(AP) WASHINGTON — Republicans vowed Wednesday to reverse President Barack Obama's new policy on birth control, lambasting the rule that religious schools and hospitals must provide contraceptive coverage for their employees as an "unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country."
The White House pushed back in the face of a political firestorm, arguing that Obama was sensitive to the objections and looking for a way to allay the concerns. Democratic women lawmakers put up a united front in defending the administration.
"Women's health care should not depend on who the boss is," said Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky.
The fight over the administration mandate escalated as House Speaker John Boehner accused the administration of violating First Amendment rights and undermining some of the country's most vital institutions, such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals. He demanded that Obama rescind the policy or else Congress will.
"This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand," Boehner, a Catholic and Ohio Republican, said in a floor speech rare for the speaker.
The contentious issue has roiled the presidential race and angered religious groups, especially Catholics, who say the requirement would force them to violate church teachings and long-held beliefs against contraception.
It also has pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that has been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama's health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans' conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.
Clearly sensing a political opening, Republicans ramped up the criticism. Shortly after Boehner spoke, GOP senators gathered on the other side of the Capitol to hammer the administration and insist that they will push ahead with legislation to undo the requirement.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., called the new rule "an unprecedented affront to religious liberty. This is not a women's rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue."
The issue is not contraception, said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., but "whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn't be done. It's that simple. And if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all kinds of other absurd results."
Several Senate Democrats said they would challenge any effort to reverse the policy.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., pointed out that for about 15 percent of women, birth control pills are used to treat endometriosis and other conditions.
"It's medicine and women deserve their medicine," she said.
The White House, facing a public and political outcry, engaged in damage control, circulating letters and statements from outside groups defending its position.
Administration officials had signaled on Tuesday that a compromise was possible and made clear Wednesday it was still looking for a way to deal with the issue.
"The president is committed, as I've tried to make clear, to ensuring that this policy is implemented so that all American women have access to the same level of health care coverage and doing that in a way that hopefully allays some of the concerns that have been expressed," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, who added, "We're focused on trying to get the policy implementation done in the right way."
Options could include granting leeway for a church-affiliated employer not to cover birth control, provided it referred employees to an insurer who would provide the coverage.
Another idea, previously rejected by the administration, calls for broadening the definition of a religious employer that would be exempt from the mandate beyond houses of worship and institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith. That broader approach would track a definition currently used by the IRS, bringing in schools, hospitals and social service agencies that deal with the general public.
Republican White House hopefuls Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have been relentless in assailing the administration, criticizing the president at campaign stops. Romney has accused Obama of an "assault on religion" and Gingrich called the rule an "attack on the Catholic Church."
But Romney has drawn criticism from his GOP rivals and the White House over policies when he was Massachusetts governor.
In late 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. Some Catholics say the so-called morning-after pill is a form of abortion.
Romney said he did not support the Massachusetts law, which passed despite his veto. But he also said at the time, "My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information."
White House spokesman Jay Carney seized on that policy at his daily briefing Wednesday.
"The former governor of Massachusetts is an odd messenger on this given that the services that would be provided to women under this rule are the same services that are provided in Massachusetts and were covered when he was governor," Carney said.
He called it "ironic that Mitt Romney is criticizing the president" for a policy that Carney described as identical to the one in place in Massachusetts.
Boehner said that if the administration fails to reverse the policy, then Congress will act. He said that in the coming days, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will move ahead on legislation.
A group of House Democratic women sought to frame the issue in economic and health terms, arguing that birth control reduces health costs and stops unintended pregnancies.
In a conference call, Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., who said she spoke as a nurse, mother and grandmother, pointed out that 28 states have similar rules on coverage for birth control. Schakowsky pointed out that the rule affects nurses, secretaries and janitorial staff who may not be Catholic.
Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., said the church "can't impose its religious views on people and whether they can have health care."
But not all Democrats backed the administration. Tim Kaine, a Catholic seeking the Senate seat in Virginia, said he supports contraceptive coverage but thinks there should be a broader exemption for religious organizations. He made the comments in a radio interview Tuesday with the "HearSay with Cathy Lewis" program on WHRV in Hampton Roads, Va.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who faces re-election in November, sent a letter to Obama complaining that the mandate is a "direct affront to religious freedoms."
Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., said in January that the decision "violates the long-standing tradition of protection for conscience rights in federal law."
13 comments:
Obama forcing birth control on women is almost like China's limit on the number of children a household can have. If this is a free country, Women should be able to choose whether or not they want to take it. Religion also makes a big problem because Mormons and Catholics can't take contraceptives. It's against their religion and they should not have to give up on, or betray their religion just because of some policy. Personally, I don't think that this policy was thought out very well
Science gives us all more reason to doubt the ethics of the world, but isn't this what the United States is about? We are meant to have the freedom to believe that something is wrong. So why should the government be able to force an organization to do something it believes is wrong? Women who "need" this stuff can go elsewhere to get it. Other places, I'm sure would be glad for the business while religion-based hospitals who don't agree should be fine with placing ethics before business or unnatural medicine that isn't necessary or even guaranteed to work. Catholic hospitals should be able to choose what kind of services it will or will not offer.
One of the bigger issues involved with this is what people believe is a violation of their first admentment rights. While the bill as it is proposed now would indeed force the contreception on people who are strictly against it, it also will help provide the rest of employees who might need it. One solution that could come from this is that each employee is given a choice on whether or not she wants the newly offered contreception. This would allow the people who are so adamantly against it to decline it for themselves instead of for everyone.
The whole idea behind every woman allowe access to the same kinds of birth control and benefits is, in my opinion, completely fair. The problem arises, obviously, with the whole religious aspect of the idea. Whenever someone brings religion into play, it's almost an immediate battlefield, and it becomes absolutely ridiculous in some cases. Pretty much regardless of the outcome, the Obama Administration will anger SOME people, while pleasing others, and here's no way to make everyone happy.
I disagree with Obama's policy because of the obvious contradiction with religious freedom guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. Being a Catholic, I agree with all of the theological ideas that are mentioned in the article, which are the cause of conflict between Obama's policy and the Church. It is important to keep in mind that although this article strictly mentions birth control as a point of contention, Obama's policy also includes abortion and contraception requirements, causing further conflict with religious groups.
I saw on the news that recently Obama changed his policy to make it the health care providers' responsibility to offer these services. This compromise alleviates moral pressures of religious organizations while still allowing women access to medical services without oppressing First Amendment rights to religious freedom.
Senator Kelly Ayotte said “This is not a women’s rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue”, but I think it’s both. Either women working for a religious school or hospital would be affected by their employers' decision not to provide contraception for them, or religious institutions would be forced to violate what they stand for. I think neither of these options should be taken because they both stand on legitimate ground. An institution that provides healthcare to its employees should not be able to pick and choose which services it will provide, since healthcare is a legal issue which shouldn’t be determined by religious standards. However, the Constitution does say that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This would most certainly violate this clause of the Constitution, but reversing the law would assert that religion has a place in political decisions, which I believe it does not, considering its personal and voluntary nature and the separation of church and state. So I think that either repealing the law or keeping it would be wrong, and that healthcare should be more individually based, and thus subject only to individual preferences, not those of a company.
I saw a news article in the news the other day stating that Republicans were trying to create some type of standard that gives all types of birth control the same title as straight-up abortion. I don't even see why the GOP debaters even bother picking sides in the arguments on abortion and birth control, seeing as all sides of the debate (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, ect.) have no set opinion on the debate. It just seems like one's position on this specific debate is either personal or religious. These are the kinds of topics we should ignore in the GOP and spend time elsewhere, having GOP candidates discuss foreign affairs and the economy.
A White House compromise on birth control caused not only some confusion but an uprising among Catholic hospitals and schools that opposed a requirement that they provide contraceptive benefits to their employees.
In response to this growing uprising, Obama said Friday that people who work for religion-based employers will be able to get contraceptive services at no cost directly from their insurance companies instead of through their employers' plans. But how far does that go? The churches don't want the pill anyways... Why make them get something they don't want? Regardless if it's free or not. They don't want it. It should be the churches desision to give out contraceptives if they want; this goes against everything they teach. Especially in the Catholic church where 1)you aren't supposed to have sex before mairrage 2) you aren't supposed to protect against having a kid, you're supposed to be married and want to start a family. If you don't want a kid; DON'T DO "IT" you just have to do what the church teaches... Obama shouldn't force people to go against their beliefs.
I think that forcing Catholic and other religious organizations to have birth control other contraception and abortion under their health insurance plans is a violation of the first amendment. If contraception is completely against their beliefs then they should not be forced to cover it. Although i do understand the argument of why it is necessary, because there may be employees who are not of the same religion and find nothing wrong with it and use it. But i still think it is wrong for the organizations to be forced to cover it. It is against they're constitutional rights, therefore should be repealed.
While I support the policy, there should be some changes made to it. The policy shouldn't affect institutions such as churches directly, but for large facilities such as hospitals or other religiously-affiliated companies they should. Not everybody working in a Catholic hospital is Catholic, and they should hold a right to medicine.
This isn't an attack on religious freedom, it's an advancement on the goal of universal heath care. It's giving people the opportunity to get contraceptives through their heath insurance where they couldn't have gotten it before. To withhold contraceptives is a liability to many of these companies since a child is more expensive than a 30 day supply of pills.
The argument against this policy is ludicrous, and I hope that President Obama stands by the decision.
Situations like this make it difficult to stand a firm ground. But the birth control policy that Obama wants to pass for religious organizations is a violation of the First Amendment. Of course, we no longer live in a society, where no one is not having sex. But what is the point of having the freedom of religion if you have to be forced to go against something that goes against your beliefs? Religious organizations say that the birth control policy violates everything that they teach, such as fornication and abstience, and so when they have to give conception away it makes it seem like the church accepts it. Which they should not have to do. So Obama's birth control policy is asking to much of religious organizations by forcing them to go against their beliefs.
I support Obama's birth control policy because, overall, the claims that it infringes upon the rights of religious facilities are without substance. The use of contraceptives is a personal choice made by women who practice all kinds of religions, including Catholicism. Those who oppose this policy are keen to overlook several key elements, one of which being that churches are exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that provides contraception, not to mention that no one would ever be forced to take advantage of the benefits offered.
I can see why many people are reacting to this new policy with declaring it "an attack on religious liberties." Boehner wants to reverse the attack and I agree with the fact that it is not fair to some churches, schools, and hospitals. They should have the choice wether or not to use contraceptives since they choose their religion and it's their beliefs. Everyone has the right to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions and such things. But in a way they are actually advocating for the "freedom" to deny others the freedom to make their own free decision regarding contraception, which would lead to tryanny, and would not be a good system for our country.
Post a Comment