Obama administration should re-think contraception mandate

If the Susan G. Komen foundation board can reverse its tone-deaf decision to pull grant funding from Planned Parenthood, then the Obama administration can say “oops, we goofed” and rethink its decision mandating religious organizations include contraception in their employee insurance plans.

I think health insurance plans — public and private — should cover contraception. They didn’t “back in my day.” I am uneasy with this government vs. religion mandate.

You wanted “the pill,” you scrimped on the grocery money to buy it. Ditto with surgeries, though there was that oddity in which vasectomies were covered, but not tubal ligation. (Always, always, the guys ….) These days, most plans pick up the tab, minus, of course, the obligatory co-pays and deductibles.

I think we walk a First Amendment tightrope, though, when the government tells religious organizations historically and theologically opposed to contraception that they have to include contraception (what’s next? Abortion?) in their insurance plans.

So, when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius rolled out only a very narrow exception — Catholic organizations that employ mostly Catholics can skip the contraception mandate — the battle was engaged. Because, that teensy exception meant Catholic universities, for instance, had to provide contraception in their insurance plans.

No one is mandating employees avail themselves of contraception, simply that it be included for those who choose to use. Understandably, the Catholic Church is on the pulpit against the mandate and reactions nationally have been — perhaps — surprising, as the mainstream media does two things: disagrees with the mandate or calls for a “re-think.”

The Kaiser Foundation is collating information and reactions at its website.

I started this post counting myself as a “disagree with the mandate,” but I’m going to conclude it as a “re-think” that includes far broader access to exemptions.

I find the mandate distasteful because it is heavy-handed. And, yet I can’t bring myself to say do away with it. Because, where does the line get drawn? Exemptions for any Catholic organization — including the ones that get state and federal funding? Exemptions for any Catholic hospital?

Although religious organizations may discriminate in favor of hiring those of their own faith, these days, doing so isn’t going to fill all those jobs on school and college campuses or in health care. So, church-affiliated businesses reach into wider workforce and customer bases and as they do, the faith-based employee and customer pool no longer shares similar religious values.

The Obama administration narrowly defined the exemptions to make it easier to implement the mandate nationwide. That makes sense; it reduces the “if this, then this” slippery slope of who qualifies for which sliver of what slice of which exception. Angels dancing on pinheads would be simple in contrast.

But, in drawing such a fine line distinction, the administration cut it too close. Time to say “oops, we goofed” and more broadly define those exemptions.

The Christian — Protestant — litmus test for American presidents

At 10, I wasn’t today’s news junkie. I did “know” that the POPE IN ROME was going to run the United States and we were going to have to eat fish on Fridays if John F. Kennedy were elected president.

Not being fond of fish, I sure didn’t want that JFK as president. I wasn’t sure who the POPE IN ROME (people always said it like that) was, being the good, little, mainstream Presbyterian girl that I was. But, by gosh and golly, how could any guy in Italy know what was good for Americans?

The fact I remember hearing those kinds of things — at school, church and around, but never at home — meant there was a lot of anti-Catholic noise back in the early 1960s. The American president must be a mainstream Protestant — not just a Christian, mind you. Not just a God-fearing believer. A Protestant, and preferably one who didn’t roll around on the floor, shouting and healing and waving snakes.

Fifty years later and Americans still can’t give up that litmus test. Heck, these days, among some of us, we’re more likely to vote for the snake wavers than a Muslim or a Mormon. I don’t get it. Why does the American president’s religion — or lack thereof — make a dime’s worth of difference?

Don’t even bother to tell me it matters because it’s a good indicator that said president will be morally strong and ethically upright. There are plenty of political and corporate examples to the contrary. Let’s don’t go there today.

Last time I checked, “one nation under God” and “in God we trust” didn’t require a membership card to a mainstream Protestant congregation. God has a pretty big wingspan, covering, as it were, Muslims, Mormons, Jews and Catholics. Feel free to add your own one-God denomination.

Anyone can run for U.S. president. There are no Constitutional restrictions. The Constitution mandates only that the person who serves must be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen. That’s it. No litmus test for religion, or anything else for that matter.

Gary Gutting is a philosophy professor at Notre Dame. He argues well in a recent New York Times blog post that a “candidate’s religious faith may ground a sustaining core of values, but it may also conflict with meaningful discussion of policy or conflict with the nation’s best interest.”

It will be fascinating to watch some voters squirm as they are forced to choose between Barack Obama (Christian, Protestant, but oops, all those rumors about being a closet Muslim and, gasp, that politically active black pastor who said all those awful things) and Mitt Romney (powerful, steadfast, practicing Mormon; you know, Mormon, the one about the Broadway show, the “cult” religion thing; wonder how many wives he has.)

Personally, I don’t care too figs what pew the president sits in on what day. I care about integrity, wisdom, compassion, smarts. A membership card at the nearest church, synagogue, temple or Stonehenge isn’t required.

Pin It on Pinterest