Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

Reader Comments
Back to blog

1. Arguments for a "religious employer" exemption have gone from wrong to ridiculous.
Those demanding such an exemption initially worked themselves into a lather with the false claim that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers' religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law's requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved--except perhaps for an employer who really desires not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather wants to retain control of his employees' health plans, limit their choices to conform to the employer's religious beliefs, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer would need an exemption from the law.
Indeed, some continued clamoring for just such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments they would be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one's beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to most taxpayers--who don't much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of their tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren't thereby "forced" to pay for a war, health care, or whatever else the government does that each of us may consider wrong or even immoral?
In any event, they put up enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required. Problem solved--again, even more.

Doug Indeap of CA 4:01PM February 11, 2012

I left out the "or" on my previous post. if you don't believe in contraceptive OR prevention, dont use them... just dont tell me what to do.

debmarst of CA 1:33PM February 11, 2012

Really? if you dont believe in contraception prevention, dont use any. that is your personal freedom.

debmarst of CA 1:26PM February 11, 2012

I have a suggestion, if religious organizations object to this as a violation of the First Amendment, then the Government should abolish charitable deductions, over $150 Billion are itemized each year, costing the Government nearly $45 Billion in lost revenue, so it is clear that Religious organizations are truly benefiting from money rightly due the Government. With this in mind, the violation of the First Amendment comes directly from these deductions. We must choose one or the other, we can't let the benefactors of tax deductions tell the government how to operate, and the Government can't tell a Religion how to operate, so do away with the deductions, and do away with Government interference.

Tony Spear of IL 8:43AM February 11, 2012

So this doesn't pass the 'smell test'. So what's new? Nothing Bummer has done has passed the 'smell test'.
As one said here, Buma needs to be removed from the White House ASAP. Not only that, the snake pits we call the Senate and Congress need to be cleaned out also.
Here's how to do it, so please spread the word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zYh0RsCXys

Tom of TX 7:31AM February 11, 2012

"Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test"
Obama always gets "white lipped" when people catch him passing gas (...his little minions just hold their noses and call him pragmatic!). This failure of a leader has no idea as he continues to present to the rational and reasonable, again and again, that he is overwhelmed!
....and then his "best advisor", Nancy Pelosi, once said, "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it!"
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2010/03/pelosi_we_have.php
Gol-leee, Sargeant Carter!!

Brill Hebby of KS 6:23AM February 11, 2012

We need some Papal input here. I know he would see it as a sin for a catholic to USE birth control, but is it really a sin to allow people to choose it? Christianity, as I understand it, doesn't typically argue to remove the temptation of sin. Instead they try to get their followers to make the right choice and avoid that temptation. This is separate from the argument about whether or not birth control should be considered a sin.

Jim of CA 6:04AM February 11, 2012

Garry of CA _ There was no change. Just slide of hands...
buma says health plan not church pays all cost of pills. HOW STUPID.
Health plan adds up all the cost and what they expect cost will be in upcoming year. That's how they charge. Since church pays most of the cost of health insurance, THEY ARE paying FOR THE new COST FOR birth control.

Bill Hedges of MO 11:46PM February 10, 2012

Obama needs to be removed from the White House, ASAP. He will continues to implement his socialist agenda and assaulting religious freedom. This needs to stop. I will be not be voting for him on November, you can count on it.

Jose Lugo of IN 11:28PM February 10, 2012

Win/win solutions lack the drama and the soap opera appeal that sustains the interest for the next installment of the drama. I for one am glad that a better way has been found and that it can work for all parties so that religious liberty is preserved but so too are the rights of women. Win/win.

Garry of CA 10:57PM February 10, 2012