Mogget Speaks Out…White House Listens.

A day after Mogget speculated that the Catholic Church would win out in the battle over birth control requirements, the While House is set to announce a compromise.

I wonder if they read FPR and realized that fighting on this issue was futile?

In actuality, the White House has been looking for an out on this for the last week. While the intitial proposal was polling well, it was creating unnecessary tension on an issue that is more symbolic than substantive.

Reversing course on this will no more restrict women’s access to birth control than birth control is a threat to the “sancity of life.” Now, I am not wanting to understate the symbolic patriarchy of such policies. Yet, in a free society, the Catholic Church can hold whatever views they want about birth control. After all, they have no power to actually prevent anyone from purchasing birth control at Walgreens and insurance at these institutions will still cover visits to doctors who proscribe birth control.

So, what should we do about the Catholic Church and birth control? Shrug it off. I am pretty sure most Catholics do.

About Chris Henrichsen

Chris Henrichsen has moved Approaching Justice off of Patheos. Find his latest posts and the new Approaching Justice. Thanks!

  • Stan Beale

    Chris. Yoour comment on availibility is correct for over the counter birth control methods. The difficulty with them is their rate of failure as well as other types of problems with each of those methods.

    I do find it ironic that you only see male “talking heads” on television advocating further restrictions on women and the decisions that they would make about their body and their sexuality.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/ Chris H.

    My references to birth control are all to bill control pills and medications. I do think that employers not covering birth control is unfortunate and sexist. It is particular troublesome for those who require more expensive medications and not just the types available as generics. However, not having the coverage for medications, does not mean that one cannot get it proscribed. That is what I meant.

  • Clark

    Catholics are the major swing group this year. Even though most American Catholics don’t follow the official views of their religion on birth control they also don’t like Catholicism being bullied. So I think it was inevitable Obama would back off.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/ Chris H.

    Here are the details of the compromise: http://wapo.st/A5vCuj

    I think this should satisfy all sides.

    Clark, as Mogget mentioned yesterday, this really bother both liberals and conservatives. I think it struck a common thread.

  • Jettboy

    If you think that is considered a compromise, you haven’t been reading Catholic responses. A lot of them see it more as a PR stunt than a compromise. Then again, a lot of them don’t believe a compromise is acceptable. They want Obama to get out of their business altogether.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/ Chris H.

    Well, that is the nature of compromise. So, it is not an appeasement of Catholic bishops (who many women wish would get out of their business), but an alternative which is friendlier to the Catholic position.

  • mogget

    LOL! I’ve been doing office visits with students all day, reading their drafts, and didn’t see this until just now. Someone around here should pay me more! Or you, for being funny!

    Anyway, there are many good things in life. Birth control is one of those things, for those who care to use it in their family planning. But I can’t think of much that is made better by the government’s participation. Talk about a source for the privation of good!

    So for me this is and remains a First Amendment issue, and the so-called accommodation is inadequate. But we shall see. Interesting times and all that.

    And it is very important to remember to love those with whom we disagree in these sorts of issues…

    Mogs

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/ Chris H.

    “So for me this is and remains a First Amendment issue, and the so-called accommodation is inadequate. But we shall see. Interesting times and all that.”

    How is it a 1st amendment issue?

  • annegb

    I think it’s a freedom of religion issue. The Catholic Church should be able to decide its creed. Freedom of religion dictates they can say to their followers: “birth control is a sin.” And individual Catholics can choose not to follow this idea. I believe many probably do, in the interest of good common sense. But forcing a religion to abandon a firm stand isn’t right. This could carry into a lot of religious beliefs. That’s not to say I don’t believe that many religious use religion as a club. But religious freedom is a basic right in America. Telling the Catholic church how to be Catholic—not a good thing.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/ Chris H.

    It is a religion and politics issue for sure. The state is neutral on what it means to be a Catholic. I welcome the US Council of Bishops to speak out on these issues. However, political institutions are not under any obligation to meet their demands. The government has regulatory authority over the insurance industry. The state is not requiring the Catholic Church to change their position on birth control.

  • Pingback: Trackback

  • Pingback: Trackback


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X