President Barack Obama's attempt to calm the contraception mandate waters meets mixed reviews

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 11, 2012 10:35 p.m.

    Taxpayers, even pacifists, fund wars through taxes. Coal companies help fund the very mine safety regulations which no doubt cut into their profits. Rich people resent paying taxes for programs that will not, they feel, make any difference in their lives. Even non-profit organizations have fees and rules which complicate their operations.

    And so it is with "tax free" organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church and its thousands of subsidiaries. But they get more attention because the country has many Catholics, and the person trying to achieve healthcare opportunities for all is President Obama, a Democrat in this 2012, an election year.

    Which brings to mind the question: why don't Republicans have to propose anything that would help our broken system other than declare they will "end Obamacare"?

    Note - Sorry for the use of the term "frothing". I was just a bit disgusted with someone calling themselves "TRUTH" while letting fly with scare terms like "communist regime".

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 3:55 p.m.

    This is the problem with employer based private insurance markets, you can't get everyone coverage. The way to solve this is with universal healthcare. Ever notice that churches don't complain about coverage of birth control in Europe? That's because it's not employer provided. Just one more benefit of universal coverage here (also it's cheaper as a simple comparison of GDP%'s of healthcare spending by nation would show, there's no for-profit motive to deny care, nobody goes into bankruptcy over medical expenses, no pre-existing conditions, and everyone has access to healthcare).

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 3:55 p.m.

    IF Obama gets elected in Nov. there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that there will be more and more "mandates".

    As a (then) lameduck President WHY WOULDN'T he add more and more mandates through executive fiat?

    All the while insurance costs go up and up and up...........!

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 2:27 p.m.

    "And unlike the frothing posters of the right, I have no hyperbolic names for anyone."

    Isn't calling someone 'frothing' kind of...the same...whatever.

    Anyway, people still seem to be missing the point. This isn't about the benefits of birth control. This is about MAKING a private, religious institution do something that goes against its beliefs. So, in the case of the Catholic Church, whether the government is demanding they pay for insurance that covers birth control or abortions, to them it is the same.

    So far, nobody who is defending the Obama administration has been able to debate the fact that the government has no authority to make a private institution pay for an act that runs counter to its beliefs. The only response the left has is to list all the benefits of birth control. You cannot argue that the government is overstepping its bounds.

    If the government can dictate that churches must provide birth control (in the name of women's health), why can it not dictate that churches perform gay marriages (in the name of equality)? And if they refuse, if they break Obama's laws, will the government then pull their tax exempt status?

  • Another Perspective Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    The Catholic church does stand for good in the world. If they would stop putting so much energy into non issues such as birth control that really aren't wrong or immoral, they would have more political capital and energy to fight true evil and injustice.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 11:26 a.m.

    It's so funny... the majority of Catholic women use birth control. Amazing how people will get so up in arms over something that is really a non-issue.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 11, 2012 9:48 a.m.

    If I ran an insurance company, I would certainly rather pay for the contraceptives (legal, by the way, for about half a century) of many women than the abortion of a single woman, and would rather do THAT than pay for a live birth. If you want fewer abortions or unwanted pregnancies, then look to better contraception, and better availability of it, as part of the answer. As for a big federal "power grab", the right never hesitates to instruct women in how their uterus should be used with the threat of legal punishment. And unlike the frothing posters of the right, I have no hyperbolic names for anyone.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 9:22 a.m.


    Great. So he asked one nun at a hospital. The point is that it affects ALL religious organizations. Again, this isn't about what contraception for women. It's about crossing the line of separation of church and state and telling the church what must be done. The constitution forbids it. If the doctrine of even one church, let alone the entire Catholic church, says that birth control is against their beliefs, the federal government has no power to make them provide it. And I do believe this is an indication of things to come if Obama wins a second term.

    This is the same president who made promises of being transparent and then had his party RUSH one of the most significant, life-changing bills (the healthcare law) through congress on Christmas Eve using a budgetary procedure so he only needed a simple majority of votes. He doesn't care about the Constitution and neither do his supporters if it skirting the bill of rights helps their cause.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 1:02 a.m.

    I have a serious question. I view war as immoral and a grave sin. Can I opt out of using my tax money for wars?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 11:40 p.m.

    "It looks like he sent up a trial balloon and it got shot down"

    He secured the support of the head nun with Catholic Hospitals before making the announcement. That's not floating a trial balloon, that's getting your main opponent to agree with you, then announcing your compromise.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 10:27 p.m.


    I disagree. I don't think President Obama comes across as taking the moral high ground of compromise. It looks like he sent up a trial balloon and it got shot down. His philosophy is not one that compromises. He keeps pushing and retreating to see what he can get away with. Don't think for a minute that if he wins re-election he is going to care about compromising on stuff like this. It is an election year and that's the only reason he backed off.

  • UtahCentrist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 9:41 p.m.

    Some of these comments here here demonstrate just how hugely irrational some people are about this president.

    No one is saying that this contraception isn't going to be paid for. The insurance companies are more than happy to provide contraceptives to women because the cost of contraceptives is way cheaper than the cost of pregnancy and childbirth. Providing contraception SAVES the insurance companies money. And 95% percent of women in the US use contraception, including a large number of religious women too. And now, thanks to the change in policy, religious institutions will have their thoughts and feelings respected, and will not have to do something that goes against their conscience. It's a win-win-win for religious liberty, women's health and the health insurance industry.

    And Obama has shown himself willing to do something that Republicans seem to be unwilling to do: compromise.

    Some people need to get a grip. If it makes you happy to say the most outrageous, over the top things you can about the president, more power to you. But all it does is makes one side look like a bunch of irrational ideologues who care more about name-calling than good governance. Swing voters, those who determine the outcome of elections, are ALWAYS turned off be that kind of rhetoric.

    Every single reasonable thing that this president has tried to do has been met with hyperbolic rhetoric and outright hatred, even when those proposals are supported by business and the majority of the American electorate.

    If Republicans think that overheated language, vitriol and inflexible obstructionism is a winning strategy, I think they will be in for a very rude awakening come November.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 9:21 p.m.


    This isn't about whether birth control is a good thing or not. This is about the federal government dictating what religion must provide. Obama keeps pushing the envelope when it comes to the Constitution. We already know, by his own words, that he has problems with the Constitution. He doesn't like the fact that it restricts the power of the federal government.

    I always have to laugh when liberals (who are anything but, when it comes to individual liberty) start talking about choice and not infringing on women's rights. Liberals are only too happy to turn a blind eye to abuses of power when it suits their needs. The Obama administration is making the Bush administration look like a bunch of libertarians.

    Obama is just like any other leftist in history. It's the same half-truths used by the left for centuries. "We need to take some freedom for the betterment of society as a whole." I am not buying this nonsense. If you want birth control, go out and buy it or go to work for a company who WILL provide it. You have no right, however, to demand it of the church.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 9:14 p.m.

    28 states have this policy including massachusetts who instituted it under Romney. Bunch of hypocrites many of you are... you didn't care one bit about this issue until Obama did something, then suddenly we're on the precipice of armageddon. It's ridiculous, and the voters are with Obama on this, even 52% of Catholics. Now that Catholic hospitals have accepted it we're left with just two options: 1. Republicans hate contraceptives 2. Republicans hate Obama and are willing to throw women's healthcare under the bus to try and land a blow on him.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Feb. 10, 2012 8:21 p.m.

    The vast majority of the American population (including Catholics) doesn't have a problem with birth control. The notion that insurance should pay for it is not controversial. The small set of social conservatives that have a problem with it are heavily, heavily outnumbered.

    At some point Congress might want to actually solve some actual problems. Republican politicians would do well to stop trying to out-bishop the actual Catholic bishops. Only on the issue of birth control, mind you. On the issues of immigrant rights, and economic fairness, and unemployment, and war, forget about it. The Republicans aren't interested.

    It's 2012. The GOP has nothing substantial to go with against President Obama and they know it. So much so, that they are making a fuss about easily accessible, affordable contraception -- which reduces the incidences of abortion, and brings down health care costs.

    But no one ever accused them of being reasonable.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 7:59 p.m.

    But Rep. Chris Smith (NJ), a leading pro-life advocate, refused to back down, saying, the White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction. It states, for example, that 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.


    Rep Smith, do you think that just because a church (or anyone) pays money to someone that they have control over what the recipient does with the money? If I pay you for work done, do I have a right to restrict what you do with your money?

    It is and has always been possible that the Catholic church can hire someone, and with the money they pay to the employee, the employee can use it for what ever, whether or not it violates Catholic teachings.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Feb. 10, 2012 7:43 p.m.

    Can I make this clear? The workers of parish schools and hospitals aren't covered by an insurance provider paying for a portion of their care. These workers are covered by the church who contracts an insurance company to facilitate the health care provided. They have a blue cross card but the church pays the "insurance" portion after deductible is reached. It's called "self pay". Many large companies do this. What insurance company is assigned to cover their contraception? Further when a company or entity is "self pay" they are required to follow federal laws and mandates and can ignore the state ones. So there is no opting out.

    Why doesn't the federal government just dispense contraception to everyone. All birth control and morning after pill is given to the customer at the pharmacy and the government gets the bill?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 10, 2012 7:34 p.m.

    The President does not have the authority to force anyone to buy anything! He does not have the power to force insurance companies to pay for anything! That's the real issue here. He is way beyond his bounds set by the constitution! That's all we need to know!

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 6:28 p.m.

    The insurance company will still charge the Catholic Church for the coverage, it will just say that it isn't. The cost to cover the pills will only be a couple of dollars per person per month on the policy. It will never be noticed. Obamacare will have us all paying for the pills and for abortions.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    This is just more pandering by Obama to his tadical base....

    From 50 million a year 65 million Americans are on welfare, dependent on the govt......
    Unemployment when he took office 7%.,,now it is 8.5 and 10% if we use the same standard we used for GWB....
    This is just a political shift not a compromise....the Catholics are still forced to buy abortions for employees....

    These facts just go to show the record that is Obama and how we cannot afford another month let alone another four years of this radical Saul Alinsky graduate.........

    Nobama 2012.... Let's take our freedom back from the communist regime

  • Denys Picard near montreal, QC
    Feb. 10, 2012 6:04 p.m.

    I could not agree more on the ill fate of this President. Exactly, who will pay for these contraceptives but the Religious organisation? I cannot believe some Christian organisations agreed with this proposal. But the biggest surprise to me was when the President explained:" a Christian myself...ΓΆ This is the guy who has censored the word Christmas in the White House, does not celebrate any Christian ceremonies in the White House, and yet takes the time to prey with his Jewish employees in the White House anytime there is a Jewish holiday. This President has only and persistently come out as a Zionist to me, but a Zionist who believes he is some kind of God himself.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 5:59 p.m.

    More evidence that Obama cares little for precedent, law, the Constition & religion. His views are radical & foreign. November cannot come soon enough.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 5:31 p.m.

    "but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.

    What a crock nothings free, SOMEONE has to pay for it. The other plans that will not be exempt from his contraception mandate will bear the cost.

    But then, we know in BOs eyes, religious freedom (guaranteed by the 1st amendment) PALES in comparison to his devotion to radical womens groups.