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.
Nice and simple folks, this is what happens when government grows too big and takes on issues that are best left for people to take care of themselves. There aren’t that many “one size fits all” solutions for practically any issue you care to discuss. All the federal government can impose is one size fits all solutions. Someone isn’t going to be happy. In this case, it’s the Catholic Church, who can’t manage to separate themselves from big government when the issue is open borders. Oh well, I do get a kick out of seeing the current administration stuck between Barack and a hard place.
How about the employees? Do they matter or is all about the clergy and the govt?
In 1997, when Allen was governor, he signed a state law requiring insurance companies that provide prescription-drug coverage to offer plans that cover contraception. (WaPo)
First of all, the Affordable Care Act (that seems like a contradiction !) infringes on individual rights on so many levels.
In that vein, what right do the feds have to tell any private organization what will be covered for employees and what will not? If you are worried about the transfer of jobs overseas, then you should be against government intrusion into employment. It will be even more attractive for companies to move overseas to places like Brazil and India where governments are less intrusive and the regulation is less expensive and less burdensome.
If an employee does not like the benefits package provided by a particular employer, then (s)he is free to pursue employment elsewhere. The government is not really involved in 401K packages and stock options for employees. It is not involved in education packages for employees. The government does not define how much paid vacation a company provides. In each case, employees can and do leave aal the time for other companies to get better pay and benefits. So why should healthcare packages be any different? If an employer does not provide a particular benefit (e.g birth control) in a healthcare plan, there is absolutely nothing that prohibits him/her from going elsewhere.
Second of all, I do not care if anyone uses birth control. But it’s both a private decision and an individual responsibility. There are many options available and each person should be free to choose (and pay) for the method that balances preference and affordability without burdening anyone else. I do not see poverty as a good reason to cover it as there are very inexpensive methods that anyone can afford.
The bottom line is the nanny state is already bankrupt. Contraception is guaranteed to become even more expensive if the full cost is picked up by insurance plans. The Feds will probably mandate coverage for too many other things as well so that healthcare covered under the Affordable Care Act will become unaffordable for us all.
Virginia has mandated special insurance services for autism and special treatments for breast cancer. I am sure there are other instances. I fail to see the difference. At this point it is not only a health care issue but also a consumer issue.
ACA, whether you or I like it or not, is the law of the land. People cannot just up and change jobs at will, although it will be easier with the ACA in place. People no longer will lose all medical coverage.
I find it strange that all of these arguments are over something that should be taken for granted. It makes me wonder if treatment for erectile dysfunction is covered on some of the health plans that are howling about covering contraception. My guess would be yes.
Here’s a counter-point: http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2
Steve,
I imagine the women in countries where contraception is denied feel quite differently about the trade of the sexual revolution for being slaves to their bodies for all intensive purposes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals
I”m not buyin the premise. Television has had more to do with the sexual revolution than any birth control!
Elena,
I think the premise is if someone is naked, they will be less inclined to play with matches and gasoline, than the would be if you gave them a nomex suit. Sure, some would still do it without the suit, but there would be consequences.
I don’t think contraception has led to promiscuity at all. I know way too many people who are not promiscuous. I actually knew people in 1968 who weren’t promiscuous. Lots of them, at the height of the sexual revolution.
I think far more undesirable sexual behavior comes about because of the influence of music, movies, TV, and bad parenting than any other reason. People for some reason think that earlier generations were pure. That is because our grandmothers were telling the story. All sorts of randy behavior went on during the civil war times, during the roaring 20’s, etc. WWII had its own share of exploration. I haven’t exactly connected all the dots yet but the sexual revolution happened about the same time as the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War and millions of baby boomers coming of age. Perhaps it was simply the perfect storm.
I will give contraception credit for one thing and that is the empowerment of women. Before women could reliably control their own reproduction, there was no economic equality, not even close. Women could not necessarily attend the college of their choice (check out UVA in 1968), and those graduating from college had better go into teaching, nursing, or library science. All other women went into the secretarial pool. Why? Standard reasoning with major corporations was that it was a waste of money to train women. they just got married, pregnant and left. Think I am making it up? Everyone needs to check with their mothers.
Steve,
I think I will stick to womens health and the critical role birth control plays.
I’m with Elena – I think tv and films have done more to influence the sexual revolution than the availability of birth control. An interesting aside in Steve’s link is that fewer children are born into “nuclear families” and fewer women marry the fathers of their children. Just as you could make the leap that birth control is responsible for society’s moral lapses, you could also make the leap that women are deciding that men aren’t all that important in women’s lives. Hee hee…that might be one of the reasons for the all out assault on women that we’re witnessing in the rightwing community by old guys who had all the “special privileges” while growing up and are having a hard time coping in a world where women and minorities have gained ground.
I think the church should offer their employees coverage for contraception. If their parishioners want to follow church edict, they don’t have to buy contraceptives. However, practically every Catholic woman I know has used contraceptives at one time or another. Frankly, I’d like to see tax breaks for churches disappear. Maybe this brouhaha can get more people talking about eliminating this break at a time when the government could use a boost in revenue.
I will not be snide…I will not be snide…I will not be snide…..
As one of the folks here who does easily remember what it was like before 1968, I think I am going to have to say, balderdash! Before there was readily available contraception, women basically had no equality. That’s a problem for a male oriented institution.
When there are women priests serving communion perhaps I will entertain a conversation on this subject.
A few brief comments seem to have to come out of these bad fingers…
. Sometimes quite literally–thousands of Jews during the Crusades and in other times during history, The Mayans, The Aztecs, the Incas, …..the history is not without blemish.
As for producing great thinkers, Galileo also comes to mind. One of the greatest scientists ever was under house arrest until his death for saying that the sun was the center of our solar system. Damn that man.
No the Catholic Church has not been right about contraception. Someone, sounding a great deal like my husband’s maidenly Aunt Anne has conveniently latched on to a time of great social change and blamed all that change on contraception rather than perhaps admitting that contraception came about because of that social change–women wanting to control their own destiny.
Go to any graveyard that has been around for at least a century and look at the large number of young women of child-bearing age who are buried there. Think about how many children grew up without a mother because of death in childbirth. Often the men simply didn’t know what to do and put the children in an orphanage if there were no relatives to dump them on. I know people today who were raised in orphanages for that very reason. Today there are few orphanages.
Unless man controls his own population, mother nature will do it for him in the form of disease, famine, war, all the old killers of humanity. Look around the world. Its very obvious.
It’s easy to blame everything on the pill. However, in doing so one gets a very limited view of history and social movements.
Oh and just as an aside, the out of wedlock births are not because of contraception.
Yes, its an alterative point of view and one I soundly rejected many years ago. I have never been sorry.
“Just as you could make the leap that birth control is responsible for society’s moral lapses, you could also make the leap that women are deciding that men aren’t all that important in women’s lives. ”
I blame Gloria Steinem for this….just kidding…
Is it birthcontrol? No. Is it pop culture? No. Is it the dimunition of the role of the church in society? No. Feminisim? No. Men abandoning their roles and duties? No. All of these things could be just as easily called “symptoms” as they could be called “root causes”.
I am a Christian. I know what or who is behind all of this. You may disagree, and that’s fine. Arguing about it won’t solve the problem. But please try to understand that most of the people advocating against this exercise in governmental power (whether it’s lawful is another discussion) are doing so out of deep moral or religious convictions, not out of some hate for their fellow man or desire to enslave women. Also, there’s that whole bit about freedom of religion. A faith-based organization is just that. It is unconstitutional for the government to force a faith-based organization to do something contrary to their faith. As far as getting rid of their tax exemptions, if you do that to the churches, you’ll have to do it for all non-profits. Be careful what you wish for.
@Moon-howler
There is a funny thing about Obamacare being the law of the land. The Administration saw fit to issue hundreds and hundreds of exemptions to unions, businesses, cities and states to avoid ALL costs associated with Obamacare. Yet it cannot find its way to exempt religious organizations only from having to fund reproductive services that conflict with their religious beliefs.
@Steve Thomas
Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses will have to pay for things they don’t like also. Certainly the government was clear to the Mormons to shed their wives if they wanted to become a state.
28 states already require employers to provide contraception. What’s the difference?
Virginia requires all policies to include autism coverage as well as special treatments for breast cancer. Again, what is the difference?
If the government were forcing anyone to use birth control, I would be right up there siding with whoever objected. However, that isn’t what’s happening. If the Catholic Church is an employer, it has to follow the law. Furthermore, the decree hasn’t been finalized. I paid for things for years on my policy that I didn’t approve of necessarily.
The funny thing about most religions is they will not even wince if they try to force me to live by their rules. Most would be delighted to have their rules codified into law. I find that objectionable.
@Kelly_3406
I can’t argue exemptions because I don’t know of any.
I don’t believe there are contraceptive exemptions.
Many people’s religious beliefs include not having more children than you can take care of. It was part of my pre-maritial counselling many years ago. I would say that anything that violates that sentiment conflicts with MY religious beliefs.
Because I am private about my religion and don’t insist that everyone kowtow to my private faith it is assumed that mine isn’t important or doesn’t have standing.
It isn’t a one way street. As I told Steve, if I found that govt. required anyone to use contraception when it violated their religious beliefs, I would sure go to bat for them.
(exception: parents who will not get medical treatment for catastrophically ill children.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9065998/Girls-13-given-contraceptive-implants-at-school.html
We don’t live in the UK. Maybe there were reasons. Who knows.
This has been a lead story on TV for several days. I still haven’t heard ONE employee give an opinion. It is all coming from the media, the male clergy, the politicians and the bloggers. What do the employees think? They are who are affected.
I haven’t even heard the rank and file Catholic give his/her opinion–you know, Joe and Jane on the street, not some designated spokesperson.
In the end, I don’t think this will do any Republicans any favors. Americans generally support contraception use.
I am still trying to wrap my head around an institution being more important than individual Americans.
I think it is interesting that the Catholic Church has the same “head in the sand” approach to contraception that they have had to sexual abuse; i.e., if they don’t see it or admit it, it doesn’t exist. Yet 98% (and this varies by who you talk to) of Catholic women have or still use contraception and who knows how many Catholic men have had vasectomies. So much for “deeply held” religious values. While I agree the availability of contraception should be universal, I have a great deal of trouble with the fact that folks in the White House claim they were “overwhelmed” by the adverse reaction to this whole thing> Don’t they vet stuff before they throw it out on the street?
We still haven’t heard from the employees of those institutions. I am skeptical. I know what the arch bishop thinks. What do ordinary people say, you know, the ones who aren’t political?
@Moon-howler
“I am still trying to wrap my head around an institution being more important than individual Americans.”
Why are you having a problem with this Moon as regards the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church has never been about the individual–it’s been about the church–period. If it was about the individual, why would they have spent billions of dollars building huge cathedrals and collecting valuable works of art and all the pomp and circumstance? Again–it’s about the church–the individuals are the tools they use to accomplish this.
@Steve Thomas
I couldn’t make up my mind whether to throw up or fall over laughing when I read this “counterpoint”. This passes justification for the Catholic Church’s repressive position on contraception, the role of women and the infallibility of the Pope? AYSM?
@Moon-howler
“Virginia requires all policies to include autism coverage as well as special treatments for breast cancer. Again, what is the difference? ”
There’s nothing in Catholic doctrine that precludes treating people afflicted with any illness, nor those who practice the faith seeking treatment for those illnesses. There is plenty in Catholic doctrine that precludes the use of outside contraception. There is the difference.
I am not familiar with Christian Science doctrine but certainly it would include elements that preclude some components of modern medicine. Are they howling?
Why is an institution being given more consideration than individuals? Individuals have to pay for things that violate their belief system all the time–war, death penalty, abstainence education which is ineffective…..the list goes on.
No one is forcing anyone to use contraception. This is a political battle. Catholic colleges and universities already provide coverage to employees. I simply don’t feel that a church, when acting as a major employer, has the right to opt out. Churches when acting as churches already do have an opt out. When a church is owner of a hospital, university, publishing house, or anythings that isn’t a church, monastery, or nunnery, then it becomes like everyone else. When in Rome….and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
@George S. Harris
George,
Let be be clear: I do not oppose contraception as a matter of faith. My denomination (AG Pentecostal) does not consider use of the pill, IUD, or other methods of contraception a sin, or counter to God’s will. The reason I offerred the counterpoint article was in the hope that people would understand that this isn’t about contraception. It’s about religious freedom. There’s plenty of examples of religious practices being limited by government as counter to civil law. Polygamy has been cited. Some religons practice animal sacrifice, and there are laws that either prohibit the practice, or regulate the practice to only those methods deemed as “Humane”. I suppose I could try to justify human sacrifice on religious grounds, but the act is still prohibited as murder. In each case, a practice has been limited or prohibited, ie. “you can’t to X, Y, or Z” because it is counter to civil government. This case is different. This is a case where the government is compelling faith-based organizations to do something in direct contravention of their religous beliefs, ie. “You MUST do X, because our law says so”. So, shall we pass laws that force the Amish to drive cars? How about forcing them to serve in the military? Shall we force Jewish and Muslim children to eat pork in our public schools? In as much as many oppose Obamacare due the the individual mandate (forcing someone to buy a product or service), this is forcing a faith-based organization to due something that is against its religeous foundation. I believe this unconstitutional. The recent SCOTUS case that found that a religous organization, (a church), could fire an employee (a pastor), because the employee was conducting themselves in a manner counter to the beliefs of the church, inspite of the fact that labor laws said otherwise, supports my view. Your comments prove to me that you are unwilling to even consider the other sides point of view.
I accept, at least academically, that the Catholics are opposed to contraception. (I also remember back when millions defected because of this decision.). However, they are not being told they must use it. We are speaking institution here, not individuals.
The Amish must pay for wars, as must I. The Quakers must also pay for war, even though in most cases they are allowed to be conscientous objectors. Individuals must pay for executions even though they morally object.
Jehovah’s Witnesses must pay for blood transfusions. They do not have to use those services, even if they are lying there dying.
Steve, I think it really is about contraception. Certainly the Church stance on immigration, war and poverty has not had this kind of outcry.
Since you put your street cred out there, I will include mine. My husband and I are mainstream protestant because of the RCC edict on divorce (another fine bit of hypocrisy) and contraception. Sometimes I think he was the original alter boy.
@Moon-howler
Moon,
Valid points all. I may not agree with all of them, but they are valid. In as much as the legal justification used for Roe v. Wade was a constituitional right to privacy, why can’t Catholics oppose this on 1st Ammendment grounds, without incurring all of the vitriol or accusations of the Church trying to subjugate women? I don’t want to live in the Theocracy, anymore than I want the mechanisms of government forcing me to do something that is against my religeous beliefs.
Secularists (Not liberals, not conservatives) have rejected the concept of an authority higher than man, and its institutions. They also reject the concept of sin. I hope they will at least understand that there are those believe that there is a spiritual power who has ultimate authority. This belief manifests itself in the “do’s & don’ts” of their respective faiths. While I don’t share the Catholic Church’s views on contraception, I do share their belief that God is the ultimate authority. When a lesser authority is compelling them to do something in direct conflict with their understanding of God’s will, I must oppose this, within the bounds of Christian teachings (ex. I must oppose abortion, but I can’t go bombing a clinic as part of this).
In a way this is about contraception. I do believe the Catholic Church sees this as an incremental step to force them to provide abortion services as part of their health plans in the future. I would tend believe this fear justified, which is why I stand with them in their efforts to resist this on 1st ammendment grounds.
@Steve, I would have to ask the question of why it is ok for some Catholic institutions to have a benefits package with contraception included and this one not. I guess an institution can come along with any dogma it wants.
I do not ever think they would be asked to pay for abortion services. I don’t think there is any reason to think that would happen.
I also think that most religions believe that God is the ultimate authority. All sorts of bad things have been done when leaders of various faiths claimed to be bending to the authority of God. I try very hard to be respectful of faiths not my own. This has been a difficult one for me because I feel rejection of contraception is so wrong.
I don’t even like bringing abortion into the discussion. I believe that those who oppose abortion should do everything in their power to make certain that all sexually active people have access to reliable birth control. I tend to direct my feelings more at women than men. Why? Women are the ones who get pregnant. It’s all about assuming responsibility. That isn’t a liberal or conservative view.
Sometimes a means of contraception (birth control pills) is used for other purposes. When I was a teenager, I had a close relative whose doctor prescribed them as a means of regulating her erratic period. How would the Catholic Church look at that situation? It’s the same drug. It’s prescribed to a teenager. But it’s not being used as a means of birth control.
My father graduated from a Catholic college. That school currently employs about 700-800 faculty/staff not all Catholic. Its emphasis is on liberal arts, pre-law, and pre-med. If it wishes to be seen as competitive in those fields, it will have to attract qualified faculty and will need a decent benefit package to do so.
This is not a simple black and white “my way or the highway” issue. We’re talking about large institutions which are not necessarily religious in scope though they may be backed by a particular religion.
There is also the way Hawaii has dealt with this issue. Employees can buy the additional coverage at the same rate that the employer would have charged. Not sure how it works, but this may also be a fair compromise.
Personally, I think an employer shoving their sexual belief system down the throats of their employees is wrong. Don’t want birth control, don’t buy it. Why is that so hard. No one is forcing anyone to BUY the contraception.
I think there is a “social contract” (uh oh, its my hero John Locke emerging)between employer and employee in a demoractic civilized society. Why is Starbucks so successful, because they work hard at treating their employees with fair compensation. Comprehensive health care is simply a moral standard that everyone should be willing to strive for.
Starbucks is under the gun because they went on record in supporting same sex marriage, along with Microsoft, Boeing and other Washington based companies. Several religious groups have targeted them for boycot. Someone I know well who manages a Starbucks said they are too addicted to make it last. Bwaaahahahahaahaha
@censored
My favorite professor at Marymount University (a catholic university)was Jewish, Professor Bernstein, he was awsome!
Steve,
I have someone VERY close to me who had a stroke as a very young woman. If she were to get pregnant, it would probably kill her. Is abortion allowed in this instance? BC is not 100% all the time. What if she decied that having her tubes tied was the safest course of action, she should pay for this out of pocket?
Steve,
Your comparison to Jews and Muslims eating pork is not valid. No one is forcing Catholics who are against BC to use it. Just like if the the school offers pork hot dogs and bacon, as long as their are other choices for food, no one is having their rights trampled on.
(let me add, I am not a “good” example of the Jewish dietary laws, I love honeyed ham and bacon, as long as it is humanely raised)
Elena always eats kosher ham and bacon. I even remind her when she is in the grocery store.
Unless Catholics are force fed pills and lined up for condom fittings, they can still exercise their conscience, just like the rest of us.
@Elena
It is quite valid. It is a case of a governmental institution forcing an individual or group to consume, purchase or provide something that is counter to their faith.
Then lets get rid of HB1 and call it a day. In fact, lets have Taliban Bob resign from the 13th district.
@Elena
“Just like if the the school offers pork hot dogs and bacon, as long as their are other choices for food, no one is having their rights trampled on.”
Ok. I’, a Christian. No prohibition in my faith against eating pork. Let’s say I get a job teaching at a Jewish Parochial school, or in a Muslim Madrasa. As part of my benefits package, I get lunch provided for me daily from the school lunchroom, but there’s no prohibition for me to bring my own lunch, at my own expense. I like bacon. Bacon tastes good. Should the government be able to force the school (whose primary function is education) to serve me a BLT, when preparing and serving this to me would be contradictory to the practice of the faith surrounds the school? How is this not violating the 1st Ammendment?
Steve, you are making one of my eyes have a headache.
Perhaps you are wondering why Elena and I are so strident. I have never been this openly hostile towards any religion before, at least publically, and that includes the Taliban. When zealots like my very own delegate have legislation on the floor of the General Assembly that threaten to outlaw most oral contraception, I see blinding stars of red before my eyes. When I know BS like this is just lurking beneath the surface, I see that this particular church is lying in wait to trample MY rights and the rights of my children and grandchildren.
Perhaps people might want to take a look at what is driving our anger. I could say to myself, Moon, don’t be foolish. Griswold v. Conn. was decided back in the 60’s. That couldn’t happen. Yea, right. Right now, I am not so sure. If THE Church wants the anger and the blow back to subside, they need to get hold of zealots like Sideshow Bob and tell him to cool his jets. I feel like this is a personal attack on all of us, to be perfectly honest. I will attack back on something this basic. His bill offends MY faith.
Steve,
I just don’t think your analogy is applicable. It would be different if Bacon were the only item you could eat and the school refused to allow you to bring it. THEN you might have a case based on your health and well being.
No one is forcing someone who believes contraception is against their faith to use it. they put the “bacon” on the menu and you CHOOSE if you want to eat it!
What was your thought on the ability of someone to have BC even sterilization covered if it is a health issue? What about women who have endometriosis, are they to suffer because reproductice care is not covered?
The Obama administration has granted over 1,000 Obamacare waivers to various unions and businesses. Why is no one worried that all of those female SEIU women or female dependants won’t be able to have sex without their “free” employer-provided birth control?
Waivers over providing health care isn’t the issue. The issue is contraception.
If you figure out how the SEIU women get to have sex, let us know.
@Elena
“No one is forcing someone who believes contraception is against their faith to use it. they put the “bacon” on the menu and you CHOOSE if you want to eat it!”
No, they are forcing a group who thinks eating bacon a sin, to serve bacon if someone wants bacon.
@Elena
And the reason why I will not engage in the whole “endromitriosis/tubal ligation” discussion is the issue at hand isn’t woman’s health or reproductive rights. These women are not prevented from purchasing birth control. Their rights are not being infringed upon. The issue is one of religious freedom. It is the right of the faith-based organization to choose the services it will pay for, under their healthcare benefits package, because certain products and or services provided conflict with the beliefs held by the organization. My employer offers a health plan. It choses what it will cover under the plan. But now the government, using unconstitutional laws, will compel insurance companies to offer contraception as part of the plan, and will compel non-governmental organizations to offer these to their employees, regardless of whether or not it violates the beliefs of these organizations. Where does it end? Should the Arlington Diocese be forced to pay for the contraceptives used by their receptionists?
It appears as though the Administration is telling insurance companies which contract with the Catholic church to provide the coverage to women who want it at no additional cost. The church’s actual policy doesn’t have to provide it but the insurer does…if I’m understanding this compromise solution correctly.
I’m sure someone will find a reason to bellyache about this solution as well. Some people need to suck it up and get over the idea that they should pay for only those services they use. My husband and I have been paying half of our local tax dollars into the public school system without ever having to use it. It’s called a social responsibility.
I have a social responsibility to fund abortions? At all phases of pregnancy, even when the kid is crowning? Even when it’s not life or death, or rape or incest? Just wondering.
I think when men stop trying to control women the world will be a much better place Steve.
iF Bacon is a needed health requirement and if the Catholic church choSE NOT to provide this essential health care they are immoral in my opinion.
I wonder how different this conversation would be if we were discussing the dreaded “sharia” law.
I suggest that the Catholic Church, in participating in a public businesses, i.e hire people in the public sector, in my opinion, forfeights 100% authonomy. There are still goverment rules that apply to everyone and healthcare is one of them.
I’m sure you’d feel the same way if you were a Chinese employer who found out that your female secretary is pregnant with her second daughter.
For the life of me, I will never understand the logic of “Keep government out of my womb, but make sure it pays for my IUD!”
Government shouldn’t be paying for your IUD. Your health care insurance should be paying for it.
@Steve Thomas
Actually I don’t think they would care if they didn’t have to touch it or eat it themselves.
There really just isn’t an analogy to birth control. The farthest I can deviate is other heallth care related stuff.
I expect that lots of Jewish food service folks really clean up selling lobster to all the Christians who are buying a lobster for their Valentine.
@Steve Thomas
I would say yes, everyone should have access to contraception. Now, the difference is, I wouldn’t care if there was a co-pay. I just don’t think people should be excluded. It one employer has to do something, so should the other. To avoid it, don’t be an employer.
However, I believe the archdioses was exempt in the first place. I also believe this issue becomes more important as the value of the apparatus or procedure become more expensive. I just don’t think your employer gets to make the ultimate decision (financial) whether you have a vasectomy or tubal.
How about the HR Manager–should they get to decide from the menu of what’s good and bad for medical treatments? There should be obligations that all employers take care. I don’t care if you are Catholic University, Marriot, or 3M.
Maybe some muslim owner will decide that no one can have a heart value made from pig. When does it end?
OH PUH-LEEZ I am so tired of that old argument.
Are we talking about abortion? Noooooo. Let’s not drag that emotionally charged issue into the contraception issue.
People who use contraception correctly don’t need abortions. That is the point.
A Muslim business owner should not be able to stop anyone from getting a heart valve from a pig. But I would not have any problem with a Muslim business owner who stated that his business would not for religious reasons financially cover pig transplants in employee medical insurance policies (so long as the policy was stated up front).
Again, employees are always free to pursue jobs elsewhere if they are not happy with benefits.
Actually, Kelly, you make it sound like jobs can just be added or subtracted at will. Anyone who has taken more than just a cursory glance at the job market knows that isn’t true. Additionally, some people are basically frozen on their job because of the health care issue. If they leave they become uninsurable. Hopefully, ACA will make that no longer a problem.
What are pig transplants? I don’t see the difference. I have a huge problem with any employer telling an employee what kind of medical parts he or she can get or use. If a pig heart value is recommended then it should be out of the hands of that employer.
So what happens if the hypothetical Muslim or Jewish employer says no to any heart values because one of them might be a pig valve. I am not sure we really want to go down that road. That could very well happen if we start bending and swaying to everyone’ individual wish list.
This ‘go elsewhere’ is not the most American solution to problems, especially since it is very hard to change jobs nowadays. Most people are just glad to have one, until they want a vasectomy or need a pig valve.
Just in–
This afternoon, the House Courts of Justice Committee advanced H.B. 1, the infamous “personhood” bill, patroned by Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William). The bill’s intent is to ban abortion and birth control upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
I suppose that the 14th amendment isn’t good enough for Taliban Bob. Let’s say his bill passes into law. Will that make all those ‘anchor babies’ everyone is howling about citizens for even 9 months longer than we thought?
As I interpret things, any child conceived in the state of Virginia would be a person and therefore the child, even in the zygote state of development would be eligible for all sorts of social support. I suppose that support would be given through the mother.
Imagine the number of women who will flock to Virginia for social services. Wheeee doggies. There will be a stampede.
Beware of unintended consequences, Bob.
It would also allow me to go back and claim an extra year for each of my little adult persons on my VA taxes. I doubt if they feds would buy into my BS.
Jefferson is rolling over in his grave seeing Virginia turn in to a theocracy.
@Emma
I thought the topic was contraception. Nice deflection.
Do Catholic owned organizations (because the Hospital is not a Church, neither is a book publisher, a school, a thrift store, etc) employ Gay people? OMGosh – what is the Bishop going to do now that he knows that Gay people are employed by an organizations such as Catholic Charities – and they help unwed mothers too – imagine having a child out of wedlock – this is getting too harsh to imagine.
@Pat Herve You are sadly misinformed about the Catholic view about gay persons. But you’re certainly not alone in your ignorance and prejudice against the Church.
@Censored bybvbl It’s not a deflection. Why can’t you be consistent with your views regarding choice and privacy? You either want the government in or out–which is it?
Great example with the the pig valve Moon.