Its curious to me that none of the cost cutting conservative rhetoric ever questions the coverage of erectile dysfunction drugs by not only private insurance, but the VA and many other large public health and county systems which are taxpayer funded. These drugs cost far more than contraception, and one could argue that they make contraception all the more necessary for women.

Sorry, Mark Shields - this is what you choose to take an emphatic stand on? Maybe it's time to retire. You could not be more wrong about this.

It will be "cataclysmic" for Obama if he "compromises" on the birth control provision rule.

Sticking it in the eye of Catholics? How come they've managed to do it in several states for years?

What about sticking it in the eye of women?

I usually refrain from saying this, but you've forced me to...when you turn into a woman, Mark Shields, you - and the bishops - can have an opinion on birth control.

Shields is cataclysmically wrong!

The R.C. Church competes with other hospitals and other universities for patients and students. Why should the R.C. Church be allowed not to incur the expense of providing birth control in the insurance for its employees while its competitors must incur that expense. Why should the R.C. Church be given special consideration. If the rights of women are to be given up in favor of allowing the R.C. Church (male) authorities this special consideration, what other religions that discriminate against women will be allowed to carry their discrimination into their businesses?

This is being complicated way more than needed. If the Catholic church is allowed to be exempted from a law of the land then what would stop any church which may declare they do not believe in treating Cancer, Heart Disease, Aids, or any other health issue from also declaring they need to be exempt? At the end of the day if the church chooses to operate in the country, choses to use the liberties that come with that choice including being exempt from taxes, and all the other advantages of being in the country then they need to abide by the laws of the land. If they elect to not participate in tax exempt status and all the other protections that come with practicing in the US then they would have a leg to stand on. Let's see where their morals really lie. Choose to give up all the privaledges given only to churches for the freedom of choosing what parts of the society they do not wish to paricipate in? Personally I do not think they would however if they do then I would have more respect for them and be willing to accept their decisions more readily. In this case, anyone going to work for a specific church would know what they are getting into if they accept a position with them and know that they may not wish to participate in all the laws of the land.

If the Catholic Church was required to provide this contraceptive service to their theological (Cardinals, Bishops Priests, nuns,etc.) officials then they would have a legitmate complaint. However, that is not the reqjuirement as those officials were exempt. The church has many enterprises which involves people who are not of that faith and to require them to accept their doctrinal bias is an equal assult on religious freedom for them. If to avoid this situation the Church required that all employees in their various enterprises not dirrectly related the actual act of worship (schools, charities, thrift stores, etc,) they have a problem with relkigiojus discrimination. YET I NEVER HEAR TNHIS ARGUMENT MADE. WHY!!!!!!!

Mark Shields and everybody else is so WRONG about this issue re:some supposed disrespect of the administration for certain teachings and faiths. NONE of these people work in any of these Catholic healthcare organizations and know the employee demographics of these institutions.

These Catholic healthcare organizations are <30% Catholic employees guaranteed, partially because of the pay. However, how many employees are practicing Catholics who do not want coverage of contraceptives would easily be minimal. (I'd bet -have no real numbers - <10%). Without employees from all or no faiths, including atheists, Catholic healthcare organizations WOULD NOT EXIST, plain and simple. There are not enough Catholic healthcare employees to even staff 50% of any hospital.

These institutions receive FEDERAL funds to be able to "serve". Contraceptive medications are used not only for birth control but also are used considerably for significant female issues including extremely debilitating PMS, menstruation, and migraine prophylaxis. To not have this be mandatory coverage is an assault on women's healthcare plain and simple. Catholic healthcare does NOT have the right to receive federal funds and then not offer plans that cover contraceptive medications tramples on OTHERS' religious choices and THEIR HEALTH. This should not be supported by any government. If the Catholic healthcare organizations want to only hire Catholics (good luck) or NOT receive federal funds (good luck on surviving), then they have a right to trample on others' religious beliefs. In the meantime, offer healthcare that protects women and has coverage for contraceptive medications. Those who choose not to use contraceptive coverage can choose a plan that does not have this coverage. Easy.

If Catholic churches are going to cover ED meds w/o argument, they need to cover contraceptive meds...

There is another issue here that has been unaddressed. While I understand the limits of commercial TV, it's just not right to ignore it. That issue is whether, in the communities at issue, health care is available that is NOT controlled by the Catholic Church. Catholic hospitals receive a lot of government money, and in some communities they control a majority of the health care sector.

As a health care professional, I understand why we don't want to force anyone to provide a service that they find to be immoral - as a health care professional, I don't want to be in this position. But this issue cannot be discussed with integrity without discussing these other difficult issues. If we are going to permit the Catholic hospitals to take government money and impose their choices about available health care in these communities, we should not have allowed them to take over so much of the health care delivery sector. Given that we have done so, we are going to have to engage some difficult issues about the rights of people from other faiths in towns where no other choices are available.

. Similarly, there are some towns where women cannot buy plan B at any pharmacy. That leaves poor women being expected to take the bus to the nearest large city the day after they are raped. On one level, you can say that Mr. corner pharmacist (or Walgreens, the chain) shouldn’t have to offer a product that they find to be immoral and Komen doesn’t have to give $ to planned parenthood. But if either Walgreens, the Catholic Church or Komen have enough of a corner on the market, the prohibition is effective even if not official.

It is possible that Mr. Shields does not agree with this position. Or perhaps he thinks that Catholic hospitals should make this available to patients but not be required to provide it to their employees. Either way, the NewsHour neglected to address the issue of either government funding or whether non-Catholic services are available to the women in those communities. Your neglect of that issue makes this purely a political story and utterly neglects the health care dimension. Disappointing for the NewsHour.

None of this makes this an easy issue and I understand Mr. Shields' feelings, but he should not be "shielded" from these facts.

Birth control pills are often prescribed for reasons other than avoiding pregnancy. Sometimes women need this medication for very serious medical conditions. This is where the Catholic Church has absolutely no business determining what kind of medical care a woman should have. The decision to use birth control pills is, like any other medical decision, between a woman and her healthcare provider. It is none of the Church's business why birth control pills might be prescribed by a doctor. And it really burns me that most of the people that Mr. Shields lists as champions of this position are men. As a Catholic, I would encourage Catholic women to just say no birth control? No sex for you!!!

Mark Shields may be a long time liberal, but he's dead wrong about this. The Administration's decision is not only the correct decision, it is also the proper decision that PROTECTS religious freedom: the right of employees of civil institutions run by religious entities to be free from the religious dictates of their employer. Every employer in the civil sphere abides by the same set of rules, and freedom of religion is NOT the right of a church-run civil institution to exempt themselves from any law they please. Houses of worship, which are not part of the mainstream civil life of people who do not participate in that religion, churches have no special right to exempt themselves from the laws when they participate in the public, civil sphere.

More here:

I agree with tejana 7, Mr. Shields. It's a long past issue for me, but how dare any man think he has a valid opinion on a woman's decision for or against birth control? In behalf of my grand daughters and great-grand daughter, I object.

God forgive me Please but I wish that all of the dirty right wing of the GOP will take birth control.

Very disappointed in your tv coverage of the birth control policy. Why have a discussion on a women's health issue conducted by two elderly men? Why did you monologue so long on Mr. Shield's liberal bona fides only to have the man himself reveal his deep conservatism on women's issues. You, too, failed as a news commentator, when you only considered the effect the policy would have on the Catholic Church (which does not have feelings, no matter what your Sunday School teacher told you) and never once address how it would effect women. What about non-Catholic women employed at these institutions, don't they have a right to adequate health care? What about Catholic women who disagree with the Church's stance on this issue? Why should these institutions receive federal funds if they're going to discriminate against half of the population? And how far are you willing to support them in this discrimination? The official stance of the Catholic Church is that homosexuality is a sin. Should they be allowed to deny LGTB people medical treatment?

I'm so glad Rachel covered this properly just before your show came on. At least the program with better ratings got the issue right.

I agree with the above posts. In watching Rachel Maddow tonight I love her point.. Aren't more that half the people in the US woman voters! We women hear Pres. Obama saying, "I prioritize your health care...ALL OF IT!" I respect the Catholic church but here again the church faith comes first and not a women's right! Most woman use birth control. I'm so tired of hearing attacks on women's reproductive rights. When am I going to hear men's reproductive rights being attacked on a regular basis. I'm just sayin...we are in the 21 century and entering a time of asking for fairness (if not more awareness). It's time everything is on the table. Btw: Are men's reproductive medical options covered by employers health care? I don't know the answer to this question. Why not ask some women how they feel about this law?

Zibay, tejana7, Quoil!, T1Truth, Dilion876, karstrial, Irgphd, J T Harkness, I agree with you all. I do think this is being made into some politic issue by certain people and the media. And I really was sick of Mark Shields tonight.

Mark Shields, Chris Matthews, Ej Donne...old catholic men deciding what is good and right for women. If the pope says it, women must obey???? Is this the dark ages?
Women get to CHOOSE if they want to use birth control. If they go along with the old man catholic church, fine...their choice.

But because the Church wants to keep women enslaved, inferior and unequal does not make it right. By playing the religion card and the guilt card, ALL women who work in jobs in these institutions should suffer because ?????? Just because a woman had a choice these men are going crazy.

Liberals my arse........

I was reading that many Catholic Universities hospitals already offer contraception as part of their health insurance plan. So the big deal now is WHAT? Could it be politics?

The point is not that the government is encroaching on religion, it is that religion is encroaching on the public space. Once a religion does that, they lose their exemption. Let's rephrase the question a bit to see just how out of step this controversy really is.

What if a church run hospital refused to give blood transfusions due to their beliefs? Should that be allowed? How is this any different than a church claiming religious immunity on the funding of birth control? If you are going to offer services in the public space then you have to abide by public norms. To do otherwise if to force your religion on others.

It'd be like if a drowning woman was pulled from the ocean, and a man runs up and says "Stand back I'm a doctor", but he then refuses to give her mouth to mouth because it's against his religion to touch an unknown woman in that manor. His presence is preventing someone else from helping that woman who might be able to do a better job. Because of this, his religious beliefs simply don't apply in this scenario.

Who cares how long Mark Sheilds has been speaking on behalf of Liberals--he's got it all wrong on this issue! There will NOT be mass hysteria in opposition to the ruling that Catholic institutions (hospitals and colleges) offer their FEMALE employees contraceptions.

Once again, a male takes the liberty to speak on behalf of women's healthcare needs. It is Mark's generation--that includes Chris Matthews, you, Lawrence, and even Mika Brzeznski, who are off-base--adults 35 have very different opinions about this ruling. Perhaps if the Catholic church would focus more on the perverse immorality of its priests, they would have a more compelling argument--they have no grounds on which to stand. Mark does not speak for me! Metaphorically speaking, tell Mark it's way past his bedtime...zzzzzzz.

I absolutely do NOT believe President Obama, the West Wing, HHS, etc should compromise on this issue. The Catholic Church is EXEMPT from the law. The "entities" which are impacted by the law are healthcare providers, schools, etc and while the law mandates the employer pay for these women's healthcare issues, it never prescribes, mandates or even suggests any employee USE them. Also, why doesn't anyone argue that contraception, sterilization (I'm assuming a hysterectomy is a form of this) are medical interventions for diagnosed ailments, not just the prevention/termination of a pregnancy. Many women go on contraception for endometriosis, irregular menstruation, etc. If a Catholic school's secretary is diagnosed with an illness that necessitates a hysterectomy, is she really expected to pony up the money for it because some would consider it "sterilization?"

If there MUST be a compromise, at MOST I would hope that Catholic Hospitals, schools, etc be mandated to offer two forms of insurance. One that follows the church's philosophies and one that offers comprehensive women's healthcare, including contraception, etc.

1) What happens when Catholic Healthcare takes over Acme Hospital--only some of the employees are Catholic, so why should the religious overlord take away the right to prevent pregnancy for all? Obama isn't forcing you to go on the pill, after all.

2) If it were very conservative Muslims that demanded the right not to provide birth control, would Santorum, Newt & Mittens wholeheartedly agree with them?

3) Since many Christians preach against homosexuality, are they allowed to turn away HIV-positive gay people on religious grounds? Would it be ok if they refused to treat females who have had abortions on religious grounds? Could they turn away Muslims or Atheists on religious grounds? And by the way, what exactly did Jesus say about birth control? Nothing. It's not a religious argument. It's a stance made by so-called religious people.

Obama in 2008: "Yes, we can!"

Obama in 2009-2012: "Yes, we give in!"

Face it, liberals, Obama is a Republican Lite. Liberal and left politicians would never give religious people/organisations special rights by allowing them to simply ignore the law.

Religious freedom is not tantamount to religious privileges. It's actually the exact opposite. Religious freedom also includes the freedom of having no religion. Religious freedom means equal treatment regardless of religion. Hence, there must not be exemptions for anyone! Allowing religious people/organisations to ignore the law, while non-religious people/organisations have to abide by the law is a violation of religious freedom.

Well, Larry, it looks like the commentors want you to step off the GOP bus on this one. The administration needs to stand strong on this one.

We are going to see more attacks on birth control this year since the GOP field believes it has a great wedge issue. This is only round one.

I'm normally more concerned with economic issue but I will never vote for anyone who does not fully support birth control and the right to easy access for all women to reproductive health care.

You've have presented the minority view, I hope that the majority gets to be heard on your show.

Don't you just love the way the Catholic church picks and chooses what issues that it's outraged about? They are up in arms about providing coverage for birth control , yet don't mind hiding and protecting pedophiles.

With all due respect to Mr Shields, he was describing a Catholic Church that does not exist anymore. I was at Catholic University of America in DC during Vatican II. It was a time of exploration on how to create an inclusive church full of ideas and hope. That of course was shut down and the Catholic Church has moved in a conservative direction that has troubled many Catholics. We have a Pope telling an African continent that using condoms is wrong while millions of Africans are dying of AIDs. The Catholic Church has become a political organization that protects itself at all cost. No religious organization should have a separate set of rules, this trend is very dangerous. If the Catholic Church wants to have schools and hospitals then it must follow the laws that govern those institutions. In addition the Catholic Church should pay taxes like any other organizatio and it should be held responsible for its acts of unspeakable violence against children. The fact that the Church issued a report after investigating itself and blamed the sixties for allowing child abuse to run rampant speaks to an organization that is so out-of-touch and considers itself to be God. The congregation has changed drastically in the last 30 years. White people have left the Church in droves since Vatican II was shut down and has been resplaced with a larger hispanic population. Pragmatically speaking, I think Obama's decision was a good one. He has just secured the vote of white women in their 40's and 50's while recognizing that he will most certainly retain the hispanic vote, afterall what is the alternative, the anti-immigration republicans. Let's hope President O'bama does not back-off and compromise, I was just starting to like this new and improved O'bama. Finally, he has shown some backbone and a willingness to stand-up for the American people. Don't back down to the Republicans or this dangerous trend in Religion...and support the unions.

The official policy of the Catholic Church, if usually unspoken, is to keep women vulnerable and powerless. This issue is part of the current effort to distract the public from the church's pedophile problems by focusing attention on the need to put women back in their place. It's a popular position these days. The Republican candidates compete for who can be the most harshly anti-woman.