Contraception

[_Bob Loblaw]

Bob, does it bother you at all that the church in question has a male clergy (one who do not marry or father children) and that all these decisions made about women's health issues are made by a single elderly male who does not go with the majority of what the membership (especially women) want?

Of course it does. But it's their religion, not mine.

The women have no voice in this belief. In fact, they reject it by disobeying it at a rate of 98%.

I would encourage Catholics to reject that belief, but I wouldn't expect the church to support them in disobeying.

Why is the voice of one man (and those men who support him) more important than the voice of the ninety and nine?

If one person is asked to give up freedom of conscience, I would support that person against the 99, unless there was a compelling reason to do so. Obviously, the courts think that providing birth control is a compelling reason to override religious liberty. I don't agree, but I can live with it.

[_beastie]

Here's another reason it's not "that simple". Hormonal contraceptive is also used to treat real, painful medical conditions that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. My daughter has used bc from a young age due to that very reason. Yet if I worked for a university that is affiliated with the Catholic church, not fully funded by said church, my daughter could not have access to that medication unless I could afford to pay the full price for it outside of insurance.

That's just discrimination. A medication used to treat female disorders being prohibited by insurance due to the dictates of the Catholic church would not be available to those who need it except at a greater financial burden.

[_MeDotOrg]

If I own a business and I'm a Christian Scientist, do I have the right to NOT carry insurance because I don't believe in medicine?

If I'm Buddhist or Amish, do I have the right to refuse any accommodation to any employee who is in the National Guard because I don't believe in killing?

[_just me]

Any American that pays taxes pays for Military households to have healthcare. That healthcare provides contraceptives.

beastie, you beat me to the point that contraceptives are used for diseases and ailments that have little to do with preventing pregnancy.

If it was up to the Catholic nuns this dispute would already be over. They agreed with the compromise.

So, really, what is wrong with the bishops? Seems like this is more about power over women than anything.

[_Analytics]

This is an important issue for me, not because it involves religion but because it involves a First Amendment right. I think the Catholic church is dead wrong about contraception, but then I'm not a Catholic. I know I'm drawing a hard line here, and it has absolutely nothing to do for me with women's issues. I would feel the same if they were forcing BYU to serve coffee or JWs to say the pledge of allegiance.

The Constitution restricts Congress from creating a state religion, and it gives individuals the right to practice their religion. It does not give any rights to any churches, including the Catholic Church.

Catholics have the right to practice their religion; if they don’t want to take birth control, the government won’t force them. But there is nothing in the constitution that gives a church the right to offer insurance that doesn’t meet the minimum requirements of what employer-sponsored health insurance provides. If the church doesn’t want to offer health insurance coverage to its employees, it doesn’t have to.

Seriously, does their argument make sense? They don’t want to offer insurance coverage that pays for birth control because by doing so, they’d be indirectly financing something they disagree with. But the same exactly thing would happen if they give their employees paychecks, which they use to go purchase birth control. Why is it wrong to indirectly fund birth control trough insurance, but perfectly fine to indirectly fund birth control through a paycheck?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Here's another reason it's not "that simple". Hormonal contraceptive is also used to treat real, painful medical conditions that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. My daughter has used bc from a young age due to that very reason. Yet if I worked for a university that is affiliated with the Catholic church, not fully funded by said church, my daughter could not have access to that medication unless I could afford to pay the full price for it outside of insurance.

That's simply not true. Catholic-affiliated universities and charities cover contraceptives that are needed for medical issues, such as your daughter. Here's Sandra Fluke talking about Georgetown: "A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown's insurance, because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy."

That's just discrimination. A medication used to treat female disorders being prohibited by insurance due to the dictates of the Catholic church would not be available to those who need it except at a greater financial burden.

Except it's not true.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The Constitution restricts Congress from creating a state religion, and it gives individuals the right to practice their religion. It does not give any rights to any churches, including the Catholic Church.

How do you distinguish between a church and its individual members? Can you require something of all members that you can't require of an individual? This seems like a distinction without a difference.

Catholics have the right to practice their religion; if they don’t want to take birth control, the government won’t force them. But there is nothing in the constitution that gives a church the right to offer insurance that doesn’t meet the minimum requirements of what employer-sponsored health insurance provides. If the church doesn’t want to offer health insurance coverage to its employees, it doesn’t have to.

It does, unless it reduces all employees to part time.

Seriously, does their argument make sense? They don’t want to offer insurance coverage that pays for birth control because by doing so, they’d be indirectly financing something they disagree with. But the same exactly thing would happen if they give their employees paychecks, which they use to go purchase birth control. Why is it wrong to indirectly fund birth control trough insurance, but perfectly fine to indirectly fund birth control through a paycheck?

You don't see a distinction? Hmm. To me it would be like an employer saying, "As part of your compensation, I'm providing free uniforms," and another saying, "I'm giving you $50 a week extra to spend as you'd like; I'd prefer if you spent it on work clothes, but it's up to you."

[_Bob Loblaw]

By the way, none of this would even be an issue if we had a single-payer system.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Any American that pays taxes pays for Military households to have healthcare. That healthcare provides contraceptives.

I have no problem with that.

beastie, you beat me to the point that contraceptives are used for diseases and ailments that have little to do with preventing pregnancy.

And the Catholic church covers those uses.

If it was up to the Catholic nuns this dispute would already be over. They agreed with the compromise.

So, really, what is wrong with the bishops? Seems like this is more about power over women than anything.

I'm not defending the Catholic church's choices and beliefs, only their right to follow their consciences.

[_just me]

You don't see a distinction? Hmm. To me it would be like an employer saying, "As part of your compensation, I'm providing free uniforms," and another saying, "I'm giving you $50 a week extra to spend as you'd like; I'd prefer if you spent it on work clothes, but it's up to you."

The analogy doesn't work, though.

It's more like this:

Option 1: As part of your benefits we offer a health insurance option that includes the government mandated contraception coverage.

Option 2: As part of your benefits we offer a health insurance option that will not cover contraceptives for any reason. You will have to cover that from the money paid to you (by us) in your paycheck.


Either way, the Catholic employer is funding the use of contraceptives indirectly.