# Catholics: Are you upset by Obama's new birth control rule? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592 "2012-03-12T21:34:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/61 "2012-03-18T14:47:25Z")
The real question is what three particular Catholics make of this: Kennedy, Roberts, and Scalia. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/62 "2012-03-18T15:49:00Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Nope, sorry. Like I said before, the schools cannot say whether or not the students can use contraception, but they can certainly decide whether they can pay for contraception directly. And the new rule states that they specifically don’t pay for it directly. So only Catholics that either don’t understand the rule, or who actually want to control other people’s access to birth control should be upset. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/63 "2012-03-18T17:42:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > And the new rule states that they specifically don’t pay for it directly. > > So only Catholics that either don’t understand the rule, or who actually want to control other people’s access to birth control should be upset. Problem is that the Catholic school usually uses a Catholic insurance agency. I’ve heard that many are even owned by the same people. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/64 "2012-03-18T18:17:57Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Problem is that the Catholic school usually uses a Catholic insurance agency. I’ve heard that many are even owned by the same people. Georgetown students, for one, are covered by United Healthcare. UH has a virtual monopoly on student insurance plans in this country. They’re also the company that services students at the state university I attend. ---
**Author:** ![Funnilyenough](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4da419/32.png) [@Funnilyenough](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Funnilyenough)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/65 "2012-03-18T18:58:07Z")
It still stymies me that there is anyone left in the world who believes in some form of god–that churches, synagogues, temples, etc even exist much less have any control over how people live their lives is similarly overwhelming to me. And birth control is still a topic of some controversy? Really?! ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/66 "2012-03-18T19:02:11Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Problem is that the Catholic school usually uses a Catholic insurance agency. I’ve heard that many are even owned by the same people. This is a separate issue. If you agree that all Catholic owned schools that use normal insurance agencies aren’t being forced to pay for birth control, then I guess we’re making progress. If the Catholic institution decides to self-insure, then they must abide by the laws that cover insurance companies. If you want to open a restaurant, you don’t get to ignore health-codes because your shitty religion has decided that disease is caused by demons. (That’s a hypothetical, I’m not saying \*you \*have a shitty religion.) I suggest that any Catholic who self-insures needs to either follow the rules for insurance companies, or let someone who does do it instead. No one is forcing anyone to start up insurance companies. It’s not a necessary part of their religion. So they can step back from self-insuring and concentrate on the important parts of their faith, like pressuring families to hate their gay children. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/67 "2012-03-18T21:01:31Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > This is a separate issue. If you agree that all Catholic owned schools that use normal insurance agencies aren’t being forced to pay for birth control, then I guess we’re making progress. I disagree. A company should get to decide which carrier they’ll use (and pay for) for any number of reasons, and one of them ought to be that they don’t want to use a carrier that provides coverage for contraception if that coverage contradicts their religious beliefs. Your distinction that they aren’t paying “directly” is a distinction without a difference. Companies pick their carriers, and pay for them. They should have a say in what that coverage provided is, like any other customer. As I said previously: > [@](#): > > I also believe that the first amendment ought rightly to respect religious beliefs, whatever my opinion is on them, and that any restriction on them needs to have a compelling and significant public policy argument for it. I don’t see that here. I think churches and, frankly, secular institutions, should have the right to say they don’t want to fund something that conflicts with their religious beliefs, so long as in doing so they don’t create some material public concern. Subsidizing contraception, IMO, does not carry that weight. First amendment rights should trump. I think Scalia and the SC were wrong in the breadth they set with the standard of “general applicability” of a law as a threshold. “Compelling government interest” ought to be in play as well. First amendment rights are not absolute, but neither should they be dismissed so lightly. No religion gets a pass in all matters religious. But in my opinion, neither should they be compelled to participate in anything that runs counter to their beliefs unless there is a compelling government interest. Again IMO, contraception coverage does not carry that weight. It’s an overbearing assault on our first amendment rights. As I also stated previously, I don’t think most people, including most Catholics, are concerned with such constitutional distinctions. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/68 "2012-03-18T21:23:09Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I disagree. A company should get to decide which carrier they’ll use (and pay for) for any number of reasons, and one of them ought to be that they don’t want to use a carrier that provides coverage for contraception if that coverage contradicts their religious beliefs. Your distinction that they aren’t paying “directly” is a distinction without a difference. Companies pick their carriers, and pay for them. They should have a say in what that coverage provided is, like any other customer. But the employers aren’t the customer; the \*employee \*is. At best the employer is a broker who simply gets the two parties- the employee, and the insurance provider- together, as evidenced by the fact that the employee can choose to forego insurance or choose another provider. Frankly, the idea of my employer being able to control what medical procedures I can have access to scares me much more than the government ensuring that it’s available should scare you. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/69 "2012-03-18T21:40:09Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I disagree. A company should get to decide which carrier they’ll use (and pay for) for any number of reasons, and one of them ought to be that they don’t want to use a carrier that provides coverage for contraception if that coverage contradicts their religious beliefs. Your distinction that they aren’t paying “directly” is a distinction without a difference. Companies pick their carriers, and pay for them. They should have a say in what that coverage provided is, like any other customer. I disagree. If an employer thinks that they have a religious mandate to dictate how their employees spend their compensation for their labour, and that anything that restricts them from restricting their employees use of their wages/benefits impinges on their freedom of religion, then perhaps that employer should just stay out of the labour market entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/70 "2012-03-18T22:39:02Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > But the employers aren’t the customer; the \*employee \*is. At best the employer is a broker who simply gets the two parties- the employee, and the insurance provider- together, as evidenced by the fact that the employee can choose to forego insurance or choose another provider. Frankly, the idea of my employer being able to control what medical procedures I can have access to scares me much more than the government ensuring that it’s available should scare you. You can’t leave out the employer. Not only does the employer pay for some portion (in some instances, all of it), he is the one that makes the purchasing decision. Employees are generally in a “take it it leave it” position. Some employers pay for no health benefits and don’t offer any. The employees don’t get to decide the carrier, though their input could influence it. But at the end of the day, the employer selects and pays; it’s a customer in every meaningful sense of the word. The employer is a customer of the carrier, and having been in this industry, I can assure you they are treated as one. Recent legislation aside, if a large employer wanted coverage that did not include certain items, the carrier would generally be glad to comply. Your employer already controls medical coverage only in the sense that the firm selects the carrier and the group coverage. Some employees get “gold card” coverage. Some get bargain basement coverage. That’s how it has always worked, and the employee’s prerogative has always been to walk. The employer has no power to prevent an employee from getting whatever treatment the employee wants. But the employer has ALWAYS defined what will be covered by insurance that the employer is willing to pay for. Contraception coverage, ISTM, is no different. Or shouldn’t be. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/71 "2012-03-18T22:44:11Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I disagree. If an employer thinks that they have a religious mandate to dictate how their employees spend their compensation for their labour, and that anything that restricts them from restricting their employees use of their wages/benefits impinges on their freedom of religion, then perhaps that employer should just stay out of the labour market entirely. The employer has no say, as a rule, in how employees spend their money. They have always been the one to decide on, purchase, and offer insurance coverage as a benefit. The employee can look elsewhere if he doesn’t like the compensation package offered (which includes benefits). The employer, IMO, can frankly decide what coverage they want provided based on whatever they like. If they like the carrier’s logo. Whatever. It’s up to them. If the overall compensation (including benefits) is not competitive, people will work elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/72 "2012-03-18T22:58:39Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > You can’t leave out the employer. Not only does the employer pay for some portion (in some instances, all of it), he is the one that makes the purchasing decision. Employees are generally in a “take it it leave it” position. Some employers pay for no health benefits and don’t offer any. The employees don’t get to decide the carrier, though their input could influence it. But at the end of the day, the employer selects and pays; it’s a customer in every meaningful sense of the word. The employer is a customer of the carrier, and having been in this industry, I can assure you they are treated as one. Recent legislation aside, if a large employer wanted coverage that did not include certain items, the carrier would generally be glad to comply. > > Your employer already controls medical coverage only in the sense that the firm selects the carrier and the group coverage. Some employees get “gold card” coverage. Some get bargain basement coverage. That’s how it has always worked, and the employee’s prerogative has always been to walk. The employer has no power to prevent an employee from getting whatever treatment the employee wants. But the employer has ALWAYS defined what will be covered by insurance that the employer is willing to pay for. Contraception coverage, ISTM, is no different. Or shouldn’t be. So you’re saying that the employer gets to make the insurance decisions- what provider, what level of coverage, etc. _Why is this acceptable to you?_ Why \*should \*your employer get to decide, for you, what kind of healthcare you’re able to receive? And why the hell doesn’t this bother you \*more \*than the government making sure that everyone has access to the insurance they want? You don’t want the government telling employers that they have to provide certain coverage… but you don’t mind the employer telling the employee what they can and can’t get?! ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/73 "2012-03-18T23:05:19Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > So you’re saying that the employer gets to make the insurance decisions- what provider, what level of coverage, etc. _Why is this acceptable to you?_ Why \*should \*your employer get to decide, for you, what kind of healthcare you’re able to receive? > > And why the hell doesn’t this bother you \*more \*than the government making sure that everyone has access to the insurance they want? You don’t want the government telling employers that they have to provide certain coverage… but you don’t mind the employer telling the employee what they can and can’t get?! The employer gets to decide what he’ll offer. I am free to procure whatever coverage I want elsewhere, and my employer can’t stop me. There is no practical way that every employee can get whatever coverage he wants from his employer, nor is the employer obligated to do so. Seriously, is this business model news to you? Is it just coverage for contraception, or do you believe every employee can demand the type of coverage he or she wants, for every category of coverage they want? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/74 "2012-03-18T23:13:34Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > The employer gets to decide what he’ll offer. I am free to procure whatever coverage I want elsewhere, and my employer can’t stop me. Then \*you \*are the customer, which contradicts what you were saying earlier. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > There is no practical way that every employee can get whatever coverage he wants from his employer, nor is the employer obligated to do so. Seriously, is this business model news to you? Is it just coverage for contraception, or do you believe every employee can demand the type of coverage he or she wants, for every category of coverage they want? You didn’t actually answer the question- why is it acceptable to you that your employer gets to determine how much and what kind of insurance you can get? ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/75 "2012-03-18T23:19:39Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Contraception coverage, ISTM, is no different. Or shouldn’t be. But in reality, it’s being treated as if it’s different from what it is, which is preventative medicine. People keep bringing up this idea that employers pick and choose what aspects of medical care they’ll cover, but that honestly doesn’t happen. Employers may cap what they offer in terms of off-label drug use or experimental disease treatments but it’s a vanishingly rare employer that would randomly decide they won’t cover hypertension medications or flu vaccines or any other _common_ and _basic_ medical care. Contraception is the only category that employers seem to feel it necessary to muck about with. That’s been noted by courts and legislatures across the country, and rightly labeled as sexual discrimination and it’s illegal in the majority of the country already, accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/76 "2012-03-18T23:21:39Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Then \*you \*are the customer, which contradicts what you were saying earlier. :rolleyes: When I decide on and buy the policy completely on my own, I am the customer, yes. > [@](#): > > You didn’t actually answer the question- why is it acceptable to you that your employer gets to determine how much and what kind of insurance you can get? I did answer. My employer has no such power. I can procure whatever coverage I want and he can’t stop me. I also pointed out to you, and I’ll do so again, that there is no practical way for an employer to accommodate every employee’s preference, even if he were inclined to. You didn’t answer my question. Is it just contraception coverage, or do you have similar outrage over anything else your group policy doesn’t cover? Because there’s lots of things your policy doesn’t cover. The advantage of group coverage is that it’s much less costly. The disadvantage is that you generally have little or no option to customize it–you take what the provider offers, or you look elsewhere. That’s simply how it works. If you want to customize your coverage to include exactly what you want, then you don’t want group coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/77 "2012-03-18T23:35:40Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > But in reality, it’s being treated as if it’s different from what it is, which is preventative medicine. People keep bringing up this idea that employers pick and choose what aspects of medical care they’ll cover, but that honestly doesn’t happen. Employers may cap what they offer in terms of off-label drug use or experimental disease treatments but it’s a vanishingly rare employer that would randomly decide they won’t cover hypertension medications or flu vaccines or any other _common_ and _basic_ medical care. Contraception is the only category that employers seem to feel it necessary to muck about with. That’s been noted by courts and legislatures across the country, and rightly labeled as sexual discrimination and it’s illegal in the majority of the country already, accordingly. No, that’s wrong. There are countless categories of medical care that a given carrier will not cover. Home care, private nursing, complementary medicine, behavioral or learning disabilities, cosmetic surgery, artificial insemination, smoking cessation treatment, sex changes, donor egg retrieval, weight control services, orthotics, routine foot care, impotency treatment, et. al., are treatments that may or may not be covered (and often are not). Why do you think that contraception stands alone as excluded health care coverage? But IMO, that’s beside the point. They can offer whatever coverage they think is profitable, and a customer can buy it or look elsewhere. Do you have a cite that (this current law aside) it’s already illegal not to cover contraception in the majority of the country? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/78 "2012-03-19T00:33:59Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > The employer has no say, as a rule, in how employees spend their money. They have always been the one to decide on, purchase, and offer insurance coverage as a benefit. The employee can look elsewhere if he doesn’t like the compensation package offered (which includes benefits). The employer, IMO, can frankly decide what coverage they want provided based on whatever they like. If they like the carrier’s logo. Whatever. It’s up to them. If the overall compensation (including benefits) is not competitive, people will work elsewhere. That employers get to make healthcare decisions for employees is a significant part of what’s so broken about the US healthcare model. It boggles the minds of most of the rest of the industrialized world that you people put up with it. And of course, you know perfectly well that changing jobs imposes a very high burden on people, and most people are not free to quit their job because the benefit package includes (or doesn’t) elements they don’t like. Pretending that this is anything like a free marketplace is just insulting to anyone reading your posts. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/79 "2012-03-19T06:00:52Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I can procure whatever coverage I want and he can’t stop me. Perhaps you overlook certain facts. Employers can deduct their insurance costs, and these benefits do not count as income to employees. OTOH, personally purchased health insurance was, at least until recently and even then effectively for many, not tax deductible. Thus $1000 spent by an employer becomes only, say, $800 if changed to salary, after payroll and income taxes are paid out. And, as you mention yourself, even with $200 extra paid from your own pocket to get to the same $1000 employer was paying, you’ll have difficulty getting coverage as good, and the coverage will have stricter rules about pre-conditions, etc. In other words, rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly) in America’s system, buying individual insurance requires a large financial penalty compared with employer-provided insurance. It is disingenuous to ignore this, akin to telling a lower-income person they can enroll their kid in private school if they don’t like the public school. (I didn’t study the dialog to which I’m responding. Perhaps your point was intended as just a tautology, but most of us read these forums to get useful knowledge, not practice tricks of rhetoric.) Hope this helps. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592/80 "2012-03-19T06:36:35Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > My employer has no such power. I can procure whatever coverage I want and he can’t stop me. No, you can’t. In 2004, I became a freelancer instead of a regular employee (not by choice), meaning that I lost my employer-provided health care. As I was pregnant at the time, I started looking for policies that included coverage for maternity care. There were none. That’s correct, my individual insurance choices in the free market for maternity coverage were: Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nil. The null set. Zipparoo. Luckily, I was able to maintain COBRA coverage until my husband found a job that had employer-provided health insurance that would cover me. This idea that if you just go to the free market of individual insurance, it’s a miraculous wonderland filled with loads of pick-and-choose policies where you can cover anything from a hangnail to cancer treatments is complete and total nonsense. Individual coverage is more expensive than group coverage and it is shittier. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-are-you-upset-by-obamas-new-birth-control-rule/615592.md?page=5)