Can anyone provide a citation for the proposition that heretofore the Catholic Church has regarded it to be sinful to provide an adult with otherwise beneficial resources that may or may not be used to commit a sin depending entirely on the choice of that other adult, when forced to make that provision by the state?
I realize this is short hand, but it’s really misleading shorthand given that the regulation in question explicitly provides for the exemption of churches.
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there are eight states (or three states) that deny churches the right to choose insurance plans that don’t cover birth control. How many states actually enforce that law? The thing is that such a law is unconstitutional, and if anyone ever fought it all the way to the Supreme Court it would surely be knocked down, as I already mentioned. Further, according to the second article I just linked to, the state laws have loopholes that let employers continue buying the insurance they want. Obama’s new rule closes those loopholes. So broadly speaking it’s still true that churches and other religious bodies had the right to buy the insurance of their choice, but after this rule change they will not, until the Supreme Court knocks it down.
It does not, though the Obama administration is trying to pretend that it does. To quote the article I linked to earlier:
Sebelius included one small conscience exemption: A religious employer who objects to medical treatment aimed at prevention of the disease commonly known as “pregnancy” may leave it out of their health insurance coverage provided the employer satisfies three criteria: (1) It has religious inculcation as its primary duty; (2) It primarily employs people of the same faith; and (3) It primarily serves people of the same faith. This fig leaf is enough to cover most small churches—so long as your parish employs only a couple of priests and a secretary, it would probably get a pass. Larger institutions would not.
In the Catholic world, for instance, a diocesan office often employs lots of people—lawyers, janitors, administrative staff—who are not necessarily Catholic. And the duties of such offices extend far beyond inculcation of the faith—to include charity, community service, and education
Catholics aren’t paying for birth control under this rule. They are paying for overall health insurance, if they decide that they want to provide insurance.
It’s utterly childish to claim that this is unconstitutional. No one is forced to provide insurance.
Also, are you okay with a Jehova’s Witness business offering health insurance that doesn’t allow blood transfusions?
Your :rolleyes: characterization of the legislation aside, I can link to relevant statutes, sure. No problem. Here’s eight states that don’t recognize any exemptions.
Washington - Wash. Rev. Code § 48.41.110
Montana - this policy came about as a result of an administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion, so there’s no statute to find.
Colorado - Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-16-104
Wisconsin - Wis. Stat. § 609.805 and § 632.895(17)
Iowa Iowa Code § 514C.19
Vermont - Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 8 § 4099c
New Hampshire - N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 415:18-I, § 420-A:17-c & § 420-B:8-gg
Georgia - Ga. Code § 33-24-59.6
It didn’t take me long to find these, by the way. A google search for “required insurance contraceptives” brought me here pretty easily.
Note that Ohio, Illinois, Virginia and Michigan require contraceptives be part of insurance coverage and may not include exemptions as well. I didn’t bother to check up on those, as the eight I did check up on clearly refute your earlier assertion fine by themselves. I just wanted to note that it was, as I said before, at least eight states that do not recognize an exemption. It could be 12 or more that do not.
As an aside, the 28 states require church owned businesses, like colleges and hospitals to offer health insurance with contraception covered. This isn’t required for churches themselves or church-run non college schools.
The 8 states don’t have the church exemption.
Edit: That was directed to ITR, because he appears to be confused.
You need to learn to read (or remember) better. I said at least 8 states do not recognize an exemption from providing coverage for religious reasons. Please don’t twist the things I’ve said to mean anything other than what I wrote.
That Catholics include lot of other things as adjunct to their places of worship, like schools that employ people of many faiths, does not mean the law doesn’t cover what most people understand to be a “church.” The regulation provides for exemption of any institution – regardless of size – that: “(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”
When you say that they’re “pretending” to cover churches, you are incorrect. The law does indeed exempt churches. I guess reasonable people can disagree about whether Catholic schools that do not primarily employ Catholics are considered a church, but to call the people who don’t call it a church pretenders is unfair.
How about a shot at my request for a cite?
No I’m not. I accurately described the strategy and nature of the campaign I think. What do you think consists of “over-complicating”?
I’ll let the mods do the objecting, if any. Just because I start a thread does not mean I control it.
You guys just know that the WH is going to backpedal on this decision, right? I don’t it want to, but it’s painfully obvious in the news that the administration is already seeking ways to find a comprmise.
I find it hilarious that this entire issue was actually settled over two weeks ago (with the initial decision) and only in the past few DAYS has it spiraled into a ridiculously overblown non-controversy. I will say that, yes, for the time being, these regulations will effectively galvanize the socially conservative base of the GOP; but infinitely more important, come the actual election, this decision (if it stands) will galvanize the entire voting bloc of women for fuck’s sake. In Obama’s favor.
The question, then, becomes how will a compromise be reached?
No it won’t. President Obama is not making this decision based on cynical partisan politics. He chose to deprive religious institutions of the freedom to choose their own insurance because he firmly believes that it’s the right thing to do. He will not back down in …
Oh. Never mind.
That’s not really backing down. He is saying that he wants indurance companies to pick up the cost of providing free contraceptives for religious employers. Do you know what the cost of providing free contraceptives for religious comes to? Its not that much. The $600/year is mitigated by the savings in extra births (prenatal, delivery, neonatal, all that stuff), I don’t know if it actualy saves them money but I bet it makes a big dent. Apparently its about $200/year after expected savings according to some analysts.
You don’t have the facts straight. The church was taking the freedom of its employees away by not providing them contraception. Unlike probably you and me, lots of poorer people can’t afford contraception. Its not a choice by forcing them to pay for it on their own since they cannot get it. Obama’s rule gives them that freedom, since they are now able to have the opportunity to get birth control, even though they won’t use it being good Catholics, or so I’m told. The church was too skittish anyway, because lots of their members would listen to such an edict and not use contraception, but by making that choice unavailable to them, the church is not allowing these good Catholics to express their faith, only their adherence to man’s law
Instead, ask why the church was taking away the freedom of its employees by imposing its own religious views on them. Other religions don’t do that. You never hear of a Jehova’s Witness-run hospital force its “no blood transfusions” rule on its employees. Their employees have that option available, but like good JW’s, they forgo the transfusions by choice and die with dignity.
The same thing happens to Islamic hospitals. They are very much pro-choice in that they serve pork in their cafeterias and don’t have a rule about keeping men and women apart, even for surgeries. Their faith is so strong that they allow hundreds of pounds of pork to go to waste every week since nobody will eat it, but its still on the menu. And their members understand that if a woman comes in to the ER for a stab wound from dishonoring her husband, the proper thing is to let her die if no female doctors are available. Nobody complains because those religious institutions have faith and god on their side
Yog has a good point. Why can’t the churches provide contraceptives (just like any other business), but rely on their parishioners to not use them? Is there a reason why the state has to help the church enforce its own rules?
Not providing something to your employees is not the same as taking the freedom of your employees. The federal government doesn’t provide free motorcycles to its employees, but it isn’t taking away its employees freedom to ride motorcycles.
I’ve already provided a cite to a CDC report which says that contraception use is “nearly universal” among those who choose to be sexually active. Hiow could that be so if “lots of poorer people can’t afford contraception”?
Even if we suppose that there’s a single church employee who’s too poor to afford contraception, which we don’t have any reason to believe, why can’t that hypothetical employee just get contraception from any of the many sources that give it away for free. I’ve asked several times already and gotten no answer.
I see nothing in what you quoted which says that the exemption would have covered all churches. If they had wanted to exempt all churches, the Obama Adminstration could simply have written “all churches and other religious institutions will be exempted”. They chose not to do so, and instead wrote an exemption full of ambiguity, that certainly could be used to take away rights from some churches.
In any case, President Obama has now changed his mind, so the question is moot.
You mean the one you asked for in post #100? I know nothing about the topic and see no relevance between that and Obama’s, um, aborted attempt to strip religious organizations of part of their freedom.
First of all, your cite does not back up a claim of $200/year expected savings for covering birth control. It says that the total cost of birth control is about $16 per month according to some, once everything is factored in. If that’s correct, then the poor people we’re hearing so much about will be $200 per year poorer as a result of this decision.
Further, as I’ve pointed out, there’s no reason to believe that insurance companies paying for contraceptives will reduce abortions or births. Everyone in the USA who wants contraception can get it easily even if their insurance doesn’t cover it. Nonetheless, we still have about a million abortions per year, and roughly half of pregnancies are unplanned. (According to the same CDC report that I cited eariler.)
Been there, done that. It’s actually the opposite. It is unconstitutional to offer insurance providing prescription coverage but not providing contraception coverage.
Also it is constitutional (at least in state law) to require contraceptive coverage.
As has been pointed out, Obama did no such thing. It’s the religious organizations who were trying to strip freedoms from their employees by not allowing them to *choose *whether they wanted to use contraceptives or not.
Do you think churches should be allowed to make that decision for its employees?