Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Wavering In Face of Anti-contraception Pressure
Obama has been feeling pressure from conservatives and religious groups that have been criticizing his Affordable Care Act; the act includes a mandate requiring all health insurance plans to include birth control coverage. Conservative opposition has been mounting since HHS finalized the policy on January 20, 2012. As of Tuesday, signs of back peddling began to emerge as the Whitehouse said it would "accommodate the concerns of the employers who would be required to provide birth control coverage regardless of their religious beliefs".
President Barack Obama speaks with Cardinal Sean O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, Saturday, Aug., 29, 2009. (Photo: AP / Brian Snyder)
Should the Affordable Care Act be revoked or reworked, individuals who are employed by an organization that objects to birth control could be denied insurance that includes contraception coverage.
The Whitehouse has been increasingly ambivalent on the issue, but women's health advocates are pushing hard to prevent a presidential back-pedal, urging Obama not to cave.
* * *
UPDATE:
FDL News reports:
An energized and battle-tested Planned Parenthood will issue a call to action to their members today to defend the President’s birth control policy and urge the White House not to give in to the fierce lobbying from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops by altering the policy in any way detrimental to universal access.
The organization will send a message from Cecile Richards to all its members on the issue today, FDL News has learned. According to a source, it will call for members to contact the White House, to “show your support for access to contraception for all women.” The group has also been active in social media on the birth control issue, particularly at their PPAct twitter feed.
* * *
AP reports:
Obama’s spokesman defended the decision that prompted the flare-up, even as he raised the prospect of some adjustment. He said women working for church-affiliated employers must be able to get contraception, but he also made clear that the White House wants to accommodate the concerns of the employers who would be required to provide birth control coverage regardless of their religious beliefs.
“There are ways to, I think, help resolve this issue that ensures that we provide that important preventive service, that health care coverage, to all women, and that tries, in a way that also tries to allay some of these concerns,” Carney said. The spokesman did not say what those ways might be but said there were “a lot of different ideas out there.” [...]
Separately, Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod made the same point. “The real question is how do we get together and resolve this in a way that respects the concerns that have been raised but also assures women across this country that they’re going to have the preventive care that they need,” Axelrod said on MSNBC. [...]
“Publicly you can see a change in the administration,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats For Life of America. “It’s very different from what was said before, that this is final and nothing is going to change.”
Some Catholic supporters of the administration said they had noticed a shift in White House rhetoric that gave them hope a compromise could be worked out.
“Publicly you can see a change in the administration,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats For Life of America. “It’s very different from what was said before, that this is final and nothing is going to change.”
* * *
New York Times reports:
The White House has been skittish from the start about the new rule, which was announced last month only after internal debates at the White House that, to some extent, pitted women — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is Catholic; Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the deputy chief of staff, on one side, arguing forcefully in favor of the rule, administration officials said.
On the other side, cautioning that the administration tread carefully and look for ways to minimize another major break with the church, they said, were several Catholic men who are close advisers to Mr. Obama: Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and William M. Daley, the chief of staff at the time. Also weighing in, administration officials said, was Denis R. McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, whose purview does not naturally extend to health issues, but who is a Catholic.
“I can’t tell you how many times we went over this,” one administration official said, speaking on grounds of anonymity. In the end, it was Mr. Obama himself who made the decision, aides say, calculating that at the end of the day, the issue of public health access outweighed the concerns of the religious institutions.
Administration officials say one avenue for resolution might be to look at how Catholic institutions in the 28 states with similar laws have dealt with the issue. One possible compromise might be to emulate Hawaii, where the rule is in effect, but where employees at religious institutions that do not offer free contraception can get birth control through side benefits, which the employees nominally pay for but which often end up being free.
* * *
Planned Parenthood released a poll on Tuesday titled “Americans Support Obama on Prescription Birth Control Benefit,” urging Obama to stand his ground. The poll shows:
A solid 56 percent majority of voters support the decision to require health plans to cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket fees, while only 37 percent are opposed. It’s particularly noteworthy that pivotal independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age, and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.
* * *
Today Democracy Now! took a "look at how reproductive rights could become major issues in the 2012 race with three guests: Michael Brendan Dougherty of Business Insider and the American Conservative, Loretta Ross of the SisterSong Reproductive Justice Collective, and Jon O’Brien of Catholics for Choice":
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

80 Comments so far
Show AllOctober 14, 2011: Didn't Obama already sell out women and limit/negate abortion in high-risk pools that provide coverage for sick people who can't get insurance?
I found the following on the Kaiser News website -- July 2010 -- directly from their news report at:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/July/16/Abortion-politics.aspx
"Elective abortion services will not be covered in state high-risk pools set up to provide coverage for sick people who can't get insurance, according to Obama administration officials," CQ HealthBeat reports. "The statement came following reports that abortion could be permitted in some states under proposals submitted for the pools." An HHS spokeswoman offered the statement "after anti-abortion groups said earlier this week that an executive order by President Obama banning federal financing of most abortions under the new health care law was being subverted in states such as Pennsylvania. The president's promise to issue the order was key to obtaining the support of anti-abortion Democrats such as Bart Stupak of Michigan for passage of the health care law" (Norman, 7/15/2010).
From The Hill: Planned Parenthood "is slamming" the administration for the restriction. Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement that the group is "deeply disappointed" with the decision. "'The very women who need to purchase private health insurance in the new high-risk pools are likely to be more vulnerable to medically complicated pregnancies,' Richards added. 'It is truly harmful to these women that the administration may impose limits on how they use their own private dollars, limiting their health care options at a time when they need them most. This decision has no basis in the law and flies in the face of the intent of the high-risk pools that were meant to meet the medical needs of some of the most vulnerable women in this country'" (Pecquet, 7/15/2010).
"raydelcamino"
Exactly.
Thank you.
We don't have a health care system in the U.S. We have a corporate health insurance system. You are correct.
When churches interfere with politics, they should lose their tax exempt status.
The institutions may be oppressive in some ways, but I would not ask that people completely break away unless they wish to do so. I was recently at the funeral of a Catholic woman with whom I have done work in the community. The woman was intelligent, generous and a leader. At the funeral I found out that this woman absolutely believed that after death she would, for eternity, be joining her husband and one of her three children who had died. How do I compete with that? I have nothing.
"Siouxrose"
This is just meant as a comparison.
Recently, I took a virtual tour of the Sistine Chapel. It allowed me to take my time and more carefully examine the various scenes. What I became most aware of was that Michelangelo could (at that time) only portray females as beefy, muscle-bound, male bodies with softer faces and what looked like breast implants.
As I surveyed this so-called "master"piece, I could not help but think of the long, long line of Catholic dictators who have (and do) walk under all of the macho fleshiness strewn above them and then then they go out and dictate sexuality.
I have studied art history (with an humanitarian interpretation) and I can fairly safely say that few works of art are as blatantly homosexual as is the Sistine Chapel. I absolutely do not have anything against caring and safely practiced homosexuality, but I also do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church (or any other organized religion) has a shortage of misogynistic Sado-masochistic intent.
No one has been a better example of Jesus' teachings than Mary Magdalen (if we can believe the story), but hell will freeze over before a woman will be allowed to be Jesus' equal by the twisted perverts who run that church.
I agree, and your comment reminds me of Fellini's film, ROMA (1972), in which he stages a "fashion show." Here's the link to the scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYzRL9YIswQ
I do the same. Thanks for your response!
before reading this common dreams' article, i zipped back to democracy now! to pick up this startling statistic. and after all that, the video sat right here! my guesstimate would have been 60%. what better proof that the religious, corporate and political hierarchies frame all "issues" around themselves never caring what we, the little people, think. should those who fancy themselves as wise and knowing "leaders" wish to know our opinion, they'll tell us what we think!
good catch by kay johnson , but i suspect obama understands, but as politicians are wont to do, puts his career goals just a bit above integrity. as with his "reversal" on pac, "if Truth be told, i cannot win a second term." money is such a totally corrupting temptation few drawn to politics rise above. well, ladies, santorum, has risen to new heights with his low-ball attack on the femme.
well, i won't presume to preach yo you guys about what the first amendment means to guarantee, but add one comment:@ crowsnest
i agree with the essence of your message, but feel the first amendment guarantees the rights of persons, not the rights of institutions.
Like good is evil as evil is good... and who are we to question why?
Just confess your sins my child and worry thee not thy conscience!
Talk about a meal ticket?!?!?!