Live Blog: Obama Announces “Accommodation” on Contraception Rule
Posted: February 10, 2012 Filed under: just because 121 Comments
Obama: "Yes sir, may I have another?"
We all expected it, but I’m still enraged and horrified. I’m beyond livid. I don’t know if my blood pressure will ever get back to normal.
At 12:15, our faux Democratic President will genuflect to a hoard of pedophile-enabling old men who really should be in jail right now for the hard they have caused to children and families. I thought we needed a live blog to follow the media circus that leads up to Obama’s upcoming impersonation of a scared little boy who is afraid there are monsters under his bed. After that we can document the reactions of the DC press corps–who knew they were mostly elderly Catholic prep school boys?
RH Reality Check says the change is going to be good for women.
Today, the White House did the right thing for women, public health and human rights. Despite deep concerns, including my own, based on what transpired in the past under health reform, the White House has decided on a plan to address the birth control mandate that will enable women to get contraceptive coverage directly through their insurance plans without having to buy a rider or a second plan, and without having to negotiate with or through religious entities or administrations that are hostile to primary reproductive health care, including but not limited to contraception.
Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide contraceptive coverage. Administration officials stated that a woman’s insurance company “will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The religious institutions will not have to pay for it.”
Moreover, women will not have to opt in or out; contraceptive care will be part of the basic package of benefits offered to everyone. Contraceptive care will simply be “part of the bundle of services that all insurance companies are required to offer,” said a White House official.
“We are actually more comfortable having the insurance industry offer and market this to women than religious institutions,” said the White House official because they “understand how contraception works” to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce health care costs. “This makes sense financially.”
The way it works is this: Insurers will create policy not including contraceptive coverage in the contract for religious organizations that object. Second, the same insurance company must simultaneously offer contraceptive coverage to all employees, and can not charge an additional premium. This provides free contraceptive coverage to women. The reason this works for insurance companies is because offering contraception is cost-neutral and cost-effective; companies realize the tremendous cost benefits of spacing pregnancies, and limiting unintended pregnancies, planned pregnancies and health benefits of contraception.
I doubt if this will mollify the Catholic bishops, and I still have a problem with the President responding to their complaints in the first place. Their goal is obviously to get their foot in the door so to speak, so they can continue to press for outlawing contraception along with abortion.
Dakinikat says that Terry O’Neill was on the Ed Show last night. She said that Obama has been talking personally to the bishops but has refused to deal directly with any women’s groups. Unbelievable!
Greg Sargent: Has Obama found a way out of the contraception mess?
On a conference call with reporters just now, senior Obama administration officials announced the outlines of the “accommodation” the White House has settled on with regard to the contraception controversy.
The gist is that women who work for religious institutions that object to offering birth control coverage will get contraception for free, directly from their insurers. The institutions won’t have to pay for it. The White House argues that this preserves both the “liberty” of those institutions and the core, inviolate principle that all women will have equal access to birth control, no matter where they work.
On the politics of this “accommodation,” Sargent writes:
Obviously you can argue over whether the administration should have reached any accommodation at all, and the politics of this, as Kevin Drum notes, could still prove a morass for the administration. Some on the left will see the administration’s efforts to appease the U.S. Conference of Bishops as unnecessary appeasment. Meanwhile, it seems all but certain that the Conference of Bishops, which had previously insisted that the rule be scrapped altogher, will not be mollified in the slightest, and Republican officials and the 2012 GOP candidates will still continue attacking the Obama administration over this, pushing not only the “war on religion” line but also the subtext, i.e., that Obama is forever looking to expand the reach of government.
But the Obama team is betting that any further objections to this policy will unmask opponents primarily as hidebound foes of birth control at any costs, a politically difficult position to sustain, rather than as defenders of religious liberty. Indeed, this looks like an effort to reframe the debate to Obama’s advantage: If Team Obama has its way, the argument will now be about whether all women should have access to contraception, and not about whether these institutions should have their religious freedom impinged upon.
They’ve already been exposed, as far as I’m concerned; but I guess Obama feels he has to convince the Catholic boyz in the DC press. Good luck with that. Frankly, Mark Shields, Chris Matthews, and E.J. Dionne are dead to me now, regardless of how they react to this. Dead. To. Me.
What do you think?
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
The Twitter feeds are changing quickly saying this actually expands things to universal birth control coverage.
Planned Parenthood is supporting this:
rhrealitycheck RH Reality Check
We’ve got the scoop: @BarackObama did NOT compromise women’s health!! ow.ly/8ZNMH More details to come, keep checking back!
jljacobson Jodi Jacobson
yes, exactly RT @CitizenDino I just got off the phone with our Ins Consultant, he explained it to me. This might officially be a HUGE WIN.
Jacobsen is the head of RH Reality check
Seems to me that this kills all the “opt out” clauses in the 28 states with laws and the remaining ones. The default just became no co-pay coverage. Unwittingly or not, that does sound like a win.
It does, but it looks like a loss because of Obama’s inexcusable bumbling.
It does appear to be a win, but I’m worried about the idea of “accommodation” and I hate the press spin. This stupid spin that there was all the rage about what is essentially another rehash of the Stupak Amendment.
I am soooooo relieved. I was steaming this morning and was bracing myself to another toss under the bus.
oops, for another toos under the bus.
So was I, believe me. I called Bostonboomer and was ranting that I’d sit the election out for sure if he sold us out yet again. It took me at least 30-45 minutes of research before I’d even believe it so let me tell you, my defense is not coming glibly.
Statement by Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on Obama Administration Announcement on Birth Control Coverage Benefit:
“In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women’s health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work.
“We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman’s ability to access these critical birth control benefits.
“However we will be vigilant in holding the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy, which does not compromise the essential principles of access to care.
“The individual rights and liberties of all women and all employees in accessing basic preventive health care is our fundamental concern.
“Planned Parenthood continues to believe that those institutions who serve the broad public, employ the broad public, and receive taxpayer dollars, should be required to follow the same rules as everyone else, including providing birth control coverage and information.
“As a trusted health care provider to one in five women, Planned Parenthood’s priority is increasing access to preventive health care. This birth control coverage benefit does just that.
“The birth control benefit underscores the fact that birth control is basic health care, and is fundamental to improving women’s health and the health of their families.
“That’s why women have consistently applauded the Obama administration for one of the greatest expansions for women’s health in decades.
“Unfortunately there are significant and immediate threats to women’s health and access to birth control in the House and Senate that would completely take away access to birth control and severely undermine women’s health.
“One bill, the Rubio-Manchin bill, would allow any business or corporation, on the basis of personal religious belief or moral conviction, to take away birth control coverage from their employees.
“Employers should not be allowed to impose their personal beliefs on employees regarding birth control coverage or basic health care.
“Another bill, sponsored by Senator Blunt (R-MO), would drastically undermine women’s health and allow any employer or health plan to refuse to cover any health care service they object to on religious or moral grounds.
“That’s why Planned Parenthood, and women across the country, won’t let up for one minute in our fight to protect the birth control benefit and women’s health.”
###
Planned Parenthood Myth v. Fact on Birth Control Coverage Benefit:
Click to access Myth_V_Fact_on_Birth_Control_coverage.pdf
This article was just published on Al Jazeera: Susan G Komen: The tip of the iceberg – Opinion – Al Jazeera English
Read the rest of it…
cspan CSPAN
President Obama statement on #Contraception Rule – LIVE at 12:15pm ET on C-SPAN2 cs.pn/wqREf5 & @cspanradio
http://www.c-span.org/Events/President-Remarks-on-Preventive-Health-Services-and-Religious-Institutions/10737428227/
For some reason I am not feeling like The American woman, the young women of this country has bee emancipated by the Obama Administration. Once again, I didn’t trust birth control 35 years ago, and I sure in the hell don’t trust this administration. This causes a great amount of pain for all women.
an update to that sargent link above:
I wonder how this is going to affect students at Catholic colleges though?
Why would they be different?
Because they aren’t employees?
Oh, duh. 😉 Good question then. It would seem that if they are insured by anyone, from your quotes above, they would be covered. That’s something we’ll have to make sure of when it comes up I guess.
Cecile RIchards of Planned Parenthood is praising the presidential statement on MSNBC right now on Alex Wagner.
Cecile is the only person on that panel with the IQ higher than a tomato. She’s her mother’s daughter, bless her!
they just tweeted this:
PPact Planned Parenthood
Obama has ensured ALL women will have access to #birthcontrol coverage, with no co-pays, no additional hurdles, no matter where they work.
O’Neill is right about watching implementation. Are there age restrictions for minors? Does this apply to all women regardless who their employer is, or if they are employed?
The fact birth control medications are used for so much more than contraception is another thing that contributed to my outrage over this. If I had a magic wand I’d give every one of those red-beanie hat boyz just one cycle of excrutiating menstrual distress, complete with cramps and super-heavy flooding for five days.
I sent oldest daughter to planned parenthood at 15 to get on the pill to regulate her horrible cycle problems. It was interfering with her education and life.
This is what I don’t understand, how is the “compromise” logistically going to work, and if it is such a big win, why not put it in place in the very beginning.
If you want to know how it’s supposed to work. When an RC employer signs up an employee for coverage, the insurance company will contact the employee and offer them individual coverage for contraception at no cost with no co-pay. How the insurance companies handle that will be key to whether it’s effective or not. If HHS writes the rule correctly, and it shouldn’t be difficult, this should assure universal coverage for contraception.
I assume new employees will get paperwork when they are hired that explains everything. It’s supposed to be seamless–the employee won’t have to opt in or out. The coverage will just be there. The only difference is the ins. co. will be paying for it instead of the employer.
I’m reading that the insurance company has to contact the employee and offer the benefit.
According to Sibelius, they’ve been working on this all along. They just finished the work on it. It looks like a win but it’s being packaged as an accommodation.
Sibelius sounds about right. Didn’t he say in the original announcement that they were working on some compromise? That’s why it was put off a year.
I’m listening to Richards now. She seems satisfied with this decision and says this whole thing is just one more battle in the relentless war against Women’s Rights. Period. The Rubio/Manchin Bill is an obscenity. These men really want the clock turned back. Contraception should not even be an issue and the Republicans want to conflate the issue with the Boogie Man of abortion. Russert’s kid just said something about Catholics not wanting their Church run over. Huh? Okay to run over women but let’s not hurt the feelings of the Bishops, who feel ‘put upon.’
Now I recall why I left the Church!
There really isn’t any way to separate the issues of birth control and abortion. Birth control prevents abortions.
Absolutely agree, BB. But the Republicans and religious freaks want to equate the two as if prevention and termination are one in the same. They’re not. I’m pro-choice in all these matters. It’s an individual woman’s decision–not the Church, not the self-proclaimed moralists. And certainly not the politicians.
And if men got pregnant? We wouldn’t be having these battles.
Any reasonable person can understand that if you want to reduce abortion then universal contraception access and sex education is critical. But the opposition isn’t reasonable. They want control of women and their lives and be able to dictate what is ‘acceptable’ in all things sexual. Not going to happen!
The whole bunch of them are hung up on sex. Other people’s sex.
Here’s a pretty good indicator that it’s a good thing:
WARNING this is a fetus fetishist site … I won’t link to them because I don’t want the brain dead zombies infiltrating our blog
BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate
The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change in policy.”
“The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction,” Smith continued. “It states, for example, that religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.”
Obama speaking now. He says birth control is part of the preventive health care that the health law requires ins. co’s to provide free of charge. This is already law in 28 states.
He cherishes freedom of religion. He worked for Catholic Church in his first job in Chicago. He doesn’t mention the freedom of religion for women who want to use birth control.
Administration planned to spend the next year helping religious institutions deal with this. But then decided to speed up the process. The new rule will give women free access to preventive care no matter where she works.
New policy is that ins. co’s will reach out to women and offer them contraceptive services free of charge and with no hassle.
Huh? Say what? How exactly is that going to work?
It will work exactly the way it does now. Employees of religious institutions will be contacted by their insurance provider. They won’t have to sign up for anything. They will simply go to the doctor, get a prescription and get it filled. What’s the mystery?
This shouldn’t be a wedge issue and Obama never saw it that way.
He didn’t take any questions.
Coward.
😆
He took no questions from audience……….couldn’t allow one woman to speak to him.
Can you hear them, everybody lined up behind him………everybody.
We’ll see about that. The bishops haven’t been heard from yet.
Glenn Thrush of Politico claims that Obama reaffirmed that freedom of religion is what is at stake. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says women have the right to birth control. Cecile Richards explains to Thrush that the civil rights act says you can’t discriminate against women. I guess he didn’t know about that.
I would like to thank President Spineless and the Catholic Church for reminding me why I roused my ass out of the pew and left this irrelevant institution when it became necessary to start thinking for myself.
What’s next on the agenda? Allowing the Jehovah’s to once again deny transfusions to their kids because of religious teachings? Letting them die in agony for “god’s will”?
Or permitting kids to be starved to death because their parents are trying to drive the devil out of them? Is that acceptable as well?
Maybe the Jews want pork eliminated entirely so that their beliefs are upheld.
It’s 2012 and though we think we may have traveled a long way from the Dark Ages have we really? Condoning any religion the right to interfere with the healthcare needs of the population is sinful in itself.
Let’s begin with an outright ban on gays since this too is a supposed “abomination” decreed by the Man in the Sky and offends so many “Christians” who eat up this stuff.
Why stop here? Let’s keep going so every kook theory can be heard. Because, let’s face, someone is listening.
Word, Pat.
So does this mean Christian Science affiliated concerns don’t have to provide health care at all?
Thank you! Exactly Sophie….
What’s up with the inability of so many to accept victory without complaint?
Obama didn’t give in to the religionists. He just handled the whole thing badly. I think this might actually be better than trusting the religious groups to provide women’s preventive care.
You might want to read the quotes in my post before complaining about all this. Yes we need to be vigilant, but so far women’s rights are still being addressed.
Obama did handle it badly, but it still bothers me that he is giving the “optics” of caving in to a bunch of religious hypocrites. I just feel that this is going to open the door to any corp or hospital or college to stop paying for coverage they feel is offensive to their personal beliefs.
If the universities, colleges, hospitals are able to get Government Funding, and are able to make a profit from providing services to people who are not Catholic, or Mormon (think Brigham Young), Presbyterian, etc. Then they should not have the right to treat women any differently than men. This kind of thinking just makes that anti-woman attitude more acceptable.
What is going to keep other religious affiliated companies from crying religious freedom and cut services they don’t believe in…blood transfusions, and other kinds of surgeries that are considered against their faith. Will this contraception exception spread to other treatments?
Look, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, and works for a religious affiliated hospital, she needs to get the pregnancy removed. Her company believes this kind of surgery is an abortion. They will not cover it. Will insurance companies pay for the entire procedure? We are talking big bucks here…not the cost of birth control pills.
And companies run by ultra religious CEOs, will Dominoes decide to cut insurance coverage for contraception, because it offends the boss? We see this happening with Pharmacist who deny filling prescriptions for emergency contraception. Who are they to decide who gets medical treatment or not…
I just feel that the appearance of Obama giving in to the Catholics is going to make other religions…and by extension, other cranks, the encouragement to follow in the Bishops footsteps.
Did you hear him read his statement? He basically said that women’s rights include access to birth control and the policy decisions would be made on the words of doctors. I think you need to listen to his statement. This wasn’t a win for the Bishops at all.
Yes, religious liberty is protected, and a law providing preventative health care will not be affected due to discrimination.
I get this, I am so happy it came to this…good that no matter what, women will get birth control.
But Dak and BB…what is going to stop these religious right hypocrites from also not covering surgeries that (in their twisted view) kill a fetus even though it is saving the life of the mother.
I am glad that the compromise takes religious out of the equation for birth control.
But it is the other “controversial” health care treatments that I am concerned about.
I just see so many ways that this compromise can be manipulated as an “excuse” for not covering a lot of medical treatments that also do not “fit” the religious rights view of sacred law.
There is still a big fight ahead for a bunch of things. But, this drew a line on how low it can go, imho.
No that isn’t what it means. ????
Sometimes I don’t think anyone reads what I write. I’m going to try putting up a post in another language some time just to see if anyone notices.
Sure it does. And then people who work for them will get their health care directly from the insurer.
I’m not sure what you mean. To me this seems better than trusting the Catholic Church to act in good faith.
Because, the “compromise” is a complicated construct which will not doubt add delay to getting medical needs met. Why didn’t we just get single payer to begin with?
No, I don’t trust the catholic church one bit nor do I trust insurance companies.
The RC church decided BC was unconscionably so this new construct has the insurance company creating two plans to get around their objection. Is this the way it will be for every business that has any religious objection to any medical procedure or medication?
The bottom line is I’m not counting this as a win until I see it work.
I have to agree with Sophie on this:
See my comment above…Live Blog: Obama Announces “Accommodation” on Contraception Rule « Sky Dancing
I explained why I am skeptical of this compromise.
I realize this does not mean that christian scientist can opt out of providing health care insurance to their employees…but I do see it as a slippery slope for other religions to seize on this compromise and pick and choose what insurance coverage they will or will not pay for.
I read everything you write BB.words of wisdom.and Lord knows I need it. 🙂
What’s the “surprise” here?
We’ve allowed them to redefine rape as a simple assault and battery while urging the victims to look upon the violation as a “blessing”.
We are rapidly wandering down the Rabbit Hole by allowing superstitious mumbo jumbo to take over our reasoning powers and DC is happy to oblige.
Someday somebody is going to want to erect statues to the rapists in thanks for inviting another “blessing” to occur.
I know, I am beginning to show cracks in my sanity, but this stuff is driving me crazy.
You’re not alone, I’m not staying completely calm either. The Beltway mentality is a disease!
I’ve been so angry for the past three days that I’m afraid I’ll have a heart attack if it keeps up!
This whole thing, especially the reaction, makes me ill.
There hasn’t been much fight in the abortion wars after Roe v. Wade, even though the right to one has been disappeared in most of the rural US because the clinics have been terrorized out of existence. It hasn’t been a huge issue because enough urban middle class women could get an abortion when needed. The fact that it’s a matter of half the population’s right to fundamental bodily autonomy is hardly discussed except out here in Wild West Blogland.
So, now they’re ratcheting up. Making mere birth control pills part of the argument.
And the /*gag*/ Feminist-in-Chief /*gaggaggag*/ has yet again run over women. He’s agreed that the religious beliefs of a bunch of pedophile-protectors are more important than the fundamental human rights of women.
That’s what this is about. The absolute number one right to control your own body. It’s so basic, you can kill someone else in self-defense. But the fee-fees of a bunch of red beanie boyz are more important than that, and that’s okay because, hey, we have a workaround. You can still get the pills. (Maybe.)
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Obama said he believes in universal free access to birth control. That’s not worth anything?
No, it’s not. Not when it follows giving away women’s human rights.
He’s said he’d like to see access to birth control. What he’s done is made that depend on the pleasure of a bunch of bishops and some health insurance law verbiage that could be reversed tomorrow.
He has not in fact insisted that women’s rights — in this case to birth control — require any respect. The bishops are the only ones with rights. When it comes to women, the talk is all about Taking care of their “health.” Without rights, who decides what’s healthy?
The principle that you have the right to decide on your own business has been traded away for the hope of some votes in November. That is not actually the same as universal free access to birth control. That’s a “you still have your pills because nobody’s taken them away yet.”
I’m really spitting nails right about now.
Did you read the planned parenthood statement?
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/statement-cecile-richards-president-planned-parenthood-federation-america-obama-administration-38755.htm
I love PP dearly. And I know Richards means well. But that is just more of the same confusion. Having the right to decide your own health care — pretty basic! — is different from still being able to get pills because nobody’s taken that away yet.
And I have to admit that I don’t give one single solitary mini-marshmallow about whether Obama said he supports universal access to free birth control. What he’s *done* is ask bishops how much access they can live with. The man lies with every breath he breathes. Especially in campaign years.
He didn’t ask them. He designed a token accommodation that gives them no wiggle room for litigation and announced today he’s following doctor’s advice. I think they were told what was going to happen because this basically forces more birth control coverage on to them sooner than they had yesterday. It’s not a cave-in at all. I woke up expecting what you’re saying and I was surprised to find out it wasn’t so after spending a lot of time reading. They don’t have to pay any co-pays but all the women in all the organizations get birth control with no copay at all. That’s a win in my book.
Dak, we’re quibbling about semantics. He may not have asked them in the sense of picking up the phone and physically saying, “What would you like me to do?” But he’s sure been worrying about their opinion a whole lot and trying to accommodate it. Despite the fact that any accommodation means he’s agreeing with the validity of interfering with one citizen’s medical affairs based on some other citizen’s beliefs.
Throwing away women’s rights is a huge loss. (Not that he hasn’t been doing right along. Just one more drop in the bucket.)
I agree that it’s nice that women can continue to, or start to, get free birth control for now. That’s better than not getting it. I can’t bring myself to call it much of a win. It should never have been in play to begin with. It’s a right.
It got put into play with that damned stupak thing. I wish we could have a bunch of elected officials that would stand up for the rights of women with ease but we obviously don’t. At this point, this decision is as good as it gets. Romney just said he’d reverse the Mexico City initiative as well as see to it that Planned Parenthood gets no public funds. How outrageous is that?
I think I am about to put mysef in a self imposed “time out” from this stuff.
Going back to reading “Defending Jacob” which is one of the best fiction I’ve read in a long time.
Either that or I may find myself encased in a straight jacket howling at the moon.
I’ve got to get that book, it looks like it will be great. If you haven’t read The Litigators, Grisham’s latest, it’s his best in years.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/10/fact-sheet-women-s-preventive-services-and-religious-institutions
Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.
The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and fully accomodates important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting non-profit religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception. Background on this policy is included below:
• Under Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science.
Notice he said directly that he supports universal coverage of birth control which this provides to any one with insurance.
I’m really loath to say this but as the ACA gets implemented, it looks better than I thought. If they keep up like this, it may actually be a worthwhile “reform” after all.
They just took away the year adjustment period. These women will get access immediately in all those institutions. I don’t see a downside to the actual plan.
The plan now is definitely better. I was talking about the entire ACA (Obamacare) implementation. They apparently have implemented the 85% spent on care rule in a very good way. That is advertising and the like are not counted against the 85% so insurance companies don’t have a good out. It seems implementation of this monster is going to make it worthwhile, “maybe”.
One thing that I liked about Obama’s speech is that he said he had been planning to work with religious institutions for the next year, but now (in so many words) because of all the whining, the administration has just made an executive decision. The one-year waiting period is going and they are going to have to comply now.
If he sticks to his guns this is a win for our side.
I got a big smile out of that when I heard it myself.
The wingnuts are furious, so that’s a good sign. Obama has to know that most Americans back him on this.
I think overall this will be a win/win for women. If the implementation is handled the way POTUS explained it. What irritates the socks off me is this just another round of amateur hour. They should have had the strategy preplanned for this smack down instead of allowing the Republicans and the screeching Bishops to get the upper hand and make this into a First Amendment issue. Which it is not.
The Church is bellowing because they know what we know: their power over their female congregates on these issues has been greatly diminished, Students from Catholic Universities came out against the Bishop’s stand, told them to ‘back off.’ The Church no longer has the power of fear to whip the majority of people into submission.
As for the Republicans? They’re willing to ride the opportunity train. What else do they have?
So yes, it’s a compromise. But as long as women are afforded free contraception regardless of their employer, we win. As for Rubio and Manchin? They can stick it!
Mark it down as another Obama fumble. POTUS is a real expert at that.
They were trying to give the religious groups a year or more to implement the policy. Since they bitched and complained so much, Obama decided to just fix it right now and force them to comply immediately. That’s fine with me. I don’t think they should have had any grace period.
I’m copying my comment from earlier.
No, it’s not any kind of a win. Not when it follows giving away women’s human rights.
He’s said he’d like to see access to birth control. What he’s done is made that depend on the pleasure of a bunch of bishops and some health insurance law verbiage that could be reversed tomorrow.
He has not in fact insisted that women’s rights — in this case to birth control — require any respect. The bishops are the only ones with rights. When it comes to women, the talk is all about taking care of their “health.” Without rights, who decides what’s healthy?
The principle that you have the right to decide on your own business has been traded away for the hope of some votes in November. That is not actually the same as universal free access to birth control. That’s a “you still have your pills because nobody’s taken them away yet.”
I’m really spitting nails right about now.
And I also disagree that it’s any kind of “fumble.” He’s not a dumb politician. There’s no way he could make that many “fumbles.” Admittedly, the alternative hypothesis is too horrible to face: women are not people in his world. They just don’t count.
Those are good points, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. I said above that I hated that Obama talked about “religious freedom” only for the employer and not the employee. This is only one battle in a long war. Should we toss it aside and discount it completely? I’m asking seriously. What do you think we should do about it?
BB, I’m not sure what you’re referring to tossing aside and discounting. Toss aside that there’s anything good in this? My answer would be “yes.” Because this is just campaign-mode BS. If it wasn’t an election year he’d have pandered to the Beanie Boyz just the same. The only difference would be that women would be told to get used to it.
But is it going to stop and just contraception? What about surgeries that the church does not believe in..like in ectopic situations…or if a woman can not have children because of health reasons and she wants her tubes tied? Or men and vasectomies? Where is the line drawn.
Exactly. That’s why it matters whether your rights are recognized, or whether somebody says, “There, there, dear. You can still get your pills.”
Easy assesment of this is that he has been campaigning and not governing. By trying to appease the greatest threat to him losing votes, he sacrifices women for the church. Can Senators Gillebrand, Boxer et.al. make enough headwinds to counter this threat? Is there enough grassroot support to reverse this flip-flop? Will the Republicans stand up for what is right and seek redress for 51% of the population? (I was laughing when I typed that last one. If I misspelled any words, my bad).
Asshats. We are so f&*(d.
Hillary 2012
Obama didn’t actually flip flop. He actually tightened the regulation so that the Church folks are going be even more resentful. They now have to comply immediately and their employees still get free universal birth control coverage.
It was still campaigning vs. governing. Dak had a post about Scotus and the Free Exercise Clause. In it, the most conservative of justices (and a Catholic to boot) wrote that being in a religion is not reason enough to be exempted from the black letter law. Bumbles should have told the Bishops that inclusion of birth control in any insurance package does not constitute the church PAYING for birth control, just like it does not constitute the church PAYING for prostate exams. It’s preventive medicine. Period. It’s just part of the package. Preach to the flock that it is a bad thing to take advantage of that part of the plan and call it a day. The numbers clearly show what side of the fence Catholic women are on. This little show is strickly for the Nov. 4 election this year. And he even did THAT badly.
Asshat.
Hillary 2012
Rock, you can’t expect a politician not to be a politician. This was an accommodation that should stop successful legal challenges. I just put up a new thread and there’s a link as to why Scalia’s earlier finding on peyote will actually defuse a lot of problems. I’m not an Obama fan but I have to say this is as good of a deal as it gets. I’m not going to complain about the politics because it is what it is … tigers cannot become lambs.
BB, it’s a flip flop that he’s even talking to the Beanie Boyz about this. The right answer would have been, “Sorry, if you can’t treat all citizens equally, as per the law, you are in violation of the law.” You know, same as any other outfit that discriminates against a group of people.
I’ve spent the morning researching all this. Evidently, this policy was in the works for some time because of the original stupak shit started by the red beanie babies. They just forced his hand earlier. I think they were called in to be shown the hand. Now, their institutions will be providing birth control and the only thing that’s changed is they don’t have to do the co-pays. There’s going to be some politics, especially in an election year but in his presser he made a strong statement on access to birth control and that has to be given its due.
BTW – I’m still a bit down about the Giants win. Everything will be colored by that for the next day or so… 😉
Hillary 2012
I don’t know what it’s a flip flop from. Obama always accommodated religious groups. IMO, they should all be told to stop lobbying and politicking form the pulpit or their tax exempt status is gone. They should have no access to the president. They should follow the laws or get no govt money for their universities and hospitals. But Obama campaigned in 2009 on continuing to fund “faith based” orgs. Frankly, I’m shocked he actually go up and defended universal access to birth control and told the bishops they no long have a grace period.
As far as votes go, women have way more voting power than the church hierarchy. But I get that I’m totally wrong, and I’m going to back off.
Dak, I would agree with you IF and ONLY IF the religious blocks fomenting this policy paid taxes. This is NOT an overall win and Bumbles commendation is relegated to the category that his personal interest (garnering votes) lined up to a small degree with doing what was right for the public. Preventive medicine is paid for by religious groups without question. Why is birth control different?
Hillary 2012
@rock 1:22
yes
Hey, BB, you’re not at all wrong about how the religious people, all religious, any religious, every last one of them, has zero business, none, zip, nada, bring any of the beliefs into government. (As I say, I’m spitting nails about this whole thing.) The fact that Obama campaigned on pandering to religious groups in 2008 should have been all the warning anybody needed about him. And I guess you’re right that he’s just continuing to pander, so it’s not a flip. But I think what people mean is that it sure doesn’t sound like his pretty campaign speeches.
And are you ever right that if women would just vote their own interests, none of this would be on the table or anywhere outside the garbage disposal. But as Steve Biko said, the first tool of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.
Love the Biko quote.
Yes, it looks like a win/win for women on the surface and I’m glad women will receive contaceptives free of charge. But I am still concerned about the government apesement of the catholic bishops. From what I can tell, the objective of providing birth control access is still intact and maybe even in a way that is more reliable than it would be if religous institutions were left to provide/pay for the coverage, but this constent engagement with the catholic establishment on everything female is still desturbing.
Are these religous institutions going to pay for vasectemies, or viagra for unmarried men? Will they pay for other treatments for irrectile disfunction in unmarried men? The bishops don’t seem to be nearly as concerned with men haviing sex for pleasure and outside of marriage. Apparently, it hardly crosses their minds.The hatred for women by male religion is mind boggling, and for the government in this day and age to entertain these wingnuts on any level is soooooooo insulting.
It will be interesting to see how obstinate the religionists are going to be over this. They’ve gone out on a limb and decided nobody should be covered, even Taco Bell employees. I can’t help but believe this just makes them look really foolish. I would love to see the same kind of backlash unleashed on them as Komen got.
I wonder if the insurance policies at these Catholic institutions cover vasectomies.
I hear tell that they cover Viagra. Or at least some do. But I’ve never heard any outcry over ignoring God’s will on that one.
You remind me of the right wing morons who never stop yelling, even when the policies go your way.
temper, temper, big guy !! not so personal, please!!!!
The inimitable Charles Pierce is on the case. (I wish I had that much talent! I wish, I wish, I wish.) How Obama’s Lady-Parts Deal Empowers the Church
from the link:
I wonder if any RC clergy or religious has ever been treated for an STD under their insurance plan.
!!!
I have a gay friend who dated a RC priest for a while (I was livid about it and he had to tiptoe around me for a while over that one). My friend is also HIV-positive, so I know they used condoms. This was just last year. They have since stopped seeing each other.
It is my personal belief that the RC church has a much higher percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood than you would find in the general population just based on anecdotal evidence.
Not sure that has anything to do with anything, but I’m sure there’s been plenty of medical treatments that were related to the health of the reproductive organs of priests.
Judging from the comments on the fetus fetish blogs, they are mad and they will respond some how. This expands coverage.
EXAMPLE:
Steven Ertelt / Life News DOT com:
Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women
I revised the link because I refuse to link to ZOMBIE ZYGOTE sites.
No, they don’t cover vasectomies.
And if you have insurance coverage, for example, because you’re a Microsoft employee, and want a vasectomy from a urologist who normally does his procedures at a St. Whosits Medical Center, you and your urologist have to go to another place for him/her to do your vasectomy. St. Whosits doesn’t allow any interference with procreative function under their roof.
True but the coverage was there, and women could go and get reproductive care at another hospital or pharmacy. Now, who knows? There is no guarantee that the products will be payed for by the insurance companies. I don’t like the term ‘hope’…hope is not good enough.
What do you mean “no guarantee?” The ins. companies are mandated to cover it. It’s a done deal.
Here’s Care 2’s evaluation.
http://www.care2.com/causes/obama-birth-control-position-good-policy-politics.html
BB, this does sound like an improvement. If so, I am flabbergasted. Obama announcing this change as a “compromise” is exactly the 12th-dimensional (or was it 11th or 13th?) chess that the Obots kept claiming he’d do but he never did. Until now.
It is crafty because the “accommodation” is fairly token but it seems to be enough to stop any litigation from going any where. Check the link on my new blog post.
I wouldn’t defend this or him if I didn’t think it actually was a good thing. Believe me.
Heading right over to read that, DK. I believe you.