Spokane7
68°
February 10, 2012 in Nation/World
Obama: Birth control policy meets everyone’s needs
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared today he’s found a solution to a birth-control uproar that will protect religious liberty but also ensure that women have access to free contraception, as he rushed to defuse an election-year issue that threatened to overtake his administration.
Capping weeks of growing controversy, Obama announced he was backing off a newly announced requirement for religious employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs. Instead, workers at such institutions will be able to get free contraception directly from health insurance companies.
“Religious liberty will be protected and a law that requires free preventative care will not discriminate against women,” Obama said in an appearance in the White House briefing room.
“I understand some folks in Washington want to treat this as another political wedge issue. But it shouldn’t be. I certainly never saw it that way,” Obama said. “This is an issue where people of good will on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions.”
Obama’s abrupt shift was an attempt to satisfy both sides of a deeply sensitive debate, and most urgently, to end a mounting political nightmare for the White House.
Although the administration had originally given itself more than year to work out the details of the new birth control coverage requirement for religious employers, the president acknowledged that the situation had become untenable and demanded a swift solution.
Congressional Republicans as well as GOP presidential hopefuls were beating up on Obama relentlessly over the issue, and even Democrats and liberal groups allied with the Roman Catholic church were defecting.
“After the many genuine concerns that have been raised over the last few weeks, as well as frankly the more cynical desire on the part of some to make this into a political football, it became clear that spending months hammering out a solution was not going to be an option. That we needed to move this faster,” Obama said. He said that he directed the Department of Health and Human Services last week to speed up the process from a matter of months to days.
Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work, a provision of Obama’s health care law that he insisted must remain. But religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as an unconscionable violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to step in to do so.
The leader of a Catholic organization and a prominent women’s group both expressed initial support for the changes.
“The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed,” Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, a trade group representing Catholic hospitals that had fought against the birth control requirement, said in a statement.
Planned Parenthood also backed the revisions, saying the Obama administration was still committed to ensuring all women have access to birth control coverage, no matter where they work.
“We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman’s ability to access these critical birth control benefits,” Cecile Richards, the women’s group president, said.
By keeping free contraception for employers at religious workplaces — but providing a different way to do it — Obama was able to assert he gave no ground on the basic principle of full preventative care that matters most to Obama.
Yet, it also was clear that the president felt he had no choice but to retreat on a three-week-old policy in the face of a fierce political furor that showed no signs of cooling.
Officials said Obama has the legal authority to order insurance companies to provide free contraception coverage directly to workers. He will demand it in a new rule.
Following an intense White House debate that led to the original policy, officials said Obama seriously weighed the concerns over religious liberty, leading to the revamped decision.
Before announcing the revamped policy at the White House, Obama called Keehan, Richards and Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
But the change just led to more criticism from some of Obama’s opponents. Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady said the revamped rule marked a “full scale retreat by a disconnected president who now knows that Washington shouldn’t force American to abandon their religious convictions.”
It was just on Jan. 20 that the Obama administration announced that religious-affiliated employers — outside of churches and houses of worships — had to cover birth control free of charge as preventative care for women. These hospitals, schools and charities were given an extra year to comply, until August 2013, but that concession failed to satisfy opponents, who responded with outrage.
Catholic cardinals and bishops across the country assailed the policy in Sunday Masses. Republican leaders in Congress promised emergency legislation to overturn Obama’s move. The president’s rivals in the race for the White House accused him of attacking religion. Prominent lawmakers from Obama’s own party began openly deriding the policy.
The sentiment on the other side, though, was also fierce. Women’s groups, liberal religious leaders and health advocates pressed Obama not to cave in on the issue.
The furor has consumed media attention and threatened to undermine Obama’s re-election bid just as he was in stride with improving economic news. Political reality forced the White House to come up with a solution to a complex matter must faster than anticipated.
Under the new policy, religious employers will not be required to offer contraception and will not have to refer their employees to places that provide it. Instead, the employer’s insurance company must provide birth control for free in a separate arrangement with workers who want it.
The change will still take affect with an extra year built in, in August 2013.
Already, 28 states had required health insurance plans to cover birth control before the federal regulations were issued.
However, they appear to have differing exemptions for religious employers.
Obama’s health care law requires most insurance plans to cover women’s preventative services, without a co-pay, starting on Aug. 1, 2012. Those services include well-women visits, domestic violence screening and contraception, all designed to encourage health care that many women may otherwise find unaffordable.
The White House says covering contraception saves insurance companies money by keeping women healthy. But the plan is likely to meet resistance from insurers. Although administration officials are right that contraception is cost effective, insurers may well argue that it’s not free, either. And the industry might balk at what amounts to a coverage mandate on it.
Without adjusting his stand, Obama has risked alienated Catholics who have become courted swing voters in such pivotal political states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. In 2008, Obama won 54 percent of the total Catholic vote, compared to 45 percent for Republican John McCain.
As the week wore on, the White House increasingly signaled that a change was coming.
Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, said in a radio interview Thursday that “there is going to be a significant attempt to work this out and there is time to do that.”
Outside advocates were urging a quick resolution.
“As a Catholic I don’t want to hear about this in Mass every week until the election,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats For Life of America. “I don’t think it’s good for the party and I don’t think it’s good for Obama’s re-election chances.”
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
Dazzeetrader11 on February 10 at 10:36 a.m.
Smelling a big retreat kids? I smell that and something more…he’s lost the Catholic vote. Why? Because he tried something nobody ever has…and got beat. He tried to fool with religious liberty via “healthcare” . If he could have done it, he wold have. Shows a very dark heart when it comes to the Church’s teachings and his opinion on the inviolability of separation of Church and State. He tried it. We know what he is.
This will not be forgotten.
dataxman on February 10 at 10:38 a.m.
So who is going to pay for this ‘free’ birth control? The left really is like Pavlov’s dog - dangle the word ‘free’ in front of them and they start drooling and rational though clicks off.
schleufer on February 10 at 10:45 a.m.
to start with this is already in place in 26 states and it hasnt been an issue until the republican supported chruch decided to get political about it. no matter what there was going to be bitching and accusations. the lions share of the church going women use these products so it was going to piss somebody off one way or the other.
scaleram on February 10 at 10:57 a.m.
Let me think about this. First he mandates something he has no authority to do. Then, when an uproar ensues he mandates something else he has no authority to do and it is magically OK. The guy is nothing but an arrogant Marxist that hasn’t the foggiest idea what the Constitution of the United States mandates. I doubt this country will ever recover from the damage Obama and Bush have done to this country. If Obama gets another term we are surely doomed.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 10 at 11:02 a.m.
Actually its 28 states that have the exact same law on the books already, including the one Mittens Mormon Romney was the governor of and during his whole time in office never once spoke out against the law or even attempted to change it.
Again, republican hypocrisy is amazing.
Spokalou on February 10 at 11:06 a.m.
The Catholic Bishops lost the battle to convince their flock not to use birth control (98% of Catholic women do), so now they want to make it difficult for all women, Catholic or not, who work for religiously affiliated institutions. I’ve no problem with their crazy-talk within the church. But keep it out of health care!
Dazzeetrader11 on February 10 at 11:10 a.m.
Like a thief…he tried it, got caught and ran off with his tail between his legs. This won’t be forgotten.
Libby…what hypocrisy? DO you mean Obama’s? Church stood its ground. Obama tried to violate the separation between Church and State. Like most communists do….and he tried to do that for votes. No prinicples….just what he can get away with.
Come Summer, Obamacare won’t be around anyway. Now women can get what they can afford…like the rest of America.
Obama cannot force the Insurance companies either. He’s just trying to get this off his very public plate. “Gee girls…I really tried…”…barf.
detroitdude on February 10 at 11:45 a.m.
It’s too bad these zealots can’t take their nose out of women’s personal choices. Use the rythym method! Pull out! Say hello to disease and more unwanted pregnancies!
Dazzee: Your posts are utter crap and you never bring anything thoughtful to a discussion without channeling your inner Ann Coulter. I’m pretty sure most of the conservative posters on here think you are deranged as well. Regardless, your arguments and criticisms of Obama mean absolutely nothing, because I know for a fact that you would never say that nonsense to the man’s face if given the chance.
Shadedmuse on February 10 at 11:48 a.m.
If you want to reduce abortions then we need birth control. the most states with abortions are the red states that dont practice birth control. HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!!
PlanB on February 10 at 11:55 a.m.
You have to admit that the fact these religious organizations even allow women to work for money is a big compromise. Maybe another 1000 years or so, they will get out of the business of managing what people do with their bodies and actually be concerned with health issues.
It’s a big load of whitewash anyway. Women will still get the services they deserve. Nothing will have changed. But the out of touch cult leaders get to say that they held fast and “won”.
RedCedar on February 10 at 11:58 a.m.
Obama’s usually pretty smart about picking his fights, but this one makes no sense. The abortion issue has almost died away in this country. It’s only back in the headlines because at the moment, the Republican candidates are fighting each other viciously and trying to prove their conservative credentials to the religious right. Obama should have stayed out of it.
This particular issue (making Catholic employers provide health insurance that covers birth control) has very little practical significance but much symbolic experience. It’s of little practical significance because not very many people work for Catholic employers who provide health insurance at all, and birth control is not very expensive even for those who don’t avail themselves of the various ways to get it cheap or free. In terms of political symbolism, yes it’s a way of re-affirming that Obama and the Democratic party are in favor of birth control, but how many swing voters will that swing?
The few remaining radical feminists would hardly have bolte to the Republican side just because some people working for Catholic organizations didn’t have birth control included in their company health insurance. On the other hand, there are still a lot of Catholics in this country and they are still considered to be a Democratic voting block, both the traditional east coast Italians and Irish and the up and coming Hispanics. Catholics are a large group, and one that is not so solidly locked up by the Democrats as they might like. They’re a group that’s Democrat-leaning but willing to listen to the Republican side. This insurance demand can easily be interpreted as a direct attack on the Catholic faith. It definitely will drive some Catholics to vote Republican, even while it definitely will not convince any Republicans to vote Democrat.
Of course it’s also possible that his dictate wasn’t about political triangulation in terms of the presidential election (and pigs can fly), but rather about taking one more step to dismantling private health insurance by imposing so many requirements that employers end up dropping it and losing their “grandfathered” status. It’s also possible that this requirement is strictly a matter of Mr. Obama’s personal belief and there’s no political motive behind it at all (and it was the Easter bunny who told me pigs can fly). I tend to doubt that, because he’s already said that he’s personally against abortion but thinks it should be legal.
In short, it seems like a political mis-step.
misjustice on February 10 at 12:13 p.m.
This was the art of compromise, which is President Barack Hussein Obama’s strong suit; drowned out by banjo music and the sound of big 40 oz. bottles of Colt 45 being opened!
; )
fhstorey on February 10 at 12:49 p.m.
Methinks that Obama’s claim to be a Christian is dubious at best. Whether or not one subscribes to the stance of the Roman Catholic Church, the lack of respect for the faith of a hundred million or more of Christians in this U.S. branch of Christendom is not the speak of religious tolerance without regard to the constitutional issues. Whether or not they practice their faith well is also true of all of us who admit to being subject to human failure. (let he who is with out sin throw the first stone.) Further there is a considerable distance between offering coverage and mandating it a public expense making, to my mind, womens health something less than the primary issue. Those services are readily available at little or no cost in the community if one needs to avail themselves of them. That leaves us with, again, a political dilemma for the administration, which group of voters to cater to. Situational ethics at its’ worst.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 10 at 12:58 p.m.
Good luck in 2012 republicans. Hate Obama all you want, your losers really are starting to have no chance, Obama’s approval ratings keep going up while the three stooges approval ratings keep going down. Now the economy is improving so the republicans are going to get desperate and start bringing up social issues just like Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove did so well.
vs. Romney
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
vs. Gingrich
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html
vs. Santorum
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html
DB1640 on February 10 at 1:25 p.m.
This had nothing to do with providing contraception for women. It was all about Obama imposing his will over religious beliefs. Leon Panetta was stunned that he could be so stupid and heartless. But the damage is done, and it is not over yet.
RedCedar on February 10 at 1:37 p.m.
l_i_r_w_l,
….which makes this all the more puzzling. Why create an issue out of essentially nothing (who ever even knew church employee insurance coverage was an election issue?) hand hand the religious nuts (my personal opinion) on the right a perfect ready-made issue? It’s as if Obama enjoys campaigning so much that as soon as it starts to look like he’s going to walk away with an easy victory, he has to hand the Republicans their old favorite hot-button issue, abortion, to handicap himself a bit and ensure that the race tightens up.
Sometimes I think the whole thing is scripted to make it look like we’re fighting hard for democracy and the future of America, when really we’re just sitting at the kiddie table eating a happy meal and playing with our toys while the bipartisan ruling class make the real decisions and plays us for chumps. Cheer all you want for your candidate and your party. It matters exactly as much as who win the superbowl.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 10 at 1:50 p.m.
RedCedar,
I agree completely that this was a very puzzling mis-step from an old hand, Chicago-style politician. I’m as puzzled by it as you are.
Could it have been that this was something that slipped in under the radar out of that huge package of pre-programmed legislation called the Affordable Health Care Act? Furthermore, once it popped up, the Administration made a monumentally bad blunder by saying to themselves, ‘Meh. What the hell? It’s already status quo in 28 states and doesn’t have that much impact as a practical matter so just let it slide. It’s not that big a deal’?
In any event, I pretty much agree with your analysis of this whole mess. Very puzzling.
jddavis on February 10 at 1:51 p.m.
DB1640 is right, this is a First Amendment issue and not about contraception. Whatever your religious beliefs are or are not, you should be concerned about the government dictating what you do in regards to them.
Is this a dead issue? Absolutely NOT!
pmbrown49 on February 10 at 2:07 p.m.
I think Obama is well-qualified to be President…..of Waffle House.
misjustice on February 10 at 3:09 p.m.
“…a very puzzling mis-step…”
Or maybe not; it’s got everyone talking bout IT, instead of the economy. By the election, this will have blown over…and the economy will be even better.
Obama for the EASY win!
MrNatural on February 10 at 3:32 p.m.
http://news.yahoo.com/both-catholic-health-assn-planned-parenthood-theyre-pleased-160621769—abc-news.html
johnclarke on February 10 at 3:34 p.m.
“As a Catholic I don’t want to hear about this in Mass every week until the election,” said Kristen Day”
I have a solution for that.
Pigrobin on February 10 at 3:35 p.m.
Why would a president of the United States have a birth control policy? Ans. Because he doesn’t have an economic policy.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 10 at 4:44 p.m.
Obama’s not idiot .
Here’s about the only way this works: Obama’s been losing votes ( women and white males) Steadily for the past year or so. So when a candidate is failing, what does he do to get votes??
Here’s what: Creates a crisis that will be solved . This is what PObama did. HE created it and he solved it….and he looks like he’s protecting women’s rights…so more women who were falling away come back to the fold and vote for him.
So he looks like the hero (even though he’s a pig)…..corrupt as hell hero though. This scenario is the only way this makes sense. What Obowow didn’t think of though….was the Church. Risky stuff…and he’s corrupt as hell for doing this. He tried to overrule the Church’s doctrines and teachings…this won’t be forgotten.
And the number of Catholic women using BC is 70% NOT 98%. How this dolt made that figure up is also unethical. No matter….Obama pulled a corrupt stunt and there is more to come. Payback will follow this when these women figure out that they could go to PP and get the same drug and same service for ZERO. Nothing changed…except how Catholics look at this “man”.
He created a “crisis”, scared and upset many people…then appeared to solve it. What a self centered oink.
detroitdude on February 10 at 4:55 p.m.
^^^ Again, you spew nonsense and can’t even put together a coherent paragraph. I challenge you to grow up a little and join an adult conversation, Dazzee. As I stated above, you wouldn’t say this to Obama’s face, so whats the point of making yourself look like a fool on here each day? Difference between most people on this site and yourself, is that I’m pretty sure they could all go face to face with Obama, or Bush 2, Clinton, or Bush 1 and look all of them in the eye and speak their criticisms without batting an eye and with general civility. Then there are folks like you, yeah go in there and call him Obowow face to face, you wouldn’t, you are a scared coward.
drywitt99 on February 10 at 5:32 p.m.
You’re right about one thing Dazed, the President is no idiot.
And he proved it…..by laying a trap for the Republicans.
Romney is….by far….the most difficult Republican candidate for the President to defeat this fall.
So……
The President “picks” a fight over the birth control issue….which:
Arouses his base…..and causes Santorum to take off in the polls
This week alone….Newt down 10 pts….Mitt down 5…..Santorum up almost 20.
THEN…..the President works out a pre-arranged “compromise”
which:
*satisfies his base
*calms the concerns of the independents
and
*improves the chances of Rick (…all “birth control is wrong”….) Santorum to get the nomination and lead the GOP to an EPIC DEFEAT.
GENIUS….SHEER POLITICAL GENIUS!!!!!
gmorton on February 10 at 6:13 p.m.
detroitdude wrote
“It’s too bad these zealots can’t take their nose out of women’s personal choices.”
When women, or men, expect someone else to pay for their “choices” they cease to be personal.
I’ll keep my nose out of your personal choices as long as you keep your hands out of my pocket.
detroitdude on February 10 at 6:27 p.m.
“When women, or men, expect someone else to pay for their “choices” they cease to be personal.”
When an employer offers health care to employees, these types of things should be covered, especially for women. If men became pregnant and had to carry and bear a child, abortion would be legal and free everywhere.
gmorton on February 10 at 6:41 p.m.
Obama’s “compromise” is a sham; a shell game. Instead of employers paying for the dictated contraceptive coverage in their premiums, the insurer must offer it for “free” to covered employees if the employer elects not to cover it. That means, of course, that *all* of the insurer’s policy holders will pay for it, including Catholics.
There is another problem with the “compromise” – it does not apply to self-insuring employers, of which there are many, including some Catholic employers. Who’s gonna be handed the bill for those employees’ free lunch?
No doubt the government will argue, when this free-lunch mandate is challenged, that Congress has authority under the interstate commerce clause to command insurance companies to provide “free” contraceptives. Well, then, why not “free” cancer therapy? “Free” heart surgery?
In a free and rational economy, of course, neither contraceptives nor maternity would be covered by any health insurance policy, except perhaps as a rider for which those who desired that coverage would pay hefty premiums. They are not unforeseeable risks, protection from which is the purpose of all insurance.
But then, very few people these days understand the concept of insurance. They simply believe they’re “entitled” to “free” health care, and to force other people to pay for it.
gmorton on February 10 at 6:45 p.m.
detroitdude wrote,
“When an employer offers health care to employees, these types of things should be covered . . .”
Sez who?
Where did you get the idea that what is covered in my insurance policy – which is a private contract between me and a private insurer – is any of your business?
Weren’t you just complaining about zealots sticking their noses in others’ personal business?
gmorton on February 10 at 6:49 p.m.
detroitdude wrote,
“If men became pregnant and had to carry and bear a child, abortion would be legal and free everywhere.”
Only if those men were lefties who think the world owes them a living.
detroitdude on February 10 at 7:31 p.m.
gmorton, I’m not going to fall into your game of avoiding the heart of the matter while meticulously turning every single thing into an unanswerable question.
“Weren’t you just complaining about zealots sticking their noses in others’ personal business?”
Yeah, I was. Reproductive health is a matter for the woman to decide. Besides, this is only an issue because of the timing, what is being provided is nothing new. We are if nothing else debating $70, the cost of Plan B.
“Only if those men were lefties who think the world owes them a living.”
Not at all true, it would apply to any young man with a healthy set of testicles who “enjoys” the company of women, don’t be so naive.
gmorton on February 10 at 7:53 p.m.
detrtoitdude wrote,
” … I’m not going to fall into your game of avoiding the heart of the matter . . .”
What do you think is the heart of the matter?
I think it is freedom – in this case, the freedom to decide what health insurance coverages you need, and to pay only for those you want.
“Reproductive health is a matter for the woman to decide.”
Only until she begins to demand that others pay to carry out her decisions. At that point she invites others into the decision-making process.
” … it would apply to any young man with a healthy set of testicles who “enjoys” the company of women, don’t be so naive.”
Er, no. All men with healthy testicles do not expect others to pay for the consequences of their use of them.
Pigrobin on February 10 at 8:20 p.m.
It’s good, it’s all good. No self respect, no self determination, and certainly no responsibility. Please, please Mr. Government, feed me, clothe me, house me, and for God’s sake give me my birth control. I promise to vote for you, for I am helpless without you, thank you Master.