Do you believe in freedom of religion? President Obama does, and he is defending Americans' freedom of religion against Mitt Romney and Fox News in the administration of his health care bill.
The president allows each woman to decide for herself whether or not to ask her insurance company to cover contraception. If this violates a woman's religious principles, she would never ask. A woman would make such a request only if contraception fit her principles. In short, the president has guaranteed that each woman can act according to her religious principles. He has made a strong defense of freedom of religion.
In difficult cases, he has extended freedom of religion even further, beyond people to churches and houses of worship. Insurance companies are required to cover contraception with no co-pays for the women whose health care they are covering. This guarantees freedom of religion for the women covered, and does not affect insurance companies, which are neither people nor religious institutions.
What about hospitals, charities with a religious affiliation, and religious employers who have a moral objection to contraception? Women getting health care paid through these institutions will be able to obtain contraception from the insurance companies, not the religious institutions. Thus the president has found a way to extend freedom of religion not only to all women, but even beyond people to churches and religious employers.
This makes President Obama a remarkable champion of freedom of religion in contemporary American history.
Moreover, President Obama is very much in touch with the values of Americans. A recent Gallup Poll has shown that, in the U.S., 82 percent of Catholics think that birth control is "morally acceptable." Ninety percent of non-Catholics believe the same. Overall, 89 percent of Americans agree on this. In the May 2012 poll, Gallup tested beliefs about the moral acceptability of 18 issues total, including divorce, gambling, stem cell research, the death penalty, gay relationships, and so on. Contraception had by far the greatest approval rating. Divorce, the next on the list, had only 67 percent approval compared to 89 percent for contraception.
Mitt Romney and Fox News, on the other hand, are proposing a huge backward step on freedom of religion. Romney has said he would support a bill that would allow employers and insurers to deny their female employees insurance coverage for birth control and other health services, based on the religious beliefs of the employers and insurers. As far as employers are concerned, this fits with President Obama's policy. But the extension to insurance companies violates the freedom of religion that the President guaranteed to women.
In addition, Romney has said he would "get rid of" Planned Parenthood, an organization that allows women freedom of religion by supplying contraception if they choose to ask for it. This would be another major blow to freedom of religion.
In short, Romney is advocating, and would take, a big backward step to deny freedom of religion to women.
Incidentally, Romney's ad, which falsely accuses the president of what Romney himself is advocating, namely denial of religious freedom, is entitled "Be Not Afraid," using Biblical language, as if he were God or a prophet.
Given that 89 percent of the American people support contraception, we have no reason to be afraid of Romney -- unless we let him get away with his attempt to frame the president as being against religion. The president's advance in promoting freedom of religion should be shouted from the rooftops.
George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling are authors of The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic
"and does not affect insurance companies, which are neither people nor religious institutions."
When last I saw there does not exist such an entity.
George, Elizabeth, Kathleen and Barack, It may come as a great surprise to you but people work in insurance companies.
Why not the waiver? it was so simple and guess what? A "Hope and Change" solution.
But that was 2008.
So, right-wingers, can a Jehovah's Witness employer refuse to allow their employees to have blood transfusions? Can a Christian Science employer refuse to allow employees to go to a doctor at all? Could an employer say it's against their religion to allow any treatment with stem cells?
No protests by these so-called religious freedom types about paying for Viagra. This is just another part of the war on women. These people would have us live in the days of the Handmaid's Tale!
The examples you have provided (Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science) show that you misunderstand what is going on. Those employers wouldn't refuse to allow their employees to have blood transfusions or go to a doctor at all, they just wouldn't provide plans that cover those things. Employees in those situations are free to get insurance to cover those things from somewhere else. And how many employees are in that situation anyway? Very few, I would imagine.
Additionally, the women in question are paying their own premiums, because this is private healthcare, not medicare. No one is being forced to buy or take birth control if they do not wish to do so or it violates their beliefs.
Perhaps this whining about religious freedom is actually the church's tacit acknowledgement that 98% of their congregants have already made the choice to ignore this particular belief.
Emma R. Sullivan
Here's the point: You used to pay for contraception. The government passed a law saying you can now get it for free, even from someone who has a religious objection to providing it. And in response to the objection (which happens to be based on a constitutional right) you're saying it interferes with your FREEDOM? What freedom? A year ago you had to pay for contraception just like you had to purchase every other product. Do you see how ridiculous it is to cry FREEDOM in this situation?
YOU aren't paying into my health insurance. And health insurance isn't free. What this mandate does it put this medication, like so many others (viagra) into the available without a co-pay category.
I want to deprive her?... FAIL. ... YOU and SHE have the right... AND I have the right to say NO I WONT PAY FOR IT...
Also, there is the fact that employees are paying a significant, if not total, portion of their own health insurance costs. Any business entity that provides health insurance is usually just offering negotiated group plans. That doesn't mean that they are paying for any designated portion of the group plan. And when they do, generally the employer get tax breaks or incentives for doing so.
Just to be absolutely clear: this is a bullshit argument on the part of the Catholic Church. And the fact that so many are falling for it really doesn't speak well for public education and critical thinking skills.
Thirty years ago religious position carried more weight in political circles.
A weight that is no longer in evidence.
A good example can be found in the waning status of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese in San Francisco.
During the eighties when the Archbishop opposed domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, Mayor Dianne Feinstein was also in opposition.
Dianne had attended Catholic school as a youngster and it is common knowledge that she developed a deep respect for the Catholic faith.
This was at a time when AIDs was new and a significant portion of the drive for domestic partners was motivated by HIV prevention.
Thirty years later it's easy to see the human cost in the position of the Catholic heirarchy; particularly the resistance to common sense solutions at that crucial time.
Now Senator Feinstein seems less affected by the opinions of the Catholic heirarchy. They are key players opposing same sex marriage and she says it is "inevitable".
Now if they found providing Birth Control, which is used for other medical issues and not just preventing unwanted pregnancies, so morally objectionable why did they provide it in the first place? Seems more about politics then Religious Freedom in most cases.
It is the college that is trying to curtail religious freedom. It is the college that is seeking to limit health care coverage. And it is the college that is wrong.
Mitt, for example, already said that while his beliefs oppose abortion he recognizes the rulings of the court and will uphold their decision.
Obama, for example, if he doesn't like a law simply executes and executive order or refuses to enforce it.
Which one supports FREEDOM? The one who will uphold the law regardless of his belief or the one who will decide himself what laws should be enforced?
Obama has turned us into an entitlement nation, everything should be given to us. From Birth Control to Education. I am sorry, that's not the way it works. If you want a box of condoms go to the store and buy them - you are free to do that.