Is the Contraception mandate a violation of religious freedom?

[YogSothoth]

This article makes me think a lot better of the controversy. And it highlights a claim by John Mace about insurers bearing the cost:

“…contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it’s cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth.”

Which is intuitively true (and there’s a link for people who are less intuitively inclined) I’m surprised nobody brought it up. Its way cheaper for insurance companies to provide a pill at a few hundred dollars a year than for hospital stays, doctor visits, and childcare costs if a child is actually born.

The article’s right: Obama punked the GOP on this issue

[Mtgman]

Meh, mental gymnastics are de rigueur for religious organizations. As long as it gives them the veneer of deniability they seem to need there’s no issue. Apparently god is terrible at critical thinking and he/she/it won’t follow the logic and say “heyyy, you’re still paying for abortion/birth control/sterilization even if it’s not itemized on your insurance bill for the group policy you bought.” c.f. every major world religion and all of religious history. If you can break the rules without admitting it, that’s good enough.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Ibn_Warraq]

@dorsk188

Someone never dated Catholic girls in high school.

Or Catholic boys either for that matter.

[Ibn_Warraq]

On a more serious note, the new position strikes me as ridiculous.

To the best of my knowledge, Catholic business owners who provide insurance programs which cover contraception have never been required to reveal this as a sin at confession.

[John_Mace]

@Hamlet

John Mace, I posted this earlier and would like to hear your thoughts:

What is the distinction between those two scenarios that makes one acceptable and one unacceptable?

I don’t think you’ve phrased Scenario #2 correctly. Here’s the version that Church sees:

Scenario Two:The Catholic Church is [del]paying[/del] buying products from an insurance company. Some of those [del]insurance companies will use that money to purchase[/del] products conatin birth control for their employees.

[Hamlet]

@John_Mace

I don’t think you’ve phrased Scenario #2 correctly. Here’s the version that Church sees:

Scenario Two:The Catholic Church is [del]paying[/del] buying products from an insurance company. Some of those [del]insurance companies will use that money to purchase[/del] products conatin birth control for their employees.

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.

[John_Mace]

@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 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?

[Hamlet]

@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?

Right now, it’s wherever the Church decides. I’m not sure consistency is the primary concern of the Church, which was kinda my point. They’ve drawn an imaginary line saying, our money won’t be used for contraception!, yet, in reality, it is, and will continue to be.

I suppose it’s akin to my taxes being used to pay for an unnecessary pre-emptive war, to pay for brutal thugs pretending to be “security experts”, torture, and the "oops we lost 6 billion dollars. I condemn those things, but I still pay my taxes. I have no problem with the Church condemning contraception for its followers (well, I think it’s stupid and not necessarily the best moral decision, but that’s another thread), but standing up and pretending their money isn’t being used for those things strikes me as an extremely convenient, but mostly imaginary, line.

[monavis]

@John_Mace

Not any more. The HCRB has minimum standards that health insurance plans have to cover, and companies with 50 or more employees must provide health insurance or else pay a recurring fee.

This is a natural outcome of that bill since I could start up an insurance company and sell “health insurance” for $5/year that consisted of giving my customers band aids whenever they are bleeding and that would satisfy the requirement that everyone have insurance.

I suspect this issue will go to the SCOTUS and suspect Obama will lose. Birth Control is not an essential part of health insurance, and so the government has no compelling reason to make employers provide it when it violates the religious principles of those employers. We’re not talking life or death here.

There is a reason to allow it, there are times when a pregnancy is dangerous for a woman(depending on her health) I had a sister who had 6 miscarriages and it was hard on her health. I would think there are other women with such a problem. In such a case, I wonder if the Church should hold it self responsible, I know they don’t seem too pro-life where the lack of birth control causes so much poverty in places such as Haiti,

To me the Church is just pro-Birth and play on the guilt they have put into a woman and her husband. Of course many ignore the church and many get their tubes tied or men have vasectomies.

[monavis]

@John_Mace

Or, perhaps the Church can look at the US as it is now, and has been forever, and see that we’ve never had this rule and we were never like Haiti.

You are correct…so far! Who knows what the future will bring?

[monavis]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.