While I understand your frustration, I think in this instance he was able to compromise without throwing women completely under the bus.

Agree with you, Ashley.

Excuse me but what the --- are you on about? Every woman in the United States still gets contraceptives covered with no co-pays.

The ONLY difference is that they've now been reminded that the Catholic church hierarchy and the Republican party would rather see they didn't. That's not a "cave" in any shape or form. That's doing a bit of creative book-keeping to expose the other side's true objective: robbing individuals (women) of their right to choose for themselves how they want to manage their own health.

Good trolling, you almost had me!

While I'm happy that the principle of the rule is still in tact, I do agree he has caved again where he didn't need to. The backlash over this rule had no legitimacy, and he just gave it some by tip-toeing around their nonsense. I would have liked to see them come out and reiterate that faith-based organizations do not have the right to treat their workers any differently than any other business. They have to follow minimum wage laws, child labor laws, and health insurance law all the same.

@ItsJustMyOpinion

Then you're not looking for a winner - you're looking for emotional release. A Newt Gingrich of the left who'll walk up to Archbishop Dolan and tell him to his face that his hate of women won't stand.

Obama's game is playing rope-a-dope and letting the other side expose themselves. Some of them will keep pushing, because this "compromise" is a paper product and they know it. When they push, they expose what their real objective is - telling women what to do with their bodies. That's a useful contrast for the mushy middle.

"Just another unacceptable, unconscionable cave to the forces of evil by this White House."

Total nonsense. Politics is all about compromise. If that is unacceptable to you then perhaps you'd be happier in a leftist dictatorship where you are not forced to compromise with the "evil" people who do not think exactly like you.

People are different. People have different beliefs and ideas on a very fundamental level. Politics is the means by which we can settle those differences. Democracy is the best method we have come up with so far to settle these basic fundamental disputes.

What that means is that if you are on the extreme Right or the extreme Left you will almost NEVER get all you want because it is in the very nature of compromise to move towards the center. It isn't a grand conspiracy. It isn't "selling out". It's math.

I'm with sherwoodandersson The men who wear dresses and pointy hats have been exposed for what thy are ...women haters. The lot of them liked it much better back in the 14th century where their religion came from ... women knew their place and the church had absolute power.

Pump the brakes sherwood, no one is looking for a lefty Newt. I think it's telling in your comments and some others here. Obama is playing the game correctly, and i guess that's to be applauded. He found a technicality that is no different in substance from the original rule. What I am saying is it's ok to defend the principle of the original rule, i.e. women have rights in this country. What I would argue is that I am looking for him to defend this ruling on the merits of it, not just 'be a winner'. There is something to defending the rights of the people based solely on the fact that they exist, not technicalities.

@TheOnCommingStorm - the math in the 60s said that over 70 percent of the American people thought that blacks and whites should not be allowed to be married. Sometimes the math is wrong. We don't shouldn't get to vote on rights.

And as far as Obama 'exposing' the real intent of the people arguiing against the rule, I don't think they really need to be exposed. They're kinda out there already.

I would like to know if the curch would back fertility tests and fertility enhancements for men? If a man is naturally impident, will the church pay for viagra, for instance, no questions asked, no contest, no wailing? Will they pay for the expensive fertilization techniques? The question for debate, is - If women cannot have something to stop that which is natural and god sanctioned, (having children) then should men have something to enhance or implement fertility when god has clearly given them a condition that keeps them from enacting the god sanctioned mandate of "be fruitful and multiply"? The credit for this question goes to Mike Malloy, Radio Talk host.

Just another unacceptable, unconscionable cave to the forces of evil by this White House.

Some people, I suggest, can't tell the difference between "caving" and "manipulating the opponent's force against himself rather than confronting it with one's own force" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jujutsu ).

The religious freedom RCC employers really were after (IMHO) was the "freedom" to impose their religious beliefs upon their employees by obstructing contraceptive coverage. If the government had simply granted an exemption for RCC employers, it would have been in the position of aiding a religious body to advance its beliefs, contrary to the First Amendment.

Naturally, the RCC employers did not want to advertise their real motivation, and Obama had given them an out by (initially) setting things up so that the employers would have to cover any additional premium cost. They took that "out" and vigorously campaigned for the religious freedom of not having to pay for something that was contrary to their beliefs. In reality, the additional premium cost would likely have been just a drop in the bucket for them, but campaigning against that has gone over a lot better for them than "we want the religious freedom of not having our employees get contraceptive coverage" would have.

Having drawn their fire—at having to pay for coverage—Obama let things simmer for a bit. Up until this morning, everybody has been focussed on Bad Government Making Catholics Pay.

This morning, as we know, he shifted his grip and said, "OK, you don't have to pay." Jiu-jitsu.

Instead of moving to a position where employees of RCC-affiliated institutions don't get coverage, he has moved to a position where all women get coverage, "no matter where they work." Barring any forthcoming clarification, I take that to include churches.

It will be very interesting to see where the bishops go from here.

ItsJustMyOpinion - "the math in the 60s said that over 70 percent of the American people thought that blacks and whites should not be allowed to be married."

No it didn't. What you are citing is people's opinion in the 60's. It is not opinion that in winner take all elections voters will tend towards the center. That is math, real math, game theory and NOT opinion. Besides it's just common sense. Say you and several friends want to see a movie. Which one are you going to see? The one that is a compromise between everyone's first preference. That's also politics. It's reality. Accept it.

Did Dolan's Mass sermon violate 501(3)c prohibitions on grassroots lobbying? He was specific about the statute. Boehner did immediately speak on the House floor regarding legislation after Dolan's address. Possible !RS definitions cover lobbying over regulations, and not just legistlation. (source)

Sierra club lost their 501c3 over far less, and the IRS maintains a "Political Activities Compliance program" for exactly this purpose.

John,

You've seen me on this blog before. Have I ever NOT been sarcastic. I don't really care about this rule and that rule. My point is that The GOP leaders are kissy, kissy with the CC not because they really care about religious freedom, but because they see a way to use this issue to their advantage politically- or at least they think by stirring the pot and creating an uproar it will be to their advantage.

The Catholic Bishops think they can still live in the dark ages and that nothing has changed. They are idiots.

The GOP thinks they can get away with hitching their cart to religion and get Brownie points. They are also idiots.

Last but not least, they all think God is on their side. They are idiots.

They all disgust me.

No- the intent was more a friendly question if you have heard of anyone pressing the tax exempt angle from your quarters.

Yes, I would like to be tax exempt, does that count? Churches need to pay up or shut up. They are as bad as the 1 percent in my book.

John maybe you can answer this for me and News I am sorry to attach such a question to your post, but I didn't know where else to go: why is it a. OK for people to associate reproduction w/ birth control and b. associate that control w/ the government?

I just don't understand. Study after study has shown us that if we allow abortion to be legal and teach kids about contraceptive the rate goes down. Why would we- if we seriously care about the fetus, like I do, entertain such a distinction if it wasn't validated scientifically? I just don't understand

Seriously please explain. I. DO. NOT. UNDERSTAND

I think I may well misunderstand your question, but one is:

Consider the fact that when contraceptive use goes up then abortion rates go down. From what rationally coherent perspective could a person be vehemently against abortion but that this fact would it not change there mind one bit, and that one would be just as opposed to contraceptives.

I have an answer that applies not to barrier contraceptives but post fertilization things like the Pill and IUDs:

Imagine this is the Dr. Seuss book Horton Hears a Who. Like the unseen Who, there is a real person in this tiny speck somehow hidden- in ways we completely cannot fathom- inside the zygote.

There is no distinction between a zygote person and a fetus person. If someone uses the pill or IUD that prevents implantation the zygote person is murdered just as surely as if you kept a swimmer from reaching the shore by pushing them back out with a pole. An especially fertile and sexually active woman could "murder" more than 6 persons a year. There are no degrees of difference here- no more than if murdering a 2 year old infant was less severe than murdering a 33 year old.

Okay? So looking at it that way, using the pill is murder just as much as abortion is. The suggestion of promoting contraceptive use because it cuts down abortion is like saying- here, instead of murdering 1 person through abortion in a year, we can have the woman murder 2 or 3 through use of an IUD. It makes no moral sense to them- in fact it looks preferable to ban contraceptives rather than abortion because that way fewer persons are killed.

As Horton said, "a person's a person no matter how small."

So you see how that perspective forces them to come to the conclusion that contraceptive use cannot be justified by the goal of reducing abortion rates?

People have different reasons why they think the perspective is false, but the basis of the perspective is the common sense association of conception as the beginning of life, and that all human life no matter how rudimentary is precious.

You didn't ask but I think the perspective is false because our humanity is bound up in consciousness. If the organism is incapable of consciousness, then the organism may be living flesh that has the dna of our species, but incapable of what it means to be distinctly human. That means that a body that is living but whose brain is essentially dead with no neurological activity- no synapses firing- well- you are not in the presence of a person. That person has gone away and is no longer present in that body. Shutting off life support is killing a life, but it is not murdering a person. Same with a zygote.

Insurance companies pay for it anyway, this way the insured person will send the bill in to the insurance company, instead of through the doctor's office. Really, either way, the Catholic Church doesn't pay for it, it is still paid for by the insurance company.

I think the other thing that's been pointed out is that birth control, while an expense, is not nearly as large as prenatal care, labor, delivery and whatever costs are incurred with a newborn who may for whatever reason need an extended hospitalization.

The insurance companies don't care. If the price of health care with Contraception coverage is X, then how much do you think the price of health coverage without contraception coverage is? That is right. X.

So they still get their money.

It is also why the Bishops (let alone the Cardinals at the Vatican) very well may not go for this. In the Catholic sort of analysis regarding complicity with evil (explained here), indirection or remoteness does not make the Church any less complicit morally in providing the funds that pay for the contraceptives. For example, if you pay a killer to "deliver a cake" to someone and it is known that every time he delivers his rather expensive cake he kills the person it is delivered to, you are still just as guilty of the murder.

Steve's analysis is spot on though. It isolates the Church Bishops- even from their own clergy involved in pastoral care. I expect Sister Keehan and CHA are going to take a lot of heat if the Cardinals insist on a hard line. They are the heroes taking the arrows as far as I can see.

… or they will be stuck with covering the costs of all the extra pregnancies that will result from their failure to provide coverage.

I totally agree with you Zora. I don't think it is fair for them to be exempt from something that celebate bishops, nuns etc. don't have to deal with. I am just stating that we still, in essence, kept the original mandate for women when it comes to birth control. I have had ovarian cysts since I can remember and the only why to regulate them is to have birth control which can be expensive. Especially for those of us who need specific kinds i.e. low hormone. I think single payer is the best way to combat all of these issues as well. I am just saying that while it is not ok for women's health to be debated like some tax break, we still are able to have insurance coverage for those of us who NEED it.

Insurance companies don't cover contraception because it's a common usage. They don't want to pay for something that gets used all the time. They're in the business of making money, not making healthier people.

My older sister is deaf without her hearing aids, but for her entire life she's had to pay for the batteries herself, if not her hearing aids directly. Imagine how much money 30 years of hearing aid batteries add up to.

You really think the insurance companies are going to pay for this? It will be passed along in the premiums to anyone who buys insurance. Welcome to tax-payer funded contraception.

@stknmov

Like everything else? My insurance is astronomical and yet I still have to pay through the nose for basic blood tests. I say if you are going to charge so much then why not make something as basic as birth control covered with what I already pay.

stknmov,

I know we can ALL make long lists of things for which our tax dollars pay that we are totally and utterly against.

Welcome to tax-payer funded contraception.

Typing the words "tax-payer funded" in front of a word, doesn't automatically make the following word evil. We have an overpopulation epidemic in the world, and population numbers continue to increase every year. America is, and always has been, a contributor to this problem, although not as severe of a contributor as some other countries.

Further, contraception has important health benefits for women, which includes helping prevent cancer, bone thinning, acne, anemia, ovarian cysts and others. Our government spends piles of money each year in research grants to prevent a long list of diseases, each which affect far fewer than the 50% of our population who could be benefited by effective contraception.

We all benefit if more of us are healthy. So why are we complaining if tax payers are paying for something, which benefits us all.

The main template of Christianity--received from Jesus Christ--is Grace.

including paying taxes

Don't pull any muscles. Hydrate well and eat properly. Most importantly--Avoid free radicals! Like right winged loons or Bush Supremists.

Haha... except those particular "free radicals" aren't free at all. There's always money involved!

Sorry... I just couldn't resist.

They despise freedom anyway.

Most definitely!

Yep. They have to keep the outrage going, because they have no answers for the real problems this country faces.

That should become apparent when the general election swings into gear.

All the signs and evidence suggest we are being set up for another 'Dark Age'—led, yet again, by CHRISTIANITY. IN THE NAME OF GOD. ... fascism, military forces, Christian hierarchy (embodied politically by the GOP)

I put this on the Romney topic but it applies here as well.

The GOP are whores. First in bed with evangelicals and now in bed with Catholics. I thought we were to be free from religious influence, or so says the Constitution.

Cogent analysis.

Although I am annoyed that the GOP is allowed to continue their "religious liberty" charade, I recognize that this could be the rope they use to hang themselves in the general election.

First in bed with evangelicals and now in bed with Catholics.

Except that in this case, they're not in bed with the Catholic voters, just with the bishops. Not a lot of votes there.

This has all the earmarks of a spectacular "own goal." Napoleon's advice applies: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

D. C. Sessions is correct that the Republicans are in bed with the Bishops, but this is not new. The Bishops Conference has stated they have reservations about the compromise. It makes no difference. They will continue to assail Obama and the Dems stand on abortion, contraception and gay rights. This represents no change in their opposition to the Dems that has existed before this new contraception issue that was wholly made by the Bishops. Most Catholics are not listening to the Bishops because they have become irrelevant since the sex abuse scandals.

I turned a deaf ear to them at about 5 years old when at my first confession I could not think of anything I had done wrong so I told a lie and said I hit my brother or something equally as inane. What a lot of horse @!$%# this stuff is.

I'd argue that the only way the Bishops ever mattered was that the administration didn't want to be seen as unwilling to listen to them and/or work with them.

The compromise is for people and groups like Sister Keehan and CHA who were instrumental in the passage of the ACA but expressed concern about the contraception ruling. It was about preserving a working relationship with progressive Catholics that administration has relied on before and may very well need to make common cause with again later.

The bishops are able to now point to insurance companies as the fall guy and wash the blood from their hands.

I still say single payer would stop all this nonsense, but too late for that. We have people ranting over this and that and try to stop this and that. But the outcry of socialism left us with the still shrill cry of socialism and religious persecution. But the capitalist insurance companies will pass that on to us and people will cry socialism while "insurance death panels", not "government death panels" deny service or price us out of getting insurance or take our homes because of lack of payment.

And the outcry of religious persecution will still be there, but without merit.

Right on the button. It's the obvious counter argument and I don't expect anyone who didn't support it before to be placated by this variation.

"I'm also not entirely sure why it has to be free. Even when I had the best prescription coverage, I had a $5 copay. Is that now too burdensome?"

For a lot of people in this economy, yes.

There is a huge public interest in limiting unwanted pregnancies and I for one don't want access to contraception to be a class-based issue where the very poor are punished because they cannot afford protection.

It's also in the insurers interest because pre- and post-natal care is a LOT more expensive than providing contraceptives.

I'm also not entirely sure why it has to be free.

Because that's a key provision of the PPACA: free preventive care. Put minimal obstacles in the way of preventive care because in the long run it saves money all around.

My thought is that the price of contraceptives is probably jacked 500% or something in order to improve Big Pharmas bottom line . If the insurance companies are picking up the tab i bet the price to them will be greatly reduced.

Hey, it worked in Liberia under much nastier conditions. Just don't punish the guys who agree with you. :)

Not again.

Do I get a special dispensation since the expiration date on my uterus has expired????

because compared to a women getting pregnant, birth control is far, far more cost effective.

I agree with that fact. Still a little money from premiums will go towards preventative care, or a lot of money will go for "after" care. It does make good business sense as well as health sense. But, still, it is not at "no cost."

People seem to think money just appears or that companies are in the good will business. They will not take it from profits, but from premiums. And, I, for the most part, am okay with that. But let's not "pretend" it is at "no cost."

Here's how they do it - By not singling out contraceptive care from basic care.

Church: How much is the health plan?

InsuanceCo: $325/mo per employee

Church: How much is the health plan without the whore-meds?

InsureanceCo: $324.99/mo per employee

Church: How much is the health plan without the whore-meds?

InsureanceCo: $324.99/mo per employee

InsureanceCo: $375/mo per employee

Ruby, dear, someone still has to PAY for the actual contraceptive care. It doesn't just magically appear.

The insurance companies have known about this rule since at least August 1, 2011. I assume they have been planning their policies and rates already - in fact, it may already be part of their coverage. Do we know what the insurance company positions on this have been? Rates they were planning to charge? Did they see it as a write-off b/c of maternity costs, etc? Or were they talking w/ the Catholic Bishops to see how they could upset the balance here? Just asking...

I make most of your same assumption regarding the preparation by insurance companies. But it is not a "write-off b/c of maternity costs." That's like saying an eating establishment that use to serve steak is now giving hamburgers away for free because that is sooo much less expensive than the steaks.

Only if they were giving away the steaks.

All this would go away if the church accepted homosexuality as birth control.

Bad paul bad.

I agree with the brilliance of this accommodation. In fact, it is so perfect I think the policy should be applied consistently across the board — yes, even to the church employers themselves.

I agree. President Obama solved a simple mathematical conundrum, simply by taking religion out of the equation. The Catholic argument that the President has waged war against religion is now a non-argument. President Obama's "capitulation" provides an avenue for any American woman, who so chooses, to acquire contraception via her health-care insurance plan. The Catholic Church can continue its stance against contraception, and people can still choose whether or not they want to be Catholic.

I don't really understand how these churches get away with all these political activities and still maintain their tax exemption. I say cut them all off until they learn to stop politicking.

But then I'm mean that way.

In this letter, President Obama was deemed "evil"

Surely, the local news got a copy of this letter or interviewed parishioners who heard the letter read. Please provide some documentation instead of just making an outrageous claim. Thanks

My prediction: You will not source the claim.

Are you saying that I was not in attendance and that i'm making the whole thing up? Searching for a copy and or other proof for you,,,you're right about one thing...the letter was outrageous

Are you saying that I was not in attendance and that i'm making the whole thing up?

No. I am extremely doubtful that a Bishop wrote and had read a letter calling the President "evil."

If your assertion is true, that is your memory of the letter, that a Bishop had a letter read in multiple Catholic churches calling the President of the United States "evil", do you honestly believe that NO news agency in those area would be reporting it? That's what you want me to believe?