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.
I voted for President Obama and am not a Catholic. But I consider the administrations stand on forcing Religious owned hospitals, schools, etc. to require they pay for contraceptions a great mistake. I don't know if I could vote for the President again if he holds to this stand. He may even win the legal argument (though I hope not), but I believe he will lose the war. With his political position as precarious as it is in the upcoming election, I would think this could be a deal breaker for many of his religious supporters such as myself. The Catholic church has had a official position opposed to contraception for decades, and it seems to me clearly a mistake for the administration to take a stand at this pass in which issues of religious liberty are at stake.
What an individual catholic-- or any other person believes and practices according to his/her conscience is between that person and God. The Church is not a democracy, and everyone knows that. Just as if someone agency were to try to impose a dictatorship on a state or local government, we Americans would complain that it's against our constitution and democratic principles, so should it be when a secular agency or government imposes its belief or-- non-belief on a church-- or any religion.
We should realize that the appointed leaders have a right to uphold the beliefs and teachings of the church. "Government of the people. . ." is the same government that is held to the restrictions on government described in the first amendment of the constitution.
I can see both sides.
This is my concern: students at these universities utilize federal student aid (pell grants, loans v/a gibill) so why wouldn't the federal goverment have a say. If they are the ones (we are the ones) providing funding for these universities.
The experience in the UK should be a lesson for the US. When the government refused an demotion for Caholic adoption agencies to exclude same sex couples from receiving adoption services this led to most agencies closing, The real consequence has been a crisis for children who no longer have his service.
Although I agree with the country's founders that state should not dictate religious practice and religions should not dictate state practices I am constantly amazed at how inconsistent religions are. Clearly with many issues religions do not want the state involved in their business however religions certainly spend much time and hidden money trying to influence the state. But I am SHOCKED continuously that particularly concervative christians but also other conservative and fundamental religions speak out on issues such as this but are nearly silent in opposition to war, torture and healthcare for all. In my understanding, Jesus was the first to provide free healthcare and didn't care if someone was clean or unclean or engaged in inappropriate behavior.
Is it the case that if an organization runs a hospital (or other non-church institution), then they must provide services to people of all religious views?
Is it also the case that, under the rule being discussed, if a hospital (or other non-church institution) provides services to people of all religious views, then they must pay for contraception for their female employees?
Don't these two together mean that if an organization runs a hospital (or other non-church institution), then they must pay for contraception for their female employees?
What would happen if the Catholic Church stopped running hospitals?
Most Catholic health benefits do not cover vasectomies either so this is not solely a gender issue. Most also cover fertility services which many non-religious employers do not. Many religious employers offer richer benefit packages than non-religious so as a prospective employee, we have choices to make.
And they are NOT being forced to pay for birth control. It's already part of the package. To me, it's a bigger moral issue that if you consider divorce (Thou shalt not commit adultery) one of the top ten sins, then how can you use your money to hire people who are CLEARLY living in sin (and don't tell me all these folks have asked for forgiveness, like Newt). The deal here is, as always, that major religions are selective about what sins they will pay for. AND, if you don't want to follow federal guidelines, DON'T TAKE FEDERAL MONEY! I really don't like having MY tax dollars going to fund religious institutions.
Corporations aren't people, but they are made up of people. Why do those people not have religious liberty?
Mr. Rienzi stated earlier that most use of birth control is used for preventative measures whereas one of the other panel members commented on it being used largely for non-pregnancy prevention. What are the statistics?
One point surprisingly not discusssed is the common conception that unplanned pregnancies can be a contributing factor to some women eventually going on welfare. Many who are against birth control also often resent "welfare babies". It seems obvious that in the long run, providing the former would save money on the latter.
I have heard many comments from women on the program, but I would like to point out that this is very much a man's issue as it is a women's issue. I am a Catholic male, and while I see no problem with certain forms of contraception, I have a problem with the potential father's voice not being heard.
The reason for contraception is to prevent a pregnancy, which should be as much of a decision for the potential father as it is the potential mother, considering that the father is expected to support that child. I am also wondering if there are any laws about rights to your body. Once a man gives up his sperm, does a woman than have the right to do what she wants with it?
"AND, if you don't want to follow federal guidelines, DON'T TAKE FEDERAL MONEY! I really don't like having MY tax dollars going to fund religious institutions."
This regulation isn't a guideline, but a regulation. A requirement. And it is being imposed upon groups regardless of whether they accept federal grants.
I don't see what the issue is. This won't harm the Catholic church at all because Catholic teaching prohibits use of contraception. As a result, none of the people eligible to receive contraception under the rule will choose to do so because their faith prohibits it.
The objective of contraceptives and birth control means is
to be sexual active, while avoiding pregnancy. A vasectomy
has the same goal. Would a vasectomy also be verboten??
I was raised Catholic, but left the religion long ago because it seemed to have so little basis in reality. I can't understand why the people in control of the church have such an obsession with sex and controlling women.
This controversy is trying to send a message to their membership that using contraception (or abortion) to control your own reproductive cycle is wrong. They are concerned that the pews will be empty and interest in the Church will wane as time moves forward. Ensuring that Catholics have lots of children is a good way to keep them stocked with fresh "believers."
It's ironic, but the Church is very Darwinian. It is doing whatever it can to survive and thrive.
@Franklistening
2) is wrong. I don't know why people like you have such difficulty with this concept. Force implies action. There is no force in inaction. I know, it's hard, so let's run through a few examples.
If you run across a homeless person, and he asks you for a quarter and you don't give it, you aren't exercising force. However, if you run across a homeless person, and you grab him, wrestle him to the ground, and give him a haircut, then yes, that is force.
If you wake up tomorrow morning and decide not to come to my house to prepare me breakfast, you aren't exercising any kind of force against me. If however, you come to my house and push me into a chair and make me eat oatmeal, then yes, that is force.
If I don't provide you with some types of prescription drugs, I am not forcing anything. If however I follow you around and violently prevent you from obtaining those drugs by your own means, then yes, that is force.
Keep working on it. I've given you a start. The effort will eventually pay off!
@sane
Because these drugs were routinely available in the 14th century, right?
1. Question: does Catholic U. insurance cover vasectomies? If I approached some Catholic priests in Confession, they would tell me a vasectomy is an immoral choice. Other priests would tell me to do what I have to do; that freedom of conscience based on reasonable efforts to know why something is moral, right and necessary is guaranteed even by Benedict XVI.
2. If a woman ends a pregnancy, some folks call it abortion. If a woman ends an ectopic pregnancy, Catholic moralists call it necessary surgery. If a woman ends a pregnancy because of uterine cancer, Catholic moralists call that necessary surgery also.
But if a woman ends a pregnancy because her doctors have told her that surviving her death threatening pulmonary hypertension can only be done by ending her pregnancy--well, one Catholic bishop in Arizona has already gone on record that she "had excommunicated herself"
3. It's time for the guys who run the church to realize that God created women with consciences just like men, and that they have the right [as demonstrated by the choice gave both Adam and Eve] to do what they consider right. Let the monks and priests examine their own consciences--they obviously don't understand women.
5. This whole issue is contrived by members of the Catholic church--not by the administration-- who use their membership as a way of misrepresenting their Church.
By the way, my wife and I have 8 children and we both cherish the right of women to choose, aka "following one's own conscience."
What kind of a man would ask his wife to die in childbirth to protect the unborn offspring?
During the conversation Mark Rensi said (paraphrasing) that one problem here is that the gov't is forcing the religious organizations to do something against their beliefs in order to get money, and that is bad.
How come it was ok for the Bush administration to essentially do the same thing in reverse when they withheld money from organizations that provided abortion services. I might be wrong but I seem to remember that they even wanted to extend that to any reproductive services beyond abstinence counseling.
How is this different? and wasn't that the same as forcing their beliefs on everyone else?
DrAndreuJRichar... wrote:
Religious organizations want separation of church and state when it is convenient to them... They believe that it is selective on their part...
Wait a minute are you suggesting that an institution or individual would want the best of both worlds and would want what is best for them. Of course they want it both ways as do you in every situation that makes you or anyone else decide.
Can we all for a moment acknowledge the absurdity of the statement by the guest that the "monks at Belmont Abbey hope" that women don't seek out contraception elsewhere? Who could possibly be more out of touch with womens lives than a group of monks? And I have often wondered if the church allows their insurance to pay for Viagra? If contraception is wrong because all sex should be for procreation, how do "ED" meds fit into this? I've never heard itdescribed as a fertility drug.
Ms. Waxman says that by not offering contraception in their health plan religious institutions are negatively impacting the health of women in general. If you're going to force these institutions to violate their beliefs, they will have no alternative but to stop offering their employees a health plan. What impact will that have on the health of these women? Another argument she makes is that this issue is not about abortion. I would point out that the "morning-after" pill is in a category called "abortifacients" so it absolutely does involve abortion regardless of one's belief on when life begins.
@rstgravel
It is remarkable the number of you who have difficulty with this concept.
As I said to the umpteenth person who said the exact same thing, inaction is not force. Force requires action.
If I withhold sending you money by Paypal because I think you're an insufferable a-hole, I am not forcing my beliefs about anything on you. On the other hand, if I go and beat you up, then that's different.
If someone refrains from mugging the taxpayers to pay for your pet special interest, again THERE IS NO FORCE INVOLVED.
If I WITHHOLD MY EFFORTS, MY LABOR, MY CREATIVE ENERGY OUT OF A PERSONAL BELIEF, IT IS NOT FORCING ANYTHING ON ANY HYPOTHETICAL BENEFICIARIES OF MY EXERTIONS.
meganm311,
Uh, Megan, I hate to point out a pretty basic medical fact to you, but erectile dysfunction, as implied by the DYSFUNCTION part, is a medical disorder.
FERTILITY IS NOT A MEDICAL DISORDER.
"The objective of contraceptives and birth control means is
to be sexual active, while avoiding pregnancy. A vasectomy
has the same goal. Would a vasectomy also be verboten??"
Why yes, as a matter of fact. The Catholic Church objects to sterilization as much as to contraception and for very much the same reasons. Moreover, Church organizations' insurance plans don't pay for sterilization procedures, and this regulation is an attempt to coerce us to do both.
There was a time when the catholic faith prohibited, and cruelly punished science for trying to reverse the belief of the church that the sun rotated around earth. In other words, although the catholic church still pretends to be infallible, it was NOT, and is NOT.
"Ms. Waxman says that by not offering contraception in their health plan religious institutions are negatively impacting the health of women in general. If you're going to force these institutions to violate their beliefs, they will have no alternative but to stop offering their employees a health plan. What impact will that have on the health of these women? Another argument she makes is that this issue is not about abortion. I would point out that the "morning-after" pill is in a category called "abortifacients" so it absolutely does involve abortion regardless of one's belief on when life begins."
David DiDo,
You are right, except that Obamacare requires the insurance plans as well, and levies very stiff fines for disobedience. The president of the University of Notre Dame said that the fines on his institution alone would be $10 million annually! This is obviously a crippling amount. Most Catholic organizations - even those the size of Notre Dame - don't have the deep pockets of Notre Dame.
for those of us who are conservatives it appears that libs are using this tactic to chip away at religious freedoms; their goal is to marginalize religion to the far edges of society especially Christianity. this is just one issue, gay marriage is next.
i like obama but his social justice agenda is really making me reconsider my vote. i think national healthcare is a great idea but this is overstepping.
Regarding Skip's comment:
Catholic pharmacists routinely dispense contraceptives. They are not sinners, only pharmacists.
Gun shop owners sell handguns and ammunition. They are not sinners, only businessmen.
We may not like what people do, but that does not make their acts unreasonable, unfair or immoral. Nor does it make sense for us to judge their actions immoral.
Actions alone are amoral--it's the understanding and the will that makes them moral or immoral. Civil and criminal law makes them legal or illegal.
Maybe the problem is not with the President--think of all the Americans who agree with him.
@Vragen
So, what you're saying is that the church should never be allowed to exercise state-like powers?
Well, let's keep the arrangement mutual. Don't let the state go in and dictate to the church how it arranges its affairs.