Community | February 09, 2012 | 43 comments

Obama cowers before religious right on contraceptives

source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/cont-f09.shtml

By Tom Carter
9 February 2012

Once again, the Obama administration is demonstrating its lack of commitment to core democratic principles on the critical issue of separation of church and state.

On January 20, the White House announced that it planned to implement federal rules that would require employer health insurance plans, including those of church-affiliated institutions such as Catholic universities, hospitals and charities, to provide access to birth control and contraceptives free of charge. These rules would come into effect in 2013 as part of the Obama administration’s overhaul of the health care system.

The Republican Party and the Catholic Church have responded to this announcement with an escalating offensive in the media, accusing the Obama administration of attacking the “religious freedom” of employers. The various Republican presidential candidates have raced to grandstand in front of the cameras, denouncing Obama as “anti-religious.”

In the face of this attack, the White House is desperately seeking to conciliate with the religious right and the Church. “We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The administration is open to “compromise” on the issue, Obama adviser David Axelrod announced on MSNBC cable TV Tuesday morning.

“We certainly don't want to abridge anyone's religious freedoms, so we're going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions,” Axelrod explained.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed that “the president is very interested in finding the appropriate balance between religious beliefs and convictions.”

The rules announced by Obama already exempt churches themselves, a major concession to the Catholic Church and the religious right.

This cowering before those who seek to use religion to limit workers’ access to birth control is one more demonstration that the liberal establishment is neither able nor willing to take a principled stand in defense of democratic rights. The only basis for opposing universal access to contraceptives, which are entirely legal, is religious doctrine. But the First Amendment to the US Constitution has historically been understood to bar the government from making religion the basis of law or social policy.

The impact of any compromise on this issue would fall most heavily on the working class. Under conditions of mass unemployment, cuts in social programs and a corporate assault on wages, the cost of contraceptives for millions of families would be prohibitive. On the other hand, unwanted pregnancies threaten economic disaster for families already struggling to make ends meet.

For the wealthy, the impact would be negligible. They have the means to access birth control in all of its forms.

The New York Times on Wednesday published an account of the internal debate within the Obama administration on the contraceptive rule which makes clear that the move was driven entirely by considerations of electoral expediency rather than political principle. Sebelius, Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle argued in favour of the rule as a vote-getter among women in the November election, while Vice President Joseph Biden and other top advisers warned that antagonizing the Catholic Church would harm Obama’s re-election chances.

As always, the response of the Democrats to the latest right-wing attack is to cringe in fear of alienating the most reactionary sections of the political and media establishment. The Times, citing unnamed administration officials, wrote: “One possible compromise might be to emulate Hawaii, where the rule is in effect, but where employers at religious institutions that do not offer free contraception can get birth control through side benefits, which the employees nominally pay for but which often end up being free.”

The leading figures of the American Revolution of 1776 had nothing but contempt for the entanglement of religion and politics, which they identified with the Dark Ages. In discussions over the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson called for a “wall of separation” between church and state. James Madison declared that “there is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion.” Madison famously opposed allowing “three pence” of public funds to be spent on religion.

Nearly two and a half centuries later, these sentiments and principles have disappeared from the American political establishment.

Twenty eight states already require all employers, including “faith-based” ones, to provide access to contraceptives through their employee health plans. Moreover, there is overwhelming support in the population, including a majority of Catholics, for providing such contraceptives free of cost.

It is by no means clear whether the Obama administration will reverse itself, or whether it will adopt a sordid compromise along the lines suggested by the New York Times. The internal differences in the administration are evidence that bourgeois electoral considerations militate in both directions.

Any backtracking by the Obama administration, however, would cast a shadow over the existing state laws that require religious employers to provide access to contraception in their employee health plans.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   US Politics,   3 more
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Obama,  President Obama,  judas goat
  3.     
    |

43 comments // Obama cowers before religious right on contraceptives

  • princefeliz
  • corndog67
    • +1
      corndog67  

    • Bowing down to the Pedophile Catholic Church is unfathomable. Jesus H. Fucking Christ, it's unbelievable what people will roll over for to get a certain blocks votes.

    • 4 months ago
  • gypsysailor
    • +2
      gypsysailor  

    • Don't back down Mr. President. You've finally showed us you got a pair and now you are going to let them dry up. There is no quarter given by these people so don't give them any back.

    • 4 months ago
  • scooter3282
    • +4
      scooter3282  

    • Another dog and pony show for the benefit of the religious fanatics. I always find it most interesting that the reason for most of the wars fought through this world's history have been spurred by organized religions but they supposedly love the sanctity of life so much. Could it be that they need to keep cranking out new human cannon fodder for the next war which they always seem to support wholheartedly? That's why they truly don't want the poor to stop having babies, they need them to keep strapping on uniforms when they grow up.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • +2
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • scooter3282:

      They also want a large population (the vast majority of which should be poorly educated and socially ignorant) to increase the size of the labor pool, so the wage slaves have to fight amongst themselves for the crumbs left over from their mega-profits.

    • 4 months ago
  • Leen61
    • +2
      Leen61  

    • Obama said he was open to compromise....so, of course, he's going to compromise, as usual. Screw the Catholic church and all religion. Women want contraception...not matter if they are reilgious or not. Just more proof this country is becoming a Theocracy....it's already a Idicocracy and a Plutocracy. Might as well go for the Trifecta.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • Paratus
    • -5
      Paratus  

    • The state, or federal government in this case, should not be allowed to dictate this type of policy to religious organizations or organizations organized under religious precepts. To do so IS attacking the religious freedom of those affected. Obama needs to stay out of this. He has granted many waivers from his healthcare law. To run roughshod over religious beliefs of a church is wrong.

    • 4 months ago
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
  • budsnews
  • Milieu
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
    • +1
      BrushwithDeathToothpaste  

    • Yep he caved and I'm disappointed. But I knew I was voting for a moderate compromiser back in 2008. By the way, who are your unshakeable political heroes that have never compromised? I would like to see a list where the number is greater than 0.

    • 4 months ago
  • outofbounds
  • Progresshiv
  • bailey78
  • Progresshiv
  • bailey78
  • unimatrix0
    • +6
      unimatrix0  

    • This article is confused, and a rather pathetic attempt to smear Obama.

      If Obama was really "cowering" he would not have introduced the measure at all. The fact is, Obama is standing up to the religious right, and standing up for women, despite the political pressure.

    • 4 months ago
  • SFirman
  • Milieu
  • good_stuff
    • -3
      good_stuff  

    • Just make the law to read, "must provide free contraceptives or provide moneys as reimbursement for contraceptives". This puts the sin on the individual instead of the church, and we all know that is easy to resolve in christianity. The pope has to be infallable so don't hang it over his head and prove otherwise since it is a tennant of the religion.

      I just want to know why I as a man don't get the same rights garunteed. Shouldn't I get an extra 20 or 40 dollars per month to spend on something that I may or may not use that month?

    • 4 months ago
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
  • rerushg
    • +2
      rerushg  

    • The "Catholic Church" is a gang of Bishops. "Catholics" are the people who pay them. If the Catholic Church held a referendum among Catholics I'll bet the Bishops would be enlightened.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  

    • This is one of the best arguments for secular universal socialized healthcare.

      Those who do not recognize the basic human need for contraception are traitors to the human race. How silly those people are who support Obama's re-election out of fear of the Republicans! Obama might as well be one. From my perspective Bush never left office.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • fiberbundle
    • 0
      fiberbundle  

    • In America the Catholic Church is run and maintained by women. True the priests and bishops are all men; but these are not powerful men, as they would be in a theocracy. Women keep the church vital for the sake of their children and because they believe religion is a net positive for the family and the community.

      Wedge issue politicians, mostly men, will use the Church and church doctrines to play their political games.

      This is the game the Republicans are playing here. US Catholic women want access to birth control, just like most other US women of childbearing age. The celibate clergy is only concerned about saving face and keeping up appearances. (Of course there are always a few fanatical sincere exceptions).

      So compromising, back pedaling, discussing; delaying; accommodating; that's the intelligent pragmatic way to proceed.

      Only the religious fanatics and the wedge issue politicians will be taking absolutist positions; and the general public will wise up quickly to what's going on; so Obama is taking the right approach both from a practical and political perspective.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • 0
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • fiberbundle:

      Nah, ain't buying it, ultimately, the purpose of any and all religions is subjugation, which is what this issue really is about.

      Whether you are aware of it or not, you are trying to absolve religion (speaking in terms of religious fanatics, wedge issue politicians and or those with absolutist positions) ANY religion is- in and of itself- an absolutist position, one either believes in the invisible man in the sky, and what he says the rules are, or one doesn't, let's not obscure the facts.

      Obama is doing what Obama is doing, because he is a plutocrat, and with an election coming up, he is trying to placate as many as possible, which I believe is despicable in and of itself, that is the truth, don't try to make it into something it is not.

    • 4 months ago
  • fiberbundle
    • 0
      fiberbundle  
    • VFORVENDETTA:

      I'm an atheist; but I live in a material world. In that world there are believers. Like bees they come in several varieties. For instance honey bees, that create sweetness and killer bees that cause death. I get along fine with the honey bees. I'm wary of the killer bees. Sometimes you need the honey bees as allies against the killer bees.

      I think in the main we agree that you can never let the bees rule the hive. We just have a different idea about how to go about it and what is possible.

      P.S. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know; but I'll say it anyway. Most of the absolutist wedge politicians are "wolves in sheep's clothing" . They don't really believe this stuff any more than we do. But they'll use it. So arguing about existence or non existence of a god is really irrelevant to the oppressive use of religion. More plainly, the existence of religion does not depend in the least on whether or not god(s) exist. Religions are groups of people. They can be hostile or friendly.

    • 4 months ago
  • Timebandit
  • fiberbundle
    • 0
      fiberbundle  
    • Timebandit:

      We're lucky we are living in a place and time where our freedom to have, hold and express our opinions is protected. I don't know if you saw the news about an Indonesian civil servant who expressed some PERSONAL doubts about the existence of god and as a consequence of being informed on, lost his job and found himself facing a possible 5 year prison term.

    • 4 months ago
  • Timebandit
  • fiberbundle
    • 0
      fiberbundle  
    • Timebandit:

      Any country can become messed up if its citizens start taking for granted hard won freedoms. Take the right to vote for instance, which the Koch Brothers' puppet governors are trying to make difficult to exercise.

    • 4 months ago
  • Frosty46
    • +2
      Frosty46  

    • Another thought--this planet's largest problem is over population--anything that helps to stop the madness of overpopulation is good!

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • MSII
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • 0
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • MSII:

      Although I certainly agree that overpopulation is certainly an important issue, I feel that the rest of what you're saying is a bit of an oversimplification, when a relatively small percentage of the earth's population hoards and waste a tremendous percentage of the total earths resources, (The US being the number one industrialized nation doing this) I'm inclined to believe that that is the primary factor for scarcity of resources, with overpopulation being second or third on the list of causality.

    • 4 months ago
  • MSII
    • 0
      MSII  
    • VFORVENDETTA:

      I consider overpopulation more then just a particular percentage per square kilometer kind of figure. I think many parts of the u.s are overpopulated. I consider it overpopulation in any area where you have family groups where there are far too many children then the adults are able to care for. Which brings us right to the issue of this article/posting, birth control/contraception and it's availability. There was a recent piece on I think it was the Newshour on PBS about how the catholic church stopped sane necessary contraception availability for the poor in a country that's already desperately overpopulated with no end in sight, all part and parcel of their mad-dogma. They actually threatened the president or (prime minister?) of that country with "excommunication" if he didn't back off! Can you imagine... In this day-and-age... the pure insanity!

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • 0
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • MSII:

      "I consider overpopulation more then just a particular percentage per square kilometer kind of figure. I think many parts of the u.s are overpopulated. I consider it overpopulation in any area where you have family groups where there are far too many children then the adults are able to care for."I

      For clarification, can you give some examples of this? I would like to comment, but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly before I do, speaking of clarifying things, there's something I wanted to clarify.

      I wanted to apologize, I did not realize that you, like myself, were atheist, so I made some mistakes and misinterpretations of what you were saying earlier, my bad, sorry. Take care.

    • 4 months ago
  • Frosty46
    • +2
      Frosty46  

    • Child molesters like the Catholics should keep to the shadows. As to this next edition of sucking off the right by the Dems---all I can say is I'll never vote for, donate to, nor volunteer for Dems ever again!

      Today's Dems are Republicans in waiting!

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • regroce
    • +3
      regroce  

    • I saw a survey that said 71 percent of the US population supports the idea that their insurance must include birth control - and when broken down demographically, 77 percent of Catholic women favor it.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • 0
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • regroce:

      I admire the fact that you are trying to be supportive of reproductive choice, but generally speaking, often times, surveys are only about as good as antidotal evidence at best, for any "survey" that shows support in one particular direction, one can just as easily find an alternative "survey" that supports the exact opposite opinion with equal percentages, that's a long-winded way of saying, that generally speaking, "surveys" more often than not don't mean shit as a substantive barometer of public opinion, thanks for posting though.

    • 4 months ago
VFORVENDETTA
more from Community:
from the community

top videos