« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama Administration Doubles Down On Contraception Rule

By: streiff (Diary)  |  February 10th, 2012 at 02:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Following on what my colleague Francis Cianfrocca writes below, the Obama Administration’s ballyhooed “compromise” on the extraordinary rule that gives the US Department of Health and Human Services the final say in how religious groups operate is actually a finger in the eye.

From the White House statement:

Under the new policy announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works.

If a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.

If we actually believe that in the real world TANSTAAFL is an immutable fact, who, then, is actually paying for the “free of charge” contraception and abortifacient cover. My guess is that the employer whose employees are getting the “free of charge” service is going to see their bill go up.

This is not a trivial issue. This is an attack, one of several staged by this Administration, on religious freedom. One hopes that the Catholic Church and other religious groups see through this charade and continue to oppose the supplanting of conscience by federal regulations.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    Obama is demanding that insurance companies pick up the tab for abortion….
    Then why would the Federal Government need to send federal dollars to Planned Parenthood?

    • repubnut

      Why in the world the Republicans allowed this to happen–START IMPEACHMENT process NOW on this adminiistration and put a stop to this administration’s unconstitutional practices !!!

  • DerKrieger

    …HEck does the federal government get the authority to mandate anything?

    When Obaacare first passed I was much more offended by the fact that it gave the HHS the power to define a minimum benefits package and basically told insurers what they must offer than I was by the individual mandate.

    Being told that I must buy insurance is one thing but being told that I must buy a government defined plan is altogether worse. The busy-body bureaucrats in DC have no idea what pan I might want or need. How dare they define what I must purchase.

    I am ready fr civil disobedience. I have had it with the wannabe dictator and hs minions who have nothing but contempt for us, our liberty, our individuality, and our Constitution.

    I will never bow down to government.

    • http://alt2p.org Brookhaven

      We’ve been arguing (correctly) that the federal govt doesn’t have the authority to force a person to engage in commerce by forcing them to purchase something.

      The other side of that coin is true also. The federal govt doesn’t have the authority to force a company to engage in commerce by forcing them to SELL something.

      By focusing our attention on the religious/first-amendment aspects of what he’s doing, Obama has prevented us from talking about the commerce clause problems. Obama has stepped into all new unconstitutional territory, and is making a huge power grab.

      It’s one thing to tell a company what they CAN’T sell, it’s another thing for the government to tell a company what they MUST sell.

      • DerKrieger

        …Commerce Clause the federal government has very little power over commerce other than to make sure states can’t erect barriers to trade with other states. I dispute the Feds power over companies doing business in more than one state. The commerce clause doesn’t grant the Feds to dictate what type of insurance product a ompany must sell just because it does business in more than a single state. What they’re supposed to do, but aren’t, is to make sure tht insurance companies can’t be restricted by the states from selling products in other states.

        • edintexas

          Talking about the Constitution and Constitutional restrictions on the Federal Government’s powers. “Everybody knows” there are no longer any restrictions of the power of the Federal Government. This particularly applies to the President. The restrictions, along with the Constitution, started disappearing almost 100 years ago, with a strong surge in loss 80 years ago. This just the latest effort to finish off the Constitution. As long as the sheep sleep on the couch, the governing class has nothing to fear.

          With apologies to President Reagan for using his comment.

        • renl57

          …has taken a much more expansive view of what the Commerce Clause can do.

          One use of this was in the civil rights laws. The Supreme Court used the Commerce Clause as a lever to force businesses to stop discriminating against blacks, citing as their authority the Commerce Clause which gave the Federal Government authority over the interstate commerce conducted by those businesses. And “interstate commerce” was interpreted broadly as well. A restaurant serving a customer who had come there from out of state was considered to be “interstate commerce”–and hence subject to Federal nondiscrimination laws.

          The Commerce Clause was also used to support enforcement of the drug laws as follows: Someone who had grown marijuana in his home for his own use was considered to have engaged in “interstate commerce,” since if he grew it in his own home he presumably wouldn’t be buying it from out of state anymore.

          Since we all live in a society in a big country of 50 states, it’s impossible for you to live your life WITHOUT engaging in some interstate commerce. You use electricity off an interstate grid. You watch TV broadcast from other states. You drive on Interstate roads. Etc. Gotcha! Interstate commerce! We can make you do whatever we want!

          • edintexas

            In 1942 (long after the “Pack the Court” routine changed the Court’s view of the Constitution) the SCOTUS wrote the groundbreaking reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

            But that doesn’t mean that this heresy can’t be corrected. Look how long it took to get around to the 2d Amendment ( if Dear Leader gets another term the Heller and McDonald decisions could easily be overturned through new additions to the Court).

      • obxster

        forcing everyone of us to purchase or partake in an insurance policy that covers procedures and medicine we don’t moraly support. So it goes full circle. The progressives do NOT understand moral/religious beliefs because they don’t have any.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    As this study shows (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/04/13/index.html), “Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same among Catholic women (98%).” So, what we get is Obama making “free” something that virtually every woman uses and he gets to look like he is standing up to a bunch of “old men” trying to tell women what to do. I am not sure this is going to be a political winner for us, even though our principles are correct.

    • Joshua Persons

      And @politicalmath on twitter is taking down this argument right now. Look at the Guttmacher appendix: they’re restricting their sample to sexually active women who aren’t pregnant or trying to get pregnant. As @politicalmath says, ‘So the stat should read “Of sexually active Catholics trying to avoid pregnancy, 98% of them use contraception”‘. Completely different from Guttmacher’s presentation of the numbers.

      Or yours, for that matter. I find it interesting that you expect a rabidly pro-choice organization’s talking points to pass here without criticism.

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        however, the number is going to be pretty darn high regardless of whatever exceptions you want to make to the study. My point wasn’t that we should cave, only that Obama is targeting this at women voters who like the idea of “free” birth control while drawing a contrast to the bishops who are speaking out against it.

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          Once the Dems figure out a way to defuse the religious freedom issue, it’s going to be virtually impossible prevent the mandating of “free” birth control – and one probably can’t hold the line against “free” abortifacients either.

          As wise folks have pointed out before, the battle is lost if the Federal government has the power to mandate the content of all health insurance policies. Once they are granted that power, it all reduces to just haggling over the price, as the old story goes.

        • Joshua Persons

          The whole basis for your argument is false. You’re left with asserting “the number is going to be pretty darn high” with no proof. And you’re still pushing the leftist talking point that capitalism, market choice, and the pro-life movement are political losers while identity politics is a political winner.

          I’m not opposed to contraceptives. I’m opposed to organizations which lie about the facts. I’m opposed to abortion and abortifacients, including RU-486 which is covered in this mandate. And I’m opposed to defeatism.

          • streiff

            I think you’ll find a lot of Catholics do things they know are wrong but don’t question the Church is right. Drawing any kind of a line equating behavior and belief is not very bright.

      • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

        …are already breaking the rules by having sex. So if they aren’t obeying the major rule, why would it be a surprise that they don’t follow the rule about contraception.

    • JSobieski

      purely shallow — Obama loses (Obama is in fight with Catholic bishops, the bishops got mad, and Obama backed down)

      mid-level — Obama wins (Obama wants us to have free stuff)

      deep-level Obama loses (Free stuff is never free! Its even worse when the government simply requires a private entity to give out free stuff! )

      • BlueLandRed

        >deep-level Obama loses (Free stuff is never free! Its even worse
        > when the government simply requires a private entity to give
        >out free stuff! )

        actually, ignoring the moral and freedom of religion points in this debate… it is always cheaper to prevent pregnancies (or, sadly, terminate them) . It’s been a while since I had a kid, but just the cost of one birth is more than the cost of a life of contraceptives.

        There’s lots ways to argue against this policy, but the economic one isn’t really a winner. At least until the child reaches his/her 20′s/30′s and finally starts to have a net positive value.

    • greyeagle

      This mandate also covers the abortion drugs and mandates the religious hospitals to provide abortions for patients and their employees. It is not just about birth control pills by a long shot.

  • orwell

    I would be surprised if the Church and Church-run institutions do not self-insure. Having the “insurance company” pay for it in such a case would not be cold comfort so much as no comfort.

    • edintexas

      Those Catholic entities which can afford to self-insure have already prepared to do so, But many can not afford to self-insure. It is an expensive proposition to not spread the risk over the largest possible universe when talking about modern US health care.

    • BlueLandRed

      of colleges and hospitals (along with most major corporations) self insure… but they outsource the management to an insurance company.

  • OCBill

    What the administration seems to be saying is that the insurance provided by Catholic (among other) organizations will not have to provide free birth control (including Plan B abortion coverage), but that the insurance company will have to provide same.

    This is called a “distinction without a difference”.

    By mandating that all insurance coverage must provide abortion and birth control coverage, the administration is making it impossible to provide coverage that’s compatible with their core religious teachings.

    The compromise is a farce.

    • Tearfang

      If insurance companies have to give everyone free contraceptives then there are NO exceptions. Everyone is either paying for it- or the insurance companies are being made into slaves and must perform services for free bc they were told to. Either way it seems to me there is a subtle difference which makes the new rule *more* extreme than the old rule.

  • OCBill

    What the administration seems to be saying is that the insurance provided by Catholic (among other) organizations will not have to provide free birth control (including Plan B abortion coverage), but that the insurance company will have to provide same.

    This is called a “distinction without a difference”.

    By mandating that all insurance coverage must provide abortion and birth control coverage, the administration is making it impossible to provide coverage that’s compatible with their core religious teachings.

    The compromise is a farce.

  • Tbone

    that the Democrat Party is opposed to Christianity.

    The problem is that a lot of denominational leaders are just as liberal as Obama.

    The comfort is in realizing how surprised they will be when they end up in Hell.

    • tnguy

      Yes, the left is vile and evil, but the only reason things have deteriorated so badly in this country is because God’s people have not lived as they should.

      It’s as though as the world moves further from God, God’s people follow them, always keeping a distance, but likewise moving further away from God. Taking comfort from not being as bad as they are.

  • ombd

    Today’s laughable “compromise” was not close to good enough ? a distinction without a difference. Of course, the fault here lies at least as much with those useful idiots who paved the way for Obama to ram through his dictates. A sad list of characters indeed … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

  • GregInFla

    I mean, they’ll want some commensurate benefit too.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    This shows the innate danger of ObamaCare and should be a stark warning on how critical the upcoming SCOTUS case is.

    Obama and Democrats have used this legislation as a subterfuge to the Constitution. It is a vehicle through which they will continue to chip away at our individual rights one at a time.

    Let’s not forget the President just used HHS as a means of attacking a right guaranteed under the First Amendment. Notice there was no debate in Congress or input from our representatives. King Obama just decreed it and said it was so. That is tyranny in action.

    If the President is willing to do this in an election year, than what will he do with a second term?

  • thosjefferson

    On the surface, Obama is using insurance mandates to pursue social policy, but it’s deeper than that. This goes beyond the teachings of a particular religion. He’s forcing everyone in the country to pay the costs of “free” contraceptives for everyone, thereby encouraging promiscuity and undermining religious and basic moral principles of conduct.

    The next thing we know, Obama will mandate “free” abortion for everyone; then he’ll mandate “free” prostitution.

  • DefendUSA

    I understand where this is going, but many others do not seem to grasp the whole thing, That is the infrinement of many freedoms, not just religious freedoms. I have said to friends that nothing is free and I have picked apart Obamacare over and over to try and show them, No one listened.

    And here we are. I have been subjected topay a 32% increase in my healthcare premium to give to others what we have worked for and It pretty much makes me see Red. That extra $153 dollars was paying for my kids music education and now, I’ve got to cut that because we have to have insurance. Did I mention I am a small business owner?

    The deconstruction of the middle class,freedoms and earning power continues while the Pied Piper marches on with his mice all nibbling at the gov’t teat. Who will stop it?

  • krish

    When it comes to abortion issue, Romney is left of Obama! See my comments from earlier today – “how Romney did a sleight of hand so that he can claim to conservatives that he veoted & but later played to his moderate wing by not giving the same opt out (agree with your argument that it is Not the ideal solution) that Obama has given!

    Catholics & Religious People in Republican party – Romney is left of Obama when it comes Pro Abortion! Don’t let Romney or Rombots tell you otherwise!

    Establishment wants to push down our throat a MA liberal who is more liberal than Obama in social issues! It is a shame if Mitt is the nominee for the republican party! After AZ & MI, conservatives should rally around either Santorum or Newt!

    I am sure, they are making the ads (Obama super PAC) right as we speak – asking Catholics if they want to support a candidate who took away the individual liberty & was agaisnt freedom of religion!

  • DerKrieger

    …don’t need music lessons. There are people in our country that don’t have access to health care and are therefore more deserving of your money than your kids who already have all the things they need. Besides, we’re all better off when the wealth is spread around a little. You’re just a greedy SOB aren’t you?

    /SARC

    I guarantee you that that is precisely the attitude that our betters in DC have toward us. We’re all equal but some (Democrat party hacks) are more equal than others.

  • streiff

    the Administration is going after rights they perceive will be easiest to take away. Religious freedom sacrificed to “fairness” is a rather obvious ploy which dovetails nicely with their infatuation with the sacramental buggery.

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn’t speak out because I was Protestant.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

  • renl57

    There are almost no virgins older than 20 years old anymore. That was OK back in the days when young people got married at age 16 or 17 or 18.

    Today, Americans are marrying at later ages. Many don’t marry till they’re in their thirties. Some (like Condoleeza Rice) never marry.

    Abstinence from sex made more sense when we were talking about waiting till you’re 18 to get married.

    It makes less sense when you’re telling young people who won’t get married till age 35 to wait till then.

    And abstinence from sex makes no sense when it means telling a career woman who never gets married that she should remain a virgin her entire life.