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
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
4:41 pm
ALL.
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
4:49 pm
Dusty
January 31st, 2012
4:52 pm
People,
The moment of truth has gone. Go upstairs and read Milton Friedman.. New subject.
JDW
January 31st, 2012
4:52 pm
So let me get this right…everyone here, Kyle included, has their panties in a wad ’cause The Administration says all EMPLOYERS have to offer baseline services in the health plan for EMPLOYEES. O’my the injustice of not allowing employers to discriminate against thier employees! ‘Cause we know Catholic hospitals would never employ people that don’t support their opposition to completely legal services.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:53 pm
Aquagirl@4:22, In essence, you think one new form of marriage is okay because it’s simpler than another form of marriage because it’s too complicated. Maybe polygamists can decide on life support & social security benefits the same way they decide on what to cook for dinner: vote.
The only “problem” I seem to have from liberals’ points of views is that I am a Christian. I actually believe in God & what he taught. If I disagreed with God or the Bible, you would call me a hypocrite.
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:02 pm
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:53 pm
—————————–
You are referring to 1 Timothy 3:2..?
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:05 pm
Not to mention the Morrill Act, the Edmunds Act, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act…
JDW
January 31st, 2012
5:10 pm
@Linda…”The only “problem” I seem to have from liberals’ points of views is that I am a Christian. I actually believe in God & what he taught. If I disagreed with God or the Bible, you would call me a hypocrite.”
So that means that you support….
-My right to sell my children into slavery should I so choose… Exodus 21:7
-The practice of executing all those that work on the Sabbath… Exodus 35:2
-The cancelation of the Super Bowl since, touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean… Leviticus 11:7
After all we must follow the instructions to the very letter mustn’t we. Thinking for oneself is just not a part of the program
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:15 pm
JDW
January 31st, 2012
5:10 pm
—————————–
I did not know you could do all that…!!! But I bet a lot of that stuff is illegal, however……
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:16 pm
I too, am a proud Christian, and I also fancy myself quite the law-abiding citizen…
Rafe Hollister
January 31st, 2012
5:28 pm
Maybe this will put an end to all the Libs constantly remarking that Romney will lose because the southern rednecks can never vote for a Mormon.
That is right they will prefer a chameleon, a professed Christian who has a war on religion, governs as a secularist, and leaves the impression in the middle east that he is one of them, an Islamist. His actions do not give any clue as to his true beliefs, just speculation.
I think they will go with the Mormon.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
5:36 pm
I don’t want to get into a deep debate with liberals regarding the Bible, but if you have questions, you are invited to any church, including mine, on Sunday & every Sunday after that. God calls homosexuality an abomination. That pretty much sums it up.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
5:37 pm
……& he’s traveled all over the world, but never to Israel…….
John
January 31st, 2012
5:54 pm
@Linda 5:36pm,
“God calls homosexuality an abomination. ”
When did God call homosexuality an abomination? Did he give a speech somewhere and said that? Did he release the speech to the press?
Thomas Avery Blair EA
January 31st, 2012
5:55 pm
I affirm my personal belief that should Obama not succeed in his bid for re-election, he will commence a war footing against Iran and its’ allies, declare a national emergency, declare martial law and usurp the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights “for the duration of the hostilities.”
War is good business…invest your sons and daughters (or not?)!
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:59 pm
Rafe Hollister
January 31st, 2012
5:28 pm
I think they will go with the Mormon.
—————————————————-
I’m personally more interested in their views on immigration….and right now it looks like I’ll be shooting baskets at the house on election day…..
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
6:01 pm
Thomas Avery Blair EA
January 31st, 2012
5:55 pm
————————————
You have solid evidence to support this…!?!? Because based on what I saw in the debates…It looks like Mitt Romney is the war hawk….although I’m not sure where he gets his guidance….
Linda
January 31st, 2012
6:05 pm
John@5:54, Read Leviticus 18:22 & this:
http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective
CurtisJasper
January 31st, 2012
6:14 pm
We’ve been through this thousands of times before, and I’m sure we’ll go through it thousands of times in the future before (if) conservatives ever manage to get it.
You don’t want to abide by Federal mandates like this? Drop the Federal funding and drop the tax exemption. It’s. That. Simple.
It’s funny you mention Gerson’s article, btw. Did you happen to follow the massive backlash he’s gotten over it?
TruthBe
January 31st, 2012
7:01 pm
Obama is a liar.
Rafe Hollister
January 31st, 2012
8:02 pm
RNBD
I’m personally more interested in their views on immigration….and right now it looks like I’ll be shooting baskets at the house on election day…
Don’t know what all this means, but I plan on dancing a jib on election day.
Tom(Independent)
January 31st, 2012
9:12 pm
So Romney is a Mormon and then Obama is part Muslim. which to vote for?? Duh??
DawgDad
January 31st, 2012
11:00 pm
For the right price the Obama Administration will glady provide a waiver. Just ask the unions, McDonalds, and the thousands of other organizations and institutions with waivers. This is the face of Amerika.
The GOP Are Blatant Liars After All
January 31st, 2012
11:04 pm
Maybe the GOP line about Obama being the food stamp president will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama being the welfare president will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama putting more people on food stamps will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama not creating jobs will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama being a socialist will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama being a do nothing president will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama won’t be re-elected will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
The GOP Are Blatant Liars After All
January 31st, 2012
11:05 pm
@TruthBe
January 31st, 2012
7:01 pm
Obama is a liar.
*******************************************
It takes ONE TO KNOW ONE.
Today’s Rebellion News – February 1st 2012 | Rebellion News
January 31st, 2012
11:22 pm
[...] 2012 Tuesday: With Obamacare contraception ruling, the president burns a wide bridge [...]
Johnny Five
January 31st, 2012
11:33 pm
The poutrage on this blog is beyond ridiculous. No one is telling you to use contraception. No one is telling you to get an abortion. For those outraged that ANY of your money is being used to subsidize the above, where you outraged at the Iraq War? What about Afghanistan? I am pretty sure the Bible says a thing or two about killing and war.
DawgDad
January 31st, 2012
11:40 pm
Maybe: Maybe, probably not.
I would exclude your “maybe” about Obama being a “do nothing” President. I don’t see how he could be accused of that; our main problem is with what he IS doing.
You cannot dismiss away facts about food stamp and welfare recipients et. al. just by wishing the facts away. This isn’t an “imagine” song lyric, it’s reality.
R
February 1st, 2012
12:01 am
“Yep, nothing like getting a job, keeping the job, paying for health insurance, and then finding out that the employer wont pay for meds or services due to their religious beliefs. Go Obama!” If you didn’t know what the church group you are employed by stands for … And the CLUELESS will keep marching ON.
Pizzaman
February 1st, 2012
4:26 am
As a Catholic I follow one of Jesus’ main rules: Render to Caesar…… That established separation of Church and State. So Catholics your supposed to separate your religious beliefs from your country’s laws and abide by both. It appears to me that the National Council of Bishop’s has forgotten that.
Obamalations
February 1st, 2012
5:54 am
Kyle Witlessfield is a fresh Conservative voice for our gay community…GO KYLE!
MiltonMan
February 1st, 2012
6:28 am
When are Catholics ever going to learn that the democratic party is not their friend. Thank God I am not Catholic.
Obozonomics
February 1st, 2012
8:40 am
Come on now Obozo is as Christian and a Muslim can be….
What
February 1st, 2012
8:44 am
Seems to me it’s time for God to have a town hall meeting and let us know how he really feels. How simple would that be and it would certainly clear up a lot of issues.
Obozonomics
February 1st, 2012
8:44 am
ooppps
Come on now Obozo is as Christian as a Muslim can be
Buzz G
February 1st, 2012
8:54 am
Just goes to show how much respect liberals have for people. They are the ultimate in arrogant tyrants.
killerj
February 1st, 2012
9:38 am
Well,Well,Well,you reap what you sew.
DawgDad
February 1st, 2012
10:06 am
Kyle, the editorial this morning, supposedly written from the “right” viewpoint, was far too weak in characterizing the dangers of slipperly slope we are on toward “community” trumping individual. There is a lot of history out there on the effects of leftist/socialist regimes on liberty and yes, life itself. Almost inevitably when “community” is put ahead of individual rights tyranny reigns and individuals and entire populations who don’t kowtow to the interests of the “community” are summarily disenfranchised, exorcised, or purged. All of these regimes started somewhere, on a slippery slope, ignoring the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness espoused in our Declaration of Independence. “All men are created equal” does NOT deny humanity and mean “all things MUST BE equal”; it means every person (not just men) needs to be afforded equal dignity and respect, and rights, under the law. The government telling a private (religious) organization who they can treat and how is blatantly unconstitutional, and we need to focus on restoring respect for our constitution. Sadly, I fear we are too far down the slipperly slope.
Glenn
February 1st, 2012
10:44 am
If the church cleaning lady gets knocked up I would rather that her employer covered it instead of me though medicaid or medicare . The Catholic church ? The same church that has said condoms don’t do anything to stop HIV infections ? They lost the right to talk about sexual issues years ago . How many priests need to be sterilized ?
S West
February 1st, 2012
10:49 am
I am a Presbyterian and I can tell you that as an independent I will vote for anyone running against the president. He went too far this time. This decision by the president should scare every American out there. If he can get away with this he will try anything. I will not only vote against the President but I will vote straight Republican across my ballot. Be afraid, be very afraid.
PMC
February 1st, 2012
12:25 pm
I wonder how many people actually vote on social issues?
BillS
February 1st, 2012
1:09 pm
Well this settles it — I’m voting for Obama. Anyone who can point out to clearly the miserable inequities practiced within the Catholic Church deserves my vote. They’re happy to accept federal subsidies, but don’t want to be told what they have to do with them. How many Catholics in the US adhere to the church’s opposition to birth control? How many believe as the church does that condoms don’t prevent HIV? How many of them are happy the church discriminates against women in its top positions? And then there’s the priestly sex scandals, which continue to come at us and which have been ignored and covered up by church heirarchy for so many decades. This church holds no high moral ground on which to complain about anything.
ricardus
February 1st, 2012
1:10 pm
It is plain that no Catholic, Roman, Anglican or Orthodox, can support or vote for a Democrat and remain in good standing in the Church. If your conscience allows that then you should leave the
Church.
Dresden
February 1st, 2012
1:14 pm
Kyle, you opened with this statement “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”
Gee Kyle, I’d rather have those uber-brains than those of any GOP candidate or president. You guys are the true problem in this world, Capitalism and Conservatism, both failures.
Gmo1945
February 1st, 2012
1:21 pm
When every priest that molested a child is behind bars then I will give a Rats A$$ what the Catholic church or any other religious institution thinks. I bet they are have any problem providing coverage for Viagria, Celalis, etc for probably some of those same priests.
S
February 1st, 2012
1:26 pm
When you except Government money(tax dollars) you get to tell the Catholic church what they can and can’t do. They get some of Gov. Tax Dollars so they have to abide by the Government policy’s. If the Catholic church doesn’t like the Government policy’s then stop accepting the Tax Dollars. How simple is that. Like the women of the Catholic flock do not use some form of birth control, who do they think their kidding. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Catholic Voter
February 1st, 2012
1:35 pm
I don’t think this is Anti-Catholic – I think this is getting more people to be covered by the government plan rather than private plans. By making it untenable to continue providing private plans, these organizations will pay fines and the government will have even more reach and power by covering more people.
It’s even more manipulative than just offending a religious group.
small business owner
February 1st, 2012
1:40 pm
I’m not getting the connection here between receiving federal funding and being mandated to cover practices that are against your beliefs. There is no exemption if the Church doesn’t get federal funding. This same rule applies to all employers – regardless of whether they receive any federal funding or not. This administration has been hell on small business (not that the Catholic church is anything close to a small business) with the regulations and burdens that have been placed on us.
Real American
February 1st, 2012
1:50 pm
The women that work for Notre Dame and other schools aren’t complaining..just the priests who hid child pedophilia from the world for decades.
Real American
February 1st, 2012
1:52 pm
Unbelievable how many people don’t actually understand the ruling, including the blogger author.