basic facts. women decide to make decisions for themselves. without anyone else, catholic or not, restricting access to family planning tools. i have often heard that the use or the future this country, but how can you trust of the future of the united states of america if you cannot trust us to make responsible decisions for our bodies. my name is tea sefer and am 18 years old. i believe every single person in this town, city and country deserves access to birth control. birth control without judgment, without a co-pay and without

secrecy. we deserve more than being another generation lost to hiv and aids. we deserve the option to plan and prevent pregnancy. we deserve choice is. we deserve a future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to oliver's speakers. i am not going to bite all of them up for a brief question-and-answer period. are there any questions? >> for calley, the catholic university student. is the issue that the catholic university student doesn't allow.yours to prescribe or that they don't pay for your?

>> use the night please. >> sorry. catholic university doesn't allow it or prescribe it or cover it. we can't have comments on campus. you are penalized for that. we can't get birth control at our health centers. and what we are asking for is to be able to get the thing and should not have to pay for them because that's just ridiculous. >> are there things you have to be paid for under health insurance were the others paid? >> others or cover. >> free of charge? no matter what the medication? >> i attended catholic university and actually i had to go to a health center and i perceive from the health center

penicillin, an emphatic something thinks this sorry for free from the.ear. so these sorts of medications are available and accessible at no cost at all for the students, but things like contraception and birth control are absolutely not prescribed, not given in that country. >> one follow-up to that. the churches in particular have been framing this as an issue because they have not had to pay for medicine may find objectionable to their religious conscience. i've heard a lot of you guys talking about excess being issued issued to these contraceptives. do you think pitchers should have to pay for those in the end, or would you be satisfied if your school, for example, provided access to these medications? >> i am paying $50,000 a year to go to college. i think i should be able to get it it with that $50,000.

>> also with, like i said, religious liberty complex. i find it very troublesome that they are trampling minority through a freedom. and to negate a freedom with another freedom is very hypocritical that the church is using right now and must be stopped with rationale and with the minority standing up and say no. >> the obama administration is considering some sort of compromise on this because i have concerns including the catholic church to compromise and appear to include in-flight cabin construction. i just wanted to ask what sort of compromise might succeed in which one might not.

>> any compromise on this issue would represent an extreme step back for all of the folks standing in handy today as well as for many other students and employees at catholic institutions and non-catholic institutions. is it mentioned earlier, this decision already represents a compromise in the fact that it contains and he refused to allow certain institutions to opt-out of it. i will invite some of our other speakers to fill this question as well. >> i would also like to be partially to the previous question in terms of the catholic bishop not wanted to pay for something they find objectionable. they have a student body at this university. a student body that is taking responsibility for and they should also deal to recognize how important contraceptive rights are to that body. so to say you find certain part of my help meet objectionable

and you therefore don't want to be responsible for them is a huge cut out and one that i don't to allow, one that i don't feel should be allowed. >> some other questions >> just beyond the group as you all have participated and, can you tell me what the general feeling is on campuses he thought to whether it's from historical controversy over how big of an issue has this become and what the general feeling is. >> i can see to that. a georgetown law center conducted a survey as i mentioned in this is not prior to the administration's announcement. i believe was 94% of our student body strongly agree this policy needed to be changed. that is before it got all this coverage. when the news broke that this is

happening, that the obama administration is going to stand up for us and help us to accomplish something that we've been fighting for literally four years. it documents from georgetown decades ago, that the students have been trying to make this happen and they can't honor because they know we're there for for three years network on. they don't have to pay attention to us. that's why we need the administration tell. some students found out the administration would help us in this way, there was an environment of jubilation, just celebration. i told one person that students went out that night and celebrated. there was some drinking. we were excited. there is some cheering and yelling in that part and it was not over a sporting event. it was about access to birth control. i think the person i told that too was sorted incredulous really. you were not insured about

health regulations? well, yeah we did. the reason we did that because it has such a huge impact on issa students. and i think people who haven't gone to the schools and haven't seen the type of terrible situations i talked about might not realize that. but on the campuses, people are talking about it, are excited about it and they vote. >> about a week ago, catholic university students for choice had event where we collect to signatures for a petition about this issue. and i was so surprised how much support we got. it was such a good feeling. students at our university are honestly afraid to speak out about this issue. they are afraid of the consequence is. so you don't hear much about it. but then suddenly weak, and lake

throw it in their face and they were so happy we were there. it was overwhelming and the amount of support we got. even people that i saw a week or so before that going down to the march for life, the students who identify as pro-life students and whatnot were signing mess and they were in full support of this. so is absolutely incredible. >> by the way, the petition that was circulating, that she was talking about pat over 200 signatures and i was only for the first hour before they were asked to leave. so first hour, 200 signatures. and if we had another hour and another, we may have well over 500 signatures at the end of the day. so there is a lot of support on campuses at catholic universities fell over in a

field that needs to be pointed out. alongside with the opposition we are having with the catholic conservative groups and the bishops and so forth. [inaudible] >> -- on the political ratification of this issues >> yes, i want to thank all the students, not only those who spoke so eloquently, but if you could look around the room, he should you are here because you are in support of women's conscience in the right to choose. i think to what is best for their health. i think this indicates that the obama administration, kathleen sebelius who is catholic and went to trinity understands these sites very well, understands what we have to do in this country at this time is support women's health, women's conscience. it got consciences, our cigar, they can use it.

and i think the obama administration will be strength and failed these young people are doing for the future of themselves and their country. >> any further questions? seeing now and i am just going to thank our speakers from our time and give them another round of applause. [applause] and thank you all for being here. i think some of our folks will also be available afterwards to take questions if you have any available. [inaudible conversations]

>> this is about an hour 25 minutes. >> welcome to the catholic information center. my name is mary somarriba and welcome to our p&l connecting the hhs mandates. to learn more about the catholic information center or to donate to programs such as these, please visit our website, cibc.org. on january 20 this year, the u.s. department of health and human services approved a mandate bofors catholic institutions to provide contraception, sterilization procedures and made health care programs. effectively forcing catholic employers to violate their consciences and fun practices

that are done are morally offensive. this has received critical backlash not only because its forces me to institution defined procedures regardless of the objections, but because it clearly violates the first amendment. the january 20 statement by the secretary, hhs secretary kathleen sebelius says we will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss concerns. this was made after careful consideration including important concerns about religious liberty. she believes this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventative services. january 25, timothy dolan come archbishop and head of the united states conference of bishops and cardinals thickness and wrote the obama administration's decision to enforce catholic and other employers who violate their conscience will not stand. americans will recognize it in

the constitutional detour it is an urge their luck of representatives to repeal it. he also recalled in his meeting that the president seemed earnest to consider the protection of conscience sacred and he didn't want his administration to impede the work of the church and claimed and hope that in high regards. after the last month, hhs statement to one and 150 bishops have spoken out against the decision. in effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate their conscience is, to force american citizens to choose between violating conscience isn't going their health care is utterly unconscionable. it is as much his attack on health care has on religious freedom. historically this represents a challenge and compromise of our religious liberty. "new york times" columnist says the government has banned giving

religious institutions an impossible choice. pay by our booth even if it means violating moral ideals that inspired efforts in the first place he said. or get out of the community building business entirely. he continues that it is a threat to any kind of voluntary communities that doesn't share the moral sensibilities of whichever party controls health care bureaucracy. tv host chris mathews has said it is the duty of religious leaders to follow their consciences. they will be the work of politicians, president can't do what they need to do to work this out. people in all rejected media have been commenting on this. in addition "wall street journal" peggy noonan calls this a battle of the president cannot win. i meant it was reported that signatures to resend the mandate on the whitehouse.gov petition page but there are many more signatures by five to one object

in this decision at the hhs. but since today there are 2700 signatures opposing the mandate and in favorite is still significantly trailed behind with 18,000 chinese. senator marco rubio has introduced religious freedom act of 2012 in an attempt to counter the mandate and also on capitol hill we see sean boehner has given a floor speech saying that the president does not reverse the administration's attack on religious freedom, the congress acting on behalf of the american people in the constitution, we are sworn to uphold to defend causing a lot of speculation at the obama administration may compromise, may make a compromise on this issue. asked about one of the campaign strategists have sent tuesday on a tv show what a joke, we certainly don't want to abridge anyone's religious freedoms were going to look for me to move forward that provides women with preventative care they need and

respect the prerogative of institutions. however white house aides have assured women's group advocates during meeting tuesday morning the comments did not mark a shift in the policy of the administration. sweeter to discuss all of this and see a way forward with their ideas sound great panelists to join us. we have thankfully joining us wishard doerflinger from the council and bishop. we have capretta and kyl duncan for religious liberty are thankful to have ran williamses moderator. i'm happy to introduce the moderator, brian williams before passing this microphone to him. brian williams received his b.a. and m.a. with the sanction and philosophy from boston college. he then moved to east africa to work for the episcopal conference in kenya and implement the programs of the national assembly, relocating to rome he then received a baccalaureate in sacred theology

summa cum laude from angela collinson is no doubt your candidate and teaching fellow in the school of philosophy at the catholic university of america. i'd like to introduce -- passed over to bind bind to continue and further the discussion thank you. >> thank you very much. tonight is you know we are having a forum discussion at panel discussion i just want to introduce a three panel of experts on the topic are the first is mr. richard doerflinger. he works at the united states conference of catholic bishops, themr. richard doerflinger. he works at the united states conference of catholic bishops, the associate secretary of pro-life activity worries were for over 30 years. among his duties come he prepares policy statements can education materials and testimony and abortion, euthanasia, rising health care, embryo research and other medical moral issues for the bishop bishop conference reveals a ba degree from the university of chicago and connected doctoral studies in theology at that institution at the catholic university of america. mr. james c. capretta is a

fellow at the public policy center with an associate director at the white house office of management and budget for 2001 until 2004 where he had responsibility for health care, social security, education welfare programs. at the epoch public policy center, he could provide commentary and a wide range of public policy and economic issues focus on health care and entitlement reform and global population. mr. kyl duncan as general counsel of the fund for religious liberty. he joins as a senior counsel and junior 2012 after serving for three years as a pilot chito cucina justice, it he taught constitutional at university of mississippi of. under solicitor general kate coleman. he practiced appellate file in houston texas. the way to even wilco is the first will have remarks given at each of our panelists on the issue that we are discussing this evening. after that, there will be a

small discussion amongst the panelists. they have a few questions just to get the discussion going. afterwards we will open the floor to questions from all of you. so if you listen to this topic, and could really get our questions to ask these gentlemen. if there's ever answers to be had, here is where they are. so to begin will start with mr. richard doerflinger. >> thank you very much. i'd like to begin by putting this in a slightly broader context because the debate about this mandate begins at the health care reform act itself. some call it taca unaffordable care. it was ultimately passed in march 2010 and during the whole process, the catholic bishops said we do not -- were not experts, but we do have certain moral principles that are very important to respect. one of those was protection of conscience.

that was a principle that is largely ignored through much of the process through various efforts to address that issue, but ultimately the final bill was sufficient on night and a number of other areas. we ended up asking for a vote against the final bill, but in the but in the end passed over her objections. the major problem coming out of this was for the first time the federal government was creating mandated benefits/that every health plan in america would have to include in order to be seen in a qualified health plan and therefore be offered on the market. there was an essential help benefit list whose details of the work updated by department of health and human services and late in the process there is a separate requirement for preventive services, including a separate list is going to be preventive services just for women. and in fact, while the four debates about the preventive services for women with a 90% was about breast cancer

screening which of course we have no objection to whatever. they're members of the congress who wanted to use that as a wedge to create for the first time a nation that contraceptive mandate, something congress has never passed before. actor with a 30 year said been at the conference, there've been 20 bills introduced, none of which ever got out of committee. this is an entirely new thing. they surpassed mandate that it had religious exemptions and so on of various kinds. for the first time you had a hook and a statute passed by congress that could be used to create and mandate for sterilization. that in fact it's what turned out to be the case. the department of health and human services delegated the task of creating this list to a committee of the tudor medicine they later found out at least either the members of that committee were board members and their affiliate and inevitably

given that personnel coming under that same contraception and sterilization are essential preventive services for women. which was uniquely odd because every other preventive service in the list was about preventing a disease until now the american people have not voted for the proposition that babies are disease. at any rate, that was proposed last august. we objected strenuously to that. we filed comments against it on three grounds. first, contraception and sterilization are not a sick health care needed by women to prevent disease. pregnancy is not a disease. it is selective and it should remain an unlike dave, which means you do not force it on people. and for that matter, and contraception is most often used for things that are not used for medical needs the lifestyle choices. they do an effective serious serious, sometimes deadly side effects of their own.

one of the ironies of this whole thing was around the same time this was debated, there is a front-page article in "the new york times" about the latest study showing that hormonal contraception increases women's risk of contract any and preventing aids was one of the legitimate purposes the rest of the preventive services list. you had a list of this war with each other. our second point was that particularly the scope of this mandate included drugs that are seen as morning-after pills that can prevent the implantation of the new embryo, therefore you can argue it is really a board occasion. at least one drug, a very close analogue to the abortion pill and therefore they can cause abortions by anybody's definition, whether it be before or after plantation. it was marketed as emergency

contraception. third of course was an imposition to this mandate would violate rights of conscience and religious freedom if anyone who objects them and therefore depart for very long bipartisan consensus in congress that when you pass major health legislation like this, you have protections for rights of conscience. that has been true since the original church amendments of 1973, named after senator frank church of idaho and not after the catholic church. that has been in place of that controversy for 38 years. the wildman amended a force involvement in abortion. the religious exemption to the contraceptive mandate federal employees somehow benefit programs and so on and so on your just a list of all the conscious provisions and help programs takes about eight pages on the website. some of those put in by the clinton administration.

so there's huge problems at this and all this areas. the report to say states do this anyway. one of the amazing things that the final entrant will come the interim final rule is the whole it urged to religion. there is a religious exemption that has four prawns. you have to meet every one of those trunks to qualify an exception. you have to be eligible for tax exempt status and a narrow part of the tax code that covers churches and houses of worship and religious congregations. you have to have the invocation of religious values is your purpose. you have to hire people of your own faith and you have to serve people of your own faith. which means as i've said before that jesus does not qualify because though he certainly did inculcate values he went around

feeling servants and so on. mother teresa does not qualify because notwithstanding being a saint, she picked up hindus and atheists and muslims off the street of calcutta and heal their wounds. it is a ridiculously narrow view of religion and it's all designed to the church at war with itself because if we were to stop doing those things in order to qualify for being religious enough, we would stop being christian enough. we would start treating people who are needy simply because they are in need. as bishops have said, we treat people in our institutions in health care and schools. we help them, not because bearcat at that because we. and to compromise that can truly staff being the institution following christ means to be. process in an untenable decision as many others.

so the bishops have reacted strongly to this than i've heard data unshed people say they don't like obama. nothing to do with that. for the first time there is a kind of social contract broken here because we've had many days about abortion and family planning and funding for those of for many years. for the first time the government is reaching into the life of our own institutions, or charitable institutions and religious organizations and pain we are going to trigger new into providing what we see as a good thing for society. we are going to make you violate religious freedom even within your own employee consular relationships come to perhaps if your university in your own house than the one. in order to meet the social goal. that is something quite new and it's not something done to us by democratic or republican administrations in the past.

besides the public effect of the catholic church and from cat who support the health care bill, opposed the health care bill, liberals, conservatives, many non-cat looks, we've been supporting legislation can still call respectful rate and for over a year now, senator rupiah was just mentioned earlier were turkey day just on this mandate who are considering all of the site of some of that will forward. basically in the and this is more not about politics. it is about a fundamental freedom and one that is very dear to the owners of the founding fathers of this nation. people should be able to look at the government made them highly or religious freedom. he'll turn it over to her speaker. >> thank you, richard. again, i name is jim capretta at

the ethics and policy center. i'm a fellow at the center here in kent and i want to thank the cac for sponsoring this event is obviously incredibly timely and very, very important and i'm extremely pleased to be here with richard and tyler who are experts on that. i want to pick up on what richard described as the context and how this comes about. but to go at it from one particular angle, the debate heard over the last week, playfully around of religious organizations being told they have to violate collective conscience and provided coverage for contraception and sterilization products that run against the leafs of their faith. that is obviously a huge issue violating the rights of organizations in the church. the last sofar in the debate

even as more important is how do we get to the point where the government was allowed to do this for the average citizen anyway. for the average catholic are working for a private employer who doesn't have any religious affiliation was however, they are told by the government through the reclaim and that they too have to pay premiums into a plan that covers all of these things and there is no right whatsoever to get out from under it. there's no talk of an exemption, even contemplation in the administration towards the religious liberty right of the citizens. this is a big deal. tens of millions of people who forevermore in the united states will be forced every two weeks and their paychecks to pay for a number that they find

objectionable. not to be get to the point where this happens? as richard indicated, there have been bandied about for the last two decades amendment that were considered in congress at various points, actually imposed a good mandate for various types and kinds and format. as richard indicated, those usually stalled or a lot of reasons why it is taking place now. however in the context of the gigantic help care bill, passed in 2010, there is a little spoofing snow the government can do. this is one of them, but not the only one. the delegation of massive, massive amounts of power is really remarkable. this is i would think one of those watershed moments with the public is getting a glimpse into what is coming. just the fact they are is people

going to the government to hat in hand is a clear indication something is they make here. something has gone terribly wrong. why does the federal government get this power to make this decision affect the 310 million people and no recourse whatsoever. there is something fundamentally, i'm here. that brings me to my next point, which is that it is a principle of cat teaching that decision-making authority should be located at the lowest level possible. subsidiary in a very much agree with the notion that this is a question that people of faith come to different conclusions. they could create a fake about how appropriately to work in a societal questions in this arena. there is lots and lots of great debates and great debate should

take place around it. but my own judgment is looking at the balance of what is happening in the house. the comment that this is one manifestation of a general phenomenon of entirely too much delegation of health care power to one central bureaucracy. you can go through the whole skylab. there are so many secretary shall sooner would send you. there is a regulation coming out just about every three months, reorganizing various aspects of how health care will be run and this is one of them. but there are many others. there's all kinds of things in there. things about how to run and how doctors and hospitals will be organized over time. they are heavily influencing how that will be changed over the next few years. there's all kinds of requirements about where you can buy insurance beginning in 2014. so i'm not saying to relitigate

all aspects of the health care debate, but it's very hard to see how when you delegate so much power, so much authority to us be honest with ourselves, a federal government that is -- that has -- that has developed over the at least half-century, a point of view that is secular in orientation and in some ways hostile to religious sentiment. if you delegate so much power and authority to the government to run various aspects of our lives in this manner, this kind of thing is going to happen. and we should be very careful as we take this moment where people are focused and i've got the public attention focused on this. we should be very careful to return to first principles and make sure whatever comes out of this is something that really protects our rights. not something that gets us through the next six months. not something that gives the president we elect it and he can

move on and maybe reverse this later, but some i never really protects the post i am doesn't have the government impose such an awful, awful mandate. and that is going to take some art. so i'm very hopeful that this moment that is obviously captured a lot of people's attention can be used to reorient what we need to do here, which is very fundamental. and i think what that i will stop. >> thank you, jim. it is a real honor and pleasure to be here with you. my family and i just moved to washington d.c. for a louisiana where i was in the state government there. i look forward to a gentle introduction to my duties and instead we find yourselves in the mid-of what we see and what we see correctly as one of the

most flagrant attacks on religious liberty that we have ever seen in the country. and that's really not exaggerating. what i want to talk to you about as we have heard some broad structural dramatic discussion about the mandate. we does pakistan have been the first to bring to office debates on behalf the catholic college in evangelical christian college to overturn the mandate as violating the constitution and federal law. and in a few brief moments i think too highly of what we see at the becket fund as unconscionable violations of basic religious freedom. holds so wide you can drive a truck through them. in many ways and i don't want to overstate our case, that this was an easy case because what

the administration has done is to overreach on such a number of basic issues of religious liberty. i would like to highlight those for you without rehearsing his technical arguments, but giving you an rt. everyone has the intuition that this mandate violates something basic and i'd like to impact very briefly why it does in our view. we brought lawsuits that the becket fund at the college was as a catholic liberalize: college in north carolina founded and run in a few months. also a lawsuit on the christian university, which is in evangelical university is located just outside of town her. our claims on behalf of both of those schools are quite similar. and we have brought claims under the constitution and also under a federal law called the

religious freedom restoration act. and i would like to highlight are you one of the basic ways in which this mandate and also the exception. the couple of ideas here for you. first is the very basic idea that this mandate is a 40 minute groups coercion of religious conscience. it is really so obvious that it surprising to me that for every ticket. the mandate says if you want to continue to practice your religion and abstain from offering services that your beliefs tell you are gravely immoral, even cannot not to destruction of human life, you must pay a fine. just let that sink in for a minute. you must pay a fine to be a catholic. you must pay a fine to be an evangelical christian. the alternative is to kick all your employees off of health

care. pay the fines, which should go into hundreds of thousands of dollars. if you're notre dame, you're paying millions of dollars. if you have a hundred employees, pay $140,000 a year. the other alternative is to give up your faith. well, basic amendments and religious liberty that that we held sacred in this country since its founding, since he recognized it, we shouldn't force quakers to pick up rifles. you can't do that to people. another thing about the mandate that it's really quite shocking is the idea that the government in order to provide greater access to contraception, which is already available in 90% of them voyeur house, which the government air defense plans of dollars to programs like title x for the poor to provide access to contraception, then on top of

all of that the government has to take on religious employers increase it down to violate their own conscience as to fill it with someone once called the catholic cap in insurance coverage. well, this has nothing to do with access. this has to do with imposing its vision of what constitutes appropriate health care and everybody, including religious organizations who object. another aspect they think deserves a mention is that this mandate is by no means a one-size-fits-all kind of man they. instead if you look at it closely, it looks like space cheese. everyone knows the government has been granted waivers by the hundreds or thousand two without large organizations -- large corporations not to be subject to themselves. the act also expands small employers from the mandate. it expands grandfathered health

care plans. it even has certain kinds of exemptions for small groups who have religious objections to insurance per se. missing from all of his is an exemption for religious groups and individuals who don't want to be forced to violate their conscience. that is a fundamental violation of the first amendment, to take that kind of scattershot approach. the limit clause because i really want to hear your questions. the most obvious and egregious violation of religious liberty is the so-called religious employer exemption. let's take a moment to unpack that as mr. doerflinger said, this is an exemption that we have called the anti-good samaritan provision. this provision does religious organization -- he's the kind of

religious organization we want to see operating in civil society. religious organizations stays within the course for the that doesn't hire anyone outside and doesn't serve anyone outside the state. so if you're running a soup kitchen, and you want a catholic soup kitchen in yuma to feed the hungry jewish person or the hungry atheist%, hungry evangelical christian person, your conscience is a protected. it is sort of a grotesque version of the public policy one would think we would want, that regardless of public policy, it violates the basic proposition of the first amendment, which is to say government doesn't get to pick the kind of religious organizations that likes and doesn't like according to budget their outward outward facing our inward facing, evangelical or not evangelical. quiet or disruptive in the public sphere. the government doesn't get to do

that. the very clear and basic violation of the establishment clause. you know, the establishment cause we all heard about assertive over a part of the constitution we are worried about, the crashes or menorahs city hall we you saw the establishment. this happens to be a really clear violation of the so-called church and state, which harkens back to the original purpose, which is to keep government out of church and business. so this is a very clear violation of our basic tradition. it is not about access to contraception. it's about not forcing religious employers and individuals to pay for things to violate their conscience. most importantly from our point of view, it is not about striking the appropriate times. we heard that a lot of the media. chief justice john roberts was very happy to prepare a unpack

to do with religious organizations to hire and fire the minister. chief justice roberts that you donate to the ballot any of those. the first amendment to strip the balance for as in that balances in theaters. so with that, i was turned over to the moderator. >> i like to think about. [applause] >> said mr. duncan, the balance has been struck already on the first amendment and i think the reason is the administration -- i don't know they were surprised, but they are starting to acknowledge there is a bigger issue here in the statement that there's a possibility we are willing to compromise a little bit, we are willing to go little bit further, do you see with the

balance being struck already that there's any possible way that this compromise can come about? cannot imagine miss hawaii route, which in interview for mr. doerflinger he said that is not an acceptable decision. so why a lot of us employees to basically not pay for contraception divided to direct employees to a place or they can get it. could she make the flush out a little bit more of the middle ground, this balance has been structured whether it's possible to strike another down? >> well, the balance looks very much like the first vendor to the constitution and that's the basic, which this is not a matter of politics. this is a matter of asserting our basic american constitution of this affecting people's consciences, goes back to the quakers because in our constitution we allow our affirmations.

it is why we don't force jehovah's jehovah witnesses to say the pledge of allegiance is. these are basic principles of american religious freedom that is this administration has developed amnesia with respect to you. let me answer the hawaii comment because i have heard this mentioned a lot. there's a number of surplus state mandates. i've heard the number 28. this is a red herring. the state mandate are not the sort of straitjacket the federal government has created. even where a state mandate would not allow for an exemption for religious organizations, religious organization has enough data. they can self-insure. they cancome up with a plan under a federal. there is a way out of this. there is no way out of the federal mandate, see the kind a

religious organization and become a religious organization. the hawaii plan has no plan at all. the wife plan as you just said introducing the forcing religious organization to direct its own please post where they violate the religious organizations of teaching. that sounds like a violation of the first amendment of the free speech clause. so not a solution. >> well, i would say as i indicated my remarks, that it is time to take a step back from the current back-and-forth of banana language is being discussed and try to reflect on the basic principle we want to reflect how to go about that. me, i go pretty far.

but i think, you know, the idea that we really have to have a new federal statute that delegated all this authority around the health benefits to secretary sebelius center team for everyone else i question that. we have lots of employers out there that are very responsible to the needs of the workers. at the state legislature during responsive to the needs of their citizens. i question whether we need to delegate. the one central requirements should decide this on the proposition across the board for everybody. i was in my judgment problem number one. the second point is if we go now to kyl's point about protect and how do we go about protecting our constitutional liberties, i think we should do that in a very wholesome way. it should not be just to protect my judgment, just to protect the

organization to be affiliated, but also people who have a conscientious objector to all of that, just as the dictionaries of their own faith. i now see why we should settle for the federal government imposing on tons of millions of people who might object to some aspects of this. >> can i just make one comment? i don't know why a lot of bad. it's religious exemption is almost, not quite as narrow as the federal one. but this requirement says if you're going to claim religious exemption, what you have to do instead is give all of your employees, all of your enrollees information on how they can access all of these services, in an expeditious manner. up until now, one of the points on the white house for trying to explain away this mandate was to say hey, this is just coverage.

this is not about having to get involved. you can cover. we don't off anyone can use it. .. and the question i have is

all the news media, liberals and conservatives are like saying what is the political end game here? it doesn't seem to have any political group. this is just everybody's angry about this. and they are angry about it because the religious aspect. so the question is if a religious aspect, could the religious aspect be serving as a smokescreen for a grand scheme as a smokescreen for something bigger? shouldn't we worried the political ramifications of this do not align with somebody trying to be reelected could there be something else here? i don't know it's something interesting to me it is important and everybody saying that it puts a bad light on the administration, so certainly they know that. >> alana not so sure that the

obvious is not the answer that this is a delivered attack on the religious freedom. this is not an isolated incident with this administration to lead its part of a pattern. for example, just working backwards from where we are right now the administration in the case that i talked about a second ago, the minister real exception case the supreme court decided, the administration sent a general there to make an argument about the autonomy of the religious organizations to hire and fire ministerial employees that managed to unite chief justice roberts, justice scalia and justice kagan that brought everyone together in incredulity of this kind of argument. the administration said well a religious organization doesn't have any more right than a social club who professes its

messages. so, that is the notion that the administration looks at the religious argument and doesn't see it. the administration cut the grant for, benjamin trafficking -- kunin trafficking because they wouldn't agree to review the victims of human trafficking to the abortion services. now that is a pretty stark attack on the very basic principal of the religious liberty. the administration rescinded the george w. bush and conscience protection for health care workers last year and let us not forget that this is as the campaigning said when people get frustrated they cling on to their religion so this is perhaps a larger pattern. >> just to comment a little bit

further on this, you have to understand this has been brewing for a couple of years, so the normal pattern here is how old they got this provision enacted the delegates huge of 40, a huge win for them in the first place they know they were doing by enacting such provisions and if we get this put into the law we get the right to this whole thing as we see fit. then they said let's give it to a scientific panel that decides and that came sort of the usual suspect involved in that in terms of defining what is considered scientifically good preventive benefits and cannot to the predictable outcome. all of the interest groups that are promoting contraception culture and abortion culture were all over it and pushed for this for a couple of years and so the obama administration in some ways had the power to do it and had a lot of activists on

their side saying do it, and they have this gigantic a blind spot. so in some ways it is the opposite. they have a power grab and the supporters pushed them to do this. they said why not? they did it and they have a blind spot to the reaction that they are now receiving. >> to respond to that, when of the possibilities that all of this work they've done will be undone if they don't get reelected? >> i hope so. [laughter] >> my question about the policy involved related to the fact that surely they would have known that this quick grab would have been undone if they don't get back into the white house in the next term which surely they would know that, right? so, was this just a misjudgment? they were unaware of the blow back they were going to get from

this to d'aspin and there's a ferry large blind spot, but i also think that in the political calculus there was a story in politico ten days ago before the loebsack got to reach this level today where is he essentially said an internal debate inside the administration who knows how accurate this is and they calculated that the intention of the quarter's would outweigh the opposition of the intensity of the opponent who were not going to likely vote for the president any way so they did it on a political basis. estimate in terms of the politics what is happening is the battle between two groups that most presidents seek for the reelection and want to appeal to particularly someone and president obama's position, one is the catholic vote, and the other is based in terms of the reproductive rights movement, planned parenthood and

its neighbor in the pro-abortion groups. now they are very strong on this. they are capable of generating enormous traffic by e-mail and blog and making the media bend to their narrative of what is going on and that was apparent in the county because foundation of which they basically were willing to bring a major women's health care organization to its knees simply in order to be able to continue to provide the cover that they allow women who are in a planned parenthood clinic to do a breast exam even the day don't do anything else for breast cancer, and in order to save half a million dollars a year on the symbolism that goes with that, they were willing to all but destroyed the largest breast cancer charity on earth. so, and every time that the administration has shown any sign of being differential to

these religious concerns, this happened in november when the president met with the archbishop and said we are going to find a way to accommodate these concerns and that came out i think the archbishop said to the reporter he feels a little bit more positive now that the administration understands the religious freedom concern here. that has probably sparked outrage throughout the pro-abortion movement and they generated letters from senators and the ranks and they think that this idea of the mandatory birth control and everyone's coverage is the way to the better american and frankly that is the first step because in washington state, the bill is terri close to passing that takes the next logical step and says that of the health care plan in washington state that

has coverage for childbirth has to have equal coverage for abortion and once they did a few states to pass that you'll see the federal government saying the states are already mandating this. we need to get with the program here and make sure there are no unintended pregnancies or unwanted births. it's an ideology, a very extreme ideology but it's a group of people that unfortunately some of the administration think they are we holding to to this the kind of frightening. maybe one last question and then we will open up to the audience. i was reading an article today and one of the justifications is given by the aclu. she says this removes gender discrimination verbal women finding with health costs are rising by 68% without contraception during their reproductive years. you mentioned this, that pregnancy is viewed as a disease

things like the productivity, pregnancy, is this an adequate justification as obviously the legal precedent being set to emerge in themselves. >> let me take a stab and then let others speak. planned parenthood problem is on the reproductive freedom project is that on the one hand, you know, they keep citing the statistic 98% of women have used a family planning method at one time or another. the more relevant statistic is that 69% of sexually active women who don't want to be pregnant or using when of the methods that is covered by this prescription contraception and the rest are using nothing at all or the various methods, condoms, what ever. some are even using natural, but these are in the mind of the

most effective and the most effective of all are those that have been spreading throughout the third world for so many years and want to get american women use to the in implantable and inject doubles. vaccines to vaccinate yourself against pregnancy that are long-lasting. and these methods are barry claimed they are more independent of user motivation. they are much better for use in the coercive population program. but in american women and means if you forget your pal you are still barron. these are the things the most expensive. this is where the money hits the road and you say there's a lot of surgical sterilization of committees in injectable sevi hi co-payment. they want to make them free. what they mean by free is there won't be a co-payment anymore. will be loaded into your

standard premium and the standard premium of everybody else in the country who didn't want this to spread the cost among us. so we are being requisitioned in order to meet the goal of getting american women to use the more long lasting more effective contraceptions the door also by the we the most dangerous for the women. there is a broad agenda from their point of view and it's not to just reflect reality. it's to change reality and get american women doing more of what they think women need. >> i would very much agree that there's an agenda here to push into the mainstream american culture, certain practices that, you know, certain segment of the pro-abortion point of view is the right way, and it's the cost

that's very much a red herring. the idea that the federal government is already subsidizing the distribution of contraception and a very abundantly. the idea that there is this gigantic barrier of people getting the contraception if they want to use it is really not true. what they are doing here is trying to put into the mainstream america insurance coverage that will allow introduction of other things as richard has indicated, and also just it creates a devotees in point that the find very important, and, you know, it is a long-term agenda that they have been pursuing for decades now. spec i don't want to come to beat comment on the common right but if we are conducting the policy debate and forget about certain non-negotiable parts of our political structure in our

constitution, then we have completely missed the load. there is a pluralistic space for people to order their lives as they see fit and they can do that individually and they can do that in the religious communities and religious organizations. they can have different views about the proper way of ordering marital relationships and sexual reproduction, and that is good from the point of view of pluralism. the administration is trying to crush that by forgetting that we make these kind of public policy pronouncements you don't take into account people's consciousness. you've been tried something basic in the fabric of the nation. >> we have a microphone being set up here.

if. the question is how did we get here? it's only a couple of months ago that we had as well established principal in this country that we wouldn't use federal funding for abortions that said they would violate people's rights so how do we get here and it's just two words come to mind. the two words that come to mind as coercion and deception. nobody wanted that health care act. it is 65% against the act. the forced it to congress by bribing people, by deception that they passed the president agreed to pass this order. semidey have a question? >> my question is basically they

are trampling our rights and it is just an incredible trampling of my rights and it's unprecedented, and the question -- is there a deception? is their deception going on? are they trying to pull a worse on the american people, that is my question. >> thank you. >> let me comment just a little bit on what richard mentioned in his opening remarks that is what provision into law allowed them to do this? the provision said in effect the department of health and human services will oversee a new definition of preventive health care services that would be applied to all health care plans. lots of people objected at the time this is moving through saying we minute, we really want the department of health and human services running a one size fits all definition in fact is it necessary, is there some huge public policy reason to allow this to happen and what are they going to do with it? and of course everybody that understood what was going on

knew what they were going to do that, but they come as richard vindicate, went to the floor of i think the house chamber, i can't remember which chamber did it and argue this is necessary for all of the health benefits everybody supports. you know, trying to prevent aids and cancer and diabetes and everything else. but then they then used that to impose with the tried to impose going back a couple decades and had been unsuccessful on the contraceptive mandate and so sure, i think strong language is needed here, and i would tend to agree with your point of view. >> the gentleman here in the glasses.

>> thank you for coming. my question goes back to the subsidiary and the broad problem of the intervention in the society and the economy. so we see the problems that have come now just the sweeting laws from congress whether they be the congress forcing people to do things that are not that they are morally opposed to or whether it is crowding out the social institutions, the different groups to provide services, why does the catholic church, why would they ever support anything like bill laws that come from congress like no matter what it may be. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> we did not in the and support the health care. what we said in the whole process was we wanted a way for congress to move forward making

a dent in the tens of thousands of americans who don't have basic health insurance now. we are not saying you should do single-payer, we are not saying you should do big government, we are saying we want to see that goal and these other principals respected as well. the bishops' first cannot in favor of everyone in america having basic health coverage in 1919 the statement on the social reconstruction right after world war i and so we've sort of given the subsidiary 95 years or so and yet the number of uninsured keeps going up so if congress wanted to take a shot at it was no catholic teaching that said they can't try to do it only one of those principles of held. in terms of big government being inherently bad on these things i think what matters more is what principles the government is

acting on what it's trying to do because i've said to some of my more conservative friends if you want to find a health plan that doesn't have abortion today where are you going to find out side of the catholic church and the answer is from the federal government because of the work that many and others have done. medicaid, medicare, federal employees commercial funds of internals program. they all have almost all abortions eliminated. where do you find a plan that has abortions and you can't get rid of it? that in private health plans because most unfortunately over the private health care companies think abortion is a big cost saver. fewer mouths to feed. so, i'm not against free market capitalism by and large. i think you'll find questions of human life that has its own dangers. but in the health care reform debate the church is more to say we are not going to take sides on this liberal conservative thing about the role of

government. we are going to say here's what we think needs to be done. you work this out and we are going to tell you if you are doing something that is really wrong and we did. >> my question is for mr. duncan. the article of the u.s. declaration of human rights reads everyone has the right to the religion and goes on to elaborate. i'm curious to what extent that language applies to this case here given that we are as signatories of the human declaration. >> that's an interesting question. i'm not sure i can give you a good answer to that right now. certainly the origin was the product of greek catholic

thinkers, and i think the notion that -- and a little skeptical of the idea that you may be doubled to find some protection these days in those kinds of formulations but we are grateful that the formulation there we are grateful it has freedom of religion and not something like freedom of worship which i might add this administration has taken. we find more comfort in looking to the concrete guarantees than our own constitution and i might add to that that when we are protecting the freedom of religion we are not merely protecting sort of the rights of individuals to believe whatever they want to believe in the splendid isolation we are protecting the rights of officials and groups to act as a

buffer against overreaching government, and as some part of civil society that does not involve the state. sometimes i think the administration is acting on the promise there is no civil society in this country that doesn't involve the state which is frightening, a frightening thought. so, that is about as good an answer as i can give. >> thank you, all country much for doing this. barney frank, congressman barney frank i think said recently that government is the name we give things we do in, and as a people, and it speaks to the article regarding all social institutions. so the point is well taken. i'm a graduate student so this is a two-part question. [laughter]

but first, these four points he mentioned, what we are cleared for both in the houses of worship and that sort of thing, those are in oh-la-la itself or or those in the findings coming out of hhs, a sort of post legislature is that in the law? >> the interim final rule. >> so they are not of the law itself they are the findings. islamic the idea that contraceptive contraception is not in the law itself in the statute the are delegated to defining those to the hhs. >> which means these things have challenged and don't have to go up against the constitution they can go up against other federal laws. >> they could violate the federal law and they do have the force of law so they have to comply with the constitution so they are vulnerable to the constitution as if they were passed through the legislation.

>> i guess what i am thinking of is what you are saying about these issues going beyond. i was listening to the memoirs of some of the people of the time when he was under assault, the church was under assault and the archbishop was dealing with that and he refused to let it become simply an issue of the catholic church and said this is a crisis for man and it's not a crisis for the church how do we deal when we are framing this as a practical and a legal matter how do we go forward for the crisis of man, not just of the church, but also with an honor to be an eminently practical because it is very serious we are here because this is a very real practical implication for all of us in the near future. >> i would say first i think the

second part of a two-part question and an excellent one, it is incumbent upon the leadership, people in the position of the leadership that is in congress and institutions around the country and the bishop's conference and other places that are weighing in on this question to try to make sure that it becomes a more fundamental discussion and debate not just around cutting a deal with david axelrod, but it's really a question of something of enduring value, something that would protect and not allow it to happen again. and coming in a gun at a minimum that is likely to require statute. but, you know, how that all comes about, i'm not quite sure. >> we think it might require some lawsuits. [laughter] and perhaps more. exactly. it's not -- it's not really a

question of religion. it is a question of liberty. an atheist should be as troubled about this as catholic. if they can do this to the catholics and the evangelicals and whatever other of religion would object to these which are many which is why we have the evangelicals as well, what are they going to do to the acs next and to the secular humanists, it is a question of liberty and fundamental overreach and everyone has a conscience. everyone has a place in their inner self that the government ought not to be able to intrude. and here we have exactly the opposite of that. so it is the question of liberty and not really primarily the question of religion. >> if i may just make one addition to that, the legislation that we've been supporting with respect to the rights of the conscience that this is also true of cementer

rubio's bill that more narrowly focused on this mandate. both say the government should not be requiring people to offer, provide or purchase coverage that they have a moral or religious objection to whether they are an institution or an individual, and so, it is framed in terms of the freedom of conscience of all, but for an organizational individual, and it's funny that white argued on the issue of the conscience and congress before, sometimes what comes back at me is i think individuals have a conscience but i'm not so sure in organization does. and if it is a catholic, as i can usually see to them, you and i go to church every sunday. and say let's not on our sins but on the face of your church, don't we? isn't the faith something that belongs to our community first

and that is how we guarantee our individual faith is that we have an institution that is answerable to god and tells us, diane pessin at face? but now we have this odd thing that is saying maybe we can figure out a way to broaden this thing about the religious and employer and leave people out in the cold unless they are able to flock to the catholic church and start working for us, which would be nice in one way but we can't pay the salary. so, it is a broader question that just religious institutions and it's not a matter of saying it's an individual objects to this one thing in the health care health insurance company has to accommodate. that isn't true now but we have the freedom especially if we can gather together in the groups to increase our clout we can go out and negotiate for a health plan that meets our needs and the

government isn't putting its thumb on the scale and saying whenever you go to a health plan say i want this kind of coverage and not that, the government says the answer has to be no. so all we are asking for is to make the freedoms people have always had come and that hasn't always been a world of chaos. i have not heard about the health care system breaking down because people have the freedom in the absence of the federal law saying anything to the contrary that people now have the freedom to negotiate a plan they like. for moral reasons or anything else, and i keep getting reminded the president and various others have said on this act if you like the plan have now, you get to keep it. it turns out that expires a year from now. [laughter] >> i guess you have to read the bill in order to know what is in it or vote for it. what was on capitol hill that was so convoluted.

we've only been enlightening the this discussion, and i'd like to find out what he would like the average catholic to do to advocate on behalf of our objections to this and what would you recommend the we do? >> i did not find this question in the audience. [laughter] but we have -- the bishop's conference has a website and we have this web of the tissue called usccb.org/conscience that has a lot more material on this issue, stephen. and among other things it enables you to write an e-mail message to your elected representatives, your senators and representatives urging them to support legislation to fix this centered on of respect for the act, and right now that has i think over 150 sponsors in the house and 28 in the senate including a number of democrats.

and i think also just there's been enormous public debate about this and i would be very gratified to see the opposite in the columns, the blogs. they participate. one thing that is missing here is the narrative planned parenthood wants to prevent is we have to balance out of religious views and certain organizations against the needs of women. if there are women who do not want the mandated coverage and like the fact that you can have a health care plan that is an accord the church's teaching, the need to be heard most of all because there are women out there and man who are claiming to speak for all that and say what women need is this and it's just these guys who are saying they can't have it. >> this woman here.

estimate just picking up on what you said this is more of a comment than a question. one from this morning naturally one of the news shows had surveyed catholic women and came up with i forget i think it is either 58% of catholic women used artificial contraception and are in favor of that. what are the actual statistics? because that is something there was obviously being put out there has to support planned parenthood's argument. >> there's been a lot of polling. the claim is the women are using contraceptives about the same percentages as other people. and whenever you poll the community of course you are pulling people not all different stages of commitments or not so strong commitment to the church's teachings and we understand that is true and i also understand that the church

is teaching on this and it's something that has not been explained and projected to as much over the decades as it should have been and it might have been making some improvements on that. we've got some educational materials in the conference now trying to but the reality is if a woman, a catholic or not, once worth control coverage -- wants birth control coverage can't turn over a rock without turning it. if they think it saves them money the question is whether do would be able to find anything else. whether you will be able to find if you are a catholic woman who wants to follow the catholic teaching or somebody that wants to live a holistic lifestyle the

prospectus women's health and doesn't try to change with a lot of hormones or whatever your motivation. whether you will be able to find anything different. >> if i might for a second, you know it doesn't just speak to the larger issue about the religious practice and liberty. we are taught to think that religion is supposed to be constraining and stifling. and now we find that when people in a certain religion and in this case the catholic religion they are not practicing as robust as perhaps they ought to be then we find the take their freedom away altogether and in some cases suddenly it seems they don't know. >> one other comment and that is that the latest poll that i've seen by rastus and which came out this morning is that they were not pulling the americans general likely voters. there was a plurality maybe they had some political view in mind.

i think it was 46% against the mandate overall and 43% in favor of it and when you ask them whether the mandate should be applied to the religious organizations that have an objection it's 50% against the 49% in favor of the mandate. i've seen some polls before that that seem to be the of the way, so it may be that the american people in general are getting informed on this and realizing there is something more at stake than just what the people have birth control when they want. spectrum of fraiman this as a birth control issue this isn't a birth control issue. it's a very sexy way of dealing with it and the press love to eat that up but when you explain to people this is cohesion, this is something that's never happened before in our country,

i think that's -- the other point is do you feel that the archbishop was asleep on the job and that we asked for this, that we didn't pay attention, we thought we should get something free and not pay for it, in bed with obama and not have to pay for that? do you feel now that you're paying for these naivety? >> recently i was looking at the series of the letters to congress and the press release about it during the whole health care debate. we were raising this constantly. in fact one of our letters we laid out exactly the scenario that and what happened later so this preventive services thing can be a framework for creating a nationwide cultures of the mandate if they do there's nothing here about the right of religious freedom. so i do think there was a problem they were not being listened to, and frankly by

others in the catholic community that said that's not going to happen. we don't like the health care bill. you are making things up to date and now we find that scenario was a real one. i do think also that because of the battle about abortion funding in the bill which ultimately got settled in a way that we find very unsatisfactory and we still have to fix that, that sort of took all the oxygen out of the air on of these issues and when you try to say there is no protection on things beyond abortion like the sterilization contraception, people say come on i'm already getting ripped up about abortion. so there wasn't much political will and i don't think the members of congress either realized what an enormous issue this would become duraid >> well, i mean, i agree very much with what richard said, but

seems like the idea that you could a member of congress and say i'm exhausted. i can't fix this other problem. shows you the nature of what was going on in 2009 and 2010. this bill is massive. it's not the end of its. they've been delegated huge amounts of of authority and it isn't out of the question that they will use it in all kinds of other pernicious ways. and i'm quite sure they will. and so, you know, just looking at the breadth of the legislation i do quibble a little bit with richard about the history of the subsidiary in which been debated and how we end up where we are. i do think greece and italy have centralized health systems. they are not doing so well right now. succumbing to know, there are lots of questions at stake in the health care law. we don't even get into a big debate about that. but bob brett of the delegation of the authority that went on in

the health care law in the federal government is beyond anything that has been done in 50 years. and i'm not just talking about this particular commitment to its massive delegation authority and obviously people can differ on the question of the subsidiary, but i really question whether most people when they know what is really in there wouldn't come down and say the second. we really want the federal government especially the department of health and human services, which i worked in the federal government. they are great people. they are not motivated within very much a secular organization to these questions. it doesn't come up with these kind of sentiments that we are discussing today really just doesn't enter most of their minds. and so you are going to be fighting an uphill battle from day one when you delegated this much authority to them. >> just a question in the back. >> both lots of charles taylor's

wonderful award winning book as the secular age when she says in putting the united states people believe in god so i ask this question does this mandate post less the following reality for the question on the table are we a culture of belief or on believe? i ask that in particular because if you are a culture of believe governed by the hon believers, religion doesn't matter and the conscientious objection based on the religion matters less. that's my view. i would like to see if there is any reaction. >> there are certain cultures in which some christians or jews have to pay the tax to practice their faith, and now we seem to be moving towards a system where if you want to be robust the catholic, pay a fine. if you would be counter cultural in your belief on the more of your july, pay the fine. i don't know if that describes a secular age but it sounds like a

pretty frightening regime to live under. >> i don't know if it is between before on believe but i think it is a very specific and very narrow view of the role of religion in society and the position which i think has been swallowed pretty much by people who are in charge of these things in this administration if your religious that is fine and dandy, stay in your church. if you go out into the public square then you have to play by the secular rules and the turn out to be the people made by those who lead the opposite of what you believe. and if you want to take part in any public program or serve the poor using federal funds or get involved in public works serving the common good you have to set your religion aside at the door and come and pretend at least to believe as the atheists do and i

don't think that is a vision of america that the founding fathers had tall but it is increasingly the secular world view that is encroaching on our ability. >> i just saw for a follow-up my curiosity led me to look at the selection of nazi germany in the early 30's and one of the first acts passed that prohibited the jewish doctors from participating in health insurance plans and the other thing, the very second thing which isn't on the legislative history of nazi germany is to say that the jewish doctors can only serve jewish tensions and was designed to sequester and will allow perhaps on the basis of the religion the participation of jews and the culture of germany this in some ways reminds me of that. >> one more question. yes, sir. >> to the woman over here to get

involved. certainly the twitter of messages, facebook posts and the like is great. there are wonderful avenues. what would be may be some value in the on the ground protests from hhs crack the ? do they just need to get involved or what are some strategies, other strategies to encourage? stand you can certainly go to our website. [laughter] and you can sign a petition we have. we have our own form of occupied protests or we occupy court rooms and hope to occupy more of those. we are and not for profit think tank, so we are doing more on the study of thinking and writing than we are on the down on the street side, but i do

think that the catholic community has gotten lots of messages from the bishops of the last two weeks, that there's lots of energy to protest this and how it's going to be directed in the most effective way i'm not quite sure, but i know just from the energy that i see from people going on that it can be directed and i'm quite sure it will be at some point. >> there is actively ten or 15 people tonight who are going after this. [applause] a great start to discussing but it's just an extended. >> thank you. now we're going to turn back

over to marry. >> callie i would like to thank those that held for the event. the director of the cic complex, sarah, i would like to think c-span and the amazing crew for being here and our moderator and panelists and i would like to thank richard for coming, james capretta, ryan for moderating and i would like to thank the fund for participating in this event, and to thank all of you for coming. and joining as a catholic information center here in downtown d.c. to join us for our discussion contesting the hhs mandate. again, for more information of catholic information center or to donate to programs like these, visit our web site, cicbc.org. thank you all and please join me and thinking our panelists. [applause]

now, the marks from the house speaker john boehner at his weekly news briefing to the he talks about the birth control provision that requires employers come including religious ones, to pay for contraceptives for health insurance plans. speaker boehner also discusses the congressional stock trading bill and the payroll tax cut extension. this is 15 minutes. >> good morning everyone. as middle class families in small businesses continue to struggle in this economy republicans continue to focus on the number one issue in the country, and that's jobs.

the house has passed nearly 40 bipartisan bills sitting over the united states senate. with lower gas prices, reduced regulations on job creators and encourage more small business job creation. many of these bills are increased by the president's own a job as counsel, and the president has actually made it clear that he is in favor of the handful of these bills. the obama administration told us the president's stimulus plan were passed on employment would be at 6% today. it's certainly fair to ask is the president want to accomplish anything this year time is running short on the payroll issue as an example. house republicans would be asked to do. the full extension of the tax credit, unemployment benefits, fully paid for as the president said that there must be read the president and the senate

democrat leaders will not allow other countries to support a reasonable bipartisan agreement on spending cuts. worse, they've refused to allow any alternatives at all except for joe killing small business tax hikes that they know can't pass the senate much less pass the house. the president wants to get this done he needs to let german bachus and the democratic conferees do their work. right now the only ones blocking the agreement or the senate democrats and the president it's time for them to act. the house will soon vote on the american energy infrastructure jobs act, the next piece of the plan for the job creators by breaking down the government barriers to the domestic energy production it will ease the rising gas prices and create up to a million new jobs. bye reforming the way the dollars are spent it will ensure that we have reliable infrastructure in our country

which is critical to the critical for the job growth in the future. the american energy and infrastructure jobs that will be the first highway infrastructure bill ever supported. in the past highway bills represented everything that was wrong with washington. earmarks, endless layers of bureaucracy, wasted tax dollars and misplaced priorities. this bill -- the last time congress passed a highway bill it at 6,300 plus earmarks. this bill will have none. the bill represents not only a 180-degree turn from the failed stimulus proposal to president obama, but also a genuine departure from the way washington has to benet using the taxpayers' dollars for years. lastly, the american people have

every right to expect the highest ethical standards from their elected leaders. the stock act which was approved by the senate last week has been strengthened and expanded in the house. i think the majority leader has done a good job of shepherding the bill through the process, and i look forward to the bill becoming law soon. >> [inaudible] >> i know that the what has been having listening sessions for the members come and as i understand, they've had good conversations. in terms of helping people understand how much different this bill is from what we've seen in the past.

>> [inaudible] >> we have been concerned for some time about the number of former detainee is that have been released, and the fact they continue to shore up and pretty large numbers back on the battlefield. this is the basis of our concerns. i understand that there's a great deal of discussion about any more detainees being released, especially those from afghanistan and pakistan with potential talks that may occur. i think we are going to continue to monitor this and we have great reservations about releasing detainees because the clear evidence on the

battlefield. i think i will pause here and the majority leader was detained on the floor, so i will let him. >> i think that is a polite way of putting it. thank you, mr. speaker. i think we saw today on the floor what the two sides can do if they are willing to work together. the overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 417 votes for the stock act demonstrate that i think all of us recognize we have some work to do to restore the bond of trust in the public. i reached out and i've been talking with the representative who's been actively engaged in this issue since he came to congress. he and i have agreed to stay in touch and monitor this issue and to continue to work together. again, it said shows what we can do when we want to put our minds to it and work together in a bipartisan way. i also think the vote on the stock act for under the 17

members put some pressure on the senate to go ahead and take up our bill as well it sends a signal to the white house that they should go ahead and accept the provisions which expand the requirement to the members, individuals and the exit of branch. i also think what this says, mr. speaker, i know you probably talked about the health of the extension that we can work together if there is a welcome and hopefully we will be able to do that and resolve the question that lingers in the mind of the working people in the country and make sure they know their taxes are not going to go up. >> [inaudible] >> think of the word political intelligence. there's so much question about that even means. and there's a lot of discussion

in this building and elsewhere about what is the consequence of that provision. are there constitutional questions, does it bring into question the ability for constituents to come up to less, asked us the status of a particular piece of legislation, does it put the individual in the position of having to then go register just as a citizen interested to know how to live his or her life so that's why we chose the route we did in the bill to call for a study let's look at the issues involved in this and understand exactly what's behind it and then i would say something even more. this was a bill about ensuring that we abide by the trust and the people that sent us here. it was about making sure that there was no perception or reality as far as members of congress or those in washington the ability to use nonpublic information for personal profit. that was the substitutive the bill.

this question that senator grassley raised is outside of what we do and who we are and that was the important with i think the bipartisan consensus was to make sure that we stand up and abide by the trust. >> it has to do with of the perception and then the possibility that there would be an opportunity for anyone to to get vantage of nonpublic information. that was the purpose of this bill. it was dealing with the perception, and if there was any chance of fact of using non-public information for personal profit, we were not going to allow it and that is what has produced the coming together to require disclosure upon transacting. >> [inaudible]

>> you know, i think there was a lot of input. again i indicated we had been working with mr. walsh and working with many members about the concerns on this issue. and we thought it was very important for us to act with dispatch on this very straightforward issue. the issue is are members of congress going to be willing to be transparent in their actions as far as trading stock is concerned? because we are privy to the nonpublic information at times in the same way that members and individuals and expected french. so we went and moved with dispatch and i think accomplished the goal given the fact there wasn't a lot of objection on the other side of the aisle the way this bill came forward. >> [inaudible] are you open to that possibility?

>> i think it needs to pass the straight face test, and the fact is we are going to spend less in our efforts in afghanistan and iraq. to use those funds to those savings to propel more spending doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense to me. ..

i don't guide everything that goes on every community every day or for that matter what happens on the floor every day. and so, the committees have produced a bill. there are concerns about it. that is why we have a floor process that i expect will be more open them up we have even passed on a bill like this. [inaudible] >> chairman apted and, over at the energy and commerce committee will take the lead on this. i have full confidence that the committee will do this. in a deliberate, bipartisan fashion. and so, it will be up to the chairman to make those decisions. [inaudible]

>> appoint conferees between the house and senate to resolve these interested. but they need to get moving. this all needs to happen. i will not create artificial for me or you appear to have been there, done that. not doing it again. the sooner the better. you all know that i have kept myself out of this presidential race now for over a year. it is not my job to decide who the nominee is going to be. people show up in primaries run this country. were they to make that decision.

rick santorum and i came to congress together in 1990. we worked together. we are great friends and i am not endorsing him. i am not endorsing me a ticket for an avenue to increase. massacred in common that romney or the guy worked with for 18 years, ron paul. american people get to decide. [inaudible] when it comes to the issue of religious freedom, the line is pretty quick. our country has upheld the issue since our founding. i think the house is going to work. again, through the regular order with real deliberation about how we protect the religious freedom of the american people.

that is the issue. we are keenly focused on that. [inaudible] >> i don't know the particulars of the deal, but clearly if there was wrong doing done by some of these mortgage lenders, they should be held accountable. thank you. >> now we hear from house minority leader, nancy pelosi and budget committee ranking member, chris van hollen.

they announced the reintroduction of the disclose facts, shall allows unlimited contributions to political campaigns. they also discussed payroll tax cut negotiations and birth-control coverage and health care insurance. the new spree freeness about 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm very honored to be standing here this afternoon with three leaders in the congress. congressman chris van hollen, congressman steve israel and congressmen ellison for minnesota. we are here to type about the disclosed that. democrats, as the network committed to be making the american dream. this opportunity for all americans to place by the rules, work hard and take responsibility. we believe that can only happen for them or they have fairness and opportunity in our society

and economy that their fairness and political system. the disclosed that career years to talk about today is sponsored by congressman dan holland that began when i thank him for his leadership is to go a long way and he recorded a provision for disclosing just that. we want to know where the secret substantial money is coming from in the campaigns. it is part of the reform initiative to disclose and we will in the election. when we do, reform the system and at the same time and then the comp dictation so the role of money is greatly diminished. it is an important contribution we have to make for the future of our country and the strait of our democracy. i honestly believe if we reform the system to diminish the role of money in the system, if we

reduce the power of money in the political system, we will increase the number of women and minorities who appeal at the tip of office. my experience is one straight to encourage more participation if people say, how would i ever raise the money? that shouldn't be the reason why people run or do not run for public office. nothing is more wholesome to the political system and our system of government and increase participation among minorities in our system. and so again, we think the first step in all of this is to disclose the act, to put it out there who probably may not have the votes to pass it, i hope we do. we pass defender chris van hollen leadership that failed by one vote in the senate. he did not succeed because they didn't have 60 democrats. if we think about this to the

public and mr. allison is going to address that, we believe the pressure will be on even without a law because shareholders, employee customers will want to know what the political contributions are to compare. i yield the floor to the distinguished element for maryland the ranking democrat on the budget committee. he serves on the conference for the federal tax cut and he is the author of the disclosed that from the previous conference and has reintroduced it today. >> thank you, leader pelosi and thank you for your leadership on the disclosed that as well as making sure the american people get a fair shake and i am pleased to be here with my colleagues, mr. israel and mr. allison. we are announcing the disclosed that today.

the american people deserve a political system that is fair, transparent and accountable and the political system is fair, transparent and accountable, we believe that will result in policies that are fair to the american people. and instead of the union address as we've said repeatedly, the american people deserve a fair shake. everybody deserves the same fair shake, the same shock and opportunity in this country. entity that, we should have a political system that responds to their needs, not to through his bank rolling various campaigns. and so what this says is let's get rid of secret money and american politics. let's make sure that when people contribute to these outside groups that we are seeing, whether they contribute is their corporations or other entities, whoever they may be, that they may disclose who they are. they have to report who the

contributors are. the american people have a right to know who's bankrolling television acts. so that is one thing it does. another thing it does is require the people stand by their ads. people are familiar and members of congress run tv ads, they say i approve this ad. this simply requires these outside groups to take responsibility for the add that they are running and it requires them to identify and writing the top five contributors to the sides. who is paying the cost? who is footing the bill for those at better being run? it also requires that corporations and from their shareholders. by the investments they are making in political campaigns. if their corporations are spending money to run tv ads, then they should be informing their shareholders that that fact and it requires lobbyists.

also to report their campaign contributions because these days you can make secret campaign contributions and we believe those folks being paid to try and influence the lawmaking process should also have to disclose their efforts to pay for campaign that to help elect the very people that may turn around and try and lobby. so the focus is on making sure the american people know who is spending these campaign ads but the ultimate purpose being to create a legislative process, where people have a fair shake. we are going to be asking -- we'll ask our members to sign a discharge petition. we think we should bring this bill to the floor, well over 80% of the american people, probably higher.

believe the united citizens is a bad decision for our democracy and people overwhelmingly support the idea of getting rid of the secret money in politics. at the very least, asking people to disclose who is finance and these campaigns, who is financing these political advertisements. and so that is what the bill does get the message is as simple as the title. disclose you should have nothing to fear unless you've got something to hide. and we are just saying in the simple message we want people to disclose the source at the contributions behind these tv ads that are seeking influence in the process. so with that, let me introduce my friend and colleague, steve israel who has worked on many different reform issues since he has been here and we are pleased to have him supporting this effort.

>> gangster image to my colleague, chris van hollen. this is kind of a hostile exchange program. and leader pelosi -- and going to be very, very brief. in 2010 about one third of all so-called independent expenditures came from secret sources. they went so independent. they were based on profit motive. they were secret, unfair, an assault on the middle class. vote, you can run for office, but she cannot hide behind your secret donors. it's just that simple. it is taking an absolute evening. part of that is because special interests and corporate front groups have been assaulting the middle class simply in order to protect their rights, their right to price gouge and race to

practice. we also believe there should be honesty and transparency in our elections. that's what the election is all about. it requires accountability. accountability requires transparency and transparency requires the disclose that. we are going to hold accountable every single republican who ran for office, promising to reform the system and when it comes time to standing up with constituents for accountability in its stead stands up for secrecy, and flesh donations, we hold them accountable for that. this will be one of the hallmark moments. this will be the dividing line between those who believe in reform, transparency to protect the powerful in order to advance their own special interests. we will hold them accountable.

i can't think of many of our colleagues who have been fighting as relentlessly as keith ellison who have presented the working class. >> will talk about the occupied movement or anybody in between. americans are solid and that is they should have transparency in government. manipulating outcomes is repulsive to americans and it doesn't matter what part of the political faction may come from, they are upset about it here because they have engaged in true partnership with them to pass the disclose that as the first step. we need citizen sponsors. citizen sponsors sign up and say we went to cosponsor this bill. citizens put my name down there for close that. put a name down there for

transparency. we also want to call and friends to our municipal leaders. they are calling on congress to make sure their disclosure. the city of new york, los angeles. duluth minnesota and many others across the resolution saying that any disclosure, we need to get me out. we call upon citizens. people often ask what can i do? will vote we can do is have people sign up and place their name on the side of disclosure working with people and local communities or whoever believes we should have transparency in government and honesty about the voice of people prevail so we can embark in a massive organizing effort to make sure we can get the one behind the sales down the road. thank you very much.

>> any questions? yes, sir. [inaudible] >> absolutely. and the president made a decision, which i think was the lifeline that he was not going to blithely decide and lead the field to decide it would be president of the united states in congress. and his commitment was and his commitment was timing could not was timing could not be better because it affords us the opportunity to say to you that the democrats in their fundraising will be disclosing. and by the way, we asked people to contribute to as that they want to let more reform to congress so they can do a super pats, contribution, reform the

system, amend the constitution to overturn the citizens united decision. yes, ma'am. yes. we are limited to what we can do. we can say that it is something we would support. i can raise a thousand dollars to make donors for it. but that is not a big effort to move us along. psi will en masse majority pac like the president packed priorities u.s.a. both the old disclosure. our page is support as if you have to elect reformers to do away with this. before we go to another issue because as you can see, this is

a full-fledged effort on our part, when we've been working on for a long time and we think is fundamental to our democracy and fairness in our system and every day. i want to see if there's any other questions on this subject. >> one quick question. >> you know over many years have been debates on campaign finance reform. and the answer republicans used to always give when it came to campaign reform was leaning disclosure. we need transparency. we don't need limits. we don't need to put restrictions on getting because disclosure will take care of the problem. i'm hoping they are going to sign onto this bill because what happened two years ago was we passed out of the house says leader pelosi said. we got more than a majority vote. we have 59 votes in the senate.

every democrat in the independents voting for cloture so they could have a majority. 59 votes obviously wasn't enough. in fact if they had been forecasting senator kennedy, the disclose that could be the law of the land. we would've had 60 votes, would've passed the disclose that. but now we are in a situation where republicans having fed for years and years without disclosure, they want secrecy. they want to hide the ball. they don't want the american people to know who is funding these outside groups that support their efforts. we'll be safe everyone should have to disclose. whether you are -- regardless of what issues support, what candidate you support, the american people have a right to know when we think that is a very simple idea, but also very powerful idea and as keith ellison said, we think the american people will respond very strongly to that call and

we hope the republican colleagues will listen to them. >> well, i think the public visibility of the issue is president lincoln said public sentiment is every name. and to the extent as mr. allison said, responding to the need for this in the urgent the people see for reaching out to letters to build a drumbeat across america that it can do better, we can have this disclosure, you'll never know what actions republican congress might take. i'm not overwhelmingly optimistic because the lack of transparency and accountability has served them well. but we just had to make sure they know that the public is aware of what is happening there as well as republicans. the lack of transparency and accountability that exist here

is to the well-being of the american people. most people think one place they center on is the tax code and the reason the tax code isn't there and why the wealthiest people get a tax break for the middle class pays the price is because special interests play in washington d.c. on the tax code and we are saying okay, but beware that when he is coming a wide and now let us simplify and make for a tax codes. for one example of how this issue is related to fairness in our society and the well-being of the american people. and if we go to another subject. are you still in this? >> thank you. [inaudible]

>> work, and am a big baseball fan. i've never been to a baseball game ever once i was told you don't get that. he's going to compete fairly and effectively an escalator said, nobody should expect this president to see the election to karl rove in a coat or others. we believe that contribution should be disclosed. we believe in transparency, honesty and we will compete based on those standards. this is a moment of truth for the truth and campaign. >> and i agree and i'm glad that the president a courageous stand that he did because the fact is you never know what is next with these guys. they will come up with some other way to channel hundreds of millions of dollars. small price for them to pay out of their massive fortune. does the price of doing business for them to reap the benefits of

policies counter to the middle class into their benefits. okay, thank you for your interest in the disclose that. [inaudible] >> i certainly do support the president's decision. just for a little history as you may know and remember the affordable care act, a debate and decisions made there, a wafer was given to catholic church is not to have to include coverage for contraception for their employees directly, those working for catholic churches. now there is a move for sun to expand at two universities and hospitals and deep they have these instead want this to apply

to all employers. not just catholic employers, to all employers. this is about women's health. there is one thing that is a priority for the women in congress, many of the catholic women in congress, the health of american women. this is about the privacy to determine whether they want to use contraception to determine the size and timing of their having children and their families. this is an issue, 98% of cat hls to use contraception, overwhelming numbers of people as they support the president's decision, including or at least you'll tell us the majority of catholics. so i supported and if it comes to the floor, we will use this as a welcoming day to talk about the important of women's health. it is not just about winning. it's about their children and

the health of their families if they make a huge decision and use contraception to determine as i said the size and timing of this. so that will be a debate we welcome. it is a sad one. we shouldn't have to be a place for us people are saying when the overwhelming practices governing favor of women's health we want to pull that back. and you said it excuse of religious freedom, which of course it is not. i think we are here next. [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> thank you, not an later. let me stare but just a fundamental inconsistency in the position republicans have. they have a double standard. the first thing they did when they became the majority party in the house of representatives was to pass a rule, saying that when it comes to providing tax cut for millionaires and the wealthiest, you don't have to pay for it. you're going to put that on the national credit card. putting on the deficit. they put that in their rule. that will amount to about a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. now they say when it comes to a temporary ten-month extension of a payroll tax cut, but then if

it's it's not the very wealthy, the benefits 160 million working americans, that we have to offset that by making cuts in other areas that are going to hurt the middle class. you've heard them. they talk about increasing medicare premiums. so our view is if we are going to talk about offsetting the costs. and that is fine, you need to look at areas that don't hurt the middle class. and that is why we have proposed the surcharge on millionaires. i was a proposal put forward by the democrats in the senate. it has supported overwhelmingly by the american people. as you indicated. so if republicans are going to change the rules of the game and say okay, for a payroll tax cut for 150 million you have to have off sets. the argue as well, let's not take it out of the middle class. if they want to look at some other proposals, like any

feminist subsidies on gas industries, as revenue sources, fine. we have had a proposal out there. and we think it is the right way to go. [inaudible] >> as you know, what we are trying to do is move this process forward. i just want to remind everyone the president of the united states was before the congress last september proposing an extension to unemployment insurance, a way to deal with the nearest sewer and medicare to make sure their providers,.tours. we should have gotten this done a long tie