by Nicole Flatow
Following sharp attacks from religious and conservative groups of the health care rule that would require insurance plans to cover contraceptives, the White House has announced a minor alteration to the rule that maintains free access to birth control.
The change would shift the onus of providing the contraceptive services from the employer to the insurance provider. If a religiously affiliated employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefits package, the insurance company will be required to reach out directly to the beneficiary to offer full contraceptives coverage.
“No woman’s health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes,” Obama said in announcing the change today. He added:
I understand some in Washington want to treat this as another political wedge issue. But it shouldn’t be. I certainly never saw it that way. … We live in a pluralistic society where we’re not gonna agree on every single issue or share every belief. That doesn’t mean we have to choose between individual liberty and basic fairness.
Today's shift, described by one official as an “accommodation” rather than a “compromise,” was quickly endorsed by the Catholic Health Association, one of the original critics of the rule, as well as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
But the announcement is not likely to satisfy some of the most committed critics. Just last night during a webcast, the Family Research Council blasted the contraception rule as “not only an attack on the consciences of employers and employees, but a direct attack on religious freedom.”
Throughout the week, constitutional experts have reiterated that the contraception rule did not violate the Constitution’s religious liberty clauses.
"There isn't a constitutional issue involved," prominent litigator David Boies told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. “There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn’t subject to the same rules as every other employer.”
“One thing I think is crystal clear — there is no First Amendment violation by this law,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. “The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws.”
Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman highlights some excerpts from the Smith decision in which Scalia, “himself a devout and very conservative Catholic,” makes the case for Obama. Scalia wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last term rejecting a class action gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart was seen as a major blow to corporate accountability in discrimination cases. But the case is also proving its impact in areas outside of the employment or discrimination context.
After dismissing arguments that President Obama did not act during an actual “recess” because the Senate held pro forma sessions every three days, Gerhardt went further to explain that Obama has an affirmative constitutional duty to enforce the laws faithfully, which he was aiming to effectuate in making recess appointments.
ricans and Latinos in cities throughout the nation have fared worse than others because of pervasive discrimination. The disparity is due in part, they assert, because of the “peddling of high-cost subprime, predatory loans in communities of color” They note that the Center for Responsible Lending found that among “borrowers with good credit, African Americans and Latinos received high interest loans more than three times as often as white borrowers among loans originated between 2004 and 2008.”