Senate to Vote on Contraception Mandate

Monday, February 27, 2012

Later in the week, the Senate is expected to vote on a bill which would repeal the Obama Administration's health care regulation requiring birth control coverage. This follows a case in Tacoma, Washington where a federal judge ruled a law which requires pharmacies to offer emergency contraceptives to be unconstitutional. The plaintiff in the case, Kevin Storman, a store owner, felt his religious freedom was violated by the legislation. 

Gloria Feldt is the former president of Planned Parenthood and author of “No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power.” Eric Kniffin is legal counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who helped represent the plaintiffs in Storeman’s v. Selecky.

Guests:

Gloria Feldt and Eric Kniffin

Comments [8]

Maura

Those arguing on the left side of this debate consistently ignore the root of the matter. This issue is not about the pharmacist's clients, this is about the pharmacist and his/her religious beliefs. If the pharmacist doesn't want to sell a drug, for whatever reason, isn't that his/her prerogative? It would be bad business not to stock Advil, but is the government going to force that on shelves as well?

This woman keeps talking about the pharmacist's duty to his/her clients and it is irrelevant to the central values of the discussion. What about what the pharmacist wants to do, or not to do? Who are we to tell someone what to put on their shelves?

Jun. 07 2012 10:09 AM
Charles

Angel;
If we ended tax-exempt status for religious organizations, would we do the same for the Sierra Club? The ACLU? The NAACP? Public radio?

Feb. 27 2012 08:03 PM
listener

Ann
"Could you bring vasectomies as birth control into the conversation"

Good question. Vasectomy sterilization is deliberately left out of the conversation because the false narrative being peddled is persecution of women.
If you mention how this effects men as well the dumb leftist narrative falls apart. Get it?
This is identity politics and political manipulation 101.

Stephanie
"My religious principles lead me to oppose the war in Afghanistan as I opposed the war in Iraq...Does that mean I can withhold the proportion of my taxes that is used to pay for these wars?

According to the US Constitution the Congress must authorize the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and they did. You would have a better argument with Obama's involvement in Libya which was not authorized by Congress.
The Constitution also states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." which speaks to this issue.

Feb. 27 2012 01:23 PM

Let's get rid of religion altogether. I don't mean by force or going against the constitution (a document I hold more dear than any bible). Let's just end the tax breaks and special priviledges created for these organizations. Let them stand on their own feet. Then they will be too busy surviving and less up in our grills. Morality in their case is to do whatever keeps one from getting burned in the fires of Hades. Despicable, and not in the good way.

Feb. 27 2012 11:51 AM
Stephanie Golden from Brooklyn, NY

My religious principles lead me to oppose the war in Afghanistan as I opposed the war in Iraq and would oppose an attack on Iran. Does that mean I can withhold the proportion of my taxes that is used to pay for these wars? No, the government would garnish my wages and/or put me in jail. So why should the religious objection of pharmacists and health care providers to contraception receive be privileged over my religious objection to war?

Feb. 27 2012 11:28 AM
Charles

Thanks to John Hockenberry's command of the topic, his incisive questioning, and a fair fight between a religiouis liberties lawyer and a womens studies professor, I now understand the essence of the two opposing positions.

Mr. Kniffin is arguing for religious freedom from a coercive statute.

And Ms. Feldt thinks that her notion of "religious and moral" freedom is better than Mr. Kniffin's notion.

I'm certain that Ms. Feldt's view is informed by the fact that she has been given a professorship in Arizona State University's School of "Social Transformation" (it is really hard to figure out what her own educational accomplishments have been -- her official biography doesn't mention any) the fact that she met so many famous celebtrities and Democratic politicians when she was the CEO of Planned Parenthood, and the fact that she reads the New York Times every Sunday. Clearly, she is a person of superior understanding and morals; why wouldn't her view of morality trump everyone else's?

Feb. 27 2012 10:18 AM
ann hicks from South Carolina

Could you bring vasectomies as birth control into the conversation. I just wonder what would happen if they were to be outlawed? How would men react?

Feb. 27 2012 10:05 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The problem is that President Obama will of course veto the bill, and will they be able to over-ride it? Still, it shows that this stepping on religious freedom is unacceptable.

Feb. 27 2012 06:07 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.