bishops versus women--which side is obama on?

[niyad]

Katha Pollitt


Bishops vs. Women: Which Side Is Obama On?

Who matters more to President Obama, 271 Catholic bishops or millions upon millions of sexually active Catholic women who have used (or—gasp!—are using right this minute) birth control methods those bishops disapprove of? Who does Obama think the church is—the people in the pews or the men with the money and power? We’re about to find out. Some day soon the president will decide whether to yield to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which has lobbied fiercely for a broad religious exemption from new federal regulations requiring health insurance to cover birth control with no co-pays—one of the more popular elements of Obama’s healthcare reform package. Talk about the 1 percent and the 99 percent.




There’s already an exemption in the law for religious employers, defined as those whose primary purpose is the “inculcation of religious values,” who mostly serve and employ people of that faith, and qualify as churches or “integrated auxiliaries” under the tax code. That would be, say, a diocesan office or a convent or, for that matter, a synagogue, mosque or megachurch. Even this exemption seems unfair to me—why should a bishop be able to deprive his secretary and housekeeper of medical services? The exemption is based on the notion that people shouldn’t have to violate their religious consciences, but what makes his conscience more valuable than theirs? I would argue that it is less valuable—he’s not the one who risks getting pregnant.

The exemption becomes truly outrageous, though, if it is broadened, as the bishops want, to include Catholic hospitals, schools, colleges and social service organizations like Catholic Charities. These workplaces employ millions; and let’s not forget their dependents and the roughly 900,000 students enrolled at Catholic colleges. Now we’re talking about lots of people who aren’t Catholics, who serve non-Catholics and whose workplace may have only a tenuous connection to the institutional church. The Jewish social worker, the Baptist nurse, the security guard who hasn’t seen the inside of a church in decades—all these people, and their spouses and other dependents, will have to pay out of pocket, even as most Americans applaud the advent of vastly broadened access to essentially free contraception. It’s not a small amount of money at stake, either—the pill can cost $50 a month. The IUD, wider use of which would do much to help lower our high unintended pregnancy rate, lasts for many years but costs $800 to $1,000 up front. How is it fair to make millions of women live under old rules that the rest of society is abandoning precisely because they are injurious to health and pocketbook? Is there a social value in a woman’s having to skip her pills because she’s short $50? If it was any medication other than birth control—sorry, the Pope thinks you should control your cholesterol through prayer and fasting; no statins for you!—more people would be up in arms.

Why would Obama give in to the bishops? One theory is that it’s not the bishops he wants to please. “The Administration feels beholden to antiabortion people in the Catholic healthcare industry who supported Obama in the health insurance fight,” Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice, told me by phone. “People who said the antiabortion compromise was enough, like Sister Carol Keehan, to whom he gave one of the pens with which he signed the Affordable Care Act.” On November 28, Catholics for Choice paid for an ad on the New York Times op-ed page, urging President Obama, “Don’t turn your back on women.” But as O’Brien observes, “It’s pathetic that you have to put an ad in the newspaper to remind a president of his commitments to women.” Yes, you would think Obama had been elected thanks to the votes of antiabortion clergy and not those of single mothers, working women, young women and women for whom $600 a year is a major stretch.

. . .



http://www.thenation.com/article/164883/bishops-vs-women-which-side-obama

[Autumn]

1. He had better be on our side. n/t

[rusty fender]

2. I recommended this post, but

there is no way that Obama will side with the Catholic bishops. It isn't politically viable for him to side with them, if it were, then he would because we all have realized, by now, that he is all about the politics. He has no principles, no values beyond what can get him elected.;(

[BlueIris]

3. It's sad we have to ask. nt

[Hutzpa]

4. This should be a no brainer

Irregardless of women support, women needs to have control of their body period, this should not be allowed to become a political football.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Unrec

:hi:

[dionysus]

6. obama kicked my cat....

cornel west 2012!111

[Autumn]

10. No difference between a uterus or a cat to you?

I know where you stand.

[dionysus]

11. splendid strawman.... and extra points for projection!

:rofl:

[Autumn]

12. "Obama kicked my cat"

that's not fucking projection. That's just fucking pathetic. You have nothing else.

[dionysus]

13. there's one thing that's "fucking pathetic" for sure, it's the bullshit, phoney as hell 24/7 outrage

machine based on bullshit, lies, and a 3 year grudge.

make up whatever shit you want to be outraged, and have a ginger ale if you work yourself into too much of a rage based off of crap.

have a great evening. :hi:

[Autumn]

16. You got nothing, you add nothing

Obama is considering it, that's not a fucking lie. Bye.

[dionysus]

17. aren't we angy.

[niyad]

19. yes, why are you, exactly?

[dionysus]

20. i'm not angry,

:shrug:

[niyad]

22. could have fooled me

[Autumn]

21. Only with your snark.

Having been Baptized and raised a Catholic, raising my children in the faith with the caveat the church has NOTHING to do with their decisions about their bodies and that the church and any politician can kiss my ass, and their asses if they want to control my body or my Daughters bodies or my Granddaughters bodies. This is a serious thing. It's fucking obscene that Obama would even be considering further discussions about it.

[Mimosa]

27. You're obviously not a woman .

*shrug*

[Skittles]

32. not much of a human being either

[Skittles]

31. you doth protest too much

your anger is based on one simple truth: you know Obama is WRONG and you cannot defend him

[CakeGrrl]

25. ...

:rofl:

Cracks me up every time.

The article? Crap. 'Obama hates women. OUTRAAAAAAGE!!!'

Ridiculous.

[Skittles]

33. you're gonna defend this?

seriously?????????????????

does your support include ANY qualms whatsoever? You need to get off your knees long enough to stand up and see what is REALLY DOING

[niyad]

7. really? curious to know why, since the article is certainly true--or is that the problem?

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. The problem is your snide assed comments re: the president.

You know where he stands on women's issues, and if not, your ignorance certainly can't be blamed on him. :hi:

[niyad]

9. my snide comments? reallllly?? pray tell, which ones? kindly provide links to these comments

that I have never made. I know exactly where he stands, and what has been done, thank you so very much.

[Autumn]

14. Well, have you posted on how wonderful he is?

If not, you suck.






:sarcasm:

[dionysus]

15. strawman... the sequel...

:rofl:

[niyad]

18. yes, how silly of me

[rusty fender]

26. The ugly truth about Obama

really hurts the ____________s(can't say it on DU) so all they have are unrecs and insults.:eyes:

[niyad]

23. . . .

[niyad]

24. . . .

[Mimosa]

28. Kicking for excellent article from The Nation.

And yes, $600 a year is a major stretch for many of us.

BTW, if I had to pay for access to articles online I'd pay for access to The Nation and Mother Jones, if I could afford the rates.

[Vattel]

29. I agree that he should side with women here. I hope he does,

One odd thing about this article is that it offers possible explanations of why Obama is siding with the bishops while admitting that no decision on the issue has been made. I think that may be ticking off some of the Obama supporters. I'm glad Obama is being pressured, though, on this issue. It's a very important one.

[whistler162]

30. Some day soon the sun will implode......

which side will Obama fall on!

"Some day soon the president will decide whether to yield to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops "

Interesting rambling diatribe....NOT!

[lunatica]

34. Last I heard we have freedom to choose our own religion without anyone

having power to choose it for us.

Why should Obama do anything other than say the people have a Constitutional right to practice their religion? Why would he ever want to? I'm sure Michelle has been using birth control for years.

And since when is the President of the United States a spokesperson for Bishops?