Phoenix bishop vows not to comply with HHS contraception ruling. (UPDATED)
In a letter to the Catholics of the Diocese of Phoenix, Bishop Thomas Olmsted promises not to obey the “unjust law” requiring certain Catholic institutions to include contraception coverage in their employee health-care plans. “Unless the rule is overturned,” Olmsted writes, “we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer penalties for doing so). The administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.” Olmsted closes by calling on Catholics to “commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail” — and to contact their elected representatives “in support of legislation that would reverse the administration’s decision.” (Read the whole letter here.)
Update: The letter, according to USCCB spokeswoman Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, is part of a coordinated effort to inform Catholics about the bishops’ opposition to the mandate. The bishops conference “provided a template [letter],” Walsh told me, “at the request of several bishops.” (Of course, each bishop is free to adapt the letter, or not issue one at all.) Is it the policy of the USCCB to engage in civil disobedience when the contraception mandate goes into effect next year? “At present, no decision on strategy has been reached,” Walsh said.
Olmsted fails to mention that some Catholic institutions are exempt from the mandate — the parishes where his letter will be read, for example. He also asserts that the HHS ruling forces Catholic organizations to pay for “abortion-inducing drugs” — that is, the so-called morning-after pill. That talking point has been made by several critics of the ruling, including Archbishop Dolan, who calls them “abortion drugs.” Is it true? Do morning-after pills really cause abortions? As William Saletan and Ross Douthat have pointed out, while Plan B could theoretically cause an abortion, there is no evidence that it does (here’s one study showing it does not).
This debate isn’t going to get any easier. But it might get less confusing if those involved lowered the rhetorical heat in favor of dealing in actual facts.
Update: Bishop Jenky of Peoria gets into the act. And Archbishop Aymond of New Orleans offers his more measured response. And Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh offers his less measured response. And Bishop Sheehan of Santa Fe weighs in, sounding a lot like Olmsted (almost word for word), and revealing that Archbishop Dolan has asked “all bishops to address this issue locally.”
Tags: Affordable Care Act, Bishop Thomas Olmsted, contraception, health care, HHS, religious freedom
I’m sure the press in AZ will pick up on this and again we’ll hav ea less than effective voice in the public square.
“Aux armes, citoyens…”
Bishop Olmstead rides again!
Boy, are we in for a season of bombast!
The discussion this is going to make for Catholic and all religious institutions is exciting. Suprme Couort, here we come!
Will it be another Roe? another Griswold? How about a Citziens United?
Grant: Bishop Olmsted does not explicitly mention that some Catholic institutions are exempt from the mandate.
However, in the second paragraph he does carefully qualify his claims: (1) “almost all employers”; (2) “Almost all health insurers”; and (3) “Almost all individuals.”
His carefully qualified wording shows that he understands that the mandate is not universal. In short, he understands the exemption.
Bishop Olmstead said basically ‘let’s take another look’
But Bishop Zubik channels Newt…
‘The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’ There is no other way to put it.”
– Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, on the HHS ruling.
Fine, Olmsted. Just don’t be surprised if your entities cannot take a tax deduction for health insurance premiums. It’ll increase your cost of doing business, but that’s a small price to pay for maintaining principle.
Have a go, mate.
The jockeying for the next Big Red promotion is on in full force.
Actually, this is a better place to post this: http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/four-word-two-word/
It’s hard to know how to respond to this. I just keep thinking of the 90+% of married Catholics who ignore the Church’s teaching on contraception.
Luke —
The bishop is not claiming that it is a matter of the consciences of the American Catholics who use contraception. He is claiming that *HIS and other bishops and administrators’* consciences would be violated if they had to accede to the mandate.
Like it or not, he and the other bishops and administrators do have freedom of religion as much as any other citizen, and their religious consciences must not be violated unless there is an overwhelming countervailing right involved (as there is in the JW case of not supplying blood).
The right to religious freedom is a privileged one — see it in the Constitution. IF the bishops’ consciences are violated, that sets an extremely odious precedent.
I suppose the issue is: does the right of the government to mandate specific coverage over-ride the bishops’ religious consciences?
To answer this we have to look at the context. Catholic hospitals often provide care in areas that are not provided for by commercial hospitals. They save many lives there, e.g., you have a gunshot wound and will die if you have to go to a far-away hospital. IF the Catholic hospitals are forced to sell or reduce services, the neighborhoods where they serve will lose lives and other goods.
So weighing the disadvantage for the common good (loss of hospital care by many poor people, some of whom will die unnecessarily) plus the disadvantage of depriving the bishops of their right to religious conscience, I cannot see how the government can insist on its exercising its prerogative to mandate the contested coverage. The good on one side (the government’s mandate) does not outweigh the good on the other (continuing service for many poor and maintaining the bishops’ conscience rights).
Those who need the pills can get them easily either by paying themselves or by getting assistance to pay. And they can obtain them through by mail.
Ann: On other dotCommonweal threads, we’ve been told that more than half of the states in the United States already have in place a mandate similar to the mandate in the Obama administration’s regulations.
Apparently some states already require religious institutions to pay for contraception and some colleges (Georgetown U for instance) already do ths too. Why is it only now that the bishops’ consciences are injured? If there needs to be a overwhelming countervailing right involved, how about the lost lives of 47,000 women …. this from US Catholic … Higher rates of abortion and unsafe abortion in the developing world: How should the pro-life movement respond?
Ann,
The question I would like to know the answer to is how many people who are actually running Catholic organizations actually agree with the Bishops. “Primary” Catholic (those by, of, and for Catholics) are exempt from the contraceptive mandate. Cathy Kaveny pointed out the following in another thread:
If the Bishops are intent on not complying with the contraceptive mandate, but the people who actually run the hospitals don’t agree with the Bishops, we won’t see Catholic hospitals closing. We’ll see “official” Catholic hospitals become “unofficial” Catholic hospitals.
Bishop Olmsted is not the only bishop to issue such a letter. Bishop Sample of Marquette has issued a similar letter. May their number increase. This law is unjust and malicious: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/01/eric-bugyis-responds-to-rick-garnett-on-conscience-and-the-mandate.html
Why is it only now that the bishops’ consciences are injured?
Crystal,
I am sure it is partly because they don’t like Obama, Sebelius, and the rest of the administration.
Ann — David N. points to the relevant Kaveny thread on hospital changes: “From Catholic Healthcare West to Dignity Health Care”. A snapshot of ongoing Catholic hospital developments is in the news at http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19800103 The context is more complex and dynamic than you suggest, with Church obstructions being bypassed or worked around. The Olmsted-St. Joseph’s conflict was a recent example.
Ann: people’s consciences get “violated” all the time. Those who are against wars. Those who favor same-sex marriage. Those who don’t own homes but whose taxes subsidize mortgage interest for those who do. Atheists whose taxes subsidize contributions to religious entities.
It’s called part of being part of the Commonweal. We all have to do things that don’t always jibe 100% with our consciences.
Bishops can choose to purchase health insurance, or self-insure, that doesn’t cover contraceptives. They just lose the tax deductibility of those insurance premiums. Or isn’t principle worth a few extra bucks?
“But it might get less confusing if those involved turned down the rhetorical heat in favor of dealing in actual facts.”
Talk about a spit take. Coming from the Weekly World News of Catholic journalism, that’s rich.
Speaking of facts, I notice you failed to include (ret.) Cdl Mahony’s strong condemnation in your roundup of those erstwhile CatholicCon reactionary wackjobs you like to ridicule. He said, “And I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic Community can muster.”
http://www.cardinalmahonyblogsla.org/ What a conservative crank he turned out to be!
Michael Sean Winters is also none too pleased. I guess he, too, has been a closeted Catholic crypto-Con. Whodathunkit!
In fact, the only people in the Church (and I use that phrase loosely) who aren’t upset… are you guys.
G
P.S. I also chuckled at the irony of having to click your “Submit” button to post. Welcome to the religious arm of the Dictatorship of Relativism. Submit indeed.
Jack and Jimmy Mac =-
The issue is not the bishops’ consciences — it’s their *religious consciences*, which makes it a matter of the *practice of their religion* which is a Constitutional issue.
“Welcome to the religious arm of the Dictatorship of Relativism.”
Gregory –
That is uncalled for. Why do you insist on calling names? It gets your cause nowhere.
Ann, I’m still very confused by this notion of “religious conscience” that doesn’t seem to belong to any one person and yet can be extended over a whole group of people, some of whom may not be religious at all. Either the individual consciences of particular religious believers are being unduly burdened or a group of explicitly confessing co-religionists are being barred from their explicit religious practices or are being excluded from society because they participate in those practices. Otherwise, as in this case, you get a few religious employers claiming to speak for the consciences of those religious and non-religious in their employ, who are not even engaged in work that is necessarily or obviously religious. If the Bishops are conscientiously objecting, then it’s THIER consciences that are being challenged and it is THEY who have a choice to make. If they are claiming religious persecution, then they need to show that they and their fellow Catholics are being barred from religious practice or being discriminated against or targeted simply because they are Catholic.
WaPo and the WSJ have both come down on the side of the bishops. You can read the editorials by accessing them through this America article::
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=4884
Greg: If you think I work at the Weekly World News of Catholic journalism, then maybe you shouldn’t have asked me to blurb your book ‘Holy Sex!: A Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving.’
The Tablet, the English Catholic newspaper, is also supporting the bishops.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/162257
@Ann Olivier (1/26, 7:23 pm) Thanks for your reply. I don’t necessarily disagree with you.
I guess what I was trying (rather poorly) to express was my inability to get past the mundane, practical reality of the situation the Church finds itself in. Here is Cardinal Mahoney (from Gregory Popcak @ 1/26, 9:43 pm) writing, “And I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic Community can muster.”
And here am I thinking two things in response:
*Really? You can’t imagine “a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience” than requiring health plans to cover the cost of condoms and birth control pills? *That’s* the worst case scenario? My goodness man, what planet have you been living on for the past few decades?
*Given that 90+% of American Catholics disagree (in theory and/or in practice) with the Church’s teaching on contraception, exactly *how much* energy do you think “all the energies the Catholic Community can muster” is?
Again, apologies. I know there are far more weighty legal, moral and philosophical issues raised by this HHS decision. I’m just so stunned by (what seems to me to be) the enormous gap between the bishops’ rhetoric and the lives (and views) of the laity that I have trouble getting to those more significant issues. (But please, carry on. Don’t let me derail the conversation.)
Holy Sex: I googled and saw there is indeed a book with that title. It didn’t have a “look inside” feature; does it have an imprimatur?
Ann Olivier:
Thanks for letting us know about those pieces in the Tablet, the Post, and the Journal.
Holy Sex.
As Colonel Jessup responded when asked if Santiago was in “grave” danger, “Is there another kind?”
What Hubris/Arrogance/Misjudgment!
Does he really think he speaks for consciences of Catholics? They long ago abandoned hierarchical teaching on birth control. He continues to thrive in his own little world having lost any sense of moral authority/respectability.
Olmsted – keep your eye on the prize – next cardinal of Chicago.
I have an easy solution to this problem. Are you ready? It’s universal health care! If the government covered everyone’s health insurance, like it does in Canada and Europe, then private employers would not have to worry about providing coverage and Catholic organizations would not be put in a position to go against their conscience clauses by paying for employee birth control coverage.
This would also fix the gay marriage problem, too, since, if health care is covered by the government, a Catholic school or Catholic Charities would not be put in the position of having to decide whether or not to cover health insurance for an employee’s same sex spouse.
I feel like the Administration picked a fight it didn’t need to have here. If the goal is to ensure affordable health care for all, picking up our contraceptive costs isn’t really at the front of the line. My friends and colleagues who have employer-sponsored insurance complain about rapidly increasing contribution requirements, huge deductibles, hefty co-pays and might-as-well-be-nonexistent vision and dental coverage.
That’s for my friends who actually HAVE employer-sponsored coverage.
How about we take care of all of this stuff instead and defer the fight about contraceptives for a another day?
There is a claim being made on this thread that I find very important, if true. The claim is that any Catholic Institution can still offer its employees health insurance that does not cover contraception, only they will not be able to claim a tax deduction on that insurance. Is this true? If so, it seems to me that there is no conscience violation at all. One must simply choose the route of conscience or the route of a perk.
Can someone please provide some info or a link indicating whether or not this interpretation of the regulation is true?
Joe, I don’t actually know the answer and I don’t have time to look it up. The answer depends on where the requirement resides. If “minimum benefits” is part of the definition of a “qualified health plan” for purposes of the IRC, then the tax consequences would likely be the only consequences. Mind you, these consequences are huge and go well beyond whether you can deduct it as a business expense, but also, whether it is excluded from the wage base income of your employees upon which both income AND SS taxes are based. Employer provided health benefits are hugely tax preferred to both the employer and the employee. To put it in context the same $1000 that is paid in employee health benefits would end up being taxed at around 16% (8% to the employee; with 8% match to the employer) for SS; the employee surcharge for Medicare; and even at the lowest marginal rate, 15% to the employee. The employer would have paid $1080 (or so) in order for the employee to net $750. If the same benefits were paid “after taxes,” in essence, their price would go up by 1/3 or more, if you think about it like this.
While the feds told the Churches (Catholic, Baptists, Jews, Muslims et al) they have aone year to think about it, this misguided (at best) HHS mandate is not going away. If you think Catholics won’t “submit” to the federal government regarding this, what do you think Islamic institutions will do. Catholics are not the only people who have payrolls for social service agencies or institutions. Do any of you honestly think the folks at CAIR or other Islamic organizations in the US are gearing up to pay for BC pills, Plan-B pills, or IUD’s? Come on.
Sean is correct that some form of single-payer national plan would be better, and I do not understand why the Feds (Obama, Pelosi & Reid) came up with such a nightmarish national medical plan. The matter seems straightforward enough, but we cannot continue with the “ACA” (the so-called ‘Affordable Care Act’) monstrosity we have now. First of all, we should have cleared the air and we still need to clear the air; when talking about national health insurance, everyone should really, really understand that it needs to be a very bare-bones affair; it should only cover the minimum.
It should cover everyone living here (yes even the indocumentados) but is should not cover or even mention abortion, contraceptives, or sterilization. It should not cover or even mention nose-jobs, Viagra, mental pills like they advertise on TV for depression or insomnia, pills to make your toe nails look better, shoe inserts, acne creams and pills, baggy eyelid treatments, you name it; the list of things a national plan should not mention or cover is longer than what it should cover. Generally any national plan should not cover any sort of elective surgery or medication.
Any national plan should simply be minimal; just enough so we fulfill our collective Christian duty, while keeping in mind that charity begins at home and that as a nation, we cannot afford to pay for extras like BC pills, Viagra, acne treatments, tying women’s tubes, toenail cures and the like, for every high medium and low nitwit that roams and prowls around this country.
A national healthcare plan should be so designed that most people would want more deluxe policies and accordingly, workers and self-employed folks would either press their employers to include a rider to the national plan or they would buy into HMO’s (Kaiser Permanente in CA; every state has an HMO) or buy into other types of health insurance plans.
The national plan would mean that everyone would have the floor; the same minimum policy.
Poor folks of course would benefit the most because they have no health insurance now. They would make due either with the minimal national plan or with some combination of the national policy and their local state’s Medicaid plan.
Middle class folks would benefit from a national policy because the national plan would help control the cost of middle class folks’ healthcare plans; it would be something upon which they could build the rest of their healthcare plan.
Richer folks also would pay for and have the minimum national plan and would buy their own policies as well; they will be Ok in any case.
Everyone would benefit because as it is now, folks who do not have health insurance show up at emergency rooms, the meter starts running – we all know how fast that gets pricey – and those folks who have insurance and the taxpayer in general pays for it all.
This sort of minimal national health care plan would cover our basic social responsibility (our Christian duty if you will) of tending to the poor, and to the common good. Also, since anything over and above the basic national plan would either be in the form of Medicaid (which is locally controlled by the individual states) or by private insurance, it would also fill the bill as far as subsidiarity/local control is concerned.
Now people are beginning to realize the devil is in the details, that ACA as it currently stands – in all its 2000 page glory – is full of ‘devils’, is not palatable to most reasonable Americans, and as a practical matter, is most probably not even workable.
Most likely we should scrap ACA (Obama-care) and start over.
Shouldn’t the bishop have waited until after his trial(s) to determine what he will comply with?
Joe, one further comment, one of the things the ACA did was to cap the amount of income that could be excluded from taxes for employer provided health benefits. This is a measure that is well overdue, and if it had been adopted 10 or 15 years ago we might have ameliorated some of the inflationary pressures of health care expenditures.
Ken,
You should write to your representatives in Congress about this. If enough Republicans support a single payer system, I bet it would pass.
But I would not expect the bill to be much shorter than the 2,000 page PACA authorization. Longer if it had to list what is NOT covered. There would still be problems financing it, which would likely cause this particular problem to reappear.
The bishops have created their problem. If they could persuade the 90% of Catholics who reject their teaching on contraception then contraception would not be a requirement for health care. But as long as the bishops represent such a small segment of voters, as they do on this issue, they will not convince the politicians in Washington.
Jim – Do you think Islamic organazations will comply with this and pay for contraceptives for their employees?
I htink Catholics and Muslims and other religions and Christian denominations can find common ground and sucessfully collectively resist this outrage.
Are there any Muslim or Mormon hospitals?
But it might get less confusing if those involved lowered the rhetorical heat in favor of dealing in actual facts.
Last I checked Ross Douthat and William Saletan are not experts on morning after pills. The paragraphs from Wikipedia show a more uncertain view of how these pills work. Btw, the study you quoted with 12 monkeys has too small a sample size to produce statistically significant and reliable results.
From Wikipedia: Mechanism of action
The United States FDA states that progestin-only ECPs like Plan B work by preventing ovulation. It also says “it is possible” that progestin-only ECPs may interfere with the blastocyst implanting in the uterine lining, and that they have no effect on pregnancies if taken after implantation.[114][115]
A number of studies in the 1970s and 80s concluded that emergency contraception could cause changes in the endometrium[116] that would prevent implantation of an early-stage embryo in the uterus. This research led many pro-life advocates, who believe that pregnancy begins at fertilization, to oppose ECPs as an abortifacient.
In recent years—especially in light of U.S. ethical controversy over the research’s claims—the scientific community has begun to critically reevaluate the early studies. Recent studies in rats and monkeys have shown that post-ovulatory use of progestin-only and combined ECPs have no effect on pregnancy rates.[117][118] Studies in humans have shown that the rate of ovulation suppression is approximately equal to the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills,[119][120] suggesting that might be the only mechanism by which they prevent pregnancy.
However, these studies have also shown that, in women who ovulate despite taking ECP before ovulation, there are changes in certain hormones such as progesterone and in the length of luteal phase.[119] These secondary changes might inhibit implantation in cases where fertilization occurs despite ECP use. Because of the difficulty of studying zygotes inside the uterus and fallopian tubes prior to implantation, both sides of this debate concede that completely proving or disproving the theory may be impossible.[117][121]
When used as a regular method of contraception, IUDs have been proven to act primarily through spermicidal and ovicidal mechanisms, but it is considered possible that these same mechanisms are also harmful to zygotes that have not yet implanted.[122]
Hormonal progestin-only and combined estrogen-progestin emergency contraceptives such as Yuzpe regimen or Plan B differ from the anti-hormonal drug mifepristone (also known as Mifeprex and RU-486). Yuzpe and progestin-only emergency contraception will have no effect if taken after implantation, whereas mifepristone can induce abortion if taken after implantation
Jim – Do you think Islamic organazations will comply with this and pay for contraceptives for their employees?
Ken,
In general, Muslims do not forbid contraception.
I am not at all surprised by the update that Grant Gallicho has added. The Catholic bishops in the United States are American citizens. As American citizens, they are free to organize and coordinate an effort to protest the Obama administration’s regulations. However, because many states already have a mandate in place comparable to the mandate in the Obama administration’s mandate, I suspect that many Catholics will see those state-level mandates as a way to temper the bishops’ criticism of the Obama administration’s mandate.
Joe Pettit,
I doubt you can find an authoritative source for the tax question but the likelihood of it being true is extremely low for at least the following reasons:
1) All insurance companies are subject to this regulation so they are not allowed to sell insurance that does not provide all the ‘covered services’. Presumably a buyer with an exemption allows them to avoid the rule but simply requesting it does not.
2) The law provides an ‘out’ to providing health insurance. It is to pay a penalty of about $2000 per employee and not provide insurance.
3) If it were true, it would allow virtually anyone to avoid the Obamacare scheme by simply foregoing the tax deduction.
4) No matter what you think of the hierarchy, they and their advisors are not stupid. If there was a way to provide health insurance and meet their conscience demands, they would acknowledge its existence or simply complain that their costs would be much higher. That is not the argument they are making. Its and either/or argument: without the exemption we will be forced to chose to a) drop health insurance for our employees (the likely outcome) or b) violate our conscience.
Just turned on the computer before morning appointments (Pacific time): You guys are on fire! You all have already used up all the snarky comments one could make about Olmsted and the rest of the hierarchs. I feel left out?
Gregory Popchak and Mark Proska get my vote for best posts of the blog stream: Loved the “dictatorship of relativism” and “Colonel Jessup” movie references.
I’m having one of those inspiring moments [my sainted sixth-grade teacher, Sister Mary Adelaide, referred to them as "Holy Spirit time"] knowing that yet again the hierarchs are demonstrating how irrelevant and alienated they are from the lives of most Catholics, most Christians [i.e., those mostly young folks who wouldn't be caught dead on dotCommonweal].
So a simple solution: Olmsted takes his stand on conscience, and pays the extra sum, large or small, to do so. (After inviting fasting and praying that this not come to pass. Fine. All anti-contraception Catholics in his diocese can do so.)
Taking a stance on conscience doesn’t mean ducking the consequences. Anti-war protesters went to jail. Civil rights activists were beaten in the streets. Olmsted will lose a tax deduction. Fine.
And the Catholics in his diocese can rest easy, knowing that some of the money they kick into the collection plate goes to cover the extra expense of the diocese not providing health care coverage that includes contraception. If that’s how they want to spend their money, that’s fine, too. I think it’s an odd pastoral priority in this time of war, widespread unemployment, global poverty, etc. But he can spend his money as he sees fit.
On the question of single-payer, national coverage: From what I gleaned from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ appearance on the Daily Show earlier this week, the government has decided to give states the ability to decide on their own health insurance plans based on the local market, which while covering the minimums mandated by the feds will be free to add or subtract other benefits based on the needs of their citizens. So, they are trying to allow for variations in the plan from state to state, which would not be the case if we had a single, national plan.
On the issue of picking a fight over contraception: I doubt anyone at HHS or the White House or in the non-Catholic world is losing too much sleep over this. John Stewart didn’t even ask Sebelius about the exemptions, other then to ask if she thought the Supreme Court would find the individual mandate to buy coverage unconstitutional. (She thought they wouldn’t.) So, honestly, I don’t think the “civil disobedience” (if you can call it that) of the Bishops is going to do much to change the ACA, and with all of the services that the HHS no doubt considered for inclusion in the minimum, I have a feeling that contraception was not one they all sat around ringing their hands over thinking of the great protest they were going to face.
“On the issue of picking a fight over contraception: I doubt anyone at HHS or the White House or in the non-Catholic world is losing too much sleep over this.”
Which confirms Garnett’s characterization of the decision for what it is, no?
“Because it would not be (that) hard, the refusal to accommodate — when so many accommodations are being granted to those who object to other burdensome provisions of the mandate — is revealed, I think, as what it is: A cynical imposition that transfers the cost of the government’s policy goal (one that Congress did not vote on) to (primarily) Catholic institutions, in a way that will please the President’s political base (and others who enjoy, for various reasons, seeing the Bishops lose).”
I also thought this Op-Ed this morning aptly sums up why the decision is at odds both with the President’s own rhetoric, as well as those of progressives at large:
“Consider the ironies: An administration that swept into office in 2008 promising to bring together people of all kinds seems to have less interest in accommodating diverse views than either the Supreme Court or many state legislatures, several of which have carved out robust religious exemptions for recent gay-marriage legislation. New York, for example, not only exempted religious organizations from any obligation to perform or make their facilities available for gay marriages, but it also ensured that they won’t be deprived of government benefits such as tax exemptions and licenses.
The Obama administration’s reluctance to accommodate is also at odds with many years of progressive efforts to enhance protection for those whose religious views are out of the mainstream. Liberals were strong supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision to exempt Jehovah’s Witnesses from saluting the flag in 1943, and they were vociferous critics of a 1990 Supreme Court decision that upheld the denial of unemployment benefits for Native Americans who smoked peyote, an illegal drug, in religious ceremonies.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577184762102923798.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
Garnett’s characterization of the decision is exactly and obviously right.
You might want to add Unagidon’s excellent summary of how PPACA works for hospitals and the history of who pays for what: http://commonwealmagazine.org/do-natural-rights-trump-obamacare
Note – the bishops can object about religious liberty but when you look at the total US medical coverage and payment story; barely 20% of all citizens have coverage via employers (such as hospitals, colleges, bishops/dioceses). The number of catholic institutions in this small cohort probably is less than 5%.
Taking Grant’s stated clarification that we are talking about catholic institutions being required to offer contraceptives in their medical coverage, this is truly a very small percent of the total US population, companies, etc.
A much more significant issue is that current cost trends, etc. project that companies (including catholic institutions) will not be able to offer medical coverage period in just a matter of years. The cost trend will make this prohibitive.
This is the bigger and more significant issue when you step back and take a look at the common good; the human dignity and justice required by the gospel; the catholic mission to the poor and marginalized (more and more Americans fall into that group).
This is where I find the bishops’ objections to be inconsistent; short sighted; and missing the more important points. It is like they want to win a Phyrric victory but lose the war.
One can also argue that what they see as a HHS decision that starts on a slippery slope (restricting religious liberty) can also be a slippery slope from the other side. Especially since they choose to highlight “contraceptives” when 95% of all catholics access these and have obviously shown that they do not agree with the episcopal hierarchy. Do you think the US bishops in 1980 would have chosen to do the same thing?
Jeff, I don’t think it’s as cynical or politically motivated as you and Rick suggest. It seems to me that the HHS experts who were figuring out the minimums just thought that it was pretty obvious that access to contraception would be included in the women’s health section of the guidelines. I think most people feel pretty indifferent about whether the Bishops win or lose. I don’t see the political gains or losses being very big on either side of this for Obama, which makes me think it’s actually a genuine concern for preserving the health rights of citizens that’s driving it. It just seems silly to me that the Bishops think they have the kind of political power in America that their rhetoric seems to suggest. As Grant has already pointed out elsewhere, rank and file Catholics don’t even take them very seriously when it comes to questions of “faithful citizenship.” So, why would they think that the federal government is going out if its way to target them? It just seems strange.
Right David N – Muslims are just iching to pay for birth control pills.
Eric — until you come to grips with any actual evidence, your talk of “women’s health” and “health rights” is uninformed at best.
Ken,
If you have any evidence that Muslims are opposing the contraceptive mandate, I would be happy to see it. Otherwise, you are implying something for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Eric: As you surely must know, Catholic bishops and priests played a big role in stirring up anti-abortion fervor in the United States, after the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. As you surely must know, anti-abortion fervor is alive and well to this day in the United States. Now, in light of the way the Catholic bishops think about contraception, contraception and abortion are connected in their thought-world. From the bishops’ point of view, their rhetoric about legalized abortion was effective. For this reason, the bishops probably expect their rhetoric about the mandate to be effective, at least with certain Catholics.
Thomas, I expect you are right as far as the Bishops’ strategy goes, but it seems to me that that’s all it could be. I’m not buying the notion that some are spouting that somehow the Administration is being especially rigid and unaccommodating because it’s politically favorable for Obama to “look tough” against the Bishops. Maybe I’m being naive, but the law and the science seem to be on the side of the HHS, and the Bishops seem to be the ones out to win on political points. They may, as you suggest, score some, but it won’t be because Obama picked the fight.
What is the ideal population of our country and of the planet in the eyes of those who oppose contraception?
If all the women married since Humanae Vitae had produced a child a year, and assuming their children married and produced children, the total population of our country today would be over a billion.
(Rough calculation by a non-statistician. It could be more.)
HEre is a link to the Guttmacher study that addresses which states mandate contraception coverae and what types of exemptions are available to religious employers: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf
Of the 28 that mandate coverage 20 have exemptions and only 4 of those are the same narrow exemption as the ACA. So the administration modeled its exemption after the least used exemptions in the country rather than the more common exemption that would extent to religious charities and universities.
Ann: there are many instances where one’s “religious conscience” may dictate some course of action that is nonetheless not allowed under the law. Ask those people whose interpretation of the Bible informs their conscience that there should be no right of mixed race marriage, or that slavery is perfectly permissible. Ask Christian Scientists what they can and cannot permit with respect to healthcare for their children. As conscientious objectors whose religious denomination may not have a long-established course of support for them.
If I follow your logic about “religious conscience,” then no atheist can claim an objection of conscience about anything.
This situation just gives more support to the move by Catholic Healthcare West to reinvent itself.
As I recall, strict Catholics aren’t the only group affected and offended by this ruling. Orthodox Jews and some evangelicals, perhaps? It’s also certainly interesting in a purely legal sense: how far can the state go in restricting religious practice? Does the majority or the group in power always have the right to define how far is too far?
“All insurance companies are subject to this regulation so they are not allowed to sell insurance that does not provide all the ‘covered services’. Presumably a buyer with an exemption allows them to avoid the rule but simply requesting it does not.”
I wonder how many religious institutions that are “under assault” by this HHS ruling are actually self-insured and only use an insurance company for administrative services. I know of one women’s religious community that does exactly that. I think under those circumstances, the institution can determine what it will and will not cover.
Maybe unagidon or someone else in the insurance game can confirm or deny that understanding I have been out of the employee benefits business way to long to speak with any authority.
“While the feds told the Churches (Catholic, Baptists, Jews, Muslims et al) –”
The last time I looked, Jews and Muslims are not Churches nor do not have churches.
My sympathies are with the religious objectors precisely because they are the minority viewpoint. They are being coerced into violating a deeply held belief because most of the rest of us think it is silly. There are other ways we can make sure women have access to birth control without going down this road.
Bishop Jenky’s letter has more passion than the Tea Party for “basic American rights” and enough heat to warm the cold Midwest…
I think that it symbolizes the frustration of the hierarchy in dealing with the repeal of DADT, the acceptance of gay marriage (even with the battles yet on), and the issues of adoptions by gay couples, and spousal and partners health care that have . I guess they’ve just had it and are rady for the next American revolution or the stand at the Alamo.
It will, of coourse, be ingtersting to see what traction the issue has with the Catholic,employees of agencies so affected, the general population, and the grinding out of the elctoral process with Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, and devout Mormon Romney.
One things for sure… Obama has lost all credibility with them, but I have a feeling that he never really had much and he’s ready politically for this — will be an interesting season…
“ On the Catholic side, some traditional precision is called for. This is precisely not “coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching” as Archbishop Dolan has contested in the Wall Street Journal. I see that red pencil “Distinguo!” my undergraduate ethics professor would write in the margins of my papers. This requires an indirect payment mediated through an insurance policy for an action that an employee may or may not chose to do.
—
Nevertheless, as progressives seek to expand government oversight and activity in order to promote the common good, there must be a concomitant development of provisions for dealing with the increased conscience conflicts that this will bring about for religious organizations. The Affordable Care Act’s use of regulatory oversight to achieve policy outcomes changes the equilibrium of religious liberty in important ways. The Obama administration is guilty of a failure of imagination in dealing with a problem directly linked to its central domestic policy achievement.
—
The Catholic Church could and should be an important ally in these matters. Of course the history of the relationship does not give cause for arguing the USCCB would have cheered. As women’s’ organizations howled at Sec. Sebelius’s and President Obama’s decision overrule the FDA and to not make Plan B available to girls under 17 without parental consent, the USCCB response was decidedly muted, if not backhanded. “
(Vincent Miller)
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=4887
“It just seems silly to me that the Bishops think they have the kind of political power in America that their rhetoric seems to suggest. As Grant has already pointed out elsewhere, rank and file Catholics don’t even take them very seriously when it comes to questions of “faithful citizenship.” So, why would they think that the federal government is going out if its way to target them? It just seems strange.”
So because the political gains are not significant, we should all just roll over? I could care less about the politics of this; the policy is bad, and it should be opposed. I suspect this view might be adopted by another small minority: nine justices on the Supreme Court.
By the way, I do think this decision has implications for progressive Catholics – at least those who are troubled by this decision, and at present count they seem to number more than you Eric. How many times will a Democrat President talk and make nice about these issues only to turn around and betray those words? I suspect Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame is feeling a bit more uneasy after this decision. Moreover, I view this as one more step along the road of substantive liberalism excluding opposing points of view from the public square in the name of “neutrality.” As such, I think this decision smacks the Murray-ian view of church-state relations in the face, and progressive Catholics will need to make some account of why they still matter when it seems clear that they really don’t in one of our political parties.
My (ever) evolving opinion is that religious organizations should be afforded more latitude in some way by working for a compromise. Total war is not going to do the Catholic Church or the Obama administration any good.
@Jeff Landry (1/27, 3:59 pm) I realize this somewhat off topic, but as long as the Democratic Party is generally supportive of labor unions, racial and economic justice, welcoming the immigrant, and caring for the widowed, the orphaned and the sick—then progressive Catholics can have some measure of assurance that they “matter” in that political party.
I like your spirit of compromise, David Nickol — politics as the art of the posssible — with maximum freedom and least rigidity.
Yet… I think the question of religious insitutions that are not related to worship/cult/whatever the vocabulary is, is changing in the light of these other laws that the bishops have opposed.
I think we’re in for a long season of arguments that may reshape religious identities of corporations and dioceses with the concommitant bankruptcies and whatever happens with Bp. Finn. Perhaps this is secularization and the spirit of the French Rrevolution rather than the American, but the marketplace of ideas on all of this seems to have burst open at the same time the bishops are possibily becoming aware of the real demographics of Catholic attrition and are hollering all the louder.
http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-white-house-bothers-and-honors/
Eric: hang in there. You! Are! Correct!!!
I’, a progressive Catholic and happy to be a democrat. That party, as Luke notes, has been the party that cares about the poor, that is less interested in the military and war, that is more likely to protect the environment, that supports affordable public education, that protects the rights of the disabled, the immigrant, that is against torture, that protects the elderly’s social security, that wants to do away with unfair tax benefits for the richest. I find it hard to understand how Catholics can support the republican party.
(I want to provide five links so I’ll have submit two posts.)
Here’s an interesting legal analysis of the HHS ruling by Ed Whelan at National Review Online:
_____________
What I do find remarkable—even amazing (to reprise Justice Kagan’s term)—is that the HHS mandate appears to be so clearly unlawful. In particular, I don’t see how the Obama administration could actually believe that the HHS mandate is compatible with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
RFRA provides that the federal government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
__________________
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289341/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-religious-freedom-restoration-act-introduction-ed-wh
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289373/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-exercise-religion-ed-whelan
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289383/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-substantially-burden-ed-whelan
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289534/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-least-restrictive-means-ed-whelan
That should be “I’m” a progressive Catholic :)
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/289535/hhs-contraception-mandate-vs-rfra-compelling-governmental-interest-ed-whelan
(the fifth link for the above comment)
The bishops are commenting on this because it is their responsibility to do so. Like them or not, they are correct; the government is wrong to insist Catholic institutions pay for contraceptive medications and surgeries. Like it or not, Paul VI was correct when he penned Humanae Vitae, John Paul II was correct when he wrote Theology of the Body, and the Church is correct today in her doctrine regarding artificial birth control.
And – like it or not – the Catholic Church will sell off hospitals, schools, orphanages, etc. before submitting to these HHS rules regarding artificial birth control. They also will likely run headlong into HHS down the road regarding caring for the handicapped and the elderly, and so the case could be made that maybe it is best to sell off all those facilities now.
On a ralted not, it is one thing for the government to say that Catholic Social services (for example) will not receive and federal money unless that organization submits to applicable federal law, in this case hands out free BC pills, tubal ligations, etc.. It is another matter altogether, to say to a group that is Not receiving federal money, what sorts of things they must pay for in the benefits package they provide.
Patrick Molloy,
Five links to National Review, but nothing from The Weekly Standard, The New American, The National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, or any of the other publications Commonweal readers have come to rely on so heavily?
And – like it or not – the Catholic Church will sell off hospitals, schools, orphanages, etc. before submitting to these HHS rules regarding artificial birth control.
Ken,
At the very worst, all they have to do is not offer employees insurance.
And exactly how many hospitals does the Catholic Church own? Few if any. Catholic hospitals are not owned by the Church.
Thomas Farrell –
I agree that most Catholics don’t care what the bishops say about this, but no doubt there are many conservative Protestants who do — I mean the Rick Santorum contingent.
But whether or not the Obama administration has it in for the bishops (I dare say some of its members do, some don’t, the basic issue remains — do the feds have the right to impose this sort of mandate on anyone against their religious beliefs? I find the lack of concern for this question here naive. It’s not surprising that the WSj is on the bishops’ side, but when even the Washington Post, no big friend of the bishops, is on their side, then I think that it is no small matter as most here seem to think.
P. S. It makes no difference whether the bishops are paranoid about the feds. The issue, even if they are paranoid, is whether their rights are being trashed.
the law and the science seem to be on the side of the HHS,
Eric, you have yet to demonstrate that you know the first thing about any of the science.
Care to discuss the effect of contraception on breast cancer, stroke, etc.? How about relating it to the dangers of hormone replacement therapy? Since you’re a scientist, perhaps you could share your theories about how estrogen affects lobular differentiation in nulliparous women? While you’re at it, analyze critically the World Health Organization’s finding that oral contraception increases the risk of liver cancer, and that use for more than 5 years actually quadruples the risk of cervical cancer.
Just kidding, I know you can’t and won’t respond. But try reading up on it a bit, eh?
Studebaker,
The science shows that the use of birth control pills lowers one’s chance of getting ovarian cancer …. http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/news/News/birth-control-pill-use-cuts-ovarian-cancer-risk
And also the use of birth control pills lowers the rik of endometrial cancer … http://contraception.about.com/od/Benefits/f/Endometrial-Cancer.htm
Aside from specific physical probelms that can be helped with contraception, the fact is that the availability of contraception saves lives, women’s lives and the lives of fetuses that are aborted byy people with unwanted pregnancies ….. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/19/abortions-are-more-common-in-countries-that-outlaw-them/
But as individual Democrats, rather than as Catholics, no? If Obama’s sensibilities are reflective of those of his party, the Democratic party has little respect for the concerns of traditional religion when they conflict with its secular program. I imagine Democrat leaders and other policy people see little if any difference between religious opponents and secular opponents. Both are obstacles in the path of social progress who need to be got out of the way.
It’s possible that progressive Catholic Democrats could have some small chance of altering party policy where it conflicts with their religious beliefs, but, really, how likely is that? And how likely is there ever to be any conflict at all? Just asking on this last point – I have no idea.
The alleged victimhood of Catholic bishops is wearing very thin and very fast. I’ll believe them to be victims when they personally suffer – from almost anything.
An article from the National Catholic Register about the mindset of Obama and Sibelius in issuing this mandate: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sebelius-war-lands-her-in-court/
Ann Olivier: Perhaps I am naive. Perhaps other in this exchange are naive. Perhaps you are not naive. But you sound like a conservative Republican by carrying on about the feds — big government.
Now, is it the case, or is it not the case, that more than half the states in the United States already have a mandate in place comparable to the mandate in the Obama administration’s regulations?
If it is NOT the case, then please correct all of us who are naive about this and tell us what is the case.
However, if it is the case that there are state-level mandates in place, then I do not see why I should be concerned about the Obama administration’s mandate.
the lives of fetuses that are aborted byy people with unwanted pregnancies
I can give you 50 million reasons why the party you are happy to be a member of does not care about the lives of “fetuses” that are aborted.
Indeed, it is that party that advocates for the legality of killing those innocent babies in the womb. That is why it is “hard to understand how Catholics can support the [democrat] party,” even if they really did care about the poor, etc.
Crystal writes: “a progressive Catholic and happy to be a democrat. That party, as Luke notes, has been the party that cares about the poor,”
What about the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak?
What about the child in the womb that the Democrats abandon to the knife under the slogan of “choice?”
Crystal, those types of cancer are less common and are outweighed by the cancers I named. You have to think in net terms.
This whole issue is bizarre for any number of reasons. From what I can tell when I visit my local natural foods store, there’s a large lefty constituency that is suspicious of modern medicine or generally messing with the natural workings of the human body. But when it comes to artificial contraception, why aren’t the organic lefties able to get through to the technocratic lefties that gee, maybe tinkering with powerful hormones isn’t such a great idea?
After all, in the vast majority of cases, women aren’t taking artificial contraception to remedy a dysfunction, to rectify an imbalance, to heal a disease. Quite the opposite: they’re taking it to disable the perfectly normal and healthy functioning of a system that is working exactly as it has evolved to do.
Imagine if someone said, “We have a problem with weight loss. Instead of getting people to eat less or exercise more, let’s give millions of people a drug full of powerful hormones that will affect every cell in the body (we don’t know for sure what this will mean) and that will disable the functioning of the digestive system, so that most calories will no longer be absorbed. Then, people can eat as much as they want, because their previously healthy digestive systems will have been essentially poisoned and won’t work properly.”
I think most people would have the good sense to say, “Wait a minute, you’re talking about taking powerful hormones not to cure disease, but to block the normal functioning of a healthy bodily system, so that people can refrain from exercising any self-control whatsoever as to their appetites. How can we be sure this is a good idea?”
But when the objective is not using condoms (too much trouble) while still not having babies (even more trouble), suddenly people lose the common sense that would normally tell them that taking powerful medicines to disable (rather than heal) bodily functions might, just might, be a risky enterprise. Nor do they show much interest in investigating all of the evidence that has accumulated.
Weird. Anti-intellectual, even.
Brett and Studebaker,
I don’t know if I can explain this to you in any way that will make sense, but the desires to control one’s body, to make choices about one’s future, are powerful and compelling. Men already have that ability in the area of conception – they can decide if they want to have children and when to have them. There is no way to turn back the clock on contraception, no matter how much the church wants to control women’s reproductive lives …. 98% of even Catholic women who regularly go to church use contraception.
Given that, it makes sense to do what realistically can be done to then limit abortions. Using contraception limits abortions. That recent study I linked to above shows that in places where abortion is illegal and where contraception is hard to come by, there are actually more abortions</B, as well as more deaths of womesn. If the church honestly cared about limiting abortions, it would change its position on contraception. But I think the church cares more about being "right".
In addition to Studebaker’s points, scientific research shows that natural family planning is extremely effective: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6375261.stm
There simply is no compelling state interest to outweigh the Church’s religious liberty interest here. What there is is the anti-life Planned Parenthood ideology that has been responsible for the deahts of tens of millions of unborn Americans, an ideology to which Barack Obama and Kathleen Sibelius are publicly and deeply committed.
Nor does contraception reduce abortion: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/contraception/greater-access-to-contraception-does-not-reduce-abortions.cfm
Thomas Farrell –
God preserve me from either rejecting or upholding a policy because it makes me sound like either a conservative or a liberal or anything else. As the saying goes, frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn what I sound like. My convictions are not monolithic.
As to states having laws similar to the federal one, that is, so far as I know, not generally well known, and perhaps those laws should also be criticized. But I repeat for the umpteenth time, the issue here is about the freedom of the bishops not to have to act contrary to their *religious* consciences. I grant that the issues surround that issue (e.g., the morality of contraception) are, many of them, quite debatable. But the issue of religious freedom is not a trivial one, and this decision of HHS is trivializing it. I will continue to yell about that as much as I yell about restrictions on freedom of speech that would also probably not be very popular here. But I think that the First Amendment rights — all of them — need to be guarded scrupulously, no matter how much we dislike or like the players in these cases.
“Our” Catholic belief? I think the majority of Catholics practice birth control, and so they are casting their vote. The bishops–especially those with ambitions–have to be against birth control, lest Pope Paul VI look like an idiot.
I think the bishops’ page on pill eficacy is slanted – it assumes people taking the pill will not do so correctly. If used correctly, it’s nearly impossible to get pregnant …
http://healthcenter.ucdavis.edu/topics/contraception/efficacy.html
What’s needed is more education on the use, and of course, motivation to use it correctly. It’s true that if no one has sex, they won’t get pregnant, but that’s a pretty unrealistic form of birth control or abortion control.
Crystal, what some are saying is that it really doesn’t matter what positions the bishops are taking or whether or not one thinks they’re theologically defensible or whether or not we like either the bishops or their positions. At issue is religious freedom, freedom from control by the state.
I see the problem as having arisen almost inevitably because of the beliefs and policies of people of a certain political persuasion who keep stretching the net of state involvement in personal lives wider and wider. The wider the net spreads, the more, unavoidably, it will bump up against issues of individual conscience. The more we ask and permit the state to do in our lives, the less personal and individual and free those lives will be. Some people don’t mind that; many do.
I don’t believe intrusion on liberty is unique to either party, whether we’re talking forced purchase of contraceptives or illegal reviews of citizens phone records, it seems pretty bipartisan. But I think, as a Democrat, I can’t really complain about what the other party does, if I don’t also hold my own accountable for similar actions.
If bishops were not the ones in charge of paying for the health insurance of Catholic hospital and Catholic school employees, there would be no problem. Why are they in charge of that?
This shows why it is good to have separation of church and state. Bishops are not elected and they want to run the hospitals and schools on which they have authority according to their views, even when they are at odds with the sense of most Catholics. The church is not a democracy, as people like to say: that’s why it would be good to restrict the secular reach of bishops.
Claire: they aren’t in charge of paying for health insurance for universities or hospitals. Indeed, most of these institutions receive close to zero funding (with some notable exceptions, such as CUA). The bishop isn’t spending “his” money or even the “church’s” money in this instance.
Here’s a question. Is freedom of religion an individual right or a corporate right? In other words, can freedom of religion be claimed by a corporation? The Archdiocese of Chicago is a corporation sole. Loyola University Chicago is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation. Do they have the right to freedom of religion as corporations or do only the people that comprise them have their rights to freedom of religion protected by the Constitution?
I ask because the issuance of insurance to employees is a corporate act, not the act of an individual.
“Here’s a question. Is freedom of religion an individual right or a corporate right?”
It’s both.
In the U.S., it’s always been understood that way.
Ms. Watson,
The studies showing that increased contraception does not reduce abortion are based on what actually happens in the real world. Nor should they be surprising: the number of abortions has gone up right along with access to contraception, because abortion is a logical consequence of the contraceptive mentality: if a baby is a burden to be avoided, abortion will be used to prevent that burden if contraception fails or people get tired of using it, which happens quite often.
And why shouldn’t they? Relatively few of the people who think contraception is a good thing also think abortion is a bad thing. Certainly, Barack Obama, who said of his own daughters, “if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby,” doesn’t think that abortion is a bad thing. And Kathleen Sibelius, who told a cheering NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraiser that “we are in a war,” doesn’t think that abortion is a bad thing. And of course Planned Parenthood doesn’t think abortion is a bad thing.
And if we are talking about studies of contraceptive effectiveness, stuidies also show that natural family planning, if used correctly, is at least as effective as the birth control pill is, when the birth control pill is used correctly. But natural family planning is not extolled, even though you think it would be by people who often denounce corporate America and corporate profits. Instead, natural family planning is ridiculed, because the mentality associated with the use of natural family planning is radically different from the mentality pushing the pill and the condom. Users of natural family planning are interested in following the teachings of the Catholic Church, and we all know how ridiculous those are.
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120127/NEWS01/301270174
Archbishop Scnurr of Cincinnati and Bishop Foy of Covington have issued letters to be read at mass tomorrow.
Correction – Schnurr and Foys
Barbara: oh. I shouldn’t comment on this any more – The whole thing, and more generally the interplay of religion and politics in the US, is very unintuitive to me. Maybe one needs to have grown up in the US to “get it”. Certainly, reading a few articles in passing is not enough. So, I’m done commenting on this.
Payback’s a beach.
If the USCCB had not lied outright while ACA was struggling through passage, perhaps the Obama Adminstration would have been more generous in their rulemaking.
I realize that the Church is kinda obligated to be behind the times by a matter of decades or centuries, but does the USCCB understand that picking “gay rights” and “contraception” as their line-in-the-sand issues leaves them so far out of the mainstream that they really don’t matter?
Do they really think that an obedient Catholic family in a Hispanic neghborhood in Southern California is going to vote “Catholic” Republican because some Jewish female employee of a Church institution on Lawn Geyeland might get the pill, rather than voting “Catholic” Democratic on immigration, a direct concern to themselves and their families?
“Relatively few of the people who think contraception is a good thing also think abortion is a bad thing.”
Thorin –
I doubt that this is so. Where did you get your figures?
Ann,
I don’t have any sociological data to support what I wrote, which was based merely on my observations. So I might be wrong. Maybe I should have written, “Relatively few of the people who think contraception is a good thing also think abortion is a grave evil.” The Second Vatican Council declared abortion to be an “abominable crime.” When I look, for example, at Catholic politicians, I don’t see many who act as if they think abortion is a grave evil and an “abominable crime.”
Thorin,
I doubt there is any women who would rather have an invasive surigal procedure (abortion) than simply use contraception. I don’t know any pro-choice person who is pro-abortion.
David,
I know it’s about religious liberty, but I don’t believe religious liberty is without limits. The state has a duty and an investment in protecting the commone good of all its citizens, and that may involve limiting the religious liberty of some groups …. think Mormons and polygamy.
Nice – someone apparently followed me from here to my blog to let me know I’m a truly awful person for being pro-choice.
— “Here’s a question. Is freedom of religion an individual right or a corporate right?”
It’s both.
In the U.S., it’s always been understood that way. —
I would like a constitutional lawyer’s opinion, with supporting citations, on this one.
Crystal: think also about Christian Scientists and what healthcare restrictionss they can impose on their non-emancipated children.
http://www.religionnews.com/blogs/mark-silk/the-contraceptive-mandate
Don’t worry Crystal Watson, the thinking of the majority of folks on this blog stream represent just a tiny fraction of even Catholics.
Your views are shared by the vast, vast majority of Catholics and the public at large.
When people hand over their capacity for intellectual rigor to a failed ideology, don’t expect enlightened thinking – it’s not the Catholic way, especially among the hierarchs.
In every culture, when women become more educated, and therefore more economically powerful in their families, women choose to limit the size of their families through contraception because women know that this will improve the lives of both the sons and daughters, but especially their daughters. Women are after all the long range thinkers of the species.
As John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things.” And Catholics, especially their leaders, have demonstrated that they are very slow learners when it comes to facts about women’s attitudes and practices.
The hierarchs and their docile supporters are actually angry that they have lost absolute control over the reproductive choices of women dating back to the introduction of the birth-control pill almost six decades ago. Their fury and disgust at the Obama Administration for siding with the constitutionally protected rights of women has thrown them into a tizzy, as the reaction of hierarchs and their supports attest.
The push back you have felt is mostly the reaction of a failed anti-feminine ideology that is enraged because women around the world are exerting their control over their own bodies and lives.
What we are witnessing is actually the slow demise of the all-male feudal hegemony that has dominated the Catholic Church for millennia. Hence the obsessive concern for what goes on with women’s reproductive healthcare.
We will all need to develop great skills for tolerance and patience waiting for the old regime and old thinking to die off. But thanks especially to women, who control and influence the number of young men available for the priesthood and hierarchy, we are on the winning side of history.
Jim — your lack of education is matched only by your willingness to impute bad motives to others. T
Ross Douthat has an excellent column on this today in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/douthat-government-and-its-rivals.html?_r=2&hp
Of note to Mr. Gallicho: Douthat notes in this column that one of the pills covered by the HHS mandate can act as an abortifacient.
I didn’t say it cannot, in theory, act as an abortifacient. I said there’s no evidence that it does. So calling the morning-after pill “abortion-inducing” or an “abortion drug” is simply inaccurate.
I didn’t say it cannot, in theory, act as an abortifacient. I said there’s no evidence that it does.
Well, Ross Douthat links to an article noting FDA documents specifying that Plan B and ella can prevent implantation. Do you not count FDA documents as evidence? Or are you defining life as beginning at or after implantation?
Read the other links I provide in my post, Stuart.
Catholic Hospitals don’t permit employee/employer insurance to pay for contraceptives. When catholic and non-Catholic hospitals merge, that becomes a factor to those who have received this benefit in the past. This seems wrong to the lower paid employee as well as those who do not share in the Catholic tradition of believing birth control equally wrong as abortion. Why are the Catholic bishops against health care reform when the people they say they care about the most (the poor and the working poor) will be helped greatly? Who exactly, do the bishops care about?
Sandra,
The Catholic Church, including the Bishops, believe they are charged by God with caring for the whole person. That includes the body but perhaps more importantly the soul. Matthew ch 16 vs 26 is at least part of what is motivating the Bishops. It says ‘What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?’
The Bishops teach that birth control and abortion are evil and may cause one to lose one’s life as outline in Matthew. Thus, to truly ‘care about’ someone means they cannot support birth control and abortion regardless of how much good you tie to it.
Grant — citing one study using the Plan B drug on monkeys does not wipe out from existence Plan B’s actual FDA label, which specifies that it “may inhibit implantation.” Nor does your monkey study show anything about a different drug (ulipristal) that is alleged to be able to prevent implantation or kill an implanted embryo.
By analogy, if the company making an oral contraceptive drug admits to the FDA that the drug “can promote breast cancer,” the fact that I find one monkey study where it doesn’t cause breast cancer doesn’t mean I can say “there’s no evidence” on the point.
Apples and oranges. Read around a bit more. I didn’t say it can’t act that way. I said there are no studies proving that it does act that way.
My analogy was 100% perfect, as close as an analogy can be.
Moreover, you say “it” as if there were merely one drug at issue.
” The Bishops teach that birth control and abortion are evil and may cause one to lose one’s life as outline in Matthew.”
They are free to believe and teach whatever they want. The issue here is whether they can impose that belief on an employee who may not believe that, and take a tax credit by doing so.
I object to the certainty conveyed by calling them abortion drugs.
“Why are the Catholic bishops against health care reform when the people they say they care about the most (the poor and the working poor) will be helped greatly? Who exactly, do the bishops care about?”
Sandra –
You raise an important point. To deny poor people contraceptives does on the surfae look like indifference to the plight of poor people. But one can ask: why should the bishops supply contraceptives when the poor they think contraceptives are immoral and the poor can get contraceptives from other sources either free or at reduced cost. Why do the poor have a right to demand them from the bishops of all people?
No, I don’t agree with the bishops about contraceptives being immoral, but I do see that they too have their own consciences which I must respect if am going to demand that they respect mine. Respect for conscience is a two way street.
The idea that everyone with great means (e.g., the rich or the government) has an obligation to support *my* conscience stretches the notion of rights much to far. i don’t have the right to demand that other people act against *their* consciences just because I have a right to act according to my own. So I can’t morally say to the bishops: I believe in birth control, so *you* owe me contraceptives. Further, that sort of mind-set leads to the most awful sort of patronism, to coin a term.
One must never assume that people, including poor ones, cannot assume responsibility for their own actions. That is terribly patronizing and to assume that poor people cannot make moral decisions cuts at the very foundations of democracy
Stuart: Jim Jenkins is perfectly able to defend his statements. Your charge of his lack of education is, at BEST, specious:
“Dr. James (Jim) Jenkins is a clinical psychologist with a practice in the California Bay Area. He is a member of the National Survivor Advocates Coalition (NSAC) and the advisory board of Send the Bishops a Message. Jim was a member of the review board of the archdiocese of San Francisco under then Archbishop William J. Levada. Jim resigned that post when it became clear to him that the review board was powerless and a mere showpiece of the archbishop. In 2005 Pope Benedict XVI’s appointed archbishop Levada, now Cardinal Levada, as his own successor in the post of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is responsible for coordinating the Vatican’s response to clergy sexual abuse of children. ”
And his education was not underwritten by the Walton Family, either.
He’s not educated about the subject here: oral contraception. No one who knew anything about artificial contraception could wax so eloquent about the benefit to women without even the barest acknowledgment of the fact that artificial contraception is a danger to many women’s health, and is used in many cases only because men are too selfish to lower the quality of their orgasms by wearing condoms.
Jimmy Mac,
As I see it, you have it backwards. The employees remain free to use their wages to purchase birth control. Its the Bishops who are being forced to purchase a product for their employees which they believe is immoral. Also, if employer-paid birth control is so valuable to the employees, they can demand more wages or find another employer. The employees really hold all the cards here.
Bruce: so the wages that the bishops pay an employee are OK to be spent on contraceptives, but the premiums that the bishops pay to an insurance company (assuming that the bishops are not self-insuring their healthcare plan) are not OK to enable an insurance company to turn around and provide contraceptives?
Wouldn’t the first be a direct contribution to sin, while the second only a secondary contribution to sin?
Think about that.
Maybe the bishops need to get a signed statement that no salaries and wages can be spent on anything that the bishops think is a sin.
Even E. J. Dionne thinks Obama botched this: http://www.heraldnews.com/opinions/x1672349604/E-J-DIONNE-Obama-owes-more-on-religious-freedom?zc_p=1
Thorin — Dionne wonders why Obama “didn’t encourage their friends on both sides of this question to reach a settlement” and didn’t try harder to find them. Who would you suggest with wisdom, shrewdness, political skill, and sub-apocalyptic rhetoric on the bishops’ side to carry the ball?
Thanks, Jimmy Mac, for acknowledging all those degrees and training, and the battle scars from engaging all those hierarchs.
It seems that Studebaker is more concerned about my “oral contraception” education, and apparently about my ["eloquence"] as well.
Not my specific area of expertise, but what I do know is that like any drug that is introduced to the body there is a risk/benefit ratio that must be considered. For oral contraceptives, physicians and women must weigh the really relatively low long-term health risks associated with chronic disease agains the very great risks to women from childbirth.
Since we can assume that Studebaker is not a woman, maybe he has only acquired, infused knowledge of the health risks of pregnancy and childbirth to women. Last I checked, mortality rates for pregnant women and childbirth have fallen precipitously over the last 50 -60 years. Many experts believe that widespread use of contraception, not just the oral variety, have contributed to this drop in morbidity.
Thank God, that being pregnant is not the mortal threat that it used to be for too many women.
As for Studebaker’s apparent concerns about condom use which he fears inhibits male sexual pleasure, the most professional thing I could say or do is make a good referral to a professional who deals with sex education and dysfunction.
He’s not educated about the subject here: oral contraception. No one who knew anything about artificial contraception could wax so eloquent about the benefit to women without even the barest acknowledgment of the fact that artificial contraception is a danger to many women’s health, and is used in many cases only because men are too selfish to lower the quality of their orgasms by wearing condoms.
Last I checked, mortality rates for pregnant women and childbirth have fallen precipitously over the last 50 -60 years. Many experts believe that widespread use of contraception, not just the oral variety, have contributed to this drop in morbidity.
Perhaps you could cite some of these “many experts” who think that using oral contraceptives (over and above using condoms) made the pregnancies that still did occur so much safer. I’d bet anything that the discovery of antibiotics probably had a lot more to do with it. But even if limiting the number of pregnancies made pregnancy itself safer, condoms are perfectly capable of accomplishing that end.
It’s an astonishing testament to the self-serving nature of male power that anyone was ever convinced that women were more “empowered” not by being able to tell men “no” or by being able to get men to wear a condom, but by ingesting a dangerous cocktail of hormones that would disable a perfectly healthy bodily system and increase their own risk of heart attack, stroke, breast cancer, and liver cancer.
As for Studebaker’s apparent concerns about condom use which he fears inhibits male sexual pleasure,
Talk about a misreading. It’s the male pushers of oral contraception (namely, you) who are obviously more worried about male pleasure than about female health. If you have so much altruistic concern about women getting pregnant, wear a condom. Protects the women from pregnancy, but doesn’t expose them to the risks of cancer, stroke, etc. But if you assume that contraception and avoiding pregnancy are the main goals, it is anti-woman to suggest that this be done by having more women take a dangerous drug in lieu of men wearing condoms or abstaining.
Jimmy Mac,
Wages are neutral. The employee is free to spend them in any way, either sinfully or otherwise. The Church can teach how to spend the wages morally, but ultimately each individual has to exercise their free will in deciding how to spend their wages. However, forcing the Bishops to purchase a sinful service is directly contributing to evil.
Jim Jenkins … thanks :)
Studebaker …. As the US Catholic blog post mentioned, birth control methods controlled by women are the most likely to orevent unwanted pregnancies. I’ve used pills for years with no health problems. There are other kinds of contraceptives women can control that may be less potentially harmful and easier to use correctly – patches, injections, IUDs, etc. It’s important that women have a form of birth control that they control rahter than that their partner controls, especially in circumstances where women don’t always get to decide if theu’re going to have sex, much less if theu’re going to get to use protection.
Stu, women don’t wear condoms. As for how contraceptives make pregnancy safer and women healthier: by allowing women to undergo less of it, space it further apart and avoid it when they are emotionally or physically ill, or financially stressed.
I keep wondering: what level of hypocrisy will the average Catholic sink to in trying to grapple with this hysterical reaction on the part of USCCB? Happy and thankful to have their own contraceptive coverage through employer provided insurance, but slinking away when the subject comes up among church members, afraid to tell each other the truth of their own hypocrisy. There is no possibility of institutional integrity here. For me, that was and remains the bottom line.
Apparently, the iocese of Madion decided it was not sinful for it to provide insurance covering
“A state law is forcing the Madison Catholic Diocese this month to begin offering its employees insurance coverage for contraception.
However, a diocesan spokesman said employees will be warned against using the benefit and that open defiance of Catholic teaching on the issue could ultimately lead to termination….
.
The diocese’s commercial insurance policy now will offer birth-control coverage, but employees will be expected to employ their consciences in not using it, King said. “If someone were to misuse that freedom in this regard, it could be grounds for termination,” he said.
Such a step would be taken only if the employee, after being counseled, refused to get in line with Catholic teaching, King said. “It wouldn’t be the first thing we do,” he said…
The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is immoral because it diminishes God’s role as the giver of life and interferes with the full giving of each spouse to the other.
All diocesan employees sign a morals clause in their job offers saying they will abide by Catholic teaching, so the diocese expects them to follow the prohibition against prescription contraception, King said. He acknowledged that the diocese has no way to police the issue – an employee would have to offer it up, he said.”
Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_e1bbab64-a4c7-11df-b26c-001cc4c03286.html
The threat to fire people who use contraceptives is bizarre, but the more interesting thing reported In the rest of the article is that the diocese could have avoided covering contraceptives by self-insuring but decided it would be more expensive to do that – so it decided to buy insurance that covered contraception.
Crystal — your use of the pill without ill health results (so far) doesn’t refute the scientific evidence any more than the fact that car wrecks kill 30,000+ people a year is refuted by me pointing out that I haven’t been killed by a car wreck.
Barbara — you say, “Stu, women don’t wear condoms.” No scheisse, Sherlock. The point is that it’s hardly a feminist triumph (quite the opposite) for women to have to endanger their own health rather than be able to ask men to behave appropriately.
As for how contraceptives make pregnancy safer and women healthier: by allowing women to undergo less of it, space it further apart and avoid it when they are emotionally or physically ill, or financially stressed.
If that’s a health benefit at all, it’s a health benefit equally provided by condoms or abstinence, neither of which cause cancer, stroke, blood clots, etc.
Stu, do you own stock in a condom company?
No, but I own stock in an abstinence company. We have no products and don’t sell or do anything at all.
@ Studebaker: You’d “bet anything that the discovery of antibiotics probably had a lot more to do with it [presumably the antecedent for "it" is [making pregnancies "so much safer"].” Really??? Have you ever even taken a biology course? Antibiotics are very useful for bacterial infections. Pregnancy is not an infection!
Obstetricians, I’m sure, proscribe antibiotics when it is medically indicated, but rest assured sanitation and clean water contribute more to the overall health of pregnant women than antibiotics. Of course, contraception precludes the enormous risks associated with pregnancy [especially of the complicated variety] therefore contraception contributes immensely to the general health and well being of both women and infants.
On another front: The NY Times today had two items that deserve some consideration: There is a front page story about a Fordham University law student who was frustrated in her attempts to question Arch Dolan by a toady moderator about Dolan’s labeling “people who postponed conception with “chemicals and latex,” calling them part of the “culture of death.”
Boy, that Dolan really knows how to stick it to those pesky young women who think they have a working conscience and control of their own bodies. How insecure and intellectually bankrupt can Dolan be if he can’t even engage women in dialogue and debate and defend his misogyny?
The other interesting item in the NY Times is the editorial, “Birth Control and Reproductive Rights.” I especially like the citation of the First Amendment rights of women and physicians being “trampl[ed]” given the religious liberty canard of the hierarchs are using in this argument.
Perhaps you could cite some of these “many experts” who think that using oral contraceptives (over and above using condoms) made the pregnancies that still did occur so much safer. I’d bet anything that the discovery of antibiotics probably had a lot more to do with it.
An invaluable thing about Grant’s mini-roundup (no doubt, it could be much longer, but it seems to be a good representative sample) of bishops’ letter is that it allows us to ask the question, “Are these effective responses? Is the church taking the right tone? Are its talking points the right talking points?”
I believe it’s correct to cast the public dispute as one that is, in essence, a religious liberty dispute. Thus it will, and should, play out as a political and legal dispute.
If I were to advise the bishops, here is what I would advise:
* Frame the topic for what it is: a government encroachment on religious liberty. The juicy talk-radio detail of the dispute – contraception – is ultimately unimportant and a distraction. Keep your eye on the ball: this is a threat to religious liberty. People who themselves contracept, and even those who are strong proponents of contraception, nevertheless can and should rightly be concerned about the implications of these regulations.
* Religious liberty is important to all religious groups in the US. So seek allies. Build a religious coalition. Work with any and all churches and religious groups, both progressive and conservative. Do not allow the Obama administration to frame this as a Catholic issue. As with Hosanna Tabor, the implications of this regulation radiate far beyond one particular denomination. Mainline Protestant churches, Jewish organizations, Muslim organizations, Evangelical denominations, LDS – all should wish to preserve robust protections for religious liberty. So forge practical alliances.
* Make a strong statement in favor of health care. Emphasize the church’s commitment to provide health care benefits to its employees. State that no employee of a Catholic institution will lose health care benefits as a result of this dispute. Declare that decent health care for employees is non-negotiable for Catholic employers, and urge employers of all types to follow the church’s lead.
* Remind the American people that a flourishing Catholic Church conveys a lot of practical benefits to the United States. Through our primary schools, our universities, our hospitals, our nursing homes, our social service agencies and our cemeteries, we contribute immense amounts of social capital to our society. The greatest beneficiary of religious liberty protections is not the Catholic Church; it is the United States itself. And make this case without so much as a smidge of smugness or self-congratulation.
* Avoid the apocalyptic rhetoric. This is not a day that will live in infamy. We have no reason to suppose that the President and his administration are possessed by devils. This is a church-state dispute, so make it clear that the conflict will be pursued the way that church-state disputes are pursued in the United States, via politics and the courts. We should use our moral capital, not to consign our opponents to Gehenna, but to shore up our moral view with our own members. The church’s stance is more reasonable than the Obama Administration’s, and so the church should make its case reasonably. Let the irrational shrieking and condemning emanate from our opponents, not us.
* Eschew public stances of moral superiority. Many Catholics and most of the rest of the country are not awed by the moral pronouncements of bishops. The church’s place in the United States is not unique. We’re one institution among many that contribute to the fabric of public life. We’re entitled to speak, and we insist on the preservation of that right, but our voice is not inordinately privileged. Our arguments should be those of citizens making arguments to other citizens.
* The church is the victim in this instance. Therefore, it is entirely permissible to appropriate the language and tactics of victims. Religious freedom is a civil right in the United States. Use civil rights tactics to oppose these regulations. March. Write letters. Organize politically. Identify political opponents and go after them. Bishops are not able to direct all of these activities, but they have wide latitude to enable lay leadership of these items, and the Catholic church does not always use all of the tools at its disposal in this respect.
Um, one huge reason childbirth used to be so dangerous is the risk of infections. The fact that doctors figured out (thanks, Semmelweis!) to start washing their hands, along with the discovery of antibiotics, has much more to do with maternal wellbeing than contraception even conceivably could.
Of course, contraception precludes the enormous risks associated with pregnancy [especially of the complicated variety] therefore contraception contributes immensely to the general health and well being of both women and infants.
You’re failing to grasp a quite elementary point: even if pregnancy has “enormous risks,” you can’t merely say that the benefit of artificial contraception is that it prevents pregnancy, because there are other ways to prevent pregnancy without causing cancer and stroke along the way. If you want to make a claim about the particular benefit of artificial contraception, you have to say why it’s better than, say, condoms.
Jim Pauwels, I agree that the rhetoric needs to be ratcheted down. A lot of the time you would think HHS had required that all hospitals (including Catholic ones) provide abortions on demand. Providing insurance is a very different thing from providing services.
Rather than making statements no one will believe about closing hospitals or stopping insurance for employees, I think the bishops would gain more if they said “we’ll do this under protest if we have to, but we think it’s unfair and unconstitutional to force us to act contrary to our beliefs.” Then try to get Congress to act on the unfairness and the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality.
Claiming we can’t do it because it would be immoral for us to do it isn’t going to convince anyone. Whole dioceses (like Madison) and institutions (like Fordham) are already doing it. The bishop’s point is that the HHS regulation forces Catholics to appear to approve of other people’s actions that the Church teaches are wrong.
For myself, I think that Catholic institutions could make clear that doing what the law forces them to do doesn’t mean that they endorse the use of contraceptives, so I don’t think it’s an end-of-the-world event if Congress and the Supreme Court don’t respond as the bishops hope. But simply fighting the fight will get people to know what the Church teaches.
I want to echo Barbara’s surprise to find you arguing so ardently here for the desirability of condoms (as compared to contraceptive pills), Studebaker.
Particularly when you appeared to be arguing so ardently in precisely the opposite direction on this previous CW thread: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2933.
How to put what you say in these two threads together in any coherent way . . .?
Please, Studebaker: Check your science first before you make wild assertions. You’re sounding more and more like a stranger in a strange land.
BTW, for your edification: Gilliam, Mamidipudi & Johnston, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) 2000. Ischemic stroke risk with oral contraceptives; a meta-analysis. Conclusions: Summary results indicate that risk of ischemic stroke is increased in current oral contraceptive users, even with newer low-estrogen preparations. However, the absolute increase in stroke risk is expected to be SMALL since incidence is very low in this population.
A quick review of other pertinent literature suggests that much of the cancer and stroke risks you [i.e., Studebaker] cite may be due MORE to other incipient factors such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, history of high cholesterol, postmenopausal estrogen therapy, and alcohol intake THAN previous use of oral contraceptives.
Please Studebaker, do us all a favor, especially the women among us, do your research first.
@ Jim Pauwels: I would contend that this debate is less about religious liberty (First Amendment) than it is about the right to privacy and equal protection under the law (Fourteenth Amendment).
What the Obama Administration is arguably trying to do (granted not very successfully for probably your tastes, and certainly those of the hierarchs) is thread the needle between these two competing constitutional principles.
For me, the question then becomes: Do the religious liberty rights of a minority of Catholics and their hierarchs trump the right to privacy and equal protection guarantees for women who work for or attend Catholic institutions who serve the general American public and not just the narrow Catholic community?
With all due respect, this dispute has nothing to due with “tone.”
Studebaker –
You seem to assume that condoms are as effective as pills. Everything I’ve ever read indicates that they are much less effective in preventing pregnancy.
Jim — read this document, which explains why the World Health Organization classifies oral contraceptives as a Group 1 carcinogen along with asbestos and the like: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol91/mono91.pdf
The World Health Organization has studied this in a bit more depth than you.
You seem to assume that condoms are as effective as pills. Everything I’ve ever read indicates that they are much less effective in preventing pregnancy.
If used correctly, they’re almost perfectly effective. If not used correctly . . . . well, nothing works if left unused.
Funny that no one was able to answer my comment on 01/27/2012 at 9:25 pm.
Stuart: Are you able to convey information without such pomposity? Jim seems to be honestly trying to grapple with the issue. You don’t need to be so condescending.
@ Studebaker:
It would be good before you hinge your argument to any research to understand when researchers are reporting results just what are the differences between “causal” versus “correlational” findings. Whoops!
The WHO study you cite reports correlations, not causes of cancer rates in women.
And besides, most of the findings of the WHO study pertinent to oral contraceptive use that you cite have relatively small or modest effect sizes in ranges from [.8 to 1.9]. Meaning that the environment of industrial societies itself could present far greater exposures to carcinogenic agents than oral contraceptives.
There is a lot of discussion these days among cancer researchers about how wholesale environmental degradation, not specific carcinogens, could account for sustain cancer rates in the general population.
Studebaker, you should get some consultation with cancer researchers before you put this stuff out there.
Grant — wrong. Did you even read his comment at 01/28/2012 – 6:48 pm? Talk about pompous.
Jim — I know very well the difference between correlation and causation. Indeed, for many years, that was the tobacco companies’ defense — all the studies were epidemiological and correlational, not randomized experiments. Well, guess what: you generally can’t do experiments with carcinogens. That kind of thing doesn’t get past review boards, not since Nazi Germany’s time. So correlational evidence is pretty much all we have as to carcinogens.
A recent meta-analysis put the increase in breast cancer risk at 44%.
Bottom line: anyone who makes a blanket recommendation that women ingest any of the items on this list, not to remedy a dysfunction but to create a dysfunction, and despite the fact that men could do something that would accomplish precisely the same end with zero additional risk of disease (condoms), isn’t really thinking with the good of women in mind, no matter how much he might protest as much.
Before making any more of an anti-woman jerk out of yourself, keep in mind that you’re talking to someone (me) whose own wife came down with breast cancer (the kind produced by estrogen and progesterone) after several years of taking oral contraception. Breast cancer isn’t something to sneer at, especially when you’re a man whose only interest here is avoiding fatherhood while not having to use a condom.
Stuart: My mistake — I got tripped up in the flood of comments on this subject and thought you were responding to another Jim.
I apologize for any insults, but having been through a cancer experience, I have zero patience for men who seem a bit too giddy at the prospect of women ingesting any of the items on this list, and who, when the subject is brought to their attention, seem too eager to ignore a 44% increased risk as small (they’re not the ones bearing the risk, isn’t that nice), or even to dismiss basically all research into environmental causes of cancer.
“I would contend that this debate is less about religious liberty (First Amendment) than it is about the right to privacy and equal protection under the law (Fourteenth Amendment). … For me, the question then becomes: Do the religious liberty rights of a minority of Catholics and their hierarchs trump the right to privacy and equal protection guarantees for women who work for or attend Catholic institutions who serve the general American public and not just the narrow Catholic community?”
Hi, Jim J, you’d need to explain how any constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are abridged by the status quo. Remember: the bishops are not calling for a change to the status quo; they are simply defending the status quo. They are not calling for the abolition or restriction of birth control (well, except for the bishop of Madison, apparently, but he doesn’t speak for the church as a whole in this case); they are simply asking that Catholic institutions not be required to subsidize it. I can understand that a woman would want her employer to pick up the tab for her contraception, just as I’d like my employer to subsidize my cell phone or cable bill, but I don’t see that women have a Constitutional right to have their employers subsidize their birth control.
@ Jim Pauwels:
As I understand it, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that all laws passed by the Congress (I have to assume the Affordable Care Act is included) are applied equally to all citizens. As far as I can tell, the ACA does abridge the status quo – the Congress passed the ACA in order to provide access to health care for as many of our citizens as possible.
In this instance, all employees (including females) of Catholic hospitals and universities are entitled under the ACA to comprehensive health care insurance. To exclude them would constitute a denial of their constitutionally protected rights to equal treatment under the law.
To my thinking, the institution is providing insurance coverage to all their employees, not subsidizing anyone or anything – it is part of the way we do business. It is hard for me to argue for the hierarchs why they should be exempted – they are as much a part of the “commons” as any other entity. Religiously affiliated schools and hospitals receive the benefit of $billions of dollars in the form of Pell Grants and Medicare, Medcaid. Why shouldn’t they be expected to adhere to the same rules and regulations as other schools and hospitals, and other employers?
At the present time, this is all ready the case in at least 28 states. The ACA is only extending these insurance requirements to the other 22 states.
Why didn’t the Catholic Church make a stink about this before in the 28 states that already require institutions to provide full health care coverage for their employees?
Is it possible that the hierarchs are playing politics in this very political season? Is it possible that the hierarchs think they can threaten a liberal politician running for reelection? Me thinks so.
[I'm not recommending this, but for argument sake] If the hierarchs are so principled in their stance [B16 and these hierarchs have more or less walked away from Vatican2 and its commitment to religious liberty and conscience - just ask any silenced theologian], why don’t they just withdraw their affiliation from these education and health care institutions, as they did with Catholic Charities sponsoring adoptions for gay and lesbian couples?
Could it be that universities and hospitals are economic engines that are just too big and make too much money, and wouldn’t that further expose the immense degree of corporatization of the Catholic Church?
PS: All we want is affordable, reliable healthcare for ourselves and our families.
To exclude them would constitute a denial of their constitutionally protected rights to equal treatment under the law.
This is categorically wrong as a matter of constitutional law. There is no such thing as a constitutional right to have the government override religious objectors’ conscience such that every employer would be mandated to subsidize the same activity. Such a claim would be dismissed as frivolous.
The constitution outlines the relationship between the government and individual citizens. It doesn’t say anything about one citizen’s obligations vis-a-vis another citizen. The employees have no right to constitutional due process or privacy vis-a-vis any employer. They may have rights under other laws made by a government but nothing under the constitution. That said, employment is generally at-will. For that matter, Bishops have no constitutional right of religious freedom vis-a-vis their employees. The Bishops do have a constitution right of religious freedom from any government making any law of employment, insurance or otherwise: ‘…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’
PS If you want affordable, reliable healthcare read Kens comment from Jan 27 at 10:26. It outlines a more realistic program and reads in part:
Any national plan should simply be minimal; just enough so we fulfill our collective Christian duty, while keeping in mind that charity begins at home and that as a nation, we cannot afford to pay for extras like BC pills, Viagra, acne treatments, tying women’s tubes, toenail cures and the like, for every high medium and low nitwit that roams and prowls around this country.
A national healthcare plan should be so designed that most people would want more deluxe policies and accordingly, workers and self-employed folks would either press their employers to include a rider to the national plan or they would buy into HMO’s (Kaiser Permanente in CA; every state has an HMO) or buy into other types of health insurance plans.
[...] no-cost birth control to their employees through their insurance plans has, unsurprisingly, outraged American Catholic bishops and drawn battle lines on Catholic campuses. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne [...]
@ Lafranchi and Studebaker:
Here is the pertinent text of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
If you don’t like the way the courts have applied and interpreted this Amendment, then your beef is not with those of us who seek shelter in the protection of its provisions. Your beef is with the American way of life.
Either you believe in the freedom and the rights of every person, or you do not. That may not be the Catholic way, but it is the American way.
PS: Studebaker, I’m very sorry for your wife’s struggle with breast cancer. It must be very painful for the both of you. But, your science is still screwy, and the conclusions and inferences you draw are not supported by the data.
Jim — if you have a beef with the World Health Organization and many scientists they relied on in classifying oral contraception as a carcinogen, please take it up with them. I’m just the messenger on that point.
Studebaker – if you want to be the messenger and not be the hysteric, you have to read especially the research methods and results sections of studies – not just the title. Until you do so, your more likely “the boy who cried wolf” than “the canary in the coal mine.”
Another tip for interpreting these results: substances that mimic estrogens/progestogens are believed to perhaps play a precursor role in cancer formation – these hormones are the active agents in oral contraceptives, but OC’s are hardly the only source of these hormones in the environment.
Jim — I’ve read enough of those studies to know that they’re about as good as you’re going to get, given the impossibility (as noted above) of doing RCTs on humans with known carcinogens. And the “title” isn’t the issue: it’s the fact that the World Health Organization, which is hardly unfriendly to contraceptives, went so far as to classify oral contraceptives as a carcinogen on the same list as asbestos, benzene, HPV, formaldehyde, mustard gas, etc.
As for your second paragraph, it is a complete non sequitur to suggest that oral contraceptives are any safer because, after all, other stuff is dangerous too.
@ Studebaker:
This is getting really circular. I understand your intransigent thinking about this – if you want or need to hold on, knock yourself out.
I just don’t think your “bad science” when placed in the public domain should go unchallenged. Catholics these days, especially the hierarchs, are increasingly and disturbingly anti-science.
I would suggest that you get some consultation about correlational and regression analysis research methodology. The conclusions YOU DRAW from the WHO study are NOT supported by the data they report.
I’m not drawing any conclusions from the WHO study except the following indisputable fact: WHO thought the evidence was clear enough to classify oral contraception as a carcinogen.
The only anti-science person here is you. You don’t like the many scientific studies showing the danger of contraception, so you denigrate them on grounds that would essentially throw out the entire field of epidemiology.
PS: I’ve taken graduate classes in econometrics, statistics, program evaluation, and economics, and I read articles by the likes of Heckman, Angrist, Imbens, Wooldridge, etc., for fun.
This is a great article on the subject:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/liberals-and-catholic-hospitals/
Jim Jenkins,
As you stated your argument earlier: For me, the question then becomes: Do the religious liberty rights of a minority of Catholics and their hierarchs trump the right to privacy and equal protection guarantees for women who work for or attend Catholic institutions who serve the general American public and not just the narrow Catholic community?
While thats an interesting way of putting the problem, I dont think it is relevant for the following reason. I dont owe you any right of religious freedom, nor for that matter do you owe me any right of religious freedom. The state owes it to each of us, but thats different than me owing it to you or vice-versa. So the question now becomes: can the state make a law which effectively takes away my right to religious freedom and also create a right for you under the equal protection clause. In this case, I believe that your argument is that the Obamacare regulations have created a right for women under the 14th amendment that trumps the bishops’ rights under the 1st amendment. If you are correct then the constitution is not the ultimate law-of-the-land but rather the subordinate laws (in this case Obamacare and its regulations) assume that role. I dont think thats how it is supposed to work.
Bruce — Jenkins’ ideas about constitutional law are about as hopelessly uninformed as tax protesters who think they have a constitutional right not to pay income taxes.
You don’t like the many scientific studies showing the danger of contraception, so you denigrate them on grounds that would essentially throw out the entire field of epidemiology.
Studebaker,
The question is not whether there is some risk involved in taking oral contraceptives. It’s whether the benefits outweigh the risks. Here are some of the side effects of Chantix, a drug to help people quite smoking:
According to their website, “In studies, 44% of CHANTIX users were quit during weeks 9 to 12 of treatment (compared to 18% on sugar pill).”
It’s up to patients, with the advice of their doctors, to decide if a particular drug’s potential risks outweigh its benefits. It’s up to the FDA to decide if the risks are too great for any patient. You certainly have a good case for making all women considering oral contraceptives fully informed about the potential risks, But that doesn’t amount to a good case against the contraceptive mandate.
Yes, but the benefit of contraceptives is not anything like stopping smoking. The main benefit of contraception is getting to have sex more often without worrying about condoms or babies. It’s one thing to risk depression or getting a rash to save your life. It’s another thing to risk your life to improve your sex life. And it’s another level of frivolousness entirely for someone to think that the latter is so important that everyone has to be required to subsidize it. This policy is such a “First World problem” that it’s hard to take seriously anyone who defends it.