Boehner: Contraceptive rule ‘will not stand’
House speaker says Congress will reverse order
By Jack Torry THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
House Speaker John Boehner called the rule “an unambiguous attack on religious freedom.”
WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner vowed yesterday that Congress would reverse the Obama administration’s new rule that requires Catholic-affiliated hospitals and schools to offer contraceptives in their insurance plans to their employees.
In a brief speech on the House floor, Boehner, R-West Chester, assailed the new rule as “an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country” and insisted that it “will not stand.”
Boehner, a Catholic who attended Archbishop Moeller High School in Cincinnati, charged that the Obama administration “has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries, encroaching on religious freedom in a manner that affects millions of Americans and harms some of our nation’s most vital institutions.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who also is from Cincinnati, announced last month that under the new health-care law championed by President Barack Obama, all Catholic hospitals and schools, like all other employers, must pay for plans that provide for contraceptives, such as the birth-control pill and the Plan B morning-after pill.
Although the Catholic Church itself is exempt, Catholic-affiliated hospitals would face federal fines if they did not follow the new rule.
The rule has prompted an uproar among Catholic officials, who argue that the church opposes the use of contraceptives. Catholics are a major voting bloc in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan — three states key to Obama’s re-election hopes.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said yesterday that the White House wants “to work with all these organizations to implement this policy in a way that is as sensitive to their concerns as possible. But let’s be clear: We are committed — the president is committed — to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs no matter where they work.’’
In a conference call with reporters, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., predicted there would be a “backlash” against Boehner and Republicans if they attempted to repeal the rule. She said “there is overwhelming support for this kind of rule” among Americans.
- “It’s absolutely amazing in the year 2012 there is controversy over women’s access to birth control,” Schakowsky said.
Boehner said the House Energy and Commerce Committee, whose members include Rep. Bob Latta, R-Bowling Green, would consider a bill that would deal with “this flawed rule.” Although the Republicans can probably push a bill through the full House, it would face staunch opposition from the Democratic-controlled Senate.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 28 states have laws requiring insurers who offer prescription-drug coverage to provide contraceptive drugs or devices. But 15 states have fairly broad exemptions for religiously affiliated schools and charities, and eight of those permit some hospitals to refuse coverage.
Ohio is among the states that do not require contraceptive coverage.
jtorry@dispatch.com
(Jan’s Comment”
To me this is not a religious issue, it is neither Democratic nor Republican. This is broadly and plainly a “Women’s Rights” issue. I believe it is true that a majority of women will have profound, but differing opinions on this. It is a highly personal and intimate issue – - how could it be otherwise?
It was not my fate to be burdened with this problem. I had wanted a houseful of children. As it happens, I was to have only one pregnancy which was wonderful, carried to full term and producing a perfect child, a son after 7 years of marriage.
While I have always been a rather strong and independent woman, nevertheless, I have also been very pleased to be a female. I have enjoyed being a woman and all that goes with that. Our gender has not been treated fairly under the law, in that the ultimate choice with regard to reproduction should belong to no-one other than she who lives in the body. It is so much more than a 9 month metamorphosis — it is a lifetime commitment, a forever change to that woman. Of course, the social, economic and life ambition or plans are also major factors, as are ethical concerns with regard to what one can live with. Much to consider.
It is of no consequence whatever that I did not live under stress regarding an unwanted pregnancy. Like other women, I am aware of the back-alley abortions practiced in our recent past. The broken lives and even loss of lives. It is a tragic history. I would not want any woman, ever to feel that this was an only option – ever again. I am so very opposed to all the hullabaloo focused around Roe vs Wade. This was settled law. Our members of the Supreme Court were questioned at length regarding this issue. But of course, Bush’s nominees lied. They were willing to admit this is settled law and as such, would stand. But look what’s happening now.
The point I wanted to make, very clearly is the fact that I would have gone to the wall in defense of WOMEN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. This comes not from life’s circumstances, but from my bond with all other females of my species. It is a sisterhood worth protecting, for each of us to be free to do stuff our own way, as we choose. Jan)
