Written by Don Byrd
Monday, 05 March 2012
The contraception coverage/religious liberty debate is showing no signs of letting up – and not just because of Rush Limbaugh. Watching the Sunday talk shows was a bit bewildering on the topic. I have two thoughts really, and may as well throw them out there.
First, political advocates seem absolutely obsessed with defining this topic as either about women’s health or about religious freedom. One side virtually refuses to discuss religious freedom – claiming this controversy is not about that; it’s about women’s health. The other side says this is not about women’s health; it’s about religious freedom. Here’s a radical notion: it’s about both. It is about religious freedom *and* about women’s health. Why is that so difficult to acknowledge?
Second, unless I dreamt it, the Obama Administration did in fact turn back its earlier decision that would have required religious organizations like schools and hospitals to include contraception coverage in their employees’ health insurance policies. That policy never went into effect, and the President announced that is no longer the approach the administration will take. Remember, the compromise? And yet, news reporters and advocates on both sides continue to discuss this issue as if that never happened. Here’s presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on yesterday’s Meet the Press.
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Barack Obama, as president, in the most radical anti-religious move made by a–by any president, is trying to coerce the Catholic Church at a time when he’s been told by the bishops…
MR. GREGORY: Well, Mr. Speak…
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: …that would have to give up every single hospital–wait a–let me finish. They would have–this is what they say.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: They would have to give up every single hospital, they would have to give up every single religious–every single university and college associated with the church because he is asking them to violate their religious beliefs. Now you want–if you want a debate…
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: …over whether or not the president of the United States should be able to impose his views on a religious institution…
MR. GREGORY: All right. And what he…
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: …and whether America’s now a secular country, let’s have that debate.
Arguing as if the President’s u-turn never happened, or that it didn’t change anything, simply defies credulity. Religious organizations – like houses of worship – are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement, and that’s a positive development. At the same time, pretending like this new arrangement poses no remaining religious liberty questions or dilemmas whatsoever also seems off the mark. A little more reality-based conversation would be helpful, all the way around.
