For some of us, the very fact that we are having a discussion about birth control in 2012 is almost unfathomable. We know that unless women can control their own reproduction, there is no equality.
This was also a fight many of us thought was over 50 years ago. This issue isn’t a fringe issue or something avant-garde. The churches do themselves no favors getting strident over the issue of contraception and certainly the Republican party, in an election year, does itself no favors. 98% of all women who are or have been sexually active have used contraception. There are some things that just should not be political and this is one of them.
So far, the Affordable Care Act has stated that contraception will be made available on all health care policies for free, without deduction. There has been a hue and cry over this health care rule, from the clergy, politicians,employers, bloggers, and probably lots of others I haven’t mentioned. The issue is about health care to most of us. To some, the issue is about religious freedom. That’s a hard argument to survive when no one is saying anyone has to use contraception.
What hasn’t been mentioned is that 28 states already require contraception coverage. Additionally, some Catholic institutions already provide contraception in their benefits package. DePaul University is one such example and it is the largest Catholic University.
There is one group that we haven’t heard from in this media frenzy of opinion and that is the employees. The Catholic Church is probably putting up the biggest barrier to this health care mandate and that is because of their beliefs. We know what many of the men of the church are saying. What we do not know is what the employees of all the Catholic institutions are saying. Those workers at hospitals, universities, publishing houses and various support systems run by the Catholic church have yet to voice their opinion. Some are probably afraid. They want to keep their jobs. Some are afraid, especially if they are Catholic, of their priest finding out that they use contraception. Regardless, this group is the most affected by the controversy and the most under-represented in the discussion. The sounds of silence are deafening.
Censored is being consistent Emma. You are the one determined to discuss abortion on a thread meant to talk about PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies!
There would be less prejudice against the church if there weren’t so many examples of the church trying to set policy for all of us to follow, codifying their doctrine.
I have no problem at all with their rules for their parishoners. I had my chance and I rejected it. Therefore what happens in church stays in church. Its the coming out that I don’t like.
I am thinking about all those fish sticks on Friday. That was done to accommodate the Catholic kids. That doesn’t hurt anyone. I am old enough to remember when the church rule was much stronger than it is now. Fish sticks cannot be equated with contraception.
I do not understand how you cannot follow the argument that the government’s forcing someone to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs infringes on their first amendment rights. Whether it is contraceptive services in the case of the RCC or pig valves used in heart patients for Muslims , the federal government should not be able to force someone to pay for something that goes against their core religious beliefs.
I am aware that Obamacare is the law of the land. But that does not mean that it will be upheld as constitutional.
What amazes me is how accepting everyone is of the President simply making a declaration about what insurers will or will not cover, now that the ACA has passed. No legislative process, no debate. He simply states it, that’s it, the law is changed. He makes the false “compromise” that insurance companies will provide contraception for “free” if the Church won’t pay for it. False because SOMEONE will have to pay, which means rates will go up to cover the “free” contraception for everyone, including the Church.
Ask yourselves if you would have liked Sarah Palin to wield that level of executive power, and maybe you’ll understand where I’m coming from here. The President gets to tweak the law at will now, and in 2012 he can simply reverse it by fiat–uh, Executive Order.
And Elena, abortion is very relevant to this topic, as abortion drugs are included in this mandate. Pick your poison: Government in your uterus, or government out of it and you simply pay for your stuff yourself. Which do you want?
@Emma, what abortion drugs are included? Abortion is not covered under this bill. Please be specific.
As for presidents wielding that kind of power, did we wince in the least about the Bush administration have the power to tweak NCLB? Absolutely. In fact, every school in the nation lived and died by whatever came out of Margaret Spellings office. You can’t get more far reaching than that. I also seem to recall Ronald Reagan having a great deal of control over …air traffic controllers. The executive branch of the govt. seems to have a lot of power over enforcing the laws.
It seems like the rub might have a little to do with WHO the president is.
Best WaPo comment today:
“The reversal was worded as a “concession to religious freedom”. Mr. Obama: There is no such thing as a concession to freedom. The concession is that The People allow you to sit in the White House.”
You seriously believe the Church would have swallowed this whole if Reagan were President? I don’t think you could make a more offensive statement, Moon.
Offensive? Emma, there are meds for paranoia. I actually don’t know what the church would swallow and what it wouldnt. Actually, the real bottom line, if you want something offensive, I really don’t care. One church’s likes and dislikes is totally irrelevant to me. It is comments like the ones you are making that make others have negative feelings about the church.
I was sort of thinking along the lines of you, Emma, might be quicker to agree with a president you liked (Republican) vs. one you didn’t like (Democratic). Silly me, I should have thought ahead and known that you were going to pull a racist statement from my brain when none existed.
Actually, I wasn’t addressing anything as universal as the Catholic Church since some folks I know are Democrat and some are Republican. Many Catholics I know are rolling their eyes over all this and think it is absurd. Perhaps I just know a real liberated crew of Catholics (and ex-Catholics).
At any rate, trying to win a non existent argument by dislodging a statement that wasn’t made doesn’t cut it with me.
And yes, drugs that are considered abortifacients are included. That supposedly racist Church that you say just doesn’t like Obama because he is black still opposes those on moral grounds, so it does not want to fund those and and the companies that produce them.
I have said that the Catholic Church is many things. Racist is not one of those things. Who specifically were you talking to?
If you are going to quote me, please be accurate. I say many offensive things. At least pick something I have actually said rather than making up crap.
@Emma
Please tell me what abortifacients are included.
@Moon-howler “It seems like the rub might have a little to do with WHO the president is.”
yes, WHO the president is. You have never, to my recollection, said a decent word about the current president. You have expressed your contempt at every turn.
I am still wondering which abortifacients are going to be part of the health care program.
Actually, many Catholics I know do use birth control, but they don’t like the government dictating what their Church will and will not pay for when it defies the Church’s teachings, and have been very opposed to this action. Hypocritical? Maybe. Human? Definitely.
They probably haven’t read very carefully. The Church is exempt. The non-church institutions weren’t. Big difference. Most institutions have their own accounting.
I would say that ‘selfish’ probably comes to mind. In an institution such as a hospital or university, you have all sorts of hourly workers who probably don’t deserve to be cut out of birth control because of some man made rule. Those workers might or might not be Catholic. It shouldn’t matter. Human beings have free will. Permanent birth control like tubal ligation and vasectomy (my personal favorite) are expensive out of pocket procedures and have been standard on health insurance policies for at least 35 years. I can’t see someone on the grounds crew of Notre Dame paying out of pocket for a vasectomy.
What I find depressing and yet amazing is that this discussion is even happening, in the year 2012. If I read what is happening correctly, some Catholics pretty much want the entire birth control thing out of health care because THEIR church doesn’t believe it is moral.
Well tough. The rest of the world does, including many many Catholics. At what point are thinking people simply going to laugh at some man-man law that has been handed down by an institution totally dominated by men? What’s wrong with this picture? There was a great mass exodus back in the 60’s. Most of that was over divorce and contraception. Some folks stayed and just did to suit themselves. That’s another alternative.
Those who want to abide by that teaching can do what they want. However, that sentiment will not be accepted outside the parameters of the Church.
@Emma
Why are you making that leap that “WHO” refers to the President’s race and not his party?
@Censored bybvbl Your coyness is almost endearing, Censored.
@Moon-howler
I find it silly that an organization run by unmarried men thinks its in the position to tell women what to do about contraception. A childhood friend of mine is a priest and when he first started giving advice to families, he routinely called his mother to ask for hers. He had never so much as dated in high school but was very bookish. His brothers and sisters all played sports and had well-rounded social lives. It’s ironic that he was the one who found himself in a position giving advice on everyday matters to his parishioners.
There’s nothing wrong, though rather outdated for the 21st. century, with having a scholarly interpretation of church scripture given only by a celibate male but family matters are often convoluted, complicated things where a little experience in the real world is necessary.
@Emma
Emma – the Catholic Church is very much against Gay people – true, they teach that one should be accepting of a Gay person, but they are really a second class citizen in the eyes of the Church. No to Gay marriage, no to a sexual relationship. A Gay person is not to receive communion, as they are living a lifestyle that is outside of the Church teachings – same as a woman who is using a form of contraception to prevent pregnancy.
No one is saying that you or anyone else has to listen to these unmarried men about contraception or anything else. What we are saying is that you do not get to pick their pockets to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs.
You all seem to be in favor of separation of church and state until you want the church to pay for something that you hold dear. Then you are willing to use the power of the federal government to
enforce your beliefs over their beliefs. But employers have first amendment rights too and federal employment law does not take precedence over their constitutional rights. That’s why Obama is trying to find a way to back down.
The purpose of the constitution is to ensure that the majority rules, but not at the expense of minority rights…. even if the minority in this case is a bunch of unmarried men and the issue is reproductive services.
No Kelly, we want employers to pay. If the church doesn’t want to function has an employer, then it needs to farm out the employment end of the institution.
I don’t want churches to do anything other than mind their own business. If they step out of the realm of being a church, well then they have to put on that hat and play the part.
@Moon-howler “Those who want to abide by that teaching can do what they want. However, that sentiment will not be accepted outside the parameters of the Church.”
That’s the whole point, isn’t it? How can the church elect not to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients inside the parameters of the Church, but not outside? You want to back them into a corner because you don’t like their belief system. This was an utterly false “compromise” that will do nothing but spread the cost around via higher premiums for everyone, including the Church.
Perhaps the best tactic for the Church to take under such assaults is to simply give up any federal funding at all, so they can provide as they wish. If they have to close up shop or cut services for lack of money, so be it. It would be far preferable to having the government dictate which articles of faith they must abandon. Perhaps the mosques can take up the slack.
Again, do you want the government in your uterus or out of it?
@Censored bybvbl
I am going to be the dirty rat bastard who brings up that thing that no one wants mentioned. While these old men are being so righteous and Godly about contraception, which isn’t even mentioned in the Bible, what were they doing when thousands of children were being molested from within?
Sorry, after that, the credibility is a little questionable. Your friend at least had the good sense to ask for help instead of being a know it all.
@Emma
If the church is going to function as something other than a church, then they have to go by whatever laws are in place. They have to go by discrimination laws, employer rules, HIPAA laws, etc.
When there are 2 opposing forces–the male dominated church vs women’s health care, both sides can’t claim a victory. Now who really owns the problem? I don’t think it is going to get any better. If the church wants to go for 100% win, they will lose–big time.
I keep wondering why this ‘government in the uterous’ comment keeps coming up. I think Kelly and Emma have missed the main part of this. The government is not saying anyone can use or can’t use contraception. It is being made available, just like cholestrol medicine or viagra. This is a neutral position. It just must be available with all health care. Its part of the package.
The polls coming in on the rank and file Catholics is quite different from the clergy btw. This isn’t going to hurt Obama in the least. Those who oppose this decision would have never voted for him in the first place. One thing about very strict religious people of any denomination, their less restrictive friends usually don’t share their real feelings with the strict ones.
Of course, we all know the government’s credibility and morality is unassailable. Only the government knows what is best for us.
@kelly_3406
I expect the church to obey any applicable state or federal laws pertaining to employment when it operates in areas other than its sanctuary or building. Colleges, hospitals, etc. are open to and employ people of other faiths. Their function isn’t primarily to further the Catholic faith. I expect them to conform to existing zoningordinances and to follow applicable state and federal law regarding hiring, firing, safety, and a plethora of other constraints. (I believe the Catholic church in New York state already followed state law in this regard.)
As for seeing a rise in health insurance costs because the insurers must provide contraceptive cover, big deal. We all pay those types of costs. My insurance premium covers people who don’t exercise or who have cancer or who smoke etc. It’s all part of the social contract.
@Emma
Do you really think that, Emma? I don’t have an anthropomorphic view of govt. It is what it is. Perhaps a necessary evil?
I do know this much, in my lifetime, something or someone is always trying to grab up more power than I think they deserve. That is what is going on in Richmond right now.
@Censored bybvbl
Contraception is far less expensive than giving birth. Cost can’t even begin to be a credible argument.