White House shifts arguments in favor of Obama mandate
March 07, 2012
The Obama administration has frequently shifted its arguments in favor of the contraceptive mandate, notes Joan Desmond of the National Catholic Register.
At times the White House has claimed that added costs of contraceptive are justified because of the (alleged) benefits to women’s health. At other times the argument is that the costs will not increase, because the use of contraceptives will cut childbirth costs. (Thus the administration is in the curious position of arguing that it benefits society by preventing the birth of American citizens.)
The arguments for contraception are sometimes tainted by an implicitly racist or eugenicist suggestion that it is best to curb the reproduction of the welfare recipients. But in fact welfare recipients and the unemployed would not be directly affected by the Obama mandate, since it applies to the private insurance programs administered by employers.
For all current news, visit our News home page.
- Moving Target: The Obama Administration's Shifting Message on the HHS Mandate (National Catholic Register)
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: impossible -
Mar. 08, 2012 10:41 AM ET USA
For the most part it's not a health issue but one of promiscuous entertainment. Isn't it odd that STD's do not occur in faithful marriages? Among the four-legged animals with no intellects or wills, it's permitted according to their God-given instincts, but do four-legged animals ever get STD's. The NYT, Wash. Post, et.al. need to put their "investigative reporters" to work on these questions.
Posted by: imanxufan9901 -
Mar. 08, 2012 6:38 AM ET USA
It's what known as TALKING OUT BOTH SIDE OF HIS MOUTH!