Spokane7
52°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
More Info: The Obama administration's decision requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control was bound to cause an uproar among Roman Catholics and members of other faiths, no matter their beliefs on contraception. The regulation, finalized a week ago, raises a complex and sensitive legal question: Which institutions qualify as religious and can be exempt from the mandate? For a church, mosque or synagogue, the answer is mostly straightforward. But for the massive network of religious-run social-service agencies, there is no simple solution.
Question: Did President Obama make a serious misstep in his bid to win re-election by forcing this contraception mandate on religious groups like the nation's Roman Catholics?
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Find DFO on Facebook
DFO on Twitter
Sisyphus on February 04 at 7:37 a.m.
Why should religious employers get to dictate the availability of health to their employees, particularly employees not of their faith. This is about power and control, not articles of faith. They have every right to urge them not to use contraceptives. They have no right to remove that choice from them.
nic on February 04 at 7:48 a.m.
Whatever votes he loses for this he also gains. Net loss of nothing.
kamm on February 04 at 8:11 a.m.
Hospitals,for example, employ people of all faiths and beliefs. Limiting birth control for all their employees starts its policies on a slide down the slippery slope.
A former employee and current Catholic
Norther on February 04 at 8:56 a.m.
The Roman Catholic Church needs to get out of the hospital business. There are corporations that will buy those non profits and turn them into for profit businesses. Go back to the church and leave the hospitals to businesses. They are far better suited to run these places.
Eman on February 04 at 9:24 a.m.
Wait a minute, a private institution puts out a add to hire someone, in the criteria it states it’s policies, potential employee reads and understands said policies, employer says they want to hire but the policies are mandatory requirement for hire, potential employee says I’ll take it.
So now after taking the job they want to disregard the policies they agreed to in the first place? How is it hard to comprehend that?
As ridiculous as someone joining the military during peace time. Somewhere in the paperwork it says, you might have to go to war and fight and maybe be killed, they may think OK whatever nothing going on. Then war breaks out and they claim they don’t believe in war so shouldn’t have to go because of their beliefs?
Look if you don’t want to work for someone who’s belief or perspective isn’t in line with yours then don’t take the job, someone else will. In this case they aren’t forcing anything on anyone it’s no secret where they stand.
Phaedrus on February 04 at 11:16 a.m.
98% of US Catholics utilize birth control in violation of the church’s position. The other two percent have 7 kids and envy the Duggar’s.
Note_to_Self on February 04 at 11:24 a.m.
There is nothing in the Bible that forbids The use of contraceptives. Zealots interpret the directive to Adam and Eve to “go forth and multiply” as evidence of such a prohibition. There are 9 billion people on the planet. Mission accomplished now get over it. Women should not be denied access to birth control.
misjustice on February 04 at 11:33 a.m.
Question: Did President Obama make a serious misstep in his bid to win re-election by forcing this contraception mandate on religious groups like the nation’s Roman Catholics?
Hmmm, I have a problem with HOW the question is worded…
Question: Did President Obama make a serious misstep by forcing the contraception mandate on religious groups?
There, much better.
And the answer is, “No”.
Arch_Druid on February 04 at 11:50 a.m.
Note to above poster: How about this demand to gvt that freedom of religion “conscience clause” comes before being a pharmacist expected to dole out contraceptives even abortifacients? Shouldn’t the same argument apply in this case? They know that the pharmacy stocks these meds. Therefore, the job description would require that at some point they fill the prescription. So the real argument seems to be, that radical religious groups can demand and demand, take, take, take. But that they shouldn’t plan to give anything back. Is that it?
CdAHumanist on February 04 at 11:56 a.m.
No, this was a good move on his part and will ultimately benefit far more people than it will hurt (and I use that term very loosely here since it I don’t see it actually hurting anyone). Serving the broader society is far more important than upholding church doctrine.
hhuseland on February 04 at 12:16 p.m.
I don’t think he cares. This guy sees himself as an emperor. He has appointed people to positions that require congressional approval, citing recesses that weren’t there and much more.
fortboise on February 04 at 1:05 p.m.
Many pundits are saying he did, so it makes me wonder if the action was taken without a good estimate of how it would be received.
If a religious person starts a business, does that make it a religous business? Thus receiving the special favors we bestow on the godly? Does it matter if one obtains “non-profit” status for one’s business?
@hhusland: “I don’t think he cares. This guy sees himself as an emperor.”
That would be deranged, for sure. Tell us how you looked into his mind and are able to report what you’ve seen there?
Arch_Druid on February 04 at 1:09 p.m.
Huseland, Obama doesn’t see himself as anyone other than POTUS. Instead of trying to put words in his mouth and projecting the worst faults of the Bush administration onto the current president, how about just seeing him for what he is, for what the people elected him to do.
As for these radical religious groups, apparently, loving one’s neighbor in this situation wouldn’t be part of the moral equation. Or can we put it bluntly, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. All very relevant. Or, more materially; if you don’t want gvt telling you what to do, don’t make demands of gvt.
I have a very old book referred to as The Golden Cow. I unearthed it in the process of moving. Huseland, suggest you obtain a copy as it pertains to the materialism in the Christian church. Materialism to mean, not just a matter of money but also a desire to obtain secular power. The author was none to appreciative of that.
greenlibertarian on February 04 at 2:15 p.m.
A substantial majority of Catholics use non-natural birth control, the ones that don’t based on the Church hierarchy’s guidance were NEVER going to vote for a Democrat anyway.
Not. Rocket Science.
iamyou on February 04 at 2:29 p.m.
Interesting arguments. I see most of you are willing to choose a womans right to choose over Religious freedom. Religious freedom was the main reason many of our forefathers came to this country and fought for that freedom and you all are willing to throw that out the door? It seems to me that Freedom of Religion should be most important and if women want freedom of choice they need to work elsewhere! How simple.
greenlibertarian on February 04 at 5:25 p.m.
Nobody’s forcing ANYBODY to use birth control.
IF an employer is offering a health care plan and ENJOYING the tax benefits for doing so, THEN, an employer is required to cover birth control expenses, IF, and ONLY IF, an employee (or other covered person) CHOOSES to avail themselves of that benefit.
If you can’t understand that, there’s no use remarking on the issue.
Not. Rocket. Science.
Aaron on February 04 at 6:17 p.m.
Thank you G-Lib :0)
As a hospital employee this measure is NOTHING NEW.
hhuseland on February 04 at 8:41 p.m.
I agree that hospitals should not be able to dictate these issues. As to whether the Catholic Church should get out of the business, you obviously havent done your homework.
Back when hospitals were rare, far between, the Sisters of Mercy and other Catholic orders started hospitals from scratch. I belierve that all hospitals in Spokane were stareted by these church groups. Regardless of the outcome of this issue, they should get ;proper credit for pioneering hospitals.
greenlibertarian on February 04 at 8:49 p.m.
Also, if a person is SINCERE in their personal objection to artificial birth control, (or wants to follow their church’s teachings), is having it covered by their insurance suddenly going to make them go out and want to use artificial birth control?
Not unless the person’s faith and belief is so weak as to be non-existent.
Codywiench on February 05 at 1:20 p.m.
No. I don’t see this as being a major issue for independents. The uber-Conservative Catholics that will be offended by this were probably not going to vote for him, anyway.
iamyou on February 05 at 1:22 p.m.
Let us be honost here. This new mandate is not just about contraceptives. That is the ‘spin’ that’s is being put out there. Included in the mandate, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilizatiion. I notice most of you say that they can get out of the hospital business if they don’t want to comply. Should they get out of Catholic schools, parishes, etc. also? Catholic parishes, schools, hospitals, charitable organizations and social services will be forced to provide and pay for this coverage. That is a clear violation of Catholic teaching. Many other religions feel the same way. Freedom of Religion is being crushed by this administration. By the time some of you figure it out it will be too late.
greenlibertarian on February 05 at 5:20 p.m.
So now it’s admitted the original issue is moot, but there’s a slippery slope problem. Yeah, right.
Lets be honest here. The Catholic Church hierarchy has blown this completely out of proportion and the people who like to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt are going all out.
Please site CREDIBLE evidence that sterilization and “abortion-inducing drugs” are being mandated in coverage.
BTW if a woman chooses to get her tubes tied or a man chooses to get a vasectomy and it’s covered by health insurance, what business is this of any religious organization? If it is an issue with some religious organization, isn’t that between the person and their religious authority? Why would the State get involved with that in any way?
Be sure and answer “before it’s too late.”
Arch_Druid on February 05 at 6:26 p.m.
“Let’s be honest,” religious freedom seems to be a highly selective premise to take in your world view. Allowable to some, if they agree with your position, not so allowable to others.
By the way, that’s my title.
hhuseland on February 05 at 7:43 p.m.
” Radical religious groups?” You are equating Catholics with radicaIs? I am not Catholic but your remarks sound more radical than any main stream religion.
Arch_Druid on February 05 at 8:02 p.m.
Huseland, I am not a Christian. The first amendment is pretty clear on gvt staying clear of making religious decisions and further, of not promoting state sponsored religion. That has not prevented any and all religious groups whether Mormon, evangelical, fundamentalist, Catholic, etc. from demanding that gvt answer their every need. That spells radical religious groups in my book.
Truly conservative types would respect the limits on gvt with respect to religion.
duroc on February 06 at 7:45 a.m.
@iamyou: if this is your idea of “freedom of religion being crushed,” then I say bring it on. You have a right to practice your religion. You don’t have a right to impose it on other people.
I am, admittedly, a “cafeteria Catholic,” so I’m sure the hardliners will just tsk tsk my opinion anyway. But I don’t think the Church has any right to deny non-Catholics any sort of health care just because they work for a Catholic organization, especially if there is Federal money (or tax breaks) involved.
duroc on February 06 at 7:53 a.m.
Likewise, if health care insurance was severed from employment, this would be a non-issue.
Plus, if you don’t want to use contraceptive services for religious reasons, no one is going to force you to. I doubt Obama’s gonna send Seal Team Six to Mike Kennedy’s house to make sure he uses a condom.
Dennis on February 06 at 7:59 a.m.
“I doubt Obama’s gonna send Seal Team Six to Mike Kennedy’s house to make sure he uses a condom.”
(((((((Involuntary Shiver)))))))) PTSD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:-)
ShoshoneConservative on February 06 at 9:45 a.m.
The issue isn’t over Catholic organizations trying to “deny” employees birth control. It’s about Catholic organizations paying for birth control.There’s an old saying that comes to mind here: “Judas Iscariot was the first Bishop to accept a government grant.”Anyway, the commenters here above seem to be forgetting the individual mandate part of the health care act: In 2014, people will be REQUIRED to have health insurance, which, under these regs, will be REQUIRED to cover birth control. This takes any individual choice out of the equation.
riggs on February 06 at 10:27 a.m.
Duroc understands yet one more reason to have universal care or insurance exchanges, and that is to get employers out of the health care market. Which allows much more flexibility for workers to move about the workforce without being held hostage to insurance benefits.
fortboise on February 06 at 10:51 a.m.
Cute. As a Catholic boy, I found the story of Judas fascinating, probably because it was nuanced. If Jesus was OK with him, and what he did, who am I to judge? (The sin of Peter seemed far worse.)
And as for the particulars, he was an Apostle, not a “Bishop” and between the time of the Apostles and today, the church (as in the Catholic and Holy Apostolic Church) provided plenty of “government” goods and services, including (but not limited to) its own decisions about life and death.
greenlibertarian on February 06 at 3:06 p.m.
Anyway, the commenters here above seem to be forgetting the individual mandate part of the health care act: In 2014, people will be REQUIRED to have health insurance, which, under these regs, will be REQUIRED to cover birth control. This takes any individual choice out of the equation.
No you don’t.
You can choose to pay a (too small) fine.
It’s one of the major flaws of this go ‘round of health care reform.
ShoshoneConservative on February 06 at 3:49 p.m.
Well, the Church teaches that the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, so, as an Apostle, he was, from a technical standpoint, a “Bishop.” Not expecting you to agree with that, necessarily, but that’s the tradition.Yes, one can pay the fine. But I believe the fine money is intended to finance the amount paid out to medicaid, etc. for the uninsured, which would, presumably, pay for the same things required to be covered under insurance, so that doesn’t make much of a difference.hmoffsuite on February 06 at 4:01 p.m.
Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments
Donohue Says 70 Million Of His Voters Ready To Alter Presidential Election
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/catholic-league-poised-to-go-to-war-with-obama-over-mandatory-birth-control-payments/
greenlibertarian on February 06 at 4:34 p.m.
Donahue is a bombastic idiot. There’s already a wedge between the strong majority of lay Catholics and the Hierarchy on a variety of issues, artificial birth control being one of the more prominent disagreements.
Most Catholics I know are EXTREMELY wary of such pronouncements.
There aren’t enough Catholics in the swing states that care about this issue like Donahue thinks they should to make any difference in the election.