Coverage of this story has almost invariably been framed as a conflict between the federal government and the Catholic bishops. Zeroing in on the word “contraception,” many commentators have taken delight in pointing to surveys about the use of contraceptives among Catholics, the message being that any infringement of religious freedom involves an idiosyncratic position that doesn’t affect that many people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception (not to mention abortion and surgical sterilization) has been clear, consistent and public. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s decision would force Catholic institutions either to violate the moral teachings of the Catholic Church or abandon the health-care, education and social services they provide the needy. This is intolerable.
And while most evangelicals take a more permissive view of contraception, they share with Catholics the moral conviction that the taking of human life in utero, whether surgically or by abortifacient drugs, violates the basic human right to life.
Read it all (it has different authorship and is in a different publication than the one post earlier today).
I see that President Obama has allegedly revoked his proposed rule. Mark my words, if he wins the upcoming election, he will re-insert it, authorize the over the counter sale of birth control pills to minors, and promulgate his amoral, socialist agenda – by Executive Order if he cannot get the (spineless) Congress to go along with him. After all, he will then be a lame duck and won’t have to fear not being re-elected.
The “comromise” does not change anything. It is a lie.
[blockquote] If I understand the White House announcement correctly, their newly proposed rule would not actually change the moral circumstances at issue in any way.
The problem that opponents of the original rule have had is that it effectively requires religious employers to purchase a product (an insurance policy) that provides their employers with free access to contraceptive and abortifacient drugs that they would not have otherwise had, and thus requires those employers to purchase a product that violates their religious convictions. The new rule does exactly the same thing.
It puts religious employers in the position of having to choose between providing their workers with free (to the workers) access to contraceptives and abortifacient drugs or not providing those workers with health insurance at all (and also paying a large fine). The only difference is that the access to those contraceptive and abortifacient drugs would not technically be listed as one of the benefits the employer was paying for directly but would be listed as a benefit the insurer was paying for (with the money the employer paid for the broader insurance policy, of course). But employers who offer insurance don’t pay for individual benefits and products when they are provided anyway, they pay for the policy that gives their workers access to those benefits and products when they want them. Under this rule, then, it would still be the case that as a result of being employed by a religious institution that provides insurance coverage (which Obamacare would require employers to do, or else pay a large fine), workers at that institution would have free access to contraceptives and abortifacients that they would not have had if that employer did not offer insurance coverage. So it’s still the case that the rule would require religious employers to purchase a product that violates their convictions, in the same way as the original rule (a fact also highlighted by the administration’s decision to retain the exemption for actual houses of worship in this new rule, just as in the old one). The choice for religious employers is still between paying an insurer to provide their workeres with access to a product that violates their convictions or paying a fine to the government.[/blockquote]
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290763/compromise-yuval-levin
He hasn’t revoked it, he has just played an incredibly dishonest sleight of hand, which I hope no one falls for. Mandate Version 1: “Catholic and Christian organizations: You must pay $200 a month per employee for a healthcare plan that includes contraception, abortion and sterilization.” Mandate Version 2: “Catholic and Christian organizations, you must pay $200 a month per employee for a healthcare plan which doesn’t expressly say it covers contraception, abortion and sterilization, but women are still legally entitled to get such services for free from the insurer, and the insurer (wink, wink) will pay for them.”
The description in #2 is exactly right.
It seems that some are more liberal than Catholic:
[blockquote] Senior administration officials are pleased with the initial response to President Obama’s pending announcement on an “accommodation†for religious organizations regarding the rule requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.
Though they’re on opposite sides of the birth control and abortion debate, both Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, issued statements Friday morning applauding the compromise, which allows religious organizations to keep contraception out of its coverage while requiring the insurance companies to step in and offer contraceptive coverage to the female employees.[/blockquote]
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/both-catholic-health-assn-and-planned-parenthood-say-theyre-pleased-with-contraception-rule-announcement/
Put a little lipstick on the pig and some people are happy to play along.
#5–Unfortunately, that’s how we got Obamacare in the first place.
It just infuriates me that people don’t realize that if government controls your health, they control your life and can make you do anything they want. That’s what this is really about. This is not going to be the first time the iron fist starts showing underneath the velvet glove.
“first time” = “last time”
28 states already require insurance plans to cover contraceptives, and the majority of Catholic institutions in those states offer insurance plans that cover contraceptives (generally with a copay). Why is this suddenly a big deal?
Also, this requirement doesn’t include insuring people who work in churches or diocesan offices or other places where everyone is Catholic. It covers places like hospitals and universities where the church may be the final employer but the activities are not related to worship or church business. I think this is a reasonable balance, and apparently it has been working well in over half the states in the union. Again, why is this suddenly the biggest threat to religious freedom?
I see the standard talking points have been rolled out.
8, give us some detail to back up your first paragraph. If the states are requiring religious institutions to offer contraception and abortificants then they too are in violation of the first amendment.
As to the second, you like Obama want to define religion so as to limit it solely to worship in a church. The activities you mention are ministries of the Church and the Church is entitled to run its ministries the way it sees fit. It is not your business not the Government to decided what is legitimate religious ministry.
This is by no means a “reasonable balance”.
Obama has proven himself to be a tyrant and anti Christian. No matter what he claims, watch what he does. He is a servant of evil and lies, right along with KJS.
This “accommodation” is just another stall hoping for relelection so he can roll out his whole socialist agenda. He is trying o remake our democratic= republic into his own socialist image.
#8– “Co-pay” means that the employee is paying for the contraceptive services, not the employer. Which is the whole point of this problem. If the employee were required to pay for the services, not the Church, there wouldn’t be the objection.
The latest gimmick from the Obama administration is now claiming the insurers will be paying for it, which of course is a patent lie. Insurance companies don’t have free money they can just use for this. They may be paying for it, but they will just assess the cost back to the employers and just not tell them about it. But Obama & Company are banking on a belief that the American people are so stupid they cannot see this. It may work, they have spent the last 6 years telling us everything is free (or should be charged to the mythical 1%).
As someone pointed out in another place, if Obama is actually requiring the insurance companies to offer this coverage, truly for free, at their own expense, without recompense from anyone whomsoever, then this is an unconstitutional taking of property. Government does not have the authority to demand free services or products.
Looks like a cheap accounting trick to me. Definitely NOT acceptable.
Unfortunately, there are many in the Catholic Church that will gladly accept this flimsy fig leaf from the Obama Administration. It changes nothing, except that the word “contraceptives” won’t appear on a diocese’s insurance bill.
re: Clayton [blockquote]28 states already require insurance plans to cover contraceptives, and the majority of Catholic institutions in those states offer insurance plans that cover contraceptives (generally with a copay). Why is this suddenly a big deal?[/blockquote]
This is suddenly a big deal because most of those 28 states provide an exemption for religious institutions. In the few states, like GA, which don’t provide an exemption, Catholic institutions self-insure to avoid providing a gravely immoral “benefit.”
It dawned on me today that since the Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom of speech for corporations (institutions), then likely the other half of the 1st Amendment will be upheld regarding corporations having the right to freedom of religion.
Going to be an interesting year…
There’s a summary of state regulations including exceptions [url=http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf]here[/url]. Only 8 states allow any hospitals to be exempt, and 7 allow some schools and charities to be exempt, but not hospitals. In 8 states, this new Federal law will create a religious exemption for churches where none existed before.
The denial of the exception for religiously-affiliated institutions has been to court in both New York and California, and been upheld. New York’s top state court:
“When a religious organization chooses to hire nonbelievers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees’ legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit,”
Again, reasonable. If everyone who works for you is Catholic and your mission is “the inculcation of religious values,” then you can run your workplace by Catholic principles. If your workplace is run more like a business that employs non-Catholics, then you’re regulated like a business.
the majority of Catholic institutions in those states offer insurance plans that cover contraceptives (generally with a copay)
Really? Here’s a New York Times article that starts with that claim, then ends up naming two institutions that offer contraception and one they imply does (no actual facts). One employee plan explicitly excludes abortifacient drugs and sterilization and the Times article also mentions two Catholic Charities organizations that self-insure rather than carry prescription plans. Clearly, the New York scheme allows for reasonable “outs”, although the article quotes a spokesman for the New York Catholic Conference as saying that “Some Catholic employers are complying with the law under protestâ€.
neutral regulations
Not neutral at all, but a direct frontal assault upon our conscience. Your response seems to be “too bad about your conscience”. Well, when it’s your conscience (and only a fool doesn’t see that the precedent can cut both ways), will it be “too bad”?
the church may be the final employer but the activities are not related to worship or church business.
Fascinating re-write of history and lends credence to the complaint running around that the current effort is to redefine “Freedom of Religion” as “Freedom of Worship”. Sorry, clayton, trying to lock us into the sanctuaries is unconstitutional. You may get away with it, but as noted above, you will have unleashed a monster that could well turn on you and tear you apart. When government gets power, it doesn’t turn it loose easily; when cultural fashions change, your turn may change with them.
Education, health, charity and relief work have always been understood to be among the Works of Mercy expected of any Christian, particularly Catholics. Until they were money-making propositions (as with health care, or became reasonably pliant to the secularist message (as with the academy), they pretty much stayed religious in nature.
I read a secularist expounding on his hatred for Catholics hospitals and schools a couple of years ago, and all of this is simply that same bile put into law. Another voice recently referred to health care and education as “secular” activities. Drivel! Like secularists can be trusted to actually care for human beings? If they allow you to survive the womb, they will be waiting to “euthanize” you when you no longer serve their needs.