White House: Contraception insurance mandate is not up for debate

posted at 6:35 pm on February 2, 2012 by Tina Korbe

White House press secretary Jay Carney made no bones about it in today’s press conference: The administration’s decision to require religiously-affiliated employers to provide their employees with insurance coverage that covers contraception — even if the employers oppose contraceptives on religious grounds — is final.

The White House said Thursday it has no plans to reverse course on its decision to require that all employers cover contraception in their insurance plans, despite a wave of criticism from Republicans and Catholic leaders.

After a bruising week for health officials on the issue, the White House arranged a conference call with reporters to address what it called “confusion” over the policy. It also put up a blog post by Cecilia Munoz, director of the House Domestic Policy Council, pointing out that “no individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception” and “no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

And White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Thursday’s afternoon briefing that there was “not a debate” over reversing the decision. “The decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration,” he said.

You can bet this wouldn’t be so cut-and-dried if the political calculus didn’t work out so perfectly in Barack Obama’s favor. The president thinks he can afford to thumb his nose not only at Catholic voters but at any voters concerned by the president’s perpetual power grabs because women and young voters will make up for their loss.

But anybody who opposes Obamacare ought to oppose this requirement on all of the same grounds. We don’t even have to talk about the religious liberty angle of this. It will, for example, bump insurance prices even higher. Why should folks who have no need of contraception whatsoever — gay couples, for example — have to pay for coverage that includes it? As Ed has pointed out, contraception is elective. That fact alone ought to rule it out as a required coverage area.

But add to that the religious liberty element and it becomes increasingly clear that this is not about contraception. The president cares far less about whether women have access to the pill than he does about whether (a) they vote for him and (b) he’s able to define what constitutes a religious institution. Unfortunately for the president, “women and young voters” are far less attached to this provision — especially given that contraception is already cheaply available — than Catholics and others are to their liberty.  This issue isn’t going away for the president; it too clearly reveals his indifference to those he thinks he doesn’t need.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Oh yeah? We shall see.

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 6:35 PM

I think it’s awesome that the president can demand companies do thinks he would like them to do. Without any outside authority.

It’s a great power to have.

lorien1973 on February 2, 2012 at 6:37 PM

This administration is demented.

therightwinger on February 2, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Way to stick to your oats, er… make other people stick to their oats, should it be said?!?

The Nerve on February 2, 2012 at 6:38 PM

This is just one instance when social, fiscal and liberty issues all collide…

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Liberal Democrats: Promoting Tolerance Throughout America.

Aizen on February 2, 2012 at 6:41 PM

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 6:41 PM

The time for talk is over….the time for knockin’ boots is now.

ted c on February 2, 2012 at 6:41 PM

/ (forgot the sarc tag.)

Aizen on February 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

We are your superiors! — Carney

John the Libertarian on February 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

This is an attempt to get the moderate women voter back into the fold.

They tend to be pro-abortion/pro-choice and view any limits on it very critically.

Smart political move.

This guy is going to be awfully hard to defeat.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Anyone but Obama.

Iblis on February 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Just when you think Obama can’t be any more outrageous…

faraway on February 2, 2012 at 6:43 PM

cut-and-tried cut-and-dried

FIFY :)

A440Hz on February 2, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Und ve have a wunderbar solution to make trains run on time, Herr Goering.

John the Libertarian on February 2, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Smart political move.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

You’re missing the point. Women have tons of contraception readily available. This is about trodding on religious freedom.

John the Libertarian on February 2, 2012 at 6:45 PM

This is a declaration of war. The end won’t be pretty.

missouriyankee on February 2, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Does Romney support this too? Maybe he wants it adjusted for inflation somehow.

Kaffa on February 2, 2012 at 6:47 PM

“…because when we screw you, we don’t want you to be able to deduct it later!”

dominigan on February 2, 2012 at 6:47 PM

This is an attempt to get the moderate women voter back into the fold.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

It’s funny, 99% of all people in my area (Chicago burbs) that have Obama bumper stickers are middle-aged (and older) white women driving by themselves. I wouldn’t normally care about phenomenons like this but it’s hard not to notice at this point. Anyway, carry on…

visions on February 2, 2012 at 6:47 PM

This is an attempt to get the moderate women voter back into the fold.

They tend to be pro-abortion/pro-choice and view any limits on it very critically.

Smart political move.

This guy is going to be awfully hard to defeat.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Perhaps – but is it possible they are sacrificing Catholics, namely latino and NE devout states?

However, the assault on Komen from the left may negate any gains in the first place…

Odie1941 on February 2, 2012 at 6:48 PM

“This is hardly worth getting upset about.”

-Governor Mitt Romney

portlandon on February 2, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Kaffa on February 2, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Absolutely pathetic

dmann on February 2, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Jay Carney should have just come out, for his little Contraception conference, wearing a condom on his head. He would have been multi-messaging!

KOOLAID2 on February 2, 2012 at 6:49 PM

We don’t even have to talk about the religious liberty angle of this. It will, for example, bump insurance prices even higher. Why should folks who have no need of contraception whatsoever — gay couples, for example — have to pay for coverage that includes it?

Tina, this is the entire point of insurance. You pool things together to lower risk. My work insurance covers all sorts of medications my coworkers take that I don’t. And I have to be on the same plan with people that have 10 pieces of bacon everyday. It’s how the insurers do it.

peachaeo on February 2, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Tell me again… Do elections have consequences?

steved95 on February 2, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Will the Catholics really just roll over on this?

Tim Zank on February 2, 2012 at 6:50 PM

The bishops are doing the right thing. Ignore the federal government.

darwin on February 2, 2012 at 6:51 PM

jay carney should’ve passed the offering plate while sportin’ a Trojan and mandating a $1 minimum ante up for his wood.

ted c on February 2, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Can we expect Romney to be all over the airwaves in outrage over this in the next few days?

neuquenguy on February 2, 2012 at 6:51 PM

John the Libertarian on February 2, 2012 at 6:45 PM

No, they don’t. On my old insurance plan, I had a four day window to pick up my prescription. And I was not allowed any other option. If republicans really were smart about this, they’d change some of the nonsense rules used to dole out medicine.

peachaeo on February 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM

THe hallmark of a stupid society.

tom daschle concerned on February 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM

This is a republic. Everything is up for debate.

The leadership of this country would do well to remember that.

JadeNYU on February 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM

The only thing that this will accomplish will be to have a number of religious employers dropping insurance coverage for their employees. Why else would there be a waiver until after the election?

rw on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM

S it is not open for debate as far as Obama is concerned and it surely is not open for debate from the bishops perspective. Something will have to give.

neuquenguy on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM

You’re missing the point. Women have tons of contraception readily available. This is about trodding on religious freedom.

John the Libertarian on February 2, 2012 at 6:45 PM

It could be legally problematic to provide a religious exemption for contraception but not provide one for believers who oppose other drugs, such as antidepressants.

OptionsTrader on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I can just see Catholics tripping over each other to vote for Obama in 2012/

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Why don’t all you Romney haters focus on the real issue which is Obama. This is getting way out of hand, try to get a grip on reality!

dmann on February 2, 2012 at 6:56 PM

This is a brilliant Alinsky move. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Catholics are a good target, with a very small chance of backlash.

Damn, sometimes I wish my ideology was closer to the Evil Party than to the Stupid Party.

Masih ad-Dajjal on February 2, 2012 at 6:57 PM

It could be legally problematic to provide a religious exemption for contraception but not provide one for believers who oppose other drugs, such as antidepressants.

OptionsTrader on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM

One looks forward to a lawsuit by the Scientologists on this. Maybe Tom Cruise can testify as an expert. :)

Wethal on February 2, 2012 at 6:57 PM

how dare they not roll over?

sesquipedalian on February 2, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Jay Carney, the Pez secretary…because you never know what’s going to pop out of his mouth.

tutu on February 2, 2012 at 6:58 PM

About a week or two prior to the Nov election these hospitals should all shut down to show the people what it will be like if this clown gets four more years.

multiuseless on February 2, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Will condoms be covered? This is pure insanity. More people will be uninsured under Obamacare because of the skyrocketing costs than were uninsured prior to its passage.

I am seriously considering taking my insurance premiums and putting them in a savings account used for nothing but medical care. You can get a lot of healthcare for $25,000 a year.

bopbottle on February 2, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Let’s not kid ourselves, folks.

We all know Mitt agrees with the White House on this, just look at his record as Massachusetts Governor. The guy was a liberal on most issues, but a super-liberal on specific social issues like abortions and gun-rights.

Aizen on February 2, 2012 at 6:59 PM

I think think that the Bishops should be able to determine how national health care policy is run.

Also the Imams.

urban elitist on February 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM

It could be legally problematic to provide a religious exemption for contraception but not provide one for believers who oppose other drugs, such as antidepressants.

OptionsTrader on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM

You are actually comparing apples to oranges.. Anti-Depressants are a necessary medical treatment. Not providing contraception has never harmed anyone medically. You can’t get a cheap alternative over the counter for depression whereas condoms are readily available.

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Funny thing is, contraception is covered under ObamaCare but LASIK is not.

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM

This is a brilliant Alinsky move. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

Masih ad-Dajjal on February 2, 2012 at 6:57 PM

everything they do is a bloody brilliant alinsky move, dontcha know. upholding the right to privacy is right out of his playbook.

sesquipedalian on February 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM

So the question is this:
IF the Supreme Court does NOT overturn ObamaCare and IF Obama is relected …

…….. What becomes of America?

Will Americans roll over in the interest of the Rule of Law or will Americans take action? And if they take action what form will it take?

clippermiami on February 2, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Dem debate–it’s my way or the highway, screw laws, screw the Constitution, screw the populous, etc etc etc.

rjoco1 on February 2, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Will condoms be covered?

bopbottle on February 2, 2012 at 6:59 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….gasp…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Masih ad-Dajjal on February 2, 2012 at 6:57 PM

lol

peachaeo on February 2, 2012 at 7:03 PM

how dare they not roll over?

sesquipedalian on February 2, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Exactly! They need to keep going! Crush religious freedom in the US! Yay!!!!!!!

darwin on February 2, 2012 at 7:03 PM

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM

more women in this country than people that opt for LASIK.

peachaeo on February 2, 2012 at 7:04 PM

He’s gotten away with everything else. I doubt dear GOP leaders will make even a token protest.

daddysgirl on February 2, 2012 at 7:04 PM

I personally want anal-bleaching to be covered.

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I think think that the Bishops should be able to determine how national health care policy is run.

Also the Imams.

urban elitist on February 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Hey, how about just the hospitals they founded???

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Will the Catholics really just roll over on this?

Tim Zank on February 2, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Yes, why yes they will…

SWalker on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

The Catholic Church has only itself to blame for this. They have touting the social justice mantra for years;allowed so called Catholics like Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry??, to “teach “other Catholics what to believe[you know, that conscience thing]. The bishops put up with it. Notre Dame has mister abortion himself speak and get a reward, etc. You shake hands with the devil or sleep with a snake, what do you think is going to happen??? And this has less to do with abortion or contraception than it does with dismantling the Constitution.

retiredeagle on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Exactly! They need to keep going! Crush religious freedom in the US! Yay!!!!!!!

darwin on February 2, 2012 at 7:03 PM

religious freedom includes freedom from religion.

sesquipedalian on February 2, 2012 at 7:06 PM

I personally want anal-bleaching to be covered.

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I am not even going to ask……. :)

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM

I disagree with those that say Romney would support this.

No way.

Personally he might; but politically he wouldn’t try it.

As another person said, elections have consequences.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM

clippermiami on February 2, 2012 at 7:02 PM

If Mitt wraps-up the nomination before the Supreme Court rules on the individual healthcare mandate, it won’t be overturned. The Court knows this is one the most-divisive, hotly-debated national issues in quite a long time, and once the Justices see that both parties have no problem with an individual mandate, they’ll probably rule in favor of it. Remember, a Mitt nomination tells the Supreme Court that the GOP is okay with a mandate! Don’t forget that!

Aizen on February 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM

religious freedom includes freedom from religion.

sesquipedalian on February 2, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Ummm … yeah, sure.

Your point?

darwin on February 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I am not even going to ask……. :)

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Haha, let’s just say it would be a nod to the gay crowd.

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM

…no individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception” and “no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

Religious liberty according to Korbe: the freedom to force other people to follow your religion.

RightOFLeft on February 2, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Why should folks who have no need of contraception whatsoever — gay couples, for example — have to pay for coverage that includes it?

Gay men don’t use condoms?

bobs1196 on February 2, 2012 at 7:09 PM

I disagree with those that say Romney would support this.

No way.

Personally he might; but politically he wouldn’t try it.

As another person said, elections have consequences.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM

I wasn’t talking politically, I specifically meant policy-wise. That’s why I brought up Mitt’s record as Governor, which was extremely liberal on social issues, and now he tries to walk back his stances on those same issues. Of course Mitt would align himself as a conservative, politically, because he’s one of the biggest panderers in modern history.

Aizen on February 2, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Gay men don’t use condoms?

bobs1196 on February 2, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Gays need health insurance to buy them condoms?

darwin on February 2, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Gay men don’t use condoms?

bobs1196 on February 2, 2012 at 7:09 PM

With the rampant occurrence of HIV in the gay men communities , I would say not near enough do.

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:12 PM

The Catholic Church isn’t imposing its views on anyone.

It offers health coverage to its workers. If the workers don’t like the coverage offered, he or she can try elsewhere. Or go work elsewhere.

This is the state imposing its views on religion. Not the other way around.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:12 PM

It could be legally problematic to provide a religious exemption for contraception but not provide one for believers who oppose other drugs, such as antidepressants.

There is no good reason for the administration to require companies provide insurance that covers birth control with no copay and no out of pocket expenses. It is being treated differently than any other prescription medicine, including antidepressants. Furthermore, female birth control is being treated differently than male birth control. Men still have to pay.

MayBee on February 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Does this contraceptive mandate apply to mosques and islamist groups like CAIR too ?

burrata on February 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM

darwin on February 2, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Now if only the governors would start to do it…

affenhauer on February 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM

That’s why I brought up Mitt’s record as Governor, which was extremely liberal on social issues, and now he tries to walk back his stances on those same issues

I agree he’s an opportunist.

But the opportunities he had in Massachusetts won’t be available if he’s president.

IOW, the political environment is completely different. He simply couldn’t get away with this policy as president.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Catholics that follow the Church’s teachings on birth control are getting rarer and rarer. He probably figured that any Catholic conservative enough to follow through on not using birth control wouldn’t vote for him anyway (because of his abortion stance).

JimLennon on February 2, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Funny how that ‘right to privacy’ doesn’t mean I don’t have to hand over my personal property to reprobate sloths who won’t work.

tom daschle concerned on February 2, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Will the Catholics really just roll over on this?

Tim Zank on February 2, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Yes, why yes they will…

SWalker on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I don’t believe they can, they would be materially contributing to the commission of a grave sin. I don’t see how they have any wiggle room on this.

neuquenguy on February 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Catholics that follow the Church’s teachings on birth control are getting rarer and rarer

That’s true but I think many of those Catholics still won’t like the government telling their religion what to practice.

This is beyond the specifics of birth control and the Catholic Church.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Does this contraceptive mandate apply to mosques and islamist groups like CAIR too ?

burrata on February 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Honest question- Do you think a fundamental mosque would actually hire a woman?

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I think think that the Bishops should be able to determine how national health care policy is run.

Also the Imams.

urban elitist on February 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Religious freedom is written into the bill of rights whereas national health care policy is not.

So, yeah, I’m going to have to side with a bishop, or imam or Buddhist monk or any other religious leader or organization that does not want to be forced by the government to provide a service that is abhorrent to their religious tenants.

JadeNYU on February 2, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Neither is the First Amendment, bub.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

As an atheist, but 1000% civil libertarian, I’ll see you in court (petition the Government for a redress of grievances) and on the picket lines/sit-ins (peaceable assembly).

And, if the “Most Powerful Man in America,” Tony Kennedy, rules against us for some reason although I doubt that he will, I hope that the Catholic Church closes all of its hospitals – that’s 15% of the hospital beds in America. Oh, and to prevent a 5th Amendment taking or eminent domain condemnation, I hope they burn all of them to the ground before you tyrants get your disgusting hands on them.

So, stop screwing with us. Careful. That tree is getting thirsty — and I am not saying this as Alex Jones-tinfoil-hat-wearing, Oathkeeper, but a level-headed, law-abiding, American-by-choicer.

Just call me: “You Can Kiss My Bloody Bum Because I Am Fed Up And Not Taking It Anymore.”

Resist We Much on February 2, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Honest question- Do you think a fundamental mosque would actually hire a woman?

To work in a hospital? Sure.

Perhaps taking care only of female patients, but yes.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I am not even going to ask……. :)

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM
Haha, let’s just say it would be a nod to the gay crowd.

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:08 PM

oh ohhhhhhhh! It might be racist too!

KOOLAID2 on February 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM

I don’t believe they can, they would be materially contributing to the commission of a grave sin. I don’t see how they have any wiggle room on this.

neuquenguy on February 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I agree.

My guess is that they’ll defy the law and see what happens.

If the government forces the matter, they’ll stop offering insurance to their employees or they’ll close down anything they do where they hire non-Catholics.

Catholic charities stopped processing adoptions in states that required them to adopt to same-sex couples.

I don’t see them standing up on that issue but rolling over on the contraception issue.

JadeNYU on February 2, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Yes it is. I always found absurd that private insurance offered it before being mandated, not as an optional item, but now I find it even more absurd.

ojfltx on February 2, 2012 at 7:24 PM

The Catholic Church has only itself to blame for this. They have touting the social justice mantra for years;allowed so called Catholics like Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry??, to “teach “other Catholics what to believe[you know, that conscience thing]. The bishops put up with it. Notre Dame has mister abortion himself speak and get a reward, etc. You shake hands with the devil or sleep with a snake, what do you think is going to happen??? And this has less to do with abortion or contraception than it does with dismantling the Constitution.

retiredeagle on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Agreed. Except with that last statement. Remember Maryland. Catholics were persecuted too.

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 7:25 PM

oh ohhhhhhhh! It might be racist too!

KOOLAID2 on February 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Oof, I didn’t even think of that.

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:25 PM

My guess is that they’ll defy the law and see what happens.

They won’t take the money from the government.

So they’ll shut their hospital doors to lots of sick people.

I think the Church’s teachings on this issue is, well, just wrong; but freedom of religion includes the freedom to believe in “wrong” things.

Because if the state gets to decide what religious views are “right” and which are “wrong”, then what other freedoms does it get to determine are “right” and “wrong.”

No, this will not stand.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:25 PM

The Catholic Church has only itself to blame for this. They have touting the social justice mantra for years;allowed so called Catholics like Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry??, to “teach “other Catholics what to believe[you know, that conscience thing]. The bishops put up with it. Notre Dame has mister abortion himself speak and get a reward, etc. You shake hands with the devil or sleep with a snake, what do you think is going to happen??? And this has less to do with abortion or contraception than it does with dismantling the Constitution.

retiredeagle on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I’m not too informed about other states, but in CA these churches have been proudly offering their premises to lodge illegals , specially fugitive illegals .
These churches have pro-actively defied law to shield whole families of criminal illegals , from American law enforcement . They could have chosen to not get in to politics , but they did . Now they are in and they are indignant ??

burrata on February 2, 2012 at 7:25 PM

The president thinks he can afford to thumb his nose not only at Catholic voters but at any voters concerned by the president’s perpetual power grabs because women and young voters will make up for their loss.

It will, for example, bump insurance prices even higher.

The president cares far less about whether women have access to the pill than he does about whether (a) they vote for him and (b) he’s able to define what constitutes a religious institution. Unfortunately for the president, “women and young voters” are far less attached to this provision — especially given that contraception is already cheaply available — than Catholics and others are to their liberty.

Don’t bother substantiating anything. Just say whatever materializes in your head.

Why should folks who have no need of contraception whatsoever — gay couples, for example — have to pay for coverage that includes it?

For the same reason people who don’t have cancer pay a little bit more so they have cancer coverage. It’s a pool where people use the resource according to need. And if the contraception is cheaply available, how does it increase insurance prices?

I don’t expect people writing for Hot Air to be the next Tony Blankley, but you’re really just awful.

Constantine on February 2, 2012 at 7:25 PM

The president thinks he can afford to thumb his nose not only at Catholic voters

The vast majority of Catholic voters don’t follow the Church’s teaching on contraception, so they probably won’t be offended in the least.

There is a lot of similar research out there, but here’s a quote from the Guttmacher Institute’s April 2011 report “Religion and Contraceptive Use.”:

Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family
planning; even among Catholic women who attend
church once a month or more, only 2% rely on this
method (not shown). Sixty-eight percent of Catholic
women use highly effective methods: sterilization
(32%, including 24% using female sterilization,) the
pill or another hormonal method (31%) and the IUD
(5%).

cam2 on February 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Will condoms be covered?

How about trainers, personal chefs, yoga teachers, hypnosis, fat people-proof refrigerators, etc.?

I mean, hey, if the 53% (going on 40%) are going to foot the bill for the preventative care of the 47%, who are too incapable of preventing their own love handles, beer bellies, cankles, triple-chins, and fat arses….?

Money is falling from Ben’s helicopter like manna from heaven after all……

Resist We Much on February 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM

And, if the “Most Powerful Man in America,” Tony Kennedy, rules against us for some reason although I doubt that he will, I hope that the Catholic Church closes all of its hospitals – that’s 15% of the hospital beds in America.

Don’t you think that’s the Administration’s end game: To eliminate all private health care so the government can be the sole, mandatory source?

Socratease on February 2, 2012 at 7:27 PM

To work in a hospital? Sure.

Perhaps taking care only of female patients, but yes.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Tried to find an actual Muslim hospital in line with Catholic hospitals. Couldn’t find one. Perhaps you know one?

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 7:27 PM

And White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Thursday’s afternoon briefing that there was “not a debate” over reversing the decision. “The decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration,” he said.

“We have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it.”

Death Panels on deck.

This is a hill I’m willing to die on.

Naturally Curly on February 2, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Tried to find an actual Muslim hospital in line with Catholic hospitals. Couldn’t find one. Perhaps you know one?

Offhand, no I don’t but I’m sure there must be some.

The Red Crescent must operate in the US somewhere?

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:29 PM

As I have said before, the Catholic Church doesn’t mind if you work for them and use birth control. They’d prefer if you didn’t but they’re not going to check your medicine cabinet.

They just don’t want to have to pay for your birth control. That’s what Obama et al obfuscates in the discussion. You can work for a religious organization AND pay for your birth control out of your own pocket. No one is stopping you.

Barry and company are just unleashing another hatred war on religious organizations, specifically Catholics. Most Catholic Democrats will be too busy clinging to their union cards to care.

norcalgal on February 2, 2012 at 7:32 PM

If you think this is bad. Wait until his second term. God forbid he has one though.

Gatekeeper on February 2, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3