Single Page
Alaska's Catholic senators diverge on federal contraception ruleAlaska's U.S. senators may both be professed Roman Catholics, but that doesn't mean they'll always see eye to eye with the nation's conservative Conference of Catholic Bishops. Much has been made of a recent decision by the Department of Health and Human Services that will ultimately require most non-religious employers to offer women health services like birth control, sterilization or other services that have been medically proven as life-saving and that reduce lifetime health care costs. The rule, released Jan. 20 by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, stated that employers like Providence hospitals, a nonprofit affiliated with Catholicism but employing Alaskans of varying faiths, would have until August 2013 to figure out how to offer these services free of deductible, copay or co-insurance charges. Religious groups and some 150 members of the unpopular Congress have petitioned the Obama administration to reconsider the ruling. As the Archdiocese of Anchorage newspaper, Catholic Anchor notes, Catholic Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is among them. Catholic Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, isn't objecting to the rule, since it recognizes the rights of churches and strictly-religious charities to opt out. A Begich spokesperson told the Catholic Anchor that the rule struck a balance between religious freedom and making health care accessible and affordable for more women. Read the DHHS statement here. Read the Catholic Anchor story here. It seemed to me from the beginning that this was totally manufactured outrage for political purposes since Catholic hospitals and universities were already required by law to provide health insurance that included contraception, but this proves it. Lisa Murkowski, who claimed to be pro-choice as a means of getting reelected during her write-in campaign, now comes out siding with her party against women's health care and on the side of the Republican Party in its war on women. Women of Alaska, you were duped. I happen to agree with Sen. Begich's response. The Obama Administration has indeed offered a reasonable compromise considering they need not compromise at all with federal funds (ever hear of "our dollars, our rules"?). I've taken a special interest in this national story and have noticed that the relevant faith traditions are rallying around the phrase, "defending our religious liberty" when making their objections about reproductive health care coverage that they don't agree with. Is this an emotional situation? Sure. However, even the strongest emotions don't make claims true. Ever. Facts are needed for that. And I think if one gets into the nuts and bolts of the theology and tradition behind the objecting claims, it's not about defending religious liberty, it's really about defending their "right" to discriminate legally. I say no to special pleading and support one law for all. Sen. Begich, thank you for defending the ability for all American women to have full access to healthcare through their employers regardless of who those employers are. Mike |
Comments