Looks Like There's a New GOP Frontrunner

Early indications from two polls in the field -- Public Policy Polling and Gallup -- show Rick Santorum either taking over the lead among Republican voters nationally or at least tied with Mitt Romney.

A new Fox News poll also shows Santorum surging and in the last two days the poll was in the field he moved into a dead heat with Romney, 30% to 30%.

I suppose there's a joke in there about how Romney is in over his head in the Santorum surge....

CNN just posted an update on the new compromise; honestly, at first read it sounds okay to me:

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

...

But conservative Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, insisted the revised rule still violates the Constitution.

"This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans' First Amendment right to freedom of religion," Jordan said in a written statement. "It's a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs."

I @@ forever and ever at Jim Jordan. Unless he expects religious-run hospitals and universities to withdraw from the US altogether and form an island state on some godforsaken rock, his big problem is still going to be a problem and, frankly, has been a problem since the Pill was invented. How many insurance companies are out there that don't cover any chemical BC at all? Somewhere, somehow, through however many layers of bureaucracy, isn't it pretty damn well guaranteed that practically all the religious employers in the US have already been paying insurance companies for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs?

And that's not even beginning to get into the sheer idiocy of the very term "abortion-inducing drugs," which can include a huge number of drugs that are vitally necessary for a wide range of conditions that have absolutely nothing to do with reproductive issues. By that ridiculously wide criterion, it's well nigh guaranteed that even the most ragingly anti-abortion insurance company on the planet has at least a couple of Items Of Ultimate Evil in its formulary.

I... I kind of don't hate the compromise. Women who work for religious hospitals and unis are still covered, and the whining of the whiners sounds even more nakedly whiny and foot-stompy and irrational.

It's a fig leaf, not a compromise.

He's not actually wrong about that. To which I say yay. And also:

the whining of the whiners sounds even more nakedly whiny and foot-stompy and irrational.

Nicey done, Obama.

I still think any "compromise" at all is conceding the point in a way that is not helpful long term. But that aside, I ... kind of don't hate it too.

Awww...

Monk and Tiger sharing their meal.

mr. flea went and met the librarian at his workplace today. Turns out she did an MA in the department I was a student in (we didn't overlap - she's younger) and, and I quote, "She knows J [my boss] is crazy". I told mr. flea he can't go around telling everyone I think my boss is crazy, but also, I feel very validated.

It's a fig leaf, not a compromise.

He's not actually wrong about that

True. But the problem isn't "Obamacare," (again, @@) it's the whole entire insurance industry (and medicine, and science, and what medical practitioners and patients consider reasonable and necessary treatment options). I don't know what ideologically pure alternative he thinks he's going to find; I don't think there is one, and there hasn't been one for quite a while.

eta: Even if he steps into the wayback machine, he's still going to find barber-surgeons prescribing village women special herbal compounds to "cure their menstrual stoppages."

I don't understand the compromise. Basically, Catholic Institution can tell its female employees "Although we are providing you with insurance, we do not cover contraception," but then the exact same insurance *will* provide contraception? How is it not covered, then?

Can someone re-word it for me? Because I honestly don't understand it.

And the insurers won't object. Because the insurers cover at least some pregnancy costs, so they will save more than the free coverage costs them.

Plus, this isn't new. Insurance companies/employers have been required to provide coverage for bc since 2000 (ish - going on the article linked yesterday). The current change expands who is required (companies under 15 folks...) and adds the no-copay.

None of this shoves the bc down anyone's throats. It is an available option. Just like Viagra is an available option. Geeeeeeesh.

All your facts and reasoned arguments are a distraction! Obama has started a war on Christians! Which Santorum says will end up with Christians being guillotined!

(He really said that. It's some dog-whistle thing about the book of Revelations.)