2012 Tuesday: With Obamacare contraception ruling, the president burns a wide bridge
Sometimes, you have to wonder if the uber-brains in the Obama administration/re-elect team are so bored with merely running the country that they try to challenge themselves by making matters more difficult than need be.
Last week was one of those times. Just in case Obamacare — to which President Obama hardly referred in his State of the Union address/campaign speech — didn’t seem like enough of a liability, the administration declared that all employer health-insurance plans will have to cover sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients. There will be no exception if an employer is a religious group whose doctrine opposes these things. Among other things, it was the latest sign that President Obama’s infamous promise about his health-care reform — that you could keep your present coverage if you liked it — was an example of active deception.
(One assumes there will be no retroactive decisions by fact-checkers like Politifact to name that Obama line — and not the GOP criticisms of Obamacare — the “Lie of the Year” for 2009 or 2010. It’s little consolation that Obama’s line is the leader in the clubhouse for Lie of the Century.)
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson calls [note: link is now fixed] the decision “the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government” in more than 135 years:
Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. …
The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.
The New York Times’ Ross Douthat points to an even broader implication of the new regulation:
A number of religious groups, led by the American Catholic bishops, had requested an exemption for plans purchased by their institutions. Instead, the White House has settled on an exemption that only covers religious institutions that primarily serve members of their own faith. A parish would be exempt from the mandate, in other words, but a Catholic hospital would not.
Ponder that for a moment. In effect, the Department of Health and Human Services is telling religious groups that if they don’t want to pay for practices they consider immoral, they should stick to serving their own co-religionists rather than the wider public. Sectarian self-segregation is O.K., but good Samaritanism is not. The rule suggests a preposterous scenario in which a Catholic hospital avoids paying for sterilizations and the morning-after pill by closing its doors to atheists and Muslims, and hanging out a sign saying “no Protestants need apply.”
Maybe the GOP line about Obamacare’s amounting to a “government takeover of health care” will turn out to be not such a “lie” after all. As Douthat goes on to note:
The regulations are a particularly cruel betrayal of Catholic Democrats, many of whom had defended the health care law as an admirable fulfillment of Catholicism’s emphasis on social justice. Now they find that their government’s communitarianism leaves no room for their church’s communitarianism, and threatens to regulate it out of existence.
Will Catholics who have supported the Democratic Party in spite of its decades-long pro-abortion stance decide an insurance regulation is the philosophical breaking point? Maybe: Up until now, they could rationalize to themselves that they weren’t being forced to take an action themselves that violated their consciences. Now they’ll have to come up with a new justification.
If they can’t find one, it could have a sizable impact on this year’s contest. Catholics made up more than a quarter of the 2008 electorate, and Obama won the group by 9 percentage points. John Kerry, who is a Catholic, lost the group by 5 points in 2004. Had Obama repeated Kerry’s performance with Catholics, it would have lopped 2 whole points off his popular-vote win. (The effects in the Electoral College would have been harder to gauge.) And this is another case in which the folks Obama has alienated will probably be highly motivated to vote against him, whereas the people happy with his decision won’t be much more likely to turn out in his support.
Another way in which this decision may have bigger implications for the 2012 election is in the personal embarrassment it visits upon some of the high-profile Catholics who had sought to engage Obama, from the president of Notre Dame to various Catholic bishops. There likely will be a lot fewer Catholic leaders — as well as Protestant ones — willing to stand as apologists for this president.
Then again, fooling people into thinking Obama was a safe, middle-of-the-road, post-partisan candidate proved to be pretty easy in 2008. The president’s actions over the past three years have made the jobs of the Obama 2012 team harder. But perhaps, in their minds, not hard enough.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
213 comments Add your comment
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
2:39 pm
even though I do like me some sausage and bacon, I’m completely fine with ending subsidies to hog farmers.
OMG, this man is anti-bacon. LUNATIC!!!!
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:41 pm
Richard: You seem to have read only snippets of the First Amendment.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:43 pm
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
John
January 31st, 2012
2:48 pm
@Kyle Wingfield,
Does that mean polygamy is legal in this country? By banning polygamy, aren’t we prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:49 pm
Contraceptives are prohibited by Catholic doctrine (as I understand it; again, I’m not a Catholic). Forcing the Catholic church to subsidize the purchase of contraceptives for its employees is de facto forcing the church’s leaders and members to violate their doctrine of faith — i.e., their free exercise of religion.
There is no equivalent “right” being violated when the church does not subsidize the purchase of contraceptives for its employees, even if those employees are not Catholics or do not follow Catholic doctrine completely.
Ayn Rant
January 31st, 2012
2:50 pm
What’s the sense of a health care plan that doesn’t cover “sterilization, contraceptives, and abortifacients”? Responsible, moral people need these things to avoid the grave sin of bringing unwanted children into the world.
Does the Church fear that celibate priests and the sexually-active laity will be tempted to use reproduction management aids just because these are covered by the health care plan?
The real outrage on this issue is the preposterous, outdated Catholic dogma on sex and family: that young people should abstain from all sexual acts before marriage, even though the average age for marriage is 27; that contraceptives should never be used in any circumstance; and, that a woman’s pregnancy should be managed by priests, politicians, lawyers, and judges, rather than the pregnant woman.
Do you know that contraceptives were banned in the state of Connecticut until 1965? Do you know that Republican candidate Santorum proposes a national ban on contraceptives?
John
January 31st, 2012
2:51 pm
Again…a private company is not a religion.
Brian
January 31st, 2012
2:51 pm
It’s not a “right” that an individual is losing. It is an extra benefit that religious institutions get via a form of collective bargaining.
If religous groups can exempt themselves from paying for goods or services under the flag of religious freedom, why can I decide that I want those same rights based on my own freedom of conscious?
Religion and government don’t mix well. I want my government out of my religion and I want my religion out of my government. It is a delicate balancing act and it’s full of grey areas where I have to make difficult choices. I respect opinions on both sides because it isn’t a black and white issue. There is a middle ground between governmental tyranny and complete religious freedom. On one side, you have people that want religion to answer to no one. On the other side, you have people don’t want religion within 1000 miles of govt policy. This has led to a fight that is taking place between the 45 yard lines (aka ball not moving much in either direction). Neither side is happy, which usually means that things are in balance and no one is being oppressed.
Grazerizbk
January 31st, 2012
2:55 pm
I have seen coverage of this non-story on fox and other conservative news outlets. It’s simple pandering to a waning cross-section of America and I anticipate it will fizzle out – just like the birther smear campaign.
All Americans should welcome and encourage a true debate on health rights vs theocratic values.
Furthermore, would any conservative feel so kind as to produce some stats on the success of abstience programs in Red states?
John
January 31st, 2012
2:56 pm
Enter your comments here
John
January 31st, 2012
2:57 pm
Kyle,
Can you explain how banning polygamy is not a violation of the 1st amendment but including contraception in health insurance is?
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:58 pm
John….Polygamy is illegal…..contraception is not. EASY!
Hillbilly D
January 31st, 2012
3:00 pm
Kyle @ 2:49
Well said.
John
January 31st, 2012
3:01 pm
UGA 1999,
That’s the point UGA…why is it illegal? According to Kyle and other conservatives’ interpretation of the 1st amendment, making polygamy illegal is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
3:02 pm
“But here, the government is requiring that a non religious item be covered by insurance policies and people still don’t have to get them. I’m not sure I understand how this in in violation of the First Amendment.”
Richard, this issue for me isn’t one of requirement and being unConstitutional (although in my mind it is), my issue is with the stupidity of the ruling. Just how is mandating something like birth control devices and methods in coverage going to bring the cost of health care down? And isn’t that the main argument for Obamacare?
My other issue is with a government agency being used to send down yet another edict on how some private company does their business. Didn’t those of use who were against this disaster warn you that this “unelected bureaucrat” nonsense was going to happen?
And it did.
Grazerizbk
January 31st, 2012
3:04 pm
One more thing…why is it that conservatives advocate government tax breaks, recognition, etc when it comes to a lifestyle that is pure choice (ie institutionalized religion)?
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
3:06 pm
The real outrage on this issue is the preposterous, outdated Catholic dogma on sex and family
And the idea they should be able to pick and choose what coverage to offer, based on theological meanderings.
The Catholic Church ditched one hospital because they performed an abortion to save the life of the mother. The preferred Catholic result would have been a dead mother and a dead fetus, praise Jesus! These are not people with whom you can reason.
Frankly, they can kvetch and moan but keeping these fetus-worshippers away from healthcare mandates—-I say h3ll to the yes Mr. President. I didn’t vote for Obama but this next election may be a different story.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:06 pm
John….it is a violation of the constitution of marriage.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
3:09 pm
UGA, you may be right that polygamy violates SOME belief’s view of marriage, but it IS a violation of the 1st Amendment to ban polygamy. Sorry.
Brian
January 31st, 2012
3:15 pm
I have an honest question that I would like to know the answer to. Should a religious owner of a private business (lets say he is catholic) get a similar exemption from covering certain services for his employees (either now or under obamacare in 2014) as the church is seeking now?
I’m not asking to prove a point. I’m asking because I don’t know.
Grazerizbk
January 31st, 2012
3:18 pm
I got an idea.
How about the outspoken critics of this policy go to their local priest for medical treatment as a form of boycott and the rest of us who are normal continue to go to doctors and nurses?
In time…I believe the debate will resolve itself.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:19 pm
Tiberius….No it is not. If a religion said that having sex with a 2 year old was part of their religion. Do you feel that a person in the religion should not be held responsible if they molest a child?
John
January 31st, 2012
3:20 pm
UGA 1999,
What is the constitution of marriage?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 31st, 2012
3:22 pm
Aahhh, the heathens are raging today.
Now I remember why the Obamacare debate was so frustrating. Too many people not understanding what they’re talking about.
How do you think we got obozo?
JohnnyReb
January 31st, 2012
3:23 pm
All one has to do is read this thread to see a clear example of how government, especially the current administration, is dividing our nation. Pitting neighbor against neighbor in the failed attempt to promote social justice. If government was not trying to control every aspect of our lives we would not be having the debate. Make no mistake. Obamacare is NOT about giving health insurance to all. It is about taking from one to give to another that which he is not willing to earn for himself.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
3:23 pm
UGA, there is a difference between consensual relationships between adults, and forcing yourself on a child.
You argument is ridiculous. You should know better, but your religious dogma blinds you to that which you don’t agree with, rather than that which is illegal.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:25 pm
John…I suggest you research.
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
3:25 pm
a violation of the constitution of marriage.
Well, just declare there’s a “constitution of marriage” containing whatever you think should be in there, and presto! Argument won! Life as a con is so simple.
Unfortunately once they get out of their own head it’s a little more treacherous since real people in the real world get uppity and don’t conform to your random declarations. That must be a bitter disappointment.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:25 pm
Tiberius….”religious dogma” now that is funny! Molesting a child is illegal as well as polygamy. NEXT!
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
Institution of Marriage….ok ok my bad.
John
January 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
UGA 1999,
Thanks for making our point. The interpretation Kyle and other conservatives are making would mean we could not make any laws that goes against a religious belief whether that be child molestation, virgin sacrifices, polygamy, etc.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
3:31 pm
UGA, molesting a child is illegal because it is against CHILD.
Please make the case against polygamy based on consenting adults.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
3:32 pm
Kyle, You left out an important point, which is that until Obamacare was passed, employers were not required to provide health care insurance (or pay a fine). The reason that health care benefits were offered by employers was due to govt. meddling in the free market (wage controls) decades ago. About 60-65% of employees under 65 yrs. old receive health care insurance from employers.
Employer-provided benefits are NOT entitlements. They are privileges, not rights.
Not only does Obamacare mandate that everyone must have health insurance or pay a fine, but it also mandates that employers must provide health insurance or pay a fine. It also mandates that health insurance must be comprehensive, covering contraceptives, sterilization & abortions.
Obamacare is the most over-reaching & unconstitutional law ever passed in the history of our country. It totally violates Article I, “Congress shall make no law respecting…religion…prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Linda
January 31st, 2012
3:36 pm
Who said that polygamy is illegal? The liberals want to change the definition of marriage, which currently is very simple. Liberals don’t want to discriminate & must include changes in gender as well as number, age, etc. in their new definition.
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
3:46 pm
Liberals don’t want to discriminate
And in ConLand that’s what makes them such horrible people. Yeah, we get your worldview Linda.
BW
January 31st, 2012
3:50 pm
Kyle….you’re digging deep on this one man I gotta admit…don’t trust that Romney will defeat the worse President ever huh?
Linda
January 31st, 2012
3:55 pm
Aquagirl@2:50, Wouldn’t the govt. requiring the addition of condoms in vending machines be a little less expensive & painful than abortions?
Maybe I missed it. When did morality become preposterous & outdated?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 31st, 2012
3:57 pm
Ayn Rant: What’s the sense of a health care plan that doesn’t cover “sterilization, contraceptives, and abortifacients”? Responsible, moral people need these things to avoid the grave sin of bringing unwanted children into the world.
——–
Stupidity on your part does not create an obligation on my part. Want some contraceptives or to kill your unborn child? Have at it, on your own dime.
Pathetic.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
3:59 pm
Aquagirl@3:46, So, you agree that liberals don’t want to discriminate. If it feels good, do it. So, what is your new definition of marriage? Don’t be timid.
Jefferson
January 31st, 2012
4:03 pm
The subsidy is for the non catholics, its the law and a good one.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:04 pm
Aquagirl, While you are at it, when does life begin? Can you abort before or after 6 months? When is that magic life date? 3, 6 months? If a baby is born a month or two before the due date, can you still kill it? Does it have anything to do with the date of the baby shower?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
4:10 pm
Linda, why do YOU get to determine what the definition of marriage is for two (or more) consenting adults?
Or for that matter, why does the government?
Otis P Buffufnick
January 31st, 2012
4:12 pm
I’m still waiting for someone, anyone, to point out where the federal government gets the authority to require an individual to purchase a product or service….anyone?
Inside Out
January 31st, 2012
4:17 pm
If the Catholic church is so hell bent on holding the moral highground then it should turn over the files on EVERY PREIST that has been accused of molesting a child so that they can be prosecuted.
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
4:22 pm
Goodness, Linda, you sure are full of questions today. I’m half expecting “why is the sky blue?”
I think marriage (in the civil sense) should be between two legally consenting adults. I know you cons can’t differentiate between adults, children, and pet rocks, but that’s your problem.
I can ‘t condone polygamy. That’s not because of morality, frankly if you are insane enough to want 3, 5 or 15 spouses, have at it. It’s your cross to bear. But I don’t see any way to make polygamy work with our current legal system. If you’re knocked in the head and on life support, 8 divergent opinions on what to do isn’t going to work. Same with social security (who gets it?) and a whole host of other things.
In short Linda, I don’t have the idea I should dictate other people’s lives for them—unlike you and about a million other cons who think you’re god on earth.
If you want entertaining thoughts on abortion, ask a Catholic. My personal thoughts are not (and should not) be the deciding factor on the subject. If you want to play little tin god and decide when life begins, please seek treatment for your narcissistic personality disorder.
Now, Linda, my question for you….what makes you so important that you think your ideas should be the last word on these things? What do you use to keep that massive ego inflated? Hot air? Helium? Inquiring minds want to know.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:27 pm
Catholics will be the hardest hit by these mandates because they probably have the most employees & also because they are the most charitable religious group who minister to everyone with their numerous colleges, universities, etc.
HOWEVER, all the major religions in the US agree that abortion is immoral.
(Atlanta’s Emory is part of the Methodist heritage.)
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
Tiberius@4:10. I did not write or vote on the Defense Of Marriage Act, but that is one of the few opinions of Obama that I agree with.
The Blatant Lie That Can Be Heard All Over The World (that “everybody hates Obama” )
January 31st, 2012
4:33 pm
The administration declared that all employer health-insurance plans will have to cover sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients.
********************************************************
The key word is cover.
That does not sound like a threat or a mandate.
It sounds like ITS A CHOICE.
You take it or leave it.
Duh!
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
4:34 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
1:45 pm
Yeah, ’cause we wouldn’t want married couples to love and be loyal to one another, do we, redneckbluedog?
————————————
So, when you talk about married “couples” in reference to the LDS faith (Doctrine and Covenenants Section 132) are you talking about ALL “marital sealings” or just the first, since after the second, that would be more than a “couple”..????
The Blatant Lie That Can Be Heard All Over The World (that “everybody hates Obama” )
January 31st, 2012
4:37 pm
@Inside Out
January 31st, 2012
4:17 pm
If the Catholic church is so hell bent on holding the moral highground then it should turn over the files on EVERY PREIST that has been accused of molesting a child so that they can be prosecuted.
***************************************************************
Catholics are hypocrites.