Catholics, Contraception and the New Health Care Law
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-02/catholics-contraception-and-new-health-care-law
As President Obama addressed the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, Catholic groups around the country were roundly criticizing him. Earlier this week his administration reaffirmed new regulations requiring employers to include birth control in their health care plans. Churches are exempted from the ruling. But Catholic groups had lobbied hard for the exemptions to include faith-based organizations such as Catholic universities and hospitals. The White House said no, now some Catholic groups are saying they will not comply with the new mandate. Join us to discuss the growing divide between church and state.
Guests
Julie Rovner
health policy correspondent for NPR, author of "Health Care Policy and Politics A-Z," and contributing editor for National Journal Daily.
Judy Waxman
vice president of healthcare and reproductive rights for the National Women's Law Center
Mark Rienzi
professor of constitutional law, Catholic University of America
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Looking forward to your show and hope you come back to it again soon with Jill Lepore who recently did the piece on Planned Parenthood in New Yorker; Casey Mattox of the Allied Defense Fund there in D.C. the group headed by the rightwing's Alan Sears and Mississippi Judge and Southern Baptist leader Charles Pickering; and Cherilyn Crowe of the Baptist Joint Committee there in D.C.; and or Christine Stansell who recently did the piece for the New Republic
Casey, a gread of UVA and Boston Law, and Crowe, a Vanderbilt grad, are both natives of Dekalb County, Al. where state senator Shadrack McGill is hell bent on bringing a personhood bill to Alabama Senate to further distract the state from its wicked anti immigration bill.
Casey has lined up with fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist Convention--Pickering--and others on the right to further obfuscate justice issues nationally and his homestate of Alabama; while Crowe has chosen a better path with historic Baptist witness on church state matters with the BJC.
To fast forward to the Presidential race; this will be a headache for Mitt Romney and a poison pill for Newt Gingrich. In NPR's stellar This American Life report on Bama Immigration bill over the weekend it was reported Kris Kobach toured the S.C. Prez primary with Mitt Romney. Unintended or not, Casey, who was baptized in the same church where my Mother was baptized in 1936 is working with folks with a lesser vision for Alabama and the nation; and he shoulda learned better with Charles Marsh, the Bonhoeffer scholar, during his stint at University of Virginia
Photo from the series, "Churches ad hoc".
www.efn.org/~hkrieger/xfetal.jpg
I have read almost all of Aquinas, and had four years of Latin under several brands of nuns. I am so over the Church, and their minions. And, now I see that the Susan B. Komman breast cancer research refuses to donate to Planned Parenthood, so they are nothing but a Pat Robertson, Liberty University, Regent University organization for "True Believers> They can have my pink ribbon back. And I have quite a collection of the pins. Won't be walking with them anymore. They are too holier-than-thou for me. I'll stick with my grandmothers advice about the priests: They are human. You decide what perfect contrition is and follow your mother's example. Break free of the ugly part. Go, Grandmother, even from the grave. I still follow your advice. They are only human bobble heads. I am free of them and all their incense and nonsense. That goes for all the code talkers that are not Native American. Let your people go, you red-caped bobble heads.
Diane,
The "outrage" over the new health insurance mandate doesn't make a lot of sense.
Church affiliated employers are not doling out contraceptives, after all. They are providing employees with health insurance coverage, which is a part of the employees' compensation. Could this healthcare compensation be used to obtain contraceptives? Sure. Could the same employees use their cash compensation to obtain contraceptives? Of course. Employers don't control what employee do with their compensation ... even if they might like to.
An employer has no way of knowing if an employee will use cash compensation to obtain contraceptives, of course. But some part of the premiums for health insurance that covers contraception will be used for that purpose, whether by an employee of the church affiliated employer or by an employee of another employer. This reality might support a valid argument for a religious exemption, but only if there is a clear and consistent teaching on this matter. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Sixty percent of Americans get health coverage through an employer. Coverage for contraceptives is the rule, not the exception. In addition, the vast majority of employees are contributing to the premium cost of their health insurance. If it violates the conscience of a church affiliated employer to pay premiums that go in part to cover contraceptives, wouldn't it also violate the conscience of a church member who pays such premiums? Of course. Does the church instruct Catholics to opt out of any healthcare plan that includes contraceptives? Absolutely not! When the church begins teaching Catholics that they must reject any employer plan that includes coverage for contraceptives, then their outrage might begin to make sense.
First of all, the Catholic Church has lost all claim to be a "moral" institution, unworthy to dictate behavior to their own community, let alone those outside it.
Second, if they are going to operate a business in the larger community and accept federal tax dollars, they will live by the government's regulations just as any business does. Don't want the rules? Don't take the money. Or the tax exemptions granted religious institutions.
Third, if we had a single payer system, as every other developed nation does, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The church would have no involvement in or control over its employees' health insurance coverage.
I do not support or believe in the Catholic Church's rule banning "artificial" contraception (they only approve the rhythm method). That was one of MANY reasons I left the C. church a long time ago.
However, if practicing Catholics want to believe that, they have that right under the US constitution. It harms no one else, and breaks no constitutionally instituted law of our nation. Therefore, the Obama administration is prohibiting the free exercise of religion -- which is a violation of the constitution.
If the Muslims had a similar situation conflicting with the new government edict, I'll bet the Obama administration would not act the same as they are in this case involving Catholicism.
I tend to support the First Amendment unreservedly as a fundamental American value and I recognize the positive role that the Christian faith has played in many lives, despite the Church's history of Crusades, Inquisitions, witch trials and the like.
But religions, the Catholic Church being prominent among them, control their followers largely by attempting to prohibit or restrict opportunites for ecstatic experience that are obtained either through the use of psychotropic substances or through sensual or carnal means. This is a denomination that has worked relentlessly to render nonprocreative sexual relations as hazardous and expensive as possible for believers and nonbelievers alike worldwide. It seems utterly hypocritical that an institution whose ceaseless efforts to have their puritanical and soul-destroying anhedonic values enshrined (pun intended) into civil and criminal laws now complains bitterly about government interference in this instance.
I also think it's a misnomer to call oneself "pro-life" if one is only concerned with a single species, Homo sapiens, at the gestational stage of development.
What if a church believed treatment for heart attacks was against God's will, but still operated civil hospitals and outpatient clinics? If an employee who was not a member of the church had a heart attack at work, could the church not only fail to treat the employee, but also refuse to pay for health insurance such that another provider could treat the employee?
Alot of the support for the administration's mandate regarding coverage of artificial contraception sounds more anti-Catholic than pro-employee. Perhaps putting it in a non-Catholic context will help some of your listeners think about this more rationally. Let's say a Hindu group opens a hospital or a university. They are not doing so because they thought that health care or education was a good business decision but because it was in furtherence of their spiritual mission. As these ventures grew and succeed they attracted non-Hindus as both patients students and doctors/teachers. Some of these non-Hindu employees eat meat. Should the religious organization be required to offer meat in the hospital/school cafeteria? Should they be required to specifically subsidize the purchase of meat out side the hospital and school? The point is both in the Hindu example here and in the Catholic context, the ventures in which the employees are working are an outreach of the employer's religious mission NOT their pecuniary/business interest. The employees have CHOSEN to work in furtherance of a religious ministry of a faith they do not share for whatever reason they may have. That does NOT give them the right to demand that the faith based employer change the tenents and practice of the faith.
The separation of church and state applies in both directions; state should not interfere with religion and Church should not try to impose its dogmas on secular state.
People working in a secular capacity or studying at various, clergy run institutions, should not be required to follow these dogmas, unless they chose so.
This is not yet a religious republic.
"Many religious Americans believe (these drugs) cause abortions."
What do doctors say?
"Many religious Americans believe (these drugs) cause abortions."
They are not forced to use them. Your beliefs stop where mine start.
Isn't this comparable to the Civil Rights Act? The point being
if you serve the public and/or take public money you can't be exempt from public laws, mores, needs whatever the reason.
This is a preventive health service that I want my daughters to have. They each pay a hundred dollars a month for birth control because their employers' insurance does not pay for these.
I am not comfortable with the tendency of our gov leaders to help churches enforce their religious beliefs. We do not elect them to be our church "elders". If church elders can't keep their women from using birth control, they should not expect the government--a separate lay entity -- to do it for them.
The federal government has the authority to make many mandates regarding health, safety and national security. In Europe the health system is superior to the USA and their life expectancies prove that.
With or without the mandates of the Affordable Care Act, all Americans will pay for the uninsured- an indirect mandate.
Food for 9 Billion: Turning the Population Tide in the Philippines
PBS News Hour AIR DATE: Jan. 23, 2012
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/globalhealth/jan-june12/philippines_01-23...
This story on the PBS NewsHour really is enlightening - it shows how people in the Philippines who have less children have more income which allows them to be more healthy, go to school and educate their children, contribute to their economies, etc. I was amazed that they showed a direct correlation between population growth and overfishing - this improved after contraceptives became readily available. I knew this would be the case since it makes common sense, but it was interesting to see the data play out. I think many in the West think "these people" want to have large families, but given the choice, they will also limit their size because they also see the direct benefits to their lives.
One thing never gets brought up in this debate, which is that birth control is used by some women to prevent and treat ovarian cysts, and related problems. This bothers me, because I know women who suffer from these issues and find it very expensive to afford them, even under insurance plans. And now Catholic hospitals are trying to prevent these same women from obtaining their very necessary medicine, even when they *can* afford it? What if someone is admitted to their emergency room with severe cysts?
(Oh wow! Right as I typed that last line, the guest on the show mentioned a woman who had a ruptured cyst!)
I believe that closing these requirement loopholes for ANY group is the right decision. Their participants need not make use of them.
Stray thought: Federally-funded Universal Health Care would remedy this situation and other similar issues......
This is just more fuel for the fire in which "separation of church and state" is used one-way instead of both ways. It's perfectly okay for the government to interfere with religion, it's just not "okay" for religious people to try to influence government anymore. Hypocrisy at its finest.
In response to the comment made on the show a few minutes about about how the school can't 'coerce' its students/staff to subscribe to the "official" morals -- of course they can! Nobody put a gun to their head and told them to work there or take classes there in the first place. Attending there or working there was a voluntary decision, and part of that decision was accepting the code of conduct and the morals of the institution that the individual was joining. The individual is free to seek education or employment elsewhere; therefore, the institution is free to impose any requirements it wants to, since participation is voluntary.
The new regulations are only extended towards charity, schools, and other non-church institutions which are only affiliated with the Catholic faith. These institutions are also taking in public money and tax subsidies so they should be subject to the same regulations as other publicly supported venues that perform the same services.
How is the position of the Catholic Church different from me having to pay for wars I believe are immoral or the administration of the death penalty, or go to jail? the church takes federal money for many of the institutions at issue and is subject to all the other anti-discrimination laws on the books. Why not this one? In some cases like Catholic Charities they get govt contracts that provide a huge portion of their funding, yet they seem to want it on their terms.
Should The Christian Science Monitor be allowed to prohibit payment for insurance coverage of blood transfusions to its employees?
I'm sure that divorce is a sin according to Catholics and evangelical Christians. Do these "monks" feel comfortable being at a college that probably employs divorced people? After all, divorce is covered in the great 10 Commandments.
It is interesting to see a country like Philippines where clergy runs amok and even threatened their president with excommunication for trying to help poor with contraception. It is only country in that region that has poverty linked to explosive population growth.
It is interesting that these policies always affect poor and abuse the fact that these people have no choice.
US own clergy tried excommunication route here and threatened our politicians with excommunication as well.
Can't the issue of birth control coverage be addressed by the Hospital (or religious business) itself by offering it a'la-carte in the employee level insurance plans? That way it's offered and covered, yet, the employee can "opt out" due top religious reasons, and their premium would be based on a non-covered plan, so their money would NOT be "going towards" birth control? Bingo, solved.
What if I believe the world is over populated and my moral beliefs think you should only have one child, why should I have to partake in insurance coverage that pays for maternity care? This is not necessarily my belief but it has to work both ways.
In many situations we don't have a choice about whether to work for a Catholic entity. The choice is to work on not to work! Further these same Catholic entities do take federal dollars and both state and federal tax breaks.
The Susan B. Komen organization was founded to fund breast cancer research. How does funding Planned Parenthood further that mission?
@Slim1921, these monks aren't being forced to pay for the divorces. That is the point in question.
Seems to me if religious groups are going to operate without paying taxes into the public funds for the health and welfare for the common good, there should be an even greater onous on such an organization to provide for the full range of health care for all employees. If churches don't want to do that, let them give up their enormous wealth collected without paying any taxes.