Birth Control Rules: Most of Obama's 'Controversial' Mandate Has Been Law For A Decade

In this Feb. 1, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks in Falls Church, Va. Reversing an earlier stand, President Barack Obama is now encouraging donors to give generously to the kind of political fundraising groups he has assailed as a "threat to democracy." (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

Mother Jones:

President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

Read the whole story at Mother Jones

Comments

[mrluckyman]

12:10 PM on 02/11/2012

I cant understand why any of you are concerned about the insurance companies that charge astronomic­al fee's that deplete their subscriber­s life savings, hurling them into poverty, just so they can continue to survive. The GOPTP is protecting Big Pharm, typical and not at all surprising­, they continue to honor Norquists pledge, at any cost. Why are they OK paying for Viagra etc. for mens enhancemen­t, the cost of that is much LARGER (pun intended) then womens birth control pills. Will it be illegal for men to use condoms? I can see it now, we will have condom lords smuggling condoms into the US. Is this an issue about birth control, or just "control" in general? The GOPTP need to stop pushing their religious beliefs down our throats. Its disturbing to see just how far they will go to get people riled up for personal political gains. People of faith should be outraged they are using religion as part of their vile campaign tactics, they want nothing more then to see the POTUS become a one term president. What we are now dealing with is theocracy, that goes against everything this country represents­. Obama2012.

[rphilli9]

08:27 AM on 02/11/2012

Neither the government, an employer or a church should deny or force the use of contraceptives. It should always be the women's choice. It's funny how the people making a stink about this are men. I'm glad Obama found a way to appease all the pedophile protectors so they can continue to oppress women. Don't they see this is why they're losing more and more members everyday?

[richard in obihiro]

07:51 PM on 02/12/2012

Agreed, rphill. And I wonder if all these men hollering about religious freedom being violeted by the "new" rule, as it applies to women, also know that the ONLY method of contraception accepted by the Catholic Church is withdrawal. Yes, this means even condoms are not allowed. But which of these men will be honest enough to say that using a condom would violate their conscience?

[2lib4oh]

02:42 AM on 02/11/2012

The problem is a political one. The right-wing resents Obama's action in this. Bush could get away with this easy.

[TurnToTheLeft]

03:03 PM on 02/10/2012

This controversy belies the failure of the Fourth Estate to cover the news.

[Lenape105]

08:41 PM on 02/09/2012

In Reynolds V. United States (1878), SCOTUS ruled:

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

The ruling cited this example:
"Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?"

ref: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

Nobody is telling Catholics, or members of any other religion, what to believe.
But government clearly has the authority to control actions, no matter what your religion.

[Santa Cruz girl]

05:09 PM on 02/09/2012

What if I'm not Catholic, or not a practicing Catholic and I want birth control. Can my insurance cover it? I think it's up to the individual, if a woman is Catholic and does not want to take birth control, it's her right and that's the end of story. She is not affecting my agnostic beliefs, why should my right to take birth control (and my insurance company's duty to pay for it) affect her faith? Everyone, mind your own business and worship how you want

[geewilikers]

01:30 PM on 02/09/2012

The "moral outrage" of the church is really just about being cheap.

[Agnt Duke]

12:14 AM on 02/10/2012

Hardly, since it's only an incidental part of their group health insurance coverage. The church is rich. And this would have little to no impact on their premiums. I dare you to provide proof to the contrary.

Typical leftist response to try and redefine the "moral" aspect of the arguement to make it about money.

[geewilikers]

10:12 AM on 02/10/2012

Ask the women who have to pay for birth control pills out of pocket if this is a small amount of money each month. Those that need birth control pills the most are paying a significant amount out of pocket each month. The church doesn't have a problem buying
male erectile enhancement drugs though.

[sudey2]

01:17 PM on 02/09/2012

"But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church."

This is obviously because Republicans and the control-obsessed Church want to divert attention from the truth and create an atmosphere of hate and fear. It's how they survive. On hate and fear and destruction of truth.

[geewilikers]

10:17 AM on 02/10/2012

Exactly! Thank you for a reasoned response. Since over 90% of women in the US practice birth control, it is a huge issue. Paying for birth control pills out of pocket is a large expense for those that can afford having more children the least.

[2lib4oh]

02:47 AM on 02/11/2012

Its actually politically motivated. Women just happen to be caught in the middle of this fight.
Women and men who care these women should take objection to this behavior on the part of the Church.
Don't let this be about Obama. Protest to your parishes.They don't own you.

[SeattleNick]

10:46 AM on 02/09/2012

This will not be an issue after 11-06-12 because for one thing either Obama will be in office for 4 years or there will be a new president and the issue will not be taken care of because the GOP are such dirt bags that they will be in the process of robbing the US blind and blaming the results on someone else.

[Lenape105]

08:43 PM on 02/09/2012

If a GOP candidate wins, we can look forward to Christian Sharia Law, and a new age of ignorance in America.

[SeattleNick]

09:19 PM on 02/09/2012

I agree with that totally.

[dutt]

10:30 AM on 02/09/2012

Obama is the controversy, it has nothing to do with anything Obama says or does. It is totally irrational.

[vidaldca]

01:04 PM on 02/09/2012

The Republicans say Obama is forcing the Catholic church to go against it's teaching of birth controll even though it only affects secular institutions like universities, and hospitals where
many people who are not Catholics go. To follow their logic if the Jehova Witnesses
says that they need an exemption from offering people blood transfusion because it is against their teaching. What do you think the Republicans would say?

[Agnt Duke]

12:15 AM on 02/10/2012

They would say, let them bleed out then. That's their choice.

[camelias and sweet tea]

10:07 AM on 02/09/2012

The GOP/TEA may have finally realized that they cannot get Roe v Wade reversed, so now they have taken it further....NOW THEY HOME COME FOR OUR BIRTH CONTROL!
Santorum has gone as far as wanting Griswold v Conn. reversed..He wants to deny married couples contraceptives..Griswold decision guaranteed the right to have. This is just the GOP/TEA at it again..attacking women as per usual.

[geewilikers]

10:20 AM on 02/10/2012

We'll see if he and his wife have any more kids.

[camelias and sweet tea]

11:26 AM on 02/10/2012

His poor wife, looks so haggard and tired all the time now I don't think she could survive another pregnancy.

[nana4g]

10:03 AM on 02/09/2012

And, in case anyone hasn't noticed, that conservative meeting of VIPs in Texas, after Romney began winning, that resulted in conservative endorsement of Santorum and then, coincidentally found that the results of the primary caucas just prior to this conference were miscounted and actually went to Santorum, are monkeying around with their own primary election results. Think what they will do with the general election results. Everything is a lie. We cannot even recognize anymore what is "Constitutional", what is straightforward, because it is all distorted and polluted. And American people allow themselves to be used as pawns.

[nana4g]

10:00 AM on 02/09/2012

Santorum has been railing against contraception throughout his campaign. The Catholic Church seized the opportunity to raise a rukus over a law that has been in effect since 2001 and reinforced in 2009, that is working just fine with the Catholic Churches in 28 states, including New York, Massachusetts...where it was reinforced in their Health Care bill by the other Romney....Arizona, South Carolina, and other states. Republican politicians, never known to shy away from reproductive issues that can excite the public into an outrage, who held Congressional hearings on Sharia Law to protect religion/state, are lying again to the American public, some of whom will get their birth control pills filled, schedule their elective sterilization procedures, after they pounce on this issue and condemn.

[Andy Nonymous]

09:56 AM on 02/09/2012

This is the same as if the government forced you to buy cable TV for your kids and required the S&M, KKK and hardcore porn channels be included. They're just "options" your kids don't need to watch them. Freedom does not equal the government forcing people to do things that they believe are morally wrong.

[infinitivesplit]

10:52 AM on 02/09/2012

No, actually it's not the same at all.

[Lenape105]

08:44 PM on 02/09/2012

Why do you object to women controling their own reproductive choices?

[Agnt Duke]

12:18 AM on 02/10/2012

This has nothing to do with woman's reproductive choices. It has to do with them fiscally supporting something they morally object to. The woman can still get the birth control they require - they are just going to have to pay for it.

What you really meant to say, is 'Why do you object to women passing along the fiscal burden of their choices to a religious body who morally objects her choices?"

[Gwendolyn Rouse]

09:52 AM on 02/09/2012

Birth Control Rules: Most of Obama's 'Controversial' Mandate Has Been Law For A Decade.


These drama was created by the tea baggers, Republicans, and all the Talking heads day and night shows.

[infinitivesplit]

11:17 AM on 02/09/2012

The law doesn't even apply to Churches. The law applies to Catholic Hospitals and Universities. These organizations are considered Secular - which is why they are able to receive tax payer funds.