Obama Violates Religious Freedom

[Shady]

Here's the latest example of Obama's shredding of the American constitution...

Obama runs roughshod over religious freedom

This particular episode is significant because the Obama administration has provided the narrowest conscience protection in our nation’s history, according to legal experts who are challenging the administration’s rule. We have a long tradition in this country of working around religious differences so that people are not forced to violate their faith to satisfy a secular mandate. This is the essence of the debate.

As to the separation of church and state argument that church critics keep raising, keep in mind that this separation was also intended to protect religious believers from state interference.

Washington Post - Parker

Writer EJ Dionne sums up the political ramifications...

His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health-care law.

Washington Post - Dionne

You'd think a supposed constitutional law professor would understand the constitutional aspects of the laws he signs a little better. But whether it's this, or the unconstitutional judicial recess appointments he made when the senate wasn't actually in recess, the unconstitutional federal health insurance mandate, or the unconstitutional off-shore drilling moritorium, he just keeps on shredding.

[BubberMiley]

When you're in the health insurance business, you play by the rules of the health insurance business, not the rules of the religion business.

[Shady]

When you're in the health insurance business, you play by the rules of the health insurance business, not the rules of the religion business.

Huh?

[The_Squid]

When a church wants to be in the business of providing health insurance, they must follow the laws of providing insurance! And those rules state that contraception is covered.

If you don't like the rules, stay in your church and prosthelize.... don't become an insurer...

The really funny part about this? Catholic women use contraception!!

Contraceptive use by Catholics and Evangelicals—including those who attend religious services most frequently—is the norm, according to a new Guttmacher report.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/04/13/index.html

Once again, the church is out of touch... not just with the world in general, but their own parishoners!

[Shady]

When a church wants to be in the business of providing health insurance

Church's aren't in the business of providing health insurance.

don't become an insurer...

Once again, they aren't insurers.

I don't think some of you have a firm grasp of what the issue actually is in this situation.

[The_Squid]

Birth control is not controversial. Surveys show that 99 percent of women and 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control at some time in their lives.

No one is trying to require that anyone else use birth control if it violates their religious convictions. But the convictions of some religious leaders should not be allowed to trump the rights of women employees to have access to birth control.

The rule in question exempts 355,000 churches from this requirement since they presumably hire individuals who share the religious faith of the institutions in question. But it does not exempt universities and hospitals that may be owned by religious organizations, but serve -- and employ -- people of all faiths to engage in decidedly secular activities. These are not "religious institutions." They are engaged in the normal flow of commerce, even though they are owned by religious organizations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/protecting-access-to-birt_b_1262530.html?ref=politics

There is a clause that exempts religious institutions! A hospital is not a church!! A university is not a church! And when those places proivide healthcare insurance to their employess they must follow the normal rules!!

[Black Dog]

Although Catholic churches and their direct employees are exempt from the new rule, all those other Catholic-sponsored entities, from schools to hospitals to charities that employ non-Catholics, have to comply or pay prohibitive fines.

Makes sense to me.

So to recap: no Catholic will be forced to take birth control if they don't want to.

[waldo]

ah yes, a ShadyRhetoricalExtravaganza!

oh wait... what's this: Major Mainstream Religious Leaders Support White House on Contraceptive Coverage In Health Care Reform

February 8, 2012, Washington, DC — Today, twenty-three major mainstream religious leaders released a statement supporting the January 20, 2012 announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that contraceptive services must be covered by most insurance policies without deductibles or co-pays, and that only purely sectarian organizations are exempt from this requirement.

Catholics for Choice; the Central Conference of American Rabbis; Concerned Clergy for Choice; Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Divinity School; Episcopal Women’s Caucus; Hadassah; the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Jewish Women International; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Muslims for Progressive Values; the National Council of Jewish Women; Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board; the Rabbinical Assembly; the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; the Religious Institute; Society for Humanistic Judaism; The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Union Theological Seminary; Unitarian Universalist Association; United Church of Christ; and Women’s League for Conservative Judaism represent millions of religious leaders and people of faith across the country.

Together, the leaders of these Christian, Jewish and Muslim national organizations affirmed:

“We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals’ moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions. We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform – as we value our nation’s commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children, and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals’ conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception.” [emphasis added]

Signed,

Catholics for Choice, Jon O'Brien, President

Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Jonathan Stein, President

Concerned Clergy for Choice, Rabbi Dennis Ross, Director

Disciples Justice Action Network, Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Director

Episcopal Divinity School, The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President

Episcopal Women's Caucus, Rev. Dr. Elizabeth Kaeton, Convener

Hadassah, Marcie Natan, National President

Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Robert Barkin, Interim Executive Vice President

Jewish Women International, Lori Weinstein, Executive Director

Methodist Federation for Social Action, Jill Warren, Executive Director

Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonneveld, President

National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Kaufman, CEO

Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board, Rev. Jane Emma Newall, Chair

Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Executive Vice President

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rev. Steve Clapp, Chair

Religious Institute, Rev. Dr. Debra W. Haffner, Executive Director

Society for Humanistic Judaism, M. Bonnie Cousens, Executive Director

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Steven Wernick, CEO

Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President

Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Peter Morales, President

United Church of Christ, Rev. Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President

Women’s League for Conservative Judaism, Rita L. Wertlieb, President; Sarrae G. Crane, Executive Director

[Michael Hardner]

Seems like such a stupid item for the Dems to pick a fight over. I disagree with them on this, but it seems so weird to force this issue.

[Guest American Woman]

From the Squid's link:

Some religious leaders argue that they should not be required to pay for birth control coverage for their employees if they have religious objections to birth control. This argument ignores the fact that health insurance coverage is not a voluntary gift to employees. It is a part of their compensation package. If someone opposed the minimum wage on religious grounds -- say because they believed it "discouraged individual initiative" -- that wouldn't excuse them from having to pay the minimum wage.

If a Christian Science institution opposed invasive medical treatment on religious grounds, it would not be allowed to provide health care plans that fund only spiritual healing.

Many Americans opposed the Iraq War -- some on religious grounds. That did not excuse them from paying taxes to the government.

I think that about sums it up.

[scribblet]

Have to say the uproar over this is bemusing, I just don't understand how any employer can exempt some provisions of their health care benefit package on religious grounds. Are all the employees of the same faith, I kind of doubt it, why should an employer tell me I can't have a particular prescription covered because they are mired in the stone age. What about employee rights

[sharkman]

Then I would ask why are you working for an employer you think is mired in the stone age? Or why are you still working for an employer who offers a benefit package that you take issue with. Find a company that you prefer.

So all of a sudden it's a right to have contraceptives for free?

Edited February 9, 2012 by sharkman

[scribblet]

Then I would ask why are you working for an employer you think is mired in the stone age? Or why are you still working for an employer who offers a benefit package that you take issue with. Find a company that you prefer.

So all of a sudden it's a right to have contraceptives for free?

For free ? For free would be expecting the gov't or someone else to pay for them, expecting a legal prescription to be part of a normal health care benefits compensation package is not 'for free' per se.

If the employer otherwise pays very well and it's a good job, why should one have to move because an employer doesn't like what an individual's choice. It actually sounds discriminatory to me.

They are not asking the RC churches to pay for it are they ?

[Guest American Woman]

They are not asking the RC churches to pay for it are they ?

Seems to me they are - the church is funding the hospital/whatever, providing the salaries and benefits, so they are in effect paying for the benefits.

[scribblet]

Seems to me they are - the church is funding the hospital/whatever, providing the salaries and benefits, so they are in effect paying for the benefits.

Okay thanks, if it is the Church itself providing the benefits then I can see the argument about religious freedom. Are the employees usually R.C. only, or do they hire from all faiths ?

I can understand to some extent getting upset if they required to pay for abortions, but birth control in this day and age! IMO most RCs don't follow that anyway.

[Guest American Woman]

Okay thanks, if it is the Church itself providing the benefits then I can see the argument about religious freedom. Are the employees usually R.C. only, or do they hire from all faiths ?

From what I've read, they hire from all faiths.

I can understand to some extent getting upset if they required to pay for abortions, but birth control in this day and age! IMO most RCs don't follow that anyway.

From what I've read, most support including birth control. Most RC have used it at one time or another in this day and age, but this is strictly a decision of The Church, and The Church still views birth control as a 'sin' to be confessed.

[The_Squid]

Churches themselves are exempt.

If a religious group chooses to run a hospital and hire people then they must follow the rules.

[Guest American Woman]

If a religious group chooses to run a hospital and hire people then they must follow the rules.

Evidently there are legal challenges in the works:

Obama birth control mandate faces legal challenges

The courts will be the next battleground for the fight over whether the Obama administration can require religious organizations to cover birth control as part of their insurance plans.

Two federal suits have already been filed by religious universities — one in D.C., the other in Colorado — contending that the rule violates their religious liberties.

However, according to this article - Many Catholic Universities, Hospitals Already Cover Contraception In Their Health Insurance Plans.

Catholic leaders and the GOP presidential candidates have intentionally distorted the Obama administration’s new rule requiring employers and insurers to provide reproductive health benefits at no additional cost sharing. Conservatives are seeking a way to politically unite Republican voters around a social issue and portray the regulation as a big government intrusion into religious liberties. In reality, the mandate is modeled on existing rules in six states, exempts houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of faith, and offers employers a transitional period of one year to determine how best to comply with the rule.

It’s also nothing new. Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees.

[Guest Manny]

IMO most RCs don't follow that anyway.

Been spying through windows, have we?

[BubberMiley]

I think birth rates provide more reliable data than spying through windows.

[Guest Manny]

I think birth rates provide more reliable data than spying through windows.

Is that an opinion too? Or do you have actual data.

[scribblet]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2011/04/guttmacher-most-catholic-women-use-artificial-birth-control/

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.

The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.

[The_Squid]

Is that an opinion too? Or do you have actual data.

From an earlier post of mine:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/04/13/index.html

Contraceptive use by Catholics and Evangelicals—including those who attend religious services most frequently—is the norm, according to a new Guttmacher report.

------------

•Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same among Catholic women (98%).

•Among sexually active women of all denominations who do not want to become pregnant, 69% are using a highly effective method (i.e., sterilization, the pill or another hormonal method, or the IUD).

•Some 68% of Catholic women use a highly effective method, compared with 73% of Mainline Protestants and 74% of Evangelicals.

•Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family planning; this is true even among Catholic women who attend church once a month or more.

•More than four in 10 Evangelicals rely on male or female sterilization, a figure that is higher than among the other religious groups.

The only people who don't think that contraception is a good idea seems to be church "officials" (priests and such), Rick Santorum and a tiny minority (~1%) of religious folk.

[Guest Manny]

Someone should inform the pope...

[Shady]

Seems like such a stupid item for the Dems to pick a fight over. I disagree with them on this, but it seems so weird to force this issue.

I agree. Expecially in an election year.

So all of a sudden it's a right to have contraceptives for free?

Apparently that's a right now.

It seems that people have forgotten that different jobs usually have different benefits packages associated with them. Some jobs differ in terms of their health care, some jobs differ in terms of pensions and retirement plans. It's pretty simple. If you want a job that provides coverage of your contraception, don't seek a job in a church related entity.

Anyways, there's simple way of working around this, and the Obama administration will eventually get there. All they have to do is put in place a system that some states already have, where a third party provider can provide this coverage.

Looks like the church leadership was lied to as well...

Cardinal-Designate Dolan: Obama Reneging On Birth Control Provision

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan says President Barack Obama hasn’t kept his promise, when it comes to the new White House policy on contraception.

Sources told CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer that Archbishop Dolan feels betrayed after his meeting with the president on the issue late last year.

AP

I guess we've found out what Obama's word is worth. He promises one thing, and then goes a head with another. There are now Democrats in his party that are extremely pissed off. Some of them saying that they wouldn't have voted for Obamacare if they knew this was in it. I guess they learned a valuable lesson. Read a bill before you vote on it. You'd think that would be common sense.

More repercussions...

Catholic TV network sues to block U.S. contraception rule

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Roman Catholic television network said on Thursday it has filed suit in federal court to block President Barack Obama's new rule on contraceptives

AP

You'd wonder why the Obama adminstration would go down this road, when just last year the Supreme Court rules 9 to 0 on a similar case involving religious freedom vs government regulation. It seems pretty odd.

Yet more repercussions...

Former DNC Chair Tim Kaine splits with Obama on birth control rule for religious groups

Former Virginia governor Timothy M. Kaine criticized the Obama administration’s new policy requiring some religious institutions to provide coverage for prescription contraceptives, a rare instance of disagreement between the Senate candidate and his close political ally.

Kaine was President Obama’s choice to lead the Democratic National Committee, and he has generally agreed with the administration on most policy issues

NYT

Anyways, I don't think people quite understand what this issue is about. It's not about contraception. Most people use, and accept contraception as a part of every day life. This issue is about the seperation of church and state, and whether or not the federal government can force people to go against the practices of their religion. People forget that the seperation of church and state goes both ways. Obama's gonna lose, and lose bad on this.

My prediction. They'll work out a compromise, a broader exemption sometime in the near future. But in the mean time, what an amateur.