TPM: Kerry Becomes Latest Dem to Oppose Obama on Contraception

[beachmom]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/kerry-becomes-latest-dem-to-oppose-obama-on

TPMLivewire
03:02 PM EST
Kerry Becomes Latest Dem To Oppose Obama On Contraception

According to Ed Henry, Chief White House Correspondent for Fox News Channel, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has signaled that the Obama Administration will need to adjust its stance on the contraception mandate.

As TPM reported earlier today, there is already a burgeoning group of Democrats who have countered the administration on the increasingly controversial issue.

Um, I totally disagree. And I'm a Catholic. It is an especially unfortunate position for the Senator to take, given that his most reliable supporters and voters are women. This is not the Catholic Church but institutions like universities and hospitals. And John Kerry has come out for women being treated unequally by these employers in the name of "religious freedom".

Good post here on why Obama is right and Kerry is wrong:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/controlling-birth-control-controlling-liberty.html

Full insurance coverage is a critical part of the picture. Birth control is an expensive product - $81 a month is considered a steal with no contribution from your insurance, but that number still prices out many women. Even insurance plans that have copays can be prohibitively pricey. Cheaper alternatives like condoms have significant failure rates. Insurance, overwhelmingly provided by employers in the American system, that covers birth control with no copays is a woman's best bet.

The Administration's critics are saying that, in the currently existing health care system, protecting that right would create a grave threat to equally important rights of free association. Seems like a classic rights conflict. However, churches and institutions that serve only co-religionists are exempt from the requirement. The only institutions covered by the birth control mandate have chosen to participate in the broader market, a zone of private life governed by political rules. It's incumbent on critics to explain why this particular rule is a dangerous expansion of state power over market actors as compared to, say, forcing a Randian executive to follow minimum wage laws. If they can't, then it seems like the coverage requirement protects women's rights without appreciably increasing the state's threat to private associations. Critics would have to fall back on the pure religious liberty argument, which is itself problematic.