E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThis week GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney angrily decreed that the Obama administration's health plan to cover birth control as an "assault on religion." Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum issued press releases decrying the insensitivity of the government’s religious freedom.
But, I invite you to envision a different scenario: Imagine that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is based in Brooklyn, NY, creates a printing company that happily employs people from many faiths and cultural backgrounds. The company’s sole task is to print all the Witness literature that its followers distribute door-to-door all over the world. That literature clearly states the Jehovah’s Witnesses adamant opposition to blood transfusion. Then the federal government then issues a national set of minimal standards which all companies operating as public entities must provide as part of the health insurance coverage they offer.
The Governing Body is outraged because on that list are blood transfusions. They issue a statement accusing the President of trying to crush religious liberty by forcing their printing company, which employs many non-Jehovah’s witnesses, to cover transfusions.
In that instance, would politicians be rushing to slam the health care plan on the basis of religious freedom? Would anyone in the media be sympathetic if the entire leadership of the Jehovah’s Witnesses said they would not budge an inch in including coverage of blood transfusions at their printing company no matter what government, doctors or even their own employees believe that ought to have covered? I doubt it.
White House announcement on birth control coverage expected Friday
And yet, this is exactly the reaction that has greeted the pronouncement by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that they feel persecuted by the inclusion of birth control in the list of covered benefits that they need to provide when they operate institutions in the public arena.
Keep in mind the factual evidence for the value of contraception in preventing unwanted pregnancies, abortionsand even diseases such as endometriosis is not in dispute. Disregard the fact that the majority of states already require contraceptive coverage by entities operated by the Catholic Church. Ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of sexually active Catholic women ignore the church position on contraception and, following their conscience, use it regularly. Somehow making birth control affordable violates some unfathomable view of government-church-employer relations.
How did the imposition of an insurance mandate on companies operating in the public sphere become an act of religious intolerance? Don't those who do not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church but work in companies, hospitals, nursing homes or hospices have any rights?
Should we defend the exclusion of safe and effective blood transfusions, contraception, cures derived from embryonic stem cells or whatever else a religion may deem immoral from secular, public programs even if their employees do not care about or agree with the religions teachings and do want the coverage?
It creates a lot of concern when those who operate public institutions decry the federal government’s mandate to pay for birth control. But the victims of the war are not being properly identified. By fighting back against the coverage of contraception the Bishops have declared war – on everyone else’s moral and religious views who happen to work for them.
What do you think of the Catholic Bishops' position? Tell us on Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
There are other ways to prevent pregnancies and abortions than just birth control just as there are other methods to treat endometriosis besides birth control pills. Balancing the rights of religious groups as well as well as the rights of women is a delicate task, but religious rights are protected by the Constitution, a right to universal healthcare is not.
In almost any case someone can find an example to try to make their point (such as your Jehovah’s Witness example) but in your case I think that it is rather poorly done. There is a difference between life-saving methods and free birth control.
Even further, your argument that 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control is dubious. I would venture to say that 99 percent of Christians have told at least one lie in their lives, should we use that at justification to get rid of the 9th Commandment against bearing false witness? Maybe we can do a poll and see how many people have ever stolen something and use that as justification to get rid of the 8th Commandment ("Thou shall not steal") or maybe even to get rid of criminal laws against stealing too while we're at it. Just because a number of people have done it doesn't make it right, or are you only into ethics if they are your sense of ethics and not others who disagree with you?
The government does not have a right to tell me that what I believe is wrong and that I have to go against my religious beliefs because it says so. There are plenty of ways for women to get birth control and if they want to work someplace that will provide it for free then don't work for a Catholic institution.
actually -- nearly all methods of treatment for endometriosis result in birth control because the goal is to stop estrogen. The pill, the mirena coil, lupron, visanne... they're all forms of birth control used to stop the woman from ovulating. There's some experimental research about using other methods, such as statins and dopamine agonists, but that's just in one or two trials and can hardly be considered mainstream. Google it yourself. My wife has suffered with endo, and we've tried nearly everything option out there. It's a very painful disease to have, and you want to take away the only treatments that seem to work because of religion? That's not a very "love-thy-neighbor" approach now is it?
The government is insisting that anyone who wants to use these methods should be able to. All you devout catholics and members of other faiths that don't believe it can simply opt out of asking your doctor for a prescription. It really is that simple.
There is no sane reason to go and create a whole bunch of different basic healthcare plans. It would just increase costs to the consumer.
And NO ONE is forcing Catholic women to use contraceptives contrary to GOP propaganda.
Catholic women can still make their own choice about contraceptives.
It's that simple.
You are an idiot. Anything the right wing says to hate the government for you do it.
1. It is not logical or right for you to say the government is forcing you to pay for something you don't believe should be done, but you have no problems forcing your belief down other peoples throats.
2. Just how did it come about that a group of childless (sic) men with arguablly no sexual experience become the arbiters of what all women under their dominion should do with ther bodies.
3. There is no rule yet. It is a prelimenary rule that will not go into effect for at least another year, after implementin procedures have been developed to reconcile these differences in opinion.
Orphanages and children's work houses would be in every town if contraception was practiced.
Women are NOT vessels for countless pregnancies that they cannot support or care for.....that is why there is HEALTH CARE for women.
"The government does not have a right to tell me that what I believe is wrong and that I have to go against my religious beliefs because it says so. There are plenty of ways for women to get birth control and if they want to work someplace that will provide it for free then don't work for a Catholic institution."
By the same tolen that you make claim of concerning government and insurance..do you see any difference in the Catholic Church telling its followers what they should or should not be doing with their lives...considering that this same church has condoned for years the doings of those priest that have abused children and hidden it .? How can you or anyone follow a church that has for years condoned and hidden this kind of behavior...then condem our government for wanting to protect women ?
A member of the Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints through his religious prophet's teaching believes that polygamy is required to reach heaven. So using your example, the government has no business preventing Fundamental "Mormon's" from plural marriage. The same can be said for Muslims. Anything can become a matter of faith. Drug use, pedophilia, human sacrifice, etc etc etc.
tazdez: where is the logic in your supposed "victimization"? by requiring anyone connected with a Catholic institution (not a CHURCH, mind you, but an institution in the public sphere) to adhere to CATHOLIC rules, you lose any moral ground you had. There is no right to force your religious views on others. Period. It's just patently absurd to argue about "other" methods of birth control, when over 98% of CATHOLIC women use the very birth control you're arguing against. Your stand is not humane, it's not decent and it sure as heck is not religious "liberty".
Your arguement does not hold water. It is the Church and the religious right that is trying to tell me and millions of other Catholics, Christians, Jews, etc. what is right and wrong...their gospel.
If you seriously believe that there are truly other means of preventing pregnancy, then you are even more naive than most teenagers. To deny those who believe in these methods the right to have them provided at a reasonable cost because they do not believe in them is morally wrong.
I do not know if you are male or female. However, I urge you to see the both sides of the issue. No one is denying the Church their beliefs. Perhaps the Church is fearful because it knows that millions of Catholics do not follow their mandate due to our belief in another Catholic mandate, Free Will.
I'm offended that MSNBC runs these Left wing, anti-religion articles. Since when should I be forced to cover the cost of contraceptives and abortifacients for orthers?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -1st ammendment
Dear Mr. Art PHD............
You may be proud of the faux analogy you put forth, but you and the entire media, for that matter, are missing the point. It's not just a Catholic issue. I am a conservative, Christian and politically Independent, and let me give YOU an analogy.
If I owned a widget factory employing 150 people, for example, I would immediately stop providing health insurance for my employees under Obama's healthcare provision that says that any healthcare insurance I provide must include birth control benefits as has been discussed of late. I'm not Catholic, but I would be completely supportive of their stance and against Obamacare in general. Our dumbass Community Organizer in the White House has finally stumbled into yet another pile of sh*t, and I don't think even he can orate himself out of this mess. There just ain't enough teleprompters in the world for that!
To..Aaron """
If you're so offended what are you doing in an MSNBC comments section...other than flaming
Why is this getting political when the majority women want to have access to birth control pill. How far do this religious people want to go to control women? We are not commodity. we have our own decision. we can say no when we don't want to. If catholic churches would like to teach gods teaching, they need to to do it in their churches not in business places.
If churches involved in private businesses, they need to follow the federal government policy like everyone else. Since they like to aqua-re money and power, instead of provide God's teachings then they need to provide necessary health coverage for their women employees. It is up to the women to say yes or no to the pill. What is wrong with you people.
As a Catholic, I disagree with the position these bishops have taken against women's rights. No one is forcing anyone to use contraception or abortion.
However, if you want to run a business, outside of the church, and provide health insurance for the workers in that business, you can not discriminate against women in picking and choosing which health care you will provide. If they do not like secular law, then stay out of the secular world.
When you insist that religious law trumps secular law, you are opening a door you do not want to touch. By your reasoning, then sharia law trumps secular law. If a religion supports throwing a living wife on her husband's funeral pyre, then that is OK? If Rastafarians say that smoking marijuana is part of their religion, then we need to let them smoke it anywhere they want?
No this is not in the constitution. The constitution was a document written several hundred years ago; it does not include lots of things, such as contraception, trains, or rockets to the moon. Strict constitutionalists are crazy; according to the constitution, women have no rights and slavery was legal. Our laws change with time; anything else would be stupid.
This is not a war on religion. This is a war by religion against our legal system. If they want to play politics, lets start with eliminating their tax free status. Why should my tax dollars support an institution I disagree with?
If they do not respect the laws in this country, why should anyone respect their 'laws'? Just because they have molested little children for thousands of years does not make it right.
To..Steve""""
Good point..
Your contribution completely ignore that fact that the mandate to provide insurance that includes birth control coverage DOES NOT require anyone to USE birth control. My religion is against killing people so I guess I can refuse to pay taxes that are used to fund the military................right?
Please.....if it is a public company with religious affiliations... you cannot tell me that rights I have under the constitution are not valid there. Even the most religious admit that the vast majority of Catholics don't even follow the outdated dogma of their church. This is a non-issue.....the right has run out of the economic issue.....so their fool candidates latch onto this. Pitiful and disgraceful.
You can disagree with my opinion all you want, but why do so many people as part of their argument decide it is time to place the "child molester" card. If it was a part of this discussion fine, but it is not, it is just a way to take a dig at people you don't agree with.
People make it sound like I'm saying that women shouldn't have access to birth control. That's not my point nor is it the point of most people against this rule. The point is that the Catholic church (and many other religious faiths) do not feel that they should be made to pay for something that is against their doctrine just because the government thinks it should.
Every business that offers health insurance to it's employees which includes prescription costs does not have the right to say what is covered and what is not covered. Only their insurance carrier can decide that.
All this says, is if you hire employees and provide insurance coverage, you as the employer can not cherry pick what is covered and what is not covered. If all the other employers have to do that, why should they be exempt?
Oh, and I just love how the GOP right are talking about First Amendment and Religious freedom while in previous speeches and posts they are upset that there are other faiths in the USA besides Christianity.
The government has its tail in a knot. It will not fund Planned Parenthood to perform abortions but it is ordering businesses associated with religion to fund contraceptives, it will not pay planned parenthood for.
There is a simple answer. The government asks that a rider be provided for contraceptives and the government pays the small fee for that coverage for those who want it. Men don't want that coverage. Women over the child bearing age don't want it therefore only a small number want that coverage.
Stop paying unions from the federal budget, cut congressional salaries and staffs and get back the $500,000,000 Obama sent to the Finnish car company in Finland to make electric cars.
Collect the WWII loans that France, Russia and China owes the U.S. renegotiate the job killing reduction in tariffs and start using hydrogen as a fuel to cut oil imports.
Amunaka
Maybe the reason Beangrinder is in a MSNBC column is not only does he want to know what the opposition
is thinking , but also he wants to educate you as well ! This is the same reason that I read the New York Times,
even though it makes my fingers burn because of its brilliant RED color.
Tazdev
You have a right to your opinion as does everyone. But, you should be aware that it is narrow minded and discriminatory based on information that is incorrect. The government is not forcing the Catholic Church to provide birth control. It is mandating that all businesses providing health care coverage for their employees include coverage for birth control as an option, even those businesses affiliated with the church. There's nothing wrong with that. Some Republicans and Catholic Bishops are disputing this because they are also, like you, narrow minded and discriminatory.
This policy does not affect anyone's right to make a choice. But if allowed to prevail despite constitutional rights, the attitude of the Catholic Bishops (and misguided Republicans) would take away the rights of all employees of church affiliated businesses. That would be wrong.
While growing up I was schooled in Christianity and was taught that God gave humanity free will because he wanted to be obeyed and loved by choice (don't we all?). The Catholic Church would do well to follow that example. Teach your doctrine, but leave people free to choose to follow it. You're free to pray for their souls if they don't. We'd have a lot less conflict in the world if all religious people would respond to issues of importance to them in this way.
When Viagra came along, insurance companies covered it from the get-go but didn't cover the 'pill'. Then they got a huge backlash and had to start covering the 'pill'.
When are politicians going to stop using womens-health for their own political agendas. Women vote, and they vote in larger numbers than do men.
@tazdev
The mandate isn't an arbitrary decision; it's based on scientific research, as any policy should be. We shouldn't selectively enact sound policy only when it's convenient for religious groups.
Words cannot even come close to expressing my sense of violation from having been brought up Catholic. For one thing, I knew I wasn't wanted long before I knew how it was that I had come to be. The fifth of eight children from parents who should never have been permitted to breed.
newman and RJones - Sounds like you two may be from a different era (the New York Times is "red"?? collecting war reparations from WWII???)
Maybe it's time to move into the 21st century.
Fox News commentators must be proud of socially engineering this issue in manipulating church leaders to justify taking away health care for their women.
Today it's birth control and tomorrow it's abortions. Don't think it won't be so.
wmoore-1346700 I don't know why you need to start with the name calling (which always tends to weaken one's argument from the start). I don't hate the government. I proudly served in its armed forces. I'm also not forcing anyone else to adopt my views, but isn't forcing me to go against my religious beliefs forcing someone else's beliefs down my throat?
Marv Leit I am far from narrow minded (again using insults is the sign of a weak argument). The requirement for coverage of contraceptives is not an option, it is a mandate. Making the Catholic church or its entities pay for the insurance coverage for contraceptive care is in essence making them pay for contraceptives. You mention constitutional rights. I know where in the Constitution my right to freely exercise my religious beliefs is locate. Where exactly is the right to free contraceptives in that document?
Noah R I would like to know exactly what scientific research you are talking about. As for your mention of "sound policy" there is nothing sound about the public policy known as Obamacare.
Tazdev,
You appear to be a thoughtful poster. It would be helpful if you would suggest an alternative to the proposed policy that would not be discriminatory to the female employees of Catholic Church-operated businesses.
Tazdev - I have a hard time understanding your argument. You say that the gov't is forcing you to go against your religious beliefs. How? By saying that if a church chooses to run a public business, they should be required to follow the same rules as other non religious businesses? How does this affect you and your beliefs? I also do not see how anyone elses beliefs are being forced down your throat. Are you being forced to take contraceptives? If you work for any public company (not self employed) chances are you are already participating in an insurance plan that pays for women's contraceptives. At age 47, I have not in my life worked for a company that did not pay for my contraceptives, or any other part of my reproductive health. Yes, this is a mandate that anyone who runs a public business and provides insurance for their employees must not be able to remove certain options that other companies must include.
tazdev, I'm talking about research done on birth control methods to assess the reduction in STI transmission for some and unintended pregnancies. It never has been an issue of debate. There's so much research on this stuff that I'm not citing any specific study, but rather any and all studies on the issue. OK, so it appears that I can't post links. I'll try putting it in quotes
""
""
Those are two bona fide scientific studies. Skip to the findings section.
""
""
These two are more human-readable. They sum of the results of many different studies which they then cite. If you are interested, you can then check those studies, of which there are more then 40.
You must have 10 Children
The Catholic Church has been and always will be about manipulation and control - going all the way back to that delightful family of murderers the Borgias.
What better way to keep people enslaved to the will of The Church; what better way to keep young people from ultimately realizing what a crock of horse ..... The Church is preaching than by "helping them" get pregnant and weighed down with the responsibilities of parenthood - than by taking advantage of their fatal weakness of being ingenuous and way too trusting of authority figures prancing around in antiquated costumes than by insisting that they avoid contraception - knowing full well no matter what - being human and young, they will not avoid sex!
It truly is a perfect solution to keeping the so called faithful enslaved to the almost demonic and dictatorial edicts of a church that has so much heart that it allowed countless children to be raped and covered it up up to the highest levels - even his Popeness - si that they could keep up the phony image of righteousness and propriety The Church purports to claim as its birthright.
The Church, the Catholic Church. never has been and never will be a representative of God's will here on earth; it is actually a much more perfect embodiment of that other guy's will, the one from the hot place's.
I was born catholic, yet I have to agree. They didn't call the pope the beast of rome for nothing.
Many catholic women, (reports usually say a large majority) already choose birth control.
Religious freedom is freedom to worship as you please. It is not freedom to enforce a policy born of your silly superstitions on to your employees. Just as it is not freedom to impose laws born of your superstitions on to civil matters.
Tax the Church. And tax the evangelical mega churches as well - all the churches where the clergy live significantly better lives than the members.
You acknowledge religious freedom and then mock religion. No bias in you or your comment, is there. This whole argument has nothing to do with Catholic institutions forcing their beliefs on their employees. It has everything to do with the government telling Catholic administrators in Catholic institutions that THEY must go against the teachings of their faith by OFFERING birth control.
Go ahead - tax the church. If it has to close schools, hospitals and orphanages that are supported by donations from Catholics as a result, YOU and those like you can pick up the slack and pay more in taxes too. Those who benefited from those services will have to go somewhere.
In the early 19th century, Catholics coming to America had no choice but to attend public schools that were decidedly anti-Catholic. The church asked the state to remove anti-Catholic bias from its classrooms and it refused. In response, Catholics founded their own schools, and have been paying for their schools AND public schools ever since. Maybe the way to address that little bit of anti-Catholic bias would be to have the state reimburse Catholics for 150 years worth of tax contributions that went to public schools. You agree? I thought not.
And how interestingly you have proved this statement.
The men in skirts who brought you the Spanish Inquisition are at it again - trying to control what I do in the bedroom even if I am not of their flock. Ii always thought that the First Amendment would offer me protection in case of a threat like this.
Ladies, there is an ancient Greek drama that provides some creative ways to convince controlling men to back off - check out LYSISTRATA - it might prove very useful.
I'm more or less undecided on the issue at hand. But perhaps if you dislike those controlling men so much, you shouldn't volunteer to work for them? Food for thought.
and perhaps if the Catholic church dislikes providing comprehensive health coverage so much, they shouldn't be getting involved with hospitals and businesses.
No doubt that's an option they're considering. Thanks, government.
I don't think anyone is telling the Catholic bishops they must USE birth control (although some of them probably should look into it).
You can't say you don't think. You do think.
The "indignant" Republicans couldn't really give one big rats A---- about whether the Church should supply contraceptive insurance for the BUSINESS establishments they operate. They're just having a hard time finding something to attack Obama on, so this will do for now. Why wasn't the "CHURCH" so outraged when their Priests were molesting little boys?
It baffles me beyond all belief that this has become such a hot potato. I have many catholic friends who use birth control. They have a very strong belief in God, and believe that it is not a sin to do so. How can it be alright for the Catholic leadership to not provide such a basic commonsense, staple in most married peoples life. As many people know, not many other methods are reliable to prevent yourself from having a family so large that you cannot provide for them. This ruling applies to places that employ many many non catholic people. And it is my bet that even the Catholics that work at these institutions are going to take advantage of birth control. Let the church be allowed to restrict their churches from providing birth control, but make them provide it for hospital and university employees. It seems so simple to me.
Sadly, I would be very afraid of repercussions if I were a Catholic employee who took advantage of these offerings.
@7.1 - HIPPA? Why would an employer even know what medical services are used by an employee, unless that employee needs to use FMLA or the ADA. Maybe the church wants to not even hire women, which would avoid having to cover most forms of birth control. It is interesting to read their justifications so far.
Churches and their employees are already exempted from this law. All the law is saying is that, for those who are working for a church-AFFILIATED entity, the employer (the religious-affiliated charity, hospital, etc.) must provide to employees the same rights to healthcare insurance benefits that apply to all other employers, except for the church itself as an employer. There are many employees who work for church-affiliated entities who are not of the religion of the church. Also, if a religion practices animal sacrifice, it would be illegal because it violates animal cruelty laws since these laws apply to all and, in this case, no religion is exempt. Many states already have these mandates in their healthcare insurance laws, including New York, Arizona, Michigan, etc.
Thank you again for another faith based discussion of the Catholic Church.
This is all really friggin weird?
Bishops...A bunch of grumpy old men. Don't have a clue about life!
Maybe if they would get laid once in a while. Oh wait.....
First of all I am Catholic. Unwanted pregnancy is socioeconomically too expensive for any person especially for the young and unmarried females. The Church should understand this fact. After all some of the priests and bishops either clandestinely or openly have girl friends except the multitudes of them who are pedophiles as we have all known recently. When the Catholic church immersed itself in pedophilia, it lost everything including the respect of a religious organization. Pedophilia is a much more serious offense than contraception. The Catholic church should continue to fast and mourn for their sin of pedophilia because that is a serious sin against the children kept under their charge. Jesus Christ warned against any person that would harm "any of these little ones" and yet the Catholic Church did not hid.
Why is the church raising this issue of contraception during the campaign season? The Catholic Church wants to give campaign ammunition to the Catholic candidate - Santorum and thereby assist him in the election. Catholic women including my wife are all using one type of contraception or the other. The priests and bishops know this. What a hypocrisy! The Catholic authorities who are raising this dust have political agenda to assist Santorum. Devoted Catholics like myself know that this is an outright hypocrisy.
The Catholic Church should continue to mourn and confess to GOD for the sexual abuse of innocent children and stop talking about contraception. According to Romney, these are the things we talk quietly in the bed rooms and not loud.
This only became an issue a couple of weeks ago when the Obama administration changed their mind. I think they are doing this to take away support from Romney and help Santorum. They knew Catholics would flock to Santorum because it is ridiculous to force Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives and abortifacients. The respect for the act of love and creation of life is too fundamental for many Catholics. They view Romney as a bigger threat than Santorum.
They will waive it soon.
Storm
The religious right had already put its support behind Santorum, it was even before his child got sick. Seems the religious right and a lot of conservatives don't trust Romney's LDS faith. So it's not a Obama issue, it's a Romney's faith issue.
Actually, it's neither, it's a catholic church issue.
Santorum can say he believes contraception is immoral, but it is up to the states to decide. But his wife had a medical procedure to save her life, which resulted in delivery of a 20-week fetus, which is called ---? But I'm pretty sure he doesn't support that for others. I think his views are not credible.
Praying for a change of heart in this country to honor and cherish the act of love and life at all stages.
I think by my alias my stance on birth control should be obvious...
it is becoming the root of all evils.
For crying out loud, the mandate just orders contraceptives be made AVAILABLE in an insurance plan.
I mean, jiminy crickets, if you don't trust your followers to actually follow you in what you believe, perhaps you are not the one who should be leading..???
Yes AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE. That means the employer, in this case a Catholic institution, has to pay the cost of those contraceptives despite their religious beliefs and that is unfair and unconstitutional.
Does anyone remember how many side effects OCPs have. Have many of you sat with a young woman bleeding and in severe depression because of having an abortion when she was not willing, but forced by parents. I have and I do know the pain of losing a child from a blood clot . Please consider that the church has rules for a reason. Also consider what the Catholic church does for these girls and women. Yes they take care of them financially and emotionally.
As for pedophilia, I was a victim at the hand of a relative. The church has played a very important part in my recovery. I am sorry for the victims of priests, ministers and others, however please note that the church at this point is now making amends as Christ would have asked.
They don't want to pay taxes. Most churches (and a lot of religious schools, etc) seriously underpay their staff. Yet they don't want to pay for birth control for those who want or need it. Yet they can afford high price lawyers; they seem like very selfish people.
and self centered.
Not one post here offers a coherent counter argument to the author's Jehovah Witness example. I think that argument is compelling, unless all such Catholic operated institutions suddenly employ only fellow Catholics and insist upon employment agreements accepting their preferred position.
The JW example probably sufficiently proves that many people protesting the law are hypocrites. But it's not a particularly compelling argument for allowing government to dictate to employers what kinds of medical procedures they cover. Why is that government's job, rather than the free market's? If the JWs refuse to cover blood transfusions for their employees for any reason (religious or otherwise), then maybe that should be *their* choice. If people don't like it, they can refuse to work there. Or they can work there and pay for their own blood transfusions, or they can get their own insurance.
Are the Catholics' beliefs about birth control and the JW's beliefs about blood transfusions stupid? Absolutely. But this is America. We're known for letting stupid people be as stupid as they want to be. I don't know that I want to live in a country where the government feels free to force me to make good decisions. To me, the debate isn't about religion, it's about something much more important...freedom.
I wish I knew why both republicans and democrats are so keen on giving the Government more power over our lives. I really do.
Your definition of freedom is limited to freedom of the employer to not cover workers who may want a certain benefit generally available to other workers in other industries. Yes the Catholic church is pretty much an international industry when you total it's cumulative wealth, businesses, properties, etc. etc.
Of course you point out there is the freedom of workers to move to another job or not take a church affiliated job in the first place.
Your definition of freedom is quite specifically aimed at protecting the "free market' from "outrageous" obligations to workers who want to control the size of their families; so I guess you are also against maternity leave and maternity benefits which will certainly affect the bottom line of your business..
That would be illegal and discriminating.
@OBXRon - I'm not against birth control, maternity leave, or any other benefits many companies *choose* to offer their employees. I'm against the broadening government powers because people refuse to take responsibility for their own decisions.
My definition of "freedom" isn't artificially limited...It's just the regular, normal definition of the word. I want to be free to offer my employees whatever terms and benefits I wish, and I want to be free to decline any offer of employment if their terms and benefits aren't acceptable to me. Government has no place in that equation except to ensure that both sides abide by the employment agreement.
If you don't believe in the mission, get another job. I wouldn't work somewhere I thought wasn't in line with my beliefs and values, and neither should any other thinking person.
Missing the point you are. We're talking here of Catholic run businesses that serve all sorts of people and employ all sorts of people. Those employees are not treated fairly when arbitrary and capricious Church attitudes limit their health insurance options. At some point, when the "mission" broadens into an "enterprise," then the general rules of fairness in the workplace must take precedence.
Yes, because jobs are so easy to find these days...
We don't have a constitutional right to a job with health care we like. My last job's health care option was $1600 per month...I'd take the catholic or JW plan over that any day. If your employer's crappy policy bothers you that much, opt out of employer insurance and get your own (which is what I've usually done), or find a different job, or pay for your own birth control/blood transfusion.
Just freaking amazing but not surprising ... I can see the Catholic church [and most churhes] has not yet extracted the foot out of their mouths and the candidates on the right just stuck theirs up their donkeys. What fools.
Do you have more than a 3rd grade education? You make about as much sense as my canary.
But contraception would mean fewer little boys for the Catholic Priests to choose from.
TeeHee
bahaha
Um, let me see, birth control prevents conception just like abortions end it; the fundamental belief of Catholicism, except in neo-American prostituted versions, abhors both, and Bishops, who are at the top of the Catholic Church nex to the Pope take a rigid stance against both. Who but a bunch of friggin abject morons would even be surprised or not get it. If you don't like it - don't call yourself a Catholic, and fight tooth and nail to keep government out of it! As for Bioethicists; most are atheists anyhow and so full of BS they see nothing wrong with euthanasia or cloning! Enough said.
Do you have any education? You sound like a parrot, poor canary.
In this case Ph.D is an acromym for Pathetical hubris. Dense
My church believes in polygamy: The government (Supremes) made it illegal. Why are some religious view OK and some not?
Can't wait until the point you just made here becomes more common in conversation...
Jeeeze ..the catholics are on a downward spiral do they really want to be behind yet another controversy...all it's gonna do is bring back the pedo priests as news again...how long did it take them to admit that Galileo was right some three, four hundred years or so ...their opening up a whole can of worms with this ...it's not going to bode well for the catholic church ...of course they'll probably get their way religious groups are exempt from from anti discrimination laws...
This is about applying the law equally, not about providing abortions or birth
control/contraception. Many states already have this same mandate in their
healthcare benefits that applies to all employers. The law says that, since
contraception is among the benefits of coverage of healthcare insurance, all
employers (with more than 50 employees) must provide health insurance to all
their employees (or pay a penalty) and since this law applies equally to all
employers, except for churches & other religious entities, it must apply
also to church-AFFILIATED entities such as religious-affiliated charities and
hospitals and their employees, who come from all backgrounds. Again, churches
are already exempted, but not their affiliated and associated entities. So, for
example, if a religion practices animal sacrifice, it would break the law
because of animal cruelty laws that apply equally to all, since there are no
exemptions for any religion in such cases. So since contraception/birth control
is a declared benefit of the new healthcare insurance law, all employers (above
50 employees) must provide those benefits to their employees and this would
apply to church-AFFILIATED entities (with more than 50 employees) such as
charities, hospitals, etc. All it does is provide the benefit to the employee of a church-affiliated employer. So if you're a Catholic, you may choose to follow your beliefs and never use that benefit.
How about instead of talking about applying the law equally we actually apply the Constitution and realize that the government cannot restrict or direct my right or the right of the Catholic Church or any other church to practice their faith the way they see fit, not the way the government sees fit. Who exactly gets to choose which of the beliefs of the Catholic faith its entities are allowed to practice? The issue is one of religious freedom and not requiring churches to pay for things that are against their faith.
Ultra right wing conservatives always fall back on "Old Knowledge". That's an oxymoron.
It is not well thought out knowledge, it is slanted, one sided and ultimately unfair.
Why do I have to believe what the Catholic church believes if I am employed by them? They employed me and as an American I have the liberty to choose any religion. If the Catholics employ you, you have that right no matter what religious affiliation you are or are not.
Romney and the rest are all pulpit pounders clamoring for "Their" religious beliefs but not religious freedom. THEY are the ones who stand in the way of America! Their short sighted thinking and old fashioned values get in the way of the main stream of America.
When Romney and rest start thinking like "They" are the ones who represent America, IT'S SCARY!
It's borders on Faschism!
You've got that backwards...YOU decide to be employed by Catholics, THEY get to decide what kinds of benefits they offer, and if you don't like it, you can get your own benefits or work somewhere else. Having the government force the Catholics to buy things for you is much closer to Fascism than allowing people and employers the freedom to make their own decisions.
Although I can certainly agree with you that most politicians on both sides of the aisle are ridiculously hypocritical in picking and choosing when freedom is important and when government needs to meddle in the lives of its citizens.
@jared
You are talking as if there were freedom of choice and as if the "free market" actually existed. You are using that mythology to confuse yourself into thinking that freedom of religion implies the freedom to impose ones own silly superstitions on employees, who, at the very least, exist in a semi-public realm.
Think of it this way: suppose your daughter or sister or whatever married a muslim then suddenly found herself subject to sharia law. And the american government allowed it, because, after all, she didn't have to marry a muslim. You would be singing a different tune, my friend.
Freedom of religion means the freedom to worship as you wish. It does not mean that you may use your crackpot beliefs to override civil law or public policy. Otherwise, Michael Vick could have started a religion and used the Sacrament of Dog Fight defense.
If the church insists on this path then I think the federal government should quit its Medicare and Medicaid funds from going to any religious based hospital corporations. Separation of church and state should be that complete separation just another radical idea from an old catholic nurse.
First, you misunderstand my argument: I said nothing about freedom of religion. I think a company should be able to limit health care options to their employees on any arbitrary factor they wish, be it religion, money, or a preference for words that have exactly 6 letters. It's their policy, and as long as they're forthcoming about it and don't try to trick anybody, it's none of the government's business.
As for your hypothetical scenario with my daughter, as long as my daughter was free to terminate her participation in sharia law at absolutely any time she wanted (as is the case with employment), and nothing illegal was going on, then the government has no business interfering in that either.
If my daughter chose to marry a Muslim man then she would have to live with the consequences of that choice. If someone chooses to work for a Catholic entity they need to deal with the consequences of that choice. If a non-Jewish person works for a local Synagog, they don't have the right to bring a ham sandwich with them for lunch if it violates the religious beliefs of their employer.
The RCC and Republicans are thumping their breasts again. Time to see what they really are. I'm Catholic and I believe in responsible family planning. Enough with the fill the pew mentality. Enough with controlling what women do with their bodies. Are women to be slaves to the men of this country? It's time to take a stand and tell these men to keep their you know what's locked up! Now, that's effective birth control.