Home > Christian Life > What Compromise? Obama Policy Leaves Religious Liberty in Peril and Planned Parenthood Smiling

What Compromise? Obama Policy Leaves Religious Liberty in Peril and Planned Parenthood Smiling

February 10th, 2012
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com

Great column by Dr. Al Mohler:

President Obama walked into the White House Press Room today and attempted to pull a political rabbit out of a hat. Faced with an avalanche of mounting opposition to his administration’s mandate that religious employers provide birth control to all employees, the President announced what his staff characterized as a “compromise.” Was it?

After his opening comments, he President stated his new policy:

Today, we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward.  Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work.  So that core principle remains.  But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.  Let me repeat:  These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services.  But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they’ll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.

This means that certain employers who have “a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan” will not fund these services directly. Instead, the insurance plan will cover these services without charge to all women employees.

What does this resolve? Well, to state the matter bluntly, nothing. At the end of the day, this “compromise” will resolve the issue only for those whose conscience can be resolved by an accounting maneuver.

The qualified insurance plans do not print the monies required to cover the birth control services mandated by the Administration. They will obtain these funds through the premiums paid by employers — including those employers with “a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan.”

Will this resolve the issue politically? That remains to be seen. As is often the case, what is presented in Washington as a compromise is really not a compromise i any meaningful sense at all. The very fact that groups like Planned Parenthood celebrated the “compromise” indicates that it was not a compromise at all — just an accounting trick.

There were several very interesting aspects of the President’s remarks that should draw close attention.

First, President Obama said that he had earlier promised that “we would spend the next year working with institutions like Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities to find an equitable solution that protects religious liberty and ensures that every woman has access to the care that she needs.”

Interestingly, that is not at all what Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. In her January 20 statement, she said this:

“Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.”

The Secretary ended that portion of her remarks with a final sentence, in which she stated that her department would “continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.” Secretary Sebelius left no door open for a change in the policy, only a listening ear and “more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.” That is a far cry from what the President described today.

Second, the President steadfastly describes this controversy as a Catholic issue, and this is to his political advantage. He spoke of meeting with Catholic leaders and working with Catholic parishes and Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities. He never even mentioned any other church, denomination, or religious group.

The President wants to frame this as a Catholic issue, but it is not. The Roman Catholic church is the major religious body that maintains teaching against all forms of artificial birth control, but those moral concerns are not limited to the Catholic church. The mandated coverage would violate the conscience and deepest convictions of millions of American evangelical Christians and their hundreds of schools and institutions which, put together, outnumber the Catholic institutions

Third, the Obama Administration continues to frame the controversy as a concern about “contraception.” Millions of Americans naturally think of a contraceptive as a mechanism for preventing the fertilization of the woman’s egg. They are unaware that the word has been redefined in medical, pharmacological, and political contexts to refer to a mechanism for preventing either fertilization or the successful attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterine wall.

This is not merely a matter of semantics. Any intervention that prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining is an abortion. The Obama Administration has mandated the inclusion of the so-called “morning after pill” and other forms of “emergency contraception” in qualified plans.

Thus, only an accounting maneuver hides the fact that we will all be paying for chemical abortions under the President’s prized Affordable Care Act. Added to this coverage for sterilizations.

Fourth, the President’s remarks today do nothing in the least to save the health care plans governed by religious groups. These include those smaller groups that self-cover their employee medical expenses and massive denominational insurance plans that cover hundreds of thousands of ministers, religious workers, and employees of church-related institutions. The current mandates threaten to kill one of the most effective and efficient means of covering the health care needs of millions of Americans.

Fifth, the President’s remarks today betrayed a fundamental problem that lies at the heart of this controversy and his own thinking. He clearly sees the controversy as a matter of balancing a policy goal, on the one hand, and religious liberty, on the other. He even spoke of religious liberty as “an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution.”

But, just to state the obvious, a policy goal and an “inalienable right” are not to be “balanced.” A matter of policy, no matter how urgent or important, must be reconciled to an “inalienable right.” This does not mean that such reconciliations are easy nor that every claim of religious liberty is legitimate. Nevertheless, this controversy concerns the deepest convictions held by millions of Americans, and these convictions are rooted in over two thousand years of religious teaching.The President’s remarks today do nothing of substance to alleviate this crisis.

Lastly, this controversy exposes the most fundamental problem with the inclusion of birth control in the Affordable Care Act, and this problem is not limited to any single government policy. This problem is endemic to our culture. Clearly, the President and his Administration are not alone in defining birth control as a form of “preventive care,” putting the prevention of pregnancy on par with an inoculation against disease. That is the greatest outrage.

The President’s inclusion of birth control as a form of “preventive care” also explains why Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards was so pleased with President Obama’s remarks today. She said: “Planned Parenthood’s priority is increasing access to preventive health care. This birth control coverage benefit does just that.”

So preventing the birth of a child is classified with the polio vaccine. As Cecile Richards declared, the Obama Administration’s policy “does just that.”

Anyone who celebrates this “compromise” as a victory is hiding behind an accounting trick. That accounting trick cannot hide the great moral tragedy at the heart of the President’s policy — a policy that leaves religious liberty in peril and Planned Parenthood smiling.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler

President Obama’s remarks are available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/10/remarks-president-preventive-care

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Categories: Christian Life
  1. Doug Indeap
    February 11th, 2012 at 01:05 | #1

    I’m curious. How long do you suppose a dollar remains Catholic after a religious employer uses it to pay others and they use it to pay others, etc? At some point, some might rightfully regard that dollar as theirs to do with as they will–without regard to the religious views of others who once had it in their hands a transaction or two earlier.

  2. February 11th, 2012 at 08:35 | #2

    Paul, great column, but I think something is missing. The President of the United States has decreed, without batting an eye, along with his appointed officials, the usurpation of the 1st Amendment. Further, he has directed, again by executive edict, what an insurance company must give “free of charge”. Does the chief executive of the federal government have this authority to tell a private business what they have to give free and then to do this against the “free exercise” clause of the 1st Amendment? I do not think so. Further,the President has said he would not enforce the Defense of marriage act. He has appointed various “czars’ totally unaccountable to the electorate. I am afraid there are more. I think we are in the midst of full-blown Constitutional crisis of a severe magnitude akin to the one began in 1861. There is no compromise with the Constitution, the law of the land. Every elected official and every member of our armed forces swears to protect, defend and uphold a word: the Constitution. Tomorrow is also the birth date of President Abraham Lincoln. “I would save the Union.” His was a defense of the Constitution that engage our nation in the long bloody civil war over one over-riding concern: the Constitution.

    In His peace,

  3. February 11th, 2012 at 11:38 | #3

    In an on-line WSJ article, Immaculate Contraception, this analogy is given regarding the executive’s “accommodation” to religious conscience: “Say Notre Dame decides that its health plan won’t cover birth control on moral grounds. A faculty member wants such coverage, so Notre Dame’s insurer will then be required to offer the benefit as an add-on rider anyway, at no out-of-pocket cost to her, or to any other worker or in higher premiums for the larger group.”
    Hmmmm…it sounds like the ELCA’s “bound conscience” (false) doctrine.

  4. Rev. Allen Bergstrazer
    February 11th, 2012 at 15:10 | #4

    The fundamental problem as I see it is how beholden we become to the government once we allow the government to provide for us rather than we for ourselves. Government is most tyrannical not when it is openly hostile to the us, but when it is our best friend, and forces us to act against our conciences out of obligation for all it does for us.

  5. Carlray
    February 11th, 2012 at 18:08 | #5

    For any lawyers out there, regarding Pr. Schroeder’s remark: “The President of the United States has decreed, without batting an eye, along with his appointed officials, the usurpation of the 1st Amendment.” is this not an impeachable offense?

  6. February 12th, 2012 at 09:01 | #6

    This is another example of Obama showing his true ultra socialist colors. Whether you agree with contraception or not is not the issue. This is another government intrusion into an area that was, since the beginning of our country, considered off limits. If he ultimately gets away with this, and it seems as of today (Sunday) that he will, you can bet that more will be coming. This morning, a man representing Obama was just on TV stating that the president will do no more compromisng with the Catholic Church on this issue. Apparently, his word is the law of the land. If you check other socialist countries, such as Canada, I have been told that pastors are not allowed to preach against homosexuality in their churches because they would be violating the anti-bias laws. Obama will support any non-conformist groups such as the homosexual lobby, left leaning womens rights groups, etc.,
    but will take against against churches. Remember this when election day comes along.

  7. February 12th, 2012 at 14:02 | #7

    Carlray, yes, obviously not being a lawyer, I think it is an impeachable offense at first…but I have learned that the Feds are usurping the 1st Amendment according the Affordable Healthcare Act, i.e. Obamacare,therefore it is “legal” (remembering what Martin Luther King Jr. said: not everything that is legal is moral). The Congress has ceded to the executive branch almost unlimited authority and power when O-care is fully implemented in terms of health and our private lives. And the result is the electorate is ceding over to the federal government the usurpation of 1st Amendment rights. So preventing a pregnancy, not because they mother’s life is at risk, is the moral equivalent to a “disease” in order restore a woman’s “health”: no orthodox Christian or Jew could agree with the idea that child is a disease to be prevented. Given the Affordable Healthcare act, the question is not primarily impeachable offense(s) but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

  8. Angry Bird
    March 29th, 2012 at 19:21 | #8

    Sometimes, I just can’t fathom the stupidity of folks. If a woman wants to wait to have children, decides she has had her “quota” of kids, doesn’t want kids to begin with or wants to have a “waiting” period between kids BUT still have sex [no man would stand for abstinence for longer than a week!!!] then that is HER right. BUT, either she or her sexual partner [be she married or single] would HAVE to use contraception. Am I right logical & practical here?? Makes sense to me.

    The ED pills for men are covered in insurance plans and don’t give me the argument about a “must have” for procreation. Come on folks, let’s be real. To prevent pregnancy for a time frame like mentioned above, you have to use SOME form of contraception.
    Please tell me WHY this concept is wrong in YOUR EYES. What’s wrong with “waiting” to have kids? Let’s say you just got married and who want to “gather” a nest egg before having kids. Great example for the use of contraception. How is THAT wrong.
    Please give me an intelligent well thought out responsible & logical answer. Is there anyone OUT there with some qualitative gray matter?

    • March 30th, 2012 at 09:21 | #9

      Angry Bird, you really should dig more deeply into these issues. This is not about contraception, but religious freedom.

Comments are closed.