Religious liberty got a little stronger today. So did the health of women and their families.
The Obama administration issued a decision today that requires most employers to provide no-cost contraceptive coverage as part of the Affordable Care Act. The decision provides a conscience exemption for houses of worship and certain nonprofits that employ and serve people of the same faith. But it does not exempt the many religiously affiliated institutions that employ people of diverse faiths -- as well as those of no religion -- for whom family planning is a key aspect of moral responsibility.
While the decision is welcome, it is also controversial. Some religious leaders have been vehemently opposed to today's decision, claiming it violates their religious liberty. Some have even gone so far as to claim that the Obama administration is waging an all-out war on religious liberty.
That is not true. But it is true that the issue of religious liberty is highly contested -- and not only in this realm. As our nation becomes more pluralistic and welcomes those with different faiths; as we sharpen our understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity; and as we see issues of conscience play out on both sides of the reproductive rights debate, we struggle to discern where religious liberty is under assault and where it is growing in strength and understanding.
Allowing women to make decisions based on their conscience when it comes to key matters of family and health is an example of religious liberty at its best. Providing a reasonable conscience exemption for certain religious institutions is another shining example.
This decision does not pit religious belief against secular society, or even Catholics against other religions. Facts show that the vast majority of religious women use contraception, including 98 percent of Catholic women. Given these numbers, one could claim that the Catholic Church--as defined by those in the pews--supports today's decision.
Here are two more key facts: A sure way to reduce the need for abortion is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by making contraception accessible and affordable. In addition, a good way to promote healthy pregnancies, healthy babies, and strong families is to use contraception to plan families and ensure healthy intervals between children.
Today the Obama administration did the right thing. Those who care about women's health, the health of families, and religious liberty can be grateful.
Follow Sally Steenland on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@ssteenland
Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives
Contraceptive Coverage | National Women's Law Center
Contraceptive Coverage | Health Care Report Card
Catholic, Christian colleges challenge contraception coverage ...
They like to say something is "free" or "no cost". Sure, I suppose that is true for someone. BUT, nothing is actually free; it costs someone something.
It's an economic fact that when something is "free", the costs always goes up. Price is a great way to keep supply and demand in check. What is the real demand for something that is free? It cannot be determined.
1) The decision by the Obama administration to force insurers to cover birth control (and not just religious employers), is a stupid, anti-free market one. Obama, the handout President is just looking for more votes. "Free" birth control, sterilizations, whatever else, will only increase premiums for the policy holders.
2) On to the issue of forcing religiously affiliated institutions: you would think that Obama would have learned his lesson when Roberts' court unanimously upheld religious liberty just the other week. This will definitely go to court and be overturned. Just look back at what happened when the politically correct crowd tried to sue the Boys Scouts for discriminating - the court upheld the organization's freedom of association.
The Supreme Court will look at Obamacare soon, and it will be declared unconstitutional. In the event that the law in its entirety is not thrown out (meaning some parts remain even once the mandate is declared unconstitutional), the Court will then have to deal with the following issues: funding of abortions from the law, conscience clauses (such as this topic), and funding.
Women already have the ability to make this choice. No one is telling women that a) they can not get a job where the employer covers contraception or b) that, even if their employer does not cover contraception, that they can go and buy birth control on their own.
This rule has nothing to do with giving women a choice. It has everything to do with forcing employers to completely subsidize family planning, even if those employers happen to disagree with contraception on a religious level. More free stuff = more votes for the politicians.
How is that ok? And what makes you think jobs are just laying around on the ground so thick women have the opportunity to pick and choose?
What in the world is wrong with family planning, and not having more kids than you can afford?
Employers already provide insurance. Just now, that insurance includes access to birth control, only fair when the men are blazing on Viagra, don't you think?
If that should fail, of course civil disobedience will be necessary.
"Separation of church and state" are the cries over and over again, but yet here it is applauded when the "state" forces the "church" to follow their "religion?"
Meanwhile, people who say they want government out of their bedrooms, repeatedly invite them in.
You seem to have this thing about Catholics and celibacy. I, on the other hand, have this thing about the Constitution and our liberty under it.
I'm hoping that as people realize their Constitutional liberties are being taken away by the government rather than protected, there will be massive something. If we don't think about protecting religious liberty because we're not "religious" who will be there when it's our turn?
It's that simple.
On the other hand, this is government coercion against freedom of religion. Unless we want the First Amendment to begin to disintegrate, we'd be wise to fight for it's protection.
Since the money is the money of the religious people it is only their conscience that need to be considered on this topic and they have demonstrated clearly that they are cool with the pill. They would be raging hypocrites to deny to the people they are paying to do their works basic rights that they themselves enjoy at their own work places.
It is the church and the church alone that is fighting the tide off history on this point much like they attacked Galileo for proving the world was round. They were wrong then, they are wrong now, and they are very slowly beginning to admit how wrong they are as the mountain of bodies their anti-condom stance in Africa is producing grows and grows and people become increasingly aware that they are AIDS best friends on this earth as they assist its spread so ardently.
Not the religious *people*. Religious people have hearts, compassion, and real life experience that celibate clergymen lack.
I do wish that you'd all get the church in line on this one by some kind of strike or refusal to attend church in an organized fashion till they stop being idiots over it. They will bend first as you are where their money comes from.
This sentence is very telling of the author's viewpoint. Basic human rights for women are only something that can bestowed on women. Basic human rights are not something women have, in the author's opinion, by virtue of just being. No, those rights must be decided by an outside agency which "allows" women to have those rights. Very sad someone should think so little of herself and other women.
Thank goodness there are still responsible people out there who understand this. As for the Catholic Church's position on contraception let me draw from a Monty Python quote;
"When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in 1517, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but… 400 years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas." - The Meaning of Life
Time for a new approach, because we're probably near the tipping point where we all fall down.
And take the planet with us.
If the RCC wants to control employee's rights, they should only hire people who agree with their doctrine. If they insist on hiring from the secular pool, they don't have any right to impose their rigid beliefs on them.