this particular role is not even about health care. it is about the coverage you have to give your employees. there was recently a supreme court case -- 9-0 -- on hiring at religious and institutions. some say we give the church an exemption, which shows how little they understand the whole state based institutions of the country. the church pakistan will be on the building of the church. if it is a church-run school, a church-run university, a day care center, a jewish day care center or muslim community outreach effort -- all of those things are part of that faith based community. the supreme court just ruled 9- 0 that those institutions have specific protected hiring rights.

they also have all kinds of other different, specific, and protected rights because of who they are in because of the constitution. you cannot pass laws and rules that violate constitutional principles. that is what this would do. that is whether it is such an outrage. it is one of many instances that could occur if you begin to think the government can interfere in these areas. it is about religious liberty, not about a specific individual application of that liberty. it is about religious liberty. we want to look at the rights of conscience, which were mentioned at the constitutional convention itself as one of the reasons for the first amendment. i understand people's outrage and will join me in the congress and believed soon there will be a number of democrats telling the administration not to go down this foolish path.

do not try to turn america into something it is not. do not think you can let the government control the faith views of the american people. >> this that has nothing to do with it right versus left. this is straightforward. this is about the government of the united states telling a faith based organizations they have to pay for something they teach their members should not be doing. it is that simple. if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all other kinds of results. i think the vast majority of americans will tell you that the government of the united states should not go in and tell a church-based organization that they must pay for something that their faith teaches the members not to do. that is what this issue is about. that is why commentators on the left and right are saying this is wrong. people in the white house to

adopt a comfortable with it. the solution is for the president to say maybe we went too far. we have heard from a lot of people and we will reconsider this position. this does not have to be one of the issues. all the president has to do is reconsider the decision ended knowledge that maybe they went too far. i hope that is what will happen. if it does not, i hope the senate and the house will act on it. the american people are asking us to predict that is an important issue. [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish]

>> [unintelligible]

>> i guess what i am suggesting -- what is an illustration is doing with regards to our economy, it is pretty clear the growth and expansion we are seeing in government is leading us to more of a welfare state. i think decisions like this move us towards secularization of our country. it seems to me they are suggesting this regard for the basics, core beliefs of the american people. these beliefs are not something people have fought for over the years. it is what brought us to this country in the first place. it ought to be the thing we -- we are concerned about every aspect of our constitution, but if we are not willing to protect our constitution and the reason people came to our country in the first place, i do

not know what kind of country we are. this is an affront to the constitution in my view. >> i want to give an example of something that happened earlier this year. the conference of catholic bishops previously held the grant. basically, the career employees at health and human services, they gave the conference of catholic bishops the highest ranking on addressing the issues. the administration went as far as changing the criteria of the grant to make sure that faith based organizations that got the highest ranking would not receive it. when i see something like that, i say to myself that is something that is troubling

because objectively i would question it. that is another example of the administration of overreaching. >> [unintelligible] >> if you listen to their compromise, they are going to talk to them in a year and figure out how they can comply to this world. go back and listen to exactly what they said yesterday. we will give them a year to see how they can comply with this role. it was not a discussion on how we can change the rule or walk away from this. the white house does not need to do this. whether it is catholic bishops not getting a grant or hospitals being told if you not provide all services, we do not reimburse you for any services -- this is systematically happening across the board. this is something that struck at the heart of these big institutions that provide lots of health care and lots of

education. they are the ones driving this debate. not us. it was the catholic bishops that sent the letter to every parishioners, i think, in america for the last two weeks. or the catholic chaplain of the office sent a letter that would initially not be read. this is a huge issue and if you listen to what they are saying, they are just try to take the subject and kicked it down the road for a year, which may be why they made it a year to start with. >> anything about the legislative response? you have introduced two different bills -- >> we are discussing the appropriate response. the story centers you heard from are involved in those discussions. we will let you know when we decide what approach we are going to take.

>> [unintelligible] >> would you repeat that question? >> [unintelligible] >> there are also other reports that he vetoed the bill. that is not what this is about. this is about religious liberty. you can try to turn it into all the political discussion you want. this is a first amendment american right. it has nothing to do with who said that where and who said that win. it is about this issue right now.

the conscience protection lot that senator ayotte and senator rubio signed predicted the path of the president would be on. this is something we have tried to talk about for weeks now. >> [unintelligible] >> we are obviously very concerned about the americans being held. i issued a statement yesterday with senator mccain and senator lieberman. right now the egyptian government needs to understand how serious we are about resolving this issue. we are in a position where they could be in jeopardy. they have an opportunity to correct this by obviously releasing the americans and resolving this with our country. we have a very important relationship with egypt and i

want to see that relationship repaired, but it is up to them to act right now. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> reporter's question white house spokesman jay carney about the contraception issue at the daily news briefing. this is 15 minutes. >> on the contraception issue, speaker boehner is promising to repeal the rule through legislation. i am curious about your reaction to that. if that were to happen, will the president veto it? does he feel that strongly? >> there is a lot of speculation about the question. on this issue, from the very

beginning we have said we would work with individuals who of concerns as we were to implement the law. on january 20, when this decision was announced, secretary sebelius said "we will continue to work with religious bridge during this transition to discuss their concerns. the 28 states have similar contraception coverage requirements. some states do not even have the exemption which this provision requires our churches and houses of worship. we want to work to implement this policy in a way that is sensitive to their concerns. let us be clear -- we are committed to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra cost, no matter where they work. >> while you are planning to work with the groups who have concerns, congress, at least

the house, are planning to undo the role. >> right now we are focused on the implementation of this rule and doing what we said. on january 28 when secretary sebelius announced it -- we will work with those concerned to see if there is a way to implement the policy to make sure women everywhere have the same level of health care coverage and the same access to preventive coverage, but to do it in a way that would allay some of these concerns that have been at express. been at express. as you know, the president has worked with churches and organizations that do a lot of good work. he is very sensitive to concerns like these and he wants to find a way to implement this important role because he is committed to making sure women have access to this coverage.

he wants to find a way to implement it. it can allay some of the concerns that are expressed. that is why this transition period was announced at the same time the rule was announced. time the rule was announced. >> is the white house hopeful of having some sort of solution in place? >> i do not want to predict a date by which this process might produce a result. i think it is best to let the process take place. there are ways. i think people in the broader community who have been looking at this issue have been talking about the fact that there are ways to approach this that would ensure the rule is

implemented so that women have access to these important health care services no matter where they work. they work. i do not want to get into whether this approach might work or that one, who might feel better about it if this solution were put forward -- we are not at that point in the process. >> negotiations same bog down on the payroll tax. i am curious what the white house -- are you confident it will get extended? is there a genuine and nervousness that this might expire? >> we continue to be confident that congress will pass the extension of the payroll tax

cut for the rest of the calendar year. it is still inconceivable to us that congress would want to raise taxes on 160 million americans on march 1. americans on march 1. americans need that extra money to pay bills, to make ends meet. to pay bills, to make ends meet. there is an element of deja vu to this process. i think it is clear what is needed to get done. it is clear from the economic reports we have had in the last several months that the economy is growing and producing jobs. we are moving in the right direction and congress should not muck that up. faults of the hill me to act without delay and without drama to get this done.

but leaders on the hill feel extending the payroll tax cut is a good thing to do it. it is a good thing to do for hard-working americans. democrats obviously agree. the president strongly agrees that we ought to get this done. we still have time to work on this and we hope congress focuses and gets the work done. let's mix it up. >> on contraception -- it is >> on contraception -- it is not just the speaker and mitch mcconnell, the candidates have seized on it, including mitt romney. they see an opportunity to not only drive a wedge in the work of some democrats. does the president feel he is vulnerable to that?

>> the president is focused on putting in place the right policies for women across the country. country. he is focused on finding a balance sensitive to the concerns expressed by some religious groups. the former governor of massachusetts is an odd messenger on this given that the services this rule would provide for women around the country are the same provided in massachusetts when he was governor, including contraception, including coverage with no co pay or deductible. the religious exemption for houses of worship and churches, but not to universities and hospitals.

mitt romney is criticizing the president for pursuing a policy that is virtually identical to the one that was in place when he was governor of massachusetts. >> had the president commented d on rick santorum on the issue? [laughter] >> i do not think he is commented. >> the evangelical report on catholics who were opposed to this -- i go to jail rather than violating what god commands us to do. he has a lot of twitter followers. are you worried that that will rally the republican base?

>> we are not worried about republicans or democrats being a political component of this. we are concerned about making sure that women get access to these important services, that women are treated equally around the country regardless of where they work, but we are very sensitive and understand the concerns that have been expressed. that is why as part of the original announcement of this, secretary sebelius put in a process for further discussions to be held that will address some of these concerns and maybe allay some of them. i cannot sort of itemized or give great detail on what those discussions will look like. the full implementation of this

policy does not take place until august 2013. this conversation is only just under way, but it is important to note that the president takes those concerns seriously and is committed to the policy. we will press forward with these discussions to see if there is a way to move forward in implementing the policy. i want to get out of the front row and then come back. you bet. mr. walton. >> what has been the president's reaction to this reaction about the contraception issue? was he surprised at the reaction of both political and religious? >> as i have been saying, the president understands these concerns.

that is why he agreed with the approach the secretary sebelius took that sought that appropriate balance, that made sure there was an exemption for churches and houses of worship, churches and houses of worship, itemized in some states of the country, and why he supported the part of this that required more discussion to be had as a way of implementing this for institutions and groups that have expressed concerns. i think he understands and understood from the beginning why this is a sensitive issue and it informs his decision in the way he has. >> is there any sense of how

discussions will take place? is there any sense of who would talk to who i am trying to come up with some sort of a resolution? >> i do not have a lot of individuals involved in those types of discussions. discussions involving health care policy would normally include folks who do health care policy in a variety of places in the administration. looked at the kind of conversations that will take place in terms of the policy. place in terms of the policy. >> there were reports yesterday that looking for a way to implement the policy was a way to compromise.

tell me why that should be seen as an attempt to find a compromise? >> i want to be clear that the president is committed to implementing the policy that will ensure women across the country, no matter where they work, will have access to the same health care coverage and the same preventive health care services, including contraception. it is also true and has been true since the day this was announced that we intend as an administration, as secretary sebelius said, to work with those who have concerns about this to see if there are ways to implement that policy. these are some of those concerns and both are true, but i wanted to be clear yesterday and i want to be clear today that the commitment to ensuring women have access to these important health care services remains very strong.

>> it is not a compromise because you will not walk back on access without a co pay? >> right. >> there is also a difficulty within the pentagon. the army chief of chaplains felt a letter from the archbishop may lead to disobedience. disobedience. >> my understanding is the chaplains were absolutely free to express their opinions about this and did. i would refer you to the defense department, but i would certainly hope in reporting on this you note that the chaplains are free to express their opinions. >> can you confirm that the president's former chief of staff encouraged the president

not to make this decision, but the president listened to his senior advisers? >> i will not get into internal deliberations and who is on which side of the discussions and debates internally. i will say, broadly speaking, the reports that i am certain people were against this issue is an accurate both broadly and specifically. i will not engage in a guessing game about who thought which way on what. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions >> republican presidential candidate mitt romney responded to white house criticism on his stance on the contraception mandate when he talked to reporters in atlanta. this is 10 minutes. >> very impressive. this goes along with -- holding this chair.

let's see -- it is good to be back in georgia. i had a great experience in nevada. the three last night, not as good. congratulations to rick santorum on a good night. we are looking forward to the games ahead. we think we will pick up the delegates we need to get the nomination. we are feeling pretty good. >> [unintelligible] >> we expected a long process. you heard me say over some months now, senator mccain after winning florida, they went on to lose 17-18 contest after that but was able to put the delegates together. there are big states coming up with a lot of delegates. we will compete actively there. as you know, we did not devote

a lot of money or time to the states yesterday. we were spending our time and money in florida and nevada. senator santorum took a different course. he left florida and nevada and went to the other states. he was able to reap the rewards of rrl speak next she will elabo.

we have done it before, will do it again.

>> >> with the combined years of experience of everyone up here with me, i can tell you we have seen a lot of politic -- political attacks on women's rights. as time goes on the other side attempt to exploit women's writes for their own political gain, we hear the same excuses. every time we hear it is not an attack on women's health care, it is all about something else. we are told attacks on abortion rights are not an infringement on a woman's right to choose. it is about states' rights. -- or religion. we are told that accessing emergency contraception is not about our ability to make our

own family planning decision, it is really about protecting pharmacists and scientific processes. this last week we were told that komen's decision was not about their opposition to planned parenthood, it was about some congressional investigation. this issue is no different. a earlier today, you had a republican senator make the claim that this debate "is not an issue about contraception." republicans went on to explain that it was about everything else. they said it was about their opposition to the health care bill, which will provide millions of underserved men and women with the health care they need. they said it was about the catholic church. the vast majority of catholics utilize contraceptive services. that was left out. they said this was about freedom, except, apparently, not the freedom to make your own health care choices. this is about contraception.

if they take it is not, we want them to hear the women whose access to contraception is on the line with the battle they are taking on. tell it to the x-ray technician in california who works for catholic hospital. she is no different than an x- ray technician at the hospital across town, but she is refused coverage because of who her employer is. tell it to michelle. she is a delivery nurse at the dominican hospital in santa cruz. she says it is something we have come to expect for ourselves and our family. tell it to everyone who is employed by schools and universities and institutions who want to make their own health care decisions. i am guessing of those who are making political hay out of this issue will not take them. -- will not tell them.

they will continue to talk about everything but women's reproductive health. an attack on women's rights never comes without being disguised as something else. i tell you what -- all of us up here on this stage are not fooled. the american people should not be either. this is a fight to protect the rights of millions of americans who do use contraceptives, who believe family planning is the right choice for them and they do not deserve to have an ideology prevent them from getting the coverage they deserve. we are here because we fought hard to make sure preventive health care services for women were a right for everyone in this country no matter who their employer was. we are going to work hard to make sure we preserve that. >> senator lautenberg. >> when you think about things,

what an anomaly it is that one of the pleasures of being made on the republican presidential candidate side, they are going to take away the right of women to take care of their health. imagine running for president saying you are going to take away women's rights to take care of their health. i am here -- i have five daughters and five granddaughters. -- eight grandaughters. i do not want anyone telling them what to do about their health. they will go to a professional to find out what they are doing. the latest attack is coming from, what i will call, and oligarchy, which is a word i

used when there was another at work to take away women's rights of choice. now they are trying to take away affordable birth control, which is basic health care for women in our country. now mitt romney says if he is elected president, one of the first things he will do is to overturn both obama administration policies that make birth control more affordable for women. that is what president mitt romney would do it for spain. -- would do first thing. take affordable birth control away from women in our country. make no mistake, contraception is an essential health care, not only for women, but for many. it is expensive. a third of all women who have that still have to pay for it. republican politicians need to stop meddling in the help of women in our country. it is time to tell those republicans mind your own

business. ideology should never be used to block women from getting the care they need to lead healthier lives. let's take the "malegarchy" out of office and tell women we will protect your right to have good health and to raise your family as you see fit. all of us are fighters, by the way. [laughter] >> i am very proud to stand here today with such champions for women's health care and women's rights. i am dumbfounded that in the year 2012 we still are fighting about birth control. our opponents will look for any excuse to impose their ideology on women's rights. it is sad we have to stand here

yet again to fight back against another overreach and intrusion in women's lives. this is simply big government at its absolute worst. the power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman, not her boss. what is more interested than -- intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them? take a look at what is happening. republicans are trying to make it their decision on what the women in this country can do with their own bodies and help. they are showing a callous disregard and attempting to undermine the ability to make their own decisions. let's be clear -- this role respects the views of religious institutions, individual conscience, and freedom. a strong exemption allows churches and houses of worship to opt out of providing birth control. this is the law of the land in

28 states. this should not be an issue. women and families across the nation support common sense, affordable health care. they deserve that access to plan a family on their own terms. to take health care into their own hands. this is not a decision that should be made by washington. if my republican colleagues want to take this issue head on, we stand here ready to oppose any attack launched against women's health. >> i am also proud to stand here with champions of women's health, with a long record of fighting and winning on this issue. >> we should not have to be here. we should be talking about job creation and economic growth and not women's health.

politics and politicians have no place in women's health care. our message back to whoever would suggest a restraint or a legislative move is it will be dead on arrival. it is a nonstarter. we stand strongly with the president, and men and eight women who back them ought to simply take their hands off women's health care. there really is less new here than meets the eye. 28 states have comparable provisions. it has worked well there. the eeoc ruled in 2001 that birth control has to be afforded under these kind of health care plans. there is some mixed judicial ruling on it, but many employers now comply with that ruling. this kind of provision really

affords individual women the choice, and that is the key here. $500 or even $600 per year is a lot of money for women to spend on women's health care, and their health plan should cover it. any health plan that provides that kind of coverage will be acceptable. but employers cannot discriminate. that is the law. and so the kind of exemption that exists for churches, 335,000 of them, affords religious -- respects those convictions. we have a respectful balance here. no one is required to use birth control. no institution is required to dispense it, simply to cover it in their health care plan. that is why the message today

is, hands of women's health care. we will fight anyone who interferes with it. >> we will be glad to take questions. [unintelligible] >> we are not going to go into detail, but all would say it is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes, as we do, that american women should have access to birth control. >> and david axelrod had said yesterday that the administration might be willing to look for some sort of compromise. he indicated there might be some room for compromise, and one house is willing to talk to them again. would you support that effort? >> i spoke with david axelrod. let me tell you what he told me, exactly what i just said, that the administration absolutely stands behind the

ability of american women to have access to this benefit. with the exception of the 335,000, he has given an added one-year grace period to religiously affiliated organizations to figure out exactly how they are going to do that, and that is what they will do. [unintelligible] >> i just wonder if you could address -- the catholic church said they are were the first came out strongly against this and said these are affiliated institutions, they are extensions of the church. what do you say to them, and is there any ground for compromise here? >> first of all, there are

335,000 churches today who are exempt from this because they are churches. we are talking about schools, universities, hospitals that employed many, many women of all different kinds of faith. they have to rely on their employer to decide whether or not their access to contraceptives, that is something we are saying cannot happen. as senator boxer just said, the president, in his policy that he put forward, gave those institutions the year to figure out how to do that, and that is what they are in the process of doing today. >> remember, this is not anything new. more than half of the population in this country already has these laws in their states. 28 states that covers more than half of the population. this is not anything new. the fact that the universities

and these hospitals are working for the -- are really, this fuss is not about that. the questions are based on what you see the issues are. what patty murray stated so strongly is this is not about this exemption. it is about the fact that they don't want women to have access to birth control, and that is certainly true of the republicans who stood before you earlier today. >> i spoke with the l.a. catholic archdiocese. the way they have got around that requirement, what they tell me was the california law requires that insurance companies to provide contraceptives, etcetera, and it is not unlike the federal law, does not require the

employer to cover it. so there are catholic institutions in california that are not paying for contraceptives. >> you mean catholic affiliated institutions. it is a totally catholic institution and their mission is religion, -- many hospitals do this their own way. one way is they will contract with an outside entity to provide the particular benefits. there are many, many ways. the point is, there is nothing for people to be ringing the bells about. this is a compromise. this make sure that religious freedom of everyone is respected. that includes the women of this great nation. that is why president obama has struck that balance. that is why it is supported in the polls and that is why we

will stand up against any move by our republican friends to try to take away a benefit that women have been granted. >> how concerned are you that if republicans and the nrc [unintelligible] in states where voters tend to be more socially conservative. >> what i can tell you is that women in general largely support the ability for women to have access to contraceptives. and i don't think they are going to like having someone represent them that wants to take away that right. i am concerned that the republicans are using women's right to look at over here so the american public does not see that they are blocking us from passing legislation to put this economy back on track. >> [unintelligible]

>> i have not heard what tim >> one of the candidates tim kane has great -- raised issues. we are today, we believe strongly and will fight strongly to make sure that women in this country have access to contraceptives. >> this is a benefit that has been granted to the women of this country. about half are women have come and we want women to have it, and the president does as well. any move to take that right away means that women are going to lose a financial benefit, $600 a year in their pocket. that is a lot to the working poor and middle-class. that is a lot to everybody. they will be taking that right away, costing women money they were not going to have to spend, and women's health will suffer. you heard of these cases, women unable to afford contraception

having to lose their ovaries. this is a fact. this is a health benefit. everyone has their right to their view on it, but at the end of the day, we are here to say we support the right of women in this country to have access to birth control through their insurance policy. anybody that stands in the way will have to deal with us and our friends, and we thank you very much for coming out today. thank you. >> thank you. >> a debate about the obama administration's requirement that religious affiliated schools and hospitals provide employees with free contraception -- on today'