Obama Owes More on Religious Freedom
Jan 30th, 2012 | 12 responses
WASHINGTON — One of Barack Obama’s great attractions as a presidential candidate was his sensitivity to the feelings and intellectual concerns of religious believers. That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law.
His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus, strengthened the very forces inside the Church that sought to derail the health care law, and created unnecessary problems for himself in the 2012 election.
This might not have mattered if Obama had presented himself as a pure secular liberal. Before he was elected and after, he held himself to a more inclusive standard, reassuring many religious moderates.
His deservedly celebrated 2006 speech on religion and American public life was a deeply sophisticated and carefully balanced effort to defend the rights of believers and nonbelievers in a pluralistic republic.
Obama’s speech at Notre Dame’s graduation in 2009 was another tour de force. His visit to South Bend was highly controversial among conservative and right-wing Catholics. Yet the address he gave temporarily silenced many of his critics because it showed both an appreciation for the Catholic Church’s contributions to American life — particularly through its vast array of social-service and educational institutions — and a great instinctive feeling for Catholic sensibilities.
In the health care law, Obama annoyed some in his liberal base by making sure that Catholic institutions do not have to perform or pay for abortions. Yet rather than praising him for this, the bishops and the Catholic right invented the idea that the health law does cover abortion.
It doesn’t, as Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, insisted. In backing the administration’s view on this, she braved attacks and discipline from the bishops. That’s why it was unconscionable for Obama to leave her hanging out to dry.
At issue in the new controversy were regulations promulgated Jan. 20 by the Department of Health and Human Services as to which medical services should be covered by insurance policies that will be supported under the Affordable Care Act.
In its interim rules in August, HHS excluded only those “religious employers” who primarily serve and employ members of their faith traditions. For the Catholic Church, this had the effect of exempting churches from the rule, but not most Catholic universities, social-service agencies and hospitals that help tens of thousands of non-Catholics.
It made perfect sense to cover contraception as a general matter. Many also see it as protecting women’s rights, and expanded contraception coverage can reduce the number of abortions. While the Catholic Church formally opposes contraception, this teaching is widely ignored by the faithful. One does not see many Catholic families of six or 10 or twelve that were quite common in the 1950s. Contraception might have something to do with this.
As a Catholic, I wish the Church would show more flexibility on this question. But as an American, I understand why its leaders felt that the broad contraception mandate encroached on the Church’s legitimate prerogatives. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.
And it was offered a compromise idea by Melissa Rogers, the former chair of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. (Rogers and I have worked together on religion and public life issues over the years, though I played no role in formulating her proposal.) On The Washington Post’s “On Faith” forum in October, she pointed to a Hawaii law under which “religious employers that decline to cover contraceptives must provide written notification to enrollees disclosing that fact and describing alternate ways for enrollees to access coverage for contraceptive services.” The Hawaii law effectively required insurers to make such coverage affordable.
Unfortunately, the administration decided it lacked authority to implement a Hawaii-style solution. The Obama team should not have given up so easily, especially after floating this compromise and getting a sign off from some Catholic groups who thought it could be workable. The administration had months in which it could have tried to find middle ground. It’s a mystery to me why they didn’t encourage their friends on both sides of this question to reach a settlement. “The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed,” Obama said back in 2006. “And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.” I wish the president had tried harder to find them here.
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group. This column is licensed to run on TMV in full.
12 Responses to “Obama Owes More on Religious Freedom”
“This might not have mattered if Obama had presented himself as a pure secular liberal.”
Yeah, because those guys get elected. E.J. does realize that Obama did occasionally lie while on the campaign trail??? right???
So true. I plan on running as an atheist in 2016. I have heard that we recently, no kidding, became more electable than Osama Bin Laden. Although part of me thinks our bump is largely due to Osama’s death.
I am a Catholic and I am deeply troubled by this turn of events. I have supported candidates who are pro-choice, however I did so in spite of their stance.
I can not and will not support candidates (or politicians) who MANDATE that the Catholic Church supply abortion pills. Yes, you heard that correctly. The edict requires coverage of Plan B pills.
If the administration wants these killing drugs covered, they need to pay for them–not force the Catholic Church to directly buy them. The bishops have declared that they will not back down, and I salute that.
What’s next? Force Christian Scientists and Amish to set up computer based medical clinics?
Good grief. Here we are in the 21st century with all the benfits of science, logic, and modern medicine and religion still continues to be an obstacle to humane and sensible behavior.
“Many also see it as protecting women’s rights, and expanded contraception coverage can reduce the number of abortions.”
Well DUH! Not only does expanded contraception reduce the number of abortions, but it reduces the frequency of unnecessary deaths due to illegal (i.e. dangerous) abortions, which (get a clue folks) are on the increase wherever sexual and reproductive services are NOT meeting the needs of a population. It’s very disturbing how unenlightened (ignorant) people still are about this stuff.
Sweet… we have people that refuse to vote for politicians that mandate that a church hospital from a child rapist religion cover abortion pills.
so instead they would rather vote for someone that considers already born children in foreign lands “collatoral damage”.
Religious views on contraception are based on population competition. Abortions equals fewer people in the pews…less money…less power.
“I can not and will not support candidates (or politicians) who MANDATE that the Catholic Church supply abortion pills. Yes, you heard that correctly…The edict requires coverage of Plan B pills”
Plan B are NOT abortion pills. You’re confusing Plan B and RU486. They are VERY VERY different drugs. One is birth control, one is abortion. You cannot abort before getting pregnant, and Plan B will not abort nor harm the efficacy of a pregnancy. RU486 causes and abortion — that’s what it’s for, and it is different from Plan B.
If you don’t want to vote for someone who requires Catholic churches to give out birth control, don’t. But please get your science correct. Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. Whoever told you that it was is trying to sell you lies.
I strongly disagree with the article. 98% of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in time. In addition, hormonal birth control is used for millions of women for reasons other than contraception. Ovarian cysts, endometriosis, menstrual cramping, and even common acne can be and are regularly treated through the pill.
As long as they are taking money from the Government, they should follow all the rules that come with that money, if they don’t like the rules, they shouldn’t take the money.
Agree with Dionne that a compromise solution should be sought that respects both the needs of women and the beliefs of the Catholic Church.
“if they don’t like the rules, they shouldn’t take the money”
But, again, the rules that rcout set out are NOT the rules. Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. It is contraception. RU486 is the abortion pill, and it is very, very different.
As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the only acceptable form of contraception is the rhythm method, mow I am sure you know the old joke:
What do you call a woman who uses the rhythm method? Mom.
As an RC, I can tell you that not too many RCs follow Church Teachings on Birth Control.
I understand the dogma, Quelcrist.
However, Rcoutme brings up a very common misconception (natch). Most practicing Catholics (if not Catholic leadership) does, in fact, draw a very thick line between abortion and contraception. The rules upheld by Obama are that offering access to contraception is mandatory under these plans, NOT abortion. Rcoutme’s specific “Yes, you heard that right”, OMG Obama is mandating ABORTION!! is just flatly not true. It’s a misconception I’ve seen perpectuated even by progressives (although, mostly by liberal men who have never taken either contraception nor an abortion pill).
Again, there are lots of people who are for contraception and against abortion (maybe you’re one of them?). The only value to medically confusing the two is to perpetuate lies for reasons that can fall into politics or straight-up misogyny.
So please, all here, stop perpetuating the lie that Plan B is abortion. It is most definitely not.