Should religious entities have to provide contraception?



Churches and other religious entities are still entitled to an exemption from the requirement in the health care reform act that employers offer health insurance that include coverage of contraception. But the exemption applies only to their core ministry. Their affiliated entities like hospitals and schools are not exempt.

Essentially, the administration is drawing the line between, say, an actual church, which would likely hire and serve only members of its own faith, and other operations that often hire and serve people who come from other faiths, or don’t agree with their faith’s dogma on contraception, or have no religion at all.

Some abortion opponents consider certain forms of birth control to be no better than abortion. Here’s how an anti-abortion site reported it, and how a pro-choice site reacted. And here’s the thought of Judith Muller of Altoona, in a letter to the Des Moines Register:

It is wrong for employers to interfere with women’s private health coverage because of the bishops’ ideological opposition to birth control.
Many of these employees may not share these same religious views. All these women are asking for is that their birth control receives the same level of coverage that Viagra does in many circumstances.

Religious entities have a year to comply.

What do you think? Did the Obama administration strike the right balance, or go too far? What about giving religious affiliates the option of severing all ties to public support — no federally backed student loans, for example, or no Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements for hospital patients — in exchange for an exemption? Is there a slippery slope there? Is it so onerous as to be unrealistic?

Jay Jochnowitz

26 Responses

  1. Victor Blackthorne says:

    If employers gave their employees a pot of money to spend on benefits of their choosing then the whole question then abortion, contraception and personal living arrangements would no longer be a matter of public concern.

  2. gunga dan says:


    Nope, no bias there.


  3. Jo says:

    Considering the World Health Organization classified oral contraceptives as Type 1 carcinogens in 2005, no company should be forced to provide coverage for them, or they’ll be made to pay for the consequences later.
    Google “human carcinogens list” on the American Cancer Society. They are listed under “estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives”

  4. Moe says:

    How many waivers did this administration hand out to their freinds? The government has no business forcing a religion to violate long held beliefs and commit,in their eyes a sin. Why did the Pilgrims come to this country?
    Many religious groups will look at this and think “First they came for the Catholics”. This action will back fire, big time.

  5. yankee fred says:

    If there is truly a seperation of power between church and state is that not reciprocal? The Catholic church’s stand against abortion, must be respected by gov’t in the same way as the catholic church must abide by the law allowing abortion. The gov’t would not stand for the church asking a persons feelings regarding the churches doctrine as a contingency of employment. But then again forcing the church to fund anything that goes against its teachings is over stepping the gov’t bounds of that separation. Simply employees (of the church) have the right to have an abortion, but the church given respect for its views must have the right not to enable(abortion) something it is against…

  6. Lu says:

    Here is a solution: employers should not be in the business of health coverage at all.
    Single-payer system for everyone!

  7. Albany Resident says:

    What strikes me as peculiar is that the bishops in America supported Obamacare without knowing what was in the bill in the first place. I have found through my own personal relationships with members of the church that a vast number of Roman Catholic priests, sisters and bishops are democrats and have voted for politicians, including Obama, that are obviously pro-abortion! I’m sorry but the Roman Catholic Church in America has reaped what it sowed. Now they will have to live with it, or become even more hypocritical and not have “health care” for their employees!

  8. Ann says:

    I think it sounds fair. If you work at a church, I think it’s safe to assume you espouse their principles. Eventhough I am pro-choice I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it isn’t mainstream.

    Very, very good that hospitals and other organizations are not exempt as that would definitely make me protest.

    If your cleaning lady at church gets knocked up because you don’t cover birth control, start passing around the collection plate for her and her baby! :)

  9. Adirondack Patriot says:

    Lu: Single-payer eliminates choice and authorizes the government to make your helath decisions for you. Are you anti-choice?

    Would you like a conservative government to control the health care system and dictate your “choice”?

  10. Michele says:

    As far as I can see there are (at least) two issues at play here: the fact that they are accepting federal funding to provide those services (and as such, should be bound by all applicable federal laws and regulations), and that as an employer they are bound by federal laws and regulations that guide the employer-employee relationship. Should they be required to pay for something they consider immoral? I suppose not, but they also have no right to impose their beliefs on employees who probably don’t share them. I like the solution we have here in NYS, where health plans are available with and without contraception/abortion coverage, and if a company purchases one without, the employee can purchase the rider themselves. They get the price at the group rate, but the group isn’t paying it.

  11. Larry Roth says:

    The Catholic Church should have zero credibility on anything relating to sex at this point. The administration’s move that health care coverage should cover contraception for those who want and need it is exactly right.

  12. John T. Maguire says:

    First of all birth control devices/pills are not abortion, they prevent the possibility of having to have an abortion. Unless the Bishops expect a major reversal in vocations to the priesthood and religious life, they need to get in sync with reality. Humans have sex, a lot, ( even some bishops, priests and religious), and not always for the purpose of procreation. Then “good catholic” families of the past, (where couples had a nine month free period), then conceived again, producing very large families is no longer economically feasible, or socially responsible. The Bishops, (all men), are very arrogant if they expect the employees of their many, very large institutions all across the nation to succumb to their archaic beliefs. These employees are working in hospitals, colleges, schools and social service agencies, not in church buildings, during services. They every right to expect the same health coverage as all others covered by the new health plan.

  13. John T. Maguire says:

    Dear “Albany Resident” the clerical and religious members of the Catholic Church backed the new health care law because it was the morally correct thing to do. Not because they are Democrats or republicans. Despite the fact that they are holding on to 1800 year old doctrine promulgated by men, that goes as far as being dangerous to modern human survival, the very large majority of them are fine people that care deeply about other people.

  14. Betty Fink says:

    Any organization that receives federal funding has to abide by federal rules or they lose their funding. The republicans said as much when they insisted that any health care insurance that receives any federal funding cannot pay for abortions.

  15. paco33 says:

    “Here’s how an anti-abortion site reported it, and how a pro-choice site reacted.”

    #2 gunga dan: I believe there is more than mere bias at work here.

    The abortion debate has played a major role in our political discourse for decades now and millions of people on both sides are well aware of the terminology and semantics surrounding the issue. Those who are “pro-choice” reject the label of being “pro-abortion” for obvious reasons, while those who oppose Roe v Wade likewise prefer the more positively framed “pro-life” over the negativity of “anti-abortion”. As a journalist as well as the Editorial Page editor, Mr. Jochnowitz is well aware of these distinctions and their importance to the debate over abortion and, in particular, to the individuals who care about the issue.

    He certainly recognized the importance of the words that are used to describe an issue a few weeks ago when he wrote an editorial entitled, “What’s in a Word? If it’s ‘illegal’, plenty”. Here he stated, “This may strike some as just so much political correctness, but as the Times piece shows, the goal of journalists is to write with precision, neutrality and — to the extent it doesn’t conflict with the first two — sensitivity. The editorial side of the newsroom is an exception on the neutrality part, obviously…”

    Here, neutrality was certainly not a factor. Unfortunately, neither was precision nor sensitivity.

  16. Casualty09 says:

    From the story:


    This strikes a reasonable balance between religious liberty (which is none of the govt’s business) and market regulation (which is). If you’re a priest or nun – or other employee who’s part of their “core ministry,” then the Church doesn’t have to provide you with health insurance that covers contraception. However, if you’re hired as a cafeteria worker at a Catholic school, then any health insurance plan your employer provides is subject to the same rules as the health insurance plans provided by other employers – and a determination has been made that such plans should include contraception (you might not agree with that, but that decision has been made). When the Catholic Church (or other religious entities) chooses to get involved in commerce – by running schools, hospitals or creating entire health plans – then it becomes subject to market regulation in those areas.

  17. Maria says:

    Next time, try using the correct terminology when reporting about abortion. It is “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion.” The fact that the pro-abortion folks have to resort to euphemistically referring to themselves as “pro-choice” just about says it all….

  18. Steve Lewis says:

    First amendment covers freedom of “religion”, not just “worship.” Charitable service by church organizations is a product of putting their faith into action. A prerequisite that a church must violate its basic beliefs in order to act on its basic beliefs in this way is an open attack against religion in general.

  19. contraceptives are luxury items – they are not a matter of life or death like insulin for a diabetic. They do not aid in pain relief or prevent aggravated injury like a cast and a crutch for a broken leg. No person on this planet will die because they didn’t have free birth control pills given to them. There is no logical argument for forcing a religious organization into paying for a luxury item it believes is wrong.

    Surely the Christian Scientists are next as they believe ALL medical care is wrong.

    Funny how the left wants freedom from religion and doesn’t want there to be a place for religious speech in society (even though it’s protected by the Constitution), yet the same left likes to tell religious establishments what they can and can’t do. Hypocrites all.

  20. timbo says:

    The largest unions that all pushed for the legislation get waivers.

    Obama promises that religious institutions will not be forced to provide services that go against their beliefs yet here we are.

    This man is a liar and a failure and needs to be gone.

    I agree with the comments about the “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” terminology – if that doesn’t tell you that the main stream media is bias then nothing does.

  21. Patrick says:

    I think about 12% of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church and about 20% of adoptions are through Catholic adoption agencies. I’m not the most religious person but I do know the reason the Catholic Church is involved in hospitals and adoptions is because charity it is a basic tenant of the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church estiblished these orginazations to help those in need. Many of these organizations were established before Medicare and Medicaid. When healthcare was handled in the private sector. Many people in need turned to Catholic hospitals for healthcare when they could not afford healthcare. Catholics around the country gave money at mass to help fund these organizations due to their belief in charity regardless of if they believed every word of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church I think stands as an institution based on morals and principles. Are some of these principles flawed at times? Yes. But principles are not changed overnight and they should not be changed on a whim. This is one reason the Church as remained after 2000 years. The Church may eventually change it’s stance on contraception but not tomorrow.

    I don’t think the church and it’s members will ask the government to pay them back for all of the money they spent doing charity when healthcare and adoption services were in the private sector when much of the cost for those who could not afford it was paid for by the Church. Maybe society should show some respect for the Catholic Church and come to some kind of agreement that would allow the Church to stay faithful to it’s principles but not punish those who need help. I think people are trying to win political points and trying to make an issue out of contraception.

    I think the government could offer employees a very inexpensive supplimental insurance plan for a few dollars a month that could be purchased outside of employer sponsered insurance. Employees could then ask for a few dollars more to cover the costs.

    Don’t be fooled. I think politicians are trying to get a few more votes by “standing up” to the Catholic Church.

    See it for what it is. I think about 90% of unwanted pregnancies were not due to lack of access to contraception. I’m not saying people with limited resources shouldn’t have access but I don’t think this is at the heart of this issue. But that’s another story.

  22. george says:

    @ maria: “pro-abortion” insinuates they prefer abortion over a baby. Most pro choice people wouldn’t choose abortion if presented with the situation themselves. The point is for women to have a choice over what they can or cannot do with their bodies. That is why its pro choice, not pro abortion. So I assume you are “pro-government can tell you what you can do with your body”?

    I say let people choose what they want. If you don’t like contraceptives, nobody is forcing you to buy them, so don’t. Simple as that. I hate SUVs. So instead of ranting about how they are pointless and are a waste of people’s money, I choose not to buy one. Isn’t that what “land of the free” is supposedly about?

  23. Jeffrey says:

    Here is an idea…if you don’t like birth control, don’t take the pill. Otherwise, keep your “religious” beliefs inside your head where they belong. As long as Catholic affiliated hospitals and schools take tax payer money, they need to abide by secular rules, not superstition and delusion.

  24. PlainGuy says:


    Since folks have to keep Religious beliefs in their head according to your fantasy rules of religion, perhaps you should keep your anti religion in yours. After all, whats fair for others is fair for you.

  25. Victor Blackthorne says:

    1>Why is your recreation covered by medical insurance?
    2>Catholics have no basis to make an issue about this matter. The president and his party have been very clear about their stand on policies that go against Church teaching. Yet the best they can do is to say that they want to be exempt from dealing with other peoples recreation?

  26. Josho says:

    “Pro-life” and “Pro-abortion” are both inaccurate euphemisms. The correct words are “pro-choice” and “anti-choice.” The *choice* is what the “pro-abortion” people want (it’s not that they want people to have abortions, or that they want THEMSELVES to have abortions; many of them are men). And it’s the *choice* that some religious institutions don’t want anybody to have.

    Sadly, of course, women will continue to have abortions whether or not they’re legal, and if they end up maimed or dead in the process, religions don’t care about that.