Q&A: Obama and the birth control controversy
President Barack Obama, accompanied by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announces the revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, Friday, Feb. 10, 2012, in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) / Pablo Martinez Monsivais
WASHINGTON — What birth control debate? A half-century after the introduction of the pill, acceptance of birth control by American women is virtually universal.
But that didn't keep the Obama administration from landing in a political mess over a side issue to a new policy that will soon make contraceptives available free of charge as preventive care for women enrolled in workplace health plans.
The big question: how the rules would apply to nonprofit institutions such as hospitals, colleges and charities that are affiliated with a religion but serve the general public.
Some questions and answers on President Barack Obama's proposal Friday to find a way out of the problem and how his administration got there in the first place:
Q: Was the Obama administration going to require churches to cover birth control?
A: No, churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship were not being required to cover the pill. That was never the issue.
Instead the battle is over nonprofit institutions affiliated with a religion. For example, a Catholic hospital or a college chartered by a denomination but open to students of all faiths or no faith. The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to artificial birth control methods, but polls show that the faithful in the pews generally use contraceptives anyway.
Q: Well, what was going to change for the hospitals and soup kitchens?
A: Previously the administration had said that such affiliated institutions were basically going to be treated like all other employers and insurance plans. They would have to cover birth control as part of a package of preventive services for women. The only concession was one more year to phase in the changes.
Obama has now walked that back. Employers affiliated with a religion will not have to provide birth control coverage if it offends their beliefs. However, the insurers that cover their workers will be required to offer birth control directly to women working for the religious employer, and do so free of charge.
Q: Wait a minute, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Insurers are going to pay for birth control themselves?
A: They may not have any alternative, but eventually they'll figure out how to pass on the cost.
An administration report says the cost of providing birth control should be a wash for insurers. It's a lot cheaper than paying for labor and delivery. Officials also say the government has the power to order insurers to do so under Obama's health care overhaul law.
That may not sit well with the industry. Insurers point out that unless drug makers stop charging for pills, and doctors decide to prescribe them pro bono, birth control coverage isn't free.
Q: How are women who don't work for a church or a Catholic hospital going to be affected?
A: They're not.
Beginning next Jan. 1, in most cases, women will have access to birth control at no additional charge through their job-based coverage, as part of a package of preventive services that also includes HIV screening and support for breast-feeding mothers. (Some employers won't have to provide the added coverage, but not for religious reasons. They're considered "grandfathered" under the health care law.)
Birth control pills are the most common drug prescribed to women, and medical experts say that planned, optimally spaced pregnancies are good for the health of mothers and infants alike.
The coverage requirement applies to all forms approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That includes the pill, intrauterine devices, the so-called morning-after pill, and newer forms of long-acting implantable hormonal contraceptives that are becoming widely used in the rest of the industrialized world.
The morning-after pill is particularly controversial. It has no effect if a woman is already pregnant, but many religious conservatives consider it tantamount to an abortion drug.
As recently as the 1990s, many health insurance plans didn't cover birth control. Protests, court cases, and new state laws led to dramatic changes. Today, almost all plans cover prescription contraceptives — but usually impose copays. Medicaid, the health care program for low-income people, also covers birth control.
Costs for an individual woman vary depending on the form of birth control. Generics are available at Walmart pharmacies, for example, for around $9 a month. Brand-name contraceptives are more expensive, and some IUDs may cost $500 up front but last as long as 10 years.
A government report suggests the average cost to insurers ranges from $26 to $41 a year per woman for providing the coverage.
Q: What's been the reaction to Obama's concession?
A: It will take time to see if it tamps down the furor.
Some conservatives say it doesn't go far enough. They would like a conscience exemption for any employer, not just religious ones.
Women's groups are relieved that Obama has proposed a plan that maintains access for all women.
Catholic hospitals are saying they can support the compromise, as are anti-abortion Catholics who helped pass the health care overhaul in Congress. The bishops say they're still concerned but are reserving judgment until they talk with the administration.
Q: How did the administration get itself into such a mess in the first place?
A: Maybe they should have listened to people like Sister Carol Keehan, head of a Catholic hospitals trade group.
She and other prominent Catholics defied the bishops to support passage of Obama's health care overhaul at a critical stage of the congressional debate. Democratic Catholic lawmakers thought they had an iron-clad deal with the administration to protect the conscience rights of religious employers.
___
Associated Press writer Connie Cass contributed to this report.
© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. But that didn't keep the Obama administration from landing in a political mess over a side issue to a new policy that will soon make contraceptives available free of charge as preventive care for women enrolled in workplace health plans.
The big question: how the rules would apply to nonprofit institutions such as hospitals, colleges and charities that are affiliated with a religion but serve the general public.
Some questions and answers on President Barack Obama's proposal Friday to find a way out of the problem and how his administration got there in the first place:
Q: Was the Obama administration going to require churches to cover birth control?
A: No, churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship were not being required to cover the pill. That was never the issue.
Instead the battle is over nonprofit institutions affiliated with a religion. For example, a Catholic hospital or a college chartered by a denomination but open to students of all faiths or no faith. The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to artificial birth control methods, but polls show that the faithful in the pews generally use contraceptives anyway.
Q: Well, what was going to change for the hospitals and soup kitchens?
A: Previously the administration had said that such affiliated institutions were basically going to be treated like all other employers and insurance plans. They would have to cover birth control as part of a package of preventive services for women. The only concession was one more year to phase in the changes.
Obama has now walked that back. Employers affiliated with a religion will not have to provide birth control coverage if it offends their beliefs. However, the insurers that cover their workers will be required to offer birth control directly to women working for the religious employer, and do so free of charge.
Q: Wait a minute, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Insurers are going to pay for birth control themselves?
A: They may not have any alternative, but eventually they'll figure out how to pass on the cost.
An administration report says the cost of providing birth control should be a wash for insurers. It's a lot cheaper than paying for labor and delivery. Officials also say the government has the power to order insurers to do so under Obama's health care overhaul law.
That may not sit well with the industry. Insurers point out that unless drug makers stop charging for pills, and doctors decide to prescribe them pro bono, birth control coverage isn't free.
Q: How are women who don't work for a church or a Catholic hospital going to be affected?
A: They're not.
Beginning next Jan. 1, in most cases, women will have access to birth control at no additional charge through their job-based coverage, as part of a package of preventive services that also includes HIV screening and support for breast-feeding mothers. (Some employers won't have to provide the added coverage, but not for religious reasons. They're considered "grandfathered" under the health care law.)
Birth control pills are the most common drug prescribed to women, and medical experts say that planned, optimally spaced pregnancies are good for the health of mothers and infants alike.
The coverage requirement applies to all forms approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That includes the pill, intrauterine devices, the so-called morning-after pill, and newer forms of long-acting implantable hormonal contraceptives that are becoming widely used in the rest of the industrialized world.
The morning-after pill is particularly controversial. It has no effect if a woman is already pregnant, but many religious conservatives consider it tantamount to an abortion drug.
As recently as the 1990s, many health insurance plans didn't cover birth control. Protests, court cases, and new state laws led to dramatic changes. Today, almost all plans cover prescription contraceptives — but usually impose copays. Medicaid, the health care program for low-income people, also covers birth control.
Costs for an individual woman vary depending on the form of birth control. Generics are available at Walmart pharmacies, for example, for around $9 a month. Brand-name contraceptives are more expensive, and some IUDs may cost $500 up front but last as long as 10 years.
A government report suggests the average cost to insurers ranges from $26 to $41 a year per woman for providing the coverage.
Q: What's been the reaction to Obama's concession?
A: It will take time to see if it tamps down the furor.
Some conservatives say it doesn't go far enough. They would like a conscience exemption for any employer, not just religious ones.
Women's groups are relieved that Obama has proposed a plan that maintains access for all women.
Catholic hospitals are saying they can support the compromise, as are anti-abortion Catholics who helped pass the health care overhaul in Congress. The bishops say they're still concerned but are reserving judgment until they talk with the administration.
Q: How did the administration get itself into such a mess in the first place?
A: Maybe they should have listened to people like Sister Carol Keehan, head of a Catholic hospitals trade group.
She and other prominent Catholics defied the bishops to support passage of Obama's health care overhaul at a critical stage of the congressional debate. Democratic Catholic lawmakers thought they had an iron-clad deal with the administration to protect the conscience rights of religious employers.
___
Associated Press writer Connie Cass contributed to this report.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 145 Comments
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 1042 Comments
- Former IRS chief: "I can't say" what led to IRS targeting
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH
- Letter to a young scandalmonger
Sex is pleasurable. No one disputes that. The Catholic Church does not dispute that. Sex is powerful, though. It has real consequences. Those consequences cannot be ignored in the name of selfish indulgence.
Also, while it may not be mentioned in this particular CBS article, CNN and several others have felt the need to mention the fact that "98% of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives."
I'm sure that statistic is true. You know, you could also say that "100% of Catholic men and women have sinned at some point in their lives." That statistic would not mean that 100% of Catholic men and women think it's okay to sin, though.
A real survey would ask a follow-up question or two to the "have you ever used birth-control" one. Something along the lines of, "Do you still use birth-control at the present time?" and "If not, would you be willing to do so again in the future?"
People make mistakes in their lives. A real look at what Catholic women believe would include not just their past actions, but their current actions and beliefs as well.
The truth of contraception is that it creates a mindset that from the beginning is opposed to life. Sex is an extremely powerful thing. The natural consequence of sex between a man and a woman, barring incidental instances of infertility, etc., is the possible creation of a new life. Even if you assume a completely secular, atheistic, naturalistic standpoint, the creation of new life is still the evolutionary purpose of sex. When you engage in the sex act OPPOSED to that natural outcome, you are already in a state of mind that is not receptive to the joy of new life.
Contraception fails. It's a fact. ALL contraception fails at some point. One person may be lucky and never experience that, but someone else is going to.
Because of a false belief that a person using contraception need not worry about pregnancy, contraception also makes people more likely to engage in sex, be it "casual sex" with people they don't really care about or otherwise. The frequency of sex goes up, and thus there are more opportunities for contraception to fail.
When contraception does fail, you now have a person who is pregnant with a new life who engaged in sex with absolutely no intention of having a child. They were absolutely opposed to the idea, otherwise they wouldn't have been using contraception.
What happens in this situation? Murder is what happens. People may try to sugarcoat it, may use particular words like "fetus" and "zygote" in an attempt to dehumanize the human being in the womb (and it is a human being - science very clearly states that at the moment of conception, a new and unique human life is created, a human life which only needs time to grow and mature), but the killing of another human is murder, plain and simple.
Contraception, by its very nature, is opposed to life. An opposition to life leads to all sorts of horrendous acts - which is exactly why the Catholic Church stands against it.
A few things to keep in mind:
- Religious freedom is a constitutional right in this country. Birth control is not.
- Finding Catholics who do not have a problem with this policy does not negate the rights of others who *do* have a problem with this policy (Catholic and non-Catholic alike). Positioning the argument as if it's only the leaders of the Church who have a problem is disingenous at best, and takes advantage of the reader who is trying to find out the actual information on the subject.
- Religious leaders *would* be put in a compromised position. A pastor of a church, who has a school program tied to his church, would *have* to offer those school employees this entitlement.
In the end, you have to decide which is more important: Religious Freedom or the entitlement of birth control. You can't have both in this situation.
We are not a theocracy as many republicans seem to want. We are a secular government and this issue has been clearly stated many times by our Supreme Court. The intentions of the founding fathers is made clear on this issue in many of their speeches as well as their writings.
Providing birth Control for women lowers health costs, reduces abortions, reduces a lot of social problems and welfare costs.
It is the republicans who are endangering our Freedom of Religion rights. They would have us become a theocracy instead of the republic that we are today. They are leading us to a very slippery slope of destruction of all that we hold dear.