Sisterhood Blog

Was Contraception Move a Master Stroke?

By Sarah Seltzer

  • Print
  • Share Share

Like many other feminist political junkies this morning, my emotions were sent back and forth.

At first I was dismayed by the announcement that President Obama had agreed to a compromise (or was it an “accommodation”) on his smart policy that would have required employers, even most religiously affiliated ones, to consent to employee insurance plans that included free contraception.The Catholic Church has been raising a huge fuss about this — and the media has largely taken its side — and so the fear was this would be a full capitulation.

But when the plan was revealed, many began to realize that the “accommodation” might have in fact been a master stroke by the administration, at least politically speaking. The new rule will allow women at these institutions that object to contraception coverage to get that coverage, free of charge, directly from insurance companies.

Jodi Jacobson broke it down moments after the announcement:

Despite deep concerns, including my own, based on what transpired in the past under health reform, the White House has decided on a plan to address the birth control mandate that will enable women to get contraceptive coverage directly through their insurance plans without having to buy a rider or a second plan, and without having to negotiate with or through religious entities or administrations that are hostile to primary reproductive health care, including but not limited to contraception.

At a brief press conference to explain this choice, President Obama sounded an economic populist message when he noted that women everywhere, regardless of their employers’ religious beliefs, will “no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars of a year” on contraception, money that could go “towards paying the rent or buying groceries.”

Indeed, the move is widely seen as a shrewd one, in that it shifts the conversation back from religion to women and makes the administration’s critics look like contraception haters, not liberty defenders. Greg Sargent writes:

If Team Obama has its way, the argument will now be about whether all women should have access to contraception, and not about whether these institutions are having their religious freedom impinged upon.

The religious freedom argument was always a distracting ploy. In fact, the bishops object to any employers being mandated to offer insurance that includes birth control simply because they hate the stuff. This move by the President reveals where they stand. As a result of this decision, my inbox this afternoon flooded with press releases of praise for the President and his decision — all from feminist organizations. The facts on the ground for women, they note, don’t change from the original plan. Women’s health is finally being taken seriously.

Still, as others have noted, there are some potential pitfalls here. Republicans in Congress will try to attack this mandate. We are also now segregating contraception just as we do for abortion, perhaps stigmatizing women’s health further. And even as the new rule gets implemented, putting such a personal matter in the hands of insurance companies, who care more about bottom lines than they care about, well, care, carries a risk. The question of privacy and discretion for those people who will want that direct contraceptive coverage (such as minors) from insurers looms, as does whether those individuals, like those in the transgender community, who may not “need” contraception will be able to obtain it.

Terry O’Neill of NOW told Sargent that the real test for this decision will be the girl-walks-into-a-pharmacy test. How easy will it be for a young woman, let’s say, or a single mom who goes to a Catholic (or Jewish) university or works at a Catholic hospital, to get the contraception coverage, get the prescription, walk up to that counter and get those pills, or patches, or rings, or whatever she needs? We will all have to keep a sharp eye on the forthcoming experience of our sisters, daughters and friends, our students and employees alike, to see whether this brilliant politicking is also brilliant policy.


Permalink | | Share | Email | Print | Filed under: Catholic Church, Health Care, Birth Control Contraception Coverage, Barack Obama

The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.




Find us on Facebook!
  • The Workmen's Circle is hosting New York’s first Jewish street fair on Sunday. Bring on the nouveau deli!
  • Novelist Sayed Kashua finds it hard to write about the heartbreak of Gaza from the plush confines of Debra Winger's Manhattan pad. Tough to argue with that, whichever side of the conflict you are on.
  • "I’ve never bought illegal drugs, but I imagine a small-time drug deal to feel a bit like buying hummus underground in Brooklyn."
  • We try to show things that get less exposed to the public here. We don’t look to document things that are nice or that people would like. We don’t try to show this place as a beautiful place.”
  • A new Gallup poll shows that only 25% of Americans under 35 support the war in #Gaza. Does this statistic worry you?
  • “You will stomp us into the dirt,” is how her mother responded to Anya Ulinich’s new tragicomic graphic novel. Paul Berger has a more open view of ‘Lena Finkle’s Magic Barrel." What do you think?
  • PHOTOS: Hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan yesterday demanding an end to American support for Israel’s operation in #Gaza.
  • Does #Hamas have to lose for there to be peace? Read the latest analysis by J.J. Goldberg.
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.