Go ahead Democrats, shoot yourself in the foot
Headline in Sunday’s NYT: “Democrats Urge Obama to Protect Contraceptive Coverage in Health Plans.”
The story describes a pack of Congressional Democrats trying to limit the religious exemption clause. They are lobbying the White House to prevent exemptions to religious institutions that serve a range of people and that hire people who are not part of that religious community. They want the government to force those institutions to include contraceptive and sterilization coverage in their health-insurance plans.
Whatever one’s view of the Catholic Church and contraception, this is a sure bet for keeping the religious liberty question on the front burner. Let’s hope Obama is utterly utilitarian here and concludes that he wants Catholic voters and that he wants a second term.
The irony: if the Republicans take Congress and the White House in 2012, they will curtail federal health-care spending for contraceptives as well as antibiotics (among other things).
I find this issue and teh approach of the leading catholic media to it troubling. Including counseling and treatment on contraceptive issues as a part of health insurance should not be an issue for catholic voters. According to all polling data, catholics use artificial contraception at the same rate as teh rest of the population — a number in the 90% range, I believe. The “official teaching” on contraception has been thoroughly rejected by catholic people. So this is not a “catholic” isue — it is a “bishops’” issue. We are talking about the right of people to receive basic, needed medical care. The government is asking that such services be paid for. As usual, the bishops only draw their lines in the sand on issues of sexual ethics. Not one word that we all have to pay for immoral wars, torture, capital punishment, etc. Not one word from teh bishops that catholic colleges sponsor ROTC programs to train young men and women to fight more immoral wars.
“In comments filed with the Obama administration, some Catholic groups said the exemption for religious employers should be broadened to include any nonprofit tax-exempt organization that is controlled by or associated with a church or religious order.”
I hope the bishops have thought through their backup plan if the exemption is not broadened.
If they go out on the limb of saying that no non-profit organization associated with a church or religious order can provide this coverage, do they really mean to shut down every school, hospital or charity?
If not, they are going to look like the boy who cried “wolf”
Somewhere I read the suggestion that they would drop insurance coverage. I doubt universities would go along with that; or any institutions that have unions.
Let’s be clear though, this represents a change in federal policy by HHS. The bishops (and other religious leaders) are asking for maintenance of the status quo.
What the lanes said. In spades!!
If President wants re-election, he should try to secure the Catholic vote, not alienate it.
Exactly.
Since the electoral college is still in place, in spite of promises to end it, let’s remember, there are lots of Catholic voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida; they are not whole-hearted liberals like everyone on dotCommonweal!
I read or heard somewhere that about 30 percent of this nation’s hospitals are church-affiliated; mostly Catholic. Certainly there are some Protestant and Jewish hospitals, probably a few Muslim hospitals too, but basically most are Catholic.
If by not allowing conscience clause exemptions for things like contraception, sterilization and benefits to gay couples (for example), the government decides to force them out – as it is doing with Catholic adoption services – it will adversely affect the level of medical service the poor receive.
Exactly.
If the deomcrats adopt republican policy in order to win re-election, how exactly will we be able to tell the difference between the two? Democrats should stand up for the policies they believe in, no matter where the chips fall. I didn’t vote for a democrat so I could live with republican programs.
Not exactly!
In a Pew Forum poll released earlier this month (data collected late September), Romney has a 50 to 47% advantage among all Catholics in a race against Obama, but a 57 to 41% advantage over Obama among white Catholics. So even if there are many Catholics who disagree with the Church’s policy on contraception, Obama can’t ignore the the effect that even a small percentage of the Catholic vote could have in critical states like Ohio.
http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Presidential-Preferences-of-Religious-Groups–Early-Polling.aspx
In addition, I don’t know if it can be quantified, but there are likely some Catholics in favor of contraception who would nevertheless be upset with the Obama Administration if they were to perceive, rightly or wrongly, that they are being attacked or mistreated for being Catholic. I can see why Obama may want to tread carefully on the contraceptive coverage issue.
Boston sold all six of its Catholic hospitals to a for-profit firm a couple of years go. One of them is my community hospital and I haven’t heard any complaints about the services provided to the poor there.
That may be affected by the fact that we have RomneyCare here and 97% of the population has health insurance. But the whole country will have that starting in 2013.
The need for the church to run hospitals may have passed.
According to this article in Catholic World Report there is no danger of Congress insisting that all insurance policies cover contraceptives, and, indeed, the conscience protection will be extended to also coveer individual employers and non-religious ones. One up for the First Amendment :-
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/NewsBriefs/Default.aspx?rssGuid=pro-life-democrats-predict-broad-religious-exemption-from-contraception-mandate/
Thanks for the informative link regarding this.
Needless to say, pro-life Democrats do not wield much power in the Democrat party, and things like this tend to be dynamic. There is a fair amount of time between now and when the proposed rules are set to take effect i.e., next year August.
We’ll see.
John – I doubt that you are correct regarding the need for church-affiliated hospitals. I am however, glad that in your area anyway, the poor are so pleased with the new MA for-profit Romney-care system.
Considering that MA has about 6,500,000 people, your crowing about 97 percent coverage means that almost 200,000 people do not have health coverage. Keeping in mind that 97 percent is not 100 percent, it is worth noting that people are not statistics, the poor are people, and so should be considered accordingly.
“The “official teaching” on contraception has been thoroughly rejected by catholic people.”
Oh, well, then ….
Ken, the 3% uninsured (actually 2.9%) is for people 19-64 years old. Children are 0.2% and the elderly are 0.4%. The total number uninsured is about 120,000 people. From my standpoint, that’s 120,000 too many, but it’s about 1/5 of what it was before this program went into effect.
If our uninsured percentage were the lowest in the nation (Texas), we would have about 1.600,000 uninsured.
We need to work on reducing the 120,000 uninsured, but to the extent there are still any people uninsured, they need community heath centers where they can see a doctor for preventative care, not hospitals. The poor can still get free hospital care, even if they haven’t bought insurance. I don’t think there is any difference in the availability of free hospital care now that there are no Catholic hospitals here.
John Hayes: A good record for the hospitals, but hospitals are the last resort, are they not? How do your statistics apply to doctors and care in their offices. That is not a “Catholic” question as such, but I’d be curious how Romney Care does on that score.
Last time I check, it seems that Catholic women, as their educational level rises, use contraception at about the same rate as the rest of the population.
So why will the Obama administration “get Catholic votes” by restricting access to this reproductive health care?
I think that if you just look around at Catholic families at mass on Sundays you will see that most of these families are using some form of birth control – even conservative, working-class families.
As long as the Obama administration continues with their commitment to no federal funds for abortion services, I would have to think that they will be able to finesse this issue with most thinking Catholics.
Jim Jenkins: Are most Catholics “thinking Catholics,” whatever you mean to imply by that?
And take note of the electoral college breakdown. And recognize that “n” percent of Catholic women who may or may not use contraception are in those states, and that they don’t like Obama in the first place, and whatever their views on contraception, they don’t like politicians telling their bishops and institutions what they must do… And then, watch the Republicans run with this!
Just some late evening considerations.
Margaret: The folks in Ohio. PA and Florida may not be whole-hearted liberals but they are unlikely to care about this issue. Terry Schiavo anyone? G.W. Bush hurried back to the White House but looked behind him and didn’t see the troops lined up on his side. Rank and file Catholics do not care. Only bishops do. And they don’t really care either, except for hoping that a cave from the administration will make them look like they’re still players on the national scene. Their influence is waning among their own people. Why should non-Catholics worry about what our bishops think? They held higher ground when they advocated strongly for economic justice and against nuclear weapons. Contraception, same sex marriage and passing cultural wars? They are making themselves irrelevant. It is sad to watch.
Actually I don’t think this is about the bishops or “thinking” Catholics, it’s about all the people who will fall/have fallen between the cracks when Catholic social service, adoption, hospitals, etc. cease to exist. Yes, they may be replaced (as in Massachusetts) or not, but they won’t be the same.
This is a piece of Catholic navel-gazing, yes, by bishops; yes by “thinking” Catholics; and yes, by pro-choice Catholics, liberal Democrats, etc. Each cares only about their own views rather than the care offered to the least well-off Americans, Catholic or not.
Margaret, in reply to your question, I copied this from the state website: it reports an independent survey from 2008 when the program was still very new.
“Access to care has improved in Massachusetts. A fall 2008 survey by the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation and the Boston Globe found that more than 90% of individuals reported having a primary care provider, and only 5% said there was a time in the past year that they needed medical care, tests or treatment that they did not get. Access to care is far better in Massachusetts than nationally. For instance, in 2007, about 20% of the U.S. population reported not getting or delaying needed medical care at some point in the previous 12 months.”
If you earn less than three times the Federal Poverty Level (e.g. $67,000 for. Family of four) you can get a reduced or no-cost private insurance policy through the state insurance exchange. See here for details:
Http://
Sorry, the link is http://bitly.com/qyY15G
“ ‘The “official teaching’ on contraception has been thoroughly rejected by catholic people.”
Oh, well, then …. ”
This has no bearing whatsoever, does it?
http://arcc-catholic-rights.net/doctrine_of_reception.htm
Sorry again. The link is https://bitly.com/qyYI5G
Baically, the way I see this issue is simply a test of Bishops’ power — that is, political power. Because the power that they ought to have with respect to this issue, which is to influence the practice of the faithful, seems to be a dead letter. I grew up in one of these swing states and I can imagine a lot of moral issues having force, but knowing that your local “so-called charitable” hospital has to fund employee benefits that include contraception won’t be one of them. It will probably come as a surprise to many people that they weren’t already doing that. Contraception isn’t controversial, not even among Catholics. Those who are up in arms with this issue long ago pledged allegiance to Republican candidates.
Ms. Steinfels – your last comment is powerful and dead on! thanks. The bugaboo “catholic identity” fight – a straw man if there ever was one as constructed by our episcopal brethern. What are they really afraid of?
As I continue to read this blog both on this qustion and the liturgical changes coming, I almost despair.
The newAmerica “In All Things’ notes the groqwth of religious lobbies as per the Pew Forum -lobbies frequently at cross purposes on “hot button” issues.
I think that the Bishop’s approach here is of that piece.
I think voters for the most part (despite urging from pulpits) will be moved by the disgust that feel with government in all three branches about dealing with the real bread and butter issues touching their lives today.
I’m not sure abourt “thinking Catholics”, how to judge that as far as how people both know and approach their faith.
I think contraception pushes by the Church policy makers is a turn off to the majority just as many are supporters of a rather pro life stance – and the dichotomy between the linked two hurts the message.
But the policy folk continue the listing of the barque of Peter to the right with whatever juice they can summon up.
I guess my sense is that peoiple may tend to just care less.
@Margaret OS:
By “thinking Catholics” I was extrapolating from the numerous studies that demonstrate as women’s educational levels rise economic power increases with an inverse drop in the birthrate among this cohort – across virtually all demographic categories.
Assuming that education engenders a least a modicum of independent thinking, I believe that it is safe to assume that overtime Catholic women and men have adopted sexual practices consistent with wider population trends.
I agree that American bishops are consumed by their crass political ideology rather than concerns about the health care needs of poor working class Americans. The hierarchs have always flogged the issue of women’s reproductive rights whenever their political hegemony within the Catholic community is on the wane.
As to the hierarchs’ “religious liberty” concerns: It is not the First Amendment’s religious liberty that’s at risk; it is the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection under the law” that is threatened.
I hope that the Obama administration will resist this election year political gambit by the hierarchs.
FYI: some facts from the National Library of Medicine, NIH
Prescription contraceptives–the pill, IUD and diaphragm–are by far the most expensive of the reversible methods because they require medical supervision, but supplies alone are also more expensive for prescription methods than for nonprescription methods. First-year cost is highest for the pill-$172, compared with $160 for the diaphragm and $131 for the IUD. The mean of $154 for these three prescription methods is almost four times the mean first-year cost of $40 for condoms and foam. Sterilization necessitates the largest initial expenditure, and the cost of tubal ligation-$1,180-is almost five times the cost of vasectomy-$241. However, sterilization represents a one-time cost, while the other methods involve recurring expenses that may add up to more than the cost of sterilization over time. The methods that are associated with the lowest failure rates-sterilization, the pill and the IUD-are among the most expensive. To offset the costs of contraception, 4.6 million American women obtained low-cost care from subsidized family planning clinics in 1980.
Margaret,
You stated:
“Since the electoral college is still in place, in spite of promises to end it, let’s remember, there are lots of Catholic voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida; they are not whole-hearted liberals like everyone on dotCommonweal!”
I certainly agree. In spite of the “thinking Catholics”—(who often DON’T vote) the people who really turn out en mass to vote are the SENIORS. And in the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida—with a high population of Seniors, a good many of them are registered as Democrats.
And you are correct—many of the older Seniors are not liberals. They are also the ones who subscribe to Diocesan newspapers—rather than get on Catholic websites, and they watch EWTN.
If they see/hear that the Democratic Party is trying to limit the religious exemption clause and they read in Diocesan newspapers what the “official Catholic position” is on this issue—-the Democratic party could really be shooting themselves in both feet.
It makes me cringe when I read another Catholic (self-described “thinking” or not) write the following:
“I agree that American bishops are consumed by their crass political ideology rather than concerns about the health care needs of poor working class Americans. The hierarchs have always flogged the issue of women’s reproductive rights whenever their political hegemony within the Catholic community is on the wane.”
I mean certainly as Catholics (again, “thinking” or not) we ought to be able to disagree without impugning the motives of those with whom they disagree, or ascribing to them nefarious motives such as the above paragraph. I’d like to think that our faith can unite political opponents, challenge rigid ideologies and forge common ground; it continually saddens me to see “thinking” Catholics continue to adopt the shrill political narrowness of our more secular citizens.
For those interested in the case, Mirror of Justice has been tracking the case of Hosanna-Tabor and the conscience exemption. As it is primarily a legal blog, the legal analysis is insightful.
Dopuglas Kmiec weighs in at NCR today that the POTUS understands freedom of religion but Gerson et al. do not. He seems to think political narrowness on te GOP side is fanning this.
ISTM that being a “thinking” Catholic may be an issue of interest/concern in this more than the usual knowledgability issues and ignorance ascribed by some to many.
Leadrship’s role is to motivate in this, but, as we’ve seen with faithful Citizenship, not many seem to care.
it may be diisngenuous to assume everone is well intentioned in the lobbying game of politics.
Those politically involved BTW seem havily under the spell of the lobby forces while many Americans look askance at their behavior in the halls of Congress say.
Peggy – are you trying to say the pill is too expensive?The average healthy delivery costs 8k. And the average abortion about $600.
No, I’m saying they’re cheap. Do the math: $172 divided by 12 months is a little less than $14.50. a month for the pill, identified as the most expensive method by the NIH site. Planned Parenthood must get them at a steep discount. There are are certainly some women for whom $14.50 may be a lot of money, but for most not. Therefore, if it’s NOT covered by insurance, this is no great burden for women or men whose workplace does not cover contraception.
I thought the thread was about the effectiveness of the USCCB focusing on religious liberty as they lobby administration.
Today’s op ed in our local paper(from Blomberg News) describes their effort as a “pity party.”
Not sure I like that, but in the broad community I think their approach is counterproductive and I also think many Catholics won’t care, despite how much contraceptives cost.
The world of lobbying is dominated by spin.
The dysfunctionality running across the divides in church and state is enhanced by spin.
(Talking about how well intentioned or motivated individuals are -especially in the world of blogdom -is irrelvant in the world of spin.)
The op ed I refered to has not very nice things to say about Abps.Chaput and Dolan.
They are just doing their job.
But as I think about Thanksgiving in thes dysfunctional world, my thanks goes to being able to live naother day and try to use it for sevice in love of family and communities.
I don’t see that in the religious liberty argument put forward at USCCB -it struck me as “all about us.”
Although I come to essentially the same conclusion as Bob Nunz (i.e., hierarchs are usually “all about us”), I get there very differently.
[There is an interesting discussion that friends and colleagues brought to my attention of a story reported in NCR about a video presentation by Jesuit James Martin where he talks about the issue of "narcissistic grandiosity" in the priesthood/hierarchy as it relates to the child rape scandal. I think that it applies to what Bob Nunz is suggesting underlies the "pity party" theme.]
I would have to say, that describing the USCCB as a “pity party” is about as spot on a political assessment of the hierarchs as you can get. The hierarchs, taking their cue from B16 on down, have adopted almost an exclusively defensive stance towards modern culture in the 21st century.
Margaret OS is correct in her belief about the ability of Republicans to get folks, in this case especially Catholic women who [don't "like" Obama - mostly in "Red" states, I guess], to vote in ways that run counter to their own economic, political interests and their own personal liberty. The Republicans have that pony trick down pat – I think the Republicans refer to these folks as “values voters”?????
Prof. Kaveny and Ms. Steinfels – would argue that birth control pills at even $15 per month can be expensive for those who have no income; have no jobs; etc. Also, for those who pay steep premiums for health insurance coverage, the added cost of birth control pills is over and above these paycheck premiums. So, they purchase medical coverage but then have to pay an added $15 per month (if not more plus MD visits, etc.) because their coverage does not include birth control pills.
Again, no big deal for the employed middle class and the 1% but, as was well said in many comments, the biggest issue with birth control and abortion is that a poor economy, unemployement, and poverty only exacerbate the question and issue.
I am skeptical, I have to say, that there are significant numbers of Catholics who a) don’t find contraception morally objectionable; yet would b) vote against Obama because he didn’t have a big enough carve out for conscience– especially young people. The approval rate for contraception is overwhelming. Anyone have any polling data?
Bill de Haas: People who have jobs and who have health insurance can probably pay the $15. a month (if that figure is accurate). The doctor is a wash since she/he is covered by insurance, if you have it, and you get the check-up on insurance, get the prescription, and you get if filled.
The unemployed, the uninsured can get their prescriptions filled by Planned Parenthood, et al.
I honestly think this is a false issue vis a vis HHS and Catholic institutions.
CK: Sorry, exactly what are you skeptical about?
Margaret, the $15/month figure may be what what an insurance company pays for contraceptive pills. Over in the comments on Paul Moses “The bishops, religious liberty and conscience” blog article, Jim Pauwels reported: “At the risk of embarrassing myself, inasmuch as I’ve never shopped for these items before, this website suggests that a one month supply of Loestrin is about $70,”
Jim argues that $840/yr is still affordable, but someone who is actually paying out the $840 may not see it that way.
People who have to buy prescription drugs not covered by their insurance usually find that they end up paying much more than an insurance company or clinic would pay for teh same drug because they don’t have any bargaining power.
I am skeptical that there are a whole lot of Catholics who disagree with the church’s teaching on contraception, but nonetheless are up in arms about mandating it in the benefit package without a broad conscience exemption– so up in arms that they won’t vote for Obama because of it. I am also skeptical that Catholics otherwise opposed to Obama will change their mind based on a conscience exemption-
In other words, I am not sure why this will matter with rank and file voters.
CK: You may be right. Yet as I noted above the electoral college system may give voters who do see the conscience/religious liberty issue as a big deal the nudge they need to vote for the Republican presidential candidate rather than Obama. We’ll know next year at this time.
Hppy Thnksgvng to all!
It’s Thanksgiving morning.
The POTUS message was to give thanks for what we have in a country with deep financial difficulties.
Another ugly week economically led up to today.
Both experientially (in terms of our charitable efforts in the area) and across the country, according to reports, the poor suffer more and more.
But USCCB did not respond to Catholic Democrats call for action on behalf of them.
I agree with the late Dean Brackley whose thought IMO is appropriate for this blog today, that the Church will only be saved if it embraces the poor.
I don’t see that happening right now and I wonder if we are trying to appreciatively understand what the poor are continuing to endure.