Starting August 1st through the Affordable Care Act, many insurance plans will be required to fully cover contraception. 28 States already require insurance companies to cover birth control. Churches will be exempt from this Bill. Some may argue that this is government interference in the free market. Some may argue that this will raise insurance premiums. Some argue that this is an assault on religious freedom and liberty and is unconstitutional. The last argument I have to challenge.
First off, what is the intent of this Act? Is this an intentional attack on Catholics, or is the birth control affordability part of a greater plan that will improve women’s health? There have been many extremist battles of pro-life and pro-choice. These arguments can get very ugly. Can we agree that pro-life people do not want women performing self-abortions? Can we agree that pro-choice people are not pro-abortion? Can we all agree that our society should have the lowest number of unwanted pregnancies as possible?
If birth control is made more available to all women, that will decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. A decrease in the number of unwanted pregnancies will decrease the number of abortions. If someone is pro-life and wants to decrease the number of abortions as much as possible, doesn’t it make sense to support greater contraception measures? Would it not be healthier for any woman not to get pregnant in the first place rather than terminating a pregnancy later on?
There are some Catholic men and political opportunists outraged over this Act stating that it’s an attack on religious liberty. They argue that it’s somehow unconstitutional. Nobody is forcing them to take the pill, and chances are their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters have taken birth control. Do these men beating their chest and denouncing this Act represent the majority of Catholics, or are they simply dinosaurs about to become extinct? Is the extreme anti-contraception ideology dead in the general Catholic community?
Filed under: Religion
Tags: Abortion, Affordable Care Act, Birth Control, Catholic, contraception
When you mentioned "Catholic Dinosaurs" I immediately thought of Byrne,* except that I decided to boycott that bigot. Thus, I'll give you my legalistic view.
The U.S. Supreme Court** recently ruled that the First Amendment prevents government interference with an employment decision made with regard to a person engaged in a "ministerial function," including someone who "was called to be a teacher."
I would argue that, conversely, the Church is not protected to the extent it is engaged in commerce, and running a hospital, for instance, is commerce. To the average patient, and certainly to the average employee, it doesn't make a difference whether the hospital is run by the Church or Cook County. In addition, all hospitals get government funding through Medicaid, at least. Hence, just like when the state judge said that Catholic Charities didn't have a right to a state contract, regardless of its views on placing foster children with same sex parents, I don't see how a Catholic hospital is exempt from laws affecting its non-ministry employees.
In any event, this seems more like a regulation on insurance, which is in commerce, rather than a hospital. Men have to pay the same rate for medical insurance, even though coverage for giving birth is mandated in many states.
_____________
* He threatened me over his other fixation,airport expansion, when I asked if he was still being paid by Bensenville politicians, but his religious spokesperson role is as engrained.
**You'll note that I cited the official source.
Thanks for the comment Jack. "regulation on insurance, which is in commerce," well stated.
According to news reports today, that's exactly what President Obama now proposes.
He does give indications that he learned something in law school.
We're posting on the same subject at the moment, with slightly different angles. However, I too am baffled by this view on birth control. As someone raised Catholic, I can tell you that "most Catholics" don't necessarily disagree with birth control. (Santorum is a scary minority.) In fact, many Catholic women in the 60's where I grew up, were the first ones to (secretly) take the Pill, so tired were they of being pregnant every ten months.
And I agree with Jack, that when organizations take any kind of money from state or federal government, whether it be tax cuts or Medicaid, they can't them exempt themselves.
Good article! It is baffling. So Santorum is saying that he never had sex without the intent of child birth? He should be challenged on those statements that he made. They are out of touch with most Catholics and most everybody.
Roseanne Barr was asked by her daughter if the Rhythm method worked. “Ask your brother” was her response.
Your post makes too much sense!
If you want to lower unintended pregnancies promote birth control? What's next - providing sex education for kids as if it's an owner's manual for their bodies?
How dare you be pragmatic in the 21st Century!
Ok, I can't keep up the indignant sarcasm and I'm worried that my cynicism might be taken seriously. I don't mean to mock people with deeply held religious beliefs, but they are really putting themselves between a rock and a hard place here.
Sex for pleasure is bad. So if you do succumb, you might as well go for broke and procreate? I guess that way, your god can't be angry with you for enjoying sex when it ultimately led to procreation. The end justifies the means - your god can't hold that against you. You either caught him in a loophole or he's easily fooled. In either case, he doesn't sound like the all-whatever god he's promoted to be...
I could go on like this all day. My point is pretty simple. If you insist on having a fatalistic view of your path in life, you may as well not make any decisions for yourself - your life is predetermined and you have no free will.
If you only believe this about sex, you should probably just abstain from having it. Your god prefers that for you anyway...
Thanks for the comment Brent! I'm not sarcasm impared like some folks, so I immediately got it. Yes, if there is a god, I can't imagine that higher being would get all bent out of shape over sex for pleasure.
I honestly do not believe that the dust up for the Catholic lay people, many whom use birth control is not over having access or not having access to birth control, but for the LAY people who are rubbed the wrong way on this, it is a about an increasingly intrusive federal government dictating that a certain religion has to do something which is against the official tenets of the religion. For the Catholic clergy and administration and leadership it is only about the government dictating what a certain religious group can do.
For those argue the separation of church and state, why does it work only one way? No religious influence over the state, but the state can dictate what it wants?
Where is the line drawn over what control the state can have over any religion? Why draw a line at all? Why not consolidate all religion to the state, which can then better control the health and welfare of all the faithful? After all, how doe we know what is said in the church, the temple or the mosque to be positive to the mental health of the faithful?
The real solution is to remove the health care plans from employment.
So many are cavalier in their comments -- Oh, the old "dinosaurs".. that is, until their agnostic organization ox is gored. They are too smart by half. Don't be so quick to slap yourself on the back, especially if you welcome the government into every nook and cranny of life. Yours will be next.
Make health care political and every action under or out of the sun becomes political, including the meetings of local chapter of Agnostic Anonymous.
Freedom of religion means even freedom from religion, unless the state becomes the religion.
Hello Richard, I don't see this as a religious issue, it's an insurance issue. Is the Catholic leadership in touch with the Catholic community? 98% of the Catholic community uses birth control. Government intrusion is a legitimate criticism. To say that this is an assault on religious liberty is an overblown statement IMO.
Regards,
Jim
Did you know that in the most religiously conservative states you find the highest teen pregnancies? Teen pregnancy is an indicator of economic stability. The more teen pregnancies the less economic stability, not good.
As far as the government being involved in health care decisions is concerned, I don't see it that way. The decision to have contraception is and should be left up to the patient and the physician.
I worked for the Archdiocese of Chicago for many years. On our team of social workers we had Baptists, Atheists, Agnostics, Catholics, Buddists and Muslims. These were women and men who worked very hard to help inner city kids. Should they have been denied health care? Should Catholic institutions only hire non contraceptive practicing Catholics? I think there would be serious staff shortages. If Catholic institutions don't want to provide insurance and all that intails, stop taking federal money. Frankly I don't want my tax dollars to assist any organization to endanger the health of women by preventing health care options. BTW, I'm catholic.
Thanks for the comment Danie. Yes, graduating high school, having a job and not having children out of wedlock drastically reduces poverty rates. Good points on workers and patients being from all backgrounds.
BTW - I heard Italy has the highest use of contraceptives. The population is actually decreasing.
You really didn't address the constitutional issue that's at the heart of this debate. You DID address the asinine "war on Christians" pablum that the G.O.P presidential candidates are peddling. That's all well and good, and the arguments you make for why this law is good policy are sound, but there is a powerful argument to be made that this law violates the 1st amendment.
Hello Eddie, I don't see this as a violation of the First Amendment.
Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress is not prohibiting the free exercise of their religion. Nobody is being forced to use contraception. It is the choice of the individual. The individual has the right to choose. The vast majority of Catholics choose birth control. 28 States already have simular legislation in place for insurance companies.
Regards,
Jim
I rebutted your constitutional argument above. Maybe you should have read it.
James, you say that nobody is being forced to use contraception. That much is true.
It does not matter to you, I guess, that everybody is being forced to pay for it. How about freedom of choice? If a person wants to use contraceptive the person pays for it. That's choice.
Where does this stop? Or do you care if it stops? Is it more comfortable for you to be eased and guided through life by public officials and have some or most of your needs paid for by others?
Do you believe in individual liberty, or are you interested only in the collective?
Richard, government intrusion into the free market is a valid argument. To say that this legislation is an assault on religious liberty is overblown IMO.
Regards,
Jim
I am Catholic, wary of the government, and mostly paranoid about how poorly our country and lives are guided by private business and (to a much smaller degree religious interests). It seems to me that members of the church do not have to "choose" to utilize anything covered under any insurance plan. It could be said the religious freedoms at stake are called upon to eliminate any freedom of choice by those who may benefit from them.
It strikes me as funny how often government and religious entities fight to eliminate a persons choice when the foundation of religion is to choose.
"Freedom of choice is the essence of Faith"
Well Richard maybe men (in particular) should have to pay for their own heart surgery if they ever smoked. God (or god if you prefer) forbid. We certainly are paying for a great number of maladies that most of us will never have. I think I'd rather pay for people to remain healthy. Pregnancy, especially unwanted pregnancies, cost a great deal of money. Young girls and some older women who did not want the pregancy will not seek medical attention until late in the fetal development. The costs incurred because of delayed prenatal care are astronomical. The pediatric medical bills associated with poor prental care, low weight babies, low APGAR scores, post natal infection and on and on take a toll on our insurance premiums and lives.
Absolutely Danie, let's try to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies as much as possible. Better health and huge cost avoidance.
How dare the government dictate to the church how it controls the choices it employees!