White House defends contraception rules as criticisms mount

WASHINGTON Tue Feb 7, 2012 5:49pm EST

A man uses an umbrella as shelter from the snow in front of the White House in Washington, December 5, 2007.  REUTERS/Jim Young

A man uses an umbrella as shelter from the snow in front of the White House in Washington, December 5, 2007.

Credit: Reuters/Jim Young

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is willing to work with Catholic universities, hospitals and other church-affiliated employers to implement a new policy that requires health insurers to offer birth control coverage, a top adviser to the president's re-election campaign said on Tuesday.

David Axelrod, a senior campaign adviser to President Barack Obama, said the administration had heard the Church's concerns and never intended to "abridge anyone's religious freedom."

But he gave no sign that the administration would reverse course under intensifying pressure from Church leaders and political heat from Republican presidential candidates.

"This is an important issue. It's important for millions of women across this country. We want to resolve it in an appropriate way, and we're going to do that," he said in remarks on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program.

White House spokesman Jay Carney also sought to diffuse criticism from Church leaders, telling reporters later on Tuesday that the administration would work with religious organizations "to see if the implementation of the policy can be done in a way that allays some of those concerns."

U.S. Catholic bishops have slammed the Obama administration for a regulation finalized on January 20 that would require health insurance to include birth control and other preventative health services for women. The leaders contend that the policy infringes on religious liberty because the Church does not condone birth control of any kind.

Over the weekend, Catholic clergy across the country called for congregations to protest the rule and pressure Obama to back down.

"To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable," said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a statement last month.

Jim Towey, president of Ave Maria University in Florida, who also served in the administration of President George W. Bush, said Tuesday he would fight the provision using "all lawful means at our disposal."

"Our non-Catholic employees and students understand fully that the University must adhere to Catholic teaching and they do not expect us to provide such services," he said in a statement.

REPUBLICANS SEE ASSAULT

The controversy centers on a provision in the 2010 healthcare bill which requires health insurance to cover basic preventative services for women. An advisory group, the Institute of Medicine, had recommended covering a fuller range of contraceptive services to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius adopted the institute's recommendation but included an exemption for churches, although not related religious organizations such as hospitals.

Twenty-eight U.S. states already require health insurers to cover contraception.

The issue quickly took on political dimensions, with Republican presidential contenders criticizing the administration for violating religious liberties. Obama is seeking re-election in what many see as a referendum on his policies during the last three years.

Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney, in Colorado, on Tuesday called the requirement an "assault on religion."

Republican rival Rick Santorum, who is Catholic, called the White House's comments "ridiculous" while speaking in Colorado on Monday. Rival Newt Gingrich, also a Catholic, has also declared the policy a war on religious freedom.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whose name has surfaced as a possible Republican vice presidential candidate, has introduced a bill to further expand the exemption for religious employers.

ALLAYING CONCERNS

Just how religious-based organizations could implement the rule to meet the Obama administration's criteria while still holding fast to their core beliefs remains to be seen.

Carney offered no details but said the White House would discuss possible avenues over the next 18 months.

"How the process moves forward in these discussions in terms of examining possible ways that we could potentially allay some of these concerns, there are a lot of different ideas out there," he said at the press briefing.

Jennifer Duffy, senior political analyst for The Cook Political Report, said neither side was likely to back down in the run-up to the election.

"I don't think the bishops have any intention of letting this fade and, especially if their position is intractable, then it's a fight," she said. "It becomes a staring contest."

Emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill" and seen by many conservatives as akin to abortion, for the most part would not fall under the rule since it is already available behind the-counter for those 17 and older.

Women's rights groups and other contraception supporters, who were disappointed last year when the Obama administration rejected a push to make emergency contraception more widely available, had feared that Obama might widen the exemption.

Susan Wood, a health professor at George Washington University's Jacobs Institute of Women's Health who backs birth control, said religious groups should have no more control over what employees do with their insurance than with their paychecks.

"This is an employee benefit issue. This is not the Catholic

Church having to provide a service directly. No Catholic hospital is going to be required to write a prescription or provide a pack of pills."

Two polls released by Planned Parenthood, which provides birth control and other reproductive services, showed that the majority of voters, including Catholics, support contraceptive coverage.

(Reporting By Susan Heavey; additional reporting by Steve Holland in Colorado, Laura MacInnis in Washington and Greg McCune in Chicago; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson, Eric Beech and Philip Barbara)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (38)
roneida wrote:
This White House is willing to copromise on anything that will get them votes.

All morality is relative and there certainly are no outdated antiques such as standards or morals. Yes we can!

Feb 07, 2012 11:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
tualai1017 wrote:
Screw the catholic church. Being “against birth control” is the most backwards, medieval thing I have ever heard. Birth control ISN”T just about preventing pregnancy. It is imperative for many other health conditions as well, and the fact that some women can’t get it is just a travesty.

Feb 07, 2012 11:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
Tothiwim wrote:
Religion should play no role in politics. Separation of church and state requires that there be no mention of religion in any legislation or ordinance. No “faith-based initiatives”. No exemptions from taxes, ADA requirements, or any other laws of the land. The government has no business deciding which people and which organizations qualify for a “religious” exemption. Responsibility to abide by all laws applies to all employers, property owners, and employees without distinction as to their ostensible religious affiliations.
http://gosto.org/index.html#War-on-Religion

Feb 07, 2012 11:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.