Skip to main content

Public support for the contraceptive mandate

A new survey indicates that the contraception mandate is popular:
Most Americans support the Obama administration health reform mandate that requires business owners and faith-based non-profits to offer insurance coverage of contraception for employees, even when doing so conflicts with their [the employer's] religious principles, according to a recent survey by LifeWay Research. (Source: USA Today)
How popular?
-- 63% of American adults say businesses should be required to provide their employees with free contraception and birth control, even if it runs counter to the owners' religious principles.
-- 56% say nonprofits, such as schools, health facilities and charities should be required to provide the coverage.
-- 53% say Catholic and other religious schools, hospitals, and charities should be required to [provide the coverage]. (Source: USA Today)
LifeWay polled about 1191 people, so the margin of error is a little less than +/- 3%. Of the three results reported above, the only one that is close to being within the margin of error is the third result.

Regardless, these kinds of numbers should make the Obama administration and family planning advocates happy. Public support for a given policy does not always track with its constitutionality, of course, so we'll have to see how judges ultimately work out the religious freedom concerns of certain employers.

What I suspect, however, is that a majority of Americans support the contraceptive mandate-- or, don't have a serious problem with it-- for two main reasons:
  1. It strikes them as a good idea. It saves women and families money; it will allow women to use the most effective contraceptives without a concern for cost; and people largely believe that there is a positive correlation between increased use of effective contraceptives and lower rates of unintended pregnancy-- and abortion.
  2. The contraceptive mandate does not really impinge on the religious freedom of employers. In other words, many Americans just don't buy the narrative that this is a fundamental burden on religious employers. Except in rare circumstances, the connection between the employer and the free contraceptives that a woman would receive under her health care plan is distant and tenuous.  The ACA and its follow-up regulations, despite the objections of pro-life groups, are actually pretty good at creating a firewall between religious employers and the money that goes to purchasing contraceptives under ACA-regulated health care plans. 
I was a little curious about LifeWay Research. According to its web site, LifeWay exists "for the purpose of assisting and equipping church leaders with insight and advice that will lead to greater levels of church health and effectiveness." Given the comments of LifeWay's president in the USA Today article (excerpted from LifeWay's press release), one gets the sense that he is baffled and frustrated by the results of the survey:
"The religious freedom that the United States pioneered is not a freedom of belief, but a freedom to practice that faith," said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research. "The American public appears unaware or unconcerned that some religious organizations and family businesses indicate fear of losing the freedom to practice their faith under the new healthcare regulations."
People in the survey may "overlook the fact that more than 90 percent of businesses with employees are family businesses. Recent lawsuits contend that the religious freedoms of these families conflict with healthcare choices desired by individuals," said Stetzer.
Don't Americans get it? He seems to be asking. Actually, I think a majority of Americans understand things pretty well.

Links:

Article in USA Today-- note that there are some odd typographical errors in the article (December 3, 2012): Most Americans support contraception insurance for all

Home page for LifeWay Research; the home page also contains a link to pdf and ppt versions of the poll

Press release for the Life Way poll (November 30, 2012)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, Pres