White House May Look to Compromise on Contraception Decision

[rug]

February 7, 2012, 7:53 am

The White House may be open to compromising on a new rule that requires religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control, a senior strategist for President Obama said on Tuesday morning.

David Axelrod, who serves as a top adviser to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program that the president would “look for a way” to address the vocal opposition from Catholic groups who say the rule forces them to violate their religious beliefs against contraception.

“We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions,” Mr. Axelrod said.

The comments come as last month’s decision has prompted a furor among religious groups while providing Mr. Obama’s Republican opponents with fresh ammunition to claim that the president wants the federal government to control the provision of health care.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/the-politics-of-obamas-contraception-decision/

What could the contours of the compromise look like?

[phantom power]

1. providing people with access is not abridging anybody's freedom

[atreides1]

2. White Flag time...so soon?

We'll see, won't we.

[COLGATE4]

3. Once again, Obama reverts to type

when met with any resistance, he folds like a cheap suit.

[asjr]

4. This is one of the major reasons for separation of

church and state. If the employees of the Catholic hospitals are not afforded the same opportunities as other employees of secular hospitals I would think that is discrimination. If the employees do not want access to birth control they do not have to take it. Religious beliefs against contraception should not be the rule. We are a country by the people, for the people--not by the church, for the church. I know I will be scolded for my thoughts but I am religious and I am able to think for myself.

[cbayer]

6. If I might just play devil's advocate here, could not the same First Amendment

argument be made from the Catholic Church's POV?

Does not the 1st amendment protect religious institutions from government control? Particularly in matters of conscience?

[cleanhippie]

7. Civil rights only apply to people. A church is not a person.

People do make up the church, and none of their rights have been infringed at all.


I think that the issue has already been made clear: if the organization is in the business of promoting a religion (a church) then there is a religious exemption, but if the organization is in the business of providing healthcare (the hospital) for its employees, then they have to follow federal guidelines and provide equal access.


Considering that some >90% of catholics DO use contraception, the hypocrisy and compete disregard for reality that the church is demonstrating in this case is stupefying.

[cbayer]

5. According to another article I saw, there are already Catholic hospitals

and universities that include contraception coverage in their insurance plans.

Do other Catholic hospitals and universities specifically seek out policies that exclude contraception? I doubt it. The point here is that they don't want to be forced to do it.

Of course they could just stop offering insurance to their employees and students.