March 28, 2012 |
In 1957, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first birth-control pills, it wasn't for birth control. The contraceptives won approval as a treatment for severe menstrual disorders; temporary infertility was a side effect. Funny, women across the country suddenly started complaining in droves about severe menstrual disorders. As religiously-affiliated organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, continue to complain about federal policies that would require that health insurance cover family planning (President Obama worked out a compromise deal under which the insurance companies would absorb the cost, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops still sees this as undue interference)
March 24, 2014 |
WASHINGTON - A challenge to part of President Obama's healthcare law that hits the Supreme Court on Tuesday could lead to one of the most significant religious freedom rulings in the high court's history. Four years ago, in their controversial Citizens United decision, the justices ruled that corporations had full free-speech rights in election campaigns. Now, they're being asked to decide whether for-profit companies are entitled to religious liberties. At issue in Tuesday's oral argument before the court is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide workers a health plan that covers the full range of contraceptives, including morning-after pills and intrauterine devices, or IUDs.
November 20, 2012 |
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a call Tuesday for birth control pills to be sold over the counter. Currently oral contraceptives are available only with a doctor's prescription. In a policy statement, the organization argues that making birth control pills easier to get will translate into fewer unwanted pregnancies. These unplanned pregnancies remain a major problem in the United States, they write, accounting for approximately 50% of all pregnancies.
November 2, 2012 |
WASHINGTON - It was just a few days after the Obama administration announced its groundbreaking decision to require employers providing health insurance to cover contraception, and a controversy was flaring. Roman Catholic bishops were vowing to fight an "unconscionable" mandate. Catholic hospitals and even some Catholic Democrats were assailing President Obama, saying he was trampling on religious freedom. Obama, as angry as his senior aides had ever seen him, summoned them to the Oval Office.
February 7, 2014
Re "The rights of the religious," Editorial, Feb. 4 The Times rightly defends but wrongly interprets a federal law that forbids the government from imposing "substantial burdens" on the exercise of religious convictions and requires federal officials to pursue the "least restrictive means" of achieving any "compelling interest. " The Times neglects 1st Amendment principles in defending the administration's attempts to force employers with conscientious objections to bow to the government's edict to have employee insurance policies that provide controversial contraceptives.
February 12, 2012 |
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said Sunday that President Obama had found the “right balance” in mandating birth control coverage while protecting religious liberty, and he said the administration would now press ahead to adopt a final rule requiring health insurers to make contraceptives available to all policyholders at no cost. This is “the right policy” and a “very good resolution” of the dispute that had flared between Catholic leaders and the White House, Lew said in a series of appearances on the Sunday talk shows. “We didn't expect there would be universal acceptance” of the compromise announced Friday, but a “broad range of groups” had applauded Obama's plan, he said.
February 12, 2012 |
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed Sunday to fight the administration's requirement that insurers provide contraceptive coverage for faith-based employers. McConnell said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that he would press legislation to exempt all employers from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections. "We'll be voting on that in the Senate, and you can anticipate that would happen as soon as possible.…This issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down," he said.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 6, 1990
Your editorial was both moving and important. As you suggest, contraceptives can help to avoid this rapidly increasing problem. But contraception is not, as you state, the only way to deal with the problem. Clearly, the prejudice in so many societies against lesbians and gay men is a means of forcing them to act as if they were heterosexual, and reproduce, or suffer punishment because they do not, ordinarily, have children. The twin goals of population stability and respect for human rights are both violated by insisting that homosexual people act against their own sexual orientation and enter heterosexual relationships.