Rep. Joe Courtney Hopeful Of a Contraception Compromise

By Daniela Altimari On February 9, 2012 · 2 Comments

Add U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney to the list of those hoping a compromise can be reached in the controversy over contraception and the Affordable Care Act.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is mandating that employers–even hospitals and universities affiliated with the Catholic Church– to provide insurance coverage that includes access to contraception.

Catholic leaders and others criticized the mandate, but Courtney said he is hopeful a solution can be reached before the policy takes effect.

“It is important to note that HHS’s rule is not final, and can be modified over the next 18 months, which the White House has expressed a willingness to do,” said Courtney, a Democrat from the 2nd District, in an email.

“The final rule must balance the concerns of faith-based employers with the legal right of access to affordable contraceptives for their employees. I support this effort and believe that people of good will on both sides of the issue can resolve this conflict,” the Congressman said.

“

2 Responses to Rep. Joe Courtney Hopeful Of a Contraception Compromise

Anton says:

February 9, 2012 at 6:43 pm

Compromise? There will be NO compromise, and Courtney knows it.

The Obama administration must, and will be forced to back all the way down. No compromise is possible on such an assault on the freedom of faith and the Constitution.

Reply
Brian P. Rabbit says:

February 10, 2012 at 7:44 am

[Note: I am not saying this rule is good, bad, or neither; the following statements are just My observations.]

While Many would describe Me as a “flaming Liberal”, I think the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research is generally accurate in its analysis. (http://nationalcenter.org/NPA632.html) America has made carve-outs for religious affiliate organizations and I can see this being done here as well. If not done by the administration, the congress may force its hand by refusing to pass any bill which authorizes enforcement of the rule or the courts might also render the rule invalid in accordance with Hosanna-Tabor. Even if We exclude Hosanna-Tabor from consideration, the court still might find the rule invalid with respect to private Employers because the high court could easily say the rule is not tailored in the narrowest way possible to further a compelling government interest because pregnancy is not a disease. (And before Anyone accuses Me of being anti-Woman, I am talking about the U.S. supreme court; if You think the rule is a good one, do You honestly think the court, with its current make up of four Conservatives, three Liberals, one Unknown [Justice Sotomayor], and swing vote Anthony Kennedy would /not/ reach the same conclusion?) Yet, even if it were, the President could have said, “We’re going to give contraceptives away at Taxpayer expense,” and would have reached the same level of coverage, if not more. Granted We might still have such a fight going on when it comes to abortifacients like “Plan B”, “ella”, and “RU-486″ but it would have avoided the “You are meddling in the affairs of religious organizations” controversy.

Additionally, when Liberals like E.J. Dionne, Chris Matthews, Senator John Kerry, etc. are saying the current President has gone too far on this issue, I’m thinking He might have gone too far on this issue. Perhaps a new plan to expand coverage is in order?

Reply