Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[Grumps 3,704]

Rumor is that Obama will soften his stance on this issue this weekend. I hope he does not, because this issue can cost him re-election.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

And to me, its just such a weird hard line position for the Obama administration to take. Seriously, pick your battles dude.

Could be he/they were trying to 'fire up' their base and get them energized before the election. 'Protecting women's rights' and all.

He fired up the wrong base then.

[Tigermike 3,029]

Obama has betrayed the liberal Catholics who backed him on ObamaCare:

The Contraception Coverage Debate Isn't Just About the Bishops

By Amy Sullivan

Feb 9 2012, 10:10 AM ET 106

Obama should do right by the progressive Catholics who made his health reforms possible and expand the religious exemption to the new contraceptive mandate in the law.

If abortion rights advocates are feeling their oats this week, they have good reason. In just two-and-half a weeks, they've claimed two major victories, forcing the Susan G. Komen Foundation to back off its policy change denying grants to Planned Parenthood clinics and convincing the Obama administration to maintain only a very limited exemption for religious employers in the new contraceptive coverage mandate, which is set to go into effect on August 1. Part of Obama's health-care reform bill, the new mandate will for the first time require most employer-provided private health-care plans to cover birth control without a co-pay or deductible.

These and other political fights over the past year have seen women's health activists adopt an increasingly combative stance. So news this week that the White House is considering broadening the religious conscience exemption have activists firing off action alerts urging the White House not to cave in to the Catholic bishops. But they might want to consider another message instead: thank you.

Let me explain. Abortion rights organizations, pro-choice Democrats, and the media have all characterized the debate over this contraception coverage rule as a struggle between the White House and the Catholic bishops. In its editorial supporting the decision, the New York Times praised the Obama administration for "with[standing] pressure from Roman Catholic bishops and social conservatives." But that's not accurate.

The list of Catholics who have lobbied the administration to consider a broader definition of "religious employer" than now exists -- one that would cover institutions like Catholic universities and hospitals -- includes politically progressive Catholics who have been close allies of the White House, like Father John Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame who stood up to conservatives who wanted Obama disinvited from giving the school's commencement address in 2009. It includes pro-life Catholic Democrats like Senator Bob Casey, who now faces an even tougher reelection campaign in Pennsylvania because of his vote in favor of Obama's health reform plan. And it includes precisely those Catholic hospital officials and progressive nuns whose support of health reform provided reassurance and cover for the holdout Catholic Democrats who voted to make it law. In doing so, they made possible the largest expansion of contraception access in U.S. history.

Without the work of women like Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, and Sister Simone Campbell of the Catholic social justice group NETWORK, there would be no health reform and therefore no contraception coverage mandate to argue over -- not just for the employees of Catholic hospitals and universities, but for the estimated 24 million other women who will benefit from this aspect of the law.

So, yes, a little gratitude from women's health advocates and other liberals would be appropriate. Instead, when these Catholic sisters and others asked for some flexibility with regard to the mandate, the advocates pooh-poohed as irrelevant their concerns about religious liberty and insisted that "the bishops" were the only ones who had a problem with contraception coverage.

The White House also bears its own large share of the blame for how it has mishandled the issue. Last August, the administration put forward the narrow exemption for religious employers as its starting point, giving it nowhere to go. Abortion rights groups didn't want a conscience exemption -- for anyone -- and Catholics balked at accepting such a limited definition, which covered only organizations that primarily employ and primarily serve individuals who share their religious tenets. This definition excludes most Catholic universities and hospitals, and many social service organizations, although it does include houses of worship. Then in November, Obama met in the Oval Office with Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholics Bishops (USCCB), and reportedly assured the powerful prelate that he would "be pleased" with the administration's final resolution of the issue. But Dolan is most assuredly not pleased. He had requested the meeting to make clear his objections to the narrow exemption, and said earlier this week that he felt personally betrayed by the outcome.

But the most tone-deaf move -- the one guaranteed to turn the behind-the-scenes debate into a public controversy -- was made by whoever decided the administration should announce the final rule in connection with the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. The rule is not about abortion, so the signal the White House meant to send was unmistakable: this is a gift for our pro-choice supporters. The symbolism alone undercut the feeble attempts of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Obama advisers to insist that they had struck "the right balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing women's access to critical preventive health services."

Until David Axelrod and others began to indicate this week that the president was open to reconsidering the religious employer exemption, White House spinners had doggedly ignored the fact that the relevant issue that troubles Catholics about the rule is religious freedom, not contraception. Religious liberty concerns are why Catholic journalists like E.J. Dionne, Melinda Henneberger, and Mark Shields -- none of whom argue that contraception morally wrong -- have criticized the White House decision. Similarly, religious organizations like the Baptist Joint Committee, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, National Association of Evangelicals, and the Orthodox Union all support the use of contraception but have expressed their opposition to the rule as well. More than 90 percent of U.S. bishops, not all of whom are conservative, have spoken out against the rule, and many have sent letters to be read from pulpits in their dioceses urging Catholics to engage in civil disobedience. Meanwhile, while the White House touts lists of doctors and scientists who support the rule, no major religious group has stepped forward to defend the White House's decision.

The question for Sister Keehan and Father Jenkins, for Senator Casey and Sister Campbell, is not whether lay Catholics disagree with the Church's teaching on birth control (a majority do) or whether nearly all Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives (they do). It is not even whether some Catholic institutions already pay for employee health plans that include coverage for contraception (some do). The question is whether the federal government should be able to require a religious institution to use its own funds to pay for something it finds morally objectionable.

There's no denying that the Conference of Catholics Bishops has made it very difficult for the president to extend a hand and negotiate in good faith. They have made the contraception rule Exhibit A in their claim that Obama is waging a "war on religious freedom," and they continue to provide fodder for Republican presidential candidates who attack Obama as anti-religion. Yet 28 states have passed similar measures mandating employer-provided contraception coverage without prompting cries of a war against Catholics. And even some Catholic dioceses, including the one in Madison run by the very conservative Bishop Robert Morlino, have decided that it is morally acceptable to select health plans that cover contraception when self-insured plans prove prohibitively expensive. (Morlino did warn diocesan employees not to avail themselves of the contraception benefit.)

But just because the Conference of Catholics Bishops has effectively declared Obama a political opponent and is spoiling for a fight this election year does not mean that the administration has to respond in kind. And that's why Obama and his supporters in the women's health community would be wise to remember that the contraception mandate is not a showdown with "the bishops." The USCCB's point man on abortion issues, Richard Doerflinger, has already declared that the likely solution to this mess -- the so-called Hawaii compromise -- unacceptable. (In Hawaii, religious employers can invoke a refusal clause that allows them to exclude contraception coverage from employee health plans, while still entitling workers independently to buy contraception coverage from insurers at a cost that is no higher than the price the employer would have paid.)

Obama should ignore Doerflinger and he should ignore any abortion rights groups that say a reconsideration of the rule is "caving into the bishops." He and his administration committed an unforced error with this policy decision, but he can and should correct it. Admitting that the administration's initial solution was insufficient isn't weak. It's doing right by the brave Catholics who made his health reform law -- and this contraception coverage mandate -- possible in the first place.

link

It's not just that Obama's message is not getting out or that it needs to be tweaked. Call me cynical but I think he chose this fight, he wanted this fight. He's 'standing up for women's rights' and not too many are talking about his absymal job of creating jobs and getting the economy moving.

[autigeremt 6,631]

I agree!!! It's a part of the same MO he has used his entire Presidency.

[Grumps 3,704]

I disagree that Obama wanted this. Obama just made a HUGE mistake. I expect him to attempt to correct it soon...if his arrogance doesn't get in the way.

[Justin5 20]

Im surprised this is getting as much news as it is. If you are a business, you follow the rules for businesses. If you are a religious organization or non-profit, you dont.

Thats the line, its rather clear. A hospital is a business.

If you want to make it a non-profit hospital, where you only allow those of your faith to work - then sure, do what you want.

Beyond that, its the law already in over 20 states. So you would think over 40% of the nation already would have no interest in it.

Finally, its contraception - which is incredibly popular.

[Grumps 3,704]

Im surprised this is getting as much news as it is. If you are a business, you follow the rules for businesses. If you are a religious organization or non-profit, you dont.

Thats the line, its rather clear. A hospital is a business.

If you want to make it a non-profit hospital, where you only allow those of your faith to work - then sure, do what you want.

That's EXACTLY the stance I hope that Obama takes!

But are you saying that it would be okay for a Catholic hospital to hire only Catholics? Then, according to Obamacare, would it be okay for the hospital NOT to provide birth control?

"it's rather clear. A hospital is a business." So, a business MUST do whatever the gov't says?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I'm surprised that you really think that's the way it's supposed to work...force religious organizations who feel it is part of their mission in this world to help the communities they are in, and all the people in it regardless of religious affiliation, to choose between violating that mission or violating their religious convictions.

What a twisted way to read the 1st Amendment...stay inside your own churches and mingle amongst yourselves or sin against your conscience.

That you and other Dems are surprised this is a big deal says more about you than it does those who object. Guess the Administration enjoys SCOTUS smackdowns, because I guarantee you this rule as it's being put forth now is headed for one.

[Justin5 20]

Im surprised this is getting as much news as it is. If you are a business, you follow the rules for businesses. If you are a religious organization or non-profit, you dont.

Thats the line, its rather clear. A hospital is a business.

If you want to make it a non-profit hospital, where you only allow those of your faith to work - then sure, do what you want.

That's EXACTLY the stance I hope that Obama takes!

But are you saying that it would be okay for a Catholic hospital to hire only Catholics? Then, according to Obamacare, would it be okay for the hospital NOT to provide birth control?

"it's rather clear. A hospital is a business." So, a business MUST do whatever the gov't says?

1. I said if they are a non-profit it would be ok. And in that case, they wouldnt have to provide birth control.

2. Yes. A business must follow the laws of the land. Is that up for debate?

[Justin5 20]

I'm surprised that you really think that's the way it's supposed to work...force religious organizations who feel it is part of their mission in this world to help the communities they are in, and all the people in it regardless of religious affiliation, to choose between violating that mission or violating their religious convictions.

What a twisted way to read the 1st Amendment...stay inside your own churches and mingle amongst yourselves or sin against your conscience.

That you and other Dems are surprised this is a big deal says more about you than it does those who object. Guess the Administration enjoys SCOTUS smackdowns, because I guarantee you this rule as it's being put forth now is headed for one.

So what makes something 'religious affiliated'? The name? Seriously, I'd like to know.

Could I start a St. Mary's Pizza shop, where I try to make a small profit, and give a couple free pizzas to the homeless? Is that religiously affiliated? Where would it cross the line? Would I have to pay taxes?

Because thats really what this is about. If its a religious organization, its already free to do what it wishes. This is a debate because these hospitals are in a grey area of mostly business, but somewhat not.

[Tigermike 3,029]

Could I start a St. Mary's Pizza shop, where I try to make a small profit, and give a couple free pizzas to the homeless? Is that religiously affiliated? Where would it cross the line? Would I have to pay taxes?

After your transgender operations and admittance into a group of Nuns yes.

[Justin5 20]

Could I start a St. Mary's Pizza shop, where I try to make a small profit, and give a couple free pizzas to the homeless? Is that religiously affiliated? Where would it cross the line? Would I have to pay taxes?

After your transgender operations and admittance into a group of Nuns yes.

Score! Now I just need to find a doc.

[Grumps 3,704]

Im surprised this is getting as much news as it is. If you are a business, you follow the rules for businesses. If you are a religious organization or non-profit, you dont.

Thats the line, its rather clear. A hospital is a business.

If you want to make it a non-profit hospital, where you only allow those of your faith to work - then sure, do what you want.

That's EXACTLY the stance I hope that Obama takes!

But are you saying that it would be okay for a Catholic hospital to hire only Catholics? Then, according to Obamacare, would it be okay for the hospital NOT to provide birth control?

"it's rather clear. A hospital is a business." So, a business MUST do whatever the gov't says?

1. I said if they are a non-profit it would be ok. And in that case, they wouldnt have to provide birth control.

2. Yes. A business must follow the laws of the land. Is that up for debate?

1. I would not think it would be acceptable for a non-profit hospital to discriminate in hiring based on the applicants' religious views. Maybe I am wrong. Anybody got any info on that?

2. Clearly this is up for debate. That is what this thread is about. It seems that if a person has the freedom to live out his/her religious beliefs, then a collection of similar persons who form a business might continue to have the freedom to continue to express those beliefs.

[Justin5 20]

Good points on both.

I get the discussion, but I respectfully disagree.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I'm surprised that you really think that's the way it's supposed to work...force religious organizations who feel it is part of their mission in this world to help the communities they are in, and all the people in it regardless of religious affiliation, to choose between violating that mission or violating their religious convictions.

What a twisted way to read the 1st Amendment...stay inside your own churches and mingle amongst yourselves or sin against your conscience.

That you and other Dems are surprised this is a big deal says more about you than it does those who object. Guess the Administration enjoys SCOTUS smackdowns, because I guarantee you this rule as it's being put forth now is headed for one.

So what makes something 'religious affiliated'? The name? Seriously, I'd like to know.

Could I start a St. Mary's Pizza shop, where I try to make a small profit, and give a couple free pizzas to the homeless? Is that religiously affiliated? Where would it cross the line? Would I have to pay taxes?

Because thats really what this is about. If its a religious organization, its already free to do what it wishes. This is a debate because these hospitals are in a grey area of mostly business, but somewhat not.

Is this what you think various religious hospitals are...the equivalent of a pizza shop that gives out token goodies to the needy here and there? That hole you're digging is getting deeper.

Here's the thing...the rule as it's applied does not only apply to "for profit" organizations. It applies to any organization, profit or non-profit, that does not serve or employ almost exclusively it's own religious group. So Prison Fellowship for instance, which serves all sort of needs of families who have one or both parents who are incarcerated as well as the prisoners themselves, if they hire enough people who aren't specifically in their group or denomination, would have to provide coverage for abortifacients or drop coverage completely (and pay a hefty penalty). That's nuts and is a radical re-interpretation of the free exercise clause.

[au2004ece 30]

Because thats really what this is about. If its a religious organization, its already free to do what it wishes. This is a debate because these hospitals are in a grey area of mostly business, but somewhat not.

This is a debate about what the government should be able to tell people/business/charities/churches to do.

The fact that doing what the government requires would violate a religious belief magnifies the issue to the level it is at now.

The government should not limit the options of a person/business/charity/church to a specific subset of the products that otherwise would be available .

The debate is not whether or not a business has to follow the laws. The debate is whether the government should be making certain laws.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Religious organization or not, I'm amazed that it's constitutional for the government to demand ANY private organization provide contraception for its employees.

[Grumps 3,704]

Religious organization or not, I'm amazed that it's constitutional for the government to demand ANY private organization provide contraception for its employees.

That's an interesting point. Does the government demand that private organizations provide antibiotics or antihypertensives for its employees? Does the law ONLY include contraceptives and abortifacients? If so, it would seem that they are TRYING to pick a fight.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

Zero outrage over this issue even though 28 states have required it for YEARS, many without the exemptions the Federal law provides. Fox directs, you emote.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2012/02/catholic-contraception-controversy-the-state-of-pay/

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/02/09/massachusetts-law-insured-birth-control-similar-rule-set-barack-obama/ff1IAblzQ7zTVuns1zAo4N/story.html

[autigeremt 6,631]

Zero outrage over this issue even though 28 states have required it for YEARS, many without the exemptions the Federal law provides. Fox directs, you emote.

http://capsules.kais...e-state-of-pay/

http://bostonglobe.c...Ao4N/story.html

I agree, but it's wrong no matter when it's happened. Our government isn't looking out for itself, it only looks out for the powers that be. The Constitution was written to protect us, and our states, from the federal government. We are on the verge of losing everything that the founding fathers worked so hard to create. It's sad, sickening, and down right illegal in my humble American born opinion.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Zero outrage over this issue even though 28 states have required it for YEARS, many without the exemptions the Federal law provides. Fox directs, you emote.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2012/02/catholic-contraception-controversy-the-state-of-pay/

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/02/09/massachusetts-law-insured-birth-control-similar-rule-set-barack-obama/ff1IAblzQ7zTVuns1zAo4N/story.html

Oh s..t facts!!!!

They're not going to like this

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Zero outrage over this issue even though 28 states have required it for YEARS, many without the exemptions the Federal law provides. Fox directs, you emote.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2012/02/catholic-contraception-controversy-the-state-of-pay/

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/02/09/massachusetts-law-insured-birth-control-similar-rule-set-barack-obama/ff1IAblzQ7zTVuns1zAo4N/story.html

Actually in many or most of those cases, there are workarounds for religious organizations...ones that the Federal law did not provide. One is mentioned in the second article your posted:

One major difference is that states have no power to mandate benefits for companies that are self-insured. So self-insured hospitals and universities in Massachusetts can get around the contraception mandate today, but will not be able to avoid the federal mandate...

There is another one in Hawaii where the state allows the person to purchase this as an add-on to a plan if their religiously affiliated employer doesn't cover it due to conscience exemptions at the same rate they'd pay if it were bundled.

But finally, so I wasn't aware of this until Sebelius and Obama decided to choose the anniversary of Roe v Wade to announce it (actually it was on my radar earlier but there was some expectation that the final decision they announced would include a broader exemption, not due to Fox News which I almost never watch) or that some states have similar measures. So what? It's still wrong and if I lived in a state with such a poor understanding of the free exercise clause of our Constitution, I would have been raising hell about it much earlier. It's wrong. The government has no business telling a religious organization that it has to provide or pay for services that go against its beliefs. Sorry. And when it reaches the Supreme Court, the administration will lose decisively. In fact, I think they realize this and will attempt to fix or scrap it before it gets to that point to avoid the embarrassment.

It's just some amazing chutzpah to sit there and say “Whether I contracept is none of your business” while holding a gun to people's heads and demanding they pay for your contraceptives. So you are not only robbing them, but forcing them to violate their consciences while doing so. Painting this as “the Church imposing its morals” on you is like accusing the pistol-whipped victim of armed robbery of lack of charity.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Hasn't this administration already lost one SCOTUS decision in the last few months on a completely different issue of them attacking religious freedom?

And for the record, I don't watch or read Fox News. I actually get my news from cnn.com.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Yes. They lost a case brought to the Supreme Court against a Lutheran church and school that fired an employee where the Obama Administration and the EEOC argued the the government had the right to dictate to a religious institution who did or did not qualify to be considered a "minister" and thus, whether or not they could hold her to the requirements of a minister in handling disputes. Our normally closely divided 5-4 SCOTUS rendered a 9-0 slap in the face to the government's attempted power grab over religious institutions.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

So what? It's still wrong and if I lived in a state with such a poor understanding of the free exercise clause of our Constitution, I would have been raising hell about it much earlier. It's wrong. The government has no business telling a religious organization that it has to provide or pay for services that go against its beliefs. Sorry. And when it reaches the Supreme Court, the administration will lose decisively. In fact, I think they realize this and will attempt to fix or scrap it before it gets to that point to avoid the embarrassment.

I don't doubt you would, but the fact that this has been the law of the land in many states, including neighboring Georgia that has no exception, and yet the great Right Wing noise machine didn't care until they could attach Obama's name to their complaint, is just par for the course and points to a broader hypocrisy that extends beyond you and other folks who sincerely hold your view.