White House may compromise on contraception rule, source says
February 10th, 2012
08:23 AM ET
3 years ago

White House may compromise on contraception rule, source says

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The White House probably will announce a compromise Friday on a controversial rule requiring religiously affiliated employers to provide full contraception coverage to women, an administration source said.

News of the possible compromise comes after days of escalating partisan and ideological rhetoric over the pending rule, which many Catholic leaders and other religious groups oppose. The rule would apply to institutions such as hospitals and colleges.

FULL STORY

Filed under: President Obama • White House
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. GROVER NORQUIST IS A ENEMY OF THE STATE

    Compromise for what? This is not a B.F.D. Look, if you're a catholic woman and want to get knocked up everytime you have sex, then go right ahead. I can care less.

    February 10, 2012 08:28 am at 8:28 am |
  2. diridi

    It is darn simple, let them choose, and be for pro-choice. If a woman wants it, let her have it regardless of whether she is Catholic, or protestant, or Hindu, or Muslim., no biased opinion. We are in democracy. Obama2012.

    February 10, 2012 08:35 am at 8:35 am |
  3. stranger in an increasingly strange land

    Once again the groups that deny women the right to make up their own minds get to defy federal law. It may be true that people can find out about birth control from other sources. But to allow hospitals to refuse to even discuss the process with patients is criminal.

    February 10, 2012 08:36 am at 8:36 am |
  4. mique

    No contraception coverage? No Viagra coverage.

    February 10, 2012 08:38 am at 8:38 am |
  5. Nicole

    they should not allow religious organizations that accept public funds (Medicare, Medicaid, pell grants, etc) have the exception. If they are willing to refuse tax dollars then fine, whatever, but we shouldn't fund religiously based discrimination (as in, everyone who isn't catholic being subjected to catholic/conservative Christian views on healthcare).

    February 10, 2012 08:38 am at 8:38 am |
  6. Rudy NYC

    This issue is a clash over the freedom of religious organization against the freedom of people who work in businesses run by that organization. This country was founded on the principle of individual freedoms, and the freedom of the individual to practice whatever religion he chooses.

    The conservative view holds that if you do not like what the private organization offers, go find a new job.

    February 10, 2012 08:38 am at 8:38 am |
  7. bsed63

    Catholic women don't use contraceptives???? Who are you trying to kid......... Take them away and let these women solve the problem!!!!!

    February 10, 2012 08:44 am at 8:44 am |
  8. harvey

    When are we going to start treating religous organizations just like the of the business entities in the country? Religion should not be above the law. It should be scrutinized more on there fiscal earnings than any other industry. Religion really is just another industry, is it not?

    February 10, 2012 08:47 am at 8:47 am |
  9. Roc

    Catholic charities shoudl stop taking Gov fundi
    ng then they can operate they way they want.

    February 10, 2012 08:48 am at 8:48 am |
  10. Larry in Houston

    This whole contraceptive Issue is Crazy – It should not even be an Issue. As a Catholic for the last 56 years, most of the Catholic familys or women and especially the ones who have kids that I know – have used contraceptives – AND have suggested it to their Daughters – especially when they are old enough to be dating, or going out – and 'hanging out' w/ their friends, and etc. I mean, even though the parents believe life begins at contraception, this thing about "taking" contraceptives is getting crazy, and people are taking this whole thing out of context. I mean, people are tickled to death for having "employers" to provide – what people would normally have to pay for something out of their Own Pocket.

    February 10, 2012 08:49 am at 8:49 am |