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.
Sabrena, they don't want women who are unmarried to have sex at all. If you are married the only sex the church wants you to have us what they've sanctioned. It should be for procreation only, never for pleasure.
As mentioned, one of the big problems with refusing to provide birth control is that it's used for things besides contraception. I am a 25 year old virgin who has been on birth control for ten years, because without it my periods are so bad that I spend days vomiting and unable to leave the house. How can an institution refuse to provide something that's medically necessary for women with similar cases (and I know several) when they aren't even using it in what could logically be perceived as a morally objectionable way? At that point you are punishing women for being women.
It should be for procreation only, never for pleasure.
---------------
This is incorrect. It should be for love, with the possibility of procreation unimpeded.
I was very upset at church the other day when our priest read the letter from the archbishop to our congregation. He wrote a very one-sided letter that I did agree with but didn't not equally mention everything else that would be at stake, and that many of the congregants probably wouldn't agree with. I feel it (the letter) tried to take advantage of us.
In addition, I believe it is continually telling how the catholic church wields its power when it thinks something is SO IMPORTANT and that something is so pressing it has to be delt with right away. Not like when the children that were abused by their priests needed help, aide, or psychological care. They haven't lifted any of their powerful fingers to right their wrongs. It is such a shame.
Although both Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood provide many services that benefit women and are good organizations in their own right, I no longer donate to the Komen Organization because I did not know they give money to Planned Parenthood. If I want to donate to Planned Parenthood I will do so directly NOT through the Komen organization. It is my right to CHOOSE who gets my money and my right to CHOOSE not to donate if I so desire for whatever reason I deem necessary. The Komen organization took that right away from me. Now they have lost my donations and any future participation by me on any level. If and when they change their policy perhaps I will revisit making future donations. Until then I will now donate to the American Cancer Society.
I grew up in Northern Ireland and visited the Southern Ireland frequently. Northern Ireland's government is in London and Southern Ireland's (also known as Eire) government is in Dublin. Southern Ireland's government was very influenced by the Roman Catholic church and birth control was illegal there. I saw poor frail women with anywhere from 8 to 16 kids hanging around them. I remember thinking how tired they looked. It is only in approximately the last 20 years that birth control is no longer illegal in Eire.
I also remember my mother who was a nurse in Northern Ireland telling me about a young Catholic woman who's husband was dying leaving her with 7 hungry looking kids and in poverty. My mother who was taking care of the dying man felt so sorry for the young women that she gave her some money to buy food for the kids.
Is this what we want to go back to?
Thank you Diane and especially Mr. Picarello.
There is a deep misunderstanding on the reasoning within Catholic teaching. Here is a refreshing commentary dealing with contraception, which even freedom spirited, environmentally conscious liberals can get their minds around. Anyone who values environmental conservation/justice should read this. Conversely, anyone who truly understands the Catholic Church's stance on contraception might find their reverence for the earth deepened through this reminder....
http://www.pilgrimjournal.com/archive/1_2/organic_sex.html
Let's get consistent, folks.
The vast majority here speak as if this government intervention won't turn on them at some later date, how stupid can you get! Take money from the federal government and they own you, it's that simple.
What if Mary had used a contraceptive?
Does a contraceptive work in the case of immaculate conception?
What if Mary had used a contraceptive?
Does a contraceptive work in the case of immaculate conception?
-------------------
Probably not. Regrettably, you slipped past the goalie too.
What portion of these investigations are instigated by partisan politics? Further, if women that cannot afford medical insurance and do not qualify for medicaid, where are they to go for these vital health services? Have you even been inside a Planned Parenthood? Often I find it best to make judgments about anything after I fully consider it. I currently enjoy broccoli and mushrooms for this reason.
Five hundred years ago Christianity had a Reformation, breaking the bonds of institutional dictate and control of the individual conscience, promoting the concept of an individual's relationship with their God.
When the First Amendment was written, I believe that the intent covered BOTH the rights and independence of each faith, AND the rights and independence of the individual, and reduce or eliminate coercion from either.
Today our dependence on the corporate and institutional healthcare system is an impediment to both individual conscience and health.
If there was a healthcare system where the policy and conscience was "owned" by the individual rather than controlled by the employer, the question would be moot.
If the government is too intrusive, if corporations are people, and if the First Amendment only applies to organized religious institutions, and not to our individual conscience, then our only choice is which devil controls us.
Another aspect of religious employment is that it may not be as readily apparent as one may think. My father worked for "New York Medical College" which was originally a secular organization, but that then became part of the body of the Archdiocese of New York. There are many employees in organizations, frequently hospitals (some the only hospital in particular geographical regions), that may find themselves in a similar situation. Are people really expected to quit when things like this happen because of a different view on health care options?
Major Churches (such as the LDS) actually holds investments in other public institutions that are not religious at all. How would that work? (http://www.mint.com/blog/investing/how-churches-invest-05172010/)
I'm also surprised that someone may find themselves in a secular institution and having insurance provided by a religiously affiliated corporation simply because it's the cheapest. Major churches have the wherewithal to subsidize these services in a way that private organizations (even non-profits) cannot. Is that a true even playing field? At what point is a corporation just like any other corporation and when is it a religious organization from the pov of commercial law?
I'm frustrated that people are talking about "choice" in terms of a business having free "choice." Free choice refers to choices for individuals to make a choice of what is right for them, not for the business they work for to decide what they should do. I'm reminded of businesses that claimed that it was their right to "choose" not to serve people of color after they were ordered to integrate. They were rightly slapped down.
please remember that there is not one woman who is pro abortion. We are pro CHOICE.
St. Louis - So did you.
Aaron King:
Ordained minister Barry Lynn has - for the last nineteen (19) years - provided, and continues to provide a much needed, precious service in defending the general public against an extreme right wing agenda of irrational indoctrination basis "my way or no way". In the process, the reverend Barry Lynn is trying to sustain a balance in our liberal democracy that is rapidly turning into a oligarchic plutocracy which is also showing certain characteristics of fascism.
Yesterday, Tuesday, 7 February, 2012, in Texas, the Department of State Health Services began enforcing women seeking an abortion - without exceptions - to watch ultrasound images, and listen to sonograms, regardless of the women's conditions, even in extreme cases where women have serious health problems, e.g. cancer that requires intensive treatments detrimental to the fetus, such as surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, etc.
That would not only be harassment , but also cruel treatment.
The idea that people should just change jobs is one that died with the recession. It can take over a year to find a job, I don't think it is fair for people to have to narrow that job search field because something isn't covered by a righteous employer. And anyone who has ever bought birth control with out insurance knows that it is anything but cheap. Health departments and clinics are overwhelmed with young girls who have no where else to go for contraception, why would we want grown women with health insurance to have to go to these places as well, just because their employer has put their own ideas on a pedestal?
This program about religious institutions providing medical insurance plans that include the CHOICE, not the mandate, of birth control medication is a powerful argument for a national health care plan.
Amen to the man who just spoke and said that men should not be dictating what women should do with their bodies.
Betsy
My concern is that by not allowing any form of contraception in an insurance program, one may be concerned that without contraception, some women may be placed into situations that may threaten their life. My wife was forced to get her tubes tied because contraceptives did not work the first 3 kids and if she got preagnant again, there is a strong chance that she would die. It isn't just that religious dogma have the right to threaten the life of the woman.
I take birth control pills as a means of controlling debilitating migraines. It has been one of the only therapies which has worked to reduce the number and severity of these episodes. It is outrageous to me that institutions which accept federal funding could restrict my access to these drugs because they have a moral opposition to contraception.
I'm a 22yo that has gotten help from planned parenthood.
In my opinion religion has to stay personal, away from any laws or conducts. (Especially away from politics!)
If you are religious and does not want to take birth control or get an abortion, good for you. But to take that option out of others life is none of your business. Also, there's a lot of catholic women who does take birth control.
One more point i want to make, if birth control which is a pill that affect hormones consider to be harmful. wouldn't any pill that affects hormone for disorders like hyper/hypothyroidism considered harmful as well?!
And to treat people that are sterile, hormones are used, wouldn't that be illegal?
Some teas and pills have propecia in which for men helps prevent hair loss, (caused by having too much testosterone), would that be against God's wants?!
I enjoyed this morning's program and felt tha all of the particpants provided good arguements for their respeictive points of view. Freedom of religion is a defining characteristic of America. But, as with all comlplex issues, it is not black and white, put provides shades or levels that require us to draw lines as where that freedom is limited. The vagueness of of the meaning of religious freedom means that individuals of good character and intent will reasonably disagree with each other. Freedom of religion in the U.S. is not absolute. There are plenty of examples of this. For example, a relegious group might claim that polygamy is a central tenet of its theology. However, anti-polygamy laws have time and again been ruled to be constitutional. Other examples to limits on religious practices abound. (This raises another unclear area: what is the differnce between a religion and a cult?) Our freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. If I believe differently than you, you cannot force your beliefs on me. It will be of interest to see what conclusions society ultimately comes to regarding the responsibilities of churches that engage in businesses, such as hospitals, that are open to the entire public, and which in certain instances receive public funds.
One wonders if the Government had proposed that all people working for a Christian organization were required to make a contribution, what kind of insanity would erupt over that.
We keep talking as is the church is being forced to cover health care not in their beliefs. We're requiring insurance companies to cover health care.
The church is not a health insurance company. Or, since it is, perhaps it shouldn't be.
Is this just a way for the church to insinuate itself into all sorts of industry and then dictate policy to others based upon it's own values?
What choice do patients have when the only local provider is Catholic?
Your show today on the issue of Catholic non-profit corporations being required to provide contraception benefits as part of heath insurance did not address the real issue and consequently, was a rehashing of the shallow issues. The real issue here is one of paternalistic corporations taking money from employees in the form of reduced salary for the provision of benefits (an activity subsidized by the tax benefits corporations get for doing this) and dictating what the benefits will be. Unfortunately you and your guests treated the decision by Catholic non-profit corporations as if the money was theirs and not the result of employee reduced salaries. What the government is doing is attempting to establish a baseline level of insurance that will be offered. The Catholic church is using the cover of religious freedom in an attempt to create a precedent for other corporations to follow to claim so that they can minimize the range of benefits provided to employees for their reduced salary contributions to the corporations. You have become a victim of corporatist thinking that corporations "provide" benefits and the reality that corporations take the private contributions of employees (both direct contributions and reduced salary) to provide a collective benefit. In choosing to present this in the context of religious freedom you have chosen to obfuscate the real issue and help to perpetuate the myth that corporations are acting out of benevolence.
Unfortunately, because of the misdirection of how the issue has been covered elsewhere and on this show there will be a lot of discussion about culture wars, religious freedom, abortion, contraception, etc… and the real issue, how to establish a standard of care in the provision of health insurance supplied by employers with money supplied by employees will not be discussed. The corporations win again.
This has probably been pointed out already, but I don't have time to read all the comments.
However, freedom of religion has pretty clearly been trumped by the requirement to pay taxes to the government, no matter how those monies are used.
For example, I recall people who withheld from their Federal income taxes the percentage which went to waging war (or funding illegal support of terrorists in South and Central America, etc.). Those people believed these war acts and killings were immoral as well as illegal; they stood up for their religious and ethical beliefs. But...they were told to pay up, with penalties and interest, or jailed for not doing so. At least some of them were.
Is it only sex related issues which get this kind "conscience clause" treatment?
Seems to me that IS what's happening.
I love Mr. Picarello's enthusiasm for how easy it is to acquire a job these days. Sounds like we all have the freedom to pick and choose from a number of different occupations and health plans. I'd love to live in your world Anthony, but while I'm still living in reality, could you please stop attacking my wife's rights as a woman, and allow us to do what married couples do?
"John Danahy wrote:
I cannot choose to to be hired any organization of my choice. Here I am, you must hire me. However, I must have this, and this. As my boss, you have no sayso about it. This is just ridiculous. So why should it be ridiculous for the Catholic Church to be pushed so hard it legally chooses to close all it its organizations, serving the general public. If your think this is equally ridiculous, don't count on it.
February 8, 2012 - 10:57 am"
I think I got your point, how about not cluttering up the Site by repeating it again? Particularly such a poorly reasoned notion.
First of all, "THEY" are not paying for the Medical Insurance, that benefit is provided in lieu of Wages.
Secondly, every hire involves negotiations by each Employee at the time of hiring. Even for Job-Seekers in the weakest of positions, it is never completely, "Take it or Leave it".
I know of cases where an Employee can "Trade" Benefits ie. waive Pension Benefits for an older Person who would not get the Job otherwise.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Don't want to Split the Baby!?" Oh my, what a poor Freudian slip! Wow.