(already subscribe? log in).

Obama’s compromise respects rights of church and of women

EDITORIAL | Editorial

THIS STORY APPEARED IN
Boston Articles
February 20, 2012

THE COMPROMISE on contraceptive coverage announced by President Obama earlier this month has failed to quell the acrimonious debate around the issue. Under the revised rules, Catholic institutions will not be required to directly subsidize birth control pills and the morning-after pill, which church officials consider morally wrong. But their insurance companies will, and that’s still too much for many bishops, who want a blanket exemption for Catholic institutions. The administration was right to make a good-faith effort to respect the religious beliefs of those signing the checks, ensuring they don’t pay for contraception, but now the administration must stand against efforts to weaken the coverage of individual employees.

The policy, which stems from the health care overhaul passed in 2010, requires all insurers to provide prescription contraception at no additional charge. The overwhelming majority of American women have used contraception at some point, but many have experienced difficulty paying for it. Using insurance to reduce the cost is only fair, and wider availability of birth control will result in fewer unintended pregnancies and lower health care costs overall.

The federal rules echo regulations that already exist in dozens of states that require health insurers to provide coverage for contraceptives. Many Catholic institutions have abided by those laws for years. Many states, as well as the federal regulations, exempt churches themselves; it’s only church-affiliated institutions like hospitals and universities that are affected. And that’s an essential distinction: it’s reasonable to expect churches, when acting as employers in non-religious settings, to obey labor laws, worker safety regulations - and health insurance rules.

Indeed, Catholic institutions’ ability to coexist with birth control mandates on the state level suggests that the federal policy is not quite the assault on religious liberty that some are now trying to depict it as. In the selective outrage of those arguing for further exemptions, it’s hard not to detect a whiff of politics: They seem to be betting that in an election year, they can flex their muscles and force the administration to back down.

Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
|
|