Getty Images
Way back in August 2011, the Obama administration announced that under the Affordable Care Act contraception would be covered by insurance plans as preventive care without a co-pay. Though the initial reaction was silence, conservatives were eventually told to be outraged, and a controversy ensued -- should employers subsidize contraception even if they find birth control morally offensive?
In February 2012, the White House responded to complaints by unveiling a compromise: religiously affiliated institutions won't be required to pay for birth control directly, but women who work for these employers will still have access to the same preventive care as everyone else.
The right, which is more opposed to birth control than many realized, wasn't satisfied. So, as Sarah Kliff and Michelle Boorstein reported, the administration has a brand new compromise.
The Obama administration proposed broader latitude Friday for religious nonprofits that object to the mandated coverage of contraceptives, one that will allow large faith-based hospitals and universities to issue plans that do not directly provide birth control coverage. [...]
The new proposal aims to find middle ground between faith-based nonprofits, such as universities and hospitals, that have a religious opposition to contraceptives, and women's health advocates who vociferously supported the required coverage of birth control without co-payment.
It all seems a bit silly, but then again, so does conservatives' preoccupation with birth control.
How would this work? Let's say you're a woman who works at a religiously affiliated university and you want to take birth control bills, which school administrators have decided are too sinful to pay for. Your employer will offer you a health care plan that doesn't cover the medication, but the university's insurance company will then automatically create a new, separate insurance policy that will cover your contraception for free.
You still get the pills, the preventive care is still available with no co-pay, and your employer no longer worries about subsidizing -- or even being tangentially involved with -- your health care choices that it might find religiously offensive.
I don't doubt that many on the right will find new reasons to object to this new compromise -- it doesn't cover private-sector employers who also oppose birth control -- but Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, approves:
"This policy delivers on the promise of women having access to birth control without co-pays no matter where they work. Of course, we are reviewing the technical aspects of this proposal, but the principle is clear and consistent. This policy makes it clear that your boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control.
"Birth control is a basic and essential component of women's preventive health care. Women have been fighting for access to birth control for decades, and this is a historic advance for both health care and equality. As one of the nation's leading providers of reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood has led the charge for access to contraception for nearly a century, and we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that women have access to birth control without hurdles or co-pays."
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, added, "We applaud the Obama administration's unwavering support for implementing the Affordable Care Act in ways that will ensure women have access to basic preventive care, including contraception. That is a fundamental promise of reform, and a critical advance for women's health."
Leave a Comment:
i wasn't aware of the repubs war on birth control until Rachel brought this story out into the open. NO ONE ELSE WAS TALKING ABOUT IT UNTIL RACHEL BROUGHT IT TO LIGHT. thanks Rachel.
Same thing with Governor Ultrasound.
Actually, the Catholics never gave up on it- as anyone who has dealt with physicians at a Catholic hospital will tell you.
I also don't agree with the traditional catholic view, but you get their moral position right? If a person believed a fertilized zygote was a human being, then they would be morally bound to not cooperate in any way with the act of "killing" what they believe to be human beings.
Of course it may seem to be based on an absurd view to our cultural perspective or in many cases a smokescreen for misogynistic patriarchal domination of women. The trouble is that the idea of what is the correct beginning of the human essence is currently not understood by science, nor perhaps will it ever be due in part to the unprovable philosophical dimensions of the question. My personal view is that when the organism is able to sustain human consciousness, then this organism is to be treated with the full rights of a human being. I admit though that my position is unprovable. During the middle ages, the dominant views on biology were absolutely nuts, but they were the majority view and had their been a democracy then, public policy would be dictated by these false views.
The challenge is what we do with these competing unprovable views which require moral action. Obama discussed this challenge for pluralistic societies in his 2006 Call to Renewal speech. The far right insists that it is their moral duty to use any means possible to stop the immoral act. We can relate to this sort of uncompromising attitude as similar to that of the French Resistance killing German soldiers who where deporting Jews to extermination camps. There is a more moderate view among some that deals with the situation were large numbers of people do not agree with your moral view, or that any immoral means of achieving a moral end is immoral (Gandhi's view). The dictate then is to pursue non cooperation with the evil.
While it may seem like a meaningless exercise since contraceptives are still as available as before, the accommodation is important for an ever increasing heterogeneous society where moral common ground on some issues increasingly cannot be counted on. The Obama administration is allowing the Church to follow its moral requirement of non cooperation.
So long as the rights of people are not infringed who see no moral barriers to these contraceptives, this is a good thing. Right?
JohnMesserly, conservatives repeatedly have demonstrated that they don't REALLY care about protecting incipient human beings. Just look at some of the bills that House Republicans proposed in the last Congress.
HR 2018 would have restricted the EPA from issuing any revisions to existing water standards or issuing a new standard for a pollutant if there is an existing standard in place. So if new scientific research finds that a pollutant in water increases the risk of miscarriages, the EPA would have been prohibited from doing anything about it.
HR 2250 would have put a legislative stay on EPA boiler MACT rules, delaying limits on emission of dioxins and mercury, both of which have been shown to increase the risk of miscarriages.
HR 2681 would have put a legislative stay on cement manufacturing emission standards, which would have put limits on the emission of mercury and beryllium, another heavy metal that has been shown to increase the risk of miscarriages.
HR 2273 would have taken coal ash regulation away from the EPA and given responsibility to the states. Coal ash contains heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, cadmium and lead, all of which have been shown to increase the risk of miscarriages. While it could be argued that the states would be just as strict as the EPA, the Kingston Fossil Plant, which spilled 1.1 billion US gallons of coal fly ash slurry into Tennessee rivers in 2008, was supposed to have been regulated by the state of Tennessee.
Sorry John, I'll start giving the Catholic Church credence when they stop protecting the pedophiles amongst themselves, and stop prosecuting women.
Most people (since you're all too young to have been around in the "bad old days" I remember) don't realize that what the Right was always opposed to was Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court decision that said everyone has the right to have access to birth control. If you don't understand this, go read the history of Margaret Sanger and what she and other progressives went through on this issue. The Right knew they couldn't go up against that because people liked the new freedom, so they latched onto Roe v. Wade (1973), to make their "moral case" until they could fight it out like they are here.
As to "conservatives" pre-occupation with birth control, we have to realize these people are NOT "conservatives." They are far right wing radical revolutionaries (the one-word synonym for that is "fascist"). Fascists have always believed - as the Nazis did - that the proper role of women was "Kinder, Kirche, Kuche" (Children, Church and Kitchen). In fact, they may have lost WW2 because they wouldn't mobilize women to work in the factories the way Britain and the US did.
All fundamentalists want to control women. What is the difference between Tony Perkins and Osama Bin Laden (other than Bin Laden probably spoke a more understandable dialect of English than ol' Tony's mouthfull-of-roadkill). Fundamentalists have women dress 'demurely" (maybe not in a burka here in the US, but close - long sleeves, high necklines, low skirt hems - and I am talking about the Xtians, not the Muslims). What is more control than controlling their bodies? All religion (other than the old Goddess religions that were suppressed by the Indo-European patriarchal barbarian invaders of Europe) is about controlling women by men.
@JohnMesserly
In a situation when only the mother or fetus can be saved, the Church states that the fetus' rights take precedence over that of the mother. That means the Church is making a decision which is the province of the state. The justification for this decision is that the life of the fetus is more valuable than that of the mother. If we follow your logic then the Church should not make that decision because it is knowingly cooperating with the taking of a life which is the whole basis for opposing abortion. Once the Church moves into the subjective realm, morality arguments fail.
Our society has moved beyond the Middle Ages mentality that the Church has the sole moral authority to decide who lives or dies or how to live. If the Church wants to make those decisions in our society, they can do so with respect to the lives of their own members since we allow freedom of religion. But that right does not extend to determining the lives of nonbelievers. If the Church operates outside the functions of religion, then it voluntarily does so with the understanding that it lives by the rules of whatever society it exists in. And our pluralistic society has decided that individuals have certain rights that extend to believers and nonbelievers. Those rights are not vitiated because the Church disagrees with the state. Our society allows the Church to practice its religion but not to the detriment of others. The Church can freely withdraw from those functions not related to the practice of religion, including participation in government directly or by proxy. But when it steps outside the practice of its religion, it gives up certain rights and takes on government imposed obligations.
"The Obama administration is allowing the Church to follow its moral requirement of non cooperation." I guess that applies to pedophile priests as well as contraception.
Do you not see the value of communicating understanding of a moral view that you do not agree with, and so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, demonstrate a willingness to accommodate non cooperation the moral view demands of them?
Of course, it is quite true that rank and file conservative catholics and "evangelicals" get their panties in a knot over "abortion" yet are ignorant or passive about the same issue of if the framing is "left wing" (eg environmental). I am almost certain that the majority of Right wing politicians are aware of their hypocrisy.
But what Obama was talking about in his 2006 speech was fair treatment not to hypocrites but to those who sincerely hold unprovable views that require them to behave counter to the norms agreed on by the majority of a society.
There is no question that conservative catholics and evangelicals are not applying their principles consistently, but I think the weakness hear is not bad faith but that they are not thinking clearly. Pointing out the perfidy using their own language of care for life is not a disingenuous argument even though you do not accept their premises.
This is not about treating Catholics or Evangelicals or believers in UFOs with kid gloves. Progressives are not only uncomfortable about any reference to religion in an issue, we are uncomfortable with putting issues in moral terms, out of the fear of becoming "preachy". This is absurd because public policy is a reflection of our values. Too often, the left equates tolerance with scrubbing their communication clean of moral language. This is a huge mistake because of the enormity of moral positions we hold in common. If these common sentiments are expressed in religious language, and if our audience contains Hindus, Jews or Buddhists we should not be shy about sounding those common cords, and using that language.
Besides being a philosophical and communication error, it is politically stupid to allow our side to be cast as indifferent or callous on moral questions- as the right is so fond of doing. My argument is to assume good faith and to find common ground with people of faith rather than attempt to steam roller them into actions that put them in moral binds. If their position can be accomodated without infringing on rights, then why not.
It is not "communicating a view" when the Church involves itself in functions that are beyond the scope of religion. When religion provides services not related to the practice of religion and uses state funds for those services then it assumes a function that it is not required to provide. It is not infringing on the freedom of religion if the state chooses to require those functions to comply with obligations required by the state as a condition for receiving those funds. If the religion is required by the state to do something that violates its tenets, the religion has the option of removing itself from the function that has nothing to do with the practice of religion or refusing state funds. I don't care if any church wants to communicate a view, but it cannot do so with my tax monies.
Sure Mike. I think you misunderstand the degree of accommodation I was advocating. Your earlier note described this:
I must not have communicated well the limitations of accommodation. If the fetus were not involved, both sides agree the mother has a right to life which must not be infringed. When the fetus is involved, there is no agreement on the rights of the fetus. This is not common ground and so the state must defer to the value that is held in common- the right to life of the mother. I think a proper view of laicism does not ask people to check their religion at the doorway to the public square. But such accommodation cannot be used as a cudgel to deny rights to those who do not share their beliefs.
This is the limitation I was referring to, that we should pursue accommodation except in case where rights of an individual are infringed on. The commonality property is how I answer the objection that the fetus's rights are being infringed on: those rights are not commonly agreed on. As Obama put it,
That common ground is expressed in the laws we require all institutions to obey. If the church can propose a means where the rights of individuals are not infringed, and they can obey their moral constraints, then we should make those accommodations. Failure to do so would be a violation of laicity. To enforce hostility to religious norms is the French approach to laicism which amounts to an endorsement of a particular philosophical view about spiritual matters.
The unborn are people to the Catholic church only when lawsuits aren't involved:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/catholic-bishops-investigate-hospital-fetus_n_2546353.html
So maybe they're all just hypocrites who are far more concerned with their wallets than their principles? Say it ain't so!
Laicism is a two way street. Religion is not prohibited from expressing it views, but when it talks about voting for one candidate over another or threats of excommunicating government officials or lobbying, then religion is no longer communicating. It is involving itself in politics in ways that go outside the practice of religion. Comity requires that religion to not directly interfere in politics because our laws prohibit the state from getting involved in religion. Hostility to the religious views is a result of the political activities.
Will conservatives start objecting to coverage of pregnancies...which is an individual choice and is causing overpopulation and crowding out those already living,,,especially Catholics who are intent on creating huge families so there will be more Catholics in the world. It's unfair and should not be supported in the affordable care act huh. Oh the petty trivia these repub goobers turn into problems are just a waste of time. Alll this nonsense over coverage of BC...get these repubs out of our government.
John Meesserly@
Fingers tired. Let the church stay out of imposing its views anywhere. If it's not breathing it has no rights. The dead have no rights and neither do the unborn...these all fall under the system of "beliefs". The mother can do whatever she wants...it's her body her choice. Insurance coverage should be for the individual and not decided by an organized belief system.
I think you probably already knew I agree with that.
My theological view that resorting to coercion from the state is tantamount to an expression of atheism. I don't happen to agree with church positions on abortion or LGBT rights, because they are in conflict with my understanding with the wisdom contained in scripture. I suppose there could be cases where I would disagree with positions taken by the majority of progressives, but I think it wrong to coerce people using the law rather the avenue of the spirit. I don't think anyone here is especially interested in theology, but to thumbnail it, it is an old testament vs. new testament approach. It's not that I don't regard the fundamentalists as having embraces the new testament- it is worse. They have turned scripture into a golden calf- to be worshiped literalistically as a dead idol. There religion is extremely primitive- predating not just Moses, but Abraham.
I hold not just their political views, but their theological views in low regard. Nonetheless, a proper policy of laicism should not attempt to suppress their activities unless they attempt to infringe on the rights of others. I would never expect reciprocity from the fundamentalists, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist. They seem to be in a tribal dominance frame of coercing through force rather than persuading through confidence in the spiritual truths they purportedly cleave to.
@bjo- of course you are correct in the case of fact based issues like whether or not particular carcinogens induce miscarriages or whether or not creation theory is a scientific hypothesis or not (It isn't, therefore it shouldn't be taught as science). So if that is what you mean by "views", I am with you. However some positions are not provable either way. Fundamentally, science has nothing to say about ethics. Nothing- so the basis of political discussion really rests on unprovable premises. The trouble is that your particular view is based on a set of beliefs and ultimately an unprovable metaphysics too.
Clarification: My opening "I think you knew" referred to Paganucci's statements in 1.12.
Many on the Right long for the Good Old Days, when pregnancy was handled with coat hangers and orphanages.
the "good old pre-birth control days". the days that kept women in their place.
The "Good ol' Days" the right seems so determined to recreate never existed outside of a Norman Rockwell painting...
That's the thing about delusions...they are always perfect
But, as with their other delusions, that utopia is real. It's as real as anything to the teahadists. It's as if we're stuck on a life raft and a good 30% of the others have gone insane from the hnger, dehydration, and heat stroke.
and unfortunately they have become deranged cannibals and most of us are to nice to throw them overboard
Day-3905329 said:
"Many on the Right long for the Good Old Days, when pregnancy was handled with coat hangers and orphanages."
You're forgetting that the wealthy were able to get an abortion, even before Roe v. Wade. They simply had to fly to Europe.
This will please nobody, and win over zero people. It's black and white, not grey...
Maybe a backroom deal? with John B.? a little soothing lotion for Chucky as SoD? ahh politics 'Merica Style...ya know how we need to be "exceptional"...
They don't want women to have birth control. They don't want women to have access to abortion. They don't want to provide any social services for a woman's children, no matter how ill-equipped she may be to support them financially. They don't even want the government involved in educating children, and forget about subsidized nutritional meals for kids whose parents can't afford it.
They will, however, give those kids three squares and free tv if they break the law. Oh, and easy access to guns.
What could go wrong?
Thank you! But you forgot that they really want women home barefoot & pregnant.
If a religious affiliated hospital, university or other institution takes government money, then they should provide the same health care benefits as any other business. Any institution is free to opt out of any government monies and rely on their religious tenets. No one is forcing them to take government monies, they do so voluntarily with the attendant obligations that government imposes on those who take the money. But they cannot and should not have it both ways. These religious institutions are acting like some of our red states; they want the money and the right to decide how and where to spend the money. The government distributes monies to further specific interests and those interests take precedence over the wants and desires of those who take the monies.
Right on, Mike. If they're going to take public money, they can't push their views off on--and cause financial losses to--those who don't share their faith. Those universities, hospitals, and other religious non-profits are electing to become involved with the public sector. When they do that, they become secular insofar as their dealings with "outsiders" are concerned.
...while we're at it, let's admit that most of the non-profits out there are not truly non-profit - just using all profits (and government subsidies) to expand their business. We need to do something to limit the "welfare" they are collecting from all of us.
What about employers who know that taking birth control is religiously and morally unacceptable? Doesn't everyone know that the perspectives of the 'job creators' are more important than that of wage slaves?
What benefit is buying a separate policy to pay for birth control pills when the premiums of the policy cost more than the pills themselves? Oh, I get it. We get to say we scored a victory for women. Some victory.
What part about "at no cost" do you fail to understand? Thanks for the daily demonstration that wingnuts are morons.
James,
we don't want to score any "victories" for the "special interest" group of women, now do we?
in many cases the "policy" does not cost more than the pills themselves. many women are UNABLE to take generic birth control pills, as they often have side affects that THE BRAND NAME BIRTH CONTROL PILLS DO NOT HAVE.
BRAND NAME BIRTH CONTROL PILLS can cost women thousands of dollars a year without insurance coverage.
Women having control over their bodies' reproductive systems makes them free in a way that interferes with the xtian taliban fantasy utopia the teahadists hope to 'return' to.
I find the Pope's intrusion into women's vaginas religiously offensive.
A long with romney and the mormon gang
Can we just broaden that out to orthodox religion in general...
I mean seriously the people who seem to be the most interested in a woman's reproductive habits always seem to be from very aggressively traditional religious backgrounds
Hypocrisy; women do not get promotions because they may get pregnant but she can not have birth control pills. Of course, now that women make almost as much as men, they don't want them in the workplace. Educated women are inconvenient to troglodyte men, going so far as expecting them to bathe and have teeth.
We spend billions of dollars on drugs to treat erectile dysfunction while we fight over women's access to contraception. Margaret Mead would think we're insane.
Considering the kind of beliefs that infect the anti-contraception crowd, I think we can make a firm diagnosis of insanity.
Can you imagine a gop congress and POTUS trying to pass a law that says insurance companies must stop covering birth control ?
ROMNEY AND THE GANG WOULD BE DOING THAT RIGHT NOW IF THEY HAD WON!!!
They want a christian taliban golden calve america
Patango you just hit on something. If the President would just say he is against contraceptives. Republicans would be so outraged they would force priests and pastors to pay for them out of their own pocket. Problem solved.
I just don't get being against birth control. I don't. Barefoot & pregnant? No thanks.
Birth control is fine if it is paid for by the individual using it, not by me and any other tax payer. I think republicans are all about personal responsibility. I was brought up to be responsible and accountable for my actions. If I goof up, I have to figure out how to get out of the mess I make, not go whining to someone else to fix it.
And when someone has hemorrhaged because they couldn't afford the pill that would have regulated their cycle, and they go to emergency without health insurance guess who pays? You and me. We all pay with higher hospital fees & insurance premiums. Which I'm sure you'll be quick to whine about.
Lots of women use birth control to deal with reproductive issues beyond not getting pregnant every month. Their lives depend on it.
The thing about this though is that birth control is a PRESCRIPTION. If someone has insurance, why should that insurance decide 'I'm morally against birth control'? What if I was morally against blood tranfusions? Why should I pay for someone else's devil treatment?
Part of the hypocrisy of this, however, is still there.
The catholic church is probably THE most vocal voice out there that says they oppose birth control.
I haven't looked up the numbers recently, but it used to be that over 2/3rds of catholics use birth control of one type. So does the catholic church represent the people, or do the people represent the church?
Neither. The Catholic Church represents pedophilia. And Catholic women represent the real world. Best of all, neither the twain shall meet...
The Catholic church has never represented anything but the powerful since Constantine stopped siccing the lions on them. (which actually only ever happened once, under Nero, but Christians are great at telling stories about events that never happened, like the life of Jesus)
TCinLA,
Or omitting Jesus' brothers and sisters?
And with this compromise we're ready for the next one - no medical insurance requirements for companies run by Christian Scientists.
In unrelated news, record numbers of CEOs are expected to convert their religious preference to Christian Scientist.
Birth control is a personal issue for women. It is a personal responsibility. It should never be the responsibility of the government or any tax payers. Sex and birth control are solely up to the individual. If a woman does not want a child, then she alone is responsible for doing something about it. She should deal with the consequences unless there are extenuating circumstances.
The problem "jes" is that it's a bit late in the game for the right to suddenly care about tax payers.
They have no trouble whatsoever sticking tax payers with the bills for any and all adventures they choose to go on, but suddenly want to "hold the line" at women's health.
No, "jes", that's not going to happen. Any belief to the contrary is in error, sir/mam.
We all suffer the consequences of unwanted children. And until all men just say no to rape, the issue of personal responsibility is moot.
" if a woman does not want a child, then she alone is responsible"
So Jes your'e saying that man has no responsibility for where he deposits his seed? or what the outcome of his actions are? Unbelievable!!!! Do you live in a cave?
If Republicans don't want to end up talking about rape, they better stop the nonsense about personal responsibility.
My health insurance premiums (when I finally have it) are paid by me...not by taxpayers. Why is that so hard for you to understand. It is neither my boss' nor your business what happens within my body. That aside, I bet you are also against abortion and welfare and food stamp programs to feed hungry children. This new breed of "ME and ME alone" types need to get your heads out of your asses and into the land of reality and start coming up with real solutions to today's' very real issues before you find your own self pregnant and trapped with a man that beats the crap out of you every day and you having no place to turn to because you "COULD DO EVERY THING ALL BY YOURSELF WITH NO HELP EVER FROM ANYONE" Be careful what you preach lady because one day you might have to practice it.
Well, not only are the religious fanatics against birth control; but, they are trying to take us back to the days of back alley enortions, etc. Viagra, is covered by many health plans, because it is something MEN want! And these same men, who may drop a baby or 2 somewhere, could care less.
Do not forget, the woman in Ireland who was refused an abortion, even though it could, and did, cost her her life. Presently we are seriously getting into that situatioon, where men decide and women die!
Just how much latitude should we give to the delusional? Enough already!
Rachel, can you somehow post/list/tweet the names of all the companies/institutions that will not pay for women's health care contraception coverage? When seeking employment, how will women know which companies will not provide health care contreception coverage?
Thank you so much, Rachel, for being so fabulous! Thanks to you and Chris Matthews! You both bring to the public that which concerns us, and you both do so with panache!
You are terrific!
"
"Legal concepts such as toleration, religious liberty, and associational and cultural
rights are used, inter alia, to perpetuate the subordination of women, and the
only way to end the hegemony of patriarchy and replace it with a hegemony of
equality is to intervene in religion and culture." (From "A Rank Usurpation of Power -- The Role of Patriarchal Religion and Culture in the Subordination of Women" by Gila Stopler). In other words, the religious right has perverted liberal legal concepts to perpetuate the subordination of women, by arguing that somehow allowing contraceptive coverage to ALL women without discrimination "violates" their religious and cultural "rights". Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let's hope that the Administration's caving on this does not have any practical impact on women employees of institutions.
Excellent reference! And why would we feel ok telling some cultures to ditch the burkha while we perpetuate sexual servitude in this country by denying women control over their health-care decisions? My daughter's employer has never paid for her pills and it has nothing to do with religion--$$$$
I kinda like the idea of linking this providing birth control controversy to providing services for erectile disfunction -- tit for tat?
Let's include vasectomies in the discussion and see where evangelical men land. I bet I can guess. I already know where Catholics are - my cousin the priest who married us gave us total agreement, including his two brothers, when I had mine done--and it was fully covered by my insurance. The Church would not agree with it, I'm sure. Men would not stand for meddling in their medical contacts with their doctors but seem to believe, some of them anyway, that they are fine with doing it when it comes to women.
Another victory for the American Taliban.
This would be a compromise if the separate policy had an additional premium, paid by the employees, that covered the cost of the contraception. If there is no additional premium, it is not a compromise. Another compromise would be if the patient at least paid the standard prescription copay just like any other prescription, such as that for an antibiotic. Just because you have to pay a copay--that doesn't mean you are denied "access" or coverage for contraception.