iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Birth Control Compromise Announced [UPDATE]

First Posted: 02/10/2012 8:07 am Updated: 02/10/2012 4:57 pm

WASHINGTON -- Faced with increasing pressure from religious groups and Catholic lawmakers in both parties over the new federal requirement for birth control coverage, the Obama administration announced on Friday an "accommodation" aimed at allaying some of the concerns of faith-driven employers.

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told members of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus in a phone call on Friday morning that the new compromise requires the insurer -- rather than the employer -- to provide contraceptive coverage free of charge for women employed by the entities in question, a congressional staffer told HuffPost.

One idea that had been mentioned was the "Hawaii model," by which an employer who morally objects to contraception could opt out and inform its female employees where they can get coverage outside of the employee health plan. In Hawaii, women who decide to directly pay the insurer out of pocket for contraception coverage are not allowed to be charged more than they would pay for their company plan.

ABC News reported that President Barack Obama's compromise would not go as far as the Hawaii plan, but would involve a third-party health company helping to provide contraception coverage. It actually makes financial sense for insurance companies to cover birth control, ABC's Jake Tapper notes, because unwanted pregnancies and resulting complications cost more than contraception and sterilization.

Under the current rule, only churches and other houses of worship are exempt from having to cover contraception at no co-pay for the women they employ. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the Hawaii model as a viable alternative because they don't even want women to be referred to places that would provide them with contraception.

"All the Founding Fathers saw that, and how far are we removed when we're sitting around talking about, well, maybe the Catholic church could make a referral to a service that it regards as intrinsically immoral," Bishop William Lori, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, told the National Catholic Reporter. "We're pretty far way from the genius that inspired the founding of this country."

The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.

"That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether," said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the USCCB, "not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers."

He added, "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate."

Supporters of the provision say the only conscience that matters ought to be the conscience of the woman in question, whose option to have affordable contraception should not be dictated by the religious beliefs of her employer. Some of them feel that the religious exemption is already too broad, because women who work for churches in any capacity are excluded from the option of coverage.

"Birth control is basic health care and women should have access to birth control, no matter where they work," Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said on Thursday. "The Obama administration's birth control benefit already includes an expansive refusal exemption, allowing approximately 335,000 churches and houses of worship to refuse to provide birth control for their employees."

Pro-choice legislators were reacting cautiously to the news, waiting to see how broadly the White House defines who could assert the exemption. "If it's what it looks like, then this is good," said one Senate aide. "But if anyone can just say they're anti-abortion for religious reasons, then it's a giant carve-out."

Another Democratic aide fumed that the administration had botched the entire roll-out of the policy, even when it came to the call held Friday morning to inform lawmakers. An email went out at 9:25 a.m. announcing the briefing, but it was sent so hastily, the message didn't say when it would occur. Another note had to be sent at 9:27 a.m. to announce the call was at 9:30.

When Jarrett was done, she took no questions, further aggravating people, the aide said.

A majority of Americans said they support requiring health plans to include contraception coverage, according to a new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, and 58 percent of Catholic respondents said the same.

But House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), along with a number of GOP lawmakers and a handful of Catholic Democrats in Congress, have criticized Obama for the mandate. Boehner said in a floor speech on Wednesday that if Obama didn't reverse the rule, Congress would use legislation to do it.

White House spokesperson Jay Carney said on Wednesday that the president was not interested in backing down on the rule, but that he would "work with those who have concerns" to implement it in a way that pleases all parties.

UPDATE: 10:25 a.m. -- In a separate conference call that started at 9:45 a.m Friday, Jarrett briefed a large number of women's health groups about the administration's proposed changes to the so-called contraception rule.

Under the new language, Jarrett said, religious institutions would still be required to cover contraception as part of any health care plan they offer to their employees. But they also will be offered a veritable opt-out clause. If they determine that the requirement violates their religious sensibilities, the burden would then fall on the insurance company to cover the cost.

That insurance company would be required to inform the recipient of their benefits package in addition to paying for the contraception. This, explained Jarrett, effectively removes religious institutions from any role in the process, which the White House hopes will mute the criticism it has received. Insurers will be fine picking up the slack, she added, because the cost saved in covering contraception outweighs the expenses made in covering procedures that result from not having contraception available.

The contents of the call were relayed to The Huffington Post by someone who took part in it. The groups that participated included NARAL Pro-Choice America, Catholics for Life, NOW, and Health Care for America Now.

"Women's groups are okay with it if there is no change for the woman," the source said. "Some of the women's groups were concerned about the Hawaii plan. But women don't need to do anything proactively to opt in [to contraception coverage]. They have the same insurance companies that they would have anyway."

UPDATE: 11:20 a.m. -- Women's advocacy groups were generally pleased with the Obama administration's "accommodation" on Friday because it maintains birth control coverage with no co-pay for most women.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, praised the compromise, but warned that it would still not appease the policy's staunchest opponents.

"Today's announcement makes it clear that President Obama is firmly committed to protecting women’s health,” Keenan said. “Unfortunately, some opponents of contraception may not be satisfied. These groups and their allies in Congress want to take away contraceptive coverage from nurses, janitors, administrative staff, and college instructors -- and that agenda is out of touch with our country’s values and priorities. We will continue to fight on every front to support women’s access to birth control as politicians in Washington, D.C. try to take it away.”

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, reacted with a similar level of caution.

“We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman’s ability to access these critical birth control benefits," she said. “However we will be vigilant in holding the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy, which does not compromise the essential principles of access to care."

A senior White House official told reporters on Friday that Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, also backed the decision. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not yet responded to the news.

UPDATE: 1:00 p.m. -- The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit law firm that recently filed three lawsuits on behalf of Catholic institutions against the new contraception rules, has come out against the the administration's compromise.

"This is a false ‘compromise’ designed to protect the Presiden's re-election chances, not to protect the right of conscience," Hannah Smith, an attorney for the group, said in a statement. "Hundreds, if not thousands, of religious institutions are still left out in the cold and will be forced to violate their religious convictions."

The statement continued: "According to a White House statement, some religious employers will no longer be required to provide insurance coverage for contraception ... However, at least three problems remain. First, hundreds if not thousands of religious organizations self insure, meaning that they will still be forced to pay for these services in violation of their religious beliefs. Second, it is unclear which religious organizations are permitted to claim the new exemption, and whether it will extend to for-profit organizations, individuals, or non-denominational organizations. Third, money is fungible, and many religious organizations may still object to being forced to pay money to an insurance company which will turn around and provide contraception to its employees for free."

The law firm, which describes itself as "dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions," filed lawsuits after the Obama administration's January announcement about new contraception rules on behalf of Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina, Colorado Christian University and Eternal Word Television Network, a Catholic TV and radio station.

UPDATE: 2:30 p.m. -- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the primary foes of the original contraception ruling, released the following statement:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama's announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. "While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them," said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

"The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals," he said.

"Today's decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction," Cardinal-designate Dolan said. "We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans' consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations."

Sam Stein, Michael McAuliff and Jaweed Kaleem contributed reporting.

CORRECTION: The original version of this story misidentified the National Catholic Reporter as the National Catholic Register. The error has been corrected.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Faced with increasing pressure from religious groups and Catholic lawmakers in both parties over the new federal requirement for birth control coverage, the Obama administration announce...
WASHINGTON -- Faced with increasing pressure from religious groups and Catholic lawmakers in both parties over the new federal requirement for birth control coverage, the Obama administration announce...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 44,556
  • 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 »  (596 total)
  1 of 28  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
ThunderclapNewman 11:30 AM on 02/10/2012
Justice Scalia is on President Obama's side in this argument.

This ruling shows how.

"The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny  Read More...
08:29 AM on 03/14/2012
I don't think the new health care laws discriminate against religion, because, no matter what, we still have a choice. It is the other way around. I'm Catholic, but I find it appalling that the Church can dictate that they won't even PERMIT a woman to go to a place that "offers" services such as contraception or abortion. I thought we are supposed to uphold the teachings of our faith and let our conscience be our guide. Over 90% of Catholic women have been reported to use birth control. I think the problem in this country has become the fact that religion is being used by our politicians to buy votes AND as a result, it gives the religious organizations power to MANIPULATE these politicians. Too many preachers in churches are steering their congregations as to whom to vote for. From my experience, the Catholic Priests step lightly around these subjects and try to be subtle in getting the message across. In the South, I believe the message is stronger ... like a baseball bat to the head type of message.

Either way .... we need to go back to that "separation of church and state" because it's taking our country to an extreme place.
02:09 PM on 02/19/2012
Wow. If you Americans had a healthcare system like Canada (you know, socialized medicine) this wouldn't even be an issue.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fanny Lebowitz
06:40 PM on 02/22/2012
I wish we did...but so many people are against that, not even really knowing what it means. When the hear "socialized" anything, they freak out.
08:31 AM on 03/14/2012
That's because the politicians must rely on the "control" religions have over people in order to buy votes for their presidential "contestants". Dangerous thing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:11 AM on 02/18/2012
   People who are not actually not wanting change encourage those who do to dig deeper into the complexity of things, drill into the core, so soul searching and the whisperings of the heart deepest, innermost parts of ones psychic.  The actual problems and solutions are right before us.  We can not see them because of our search for deeper meanings and explanations and a more astounding reality to our barren, meaningless lives.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnspek
02:17 PM on 02/16/2012
This whole issue is a gift that keeps on giving

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/business/self-insured-complicate-health-deal.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=globaleua24

The Obama administration thought it had found a way to ease mounting objections to a requirement in the new health care act that all employers — including religiously affiliated hospitals and universities — offer coverage for birth control to women free of charge.

It would make the insurers cover the costs, rather than the organizations themselves.

But the administration announced the compromise plan before it had figured out how to address one conspicuous point: Like most large employers, many religiously affiliated organizations choose to insure themselves rather than hire an outside company to assume the risk.

Now, the organizations are trying to determine how to reconcile their objections to offering birth control on religious grounds with their role as insurers — or whether there can be any reconciliation at all. And the administration still cannot put the thorny issue to rest.

“We’re all kind of waiting and seeing,” said Jim Liske, chief executive of the Prison Fellowship, a Christian charity that insures itself and objects to offering the morning-after pill to its employees.
06:36 AM on 02/15/2012
As this blog is about to be closed out, I offer my fellow "Catholic" Kathleen Sebelius another definition of Religious, somewhat similar to those offered by Charles Krauthammer in his piece "Gospel according to Obama"

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this:
to care for orphans and widows in their affliction
and to keep oneself unstained by the world." James 1:27

You should know it well, Kathleen. I think it comes from a Book Christians find comforting
10:48 AM on 02/15/2012
As a former Catholic, the actions of some of the Bishops are far from comforting. I am happy to be a former Catholic, especially, if this is the type of person in charge of the Church. This Bishop appears to have taken the birth control controversy too far.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/14/425110/sioux-city-bishop-calls-for-christians-to-violently-oppose-evil-birth-control-mandate/
12:03 PM on 02/15/2012
As a former catholic, presumably your conscience led to you to your current position.

But as now one of a group who believes other religious groups cannot hold a differing position, you betray your own conscience.

If this church and I might say many others hold to the sanctity if life, are you surprised that some take offense with your position? The reference you offer apparently take both offense and delight in over dramatizing these comments.

Surely an opt out would be reasonable, much like the Armed forces actions with respect for conscientious objectors.

But no, you must claim conformity and denigrate those holding a contrary position.
05:21 PM on 02/15/2012
Great, lets close this blog with nonsensical ramblings.
09:09 PM on 02/14/2012
Here we go again...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/fetal-personhood-virginia_n_1276824.html

More attacks on womens rights to contraceptives and abortion...
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
foreffectivegovernment
Neither big nor limited, effective.
05:21 PM on 02/14/2012
The Religious Right insists that their wives not use birth control but that their mistresses do.
photo
QtheHero
The meaning of life is that there is no meaning
09:06 AM on 02/14/2012
"contracept­ion controvers­y"......Back in the 70's a wise woman wrote " If men could get pregnant there would be not issue with birth control". Here it is, years later and It appears that truer words were never spoken.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Humberto Gomez Guillen
04:17 PM on 02/14/2012
"You can't have a rational debate when facts are so easily supplanted by overreaching statements, broad generalizations, and misconceptions." These are not my words, but are truer.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fanny Lebowitz
06:42 PM on 02/22/2012
I find it disheartening that over thirty years later this is still an issue...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmyoung666
08:39 AM on 02/14/2012
You complainers realize this has already been upheld in the courts as not violating the Constitutional rights of these religious organizations. I believe it's something like 28 states that already have laws mandating this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnspek
10:11 AM on 02/14/2012
except the religious exclusion that was in place for those 28 states, and that was in place in the original rule, published August 2011, is being revoked/revised
10:34 AM on 02/14/2012
I believe six or more of those states do not have any religious exclusion, even to this day. That fact has been brought up in numerous news accounts this week.
07:15 AM on 02/14/2012
The insistence of so many to not see that this dispute is based on an infringement of rights clearly enumerated by the First Amendment of the Constitution of this country is astounding

I have posted for several days only to be shouted down by every argument under the sun, Not one of them even began to consider this Amendment.

This is a land of freedom. Not of conformance.
10:39 AM on 02/14/2012
You may want to look at cases already setting a precedent.

http://www.americablog.com/2012/02/how-mormons-and-scalia-prove-that-obama.html
12:05 PM on 02/14/2012
"with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct"

Prohibiting conduct is a far cry from mandating conduct, my Friend.

Good try!

And then there might be the question of 'validity' of the mandate

You might be aware that there is another mandate by some people which is before the courts?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmyoung666
11:45 AM on 02/14/2012
This law is not in conflict with the First Amendment. It does not limit the anybody's ability tp practice nor does it establish a state religion.

I love amateurs pontificating on what they believe the Constitution means.
12:06 PM on 02/14/2012
If there is no such thing as a conscience you might be right!

Sorry the Armed Forces blew that one!
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
12:46 PM on 02/14/2012
jmyoung666 :Who appointed you as the one and only true interpreter of the US Constitution? If I recall correctly, people and especially politicians have been arguing about the true meaning of many aspects of the Constitution for over two hundred years. Even our once respected Supreme Court Justices can't seem to agree, and they are the ones we ask for an interpretation. I don't recall your appointment to the bench. I guess that makes you an egotistical amateur.
12:50 AM on 02/14/2012
Very interesting, and scary read:

Knocked Up: Republican Presidential Candidates Plan For American Women

http://www.alternet.org/rights/154052/knocked_up%3A_republican_presidential_candidates%27_plan_for_american_women/
09:02 AM on 03/14/2012
So are most of the other articles provided at that link. Simply amazing. Canada is looking better every day. This country has gone nuts and the biggest nuts are in the House.
12:19 AM on 02/14/2012
I grew up a Jehovahs Witness!  I demand that all insurance companies remove blood transfusions and organ transplants from their healthcare plans because i said so!  Because its against my religion!  If I cant have them, no one can!

Now do you see why this is a really stupid argument?
07:10 AM on 02/14/2012
If that were the argument you would be right.

When you say "It is OK for all you guys but not for me - count me out" Who loses?
01:16 PM on 02/14/2012
So youre ok with a church imposing its religion on everyone else? Thats exactly why people came to the new land in the first place!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Humberto Gomez Guillen
03:38 PM on 02/14/2012
Please use the other parts of you encephalous.
04:39 PM on 02/14/2012
What does that even mean?
03:57 PM on 02/13/2012
It is good to know Antonin Scalia is on the side of President Obama.

http://www.americablog.com/2012/02/how-mormons-and-scalia-prove-that-obama.html
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
06:04 PM on 02/13/2012
Excellent source, especially the part about the man plaintiff who said that paying for Social Security for employees was against his religion:

"When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees. The tax imposed on employers to support the social security system must be uniformly applicable to all, except as Congress explicitly provides otherwise."

The decision also noted that the law exempted the plaintiff from paying into Social Security himself, but says here that he must pay for his employees because otherwise it would impose his own faith on the employees.
11:06 PM on 02/13/2012
I am glad you found it interesting. The article has a lot of relevant information pertaining to the contraception controversy.
02:51 PM on 02/13/2012
I see people talking about all these waivers being granted as if those waivers grant a permenant opt out of the healthcare law. They dont. The waivers grant these places a TEMPORARY reprieve. Meaning all they got is a little more time to implement the law. They still have to abide by it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20040244-503544.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/health-care-law-waivers
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
04:59 PM on 02/13/2012
Yes, it helps when your audience are mushrooms who simply accept the BS they are fed without question. I hear this from the Faux Noise crowd all the time, about the waivers. They aren't get-out-of-jail-free cards.
01:47 PM on 02/13/2012
I guess the catholic church, it's affiliated charities or catholics in general haven't donated their fair share to the presidents campaign so they've been targeted for a shake down. In excess of 700 individuals and organizations have been exempted from the health care mandate including the SEIU who donated 27 million reasons to get the exemption. Seems to me if unions and other individuals can be exempted because they ask to be to target the church is for another reason. Another example of how we do things for the benefit of all by targeting a few to pay for it.
02:47 PM on 02/13/2012
Something you overlooked is that the waivers...are TEMPORARY. All these places being granted waivers will still have to implement the health care law, they just asked for more time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20040244-503544.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/health-care-law-waivers
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
02:55 PM on 02/13/2012
The Catholic Church received an exception as well. As of January 20, their affiliated organizations were given an extra year to comply, now August 2013.
06:19 PM on 02/13/2012
Temporary could be indefinite. The problem with how the health care bill as passed is that all regulation would be determined at a a later date by bureaucrats. Why should anyone get any special consideration if you stand by your position. We are supposed to have a progressive tax code where we all pay taxes at a progressively higher rate on ordinary income. Now 45-50 percent of households pay no tax. Many of those receive a refund in excess of what they may have paid that is called a welfare payment in my book. The government needs to treat all parties equally. That is my point.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
THISIKNOW
03:53 PM on 02/13/2012
Catholic Charities and other religious groups seem to do a lot of good work in the community. But I think it's important for people to realize they pay no taxes on their real estate holdings because of being a church, and also Catholic Charities receives some major funding from the government for the work they do. They are willing to accept the government money, but feel they must impose their religious beliefs on others. Our government was absolutely founded on separation of church and state. It is imperative that we keep it that way. No one is telling religions what they can believe or not believe, but even the bible says "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." We all need to step back from this past inflammatory week of some religious groups thinking they are the government and are part of health care decisions. Each person makes their own decision, but if you are an employer in this country, there are secular rules that all must follow in this country. As a citizen we also must obey traffic laws, employee safety laws, air quality laws, etc. for the betterment of our society. The churches have overstepped their boundaries here and some in the church are being very insincere.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
05:35 PM on 02/13/2012
Fanned. You know a very long time ago, the Catholic church did run governments and we now call this time "the dark ages." I guess they have never gotten over their growing irrelevance. If you want a good look at what the USA would look like under religious control, read "The Handmaid's Tale."
Theocracy is a horrible way of life, because inevitably it's tyranny. This is a path we've managed to avoid, and we do NOT want to start heading down that path now.