Showing posts with label Thomas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas. Show all posts

Monday, July 29, 2013

Cal Thomas Column: Contraception Mandate Is Wrong Because Government Shouldn't Define What Is and Isn't a Church

Cal Thomas's picture

Under pressure from religious and conservative groups, the Obama administration has offered another compromise on the issue of birth control coverage within the Affordable Care Act. While exempting churches and some religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, from supplying the coverage, the new proposal calls for their employees to receive stand-alone private insurance policies providing birth control coverage at no cost. Insurance companies will foot the bill, but only the naive can possibly think the cost won't find its way back to the institution in the form of higher health premiums.

Numerous lawsuits filed against this and other portions of "Obamacare" will proceed and for good reason: the federal government seems intent on setting rules on matters of conscience and worse, defining what constitutes a church, or religious institution.

One of the litigants is Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, whose CEO, David Green, is an evangelical Christian. Green says, "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate." That mandate includes, in addition to contraceptive coverage in employees' health care, "preventive services," including "morning-after" pills and other drugs, which Green considers abortifacients. After Hobby Lobby's appeal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor was rejected, the Christian Post reports the company then made plans to "...shift the beginning of its employee health plan to temporarily avoid $1.3 million a day in fines for each day since Jan. 1 that it did not comply with the Affordable Care Act." (According to the new health care law, businesses with more than 50 employees that refuse to comply can be fined by the IRS $100 per day per employee.) Hobby Lobby's appeals continue.

The core issue as I see it -- and there are others -- is whether the government has the right to define a church as a building in which people congregate on Sundays and whether a private company headed by a religious person qualifies for conscience exemptions. For government to decide such things violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and appears to put the state in the position of supreme authority and arbiter of what constitutes "legitimate" religious faith and practice. The Supreme Court will likely have to resolve its constitutionality.

Permit me to offer the justices some assistance.

The early church was not a building with a towering steeple. The early church met in homes. If one accepts New Testament teaching (and what higher authority on the church could there be?), the concept of the church being an organism that resides in each individual believer is clearly spelled out in several passages.

Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to the Colossians (1:24) about the "body" of Jesus Christ, "which is the church." By this, he means the "body of believers" in whom Christ dwells. Wherever that body is, whether an individual, or a group of believers, that's the church. It was only later that this concept of church was turned into something with expensive buildings, tax exemptions and denominations.

The same theme can be found in Revelation where John is asked by Jesus to write letters to several churches. Those, too, were bodies of believers, not physical structures.

In the Old Testament, God told Solomon that while He was too big to live in buildings, He would "dwell" in the Temple Solomon built for Him. Ultimately, though, He said He had other intentions: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." (Jeremiah 31:33)

That was and remains for believers the authentic church, so when people say, "I am going to church," it is an impossibility because they can't go to themselves.

The administration's efforts to effectively gerrymander lines between what it considers legitimate religious practice and the secular is what the Founders hoped to avoid when they linked the establishment clause with the free exercise clause.

That is why, among other reasons, government should not mandate birth control coverage as part of any national health care plan.

(Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.)


View the original article here

Friday, July 12, 2013

Statement by the President on Mayor Thomas M. Menino

Statement by the President on Mayor Thomas M. Menino | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama The White House Emblem Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

2012: A Year in Photos

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

President Obama greets White House visitors

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Now Is The Time

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

Immigration Reform

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

We the People

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden Being Biden Audio Series First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Download our mobile appsEaster Egg Roll

Be Healthy, Be Active, Be You: April 1, 2013

White House Easter Egg Roll Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh HomeBriefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 28, 2013 Statement by the President on Mayor Thomas M. Menino

Boston is the vibrant, welcoming, and world-class city it is today because of Tom Menino.  For more than two decades, Mayor Menino has served the city and every one of its residents with extraordinary leadership, vision, and compassion.  His efforts to revitalize neighborhoods, schools, and businesses, better integrate police officers into their communities and reduce gun violence, reach out to the homeless and marginalized, and engage young people in the life of their city has charted Boston on a course for a better future.  No two people wear their hearts on their sleeve for the City of Boston and its people as openly as Tom and Angela Menino.  And as they depart City Hall next year, Boston will be a better place to live, work and raise a family because of the Meninos’ proud service to the city they love.

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

Blog posts on this issue March 29, 2013 5:47 PM EDTWeekly Wrap Up: ‘The Promise of America”

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

March 29, 2013 4:11 PM EDTIn Miami, President Obama Talks About his Plan to Put People to Work Rebuilding America

Despite strong efforts to fix our broken national infrastructure over the past four years, much work needs to be done if we are to prove to the world that there is no better place to do business than in the United States.

March 29, 2013 3:02 PM EDTOpen Government: A Time for Self-Assessment

The Obama Administration has harnessed new technology to engage the public, worked to disclose information more quickly, and given citizens a greater voice in decision-making. There is more work to do, and we remain committed to continuing this in the second term.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources The White House Emblem En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Remarks by the President Announcing the Nomination of Thomas Perez for Secretary of Labor

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

East Room

11:47 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Everybody have a seat.  Have a seat.  As I’ve said before, my top priority as President is doing everything we need to do to make sure that we’re growing our economy and that we’re strengthening our middle class.  And as I said in my State of the Union address last month, every day we should be asking ourselves three questions.  One -- how do we make sure America is a magnet for good jobs?  Number two -- how do we equip people with the skills they need to get those jobs?  And number three -- how do we make sure that hard work actually pays off in a decent living?

These are the challenges that I’ve instructed my team here at the White House and in my entire Cabinet to focus on.  And a position that’s instrumental to tackling these challenges is having an outstanding Secretary of Labor.

So I want to begin by thanking Hilda Solis and her entire team -- (applause) -- including Acting Secretary Seth Harris -- (applause) -- for the outstanding work that they’ve been doing over the past four years.  Their efforts at the Department of Labor have given more young people a chance to earn new skills, more returning vets the chance to find a job.  They’ve looked out for worker safety from construction sites to coal mines.  They’ve stood up for workers’ rights to organize, women’s rights to get paid equally for the work that they do.  They’ve done an extraordinary job fighting on behalf of working families across the board.

And today, I’m proud to nominate a leader to carry on those efforts as America’s next Secretary of Labor -- Tom Perez.  (Applause.)

Like so many Americans, Tom knows what it’s like to climb the ladder of opportunity.  He is the son of Dominican immigrants.  He helped pay his way through college as a garbage collector and working at a warehouse.  He went on to become the first lawyer in his family.  So his story reminds us of this country’s promise, that if you’re willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter who you are, where you come from, what your last name is -- you can make it if you try.

And Tom has made protecting that promise -- for everybody  -- the cause of his life.  As a civil rights attorney, an aide to Senator Ted Kennedy, a member of the Montgomery, Maryland County Council, Tom fought for a level playing field where hard work and responsibility are rewarded and working families can get ahead. 

And this is not the first time that he’s chosen to be a labor secretary, either.  We’ve got here today Governor Martin O’Malley, and Martin appointed Tom as Secretary of Maryland’s Department of Labor, where he helped implement the country’s first statewide living-wage law, because he understood that a minimum wage should be a wage that you can live on. 

In his current role as the head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Tom has fought to open pathways into the workforce for everyone willing to contribute, including people with disabilities, LGBT Americans, and immigrants.  And he has helped settle some of the largest cases ever on behalf of families targeted by unfair mortgage lending.

Now, while he’s tackled plenty of tough issues, Tom has also spent a career as a consensus-builder.  He’s worked with CEOs, he's worked with labor leaders.  He's worked at federal, state, and local government levels.  And throughout, he understands that our economy works best when the middle class and those working to get into the middle class have the security they need on the job, a democratic voice in the workplace, everybody playing by the same set of rules.

So Tom’s knowledge and experience will make him an outstanding Secretary of Labor.  And there’s plenty of work to do.  We're going to have to work very hard to make sure that folks find jobs with good wages and good benefits.  We've got to make sure that our veterans who are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan have a chance to put their incredible skills and leadership to work at home.  We need to build an immigration system that works for every employee and every family and every business.  I'm confident that Tom is going to be able to work to promote economic growth, but also make sure that that growth is broad-based.  And he's going to be an integral part of our overall economic team. 

So these are just a few of the many challenges working families out there are facing and where they need an advocate, and Tom is the right person for that job.  So I hope that the Senate will act swiftly to confirm Tom so we can work together to address all these concerns.  I want to thank not only Tom but his wonderful family for agreeing to take on this new role.  I just heard that Tom has been coaching basketball and baseball.  He doesn’t claim to be a great coach -- (laughter) -- but he brings passion to it.  He may end up missing a few of the games over the next several months, but it's going to be for a good cause.  And I appreciate his family being willing to make these sacrifices as well.

So with that, I would like to introduce my nominee to be our next Secretary of Labor, give him a chance to say a few words.  And, again, I'd urge the Senate to confirm him as quickly as possible. 

Mr. Tom Perez.  (Applause.) 

MR. PEREZ:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Thank you, Mr. President, for your confidence in me.  (Speaks in Spanish.)  It is a remarkably humbling and exciting phenomenon to be here today.

My parents taught my four siblings and me to work hard, to give back to our community, and to make sure that the ladder of opportunity was there for those coming after us.  Over my career, I’ve learned that true progress is possible if you keep an open mind, listen to all sides, and focus on results.  I look forward to taking these lessons with me, if confirmed, to my new role as Secretary of the Department of Labor. 

As you well know, our nation still faces critical economic challenges, and the Department’s mission is as important as ever.  I am confident that together with our partners in organized labor, the business community, grassroots communities, Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike, we can keep making progress for all working families. 

In the coming weeks, as the confirmation process unfolds, I look forward to meeting with senators of both parties to discuss the Labor Department’s key role -- protecting and growing the middle class.

I’ll close again, Mr. President, by thanking you once again for this tremendous opportunity.  (Speaks in Spanish.)  I look forward to this opportunity to continue serving our nation. 

Thank you so much.  (Applause.)

END 
11:55 A.M. EDT

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

Ten years after the start of the Iraq War, President Obama remains committed to our service members, military families and veterans.

The Affordable Care Act brings an end to some of the worst insurance industry practices that have kept affordable health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans, especially when they needed it most. Under the health care law, consumers can be confident that their insurance will protect them if they get sick and their families won’t be crushed by medical bills.

President Obama Hosts a Celebration of Women's History Month at the White House

The President vowed that he and his entire administration will do everything they can to ensure equality and opportunity for all women.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Top Anti-Gay Attorney Insults Chief Justice Roberts And Justice Thomas’ Decisions To Adopt Children

The "second-best option" for the Roberts children

When President Bush announced his decision to nominate future-Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court, his wife Jane stood nearby holding the hands of two beautiful children — Jack and Josie Roberts. Both of these children were born in Ireland, and later adopted by the future Chief Justice and his wife. Justice Clarence Thomas also has an adopted son, his grandnephew Mark Martin, Jr., who Thomas adopted when Martin was six.

So it is a bit hard to understand why a top anti-gay advocate decided to insult adoptive parents in general — and Chief Justice Roberts in particular — as the justices are preparing to hear two cases that will decide whether same-sex couples will enjoy the same right to marry as all other Americans. According to John Eastman, a law professor and chair of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, Roberts and Thomas’ adopted children are only growing up in the “second-best” environment:

The justices also are not immune to considering how they might be affected by the course one side or the other is advocating in a dispute before them. . . . [Johns Hopkins Sociology Professor Andrew] Cherlin, who does not follow the high court especially closely, wondered whether the gay marriage cases might take on a similar dynamic. “If justices consider their own family lives in these cases, it may change the way they rule,” he said.

Gay marriage opponents said they are not worried about the votes of Roberts and Thomas.

“You’re looking at what is the best course society wide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts’ family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option,” said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. Eastman also teaches law at Chapman University law school in Orange, Calif.

There is nothing “second-best” about the family environment Roberts and Thomas have provided to their adopted children. While many critical things can be said about Justice Thomas — and we have said a lot of them — his decision to adopt his grandnephew is admirable and speaks well of Thomas’ capacity for personal sacrifice:

Neither Thomas nor his wife nor several Savannah sources contacted for this story would discuss the circumstances behind Thomas’ taking custody of Mark. But others say that the situation, while not dire, called for a responsible person to step in quickly. Mark Sr., Thomas’ nephew, had been in prison on cocaine trafficking charges. And Mark Jr.’s mother, Susan, was struggling with her own problems, raising four children, including young Mark Jr., on her own. Thomas believed that the boy would face lifelong trouble if he were not removed from his environment soon, and the parents agreed. “He was paying back his own grandfather by taking care of Mark,” says one friend.

The Roberts’ adoption story is rooted less in family tragedy and more in their devout faith. John and Jane Roberts married late in life — Jane was 42. The Chief Justice and his wife chose not to seek medical treatment that would have enhanced Jane’s ability to conceive because “Catholic doctrine prohibits most forms of fertility treatment,” and instead chose to adopt two children. As with Thomas, there are many critical things that can be said about the Chief Justice, but he is by all accounts very kind in his personal interactions and he and his wife provided their adopted son and daughter with a household where they could thrive. Roberts deserves praise for adopting children, and he certainly does not deserve the aspersions cast upon adopted parents by Professor Eastman.

Eastman is also not the first attorney involved in the marriage cases to suggest adoptive parents are somehow a second-best opinion for children. In his brief on behalf of the House Republicans defending the Defense of Marriage Act, conservative superlawyer Paul Clement claimed that “[b]iological parents have a genetic stake in the success of their children that no one else does.”


View the original article here

Monday, May 20, 2013

What You Need To Know About Thomas Perez, Obama’s Likely Labor Nominee

President Obama will reportedly choose Thomas Perez, an assistant attorney general who oversees the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, to replace outgoing Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. Perez, a popular pick among labor and Latino groups, is expected to be nominated this week, according to various news reports. Should he be confirmed by the Senate, Perez will take over Labor at a time when Obama and Democrats are pushing for immigration reform and a minimum wage increase.

Before his current role began, Perez served in Bill Clinton’s Justice Dept., as a city council member in Montgomery County, Maryland, and as the head of Maryland’s state labor department. And while Perez has spent the last four years leading the administration’s challenges to new voter restrictions, his past also includes experience fighting to protect and expand workers’ rights:

Fought worker exploitation and human trafficking: Perez served on the Worker Exploitation Task Force, which sought to protect vulnerable workers, while working in the Justice Dept. under Attorney General Janet Reno. The task force aimed to fight “modern day slavery” that resulted from human trafficking, discrimination in labor markets, and other exploitative practices, according to Senate testimony from former officials. The task force secured multiple convictions involving the trafficking and exploitation of women and children workers, and helped lead to calls around the country for stronger anti-trafficking laws both at the federal and state level.

Pushed for labor protections for domestic workers: Millions of domestic workers in the United States make low wages because they aren’t protected by labor law, a problem Perez sought to address while serving on Montgomery County’s City Council, where he pushed for contractual labor law protections and a minimum wage for such workers. After three years of debate, and after Perez had left the council, those protections became law in 2008 and gave domestic workers contractual labor rights they still lack in most of the United States.

Protected immigrant workers from losing pay: Perez would take over the Dept. of Labor in the middle of Obama’s push for immigration reform, and he has experience dealing with immigration and labor issues. While serving in the Justice Dept., Perez investigated claims that employers were using Alabama’s new immigration law to avoid paying immigrant workers. “We continue to be concerned that certain employers may be using HB56 as an excuse not to pay workers,” he said, adding that he would “throw the book” at employers who weren’t paying workers. “We’re here. We will prosecute you. That is impermissible, period.”


View the original article here

Friday, May 3, 2013

Marlo Thomas On Making ‘That Girl’ Feminist TV, PBS’s ‘Makers,’ And Where Pop Culture Goes Next

Last night, PBS aired Makers, a documentary about the history of the feminist movement, exploring everything from the relationship between women’s liberation and the struggles for black and gay civil rights to the rise of the eighties power tie as women entered previously male-dominated professional fields. While some of the subjects may be familiar to those of us who ended up in women’s studies classes at some point, Makers is a reminder of how much feminist history has been forgotten or obscured over the years, starting with the rumors of bra-burning at the Miss America protests. Because part of the goal of Makers was to spark discussions about the state of feminism today, I spoke with one of the subjects whose work is of particular interest to anyone who cares about the portrayal and employment of women in popular culture: Marlo Thomas.

As the star of the groundbreaking sitcom That Girl, Thomas fought to preserve the integrity of the show’s portrayal of a single woman’s life—and to hire more female writers. And as the creator of Free To Be You And Me, the book, album, and television special for children that challenged pre-existing notions of gender norms, Thomas fought to give children entertainment that would change the way they saw their possible futures. We spoke during the Television Critics Association press tour in January about the evolution of sitcom roles for women, Brave and princess myths, and the struggles women—and men—face to have it all. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

I’m excited to talk to you in part because my first job as a critic was when I was eight years old for my local paper—I wrote children’s books.

You were a critic at eight years old? How cute!

I was, my author photo has me in little pink glasses and the world’s largest lace collar. I was proof that women, even at eight years old, aren’t paid enough. I was paid in five-dollar gift certificates to the local bookstore. So I was really curious to talk to you because Free To Be You And Me was inspired by the lack of good books for boys and girls alike. What do you think about the rise of young adult fiction? It seems to me that there are many more options for young female readers today. Have we made enough progress if what young girls get offered is Twilight?

Well, you know, far be it for me to tell people what to write. I must say that after we did Free To Be You And Me, and its phenomenal success, and its continued success, I’m surprised that more and more people aren’t writing about that. I saw the movie Brave, which is taken right from Atalanta [a princess story from Free To Be You And Me], which is exciting to me. And I just wish more people would follow, not just follow the path, but find the path to children’s imaginations that is going to open up their horizons and their minds. It just seems that—my husband has two grandchildren, they’re now 16 and 17, the girl is 16—and I’ve noticed with her stuff, it’s all princesses, and the boy’s stuff is all violence. All violent games from the GameBoy on up. And I look at it, and I try very hard to bring other things in, but that’s what all their friends are reading, and watching, and playing. I’m disappointed, I really am. Somebody, some book company has to make it their job, or part of their imprint, part of their conscientiousness to say “Why aren’t we putting out books that do this?” The Free To Be You And Me classic, when it came ou,t there was nothing like it. We’ve already paved the way. Why doesn’t someone pick it up? I can’t do it all.

I think you’re describing two different challenges. It’s hard to ask individuals to take on all the work for anyone else. And you mentioned the persistence of the pricness myth. I felt conflicted about Brave. I like that she’s a different kind of princess, but the victory at the end is that she gets to choose her own husband, who will still be dyanstically important. A princess is still a princess.

Right. But it’s just that she was athletic, and she ran, and she took some action. That’s a big difference from the other princess, from Cinderella. But it’s true. In our princess story, Atlanta at the end decides not to marry, and go off to explore lands. We were feminists writing that. I don’t know that the people from Brave got our whole message, though they took a lot of it…I don’t know, it’s sort of a surrendering to a happy ending, or what you consider to be a happy ending. When I was doing That Girl, they wanted me to have a wedding at the end of the series. And I refused. I refused to have a wedding, to have her get married at the end of the show. And they said “It’ll be great! It’ll get huge ratings.” And I said, “But then I’m copping out to every girl who loved this show…This was the first girl to say “I don’t want to get married, I want to work. I want to have a career. I want to live in my own apartment.” All of those things. And the mail was extraordinary about girls wanting to be just like her, and grandmothers saying “Don’t marry Donald!” They really were very invested in this single girl. The idea of betraying them at the end of the show and getting married just seemed like a true betrayal. I wouldn’t do it. Even that, Clairol was the sponsor, and they wanted a wedding, and ABC wanted a wedding, the producers wanted a wedding. It took a feminist to say “No, no wedding!”

Well what struck me about that story, and the story you told about the executive who looked at you like you were speaking Swahili when you talked about putting a woman at the center of the stage, is that we’re still at a point where there are not a lot of women with the power to say no in television production. We have Shonda Rhimes, who can do whatever she wants—

Tina Fey, Lena Dunham. There a lot of them. When I was producing my show, there wasn’t anyone except Lucille Ball. Now there’s a lot of women doing their own shows…Those are the ones who produce their own shows and they star in them. Roseanne Barr did that. And I don’t know who else. Laura Dern is one of the producers on her show. But certainly not to the extent that men are.

Women are something like 23 percent of television writers. We’ve gotten to a place where people understand that more women watch television than men, and there are more stories about women, but a lot of those stories are still controlled by men. Men run 2 Broke Girls. Men are the majority in the writers’ room on Whitney, which was created by Whitney Cummings. Do you think women have become something it’s possible to profit off with any real attention to telling women’s stories from a woman’s perspective?

Well, I think if a woman creates a show, as you just said, 2 Broke Girls, why did she step back?…You have the power, it’s there for you to take. My show, the first year it was on the air, it was all men producers. And after the first season—I had hired the producers, it was my show—I said, “I have to have a female story editor.” There weren’t a lot of female comedy writers. There were two. Carol Burnett had one and Lucille Ball had one. And there were a couple that were in teams, male-female teams, and we used them. But I said “I need a female story editor to help me, because I’m combatting every week, these guys, about what a girl would do, what a girl would not do.” I was constantly saying “A girl would not say that to her father. A girl would not say that. She’d be more diplomatic about this. She doesn’t want to hurt her father’s feelings if she wins the battle. She’s not going to rub his nose in it. That’s not the way girls compete with their fathers.” It was a constant thing. Or, “I don’t think it’s funny to make fun of how Ruth Buzzi looks. I don’t want a joke about an ugly girl. I don’t want to do that joke.” “Oh no, it’s hilarious.” I said “No, it’s not hiilarious. Girls don’t find that funny.” So I said I have to have a female editor. So we found this woman, and believe me, it wasn’t easy, Ruth Brooks Flippen was her name. And she came in and was the story editor for the rest of the series. But, this woman, who you said created two shows and went off and just produced one. She could have said there’s another woman I really would like to produce this. Or here’s two women I want to put on staff. Because if you don’t have some women on the staff, you aren’t going to get a woman’s consciousness into the story. You’re just not…It’s the right thing to do. It’s a smart thing to do. But you’ve got to take the power when you have it. You have to use the power when you have it. Not that many women have power, but when they do, they really have to share it.

I think that’s one of the things that’s been difficult for women in the industry. Melissa Rosenberg, who’s running Red Widow, made sure her writers’ room was half male and half female, and that there were parents because she doesn’t have children and her main character does. I struggle with asking these writers what their obligations are to hire more women.

Maybe that’s not the right question. I don’t feel an obligation. I think it should be more, do you think a show would be a little better if it had more of a female consciousness on it? Or since your show is about women, wouldn’t it be better to have some more women? That may be a better way into it…It’s really about the responsibility to the show, not to women, but to the story. It’s really about whose story you’re going to tell. If it’s a story of a woman, a girl, a woman, and it’s her point of view, you’re going to have to have quite a few women on the show to do it otherwise. It’s not possible to do it otherwise. You can’t leave it to Judd Apatow to figure out what girls do when they’re broke and trying to make it living in the world. It’s going to be different.

You said it was difficult to find your story editor. Were you able to find more women to write for the show as time went by?

We did. We found more writers. But they were few, and they were mostly teams. There was Treva Silverman, who still is a wonderful writer, and we used her. There were so women, but there weren’t a lot of comedy writers in the sixties and seventies.

The women you found, where did you find them?

Well, you looked for them. You called agents and said “What comedy writers do you have that are women? We’re looking for women to write for That Girl.” We’d go to the writers’ agents. Someone would see a name on somebody else’s show and say this stuff’s really good. But when you put out a call like that to agents, agents can’t wait to get jobs for their writers. You say “Send us samples of your women writers.” And most of them were teams with guys.

That still seems to be the case today. I think half the women who sold shows for the new pilot season sold them as part of teams with men.

I don’t know why that is. You’d have to ask them. You’d have to interview every one of them. It would be really interesting to find out why. Is it because of child caring? Needing time?

It certainly seems like childcare and the hours are big issues for women. If your’e going to run a writers’ room, as people do, where you break story for twenty hours in a row, people have to go home from that because the nanny has to go home. It’s not a regularized profession.

I don’t know that I ever worked with a writing team that were two women. I’ve never worked with them, and I’ve worked with millions of teams, and I’ve never worked with a team that was two women. I mean, I don’t think Norman Lear had a lot of women on his staff, and he had Maude, and Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. It would be interesting to know how many female writers Maude had.

It seems to me in certain ways like television has become more conservative for women. Any time someone gets pregnant, they either have the baby and it’s the best decision in the world, or they have a miscarriage. I think we’ve had two abortions on television in five years.

But you’ve got a lot of women as cops, a lot of women who are not domesticated. That, I think, is the big step. When I started with That Girl, women were in the house. There weren’t any Mary Tyler Moores or Murphy Browns. That’s what they were: they were somebody’s secretary, somebody’s daughter, somebody’s wife. So, and as you look at it through the years, I look at situation comedy as a graph, from That Girl, to Kate and Ally, which was huge, to have two single women raising children, and then Roseanne, a mother who kind of hated her children and screamed at them, a female Jackie Gleeson, and then Murphy Brown, unwed, a drunk, screams at her staff. I mean, huge! When you think from That Girl to that…Every person That Girl met or Mary Richards met loved her. The mailman loved her. All the way to Roseanne and then to Murphy, that’s a huge graph.

It certainly seems like we’ve won the right not to be likable on television.

Right. Lena Dunham, she, I read an interview of hers saying “Why do women have to be likeable?” I thought, good for her! You have to defend your character, but you don’t have to make her likable. And if that’s what you want your show to be about, at least you can do that now. You couldn’t do that before. So that’s a huge step. So I htink maybe in situation comedy women are doing better. I mean, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler. I mean, they’re great. And they’re producing their own shows, both of them, and writing them. I know more about situation comedy than I do about the graph of the drama, except I know there are a lot of policewomen, and women with authority, and judges, a lawyer and a judge on Law and Order, there’s more of that.

One thing I thought was interesting that you mentioned in the panel today was the myth of what feminism was about. One thing women my age have struggled with is there are so many options, so what do you choose? And can you choose wrong? I thought that was one of the interesting things that came up at the end of the documentary.

I think it’s rather luxurious to say, “I just have so many choices, I don’t know what to choose.” I’d like to whack you around the room for that. I mean, my goodness. I don’t mean you. I mean any woman who feels “Oh, dear, I have too many options.” It’s like saying “I can buy any dress I want, I just can’t decide which dress I want to buy.” If you have that many choices, a bountiful, bountiful table, then look at it, and what suits you? What do you want? And go after what you want. I think that’s a problem with a lot of people in any age group. If you don’t know what you want, any road will take you there. You’re obviously a young woman who, since you were eight years old, was critiquing things, and I just adore that in your, that at eight years old with your little pink glasses, you were deciding what’s a good children’s book, and today, you’re critiquing with an intelligence that has evolved from having the experience of doing it. I think, wow, what a choice you made? I’m sure along the way, something else interested you.

I did a lot of political work.

So you could be doing that right now. You could be soembody’s campaign manager, you could be on somebody’s staff, you could be running yourself, you could be on City Council. You looked at the world and you said this is the thing I want to do, and your’e doing that. I have to say, look at yourself and take a grip. How many women in the world, how many women in Mali, how many women in Afghanistan have choices? They can’t even go to school. I don’t have patience with anyone who has so many choices they don’t know what to choose.

It’s what we refer to as a First World Problem.

That’s exactly right. God, I wish that were true for every young boy and girl.

Do you think women get trapped by the perceived obligation to have it all?

Women can’t have it all any more than men can have it all….If having it all means, and it seems to mean that you’re married, and you have children, and you have work you love, that can only be done if both people have it all. If you don’t change the domestic arrangement, nothing’s going to happen. Nothing can happen for men, women, or children if we don’t change the domestic arrangement…I had a mother at home and a father who traveled all the time. I could have been better served by a father who was home more often and a mother and father who shared things more equally. My mother was the complete enforcer and my father was the nice man who came home and gave us presents. It was a complete fantasy of what parenting was about.


View the original article here

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Cal Thomas Column: Contraception Mandate Is Wrong Because Government Shouldn't Define What Is and Isn't a Church

Cal Thomas's picture

Under pressure from religious and conservative groups, the Obama administration has offered another compromise on the issue of birth control coverage within the Affordable Care Act. While exempting churches and some religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, from supplying the coverage, the new proposal calls for their employees to receive stand-alone private insurance policies providing birth control coverage at no cost. Insurance companies will foot the bill, but only the naive can possibly think the cost won't find its way back to the institution in the form of higher health premiums.

Numerous lawsuits filed against this and other portions of "Obamacare" will proceed and for good reason: the federal government seems intent on setting rules on matters of conscience and worse, defining what constitutes a church, or religious institution.

One of the litigants is Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, whose CEO, David Green, is an evangelical Christian. Green says, "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate." That mandate includes, in addition to contraceptive coverage in employees' health care, "preventive services," including "morning-after" pills and other drugs, which Green considers abortifacients. After Hobby Lobby's appeal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor was rejected, the Christian Post reports the company then made plans to "...shift the beginning of its employee health plan to temporarily avoid $1.3 million a day in fines for each day since Jan. 1 that it did not comply with the Affordable Care Act." (According to the new health care law, businesses with more than 50 employees that refuse to comply can be fined by the IRS $100 per day per employee.) Hobby Lobby's appeals continue.

The core issue as I see it -- and there are others -- is whether the government has the right to define a church as a building in which people congregate on Sundays and whether a private company headed by a religious person qualifies for conscience exemptions. For government to decide such things violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and appears to put the state in the position of supreme authority and arbiter of what constitutes "legitimate" religious faith and practice. The Supreme Court will likely have to resolve its constitutionality.

Permit me to offer the justices some assistance.

The early church was not a building with a towering steeple. The early church met in homes. If one accepts New Testament teaching (and what higher authority on the church could there be?), the concept of the church being an organism that resides in each individual believer is clearly spelled out in several passages.

Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to the Colossians (1:24) about the "body" of Jesus Christ, "which is the church." By this, he means the "body of believers" in whom Christ dwells. Wherever that body is, whether an individual, or a group of believers, that's the church. It was only later that this concept of church was turned into something with expensive buildings, tax exemptions and denominations.

The same theme can be found in Revelation where John is asked by Jesus to write letters to several churches. Those, too, were bodies of believers, not physical structures.

In the Old Testament, God told Solomon that while He was too big to live in buildings, He would "dwell" in the Temple Solomon built for Him. Ultimately, though, He said He had other intentions: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." (Jeremiah 31:33)

That was and remains for believers the authentic church, so when people say, "I am going to church," it is an impossibility because they can't go to themselves.

The administration's efforts to effectively gerrymander lines between what it considers legitimate religious practice and the secular is what the Founders hoped to avoid when they linked the establishment clause with the free exercise clause.

That is why, among other reasons, government should not mandate birth control coverage as part of any national health care plan.

(Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.)


View the original article here