Obama Rejects Contraception Exemption for Catholic Hospitals, Schools
EmailThe Obama administration today said it would move forward with a new mandate requiring most U.S. employers – including religiously affiliated hospitals and schools – to provide health care plans that cover contraceptive services for female employees free of charge.
The guidelines, first proposed in August and set to take effect in August 2012, have been hailed by the abortion-rights community and many Obama re-election supporters.
But the Catholic Church and other religious groups, which consider some forms of contraception as the termination of life, had waged an intensive lobbying campaign for a clear exemption of affiliated institutions from the new rules.
The Department of Health and Human Services today said, despite their concerns, it will hold the line on the requirement, but extended the deadline for compliance until 2013.
“We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns,” Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.
She added, “Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women.”
Sebelius said the decision “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”
Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, who was a fierce defender of the president and broke with U.S. Catholic Bishops in supporting the health care law, said she was “disappointed” that the administration did not affirm an “appropriate conscience protection” for religiously affiliated employers.
“It was important to have clarified by the president and the secretary of HHS that this decision will not undermine the current conscience protections in law and so very necessary for our ministries,” Keehan wrote in a statement.
Churches and other houses of worship – “religious employers” – have been and remain exempt from the new rules, administration officials said. But Keehan and other Catholic leaders have warned that Catholic colleges, universities, hospitals and charitable organizations do not qualify.
“The challenge that these regulations posed for many groups remains unresolved. This indicates the need for an effective national conversation on the appropriate conscience protections in our pluralistic country, which has always respected the role of religions.”
Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has gone further, calling the requirement “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”
But leaders of abortion rights and women’s groups today praised the administration’s decision not to expand the contraception exemption as a defense of women’s health. “All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless of where they work,” NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan said.
“The administration stood firm against intensive lobbying efforts from anti-birth-control organizations trying to expand the refusal option even further to allow organizations and corporations to deny their employees contraceptive coverage,” she said. “As a result, millions will get access to contraception, and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission.”
Independent studies, including an April report by the Guttmacher Institute, have found an overwhelming majority of sexually active, religious women in the United States have used contraception at some point in their lives. And many religiously affiliated employers already offer health plans that cover the services as well.
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
After all you libs and lefties do believe he was sent here by god to lead us all
Posted by: Jim Rod | January 20, 2012, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
With all due respect, that was an irrelevant comment. There should be no reason why a woman’s liberty to choose to use contraception should be restricted solely because she works for a religious institution. What a woman chooses to do with her body is her choice at her sole discretion. Period.
We are not second class citizens who need to ask someone else permission for something of this nature.
Posted by: Caro | January 20, 2012, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
It would have been nice if that woman that gave birth to Obama, would have used birth control or got an abortion…Americas freedom would be much safer now
Posted by: Bullsh*t | January 20, 2012, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
This isn’t about allowing or not allowing women to use birth control, or restricting women’s access to birth control.
It’s about making it ** illegal** to offer an insurance policy that does not pay 100% for birth control. And when the mandate kicks in, it will be illegal for every citizen to *not* have an insurance policy that pays 100% for birth control.
Posted by: MayBee | January 20, 2012, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm
We either support Sharia type laws or we don’t. In this case that is exactly what this resembles. Go Obama. At least somebody respects women. You MEN that are up in our faces trying to control us need to back off. Why you think you have any business in any of this is beyond me.
Posted by: lexingtonlady | January 20, 2012, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm
I violate my conscience when we wage bogus wars on places with my tax money.
Posted by: lexingtonlady | January 20, 2012, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm
We need to remember who gave us life and gave us our body.. and what He intends us to use it for.
Posted by: needtodiscern | January 20, 2012, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm
After all you libs and lefties do believe he was sent here by god to lead us all
Posted by: Jim Rod | January 20, 2012, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
Actually, I think what “libs and lefties” believe is that Republicans have a bizarre persecution complex exemplified by Mitt’s persnickety scolding every time his ridiculous claims are scrutinized and Newt’s highly touted moment with John King. As others have pointed out Newt was able to perfectly articulate the paranoid victimhood of the right, and its working.
And speaking of Catholicism as this blog does, has anyone seen the letter sent to Newt and Rick Santorum regarding their divisive rhetoric on the campaign trail?
Posted by: Gemma Stone | January 20, 2012, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm
When did the office of the President become the authority? I thought we were One Nation Under God.
Posted by: Arturo Gallegos | January 20, 2012, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
I just pray I’m not going to get pregnant.
Posted by: Susan | January 20, 2012, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
I taught in a Catholic School for many years, even though I am not Catholic. I was prescribed birth control for menstrual problems at age 45. My tubes had been tied years before and, as a type 1 diabetic, pregnancy would have been extremely dangerous. My insurance denied paying for it, even with a doctor’s note that it was not being used specifically for birth control. This is a very good measure to protect women’s health. I continue to be distressed that religious leaders (especially celibate men) think that they can take a woman’s life into their hands. I have believed for many years that the prohibition against birth control is a sin against humankind. I am sure that when these religious leaders meet their maker, they will see the error of their ways.
Posted by: Patricia Miller | January 20, 2012, 11:28 pm 11:28 pm
. I have believed for many years that the prohibition against birth control is a sin against humankind. I am sure that when these religious leaders meet their maker, they will see the error of their ways.
=======
Patricia Miller- there was no prohibition on you getting the pill. You would simply have had to pay for it yourself, rather than have your payments subsidized by others.
Just like men who buy condoms. Or women who buy condoms, for that matter. Insurance does not pay for that life saving method of birth and STD control.
Posted by: MayBee | January 21, 2012, 3:06 am 3:06 am
Posted by: MayBee | January 21, 2012, 3:06 am 3:06 am
Perhaps you’re not a catholic. You apparently don’t understand the catholic prohibition against birth control that’s been in place for a long, long time. And you also apparently don’t understand the economic penalty that was going to be imposed if you work for a publicly funded catholic hospital.
Posted by: Judith | January 21, 2012, 3:54 am 3:54 am
The problem is the 100% free part paid with tax dollars. If you want birth control, go ahead and buy it, the rest of us just don’t want to pay for it. It’s just like these “Obama Phones” people have now that are funded by tax payers, I met a guy the other day that had one and he sure wasn’t using it to call for job interviews, he even called it an Obama phone. This will be just another reason for the Supreme Court to strike this whole healthcare law down. The government dependency that Obama has nurtured has to be reversed at some point or we’ll go broke for sure.
Posted by: Todd | January 21, 2012, 6:04 am 6:04 am
Idiotic. Birth control is cheap. Filling up my car’s gas tank ONCE costs more than birth control for a year. On the other hand, if this results in fewer Democrats being born I’m all for it!
Posted by: Zazu | January 21, 2012, 8:51 am 8:51 am
They will work closely with you to discuss your concerns?? What gibberish. They’ll work with you to make sure you do things their way, more like it. How ironic, though. Since Roe v Wade, millions of little black babies have been aborted. Gingrich wouldn’t stand a chance if they had been born. Go ahead, work closely with the nuns: make my day.
Posted by: JAB | January 21, 2012, 10:33 am 10:33 am
Contraception isn’t health care. Being pregnant is not a disease.
Posted by: Joe White | January 21, 2012, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
Being pregnant is not a disease.
Posted by: Joe White | January 21, 2012, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
In health terms and society terms, its best to prevent wanted pregnancies.
Posted by: Susan | January 21, 2012, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Jim Rod, I guess it depends if you look at God as recognizing that He gave us common sense. The fact that thousands of years ago, when the human population was low, He said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ has nothing to do with today when we humans number 7 billion, there are many areas where there isn’t enough food or water, resulting in great suffering and we are destroying too many of the other creatures He created as we crowd them out of their habitat.
I picture God doing a face palm from exasperation that many of us can’t see the harm we are doing with our population growth being way too high to be sustainable without terrible suffering.
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 21, 2012, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
TYPO CORRECTION
Being pregnant is not a disease.
Posted by: Joe White | January 21, 2012, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
In health terms and society terms, its best to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by: Susan | January 21, 2012, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm
Joe White, being pregnant isn’t a disease but it is very difficult on a woman’s body.
Birth control is a necessity, for the health of women (it wears you out to have baby after baby after baby, waiting years in between children allows you to replenish the minerals, etc. that growing a baby and then nursing it has used up) the health of babies and children as it gets harder to take good care of them time/money wise if you have too many for your means, and big picture-wise as the resources we all use are finite and a population of 7 billion people is very hard on the planet and the other wonderful creatures that He created.
As a man, you might not have been aware of how much energy, protein and minerals is used up to grow a baby, but after 3 kids of my own, spaced 3 years apart and breast-fed for 1.5 years as the doctor recommended, I can tell you that it is exhausting on your body and mind. It was worth every bit of effort to me, but I know that my mental and physical limit was 3 kids, so birth control let me take good care of the children I did have, rather than exhausting myself by having more babies that we couldn’t afford financially or energy-wise.
Think about how many poor married women are in this country and how expensive having a child is and then ask yourself why you think you should choose how many children she has rather than let her choose, knowing what she can afford and do a good job of being a parent to. You aren’t thinking of how many women have a chronic illness or a very ill child or husband or have to take care of elderly parents or know that they have a genetic disease that they don’t want to pass on or any of the other hundred reasons why women want to limit the size of their families.
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 21, 2012, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
Obama’s soft authoritarian, radical ideology is about imposing it’s idea of utopia on the people, not about Freedom. What happened to freedom of association, the bastion of a free society? Private religious institutions should be able to decide how their business is run, as the Supreme Court unanimously ruled.
Posted by: margolize | January 21, 2012, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
Private religious institutions should be able to decide how their business is run, as the Supreme Court unanimously ruled.
Posted by: margolize | January 21, 2012, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
Not if it’s publicly funded like a catholic hospital.
Posted by: James | January 21, 2012, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
This is evil.
Posted by: sirlafay | January 21, 2012, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm
Liberalism: an idea so great it has to be mandatory.
Posted by: HadEnoughAlready | January 21, 2012, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm
Seriously, why is contraception even mandated at all under Obamacare? You don’t want to get pregnant? Then don’t have sex. Problem solved! In other news: libs want to prohibit smoking everywhere (personal choice?); restrict salt in restaurant food (personal choice?); restrict toys in Happy Meals (personal choice?); ask sexual preference in college admissions (personal choice?); etc, etc. It’s only a matter of choice or personal privacy if it’s an issue backed by libs. Otherwise, the mean old conservatives are just being difficult, racist, sexist, and want to drag our country back into the 19th century. Or so say the libs.
Posted by: HadEnoughAlready | January 21, 2012, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
Birth control pills cost anywhere from $60 to $90 per month, up to over $1000 per year. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is good for individual health and the health of society. Makes sense to have them covered under health care insurance.
Posted by: Trisha | January 21, 2012, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
Caro, a women can choose whatever she wants to do, but why do I have to pay for it with an increase in MY insurance. Don’t the taxpayer already subsidizes abortions through planned parenthood.
Posted by: Lizzie | January 21, 2012, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm
Being pregnant is not a disease nor a disability.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE I WILL VOTE “PARTY” AND NOT “PERSON”. THIS CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IS DESTROYING AMERICA. I MAY NEVER VOTE FOR ANOTHER DEMOCRAT.
Posted by: 1proudamerican | January 21, 2012, 8:01 pm 8:01 pm
Being pregnant is not a disease nor a disability.
Posted by: 1proudamerican | January 21, 2012, 8:01 pm 8:01 pm
In good health and society terms, its healthy to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by: Susan | January 21, 2012, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm
“In good health and society terms, its healthy to prevent unwanted pregnancies.”
POSTED BY: SUSAN | JANUARY 21, 2012, 9:28 PM 9:28 PM
Take responsibility for your own life. Nobody is preventing you from buying birth control. It’s cheap and effective. Alternatively, you can close your legs.
Posted by: Mary | January 21, 2012, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm
“Birth control pills cost anywhere from $60 to $90 per month, up to over $1000 per year.”
POSTED BY: TRISHA | JANUARY 21, 2012, 5:00 PM 5:00 PM
Effective, generic forms of birth control can be acquired for less than $10 per month without a prescription.
Posted by: Mary | January 21, 2012, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm
? ? ? ? ?
What happened to the separation of Church and State?
So now the federal government is going to tell a Church run hospital to provide services that goes against their beliefs?
This will never happen.
Barry Hussein O’Bama is delusional.
Another over reach of a
Liberal Based Agenda.
Posted by: Noz | January 22, 2012, 12:08 am 12:08 am
Birth control pills and other options make a lot of sense In terms of the good health of an individual and the good health of a society – its healthy to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
It makes perfect sense to have these medical aids available under a health insurance plan.
Posted by: Trisha | January 22, 2012, 2:26 am 2:26 am
“It makes perfect sense to have these medical aids available under a health insurance plan.” – Trisha
It makes no sense to mandate that a Catholic Institution be forced to provide these medical aids.
Posted by: Noz | January 22, 2012, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
Birth control pills and other options make a lot of sense In terms of the good health of an individual and the good health of a society – its healthy to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
It makes perfect sense to have these medical aids available under a health insurance plan.
Posted by: Trisha | January 22, 2012, 2:26 am 2:26 am
It makes no sense to mandate that a Catholic Institution be forced to provide these medical aids.
Posted by: Noz | January 22, 2012, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
Of course it does, preventing unwanted pregnancies is healthy for the individual and for the society. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use birth control, just ensuring these sensible preventative health aids are covered under insurance. That is part of the administration’s direction – to decrease the costs of unwanted pregnancies by ensuring birth control is universally available and covered. Preventative health is a logical direction to reduce health care costs.
Posted by: Trisha | January 22, 2012, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
Why would the female employees be kept from using birth control if their employees didn’t give them the meds for free?
In the past 25 years, since I’ve been of sexual active age, I’ve never felt I couldn’t use birth control if my employers didn’t provide free access to it.
The women also have the choice of working for a different employer…they aren’t slaves. If they are working in the medical field, there are many options for employment, so they can choose to work for a non-religious affiliated hospital, etc. They are informed right up front what their benefits are. This is another example of government regulation that we can do without. Taking away people’s freedom of religion.
I’m not Catholic and don’t have a problem with birth control other than abortion, but I respect their right to not want to pay for something that they see as wrong.
Posted by: Liz | January 23, 2012, 7:47 am 7:47 am
“’m not Catholic and don’t have a problem with birth control other than abortion, but I respect their right to not want to pay for something that they see as wrong.” – Liz
A voice of reason.
Thank You Liz.
Posted by: Noz | January 23, 2012, 9:09 am 9:09 am
Posted by: Liz | January 23, 2012, 7:47 am 7:47 am
Preventing unwanted pregnancies is healthy for the individual and for the society.
That is part of the administration’s direction – to decrease the costs of unwanted pregnancies by ensuring birth control is universally available and covered.
Preventative health is a logical direction to reduce health care costs.
Posted by: Trisha | January 23, 2012, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
IF the Hospital or school accepts federal dollars, then they should abide by federal laws. If they are fully privately funded, then they would have a right to do as other private businesses do. I cannot believe in this day and age that people actually think abstinence is the only way. I am sure Sarah Palin thought like that too – until her daughter told her about her little “surprise”. Birth control not covered by insurance can be expensive – over $100. per month. For someone on limited funds, that may be like a million. Those against birth control would rather she got pregnant and went on public assistance? Ooops, no they are cutting that too!
Posted by: pksk531 | January 24, 2012, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
Whatever happened to separation between church and state? This clearly violates the 1st amendment.
Posted by: Naotalia | January 25, 2012, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
“In good health and society terms, its healthy to prevent unwanted pregnancies.”
POSTED BY: SUSAN | JANUARY 21, 2012, 9:28 PM 9:28 PM
There’s an option to have sex and to not have sex. There’s no reason to force people to do something because others are too lazy to do it themselves.
Posted by: Im Rubic | January 26, 2012, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
LIBRARIAN53 – Overpopulation is a MYTH! Every single person alive right now can fit in the state of Texas with 1,300 square feet of living space. Not to mention that we can build up AND down to create additional space.
God would not do a face palm! He said, “Be fruitful and multiply.”
Posted by: Hurricane | January 27, 2012, 8:54 pm 8:54 pm
Just because Federal Dollars are offered to Christian organizations doesn’t give the government the right to dictate what these organizations do. The federal government gives all different types of private organizations money, but that does not give them the right to dictate how they operate. If you don’t like that federal dollars are going to private organizations then you should contact your local representatives. Just so you know that the Catholic Church and many other Christian Faith operated business’s are willing to pay a penalty than to pay for Health Benefits that they don’t believe in. So you are going to have millions of Americans losing their health benefits over contraception. So what is the better choice? Good benefits without contraception or no benefits without contraception? This has been Obama’s plan since he introduced his healthcare bill. He is going to force a government run healthcare system. Open up your eyes people! He is going to force business’s to drop insurance plans and pay the penalties (which in many cases are cheaper than providing insurance) forcing people toward a public option. America is blind and Obama continues to push us to a sense of entitlement and government dependency. Give me one good reason why the government should be providing cell phones to people who can’t afford them?
Posted by: Giles | January 29, 2012, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
In the article is say most businesses will be required to provide contraception- “The Obama administration today said it would move forward with a new mandate requiring most U.S. employers – including religiously affiliated hospitals and schools – to provide health care plans that cover contraceptive services for female employees free of charge”. If religious organizations aren’t exempt then I wonder who is exempt? It doesn’t state all businesses have to provide contraception. I’m guessing the ones who don’t have to provide it are the ones that lined Obama’s pockets. Why aren’t all businesses required? It doesn’t make sense to exempt some and not include religious organizations as well. Don’t here anyone posting complaints about the business’s Obama excluded. Where are the rights for the woman who work for the exempt companies? Liberals make no sense to me.
Posted by: Giles | January 29, 2012, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
I wish Obama listened to the economist as much as he listens to the scientist. Economist know that tort reform and allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines will dramatically reduce health care cost, but he completely ignored them when he introduced his health care bill. Hmmmm…. wonder why he did that? If contraceptive drugs are the most taken drug my young female adults (as stated in the article above), I would like to know how much these drug companies have contributed to Obama. Seems like they stand to benefit the most from this policy. Guess the scientist overlooked all the cons of contraceptives. Just watch any commercial for these drugs and they list a long list of negative side affects that would also help increase health care cost. Americans should start questioning what is motivating our politicians both Democrats and Republicans and start making better choices when we vote.
Posted by: Giles | January 29, 2012, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
I wonder how many people who commented above were actually unwanted pregnancies? While I don’t like to impose my religious beliefs on others, it is funny how many of the above at the time they were conceived were not planned. I wonder how they would have liked to have there life taken from them before they were born? Thank God prior presidents didn’t think like Obama or they wouldn’t be able to comment on this page, because maybe contraceptives would have been made available to their parents. How many parents do each of us know that had an unplanned pregnancy, but are glad that they had the child? When our world population gets out of control nature will correct it and if there is pain and suffering involved it will be our own faults as humans for not making better decisions. Why should we as humans have to be responsible for our actions? That is how our nation is starting to think, which is crazy and irresponsible of us.
Posted by: Giles | January 29, 2012, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
In the article is say most businesses will be required to provide contraception- “The Obama administration today said it would move forward with a new mandate requiring most U.S. employers – including religiously affiliated hospitals and schools – to provide health care plans that cover contraceptive services for female employees free of charge”. If religious organizations aren’t exempt then I wonder who is exempt? It doesn’t state all businesses have to provide contraception. I’m guessing the ones who don’t have to provide it are the ones that lined Obama’s pockets. Why aren’t all businesses required? It doesn’t make sense to exempt some and not include religious organizations as well. Don’t here anyone posting complaints about the business’s Obama excluded. Where are the rights for the woman who work for the exempt companies? Liberals make no sense to me.
POSTED BY: GILES | JANUARY 29, 2012, 2:17 PM 2:17 PM
The only organizations that I have found that are exempt are Religious organizations such as churches. So I wanted to correct my statement above due to the fact that I couldn’t find any other public or private organization that was exempt and I apologize for typing before researching.
Posted by: Giles | January 29, 2012, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
Contraception isn’t really the issue. The MOURNING AFTER pill is, taken the next day ……or the next day……………..or the next…………week after……………..oops. What if your government passed a law that forced you to do something antithetical to your worldview or religion? Like discriminate against black people, or take away your precious abortion rights, or even …….dare I say it………….drive gas guzzling SUV’s and forced emission of greenhouse gases. Those having a conniption fit dial 911.
Posted by: bigmoose | January 31, 2012, 1:42 am 1:42 am
Mandates like this one and the mandate to force every American to buy health insurance will allow the government to continue to strip away over time more and more of our personal freedoms. If they can mandate that Americans buy health insurance and they can mandate that a religious organization pay for contraception as part of their insurance program (because the government deems it is beneficial to society and will drive down healthcare cost). What makes you think that they won’t be able to tell us what foods we can and can’t eat based on height, weight, age, sex, ethnicity, or medical condition (if it helps drive down healthcare cost). This is a slippery slope and if you don’t think they can continue to strip away our freedoms then you are blind and you’ve learned nothing from your history lessons. If the federal government was so worried about our health and driving down healthcare cost then the FDA would do it’s job and not let these food producers put so much unhealthy crap in our over processed foods. Studies listed on the CDC website estimates that obesity cost the U.S.A. $147 billion annually. One of the major causes of obesity in America is our over processed foods. So if they can push religious organizations to provide contraception they eventually can make it illegal for a fat kid to eat cake. If a beneficial side effect of birth control decreases breast cancer, how much does it help if a woman is eating food laced with carcinogens that might be linked to breast cancer. Don’t buy into the government knows what is best for us, because they obviously don’t. Obama believes in BIGGER government. Bigger government is the one case where Bigger is definitely not better… and you should ALL be careful when you try and dictate what is best for society. Today it is better to get rid of unwanted babies and tomorrow it is better to have the government decide who can have babies based on finance and genetics. Wouldn’t it be beneficial for society if only wealthy people had babies? They would have the resources to pay for them and potentially raise them better. Plus it would decrease the population size, decrease crime, healthcare cost, education cost etc… Sounds like science-fiction, but that is exactly what could happen if we don’t question what our lawmakers are doing and keep trying to play god. How many couples that can’t have a baby naturally have completed their family through the adoption of an unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by: Giles | January 31, 2012, 9:40 am 9:40 am
I understand that conservatives don’t want to pay for other people’s birth control, but then conservatives also complain about paying for other people’s benefits including using their tax dollars to pay for programs such as medicaid. Many people who are on medicaid have young children. Something has got to give. Help pay for birth control to help keep unwanted pregnancy rates down or pay for children who are born but their families cannot afford them? It’s pointless to say, “close your legs.” You can’t control what people do in their bedrooms and so it is stupid to make such a comment. What we can do is help keep unwanted pregnancy rates down. I work for a catholic organization and hate that my birth control isn’t covered under the $300+ dollars a month I pay to have health insurance. They are not going to increase my pay if I continue to have children. Lack of coverage is a real financial burden….I just want my husband to get a vasectomy, but we have to save for it because it is expensive and not covered under my catholic insurance plan.
Posted by: anonymous non-voter | February 1, 2012, 10:13 pm 10:13 pm
If a religious organization is going to accept government money they are and should be subject to the same rules as any other organization accepting those funds. If you do not want to follow the rules, do not ask for nor accept the moneey from the governement. I was a teeneager in the 70s and remember when abortion was illegal and the pill was “coming of age”. I cannot understand any woman who would give over decisions regarding the health care of her body to be the domain of anyone other than herself.
Posted by: C Lohr | February 2, 2012, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
I do not understand why this is a bad thing. Religion aside, you cannot keep people from having sex if they want to. So why can’t women be OFFERED contraceptives if they want them? It’s not like women have to buy them just because they are covered. This would prevent so many unwanted pregnancies. I don’t understand Conservatives. They don’t want freedom of choice for women yet they are against things like Welfare and Medicaid. That makes no sense.
Posted by: Anon voter | February 7, 2012, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
I’m Catholic. I have three kids. My wife uses the pill. We pay for it out of our own pocket. My insurance does not pay for it. So what? It’s called personal responsibility.
Additionally, Catholic hospitals are not solely funded by the Fed. My charitable contributions pay for some of it too. Is it possible that these contributions may decrease? Maybe. What about others?
One last point…what if a Catholic hospital refused care because the patient was Medicaid (funded by the pro-abortion, pro-contraceptive Federal government). Could that happen? Maybe this Catholic hospital would only take Catholic patients. What if you were dying at the time? I know it wouldn’t happen, but it’s a possible stance.
The truth is that the government needs to stay out of our bedrooms. They’d tax sex if they could.
Posted by: Anonymously Yours | February 7, 2012, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
No one is forced to use contraception (although maybe some should). If the Catholic church or any other religious group that runs a business, supposedly “non-profit” or not, should still provide contraception coverage for their employees who chose to use it. They don’t pay taxes, although IMO they should, the least they can do is cover reproductive services in their health care plans. Not all of their employees choose to leave family size to chance and in this over populated world they shouldn’t have to. Churches expect, and receive, way too many perks as it is. Yay Obama !
Posted by: Leabrand | February 8, 2012, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm