just me wrote:Any American that pays taxes pays for Military households to have healthcare. That healthcare provides contraceptives.
I have no problem with that.
But why doesn't the Catholic church have a problem with it? They are indirectly paying for contraceptives.
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.
That appears to be hypocritical of them. It makes me think something more is at play, like beastie suggested.
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.
A right which each individual still has. They are already indirectly funding contraceptives. They aren't complaining about it. Why is this so different to the bishops? Why do the nuns agree with it and the bishops?
I know you are not trying to defend the religion. However, if that is the reason being used to try to restrict access to contraceptives *I* would like to know the real reasons behind it. The hypocrisy and dissent within the church over contraceptive use is important to me, too.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
just me wrote:But why doesn't the Catholic church have a problem with it? They are indirectly paying for contraceptives.
Beats me. I'm not Catholic.
That appears to be hypocritical of them. It makes me think something more is at play, like beastie suggested.
Why is that hypocritical? There's a difference between elective contraception and medically necessary treatment.
A right which each individual still has. They are already indirectly funding contraceptives. They aren't complaining about it. Why is this so different to the bishops? Why do the nuns agree with it and the bishops?
I know you are not trying to defend the religion. However, if that is the reason being used to try to restrict access to contraceptives *I* would like to know the real reasons behind it. The hypocrisy and dissent within the church over contraceptive use is important to me, too.
That I can't answer. My feelings on the Catholic church's record on a lot of issues is pretty close to Stephen Fry's:
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
beastie wrote: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.
Georgetown also provides bc for its employees, so that may not be the best example. And even there it appears to be an uphill battle for some:
At some schools, students say the rules are so stringent they have a hard time getting coverage even if they need birth control pills for strictly medical reasons.
One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary.
At some schools, students say the rules are so stringent they have a hard time getting coverage even if they need birth control pills for strictly medical reasons.
One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary.
Georgetown has said that this case (Sandra Fluke's friend) was a mistake on the part of the insurance company, which was rectified when the university was made aware of it.
I hate feeling like I have to defend a religion.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Bob Loblaw wrote: Georgetown has said that this case (Sandra Fluke's friend) was a mistake on the part of the insurance company, which was rectified when the university was made aware of it.
I hate feeling like I have to defend a religion.
My mistake, then. I suggest all female employees of Catholic institutions simply claim to have severe cramps or heavy bleeding, which are also a real medical condition alleviated by bc, in order to get coverage.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Bob Loblaw wrote:By the way, none of this would even be an issue if we had a single-payer system.
A single-payer system would most likely be financed the way Social Security is, with a payroll tax levied against both employers and employees. If the Catholic Church feels its religious liberties are being trampled by paying for contraceptive benefits in the open market, why would it be okay paying for contraceptive benefits in a single-payer system?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Analytics wrote:A single-payer system would most likely be financed the way Social Security is, with a payroll tax levied against both employers and employees. If the Catholic Church feels its religious liberties are being trampled by paying for contraceptive benefits in the open market, why would it be okay paying for contraceptive benefits in a single-payer system?
There is an inherent understanding that when we pay taxes, we may be financing things we don't agree with (wars if you're a liberal, feeding the hungry if you're a conservative). That's a different ball of wax than dictating to an institution what kinds of things it must or must not provide. I'm sure the Catholic church would not be happy with a single-payer solution, but it would not encroach on first amendment rights any more than any other taxes do.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
just me wrote: *I* would like to know the real reasons behind it. The hypocrisy and dissent within the church over contraceptive use is important to me, too.
It is based on two things:
1) Catholic teaching on the unitive aspect of marriage. 2) Hormone based ABC is an abortificient.
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Drifting wrote:Contraception is a tithing suppressant...
*snort*
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
