Anti-Choicers Gear Up To Fight Guidelines on Preventive Care for Women


All articles included in RHRC’s coverage of the IOM Report can be found here.  This article was edited at 7:11 am Thursday, July 21st to include a paragraph (under the heading Misleading Argument #3) that was in advertantly left out of the original published draft.

It’s a predictable routine. 

Medical experts review clinical and public health data and evidence on a set of issues.  They make recommendations on the best way to improve individual and public health, save lives, and lower health care costs for individuals, businesses and the nation writ- large.

If those recommendations include, anywhere, the words “Women,” “Reproductive,” “Health,” and “Care,” alarm bells go off in the hallways of anti-choice group offices everywhere. 

And then the flood of lies begins.

So it was with the release of today’s Institute of Medicine Report on Preventive Health Care for Women.

The IOM report (the Executive Summary of which can be found here) recommends, among other things, that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) include in its final guidelines on women’s preventive health care that insurance companies cover the “full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

And, oh boy, did those alarm bells start ringing, from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the Family Research Council to the Americans United for Life and all those other rejectors of research and common sense.

First let’s do the evidence thing.  The IOM recommendations make eminent sense, whether you are concerned about individual rights, public health, or financial responsibility.

Why?

As the IOM report points out, reducing unintended pregnancies improves women’s health and the outcomes of later wanted pregnancies, enables women to plan their families effectively, and reduces the need for abortion. The full IOM report goes into significant detail on the rationale for contraceptive coverage and is worth reading on its own.

Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.  While some women and couples can and do decide to carry an unintended pregnancy to term, other women facing such pregnancies find them untenable and so resort to abortion. Approximately seven in 10 women of reproductive age (43 million women) are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method. The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades.  So even if all you care about is reducing the number of abortions, then the first step is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.  Making contraception more affordable and accessible does that.

Unintended pregnancy costs U.S. taxpayers roughly $11 billion each year.  A study by Adam Sonfield and colleagues at the Guttmacher Institute found that two-thirds of births resulting from unintended pregnancies—more than one million births—are publicly funded, and the proportion tops 80 percent in a couple of states. The cost of those births, and the potential gross saving from helping women to avert them, is estimated at $11.1 billion. 

“Investing in publicly funded family planning to help women avoid unintended pregnancy has a proven track record, says Sonfield. “In the absence of the services provided at publicly funded family planning centers, the costs of unintended pregnancy would be 60 percent higher than they are today.”  In a similar study, Emily Monea and Adam Thomas of the Brookings Institution found that:

The estimates of the cost to taxpayers of providing medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies and to the infants who are born as a result of such pregnancies range between $9.6 and $12.6 billion per year, and average $11.3 billion. The estimates of the public savings that would result if these unintended pregnancies were prevented range from $4.7 billion to $6.2 billion per year, and average $5.6 billion.

“Like Sonfield and colleagues,” stated Thomas and Monea, “we find that the potential public savings from preventing unintended pregnancy are enormous.”

“Our results suggest that if unintended pregnancies could be eliminated altogether, the resulting savings on taxpayer-financed medical care alone would approach the amount that the federal government spends on Head Start each year. Policymakers should protect and even increase investments in such proven cost-saving strategies as publicly subsidized family planning services and evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs.”

Remember: We are talking here about assisting women in avoiding pregnancies which they do not intend, do not want, and/or for which they are not prepared in the first place. 

In its findings, the IOM not only rigorously considers the evidence, it also cites numerous other reports recommending the same:

The IOM Committee on Women’s Health Research recently identified unintended pregnancy to be a health condition of women for which little progress in prevention has been made, despite the availability of safe and effective preventive methods (IOM, 2010b). This report also found that progress in reducing the rate of unintended pregnancy would be possible by “making contraceptives more available, accessible, and acceptable through improved services (IOM, 2010b). Another IOM report on unintended pregnancy recommended that “all pregnancies should be intended” at the time of conception and set a goal to increase access to contraception in the United States (IOM, 1995). Healthy People 2020 (HHS, 2011a), which sets health goals for the United States, includes a national objective of increasing the proportion of pregnancies that are intended from 51 to 56 percent. In addition, Healthy People 2020 Effective Interventions sets goals to increase the number of insurance plans that offer contraceptive supplies and services, to reduce the proportion of pregnancies conceived within 18 months of a previous birth, and to increase the proportion of females or their partners at risk of unintended pregnancy who used contraception during the most recent sexual intercourse (HHS, 2011a).

Medical and scientific evidence is, alas, not sufficient for the anti-choice community, which would clearly prefer women get pregnant intentionally or not–whether in consensual sexual relationships or through rape or incest, whether or not their own health and well-being will be put at stake–and then force them to carry said pregnancies to term.  And in keeping with that, they must reject all evidence that undermines their agenda.

So in response to the IOM evidence, they are deploying the three most-frequently repeated and misleading arguments to rally their troops.

Misleading Argument #1: Health-care Reform Will Fund Abortion.

A central strategy of the anti-choice movement is to constantly redefine and confuse issues. And one of the most prevalent tactics is to repeat, endlessly, the lie that contraceptives cause abortion.  Today, the Family Research Council did just that when it  bemoaned the possibility that contraceptives might be included with no co-pay.

An FRC release stated that health care reform “also requires that “preventive care services for women,” without any co-pay from patients, be covered by all insurance plans based on Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommendations.”  (This is actually not true, as HHS has as yet not adopted the IOM recommendations, but I suppose FRC figures that when if they are going to lie, they might as well go full bore.)

FRC then went on to state that: “health plans will be required to cover drugs that can prevent implantation, such as Plan B, and even the new drug, ella, that, chemically like RU-486, can destroy implanted embryos.”  As noted by medical experts on the IOM panel during a press call today, and as clear from abundant evidence from any number of actual medical organizations, there is simply no evidence that emergency contraceptive methods “destroy implanted embryos,” that is not their mode of action, and as per medical definitions, a fertilized egg that has not implanted does not constitute a pregnancy in any case. In fact, there are no tests to confirm “fertilization,” and roughly half of all fertilized eggs do not implant in the first place and are flushed out during menstruation.

Misleading Argument #2: It Violates My Conscience!

FRC’s Director of its Center for Human Dignity, Jeanne Monahan, stated today on National Public Radio and in other press outreach that inclusion of birth control will “undermine the conscience rights of many Americans.”

I’m at a loss as to what group the statement “many Americans” includes, since more than 99 percent of all women ages 15 to 44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method. Overall, 62 percent of the 62 million women ages 15 to 44 are currently using a method of contraception. So the vast majority of women in the United States, whether Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic or of other faith traditions use contraception. I believe that FRC staff may be living in another country, or perhaps, as they say, on another planet.

What FRC doesn’t want you to know is that polling proves them wrong. A national poll conducted in May of this year, found that 88 percent of voters, including four in five Republicans, support women’s access to contraception. Most Americans–using common sense–agree that improving women’s access to contraception is a more effective way to reduce the number of abortions than enacting more restrictive abortion laws.

Moreover, we don’t need any more “conscience” clauses and I sincerely hope that advocacy groups and others will push hard on HHS against yet another gratuitous conscience provision.  We have more than enough provisions that now enable professionals who trained for and accepted the role of physician or pharmacist to beg off doing the job for which they signed up whenever it comes to providing reproductive health care to women. We don’t need any more.  Suffice it to say it not only violates medical ethics, but it also violates the consciences and rights of all women who depend on the medical system to… deliver medical care.

Misleading Argument #3: Inclusion of Contraception Requires “Others” to Foot the Bill.

Most insurance plans today already cover contraceptive supplies to some degree.  The change is not that coverage will be included for the first time ever. It is that contraceptive supplies will become more affordable and therefore both more accessible and more reliable because unaffordable co-pays will be eliminated. A 2010 Planned Parenthood survey found that one in three women voters have struggled to pay for prescription birth control at some point, and have used it inconsistently as a result.

In fact, as pointed out today in a New York Times op-ed authored by Vanessa Cullins, vice president of medical affairs at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, “When the federal government offered full coverage of birth control to all federal employees in 1998, it experienced no increase in costs. In fact, by some estimates it costs employers more not to provide contraceptive coverage in employee health plans.”

More to the point, we are talking about plans into which people are paying premiums with their own funds. I pay a premium each month for my health insurance policy.  I don’t remember FRC offering to pay it for me. What they want to do is lay the (untruthful) groundwork for the same misleading arguments they make regarding abortion care, i.e. that if there is any government money anywhere in the system subsidizing even one single person’s insurance coverage, it “taints” the entire insurance pool.  It’s a ridiculous argument for abortion care and a ridiculous argument for contraceptive care and deserves to be ignored as the baseless claim that it is.

What others do foot the bill for, as illustrated above, is the high cost of unintended pregnancies that result from current contraceptive costs that are too high especially for low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy.  But since those costs are borne first and most dearly, in isolation, by women who are in effect forced to carry unintended and untenable pregnancies to term, and then by all of us across the population as “hidden” costs, it is easier to mislead by saying that suddenly a burden will be laid at the feet of the apparently less than one-half of one percent of the population FRC and others purport to represent.

Our country, our health, and our rights are best served when legitimate evidence is used as a basis for sane policy.  It’s time to end the ideological was on women’s health care, starting with ensuring HHS adopts the IOM recommendations.  In full.

Various organizations are circulating petitions to HHS in support of the IOM recommendations, including:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America: No co-pay birth control for millions of women in America is within reach. Right now, the Dept. of Health and Human Services is deciding whether or not to require new insurance plans to cover birth control with no co-pays. We’re almost there — add your name to Planned Parenthood’s petition: http://ppact.org/iomfb

The National Women’s Law Center

and

NARAL Pro-Choice America

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

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • beenthere72

    From this NPR article…

     

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/07/19/138483937/birth-control-without-copays-could-become-mandatory

     

    Specifically, abortion opponents argue that some emergency contraceptives — so called morning-after pills — can cause very early abortions by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs into a woman’s uterus.

    “So those 7 to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent implantation and thereby cause the demise of that baby. So we’d be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients.”

     

    A. baby.  implants.    ::head desk::

     

     

  • inman

    You shouldn’t be required either as an individual or an organization to buy insurance the covers things you believe are immoral. At a minimum, a conscience clause is necessary to protect the religious freedoms of individuals and organizations. 

    To illustrate how this is a problem, the Catholic Church teaches the use of artificial means of avoiding a pregnancy is sinful. If all health care policies cover contraception because federal law requires it, then the Church will be faced with the decision of not providing any health insurance for its employees, or effectively encouraging its employees to sin by subsidizing it, which it obviously cannot not.  The Church will be forced drop health coverage all together, which will subject it to penalties under Obamacare.  Individuals who share the faith of the Church, will face a similar moral quandary.  Are the employees better off with no coverage?

    People on this website railed against the Stupak Amendment, in part because you claimed it would prevent people either by law directly, or resulting market effects, from buying health insurance that covered abortion.  By advocating that ALL health insurance policies must cover contraception, with no exception, you are doing the same thing to people of faith that you complained Stupak was doing–preventing people from buying the type of insurance coverage they wanted.

    It should be up to the employer and/or individual buying the policy what will be covered, not the federal government.

    Those in favor of abortion rights, claim to be “pro-choice,” rather than pro-abortion.  Prove it, support the right of individuals of organization to buy health insurance that doesn’t cover things they consider to be immoral or sinful.

  • jennifer-starr

    While I can possibly see conscience clauses in the case of doctors who don’t want to perform a medical procedure, I don’t think they should apply to people who are pharmacists, employers, etc. And I will tell you why. Unless someone is forcing you, personally to ingest birth control against your will I don’t see any moral quandry for you. And why should it be all about you and your beliefs, anyway?  What about the beliefs of the other  person? My employer/pharmacist may be Catholic, but I am not. Why should he get to force his antiquated religious rules and beliefs on me?  Why do his morals trump those of mine, the customer/employee?

     

  • jennifer-starr

    please delete

  • prochoiceferret

    To illustrate how this is a problem, the Catholic Church teaches the use of artificial means of avoiding a pregnancy is sinful. If all health care policies cover contraception because federal law requires it, then the Church will be faced with the decision of not providing any health insurance for its employees, or effectively encouraging its employees to sin by subsidizing it, which it obviously cannot not.

     

    Oh, that’s not a problem. Catholics already use contraception at the same rate as the general population. That ship has sailed.

     

    The Church will be forced drop health coverage all together, which will subject it to penalties under Obamacare.  Individuals who share the faith of the Church, will face a similar moral quandary.  Are the employees better off with no coverage?

     

    That seems like a highly immoral thing for the Church to do. But then, they’ve done other highly immoral things, like cover up child sexual abuse

     

    Those in favor of abortion rights, claim to be “pro-choice,” rather than pro-abortion.  Prove it, support the right of individuals of organization to buy health insurance that doesn’t cover things they consider to be immoral or sinful.

     

    Well, my religion holds that tax breaks for misogynistic organizations like the Catholic Church are immoral. Where’s my consciousness claws so that I don’t have to pay the taxes that they’re skipping out on?

  • inman

    The issue is whether insurance coverage for contraception will be mandatory for everyone, regardless of whether they want that coverage or find it morally unacceptable for religous reasons, not conscience rights for medical providers, which is another important issue.

    By purchasing insurance that covers an immoral procedure or drug, I am supporting that procedure financially and endorse it as legitmate.  In the case of a religous employer, the harm is even more obvious, by covering contraception the church is violating priciples it tries to teach, effectively weakening its message.

    The other person is NOT harmed by me buying insurance that doesn’t cover contraception.  If the other person wants insurance coverage for contraception, they can go buy it.  I am not saying insurance can’t ever cover contraception, only that individuals and organizations that don’t want insurance that covers contraception should be able buy health insurance without that benefit.

    To whoever, 1 star’d my post, I believe that was inappropriate, even if you disagree with it.  1 and 2 star posts are hidden.  So you are voting to hide a comment simply because you disagree with it. My post was respectful and relevant to the topic.

  • jennifer-starr

    Now if I have a religious employer who provides insurance to his employees–that part of my salary goes to, why should he get to decide  that I have to abide by religious rules which don’t apply to me, a non-catholic? If I’m not catholic, he hasn’t sinned.  Easy. And why should I have to pay extra for my own separate insurance when a devout catholic employee would not? Isn’t that religious discrimination? 

  • jennifer-starr

    And additionally, my tax dollars go to things that I disagree with all the time. Planes developed by the pentagon that never get off the ground, wars which are essentially pointless, tax breaks for oil companies who don’t need them because they make more than enough of their own money–the list goes on and on.  I consider those things immoral and yet I involuntarily subsidize them  We all do. And  as long as we have a government, we’ll  continue to do so. 

  • ahunt

    Claws? Tint Ferret claws? I say…let ‘em rake, drawing blood, at every opportunity.

     

    Oh…you already do that.

     

    Once again…well done.

  • inman

    Good question. 

    If you don’t want to comply with the rules of any employer, quit and work for someone else, or better yet start your own business and make your own rules.  Or less drastically, if you don’t like their insurance plan, go buy your own. It is not descrimination because the Church would be offering the same benefits to both its catholic and non-catholic employees. If you believe what the President said about Obamacare, getting coverage in the new health care exchanges should make that much easier to do.  I do hope he is right though.

    The nature of the Church, or any church, is that it believes that God has given them the Truth. Not truth that is just good for Catholics, but for the whole human family.  So in the view of the Chruch, just because you aren’t Catholic, it still wrong for you to use birth control.  If you aren’t a catholic you might not be accountable for not knowing/believing, that but the Church would be if encouraged you to use it.

    For what it is worth, religous employers do have some ability under federal law to descriminate in employment.  For example, a church can make a being a faithful catholic a condition of employment for the position of director of religous education at a parish or church and not violate federal law. 

  • jennifer-starr

    I wasn’t specifically referring to to actually working for a religious organization but for an employer  of a secular organization who happens to be Catholic–I would not feel that it was right or ethical of him to force me to pay out of pocket expenses for insurance that would cover contraception just because he has a religious objection.  If it was a religious organization, that would be a horse of a different color, so to speak.

    As for the Catholic church thinking that it’s wrong for me to use birth control, that’s not my problem and frankly I couldn’t give a flying toss. They can think that all they like–it’s when they try to persuade or get me to comply that we have a problem–such as a pharmacist who won’t fill my prescription. The idea that they think they know what’s good for me  as a paternalistic and authoritarian feel to it  that frankly I find insulting. The Pope doesn’t  have even half of the power that he used to in earlier centuries,  a fact for which I am eternally grateful.  

  • forced-birth-rape

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • forced-birth-rape

     

    Pro-lifer, Pro-forced birther, Christians. This is what their god, christian bible god says about killing babies, he is for it! Commands it when people do not kiss his ass.

     

    ~ Hosea 13: 16

    “Samaria shall bear her guilt and become desolate, for she rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women shall be ripped up.” ~

     

    ~ 1 Samuel 15:3 

    “Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” ~

     

    ~ Exodus 11:4-5:

    “And Moses said, thus says the Lord, about midnight I will go out into Egypt; and all the firstborn in the land [the pride hope and joy] of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sits on his throne, even the firstborn of the maidservant who is behind the hand mill, and all the firstborn of beasts.” ~

     

    ~ Psalms 137:9 “Happy and blessed shall he be who takes and dashes your little ones against a rock!” ~

     

    ~ Numbers 31:17

    “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who is not a virgin. “ ~

     

    ~ Numbers 31:18

    “But all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” The Christian god telling soldiers to rape thirteen year old and twelve year old virgins. ~

     

    ~ Christian pro-lifers do not have a drip of integrity. ~

     

    ~ Christian bible god is extremely sadomasochistic to pregnant women and pregnant little girls while they are pregnant, and while they are giving birth. ~

     

    ~ Pro-lifers favorite piece of literature of all time.

     

    Genesis 3:16

    “I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and cravings will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” ~

     

    ~ Christian pro-lifer, pro-forced birthers are not going to let women and little girls escape their punishment for being born female. They are going to do everything they can to force women and little girls to breed, breed, breed, breed, breed. Women and little girls are nothing but breeding stock to the forced birthers who happen to be catholic, christian, republican, conservative.  ~

  • freetobe

    Nothing like the old testament to make a womans day even more hell than it already is.

     

    “The nature of the Church, or any church, is that it believes that God has given them the Truth. Not truth that is just good for Catholics, but for the whole human family. So in the view of the Chruch, just because you aren’t Catholic, it still wrong for you to use birth control. If you aren’t a catholic you might not be accountable for not knowing/believing, that but the Church would be if encouraged you to use it.”

    I almost threw up reading this comment. As an ex-Catholic I can say you are all brainwashed. The only Father Is God NOT the priests or the Pope they are just mere mortal men with an agenda as are all religions headed by men and almost all religions are except one Dianica Wiccan i know this because I was looking for a church without mysogynist males. I was looking for a church that preached the way Jesus has and Jesus would NEVER FORCE anyone to behave a cetain way. He gave us all a CHOICE. You have been trumped but you will not cave because your pride is what stands in the way. Pride which will and is destroying the planet and the Humane race right now.

  • arekushieru

    If it provides benefits to both it’s non-Catholic and Catholic employees but isn’t supposed to be held accountable for spreading misinformation to it’s non-Catholic service recipients, that’s pretty hypocritical.  It’s imposing it’s own morality on people that don’t follow it’s tenets.

    If you don’t want to comply with the rules of any employer, quit and work for someone else, or better yet start your own business and make your own rules.

     

    Victim-blaming.  And why don’t you take that silver spoon out of your mouth, at the same time?

  • arekushieru

    Um, if the zbef was prevented from implanting, you can be sure that there isn’t going to be a fetus, much LESS a baby….  Lol, these antis….

  • prochoiceferret

    If you don’t want to comply with the rules of any employer, quit and work for someone else, or better yet start your own business and make your own rules.

     

    Sounds like you’re against so-called “consciousness clauses” for pharmacists. Good show!

     

    The nature of the Church, or any church, is that it believes that God has given them the Truth. Not truth that is just good for Catholics, but for the whole human family.  So in the view of the Chruch, just because you aren’t Catholic, it still wrong for you to use birth control.  If you aren’t a catholic you might not be accountable for not knowing/believing, that but the Church would be if encouraged you to use it.

     

    Not to worry, then. The Church isn’t encouraging anyone to use birth control; it’s just following the law. You know, kind of like how they can’t discriminate against gays/lesbians in secular accomodations.

     

    For what it is worth, religous employers do have some ability under federal law to descriminate in employment.  For example, a church can make a being a faithful catholic a condition of employment for the position of director of religous education at a parish or church and not violate federal law.

     

    True. This exception to the rule is restricted, however, to positions of a religious nature. The Church cannot discriminate against employees in a secular capacity any more than any other employer.

  • plume-assassine

    The nature of the Church, or any church, is that it believes that God has given them the Truth. Not truth that is just good for Catholics, but for the whole human family.  So in the view of the Chruch, just because you aren’t Catholic, it still wrong for you to use birth control. 

    Let’s talk about this here.

    What you are claiming is that a religious organization has the right to prevent the rest of society from accessing healthcare. You’re saying that the personal beliefs (beliefs, not facts) of one group can be used to control or deny services to the rest of society, and not just those within the church.

    This is illegal if we are talking about government-regulated healthcare, based on the separation of church and state. It does not matter whether or not any church “believes” that “God” has given them the “Truth” or not. An unsubstantiated, unverifiable belief (based on faith) is NOT an excuse to deny necessary health coverage for all citizens, including those who are non-Catholic (although it should be said that even most Catholics use birth control! see the article above). And as it stands, the specific objections to birth control are based on non-scientific moralizing beliefs that birth control “prevents or takes ‘a life'” or “encourages promiscuity.”

     

    So, honestly, you don’t have an excuse and it’s not REALLY about your conscience… this is just another case of one group trying to push their personal morality onto others.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Most plans today cover contraceptive care to some extent. If you have insurance, you are already or have long been participating in a system which provides contraceptive care. The difference, and it is a fundamental difference for women who live in poverty, are low-income, have lost their jobs, etc….is that there will no longer be a required co-pay for contraception.

     

    You are not mandated to use contraception nor to include it in your personal plan.  the mandate is that insurance companies include contraceptive coverage as primary care for women who need it and that they do not charge a co-pay.

    This is really not very difficult.

     

     

  • beenthere72

    No, No and No.   First of all, do you work at McDonald’s?  I think for most people, including myself, my husband, my sister, people in specific professions, it’s not so easy to just ‘work for someone else’ and especially not easy to start your own business.  

     

    Second, have you ever bought health insurance outside employer provided health insurance?  It costs a fortune!

     

    Third, this paragraph is INCREDIBLY offensive to me and MY religion:

    The nature of the Church, or any church, is that it believes that God has given them the Truth. Not truth that is just good for Catholics, but for the whole human family.  So in the view of the Chruch, just because you aren’t Catholic, it still wrong for you to use birth control.  If you aren’t a catholic you might not be accountable for not knowing/believing, that but the Church would be if encouraged you to use it.

     

    The nature of MY religion, Judaism, is NOT to impose it on ANYBODY ELSE.    In my religion, abortion is acceptable under certain circumstances, therefore birth control is too. 

     

     

     

  • ldan

    The problem here is that do you then allow employers who are Christian Scientists opt out of providing health insurance for their employees altogether?* Should insurance plans not consider blood transfusions as part of basic coverage so that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t need to worry that they’re supporting such immorality? Insurance is about pooling money to spread out over those needing treatment. Those Jehovah’s Witnesses are not watching to be sure every dime they pay into the system goes to non-blood-related activities. If they want religiously correct insurance, they can form their own insurance company to offer it. The mandatory elements are only for those plans that will be part of the government-supported (via subsidies to their customers) exchanges.

     

    If the church wants to exist in the secular world, they’ll have to deal with secular laws. They’re already running into this issue with laws saying that their adoption agencies can’t discriminate against gay couples, for example.

     

    *I’m aware that, in most cases, they aren’t required to provide health insurance to their workers at all. For the sake of the argument being about *forcing* employers to purchase coverage they find immoral, lets just assume I’m talking about the ones in states that do require them to provide coverage once they have enough employees on the rolls or something of the sort to stick with the initial premise.

  • colleen

    The nature of the Church, or any church, is that it believes that God has given them the Truth. Not truth that is just good for Catholics, but for the whole human family.  So in the view of the Chruch, just because you aren’t Catholic, it still wrong for you to use birth control.  If you aren’t a catholic you might not be accountable for not knowing/believing, that but the Church would be if encouraged you to use it.

    One would think that a church which, in the US at least, spends more of it’s money fighting proposals to  raise the statute of limitations for child sex abuse and or laws that won’t let it express it’s divinely inspiried bigotry towards the GLBT community and women  than it spends in services to the poor would have learned in some fashion to reflect upon it’s own actions and capacity for evil before proclaiming it’s dominion over the lives of all women. This is particularly true when the ‘moral authority’ of the clergy on these issues is rejected by almost all Catholic women, married or not.

  • crowepps

    “But this is not the only problem. The next question we need to ask is to whom does the body belong? While in our day of feminism it is asserted that a woman’s body is her own. Biblically speaking, this is only true prior to marriage, for in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians we read:

    “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”

    The truth is that God has given to us physical needs we commonly refer to as a “sex drive,” and he has designed for these to be met within the bounds of marriage. The trouble comes when one spouse or the other decides to exact retaliation against the other because of some offense and withholds him or herself from his or her mate. This is wickedness, and such is a violation of the spirit of marriage on the part of the withholder.

    Thus, if these allegations of spousal rape are due to the wife withholding herself in attempt to control or punish her husband, she is out of line with God. And it doesn’t matter how many laws are passed, it will just be another reason why God will not bless America.

    http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2011/07/20/faith/doc4e25134ce5b39386703783.txt

    Ron Hamman, pastor of Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla, thinks it’s impossible for husbands to rape their wives, since, hey, what else are women for?  He’s absolutely sure HE’S right as well.  So far as I can see, religion exists to encourage women to voluntarily act like sex slaves.  So far as I can see, religion is all about turning women into breeding stock.  No thanks, I don’t need the opinion of a bunch of men who think women are inferior and filthy about what God wants women to do.

  • crowepps
  • prochoiceferret

    It’s porn for evangelicals!

  • beenthere72

    Did you see the video I posted to Facebook yesterday?

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU&feature=player_embedded

     

    The crazies, they has them.  

  • inman

    What you are claiming is that a religious organization has the right to prevent the rest of society from accessing healthcare. You’re saying that the personal beliefs (beliefs, not facts) of one group can be used to control or deny services to the rest of society, and not just those within the church.

    No.  That is not what I am claiming here.  I am NOT saying no insurance plans should be permitted to cover contraception even with no co-pay, I am saying that employers and individuals should be able to choose insurance without coverage for contraception, if they dont want that coverage.  I understand your objections about employers, although I don’t agree with them obviously. 

    However, what possible harm could come from giving individiduals the right to opt out coverage for contraception, and other procedures? 

    I thought your movement was about giving the individual to power make choices about their health care.  In light of that, why wouldn’t you support the right of individuals to choose not to buy insurance that covers contraception?

  • beenthere72

    Because the likely results of that would drive up the cost of healthcare for everybody, as well as the cost of contraception for those that take it.    How would you process such a thing?   And where would it end?  What if I disagree with my insurance payments paying for someone else’s Viagra?  How do you figure out how much of your insurance is going towards someone else’s birth control?   At any given time, the number of people on the books taking birth control could change, so how do you compute what percentage of your payment (which I suspect is pennies per payment) is covering whoever at whatever moment in time.   How do you figure the logistics of all that without driving healthcare costs through the roof  just to develop that computer program or hire that new department to figure all that out?  

     

    And it wouldn’t end there.   Why should you get special treatment for birth control when maybe some other group has issues with their insurance covering gastric bypass surgery for obese people, or treating lung cancer for smokers.   And I heard a good point made once:  if it’s all up to God, why should your insurance cover fertility treatments for those having trouble getting pregnant?  

     

    Where would it end?  And how the hell would you process all of it?

     

    Ridiculous.

  • inman

    Good questions. 

    The government’s intervention in the market implicates the First Amendnment.  Remember, the feds are both mandating that every US citizen buy health and insurance and determining what the coverage must include.  So they are essentially requiring people to act against their religion. I believe that violates the first amendment.

    In light of that, either accomodations have to be made for people that have religous objections, or the government has to get out of the business of ordering people to get insurance that they have selected.  If the private market was requiring that I buy insurance for immoral things, that sucks for me, but doesn’t implicate the First Amendment.

    So regarding the logistics, in an individual policy situation, they could just offer a policy that doesn’t include contraception, abortion, and sterlization, as an alternative policy with a different premium.  Alternatively, just set up the exchanges to select the coverages you want to opt out of with an adjustment in price.  It is no different than when buying an auto policy, some people want just the bare minimum, others buy UIM, UM, and comprehesive with max limits, or something in between.  The insurers are already going to have to have abortion and non-abotion policies anyway.

    It will have to go as far as there are religous objections to medical procedures.  If it doesn’t the whole mandatory system is going to get thrown out by the courts.  I admit it may be cumberson, and it may add some minimal administrative expense, but having the government intervene in the market created this problem. 

    With respect to religions that don’t believe in medical care, you are going to have to exempt them altogether.  I suppose that is another alternative, just give an exemption from the mandate to peolple that have any religous issues with part of the coverage.  But that would be so big that it would defeat the purpose, and people could game the system, only getting coverage when they get sick.  It is also counter productive to the goal of getting everyone covered.

  • inman

    Point well taken, but there is a difference between paying taxes, and being forced to engage in commerce you consider against your conscience.

  • jennifer-starr

    Just a thought, Inman, but the fact that your insurance company covers something doesn’t mean that you have to actually partake in that procedure. You still have a will of your own, I trust. 

  • inman

    True.  I will admit that the harm is less when an individual has to buys a policy just for themself. 

    But but many people are buying insurance, not just for themselves, but for also for their families.  By obtaining insurance that covers items that the the family’s religion believes is immoral, it undercuts the religous message the family is trying to instill. Imagine telling your daughter, or son if it covers condoms, “Honey, contraception is wrong, but here is an insurance card that we pay $1000 a month for that will allow you get get contraception for free.”  This is the same concern that forcing a church to provide coverage for things it considers immoral, albeit on smaller scale.

    I understand many of you believe that what the Catholic Church and other religions teach about these social issues is silly or even harmful. But it is as important to them as your beliefs are to you. 

  • jodi-jacobson

    There is no contraception for free.  It is “first dollar” (i.e. covered by premiums).

    You do not have to buy, purchase or otherwise discuss what is in the policies of others. Do you regularly sit down with your family and read the entire insurance manual?

    There is nothing that says *your personal policy* has to include contraceptive care.  It is simply that these services must be offered to those who do want them.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  No one is forcing you to do anything.

    An insurance pool works when risks are spread across everyone, just like I am paying in part to cover your care.

    Religious objections do not object public health imperatives.  Ninety nine percent of women in this country use contraception at some point in their lives; it is recognized by every legitimate public health and medical body in the world as one of the most important public health interventions ever; it saves lives and otherwise improves maternal and infant health; it enables people to make good choices for themselves.

    Moreover, if you want to sit down with your kids and tell them something, tell them that without these interventions we all pay much higher costs for poorer health and maternal outcomes and for children for whom families are not prepared to care.

  • inman

    Obamacare will force all employers that have above a certain number of employees to provide health insurance for their employees.  I think the number is 50, but I am not certain of that. If they don’t they will be fined. Obamacare, has many other requirements that apply to group plans.   My understanding is that the minimum coverage requirments the IOM is recommending will apply to all plans, not just individuals plans in the exchange.  But if I am wrong and it only  applies to the individual plans, that addresses part of my concern, but individuals would still be vunerable to state coercion.

    With respect to Christian Scientists, if it their church or an arm of their church and their teaching is that all medical care is immoral, then absolutely, the government can’t force them to provide health insurance to their employees.

    While I disagree with the laws that say if you are going contract with the the government you have to place children in home where the parents aren’t married or are  “same sex married,” that is diffent that the health insurance situation.  With that law, the faith based adoption agency can at least elect not to do business with the state.  In the context of insurance, the feds are both requiring you have insurance and determining what coverage you shall have to buy.

    This insurance issue has already come up within the context DC’s mandate of coverage for same sex “spouses” of employees.  The Diocese of Washington had to drop coverage for ALL spouses to maintain the intergrity of its teaching that sex is appropriate only within the context of marriage. (ie between a man and woman).  But even in that law the Church had an out, it could have dropped coverage for all employees or cover just employees.

  • jennifer-starr

    I was covered by my parent’s insurance for 22 years until I left college–never once was I briefed on everything it covered.  I’m sorry, but a conversation like the one you just mentioned just doesn’t seem realistic. Like the earlier poster said, you don’t read the manual cover to cover. 

  • inman

    There is a huge difference between private market forces resulting in all health insurance covering immoral treatment, and the governement mandating that everyone buy health insurance and requiring all health insurance must cover immoral things. 

    If the market does it, it is unfortunate, but is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.  On the other hand if the government requires you to violate the beliefs of your religion, the first amendment is clearly implicated.

  • jennifer-starr

    But the fact remains that no one is forcing you to actually use contraception.  The fact that your plan covers something does not actually mean that you have to use it.  The same  thing goes for your children–I think they have minds of their own as well, don’t they? 

  • jennifer-starr

    And if the implication you’re trying to make is that contraception coverage will somehow be so alluring that it will tempt fellow Catholics to ‘sin’, then I’d say their faith  was never that strong to begin with. Or maybe they just realize the practicality of not having more children than you can handle/support.   Granted, this is coming from the POV of someone raised Protestant/Methodist and now attends a Unitarian  Church, but the Catholic Church seems very legalistic to me.  So many rules. 

  • inman

    There is nothing that says *your personal policy* has to include contraceptive care.  It is simply that these services must be offered to those who do want them.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  No one is forcing you to do anything.

    I don’t believe that is how the regulations will work.   If they do, then I agree there isn’t a problem.  As I stated before, I don’t have a problem with other people buying health coverage that includes contraception if that is there choice.   I just don’t want to be forced by the government to buy health coverage that violates my conscience.

     

    I think the way the regulations will work is that it will be illegal for the insurer to sell anyone a policy that doesn’t cover contraception.

     

    For what it is worth, I do read the policy manual cover to cover.  I recommend that everyone do so regardless of whether you are pro-life, advocate for reproductive rights, or are indiffernt on those issues.  We caught an error by the insurance company in how they process our claim. 

     

    However, you don’t have to explicity explain all of the terms of the policy.  Giving them an insurance card that covers contraception sends that message loud and clear the first time the person uses the card to access those benefits. 

     

    Religious objections do not object public health imperatives.

     

    I am not here to discuss the merits or risks of using the pill or other forms of birth control.  Honestly, they are irrelevant.   This is whether the government should force citizens to buy health insurance  that covers things that are contrary to their religous beliefs.   The Catholic Church, which has a billon members world wide, does object to articifial birth control and sterlization procedures.

     

    This ought to be an issue on which the pro-life and reproductive rights communities can reach a mutually beneficial compromise.  If you want health insurance that covers contraception, fine you can get it with no co-pay. If you don’t want that coverage, you have a right to opt out of it, with a reduction in premium.  The fact that a compromise on this issue makes such sense is the only reason I bothered to post here.

     

    If we can’t reach an agreement on this, I don’t think there is any hope.  I must admit that I am really sadened by this whole excercise.  I posted here in good faith to, discuss this issue reasonably and respectfully. While some people have responded to the merits of the issue, many other have responded with hateful anti-religous and anti-catholic venom.   While all of my posts have been on topic and civil, every single thing I have posted has been rated as 1 and hidden, simple because you disagree with me.

    You have convinced me that there isn’t any point trying to compromise with the reproductive rights advocates or even dialogue with them.

  • prochoiceferret

    I don’t believe that is how the regulations will work.   If they do, then I agree there isn’t a problem.  As I stated before, I don’t have a problem with other people buying health coverage that includes contraception if that is there choice.   I just don’t want to be forced by the government to buy health coverage that violates my conscience.

     

    If buying health coverage that happens to cover contraception without a co-pay constitutes “violating your conscience,” then yes, your conscience is going to be violated. Much like those who consider paying income taxes to be “violating their conscience” pretty much have to grin and bear it. Sorry.

     

    If the government forces you to actually purchase and use contraception, come back and we’ll talk. Otherwise, quit your whining, son.

     

    I am not here to discuss the merits or risks of using the pill or other forms of birth control.  Honestly, they are irrelevant.   This is whether the government should force citizens to buy health insurance  that covers things that are contrary to their religous beliefs.   The Catholic Church, which has a billon members world wide, does object to articifial birth control and sterlization procedures.

     

    Actually, it seems to be only the Catholic hierarchy that really believes that. The laity (billion members and all) don’t seem to have much of a problem using contraception. So that large number actually works in favor of this policy.

     

    This ought to be an issue on which the pro-life and reproductive rights communities can reach a mutually beneficial compromise.  If you want health insurance that covers contraception, fine you can get it with no co-pay. If you don’t want that coverage, you have a right to opt out of it, with a reduction in premium.  The fact that a compromise on this issue makes such sense is the only reason I bothered to post here.

     

    I’ve got a better idea: You get the same health insurance as everyone else, with no reduction in premium, and you show just how faithful you are by not purchasing contraceptives with it. After all, it’s the principle that’s important, and not the minuscule “reduction in premium,” right?

     

    You have convinced me that there isn’t any point trying to compromise with the reproductive rights advocates or even dialogue with them.

     

    As many of your Catholic buddies like to say, you get equal rights, not special rights.

  • prochoiceferret

    But but many people are buying insurance, not just for themselves, but for also for their families.  By obtaining insurance that covers items that the the family’s religion believes is immoral, it undercuts the religous message the family is trying to instill.

     

    Yes, I’m sure that your son/daughter reading your insurance policy benefits description will completely undercut what you teach him/her as a parent.

     

    Imagine telling your daughter, or son if it covers condoms, “Honey, contraception is wrong, but here is an insurance card that we pay $1000 a month for that will allow you get get contraception for free.”

     

    Why would I, or you for that matter, tell her/him that?

     

    I understand many of you believe that what the Catholic Church and other religions teach about these social issues is silly or even harmful. But it is as important to them as your beliefs are to you.

     

    Maybe they should refrain from taking advantage of that particular benefit, then. After all, it’s not like they can’t control themselves, right?

  • littleblue

    I’m not an economist, but what I don’t get is how the “free market” gets applied to aboslutely everything.  Sen. Kyle once said that he didn’t want to have to “pay” for maternity care in his premiums because he would never use it.  Likewise, if I was a “free market” fanatic, I’d say why should I have to pay for for somebody’s testicular cancer screening when I will never use that? 

     

    I think that those who want to opt out of something in their insurance should be charged MORE, not less, because they’re adding to the bureaucratic costs that make everything more expensive.  Next, those “free market” fanatics will say they don’t want to cover any women at all because the offices where they might get reproductive health care or abortions use the same air everyone breaths and, therefore, breathing leads to some sort of abortion/contraception subsidy.

     

    Really, it’s all ridiculous, judgemental, hypocritical theatrics. 

     

    Can you provide a list of products/services/procedures other than reproductive care and sterilizations that you or your sectarian organization finds so offensive you couldn’t possibly have covered on the same insurance policy?  Because I’d like to see it.  Next, are you going to say you don’t want to contribute to a fund that offers antibiotics because some of them are used to treat cases of VD?

     

    While we are on the “market” side of things, esp. as it relates to abortion, why should I as a consumer be forced to pay not only premiums for reproductive health care, but also any deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket expenses that may arise for a incompatible-with-life deformity of the fetus that I, under various abortion bans, will be forced to carry to term and deliver, only to watch die (if it indeed makes it to term) minutes after birth?  Why should I be forced to pay “services rendered” when I don’t even have a “product” to take home?  Can somebody explain that to me? 

  • inman

    Double post.  Sorry.

  • ack

    If all health care policies cover contraception because federal law requires it, then the Church will be faced with the decision of not providing any health insurance for its employees, or effectively encouraging its employees to sin by subsidizing it, which it obviously cannot not.

     

    In states where contraceptive coverage is already mandated by law, the Catholic church has either failed in challenging it in the courts or just decided it wasn’t worth it. They instructed their employees that the use of birth control is a sin (which falls on deaf ears considering the statistics of Catholics who use contraception). The Church hasn’t crumbled, the parishoners didn’t flee in droves because they had access to the pill. They just did what they’ve always done: respected the Church’s teachings about God and Jesus and quietly used contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.

  • beenthere72

    I think that those who want to opt out of something in their insurance should be charged MORE, not less, because they’re adding to the bureaucratic costs that make everything more expensive. 

     

    AGREED!

  • prochoiceferret

    In states where contraceptive coverage is already mandated by law, the Catholic church has either failed in challenging it in the courts or just decided it wasn’t worth it. They instructed their employees that the use of birth control is a sin (which falls on deaf ears considering the statistics of Catholics who use contraception). The Church hasn’t crumbled, the parishoners didn’t flee in droves because they had access to the pill. They just did what they’ve always done: respected the Church’s teachings about God and Jesus and quietly used contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.

     

    Well, darn. I guess the nay-sayers are just going to have to focus on the whole “being like Christ” thing to make their Catholicism known, rather than exerting their religious prejudices on secular health-insurance policy.

  • ack

    I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around why contraception has been singled out. Why not fertility treatments? Or Viagra? (If God wants dudes to get boners, and potentially impregnante someone, he’ll make it possible…) Or antiretrovirals for AIDS patients who contracted the disease through dude-dude sex or IV drug use? Should Muslims be able to opt out of paying a part of their premium for treatments for alcoholism, since their religion forbids them to drink?

     

    I think my main problem with allowing religious objections is that it’s such a slippery slope. If you have health insurance and you’re a conservative member of any of a number of churches, you’re probably already paying for drugs and treatments that you disagree with from a religious perspective, ESPECIALLY if you get insurance through a secular employer. And of course, most members of ANY church are not actually employed by religious organizations. So why single out contraception? Why is ok for people to opt out of THAT, but not the other things they object to from a religious perspective?

     

    Over 90% of private insurance companies already provide coverage for contraception. There are already states that require contraceptive coverage by private insurers (NY, for example). Catholics across the country already have insurance that covers contraception, and even abortion, along with other treatments that may contradict the Church’s teachings. I just find it hard to believe that this is going to be a big deal for the average Catholic, or even for the Church.

  • crowepps

    Of course it’s not going to be a big deal for the average Catholic.  The average Catholic isn’t a fanatic.

    For the Church, however, it’s enormous!  How DARE women not want to be mothers!  How DARE women have sex without the possibility of pregnancy!  How DARE people ignore what the celibate old men in Rome are ordered them to do!  The Church misses the good old days of the Inquisition and the Burning Times and is eager to once again kill women.

  • beenthere72

    Read this article from the WaPo:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

     

    I found that in the article in the one below, where Catholics in my state endorse full healthcare coverage, where we had healthcare reform just like Obama’s plan, :

     

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/18/massachusetts-study-health-care-reform-could-reduce-abortions/

     

    What you are advocating for would increase the rate of abortion, do you realize that (Catholics do get abortions too)?   All these other civilized countries get it right with universal coverage and no exceptions.    I *know* you want less abortions in the US.  You should be supporting universal healthcare 100%, no exception.  

     

  • crowepps

     If you don’t want that coverage, you have a right to opt out of it, with a reduction in premium. 

    The thing is though, that the family which does NOT get birth control coverage ends up drawing MORE money out of the insurance pool because of the costs of their 8 or 10 pregnancies and the medical care necessary for all those additional children.  If people are going to opt out of birth control they should pay an INCREASE in premiums.

     

    I’d also note that you are assuming that if ‘father’ thinks birth control is wrong, then ‘father’ gets to make the decision about what both mother and the kids can access.  If ‘father’ thinks birth control is wrong, he certainly doesn’t have to violate his beliefs by using it.  He doesn’t get to make that decision for his wife.  In a free country, she also has freedom of religion, and if she wants to sneak round behind ‘father’s’ back and take the pill, well, hey, she gets to do that.

    hateful anti-religous and anti-catholic venom  

    Your religion is insisting that the laws in this country should prevent all women from accessing medical care that they believe is necessary, at the risk of their health and their lives, because Catholics think women should be at risk of dying if they have sex.  You haven’t even begun to see hateful anti-religion and anti-Catholic venom yet.  You would hear just as much fury if the Seventh Day Adventists were trying to take away blood transfusions.  It isn’t the beliefs, it’s the ARROGANCE of believing you have a right to make everyone else live or die by your rules.

     

    Personally, I think every single Catholic hospital in the country should be transferred to secular hands so that Catholics can no longer FORCE women to be breeding stock.   Catholics are free to believe any sort of bizarre weirdness they can justify to themselves — they have NO RIGHT to insist that those beliefs justify laws that would result in withholding medical care from me or MY daughter that could result in our deaths.  You Catholics will have to be satisfied with killing only YOUR mothers, sisters, wives and daughters.

  • littleblue

     

    The Diocese of Washington had to drop coverage for ALL spouses

     

    No.  They didn’t have to.

  • crowepps

    Oooooh, the Green Dragon, ENVIRONMENTALISM, is anti-religion, because, hey, anything that’s good for actual PEOPLE is anti-Christian, and God wants the world to be buried in a sea of starving children.  Go Christianity!  Trash Earth!

     

    Man, sometimes I despair.  Aren’t these people awake?  We have ALREADY caused irreversible climate change which will cause millions of people to die over the next decades.  Environmentalism might, possibly, allow us to save some of them.  But they’re all worried it might hurt BUSINESS?  Wait till see what the nutty Republicans gambling with the debt ceiling because it might give them an advantage in the next election are going to do to business.

  • ack

    Not to mention that if a young person knows that their parents disapprove of contraception, they’re not going to use the family insurance to get it. I went to Planned Parenthood for years in college because I didn’t want my Catholic mom to know I was on the pill. We eventually actually (GASP!) had a super awkward conversation and whodathunkit, it turned out she just wanted me to protect myself from unwanted pregnancy and she gave me permission to use the family insurance to cover part of the cost.

     

    Most Catholic young people do know that contraception exists. The fact that insurance covers it is no big surprise, either. Catholic families can just tell their kids about their values regarding contraception and why they feel that way, and then the kid can decide for himself/herself, which is no different that anything else in the intersection between family values and kids growing up, and is no different than the way it happens now in most Catholic families.

  • wendy-banks

    No the reason we hide your posts is that you are a ingnorant boob, and a lying far-right sack that insists that your lies are the truth and the truth is a lie. If you don’t want to use birth-control, or have a abortion, by all means DON’T. But you DO NOT have the right to force your religous ‘truths’ and believes on others PERIOD! Go foist your mental diarrhea at your pals at the ‘right-to-life’ sites. We will NOT exept your garbage here– And stop playing the victim here, it doesn’t play well here.

  • wendy-banks

    dup

  • wendy-banks

    Sen. Kyl has 12 kids –  Yes he does use maternity care, and he’s a rabid tea-party, anti-woman jerk to boot.

  • rebellious-grrl

    *Doesn’t he know a vagina is not a clown car* (hehehe) ;) Sen. Kyl is a tea-bagging hypocrite. Who’s voting for this jackass?

  • wendy-banks

    Nope, he sure dosen’t! *L* I’m not voting for the twit– He and McCain are the Sen. in Dist.1 where I live *gags*

  • wendy-banks

    Republican brain

  • ack

    People who eschew meat for ethical reasons are forced to support the animal industry all the time. Unless they’re super rich, they shop at department stores that carry leather shoes. They eat at restaurants that serve meat. They buy groceries from stores with butcher departments.

     

    People who disagree with human trafficking (which I of course hope is EVERYONE!!) support trafficking all the time as well. When we travel, we stay at hotels. We eat at restaurants that we can’t be completely sure aren’t trafficking people. We eat produce that was very likely picked by trafficked people. Unless you just refused to engage in commerce and became nearly completely self-sufficient, you’re supporting human trafficking.

     

    I guess my point is that when it comes to commerce, we do stuff everyday that violates our consciences. We are very often forced into it through lack of options. Unless a person really doesn’t care about people, or animals, or the environment, we’re all in the same boat as people who will wind up subsidizing other people’s contraception if the new regulation takes place.

  • ack

    Wendy, I’m totally guilty of this too. I live in AZ, so I completely understand your frustration and the desire to lash out. But I do think that Inman came here with the intention of civil discourse, even if it was entirely ethnocentric.

     

    The pro-choice side has research and reason on its side. I think the essential message of your post, regarding Catholics not having a right to force their own version of the truth on others, has merit. Arguments about the fact that religious organizations still have to follow the law (polygamy among fundamentalist Mormons, for example), have merit. But when we name-call, we sink to their level.

     

    Please understand; this isn’t just about this post. I feel like we’ve been running people off who might have genuinely wanted to engage, and that lurkers on the site might be getting an impression that we’re not willing to do so. We have an opportunity on this site to both engage with anti-choicers as well as show those on the fence that we are reasonable people.

     

    I know that some of the people who comment here have trauma histories that shape their posts, which is a vital part of this discussion. We cannot ignore the voices of survivors of rape, incest, or other forms of patriarchial exploitation. I’ve posted about my experiences as a rape survivor. But I also think that when people can, we should try to engage in a way that keeps the conversation open, shows the flaws in their arguments, and moves on from there.

     

    We’re not going to convince everyone. But we’re going to convince more people that our position has merit if we present it in a way that’s based on logic, research, and legal precedent.

  • plume-assassine

    I agree with you, ack. I always say on my blog that I will do my best to be polite about dissenting viewpoints as long as they refrain from presenting their personal opinion/belief as fact (which doesn’t happen as often as I’d like). It’s the same when I comment here, on rhrealitycheck. I think Inman really DID want to engage in conversation, and I think we should be more patient with people who come here looking for a dialogue, unlike those sock puppets who come here trollin’ to get their rocks off. There’s a big difference in tone, I think.

     

    Unfortunately, I think what makes this difficult is that Inman thinks that the “why” behind his objection (to birth control) is irrelevant, when in fact, it is a HUGE part of the discussion. I think this objection is something we need to discuss if we are also able to talk about the actual insurance coverage itself in the first place. So, why should it bother him so much if his insurance covers contraception? If he has a mind of his own & free will (which he does), isn’t being forced to use or purchase contraception (he’s not), and his religious faith tells him that it is wrong to use or purchase contraception… then what does he have to be concerned about? Is it immoral for one to even know the mere fact that contraception coverage exists at all under one’s insurance plan, even if one will never use it?? And finally, I would like to know why he has singled out JUST contraception as an objectionable thing, among all other medications and procedures? I believe these are all legitimate questions (not rhetorical), and would help us out a lot here. I am asking them because I truly want to know the answers, and not because I am interested in baiting.

     

    It is also my understanding that Inman believes his insurance policy will have to cover contraception and he will be unable to opt out of it, therefore he feels like he is somehow being “coerced” by the state into knowing something exists (contraception coverage) which “violates his conscience.”  I would like to see it written where it says this is so — that an individual family can not opt out of that specific type of coverage. I would imagine that it if opting out of that particular part of coverage is impossible, it is probably due to financial & logical reasons alone (and not out of any desire to control or subjugate religious people)– 1. that it could potentially drive up the cost for other employees, and 2. that it could allow other people to “game the system” by pretending that everything else is covered by their insurance is “morally objectionable” except for the barest minimum (this is a scenario that Inman also acknowledges).

     

    So, why can’t we have this one small thing? Especially considering the fact that nearly EVERYONE, including Catholics, will use birth control at some point in their lives…

    And especially considering that birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies, which in turn prevents abortion…

    Why can’t we agree on this?

  • prochoiceferret

    I think Inman really DID want to engage in conversation, and I think we should be more patient with people who come here looking for a dialogue,

     

    Someone coming here for a real dialogue would (1) be a bit more circumspect in their tone (“I believe that this is wrong” rather than “THIS IS FIRST AMENDMENT UNCONSTITUTIONALASOEITHCXB”), and (2) would start from a pragmatic position, not the ideological extreme.

     

    I mean, did you see the part where he argued that having an insurance policy that covers contraception without a co-pay “undercuts the religious message the family is trying to instill?” Does that sound like someone who cares about reality more than their impossibly narrow conception of what reality should be?

     

    So there may certainly be folks out there who come here for genuine dialoguing and discussioning on important reproductive-health topics…

     

     

    …(even though I can’t remember the last time this happened). But unfortunately, Inman didn’t even pass the smell test:

     

  • crowepps

    It is also my understanding that Inman believes his insurance policy will have to cover contraception and he will be unable to opt out of it, therefore he feels like he is somehow being “coerced” by the state into knowing something exists (contraception coverage) which “violates his conscience.”  I would like to see it written where it says this is so — that an individual family can not opt out of that specific type of coverage. I would imagine that it if opting out of that particular part of coverage is impossible, it is probably due to financial & logical reasons alone (and not out of any desire to control or subjugate religious people)– 1. that it could potentially drive up the cost for other employees, and 2. that it could allow other people to “game the system” by pretending that everything else is covered by their insurance is “morally objectionable” except for the barest minimum (this is a scenario that Inman also acknowledges).

    Certainly Inman can ‘opt out’ of birth control coverage.  He merely needs to not purchase any birth control with his insurance.

     

    The idea that he should then get a discount is not logical because people who DO use their insurance to purchase birth control draw a SMALLER amount of health care dollars overall and those like Inman who do NOT purchase birth control end up costing the insurance pool MORE.

     

    As I understand the impetus behind ‘withholding money for the immoral birth control portion’ it’s the hope that if enough people opt out of that portion to save a few bucks (all men and women past menopause) then there won’t be enough money available to fund it for those young women who do need it.

     

    And I personally would be a lot more sympathetic and less likely to think someone was a troll if they didn’t show up here quoting the standard illogic that the Bishop’s conference is promoting, practically word for word as though they had received a handout at Mass, and then complain that people who disagree with them ‘hate religion’ or aren’t being ‘respectful’ of Catholicism.  I absolutely agree that people have a right to whatever beliefs they wish.  Once they start trying to legislate those beliefs and force them on others, however, the beliefs have entered the political arena, and it’s totally fair to point out how off base they are.

     

    Again, Inman’s failure to use birth control RAISES medical costs for everyone.  We all have to chip in to cover the prenatal care, delivery, newborn intensive care nursery, and medical costs of his 12 kids.

  • princess-jourdan

    PCF, I literally laughed out loud when I saw your picture graphics you used to make your point about Inman “talking out of his ass”!! That was just PERFECT!!! If you don’t mind, I would like to use that same photo on my own blog to drive home my point about anti-choice whiners in my next blog posting.

    And as I’ve been reading through all the comments on this board, I am simply awestruck at some of the complete stupidity and stubbornness displayed here. To Inman and all the other people bitching and whining about how it would “violate their conscience” if their insurance covered contraceptives–SHUT THE HELL UP AND QUIT YOUR WHINING ALREADY!!! EVERYONE pays for insurance that covers things they probably won’t ever need or use, but you don’t see the rest of us throwing a temper tantrum about it! Let’s see…my own insurance policy covers gastro bi-pass surgery (something I will never need considering I’m 30 and still weigh only 110 pounds), erectile dysfunction drugs and penis pumps (something I will DEFINITELY NEVER use since I’m female), certain types of drug or alcohol rehabilitation (again, something I will never need since I don’t intend to ever use drugs or abuse alcohol), etc. I could go on forever, but my point is that I already pay for services I will never need or use, but you don’t see me bitching about it. And that’s because I have enough intelligence to understand THAT IS HOW INSURANCE WORKS. It is supposed to cover a WIDE range of health services that various people MIGHT need in the future. And you know what else? I’m not particularly thrilled at the idea that I am paging for old geezers to get Viagra and penis pumps so they can fuck women half their age, but what can I do about it?? NOTHING. I just have to suck it up and accept it. And that’s what you have to do too, Inman.

  • colleen

    As I understand the impetus behind ‘withholding money for the immoral birth control portion’ it’s the hope that if enough people opt out of that portion to save a few bucks (all men and women past menopause) then there won’t be enough money available to fund it for those young women who do need it.

    I’m sure that the Bishops and Inman also understand that the overwhelming majority of practicing Catholics also use effective contraception when they don’t wish to conceive a child. Indeed, in practice, only a small minority of Catholics actually agree with what Inman is attempting to present as a deeply felt Catholic belief . If his clergy is unable to persuade their own laity to conform to their unreasonable  doctrines, why should the rest of us be forced to accommodate their arrogant and irresponsible beliefs?

     

  • ack

    I think that most people who are upset about something the government does first starts shrieking about the Constitution. I live in AZ, where our motto is general shrieking about the Constitution. (It’s on our license plates, after the Grand Canyon stuff. It says, “The Grand Canyon State, and the Grand Canyon is an excellent place to shriek about the Constitution, cuz it echoes in this really awesome way.”)

     

    What the EEEEEEEEEEMYYYYYYRIIIIIIIGHTSEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKK doesn’t acknowledge, though, is that your right to freedom ends at mine, and whatever exceptions you want for your religion, I have a right to as well. I honestly don’t think that most people who are invoking the First Amendment understand that. Yet. That’s largely because every religion in the entire multi-verse is totally convinced that it’s got it right, that it is the Ultimate Truth. We have an opportunity to show people like Inman that if he wants to carve out an exception for his religion, then we have to carve out exceptions for ALL religions, regardless of what the issue is in health care. That’s where the argument is, because that’s how religious objections to universal health care kill people.

     

    And I DO think that people have come here in the last few months looking to engage, and they were met with hostility and name-calling. When I first came to this site, the thing that attracted me was the healthy debate that took place. I saw it as a chance to explore my own beliefs as well as the anti-choicers.

     

  • colleen

    Kyl has 2 children and 7 grandchildren.

    As for his statements, perhaps like so many American conservatives he believes that humans reproduce through parthenogenesis and he bears no responsibility for what his penis does.

  • prochoiceferret

    PCF, I literally laughed out loud when I saw your picture graphics you used to make your point about Inman “talking out of his ass”!! That was just PERFECT!!! If you don’t mind, I would like to use that same photo on my own blog to drive home my point about anti-choice whiners in my next blog posting.

     

    Awww, thanks for the kind words =^_^=

     

    Feel free to use anything I write here! I do it for all those who fight for reproductive-health goodness—and you’ve certainly done quite a bit of that!

  • wendy-banks

    Sorry, I read somewhere else that all twelve were his.

  • ack

    I also want to say that I often find it frustrating that people come here and expect us to make the same arguments that we’ve made for years on this site and in our daily lives on this issue, but I do think that has value, both for us and for them. I have learned SO MUCH from all of you, and even when you’re repeating yourselves, it helps me think things through again and again, which is vital to the conversation. This debate seems tired to a lot of us, myself included, but the fact of the matter is that new research and new complications are perpetually arising. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t keep coming here.

  • ack

    My mom told me once that neither me nor any of my siblings were planned. The way she said it was actually sort of hilarious, because she just sort of threw her hands up and said, “None of us did that in those days!” even though we were born after abortion and birth control were legal and fairly accessible. My father isn’t Catholic, but my brothers and I were all raised in the Church because that was super, super important to my mom. Confirmation and all, for all of us. However, the fact that she didn’t get pregnant again after she had me tells me that they started using something to prevent pregnancy. I’m sure it’s because when I was born, they knew they finally had the perfect child. :)

     

    And like I said on this thread, she’s been awkwardly supportive of me using contraception, and I’m sure she had the same awkward conversation with my brothers. She, and my father, want us to be able to accomplish what we want in our lives, and preventing unwanted pregnancy is a huge part of that. She’s realistic.

  • ack

    Now I have a terrifying image of a disembodied penis just floating around, buying groceries and gettin ladies pregnant.

  • ack

    I personally would be a lot more sympathetic and less likely to think someone was a troll if they didn’t show up here quoting the standard illogic that the Bishop’s conference is promoting, practically word for word as though they had received a handout at Mass,

     

    But that’s their reality. I don’t think they’re being disingenous, I just think that some extremely conservative Catholics haven’t thought the argument through to its logical conclusion. I also think that some Catholics are probably being super hypocritical in using birth control but simultaneously decrying the recommendation.

     

    and then complain that people who disagree with them ‘hate religion’ or aren’t being ‘respectful’ of Catholicism. 

    Once they start trying to legislate those beliefs and force them on others, however, the beliefs have entered the political arena, and it’s totally fair to point out how off base they are.

    Again, that’s their reality. There’s this weird myth of Christian persecution in the US, from the WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!111!!!!! to same-sex marriage. I completely agree with you. I feel like I need to take every opportunity to point out to them that yeah, your beliefs are fine for you, but you don’t get to force them on other people. Which is PRECISELY what they seem to be complaining about all the time. It’s mind-boggling, and a lot of them will probably never get it. But freedom of religion doesn’t mean that your religion, or mine, or my dog’s, is the rule of law.

     

    It’s the name-calling that I objected to, not the argument.

  • crowepps

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • princess-jourdan

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • inman

    Unfortunately, I think what makes this difficult is that Inman thinks that the “why” behind his objection (to birth control) is irrelevant, when in fact, it is a HUGE part of the discussion. I think this objection is something we need to discuss if we are also able to talk about the actual insurance coverage itself in the first place. So, why should it bother him so much if his insurance covers contraception? If he has a mind of his own & free will (which he does), isn’t being forced to use or purchase contraception (he’s not), and his religious faith tells him that it is wrong to use or purchase contraception… then what does he have to be concerned about? Is it immoral for one to even know the mere fact that contraception coverage exists at all under one’s insurance plan, even if one will never use it?? And finally, I would like to know why he has singled out JUST contraception as an objectionable thing, among all other medications and procedures? I believe these are all legitimate questions (not rhetorical), and would help us out a lot here. I am asking them because I truly want to know the answers, and not because I am interested in baiting

    I thought I had answered the question of why I object to individuals being forced by the government to purchase health insurance that covers procedures that are contrary to one’s religion, in another post, but I will try again.  As you have inferred I am Catholic.  I have referenced some of the beliefs of the Catholic Church teaches because I know and hold to these beliefs.  Hence feel I am knowledgable enough to discuss these beliefs and their intersection with the requirements of Obamacare.  If other adherents of other religions have objections to certain mandatory coverages, I will leave it to them to make those objections, as they are in a better position to do so. However, I did not intend to imply only the Catholic conscience should be protected.  If other religions have similar issues that are problems for their faiths, they should be afforded to right to opt out of those coverages.  And if everyone’s conscience can’t be accomodated, then the government may have to stop mandating people buy health insurance.  

    As you are all aware, the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is immoral.  By buying insurance, I am contracting with the insurance company for a bundle of goods and services, specifically the right to be reimbursed for services and goods provided by those in the medical field, subject to certain conditions.  Just as it would be wrong for me to go buy a pack of condoms or a diaphram, in case I decide to act immorally in the future, it is equally wrong for me to buy the right to be reimbursed said immoral goods.  Its planning to sin in the future.   Additionally, as I tried to explain above, providing insurance coverage to a family member to financially enable that person to commit the particular action, undercuts the religious message the family is trying to convey that the particular action is immoral.  It sends a mixed message. “The action is wrong, but we are going to fund it anyway.”  The same situation is true when a Church provides coverage to its employees.  I guess another way to look at it is by providing insurance coverage for that enables another to commit an immoral act, the person or organization providing the coverage is cooperating in the immoral act. 

    Knowledge isn’t irrelevant.  If I buy insurance that covers an immoral procedure, and through no neglect of my own, I don’t know about the coverage for the immoral procedure, then I am not morally cupable for purchasing the insurance.  Once I learn of the the coverage, then I have the duty to act.

    I didn’t mean to single out contraception.  Doing so was only for easy of posting.  From a Catholic prospective, mandatory coverage of other procedures would also be problematic.  Sterlization, and of course abortion, would present the same concern. I think I did mention sterlization in one post.  I didn’t mention aboriton because the law prevents the feds from mandating coverage for it, so it didn’t seem necessary. 

    It is also my understanding that Inman believes his insurance policy will have to cover contraception and he will be unable to opt out of it, therefore he feels like he is somehow being “coerced” by the state into knowing something exists (contraception coverage) which “violates his conscience.”  I would like to see it written where it says this is so — that an individual family can not opt out of that specific type of coverage. I would imagine that it if opting out of that particular part of coverage is impossible, it is probably due to financial & logical reasons alone (and not out of any desire to control or subjugate religious people)– 1. that it could potentially drive up the cost for other employees, and 2. that it could allow other people to “game the system” by pretending that everything else is covered by their insurance is “morally objectionable” except for the barest minimum (this is a scenario that Inman also acknowledges).

    I can’t point you to the U.S. Code section or HHS regulation at the moment, but I will try to find it.  I understand the bill is 2000 pages long, and the regulations to the extent they have been issues are probably longer.   However, I followed the legislative process closely, in part by reading the articles on this site, and this is my understanding of how the law works in general.  As an example, currently plans can’t have annual limits of less than $750,000, to continue selling plans with limits lower than that, plans currently have to get waivers.  By 2014 there will be no more waivers and the insurer can’t sell it to you, even if you want it.   See the linked article on the HHS site.

    http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

    Honestly, I don’t know how dropping those coverages would impact the premiums, either for those that keep the coverage or those opt out.  If you believe the posters here, it may lower the premiums for those that keep the coverages, as the people that opt out have more children using more resources, etc.  It might add some administrative expense.  From my point of view it doesn’t matter.  Protecting religous liberty trumps any social program to the extent the social program interfers with a citzens religous beliefs.  I don’t mean that social programs aren’t important, but rather that the constitution doesn’t mandate that the feds have a health care law, but it does mandate that they not interfere with the excercise of religion.

    So, why can’t we have this one small thing? Especially considering the fact that nearly EVERYONE, including Catholics, will use birth control at some point in their lives…

    And especially considering that birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies, which in turn prevents abortion…

    Why can’t we agree on this?

    As I have said several times I am not objecting to other people buying health insurance that covers contraception or sterlization, even with no co pay.   So my point was from the beginning, you can have it, if I don’t have to.

    The argument that both pro-life and pro-choice ought to be for contraception to lower the number of abortions makes great sense, if you believe that contraception is morally ok.  However, because Catholics believe contraception is immoral the argument doesn’t work, at least not for those that believe her teachings.  It is wrong to committ one immoral act to prevent another.

    The fact that many Catholics have trouble living by and accepting the Church’s teaching on contraception makes it even more important to ensure that its conscience rights are protected.  The Church should have the freedom to both teach its faith and act in conformity with that faith.

  • inman

    I totally agree with you that commerce in the modern world often makes it difficult to live by your conscience.

    The difference is Vegans aren’t forced by the government to eat meat or wear leather shoes.

  • colleen

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    -RH Reality Check staff

  • inman

    I didn’t mean to signle out contraception.  There are a number of procedures that would be contrary to Catholic teaching.  Contraception, In Vetro, Sterlization, fetal stem cell therapy, and of course abortion would also be problematic. 

    I mainly talked about contraception because the recent IOM report that recommends that the government mandate it.  Also for covenience.

    The Catholic faith certainly wouldn’t have a problem antiretrovirals for AIDS patients, regardless of how they contracted it. The intention is to heal the body and restore it to normal functioning.  In other words to do good.

     

     

     

     

  • colleen

    The difference is Vegans aren’t forced by the government to eat meat or wear leather shoes.

    And, however much we may wish that Antonin Scalia’s mom had,  Catholics aren’t forced, by the government, to use effective contraception or get abortions.

     

  • colleen

    As I have said several times I am not objecting to other people buying health insurance that covers contraception or sterlization, even with no co pay.   So my point was from the beginning, you can have it, if I don’t have to.

     

    I’m quite sure that the state could manage a separate, much more expensive special ‘conscience’ coverage excluding effective contraception. The increased cost would cover the increased maternity  costs. Why should the rest of us who believe in sustainable population growth as a matter of conscience be forced to subsidize a  set of beliefs which tries to force everyone, Catholic or not,  to have many more children than we can afford to properly care for? Why should we be forced to subsidize the atrophied ‘consciences’ of the Catholic church.

    I will say that I would be far more sympathetic if y’all had the moral fiber to be consistent and object to paying for things like the invasion and occupation of Iraq or, I don’t know…. torture and the implementation of the death penalty. And yet you folks pay for all those things without a whimper of protest.

  • inman

    If it turns out the ‘conscience’ coverage is more expensive, so be it.  Then at least I have a choice.  I don’t know that it would work out that way, but it might.  References to a reduction in premium relfect an assumption on my part.

    The Church oppopsed the War in Iraq because it didn’t mean the criteria for a just war, and it teaches that the death penalty is wrong, at least if the country has any other way to protect itself from the offender, which all but micronations would. 

    Certainly there are people that are pro-life that support the death penalty.  I strongly disagree with them. I believe the US should abolish the death penalty.

     

  • bj-survivor

    Iraq War, but it was only those Catholic politicians who supported a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions that were discommuned? Try again, Inman. I’m not buying your line of misogynistic, male-dominance serving drivel.

  • bj-survivor

    please delete

  • colleen

    The Church oppopsed the War in Iraq because it didn’t mean the criteria for a just war, and it teaches that the death penalty is wrong, at least if the country has any other way to protect itself from the offender, which all but micronations would.

    The Church made a small noise of theoretical protest about the invasion and occupation of Iraq But (and this is the point) you and your church went on to enable and pay for it without even a tiny squeak of protest. There was no “my precious CONSCIENCE won’t allow me to pay for the invasion and occupation of Iraq” .Of course there would have been legal consequences for that whereas there never are consequences for demeaning and degrading women, least of all amongst the religious right.

    Same with the DP. When that flower of conservative Catholicism Antonin Scalia supports the DP so ardently that he announces that even the eventually discovered “mere factual innocence” of someone who has been tried and convicted and sentenced to death should not interfere with it’s implementation. I certainly don’t see anyone in the USCCB threatening to deny ‘Justice’ Scalia (or any of the other Catholic fascists sitting on the SCOTUS) communion. You are all silent. But not so when the Church sees an opportunity demean and degrade women and declare your dominion over our bodies.

     

  • concerned-feminist

    Inman would have a choice. Wow, I guess that makes it ok for a majority of others not to. Inman would be willing to pay more, so now everyone else should have to as well. Last time I studied social ethics, the idea was to satisfy the majority, not one person. 

     

    I don’t like paying for Viagra & ED drugs. I think it’s immoral & NOT a valid health issue. If it’s OK to have all the sex you want, it should be ok to defend youself from unintended consequences like pregnancy. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!

     

    I have had to pay $50 a month for hormonal birth control since I was 15 to help with other medical problems. Serious ones. My menstral cycle ran non-stop & I ran the risk of developing anemia at several points. I did not even date until I was 18 & lost my virginity when I was almost 20 & even then we used CONDOMS. I have only had sex with one person my entire life & I am still with that person & plan to stay that way for quite some time.

     

    But that is besides the point. I am not on birth control for anything to do with sex, MANY women must use it for valid medical conditions, but I gues since YOU have a stick up your ass for no valid reason other than someone who is NOT God telling you it’s bad, those women can suffer just to make YOU happy.

     

    Until you can show me one line in the actual Bible mentioning ANYTHING about contraception or birth control, I am inclined to believe that GOD has no problem with it, just the stupid Catholic Church. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT GOD!!!

     

    Lastly, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PAY FOR ANYTHING!!!!! Damn, son, how many times does it need to be drilled in your fucking ear?

     

    So there goes me defeating ALL of your ridiculous arguements in a single post.

  • crowepps

    The Church oppopsed the War in Iraq

    (sarcasm)  I sure was impressed when the Church showed how seriously they disapproved of the war by informing Catholics in the military that if they served there they would be automatically excommunicated.

    The Church opposed the death penalty

    (sarcasm) And again, VERY impressed when the Church informed faithful Catholics that it would be immoral for them to work as policemen, prosecutors, judges, jurors or prison guards, because all of those things ENABLED executions, and they would be automatically excommunicated if they were associated in any way with a justice system which supported the death penalty.

  • crowepps

    And Catholics aren’t going to be forced by the government to use birth control.

    By the way, Vegans are forced by the government to PAY FOR meat and leather shoes for other people to use, like the military.

     

     

  • crowepps

    Another had a rival that he hated so badly that after the rival died he had his decomposing body dug up, questioned it in some kind of mock trial court, hung it up by the neck and used it for a piñata, and then tossed it into a river.

    John Wycliff, leader of the Lollards and opponent of the Church interferring with secular powers, was declared a heretic by the Church in 1415, more than THIRTY YEARS after he died.  In 1428 Pope Martin V ordered that his body be dug up and burned and his ashes cast into the River Swift, in hopes that without a physical body to be resurrected from a physical grave he would be condemned to hell.  Copies of his books were burned with him but of course many copies survived.

    His horrible crime?  He challenged the power of the Pope AND he challenged the power of the priest by translating the scriptures into English so that a person who only read in the vernacular could see what it REALLY said for themselves .

  • inman

    The reason that the Church responsed differently to abortion versus the war and death penalty, is that the Church’s teachings are different on these issues.  The Church teaches that that war and death can be morally licit under some circumstances, but that direct intended abortion is always intrinicly evil under all circumstances.  Also, the Code of Canon law, provides that by materially cooperating in an abortion, a person automatically excommunicates themselves.  There is not a similar penalty for the death penalty or war.

    My guess is the bishops were trying to give Catholic politicians the benefit of doubt on the war and death penalty as there is a small amount of room for legitimate disagreement.

     

  • inman

    Again, that’s their reality. There’s this weird myth of Christian persecution in the US, from the WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!111!!!!! to same-sex marriage. I completely agree with you. I feel like I need to take every opportunity to point out to them that yeah, your beliefs are fine for you, but you don’t get to force them on other people. Which is PRECISELY what they seem to be complaining about all the time. It’s mind-boggling, and a lot of them will probably never get it. But freedom of religion doesn’t mean that your religion, or mine, or my dog’s, is the rule of law.

    I will admit there is too much fuss made about whether retailers say “Merry Christmas” or “Happpy Holidays.” 

    But there is real persecution, albiet significantly less in degree than, in other countries, such as in Communist China, or during earlier times.  You are complaining that religous people are trying to force their beliefs on you, but you doing that very thing by arguing that Catholics should be forced by the government to buy health insurance that covers goods and services that are contrary to their religion. The ACLU is currently suing the owners of a small inn because they refuse to host “same sex marriages.”  The reproductive rights community wants the state to force pharamacies to sell products that their owners believe are immoral. I could give you other examples, but you get the point.  In each case the state is forcing someone to act against their religous beliefs.  

  • prochoiceferret

    The reason that the Church responsed differently to abortion versus the war and death penalty, is that the Church’s teachings are different on these issues.

     

    Yes, I’m sure the Church has lots of holy-sounding excuses as to why they don’t really oppose war and the death penalty like it’s a big deal, and only put their foot down when the bodily rights of women are at stake.

     

    Also, the Code of Canon law, provides that by materially cooperating in an abortion, a person automatically excommunicates themselves.  There is not a similar penalty for the death penalty or war.

     

    Exactly.

     

    My guess is the bishops were trying to give Catholic politicians the benefit of doubt on the war and death penalty as there is a small amount of room for legitimate disagreement.

     

    So, in other words, the bishops were colluding in the Culture of Death(tm).

  • prochoiceferret

    But there is real persecution, albiet significantly less in degree than, in other countries, such as in Communist China, or during earlier times.

     

    Yes, the “persecution” is significantly less in degree here and now.

     

    You are complaining that religous people are trying to force their beliefs on you, but you doing that very thing by arguing that Catholics should be forced by the government to buy health insurance that covers goods and services that are contrary to their religion.

     

    When will your people be delivered from this terrible oppression??

     

    The ACLU is currently suing the owners of a small inn because they refuse to host “same sex marriages.”  The reproductive rights community wants the state to force pharamacies to sell products that their owners believe are immoral. I could give you other examples, but you get the point.

     

    More than you think.

  • jennifer-starr

    I still think that any pharmacist who refuses to fill MY prescription (not his), is intruding upon my privacy and personal space. It’s only his business what he does. Not what I do. Since I’m not forcing him or his spouse to ingest the product, I don’t see where his morals should even count, quite frankly. 

  • crowepps

    But there is real persecution, albiet significantly less in degree than, in other countries, such as in Communist China, or during earlier times.

    The Chinese government sees the spread of Christianity there as a conspiracy by outside forces to disrupt social cohesion, undermine the government and destroy families.  From their point of view, the missionaries and religious workers from all the various western religious traditions are the equivalent of Islamic extremists attacking their society.

    You are complaining that religous people are trying to force their beliefs on you, but you doing that very thing by arguing that Catholics should be forced by the government to buy health insurance that covers goods and services that are contrary to their religion. 

    Well, no, actually.  The difference is on the one hand, ‘yes, the universal health insurance COULD be used by OTHER people to buy something you disapprove of but there isn’t anything forcing you to BELIEVE differently or to buy that kind of service’ and on the other hand, ‘if I don’t personally approve, I am entitled to prevent EVERYONE from buying those things.’

    The ACLU is currently suing the owners of a small inn because they refuse to host “same sex marriages.” 

    Nope, the ACLU is suing people because they insist on getting in gay people’s faces and EXPLAINING that the reason gays can’t come there is that the owners think they’re immoral sinners who will all rot in hell.

     The reproductive rights community wants the state to force pharamacies to sell products that their owners believe are immoral.

    In most states, the person insisting that the pharmacists sell the products is their employer.  In most states, there isn’t any requirement that private, independent pharmacies even CARRY those products.  I will note, most pharmacists who protest they shouldn’t have to dispense birth control seem to be able to reconcile themselves to carrying the equally immoral, high volume, high profit condom.  

    I could give you other examples, but you get the point.  In each case the state is forcing someone to act against their religous beliefs.  

    No, the state is NOT forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs.  What the state is doing instead is making sure if a person wants to ‘stand on principle’ that they stop shifting the cost of doing so to other people.  Catholics who buy universal health insurance can choose to NOT use the birth control portion.  Owners of small inns who wish to continue in business can say ‘we are all booked up that month’ instead of ‘God hates fags’.  Pharmacists can put their principles before their pocket and choose to work in a nursing home or during a busy shift so there will be another pharmacist to cover those prescriptions or leave the field altogether.

     

    The State CANNOT force anyone to act against their religious beliefs, that is impossible.  A person with deeply felt and sincere religious beliefs will simply refuse to act against their beliefs, NO MATTER WHAT THE PENALTY.  That’s how Martin Luther King, Jr. ended up in Birmingham jail.  That how hundreds and thousands of Catholic martyrs ended up dead.

     

    What the State CAN do is safeguard other people’s rights from being trampled by the religious.  It can insure that religious organizations that discriminate are not doing so on public monies.  It can protect women who need necessary prescriptions from being humiliated by religious fanatics who insist they have a right to know their private circumstances in order to judge whether the women ‘deserve’ them.  It can certainly keep religious hospitals from leaving women to die because the local Bishop thinks its problematic to save their lives.

     

    The State absolutely has a responsibility to protect the freedom of religion of the great mass of citizens from the small number of religious fanatics who want to tell them what to do.  While the State must not interfere in anyone’s BELIEFS, and must safeguard everyone’s LIVES, the State has no responsibility whatsoever to protect self-righteous martrys who insist on pronouncing everyone else morally deficient from the social or economic consequences of their actions.

     

    Can a business refuse to hire somebody because of their strong religious beliefs or distinctive religious clothing?  Absolutely not.  Can a business fire a person who insists their faith entitles them to supervise the contents of their coworkers’ lunches or scold people for having jokes on the cubical walls or inform customers they are offended by them saying ‘Darn it’?  Absolutely.  What’s in their head is their business.  What they attempt to impose on other people has social and economic costs.

     

    Do you understand why the fundamentaltist ‘Catholic Knight’ in Norway just did what he did?  He agrees with YOU, and he feels nobody is paying attention to him in his absolute rightness, and the bomb and the deaths and the murders of children were an ADVERTISING STUNT to get people to hear his views.  People who feel ENTITLED to tell other people what to believe and think and to control how other people live their lives are dangerous.  You have an absolute right to your beliefs, however deluded other people think they are, just as other people have an absolute right to their beliefs, however wrong you find them.  Everyone has ZERO right to impose their beliefs on other people, including the other members of their own families.

  • colleen

    The Church teaches that that war and death can be morally licit under some circumstances, but that direct intended abortion is always intrinicly evil under all circumstances.

     By your own admission the Church decided that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not a just war. Therefore, it was not what you folks call “morally licit”. You don’t even appear to mention what Canon law has to say about participation in unjust wars.

    Finally, we weren’t discussing abortion, we were discussing effective contraception. We all understand what Canon law says about abortion because the Church has taken to excommunicationg Nuns who save the lives of 10 week pregnant women whose bodies are unable to sustain a pregnancy.

    Your Canon law has no place in our medical guidelines.

     

  • crowepps

    His moral values aren’t the problem.  It’s his vision of himself as a self-appointed enforcer for ‘moral society’ with the right to supervise your and every other woman’s sexuality.  Pharmacists have asked women to explain the reason hormones were prescribed, have asked women to produce marriage certificates before they will hand over their prescriptions, have demanded women produce a copy of their report of rape to the police  before they will allow them to have Plan B, and on one occasion I remember reading about demanded that a young woman SHARE THE DETAILS OF HER RAPE with him within earshot of other pharmacy customers so he could judge whether she resisted strenuously enough to ‘deserve’ preventing possible pregnancy.

     

    Some pharmacists, thwarted in their role as moral judge and official punisher by the woman’s refusal to beg and plead and play the ‘please, Daddy, please’ game, have gone on to refuse to return the prescription so that the customer could go elsewhere, even when police were called, and insisted THEIR religious/moral beliefs entitled them not just to refuse to provide the prescription but to steal the customer’s script so as to prevent her from getting it filled elsewhere.

  • jennifer-starr

    So it would seem to be less about their ‘morals’ and more about the pharmacist’s need to control, harass, and publicly humiliate a woman. How sick is that? 

  • princess-jourdan

    Crow, just reading about that pharmacist bullshit makes my blood boil. WHO THE HELL DO THESE ASSHOLES THINK THEY ARE?!?!! If I was ever treated that way at a pharmacy counter, I would bring a lawsuit on that place bigger than anyone in history has ever seen!!! But first I would have to be hauled away in handcuffs for getting in the self-righteous pharmacist’s face and cussing him out with every foul word known in the English language. Could you by any chance provide me with some links to these accounts? I would love to share them on Facebook and my blog. I have taken it upon myself to educate my peers about this kind of stuff and providing some kind of proof that they can read for themselves helps keep them from writing me off as just a paranoid feminist. :)

  • ack

    We’re forced to subsidize other people’s meat eating, leather shoe wearing ways. It’s called the tax code, and I don’t think it’s any different than your objection to contraception. I eat veggie burgers and fake bacon (which we found out recently is always gross if you don’t get it at a restaurant. Just an FYI.) Yet I supply beef farmers with tax dollars that reduce their costs, I pay for meals in the military and products in the commisary that I fundamentally disagree with. Why does your objection outweigh mine?

  • ack

    The Catholic Church already pays for things they disagree with, as do other religions. Muslims pay for treatment for alcoholics, Catholics pay for Viagra and in vitro… this is already done, and the Catholic Church hasn’t seen some vast reduction in their rolls as people suddenly realize that the treatment is available or that the Church pays for it through insurance. It’s health insurance, not standing on a corner with a sign saying what you believe in. Neither you nor I have a choice, and I actually agree with that. I don’t think that I should get to opt out of neonatal care for a Mormon or Evangelical family, because I recognize a larger public health benefit to having healthy babies. I simultaneously think it’s completely and utterly irresponsible to have 9 kids.

  • ack

    I will admit there is too much fuss made about whether retailers say “Merry Christmas” or “Happpy Holidays.” 

    THANK YOU. Even when I was part of the Church, I was always, “Really? Can’t we all just give our extra change from our Piggly Wiggly purchases and be done with it?”

     

    You are complaining that religous people are trying to force their beliefs on you, but you doing that very thing by arguing that Catholics should be forced by the government to buy health insurance that covers goods and services that are contrary to their religion. 

     

    No, I’m complaining that the Catholic Church is demanding that special exceptions be carved out when most Catholic people, as well as the Church itself, are already paying for things that go against teachings.

     

    The Iraq war, for instance. The Church was (quietly) against it, but didn’t demand that people stop paying taxes or refuse to enroll in the military.

     

     

     

  • ack

    There was the whole hullabaloo about Muslim taxi drivers taking drunk people places. If you want exceptions for Catholics in health care, then EVERYBODY involved in commerce gets them based on their own beliefs. We’re all forced to engage in commerce due to lack of other options. If we don’t, we’re pretty much the Unabomber. Or we’re living at Burning Man or the Rainbow Fest.

     

    Also, putting same-sex marriages in scare quotes really isn’t going to fly with me. I defended you against name-calling, but I won’t defend outright bias. Your religion gets to define marriage for its parishoners in the same way that every other religion gets to define it, which includes Unitarian Universalists, who include same-sex couples.

     

    And, no. Repro rights organizations are mostly in favor of keeping SOMEONE on staff during all shifts in clinics and pharmacies who will willingly dispense hormonal contraception, high dose hormonal contraception (EC), and drugs to reduce bleeding after an abortion. If multiple staff aren’t possible, then yes, anyone who is alone needs to be willing to dispense the medication, just like diabetes, high cholestoral, or any other condition that requires prophylactics. The latter was because of a horrific case where a pharmacist actually refused to dispense an anti-coagulant because she was worried it was for an abortion patient. She could have killed her.

  • inman

    There was the whole hullabaloo about Muslim taxi drivers taking drunk people places. If you want exceptions for Catholics in health care, then EVERYBODY involved in commerce gets them based on their own beliefs.

    I must admit, I missed the reports about Muslim taxi drivers wanting to do this.  If the taxi driver owned his cab as opposed to being an employee, he ought to be able refuse the passenger.  If he is an employee, it would be up to his employer to decide how to handle such cases. 

    However, the new health care law is unique.  It not only regulates the conduct of those who choose to engage in certain commerce, but affirmatively mandates people engage in a specific type of commerce, i.e. buy health insurance whether you want it or not.  Personally, I think it is very questionable whether the government even has this authortity under the constitution.  However, even if it does, it makes what would otherwise be a private insurance contract into state mandated action.  That implicates the first amendment in a way that simply regulating a purely private contract does not.  So I think there is a basis to treat exceptions from the mandates of the new health care differently than regulation of other areas.  Of course I think reglious freedom should be protected from state interference even in areas where the state doesn’t force you to engage in commerce.

    And, no. Repro rights organizations are mostly in favor of keeping SOMEONE on staff during all shifts in clinics and pharmacies who will willingly dispense hormonal contraception, high dose hormonal contraception (EC), and drugs to reduce bleeding after an abortion. If multiple staff aren’t possible, then yes, anyone who is alone needs to be willing to dispense the medication, just like diabetes, high cholestoral, or any other condition that requires prophylactics. The latter was because of a horrific case where a pharmacist actually refused to dispense an anti-coagulant because she was worried it was for an abortion patient. She could have killed her.

    I think there is a distinction between requiring a pharmacy to have someone on staff to dispense contracetpion, and not giving an employee of a pharmacy the right to disobey the directives of his or her employer to dispense contraception. 
     
    By requring the pharmacy to have someone on staff to dispense contracetpion, the state is forcing the owner of the pharmacy to cooperate in something that is against his or her religion.  However, if the pharmacy owner requires the employee to dispense contraception, the state isn’t invovled.  The employee can work somewhere else or start their own pharmacy. The former situation implicates the first amendent, while the later does not.   I am not saying that employees religous sensibilties ought not be protected even in the work place, but I don’t know such protection is afforded by the First Amendment.
     

    Also, putting same-sex marriages in scare quotes really isn’t going to fly with me. I defended you against name-calling, but I won’t defend outright bias. Your religion gets to define marriage for its parishoners in the same way that every other religion gets to define it, which includes Unitarian Universalists, who include same-sex couples.

    The use of quotes was a way to use a term everyone here would understand for the sake of discussion, while making it clear that I disagree with the premise of the term.  It was the least antognistic way I could think of to do that.  I am not going to try to come up with an alternative because I am sure whatever I use would be equally or more offensive to this community.    However, I certainly agree freedom of religion means other religous communities can definie marriage as they see fit and perform whatever ceremonies they wish.

    I believe our difficulty in even discussing these issues civily augers escalating discord in our country.  I think part of the reason, is that the country used to broadly share the same values and basic assumptions about the world, and doesn’t anymore.  Maybe we are just in a period of growing pains as the country becomes more diverse and things will improve.  I do think we need to learn how to understand each other better and communicate, even if we will never reach a consensus.  Unfortunately, our leaders do not set a good example in that respect.  However, when my religion, one shared by 60 million people in the US, teaches that marriage is between a man and a women, and a not insignificant part of the country believes I am brainwashed at best, or more likely a bigot for holding that belief, it is difficult to have hope thing will improve any time soon.

     
    Notwithstanding our disagreements, I appreciate those of you that took the time and energy to discuss the issues with me.  If you had to rehash arguments you have made before, thank you for indulging me.  With respect to those that insulted me or my faith, I forgive you.  I wish all of you well.
  • prochoiceferret

    I must admit, I missed the reports about Muslim taxi drivers wanting to do this.  If the taxi driver owned his cab as opposed to being an employee, he ought to be able refuse the passenger.  If he is an employee, it would be up to his employer to decide how to handle such cases. 

     

    I’ll remember this next time you claim that “conscientious Christian pharmacists” shouldn’t be fired for refusing to dispense legitimately-prescribed medications.

     

    However, the new health care law is unique.  It not only regulates the conduct of those who choose to engage in certain commerce, but affirmatively mandates people engage in a specific type of commerce, i.e. buy health insurance whether you want it or not.  Personally, I think it is very questionable whether the government even has this authortity under the constitution.

     

    Maybe you should have written in with your support for a single-payer health-care system, then. Thanks to insurance-company lobbyists, this was the closest we could get.

     

    However, even if it does, it makes what would otherwise be a private insurance contract into state mandated action.  That implicates the first amendment in a way that simply regulating a purely private contract does not.  So I think there is a basis to treat exceptions from the mandates of the new health care differently than regulation of other areas. 

     

    Sure. If the “new health care” mandated that you use contraception, or take a vaccine, then that would be a religious- and bodily-autonomy issue deserving of constitutional- and civil-rights litigation.

     

    I am not saying that employees religous sensibilties ought not be protected even in the work place, but I don’t know such protection is afforded by the First Amendment. 

     

    Yes, indeed, the First Amendment is not a “get out of doing whatever I don’t fancy just because I can speciously argue that it’s a violation of my precious religious freedoms” card.

     

    The use of quotes was a way to use a term everyone here would understand for the sake of discussion, while making it clear that I disagree with the premise of the term.

     

    Right, kind of how like White supremacists would describe African-Americans as “human beings.”

     

    It was the least antognistic way I could think of to do that.

     

    You’re not very good at the whole least-Antigone thing.

     

    However, when my religion, one shared by 60 million people in the US, teaches that marriage is between a man and a women, and a not insignificant part of the country believes I am brainwashed at best, or more likely a bigot for holding that belief, it is difficult to have hope thing will improve any time soon.

     

    Don’t worry too much about it. A significant proportion of those 60 million believe the Catholic hierarchy are brainwashed at best, or more likely a bigot for holding that belief, too!

     

    Notwithstanding our disagreements, I appreciate those of you that took the time and energy to discuss the issues with me.  If you had to rehash arguments you have made before, thank you for indulging me.  With respect to those that insulted me or my faith, I forgive you.  I wish all of you well.

     

    It’s like what some folks say: Don’t hate the troll. Hate the trolltastic, bigotedly misogynistic claptrap he spews instead!

  • crowepps

    However, the new health care law is unique. 

    Because the government forcing a person to buy health care insurance is TOTALLY different from the government forcing a person to buy fire insurance on their house to protect their federal guarantee on the mortgage, or the government forcing a person to buy flood insurance to protect government exposure to loss, or the government forcing a person to buy car insurance if they want to drive a car.

     

    Or the government requiring that employers buy Workman’s Comp and Federal unemployment insurance to protect their employees.  Or the government requiring that EMPLOYEES pay State unemployment insurance even if they never have and likely never will receive the benefit. 

     

    Or the government requiring those applying to fulfill Federal contracts to prove they have liability insurance and insurance on their equipment and possibly even purchase date of completion insurance.

  • crowepps

     I think part of the reason, is that the country used to broadly share the same values and basic assumptions about the world, and doesn’t anymore. 

    This country did NOT used to broadly share the same values and basic assumptions.  Instead, the Christian White Males got together and established values and basic assumptions that pleased THEM, and the majority of the people in the country were excluded from the discussion altogether.  The women were in the kitchen keeping their mouths shuts.  The gays were in the closet.  The Black and Brown were stepping off the sidewalks or moving to the back of the bus so their ‘betters’ weren’t inconvenienced.  The various peoples from the Orient were herded into Chinatown.  And the Jews could join the discussion only in the public square because they weren’t allowed in the private clubs.

     

    You would be right if “the country” was defined as “People Just Like Me” and everybody else still had to shut up and tolerate being second-class citizens.  Since it isn’t, and they no longer have to, you aren’t.

    However, when my religion, one shared by 60 million people in the US, teaches that marriage is between a man and a women, and a not insignificant part of the country believes I am brainwashed at best, or more likely a bigot for holding that belief, it is difficult to have hope thing will improve any time soon.

    And yet, almost 38 million of those Catholics disagree with you and approve of same-sex unions being legal, because they are NOT bigots, and understand that their personal beliefs, however sincere, don’t allow them to subject other people who believe differently to discrimination.

    A Washington Post-ABC News poll on gay marriage shows that — for the first time in the history of the poll — the majority of respondents (53 percent) approve of legalizing same-sex unions. What’s truly surprising, though, is that no fewer than 63 percent of white Catholics polled feel that gay marriage should be legal.

    http://www.moxiebird.com/2011/03/according-to-poll-majority-of-catholics-now-approve-of-same-sex-marriage.html

    Oh, nice closer:

    With respect to those that insulted me or my faith, I forgive you.

    I’ll work on forgiving your religion for insisting it has the right to kill my daughter, but I’m not quite there yet.

  • inman

    Because the government forcing a person to buy health care insurance is TOTALLY different from the government forcing a person to buy fire insurance on their house to protect their federal guarantee on the mortgage, or the government forcing a person to buy flood insurance to protect government exposure to loss, or the government forcing a person to buy car insurance if they want to drive a car.

     

    Or the government requiring that employers buy Workman’s Comp and Federal unemployment insurance to protect their employees.  Or the government requiring that EMPLOYEES pay State unemployment insurance even if they never have and likely never will receive the benefit. 

     

    Or the government requiring those applying to fulfill Federal contracts to prove they have liability insurance and insurance on their equipment and possibly even purchase date of completion insurance.

    In each case you have cited, the person or organization has chosen to engage or commerce or some other act, which then triggers the regulations. 

    If you drive, you must . . .

    If you buy a house in a flood zone . . .

    If you hire employees . . .

    If you contract with  the federal government . . .

    If you work for someone else . .

    Additionally, unemployement insurance is really just a tax, as is the social security and mediare/medicaid.  Certainly the feds have the power to tax.  While they have the power to regulate commerce,  I contend, they don’t have the power to compel someone to engage it.

    In contrast, there is no way to escape the the Obamacare indiviual mandate. If you are are alive, you must have health insurance that meets certain federal requirements , or face the penalty of violating federal law.  Their supposed justification for this is that by NOT buying health insurance you are impacting the market for health insurance.   If that is the test for limiting federal power, then there is no limit, which I assume is the adminstration’s goal.   If they have that power, they could pass a law setting up a federal agency to determine what profession will engage in.  Well Bob, I know you wanted to be chef, but your decision not be a carpenter has harmed the market for carpenters, so are only authorized to work as a carpenter.

     

  • forced-birth-rape

    This comment has been removed.

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

    -RH Reality Check Staff.

  • ch

    So your religion that you claim is shared by 60 million people in the U.S. gets to trump what the other 249 million people believe?  Sorry, don’t think so. 

  • colleen

    So your religion that you claim is shared by 60 million people in the U.S. gets to trump what the other 249 million people believe?

    About 4% of those 60 million agree with him. The rest use effective contraception. The religious right tends to do math like Ken Lay.

  • ack

    I think there is a distinction between requiring a pharmacy to have someone on staff to dispense contracetpion, and not giving an employee of a pharmacy the right to disobey the directives of his or her employer to dispense contraception. 

    Work got totally insane, so I’ve been absent awhile, but does anyone know what the canned response is for pharmacies in rural areas? There’s no alternative, so whose rights prevail? I feel like the entire argument hinges on this supposedly infinite number of pharmacies and clinics we can go to, which just isn’t the case…

     

     

     

  • crowepps

    It’s different from state to state.  The states which have the strictest rules require all pharmacies to carry the medication, require all pharmacies to have someone on hand to dispense it, and ENFORCE their rules.

     

    Some states do not require privately owned pharmacies staffed by only one pharmacist (typically the owner) to stock the drug at all which means it wouldn’t be available.  (To be fair, it does have an expiration date, and if no one prescribed it, the pharmacist would be stuck for the cost.)

     

    Some states do not require pharmacists to fill the order if they claim a conscience objection, but do require them to give the customer information regarding where it is available if that pharmacist is the only one there.

     

    The larger chain pharmacies tend to have uniform rules in all states, and require all their pharmacies to follow them, and have won in court after having fired pharmacists for refusing to follow their rules on the grounds of insubordination and ‘unable or unwilling to fulfill job requirements’.

     

    Personally, I think a lot more women should ask up front what their local pharmacy’s policies are before they need something, and then either let the pharmacist know he’s getting their business because they’re pleased he’s a non-judgmental professional or alternatively let their pharmacist know his claim of a right to be the moral judge of their medical care has inspired them to get their routine prescriptions online in the future.

     

    There’s no reason for women to be handing over their hard earned money to some man who thinks the purpose for women’s existence is as livestock, for riding or breeding.

  • maiac
    You shouldn’t be required either as an individual or an organization to buy insurance the covers things you believe are immoral. At a minimum, a conscience clause is necessary to protect the religious freedoms of individuals and organizations.
    This is a logic fail. Your opening statement is simply not true. People’s (or religions’) moral beliefs have nothing to do with (and should have nothing to do with) what insurance is/is not required to cover.
    All insurance companies must cover blood transfusions. Yet some people have moral and religious objections to blood transfusions. Are you seriously arguing that Jehovah’s Witnesses (either individuals or the church) are having their rights violated becuase they can’t get insurnace without some of their premiums also covering transfusions for others?
    No individual should be required to recieve any kind of medical treatment that they find objectionable. That much is true.
    But you can’t extend YOUR “religious freedom” to impair MY right to access medically appropriate care.
  • crowepps

    Ironically, the atheists are using the same argument, insisting that ANY government recognition of religion in any way whatsoever shouldn’t be funded with “their tax dollars”, and the various religions are insisting that logic infringes on the rights of the church to participate in public life.