(VIDEO) Conservative Catholic College Rejects Birth Control


I am one of the faculty members of
Belmont Abbey College who filed a charge with Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission against my employer for removing coverage of birth control from our employee health care plan. I do not see this as a religious issue but rather one of gender
discrimination. The college prescription plan covers the health problems that
men have, such as prostate trouble and, to be fair, it should also cover those
unique to women, among them birth control pills. That is required by the civil
rights act which requires that we treat all races, genders, religions, etc. in
the same manner. That is what we are trying to promote. We are not in conflict
with the anti-abortion movement: good contraception means fewer abortions.
A small minority of Catholics,
(by all polls less than 10 %), have a problem with contraception.


What happens when your employer tries to impose its religious views on you? When Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina removes birth control from its employee health care plan, eight professors protest and the federal government gets involved.

The
college advertised itself as an equal opportunity employer and freely accepted
funding that was not available to religious institutions. In fact, the college
actually went to the federal court of appeals arguing that it was not religious
in order to obtain state funding. You can read the case yourself in any law
library or lawyer’s office at 429 F. Supp 871. Does a truly religious
institution deny that it is religious to obtain money?

The
appropriate committees formed ideas regarding how the benefits could be
restored without offending Catholic sensibilities but found that the
administration would not discuss the matter with them. In the exact words of
the college president: "consultation was not an option." The
college’s position was basically that they would not ever change their mind but
you could come at any time so they could tell you why you were wrong.

Nobody
questions the right of the college to promote its religious beliefs, only its
practices which affect others. The law makes a distinction between religious
beliefs which are absolutely protected and religious practices which are often
regulated when they affect others, as the college’s practice does here. The
regulation of practices is necessary: there are people who believe in human
sacrifice or ritual child abuse.

Forcing
us to abide by a Catholic approved health plan makes no more sense than
prohibiting a Catholic plumber from eating a pork sandwich for lunch if he
works at a Jewish hospital. It would be an ugly world if an employer is allowed
to impose religious practices on employees who do not share the employer’s
views. A business owned by a Jehovah’s witness might not allow blood
transfusions in the health plan. A business owned by a Muslim might require the
employees to face Mecca at prayer time. I could go on, but you can see that it
is best to let each employee decide for himself or herself, freely and without
coercion, how to practice religion. If the law requires that an employer offer
contraceptive benefits, that law should apply to all employers. Of course
Orthodox Catholics may decline to use the contraception benefit, but that is
the true application of religious freedom.

The
college’s position would be more credible if it were consistent. I note that
Belmont Abbey has upon its premises, and collects rent from, two pharmacies
which sell contraceptive products including emergency contraception. Why didn’t
they put a clause in the lease that these activities were forbidden? If one
makes money from the event, it’s right, but if one has to help pay for the
event it’s wrong?

If
health issues unique to men were not covered and health issue unique to women
were not covered the college would not be discriminating and I would have no
complaint. The problem is picking and choosing among them.

I
have had bosses who are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Orthodox Christian,
Protestant, Wankan Tanka, and even some with the strange name
"Presbyterian" in countries ranging from the Baltics, Balkans,
Central Europe, Latin America, and Asia as well as several in the USA. Nobody
ever tried to force me to accept their practices before Belmont Abbey. Not
once. Not in any place. Not any religion. This action is the very face of
intolerance. They are saying: "If you won’t adopt our religious practices you
are not welcome here, period." Being unwelcome I left, the first time in a long
career that I did not leave an employer on cordial terms.

President
Thierfelder believes that the college’s Catholic identity depends on its being
allowed to deny the standard of care to women. Apparently a curriculum based on
the best that the Catholic intellectual tradition has to offer and a relentless
pursuit to "find God in all things" counts for little or nothing in this
regard. What a sad commentary that is on the state of Catholic higher
education!

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with David Neipert please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • amie-newman

    It is, simply put, because of people like you that change happens. Your willingness to stand up for what you know is right is commendable but it’s also incredibly brave. I appreciate it, as a woman, and I know that others – even if they did not leave the school or speak up – will be changed in heart and mind because of your actions. 

    It is great news that the school was found to be in violation of the EEOC rules and I hope it’s upheld. Considering the school acts as a landlord for the local Wal-Mart and seems to have NO problem profiting off of birth control sales, and that the school receives state funding, the claims by students and employees that the federal government should not step in because of some perceived notion of a "separation of church and state" is not only ridiculous, it’s completely wrong. 

    Thanks again for writing the post and thanks to Stuart Productions for the excellent video!

    Amie Newman

    Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

  • kate-ranieri

    I think the fellow on the video who stated that people are afraid is likely quite correct. My experiences with many Catholic hierarchies points to just how rabid their dogma is when it concerns women. This college’s feckless decision is a prime example. I’d suggest that the Stupak-Pitts amendment was driven by the Council of Catholic Bishops.

  • kate-ranieri

    It appears that the Republican National Committee’s insurance company, Cigna, has provided abortion coverage since 1991. According to the RNC chair, Michael Steele, that option is being pulled. Once again, men making decisions about women and their reproductive health care. Makes my blood boil!

  • grayduck

    How does the policy discriminate against women? Does it not apply to vasectomies? Has the college specifically stated that the purpose is to discriminate against women?

     

    "Nobody ever tried to force me to accept their practices before Belmont Abbey."

     

    How does the policy force their practices on you? Would contraceptive providers not sell you contraceptives outside of the college plan? Is my employer discriminating against me by not paying for my recreational activities?


    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • sychev

    “Forcing us to abide by a Catholic approved health plan makes no more sense than prohibiting a Catholic plumber from eating a pork sandwich for lunch if he works at a Jewish hospital.”??????

    I don’t think so! A better analogy would be forcing Jewish hospital to pay for your pork sandwich. College is not prohibing anyone from getting birth control, they just don’t want to pay for it.

    Also, just because only 10% of Catholics reject birth control, doesn’t mean the Catholic teaching is invalid and should be ignored. I’m sure, not too long ago, majority of white people in the South did not agree with the law to end segregation.

    Of course, if college accepted federal $$, they better make sure they follow ALL the conditions that come with it.