TPM: Kerry Becomes Latest Dem to Oppose Obama on Contraception

[Mass]

24. Here is a post by Kevin Drum that explains what this is about.

http://www.google.com/reader/view/?hl=en&tab=my#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmotherjones.com%2Fkevin-drum%2Ffeed

In any case like this, you have to look at two separate issues: (1) How important is the secular public purpose of the policy? And (2) how deeply held is the religious objection to it?
On the first issue, I'd say that the public purpose here is pretty strong. Health care in general is very clearly a matter of broad public concern; treating women's health care on a level playing field with men's is, today, a deep and widely-accepted principle; and contraception is quite clearly critical to women's health. Making it widely and easily available is a legitimate issue of public policy.
On the second issue, I simply don't believe that the religious objection here is nearly as strong as critics are making it out to be. As I've mentioned before, even the vast majority of Catholics don't believe that contraception is immoral. Only the formal church hierarchy does. What's more, as my colleague Nick Baumann points out, federal regulations have required religious hospitals and universities to offer health care plans that cover contraception for over a decade. (The fact that some such employers don't cover birth control is mostly the result of lax enforcement.) It's true that the Obama regulation tightens this requirement, but only modestly: it covers organizations with fewer than 15 employees and it bans copays. Dozens of states already have similar rules on the books. So when Kirsten Powers says, "One thing we can be sure of: the Catholic Church will shut down before it violates its faith," that's just wrong. They've been working under similar rules for a long time without turning it into Armageddon.
Some matters of conscience are worth respecting and some aren't. If, say, Catholic doctrine forbade white doctors from treating black patients, nobody would be defending them. The principle of racial nondiscrimination is simply too important to American culture and we'd insist that the church respect this. I think the same is true today of the principle of nondiscrimination against women, as well as the principle that women should have control of their own reproduction. Like racial discrimination laws, churches that operate major institutions in the public square have to respect this whether they like it or not.
This new policy doesn't apply to churches themselves or their devotional arms. It applies only to nominally religious enterprises like hospitals and universities that serve secular purposes, take taxpayer dollars, employ thousands of non-Catholic women, and are already required to obey a wide variety of secular regulations.
...

So basically, the administration is asked to allow exceptions to organizations that are not devoted to religions, but just happen to be managed by religious groups (not even necessarily priest). The relevant doctrine is ignored by most catholics, who would probably be surprised to learn that even married couples should not have sexual relations if they do not intend to procreate. Many of these organizations already offer the relevant coverage.

I am not surprised by the reaction of the Church hierarchy itself, which is in line with at least 1600 years of history, starting at St Augustine, that sexual relations are bad except in one specific goal. This explains the opposition to birth control, homosexuality, use of condoms even in the midst of an AIDS epidemic, sacrificing the life of a mother for saving the baby, ... It probably explains the inquisition when it came to witchcraft as well, given that they tended to be women with strong personalities that wanted to be more than baby carriers.

What surprises me is the insistence of progressive catholics that we should "accommodate" them (seems to be the word of the administration these days, but there is nothing to accommodate here, as we are talking about one of the oldest Church doctrine that women are on earth to have babies and nothing else), whatever the accommodation is. (I should say progressive catholic men, because I do not think there are that many women thinking that). Why continue to support a deeply anti-woman institution?

What bothers me is that for many (cant say if this is the case for Senator Kerry), it seems a purely electoral thinking: dont make wave. This is dangerous because they seem ready to through women's rights in order to avoid losing votes (same reflex that made them refuse to call a vote against Bush tax cuts)

After reading the FOX quote, I think I am going to take a leave from supporting Senator Kerry. I only have a question: if, instead of something that is mainly for women, the Catholic Church opposed something that is mainly for African Americans, would senator Kerry still support a conscience clause?