Religous Liberty, Politics and Women’s Health Care
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-08/religous-liberty-politics-and-women%E2%80%99s-health-care
Yesterday senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod indicated that the administration may seek some kind of compromise on the new rule which requires religious institutions to include access to contraceptives in their employee health plans. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney seized on the issue calling the rule an assault on religion. Please join us for a conversation on religious liberty, politics, and women’s health.
Guests
Barry Lynn
executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and author of "Piety & Politics" (Harmony Books)
Anthony Picarello
associate general counsel, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Sarah Brown
ceo, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Think - "Haiti" and the missionary approach to 'helping them while helping themselves" to a nice college application video. Of course, what the Haitians need - they don't really care. They use Haiti as a venue for their missionary education.
The Haitians just keep on smiling amidst the rubble.
The biggest problem is that individuals are not able to effectively choose their coverage. The employer chosen group insurance model (and the tax and health policy that enshrine it) is the problem, and no amount of tweaking it is going to "fix" anything.
We need to take away the tax incentives for group coverage (make all premiums equally deductible), mandate small maximum differences between individual and group insurance rates, and let the market figure it out. Strip out all coverage mandates and just build a market that actually gives individuals effective choice.
I keep hearing arguments about what we want people to [be able to] do conflated with a need for a government mandate. Maybe we should ask ourselves why the horribly dysfunctional system we have does not actually bring about the outcomes we collectively want. All the current isntitutional incentives are wrong, and adding one more mandate to the employer provided anti-choice system isn't really going to fix anything.
Craig Rhodes- My take on Catholic vasectomies would be that men are allowed control over their reproduction and their bodily integrity that women are denied. If that is the case then this cross cutting contradiction is an intensification of gender bias.
Thank you so much for this valuable information, Craig.
Everyday we argue over pretty much the same thing, the federal government doing things it's not authorized to do under the constitution. This country is not under the rule of the likes of Ruth Baiter Ginsberg. This is a state issue. The problem is always the same, the mess created by the federal government. When the federal government gets bigger everything else gets smaller.
What if a religiously supported hospital found out an employee sought contraception or abortion from another provider? Could they terminate her for not practicing what they preach? Could a Jehovah's Witness employer, whether or not they are church affiliated, refuse to cover blood transfusions? Or could a Christian Scientist provide a prayer policy instead of medical health care?
I too am pissed that my tax dollars are used to murder a human by death penalty or abortion.
The issue at hand here is whether the government, in addition to the above atrocity, can compel a private organization (especially the Catholic church) to violate its conscience and actively provide a service it morally objects to.
To relate it to your argument, HHS is telling the Catholic church to BE the executioner!
What about Vascetomy's, do we not provide that option to men?
Don't we already require employers to do things that may go against their religious freedoms? A store run by a white supremicist church would be forced the federal government to avoid discriminating against any employees of color. Why should the Catholic church be allowed to discriminate against women who don't work directly for the church?
Don't we already require employers to do things that may go against their religious freedoms? A store run by a white supremicist church would be forced the federal government to avoid discriminating against any employees of color. Why should the Catholic church be allowed to discriminate against women who don't work directly for the church?
It seems to me the answer is simple. The catholic institution is required to make the option available. I believe the problem is the government requirement that it must be covered regardless.
What is that guy talking about is he really saying that you just shouldn't have a job with a religious affiliated association, even a reputable catholic hospital where many nurses and advanced doctors can work, just because they don't provide birth control!! That's ridiculous, what is wrong with giving women an option instead of a man sitting around telling a woman that if you are religious then you can't control your own reproductive system! It amazes me that certain religious groups feel that contraception is a stepping stone away from abortion- it's not it's prevention and for a woman who can barely afford to feed herself should have the option to not have to worry about feeding herself and a small child.
Thank for an excellent program with lively debate. What I see is this is yet another reason to move away from employer provided health care, this would take the "freedom of religion" out of the discussion.
Thanks for your excellent programing.
My husband once worked for a small firm that picked a competitive health insurance plan that happened to be a Catholic plan, sometimes companies change plans to pick the competive plan. I don't believe my husband' company was particularly religious they were picking the cheapest plan. My family is then twice removed from the decision on not to provide birth control.
Diane:
Asking how the Catholic Church can justify funding Viagra and drugs like it and not fund contraception shows an uncharacteristic total lack of understanding of the Church's principals. One mission of the Church is to promote God's directive to "go forth, be fruitful and multiply." Vigara promotes multiplying; contraception does not. The Church is obpossed to funding vasectomies as well as abortion and female contraception. Please do not cherry pick the things you choose to compare for the sake of making an argument -- it may sound good to people who already agree with you, but it sounds like nonsense to those who understand the issue.
Commuter Chris
I wonder if this whole issue would be an ussue if men were responsible for birth control and held directly accountable for the consequences.
Two things: 1. I have a daughter who has had 3 ovarian cysts and has been on birth control since she was 17. If she was employed by a Catholic institution, would this be covered? 2. The letter read in the name of our archbishop on Sunday almost made my husband get up and walk out of church. It was very close to crossing a line of the Church telling us what to do on a political matter.
I agree with the idea that providing contraceptives logically reduces the need for abortions, so the Church should want to provide for it in its health insurance. However, it begs the real question: why must the Church pay for it? Why can't a women who wants this as part of her insurance buy an add-on to her insurance straight from the insurance provider?
As a male I believe it is not a man's place to make decisions that affect the health of women. If it is a strong belief held by a couple then they can make that decision as a couple. Having a male speaker discuss why rights should be denied to women is not right.
Additionally separation of church and state should lead to all funds being denied to religious institutions including hospitals that practice religion in any way in their hospitals.
In the case of birth control and the Catholic church, policymakers are up against the infallibility of the pope.
What percentage of Syria's government activity is murder? 3%? Planned Parenthood can do 97% of excellent service to women but as long as it does Abortion I will hate it. If it did 0% abortion I would say it is helping the world but it insists on doing abortion. Any percent (a single abortion) is wrong.
Birth control pills are also used in the treatment of certain diseases such as endometriosis. I take them for this reason even though pregnancy would be an impossibility for me since I have had both fallopian tubes removed. What does the law say with regard to this? Would a Catholic employer have to provide this medication since it would not be against their religion?
The usual response of Catholics in the upper echelons is that nobody is making employees work for Catholic Hospitals or other institutions, nobody is preventing Employees from going elsewhere for their insurance. The question that needs to be asked is why the Catholic "Corporation" trumps individual liberty, freedom and equality under the law. The history of religion has been that of religion trumping individual rights and curtailing the freedom provided by equality under the law.
The response to Catholic institutions who make the argument above is the same as theirs: Nobody is forcing Catholic Institutions to open Hospitals or other institutions. Nobody is forcing Catholic Institutions benefits they ideologically oppose in America. If they don't want to obey our laws, then they should go to another country.
This is not a restriction on the Catholic church. It is a limit on the insurance company run by them. If you want to be an insurer, you have to follow the laws regarding insurance.
It seems to me that this religious group, with a recent history of criminal sexual activity in some of its leadership, is attempting to legislate the beliefs of those who work in its public institutions. I so remember having an audience with Lanza del Vasto, founder of the Catholic pacifist community in southern France - Communaut de la Arc. He described the Catholic Church as a world voluntary government. IF people choose to follow the teachings there may be peace on earth. Again, as we see, the very leadership is unable to follow the teachings. But the teachings must remain voluntary in order to follow the peaceful teaching of Jesus.
I support institutions providing health insurance with coverage for contraception for the very reason that our insurance system is a mainly employer based. At this time, there does not exist a fair affordable alternative to employer based insurance and therefore, one of the basic preventive and necessary health care services is not accessible to a whole portion of the population which goes against the need for equal access to care. Also, to say that it is against the right of the institution to offer such coverage because it runs contrary to their religious beliefs seems to permit that institution to make other restrictions as well; i.e. they do not hire women to practice certain duties in the business due to their gender because they might not condone men and women working together which smacks of workplace discrimination to me. This reminds me of the "Citizens United" ruling finding that businesses have civil rights with which I stridently disagree.
I am always amazed at the time we waste trying to understand the dubious reasoning of all religious positions which are often fragile and based on crass organizations like the Catholic Church that for 600 years ran an inquisition that burned women at the stake when they disagreed with the Church. (Particularly if they were Jewish, Moorish or Cathar.) Freedom of religion often means religions can be lobbyest-level bullies and get away with it. Real bravery would be to establish the limits of control a supernatural-based organization can exercise in control of an individuals freedoms to make their own decisions. Never forget it took the Catholic Church until the 20th Century to accept Galileo's idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the Sun revolving around the Earth. We might take Arthur Schopenhauer's remark about truth to apply here...except in extreme slow motion.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Perhaps we need those truly for religious freedom to lobby against these faith-based relics of a not very pretty past.
I am a woman in my 30s, not a Catholic, but a Christian. I do use birth control for both a contraception and medical reasons. I agree with using it, and I understand why so many Catholic women use it as well. However, I also understand why the Catholic Church has a problem with this mandate. It's against of their religious beliefs. I understand President Obama's administrations position, but I think they need to figure a way to provide that service to those women who work in those institutions, ie: Planned Parenthood. I feel that people who have a problem with how the Catholic Church runs business, they need to take it up with the Catholic Church. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to force these organizations to do something against their religious beliefs.
So sorry, bobble head. But the poor who turn down a job because they can't get coverage at the local hospital, can't be seen as 'deserving poor,' They can lose their job and are not paid if they have to take off work to go to planned parenthood rather than losing a whole day work by waiting at a public health clinic. Someone has to watch their children while they are attending to all the tasks that the 'High Church" and "High and Mighty" law firms provide their employees. Let's say that law firms that take lobbying money from the church, can not offer these services to their secretaries and female lawyers.
Come on, I cannot choose to work with any organization or business of my choice. Here I am, you must hire me. However, I must have this, and this, and whatever, and you as my boss , have no sayso about it. This is just ridiculous. So why would it be rediculous for the Catholic Church to be pushed so hard that it freely, and legally choose to chose its organizations, hospitals, charities, schools, university. If your think this is equally ridiculous, don't count on it, don't count it.
Come on, I cannot choose to work with any organization or business of my choice. Here I am, you must hire me. However, I must have this, and this, and whatever, and you as my boss , have no sayso about it. This is just ridiculous. So why would it be rediculous for the Catholic Church to be pushed so hard that it freely, and legally choose to chose its organizations, hospitals, charities, schools, university. If your think this is equally ridiculous, don't count on it, don't count it.