Catholics File Lawsuits Against Obama: “We Will Not Pay for Contraceptives”
Published in La Repubblica
(Italy) on 22 May 2012
by (link to original)
Obama's health care reform binds employers to provide workers birth control coverage in their health plans. The White House backed off, but now the associations attack — as does the Republican Party.
The political and ethical battle on birth control in the United States also becomes legal. The Archdioceses of New York and Washington, along with about 40 other institutions and Catholic groups, have filed a lawsuit against the health care reform strongly supported by Barack Obama. The most controversial provision, which requires employers to provide employees with health care plans covering birth control, is under indictment.
The charge is always the same: The regulation under the Obama health law would be unconstitutional, because it forces religious organizations to indirectly support birth control practices contrary to their tenets.
Earlier this year, the rule on birth control pill puts the Catholic bishops and various religious institutions on a war-footing, giving rise to weeks of heated controversy in the Congress. Finally, in February, President Obama had accepted a compromise, however, and announced that religiously affiliated employers no longer have to provide for contraception coverage. But her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The obligation to cover the health costs of employees for birth control: "Religious organizations won't have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly," Obama said.
In his announcement, the White House's current tenant, who has never given up on accusing the opposition to use the issue politically in this election year, stressed on the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right in America, and pointed out: “Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women.”
Initially, Obama's words seemed to defuse the controversy, but apparently the dispute is open again. So open that even the University of Notre Dame, which in February had praised President Barack Obama for pledging to accommodate religious groups, is now among the plaintiffs. Why? "Since then, progress has not been encouraging," the Rev. John Jenkins, President of the University, said.
The law at issue — one of the most successful act during the President's mandate — expands access to health insurance to 32 million Americans, extends the national social insurance program to the poorest, increases the tax burden for the wealthiest and forbids insurance companies to pursue discriminatory practices, such as denying insurance coverage to people who have pre-existing conditions.
The reform does not seem too revolutionary to Europeans, used to having public health care, despite its delays and inefficiency. Yet, these simple principles have provoked an incredibly harsh debate in the States. Frequently, the reform has been considered unconstitutional because it limits individual freedom (forcing people to take out an insurance or pay a penalty tax) and because it does not deal with a federal issue, but a state one.
This is the reason why “Obamacare” is under attack not only by Catholics, but also by Republicans. Always against it, the Grand Old Party and its candidate for the White House, Mitt Romney, have already let be known that they'll first abolish it, if elected, because freedom comes first and foremost. It makes you wonder whether that freedom also includes the liberty of not having the money to get insurance coverage or to be discriminated against.
The political and ethical battle on birth control in the United States also becomes legal. The Archdioceses of New York and Washington, along with about 40 other institutions and Catholic groups, have filed a lawsuit against the health care reform strongly supported by Barack Obama. The most controversial provision, which requires employers to provide employees with health care plans covering birth control, is under indictment.
The charge is always the same: The regulation under the Obama health law would be unconstitutional, because it forces religious organizations to indirectly support birth control practices contrary to their tenets.
Earlier this year, the rule on birth control pill puts the Catholic bishops and various religious institutions on a war-footing, giving rise to weeks of heated controversy in the Congress. Finally, in February, President Obama had accepted a compromise, however, and announced that religiously affiliated employers no longer have to provide for contraception coverage. But her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The obligation to cover the health costs of employees for birth control: "Religious organizations won't have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly," Obama said.
In his announcement, the White House's current tenant, who has never given up on accusing the opposition to use the issue politically in this election year, stressed on the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right in America, and pointed out: “Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women.”
Initially, Obama's words seemed to defuse the controversy, but apparently the dispute is open again. So open that even the University of Notre Dame, which in February had praised President Barack Obama for pledging to accommodate religious groups, is now among the plaintiffs. Why? "Since then, progress has not been encouraging," the Rev. John Jenkins, President of the University, said.
The law at issue — one of the most successful act during the President's mandate — expands access to health insurance to 32 million Americans, extends the national social insurance program to the poorest, increases the tax burden for the wealthiest and forbids insurance companies to pursue discriminatory practices, such as denying insurance coverage to people who have pre-existing conditions.
The reform does not seem too revolutionary to Europeans, used to having public health care, despite its delays and inefficiency. Yet, these simple principles have provoked an incredibly harsh debate in the States. Frequently, the reform has been considered unconstitutional because it limits individual freedom (forcing people to take out an insurance or pay a penalty tax) and because it does not deal with a federal issue, but a state one.
This is the reason why “Obamacare” is under attack not only by Catholics, but also by Republicans. Always against it, the Grand Old Party and its candidate for the White House, Mitt Romney, have already let be known that they'll first abolish it, if elected, because freedom comes first and foremost. It makes you wonder whether that freedom also includes the liberty of not having the money to get insurance coverage or to be discriminated against.
Next article![]( "The Smoke Clears")
