Contraception and the Catholic Church
Espressocycle
Posts: 2,245 Member
Catholic Church says it violates their first ammendment rights to be forced to include contraception in health insurance plans for employees of Catholic-affiliated colleges, hospitals and charities. Churches and other strictly religious institutions are exempt. This law is meant to standardize what all health plans must offer so that they can be easily compared.
First of all, a health plan is part of an employee's total compensation, so not including it in health insurance is no different than not allowing an employee to buy contraception with money they earned at their job. Also, I would be willing to bet that a health plan that doesn't cover contraception actually costs more, since the cost of a single extra pregnancy is about $10,000 to the health plan - a lot more expensive than pills.
Second, these hospitals, colleges and charities may be owned by the Catholic Church, but they compete with secular institutions for funding, customers and employees. They charge for services, accept government contracts, participate in governmet programs, etc. Why should they get special treatment?
First of all, a health plan is part of an employee's total compensation, so not including it in health insurance is no different than not allowing an employee to buy contraception with money they earned at their job. Also, I would be willing to bet that a health plan that doesn't cover contraception actually costs more, since the cost of a single extra pregnancy is about $10,000 to the health plan - a lot more expensive than pills.
Second, these hospitals, colleges and charities may be owned by the Catholic Church, but they compete with secular institutions for funding, customers and employees. They charge for services, accept government contracts, participate in governmet programs, etc. Why should they get special treatment?
0
Replies
-
It doesn't force anone to use contraception. It only offers it as an option should someone choose to use it. If they are allowed to not cover it then where does it end? If they are in a state with gay marriage can they deny coverage to a same sex spouse since that also goes against their religious beliefs? Can they refuse to cover atheists? If someone gets pregnant out of wedlock can they refuse to cover the pregnancy?0
-
The 'Sisters of St Francis" hospitals in Indiana will NOT perform tubal ligations and vasectomys. I also couldn't visit certain websites on their wifi because of "content". But they receive funding from tax money. Is this not a violation of separtion of church and state?
This is one of two hospitals in our city. It definitely makes it very difficult to have a choice when the next good hospital is 60 miles away. :explode:0 -
They are only be required to cover not force anyone to take it as Bahet stated. What kills me though is that the leaders of the Catholic Church seem to be so out of touch with their parish. The majority of the Catholic Church actually supports health insurance covering birth control and according to a recent survey 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used it. Yet the Catholic leaders are in an uproar about having to provide health insurance that covers it. I actually read this in the paper over the weekend but the article below states the same thing. When do we start realizing that what may have been appropriate 3000 years ago is not appropriate now? I do have a question though. Since the Catholic Church doesn't believe in birth control, if they discover that a woman is using it, what happens? Is she punished? Is she forced to repent or exiled? I'm asking simply because I honestly don't know and I'm curious since such a large number of the female population of the Catholic Church are going against it's beliefs anyway.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans0 -
Tubal ligations, vasectomies, and birth control are all elective procedures. None of them are life-saving, or "necessary".
So the real struggle is between whose rights are more important? The patient's desire for an elective procedure or medication, versus the doctor/hospital/pharmacist's desire not to sin (from their point of view, giving these procedures or medications is sinning)?
I understand how frustrating it must be for someone whose only nearby hospital choice is a Catholic one, but should they be forced to perform procedures or give medications which are elective, even in light of their own moral protest?0 -
I understand how frustrating it must be for someone whose only nearby hospital choice is a Catholic one, but should they be forced to perform procedures or give medications which are elective, even in light of their own moral protest?
Well, including coverage in an insurance package and actually doing it are very different things. A hospital is not required to have every service available - they all have their own specialties. Of course, a pharmacy might be a different ,matter.0 -
Tubal ligations, vasectomies, and birth control are all elective procedures. None of them are life-saving, or "necessary".
I have to say that I know many medics who would disagree with you on that - in some cases, particularly the ligations and occasionally BC, these procedures are entirely necessary for those for whom pregnancy would be the next best thing to a death sentence. Vasectomies can also be essential to remove any chance of an accidental pregnancy where a partner's life would be put at risk by carrying a child.
I'm not particularly well-educated on the finer points of Catholic theology in this area, but I seem to vaguely recollect that failing to adequately support and protect a child is regarded as a sin as well. As are suicidal thoughts and behaviours (which presumably includes allowing yourself or spouse to fall pregnant if doing so is likely to result in serious illness or death). Can't really win, I guess, or is one sin greater than the other?0 -
I understand how frustrating it must be for someone whose only nearby hospital choice is a Catholic one, but should they be forced to perform procedures or give medications which are elective, even in light of their own moral protest?
Well, including coverage in an insurance package and actually doing it are very different things. A hospital is not required to have every service available - they all have their own specialties. Of course, a pharmacy might be a different ,matter.
Well said. That was my next point. There's a very big difference between requiring a medic/medical practice to perform/provide services that are morally repugnant to them and requiring an employer to provide insurance which covers employees for procedures and treatments that are their own personal choice. One requires direct involvement in the 'sin', the other does not.0 -
My grandmother had a weak heart and had several stillbirths and miscarriages. Good Catholic that she was, she refused to use birth control, even after her doctor told her another pregnancy could kill her. The priest said that if she did die from pregnancy, it was just God's will. I think my grandfather finally went and got a vasectomy so it would be his sin and not hers. However, I do wonder how much longer she could have lived had she not put her body through all that in order to follow the rules of a bunch of celibate men.0
-
Tubal ligations, vasectomies, and birth control are all elective procedures. None of them are life-saving, or "necessary".
I have to say that I know many medics who would disagree with you on that - in some cases, particularly the ligations and occasionally BC, these procedures are entirely necessary for those for whom pregnancy would be the next best thing to a death sentence. Vasectomies can also be essential to remove any chance of an accidental pregnancy where a partner's life would be put at risk by carrying a child.
I'm not particularly well-educated on the finer points of Catholic theology in this area, but I seem to vaguely recollect that failing to adequately support and protect a child is regarded as a sin as well. As are suicidal thoughts and behaviours (which presumably includes allowing yourself or spouse to fall pregnant if doing so is likely to result in serious illness or death). Can't really win, I guess, or is one sin greater than the other?
Yes, with a long explanation I can see how in some cases birth control methods are used to "potentially" protect someone's life. BUT
I was trying to make the distinction that these aren't emergency/lifesaving procedures like heart surgery or removing a burst appendix. Those arent elective in any stretch of the imagination.
I do think a hospital ought to have to save people's lives. If I come in with a knife poking out of my chest, the hospital shouldn't have the right to refuse to treat me, since their refusal will likely cost my life. But their refusal to do someone's vasectomy isn't in that same category of care. Nobody will DIE if they don't get a vasectomy.0 -
Tubal ligations, vasectomies, and birth control are all elective procedures. None of them are life-saving, or "necessary".
I have to say that I know many medics who would disagree with you on that - in some cases, particularly the ligations and occasionally BC, these procedures are entirely necessary for those for whom pregnancy would be the next best thing to a death sentence. Vasectomies can also be essential to remove any chance of an accidental pregnancy where a partner's life would be put at risk by carrying a child.
I'm not particularly well-educated on the finer points of Catholic theology in this area, but I seem to vaguely recollect that failing to adequately support and protect a child is regarded as a sin as well. As are suicidal thoughts and behaviours (which presumably includes allowing yourself or spouse to fall pregnant if doing so is likely to result in serious illness or death). Can't really win, I guess, or is one sin greater than the other?
Yes, with a long explanation I can see how in some cases birth control methods are used to "potentially" protect someone's life. BUT
I was trying to make the distinction that these aren't emergency/lifesaving procedures like heart surgery or removing a burst appendix. Those arent elective in any stretch of the imagination.
I do think a hospital ought to have to save people's lives. If I come in with a knife poking out of my chest, the hospital shouldn't have the right to refuse to treat me, since their refusal will likely cost my life. But their refusal to do someone's vasectomy isn't in that same category of care. Nobody will DIE if they don't get a vasectomy.
I'd quibble, but I get what you're trying to say. Nonetheless, I think a distinction exists and must be acknowledged between forcing medical providers to perform procedures they disagree with on moral grounds (although that's a slippery slope I don't have time right now to go in to) and requiring employers to provide comprehensive health insurance.0 -
It's just part of access to a comprehensive preventive health care plan - churches aren't required, just religious-oriented hospitals, universities, and organizations, right?
How many Catholics are hard-core against contraception in the first place? And how many employees of those hospitals, universities, and organizations are anti-contraception Catholics?0 -
It's just part of access to a comprehensive preventive health care plan - churches aren't required, just religious-oriented hospitals, universities, and organizations, right?
How many Catholics are hard-core against contraception in the first place? And how many employees of those hospitals, universities, and organizations are anti-contraception Catholics?
This is what I focused on. It's for large businesses. Any large hospital, I don't care what saints name they've slapped on it, operates with a profit motive. So they've already ignored the teachings of Christ from the word jump. You may disagree with me but show me the bible passage where Jesus says "Yea though many require a healing touch be sure that they have adequate coverage beforehand."
They aren't refusing to employ people who've had a divorce. They aren't closed on Sundays. The gift shops are stocked with graven images.
If they're going to ignore that many commandments and teachings based on what's easy and profitable I see no reason not to continue the trend when it comes to helping their workers.0 -
Tubal ligations, vasectomies, and birth control are all elective procedures. None of them are life-saving, or "necessary".
So the real struggle is between whose rights are more important? The patient's desire for an elective procedure or medication, versus the doctor/hospital/pharmacist's desire not to sin (from their point of view, giving these procedures or medications is sinning)?
I understand how frustrating it must be for someone whose only nearby hospital choice is a Catholic one, but should they be forced to perform procedures or give medications which are elective, even in light of their own moral protest?
If the hospital wants to base their policies on "sins", they shoulding be receiving anything from the government.0 -
to answer your question, the teaching is that if you are catholic and contracepting for birth control reasons (some women take the pill for different medical conditions) you may not receive communion, because you are considered in a perpetual state of sin with no intention of ending the sin. You also can go to confession and confess it but without the intent to stop it is taught that you may not receive communion. That is about it. You are not punished or excommunicated. Some priests will still say that it is your personal choice to receive or not, and there is certainly not a Eucharist Police making sure everyone is free of sin to receive. Being a ex-catholic its all sounds so silly now.
They are only be required to cover not force anyone to take it as Bahet stated. What kills me though is that the leaders of the Catholic Church seem to be so out of touch with their parish. The majority of the Catholic Church actually supports health insurance covering birth control and according to a recent survey 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used it. Yet the Catholic leaders are in an uproar about having to provide health insurance that covers it. I actually read this in the paper over the weekend but the article below states the same thing. When do we start realizing that what may have been appropriate 3000 years ago is not appropriate now? I do have a question though. Since the Catholic Church doesn't believe in birth control, if they discover that a woman is using it, what happens? Is she punished? Is she forced to repent or exiled? I'm asking simply because I honestly don't know and I'm curious since such a large number of the female population of the Catholic Church are going against it's beliefs anyway.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans0 -
They are only be required to cover not force anyone to take it as Bahet stated. What kills me though is that the leaders of the Catholic Church seem to be so out of touch with their parish. The majority of the Catholic Church actually supports health insurance covering birth control and according to a recent survey 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used it. Yet the Catholic leaders are in an uproar about having to provide health insurance that covers it. I actually read this in the paper over the weekend but the article below states the same thing. When do we start realizing that what may have been appropriate 3000 years ago is not appropriate now? I do have a question though. Since the Catholic Church doesn't believe in birth control, if they discover that a woman is using it, what happens? Is she punished? Is she forced to repent or exiled? I'm asking simply because I honestly don't know and I'm curious since such a large number of the female population of the Catholic Church are going against it's beliefs anyway.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans
Nothing happens. Not at my Church anyway, but it's pretty liberal for a Catholic Church. I don't know what other Churches do. Ours never makes anyone feel shameful, unwelcome, or like "evil sinners" - unlike many others I've attended. They openly welcome all.
My husband and I attended a pre-cana course there (after we were already married civilly - another thing they were fine with) and they touched on the birth control issue but didn't say you MUST not use birth control, they said the PREFERRED method is some other natural method I didn't pay much attention to... They did not say it was a sin or anything like that or to stop using birth control, but again, my Church is a little different than most.0 -
i was born and raised a Catholic. with every pregnancy I was in danger. so after a couple of miscarriages and finally two c-sections I had my tubes tied. I was told by our parrish priest that there was no redemption for me and I would not be going to heaven. I asked him who would take care of my children if I were to die early in life as the result of another pregnancy. His answer - God would provide. I believe that was the last time I went to a Catholic church.
If the catholic hospital is not going to provide all services for the community in which they are built then they should receive no tax payer funds or civil services from that community. They already receive a tax free status an other exemptions that a "public" hospital does not receive.0 -
i was born and raised a Catholic. with every pregnancy I was in danger. so after a couple of miscarriages and finally two c-sections I had my tubes tied. I was told by our parrish priest that there was no redemption for me and I would not be going to heaven. I asked him who would take care of my children if I were to die early in life as the result of another pregnancy. His answer - God would provide. I believe that was the last time I went to a Catholic church.
If the catholic hospital is not going to provide all services for the community in which they are built then they should receive no tax payer funds or civil services from that community. They already receive a tax free status an other exemptions that a "public" hospital does not receive.
Gotta love it. I was kicked out of the Greek Orthdox chuch for marrying a catholic....THE HORROR! These cults are something else.0 -
i was born and raised a Catholic. with every pregnancy I was in danger. so after a couple of miscarriages and finally two c-sections I had my tubes tied. I was told by our parrish priest that there was no redemption for me and I would not be going to heaven. I asked him who would take care of my children if I were to die early in life as the result of another pregnancy. His answer - God would provide. I believe that was the last time I went to a Catholic church.
I don't blame you for no longer attending. This is why I stopped going to Church years ago - the preachy, judgmental, holier than thou attitude - and my late brother was gay and they were very unwelcoming towards him.... I only recently started going back because I finally found a Catholic Church that is not like any I've been to before - they very openly welcome everyone - including the gay community. A friend of my husbands ( a Catholic priest) says the Church we attend is full of quacks... and from his comments about us not having a "proper" marriage, and not doing things the "right" way etc, I wasn't surprised... but I disagree.
It's too bad more Churches aren't open and accepting instead of closed minded and condemning. Their words and actions drive people away VS making people feel warm and welcome. Who wants to go to a place where they're made to feel like crap?0 -
But they receive funding from tax money. Is this not a violation of separtion of church and state?
B-b-b-b-ut that's different! How will we survive without govt money? (something that is ACTUALLY against Christ's teaching)
I would be more in favour of it if it were ACTUALLY part of the Bible. Except it's not. It's something the Catholic Church made up.0 -
This new "controversy" is following a predictable pattern. The Obama administration does a careful analysis on an issue, engages in a vigorous internal debate, and comes up with what they think is a "best fit" solution based to a great extent on past practices. The republicans and conservatives use the issue to create a phony "outrage" scenario, Big Chief Boner puts on a new coat of orange war paint and starts crying, and the Fox News Wurlitzer has all pipes a'blazing.
The average person-- who has likely never given this issue a moment's thought--now feels compelled to weigh in with an "opinion".
The ruling by the HHS department closely matches guidelines that have existed for years in numerous states across the country, including red states like Georgia. Yet, all of a sudden, it's an "attack on religion". It's no wonder no one takes these guys seriously.
And there is nothing like a bunch of old guys who have never had sex demanding that they have exclusive rights to control the behavior of women.
Studying the neuroses of Catholic bishops could keep an entire university of Ph D Psychology students busy for a lifetime.0 -
It appalls me that the Catholic Church which was so silent on child rape thinks that birth control is the route of all evil.0
-
We shall see...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.
Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.0 -
It is disingenuous of the Administration to waive the healthcare mandates for the unions and McDonalds but not waive just a small percentage of the mandate for organizations that are run by those who have moral objections to the mandate. Again, conscience protection. Does the First Amendment really matter? The Administration wants this to be a debate about contraception, sterilization, and abortion (yes, abortion since it also mandates covering a medication that will terminate a pregnancy in the first week). But it is NOT about contraception at it's root. You all are looking at the puppet instead of paying attention to the puppet master.
Now, imagine if this were a conservative administration mandating that you must pay 100% for your employees to do something that is fundamentally against your (the business owner's) beliefs, even if 85% of them partake in it. What is more important, paying for the latest trend even if it violates your conscience or, as a business owner, making the decision on how what you will offer your employees based on your beliefs?0 -
No offense, but you are making quite the generalizing statement. I know quite a few priests who were (spouse died or there was a decree of nullity) or are married (pastors from other faiths who converted) married and have children. Then there are the permanent deacons who, a majority of them, are married. Maybe you should ask a deacon's wife what she thinks of it. I know that this wife of a candidate for the permanent deaconacy is 100% supportive of the Church's position. Also, as a daughter of a man who's written many amicus briefs for cases that went to the Supreme Court, I agree that this is also unconstitutional.
And there is nothing like a bunch of old guys who have never had sex demanding that they have exclusive rights to control the behavior of women.0 -
So these hospitals should turn away anyone on medicaid or medicare? Come on, plenty of things are intertwined.But they receive funding from tax money. Is this not a violation of separtion of church and state?
B-b-b-b-ut that's different! How will we survive without govt money? (something that is ACTUALLY against Christ's teaching)
I would be more in favour of it if it were ACTUALLY part of the Bible. Except it's not. It's something the Catholic Church made up.
An remember, Jesus gave us the Church and stated that the apostles and their descendants had the power to bind, loose, and forgive.0 -
No it is not equal. There is compensation for someone performing certain duties. All companies have had rights as to what would and would not be covered under their insurance plans (like IVF is covered by very few but is not covered by most, same with plenty of other "optional" procedures and medications). Is someone were to take the money they earned from performing duties outlined in their job descriptions and use it for something not covered by their health insurance that is their free-will choice. It is not a direct violation of the employers insurance policy nor their conscience because they are not directly paying for it.Catholic Church says it violates their first ammendment rights to be forced to include contraception in health insurance plans for employees of Catholic-affiliated colleges, hospitals and charities. Churches and other strictly religious institutions are exempt. This law is meant to standardize what all health plans must offer so that they can be easily compared.
First of all, a health plan is part of an employee's total compensation, so not including it in health insurance is no different than not allowing an employee to buy contraception with money they earned at their job. Also, I would be willing to bet that a health plan that doesn't cover contraception actually costs more, since the cost of a single extra pregnancy is about $10,000 to the health plan - a lot more expensive than pills.
Why aren't you raising these questions about the unions and McDonalds who are getting a 100% opt out for the whole healthcare bill mandate? They are getting special treatment and unions provide services to the government and also federal employees are members of these same exempt unions. Why the special treatment for them? I thought, afterall, this was about making sure everyone has health insurance, except if you are a union member or work for McDonalds. Talk about double standard.Second, these hospitals, colleges and charities may be owned by the Catholic Church, but they compete with secular institutions for funding, customers and employees. They charge for services, accept government contracts, participate in governmet programs, etc. Why should they get special treatment?0 -
This whole "controversy" is just the haters of Obama. Insurance providers have been required to provide coverage for birth control for years, so long as they provide prescription coverage. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html
The difference now is that birth control is required to be FREE, not provided just free.0 -
Then how do you explain the liberals and Democrats who are against this but in all other situations support president Obama?This whole "controversy" is just the haters of Obama. Insurance providers have been required to provide coverage for birth control for years, so long as they provide prescription coverage. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html
The difference now is that birth control is required to be FREE, not provided just free.0 -
No offense, but you are making quite the generalizing statement. I know quite a few priests who were (spouse died or there was a decree of nullity) or are married (pastors from other faiths who converted) married and have children. Then there are the permanent deacons who, a majority of them, are married. Maybe you should ask a deacon's wife what she thinks of it. I know that this wife of a candidate for the permanent deaconacy is 100% supportive of the Church's position. Also, as a daughter of a man who's written many amicus briefs for cases that went to the Supreme Court, I agree that this is also unconstitutional.
And there is nothing like a bunch of old guys who have never had sex demanding that they have exclusive rights to control the behavior of women.
I didn't realize deacons were now in charge of making church doctrine. I guess things have changed more than I thought.0 -
No, but they do work on the diocesean level with the bishop and issues are discussed. To think that the bishops listen to no one is very naive. And there are plenty of canon lawyers who are lay people who work out issues within the Church. It just isn't as cut and dry as you are making it out to be and to think that it is only the bishops who hold these views is naive. That is what I was referring to.
No offense, but you are making quite the generalizing statement. I know quite a few priests who were (spouse died or there was a decree of nullity) or are married (pastors from other faiths who converted) married and have children. Then there are the permanent deacons who, a majority of them, are married. Maybe you should ask a deacon's wife what she thinks of it. I know that this wife of a candidate for the permanent deaconacy is 100% supportive of the Church's position. Also, as a daughter of a man who's written many amicus briefs for cases that went to the Supreme Court, I agree that this is also unconstitutional.
And there is nothing like a bunch of old guys who have never had sex demanding that they have exclusive rights to control the behavior of women.
I didn't realize deacons were now in charge of making church doctrine. I guess things have changed more than I thought.0
This discussion has been closed.