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:
98 percent of Catholics practice birth control, rightfully ignoring what the Church is telling them.
This is a non-issue, and should go away. All this media coverage implies Catholics are stupid. We are not.
Maybe you haven't heard, but today we found out there were 8000 instances of child abuse covered up by the catholic church in Milwaukee alone. What would you call people who continue to support such an organization?
Of course there is a double standard, when the one doing the screaming is a well funded big big big church.
This whole debate is ridiculous. The vast majority of women, including Catholic women, are in favor of birth control being easily available. In addition to that, 28 states ALREADY have laws on the book that require all employers who offer prescription benefits to cover any and all legally written prescriptions. Most of them do not give Catholic hospitals and the like an "out." Where has the outrage over this been? This whole issue has been nothing more than a convenient way to protest something Obama has done. Nothing more. And as far as something being "mandated," why is it that no one complains that every state requires auto insurance to license a car? According to Boehner, the government has never required anyone to purchase anything. Oh, really? Hypocrites.
You make a good point about many states already doing this (assuming you're correct, I haven't bothered to look it up). That doesn't mean it's a good idea, but it does mean that the people at the top protesting it are doing so for politically convenient reasons.
But the auto insurance analogy is poor because you can choose to not have insurance as long as you choose not to drive.
The auto insurance analogy isn't altogether incorrect. In literal terms, you're right that you can choose not to drive. However, the facts of the real world are that in extremely few parts of the US is it really possible to get along well without a car. Large, Eastern central cities are the only real exception to this. Consequently, the majority of adults are effectively "required" to buy auto insurance. And the cost to the general population of non-insured motorists is far, far cheaper than the cost to us all of non-health insured people.
I agree there are some similarities. For that matter, I even agree that a health care mandate is a good idea in theory (not in the form the new health care law takes.) But I think there's a big philosophical difference between the government forcing you to buy insurance before granting you the *privilege* of driving and the government forcing you to buy health insurance or imposing a tax penalty.
The 28 states that do, give exemptions, etc. Check the USCCB website news.
I imagine the Catholic Church would take a different stand on birth control if the policy decisions were not made by celibate men.
Here's another way to look at this: The government pays Catholic hospitals billions and billions of dollars annually to care for patients. If the Catholic hospitals don't want to follow the govenments recommendations, then they can just opt out of government payments!! This is about as logical as the many arguments about women finding other means of getting birth control.
Many religious hospitals, not just Catholic FORCE their ideas on patients because they won't do certain things at their hospitals. Many patients are FORCED to go to these hospitals because their insurance tells them they are only covered at this hospital. Of course, these people could just go to another hospital and ge the treatment they want and pay CASH. This is just as logical as women getting birth control other than where they work.
So, PLEASE, give me a break. If Catholic hospitals don't like the government's rule, then STOP TAKING THE GOVERNMENT MONEY! There are many, many government rules already in place like they one they are proposing, so it isn't like this is something new; the government is finally getting a pair and saying that hospitals have to give complete healthcare to their patients and employees. It is extremely hypocritical to do otherwise, as these hospitals make a profit from government spending and at least some of it goes directly to be used by the Catholic church for their own religious goals. So, they need to "man up."
This is probably an old saw, and not that interesting an arguement, but do these Catholic institutions provide health coverage that includes ED treatements for unmarried men?
Ha! Good question!
The scenario you gave as an example with JW's would never fit. They do not "employ" people who are NOT JW's. Everyone who "works" at their headquarters (which is no longer in Brooklyn, NY) are JW's.
As for the birth control issue - Why can't ALL birth control be free?? Condoms, gel, foam, etc. Doesn't seem fair that only Rx &/or operations to prevent pregnancy would be free.
Did you not read the first post. It is a credible response by tazdev.
O.K mr or ms. catholic church lets do away with all abortions, all of them, and all birth control contraceptives and let all the women in the U.S. just start popping out babies by the thousands every year. Oh, some women may die because of a complicated pregnancy, but an abortion could have saved her life but the catholic church doesn't give a crap there's millions more where she came from. So the unwanted kids start growing up and roaming the streets, stealing and causing chaos everywhere, but who cares we want the women to keep popping those kids out. Before you know it our population is like that of India or China, because we also have legal and illegal immigration to add to the mix. I suggest we take the likes of santorum, palin, gingrich, romney, perry, and all other anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive folks, and the vatican, and have them all line up to adopt all the unwanted children. Come on guys and gals you wanted all of these kids and letting them live on the streets and in orphanages, with no direction in life is just plain cruel, so how many do you wan to adopt this year mr. and mrs. santorum?
Hmmmm. Take a walk with me through time, lets say the last 100 years or so. We could go back centuries, but let’s just keep it to one shall we?
1912 – The Roman Catholic Church’s Codified Doctrinal position regarding birth control states that artificial methods of birth control are disapproved. They do not support, condone or approve of any form of artificial birth control, nor will they provide access to it. Women (or men) who chose to work in Catholic institutions understand that whatever health insurance they have will not cover birth control, abortion, etc. 1922 - No change… 1932 - No change… 1942 - No change… 1952 - …. You get my point. Now fast forward to present day.
2012 – As part of President Obama’s new healthcare initiative (AKA Obama Care) The Catholic Church has been directed/ ordered/is required to provide access to and insurance coverage for contraceptives (artificial birth control). What changed? If you listen to the pundits, it seems that the Catholic church is taking a political position in opposition to the Obama administration, and is taking something away and denying women access to contraceptive care. NOT SO…. The issue here is that the Federal Government has passed a law that impinges on religious freedom, and forces a religious organization to act against its beliefs, moral or principles. And they are pushing back. But this is not the first time this has happened. Under this administration (and others in the past as well), the church has also had to close its doors on several charities, including adoption services, because of new Federal mandates and laws. I wont start shouting or join the chants claiming there is a war on religion, but this is clearly a slow and steady erosion of religious freedoms.
Women’s health, as well as family planning IS important. However, this does not trump the 1stAmendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. I find it interesting that if the Catholic Church (or any church effected) receives an exemption under this law, NOTHING CHANGES…. Women working in Catholic Institutions who wanted or needed it, have figured out how to get access to contraceptives, and will continue to do so. This has been the case for as long as the Catholic Church has been employing people in its various institutions….. It would be interesting to see if and how women have been harmed. Have they? I think not.... What is being taken away is the rights of one of the world’s largest and most important Religious Denominations. I don’t agree with the Catholics church’s doctrine in this regard, but it is their long standing doctrine, and the Federal Government does not have the right to mandate or force any church to support morally repugnant activities, violate its doctrine or religious principles… It isn’t the prerogative of the Federal government to redefine Religious Liberty or church ministries.