President Obama's Birth Control Gamble

[4588686]

[url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72345.html"]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72345.html[/url]

[color=#000000][size=2]
[i][size=4]President [url="http://www.politico.com/tag/barackobama"]Barack Obama[/url] and his senior aides were more than a little concerned before he announced his controversial decision requiring [url="http://www.politico.com/tag/catholics"]Catholic [/url]hospitals and universities to provide contraception in employee health plans.[/size][/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=2]
[i][size=4]Obama — in recognition of the issue’s sensitivity to the church — picked up the phone to personally break the news to two influential Catholic leaders: New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Sister Carol Keehan, head of the largest Catholic health association in the country and a pivotal supporter of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.[/size][/i][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]
[i][size=4]he president’s tone was polite but not contrite, a person briefed on the calls told POLITICO: He explained that while his health care law exempted Catholic churches from the requirement, he wouldn’t carve out other Catholic institutions even though the Vatican views artificial [url="http://www.politico.com/tag/contraception"]birth control[/url] as contrary to the will of God.[/size][/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=2]
[i][size=4]Aides say Obama’s move, which has sparked [url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71734.html"]thunderous denunciations[/url] as he prepares to address the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday, was motivated by personal conviction and his long-held belief that all health plans need to provide birth control to women.[/size][/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=2]
[i][size=4]But the January decision was also a hard-headed election-year calculation with acute political risks — a bow to the concerns of womens’ rights groups that could alienate white Catholics, many of them critical independent voters in battleground states.[/size][/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=2]
[i][size=4]The handling of the issue offers a hint of Obama’s approach to governing and campaigning in 2012: When confronted with a position close to his heart — and dear to the base — Obama is increasingly inclined to side with people who [i]will[/i] vote for him even if it means enraging those who [i]might, but probably won’t[/i], vote for him.[/size][/i][/size][/color][color=#000000][size=2]
[i][size=4]“Who are we going to really lose over this? Ron Paul voters?” asked a senior aide to a Senate Democrat, who thinks the administration should have handled the situation more quietly by punting a decision until after Election Day. “Maybe it wouldn’t have mattered. … Catholics who don’t believe in condoms aren’t going to vote for Barack Obama anyway. Let’s get real.[/size][/i][/size][/color]

[Luigi]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328232454' post='2379903']
[url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72345.html"]http://www.politico....0212/72345.html[/url]


[color=#000000][size=2][i][size=4]President [url="http://www.politico.com/tag/barackobama"]Barack Obama[/url] and his senior aides were more than a little concerned before he announced his controversial decision requiring [url="http://www.politico.com/tag/catholics"]Catholic [/url]hospitals and universities to provide contraception in employee health plans.[/size][/i][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2][i][size=4]Obama — in recognition of the issue’s sensitivity to the church — picked up the phone to personally break the news to two influential Catholic leaders: New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Sister Carol Keehan, head of the largest Catholic health association in the country and a pivotal supporter of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.[/size][/i][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][i][size=4]he president’s tone was polite but not contrite, a person briefed on the calls told POLITICO: He explained that while his health care law exempted Catholic churches from the requirement, he wouldn’t carve out other Catholic institutions even though the Vatican views artificial [url="http://www.politico.com/tag/contraception"]birth control[/url] as contrary to the will of God.[/size][/i][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2][i][size=4]Aides say Obama’s move, which has sparked [url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71734.html"]thunderous denunciations[/url] as he prepares to address the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday, was [u][b]motivated by personal conviction and his long-held belief [/b][/u]that all health plans need to provide birth control to women.[/size][/i][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2][i][size=4]But the January decision was also a hard-headed election-year calculation with acute political risks — a bow to the concerns of womens’ rights groups that could alienate white Catholics, many of them critical independent voters in battleground states.[/size][/i][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2][i][size=4]The handling of the issue offers a hint of Obama’s approach to governing and campaigning in 2012: When confronted with a position close to his heart — and dear to the base — Obama is increasingly inclined to side with people who [i]will[/i] vote for him even if it means enraging those who [i]might, but probably won’t[/i], vote for him.[/size][/i][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2][i][size=4]“Who are we going to really lose over this? Ron Paul voters?” asked a senior aide to a Senate Democrat, who thinks the administration should have handled the situation more quietly by punting a decision until after Election Day. “Maybe it wouldn’t have mattered. … Catholics who don’t believe in condoms aren’t going to vote for Barack Obama anyway. Let’s get real.[/size][/i][/size][/color]
[/quote]

FRACK the president's personal convictions and long held-beliefs - let's talk about the Constitution! The US is a democracy, where the rule of law takes precedence over one man's personal convictions and long-held beliefs.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Even a couple of percentage points, not necessarily from among those who oppose contraception but those turned off by the sheer insensitivity, will cost Obama the election. This was an enormous mistake that he only has a short window to correct.

[4588686]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1328233786' post='2379917']
FRACK the president's personal convictions and long held-beliefs - let's talk about the Constitution! The US is a democracy, where the rule of law takes precedence over one man's personal convictions and long-held beliefs.
[/quote]

Right. And the democratically elected executive made a policy decision that is within his rights to make. There's nothing undemocratic of unconstitutional about it. Nor will there be if the electorate decides to replace him with an executive of alternative convictions.

[4588686]

[quote name='thedude' timestamp='1328233949' post='2379920']
Even a couple of percentage points, not necessarily from among those who oppose contraception but those turned off by the sheer insensitivity, will cost Obama the election. This was an enormous mistake that he only has a short window to correct.
[/quote]

Those who it will sway are the same people who were willing to entertain the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim or equate legal abortion with the Holocaust. I don't think there is much question who they will vote for. Those, like me, who are mildly disconcerned about it but see it as a reasonable resolution to the collision of two sets of rights, the rights of woman and the rights of the Church, won't let this one thing sway us.

[Luigi]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328234271' post='2379925']
Right. And the democratically elected executive made a policy decision that is within his rights to make. There's nothing undemocratic of unconstitutional about it. Nor will there be if the electorate decides to replace him with an executive of alternative convictions.
[/quote]

The Constitution does guarantee the spearation of Church and State. It is not within any president's powers to change that. That would require a Constitutional amendment.

On the assumption that it's within the president's rights to make policy decisions, then the next president can reverse them, and the president after that can reverse them again, ad infinitum. Which is not a good way to establish policy - particularly on so important a matter as separation of Church and State. If his policies hold any water at all, let the president present them in the form of bills to the duly elected representatives of the people who will have to live under and abide by the those policies, and let the policies become the law of the land.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328234544' post='2379930']
Those, like me, who are mildly disconcerned about it but see it as a reasonable resolution to the collision of two sets of rights, the rights of woman and the rights of the Church, won't let this one thing sway us.
[/quote]
The point is this can only hurt him. There are no moderates who will cite this decision as their reason for voting for him. It's going to push more voters away than it draws to his fold.

[4588686]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1328234719' post='2379932']
The Constitution does guarantee the spearation of Church and State. It is not within any president's powers to change that. That would require a Constitutional amendment.[/QUOTE]

It's not infringing on the separation. This isn't the Church mandating doctrine or taxing Churchs. This is a mandate about health insurance for employees in a tax supported hospital. I don't think there's any constitutional argument here. Particularly after Scalia's opinion in Smith

[QUOTE]On the assumption that it's within the president's rights to make policy decisions, then the next president can reverse them, and the president after that can reverse them again, ad infinitum. Which is not a good way to establish policy - particularly on so important a matter as separation of Church and State. If his policies hold any water at all, let the president present them in the form of bills to the duly elected representatives of the people who will have to live under and abide by the those policies, and let the policies become the law of the land.
[/quote]

That's not how the constitution functions.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328235661' post='2379942']
It's not infringing on the separation. This isn't the Church mandating doctrine or taxing Churchs. This is a mandate about health insurance for employees in a tax supported hospital. I don't think there's any constitutional argument here. Particularly after Scalia's opinion in Smith



That's not how the constitution functions.
[/quote]

That does not seem logical at all. If Obama mandated that all Americans started practicing Hinduism under the penalty of fines or jail time, he would still be violating the US Constitution, regardless if he did it through an executive decision through the legislature. Likewise if he outlawed the practice of Islam. Or if he forced the Quaker's to fight in a war. Or if he forced Catholics to pay for, provide, and use contraceptives. Oh wait.

[elizabeth09]

He wants the Catholic Church pay for this. As the way that I understand it, we have to a point that we have to respond back. It just sick me to death that he is doing this.

[Guest]

Obama is a antichrist and he needs the FEAR of God put in him.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328235661' post='2379942']
It's not infringing on the separation. This isn't the Church mandating doctrine or taxing Churchs. This is a mandate about health insurance for employees in a tax supported hospital. I don't think there's any constitutional argument here. Particularly after Scalia's opinion in Smith
[/quote]
But this mandate applies to all employers, even in the private sector. It prohibits the free exercise of faithful Catholic business owners who do not want to pay for their employees' contraception.

The whole premise of the administration's argument, by the way, is that contraception is "preventive" medicine. That notion hasn't received enough critical analysis.

[4588686]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1328236195' post='2379946']
That does not seem logical at all. If Obama mandated that all Americans started practicing Hinduism under the penalty of fines or jail time, he would still be violating the US Constitution, regardless if he did it through an executive decision through the legislature. Likewise if he outlawed the practice of Islam. Or if he forced the Quaker's to fight in a war. Or if he forced Catholics to pay for, provide, and use contraceptives. Oh wait.
[/quote]

I'm not saying this to be rude, but I don't think you understand how the government works.

I was looking for sources but I didn't find anything that gave a quick summation. You need to do a basic wikipedia read of the Executive branch. Even if this particular order is struck down, you're conflating it with the previous examples would suggest that, assuming you weren't simply being dishonest (which I don't believe that to be the case), either you don't understand how a Presidential administration/executive powers work, or that you don't understand just what this order is.

[Brother Adam]

Actually I don't think you have any idea what the HHS mandate is, but the USCCB gives an excellent summary. It's pretty easy to find.

[4588686]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1328238845' post='2379977']
Actually I don't think you have any idea what the HHS mandate is, but the USCCB gives an excellent summary. It's pretty easy to find.
[/quote]

If you really do understand the mandate and where it falls relative to Presidential power yet still gave the examples that you did then you were simply being dishonest for the sake of rhetorical flair. The President's move is arguably (conceivably) unconstitutional, depending on the mood of the Court, there is case law for either option, but to compare it to the President dictating that private citizens practice Hinduism is to evidence a lack of understanding of Executive power.