Why so upset over Birth Control Coverage, Catholic Church?

[HockeyMom]

Can you have a party, if nobody shows up? If Catholic couples are using NFP, what scripts will the Church be paying for?

I saw posts about letters about this being read at Mass. Were they hoping to get the congregation enraged to protest this? Do you really think the majority will be when they THEMSELVES are using "artificial" contraception? At any rate, most people don't work for a Catholic organization.

Which brings up another point. "I don't want MY tax dollars paying, etc." If you have private insurance, YOUR money is paying for other people's BC through your premiums.

How many private insurance plans DON'T cover BC today? Yes, I understand the point about co-pays for BC and women but they charge co-pays for ALL scripts, lately. It didn't use to be that way. Thirty years ago my BC pills were covered by private insurance, without a co-pay, but back then there were no co-pays for ANY scripts. That is something that needs to be addressed.

Question? Will insurance companies have to cover tubals and vasectomies in addition? They should. If a man wants to get a vasectomy, his BC should be covered under this also. If his gets a vas, his partner won't need her BC.

[zbdent]

1. They want to tell the government what to do with (their???) tax dollars, but

they don't want the government to have any say about how they spend the money the government gives them ...

Now, if it were one of the "goofy" religions getting government $$$ ... then they'd be screaming about how that group was spending the money ...

[liberal_biker]

3. Um...not quite....

Churches do not pay taxes, first off. Second, we're not talking about how federal funds are spent. This has to do with providing insurance which covers treatment in direct contradiction of the church's views and teachings.

Facts are silly things, I know, but sometimes one must consider them.

[zbdent]

9. the fact that churches don't pay taxes is why I put "their" in (their???) as I did ...

because I knew they were not paying taxes. Too bad that you couldn't figure that out.

[KatyMan]

11. why should a church get to pick and choose

what laws apply to them?

[joeglow3]

14. That pesky little first amendment to the Constitution

Sucks when it is something we don't agree with, huh?

[KatyMan]

24. What does that have to do with it?

By that logic, if Sandusky said pedophilia was part of his 'beliefs', would that make what he did unpunishable by law?

[Sgent]

30. There is a ministerial exception

to almost every law.

Effectively, it means that those with ministerial duties (rather than secular ones) fall under the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion of the 1st amendment. Forcing a church to provide a means to (in their opinion) murder is a problem.

That said, I have no problem when applied to secular positions.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. This isn't about individual beliefs

It's about a religion's/denomination's doctrine and beliefs. And even then, there is no First Amendment protection for religious doctrine that mandates/promotes illegal acts.

[csziggy]

55. By exempting religious organizations from certain laws

Isn't that making special laws concerning religion, which is against the Constitution?

If Congress is prohibited from making laws concerning religion, then they should be treated like any other organization in this country. If other non-profit organizations have to provide birth control for women they employ then churches should also.

Same should hold for taxes on church owned property and businesses - churches should be held to the same standard all other organizations in the same business categories.

[joeglow3]

57. Read up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

[Sgent]

31. Churches don't recieve federal funds

hospitals and schools (probably -- from free lunch program if nothing else) do.

[meow2u3]

2. It has to do with the government curtailing religious practices

The government does not have the right to make laws or policies which compel people and/or organizations to contradict the tenets of their faith, except if one's faith embraces criminal practices, such as "honor killings", genital mutilation, domestic violence, or polygamy, to name a few.

Compelling Catholic organizations to provide contraception as a condition to provide services is akin to forcing Jews or Muslims to eat pork, making Hindus eat beef, or pagans to worship one god. The government has no business interfering with free exercise of religion.

[Major Nikon]

4. So are you saying we should be tolerant enough to tolerate intolerance?

[fifthoffive]

5. Making Catholic organizations USE birth control

would be "akin to forcing Jews or Muslims to eat pork, making Hindus eat beef, or pagans to worship one god."

Making Catholic organizations (whose employees are not required to be Catholic to do their jobs) provide birth control coverage in their insurance plans is not nearly the same thing.

Catholic universities and hospitals which both employ a lot of non-Catholics are not the same as Catholic churches, which expect their employees to conform to the teachings of the Church.

This is why we need single-payer health insurance - so your health coverage does not depend upon where you work, as it does now for most people.

[matmar]

6. This is not a violation of the First Amendment.....

First Amendment --

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

ACA does not make law respecting an establishment of religion nor does it prohibit the free exerecise thereof. Just because the law makes available to women the opportunity to exercise control over their own bodies doesn't mean they have to take advantage of that option.

The Catholic Church should be able to stand on the merits and wisdom of its message to its members. The problem is that they don't trust their own members to abide by their archaic doctrine.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. It does inhibit the free exercise of religion

By forcing the Catholic church to provide something that is against their own religious teachings.

[JoePhilly]

19. This does not force the "Church" to do anything.

The law applies to those who want to provide HEALTH INSURANCE.

If you want to provide HEALTH INSURANCE, then you need to follow the rules.

And btw ... the RULES do not require Catholics to USE birth Control ... it only requires that HEALH INSURANCE cover it.

So in reality, this should be a non-issue ... the HEALTH INSURANCE from these catholic groups would "provide coverage" ... but the actual CATHOLIC women would be free to NOT USE IT ... as their religion demands.

Or ... is the real issue that the Catholic church doesn't trust its women members?????

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. The Catholic church provides health insurance to employees because it's the right thing to do

Or, it's the right thing to do so long as the church isn't forced to go against its own teachings. If forced to go against teachings, then I anticipate that the Catholic church will simply stop providing coverage. Who does that help?

In Catholic teachings, aiding in the commission of a sin is no different than committing the sin, so forcing the church to provide contraception coverage is no different than actually using it.

The only option left for the church is to stop providing coverage. Do you think the employees affected would prefer to have coverage without contraception coverage or no coverage at all?

[JoePhilly]

21. Is that what their choice should be??

Does the Catholic church cover Viagra? Is a Vasectomy covered? What about if a woman decides to have her tubes tied?

Are these covered?

If the church is consistent, and THESE are not covered, than maybe they have an argument.

Does their coverage also include extended care at end of life? I mean, if God decides that it is "your time", do they cover all life extending approaches, or do they allow God's will to supersede??

And last ... do they take ANY tax dollars? If they do, then the need to follow the associated rules for obtaining those. If they don't want those dollars, then they can reject them.

And I have to say that I struggle to find the place in the bible in which Jesus says "no birth control", perhaps you know which part of the bible says that.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. I'll ask my friend

Who is employed by a Catholic school about the Viagra - interesting question, though not comparable to contraception.

Sterilization is not covered, not sure about end of life either - I'll ask the question.

As for the question about federal funding, but I know the school gets no federal funding. Not that federal funding has anything to do with this mandate anyway. It applies to every employer that provides health insurance, federally funded or not.

And no, I don't know of any place in the Bible that says no birth control. But that is a teaching of the Catholic church, and as such, they get to decide on that teaching.

Do you believe that current employees would prefer to have current coverage with no contraception or no coverage at all?

[riderinthestorm]

22. Mark my words, in 2014 when the mandate sets in, even the Catholic Church will stop offering ins

I predict that the flight from offering employer based health insurance will be a big rush. Once employers (especially biggies like the Catholic Church) understand that their employees are mandated by the government to purchase their own, and that the government will subsidize that purchase, employers will flee from offering health insurance.

Why should they offer it? It's a pain in the ass to administer, it's expensive, it's a no-win employee benefit since someone is always getting screwed....

Trust me, virtually ALL employers will opt out soon enough. The Catholic Church won't have to worry about "doing the right thing" soon enough - I predict they will gladly seize on the govt mandate to bow out of offering insurance within months, not years.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. It will still cost employers money

As they will have to pay a penalty for any employees that receive government credits for purchasing from the exchanges. But my guess is that you are correct - it will cost less and be less of a hassle to just drop insurance altogether.

[riderinthestorm]

39. Pfft, a paltry $2000. I read one estimate that more than 60% of companies plan on dropping health

Last edited Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

care coverage for their employees in 2014. Not only is it cheaper to pay the fine but you eliminate that HR person(s?) who had to handle administering just that benefit. Win/win for the company.

Edited to add that the average cost per employee for employers is around $10,000 each so paying a $2000 fine saves a company big bucks....

[SickOfTheOnePct]

44. I agree

From a financial standpoint, it would be smarter to just drop insurance coverage.

And if you're a church being told that you if you do the right thing and cover your employees, you will have to violate one of tenets of your own faith, why bother? Just drop the coverage and pay the fine.

That doesn't do much for the employees, though.

[riderinthestorm]

46. Au contraire, there's some who predict that it will lead to single payer

if employer based health insurance becomes moot, and everyone is in the government plan, sooner or later it's going to collapse with the astronomical rates the insurers will (try to) extort from the government. How long it takes before it becomes obvious that even the Rethugs and Dems can't prop up the industry because it is too damn greedy is the only speculation in some theories I've read.....

Employees will buy it on the open market (shrug). It will be expensive and many of them will opt out of paying (and pay the fine). It's unsustainable of course. But the key to bringing it down (imho) is for as many companies to stop propping up HCR with employer based coverage sooner than later.

"Doing the right thing" means dropping coverage for your employees in that scenario. Honestly, when I read the pissy fit the church is throwing about this I first suspected it was a ruse for them to drop their coverage with relative impunity. I doubt believe for a moment that the church honestly cares one whit about insuring it's employees as "the right thing to do".

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. You're free to have that opinion

We'll just agree to disagree.

[PassingFair]

26. They can stop taking federal funding.

And go back to being churches.

Preaching their gospels.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. For the umpteenth time

This has nothing to do with accepting federal funding. This mandate applies to all large employers, whether they take federal funding or not.

[mysuzuki2]

7. oh BS!

If they take the federal money they follow the federal rules. It's that simple. They are not being forced to do anything. Don't like the rules? Don't take the cash.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. This has nothing to do with accepting federal cash

There is no link to the acceptance of federal cash in this ruling.

This is about telling the Catholic church that if they provide health insurance to their employees, they must include coverage for contraception, which is in direct opposition to the teachings of the church.

To me, it's a clear violation of the First Amendment, i.e., Congress has made a law that intereferes with the free exercise of a religion.

And edit to add, I believe that tens of thousands of employees of Catholic organizations that now receive health insurance benefits will see those benefits disappear as the Catholic church stops providing coverage and pays the penalties instead.

[uppityperson]

48. There are all sorts of laws interfering with free exercise of a religion. For instance, bigamy.

Most places that is illegal and interferes with those religions that are ok or encourage it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

49. There are laws

That prevent religions from doing something that society has deemed unacceptable. I'm not aware of any laws, save this one, that forces a religion to do something that is against their teachings.

What else do you believe the government should be able to force churches to do that are against their beliefs, if anything?

[riderinthestorm]

51. Treat their children when they are ill (Jehovah's Witnesses) or face child abuse charges

Go to school. Mark their vehicles with safety equipment that violates their religious dictates (Amish)

Muslims must adhere to inheritance laws and child custody laws (that are very different in the US than what the Quran stipulates). Many Muslim burial rites conflict with public health laws and public cemetery regulations.

Do you really want to try to say the Catholic Church is somehow being punished here singularly in the US? These are just a few I thought of immediately. I presume if I were to spend even 2 minutes, I could come up with many many other examples

[SickOfTheOnePct]

56. Every example you cited

Falls under what I already mentioned as exceptions, that is, laws that society have deemed must be adhered to for the greater good.

Everyone has the right to contraception, but no one should have the right to have a church that opposes contraception on religi
I don't believe that the Catholic church is being punished, but I do believe they are being forced to do something that is against their own teachings.

Once that door is opened, how do you close it? Could the government force a church to ordain women based on a discrimination claim?

The SCOTUS recently shot down the administration, 9-0, on a free exercise argument. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again, as two universities have already filed suit, one Catholic and one non-Catholic.

[riderinthestorm]

58. So? I believe offering birth control insurance coverage is for the greater good

I think society, and the vast majority of Catholics, would agree. I think that door MUST be opened for the Catholic Church to fully evolve as an institution. Ordaining women would be splendid!

"Exceptions" are the rule for virtually every church org. You asked for examples and now you want to try to dismiss them. The Catholic Church is not being singled out, no matter how you want it to be so imho. It's being subjected to the same scrutiny as everyone else. With 5 Catholic Supremes, you will get a fair shot here... no doubt

[Puzzledtraveller]

12. Great way of putting it.

I am beginning to wonder if some people may actually worship Government. Troubling.

[MNBrewer]

18. That depends on how you define "Catholic organizations"

[Angry Dragon]

23. How far are we to let religions curtail the rights of others??

Is a church forced to hire people, are churches forced to run hospitals, are churches forced to provide charity for others?? If churches decide to operate in the secular society then they need to abide of the laws of the secular society. Is this fair?? In my mind it is.

According to your line of reasoning I should be allowed to enter into any church and practice my religion without regards to what religion is practised there. I help pay for it through my taxes.

Once they take government money then they HAVE to follow the laws of the land or they are free to turn the money back.

[Johonny]

37. I agree, the logic of the argument makes no sense.

If you follow their argument, A church could say run a used car lot, a bank, an investment firm, a restaurant, a drug company... etc. Would all these organization because they are run by a church somehow be immune to government regulations or the law? No. Look at tax exemption. The religious side of church functions tend to be tax exempt, but the business side of churches are not. This seems to be a made up issue based on separation of church and state matters long settled in this country. I refuse to believe this is a new exciting topic.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. You're right

They aren't forced to do anything - they operate hospitals, food pantries, schools, universities, etc., because it's the right thing to do, and because it helps the community. I don't agree that they should have to violate their own beliefs because they are serving the community.

As to your comment about going into a church and practicing your own religion, I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make there.

And again, this has nothing to do with receiving federal funding - that is not the basis for this decision by HHS.

[mmonk]

34. Or should a Jewish woman's insurance deny her coverage

based on Catholic Bishops wanting to dictate what insurance will cover?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. If she's working for a Catholic organization

I would say yes, as I don't believe that a religious organization should be forced to pay for something that is in direct opposition to their own teachings.

This isn't something that people are going to budge on, that's for sure. I firmly believe that a dangerous precedent will be set if the federal government is permitted to force a religion/denomination to violate their own beliefs. Slippery slope and all that.

YMMV.

[mmonk]

52. A purely religious organization isn't required to.

A hospital that serves the general public is.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

54. Why should who they serve

Have any effect on what benefits they offer?

Would you be OK with Catholic hospitals refusing to take care of anyone that isn't Catholic? Would you be OK with Catholic universities, such as Georgetown and Notre Dame refusing to admit non-Catholics? I wouldn't. But, because they do so, you believe that they should be forced to pay for something that is against their own teachings?

[mmonk]

59. I think it has to do with the insurance exchange.

If an insurance exchange is set up for the public, the question of Church and State becomes an issue. They exempt religious entities. In other words, the Church doesn't have to cover people working for it in a religious context. BTW, I'm Catholic.

[jillan]

8. If they do not want the use of birth control, then they need to provide for all the newborn babies.

They would never provide for the care of a child from birth to age 18. Multiply that times 100000s.

Another example of total hypocrisy!!!!

[joeglow3]

15. Claim an unproveable fact as true. Nice strategy.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. They are upset because every sperm is sacred

[hedgehog]

13. The requirement to provide contraception coverage

does not apply to organizations which are strictly religious. Thus, the parish doesn't have to provide birth control coverage for the secretary. I'm not sure about teachers over at the parochial school. However, a large public organization such as a hospital which does have a Catholic label but both serves and hires many non-Catholics would be covered by the regulation.

Many of the hospitals were started by orders of sisters and still may have some sisters on the board. I am unaware of any hospital with the local bishop on the board. I am unaware of any hospital getting funds from the local bishop. The most control the bishop has is to remove the Sacrament from the hospital chapel.

http://ncrnews.org/documents/hospital_faq.pdf

However, the bishops do not have a copyright on "Catholic" and the sisters may continue to refer to their institutions as Catholic hospitals if they so wish. Many of the sisters feel that "Catholic" implies service to the poor and needy far more than bedroom snooping. The bishops opposed Obama's health care bill; the sisters who work with people struggling to pay medical bills overwhelmingly supported it!

[HockeyMom]

53. The ban would apply more to the teachers than the secretary

because the non clergy teachers MUST be Catholic, have taken religous courses, and sign a "religious morals" clause to teach at the school. They will "set an example" for the children. The secretary? She doesn't have to be Catholic because she will have very little interaction with the kids on an educational level.

[Lil Missy]

25. If they provide Insurance, they have to follow Insurance rules.

If they can't, then get out of the Insurance business.

[Nye Bevan]

33. Complete and utter stupidity.

More contraception = fewer abortions. And doesn't the Catholic Church *want* fewer abortions?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[Johonny]

36. The church wants more catholics

[Warren DeMontague]

41. that might make sense logically, unless you look at what the anti-choice

movement has been about for the past 40 years.

The fact is, the anti-choicers are also virulently anti-contraception. It's not a fringe sideshow to the main agenda, it IS the agenda.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. because GOD DOESN'T WANT YOU FUCKING FOR FUN!!!!

do you hear me, married people? You can do it (sigh) but you MUST! NOT! ENJOY! IT!

[11 Bravo]

42. I disagree. I don't think it's accidental that it feels so good!

[Warren DeMontague]

43. neither do I.

I think evolution probably did a good job of weeding out the life forms that weren't interested in screwing, over the past 4.7 billion years.

[Dawson Leery]

45. This is why I have a card in my wallet that states I am NEVER to be

admitted to a Catholic Hospital.

[lindysalsagal]

50. This is a question of control, not morality. Can the church control what is available to you

if you work for them?

The question isn't about health or sex, or even whether this practice would lead to more abortions: This is a question of whether the catholic church can have it both ways: Can it be a religion ordained by god and also be a business in modern society?

As a religion, it can't limit anyone's access to anything.

But as a business, it thinks it should be able to control worker's access to something.

This is about a business claiming it has the right to control the intimate lives of the people it employs as a business.

I say, if it's a business, it must be taxed as such and not try to limit access to anything.

If it doesn't like doing business in the 21st century, it can go back to being the kind of business it was in the 4th-11th century: Hire monks and nuns who don't even get a paycheck or health care. House, feed, clothe them, and throw them out if they break god's commandments (and you're able to catch them.)

If the church is a business, it must operate within the local laws. Period.