Contraception and Religious Freedom (and related issues)

[SirDennis]

[Note: I split this off from the election thread - VtF]

Some points are related but harder to categorize. For instance the following might belong in the universal healthcare thread (there is one right?), or perhaps a new thread in Tol Eressëa, but as it impacts the election...

AP sources: Obama revamping birth control policy

WASHINGTON (AP) — Retreating in the face of a political uproar, President Barack Obama on Friday will announce that religious employers will not have to cover birth control for their employees after all, The Associated Press has learned. The administration instead will demand that insurance companies will be the ones directly responsible for providing free contraception.

Obama's abrupt shift is an attempt to satisfy both sides of a deeply sensitive debate, and most urgently, to end a mounting election-year nightmare for the White House.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 3c764ee1ac

Comment

[rant]This debate highlights what I have been saying about the Right's thinly veiled attempts to seize power in the coming election, even at the expense of any good Obama might have achieved.

Providing free birth control is a sound way reduce the incidence of abortion. People are going to continue to have sex, whether abortion is criminalized or not. Of the women I know who have had abortions, including one who was married and had children already, it was used as birth control after the fact rather than using some other method before the fact. How often is this the case for women who cannot afford contraception?

And just because contraception is free, doesn't mean everyone has to use it (some still won't, we know this), nor does it necessarily mean sex outside of marriage will increase. What it most likely will do however is reduce the pregnancy rate, and therefore the rate of abortion, especially among populations where every pregnancy is a crisis pregnancy.

Obviously I personally have no problem with religion influencing politics in positive ways. In fact one of the things I admire about Obama is his faith (others are his ability to see a way through the mire, and his intelligence). What I do have a problem with is when religious groups attack what he is trying to do, even when it is something that would help [what are supposedly] their cherished goals. Obviously it is about gaining power and prestige with some, despite what they claim their conscience is leading them to do. [/rant]

[axordil]

The sad thing is the constitutionality of the policy is not in question. Functionally identical state laws were challenged by Catholic Charities. They lost. SCOTUS refused to review the state supreme court rulings in question.

I'm extremely dubious about carving out religious exemptions to laws. Free exercise shouldn't come at someone else's expense: if it does, you don't have a religion, you have a scam.

[Primula Baggins]

It's ridiculous, but it sounds as if the outcome is that women whose employers refuse to cover birth control for religious reasons will still get the free coverage in a side policy from the insurance company. I hope the definition of "religious employer" is very specific, though—that someone who owns a secular business can't say that because he's personally opposed to birth control for religious reasons, he won't cover it for his employees.

Rachel Maddow and others on the left have been covering this with some befuddlement: these older conservative men who don't know anyone who uses birth control seem to think this is a minor issue and a good one to score points for their own superior moral position. Maybe some ladies get flustered, but hey, the ladies are always finding something to be flustered about, amirite. . . .

They'll find out.

[axordil]

The timing of this brouhaha in a basket, seems to have been almost tailor-made to help Rick Santorum. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? And I don't mean about the predictability of the US Council of Bishops' knee-jerk response.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But, from what I can gather, the compromise that they are coming up with still preserves the individuals' ability to get free birth control, while addressing the concerns raised about religious freedom. So what is there to complain about? Yet people on the left will rant about Obama "caving" once again, and people on the right will still rant that he is not going far enough to address their concerns.

I just don't get it. Here we have a man who actually tries to find intelligent solutions to difficult problems, it people on both sides hate him for it. I find that to be the most infuriating thing.

ETA: Cross-posted with Prim and Ax.

[River]

The thing about this that drives me craziest is, about ten years ago, I trained to be an EMT in NY. On the first day of class, we were informed that our ob was to provide care. It didn't matter to whom. It didn't matter why they'd ended up on the receiving end of the 911 call. It didn't matter how we personally felt about the care we were being ordered to provide. We were ust supposed to do it and the only judgment we were to use was the clinical kind. We were also told that if we couldn't do that, we could leave. Pronto. Why are other care providers held to a softer standard?

Also, if medical care providers are allowed to just not do things based on their religious beliefs, what happens if you need a blood transfusion and the only available doc is a Jehovah's Witness?

[axordil]

River--

This isn't a question of providing care, but providing coverage. In other words, not only would these people not sell you contraception, they wouldn't pay you indirectly (via health insurance) to get your own. I'm relatively sure what the bishops et al would REALLY like to do is to be able to fire you if they found out you used contraception.

*makes mental note to start religion based on the principle that if I don't knock over a bank a week I'll go to hell*

[Dave_LF]

I would have thought drawing attention to the fact that the right wing wants the power to forbid women from using birth control could only help Obama. But I guess I'm not the politician.

Maybe this is best of both worlds. They've tipped their hand and Obama has found a solution that gives both sides what they want. Or maybe he is actually <gasp> doing what he thinks makes sense instead of playing politics.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Early reports seem to be that women's rights groups are satisfied with the compromise, whereas the GOP and its allies are not.

[SirDennis]

I would have thought drawing attention to the fact that the right wing wants the power to forbid women from using birth control could only help Obama. But I guess I'm not the politician.

Maybe this is best of both worlds. They've tipped their hand and Obama has found a solution that gives both sides what they want. Or maybe he is actually <gasp> doing what he thinks makes sense instead of playing politics.

Yes hopefully he will be admired for trying to rise above the politics and doing what seems best for all concerned. It is an interesting contrast really because Obama is also a man of faith (as far as I know).

Where I begin to worry is how, largely running on ideological issues, Republicans gained control of congress two years into Obama's term.

[axordil]

Maybe this is best of both worlds. They've tipped their hand and Obama has found a solution that gives both sides what they want. Or maybe he is actually <gasp> doing what he thinks makes sense instead of playing politics.

One can, on rare occasion, do both something that makes sense AND score political points.

[Primula Baggins]

But this ideological issue is not going to get anyone elected, SirD.

In thinking about the compromise announced the morning, I've realized it's really rather neatly done. By removing the religious-liberty issue from the discussion, those who still object to the rule are objecting to birth control itself. Not that religious institutions have to underwrite it but that anyone does. Rick Santorum said this morning that he does not think birth control should ever be covered by health insurance (link).

This only makes the contrast between the president's position and theirs more stark. Republicans are acting as if contraception were a wedge issue that favored themselves, when in fact it now cuts in the opposite direction.

[River]

Two things. First, there is a small but vocal minority that is convinced that Obama is secretly a Muslim. Mainly because he's half-Kenyan and spent part of his life in Indonesia. This vocal minority gets more attention than it deserves so some people lend them more credibility than they deserve.

Frankly, I only see a candidate's religion as important if they're using it as a stick to beat people with.

Second, the 2010 mid-term was in no small part a backlash against the incumbents. There's been no small amount of buyer's remorse since then. Last I checked, Congress had managed to make itself less popular than herpes. A sadly impressive feat.

ETA: x-posted with Prim and ax

[Primula Baggins]

And the Republican presidential candidates are supplying Obama's campaign commercials with sound bites showing them supporting positions that are anywhere from mostly to wildly unpopular with the public at large.

[River]

Republicans are acting as if contraception were a wedge issue that favored themselves, when in fact it now cuts in the opposite direction.

In some ways, it makes me want to laugh. Birth control is almost a misnomer for how those drugs are used. I've known lesbians on the pill. I've known women who weren't sexually active, or planning to become sexually active, on the pill. It's like a panacea for female problems and anyone with two X chromosomes can have those.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

First, there is a small but vocal minority that is convinced that Obama is secretly a Muslim.

A larger and even more vocal minority considers the president a potentially more dangerous creature than a Muslim - a secular humanist.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, there are a whole slew of contraceptive methods that are not the Pill and that still must be prescribed, such as IUDs and diaphragms. But the fact is that 98% of women use birth control at some point in their lives. This necessarily includes a lot of Catholic women and a lot of socially conservative women. Including many who helped vote down a personhood amendment in Mississippi, one of the most conservative states.

I consistently see pundits and politicians greatly underestimating the willingness of women to vote according to the issues that affect their lives. Birth control is one of them. So is choice. These aren't side issues to many women, they aren't optional frills; they're a big part of being able to control your own life. For many women choosing a presidential candidate, opposition to either or both is a deal breaker.

ETA: Cross-posted with Voronwë.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Including many who helped vote down a personhood amendment in Mississippi, one of the most conservative states.

An amendment that was supported, I might add, by virtually every politician of both parties in the state. A very good example of how politicians can be completely out of step with the people on issues like this.

[Primula Baggins]

Exactly.

And not only did the politicians back it, the pundits mostly thought it was a shoo-in to pass. There were so many stories about "After Mississippi, what next?"

People do keep forgetting that half the voters are women—in terms of turnout, usually more than half—and while many women are pro-life, many more are not. (Some are publicly pro-life while voting pro-choice.)

The proportion is even more lopsided when it comes to birth control.

[River]

Among women at least, being anti-abortion rarely goes hand-in-hand with being anti-birth control and being pro-birth control or pro-abortion rarely goes hand-in-hand with being anti-baby. It's purely an issue of self-determination.

A larger and even more vocal minority considers the president a potentially more dangerous creature than a Muslim - a secular humanist.

A frightening bunch. I agree. We do terrible things like...like...I'll get back to you on that.