President Obama gets the gold star tonight. He's found a way to reconcile the goal of good health care, including reproductive health care, for women and what he acknowledges as the legitimate rights of religion organizations.
He did it by mandating that insurance companies swallow the costs of birth control in their policies when church organizations decide they cannot in good conscience do so.
Today's announcement by the president was evidence that he was both alert to the public debate and strong enough to make an adjustment in policy when needed. He decided early on in this debate that action was necessary and took it as soon as a solid policy option was before him. He wanted to bridge the goals of women's advocates with what he recognized as the legitimate position of the Catholic Church.
As is often the case, the way the public decides such issues is to decide who is being the bully. If you viewed the government here as bullying the church, you found for the church. If you viewed the church as bullying its female employees, then you found against it.
Today the president presented a way to address both perceptions. By directing the insurance companies themselves to absorb the cost of birth control, he freed the churches of having to do so.
For people on both sides of the dispute, it was a good way to end the week. It was especially a good way to end the week for President Obama. It showed he was awake to the problem, was flexible and humble enough to demand a fix, and that, as he said, he gets better at this job as time goes on.
Leave a Comment:
Great objective analyzing, Chris. Kudos to President Obama for finding the way to recognize the rights of women and respecting the legitimate position of the Catholic Church.
Yeah, it's all good...to hell with the constitution...he has just mandated that a private company provide contraceptive services at no cost...since when does the Executive branch dictate what insurance providers cover and then go even another step beyond and dictate that these services will be provided free of charge? Chris Mathews...great job on your analysis of this issue.
Obama picked Kathleen Sabelius because she was the most extreme abortion activist he could find. Abortion is something to be worshipped by the left, and to the radical women that surround ObamAcorn, Abortion is "God". To quote the abortionist in chief, "The constitution is a series of negative liberties". Which means His hand are tied when He tries to turn Us into communist China. Chris, You get a gold star for staying on the air with those ratings.
Hey Mark,
You obviously didn't read the news the other day. Abortions and out-of-wedlock pregnancies are at their lowest levels in nearly 40 years.
Sad that you don't recognize the President is a grown-up...
Hi Chrs, Not bad coverage and it looks ok on the surface but the church is still being forced to provide birth 'control' pills as if pregnancy is a disease ,and pills that abort. They are being forced to buy a service that will do this whether they like it or not with their premiums. There was an excellent article strangely enough for a secular publication, The Business Insider" pointing out bravely the decline in marriage from 75% to 48% from 1960, the devaluation of women and non person status of babies. The church should not be put in the position of paying for these destructive effects. I admire her stand.
It doesn't matter whether the insurance companies are to pick up the cost. As a company, they will pass on the cost to either to the insurance holder, namely the church, by increasing the cost to their insurance policy, or the tax payers will pick up the cost if the federal government decides to compensate the insurance companies. This is just an indirect way to get the church to pay for the contraceptives regardless of religious beliefs. The President did not say that the insurance companies could not pass on the cost to the church by way of insurance policy increases. Pretty sneaky Mr. President.
This president isn't an egotistical thug, he is considerate of all parties, and he's a smart guy.
His ability to be the "adult" in the room is one of many things I like about the President. The right-leaning media claim "he caves to pressure" is trying to sell a negative view of his actions that rational people are not buying! Instead, the behavior of the Republicans and their antagonist, the Tea Party are clearly exposing them to be irrational, petulant "children", who should not be in any position of leadership. Therefore, we, the people, should mimic the President and consider all parties then perform some serious "tweaking" of our own in November!
I am tired of "Religious Organizations" running this country. In the book on Roger Williams, who started Rhode Island for religious freedom, it is written when any one religion works its will over others, there is no religious freedom. Are the Catholic Bishops the American version of Iranian Mullahs? Sad, sad day for American. By the way, how can Catholic Bishops act in good conscience on stopping employees from access to birth control, when they can't even stop 98% of their parishioners from using birth control?
Chris, you're well on your way to proving that you are a very good Catholic, a loyal supporter of the President and an utterly myopic commentator.
In this compromise you're so thrilled with, the President has abandoned a position that was clearly constitutional for one that any first-year constitutional law student could see is an utterly egregious violation of the First Amendment. Initially, the policy required that all businesses be treated equally. He now proposes to require private insurance companies to offer specific concessions, at their own expense, but only to Catholic-owned businesses, for no other reason than the fact that they are Catholic-owned! On the day this regulation goes into effect, I believe every health insurance company in America should file suit, based on the entirely valid claim that they are being materially harmed by a policy based purely on religious favoritism. (Remember, the law will require the insurance companies to absorb the cost of the family planning coverage.) I'd be interested in hearing your views on how the administration would defend itself.
Lost in all the noise about this specific issue is an important truth. The concept of religious freedom, as applied in modern American society, has nothing to do with the First Amendment. In virtually every discussion on the subject of religious freedom, the actual subject of discussion is the preservation of the perks, privileges and continued dominance of the CHRISTIAN religion in America, and sometimes, Chris, you're part of the problem.
Where was your simmering outrage over the denial of the permit for a Mosque near Ground Zero? Oh, that's right, we that was about protecting the rights of Muslims. I don't recall you ever taking on the Defense of Marriage Act, which clearly discriminates against Islam and the Fundamentalist Mormon faiths, even though polygamy poses absolutely no threat to society at large. But, of course, polygamy isn't an issue for mainstream Christians. If the First Amendment guarantees religious equality, these examples are clearly unconstitutional, but as long as they don't seem to impinge of the prerogatives of traditional Christianity, no one seems to care.
I realize you are a political commentator rather than a reporter, but you can't maintain your credibility if you can't maintain at least some semblance of objectivity. Continuously flogging the fact that you went to Holy Cross is not germane to the issue. If you want to present Rick Santorum's views on religious freedom, invite him to your show and let him do it himself. A serious discussion of the First Amendment simply isn't possible when "Christian" is the only acceptable synonym for "religion."
It cannot be denied that America's religious heritage is primarily Christian, no matter how much secularists might like that fact of history to be obscured.
And the original ruling was not "clearly" constitutional, except perhaps in the opinion of someone who has no idea of what religion really is, or opposes the reality of something that is explicitly protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I am agnostic, but secularists do not get to write their own version of history.
I don't believe a word Obama said today. This is nothing more than a smoke screen. These insurance companies will not provide this coverage free, and they will find a way to get it paid for. This is obama running scared, and we better not fall for this crap. This is government taking over our life.
But I am sure you do believe the law. The law says that no employer shall not discriminated on the basis of religion. So, we will have to admit that Catholics are also employers. Right? Ok. So, what the president did now, was to go against that law just to please the Catholics. Will that come later and bit all of us on the a**. Maybe. If a CEO of a company is a Jehovah's witness and that employer complains that a person who works for him needs an operation and need either stem cell technology or a blood transfusion that employer does not have to pay for the employee's insurance on the basis that it goes against his religious believes. As a matter of fact, only Why, because this law now only includes birth control not any other religious based believe.
I would have told the Catholic Church to get out of being an employer and that the law of the land covers ALL employers.
This only happens in the US because the US has given too much power to employers. We should have universal health insurance where the relationship between patient and healthcare professionals is not being intruded in by anyone. Once you pay your premiums to the government or the insurance company no one can get into it. If I was catholic (which I was) I would just continued using BC and confess every week. What can they do to you? Jesus did not mention birth control, not ones, but he talked much more about the poor. What hypocrites the GOPers are.
We are lucky to have President Obama, If he was a GOPer only born again Christians will have rights and privileges in this country.
Mr. B. Wright, excellent point, where's the money coming from to pay for BC? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the religious employer doesn't "pay" for it, but the money to "pay" for it comes from... the premiums they collect from the religious employer?.. but not really, since it's "absorbed?" This sounds like a runaround created by some fancypants poli-newspeak. Please, MSNBC, more info please; we're smart enough to figure it out (or maybe that's the problem?)
I guess I'll have to answer my own question. It seems the Church has its reservations as well. The details apparently haven't been released by the Obama administration:
http:// wemu. org/post/catholics-have-mixed-reaction-birth-control-reversal
http:// detroit.cbslocal. com/2012/02/10/religious-leaders-react-to-birth-control-coverage/
Sorry to blame you, Mr. or Ms. MSNBC, not your fault... this time.
(Although, I'm growing very suspicious of MSNBC's long time obsession with the Catholic Church. The issues they associate solely with the Catholic Church actually affect a wide range of groups.)
Chris and others: This whole fiasco proves what we all feared when the law was passed: a bureaucrat in Washington is making a decision about the implementation of health care. This is very scary for us as a nation because this liberal socialist may be replaced ( and probably will) by an arch conservative who will dictate something totally different. We as Americans will have to dance to whatever music the band plays!!!
This country has been balance when it comes to social programs and capitalism. Social Security and the Department of Social Services have been in place for over 60 years. They both have served this country well. But for 20 years we have seen how the very wealthy has been controlling over 90% of the financial wealth using a system of distribution of wealth by policies that keep salaries low and prices high. The fact that in 2005 the top 20% has been controlling 93% of the wealth and the bottom 80% shares only 7% gives reasons to believe that a more socially just system should be implemented.
Ask yourself this question: Why is the minimum wage less that $8 per hour and why do we have so many bank fees, high credit rates, high auto insurance rates, high prices of goods and services and a want of the GOP to privatize those programs to which people are mandated to contribute? It is a long question but imagine for a moment that Social Security was already privatize when the first Bush was in power. What would have happen when the market crashed on 2008 and 2009? Greed is a great motivation to those who are looking for opportunities. And in this country the politics are in the hands of the wealthy, why do you think they are contributing to the candidates.
are vasectomys paid for ?
A Catholic will be excommunicated if he had a vasectomy.
Yeah -- observe:
Jean, a fair question and one that can be asked of every insurance policy. The answer is weather or not elective surgeries are covered. The policy may also exclude certain procedures. There seems to be a fallacy among many that every insurance policy is the same, they are not. You get what you pay for. If you add something, your pay extra.
I believe the real question here revolves around the statement "a woman's right" to this. I can not seem to find this anywhere in the constitution. I providing good health care for everyone a good thing, yes, I believe it is. Should it be a goal of society, of course. But to define what is good health care and say that it is some intrinsic "right" based on the constitution is wrong.
Good health starts with diet and exercise, do we now start government run food kitchens to feed all citizens to make sure their diet is correct and move them from the dining room to the exercise room to keep them in shape. I think most would agree that government should not be in that position.
Affordable health care for everyone is what we should strive for as a society, but we should not supplant the true "rights" of some for the wants of others.
A gold star, I would not expect anything less from Matthews.
Just another cheerleader for the Presedent, one of many on this network.
So if a Jehovah Witness group operates a business do they get to exempt blood transfusions? Do Christian scientists get to exempt all medical science?
All these questions about this relgion and that religion.
The problem is we have a government telling people and companies they are required to give their services to other citizens for free. Where does that power come from? Where doe that type of power stop?
When is Jack Daniels going to provide free whiskey for men's reproductive health??
Obama is a dictator in His mind. Unless the congress or the courts stop His militant ass, He'll keep chugging along, with Chris cheering Him on all the way.
Mark
Obama is not a dictator, but really a centrist, trying to find the middle ground.
Speaking about dictators in the world of European decent, every county that had a harsh one was predominately Catholic with strong Church backing of the ruler. Think of South and Central America, who ruled them? How about Spain in the 1930s?
Think Obama is like that? Time to hit those history books Mark
We should all be happy, why aren't we then. I guess it's about the Roman Catholic Religion and any other Religion ruling in America. A law is a law for everyone but Religious Groups? We are Christians, never been anything else for generations, but we don't require People who don't agree with us to do as our Church Doctrines say, and I truly resent having American people of all kinds having to kow tow to the Vatican.
If religion is not allowed in government, the shouldn't government be kept out of religion?
It's not about any one religion. It's about all religions. Once the government starts dictating to one religion, the precident is set. Then no religion will have the security of the first amendment. The 1st amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. Chris... a gold star? Really? You scare me.
Where does the president get the power to order private companies to give services away? Chris Matthews never seems to ask that question.
Imagine:
President Obama today addressing the wage desparity inside journalism mandated that no journalist should make more than $34,000 - the average salary of newspaper reporters.
Specifically mentioning Chris Matthews, Obama said "It is unfair for Chris Matthews to earn $5 million annually for being my flack when most liberal newspaper reporters doing the same job only receive $34,000 a year. It is simply not fair that one junk journalist can accumulate a net worth of $15 million on the backs of other junk journalists. For this reason, I have ordered all media companies to equalize their pay scales."
I can see this happens every day in my dreams
Chris Matthews was not the only one offering a metaphorical star. The Catholic Hospital Association and women's groups agreed, this was a good solution.
I like the President, and he's the best bet we have right now, but I don't agree with giving in to a Religion over a law. I like Matthews but I'll skip his show from now on.
But Carolee, That's the beauty of it! He didn't give in! He is still imposing his will against their wishes! Yay!
I dont agree that contraception has to be free (its like any drug - use it and pay for it).
But, on the other hand it has to be available to women with low cost or through clinics.
Pres should never play with health care to begin with.
President Obama made the best choice, given the political circumstances. But, personally, I would have preferred that he forced the issue and made the Catholic church abide by the laws that apply to everyone else in the U.S.
It is an absolute disgrace that the leaders of the Catholic religion adamantly disapprove of
abortion and, in their typically warped self-righteous thinking they object to one of the best options that would prevent pregnancy.
And PLEASE, don't talk to me about abstinence.
Memo to Catholic church, get out of the Middle Ages ... Use your brain.
It has nothing to do with abstience. It's all about the 1st amendment. Try reading it. It's not very long... Anything else in the Bill of Rights you would like to do away with? Or perhaps the Constituion?
Yes, this compromise does ensure that female working people employed by Catholic institutions will not be treated as second class citizens under the new health law (unless they work for a Catholic church as a housekeeper or janitor, that is), and that's the most important thing. And maybe President Obama correctly felt he had to appease the Roman Catholic mullahs on this to minimize problems getting re-elected. But I'm for no appeasement at all of male-supremacist bullies in religious clothing.
The bishops should remember that John Kennedy was mistrusted as a presidential candidate out of fear that Rome would heavy-handedly influence American domestic and foreign policies. And that the current Mormon candidate is, in addition to his other problems, dealing with similar distrust right now. This 'righteous' attack on birthcontrol may backfire.
Also, I doubt that I'm the only person who questions the moral credentials of people who calmly swept under the rug decades of cruel sexual abuse of children, yet get so worked up about the prospect of paying for a few women workers' birthcontrol pills!
Myrna,
It's not about paying for pills. And it's not a compromise. It's still treading all over the 1st Amendment.
It's premature to celebrate the "compromise" - the bishops haven't yet accepted it, and now they scent blood in the water; having seen how easily Obama caves in to their bullying, they will push for an absolute exclusion of birth control coverage no matter who pays for it.
Well done to put quotation marks around "compromise". Because it isn't one.
If your legal rights were being violated, would you oppose that?
Scholar, if because of my employer's scruples I am denied coverage that is mandated for the general population, then my legal rights are being violated, and I would oppose that. This has nothing to do with the Church's legal rights. The law applies to them as an employer, not as a church. If all employers can pick and choose what their employees' insurance plan will cover based on the employer's private moral beliefs, then all that's left is the current health insurance patchwork. Frankly, I wish all employers would entirely drop group insurance and pay a penalty instead, which would finance a public option plan.
Your later post says anybody can go to the drugstore for birth control. How flippant. The issue is cost. Perhaps the solution is for the Church to give all pre-menopausal female employees a $100 monthly raise, with no questions asked about how they spend it. Does that seem flippant to you?
Immediately after the insurance companies sue for being required to provide free contraception coverage to employees of Catholic hospitals, all Baptist and Methodist hospitals should demand the same free coverage, or else sue on grounds of religious discrimination. Followed by Southern Methodist University and all other religiously based but non-Catholic universities. This policy raises the Catholic Church to a unique and favored position over all other religions.
Amidst all the clamour regarding the possible unconstitutionality of the Affordable Helathcare Act, how can ANYONE award a "Gold Star" to the administration for stiring the pot by proposing an obviously unconstitutional regulation?
Now I'm waiting for the Mormon Church to ask for an exemption to the law forbidding polygamy.
Not going to happen. Mormons aren't interested in a return to polygamy. They realize how unpopular it would be.
Now a repeal of the 21st Amendment is something they would get behind...
The best thing that could ever happen here for Obama is if the Republicans reverses the mandate right away or the Supreme court repeals Obamacare all together before the election. This way Obama wipes his hands clean from his lobbyist and critics and hopefully gets the Catholic Christian, Evangicals, Disechanted Democrats and Independent voters back on his corner. Right now Obama is checkmated and probably stand to lose 100 million christian votes over this controversy. In my opinion this issue should have been dealth with after the election if he wins. This is a tremendous blunder and an absolute GAME CHANGER.
First, "religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer." - Catholic Rep. Chris Smith There is no compromise, no change in the mandate.
Second, Where are the atheists? They should be screaming and dragging the ACLU into it. "Separation of church and state" is their motto! I guess they don't actually believe that matters when it's the state shoving it's leftist ideology down the church's throat.
Obama just cleaned his detractors' clocks! That's explains the fury in some of these comments I am reading here now that menstrual cycle medication and birth control will be available to those who choose it--including people who will have a hard time paying for MD Rx and full retail cost of the product. Bravo for the Affordable Health Care Act and its progress! And the bishops, who planned their outcry well in advance, and who were zealous for this fight in the current election cycle, find themselves stammering for a damaging response. They want a time out in order to frame a new attack.
As for an attack on religious freedom, I think some of you really mean frustrated religious tyranny. The Pope's pronouncement in Humanae Vitae 1968 was that any act of sexual intercourse without the possibility of conception was sinful. Sinful! Good Grief. More from the Church: sex outside of marriage is evil. But only Catholic marriage is valid. And Catholics can't marry outside the faith. And babies not born of valid marriages are bastards. And only babies baptized Catholic will go to heaven. And the Church and it's allies should do everything it can to stamp out birth control for anyone and everyone. And certainly stamp out the morning-after pill even in the case of rape or incest because--as Santorum explained--that would subject the mother to another trauma! So it is better she should carry the pregnancy to term, and then when a baby is born, she (married or unmarried--which would be worse? ) should give up the child because it is a relentless living testimony of the rape or incest, or raise the child which shares part of her being- but also the rapist's? And in any case God has chosen women as his vessels for the nurturing of babies. They should marry,stay home, and raise them. Many of them. And by no means expect to have an official voice or place in the hierarchy of the Church.
I have listened to this stuff all of my life. Explain to me once again how all this is about God's word as revealed to the Church which seeks our fulfillment and salvation. And how it is the mission and obligation of the Church to visit however possible these restrictions not only on the parish members, but every last person in the community. And remind me why it is not a ceaseless grab for institutional wealth and power.
Some of these commentors seem to think that the overwhelming majority (of even Catholics) who use "birth control" will rise up in angry political action so as to damage the President and his Administration because they have made birth control and family planning easier to come by?? Maybe not.
I understand and I am sympathetic to much of what you say. But the issue here is the 1st amendment. If that can be ignored, then what about the rest of the Constitution?
Birth control is avalable to everyone... Just go to the drug store. This is not about the Catholic Curch resricting birth control. This is all about the 1st amendment.
These are YOUR liberties! Once the government takes them away, you don't get them back.
When we pointed out in the health care debate that drivers' licenses were mandated, the conservatives argued that people don't HAVE to drive if they don't want to pay.
So if the Catholic hospitals and schools have such a powerful aversion to following the law, they can just sell the hospitals and schools to non-primitive businesses and scientists. No one is forcing them to be in these businesses.
In the meantime, now that they have been granted a "conscience exemption," I would like an exemption from the portion of my taxes that is used to kill innocents in Iraq, subsidize strip miners and pay for Congressional hearings against marriage equality. I'm sure many others will join me in demanding this exemption and by the logic of so-called conservatives here, the first amendment requires that it be granted. Or does this only apply to right-wing religions?
If you think it's an excuse to attack Catholics, perhaps that is the plan. It sure doesn't get their vote, makes no sense to have the government micromanaging church activities. Whatever happened to "separation of church and state"?
Must be a liberal attorney interpretation that thinks the "insurance pays", not the person buying the insurance. Hey, it's FREE too! HAHAHAHahahahaha!!!
With 98% of catholic women admitting to having used birth control, and a recent survey at the Jesuit college in Worcester showing 95% support of students for contraception, why don't we leave the women to decide of their own consciences and stop having older men dictate what they do?
The culture wars are all about controlling the women of America. That is the fundamental law of the land, their right to choose. The middle ages shall not reign again.