Obama Announces Contraception ‘Accommodation’ for Religious Organizations

But it only makes the fanatics even angrier
Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
Politics • Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 10:00 am PST • Views: 15,330

Catholic leaders and evangelicals have apparently managed to raise enough hell that President Obama is making some adjustments to the newly announced contraception rules. Now employers won’t have to provide insurance plans that cover contraception for women; insurance providers will do it directly.

The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.

Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.

One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.

In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception. The insurance company will reach out on its own to the women employees. This is better for both sides, the source says, since the religious organizations do not have to deal with medical care to which they object, and women employees will not have to be dependent upon an organization strongly opposed to that care in order to obtain it.

You can probably already predict the reaction from the religious right: rage, and more rage.

For example, lunatic American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer tweeted today:

I remain utterly appalled that throwbacks like Fischer have managed to make contraception controversial again, in the year 2012.

Advertisement

20 comments

  • Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Learned Mother of Zion  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:04:30am

Nobody is FORCING anyone to use birth control if they don't want to, they just can't refuse to make it available to others who can decide for themselves if they want it or not.

My youngest daughter, who is getting married in 2 weeks, has informed me that she and her husband to be will be planning their family according to their convenience and that I should not be expecting her to get pregnant right away.

2 Obdicut  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:04:52am

I think this was an excellent piece of politicing, in that it removes the letter of the objection and reveals the spirit of it. I predict they're still going to fight it because the don't want their employees, no matter what their religious persuasion, to have access to contraception.

But this very clearly demonstrates how ridiculous the debate against contraceptive coverage is. It's just accounting. You pay an employee a paycheck and they buy a condom. They get a condom through their health insurance which you pay for. Who cares? Why is one of those situations all that different?

3 Gus  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:05:34am

Key points found at FACT SHEET: Women’s Preventive Services and Religious Institutions which was released today. This will go into the Federal Register.

• Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.

• Establishes a one year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.

• Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

• Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

• Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

• Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

4 Lawrence Schmerel  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:05:53am

Caution: Totalitarianism on hormones could cause your Totalitarianism to experience acne, diarrhea, hives, depression and/or hair loss.

5 Expand Your Ground  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:06:02am

Religious liberties of insurance companies?

6 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:07:05am

It's just rolled into everything else and still being paid for. Just being directly serviced by the insurance company instead. Looks like a win-win with the women getting the coverage and the churches being allowed to claim that they're not paying for something that is against their religious dogma.

And I don't recall insurance companies having a particular religion. Is this part of all the "corporations are persons" thing? In that case, how do you do a corp mitzvah for a Jewish one? (I assume a corporation has no gender.)

7 Lidane  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:08:41am

Of course it's controversial to these nutjobs. Access to contraception means that women have autonomy over their bodies and their sexuality. We can't have that because it conflicts with God's will. Or something.

Never mind that there are valid medical reasons to use birth control that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. Never mind that free access to birth control lowers abortion rates by preventing unplanned pregnancies in the first place. These lunatics don't want women to have a say in their sex lives or their bodies.

8 Expand Your Ground  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:11:15am

again, these people are not just against Planned Parenthood with a capital "P", they are against the very concept of planning parenthood in the first place.

Pregnancy is a gift from God, even when it is delivered by a rapist...

9 Kragar  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:22:41am

I have a religious objection to Bryan Fischer, so therefore, he needs to be taken off the air because he violates my 1st amendment rights.

10 dr. luba  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:35:00am

re: #5 Keynesian Kenyan

Religious liberties of insurance companies?

My thought exactly! I guess corporations are now people, my friend, with religious views.

11 Bulworth  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:45:06am

I was pretty surprised and worried initially when the administration offered its first proposal. Seemed unnecessarily risky and intrusive to me. Now I just think the administration got the reichwing and the bishops to punk themselves. I guess they can still rail against this if they want. But I doubt any one will think their "religious liberty" argument holds any water now.

12 euphgeek  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:46:16am

If any of these atavistic reactionaries (including the Republican presidential candidate) win any contests in swing states this November, I will be worried for the future of this country. Otherwise, the self-destruction of the Republican party will be a sheer joy to watch. Once that happens, we can replace it with a real non-crazy conservative party.

13 Stephen T.  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:47:58am

My big fear is that if the Religious Right don't get their way, they may start doing other things that are a lot worse than just making political noise. I can see an employer reasoning that "I pay for the insurance for my employees, so I have an obligation to learn about their medical issues". Which could lead to: "Are you now, or have you ever used contraceptives?" as a condition of employment.

14 euphgeek  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:50:35am

re: #13 Stephen T.

My big fear is that if the Religious Right don't get their way, they may start doing other things that are a lot worse than just making political noise. I can see an employer reasoning that "I pay for the insurance for my employees, so I have an obligation to learn about their medical issues". Which could lead to: "Are you now, or have you ever used contraceptives?" as a condition of employment.

Which will lead to lawsuits, which will lead to wingnut whining over "activist judges legislating from the bench."

15 mikec6666  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 10:54:22am

I have to say, as a strong supporter of contraception rights for women, I'm a little troubled that the solution is to simply say, ok now it's the insurers problem. I'm losing the logic here. The insurer never had a problem with offering contraceptive coverage (otherwise why would it be in their plan), so now they're getting the extra paperwork (and whatever) because the employer who is paying the plan is refusing to do the right thing. Who is paying for the portion of the coverage allocated to contraception? Insurers? How is that fair? I just don't get the plan.

16 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 11:03:48am

re: #1 Look At My New Grandbaby!

Nobody is FORCING anyone to use birth control if they don't want to, they just can't refuse to make it available to others who can decide for themselves if they want it or not.

My youngest daughter, who is getting married in 2 weeks, has informed me that she and her husband to be will be planning their family according to their convenience and that I should not be expecting her to get pregnant right away.

But...but...you've only GOT thirty grandchildren! Why isn't she considering your needs?

///

17 Ming  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 11:06:45am

Next up: Complaints from Michele Bachmann that medical insurance shouldn't cover that evil HPV vaccine.

18 darthstar  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 11:17:34am

Religious liberties of insurance companies? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Obama's 'compromise' was brilliant, in that it gave nothing, but garnered enough press coverage to remind women that FREE CONTRACEPTION IS NOW THE LAW...

19 RIRedinPA  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 12:02:55pm

A time waste exercise in the fungibility of money...well played by Obama to expose the Bishops...

20 Robert O.  Fri, Feb 10, 2012 12:14:06pm

Obama *compromised*. That is a word you will never see in the same sentence as "Republican Party".


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Elephant not interested in using treadmill.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You
Lying For Jesus: Something We See More of Every Day, The Ends Justify The Means?
1 hour, 1 minute ago
Views: 37 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

researchok
Honoring Fallen Civil War Soldiers
1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Views: 37 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

MikeySDCA
The History of the Paper Clip: It Was Invented in 1899. It Hasn't Been Improved Upon Since.
1 hour, 54 minutes ago
Views: 37 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Daniel Ballard
Late Afternoon Light-Kalanchoe
1 day, 1 hour ago
Views: 167 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

Eclectic Infidel
City College of San Francisco Budget Update
1 day, 2 hours ago
Views: 187 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Michael McBacon
Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
1 day, 7 hours ago
Views: 331 • Comments: 7
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6

Aigle
National Geographic Traveler Veers Off Track
2 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 726 • Comments: 16
Tweets: 24 • Rating: -6

MichaelJ
Apple TV Slated to Debut in December?
2 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 273 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Ascher
Israeli Who Saved Turk on Everest: You Never Abandon a Friend - Israel News, Ynetnews
2 days, 9 hours ago
Views: 350 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Haywood Jabloeme
The Harrassment of Patterico & Its Roots in Left-Wing Activism
2 days, 9 hours ago
Views: 592 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

 Frank says:

All year long you people manufactured this crap, and one night a year you've got to listen to it! -- Frank introducing "psychedelic music" to the audience of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Science dinner in New York (1968) at which the Mothers were invited to play