The Obama administration reaffirmed that most health insurance plans must cover contraceptives for women, effective August 1, 2012, including health care plans provided by religious organizations to their employees. Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church opposed this recent decision and appealed to President Obama, personally, asking him to grant a broad exemption for religious employers. Leaders of the Catholic Church issued a statement that they would fight the “edict” from the government. Other opponents of this ruling stated they might also challenge it in court as well. Religious leaders who also expressed their concern over this ruling include evangelical, Greek Orthodox and Orthodox Jewish leaders.
This forced President Obama to consider claims made by the Catholic leaders as well as advocates for women’s rights, family planning advocates, scientific experts and members of Congress. Despite protests and debates within the administration, the administration reaffirmed its original position, comprising slightly to include an exemption for certain “religious employers” if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith. Additionally, the administration is giving religious employers who qualify for the exemption and extra year to adapt to the new rule. The contentious issue in this dispute stems from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reads using contraception is a morally unacceptable means for regulating births, a criterion of morality for the Catholic Church.
Senator Richard Blumenthal , Democrat of Connecticut, described the final rule a victory for women’s health, stating this will “ensure that women have access to full health care services, regardless of their employer, so they can make the best health choices for themselves and their families.” However, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, responded to the final ruling, stating “ . . we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences. . we’re unable to live with this.” It is not the responsibility of the government to uphold the conscience of the church. The government’s interest lies in protecting health services for a segment of society, essentially half the population, while maintaining a respectful, yet delicate, relationship with the church.
The Obama administration deserves credit and should be applauded for acting responsibly. The role of the government is to manage social order and protect the interest of every citizen. In an attempt to manage burdensome and soaring health care costs, President Obama has chosen to correct the broken health care system and include “preventative health services” for every woman. This decision should not be understood as an attack on religion or the Catholic Church. Rather, the Obama administration relied on rational and scientific arguments to defend this ruling, stressing that “scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women.” For decades, contraceptive methods (preventative health services) has had severely limited availability for women. This places a burden on women privately and within the health care system. Health care plans with limited access to birth control places women’s health care secondary to other segments of society.
Obama considered arguments on both sides of the issue out of respect for religious liberty and understanding limitations of government interference with the church. The final rule takes a balanced position, respecting religious freedom asserted by the Catholic Church, evidenced by the resulting exemption for certain religious groups. By including the exemption, this rule protects religious liberty while also limiting privilege of religious organizations. Church groups, however, call the exemption narrow and meaningless. This ruling could be only a temporary victory for women’s health with the uncertainty of 2013 elections. It is possible that the church could bring suit to broaden the exemption, which would essentially limit women’s access to fundamental health care.
I absolutely agree with you that the Obama administration did a good job in handling this situation. The fact that they considered the issue that this type of health plan poses for the catholic faith and other faiths which don't believe in contraception is commendable. But I don't believe it was necessary for the administration to make an exception for certain religious employers. It is understandable that Catholics or Jews don't believe in contraception as a means of regulating birth but the churches and synagogues should still provide the health plan which includes contraceptives. It is a personal choice whether one uses this portion of the health plan due to their religious affiliation or moral beliefs. This sort of health plan is very much necessary looking at the today's situation. The government is only trying to provide better healthcare for all women and if it were to leave out catholic women or Jewish women, then it could be considered at fault. Besides, there are catholic and Jewish women out there who want this type of protection who wouldn't want it denied if they worked somewhere other than a church or a Synagogue that didn't believe in contraception. Therefore, a church or Synagogue denying it to any of its employers is unfair, even if the employers weren't planning to use it or were morally forbidden to use it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a tricky issue. Both Joyce and Aanal did a good job pointing out the complexities of the issue with the church. I think the idea of telling a church or synagogue that they should or should not do something is interesting. I don't think that a church can or should be told that they must provide this healthcare option. Surely, there are Catholics and Jews who opt to use birth control, but the issue of mandating this for an organization is complex. Healthcare is a unique issue, because it is generally in the private sphere, but fairly highly regulated by the state. The legal issue of how this private/public service interacts with a religious organization involves a lot of factors. Still, I think that an organization should not be told that they must provide this option.
ReplyDeleteI think in this situation the Obama administration is acting properly. This law is not saying women have to take contraceptives, just that it will be offered. I do not see how this could possibly violate religious freedom. The law would just require contraception to be covered by all health insurances. No where does it say that women or men must use them. I agree that women having this more readily available might help avoid unwanted pregnancies.
ReplyDeleteThis is a delicate balance between allowing the religious practice of the Catholic Church and other religious groups and providing necessary health care opportunities to women. The ruling seems to be a fair one in that members of the newly required insurance plan are not required to use contraceptives, merely the option to do so. The Obama administration seems to have succeeded at finding an appropriate balance in this hotly debated issue.
ReplyDeleteSomething I have just recently come to acknowledge regarding this issue is the complexity which Carrie may be referring it. Although there is no mandate requiring all women to participate in contraceptive practices, the mere passivity required in order to support this decision may prove dishonorable to an orthodox individual’s faith. Although there is no requirement of participation, Obama’s decision is requiring them to accept a concept which directly contradicts their theology. They may not be physically violating their personal beliefs, but an intellectual violation of faith is required of them in order to accept Obama’s ruling. Considering personal theologies are developed intellectually, to violate that would be to violate the very foundations of an individual’s spirituality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tiffany's comment. I view the Obama administrations bill as as simple as it is. it is only a health plan created for the benefit of society not a straight attack on religious beliefs. The administration was thinking logically about what civilians need such as good health care plans which provide every care plausible. The exception made to the bill only shows that the government do care to satisfy and respect all its citizens.
ReplyDeleteI believe President Obama has the best interest of women in mind. He wants health care plans to offer contraceptives, not pass them out for free to every woman. This adjustment to health care plans does not encroach on religious freedom, it fact it offers more freedoms. It allows women to have access to contraceptives if they choose to use it. Women are not being forced to use the contraceptives. If a woman chooses to not take advantage of the new health care plan because of her faith, she will not be punished nor charged; therefore how does it threaten religious freedom?
ReplyDelete