Obama forces Chatolic churches hand

Obama, Contraceptives, And The Catholic Vote

Doug Mataconis · Monday, February 6, 2012

For the second weekend in a row, Catholic parishioners across the United States were read a message from the U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops on the recent decision by the Obama Administration to extend to church-run institutions such as hospitals a requirement that employer-provided health insurance include coverage for contraceptives:

(Reuters) – American Catholic clergy called on the faithful to write Congress to protest new birth control rules from President Barack Obama’s administration, stepping up a campaign that began a week ago with denunciations from the pulpit at Masses across the country.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, posted an “Urgent Action Alert” over the weekend calling on Catholics to write to their U.S. lawmakers protesting the rule.

The fight is over a provision of the health reform law announced on January 20 that would require health insurance plans — including those offered by institutions such as Catholic-affiliated hospitals and universities — to offer free birth control including sterilization.

At Immaculate Conception Catholic church in the Philadelphia suburb of Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, Monsignor David E. Diamond read the congregation a letter on Sunday from Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput parishioners to contact members of Congress.

“Write them, call them, visit them – and help them understand the deep resistance of Pennsylvania Catholics to this dangerous ruling,” the letter said.

Perhaps sensing a political opportunity, pretty much all of the Republican candidates for President have been hitting the Obama Administration for this decision, with Newt Gingrich being the most vociferous in claiming that the decision constitutes a war on the Roman Catholic Church. While that rhetoric is, in a word, absurd, there’s no doubt that this decision caused more controversy than the Obama Administration seems to have anticipated, although one is not at all clear how they could have not anticipated that this would be a problem for the Church regardless of how you try to spin it. It’s an issue that has the potential to cross ideological lines as well. MSNBC host Mika Brezinski, who is generally quite supportive of the Administration but also happens to be Catholic, said this morning on Morning Joe that she thought the Administration was wrong to push this button not just with the Church, but with Catholic voters.

A piece in CNN last week wondered that same point:

(CNN)-After years of bridge building with the Catholic Church, the Obama administration may have damaged some of the good will it built up with the nation’s 70 million Catholics, which could have steep consequences at the polls in November.

Some rank and file Catholics are beginning to express the same frustrations as clergy about a new U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy requiring all employers, including religious ones, to pay for FDA-approved contraceptives, such as the birth control pill and Plan B, through health insurance plans. Churches are exempt but hospitals and schools with religious affiliations must comply. The new policy goes into effect August 1, 2012, but religious groups who oppose contraception have been given a yearlong extension to enforce the policy.

“What’s offensive is that we’re being told, our Catholic institutions which serve this nation well, are being told you who find these things offensive, you should pay for them, in fact you must pay for them,” Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, told CNN.

Catholic teaching opposes the use of contraceptives. Wuerl acknowledged the clergy and the faithful have been at odds over the teachings on contraceptive use. But on this policy he said both are in lockstep over what is being perceived as a violation of religious liberties.

“This time around what people are seeing this isn’t a question of one moral teaching or another, it’s being able to teach at all. Our freedom, and everyone has a stake in freedom in this country, and I think that’s why this resonates across the board,” he said.

And yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan argues that the President has entered a battle that he cannot win:

There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.

The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church’s institutions.

Now the church is fighting back. Priests in an estimated 70% of parishes last Sunday came forward to read strongly worded protests from the church’s bishops. The ruling asks the church to abandon Catholic principles and beliefs; it is an abridgement of the First Amendment; it is not acceptable. They say they will not bow to it. They should never bow to it, not only because they are Catholic and cannot be told to take actions that deny their faith, but because they are citizens of the United States.

If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the administration’s decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and undercut, have also come out in opposition.

The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don’t want that. They will unite against that.

(…)

There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney’s gaffes a little bitty thing.

There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.

Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant

As Noonan goes on to point out, Catholics made up 27% of the national electorate in 2008 and Obama won Catholics at the national level 54% to 45%. There’s no reason to think that the Catholic vote has any particular loyalty to President Obama because of the outcome in 2008, Four years earlier, the Catholic vote had gone 52% to 47% for George W. Bush, and if you track the exit polls going back to 1980 you’ll see that Catholic voters fluctuated between majority Republican and majority Democratic as much as the general electorate has over that time. The Catholic vote also played an important role in many of the swing states that Obama picked up in 2008 that allowed him to score a victory that few Democrats have seen since Richard Nixon was President. In Ohio, for example, Catholics accounted for 23% of the electorate and Obama won them 52% to 47%. In Florida, Catholics made up 23% of the vote and Obama won that demographic 50% to 49%. The results were similar in other states and, in many cases, it wouldn’t have taken much of a switch in loyalty for the Catholic vote to have sided with McCain and, if this decision does generate the kind of antipathy that some are anticipating, then it could play a huge role in the outcome of the vote in the swing states that President Obama will need to hold on to if he’s going to be re-elected.

David Friedman comments:

On the one hand, I suspect that many, probably a majority, of American Catholics do not accept the church’s position on contraception—are, for one thing, willing to use it themselves. One might expect them to accept the requirement, perhaps to approve of it. That might be what Obama is counting on.

On the other hand … . Human beings have a very strong aversion to being pushed around. I can easily imagine a Catholic who would be delighted if the church dropped its opposition to contraception, who is entirely willing to use contraception, but who is badly offended by having the U.S. government compel the church to pay for services that violate church doctrine.

That, essentially, is the political gamble that the Obama Administration is making here. One can disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, and many American Catholics do, but if the perception becomes that this is an example of the heavy hand of the state imposing its will on a religious organization regardless, then the fact that American Catholics support contraceptive use may end up being irrelevant.

They didn’t have to make this choice, of course. They could have followed the example of states like Hawaii that grant a broad exemption on contraceptive coverage for any religious institution, with the only requirement being that they are required to provide their employees with information on where they could obtain such coverage at low cost. Another option would have been to require them to notify employees that they could provide a rider to the basic employer-provided coverage that would cover contraception provided that the employee picked up the entire cost of that additional coverage. Instead, they choose to go this route for reasons that seem inexplicable from a political and policy point of view.

As I said last week, I’m not at all persuaded by the religious liberty arguments that have been made against this decision. These claims will be litigated, however, and it will be interesting to see how they’re treated by the Courts. As a matter of politics, though, the Administration’s decision strikes me as a dumb and inappropriate one that didn’t need to be made.

Personally, I do not believe this is a violation of church and state. Obama isn't forcing Catholic schools and hospitals to hand out contraceptives (which would violate church and state). Rather this is about requiring these institutions to cover these things in their health plans for employees. I think it is a pretty stupid move on his part. He had to know how the Church would react. Why would he give away votes this easily??? Does he need the Catholic vote this time around??? They surely helped him on his first run. This even affects his appeal to minority voters. Remember Catholicism is the largest denomination among black and Latino voters. Instead of forcing these institutions to cover contraception, wouldn't it have been better to change gears and require the insurance providers to cover contraception in all their health plans??? That way the Church cannot claim that their conscience is being violated.

Marconius wrote:Personally, I do not believe this is a violation of church and state. Obama isn't forcing Catholic schools and hospitals to hand out contraceptives (which would violate church and state). Rather this is about requiring these institutions to cover these things in their health plans for employees. I think it is a pretty stupid move on his part. He had to know how the Church would react. Why would he give away votes this easily??? Does he need the Catholic vote this time around??? They surely helped him on his first run. This even affects his appeal to minority voters. Remember Catholicism is the largest denomination among black and Latino voters. Instead of forcing these institutions to cover contraception, wouldn't it have been better to change gears and require the insurance providers to cover contraception in all their health plans??? That way the Church cannot claim that their conscience is being violated.

If this is a part of the ACA, then all accusations should point to congress. Either way, I agree that this is not in any way unconstitutional. More to the point, it bothers me greatly that some people keep arguing that religious practices should trump civil law. By their logic, if my religion demanded that I make human sacrifices to the sun god or drink and drive I should be allowed to kill and drive recklessly at will!

Marconius wrote:I think it is a pretty stupid move on his part. He had to know how the Church would react. Why would he give away votes this easily??? Does he need the Catholic vote this time around???

Amen to that Mark. What was Obama thinking? Plus he has already angered the Jewish voters as well as Evangelicals and Protestants. His advisers must be pulling their hair out in frustration. Even now Bob Beckle and other Liberals are scrambling trying to ...'qualify' this move...that it has nothing to do with the Church, etc. Unfortunately (for Obama) angry religious people are not likely to buy that argument. Who DOES this right before an election????

This is something that should be done in your 2nd term. (Or maybe he doesnt think he's gonna have a 2nd term)?

Rules Requiring Contraceptive Coverage Have Been In Force For Years

by Julie Rovner

There's been no let-up in the debate about the Obama administration's rule requiring most employers to provide prescription birth control to their workers without additional cost.

Here's the rub: The only truly novel part of the plan is the "no cost" bit.

The rule would mean, for the first time, that women won't have to pay a deductible or co-payment to get prescription contraceptives.

"Now millions more women and families are going to have access to essential health care coverage at a cost that they can afford," says Sarah Lipton-Lubet, policy counsel with the ACLU. "But as a legal matter, a constitutional matter, it's completely unremarkable."

In fact, employers have pretty much been required to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their health plans since December 2000. That's when the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that failure to provide such coverage violates the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law is, in turn, an amendment to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws, among other things, discrimination based on gender.


Here's how the EEOC put it at the time: "The Commission concludes that Respondents' exclusion of prescription contraceptives violates Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, whether the contraceptives are used for birth control or for other medical purposes."

But it's not only the EEOC that has ruled on the issue. More than half the states have similar "contraceptive equity" laws on the books, many with religious exceptions similar or identical to the one included in the Administration's regulation.

That's no accident. "The HHS rule was modeled on the exceptions in several state laws, including California, New York, and Oregon," says Lipton-Lubet of the ACLU.

There are now lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the policy, including a new one filed on behalf of the religious television network EWTN. But the exemptions have already been tested in court, at least at the state level.

In 2004, the California Supreme Court upheld that state's law, in a suit brought by Catholic Charities, on a vote of 6-1.

The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn't qualify as a "religious employer" because it didn't meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation):

* The organization's primary purpose is "the inculcation of religious values."
* It primarily employs people of that religion.
* It primarily serves people of that religion.
* It's a registered nonprofit organization.

Two years later, in 2006, New York's top state court rejected a claim by Catholic Charities and several other religious groups that the state's contraceptive coverage law discriminated against them because it exempted churches but not their religiously-affiliated groups.

"When a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit," the justices wrote.

Said Lipton-Lubet, "In both the California and New York cases, Catholic Charities made arguments very similar to the ones being made now with respect to the HHS rule. Those arguments failed in that litigation, and they're no more persuasive here."

Lawyers for religious litigants, however, say they think they may stand a better chance challenging the federal rule, particularly given a recent unanimous Supreme Court decision exempting religious employers from employment discrimination laws.

Opponents of the Obama adminstration's rule are also hoping they may find the votes to overturn it in Congress.

[b]Did Obama Administration Pick a Fight on Birth Control Deliberately?[b]

The president is ‘very sensitive’ to concerns about his policy mandating that Catholic institutions provide contraception coverage—but did the administration incite the enraged response to fire up young liberal voters?


Could the administration have done anything to avoid the firestorm over its ruling that Catholic institutions provide birth-control coverage to employees? “Avoid it?” says Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin. “The presumption of the word is that this is politically damaging. This is a pro-birth-control country.” While the views of those who oppose contraception must be respected, he says, it shouldn’t be done by denying coverage to women who work for Catholic-affiliated hospitals, universities, and charities, and who may or may not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Garin has a point, but if the issue were simply birth control, the White House wouldn’t be looking for a way to take the edge off its policy while still ensuring universal access to contraception at little or no cost. The president is “very sensitive” to concerns about the rule and “wants to find a way to implement it that can allay some of the concerns that have been expressed,” spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday. In what the administration would prefer to call “reasonableness” as opposed to compromise, religious institutions will have 18 months, until August 2013, to figure out how to implement the rule. Twenty-eight states are already living with the policy, including Mitt Romney’s home state of Massachusetts and Newt Gingrich’s home state of Georgia, which, unlike the federal mandate, doesn’t exempt churches from providing contraceptive coverage to employees. These state laws require insurers that cover prescription drugs to cover any contraceptive that has been approved by the FDA as well.

Republicans see this as a fight about religious liberty, while Democrats see it as a fight about contraception and women’s health. “If the overwhelming majority of women view contraception as a basic health issue, that’s a place where the church is on thin ice,” says Charlie Cook, a veteran election handicapper. “I haven’t seen any high-quality data, but my hunch is that men won’t vote on this issue, and women will see it as a basic contraception issue. There are places where the church ought to plant the flag, and this isn’t one of them.”

A Public Religion Research Institute poll found that a majority of Americans (55 percent) agree with requiring employers to provide health-care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost, including nearly six in 10 Catholics. A poll conducted for Planned Parenthood has similar findings, with a 53 percent majority of Catholics, and 62 percent of Catholics who identify as independents, favoring the benefit.

The administration may not have fully anticipated the furor that greeted its policy not only among Republicans but among progressive Catholics who support Obama. While similar guidelines exist on the state level, a federal rule is a whole different order of magnitude. When the Tea Party rails against big government, Washington is the target, not local state capitals. In a year when Republicans are running on repealing Obama’s health-care plan, expanding the federal government’s reach into religious institutions was like handing the opposition a stick of dynamite.

The administration wasn’t alone in misreading the power behind women’s health issues and where they intersect with politics. The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, a major breast-cancer charity, seeking to end its affiliation with Planned Parenthood, found itself on the receiving end of a massive backlash generated mostly through social media. The uproar forced the resignation of former Republican gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel, who played a key role in Komen’s shift to the right. “Under considerable pressure from pro-life groups to abandon their support of Planned Parenthood, they thought they could do it without causing a ruckus,” says Bill Galston, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution. The administration no doubt thought the same thing in pushing through its rule on birth control, notes Galston. “Both were wrong.”

For all the fulminating on cable television about big government trampling on religious liberty, the administration believes it’s got the people in the pews, even if it’s lost the Catholic hierarchy, “and the people in the pews have been going their own way since Pope Paul VI, and they’re not going to stop now,” says Galston. It’s a gamble that could cost Obama some support among Catholics, a swing group of voters in presidential elections, even as it highlights the divide between the president and his GOP rivals.

With Rick Santorum opposed to contraception and Mitt Romney declaring he would cut family planning from the federal budget, Charlie Cook wonders if the White House deliberately picked this fight now, knowing where it would go. He points out that for all the talk about Republican primary turnout being down, Democrats aren’t that keen on their guy either. The White House says this was not a political decision, that once the nonpartisan, nongovernmental Institute of Medicine recommended that contraceptives be included as part of women’s preventive health care, the die was cast.

“This will in a lot of ways be a faultline in this election,” says Bill Burton, who is with the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action. The election won’t turn on these kinds of cultural issues, but they can generate emotion and passion. Obama’s job approval is just above 50 percent among younger voters, a group that gave him 66 percent of their vote in 2008. “They’ve got to get young people jazzed up, and there are very few issues that get young women more jazzed up than contraception,” says Cook. Indeed, the Obama campaign website highlights the issue of contraception, along with the fact that it will be free once the Affordable Care Act is implemented.