Is the Contraception mandate a violation of religious freedom?

[monavis]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

We're already talking about this. It's exactly the same thing, only semantically shifted so the religious people can puffin themselves up.

If this is a little off track I hope it can be seen as part of the debate. According to Rick Santorum(spi), they talk of freedom on one hand, and then deny others freedom on the other. The church's stand on gay marriage, birth control, etc., are also denying people of other beliefs their rights. This is one of the reasons our founding fathers were wise enough to have separation Of Church and State.

[monavis]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

But that's the very nature of insurance, the pooling of money by different people to cover the costs of some of them. The Catholic Church, if it were to be consistent, would object to pretty much all insurance, because somehow the money they give the company will be used for things they don't agree with, whether contraception or abortion or health insurance for same sex couples. That's how insurance works. And the federal government. And capitalism.

The Archdiocese of Chicago gets their health insurance through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who have paid for hundreds if not millions of contraception and abortions, but I don't see the Archdiocese worried about that. If they truly wanted to be consistent, they would have to self-insure, to make sure none of their money is being used to pay for services they disagree with.

It seems to me that this whole kerfluffle is due to an imaginary line drawn that allows them to be outraged OUTRAGED!! while ignoring the reality of what insurance is.

I wonder if that would include the mental health of those who were abused by a priest?

[crowmanyclouds]

I'll assume that since this is a press release there's no issue with posting the whole thing,
But clink on the link to enjoy the, seemingly random, bolding!

Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty

February 10, 2012
Regulatory changes limited and unclear
Rescission of mandate only complete solution
Continue urging passage of Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

WASHINGTON – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement:

The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the "preventive services" regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.

First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans — nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated "preventive services" prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.

Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such "services" immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of "religious employers" that HHS proposed to exempt initially.

Today, the President has done two things.

First, he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.

Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

·It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

·It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a separate rider.

·Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

CMC fnord!

[monavis]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Pregnancy isn't always voluntary, and the rhythm method doesn't cure hormonal problems.

The rhythm and other such methods approved of by the church is more unnatural then pills,etc. Surgery is unnatural, keeping people on life support is unnatural. And the rhythm method doesn't always work either!

[monavis]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

I'll assume that since this is a press release there's no issue with posting the whole thing,
But clink on the link to enjoy the, seemingly random, bolding!CMC fnord!

Perhaps if the Bishops thaught about all the poverty and burdens they put on a couple, or children who live under parents who didn't want a large family, but felt compelled to by the Church's teachings,and took out their frustrations on their children, perhaps they could see that, if birth control was a sin then having children they were not able to care for,emotionaly, physically, or financially they may re-consider, but I believe it is a way to control people.Perhaps if the Church had a sensible way of looking at human sexuality there may have been less child abuse by priests, and some couples?

[monavis]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

I'll assume that since this is a press release there's no issue with posting the whole thing,
But clink on the link to enjoy the, seemingly random, bolding!CMC fnord!

To Add: I wonder if the church would feel the same for Muslims who believe in Shia Law and punish their children as some have done in this country, because they dared to do something agaisnt their religion. In a way the church is forcing their beliefs on people not of their faith when they hire them. The insurance is part of the employee's wages and has nothing to do with the church's teachings. Perhaps instead of supplying the non-believers with insurance they could just give them a higher wage and then the church wouldn't be using insurance money, for what the church decides is sinful?

[dorsk188]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I don't know. I still think there is a difference between buying a particular product, and having someone else take money you gave them for x and using it to by y. You didn't buy y. It would mean you could never give anyone money because they might use it to buy something you don't approve of.

If I'm a Catholic, should I know go to a doctor who performs abortions even if I'm not getting one myself? I'm paying him money, and maybe he's buying abortion equipment with that money.

Where does this end?

Catholic Schools pay for insurance (minus contraceptives), the insurance companies use that money (and others) to cover contraceptives "out of pocket". What if every insurance company used their policy-holder's money to found a charity that provided free birth control to all women. Would that excuse the Catholic Church from having to insure at all?

If you buy something from Staples, some of that money will eventually find its way into an organization that does Gay Reparative Therapy. (Through Bain Capital, Mitt Romney, and Romney's Charity.) Does that mean I should boycott Domino's Pizza? Of course not. Once you purchase a product, you have no right to tell the seller how to use that money.

(Incidentally, I wonder if the Catholic Church would try to start a religiously-affiliated insurance company to specifically challenge this exemption. Which one would win out, the exemption or the mandate?)

It ends when people stop blowing this stuff out of proportion. When it's really a miscarriage of justice and liberty (and there's been quite a few on the books for a long time without a fraction of the media attention this nonsense is getting), I'll wake you up and tell you.

[CJJ*]

The dog-and-pony show continues...:

Republican Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, will convene a hearing tomorrow, “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

The lead witness is the Most Rev. William E. Lori, Roman Catholic bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty.

Please, GOP leaders, keep digging your own grave:

Despite the deep divide between some religious leaders and government officials over contraceptives, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll found most voters support the new federal directive that health insurance plans provide coverage for birth control...

On contraceptive coverage, 65 percent of voters in the poll said they supported the Obama administration’s requirement that health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control, and 59 percent, said the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost of birth control.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by monavis

Perhaps if the Bishops thaught about all the poverty and burdens they put on a couple, or children who live under parents who didn't want a large family, but felt compelled to by the Church's teachings,and took out their frustrations on their children, perhaps they could see that, if birth control was a sin then having children they were not able to care for,emotionaly, physically, or financially they may re-consider, but I believe it is a way to control people.Perhaps if the Church had a sensible way of looking at human sexuality there may have been less child abuse by priests, and some couples?

You may want to remember that for some of the Catholic clergy suffering is good and holy, they have no desire to reduce suffering and in some cases feel that is is proper to assist people in suffering.

Their answer to suffering is to "Offer it up."

[Budget Player Cadet]

Something worth bringing up (I didn't read all 6 pages): does my adherence to the religion of Nonsism, which states as its tenets a law against well-crafted buildings and tools, mean that I can ignore building and workplace safety codes for my employees? I think that if the Catholics can demand this kind of exception just because of their religious beliefs, then my religion of Nonsism should get similar exceptions when it comes to worker safety.

[robinson]

The Pope wants to play doctor. Politicians want to play doctor. Doctors want to play God. I just wish everyone would stick to their own knitting. Religious meddling in temporal affairs is exactly what the constitutional bar on established religion was intended to prevent. Those who wrote it had two centuries of bloody sectarian struggle as a lesson in what not to do. The constitutional solution is majority rule.

[Nars Glinley]

Originally Posted by robinson

The Pope wants to play doctor. Politicians want to play doctor. Doctors want to play God. I just wish everyone would stick to their own knitting. Religious meddling in temporal affairs is exactly what the constitutional bar on established religion was intended to prevent. Those who wrote it had two centuries of bloody sectarian struggle as a lesson in what not to do. The constitutional solution is majority rule.

No. The constitution protects the individual from the majority.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Nars Glinley

No. The constitution protects the individual from the majority.

But not from the supermajority.

If two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures want something in the Constitution that derogates the rights of an individual, they get it.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But not from the supermajority.

If two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures want something in the Constitution that derogates the rights of an individual, they get it.

It's not a perfect system. But at least the bar is high.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

It's not a perfect system. But at least the bar is high.

What would a perfect system be?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by John Mace

What would a perfect system be?

Did I suggest I knew? I assume a better system is possible, but I was standing up for America's high bar for the tyranny of the majority.

Even bigots are people, and they don't like to be seen as bigots. So getting a constitutional convention together for oppressing gays is probably all but impossible. I think that's a good thing.

[Nars Glinley]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But not from the supermajority.

If two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures want something in the Constitution that derogates the rights of an individual, they get it.

True, but I see no evidence of that in the issue at hand.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Did I suggest I knew? I assume a better system is possible, but I was standing up for America's high bar for the tyranny of the majority.

Even bigots are people, and they don't like to be seen as bigots. So getting a constitutional convention together for oppressing gays is probably all but impossible. I think that's a good thing.

If you don't know what a perfect system is, then you can't tell if one is perfect or not. No reason to get all pissy about it.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by John Mace

If you don't know what a perfect system is, then you can't tell if one is perfect or not. No reason to get all pissy about it.

Bolding mine. That doesn't follow. I don't know what a perfect blender is, but one that explodes and sends shards of glass into your face isn't it. I don't know what a perfect day is, but one where your family is killed in a flood and you're left destitute and alone isn't it. I don't know what a perfect argument is, but the one you just made is flopping like a fish on deck and I must needs club it to put it out of misery.

You mistake correct for pissy.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by John Mace

If you don't know what a perfect system is, then you can't tell if one is perfect or not.

I don't think you want to defend that assertion very long.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

But that is not how conservatives are spinning this. The talking point, as articulated by John Boehner from the floor of Congress, is that it is unconstitutional. So why is it constitutional for the states to do force church institutions to buy insurance that covers birth control, but not the federal government?

Exactly. This has been going on for years and the Supreme court has refused to hear cases brought by the church agasint California and NY. This is a ploy during an election year that will ultimately fail as people learn the facts. What the GOP fails to realize is that moderate and independent voters are sick of this kind of shallow superficial BS.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Barrett Bonden

I think you are missing the point. The Constitutional objection is not to what the employee does with the employees' insurance at all. The religious institution objects to being required to purchase insurance coverage which includes birth control.

Whatever an employee of a religious organization freely chooses to purchase (his or her portion of the employer-provided insurance premium) is beside the point.

Whatever an employee of a religious organization freely chooses to purchase on the free market is also beside the point.

Which means the chgurch in no way is being asked to directly purchase birth control. The employee chooses what meets thier needs out of an insurance package just as they choose how ro spend thier paycheck.
IMO it's simply a matter of the church's perception. They choose to make it an issue of religious conscience when they don't have to.
Let's also note that the actual church, is exempt. The line is being drawn at buisness oriented affilaiates owned by the church which serve and employ the general public rather than members. We already have clear established sensible legal precedent that religions cannot violate the law and claim religious freedom.
This is one of those cases. The Catholic church has been expanded it's ownership in hospitals for decades and this has been awn ongoing issues. They've already lost in several states and the SCOTUS has refused to hear thier cases in 2004 and 2007. It's not a new issue. Just one being exploited in an election year.

[robinson]

It only requires due process, and that everyone be treated equally. It also requires that the individual abide by the laws of the land. I may not like taxes, but I must pay them or be a criminal. And I can't get a religious exemption. The law does not say that everyone must use condoms. Catholics, even Catholic employers, must allow non-Catholics to abide by their own rules. I think the real problem is that the bishops know that even catholic women can't all live with all their rules.

[YogSosoth]

Some of you will be cheering this firing of a Catholic school teacher for using IVF, but many people, including me, are afraid of widespread happenings of exactly this type of situation. The teacher was fired for using IVF because apparently its considered evil in Church dogma because it "frequently involve the deliberate destruction and freezing of embryos."

Of course, Emily Herx can't be tarred and feathered with the same brush as Sandra Fluke. She's a married woman who just wants more kids for her family. However, her method of conception runs afoul of the rules.

The Catholic Church wants everyone to believe that they simply don't want to pay for things like contraception. They claim that even if they are not paying to buy the birth control, that paying the insurance company is just like buying it themselves, so they have a problem with Obama's mandate. Nowhere do I remember them saying what they will do with Catholic women who get a paycheck from the Church and buy contraception themselves, but I figured that was a pragmatic move; they can't stop the 98% of Catholic women who use or have used contraception, so they aren't going to overplay that hand.

But unless I'm mistaken, this woman is using her own money to pay for her own IVF (not sure if the insurance comes into play here) and the Church fired her for it. Isn't this just what people were afraid of? The Church wants to control people, and women especially. To me, what Herx does on her own time with her own money is none of her employer's business. And even if there was insurance involvement, the right thing would be for the Church to contact the insurance company about disputes and not fire the person. They are wrong in this case, they are wrong to oppose Obama's insurance mandate, and they are wrong on the side of history in opposing contraception.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

Some of you will be cheering this firing of a Catholic school teacher for using IVF, but many people, including me, are afraid of widespread happenings of exactly this type of situation. The teacher was fired for using IVF because apparently its considered evil in Church dogma because it "frequently involve the deliberate destruction and freezing of embryos."

Of course, Emily Herx can't be tarred and feathered with the same brush as Sandra Fluke. She's a married woman who just wants more kids for her family. However, her method of conception runs afoul of the rules.

The Catholic Church wants everyone to believe that they simply don't want to pay for things like contraception. They claim that even if they are not paying to buy the birth control, that paying the insurance company is just like buying it themselves, so they have a problem with Obama's mandate. Nowhere do I remember them saying what they will do with Catholic women who get a paycheck from the Church and buy contraception themselves, but I figured that was a pragmatic move; they can't stop the 98% of Catholic women who use or have used contraception, so they aren't going to overplay that hand.

But unless I'm mistaken, this woman is using her own money to pay for her own IVF (not sure if the insurance comes into play here) and the Church fired her for it. Isn't this just what people were afraid of? The Church wants to control people, and women especially. To me, what Herx does on her own time with her own money is none of her employer's business. And even if there was insurance involvement, the right thing would be for the Church to contact the insurance company about disputes and not fire the person. They are wrong in this case, they are wrong to oppose Obama's insurance mandate, and they are wrong on the side of history in opposing contraception.

"frequently involve the deliberate destruction and freezing of embryos." Since this is scientifically true I don't see the point of the scare quotes.

If you don't understand the difference between direct collaboration (helping your drunk firend start his car) and indicrect involvment (selling cars that could be used by a drunk driver) you should research a bit before talking about them. Paying the insurance company is what directly allows them to provide the service they find objectionable.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

"frequently involve the deliberate destruction and freezing of embryos." Since this is scientifically true I don't see the point of the scare quotes.

It wasn't scare quotes, I put it in quotes because it's a direct quote of someone in the article

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

If you don't understand the difference between direct collaboration (helping your drunk firend start his car) and indicrect involvment (selling cars that could be used by a drunk driver) you should research a bit before talking about them. Paying the insurance company is what directly allows them to provide the service they find objectionable.

In this case, the article doesn't mention insurance at all. I know IVF can be expensive, but it may be that this woman had the money to take on the burden herself. Or if she hadn't, the Church still should have taken up their issue with the insurance company itself instead of with the employee. Doing an end run around laws mandating such health care by firing the person using it is a cheap and devious tactic. It just further confirms that the Church's ultimate goal wasn't some altruistic religious freedom like they lied about over and over, they simply want to control as much of their people as possible. As simply being Catholic isn't enough to dissuade people, the Church has gone one step further and fired those who they could get their hands on

And what if this wasn't a contraception issue but a life-saving one, and the Church fired someone who had to get life-saving treatment (that they disapprove of), I hope they get sued for all they're worth.

What you don't seem to understand is that once the money goes from the Church and into the pockets of its employees, that's it, they have no control over it anymore nor should they. This woman should have been free to used IVF without additional attack from her employer

[Gagundathar]

One of the rather interesting things I noticed in reading this thread was the use of the the term 'the Church' to describe the Roman Catholic Church. I know it is the religious entity in play here, but the subtle connotation that the RCC and ONLY the RCC can get such special treatment by the federal government is rather obvious (at least to me.)

As was asked (but not answered) earlier, what are the guidelines here when it comes to a religious organization limiting access to medical procedures that violate their beliefs? Do you have to have paid a certain amount of campaign contributions to Congress? Is it required for the senior members of your organization to wear special clothing? Do you merely need to have a certain amount of followers in order to convince the government to treat your beliefs as somehow more 'sacred' than those of other religions?

These are real questions and quite serious in their ramifications. If the RCC can mandate certain conditions that must be followed by the federal government, then why not Hindus or Jehovah's Witnesses? Must there be a minimum amount of people that follow a particular set of tenets before the federal government heeds their demands?

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

If the RCC can mandate certain conditions that must be followed by the federal government, then why not Hindus or Jehovah's Witnesses?

You've got the situation backwards. Neither the RCC nor anyone else is trying to "mandate certain conditions that must be followed by the federal government". The federal government is trying to mandate certain conditions that the RCC and every other religious body must follow.

I really don't see why it's always so difficult to understand the difference between government action that everyone in the country is forced to obey and private agreements that no one in the country is forced to obey. Everyone who teaches at a Catholic school has chosen to do so. Anyone who doesn't like the terms of his or her employment is welcome to not take the job. On the other hand, Catholics (or anyone else) who own insurance companies are not welcome to simply not take whatever rules are laid down by government bureaucrats.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I really don't see why it's always so difficult to understand the difference between government action that everyone in the country is forced to obey and private agreements that no one in the country is forced to obey. Everyone who teaches at a Catholic school has chosen to do so. Anyone who doesn't like the terms of his or her employment is welcome to not take the job.

All private employers are subject to worker safety regulations. Should we do away with those, and just let workers assume any risk when they choose to take the job?

[Nars Glinley]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

All private employers are subject to worker safety regulations. Should we do away with those, and just let workers assume any risk when they choose to take the job?

Safe working conditions and a benefits package really aren't comparable.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

You've got the situation backwards. Neither the RCC nor anyone else is trying to "mandate certain conditions that must be followed by the federal government". The federal government is trying to mandate certain conditions that the RCC and every other religious body must follow.

That's not accurate either. The feds are trying to mandate conditions that organizations affiliated with the RCC must follow. The RCC itself (and other churches) are not subject to the rules.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Nars Glinley

Safe working conditions and a benefits package really aren't comparable.

Why not? His objection was to federal regulations that come between workers and employers. Seems a bit capricious to focus on benefits exclusively.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

You've got the situation backwards. Neither the RCC nor anyone else is trying to "mandate certain conditions that must be followed by the federal government". The federal government is trying to mandate certain conditions that the RCC and every other religious body must follow.

Its not backwards, you simply refuse to look at things objectively. The RCC is making a demand of government exemption just as they claim the government is doing to them. For there to be a government mandate, there must exist an opposition. From my perspective, it is the RCC who are demanding, since they claim special rights that shouldn't exist, whereas the government wants all religious organizations to be equally obligated to pay for contraception. Only one side is demanding special treatment here and its not the one you think

[Nars Glinley]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Why not? His objection was to federal regulations that come between workers and employers. Seems a bit capricious to focus on benefits exclusively.

Because equating all federal regulations as the same is simply a strawman. We're talking about a benefits package, not working conditions. Or taxes. Or clean air. Or any other federal requirement that you can come up with.

[Deegeea]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I really don't see why it's always so difficult to understand the difference between government action that everyone in the country is forced to obey and private agreements that no one in the country is forced to obey. Everyone who teaches at a Catholic school has chosen to do so. Anyone who doesn't like the terms of his or her employment is welcome to not take the job. On the other hand, Catholics (or anyone else) who own insurance companies are not welcome to simply not take whatever rules are laid down by government bureaucrats.

It's difficult to see the difference because an individual's refusing an entire job because they don't like the coverage in the insurance seems comparable to most people, to a company's refusing to enter a market because they don't like the regulations involved.

If the regulations in a market have terms a company or its management find objectionable, they are free to sell their goods in other markets. For example, the Catholic insurance company owner could market Medicare supplemental insurance which presumably, being marketed exclusively to the elderly, would not need to worry about birth control implications at all. Or they could market homeowners insurance. This seems comparable to the teacher having to take a job at a public school or Unitarian school instead of the Catholic one.