Contraception and the Catholic Church

NightOwl1

It appalls me that the Catholic Church which was so silent on child rape thinks that birth control is the route of all evil.

atomiclauren

We shall see...

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

Regmama

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?

Regmama

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.

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.

Regmama

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.

So these hospitals should turn away anyone on medicaid or medicare? Come on, plenty of things are intertwined.

An remember, Jesus gave us the Church and stated that the apostles and their descendants had the power to bind, loose, and forgive.

Regmama

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.

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.

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?

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.

nehtaeh

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.

Regmama

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.

Then how do you explain the liberals and Democrats who are against this but in all other situations support president Obama?

Azdak

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.

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.

I didn't realize deacons were now in charge of making church doctrine. I guess things have changed more than I thought.

Regmama

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.

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.

I didn't realize deacons were now in charge of making church doctrine. I guess things have changed more than I thought.

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.

Azdak

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.

You beat me to it. Since you provided a link to the actual EEOC decision, I'll supply a quote from a similar story:

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today -- and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally -- but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now ... There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

Again--this is "contrived outrage" being cynically presented to promote a political agenda.

nehtaeh

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.

Then how do you explain the liberals and Democrats who are against this but in all other situations support president Obama?

I don't really care about them. A lot of politicians have no idea what they are doing and don't have all the knowledge for most of the things they vote and legislate on. What I do know is that this HAS been law. Ok, so just look at the law - why is it that just now everyone is trying to make waves about this? Why didn't someone step up in, oh say 2001, and challenge the constitutionality of this?

If you feel that strongly about not wanting to allow the women who work for you to have contraceptives, eliminate prescription coverage. It's ridiculous, but there is a way around it...

nehtaeh

I read a reference to Obama offering a religious mandate, but it had no link so I have no idea if it's reality. Anyone?

nehtaeh

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/health/policy/obama-to-offer-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp

It looks like he's trying to make it so employees can have coverage if their religious employer decides they don't want to provide it.

Regmama

It amazes me (but doesn't surprise me) how many of you are quick to defend the freedom of speech but quick to go against the freedom of religion. Why is that? Because a good percentage of you do not hold faith in anything or anyone besides yourself? Seriously, I am interested on why the hypocracy?

Azdak

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.

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.

I didn't realize deacons were now in charge of making church doctrine. I guess things have changed more than I thought.

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.

And I think you are parsing the issue, which is fine-I know your beliefs are every bit as strong as mine or anyone else's.

But I am going to stick with what I originally said--in essence, I don't think decisions like this are really about the minutiae of the catholic church's decision-making process. I think that, at the heart, these "doctrines" (and not only catholic, but a number of other religions as well) do stem from deep-seated fears of independent woman, and especially of independent, sexually-active women. In this case, the catholic church has had 2000 years to bury these fears under mountains of rationalizations and apologia, but it doesn't change the essential facts.

There is no mention that I know of in the Gospels of contraception. Therefore, any specific doctrine on this subject was developed by man, and thus was influenced by any number of psychological, historical, cultural influences, etc. So, in my opinion, these types of doctrines-again, whether catholic, orthodox jewish, etc--have their ultimate origin in some deep psychological need that some men had to control women.

Azdak

It amazes me (but doesn't surprise me) how many of you are quick to defend the freedom of speech but quick to go against the freedom of religion. Why is that? Because a good percentage of you do not hold faith in anything or anyone besides yourself? Seriously, I am interested on why the hypocracy?

It's only "hypocrisy" if you are taking a shallow view of the subject.

Human beings are not always consistent--and that goes for everyone. So, yes, in some cases people are going respond on one subject with opinions that seem at odds with their position on another subject.

But, in cases like this, one can trace a consistent line of ethical thinking. I'm just going off the top of my head here, but all of our individual rights are limited by the needs of the greater good of society.

You can yell "fire" in your own house, but not in a public theater.
You can walk naked in your house, but not out in public.
You can own pornography of adults, but not of children.
Christian Scientists can deny medical care for themselves, but not their children (I believe this is the law)
Other religious practices such as polygamy, use of illegal drugs, and certain types of animal sacrifice are also prohibited

As a rule, individual freedoms tend to be most "absolute" only in our own homes--they become more abridged, the farther we travel from our homes and the more we have to integrate with society in general.

That's pretty much how it has to be in a complex society.

So what we are discussing is where on the continuum individual rights should be superseded by the "rights" of society. That point is going to be different for different issues. There is never going to be 100% consensus, and, in most cases, the debate is a healthy part of democracy.

Which makes it not hypocritical at all. One just has to make an effort to understand where the other person is coming from.

Regmama

There is no mention that I know of in the Gospels of contraception. Therefore, any specific doctrine on this subject was developed by man, and thus was influenced by any number of psychological, historical, cultural influences, etc. So, in my opinion, these types of doctrines-again, whether catholic, orthodox jewish, etc--have their ultimate origin in some deep psychological need that some men had to control women.

"Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid giving offspring to his brother.
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too." Genisis 38: 9-10, yes not the Gospels but the teaching believed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims

atomiclauren

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/health/policy/obama-to-offer-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp

It looks like he's trying to make it so employees can have coverage if their religious employer decides they don't want to provide it.

It amazes me (but doesn't surprise me) how many of you are quick to defend the freedom of speech but quick to go against the freedom of religion. Why is that? Because a good percentage of you do not hold faith in anything or anyone besides yourself? Seriously, I am interested on why the hypocracy?

I'll ask again, though I don't know if it's possible to answer:
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?

If the Hawaii option becomes available, that might be a fair compromise for the folks above.

Azdak

I normally try to stick to original sources, rather than cite articles from obvious ideologically-oriented websites, but I couldn't find one for this and it's pretty straightforward news, so if you don't think you browser might become corrupted by going to a liberal website, I found this an interesting overview on the constitutionality of the federal guidelines:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-scalia-helped-obama-defend-the-birth-control-rule.php?ref=fpa

I don't like posting entire articles, so you'll have to do the work.

If you make the trip, you will see that the constitutional issues are not cut and dried. But since this article is based more on FACTS, rather than ideological spin, it should be readily clear to anyone with an open mind that there IS constitutional precedent for this decision and it attempts to be consistent with previous SCOTUS rulings on law and religion, including opinions written by Scalia himself.

I make the point not to dismiss those who feel this ruling may be unconstitutional, or who disagree with it, but to dismiss what I consider the cynical partisan framing of this as an "attack on religion", or an "attack on Christianity". And to vehemently disagree with anyone who tries to play the "hypocrisy" card.

Whether you agree or disagree with the actions of the Obama administration (any of them throughout his term), EVERY contemporary inside account of the internal deliberations of this administration has shown them to be scrupulously researched, a wide-range of opinions considered, and carefully crafted to represent what the administration feels is the best overall solution to complex problems in a hyperpartisan political landscape. Doesn't mean the decisions are always right, doesn't mean there is not politics involved. But the idea that the administration is carrying out some secret extreme agenda, or "war on religion" is beyond absurd and not supported by the facts.

There are a lot of people who feel that religion has WAY too much inappropriate influence in our society and on our laws to begin with. Their opinions and their votes count just as much as anyone else's.