Why abortion groups opposed the religious exemption but support the “compromise”
UPDATE 2/14, 9:10p: Add Diana DeGette, co-chair of House Pro-Choice Caucus, to the list of “accommodation” supporters.
UPDATE 2/13, 9:40a: I’ve been keeping track of the pro-abortion groups that have endorsed President Obama’s life-ending drug mandate “accommodation” and wanted to make sure you were up to speed. If we had nothing else, this would be all the evidence needed to know the “accommodation” is nothing but bad. I added another today (click to enlarge)…
UPDATE 2/12, 6p: Add another pro-abortion group to the list of those supporting President Obama’s life-ending drug mandate…
UPDATE 2/10, 3:40p: Add Emily’s List to the pro-abortion groups supporting Obama’s announcement today… a “victory.” Click to enlarge…
2/10, 1:3op: NARAL and Planned Parenthood have joined RH Reality Check to enthusiastically support President Obama’s just announced “accommodation.”
The reason? Whereas before at least churches were exempted from providing insurance coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, now even church insurance policies will have to cover them. As RH Reality states, “Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide contraceptive coverage.”
Read details here of Obama’s tweaked plan, but note the verbiage in the tweets below. Click to enlarge:
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
guttemacher polls are twisted bs, They are pro-aborts. They are spawn from the father of lies. They carry the stench of death.
How much does it raise the prices by, ninek? Tell me. How much more does it cost to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to subsidize an unwanted birth?
“Stress indirectly increases a woman’s risk of cancer.” Megan, you also need to know that Birth control is a group one carcinogen which means it causes CANCER!..a known medical fact that the doctors avoid telling us with grave seriousness…they allude to it as if it is no big deal..but, an article on a speech by a surgeon points out that birth control causes cancer…so I say, more children makes it easier to avoid it..
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/surgeon-birth-control-pill-a-molotov-cocktail-for-breast-cancer/ We act as if being a mother is a bad thing…it’s not and I”m getting sick and tired of the mainstream society telling women they shouldn’t get pregnant like getting pregnant is a disease. Children are our heritage and they bring good things to our world..a joy and a fresh perspective to life not to mention the creativity to solve the problems that we created. This whole attitude of having less children is an assault on motherhood. Why can’t we have as many children as we want without having to explain why. Children are a blessing and let’s stop treating them as if they are a curse!
truth dodger -
That is a FABULOUS idea – I mean, sure, if you included the 85 year old catholic women, the numbers look much better. Or the 9 year olds. In fact, if I were doing a survey, or something like male drivers and accidents, I would include a lot of four year olds to make my comparison numbers look better.
Let me guess truth – you were an art history major in college…not much studying of survey research! :-)
Ex-GOP – do you know what excommunication is and what its purpose is supposed to be? The tenor of your questions makes me think that you don’t…
Also, here’s an excellent analysis of why that 98% statistic is so flawed.
And here’s one I wrote.
A few of you are debating the cost end of things – for what it is worth: from the American Medical Association - http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html
Can typically be added for free as the costs are made up in other health care savings. Benefits listed by this writer for the AMA:
- Correct use dramatically reduces risk of unintended pregnancies
- Casual link between pregnancies that are too close together and negative birth outcomes
- Unintended pregnancies linked to delay of initiation of prenatal care and reduced breastfeeding – which influences health outcomes
The link I posted cites the studies if you’d like to look and explore.
Joanna – not Catholic – so you can explain to me why the sister should be ex-communicated, but not the other catholic groups who have come out in support.
I don’t find the 98% stat interesting at all – I find the 68% of those within the last month. I agree that the 98% can include the past numbers. I think the comparison numbers are much more telling.
Well, I’ve shot out SEVEN children so far… one more and I can make apostate’s head explode!!!
And let’s see, I’m not on welfare, I pay a TON in social security and medicaid… it’s one of the biggest deductions on my check each week. I’m a Certified Pediatric Nurse specialist… (Oh, no, I actually take care of children AFTER they’re born…. so much for THAT pro-abort canard.)
My husband is a SAHD, because we actually enjoy taking care of our children and want to ensure they become productive members of society (and I’ve even published books on the subject of how to teach your children to be positive, productive members of society!) Prior to this, however, he worked for 20 years starting at age 16 and contributed a large amount towards the social security and medicare funds.
My oldest has volunteered at organizations helping with projects for not only the elderly but also the visually impaired. She is now a CNA, caring for those in nursing homes (they adore her gentle nature) and is in nursing school. My next oldest mows the lawns and shovels the snow for all of the elderly members of our church. All of the younger ones pitch in as they can and know that they are EXPECTED to do that. See, this is what you don’t get. In a large family, everyone MUST pitch in. Therefore we have a built in safeguard against the tendency of a loving mother to do things FOR her children…. an understandable tendency but one that if indulged in too often can create adults who think everyone owes them simply for their mere existence (think the Occupy movement.)
Oh, and I nursed my mother in law for the last 8 months of her life after she had a stroke and had to have 100% total care at home. I also took care of my grandmother until she died (although her needs were fewer, she was very healthy and died of simple old age at 98.)
As a nurse, I am aware of those large families that are neglectful and otherwise irresponsible. I am also a member of groups of large family mothers nationwide and can attest to literally THOUSANDS of large family moms that I interact with on a regular basis who are raising their children the way I raise mine.
And honestly, if all of the “intelligent, responsible” people limit their family size, in a few generations we will be completely outnumbered by those who DO think they ought to live off of the system. If anything, responsible, capable, intelligent families should have MORE children, not fewer.
Lynn M. says:
February 13, 2012 at 2:31 am
“Stress indirectly increases a woman’s risk of cancer.” Megan, you also need to know that Birth control is a group one carcinogen which means it causes CANCER!..a known medical fact that the doctors avoid telling us with grave seriousness…they allude to it as if it is no big deal..but, an article on a speech by a surgeon points out that birth control causes cancer…so I say, more children makes it easier to avoid it..
Had to add to this. Did you know that for every child a woman births she lowers her risk of not only breast, but also uterine, ovarian and cervical cancer? In addition, for every month of her life that a mother breastfeeds her child, she further lowers her risks of breast and ovarian cancer. (In addition, breastfeeding, while it doesn’t work for everyone and it only works if your child is receiving NO supplements of food and formula, can help to delay the return of fertility, causing a natural spacing of children in the majority of cases. My own children are almost all between 2-1/2 and 3-1/2 years apart in age and I don’t use birth control.)
Also, by reducing the number of menses a woman has in her lifetime, pregnancy helps to reduce the overall estrogen output of the menstrual cycle over the course of her lifetime which has multiple positive effects on everything from cancer to osteoporosis to heart disease.
apostate: “Hardly anyone’s child will be taking care of anyone when they’re old any more than the current posters on this board work to take care of the elderly, and I’m willing to bet that’s virtually none of you, even your own relatives.”
I have personally visited andhelped care for my paternal grandmother, who had a terminal brain tumor. Caring for her inspired me to become a CNA (Certified Nursing Assisant). I have worked in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and currently in home health as a caregiver. I have seen everything ranging from families visiting on a regular basis, on a semi-regular basis, at holidays, to not at all. Also, in home health I have seen families dedicating their time and resources to providing the long-term care for their disabled loved ones. You just can’t stereotype individuals and families because everyone’s situation is different, nor could you possibly read into the minds of everyone here and know whether they visit or care for their elderly friends, parents, or grandparents in the nursing home. However, I recognize your comment for what it is, an ad hominem attack on our character and a straw man. Just keep tilting at windmills and swinging that wooden sword at the straw men, apostate.
If all types of birth control can be considered women’s health care, then wouldn’t food and water also be considered health care?
Afterall, we don’t need birth control to live, but we need food. So, where is my free, no copay, no deductible beef tenderloin?
Those “religious” faiths that support contraceptive use and abortion should still be against this revised MANDATE. Freedom, and the principle of fairness, should obligate these faiths to respect the rights of other faiths. They should not seek to have the state impose their faith, their beliefs, on the rest of the community. If these faiths support contraception and abortion coverage for their employees they should buy it for their employees, but they should not mandate that people of other faiths must do the same.
Obama has tried to pin the success of his mandate on the fact he will only force insurance companies to follow his mandate. This is the way evil operates. He is saying effectively: “Look, we are not that bad, we are not that much of a bully, we only want insurance companies to pay for contraceptions, we only want to deny the religious liberty of insurance companies. And by the way, who really likes insurance companies anyway! {Wink. Wink. Big Toothy Smile}”
Don’t be charmed into accepting evil America.
Also, if you look at the demographics of the Church in the United States, you will find a higher average age, which means many women who are active, practicing Catholics are too old to be using birth control anymore. It’s more evidence that the Screwtapes are just spinning their wheels to nowhere.
Making wishful-thinking statements with no real facts to back it up is typical abortion devotee behavior. Screwtapes, please use “vast majority” too because it’s so durn specific and statistical, LOL!!! Here, I’ll give you an example: “The vast majority of rabid abortion advocates can’t do math…”
Obama and his administration thought enough people hated, or had a low enough opinion of, the Catholic Church that his Mandate would pass. He now thinks people have a low enough opinion of insurance companies that the American People will allow him and his far-left comrades (PP, Naral,et al) to trample on the First Amendment rights of insurance companies and allow him to institute his revised MANDATE.
Talk about trying to use the people’s emotion to obatin their favor! How low can Obama and his comrades go?
Why all this talk about the % of Catholics that use contraceptives? How/why is it relevant? Catholics also lie, cheat, steal, murder, have abortions, commit adultery, fornicate, skip Mass, etc. None of that changes the teachings of the Church. The Church is charged with protecting and teaching the revealed truth, despite the failings of it’s members.
Can someone explain to me how a law that is objectively against the teachings of the Church is somehow justified because of the sins of the Church members?
[...] NARAL and Planned Parenthood have joined RH Reality Check to enthusiastically support President Obama’s just announced “accommodation.” Whereas before at least churches were exempted from providing insurance coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, now even church insurance policies will have to cover them. As RH Reality states, “Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide contraceptive coverage.” More . . . [...]
Ex-GOP –
The reason Sr. McBride excommunicated herself was that she had committed an excommunicable offense (facilitating an abortion). Using or advocating for contraception is not an excommunicable offense.
What do you think is the purpose of excommunication?
Ex-GOP: “The first amendment doesn’t guarantee you of that – the government is allowed to do all sorts of things over the right of an individual.”
Let’s go with that for a moment.
So would you blithely assert that whenever yet another prerogative is asserted by the government over against my freedoms, that I should only naturally roll over and pee each time that happens because, after all, they already do it?
“Hey, Simone, they’re already sterilizing Gypsies. Why would you reserve some right to avoid that yourself?”
What kind of sense are you trying to make?
Stop abortion.. wil Sebelius be fired?
“How much does it raise the prices by, ninek? Tell me. How much more does it cost to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to subsidize an unwanted birth?”
It doesn’t cost a dime if the mother arranges adoption ahead of time and the new family pays for her pre-natal care and the baby’s delivery. Many families have already filled out applications, been interviewed, screened, had their credit checked and their finances pored over, and still people like Megan kill them faster than anyone can adopt.
It’s merely shoplifting, Megan, and you know it. You know we’re in the right and that’s what keeps you coming here, kicking against the goad. Nice of you not to care about cardiovascular disease and diabetes, both cause a high number of deaths each year.
You don’t know what the phrase “ELECTIVE” means. Abortion and birth control aren’t basic health care. They are unnecessary and ELECTIVE, like hair plugs and pectoral implants. I hope YOU live to see the day abortion is illegal again, Megan. I personally hope YOU live to see it. Stay healthy and don’t play on railroad tracks, please.
Tell me, abortion devotees, if I ovulate, does that mean my ovaries have malfunctioned???
If a man produces sperm, does that mean there’s something very wrong with his reproductive organs?
If a baby is a disease, what does that make ALL OF YOU???? Big hairy grown up diseases? Really?
Lrning – my only point on the numbers is I find it hypocritical for the church to say “here are the rules you non-catholic employees need to follow even though it is pretty clear that catholics are pretty disputed about them”.
JoAnna – I am not Catholic (father is a minister – I go to a non-denominational Christian church). Anything regarding excommunication, you’ll have to explain. I know a few basics, but it is not something I’m too concerned about.
Rasqual – certainly not – I’m just saying that religious objection is not a trump card in society that a person can play at any point they choose. The government has, for a long time, mandated certain things that go against somebody’s beliefs. In this case, they have an exception for churches – the question is, is Notre Dame enough of a church? Or a catholic hospital? The question is simply where to draw the line.
Ex-RINO,
How do you suppose you will avoid answering to the Author of Life for the time you spend on this site supporting the pro-death cause and blasphemy of Christianity? Your contraceptive mentalitity is an affront to our Lord. Who do you serve when you mock those who believe the union of a man and women is a sacred gift from God?
Truth – how will any of us answer how we spend our time? Surely you know that we are all rotten, filled with sin, and must rely on Jesus for any hope of salvation. All I can do is love the Lord with all my heart.
There is no mocking here – only good, searching conversation. If you believe that folks should just blindly accept everything that comes there way in life and not question, wrestle, and debate topics – then you and I have a fundamental difference in how we interact with the world.
Truth – I actually believe you are a good person, and mean well. I believe in a centered approach to Christianity…that there are core things that are fundamental to belief, but that there is freedom in Christ to debate issue and wrestle with issues outside of that core. Freedom to agree to disagree, and to prod and learn using the Bible as a guide.
Christ is my Lord and my guide – no outside book or ruleset is more important to me – and Christ is who I follow.
Ex-GOP says:
Lrning – my only point on the numbers is I find it hypocritical for the church to say “here are the rules you non-catholic employees need to follow even though it is pretty clear that catholics are pretty disputed about them”.
Again, I don’t understand that. How is it hypocritical for the Church to teach the same truth to Catholics as to non-Catholics? To hold Catholics and non-Catholics to the same expectations? No one has ever denied that we all have free will and can decide to follow the teachings or not. How do the sins of the Church members negate the teaching of the Church?
Thou shalt not kill. Catholics kill. The Church is hypocritical when it says that killing is sin?
Thou shalt not commit adultery. Catholics commit adultery. The Church is hypocritical when it says that adultery is sin?
Thou shalt not steal. Catholics steal. The Church is hypocritical when it says that stealing is sin?
That makes no sense. Clearly the Catholic Church teaches that contraception and sterilization are sins. Whether Catholics commit those sins or not has no bearing on the teaching of the Church.
Lrning – all those situations you said are all illegal. Plus, they are all fairly rare. You’d certainly agree that if a majority of catholics did kill, it would be hard to say that not killing is a core conviction. Let me try a new one…it won’t stick completely, but I think it is closer.
Let’s say my pastor says going to California to Disney World is immoral, so he doesn’t want anybody in his church going to Disney World. Now, going to Disney World is certainly legal, and outside the teachings of my church, Disney World is pretty much okay.
Now, the people in my church really, at the end of the day, are okay with Disney World – so we all go. As families, on our own. Lots of Disney World time. Some don’t…but the majority do.
Now my pastor is saying that employees of the church charity, including the janitor and nursery workers, who really go to a different church – none of them can go to Disney World on their vacation time. Pastor is saying that the vacation time is essentially paid for by the extension of the church, so they can’t go (even if they see their vacation time as their benefit). He doesn’t want to pay for it.
Is not going to Disney World a core belief of this church if the majority of church goers vacation there? Maybe – but it is a much tougher sell, don’t you think?
Christ is my Lord and my guide – no outside book or ruleset is more important to me – and Christ is who I follow.
And when I tell you that God the Father of Jesus Christ; the Creator of Life and Holy Spirit is present at conception it is to try and shine light on your path and help you follow Christ more closely. I am not trying to show you any rules. I am trying to relate to you the truth about Jesus Christ as it is written in the scriptures.
The insurance companies are not going to complain about this First Amendment infringement because the insurance companies were heavily consulted with by the Obama administration when the Obama administration designed the Affordable Care Act. If religious liberty is going to be protected it is going to be upto good willed religious people. The “CLARIFICATION” of the how the original mandate is going to be implemented is revealing the apathy of the American public. This is not an “ACCOMODATION” but a “CLARIFICATION.”
Now my pastor is saying that employees of the church charity, including the janitor and nursery workers, who really go to a different church – none of them can go to Disney World on their vacation time.
Either that was a really terrible analogy or you really don’t see how important God’s gift of life is within his plan for mankind and how important it is as a tenet of faith to those who choose to carry out His mission here on earth.
Tyler. There should be absolutely no surprise to anyone here. Obama has never been anything but a 100% Planned Parenthood crony throughout his entire political career in Illinois. Now this is the abortion industry’s shot at enshrining their presence into our health care system. Obama doesn’t give a rats ass about religious conscience. He was willing to openly throw Jesus Christ under the bus in order to try and enshrine the culture of death into our health care when he thought that was the only way. But his bottom line is to get Planned Parenthood a foot in our health care system. I say F him. The second wave is coming this November and it is going to be a tsunami.
I am not Catholic, however I choose to work for Catholic hospitals as much as possible BECAUSE I agree with them about issues such as abortion and contraception. I would not work labor and delivery in ANY non-Catholic hospital (I mostly do pediatrics, but have worked L&D as well.)
If you go to work for a Catholic organization, frankly, you should expect to not have such things covered under your insurance. The Catholic church’s stance on these issues is neither knew nor unknown. If you want insurance that covers such things, work for organizations that offer them.
NOW… I do think there should be some upfront information given about what the benefits package your employer offers does and does not offer. Then people can make an informed choice as to whether they wish to work there or not.
Tyler -
Insurance companies aren’g going to complain about a first amendement issue because they aren’t religious by nature. They are primarily for profit, and deal with mandates such as this all of the time.
Elisabeth -
True…but one note on that. The nations largest Catholic college – DePaul, covers birth control. Archdiocese of NY provides it. Marquette University provides it – and some large Catholic hospital systems do as well.
Up from information though is important – I do agree with that.
Obama made it no secret that when he became president that he would work to make abortion “essential health care”. He could care less how many Americans are killed in the womb. HE LOVES abortion and Planned Parenthood and every bill he tried to pass or executive order he made is to the end of helping PP get money and stay alive. As more clinics close and word gets out about what abortion is, PP is in a panic! Obama is their Superman and he is willing to bankrupt America’s economy to keep PP alive.
He also hates Catholics…Any voter who does not like what he says and does better vote against him. and not third party b/c that will only help him win. If you are a Democrat who is prolife, you better be willing to vote Republican to get him out! If Obamacare passes, there will be no changing this mess..and it will only get worse! Obama is here to peacefully destroy America from within. Even black pastors say he doesn’t talk to them…he does not care about anyone else but himself and PP..his favorite lobby group! (oh and Warren Buffet and the rich who help support his campaign!)
Ex-GOP says: Lrning – all those situations you said are all illegal. Plus, they are all fairly rare.
Abortion (killing) is legal. Catholics account for 28% of abortions, or 920 per day. Not illegal. Not rare.
Adultery is not illegal. I have no idea how many Catholics have affairs, but my guess is it’s not “rare”.
Is not going to Disney World a core belief of this church if the majority of church goers vacation there? Maybe – but it is a much tougher sell, don’t you think?
Again, whether the church goers follow the teaching or not does not negate the teaching. If this teaching is as long-standing and as well-documented as the teachings of the Catholic Church against contraception and sterilization, I’d say it’s not a hard sell at all. Someone would have to be a fool to argue that contraception and sterilization are not against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
EGV, Lrning has already addressed this wonderfully, but I’ll add this:
So long as you maintain a stance of moral relativism (i.e. there is no objective standard of good vs. evil, but it’s only a matter of consensus and legal imposition), I think you will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to understand Christianity at all (much less the Catholic Church). Honestly: if the “lines” defining good and evil are merely human opinion writ large (and enforced by some sort of legal system, military force, etc.), then how can you hold to Christianity, save perhaps as a private fancy (such as one’s temporary taste for a given song, movie, etc.)? How can anyone ever strive for the good, if the very definition of “good” changes with each regime change, opinion poll, Hollywood initiative, or what-have-you? Christianity itself rejects any such mean caricature; Christianity is (by Christ’s own words) meant for those who commit to it with their lives… not for dilettantes.
Christianity teaches that God is real, good is real, evil is “real” (in the sense that it’s a phenomenon we experience–evil is really a privation of a good which should be present), Heaven is real (not simply a saccharine fantasy meant to drug the masses), Hell is real (not simply a false horror story conjured up to scare children into obeying their parents, etc.), and our moral choices will definitely decide our eternal fate.
Honestly: one thing I find exasperating beyond measure (partly because I did so, myself, for too many years, and seeing it in others is painful) is the tendency for many “Christians” to live as if the truths of the Faith were not true, or mere opinions, or (even more inexplicably) only true “part-time”. When someone who is a Christian starts (when discussing morality and trying to appeal to a moral guide) appealing to the civil laws of a nation which tries its best to ABSTRACT from God and Christianity when MAKING those laws, I can only shake my head in sorrow. It’s insane, and it’s wrong, and it’s wasting precious time. It’s placing an automobile on a lift, raising it to the point where its tires are off the ground, and then trying to get quickly to a destination by pushing the accelerator even more firmly, and causing the wheels to spin and “free-wheel” ever more quickly.
Summary: the Catholic Church points to moral laws which are absolute, and which were given Her by God. All sincere Christians do the same. If you are confused about the difference between the laws of God and the laws of man, I’d strongly suggest that you get the difference quite clear in your head, first, before you try to wrap your head around such concepts as damnation (the eternal punishment for rejecting the God Who gave those laws as our guide) and excommunication (the medicinal disconnection of a grave sinner from the Body of Christ, in the hopes that the person will repent and return to life).
“To me, it’s not “more important.” If we are really looking at “the gov’t giving stuff away,” then doesn’t it already do that with blood pressure medication? Medicaid and CHIP covers around 60 million people, eh?”
Doug, My point is that people spend their lives with high blood-pressure which kills them over time and yet they have to pay for these prescriptions. Shouldn’t society be providing free life saving drugs like those I mentioned above before we give drugs that have far less benefit? That is unless you are saying you agree with CC that bc is far more important then blood pressure medicine. Which is it?
Truthseeker, yeah – again, I wouldn’t say “give out BC” before we give out stuff for blood pressure.
I worked for 30 plus years. I paid for oral contraception for the two years that I used it. My husband paid for condoms. I now pay co-pays for blood pressure meds. I don’t understand why oral contraception is more important than bp meds.
I don’t understand why employees cannot pay directly for contraception and leave their employer out of it.
Based on the government’s logic, insurance shouldpay for condoms since they are intended to prevent STDs.
Why does the Obama administraTion hate children so much? Why are they trying so hard to induce women to prevent them. Very sad.
Lrning -
I’m not doubting at all that contraception is against the teachings of the Catholic church. I am doubting that catholic hospitals and catholic universities, which employ many non-Christians, are an extension of the church. I’m also doubting that the compromise, which many catholic organizations have signed off on, is just a “shell game”. Insurance companies have the right to offer people plans with contraception in them, and if it comes from two different insurance groups (divisions within insurance) – I don’t see the huge issue. Now, I’ll fully admit I haven’t read the entire paper put up by Notre Dame legal or anything…maybe there’s something I’m missing. Regardless, I support the exemption for churches 100%. I am not convinced that the line that I would draw (in regards to who is a church and who isn’t) is the same line you would draw.
Paladin
You’ve completely misread something. Please see my last post. I’m not arguing for the morality of contraception (doing my own research on that now). What I am arguing is in regards to where the line is drawn, and how much control organizations (that aren’t churches) have over employees that don’t belong to that denomination or religion. I personally see health care more like sick days – the right of an employee, not owned by the employer.
You are trying to paint something that doesn’t exist (and I apologize if I put off that impression). I’m not saying that since it is legal it is good. I’m not saying Catholics should just legalize contraception and ignore church teachings. I understand God’s laws vs laws of man . I am simply saying that I don’t believe the church down the street from me is the same as DePaul University. I am also saying that I am nervous about giving too much power to employer’s in regards to employee healthcare.
That clear?
I am doubting that catholic hospitals and catholic universities, which employ many non-Christians, are an extension of the church.
What I am arguing is in regards to where the line is drawn, and how much control organizations (that aren’t churches) have over employees that don’t belong to that denomination or religion.
What it seems you are not grasping is that individuals, not just churches, have the right to free exercise of religion. A Catholic employer, whether part of an apostolate of the Church or as an individual, has the right to offer their employees benefits that do not conflict with their religion.
I personally see health care more like sick days – the right of an employee, not owned by the employer.
Well, that opinion doesn’t mesh well with reality. Employers select the insurance company and the healthcare plans that they will offer employees. They usually subsidize those plans as well, so the employee is not paying the full premium. And in some cases (self-insured) the employer actually is the insurance provider.
Lrning -
Yes – individuals do have rights, but they only extend so far – for instance, individuals pay taxes whether or not they object (religiously or otherwise) to how that money is spent.
On point two – the government also subsidizes the plans through tax breaks, and the employee typically pays into the plan. I personally don’t think that the employer gets the only say when the cost is spread multiple ways, and the employee is the one using it as an employee benefit.
Ex-RINO,
You are doubting catholic organizations are an extension of the church. Hmmm…catholic organizations an exension of the catholic church….
And you keep on repeating yourself a ‘rationalization’ that anything the government forces people to do that violates a constitutional right or a right of conscience is ok at this point because we those same libertys and conscience rights are already being violated by what the government use of our taxes….and so we should just bend over and take it. Again; your reasoning for the government being allowed to violate individual liberty/conscience is that they already do it with our tax money????
And you stretch that to mean employers should be frced to hire insurance companies that provide bc. Good grief. Have you lost your backbone entirely?
I really was hoping you would come up with some creative mind-bending and answer the question I posed to you on this thread a few days ago. Are you ready to give it a shot yet?
Why in your mind is it more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not force employers to purchase emplotees insurance policies that provide blood pressure meds for free?
Ex-GOP – I realize you are non-Catholic. I’d still like to know what you think excommunication is.
Also, the ability to wage war and levy taxes are powers specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. The ability to levy mandatory contraception coverage is not. By all means, feel free to lobby your representatives for a Constitutional amendment to abolish the former, but realize that the latter is actually a violation of the first amendment.
Ex-GOP, of course our individual freedoms can be restricted when the government has a compelling reason. That’s why you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded building and avoid responsibility for the consequences based on “free speech”.
You do realize that there are already restrictions in place on how the government can spend our tax dollars based on conscience rights? (Hyde amendment, etc.)
So make your case Ex-GOP. What is the compelling reason that organizational and individual religious liberty should be trampled for contraception and sterilization?
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
Paladin, you’ve completely misread something.
That’s always possible; we’ll see.
Please see my last post. I’m not arguing for the morality of contraception (doing my own research on that now).
Nor did I claim that you were.
What I am arguing is in regards to where the line is drawn, and how much control organizations (that aren’t churches) have over employees that don’t belong to that denomination or religion.
And I say again: you’re missing the fundamental point, even in this issue. If it were merely the case that a non-Catholic worker at a Catholic hospital quietly purchased and used contraceptives with his own money on his own time, do you honestly think that there would exist this level of outrage? Surely you see the difference between that, and the current situation? The current situation is FORCING CATHOLICS TO PAY (financially) FOR A MORAL EVIL. You (unless I’ve misunderstood you), at least at the moment, view contraception as such a non-issue that you see no problem with having it mandatorily included in a health-insurance package. You seemingly believe that anyone receiving a health-insurance package should partake of anything which the government currently deems to be “health services”–including contraception (and perhaps even abortion, euthanasia, and the like). Therein is your error.
I personally see health care more like sick days – the right of an employee, not owned by the employer.
Er… I’m afraid even “sick days” are not so libertarian as all that. Try to call in sick, while posting your vacation frolicking (during those days) on Facebook, and see if there are any repercussions about gaining those sick days under false pretenses (i.e. lying).
You are trying to paint something that doesn’t exist (and I apologize if I put off that impression). I’m not saying that since it is legal it is good.
Well… on what basis do you say that “health care” (which is a sloppy euphemism for “health insurance”) is an unrestricted right of an employee, even in cases where the employee forces (by government mandate) the employing institution to pay for products which it considers morally evil? Why not leave such things off the plan (and allow the person to buy them out-of-pocket), and avoid a de facto suppression of religious freedom?
I’m not saying Catholics should just legalize contraception and ignore church teachings.
“Catholics” are not in a position to legalise anything, I’d add; they and the government are not synonymous.
I understand God’s laws vs laws of man. I am simply saying that I don’t believe the church down the street from me is the same as DePaul University.
Er… but what if (as is actually the case) the laws of God are not restricted to the interiors of explicit places of worship? What if the Law of God demands that evil be avoided EVERYWHERE, and not simply during worship services? Do you see my point?
I am also saying that I am nervous about giving too much power to employer’s in regards to employee healthcare.
Hm. That’s a bit like saying “I’m nervous about giving too much power to a consumer in what he/she is allowed to buy, or how to worship.” Do you seriously believe that, once incorporation papers are signed, any organisation is forbidden to hold to any moral standards at all?
That great Catholic, Stephen Colbert, defended the Catholic Church last night on his show: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/408347/february-14-2012/contraception-crusade
truth – I addressed earlier that I don’t believe folks should just “bend over” on this one. I am suggesting though that I don’t believe religious liberty is simply a trump card that can be played at any time if the government has compelling reason to do something. Again, the government executes prisoners, which is against a lot of people’s religious beliefs. It takes tax money to do that. Try not paying your taxes!
Sure – you can post the question again – I’m not going to wade through the 250+ comments to find it – just a bit lazy – sorry!
Truth -
I’ve not said a thing in regards to blood pressure – so your question is a bit out of left field.
Lrning
First off, I don’t think the religious rights of a church should be “trampled”. I’ve said that I think the line could be reasonably drawn between churches and health systems/universities – many of which have had contraception coverage for years.
In regards to benefits – I’m going to point you to a column from the AMA – I started to list the reasons, and I don’t want to end up simply retyping everything they say (better and with backing research).
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html
JoAnna -
Two things –
I’ve fully admitted not being Catholic – but my guess is excommunication is rooted in Matthew 18 – if somebody is sinning, talk to them – then talk to them with witnesses – then have nothing to do with them.
On the power’s of congress – heck, back in the day, congress said that farmers couldn’t grow wheat only for their own consumption – there’s a lot of power within congress. The Supremes will sort out the mandate before long.
Paladin
On your points:
- So let me ask you this. Blue Cross has policies with contraception coverage. If a catholic facility got their coverage through blue cross, even if contraception was not covered in their specific policy, would you feel that this is a bad thing?
- Maybe sick days wasn’t as good of an example as vacation days. Regardless – your next paragraph says that you’d be fine with the employee getting the coverage on the side. So in the compromise, my understanding is the employee would get it on the side from the same insurance group….it would simply be free because birth control ends up saying money for an insurance company. Am I misunderstanding you or misunderstanding the compromise?
- I do see your point on avoiding evil everywhere…but could we ever spend a single dollar in society? If we bought goods from China, we’re supporting all sorts of abuses on human rights. If we spent money at a company that covers contraception in plans, are we not indirectly funding contraception? If we are to avoid all evil, and you consider contraception coverage, even indirectly through funds in a company as an evil – I don’t see how you buy anything in society?
So, since I’m in a mostly civil conversation where I feel only a few people are probably still reading…help me out here.
The more research I’m doing, the more doubt there is that contraception positively causes abortions. I find a lot of “it might, but we’re really not sure” – which, I agree, could cause a person to lean to the side of caution.
For instance though – from the LIfe Training Institute Blog – “ anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in “chemical abortions” is simply wrong.”
Is there an certain amount of leaning to the side of caution, or are catholics simply against birth control, so as one of the bullet points in the thesis, they say it might cause an abortion?
Again – I’m not looking to get torn up here – I’ve actually enjoyed this conversation because it has slipped down to a few people that I respect and can debate honestly with. If you want to attack me for this question, feel free – I’ll unsubscribe and move on.
Ex-RINO,
Do you remember posting this yesterday?
Notre Dame, Catholic Health Association and Catholics Charities USA all support the compromise.
And then I replied:
Ex-RINO, I used to think you were lost and confused but with the amount of lies you are spreading you are losing my respect by the minute. You can lie today but your lies will be seen for what they are. And sooner than you think. For starters Notre Dame is self insured so the so-called Obama contraceptive fix wouldn;t even be relevant to their position. And stop maligning Catholic Charities. I know I said this once already but you are really full of bs today.
And then you said:
Truth dodger – feel free to email John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame and let him know that his position and opinion does not matter.
And then I gave you the link to an official Notre Dame response calling the compromise “a cheap accounting trick”
And now here is another link to Catholic Charities renouncing Obama’s compromise:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/15/catholic-charity-group-denies-endorsement-contraceptive-coverage-policy/
You seemed to take it personally when I said you were full of BS yesterday and told you ”You can lie today but your lies will be seen for what they are. And sooner than you think.”
But when something stinks as bad as your posts bs seems like an appropraite name for it.
So Truth- yesterday, on the 14th, I should have known what was reported today – that one of the organizations being reported as being supportive wasn’t really supportive.
Are you kidding me?
There were a number of articles yesterday, the 14th, that said that Catholic Charities was a supporter. To blame somebody for not knowing what is going to happen in the future is simply classless.
Maybe you should quit regurgitating the Obama talking points and start getting your information from a more fair and balanced source like Fox News.
Not quite, Ex-GOP. The concept expressed in Matthew 18 is more like “anathema” instead of excommunication.
Excommunication is a medicinal penalty. It’s meant to bring the sinner to repentance, in the hope that it will make him/her realize the gravity of his/her sins. This is a good, accessible explanation.
That being said, do you think excommunication would do anything, or would those Catholics who contracept just shrug their shoulders and say, “eh, who cares, just a bunch of old celibate white men doddering on about something else”?
Where does the Constitution say that people can’t solely eat the wheat they grow?
Joanna -
So close…do I get partial credit?
I can’t speculate on what those who would be excommunicated would do. If they felt they were right and not sinning, my guess is they would go to a different church.
Constitution doesn’t say anything about wheat – but Wickard vs Filburn is a fundamental case that folks are talking about in regards to the individual mandate (and thus this debate as well) – where the supremes allowed for the government to regulate economic activity through the constitution’s commerce clause.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
So let me ask you this. Blue Cross has policies with contraception coverage. If a catholic facility got their coverage through blue cross, even if contraception was not covered in their specific policy, would you feel that this is a bad thing?
(*sigh*) You do have a habit of conflating multiple details, when giving your examples/comments, friend… and this makes a straight-forward “yes or no” answer rather difficult. If I may parse out a few of the details:
1) I regard the fact that “Blue Cross covers contraception” *at all* to be a “bad” thing, in general; there is no way that I could ever describe it as an unqualified “good” (or “not bad”), and it would only have the possibility of being truly and purely “good” if Blue Cross (and every other provider) dumped such coverage, altogether. That being said…
2) Those who thrash out the difficult cases of morality are required to distinguish between different types of cooperation in an objective moral evil (proximate vs. remote, intentional vs. unintentional, direct consequence vs. indirect consequence, etc.). If one of your many uses of the word “bad” includes the idea of the Catholic decision-makers (for the facility in question) being morally CULPABLE, then to that I’d say “no”, unless other details surfaced; all other things being equal, it is not morally wrong to partake of a service whose evil effects and potentials (e.g. presenting a temptation for any Catholic employee to file a claim for contraceptives) have been neutralised. Mind you, it would have been far better for the facility to purchase insurance from a less tainted source in the first place, if feasible… but that is not always an option.
3) Beyond this, you’d have to be much more specific about the details/dynamics which (in your mind) would be potentially “a bad thing”, and why you think so.
Maybe sick days wasn’t as good of an example as vacation days.
Perhaps. But I’ll re-phrase what I said to Jerry M., on another thread: there is no moral or legal obligation on the part of any facility/employer to supply either [paid] sick days or [paid] vacation days; an employer may well offer them in order to be competitive, but there is no obligation to offer them in the first place. This means, among other things, that these things are not a “right”; one could not, for example, expect to sue a company which doesn’t offer vacation days, on the basis that they did not raise your salary commensurately with the standard “2 weeks of vacation time” which is usually offered… nor could you do similarly with sick days. These are a “perk”, not a matter of justice. (Once an employer signs a contract AGREEING to offer them, THEN it would be a matter of justice to deny them; but not beforehand.) I see no coherent way to argue that health insurance, or sick days, or vacation days are in any way “rights” which can be demanded or required, especially at the cost of violating the religious convictions of the employer.
Regardless – your next paragraph says that you’d be fine with the employee getting the coverage on the side.
(*deep sigh*)
Perhaps this was unintentional on your part, dear fellow, but: would you be so kind as to avoid such sweeping, broad-brush (to the point of flat falsehood) statements such as “you’d be fine with [x]“, solely on the basis that I don’t necessarily think it’d be a mortal sin to enact it in some circumstances?
Would I be “fine” with any person, whatsoever, getting contraceptive coverage? Absolutely not… and I trust you now know enough about me to deduce the reason for that. Nowhere did I say anything of the sort; I said, in essence, that a conscience exemption for the employer would still allow that LEGAL OPTION for those employees who could not be dissuaded from being hell-bent on contraception.
So in the compromise, my understanding is the employee would get it on the side from the same insurance group…
(*wry look*) And it would be paid by the insurance group, out of the goodness of the group leaders’ hearts, I suppose? The Obama Administration’s propensity for thinking that material items (I can’t bear to call them “goods”) and services will somehow grow on trees, or that credit/spending can be extended without end, boggles the mind. Surely you know that the insurance group will “pay” for the contraceptives through the monies it receives from the employers? The so-called “compromise” is not only ineffectual in its advertised purpose: it is insane.
it would simply be free because birth control ends up saying money for an insurance company. Am I misunderstanding you or misunderstanding the compromise?
You’ve certainly misunderstood some of my points; and to the extent that I understand the ill-named “compromise” (“smoke and mirrors” would be a far better label), you’ve misunderstood some aspects of that, as well. The idea that “birth control will save money” is as wild and unsubstantiated (and in utter defiance of common sense) an idea as I’ve seen in many a year; my greatest amazement is that otherwise intelligent people seem to think it makes sense!
I do see your point on avoiding evil everywhere…but could we ever spend a single dollar in society?
See above; we are only responsible for our choices, not for all the evils in the world. We are forbidden to will (i.e. freely choose and intend) any evil, whatsoever; for more information on which circumstances allow for us to choose actions which have UNINTENDED evil consequences, you might examine something known as “the principle of double-effect”.
If we bought goods from China, we’re supporting all sorts of abuses on human rights.
Indirectly, yes. It is certainly a morally licit option to boycott Chinese products… though it is not mandatory, at least partially because an utter boycott of Chinese goods would also have evil effects (i.e. the Chinese leaders, if experiencing a financial short-fall, would be sure to let the worst effects fall upon the poor and abused slave-laborers in the country, instead of themselves and their military; the leaders and armies would still be well-fed, while millions of common people and political prisoners would be starved, executed to “cut costs”, etc.; this has been proven true in North Korea, for example).
If we spent money at a company that covers contraception in plans, are we not indirectly funding contraception?
Yes, indirectly… and that is undeniably an evil state of affairs. But again: do research the “principle of double-effect” to see examples of cases where such indirect “support” is allowable (note: NOT “okay”, NOT “good”, and NOT “having no problem with it”), so long as the evil effect is unintended, and so long as several other (rather strict) conditions are met.
If we are to avoid all evil, and you consider contraception coverage, even indirectly through funds in a company as an evil – I don’t see how you buy anything in society?
Again, see above; we cannot avoid all evil, but we can avoid all conscious/intentional and/or willfully heedless participation in it. My wife and I do, in fact, avoid all shopping in stores which contain non-pro-life pharmacies (including Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc.), ever since it became mandatory in Wisconsin for pharmacies to stock “Plan B”; and it is sometimes a hardship, yes… but not impossible. I do not suggest that this is mandatory for everyone; I suggest only that it is a morally good option (which does our small part to reduce support for the evils you mention), and we (my wife and I) discerned that God wanted us to do so.
(??) That’s odd… my previous (long) comment is in moderation, but without hyperlinks! Pardon the delay while it surfaces, EGV…
Lrning: What is the compelling reason that organizational and individual religious liberty should be trampled for contraception and sterilization?
ExGOP: First off, I don’t think the religious rights of a church should be “trampled”. I’ve said that I think the line could be reasonably drawn between churches and health systems/universities – many of which have had contraception coverage for years.
Do you see the disconnect? Organizational (not churches) and individual religious liberties are trampled by this mandate. For what compelling reason?
Not sure if you’ve seen this article yet:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577223003824714664.html
Lrning – interesting article. I wonder where though, in that, the line is drawn? If we can say that an insurance plan can’t offer people contraception because somebody in another plan (under the same company) doesn’t want to indirectly support contraception – then couldn’t we extend that out to all sorts of other areas in life? At what point is it okay? Let’s say Blue Cross offers employees of catholic facilities an extra policy for $1 a month – and it is not from the same insurance pool, is that legally acceptable to you?
Also – thoughts from my 2/15, 9:35pm post? Was hoping to get some response from you or Paladin on it – as I respect your opinions very much.
Paladin -
First off, the “sigh” and “deep sigh” was a nice touch. I almost felt like I was in the room with you, feeling that you were bugged with the questions you were answering. I loved it – sort of like an ‘LOL’ for the intellectually elite.
On your points:
1) I’ll be more specific then. If Blue Cross was the choice of coverage by your employer, and the plan didn’t offer contraception or abortion – but other plans under the Blue Cross umbrella does, do you feel that a Catholic should refuse the plan?
2) On sick days/vacation – while it isn’t a mandate that employers offer things like vacation days, there are laws that govern those things when they are offered – for instance, a good chunk of states mandate that if a person leaves a job, they get paid out unused vacation – so the individual does have some rights in the game. Employee based healthcare is slowly becoming a thing of the past…so this debate will probably be irrelevant down the road.
3) I know you are skeptical that the contraception coverage could be offered free of charge – but I don’t think your understanding of how it would be done is really necessary here – the question is, if the insurance company offers contraception coverage for whatever price they want (even free), and it is outside the pool of the money of the coverage offered through the actual plan, do you feel that legally, this is acceptable to a catholic. If not, do you feel a catholic should opt out of any plan from any insurance carrier that offers contraception at all (through any of their plans)?
4) I do enjoy your last four paragraphs – would only contend that the best option for a Catholic seems to be as uneducated as possible – as you could quickly work your way into a situation where you couldn’t buy from anyone. Many employers offer abortion coverage in insurance plans, many more offer contraceptions. Paying taxes in Texas supports the DP (well, in a lot of states).
I do get it – you don’t think people should use contraception in general. I’m skeptical of the evil of contraception. It appears that the majority of even catholics are skeptical of the evils of contraception…but I get that we can’t throw YOU aside simply because not everyone that is catholics falls in line. I do think though that at some point, your rights to be morally offended bump up against the rights of somebody who doesn’t morally have an issue with it. I think it was good that the policy was announced in plenty of time to work out these issues and continue to redraw the line.
Ex: “ then couldn’t we extend that out to all sorts of other areas in life?”
Isn’t that the point of a Constitution? To specify which liberties are normative, whose implications extend furthest and are unabridged by other things not even penumbrally emanating from any Constitutional basis whatsoever?
What’s the problem with “extending that out?” If there’s a problem, then the Constitution would need amending and there’s a process for that. It’s Constitutional to amend the Constitution. It’s not Constitutional — and hence, an arrogation of authority by the government or anyone else — to disregard the Constitution on account of hand-wringing about the implications of Constitutionally protected rights/freedoms.
In this entire discussion, I’m incredulous at how pro-choicers who feel secure in their penumbral emanation are doubtful about whether others have any just expectation of feeling secure in their explicit enumeration.