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.
"Read the fine print" of your policy... HA! I have been trying for a month to get a full policy booklet from my provider BCBS and have NOT been able to get it after mulitple requests. Read the fine print. That's funny.
dlgnelson:
"Our freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. If I believe differently than you, you cannot force your beliefs on me". Well said. LIVE AND LET LIVE.
In other words freedom goes together with responsibility for your ideas, and accountability for your actions. Otherwise the society may turn into one of "my way or the highway". This is the case in Texas.
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.
So much for freedom from religion.
Vance,
You nailed it. I was being brief earlier.
IF health insurance was "owned" by the individual, and their full salary compensation reflected the value "taken" by the corporation, and IF they could receive the same tax benefits that their employer receives, and IF they actually had a choice of insurance providers that did not have obscene profit motives, then they could choose with their conscience and pocketbook what type of care they would want.
Face it, in the current system we are merely chattel and pawns of the profit-takers and the proselytizers who seek to control our minds, our bodies and our pocketbooks. It's a control thing.
In this case, a religious organization and its affiliates seek a broader exemption from federal law because the religious organization and its affiliates claim the broader exemption is necessary for them to freely exercise their religious tenets. This appeals to my sense of religious freedom under the Constitution's First Amendment.
However, the exemption for the religious organization and its affiliates violates my sense of government's First Amendment responsibility to not make laws establishing religion. In my view, the exemption represents government's endorsement or acceptance of the religious organization's doctrine.
Is our government assaulting a religion or is a religion becoming our government?
They will be bringing back the "IMPREMATUR" any day now, and the "Legion of Decency.
I think that is the agenda of some which is manipulated by fund raisers (whose insurance covers their full health) Basically this is what they are doing anyway by making all of the people providing full health care as "Of the Devil."
I hear it from some relatives, whom I dearly love, yet the expression "Get thee back Satan" is used for any temptation. I hate her being so scared of everything. A fight with the Devil, or Satin, Why that used to take someone like St. Michael, or St. George. That is why the sins of priests are so easily 'understood' and forgiven. "They are only human, not saints."
Referring to the consternation over what a religious hospital has to offer in it's employee health care... is this an issue in Canada or any other nation with national health care? Seems we could remove the hand wringing from employers by removing their need to provide insurance.
Why can't this action be delayed until the second term? I believe that it is the right thing to do, but we have an election to win, remember? There are many things yet to accomplish (immigration reform, seeing through the proper application of the medical reform law, etc.). We don't need to incite the fury of the masses of catholics, or give those inclined to play the religion card an easy battle cry in a far from certain election season.
How about a truce? Government will leave these religious groups alone when religious groups stop infiltrating the government? The hypocrisy here makes me sick...I'm constantly hearing conservatives talking about the role of religion in government and as soon as government does something they don't like, they cry out "wait wait separation of church of state! Stay out of our business!". I'd like to also just see a poll of women ONLY to see how they feel about this...it seems like the biggest spokespeople for this push to restrict contraceptive access are all men. The catholic church in particular needs to move out of the stone age, I find it absurd we're even caught up on the right for a woman to have an abortion let alone have access to contraception. I guess women should just all stay at home and have babies every year of their reproductive lives? Forget higher education, forget the economic realities of the world, etc. My only hope with this whole issue is that people will start to realize how out-of-touch the church is and there will be a large backlash. I can't believe how this is "dominating the debate" when we have much larger issues that aren't flashbacks to decades ago. Next conservatives should really bring the debate on teaching evolution in the school to the forefront, and then we can all focus on gay marriage..oh wait, they're already moving that way. What about the economy? Jobs? The environment? I wish we could build Newt's moon colony and let people focused on these issues like gay marriage, contraception, and evolution just go live there and we could watch this all from afar and see how things work out up there for them, now this would be a reality tv show I'd watch.
Two points:
Isn’t it interesting that when Democrats and liberals speak out for issues and organizations they care about, the conservatives call them “thugs”, and accuse them of intimidating others into “caving in”.
But when Republicans and conservatives do exactly the same thing (Tea Baggers storming town hall meetings, and shouting down both the speaker and any contrary point of view - to take just one example), that’s just an example of participatory politics!
After all the finger pointing and name-calling one thing is clear: the anti-choice forces got a backlash they weren’t expecting!
As for the Catholic Church’s opposition to the new regulations, I’d find their cries about “religious liberty” more convincing if they weren’t one of the organizations which, for decades, have been actively engaged in trying to deny such liberty to others. Many religions (and certainly the non-religious) have no problem with abortion, and even recognize situations where allowing that procedure is a moral as well as legal right. Ditto for same-sex marriage. (Reform Judaism and the United Church of Christ, to name just two, support it.) Yet the Catholic Church uses its considerable resources to deny “religious liberty” on these issues.
Tell you what: I’ll be willing to grant the Church an exception from this regulation, all it has to do is stop invoking “religious liberty” and church/state separation only when convenient, and instead apply those principles consistently. In short, when it works to and achieves the repeal of all bans and limitations on abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, I’ll be happy to grant it an exception from all laws that offend its “religious sensibilities”.
P.S. - Nothing in the Constitution requires we do so. The First Amendment does not grant anyone a blanket right to violate any law they wish in the name of their religion.
"The Susan G. Komen Foundation has a policy to not supply funding to institutions that are under criminal investigation. Seems to me they were forced by politically motivated fanatics to cave."
Planned Parenthood is NOT under criminal investigation. Republicans in Congress are "investigating" their activities, not any law enforcement agency. Monte needs to get his facts right.
When someone -- a caller as I remember -- raised the question of the Church's child sex-abuse scandals Anthony Picarello said that was mixing oranges and apples. No it is not. It goes straight to the heart of the question of conscience and moral authority. The Church ignored and thus in effect sanctioned hundreds of priests' clearly immoral activities. To this day it has done little to discipline the offenders and those higher-ups that chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on. Until the Church faces this issue head on it cannot claim the moral high ground on anything.
Here is an email that I sent to my friend and frequent guest on your show, E. J. Dionne:
The Jehovah Witness believe that blood transfusions are a sin and should not be done. They also operate a printing and distribution facility in Brooklyn that employs non-Jehovah Witness employees. I wonder if they sought to exclude blood transfusions from their employee insurance plans that the Catholic Bishops would fight for the Jehovah Witness right to do so? I also wonder if the pundits would wail and moan as they are doing with the birth control flap? How about the Christian Scientests who do not believe in any kind of medical intervention. Should their employees be denied health coverage on religious grounds? Or is it
just Catholics who should get a pass?
E. J. I respect you very much but I think you are very wrong on this issue.
--
Ralph Parrrott
He has not answered me as yet. I will share his answer when I get it.
I just saw a dialog on this issue on MacNeil/Leher, but I want to add here, that in Norfolk Virginia, if you are in the catch basin of the Catholic Hospital, you can not get sterilization after your delivery of a third, fourth, fifth child. The ambulance is going to take you there and you are stuck with waiting and hoping to get into a clinic somewhere and get your tubes tied. So, if you live here, you must arrange for someone to take you to a different hospital to deliver, even if the doctor you are seeing delivers at the Catholic hospital. So, I would say, having your tubes tied, at some point, a birth control issue that most adults I know go for after their second or third child, is unavailable to those poor who are taken to the catholic hospital in Norfolk. This is something that is always whispered around, and of course, everyone wants to be grateful for their services, but if you are non-Catholic, you know not to go to any GYN associated with the practice there.
However, if you are not from here, or connected to the grape vine, you might not hear this, and find yourself having to wait several months if you are nursing a baby, before you can lose more time off work and get an appointment and wait and wait and wait for relief. So your milk sours......Oh, thank you Bishops and Cardinals, for your sweet succor.
In response to an earlier comment, yes, Christian Scientists are explicitly exempted in the Affordable Health Care Act, along with the Amish and other religions who either don't believe in medical treatment or don't believe in insurance.
Catholics are exempt from underage drinking laws, Jews and Muslims are exempt from animal cruelty laws, etc, etc. The constitution requires it - but not when a religion's affiliated organization provide non-religious services to non-believers, e.g. Catholic hospitals and schools.
Catholics can hardly claim that providing health insurance that covers contraception violates their beliefs, because they have been doing it for many years at organizations such as Georgetown University, University of Dayton, University of San Diego, Catholic Charities in New Jersey and virtually all Catholic hospitals in New York and California.
Religious liberty is merely a fig leaf for conservative culture war attacks on moderates and liberals.
Name one conservative who supports religious liberty exemptions for
- institutions which have (religious) moral objections to war and refuse to cooperate with the military by allowing ROTC, military recruiters, notifying draft boards
- individuals who refuse to cooperate with the military system by registering with draft board and withholding the portion of taxes funding war making and its mass murder by way of nuclear weapons of innocent men, women, children, and abortion by incineration of pregnant women
- plural marriage by Mormons which considered it a core religious belief
- use of prohibited drugs like peyote and marijuana in religious ceremonies and practice
Note how conservatives claim opposition to gay marriage is a violation of religious conscious and will lead to plural marriage, which today results in prosecution of Mormons who follow the original Mormon faith calling for plural marriage.
Note how conservatives condemn drug use as a violation of religious belief in the body as a temple, and prosecute those who use drugs as part of their religious ceremonies and practice while carving out a religious exception for underage drinking of alcohol.
When conservatives have no rational democratic republican rationale for a political position, one fig leaf they grab to hide their fallacy is religious liberty.
Where are the voices of reason here? This in not about abortion, but allowing prevention of unwanted pregnancy and allowing for planning a wanted family. Yeah, let's keep giving men drugs for penile disfunction and demonize women. If someone doesn't like birth control, they can choose not to use it. Don't make the working poor have to pay for it just because their employer doesn't sanction it. I have been in contact with my adopted child. Met her when she was 29. By the way, her very "Christian" grandparents cut her out of their will because she wasn't a "blood" relative. Hmmm. What does that say?
I nearly want to explode hearing what some of the conservative "pundits" are saying after this controversy and what some off your guests are saying. I am an "unwed" mother from the time before "Rowe vs Wade". I found my self pregnant at 16 in 1967 from an single encounter that was not "loving". If there wasn't huge stigma about birth control availability for teens at that time, I might have prevented this absolute life changing event. I could find no support, neither privately nor publicly, to terminate my situation. After trying "home" remedies that could have killed me let alone my child, I ending up under welfare and at an "Unwed" mothers home run by the Salvation Army. I was not a bad person, nor did I think I had "sinned" and deserved "punishment". I was a child myself and had made a stupid mistake. I was counseled with only one option that these morons like Gingrich are touting again - give up your child to adoption. It makes my blood boil. There were other children in that unwed mothers home that had been drugged and raped by relatives and were having to endure pregnancy and the life after. Everything wasn't erased after giving birth and "giving" up a child - it stays with you forever. And society, like these so called, self righteous "Christians" will still see you as trash for years to come. Even though I am now in my 60's, this is still a hot and painful issue. I don't understand, is it that these people think that removing women's rights will provide more desirable white babies for adoption? Horrors!!!! That any one who has sex without it being for procreation and finds themselves pregnant should be punished by enduring pregnancy, giving birth and raising an unwanted/unplanned child (and possibly giving up one's child)?
Nigel Searle on February 10, 2012 @ 11:07 am wrote: “Christian Scientists are explicitly exempted in the Affordable Health Care Act, along with the Amish and other religions who either don't believe in medical treatment or don't believe in insurance. Catholics are exempt from underage drinking laws, Jews and Muslims are exempt from animal cruelty laws, etc, etc. The constitution requires it . . . .”
PART ONE
Excuse me, sir, but I am aware of no such provision in the Affordable Care Act, much less the other exemptions you mention, and the Constitution certainly requires no such thing.
Perhaps you have “fallen for” the disinformation campaign which falsely claims Muslims are specifically exempted from the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. While there is a provision that grants exemptions to unspecified religious groups, it does so by incorporating a pre-existing section of the Internal Revenue Code: 1402(g)(1). This exemption is nothing new. It goes all the way back to the original Social Security Act of the 1930’s. It is not automatic, religious groups must apply for the exemption, and meet certain requirements. (They must have a religious objection to government programs like these, and they must provide their members with alternative support and care.) So far, the Amish, the Mennonites, and various other Christian denominations have qualified for the exemption. So far as I know, Muslims have not even applied for it.
I can’t speak for Muslims, but I know of nothing in Judaism that would qualify as “animal cruelty”, so I don’t know what you’re talking about there.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
I do know that there are no general religious exemptions from our laws. Bob Jones University couldn’t violate the Civil Rights Law based on its religious beliefs, Native Americans can’t use peyote in their religious ceremonies, and you can’t perform human sacrifices no matter your religious beliefs.
The Constitution absolute forbids interference with religious belief, action (or inaction) based on such beliefs is not so stringently protected.