Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

WASHINGTON (RNS) A broad coalition spearheaded by Catholics and Southern Baptists is pushing back against the Obama administration’s final contraception mandate rules, calling it a threat to religious liberty for people of all faiths.

8 Comments

  1. David Thompson

    How can shares in a corporation have religious sentiment? They cannot. They are trying to preclude females only from having FDA approved contraception. Males can get a prescription for Viagra to control erectile dysfunction, but women can’t have medication to control reproductive rights.

    This is just one more misogynistic evangelical/fundamentalist phobia. I sure hope the lose this battle. Women should have every right to their body that men have to their’s.

    • Louantha Kerr

      “We wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue..

    • Just a thought – contraceptives for men, such as condoms and vasectemies, aren’t generally required to be covered by the ACA. So technically what this is doing is shifting the burden of birth control to women, for whom it it generally MUCH more invasive and risky (read the fine print on any prescription birth control pills, for example). Why would men go spend money on contraception when their partners could get it for free (who cares the cost to their health and comfort)? To be honest, I think there’s a strange sort of anti-feminism in this! Why is it that women are always the ones expected to take responsibility for reproduction, and men aren’t?

      My husband and I use a natural method of fertility awareness, so he has as much responsibility as me if we do get pregnant – we knew we could, so we were making an informed choice together. I feel so much more respected knowing he understands and is working with my body, instead of just expecting me to paste over the way my body functions naturally.

  2. Contraception access is not a fundamental right… where the government is concerned. The existence of the exception alone shows that. You cannot argue the need for birth control coverage for a teacher while at the same time telling a parish office worker to go pound sand. This has been established. We’re just quibbling over were to draw the line.

    And it’s this line that gives the bishops their most legitimate complaint. Religion has two components: the spreading of its philosophy, say in a church, and the application of its tenants, by building schools, hospitals, and charities. I could ask you, what makes a religion more relevant in modern times, how many butts are in the pews or the positive impact it has on its neighbors? Drawing a line around the church effectively serves to marginalize those faiths. It also puts the Obama administration in the unfavorable position of playing referee that will eventually blow up in their face. I don’t understand why they insist on going this route when better compromises exist, even in the president’s home state. Businesses and organizations don’t have to provide the coverage, but they do have provide the woman funds so that she can buy the supplemental coverage if she chooses. There by, all women can get the coverage they want, no one is forced to directly fund it, and the administration avoids having to make awkward calls on what is or isn’t religion.

    By the way, this coalition is a double edged sword. Most of these guys don’t a prohibition on contraception. While it helps to have a larger voice, why are they joining in? Are many genuinely concerned about the religious freedom of their neighbors? Possible, but many are also just conservatives who don’t like the Obama administration in general. And politics can muddle the true objection while lending itself to allegations of misogyny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.