Obama compromises on birth control policy

...to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs. Instead, workers at such institutions will be able to get free contraception directly from health insurance companies.

Wait - how does this work? Initially, employers were to be mandated to provide birth control to employees, but now they will only have to do so if the employee asks? This sounds like a very nuanced compromise indeed.

Free huh? Who is he kidding?

I will reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty and threatens innocent life

That shouldn't take long, Mitt, since there aren't any.

Romney again throwing out red meat to convince Americans that he's a conservative superman.

I can never understand the brain dead anti-contraception league except to see them as getting a major kick out of being contrarian pains in the ass. Well that and the fact that they don't read or understand their own bible and instead rely on some guy with a pointy hat in far away Rome to tell them what it says. But I am sure there are way more hypocrites than true believers in pointy hat guy among them.

"them as getting a major kick out of being contrarian pains in the ass."

It's the only program in regards to everything full-stop since the radicalized right-wing became a screaming, embittered minority after Geedub. Heh, the way it should be.

I'm not anti-contraception. I'm all in favour of it. It's common sense for people who don't want babies not to make them in the first place than either make them and abort them, or make them, birth them and abuse them. What I don't understand is why it should be free (=paid for by somebody else). Why not make botox, boob jobs and penile enhancements free, too?

"What I don't understand is why it should be free (=paid for by somebody else). "

The answer is in the first part of your post. Those that generally breed irresponsibly are un-educated poor people. And the cost of rasing the irresonsibly bred (who go on to do the same themselves) and the inevitable cost of moving them in an out of correctional facilities when they grow up is much higher than giving them free contraception.

"Why not make botox, boob jobs and penile enhancements free, too?"

Because that doesn't make sense.

What I don't understand is why it should be free

From a bottom line point of view, the consequences of not having birth control are a bigger expense to society as a whole. Down the road, everybody is going to pay the price for unwanted or unsupported children, like it or not. Birth control is a lot cheaper and saves a lot of misery.

I don't see what the big brouhaha is all about.

I grew up in a christian country(catholic and Protestant mostly). Birth control was always available may it be a dispenser in restaurant/pub, etc. Usage was also taught in school.

Same way the pill was available as was the coil, dolphin foam, etc, etc.

Religion is a personal matter and religion should stay out of government matters as government shouldn't stay of religious one. Ergo separation of Church and State.

Start should intervene if there is a danger to the mother/child. We all got free will after-all.

start = state

Wonder what is he going to try to mandate next on all of us whether we like or not and are opposed to it based on our religious principles. That the Amish will now have to buy cars to do their fair share to save the American auto industry? That Muslims now have to eat pork to support that industry?

@sailwind

Don't be absurd. I could make a similarly extremist reaction to the effect that religious belief does not give one the right to deny health services deemed doctrinally improper. This is not an ideological war, at least not one waged by Obama.

"Wonder what is he going to try to mandate next on all of us whether we like or not "

Coming from the far right that's amusing to say the least, Sail. Nobody is being forced to take the pill, the reasons for making it freely available has been explained above. Orphanage, welfare and correctional facilities cost the state a gazillion times more than this, you should be happy for the economy instead of using any excuse to bash Mr Obama.

And besides, religion is a private matter for those that indulge in the fantasy. It should be excluded from ALL government.

plasticmonkey, Madverts,

“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB),

Said it best in their response to Obama's compromise.

But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.

Really, now what would stop Obama from just doing this to Catholics and not to any other religious group it deems now needs a mandate to comply with whatever their version of "the greater good" is?.

What a blunder. He exposed himself, his agenda , and then got b*tch-slapped by the American public and had to climb down.

Wonder what is he going to try to mandate next on all of us whether we like or not and are opposed to it based on our religious principles.

I myself am religiously opposed to violence in any form and am quite against my taxes being used to fund the military-industrial complex. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting an opt-out of THAT "mandate." Society, though, does not allow us to pick and choose; I vote for leaders who will cut the military as much as possible and accept the results.

To enjoy the benefits afforded by living in a democracy while at the same time shirking responsibility is shameful cowardice. The Council of Catholic Bishops has recognized this by accepting Obama's face-saving proposal. The question is whether certain Republicans will follow suit - or whether they will milk an exceptional hot-button item for their own benefit. Listening to the response from Gingrich:

"I frankly don't care what deal he tries to cut. If he wins reelection, he will wage war on the Catholic church the morning after he's reelected. We cannot trust him. We know who he really is and we should make sure the country knows who he really is.

does not give one much hope. Funny enough, this eruption of right-wing vitriol will most likely end up helping Romney within a few weeks as its insanity becomes clear.

"the employer's insurance company must provide contraception for free"

Abstinence is not an option! LOL!

I myself am religiously opposed to violence in any form and am quite against my taxes being used to fund the military-industrial complex. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting an opt-out of THAT "mandate.

Laguna,

It is not mandate it is what the Constitution says the Government will do.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence.

Secondly in accordance with our Constitution you can opt-out from Military service as..........

In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief,

Taxes.....well we all are stuck with them no matter what it pays for and that isn't going to change anytime soon as long as we need to fund a Government.

Thank you, Sailwind - that is exactly my point. A citizen may opt out of participating in certain social activities but not from paying for what society through its elective representatives has determined is best for the country. True, representative democracy has enabled multitudes of horrors throughout American history including slavery and unjust war, and there are times when civil disobedience is required - but what is being sought in this case is not civil disobedience, it is legal exemption. Taking such logic further, I would be within my rights to withhold the portion of my tax dollars which would go to the Pentagon et. al.

This is really not a street that any party, Democratic or Republican, would be wise to start down.

Gingrich epitomizes the screaming stupidity and feeble if no grip on reality our JT wingnuts dispay daily. Reading the quote Laguna provided demonstrates it perfectly. I do not include you there Sail.

Laguna

I myself am religiously opposed to violence in any form and am quite against my taxes being used to fund the military-industrial complex

But puncturing the skull of a fetus and sucking its brain matter out with a vacuum as is done in the late term abortions/infanticide Obama supported as a lawmaker in Illinois is okay by you? [ Do the search: Obama and opposition to the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Bill ]

And of course Obama wants war with the Church. Totalitarians don't like competition. Obama - or more precisely the American Marxists and neo-Marxists who sent him - have had it out for the Catholic Church since Poland sent to Rome a priest who helped bring down their utopia.

Have we ever witnessed a more transparent exercise of power solely for its own sake? This was a cynical, calculated trashing of the 1st Amendment; a dry run, you can be sure. Obama , like the rest of the radical left, believe in religious freedom only for those who have embraced "liberalism" as a substitute for traditional religion.

The country is 16 trillion bucks in debt , has the smallest work force since the Carter era, is going to be Argentina With Nukes if we continue on the current trajectory, and this blind ideologue Obama wants to force the Catholic Church, 70 million strong in the US, to go against their own teachings ?

He is either insane or drunk with power.

A citizen may opt out of participating in certain social activities but not from paying for what society through its elective representatives has determined is best for the country.

Laguna,

A citizen may not opt out of participating in an insurance plan that has coverage for things he or she may find objectionable and go insurance company that they determined is best for them in their belief system and has a plan that does not include that portion of coverage. We are talking private market not Government interference in that market with forced mandates, not what the Constitution requires as legitimate functions of the U.S Government.

Officials said Obama has the legal authority to order insurance companies to provide free contraception coverage directly to workers. He will demand it in a new rule.

This part to put it bluntly, sucks. He can order insurance companies to do it. Again where does this stop? This is not the direction or power that I want any President ever right or left to start using and the sooner his health care reform bill is repealed the better so this kind of power is not granted to him anymore or to the next President.

"This is not the direction or power that I want any President ever right or left to start using"

I think the sweeping powers given to Mr Bush after 9/11 are proof of what can happen. Ended up an abortion of a different kind...

A citizen may not opt out of participating in an insurance plan that has coverage for things he or she may find objectionable and go insurance company that they determined is best for them in their belief system and has a plan that does not include that portion of coverage.

Sailwind, you are wrong there. What would be prohibited is for companies to unilaterally determine what coverage is and is not acceptable; individuals are free under Obama's health plan to shop for coverage that they feel suits them best. That - along with the ability to compare cost - is the whole point of the insurance exchanges to be set up.

Seems discriminatory to me. Why are women provided free contraception, yet men are not?

This shows the folly of government trying to get involved in health care, over a very basic level. Let people choose what they want. Let private charities fill in the gaps for optional, non essential products like birth control for those that cannot afford them. Tying health insurance to employers has always been a mistake IMHO.

Madverts;

The powers given to Bush II have not contracted under the current President. To the contrary, Obama has expanded them into areas that are truly scary. Killing American citizens without trial, for example, when they did not pose any immediate threat to anyone.

What would be prohibited is for companies to unilaterally determine what coverage is and is not acceptable;

If an insurance company can't determine for itself what coverage it will provide based on its customers expectations with what they want covered and not covered why even be in business in the first place? One size does not fit all. Which brings up another side effect with Obama's healthcare reform. It's called market forces and competition which is the only real way to bring healthcare costs down, not Government mandates and interference

All readers stay on topic please

sailwind, wouldn't you consider the American healthcare market over the past 50 years governed by market forces? Has that brought down prices at all? Many economists have analyzed this: the health care market does not act like regular markets. It is extremely inelastic. It is dominated by natural monopolies. Its effects spill over from the personal to the public good in huge ways. And its providers (insurance companies) and purveyors (healthcare providers) are at natural odds - the former profiting from denial, the latter from provision.

DS says, "Tying health insurance to employers has always been a mistake." Most Democrats would agree, but would take it a step further: the people banding together through a government-organized initiative - the "public option" - is the most efficient, economically rational way to provide a decent level of health care to all people.

And, sailwind, remember that it is an unusually lucky insurance recipient to be "over-covered." The very purpose of government regulations in this area is to insure that companies do not shortchange their employees by providing "insurance" that is useful only in very rare cases. Private insurance companies, after all, employee large amounts of people to make sure that this is so. So much for "private industry" efficiency.

The chin-stroking conservative types are getting their butts handed to them on this thread.

:-)

Wonder what is he going to try to mandate next on all of us whether we like or not and are opposed to it based on our religious principles.

@sailwind: When you enter the realm of debate of the secular society and its governance, you are supposed to check your religious beliefs at the door sir. Anyone failing to do so should be tazed like a democrat at a Bush rally.

No one is being forced to use contraception. But your money may well pay for others to use it. If you have a reason against, fine. Unless of course its a religious one, because you would be trying to cram your religion down our throats.

Seems discriminatory to me. Why are women provided free contraception, yet men are not?

@DS: Because for men, contraception cannot be regarded as a health issue? Because male contraception cannot yet be acheived by drugs that are approved by the FDA? Both?

That said, in a way I would love for condoms to be free just from the disease prevention standpoint. But if they were free, there would be condom balloons everywhere at the tax payer expense. BC pills are unlikely to be similarly abused.

"To the contrary, Obama has expanded them into areas that are truly scary. "

Yeah? Wake me up when he's is ordering the ariel bombardment of a city of five million against the advice of his allies and on dodgy intel.

Obama is passing measures for birth control. It isn't frightening, it's actually a very good idea as I've been saying the whole thread. The logic is easy to understand, even though the benefits may not be seen until he's an old man.

"But puncturing the skull of a fetus and sucking its brain matter out with a vacuum as is done in the late term abortions/infanticide Obama supported as a lawmaker in Illinois is okay by you?"

Nice rant, but the thread is about birth control, not abortion.

Conservatives want it both ways -

They shriek about their 'pro-life' credentials and protecting the lives of the unborn while barely giving a hoot about:

1/ the lives of mothers - many of who have dependents - that may be put in peril due to NOT being able to have an abortion  

2/ the death penalty

3/ bombing defenseless citizens in other countries.

Q: why the blatant double standards?

They howl about their religious freedoms being imposed on, while thinking nothing at all when they impose their religious beliefs - absolutely none of which can be proven - on others.

Q: Again, why the blatant double standards??

And, let's not forget the religious types in America say they believe in a god whose - apparently - first commandment to the prophet Moses was 'Thou shall not kill.'

That's the first commandment. 

And yet if you take a cursory look though the Old Testament, in particular the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy, you'll find a god who killed everything on the face of the planet in the Noah flood, committed genocide against the Amelekites, specifically ordered infanticide, rape (i can provide at least 10 specific verses of this if anyone is interested), murder of women, the elderly, animals, you name it.

Q: How many Christiana in America would question this? Very few, I would guess. Yet again, why the blatant double standards??

Religous institutions think they can enjoy all the benefits of government and taxpayer subsidies and still claim complete autonomy. They remind of me of 18 year olds still living in their parent's house

But puncturing the skull of a fetus and sucking its brain matter out with a vacuum as is done in the late term abortions/infanticide Obama supported as a lawmaker in Illinois is okay by you?"

That is so weak. You couldn't personally accuse President Obama of sucking out brain matter? C'mon, in the old days, why you would have had Obama up to his elbows in dead babies.

Did your hyperbole machine break?

And, sailwind, remember that it is an unusually lucky insurance recipient to be "over-covered." The very purpose of government regulations in this area is to insure that companies do not shortchange their employees by providing "insurance" that is useful only in very rare cases. Private insurance companies, after all, employee large amounts of people to make sure that this is so. So much for "private industry" efficiency.

Disagree, most people are "over-covered". Mainly paying for unnecessary tests in order to prevent lawsuits or outrageous settlement claims. Which causes massive bloat in our healthcare system, and you are correct Private insurance companies do employee large amounts of people to protect themselves from the lawyers.

It all comes with a cool 400 billion plus a year price tag.

A better group to do the math is the non-partisan National Academy of Sciences. Its Institute of Medicine ran the numbers in September. It found $210 billion waiting to be saved from unnecessary services, like branded drugs used where generics would do. It also found $85 billion in overspending on doctors and hospitals that are overpriced relative to benchmarks. And there was $195 billion in unnecessary insurance administration costs. National Academy of Sciences. Its Institute of Medicine ran the numbers in September. It found $210 billion waiting to be saved from unnecessary services, like branded drugs used where generics would do. It also found $85 billion in overspending on doctors and hospitals that are overpriced relative to benchmarks. And there was $195 billion in unnecessary insurance administration costs.

National Academy of Sciences. Its Institute of Medicine ran the numbers in September. It found $210 billion waiting to be saved from unnecessary services, like branded drugs used where generics would do. It also found $85 billion in overspending on doctors and hospitals that are overpriced relative to benchmarks. And there was $195 billion in unnecessary insurance administration costs.

Apologies in advance for the multiple copy and paste.

Link to the whole article is here.

A Real Health-Care Fix Would Save You $7,100

http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/markets/how-much-could-health-care-reform-save-you/

Conservatives want it both ways -

Sushi,

All Catholics aren't Conservatives just for your information, since this is really an issue with them and their faith.

"contraception"

To prevent a life from coming into being in the first place. This makes abortion unneccessary.

Now, this is where people have divergent views. Some people believe life begins at contraception, whereas other people believe life begins when you pop out of mom. If you believe the former, abortion is murder and should be illegal, if the believe the latter, it's simply another method of preventing a life from coming into being and should be legal.

Republicans were for this policy before they were agin. Hypocrisy.