iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Administration Announces New Decision On Birth Control, To Chagrin Of Religious Groups

Birth Control

First Posted: 01/20/2012 4:04 pm Updated: 01/21/2012 11:10 am

In a long-anticipated decision that will affect millions of women's ability to pay for contraception, the Obama administration announced on Friday that it would not allow religiously affiliated employers such as universities and hospitals to deny full birth control coverage to the women they employ.

Under the new rule, set forth by the Affordable Care Act, most women employed in the U.S. will have the cost of their birth control covered with no co-pay. Churches and other places of worship would continue to be exempt from having to cover contraception for their employees if they morally object to the practice, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, but all other organizations will have a year to comply with the new requirement, regardless of whether or not they are religiously affiliated.

Some women's rights groups and Democratic women in Congress had begun to lose enthusiasm for President Obama after the controversial decision by HHS to limit access to the morning-after pill. Many of them recently expressed deep concern that he would cave to the powerful Catholic bishop lobby on the birth control issue, but they were pleasantly surprised with his administration's decision on Friday.

"I am glad that the Obama Administration has taken the sensible path here," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told HuffPost. "By keeping these provisions strong, the administration is ensuring that millions of women will have access to affordable birth control. That's good news for them and for the health of our entire country."

"The bishops pulled out all the stops in their campaign against women’s access to contraception," said Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. "The Obama administration stood with those who support religious liberty and believe in giving women the freedom of conscience to make their own reproductive health decisions."

The religious organizations that have been lobbying the White House for months to expand the so-called "conscience clause" were deeply upset by the decision, arguing that it includes coverage of the morning-after pill, which they believe causes abortions.

“Freedom of conscience is a sacred gift from God, not a grant from the state,” said Galen Carey, NAE Vice President for Government Relations. “No government has the right to compel its citizens to violate their conscience. The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent.”

"This is a shameless attempt to kick the can down the road in an election year," said Hannah Smith, senior legal counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "Religious colleges, universities, and hospitals will never pay for abortion drugs in violation of their religious beliefs -- this year or any other year."

Emergency contraception pills are not, in fact, "abortion drugs." They can prevent a pregnancy by stopping ovulation or stopping an egg from attaching to the uterine wall, but they cannot end a pregnancy once it starts.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, one of the most powerful lobbying groups on the issue of the religious exemption, did not respond to a request for comment on the announcement.

Secretary Sebelius said she had based her decision on "abundant" scientific evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families.

"This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty," she said. "I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services."

Related on HuffPost:

See where the Republican presidential candidates stand on women's health issues:
Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.)
1  of  6
PLAY
FULLSCREEN
ZOOM
SHARE THIS SLIDE 
Romney's position on abortion and other women's health issues switched from pro-choice to anti-choice during his term as governor from 2003 to 2007, and his record on choice-related issues is mixed. He vetoed a measure that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception without a prescription to rape victims, but he signed into law a measure to expand family planning services for low-income women and families in Massachusetts.

Romney was also one of the few GOP candidates who refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List's pro-life pledge, because his camp said it could have some "potentially unforeseen consequences." But he believes abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, and he said if he were president he would support the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

"This is not the time for the Republican Party to put up a candidate who is weak on the pro-life issue or has a history of flip-flopping over it," Bachmann said of Romney at a National Right to Life convention in June.

Romney said as president he would defund Planned Parenthood, and then took it even further saying he'd "get rid of that" altogether.
FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
In a long-anticipated decision that will affect millions of women's ability to pay for contraception, the Obama administration announced on Friday that it would not allow religiously affiliated employ...
In a long-anticipated decision that will affect millions of women's ability to pay for contraception, the Obama administration announced on Friday that it would not allow religiously affiliated employ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,847
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (89 total)
07:44 AM on 02/09/2012
What makes me ill is how the GOP is using this difference as a wedge issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Energy Conservation can save you M-O-N-E-Y!!!!!!!!
11:30 PM on 02/08/2012
A little over a year ago I spent 9 days in the hospital with pulmonary embolisms caused by my doctor's insistence that I needed $300 a month hormone treatment. For 9 days I had to listen to doctors say, "You are lucky to be alive." Since then I have had over a hundred women tell me, "The same thing happened to me because of Birth Control Pills."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yudhisthira
08:11 PM on 02/08/2012
I'm sure many have commented the same, as it is a no-brainer, but I will anyway. To be working in a Catholic organization, hospital, college, etc, there is no requirement that the worker should be a Catholic. As a result, the non-Catholic women working in these institutions are deprived of a benefit which is available to all other women. Furthermore, Catholic women working at the same institutions are not being forced to use birth control pills. So what is the problem?
11:21 PM on 02/08/2012
Those working women can find a different employer. It's not the Church's fault those women expected to receive payments for things their religious employer objects on religious grounds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kalemanao
We Didn't Start The Fire...
07:40 PM on 02/07/2012
LET US PRAY...

So, over this issue... the majority of devout Catholics are going to vote for a conservative Mormon to be elected President of the United States of America... Or, the conservative-alternative God-fearing hate-monger... Because he is a Catholic?

Our Father who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy name;
Thy kingdom come
Thy will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us;
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
PLEASE!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rdh53
04:47 PM on 02/07/2012
I think a lot of people are missing the point. If the federal government can cross the separation of church and state by imposing this law, then where will it end? What else will the Obama group want? What other religious groups will be affected the next time? Will it just be religion or move on to taking our personal freedoms. Remember he wanted to tax our mileage on our vehicles. He is treading on our rights and I do not want that..
06:21 PM on 02/07/2012
i agree with you on the fact that the church and government need to be separate. But this law is not really crossing that. it is saying that people that happen to be employed by a religious affiliated hospital or university, would be able to get birth control with no co-pay. people need to not look at it as crossing the line because simply put these establishments are these people's employer. why should any employer be allowed to deny an employee any kind of medication? I mean, as things are these people just pay a co pay for their birth control if they take it, so its not going to drastically change anything to get rid of the co pay. This is about people's finances and not their religion. from the first paragraph of the article- "it would not allow religiously affiliated employers such as universities and hospitals to deny full birth control coverage to the women they employ"

why should an employer be able to have any say in an employee's choices as far as their healthcare. because in reality birth control can be taken for several other reasons than preventing pregnancy- regulating periods, helping with cramps, acne, helping with heavy periods. so why cant the government help out women employed by these establishments? It's a fine line and some people are not understanding that the government is not forcing anyone to actually fill the prescription, they are just allowing the option to be there.
11:22 PM on 02/08/2012
Put your own hospital and then come back and open your big mouth again. What about that?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Ann Clark
Fat cats eventually sink...
04:23 PM on 02/07/2012
pay for old-man viagra to commit adultery (*cough..Newt*), but not for contraceptives for women that may have work for an affiliate of the catholic church. Seriously? ...the hypocrisy of the church. Run from this Newt as fast as you can. But anybody willing to jettison to moon to win one presidential, will jump on this bandwagon...the hypocrisy of Newt. Romney developed the blueprint for this and it is being practiced now in more than one state...talk to the hand flip floppin Mitt....the hypocrisy of Romney. I heard some idiot on tv talking about how the church has been beaten up enough already. really? and what about the young boys they were beaten up about?
the government is not forcing anyone to take birth control.
04:19 PM on 02/07/2012
All you CATHOLICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop your whining.
You helped to vote this clown in office.
You reap what you sow.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
03:51 PM on 02/07/2012
So next let's get the Government to force all young girls to have an implant to prevent pregnancy until 18 years old, or when available the boys.
Government is already forcing them to get shots for genital warts virus.
Constitutional Rights mean nothing to the the Federal Government anymore.
04:18 PM on 02/07/2012
RON PAUL 2012
05:22 PM on 02/07/2012
okay, so where is this law saying its mandatory for a genital warts virus vaccine? because if there is one please enlighten us. yes in some states it has become required for girls to get the HPV vaccine for school but there is the opt-out for reasons such as religion. and as i commented earlier, its a choice not a requirement. the government is not forcing you to take birth control, they are trying to make it so IF someone WANTS to take it they wont have to pay for it. if you don't think it's right to take birth control or plan B then don't take it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
07:05 PM on 02/07/2012
I think in Texas the girls have to get the HPV shots, someone in Oregon said they heard that the idea is being kicked around there.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
07:08 PM on 02/07/2012
the government is trying to force me (and others) to pay for the birth control when they original said it would optional in the obama care plan. 2020 or so it will be come a "crime" not to buy your health care insurance from someone, that's freedom?
03:49 PM on 02/07/2012
here is my personal opinion on this whole thing. i still have respect for the religious groups that do not believe in birth control. if thats the way you feel then don't go get a perscription for it. but don't deny someone else the choice. if you feel is "not dealing with consequences and ignoring your conscience to take BC or plan B" then don't take it, then teach the things you believe to YOUR family. don't push it on to people of other faiths or beliefs. if you feel they are not living their life right then fine, but what good is it doing by causing all of this controversy over it? obama is not attacking you, the government is not attacking you and Forcing you to get a perscription for birthcontrol. The option just needs to be there for the people that do not have the same beliefs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Remy Arrr
08:15 PM on 02/07/2012
but the raison d'etre of some of these groups seems to be to impose their will upon everyone else. boo
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
InisLass
But for the grace of God, go I.
03:32 PM on 02/07/2012
Something I recently learned which surprised me is that insurance coverage _is_ in place for Viagara and probably Cialis. Why is a male sexual medication (yes, I know that wasn't it's first/primary intention) covered by insurance but not birth control! Aside from the gender-biasedness of that, I doubt I'm far off on thinking many men on these meds are with women of childbearing age so would it not seem even more appropriate for women to have this Rx net in place for them as well. Seems a bit lop-sided.
04:16 PM on 02/07/2012
The Catholic Church is not against baby making medicines.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:25 PM on 02/07/2012
I find this the height of hypocrisy....studies show 98% of Catholics use birth control (but obviously won't admit it and probably 100% are having premarital sex) so why all the fuss over giving EVERYONE the same basic benefits. It is more of the 'Do as I say, not As I do" culture.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
03:51 PM on 02/07/2012
Studies show what ?
02:12 AM on 02/13/2012
Theo-100% of Catholics do things the church does not approve of so what's your point? Get rid of all standards and beliefs? All or nothing?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
FreedToChoose
...lest my wife says I'm not.
02:39 PM on 02/07/2012
Many Catholic women have been using birth control devices/pills for decades. I suspect one of their rationales is that a bunch of single old men don't know the responsibilities and burdens of being a mother.

If the Catholic hierarchy is going to turn a blind eye to pedophilia within the priesthood, allowing contraception seems easy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janicedow1
escaped from utah
10:14 AM on 02/07/2012
7 billion people in the world, many of them facing starvation, animals pushed out to the point of extinction, and the old men in the Catholic Church still act as though we are living in the year 1100. They need to recognize we are now in the 21st century and the world population needs to be controlled.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
InisLass
But for the grace of God, go I.
03:37 PM on 02/07/2012
Too logical, janice. It's also selfish of those who feel it's fine to over-populate as I know I want clean air, water, food and a space to call his own for my son. Even if folks don't believe in Global Warming, there won't be enough space left for anyone at this rate. F/F
07:46 PM on 02/03/2012
I'd like to know which 28 states are participating, and if South Carolina is among them... anyone know where I can find out?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
03:52 PM on 02/07/2012
why don't you do your own internet search, lazy bones, you have to learn to do things on your own now young lady.
12:16 PM on 01/31/2012
The real underlying issue here is that health insurance should not be tied to employment. Your employer should not be able to decide what coverage the employee should or should not have access to. Defeats the entire purpose of having coverage!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anwrose
1400+ days and counting....
02:46 PM on 02/07/2012
The employers have EVERY right to decide what coverage they will PAY for, for their employees. If they are paying the bulk of their employees' premiums, then they have the say in what they will cover in that plan and what they won't. Employers have the right to "pick and choose" the coverage they will pay for their employees. It's how they all save health care premium costs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
03:54 PM on 02/07/2012
how much does a pack of BC pills cost?
anyway, I thought that was Planned Parenthood's job.
08:07 AM on 02/08/2012
A la carte health insurance? Either you offer health insurance or you dont. What is the employer gonna do, if its all men on staff not offer reproductive services coverage? What about those on a family plan with their wives on the policy?

NO. Employers should either offer coverage or not. The only thing that truly affects premium is co-pays, deductibles, and the people being employed (age, weight, pre-existing conditions, etc).

It is wrong for your employer to dictate what health insurance coverage you should have. Sen. Rubio (from my state FL) actually said that employees should look elsewhere for employment if they are seeking healthcare that is not provided through their current employer. Really? Is that realistic? So a fundamental aspect of health living, access to affordable healthcare, is something that should determine where we work? No wonder so many people are no longer loyal to their employers - BECAUSE health insurance is tied to employment and this is a vital need for many employees and employers are continually looking at ways to decrease this important benefit. Trends show that people will actually take less money when the benefits package is good, the main aspect of a benefits package is health insurance.