Distortion fields. (updated)
On Friday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a sharp response to Thursday’s White House blog post purporting to clear up any confusion about how the contraception-coverage mandate will affect religious institutions. The USCCB’s press release goes through the White House blog post point by point, clarifying a couple of important issues, but obfuscating several others by employing a touch of the worst-case-scenarioism that fueled the bishops’ opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Let’s have a look:
Claim: “Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.”
Response: This is not entirely true. To be eligible, even churches and houses of worship must show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose. Some churches may have service to the broader community as a major focus, for example, by providing direct service to the poor regardless of faith. Such churches would be denied an exemption precisely because their service to the common good is so great. More importantly,the vast array of other religious organizations – schools, hospitals, universities, charitable institutions – will clearly not be exempt.
Does the USCCB really expect readers to believe that parishes won’t be exempt? That, say, providing meals to the hungry — even as a “major focus” — would distract HHS from the fact that the primary function of a Catholic parish is to serve as a community of worship? That HHS would fail to notice that parishes are not for profit, that they primarily employ and primarily serve co-religionists, and that they exist to inculcate Catholic beliefs and values — in other words, that they meet all four (far too restrictive) conditions to qualify for an exemption from the contraception-coverage mandate?
Claim: “No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections.For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.”
Response: It is true that these rules directly apply to employers and insurers, not providers, but this is beside the point: The Administration is forcing individuals and institutions, including religious employers, to sponsor and subsidize what they consider immoral. Less directly, the classification of these drugs and procedures as basic “preventive services” will increase pressures on doctors, nurses and pharmacists to provide them in order to participate in private health plans – and no current federal conscience law prevents that from happening. Finally, because the mandate includes abortifacient drugs, it violates one of the “existing conscience protections” (the Weldon amendment) for which the Administration expresses “strong support.”
That the mandate will not apply to Catholic health-care providers is certainly not beside the point. There is a reason that Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, expressed her appreciation for the administration’s support for existing conscience protections. Without them, Catholic health-care providers could not do their job.
What about the claim that the Obama administration “is forcing individuals and institutions, including religious employers, to sponsor and subsidize what they consider immoral”? Does the USCCB understand that taxpayers are already subsidizing contraception? Does the USCCB believe that the insurance premiums now paid by Catholic institutions for plans that exclude contraception are not offsetting the costs of plans that include contraception? Are the bishops not already subsidizing what they consider immoral by cutting checks to insurance companies that cover contraception and abortion for other clients? That is, incidentally, the same reasoning the USCCB used to lobby against passage of the Affordable Care Act.
The notion that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists will, as a result of the HHS mandate, be forced to prescribe drugs they object to on religious grounds strikes me as far-fetched. Insurance companies would love it if doctors prescribed contraception with abandon — kids cost insurers lots of money — but how many doctors report being strong-armed by insurers to get female patients on the Pill? (I’ll get to the difficult question of abortifacients momentarily.)
Claim: “No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover. Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible. But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.”
Response: The statement that no one will be forced to buy it is false. Women who want contraception will be able to obtain it without co-pay or deductible precisely because women who do not want contraception will be forced to help pay for it through their premiums. This mandate passes costs from those who want the service, to those who object to it.
The bishops repeatedly claim the HHS mandate forces Catholic organizations to “pay for” contraception. The mandate requires organizations that provide health insurance to employees to include contraception coverage in those plans. When I want a copy of the New York Times, I hand a clerk $2.50 and he provides me with the paper along with a complimentary copy of Capital (that’s just how we roll in the other America) — transaction complete. That’s not quite how health insurance works. When an employer pays an insurance premium, it’s in exchange for services employees may or may not receive, depending on their medical needs. That means that paying for coverage that includes contraception does not mean everyone who can use it will use it. What’s more, most employers do not bear the sole cost of health-insurance premiums — employees usually have to kick in a portion of their paychecks. In the case of institutions like Catholic hospitals, which employ and serve people of all faiths (and none), not all employees find contraception objectionable. Of course, the lion’s share of the funding comes from the employer, but the moral calculus changes along with the financial calculus.
Claim: “Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy: Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.”
Response: False. The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or “Ella”), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects. RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an “emergency contraceptive” – and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well.
False? The Hyde Amendment prevents federal dollars from funding elective abortions. (During the health-care debate, that was the status quo the USCCB said it wanted to maintain.) If a morning-after pill causes an abortion — and it is not designed to have that effect — that’s not the same as an elective abortion because a woman who takes such a drug is not intending to terminate her pregnancy. That distinction cannot be elided — at least not if one wants to remain within the tradition of Catholic moral theology.
The question of whether and when (and how one would know that) morning-after pills function as abortifacients is notoriously complicated. Ella’s primary function is to delay ovulation. It can have an effect on the receptivity of uterine lining, blocking implantation of a fertilized egg (thereby, from the bishops’ point of view, but not the FDA’s, causing abortion). But to say that Ella “has the same effects” as RU-486 is not right. RU-486 acts on established pregnancies to end them — and only in conjunction with another drug, misoprostol, which Ella lacks. RU-486 is administered at much higher doses than Ella, and some have claimed that an overdose of Ella could terminate an existing pregnancy (an overdose of aspirin would have the same effect). In animal studies, very high doses of Ella have ended pregnancies. But, from what I’ve read, the science about humans is inconclusive. None of that is to say the bishops should be satisfied with the drug’s inclusion in the mandate, but only to show that equating that RU-486 with Ella is misleading.
Claim:“Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions. Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.”
Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false. All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA). None of these havens is available under the federal mandate. It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption. It is broader: It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule’s narrow tax code criterion. Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as “emergency contraceptives” like Preven.
That’s a helpful clarification, although it doesn’t go far enough. Self-funded health plans that do not pay insurance premiums to private insurers (for plans that include prescription drugs) can avoid state contraception-coverage mandates. Those that do cannot. (Usually, an employer with a self-funded health plan contracts with an insurer to administer the benefits. So, for example, Cigna agrees to manage the claims of a diocese’s employees in exchange for an administrative fee. When Cigna receives a claim, it sends it to the diocese, which in turn reimburses Cigna — at a previously agreed-upon rate — only for services provided.) But self-funded health plans are not for every employer. They require a good deal of liquidity to pay out employee medical claims. The bishop of Madison, for example, looked into self-funding a diocesan health-care plan as a means of avoiding Wisconsin’s contraception-coverage mandate, but he found it was prohibitively expensive. So he decided that it was morally licit for his diocese to provide employees with health insurance that includes contraception coverage. That’s not something you’ll read about in a USCCB press release.
In Sr. Carol Keehan’s most recent statement about the HHS mandate, she wrote:
We have said the problem is not resolved, and we must have a national conversation on this. CHA is working closely with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities USA, the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities and others to look at options to resolve this. We will be discussing it at the CHA board meeting on Feb. 8.
I assure you that we will use the time to pursue a correction during the one-year extension. We will give this issue priority and consult with members and experts as we evaluate options to deal with this.
But after reading talking points like these, especially when coupled with threats of civil disobedience, one has to wonder whether the bishops are all that interested in joining such a conversation. No one expects institutions affected by this ill-advised mandate to roll over. Striking the right rhetorical balance isn’t easy — especially when the Obama administration issues its own well-spun talking points. But are the bishops planning on keeping any powder dry for August 2013, when they’ll have to implement the mandate (if their legal challenges fail)? Or are they content to wage a PR campaign until that point, poisoning the well for Catholic agencies not under the direct control of bishops? To put it another way: how do you sit at a negotiation table you’ve set fire to?
Update: Not long after House Speaker John Boehner retweeted a link to this USCCB press release, senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod signaled that the White House may be open to a compromise:
“I’m less concerned about the messaging of this than to find a resolution that makes sense,” said Axelrod on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I heard earlier Joe [Scarborough] say, ‘Well, there may be compromises that can be reached.’ We have great respect for the work that these religious institutions do. …We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventive care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions,” he added.
And here’s Mark Silk’s take on Axelrod’s smoke signals. In the recent poll of Americans’ views on the contraceptive mandate, a majority of Catholics approved of the Obama administration’s decision, but, Mark notes:
there’s a key voting bloc that’s not so happy with requiring religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals to provide contraception coverage. That would be white Catholics, to the tune of 58 percent opposed. Politically, they are the most closely divided religious grouping in America. In 2008, they constituted 19 percent of the electorate and voted for John McCain over Barack Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. In the critical swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, they are a critical swing constituency, representing 20 percent, 29 percent, and 19 percent of the electorate respectively. Lose 10 percent of them to contraception coverage and you could lose the election.
Tags: Affordable Care Act, contraception, health care reform, HHS, USCCB
“To put it another way: how do you sit at a negotiation table you’ve set fire to?”
And if the negotiation table has already been burned?
I do not quite understand why it seems, that regarding artificial birth control, so many Commonweal folks seem so keen on making sure the Catholic Church gets with the government program.
It cannot be the money; those pills, devices and services are not that costly. Why then, is it so important for some folks to see the Catholic Church pay for BC pills and IUDs? Why do they seem to be so delighted, so thrilled by that prospect?
Is it that you are angry with the Church over the child abuse, that you are upset with the Church because Rome does not do as you like? Are you upset because we have a Pope?
What is it exactly? I am truly curious and would like to know.
see the Catholic Church pay for BC pills and IUDs
Ken,
Even if the mandate stands, the Catholic Church will not be required to pay for birth control pills or IUDs. When people attribute some stand or action to “the Church,” Fr. Komonchak occasionally asks what they mean by “the Church.” I would be interested in how you foresee “the Catholic Church” being required to pay for contraceptives, or even insurance that covers contraceptives (which are not the same things).
Why then, is it so important for some folks to see the Catholic Church pay for BC pills and IUDs? Why do they seem to be so delighted, so thrilled by that prospect?
To whom are you referring? Certainly not Grant. You should know by this time that he opposes the mandate.
Ken –
You don’t seem to understand that even $50 per month, not to mention $150 is a hell of a lot of money to many families, especially these days. That is why we’re concerned.
And quit questioning other people’s motives even before you’ve heard why they think as they do. Of course most of us are mad at child abuse. Aren’t you? But that is irrelevant to the issue of other people’s lack of contraceptives. As to our other possible feelings, even if there were such upset, they are also irrelevant to the issue. The issue is what do we *think* and *why*.
When you don’t stick to the subject it weakens your position.
Does the USCCB really expect readers to believe that parishes won’t be exempt?
Well, who is going to decide who is exempt and who has to comply? Hasn’t the Obama Administration said that it will be the sole judge?
But a bigger (and on-going) question is — why is are the bishops and the Church ALWAYS wrong according to you?
Ken, I for one am upset that we have a Pope. I worked in Rome for years, became a Catholic there. If I had known there was a Pope…
How you know Bender is a troll: He thinks my disagreement with bishops is more important than whether this conflict can be resolved. Stay on topic or your comments will be deleted.
Grant, regarding the first claim/response above, you ask, “Does the USCCB really expect readers to believe that parishes won’t be exempt?” The response makes clear that the bishops are thinking beyond just the HHS mandate regarding insurance to provide contraception coverage to employees — parishes would be exempt from that because the employment of a small number of parish employees as part of the parish activity satisfies the four requirements for an exemption.
But it’s not alarmist or precluding a conversation to tease out the logical implications of the ruling. For example, the parish that runs a soup kitchen or pregnancy crisis center that serves anyone who shows up and doesn’t require any of them to listen to a sermon before soup. That was the point of Matthew Boudway’s thought experiment regarding the Jainist soup kitchen that wouldn’t serve meat. Not hard to imagine an ambitious HHS secretary examining services other than health care insurance offered by parishes and applying the same exemption criteria, and concluding that this soup kitchen offshoot of the parish is not exempt because it serves non-Catholics and doesn’t (expressly) inculcate Catholic beliefs.
As Douthat, Winters, Brooks, Millman and others have pointd out, the ruling is so noteworthy, and illiberal, because of the statist presumption that social institutions act at the sufferance of the government. I don’t see why the bishops’ contributions to this broad conversation should be characterized as setting fire to the table.
“The Hyde Amendment prevents federal dollars from funding elective abortions. (During the health-care debate, that was the status quo the USCCB said it wanted to maintain.) If a morning-after pill causes an abortion — and it is not designed to have that effect — that’s not the same as an elective abortion because a woman who takes such a drug is not intending to terminate her pregnancy. That’ distinction cannot be elided — at least not if one wants to remain within the tradition of Catholic moral theology.”
Hi, Grant, I think most of your analysis and critique is reasonable and not worth nit-picking. The portion I’ve quoted here, I’m not certain I understand, and I’m hoping you’ll clarify.
I take your point to be that Ella is intended to be prescribed as something other than a “morning-after” pill. Is that correct? And so the government could legitimately classify it as a drug that does whatever Ella is intended to be (is it a contraceptive?), which in the government’s eyes (and many other eyes) is perfectly fine.
The issue, I suppose, is that if Ella *does* act as an abortifacient as an unintended/secondary effect, then it could be prescribed for that purpose. And how does the government, or insurers, determine, for purposes of managing the subsidy program, whether it was prescribed for one reason rather than another? (Do patient privacy laws prevent insurers and government managers from learning these details?)
(It’s the same sort of problem with contraceptive medication that can/should be prescribed for non-contraceptive purposes; even if HHS was aligned with the Catholic bishops on contraception subsidies, is there a way to manage the benefits such that contraceptive prescriptions are subsidized for non-contraceptive purposes but not subsidized for contraceptive purposes?)
Is that an accurate statement of the problem?
Jim: It’s a thorny question, and my thinking on the matter is not quite settled, but: Ella is designed to delay ovulation — that is, it’s built to work as a morning-after pill. A prescription for Ella does not contain enough of the drug to terminate an existing pregnancy. (A regular dose of aspirin won’t terminate a pregnancy either, but if a pregnant woman takes enough, she’ll induce an abortion.) If, however, the drug is taken after ovulation (and obviously intercourse), it could make it impossible for a fertilized egg to implant.
Of course, there is no way to guarantee doctors will prescribe for “the right reasons,” whatever they are.
James: I disagree with the HHS ruling. What I find absurd is the notion that HHS, however misguided it’s been in this case, would deny a Catholic parish — something everyone knows exists in order to serve as a community of worship — an exemption because, as a part it its ministry, it serves the poor. To suggest otherwise, it seems to me, is to engage in the sort of worst-case-scenariosm that brought Catholics the anti-FOCA campaign.
The issue, I suppose, is that if Ella *does* act as an abortifacient as an unintended/secondary effect, then it could be prescribed for that purpose.
Jim,
There are drugs besides Ella that could be prescribed as abortifacients. Cytotec is an anti-ulcer drug, but there are instructions on the Internet about how to use it to induce an abortion. Accutane, a drug for treatment of severe acne, can cause miscarriage (although I doubt that any doctor in his right mind would prescribe it as an abortion drug) or serious birth defects. These drugs are covered by insurance now. So the contraceptive mandate does not bring up any new problems regarding drugs that can be misused.
You seem to misread the bishops on the first blockquote. They don’t say that parishes are in any danger. What they say is this:
When I see Catholic bishops referring to “churches and houses of worship,” it seems clear to me that they mean something other than parishes (Catholic bishops do not use the plural “churches” self-referentially). So this might mean Unitarians or something. But definitely not Catholic parishes.
I don’t think so, Stuart. Catholic parishes would be covered either by “churches” (as non-bishops understand the term) or “houses of worship” (as anyone who reads English understands the term). To be sure, I’m not comfortable with a situation in which a church has to show the government that it’s really and truly primarily a locus of worship. But the point of this graf is clear: be afraid, Catholics, because HHS might not exempt your church. Also of note, many, if not most, of the letters issued by Catholic bishops to be read at Mass over the past couple of weeks conspicuously leave out the part about parishes being exempt from the mandate.
I can’t be the only one who sees the irony of charging “worst case scenarioism” when the current case is worse than the Catholic Left ever anticipated. Sounds like the bishops could issue a big “told ya so” if they were so inclined.
I can’t be the only one who sees the irony of charging “worst case scenarioism” when the current case is worse than the Catholic Left ever anticipated.
Actually, I think a certain amount of the current brouhaha is not people upset by the contraceptive mandate, but rather conservative/Republican Catholics gloating and trying to rub the noses of Catholic Obama supporters in events. This is certainly not the worst case scenario the Catholic left might have worried about. A real push for FOCA would have been far worse, and of course that is what conservatives predicted.
The world has not ended. Catholics are not being persecuted (in the United States). New York State has a strict contraceptive mandate, and although I live in the Archdiocese of New York, just had to look up when it was imposed (2002), because I didn’t even know it existed.
If another administration had done this, it would have been significant news, but the fact that Obama has done it makes it even bigger news in the eyes of conservatives.
I think David is right on the politicization here and, in the long run, whatever the outxcome, I think that will hurt the Church.(Of course all conservatives think their view is all good.)
Mr. Smith, as David G. has pointed out, many are unhappy with the Benedictine papacy.
Is that a crime?
As to our hierarchy. look at MSW’s critique of Crdinal Egan’s interview in the Connecticut paper.
Is anger like that uncalled for?
What we don’t need now is fatuous remarks about divisive issues.
I think that the USCCB statement uses ambiguity on who and what is exempt. , a too usual tactic, to win political points. Parish and dioceses and diocesan HS schools and seminaries, of course will be exempt..to hint otherwise is using ambiguity to dissemble ….which we saw in the abuse cover-up.. basta,. I also say that the one year window and an election pending, gives those of us who want a broader exemption the opportunity to prevail. Don’t people feel ‘burned’ by having been called to the anti- FOCA barricades on the ‘first day of the inauguration’?
First sign of a possible compromise:
“The White House may be open to compromising on a new rule that requires religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control, a senior strategist for President Obama said on Tuesday morning.
David Axelrod, who serves as a top adviser to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program that the president would “look for a way” to address the vocal opposition from Catholic groups who say the rule forces them to violate their religious beliefs against contraception.
“We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions,” Mr. Axelrod said.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/the-politics-of-obamas-contraception-decision/
Many parishes run schools that are open to non-catholics and are staffed by non-catholics. are they going to have to provide HHS with a list of students and employees and include religious affiliations of each in order to qualify for the exemption? Will they have to start asking each person served at the soup kitchen for their religious affiliation and provide a report to HHS? How about the day care center run by the parish? Many parishes are much bigger organizations and offer services beyond worship. If you look to the percentage of time spent by a parish on worship vs other activities (school, sports, social service, etc.) it may be the case that worship and inculcation of values (in the strict sense) are a smaller portion of time than the other functions. Will the parish have to submit spreadsheets to HHS to document how the employee’s time and parish facilities are used? E.g., our parish gym and ball fields get a lot more use than the church itself, even on Sundays, and based on the language used by the coaches and parents, there is not a lot of “inculcation of religious values” going on there.
@ Mike D… see update. Maybe all should climb down from the barricades of sand and broken USCCB furniture. Suggestion.. If you want Obama gone….. get a credible candidate..
I wonder what Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats think of all this. Stupak worked hard to ensure ACA would not include abortion, but probably did not see this sort of mandate coming.
MikeD – Catholics provide social service, not just for fellow Catholics, but because we are Catholic.
Ken – agreed, and Catholics were providing social services in the U.S. long before the government was doing so.
I’ve been following this conversation here over several days, and I appreciate all the work and expertise both the posters and the commenters have brought to the discussion.
At this point I just want to bring in a couple more voices. First, Jonathan Cohn, a journalist who’s had health care policy as his main beat for some years now: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/100432/obamacare-contraception-catholic-hospital-medicaid
“In a single-payer system, you pay for your insurance through taxes. In an employer-based system, like the one the Affordable Care Act reinforces, you pay for your insurance through wages that your employers withholds and dumps into a health insurance fund on your behalf. Either way, though, it’s really your money that’s paying for your health insurance, not your company’s. The only objection that ought to matter is yours.” …[snip]…
“…reasonable people can disagree about this controversy: It’s a case of powerful, but competing, claims of religious freedom and the public good. But critics should realize that the injustice they perceive is already part of our health care landscape. Medicaid, the joint state-federal insurance program for low-income Americans, covers family planning. So do the majority of employer-sponsored plans, which benefit from huge taxpayer subsidies. That means your tax dollars already pay for birth control, directly and indirectly, even if you’re among that small minority of Americans who object to its use.”
Second, Igor Volsky, of the liberal Center for American Progress, gathers information from a number of sources, including “Our Sunday Visitor” to make the following points (among others):
*six states already have existing mandates similar to the new HHS rule;
*twenty-eight states require institutions that offer prescription insurance to cover contraceptives;
*Catholic colleges and universities in CA, IL, MA, PA, and TN (at least) offer contraceptive coverage as part of health insurance plans for their employees.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/
I’m not saying Cohn and Volsky cover all aspects of the issues involved. (They clearly don’t.)
Despite that, their observations (along with others) lead me to wonder why some of our bishops are so upset. As best I can tell, their brother bishops in other industrialized countries with universal health care coverage that includes contraception haven’t considered it a major public issue on which the Church should fight.
(Or—and this is entirely possible—am I merely so provincial an American that I’ve completely missed the way in which the Canadian, French and Japanese (choosing more-or-less at random) bishops have dealt with the issue of contraception and health care in their countries?)
The White House may be open to compromising on a new rule that requires religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control, a senior strategist for President Obama said on Tuesday morning.
I think a compromise at this point might actually be a disservice to all those Catholics who are presently gearing up for civil disobedience, prison time, reeducation camps, and martyrdom. One gets the feeling they are longing for it.
I am once again reminded, though, of the following moment in Annie Hall after Annie and Alvy sit through The Sorrow and the Pity, the harrowing film about the French Resistance in World War II:
More on Ella (Ulipristal acetate) and it’s possible but unproven abortifacient effect. The suggestion is that the dose given is too low to prevent implantation.
CHA article in Ethical Currents:
http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22ethical%20currents%22%20%22ulipristal%20acetate%22&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chausa.org%2FWorkArea%2Flinkit.aspx%3FLinkIdentifier%3Did%26ItemID%3D2147487833&ei=OC0wT8XmIPCwiQfloeXmDg&usg=AFQjCNFKw8ZiJ4cSSAO_w3ATU3CVfrPiRw&sig2=QZ42XoBBI78yI7D4dm73BQ&cad=rja
Family Planning factsheet:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact-ella-EC.pdf
God Bless
OTOH: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1
Chris, your first link doesn’t work.
N.B.: If you’re going to turn the comment boxes into a link dumb, please make sure they work (and have not already been linked to in the post).
“…one has to wonder whether the bishops are all that interested in joining such a conversation.”
In fairness, however, one has to wonder whether the administration is interested in joining in such a conversation either.
Certainly, many of the advocacy groups urging this policy on are not.
R.M. Lender makes a very good point.
If the administration reverses themselves on this, some here will feel relieved that they can vote for Obama again, in good conscience. He still won’t have my vote. Having watched Obama reneg on his public funding pledge, his Guantanamo pledge, and now his campaign finance rhetoric, and having seen how willing he as been to repay the help of people like Sr. Carol Keehan with decisions like this one, I have no reason to further trust him on anything. I am not inclined to give him a second term and hear “thanks, suckers” while he reinstates Sebelius’ ruling. He is not trustworthy.
During the 27 years I practiced medicine with the nations leading HMO, I had among my patients, several priests and nuns. This despite the fact that our health plan covered
contraceptives, morning after pills and abortions. Neither my Catholic colleagues nor I
were ever required or encouraged to prescribe these options. I never heard a complaint
from any of my Catholic patients regarding the provision of such services.
The complaint that doctors would be coerced into violating their consciences is absurd.
Why the Obama position on the mandate in question?
Exclusionary secularists simply do not care for belief. They live without religious belief.
Man govering without religious belief is able but to govern only other men, while not governing themselves – hence rules for others, rule by “elites,” disregard for faith in culture, freedom that is merely self-assertion not liberation for the passions of human existence which can enslave us all – and lead us to chaos.
Governance without faith is inhuman governance, costly and offensive.
@ Robert Sylvester… to the barricades????? First take over Dumont Circle.. bishops will be observing ALL through high powered binoculars
Clamato’s statement above reveals the true underlying politics of this whole affair about Catholic hierarchs’ objections to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
It is not about contraception. It is not about abortion. It is not about religious liberty. It is not about women’s health needs. It’s not about high-minded defense of the Catholic conscience.
It is about the hierarchs’ political gambit, all to please their Roman constituencies, to make some US Catholics more comfortable with their prejudices about President Obama, soothing their consciences, while sabotaging the president in the coming election, and, like good Republicans for decades, voting against their economic best self-interests.
Given the economy, which dictates a very close election indeed, the scary thing to me is that this political gambit by the hierarchs just may work-out for them.
I believe the president and his administration has put out all kinds of feelers indicating that they would like to find an acceptable accommodation with the hierarchs. Will the hierarchs make a deal with the president? As Yoda would say, “Hard to see the dark side it is.”
If the jobs numbers continue to improve as they did last week, and Romney continues to remind us that he is clueless about the travails of 99% of us, and if Newt remains hellbent on enacting political seppuku, this may all be a lost cause for the hierarchs.
Polls already show that the maddening “moderates” are beginning to return in the president’s favor. President Obama is now leading Mittens with over 50%. If the President starts to climb above 55%, we could see a Democratic sweep a la Reagan 1984.
[Did you catch Karl Rove's bitter reaction to the Super Bowl commercial, "Halftime in America," featuring Republican "Dirty Harry" Clint Eastwood? Rove knows the political power of a campaign based on optimism would have on the American electorate after a dreary decade of war and economic depression.]
If President Obama wins reelection over the objections of the hierarchs, he will have no incentive to find a compromise along the lines that now operates in 28 states. The hierarchs will be left out in the cold.
Who will be better at this political chess game? Barack Obama or the hierarchs?
“but obfuscating several others by employing a touch of the worst-case-scenarioism”
The problem is that it isn’t obfuscation. The behavior of the administration, especially involving this mandate, show that the sensibilities and preferences of the Catholic Church don’t hold much sway. The assurances given to Catholics when the original health care reform went through are steadily turning out to be hollow. The HHS mandate is, itself, a worst-case scenario, why shouldn’t we assume that it will continue to be the worst-case scenario?
And I’m sorry, but when you pay an insurance premium, you are paying for the covered services. It doesn’t matter if some of the employees don’t use contraceptive services. Since contraceptive services are available with no co-pay, whenever an employee does use a contraceptive service, the employer pays for it.
The reality that Catholics, including Catholic employers are already paying for contraceptive services doesn’t matter. Would you say to a kid being beat up by a bully, “Well, since you never objected to the bully beating you up before, you can’t object to it now .. no it doesn’t matter that it’s gotten worse.” We’re going from Catholic institutions being free to make the prudential decision whether the remote cooperation of evil represented by paying for insurance that covers contraception is acceptable to the federal government saying, “Do it regardless of what you believe.”
I’m a bit surprised, even perturbed(?), at the insouciance with which some on the Catholic Left are treating this issue. Did they have the same devil-may-care attitude with respect to, say, the Patriot Act? Enhanced interrogation procedures? Don’t think so.
“Despite that, their observations (along with others) lead me to wonder why some of our bishops are so upset. As best I can tell, their brother bishops in other industrialized countries with universal health care coverage that includes contraception haven’t considered it a major public issue on which the Church should fight.”
Luke –
Religious freedom is a right of an individual. If the bishops disagree about what is permissible morally, then those who object to the mandate still have the right to have their consciences respected.
Only if HHS were to claim that it is only the whole religious group that has that right would your point be relevant. If HHS were claiming that, then that would be a dreadful can of worms — who is to say who speaks for the group? The Court has already indicated strongly that it doesn’t want to and, indeed, may not get involved in such internal matters of a religion as determining what it’s beliefs are.
By the way, it’s probably a good thing that the material/formal and proximate/remote distinctions are being brought up. It might help Catholics and others understand that the bishops are faced with some unclear choices, and this is why there can be disagreement. The distinctions need more work, but even they do not yield clear answers, they can be quite useful for forming one’s conscience.
I just wish there were some way to decide in any given instance where the proximate/remote line is to be drawn. We need an ethical algorythm for that, though maybe there isn’t any possible. The other big ethical problem, I think, is how do you add up the goods and the evils that a given action (or non-action) will result in, as must be done in many cases of double effect. In this contraception case, for instance, how do you weigh the valuable rights of the women v. the valuable rights of the religious party? There must be some sort of disproportion if we are to determine which right trumps which, but how can you tell which right is more important? How do you weigh the bad effects on the women v. the bad effects on the already=born who will be deprived of medical care? There is the general principle “Do the greatest good for the greatest number” which is sometimes quite relevant, but in many cases it is thoroughly inadequate by reason of not knowing just what is good in a particular case.
Ethics is a most difficult and frustrating subject. All the more reason to invite the opinions of everyone. Even Aquinas admitted that the closer you get to applying principles to the particulars of the real world the more difficult it is to be sure of your judgments.
Jeff, Ken, David, John, Grant, James, Jim, Mark, Mike, Bob, Ed–all boys but Ann. I’d suggest that for most women this issue was decided a generation ago. This is subject is no longer engages them. Therefore their absence from this conversation.
This blog takes nitpicking and somehow tries to make it a virtue, failing miserably in the attempt and completely missing the point.
The fact is the mandate is an egregious overreach, probably not Constitutional, by the Obama Administration, which, if it stands, will certainly be used as a precedent for further intrusions. Those who defend this move do so because they like the provisions of the mandate. The problem is such expansion of the powers of the Federal government, when utilized when it is in the hands of a right-wing President and party, may be used to impose mandates and provisions considered anathema to the very progressives pushing so hard for it now.
It is time for all Catholics, in fact for all Americans, liberal or conservative, to see the real dangers herein and say: stop!
I’m a bit surprised, even perturbed(?), at the insouciance with which some on the Catholic Left are treating this issue.
Well, in practice the question boils down to deciding who is going to pay the monthly $50 for contraception. If the issue was about making contraception illegal, then I would have much less insouciance. But here, that is not in question.
Instead, the topic is clouded by all those side questions on who represents whom, who can mandate what for whom, when exceptions are warranted, to what extent religious freedom exempts Catholics from following the law, etc. I would need to take a course on Government before I could even hope to understand the American way of thinking on those questions. It’s like a football game: filled with heated high-adrenaline moments for those who understand the game, but mostly a harmless, hard to understand show for outsiders.
I hope this is not the Bob Sylvester I know for the statement seems very judgmental to question whether or not the president lacks a faith as in religious faith. And what facts back up your claim?
Grant – I really appreciate your writing this article, for it is difficult to sort out the truth with all the rhetoric engendered by this mandate. Deep within me, I feel offended by the Bishops using the pulpit and their power to persuade their parishioners of the rightness of their opinions. I feel sympathy for both sides in this issue. I can see that the church has a right and a duty to teach the morality of contraception. I can also see that individuals have a right and duty to form their own consciences around the issue of contraception, taking the time to examine the teachings and their own lived experience in forming their conscience around this issue. The church never making this an infallible teaching leaves the door open for differences of opinion – something many forget during this conversation. If I were an employee of a church organization and of child bearing years, I might have to reconsider employment if contraception were not covered in my health insurance. After bearing three children in an abusive marriage, I resorted to using the pill so that I would bring no more children into an abusive household. My three children have paid a very dear price in living in that abusive marriage – til I finally had the courage to walk out of it, seven years after I had begin taking the pill and after almost being knocked unconscious from physical abuse for the last time. So I take this very personally. I would not want another woman to feel like she had to be open to conception or to abuse by remaining in an abusive marriage. It took courage and grace for me to take the pill and to walk away from that marriage and have been working towards healing ever since. Was I wrong to follow my conscience in both decisions?
I leave that up to God to decide. Thank goodness my age and celibacy now do not impact how i judge the rightness or wrongness about the church teaching on contraceptives. But I feel much empathy for employees who may work in church related organizations if they are denied this coverage. I am seeing four extremely right wing individuals (one a relative) take up this issue to try to keep people from voting for Obama. None of the four are of child bearing years. Interesting!
Luke Hill gets close to one of the main points to consider here.
1. Employer Provided Health care coverage is Part of the “compensation” paid to employees for their work. The belief by many, (see Wisconson/Walker) that such coverage is a gift of some sort to the employees that the employees should help pay for is simply put, a cut in pay. The individual employee, in most non-union jobs, has no power to negotiate the coverage or payment rate for the coverage, and thus cannot exercise any “freedom of consciences” religious or otherwise concerning that coverage.
Jim Jenkins: I believe the president and his administration has put out all kinds of feelers indicating that they would like to find an acceptable accommodation with the hierarchs.
I am hardly a hierarch, but you’ll forgive me if I am less impressed than you with the “feelers” the administration has put out about finding an “acceptable accommodation”. He told Dolan there would be no reconsideration. Now, suddenly, in the face of serious objections among people he needs, there are “feelers” and the administration should be praised for having them.
If Obama was everything we were told he would be, everything we had hoped he would be, this mandate would never have seen the light of day, because Obama would have meant it when he said he respected conscience rights. Please don’t call me a hierarch simply because I refuse to wear blinders and insist on holding Obama to his word.
Ann asks:
Julett offered a very powerful answer above. In the case she described, an abusive marriage, her use of contraception would certainly not be a violation of Humanae Vitae.
I’d suggest that John Paul II’s Preferential Option for the Poor offers a helpful criteria. It ought to be a no-brainer to weigh up the very real suffering of poor women and their families with somewhat nebulous religious freedom claims.
God Bless
There is room for compromise if the White House takes another look at similar insurance mandates on the state level. If HHS were to extend the conscientious objector exemption to ALL religiously affiliated employers — not just to churches and schools (as now), etc., but to Catholic Charities and the rest — they could ADD EXCEPTIONS TO A BLANKET EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION for the purose of extending the mandate to employees who don’t share the organization’s religious objections, those people the Administration is concerned about now. New York State, for example, exempts all religiously affiliated organizations from its contraception mandate, but allows employees who want contraceptives covered to purchase cheap “riders” to their insurance plans at small group rates, and Texas, which also exempts religious organizations across the board makes an exception when an individual’s life or health requires the use of contraceptives (contraceptives are used to treat various medical conditions).
A follow up to Luke Hill’s query (2/7/ @3:01)about the role of bishops in other countries:
In Europe, all citizens, including the employees of Church-affiliated organization, access directly either (a) government-administered health care (e.g. Great Britain) or
(b) government-subsidized insurance (e.g. Germany). Employers are not involved. Granted, bishops do criticize government-sponsored coverage of contraception and abortion. But individual Catholics are responsible for the moral decision to use these medical practices.
The US situation is unique. Generally access to health insurance is through employers. Most Catholic-affiliated organizations exclude insurance coverage for birth control devices and drugs. Frequently they refer to their “benefits package” as an expression of their “Catholic identity.”
But HHS, in implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), asserts that employers no longer have an exclusive say in defining adequate insurance coverage. Access to adequate health insurance coverage is a “right”, according to HHS, must include “reproductive health services.”
This appears to be an irresolvable “zero-sum” confrontation. Many Americans (and Catholics?) pay lip service to the ACA principle that individuals should have a “right” to adequate health insurance. But we don’t want “big government” (HHS) mandating what constitutes “adequate health insurance.” Therefore must we reject ACA and reaffirm the tradition that health insurance coverage is exclusively defined by employers? Or do only “religious” employers retain exclusive control over defining health insurance coverage?
If HHS and the Catholic Church are engaged in a “zero-sum” conflict, there will be no solution until there is a moderation of the public rhetoric. We may be doomed to continue this strife until at least November 2012.
An afterthought—we might gain perspective by recalling the implementation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Congress “created” the “rights of disabled.” Most of us nodded our approval. But we quickly had second thoughts when the Government mandated tearing up sidewalks, installing ramps and elevators. Some Church officials even said that the Government was violating the First Amendment by requiring Churches to renovate their “sacred spaces.”
Surely this can be worked out, and a year should be enough time. But the transition may be more difficult for the Church than for HHS. For HHS the problem may be how to maintain the public health interest in access to contraceptives. Is there an alternative to the employer as a source of funds? For the Church the problem is how to accommodate the public health interest in access to contraceptives. The Church has not, in its public pronouncements to date, addressed this concern. It has chosen to focus on its own interest in the religious liberty and conscience aspects of its corporate self. And this interest appears to be a financial interest, not a personal interest. There is an opportunity here for the institutional Church, as it exercises control over Catholic hospitals and other entities, to show some sensitivity toward those employed by such entities, particularly non-Catholics, who may wish to avail themselves of the public health incentives provided by law. The challenge for the Church will be to avoid a temptation and an alternative. The temptation is to actively prevent employees, even non-Catholics, from availing themselves of the very public health incentives that HHS is charged by law with providing. The alternative to be avoided is to narrowly focus on the “teaching opportunity” presented by the current circumstances, and simply stand by its doctrinal principles, come hell or high water. As a Catholic with some affection for the institutional Church, I see an opportunity here for the Church to rise above some of its less admirable historical tendencies.
@Ann, That’s just the thing–there is no hard and fast line between remote and proximate material cooperation, and either might be justifiable in a given circumstance. In extreme circumstances, even immediate material cooperation (where you’re actually DOING the evil act) might be justifiable. One example of immediate material cooperation: a heroin addict is brought to the hospital in very bad condition after an auto accident. Due to injuries, he is unable to inject himself. However, in his condition, he cannot tolerate the rigors of withdrawal. In that case the physician would inject the drug (more likely a substitute opiate like methadone) to save the patient from withdrawal. The physician does not approve of IV drug abuse, so we’re in the realm of material, not formal cooperation. However, in this case the physician does the very act–immediate cooperation–for the greater good of keeping the patient alive to live another day and perhaps be well enough for rehab. Immediate material cooperation is reserved for dire situations, (unless the evil in which one is participating is itself not so great.) All other cooperation is mediate, of varying degrees of proximity. Deciding what’s justifiable relies to a great extent on what our guy Thomas Aquinas would call prudence.
Back again. My Handicapped spouse needed attention.
Mr. Christofferson touches on my second point, But first Claire, it should be clear that employees always pay for their health care coverage.
The second point here is who’s “Freedom of conscience” is being violated by this rule? Many faitful practicing Catholics use contraceptives all the time. If we error by exercising our individual freedom of conscience in doing so, are we therfore in a perpetual state of sin and “self excommunicating (Olmstead)? I think not and I truley believe that a vast majority of our faitful Catholic Hierarchy believe as I do. So let all those non “living wage” single mother CNAs with 3 children cleaning bed pans at holy this and that hospital have their reproductive health fully covered. FOR CHRIST’s SAKE PEOPLE DWJWD!
“I’d suggest that John Paul II’s Preferential Option for the Poor offers a helpful criteria. It ought to be a no-brainer to weigh up the very real suffering of poor women and their families with somewhat nebulous religious freedom claims.”
Chris –
I agree with Juliett that some conflicts of rights are easy to weigh using some principles we already understand. What we need, however, are principles for hard cases, or, better one method to handle all cases. I fear that is impossible. Reality is just too complex.
What you consider a ‘nebulous” religious claim is probably not nebulous to the bishops making the claim. And questions of conscience can be painful in the extreme, especially when they require hard choices. Sometimes it would be easier to be beaten than to make certain choices.
” The individual employee, in most non-union jobs, has no power to negotiate the coverage or payment rate for the coverage, and thus cannot exercise any “freedom of consciences” religious or otherwise concerning that coverage.”
Mr. Toohill —
The solution could be to get a higher paying job. “Benefits” are in effect wages. Or simply spend part of the wages you agreed to on the contraceptives. There’s the rub.
By the way, all the assumptions so far have been that the employer is always a man. What of the cases where the employer is a women? What about her rights?
” New York State, for example, exempts all religiously affiliated organizations from its contraception mandate, but allows employees who want contraceptives covered to purchase cheap “riders” to their insurance plans at small group rates, and Texas, which also exempts religious organizations across the board makes an exception when an individual’s life or health requires the use of contraceptives (contraceptives are used to treat various medical conditions).”
Beverly –
Yay, New York and Texas! Or the states just pay for the riders or part of the riders.
@Ann, That’s just the thing–there is no hard and fast line between remote and proximate material cooperation, . . . Deciding what’s justifiable relies to a great extent on what our guy Thomas Aquinas would call prudence.”
Lisa –
Indeed. And I suspect there probably is no single rule for making hard-case determinations. And Thomas’ teaching about “prudence” is one of the worst things about his system. Much as I respect most of Thomas I think that in his system “prudence” is in fact just the name of as yet undiscovered (ot undiscoverable or unreal?) kind of thinking process. I think Aristotle is responsible for this hole in Thomas’ system. Aristotle’s silly advice is that when we are in doubt about what to do, we should ‘do what the prudent man would do’ just urges slightly educated moral guesses. Sorry to be so nasty about my two big philosophical heroes, but nobody is perfect.
I actually believe that Thomist ethicians have an obligation to try to clarify these questions and to develop the theory further. I mean they need to work on ethical decision procedures.
Maybe I missed it in my quick read through the comments, but it seems to me the hierarchs are getting a pass on their contention that the use of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) is immoral according to doctrine, and therefore a violation of their religious libery.
Catholic teaching does NOT say the use of OCPs is immoral. It says the use of OCPs for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is immoral. It’s not the act of taking the pill that is immoral. It’s the purpose of the act that makes the act immoral or not. The Guttmacher Institute, November 2011, says, “14% of pill users — more than 1.5 million women — rely on the method for ONLY noncontraceptive purposes” — purposes such as menstrual regulation, acne, and endometriosis. In accord with Church teaching, these women are doing nothing immoral by this practice. Yet, their perfectly moral use of OCPs for these treatments is being opposed by the hierachy’s misleading claims that all uses of OCPs are immoral.
If I’m correct, and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m not, why is this fundamental obfuscation not being strongly challenged?
Hi, Casey, I basically agree with your moral analysis of the non-contraceptive intent for using contraceptive medication. FWIW, here are my views:
* I would qualify your analysis slightly: in those cases where contraception is an evil (as when it contravenes the procreative dimension of sex within marriage) – probably the vast majority of cases – the good effect of the non-contraceptive intent must at least equal the bad effect of contraception. Thus, taking contraceptive medication to treat cervical cancer certainly seems permissible. Taking contraception to clear up a mild case of acne, or to lose five pounds – probably not.
* The chief thing to keep in mind is that the Catholic Church is not seeking to ban contraception. It is simply stating that it doesn’t want to subsidize it. If the Catholic Church prevails in this dispute, contraceptive medication for non-contraceptive intentions will still be just as available to patients who need it as it is today. That is all that the Church is seeking – to maintain the status quo.
Inasmuch as contraception is readily affordable for many women, the fact that the employer is not subsidizing it is not much of a burden. My experience as a consumer of employee-provided group insurance plans is that the plans provide different levels of subsidies for different brands (and generics), and some medications aren’t subsidized at all. Essentially, at Catholic institutions, contraceptives would be fall into the latter classification. Women would still obtain contraception if they need it (or if they simply want it), but they wouldn’t submit a claim for it.
For women for whom it is a financial burden, there are other ways that contraception can be subsidized. Private organizations like Planned Parenthood do so, and so do a number of already-existing government programs at all levels of government (including Medicaid).
* It’s not clear to me whether the logistics of subsidized medication allow for the distinction between Loestrin prescribed for contraception vs. some other, virtuous medical reason. Let’s assume it’s not possible for insurers to make that distinction. In that case, the next question to ask would be: is there another treatment available that would be subsidized?
Beverly Bailey wrote,
” New York State, for example, exempts all religiously affiliated organizations from its contraception mandate,”
No, New York has the same limited exemption as the federal regulation. That’s why Fordham includes ontraception overage in its student health plan.
“(A) For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an
entity for which each of the following is true:
(i) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(ii) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious
tenets of the entity.
(iii) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious
tenets of the entity.
(iv) The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in Section
6033(a)(2)(A)i or iii, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.”
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$ISC4303$$@TXISC04303+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=13621822+&TARGET=VIEW
The gross injustice of New York State’s mandate was made public several years ago when it became apparent that Catholic Charities would be forced to comply with it. Hey, Gov. Cuomo: fix it.
“– the good effect of the non-contraceptive intent must at least equal the bad effect of contraception. ”
Jim P. ==
Since you seem to have a strong inclination to metaphysical quetions, i’ll try to raise this question (a very confusing one). On the one hand, the Vatican argues that the end of the procreative act is a good one, viz., the existence of a child. On the other hand, the Vatican (HV) also says that at times it is *bad* to have another child. This seems to mean that the child is simultaneously a metaphysical good and an evil (something to be avoided). How can it be both at once?
And how can a *possible* child be said to be a metaphysical good when it doesn’t even exist yet? Further, it seems that the Vatican is implying that this possible child has an actual right to life.
Perhaps I should add that the metaphysical status of real possibilities is still a murky issue in philosophy and that statements about possibles presents big problems in logic. See much of Dummett’s work and the responses to him. I should add that he, a generally conservative Catholic, rejected the Vatican’s teaching on BC.
People say that this philosophical theorizing is irrelevant to “the real world”. But just look what happens when philosophy can’t seem to provide clear answers — it affects our moral systems badly.
Luke et al. have made good points regarding health insurance coverage as being part of the employee’s compensation. If the bishops looked at it that way, realizing employees are free to use their pay for whatever they want, perhaps they would not be so opposed to this mandate. As it is, why don’t they force employees to sign oaths that they will not use the pay they receive from Catholic institutions to buy contraception?
The New York solution seems a most practical one, allowing cheap riders to be purchased for contraceptives. My husband says insurance companies should give the riders away, since it’s cheaper to cover contraception than pregnancy and additional dependents. From an actuarial standpoint, it costs more to write the non-contraceptive insurance the bishops want than policies which covers contraception.
Has any one noticed that this entire ado is about the rights of women? Furthermore, the people
opining about female pelvises are men. How about a discussion on the misogynistic attitude of the men of Rome and the self- professed “theologians” who are making such a fuss over this issue. Catholic women need to wake up, and Catholic men should defer the conversation about this to women.
Mr.Pauwels, I must emphasise the importance of understanding that as a simple matter of contract law, what an employee is “given” by the employer in return for the employee’s services is EARNED and is property of the employee. Many on the radical right still view employees as some kind of servants to the big corps and institutions ( again see Wisconsin/Walker). That is called slavery and the underpinnings of the cause of the civil war are still with us. Unlike mr.newt I am a Real student of history and Con. law. The individual right that a person has to use or not use contraceptives of any kind according to his or her own free conscience is a basic human right to control one’s own body. Any human being who has not or cannot internalize this very basic concept does not understand the fundamental teachings of the Church or of the United States Constitution. Unfortunatly many in the Church and in the republican party have sacrificed these values on the altar of power and profit.
Mr. Toohill, thanks for your comment addressed to me, but I confess that I don’t know to what you’re responding.
“Has any one noticed that this entire ado is about the rights of women?”
No, it’s about the rights of female employees, bishops and the women who will be adversely affected if Catholic charities have to be cut back drastically if the bishops cannot comply with the mandate.
Feminists might get fairer treatment from the bishops if they, in turn, tried harder to be fair the to bishops.
MR.Pauwels. NO One is being susidized here. A earned benefit by an employee is the property of the employee. IF all these church related institutions paid a “living wage” as defined by the Bishops these employees might well be able to take their “cash” part of remuneration and purchase contraceptives. The “CASH’ still came from the church institution. The Bishops and the anti free coscience Republicans are just playing shell games here.
Speeding and contraception:
I was thinking about the dilemma the Church v Gov is causing among so many of us Catholics. Most people are writing about the governments “Attack on Religion”. They concern themselves with the argument of what powers belong to what entity, etc. It appears to be about the horserace instead of the real principals involved.
The church’s standing on contraception is like having an old person living with you who is incontinent. You may love the person and not want them to go away, but there are some seriously offensive things that you just have to overlook.
The stand on contraception is simply a way for the church to implant itself in the very personal decisions of a married couple. This should have been dismissed when they let us eat hamburgers on Friday. So forget the fact that 98% of impregnable Catholic women ignore that rule. Some may even accept the fact that they have committed a mortal sin (“intentionally impeding the procreative aspects of sex”). We do have confession and that takes care of that.
Also the church doesn’t often, in any place I have seen, mentions the statement in Humannae Vitae that exclude sin from the use of contraceptives when they are prescribed for other purposes. For instance, a young lady with severe acne cannot receive the medicine that will cure acne if not taken along with a contraceptive. You see, the medicine that prevents acne is known to cause birth defects. No doc would ever prescribe the acne medicine without the contraceptive. I believe this would qualify, but the young lady in question would not be reimbursed if she worked for a Catholic institution.
In another example, a mother of 5 children comes down with hormone sensitive breast cancer. Another pregnancy would kill her. How do you think the church would advise that husband and wife. It is pretty much like what the republican crowd in the debates screamed: “Let her die!”
The Catholic church needs to get a little more realistic about birth control. The current Pope on a trip to Africa in 2009 made an itsy bitsy teeny step in the right direction by clarifying that “a male prostitute who intends to use a condom might be taking a first step toward a more responsible sexuality because he is looking out for the welfare of his partner.” This absurd recognition of reality actually made world headlines.
I’ll tell you something else I know to be true. Our US government under the previous administration has (had) been funding the Catholic Relief Services to run advertisements on television in Africa encouraging people; even those people threatened with aids to abstain from using birth control. I requested a refund of my donation to CRS because of that. They have also taken me off their mailing list.
So what has all this got to do with speeding?
The Church could take an attitude on contraception sort of like our Highway Patrolmen do about speeding. There is no formal law that states that he patrolman should allow us 10 mph above the limit before issuing a ticket. But the practice is allowed in order to maintain control and effectiveness when confronted with real problems like drunk driving. Is the law being ignored because it is unenforceable? Absolutely! Are those of us who go a little faster than the limit criminals? Absolutely not!
I write this in the defense of my religion, which is just and related to the spirit. It is definitely not meant to defend those men in charge who use the church to further a warped political agenda!
Mr. Toohill, I appreciate your earned-rewards-of-labor theory, and I agree it’s a somewhat subtle point. But in point of fact, the financial transaction in employer group insurance – the insurance premium – is paid by the employer, not the employee. The benefits are negotiated by the employer, not the employee. The carrier is chosen by the employer, not the employee. And so on.
The underlying social contract goes something like this: I, the employee, agree to let you, the employer, pay me less in take-home pay than you would otherwise. In return, you, the employer, will pay for insurance benefits that would be unattainable to me as a single consumer.
MR. Pauwels. A very Republican response indeed. Employees with good union rep. have a big say so in their health care coverage benefit. Aside from that, what is unchristian about giving the employee more input as to that coverage. The Catholic heirarchy(sp?)
and the Rebublicans seem to have a lot in common these days including in many cases anti-unionism. But I digress. Employee benefits as part of a compensation package are earned and owned by the employee as a matter of law. The concept that the health beneft is something less would not hold up in any court of competent jurisdiction in these United States. OH! and by the way coverage of choice, REAL choice, FREE choice in the FREE MARKET (heaven forbid that individuals would have such freedom)will be available when the new Health Care law takes effect in 2014! (European’s, Canadian’, and Socialists OH MY!)
One last point here to clarify if I must. The Bishops are very inconsistent in ther retoric on very human matters. Where were the letters and wholesale outcry when Bush took this country into an unjust war, AS DETERMINED BY BLESSED PAUL II???