I was upset when I discovered that the insurance policies I had to take back in '94-'97 did NOT cover any birth control or other “women’s health care” except for abortions.
My reaction to “Obama’s new birth control rule” is “about bloody time.”
Still not seeing the distinction. In both cases you’re trying to have sex without getting pregnant. And in both cases there is a non-zero chance of failure, so there is a “possibility of life”.
Is there a commandment that thou shalt not use methods effective for the 97th percentile or greater?
Actually," life" began eons ago, and even the church admits eveolution is fact. There is LIFE in a man’s sperm and in a woman’s ova so" life" is just a passed on thing without our ancestors we wouldn’t be here!
I think it’s a matter of poor public policy, but the Affordable Care Act et al gives the President (through the Secretary HHS) the power to compel insurance companies to cover this cost. So mine is merely personal opposition; the basic tenet of a democratic republic is a fundamental agreement about how we govern ourselves. This is part of the way we, as a people, express our collective will. The mere fact that I oppose this particular choice is reason to speak against it, and to argue it’s unwise, but it’s no reason to argue it’s somehow illegitimate.
It certainly does not offend the Constitution.
I think it does, for those organizations that self-insure. Self-insurance also opens up a privacy concern for contraception per Griswold v. Connecticut.
Are the 90+% of self professed catholic women also catholic in name only?
It’s the organization’s choice to self-insure. If a hypothetical religion doesn’t believe in allowing lunch breaks, it doesn’t get to start a McBurger Shack™ and not allow lunch breaks.
If the RCC decides to self-insure for secular businesses it owns, it has to follow the regulations that all other insurers have to.
Oh, I had no idea. Well then, surely the many liberal and independent minds in the Catholic church feel compelled to modify the hierarchies behavior.
I’ll wait.
How exactly is the laity supposed to affect the clergy? Are you under some delusion that the Church is some sort of democracy?
My church is a democracy, so maybe that would work there. But Catholicism has always been a non-democratic monarchy. They even have a king that is infallible.
As BigT suggests, this isn’t really the way it works. I’m no longer Catholic (or of any religious persuasion), but the Catholic church, in my experience, very much functioned in a way that most people knew what the “official Church line” was on things, but chose to ignore it. I have literally not met a single Catholic (that I know of ETA: actually there are one or two couples that I suspect may be into natural planning. In any case, that’s under 1% of the Catholics I know) who was against contraception. Even feelings on abortion were split pretty much the same as the general public.
If enough people stopped going they’d liberal-up their policies pretty quick.
The trouble is most Catholics go to church and just ignore the policies that inconvenience them. There is no need for the church to become sane, because the hooples keep giving them money.
I agree - I see this whole debacle as being exactly equivalent to someone saying “My religion is against paying someone over $4 per hour, therefore I think the government should allow an exception to the minimum wage laws just for me and my kind.”
Employment mandates are done for what we think are valid secular reasons. Making exceptions to those reasons based on religion is effectively giving the government’s endorsement to those religious beliefs, therefore a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
Of course not. sisu’s point is that a substantial number of members in the Catholic Church disagree with the position their organization takes on this issue, have no say, and yet still support it.
Either Catholics aren’t as liberal as sisu is suggesting or the religion is in practice a grab bag of whatever it is that most appeals to you.
I’m a Catholic and am upset at the Church’s position over these rules.
You do realize that the ministerial exception does include things like wages, overtime and the like, right?
Probably more the latter, although that is overstating it by a bit. You can check out these statistics to get an idea of what mainstream US Catholics think about birth control and abortion.
ETA: I agree that it’s only one survey of who knows what validity, but that certainly agrees with my personal experience.
Is that true for secular businesses that churches own, like hospitals and colleges that cater to people of all religions? Because that’s what we’re talking about.
You do realize that the guidelines we’re discussing don’t apply to clergy, right?
Sure. See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, decided just this year. 9-0 decision against a school teacher claiming employment discrimination.
First of all, the ministerial exception hardly applies only to just clergy. See my post above.
Secondly, the question here isn’t whether Catholics may be barred from using or purchasing contraception - the question is whether a Catholic organization may be compelled to pay directly for it. I don’t think this is permissible under the First Amendment.