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.
A vasectomy is reversible, thus is not sterilization.
@jonesy
Absolutely. I am waiting for the day that the argument is made that because a road runs in front of a church, and the church benefits from that government road, then the church should not be allowed to teach ideas the government wishes to prohibit.
Teaching that abortion is wrong? Well, you've that government road there. You'd better just shut up about that.
@Lisa in Concord
When Jesus provided "free healthcare for all," he used friggin magic.
The government, despite all your worst and silliest illusions, isn't magic. We live in the real world. If the government wants to provide "free" healthcare, it must find a way to pay for it. Ironic how free requires money, huh? So the government has to spy on its citizens, invade their financial privacy, count every nickel of every transaction, look under every mattress for hidden money, and tax them. Then, it must fine and jail those who try to avoid paying the levy. And for those who resist, there is the ultimate sanction.
So, when Jesus provided his magical free healthcare, did he use thugs with guns and tax collectors? I didn't know he and Caesar were such close friends.
Fertility may not be a medical disorder; however, have you ever checked the odds of a woman in the US dying in childbirth?
The odds of an infertile woman dying in childbirth are pretty bad.
But in all be the best circumstances, childbirth can be a hazard, to mother and child.
to Pteromandias
I think you mis-understood the point of my comment maybe because it was poorly written.
My real question is not so much about beliefs, but more about actions of the fed gov't and those who get money from the gov't. Let me try again.
How is the idea that the fed gov't can withhold money from private organizations unless the not provide something different than the fed gov't withholding money unless they do something.
To me it is the same, if an organization wants federal money, follow the rules presented.
The focus is not so much on the beliefs (as my previous post inferred) but more about the control that can be, and is put in place by those paying, in this case the fed gov't.
And in this scope, my question/comment would not apply to any group that does not take money from said fed gov't
to Pteromandias:
I've always maintained medical care insurance for myself and a family of 10. In doing so, I was paying for care of others less fortunate--and some just freeloading.
Best estimates are that the rising costs of health insurance can be met and reduced only if "everyone pays the bill." With the costs coming down and spread among the entire population, the government won't need to spend so much money. Now most of the cost is spread as a benefit to insurers.
Or, we can continue as we go and further enrich the insurance companies.
On the contrary. The government is not blocking services at all. The problem here, it seems to me, is faithful Catholics who believe they must control or have a say in what others do. When a religious view of the sponsors of an insitution whose purpose is not religious means discriminating against others and imposing that view on others, such as denying health insurance coverage that includes contraception even though many of their employees consider using contraception acceptable, then it is violating the freedom of religion of those folks to choose according to their religious views rather than the institution's. It forces them to pay out of pocket, which many may not be able to do and denies them equal access.
I respect the religious views of everyone and sympathize with the personal struggles of faithful Catholics who are pained by what others do regarding contraception, abortion and the like. At the same time, as a Jew, I find it unacceptable when any religious view finds its way into government and the law, as it has regarding abortion and contraception.
The Obama adminsitration is right to draw the line between religious insitutions whose mission is religious, i.e., churches, syngagoues, mosques, etc., and those whose mission is non-religious. Those insitutions who do not want to live with this can decide to accept only Catholics as students, patients, clients, etc. and also give up the federal and state funds that require them to do otherwise. If it is that important that everything they touch must align with their reiligious beliefs, incuding anything that others with different views may want to use or do, then they can chose to create that world for themselves and stop imposing their views on others. Institutions are not individuals and should not be allowed to impose a religious view even if those who run the institutions are religious, except when the mission of the insitution is religious.
It strikes me as odd that your guest can say that the government cannot interfere with the running of religious groups when clearly, in several parts of the southwest, the government has cracked down on Polygamous sects.
Is that not a regulation of religious belief by the government?
As a woman and a graduate of the university of notre dame AND the Jesuit theological seminary in Berkeley, I can say from long experience that the church always falls back on it's absolutist views whenever women's rights are under discussion. As the chairman of the theology department Fr Richard MacBrien used to say: "When the church finally chooses to ordain women, the proclamation will read, in Latin of course, 'As the church has always taught...'" In other words, the church holds its absolutist views until it abandons them! There are SO many ways for these religiously affiliated employers to create a pool of funds for its employees to use with their discretion - why not create the pool and let them use the funds as they see fit and back out of their lives. Or, alternately, get MORE involved: ask your employees to submit receipts for all their purchases - you bought CONDOMS with that paycheck?
What about women who use contraceptives for medical purposes other than birth control? Should they not be covered by their employer?
This is NOT a question of discrimination against women. If anything it is discrimination against religion as now the Federal Gov't is dictating how religious organizations should act.
I just wanted to share my own story. For medical reasons, I was not able to use birth control and wished to undergo a tubal ligation. My insurance was through a hospital that is catholic, therefore I wasn't allowed to have to procedure. I ended up having another child that I couldn't afford. I just find it very ironic that these organizations have no problem obtaining government funds but feel the need to tell a woman what medical procedure she can undergo. If a woman can't afford additional children, maybe these catholic organizations can pay for a child from birth to 18 if they're so set on not allowing women the right to use birth control.
Is viagra covered?
yes
Pteromandias,
"The past is never dead. It's not even past." (William Faulkner).
While the catholic church had the opportunity to have a different impact in the vacuum after the fall of the roman empire, its exercise of state-like powers engendered discrimination, multiple religion-wars, reformation and counter-reformation; endorsed slavery (St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas), even promoted perpetual slavery of "pagans"; and created all sorts of myths in addition to those in the new testament. All these consequences the result of irrationality, and willy-nilly interpretations of the new testament. I nearly forgot to add the impediment of the evolution of science.
Thank you for the opportunity to listen to a calm and thought provoking exchange regarding a subject that continues to be in the forefront after years of debate.
It appears that once again "control" by males over females is perhaps an answer to this topic. As one of your guest remarked Viagra is covered for males by insurance (industry controlled by males) but not birth control for females. The double standard continues regardless of how far the journey has been travelled.
The Catholic church demonstrated in the letter read by the Houston Catholic how it, the church, reaches out to "control" people, especially the backbone (women) of their church, to fall in step. Am sure that other "religions" have put forth rhetoric from the pulpit attempting the same manipulation.
As to the statement by your male guest that he was pleased that Susan G. Komen Foundation is "getting out of the reproductive area" and focusing on breast cancer. Something overlooked is that there is an "umbilicial cord" between birth control and breast examinations. This morning numerous emails requesting signature on petitions have been received and each one received a signature opposing this action. Yes, it was forwarded to address book requesting the same. Komen has become an icon for women in the quest for equality in health care.
There continues to be efforts by "male" dominated arenas to "control" lives of "women" inspite of the rhetoric put forth to the contrary. Lip service is easy but action speaks to character and values.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Does anyone feel this is somewhat parallel to the smoking debate?
When we aimed to make smoking in the workplace/public space illegal, many workplaces [eg bars, racetracks, etc] said people were not forced to work in places where people smoke, hence they could make their own choice and smoking ought to continue to be permitted.
However, this argument did not stand. Why? People are *not* always able to choose where to work in a tight economy.
It strikes me that for this same reason, religious institutions *must* permit their employees to make their own choice about birth control and whether or not to access/utilize it. In this economy in particular, many people have few choices of where to work. If healthcare is now mandated to be made available by employers, this is not up for discussion. It makes sense that the church would be frustrated and even angry about this rule, and yet Christianity rests upon the idea that we have free will and our choices will be judged by God. I"ll hope the church will let go of this struggle and just focus on teaching beliefs rather than on preventing sin.
I would like to know your guests opinion on the concept of separation of church and state and that there needs to be a reciprocal dis-association, i.e. if the " state" cannot interfere with the administration of religious doctrine, then religion cannot interfere with state law, other than individual citizen rights to vote " for or against" a law, a law maker, or even a president. Is not this the way we like a government to work? Voting in government representatives is a " roll of the dice". We try to pick the people that can, on average, make the right decisions for the good of their constituants, and it perhaps we need to swallow some results for the good of the whole society and not for a particular interest group, such as religious groups.
The contraception mandate is not tied to whether or not a school accepts federal or state funds.
If a religious school accepts a single non-Catholic (or non-Jew, or non-Muslim), can the federal government really come in and impose its views on the entire staff, student body and administration?
If President Obama can decide that the University of Notre Dame isn't, well, religious, what will prevent him from dictating lesson plans on sex education to a religious school? The HHS rules are so twisted that groups of missionaries would not be covered under the exemption. Face it, we're distorting reality (e.g., considering Catholic schools as "non-religious") so that we can achieve a desired political result. And in the process, we are subverting the most fundamental of human rights. History never turns out well when this happens.
Religion is not simply the sum of members acting individually. It is a corporal reality (think "body of Christ", not "corporation"). There is no individual freedom of religion where there is no freedom to act as a group. Christian, Muslims, and Jews all have definite religious mandates to perform such tasks as taking care of the poor and the sick.
This leaves religions who oppose contraception in an untenable position. They will not abandon their obligations, but neither can they subsidize the purchase of contraceptives.
Birth control can cost as little as $30 per month. That's right folks. We've been asked to sell our religious freedom for thirty pieces of silver.
Laurax72-
But did the smokers insist that their employers pay for their cigarettes?
I would like to dispute the comment that Catholic hospitals would be unwilling to save a woman's life if it were to end in termination of the pregnancy. This is absolutely false and NOT in accordance with the Catholic church's teachings. I would like to quote Fr. John J. Dietzen in his book Catholic Q&A,"A pregnant mother may be ill with a serious disease that the doctor must treat immediately. The doctor may know that if he does what is needed to heal the mother, she will lose the baby. An obvious illustration is cancer of the uterus. If in the physician's prudent medical judgment that the uterus must be removed...or the mother will die (or the cancer will likely spread critically), the uterus may be removed. Naturally, with such surgery the baby will die...It is a moral procedure. The baby is not killed, or aborted, in order to save the mother. It dies when the mother is treated as is medically necessary."
Also, it saddens me to think that people view pregnancies as inconveniences or "problems." Years ago, before I was married, I was more apt to side alongside the pro-choice issue. After having a child of my own--unplanned, as it so happens--I realize what a miracle it truly is. Also, I refute the idea that it is a woman's body, she has a right to choose what to do with her own body. It is NOT a part of you as your arm or uterus is. It is a separate being, with a different set of DNA, blood type, and its own heartbeat. That is all I have to say about that.
I'm the caller who noted that the Church's position on this issue is discriminatory towards women and thus hypocritical.
The points being made in the comments about Viagra are irrelevant. Viagra has nothing to do with contraception. However more relevant is the fact that the Church does provide contraceptive methods for men while at the same time denying it for women. As I noted in my call, I'm an example. I received a vasectomy at a Catholic hospital.
Church medical facilities regularly cover and perform vasectomies. Another commenter here has noted that vasectomies cannot be considered sterilization since they are reversible. That's nonsense if not straining at gnats. There is no guarantee that any vasectomy can be reversed. Moreover, there is no denying that the procedure is for birth control...contraception. No one, including me, gets a vasectomy with the intention of reversing it in the future.
Ask any urologist or pathologist who works at a Catholic hospital or medical facility and they will tell you that vasectomies are regularly performed there. It's about the money. Such procedures are very lucrative and urologists/staff are there to make a living. Birth control pills are much less lucrative.
Moreover, the guest Mark Rienzi who represented the Church on this issue was not truthful when he addressed my point. He disingenuously stated that if I had gotten a vasectomy at a Catholic hospital it would have been the exception to the rule. Not true. It is the rule. He simply couldn't admit the inherent hypocrisy of the Church on this issue.
I daresay that if the Church was hammered more on it's willingness to provide contraceptive services for men while denying it for women, this issue would go away fast.