I just want to point out that this is kinda stupid. In the U.S. Catholic Charities runs, well, charities e.g. hospitals, homeless shelters, etc. My understanding is that they don’t discriminate based on creed or the lack thereof.
I believe they’re also quite efficient at providing these services in that, through various church-related organizations, they are able to round up lots of volunteers, nuns, etc. who work for free. They also do provide 1/3 of their budget themselves.
So what you’re really suggesting is that Catholic Charities stop providing these services or cut their budget by 2/3 and just provide them to Catholics. In other words, Catholic Charities should stop subsidizing the services it now provides to the general public. This would be a great windfall for members of the Catholic church but it’d pretty much suck for everyone else.
Alternately, how about we shut down Catholic Charities for being so damn close-minded and let Uncle Sam take care of the people Catholic Charities has been helping?
Would a doctor prescribe a contraceptive for purely recreational purposes (like recreational sex)? It doesn’t make sense to me that one would (but I admit, I’m not 100% sure), so I will assume that the only reason a doctor would prescribe contraceptives is for some “side effect,” i.e., not contraception itself. So where exactly does a woman’s reproductive freedom come into play? I assume the only way a prescription drug plan could cover use of a contraceptive is if it were prescribed by a doctor, in which case its purpose wouldn’t be contraception. If this is completely wrong, I apologize for wasting your time. Basically, I don’t see how women’s reproductive freedom can be used to justify a law that requires prescription drug plans to cover contraceptives. Actually, I’m really not sure why such laws exist.
In which case people can use natural contraception methods, which the RCC does allow. These techniques require considerable discipline to be effective, but they do work pretty well. Not 100%, but artificial contraception doesn’t work that well either.
Mind you, I’m not Catholic, and I have no objection to artificial contraception per se. I’m just pointing out that this objection which you raise doesn’t necessarily contradict the RCC position.
They’ll allow birth control pills if they are to treat menstrual cramps, but won’t allow condoms to prevent AIDS. Neither are used with the express purpose of birth control exactly, yet only one is allowed.
I still don’t get it. In fact, I don’t WANT to get it.
Here is the thing. Uncle Sam has a responsibility to look after the health, safety, welfare and morals of the citizens (I know it’s from some sort of legal doctrine, but cant’ find it right now). At the same time, it is in the first ammendment to the constitution that the government also allow freedom of religious practices. That has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the gov’t should not entangle itself in religious matters.
This is the legal battle in place. What is more important: the government’s responsibility to look after the citizenry’s helath or the ability for religious institutions to practice as they see fit? Now, I’m not a legal scholar so I wouldn’t know where to begin with this, but that is what’s in front of us right now.
In which state are employers required to provide the benefits? My understanding of the NY law is that it prohibits insurance companies from selling policies which include prescription drug ccoverage but exclude birth control pills. It doesn’t appear to require employers to provide any benefits at all.
As far as I know ( Bricker, please correct me if I’m wrong) the concept of “unintended secondary effect” applies to condoms as well as birth control pills. I have never seen a statement by a Church leader regarding the use (either for or against) of condoms to prevent disease transmission by married couples. The RCC would certainly not approve of the use of condoms for the prevention of disease by unmarried people- not so much because of the contraceptive effect, but because in the RCC’s view, unmarried people shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.
I’m not quite sure I follow you here, but I think what you’re saying is that you think most bcp prescriptions are for cramps or whatever, rather than contraception. If so, you’re wrong, wrong, wrong. Pills, Depo, IUD’s, etc. are prescribed primarily for birth control, with only a handful going on them purely for therapeutic reasons. Why would you think that doctors wouldn’t prescribe contraception for contraceptive purposes? That’s what it’s for, you know?
It seems to me that you would have a hard time convincing the court that catholics believe birth control is immoral given that a higher percentage of US catholics use birth control (70%) than US non-catholics (64%).
Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that unmarried, childless, catholic priest should not have birth control offered in their insurance package, but everyone else should.
