Ever since the whole contraception coverage kerfuffle, people have been gasping about how Obama is offending Catholics, and how it's sure to lose him the election.
But given the rates at which Catholics use contraception, and given how Catholic laity respond in polls about this question, it's not at all clear that Obama is offending them.
Indeed, it seems that the people being offended are the Catholic hierarchy. You know, the bishops who are the last people one would expect to welcome contraceptive coverage.
It's okay — there aren't so many that Obama has to worry about their votes. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Explained: Catholics Support Obama Contraception Coverage Mandate (Video)
Catholics support Obama’s mandate that Catholic-owned businesses provide contraception services to their employees via their health insurance coverage.
This isn't simply about contraception or abortion. This is about the government stepping into the middle of religious organizations and imposing their edicts/mandates on religion.This is clearly a free exercise issue.
I find it hilarious that in 1928 and 1960 the GOP was screaming bloody murder that Rome would be controlling the White House and by extension the US, but now the GOP is nothing more than an extension of the far right Opus Dei branch of the Catholic Church.
@BD – Honestly, I don’t think they are an extension of them as much as being willing to use their hissy-fitness. But, yes, the historic irony is amusing. How far we’ve come.
(Add to same irony the marching arm-in-arm with the LDS church over Prop 8, while being willing to see Mormon candidates for the nomination vilified for their cultishness.)
Well, I guess we needed worry because the GOP is acting to let any employer claim that they are religiously opposed to contraception and thus are not required to provide coverage to their employess.
While I respect your thoughts, I think that Stupak's sentiments are appropriate. The rules laid out by HHS (i.e., Sebelius) would impose restrictions on churches that were not envisioned by the legislative intent. And the President issuing an executive order is the chief executive telling one of his Cabinet secretaries to stand down. If he doesn't do this, then his entire administration is standing behind what Sebelius' team wants to impose.
BTW, I tend to agree with you that this WAS NOT what Congress wanted to happen. In fact, I think it is a direct usurpation of power by the executive and should be overturned by the court's as an abuse of executive authority.
I disagree with it being any sort of usurpation. Similar provisions (or even more stringent ones) are in place in a number of states, but have never drawn this level of scrutiny or objection.
It strikes me that this is a combination of the Catholic hierarchy being ticked off, and GOP pols either taking advantage of a base-related issue for political reasons, or demonstrating their own extremism.
Given that the one bill I've seen discussed on this, from Mark Rubio, wants to extend a conscience provision to all employers, not just religious institutions, only serves to increase that belief.
I would certainly welcome, even expect, a court challenge. So far, though, all we have is a lot of posturing.
This is institutions receiving public funds to provide health care, and selectively deciding what they will provide.
+Lorin Olsen, there is an explicit exception in the policy for religious organizations. The church on the corner or the diocese downtown will not have to provide this coverage (regardless of what their Catholic employees want).
But mere ownership of an institution by the church doesn't mean they are exempt from whatever laws they don't care for. A Catholic-owned hospital can't fire all the Jews on staff for being Jewish (if they thought hiring Jews was sinful). A Catholic-owned hospital similarly can't dictate basic health care coverage based on religious preference, essentially imposing their religious will on their employees, Catholic or non-Catholic.
It's clearly not a free exercise issue.
+Dave Hill, the explicit exception for "local" churches is a sham. The Roman Catholic church is not a congregational church subject to local rule. It is an ecclesiastical church and its major organizations are run at a level that is not exempted from these policies.
Bart Stupak (the Michigan Democrat who cobbled together the reluctant Catholics in the House) has said that the President can act to address this free exercise issue (see http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/209671-former-rep-stupak-says-president-should-use-executive-order-on-abortion-to-revisit-birth-control-mandate-). But will the President do so? Only time will tell.
+Lorin Olsen, I was using the "local church" as an example. If the entity in question is identifiable as a church or church organization, or if it hires and serves essentially just members of the faith, it is exempt under the policy. This isn't rocket science to determine; tax codes and the like are already set up to identify such things (for property tax exemptions, as an example).
If it's just an employer of people of a multitude of faiths, then it has no more legal exemption (or moral right) to let its religious viewpoint trump the religious decision of the employee in question, any more than it has the right to let its religious view color what employees it hires or fires.
Stupak's remarks aren't helpful, since he's basically saying Obama should use an executive order to backtrack from this. (He's also conflating contraception with abortion, which is also not helpful.)