@@facebook=
@@
A U.S. Senate vote Thursday revived a debate over what is turning into the surprise issue in the 2012 presidential election campaign: birth control.
The Senate voted to reject the effort led by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, that would have undermined President Barack Obama’s policy on contraceptive insurance coverage.
Thursday’s vote on whether employers and health plans should be allowed to opt out of paying for medical services based on moral or religious grounds was preceded by a fierce debate.
The dialogue touched on personal freedom, First Amendment rights and religious liberty.
Blunt’s legislation, dubbed the “conscience amendment” by opponents, would give employers, religious or otherwise, too much discretion in denying coverage, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington.
“It would simply give every boss in America the right to make health care decisions for their workers and their families,” she said.
Blunt argued the measure would only apply to new health care provisions that have not yet taken effect. “This amendment does nothing to amend state or federal law that is now in effect,” he said.
It’s the latest round in a battle about birth control that first erupted after the Catholic bishops objected to the provision in Obama’s health care act requiring all employers, including some religious institutions, to provide health care coverage for their employees. The debate has been framed as a question of religious liberty versus women’s rights. Proponents of the Blunt amendment said they are attempting to roll back an oppressive health care mandate; opponents said they are rolling back the clock.
In 1970, during his first term, President Richard Nixon declared birth control a national priority. President George H.W. Bush once declared, “If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter.” A recent CNN poll shows that 83 percent of Americans have no moral issues with the use of artificial birth control.
In the 40 years since, it has rarely come up as an issue of public policy — until now.
Analysts and politicians are divided about whether or not the debate over insurance coverage for contraceptives will help or hurt the Republican presidential candidates who are bringing it to the forefront. Some believe it is a risky political gambit given the American public’s overriding concern with jobs and the economy. Others believe it will play well with voters who perceive it as a strike for religious liberty. The same CNN poll showed that 50 percent of voters disapproved of Obama’s policy requiring religious institutions to provide coverage for birth control, with 44 percent supporting it.
Ohio legislators have weighed in, with the House passing a resolution Feb. 15 supporting the Catholic Church’s position that employers should not be required to cover birth control if it violates their religious beliefs. State Rep. Barbara Sears, R-Toledo, co-sponsored HCR 35, which will now go before the Senate. “They’re actually inserting state into matters of private employers and church,” Sears said. “The federal government is trying to say we should forgo religious freedom because we know better.”
State Sen. Nina Turner, D-Cleveland, countered that women’s civil liberties are at stake: “I didn’t think in the 21st century we would be fighting for contraception. Women should be insulted. The implication is that women aren’t intellectually capable to make these decisions for themselves — poor little fragile women.”
Turner added, “They are spending more time concentrating on women’s wombs than on the issues that are truly of concern to voters.”
Observed State Sen. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, “It is important for people to understand that this is not an issue about contraception, but rather whether or not the government can compel someone to violate a personal religious belief. The president’s order is a violation of religious liberty and should not be tolerated.”
Montgomery County Republican Party Chairman Greg Gantt noted, “The issues that get debated in primary races often turn out to be non-issues in the general election. In this presidential election, economy is first second and third.”
Gantt believes that the health care law will continue to be hotly debated in the general election, while birth control will be a “topical blip tied into the issue of religious freedom.”
Boston-based Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh sees pitfalls and benefits for both sides in the contentious debate. “A lot of African-Americans and Latinos are going to vote in this election, and many are culturally conservative,” she noted. “So they may be faced with the dilemma, ‘Do I vote for my health care or do I vote for my religion?’ ”
On the other hand, Marsh said, the candidates risk alienating what she describes as “the most coveted voting block in the world” — independent suburban women. “This could be the issue to convince independent women to vote for Obama,” she said. “The question is who turns out in bigger numbers. Usually suburban women vote in larger numbers, but in presidential years you can see spikes. Keep in mind the Republicans don’t have to win the African-American or Latino vote in order to win the election; they just have to cut into it.”
The controversy comes at a time when an unprecedented number of states require contraceptive coverage and an unprecedented number of employers provide it. In 2000, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that a company had violated a woman’s civil rights, under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, by not paying for contraceptives. The decision did not address the question of religious employers, according to EEOC legal counsel Peggy Mastroianni, because the case involved a secular employer.
In 2000, only 13 states required employers to cover birth control, Mastroianni noted, in comparison with 28 states today. In addition, she said, 90 percent of employers cover prescription contraception. “We haven’t had to fight about it,” she said, “because so many states require it and so many employers do it.”
The change was based in part on the EEOC decision, Mastroianni believes, but also widespread anger when many companies began covering Viagra, when it came on the market in 1997, while not covering birth control pills.
“This should not be controversial in 2012,” said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. “Studies show that 99 percent of women have used contraception and even 98 percent of Catholic women. Contraception is not controversial except among the extremist politicians who are coming into power right now. It’s a manufactured issue.”
Copeland rejects the notion that it’s a question of religious liberty: “It’s wanting to impose their religious views on other people. It’s completely out of touch with their constituents.”
State Rep. Peter Stautberg, R-Anderson Twp. in Hamilton County, co-sponsored HCR 35 and sees the issue as one of great importance to those who believe in constitutional religious liberties.
He hopes the resolution will pass swiftly in the Ohio Senate and send a strong message to President Obama to go back to the drawing board. “The resolution doesn’t have the force of law,” he said. “It’s symbolic, but it should have some impact. I hope we are one of 50 states that step up and it should be revisited.”
Concurred Sears, “We need enough states to tell the federal government, ‘You’re overreaching.’ We have always respected the rights of religious institutions. We have never asked Jehovah’s Witnesses to have blood transfusions. This wholesale throws that out the window.”
Gantt is surprised the issue has reached such prominence and predicts it will be overshadowed in the general election.
“I filled up my car this morning,” he said, “and it seems to me that the price of gasoline has a lot more to do with driving campaigns.”
About the Author