-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
In a recent full-page paid advertisement in the Washington Post, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and dozens of leaders of Catholic organizations voiced their opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule which they describe as forcing private health providers to provide “preventive services.” The HHS plan mandates, without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible, the provision of FDA-approved contraception methods. The advertisement claims these drugs may cause abortions which, by their definition, includes any single-celled fertilized egg that doesn’t implant.
The ad claims that following the HHS rule would violate their religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
Upon closer examination, their claims are based on dubious assumptions. Consider the claim that the rule would “forc[e] almost all private health plans” to provide a particular coverage. The implication is that the government would force private insurers to provide this coverage, against their will. I am skeptical that the USCCB has surveyed insurance providers to support this claim. It is reasonable that insurance providers would see preventative measures as a cost-effective tool to reduce payouts. Many more insurance providers would provide contraception coverage were it not for pressure brought by these organizations. The HHS rule would give those insurance providers, who want to provide contraception coverage, the freedom to do so without fear of harassment or boycott.
An employer who provides workplace health insurance can, based on religious beliefs, coerce female employees to sign up with an insurance plan that does not cover contraception. An employee, who may not share the employer’s religious beliefs, is denied her right to contraception as found in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.
In a news release from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the state provides a compelling rationale for the rule:
Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women.
Health care providers have a professional responsibility to their patients that transcends personal convictions. The duties of a health care professional are based on the best available science and are not there to be molded to fit their personal preferences.
The HHS rule includes a waiver that allows certain nonprofit religious employers to opt-out of the preventative services requirement. Other nonprofit employers who, because of religious convictions, do not provide preventative services in their insurance plans will be given one year to comply with the new rule.
The war on contraception is, in fact, a war on a woman’s right to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse. Those who often decry governmental intrusion in our lives are the first to support governmental intrusion into our sexual choices.
H/T: Sarah Posner.
“Those who often decry governmental intrusion in our lives are the first to support governmental intrusion into our sexual choices.”
******************
Good work there, Nal. And insightful, too. Puritan ethic?
To say that this administration is on the side of contraceptive choice is absurd.
Six weeks ago Obama’s HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took the unprecedented step of overruling the FDA and banned over the counter access for the Plan B emergency contraceptive, further requiring women under 17 actually seek a prescription before having access to the drug.
The ONLY thing the USCCB cares about is increasing the cash donating ”Flock of SHEEP”
Puzzling, They did the right thing yesterday, and you are right that they caved on the 17 and under group on the Plan B emergency contraceptive. They are a considerable improvement over the prior administration in this area, and I assume Obama will again receive the endorsements of both Planned Parenthood and NARAL. The current crop of republicans want to send women back to pre – Margaret Sanger days.
At the Notre Dame commencement in 2009, when Obama said:
What did he mean?
Just wondering, if a woman gets contraceptives even thought her employer disapproves, will the employer know? How private is a womans’ perscription records from her employer?
“by their definition”
There it is.
It is said that “you can’t make anyone love you.”
The definition of “love” and “make” would render that true or false, in context.
We tried that in Iraq.
Making them do democracy would make them love us was the thesis.
That is why, in some parts of Bush Texas, the words for both “war” and “sex” is the one phrase “Big Whoopee” …
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/205033-gop-hopefuls-tout-abortion-stances-at-personhood-forum Republicans have ramped up the abortion discussion to the personhood discussion.
Keep em dumb, barefoot and pregnant. Cardinal George.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/us/more-protestants-oppose-birth-control.html
I hate to get hyperbolic here but seeing this just after waking up simply arouses anger in me. There are many pious phonies who in the name of God focus on sexual “sins”, to the exclusion of the really heinous “sins” that people do. They postulate a God, that having created us with sexual urges and the attendant pleasure they bring, then wants to punish us unless we perform in a rigidly controlled manner. It in effect makes God into a sadistic voyeur.
The Roman Catholic Church is an institution built not on God, but on power. It was established by Constantine to solidify his position as Emperor and as was the Roman way in general with religion, he incorporated the myth’s of many other religions into the teachings of Paul about Jesus. However, if you include the Gospels into your religious canon, you are faced with the fact that Jesus was a social reformer concentrating on religious hypocrisy, peacefulness and the degradation of the poor.
Rome, however, was a brutal warrior empire and those parts of Jesus teachings were inconvenient. The best way to deal with that from the Church/State perspective was to focus on sexuality. Being a patriarchal society the woman as temptress scenario was an easy sell. From these origins came 1,700 years (Dating from the Council of Nicaea) of refinement of sexual hypocrisy bringing us to our own time. That this sexual obsession is hypocrisy is illustrated by the ongoing pedophilia scandal. That it is misogynistic is too obvious to require explanation.
This is not an anti RCC screed, however, because the coming of Luther’s reforms still retained much of the misogyny, as the Protestant Movement split up into its various factions. Judaism should also not escape opprobrium because the Torah was written for a tribe of Mid-East nomads, which like its’
surrounding tribes was strictly patriarchal. Almost all of the Christian teachings on sex used the Torah as their basis. This patriarchal norm thus also infected Islam.
Government has no business making women into the subservient sex and causing them to bear the burden of the very normal exercise of sexual pleasure. I have always found the notion of a woman’s “virginity” and “purity”
to be nonsensical ideas of male’s fear of their own sexuality and their need to
control women, who in my opinion are the smarter, stronger sex. When these purveyors of heavenly dreams start contemplating just how a Creator of everything might want his creation to behave, possibly they may create some
real spiritual insight. Until then it’s the same old story, men screwing women figuratively as well as literally. Rant ended.
Mr. Drumm makes many glaring errors in this post. What he advocates here is tyranny, plain and simple. One thing that must be understood when you read this post is that government alone, not private organizations or businesses, has the ability to force people to do things they don’t want to do.
Notice how Mr. Drumm lauds the government law forcing insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage they may not want to provide. His reasoning? Why, all reasonable insurance companies want to provide contraceptive coverage. And to the one or two religious misfit insurance companies that don’t: sit down, shut up, provide contraceptive coverage, or be put out of business due to the heavy fines we will levy against you!
Then Mr. Drumm says that some insurance companies want to provide contraceptive coverage, but don’t do so because they fear they may lose the business of certain clients. Mr. Drumm laments the fact that insurance companies, like all other companies in the world, have to tailor their goods, services and business strategies in a way that gives their clients what they desire, while also maximizing profits. His solution to this “problem?” Pass a law requiring all insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage so that their clients have absolutely nobody that offers them the coverage profile that they desire. So when the religious organization calls up their insurance company and objects to their recently implemented coverage of contraceptives, the insurance company simply tells them, “Sorry Friend, but there is no where else for you to turn, we have all been forced by the government to provide this coverage you object to, so you’d might as well stay with us.” To Mr. Drumm, that’s not tyranny, but freedom for the insurance companies to provide the contraceptive coverage without fear of losing business.
Mr. Drumm says that organizations offering insurance plans which don’t have contraceptive coverage may coerce female employees to sign up with that plan, thereby denying her the right to contraception. Remember, only the government can force you to do something you don’t want to. This woman is not forced by her employer to join their health insurance plan. She can purchase her own private insurance plan if she wants to. She can still freely purchase contraceptives even if she chooses to join the organization’s plan or even if she has no insurance plan at all. I hear condoms work great, by the way. Mr. Drumm doesn’t want you to think about that though. He wants you to think this woman has lost all of her contraceptive rights unless the government forces, by rule of law, insurance companies to make business decisions which may violate their conscience or the conscience of their clients.
To some people, freedom is tyranny and tyranny is freedom. Which road is America headed down?
Some catholic churches pass out voter guides that favor republican candidates that support the bishops’ views on contraception and abortion.
Obama won the catholic vote 54 – 46. The majority of catholics don’t pay attention to the bishops.
nal,
Excellent choice…..messpo salient point to pick…..Which I think is the most apt ….
I would appreciate the arguments above more if the poster addressed the basic underlying legal question forthrightly: at what point is a baby entitled to the protection of law, and also on what basis is that protection granted.
I can understand positions based on pragmatism, since the law must bend to the will of the people. What I do not understand is the tone of the condemnation for people who think otherwise.
“What I do not understand is the tone of the condemnation for people who think otherwise.”
Martin,
I don’t condemn the people that believe that abortion is wrong. I condemn their attempts to enforce their religious beliefs on me. As to your first question as to when does a baby becomes a human being, my own religious belief is at the drawing of its first breath, but I would hardly impose that belief on others. Please don’t try the tired response to me that some believe abortion is murder and thus should be banned. The religion I was brought up in considers
eating pork a terrible abomination to be dealt with by stoning. If I believe that strongly, not having the death penalty for eating bacon, is an affront to my religious freedom.
Mike Spindell 1, January 21, 2012 at 11:05 am
I hate to get hyperbolic here but seeing this just after waking up simply arouses anger in me. There are many pious phonies who in the name of God focus on sexual “sins”, to the exclusion of the really heinous “sins” that people do.
=============================================
There is a book review in the Guardian that backs you up The First Sexual Revolutione.
Great article, Nal. It points to a fundamental flaw in most religions; they are at their heart divisive in application as organized religions even if the core tenets of the religion are meant to be inclusive. You are “us” or you are “them”. You are “saved” or “damned”. You are “special” or you are “not special” to God(s). These are all human defined distinctions. It’s hard to raise money or start a war if you don’t have a tangible enemy to scapegoat and attack.
Abortions happen all the time and without government or doctor assistance. They are not called abortions, they are called miscarriages and they occur with more frequency than those assisted by doctors. Would Newt prosecute my body for rejecting his precious “person”?
Most people pick insurance companies based on the services that they, the insured, want. Also price of the coverage, record of satisfying claims in a timely manner. Why refuse a company that provides a coverage that they don’t want anyway?
I’m pro-life. I’m for the lives of women who are too frequently oppressed by those who want to impose their own religious beliefs on them regardless of the cost to the women they are oppressing.
Nal,
I agree with much of your post. I still think Bill Clinton expressed it best, “safe, legal, and rare.”
When you write, The war on contraception is, in fact, a war on a woman’s right to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse. well that’s where I think you fail your reader and yourself.
I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest in that sentence.
Why did Bill Clinton and many others believe abortion should be kept rare?
There are many many completely reasonable people who want to discourage abortion because they believe that outside a court of law, in the court of science, backed up by scientific evidence, the evidence is that a fetal life is a human life that deserves respect.
So when you write that sentence, I know that Mike S will find it persuasive, and Swarthmore Mom will find it persuasive, and frankly many people who completely already totally agree with you will find it persuasive, and yet,
Poll after poll shows most Americans have very conflicted, but mostly negative views on abortion: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-61-percent-say-all-or-most-abortions-should-be-illegal
This is not just Republicans, it is not just Republican men, it is not just Catholic Republican white men, it is not just Catholic Republican white men who are rich and control all of society and have plenty of women at their knees at their beck and call and were beaten by their mother and so hate women hate women hate women must war on women.
It is Americans, including many many democrats, and women, and all sorts of people that nominally at other times, you would be the first person at this forum to defend as rational, adult, self-aware, sentient, able to learn and understand and make decisions human beings.
I’ll put this another way too. Many women hold this view as well.
But you piss all of that away when you claim, to score political signaling points with the choir, that this is a war to stop a women’s right to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse.
No.
This is a very difficult choice for a people to make who generally approve of abortion to save a women’s life and at other times, but who are worried that the human life being killed is human.
If you were to acknowledge that, your arguments would be persuasive to many more people, because you would sound a hell of a lot more sincere, and not just yet another dumbass political hack.
All of that said, I am glad to know according to what I read yesterday that Obama has signed a law saying that women’s contraceptive choices must be covered by insurance plans, even those issued by the Church.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-birth-control-20120121,0,7630938.story
If you want to advocate for pro-choice policies, and for better health care, and easier access to contraception, and better education, I’ll be alongside you every step of the way.
But the moment you tell me that otherwise, my own concerns about abortion are not because it’s a difficult issue but I think at some point in utero, fetuses become a human life that should not be taken easily, but because down deep I just hate women, well, Fuck off asshole, you ain’t worth spit. Go die in a fire.
So I just don’t understand why you would want to pose your argument that way. That specific sentence has not led to more pro-choice Americans, but to fewer. (less?)
LFA, What you have here is the “personhood” crowd (or more to the point: women as second-class citizens crowd) wanting it both ways. They have secured a prohibition on abortion coverage being provided with Federal money as well as prohibiting the sale of abortion specific coverage to the same women as self-paid riders. Now they want contraception as well. Greedy bastards.
Like it or not sex, pregnancy and the prohibition of pregnancy (as a choice) are all part of a women’s medical health and big religion has and is working overtime to enforce any decision over it as a matter of patriarchal fiat.
Your pissing and moaning about big government isn’t going to carry any water with a woman with a brain. The only problem with big government is that it is influenced by big religion. The personhood argument as advanced in the cited ad-buy fails the separation test as a blueprint for HHS- personhood as a gleam in daddy’s eye is faith, not science or medicine.
The Catholick church’s pathetic attempt to mask the Public’s awakening criticism & condemnation of this disgusting church’s methods, and its refusal to provide what the law calls for, demonstrates the wrongness of the church’s entire philosophy. They, the church, claim discrimination… I say, church, if you can’t follow the Laws of the countries where you operate, GTFOut! We don’t need you any more…. You’ve become, not only dis-connected to your parishioners,,, but with your hateful practices, and your continued cover-ups of past wrongs, you earn no respect, and you are a Plague on American society. GO The Fork back to Rome! You’re an unnatural drain on the human resource! Your attempts to reclaim your former ranking as Important, will not be successful. Go the way of the Do-do, and DIS-APPEAR!!!!!!!!!
Dredd,
As usual you come up with such good, informative, on point stuff. I read the article quickly, but have bookmarked it for further leisurely perusal. Thank you.
“There are many many completely reasonable people who want to discourage abortion because they believe that outside a court of law, in the court of science, backed up by scientific evidence, the evidence is that a fetal life is a human life that deserves respect.”
┌∩┐(◣,
Behind all of the belief and evidence is religion notions dictating peoples opinions, or refusal to really say what is on their minds. I reiterate that from my perspective it is all about relegating women to a lesser status and as such is a creation of male fear of women and the power of sexuality.
Middlefinger guy: “When you write, The war on contraception is, in fact, a war on a woman’s right to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse. well that’s where I think you fail your reader and yourself.”
—————-
Rick Santorum: “If you can take one part out, if it’s not for the purpose of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons you diminish this very special bond between men and women. So why can’t you take other parts of it out? It becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.”
Nal isn’t scoring political points, he’s telling it like it is. Re-read the Santorum quote, He’s a twisted guy and there are a whole passel of twisted guys out there. Some of them are running for office on the Republican ticket and some of them are taking out full page ads in major papers. They’re selfish bastards and they don’t respect women as persons. Their religion gives them some cover but what they are is pretty obvious for even a middle-aged woman that needs glasses like me.
“There are many many completely reasonable people who want to discourage abortion because … the evidence is that a fetal life is a human life that deserves respect.”
But a woman’s life is not a human life and so does not deserve respect…?????
“You’re not a person until you’re in my phone book.” – Bill Hicks
You all miss the main issue here which is the civil rights of businesses and organizations. I am surprised at the calls on this forum for government to dictate to insurance companies what services they must offer under the threat of penalty, especially when the service in question is possibly repugnant to the insurance company. Your views of abortion and contraception are totally irrelevant in this discussion. The matter in the article deals solely with whether or not the government is constitutionally permitted to make it illegal for companies to not provide a service that they or their customers find objectionable due to their religious views. I maintain that the government is not allowed to make such a law from a constitutional perspective. It is a violation of the most basic freedoms, such as religion and association. Be careful what you wish for. One day a Republican may be in power and seek the same type of law based on the same legal grounds. Except this time he will require by rule of law that all insurance companies must cease their coverage of all contraception, and must offer free psychological counselling services to women who don’t want children. But I understand that your emotions urge you to lord it over those religious organizations and rub their faces in it by directing their business decisions against their will while the fruit is ripe on the tree. Just know that if we don’t return to respecting the rule of constitutional law, the next around, the shoe might be on the other foot. Who knows, is Romney considering Rick Santorum for HHS director? If so, you had better hope he has more respect for the constitution than the Obama administration, or that pendulum might come swinging back in your direction with a vengeance.
@LK,
1) 60% of Americans dislike abortions (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx)
2) Rick Santorum is a complete and utter asshole
3) Rick Santorum dislikes abortion
THEREFORE
60% of Americans are complete and utter assholes.
QED
Fine logic LK, fine logic.
“But a woman’s life is not a human life and so does not deserve respect…?????”
No one has said that.
I had a dog, I didn’t like my dog, I shot my dog.
I was arrested for shooting my dog, so I told the judge,
Yes, I shot my dog, but a woman’s life is not a human life and so does not deserve respect? Why judge is everyone disrespecting me?
Again, if you or Nal, or Mike, or so many others would offer the respect and intellectual honesty to your oppoents that you legitimately demand for yourself, your arguments would be much more on target and persuasive.
I understand that everytime you sling mud it gives you a little thrill with a zingy little “Take That!” moment. But the mud you throw is loose and watery and, it is pretty trivial to just side step it, and then once again, we have *this thread again*, yet another non-productive abortion debate on the Internet.
Why would you bother with such ineffective and trivially refuted arguments?
I can only think your goal is not persuasion or discussion but simply to generate noise.
That noise is what causes most Americans to distrust you and answer polls that they think abortions should be limited.
“Republicans have ramped up the abortion discussion to the personhood discussion.” (SwM)
… they have to make it sound like a new issue …abortion is denial of personhood. It’ll work on a great many of their less-than-in-touch followers who haven’t been paying attention to the great apes discussions going on around the world. The rest of the world will be laughing at them, as usual.
I agree with LibertyForAll’s comments set forth above regarding the tyrannical nature of the government’s mandate that everyone providing health insurance must be forced to pay for something that they regard as sinful. I would like to focus further on Drumm’s statement, “The war on contraception is, in fact, a war on a woman’s right to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse.”
Mr. Drumm, the church’s traditional position against contraception is not a recent misogynist innovation. It goes back to Christianity’s early history. It was based primarily on a condemnation of nonprocreative sexual intercourse by men & women alike, not on women alone. Nonprocreative sexual intercourse has traditionally been viewed as a sin, not as a right. For a history of the church’s teaching on contraception, please see generally John T. Noonan, Jr., “Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists” (Enlarged edition 1986). See, e.g., p. 257 of this book:
“In this European society, in this theology dominated by Augustine, reason itself appeared to condemn contraception. The contraceptive act destroyed potential life. It frustrated the inseminating function of coitus. It violated the principal purpose of marriage and the principal, if not the only, purpose of marital intercourse. . . .”
@Libertyforall. I’ll never understand why the folks who are most interested in “Liberty” seem so dedicated to take away MY liberty. Here’s the deal…. I won’t force you to take the pill. You don’t force me to dump the pill. And you can wear as many condoms as you want. There you go….Liberty for all.
Organized religion has always been about controlling lives … money, sex, food, dress, entertainment, education … they have rules about everything and woe to anyone, member or not, who breaks any of those rules.
It’s okay for an organized religion to tell women they can’t have an abortion or engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse, but it is not okay for government to allow women the freedom to make their own choice.
The issue isn’t really abortion or education or money or dress or food … the issue is control. Organized religion determining one’s freedoms or the individual’s freedom to self-determination.
Organized religionGovernment has always been about controlling lives … money, sex, food, dress, entertainment, education … they have rules about everything and woe to anyone, member or not, who breaks any of those rules…The issue isn’t really abortion or education or money or dress or food … the issue is control.
Organized religionGovernment determining one’s freedoms or the individual’s freedom to self-determination.How did this discussion morph into an abortion issue. This latest decision that David is discussing is about contraception. If the insurance companies can refuse contraception, shouldn’t they be refusing to issue Viagara to men? I just wonder what Newt would have done during his two affairs without contraception? This is a religion’s attempt to push their beliefs onto all Americans and giving the insurance companies another excuse to discriminate against women’s health issues.
From the advertisement:
“The HHS mandate puts many faith-based organizations and individuals in an untenable position. But it also harms society as a whole by undermining a long American tradition of respect for religious liberty and freedom of conscience.”
The Catholic Church and many of its bishops harmed our society when they allowed pedophile priests to sexually abuse innocent children for decades. The church hid those crimes from society for many years. Where was the collective conscience of the Catholic Church leaders then?
puzzling,
Nice spin … but spin, never-the-less. The trick to not getting dizzy is keeping one’s eye on a fixed point …
This is why separation of church and state is so vital to our continued freedoms.
Gee whiz, where to start.
Let’s put politics and releigion aside. They’re just human constructs and are motivatied only by power needs, not humantarian ones.
Take nature: Let start with a counter assertion to an expected critticism: “do you want to be like the apes”; to which I reply; preferably that than where we have come now.
Examples.
Here is a stat for a point made earlier above. Twenty-five percent of all attached fertilized eggs (= persons?) are spontaneously aborted by the body during the first trimester. Does anybody fault God for that? Or nature for that matter?
We are servants of our genes, as Dawkins pointed out. A woman spreads her risk by mating with as many gene carrriers as possible, to improve her chance of passing on her genes. Does she make that choice? No, her genes do. And makes it pleasurable as a necessary inducement.
But men desire exclusivity, again for their genes sake—-and through chattelizing women to the level of a possession, they kept that right, well into the 20th century.
If we were to admit the sense of nature’s genetic requirements, then our culture would be far more productive and harmonious. I hope this point of view encourages speculation on how it could be formed.
raff,
My daughters’ insurance companies (they each have a different provider ) have never covered birth control. Organized religion has “controlled” this issues for decades.
That the government should cease allowing that control to continue is the issue.
You saw the spin puzzling used … it was a great example of the spin organized religion has encouraged its followers to employ.
Government is trying to control your life and you all know its best if we, your chosen religion, controls everybody’s life.
The Right’s real religion is to keep women under male control.
“If we were to admit the sense of nature’s genetic requirements, then our culture would be far more productive and harmonious. I hope this point of view encourages speculation on how it could be formed.” (idealist707)
Simple yet so very complicated … the sticky part lies within the first few words “If we were to admit the sense of nature’s genetic requirements …” For many, denying that sense is part and parcel of holiness.
This is supposed to be a nation of laws. If the government can dictate to businesses which services it must or must not provide to customers, then we are all subject to the whims of the tyrant in power at any given time. The fruit is currently ripe on the tree for nal and those like him who support contraception. But when another tyrant attempts to enforce the opposite political position based on his/her perceived authority to dictate the business practices of insurance companies, then these same people will suddenly be singing a different tune. You had better hope that Santorum isn’t made HHS secretary. He might dictate to insurance Providers that they must cease all coverage of contraception. If it were to happen, you can blame yourselves for supporting the legal grounds he stands on. This article is so blatantly anti-constitutional, anti-liberty, and pro-tyranny I am surprised Jonathan even posted it. The law is there to protect us from tyrannical whims of politicians. Respect it or you will be the next one to get burned. The freedom to associate, conduct business, and abide within our own personal religious views is at the very heart of the first amendment.
One more bit of mockery to those less, uhmm, endowed.
“Poor, poor insurance companies. Forced to….. whatever!:
It isn’t enough that we have to pay taxes, provide fire-safe hygenic working conditions which are forced on us, we’re even forced to pay minimum wages—-even to illegal immigrants who are willing to work for half that, not to speak of their kids who do our internal post system for nothing, …….
Sniff, sniff. Waaahhhh! Woe is me and my bonus.”
You enjoy the benefits and you pay the price. How equally is another question.
“The freedom to associate, conduct business, and abide within our own personal religious views is at the very heart of the first amendment.”
So is the right to be free from your personal religious views. The 1st Amendment guarantees both Free Exercise and freedom from Establishment. The answer here is simple. If you don’t like contraception, don’t use it. If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one. No one is forcing you to do either. However, your beliefs don’t entitle you to use the force of law to keep others who don’t share in your beliefs to adopt your practices.
Blousie says her daughter’s insurance company has never covered birth control. Well, my insurance doesn’t even cover fillings for my teeth. Is she claiming that no insurance companies cover Bc? If not, what is her point? Get insurance that covers it if you want it covered. Or simply go buy a box of condoms and some foam. But no, some people would rather see the government force someone to do something that is against their beliefs so that they themselves can get something a little easier at a little cheaper price.
Gene, please explain how people are not free from personal religious views in America.
If the Obama administration actually believed in contraceptive access, not only would they have let the approval for Plan B move forward, but they would be directing the FDA to give oral contraceptives to over-the-counter status, where they rightly belong.
Middlefingerguy, Your posted reply to me has nothing to do with what I wrote. I challenged your statement
(To Nal) “When you write, The war on contraception is, in fact, a war on a woman’s right to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse. well that’s where I think you fail your reader and yourself.”
and used Santorum’s disdain for the possibility of sex for the sake of pleasure alone- non-reproductive based sex. I also stated that there were a number of twisted men just like himself running for office on the Republican platform. I didn’t say anything about abortion or use logic that implied 60% of the citizenry “were complete and utter assholes”.
So what’s the beef, are you a Santorum fan, a ‘no abortion no matter what’ adherent (22% of the population is) or what? Either all the guys running on the R ticket are pandering liars or they’re honestly and heavily into religion based control of women’s sexuality which ultimately devolves to ‘no sex for fun only’. Santorum just puts it into (in artful) words. Looks to me like they’re all of the same cloth.
Blouise,
Yes, thank you for that. Where you stand I don’t know.
But that is part of many religions, but not all. Where does this idea originate? That striving against ones carnate needs, etc is reaching for a greater thing—-never defined except in mystical terms. Curiosly, forseeing the future, bending nature to our will, etc are all survival arts, and natural. But the urge to unite with God (what is that but a self-induced intoxication) through plaguing the body in a desert, on top of a pillar, etc. to me is bizarre. Today, the single man or the one without sons is a matter of ridicule in semitic tribes. Surely it must be pre-Platonic. Not well informed there. Even the young half-berber who became St Augustine prayed: “Make me chaste O God, but not now, not now.” Which would have forced him to leave his mistress of ten years.
Islam, which says that God created everything, and thus nothing in itself is evil, still wanders from the Prophet’s words that women are equal before Alllah, and thus certainly co-equal with men. Square that circle with today’s islamic culture. Their feer of idolization as proscribed by Moses, prevent all expression of praise of Allah through ornamenting Allah’s place of worship with literal praises through natural images. In reality there is one prominent one but not known to many.
More of your points, please. And pardon the wordiness here.
.
Lottakatz,
“‘no sex for fun only”
One might surmise that any woman who is having intimate relations with Santorum ain’t having any fun…at all. In regard to Newt: I’d say his former mistress/present wife had to be titillated by bling from Tiffany’s.
“But no, some people would rather see the government force someone to do something that is against their beliefs so that they themselves can get something a little easier at a little cheaper price.” (LibertyForAll)
Of course you missed the point because it interferes with your spin.
See Mike’s column today and then read the book.
The phrase:
was not intended to be “particularly useful or persuasive.”
It was intended to be accurate, concise, and provocative.
As to accuracy: a woman who is trying to conceive needs no contraception, a woman not engaged in sexual intercourse needs no contraception, therefore, only a woman engaged in sexual intercourse and doesn’t want to get pregnant needs contraception.
When you scrape off the flimsy veneer of religious arguments against contraception, this is the logical conclusion.
“Gene, please explain how people are not free from personal religious views in America.”
The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment guarantees that a person can have their choice in religious beliefs. This includes the choice not to have any. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from endorsing religious beliefs via laws absent a secular purpose, such a law must neither advance nor inhibit any particular religion and such a law must avoid “excessive entanglement” with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Trying to use the mechanisms of law to force your religious beliefs about contraception on others fails the Lemon test. There is no secular purpose in denying others the choice to use contraception or have abortions, trying to do so advances your religious choices and inhibits the religious choices of others and such a law would create excessive entanglement. Allowing others to have access and the freedom to make their own choices in health care based upon their own religious preferences or lack thereof does not prevent you from exercising your choices. Again, if you don’t like contraception, don’t use it, and if you don’t like abortions, don’t get one. No one is forcing their religious choices upon you. You, however, would seek to enforce your religious choices upon others by force of law by denying their rights to choose and access to health care options – health care options that when provided by government are required to be applied equally to all citizens no matter their 1st Amendment protected religious choices.
That’s unconstitutional.
It violates both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Middle finger guy, no one is FOR abortion. Pro life or anti choice, I doubt you will find anyone who says “Oh yes, I like abortion.”
(1) 60% of Americans dislike abortions (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx)
I dislike abortion. Had the situation come up for me I would not have had one, unless medically necessary or rape/incest, but It is not my place to decide for someone else. So ask me, do you like abortion or dislike abortion? I dislike it.
Interesting – gallup reports “Majorities of adults under 55 call themselves “pro-choice,” while about half of those 55 and older are “pro-life.” In other words those who more probably will not have to face the situation anymore, due to age, are in the higher percentile of against.
BTW, you are wrong in saying most against,
Legal under any circumstance 27%
legal under certain (no specification what conditions) 50%
therefore 77% believe abortion should be legal.
illegal in all 22%
If you want to put it in negative light like your cnn click then yes 72% against but that makes less sense since the majority of that number says should be legal even if they would like parameters placed on it..
Most do not agree with you. period.
“It goes back to Christianity’s early history. It was based primarily on a condemnation of nonprocreative sexual intercourse by men & women alike, not on women alone.”
Ross S. Heckmann,
I fully understand that but since men do not get impregnated, but impregnate,
the full burden falls on women. The Church also considers women to be temptresses of males. The entire teachings were misogynistic from the outset,
as was Augustine who hated women, but had to battle his sexual nature when it took hold on him. This seriously demented man thus took the only course open to hypocrites which was to say the woman (Devil) made him do it. That the teaching was misogynistic from the outset was I thought obvious I what I wrote. If it wasn’t let me be clear, it has been misogynistic and therefore blasphemy
incorporated into its religious belief from its outset. If God did’t love women, he wouldn’t have made them the better sex.
“But it also harms society as a whole by undermining a long American tradition of respect for religious liberty and freedom of conscience.”
This is nonsense and hypocrisy. The RCC through its various blacklists of books, movies and TV didn’t allow me freedom of conscience to see, read and watch what I pleased. The whole point of freedom of conscience is to allow people to make their own decisions on matters some would call “sin”. By taking away people’s rights to enjoy their freedom of conscience, the RCC has abrogated to themselves the very role they’ve given to God in their canon and that is judgment of the worthiness of each human based on how they deal with the temptations of sin. Would you expect any better from an institution that would sell indulgences for murder, which were in effect “Get out of Hell Free Cards”?
In our evolution and genetics class, when informed that certain female birds can expel unwanted semen from their cloacal organs. The young girls exchanged approving glances.
Does anyone believe that most intercourse happens due to pro-creative reasons?
If so, then what do these males have to protect? Only during certain short periods can women conceive, and thus will not be impelled otherwise. Right?
Certainly to the extent that past Christian history & theology has been tainted by misogyny, it should be deplored and rooted out, but even if & when this has been fully accomplished, this would still leave a non-discriminatory prohibition of contraception as part of traditional Christian morality. One would then have to squarely address the merits of this position, and the need for literally coercing people to pay for that which they regard as sinful & immoral.
mike – you say “but I would hardly impose that belief on others”
Laws do impose.
It would be nice to find some way to graph all the comments or views, so that one could get an idea of the structure of the various arguments or thoughts, such as they are. Or someone could do it manually, but probably little new is being said.
In general it would be a useful technique, if one could find it.
@Rafflaw: “The Right’s real religion is to keep women under male control.”
You said it much better than I did. Only the potential life of a fetus is considered worthy of being respected and protected, to the disregard of the life of a woman already actually alive.
idealist707,
(Blouise,
Yes, thank you for that. Where you stand I don’t know.)
Yes, well, there are things that remain hidden.
I’m going to stick with Christianity in attempting to answer your post. Not because I am Christian (that Resurrection thing, which is a necessary ingredient, is delusional) but because Christianity is the religion I have studied in depth and am most comfortable with when discussing or arguing.
Yes, ” forseeing the future, bending nature to our will, etc are all survival arts, and natural.” … born out fear. Religion modifies fear and for many that is enough.
I am part of a herd. At anytime the wind, rain, lightening, sun, falling trees, meteorites, disease etc can get me or the guy standing next to me. Plus, many of my fellow herd-members are sociopaths who, upon seeing my little piece of grazing grass plot can decide to take it from me by force or trickery. Yep, the world remains as it has always been, a scary place. Religion gives one a false sense of safety. Many will passionately defend their religion in order to maintain that sense of safety.
As to God … well, it certainly helps in allaying the herds’ fears. But more importantly … the God Concept helps raise the position of sociopaths to “leader” thus ensuring many plots of grass upon which to graze to those who has been blessed by this anointment and don’t want to actually do any real work in finding and defending a patch of their own.
But what about the charismatic teacher, Jesus? He didn’t start a church or a religion … far from it … for he was only trying to help his fellow Jews through a difficult time. Help them to focus on the “One God … the I AM” and deal with their crocked religious/political leaders and the Roman occupiers who carried their many Gods with them wherever they went.
Yet, there was something in him, the same something that has been seen in teachers before his time and since. He got a glimpse of something. But make no mistake, whatever it was, the herd killed him anyway.
So instead, you’d rather live under the Dominance of the Damn Catholic church, right? Well here’s what I say……. F-U-C-K you Catholic church, with every fibre of my soul…………
I am having trouble seeing why we can’t let these people opt out of anything they choose to….
Hey, maybe we can get them to opt out of RAPING little boys too! What do you think?
Mike,
I think I agree with you….So often others are concerned with the Others Sins….Not their own….
many of you including the author miss the whole point. What HHS and the government did on this past friday is not about contraception or abortion. it is no about religious freedom. it is about government turning a blind eye to your rights as found in the constitution. if this administration or the next can force religious institutions to do something or pay for something totally against what they believe, that same government can force you to do anything they like. What is your hot bottom item? what do you go to the polls for? Think about the government forcing you to do something against your will. That is what the argument is about. Yes it is an attack on religious freedom. But the bigger picture is much worst – you and I are next.
bill,
Spin
It would be helpful if, instead of just saying “spin,” you could explain why you believe it to be spin. The heart of what Bill and I have said is that it is a matter of legal fact that this is the U.S. government requiring businesses and organizations owned and operated by private citizens, to offer products and services which may be repugnant to them and/or their clients based upon their religious convictions. If we are unable to agree on that point then the debate can proceed to no good end because we are arguing two separate and distinct points.
One comment mentioned that birth control pills ought to be over-the-counter. I’m 100% pro-choice, but you need some, maybe minimal, medical oversight. There is a danger of bloodclots and they need to stop smoking if on the pill.
Hum bug! hum bug! just bunch of rants and litany of musings to justify one’s ego to explain the “origin of life”, the “age of the universe” etc when NO ONE ALIVE, including “Scientists, Nobel Prize winners, and other people with self-bestowed title of glorifications” can prove such points with 100% assurance. All the written textbooks simply stated the “Possibility / probability” of such proposed events, which mathematically is so small that the possibility approaches to nil. It wasn’t that long ago that “Scientists” had to “change” their model of dinosaurs into animals with feathers instead of bald skin as previously portrayed in many children books. These are the same people who like to promote “control” of one’s body to suit one’s needs at the expense of another human being’s life. Miscarriage is an unfortunate spontaneous loss of human life, while abortion is a DELIBERATE effort to terminate a human life regardless of how that life came into being to begin with. It is simply too bad that these “pro-life for women but NOT for fetuses” did not have mothers with such laudable attitude! Every one is the responsible architect of his or her own lot in life and in a free society no one should be forced to commit an act that is contrary to his or her own belief. The military and other secular institutions are the exception to the rule since there is no real freedom to do whatever you want in such institutions; otherwise, there would be chaos everywhere. Considering that NO ONE could create a single living cell from scratch, it’s nothing short of arrogance to take the liberty of destroying any life, especially a human life, at will.
Obama has betrayed his Catholic voters and they will never vote for him again.
From the article:
“Upon closer examination, their claims are based on dubious assumptions. Consider the claim that the rule would “forc[e] almost all private health plans” to provide a particular coverage.”
“The HHS rule includes a waiver that allows certain nonprofit religious employers to opt-out of the preventative services requirement.”
So, basically you are saying that it doesn’t force a particular coverage and then you are saying that it does. Huh? Are you just arguing the semantics?
“I am skeptical that the USCCB has surveyed insurance providers to support this claim. ”
“Many more insurance providers would provide contraception coverage were it not for pressure brought by these organizations. ”
So, have you surveyed insurance providers to support your claim? If not, why make the same mistake you accuse the other side of?
“The war on contraception is, in fact, a war on a woman’s right to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse. Those who often decry governmental intrusion in our lives are the first to support governmental intrusion into our sexual choices.”
So, absence of the rule is going to outlaw all contraception? Since the rule isn’t in force now, that would mean that all contraception is illegal now, right? This is where you start sounding like a nut. You sound like the gun nuts that think Obama is going to outlaw guns if we start enforcing background checks at gun shows. Really, you do.
There are only 2 things at play here:
1) Insurance has to cover contraception.
2) It has to be free.
That’s it. The rest of the stuff you all are talking about is paranoid fantasy fueled by an apparent rabid hatred of all religion or Catholicism in particular.
Now from a natural law side, I think it’s a little ridiculous. Pregnancy is a know side effect of sexual intercourse. So basically you are saying you have a “right” to no cost contraception because you have a “right” to nonprocreative sexual intercourse. So, if you have a right to free contraception, do you also have a right to free fire-proof gloves so you can stick your hand in a fire without getting burned? Do you have a right to free parachutes so you can go jump off a cliff without killing yourself? Do you have the right to make everyone else buy parachutes because you like to base jump?
Not making something free that is already legally available for a low cost (i.e. condoms, birth control pills) isn’t depriving anyone of their rights. That is crazy talk.
Why should my insurance rates go up because you want more coverage than I want? Who is pushing whose views on whom?
@Mike Spindell
“The RCC through its various blacklists of books, movies and TV didn’t allow me freedom of conscience to see, read and watch what I pleased.”
“By taking away people’s rights to enjoy their freedom of conscience…”
I don’t know where you live but where I live the RCC’s opposition to particular movies, books, or TV shows doesn’t cause them to leave the theaters, Amazon, or the television networks. Last time I checked the majority religion in the USA wasn’t RCC… Where do you live that the RCC has such power?
@Gene H.
“The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment guarantees that a person can have their choice in religious beliefs. This includes the choice not to have any. ”
So are you saying atheism is a religion? The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals would agree with you (http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/) but I think many atheists would not…
“There is no secular purpose in denying others the choice to use contraception or have abortions, trying to do so advances your religious choices and inhibits the religious choices of others and such a law would create excessive entanglement.”
Absence of the rule in question does not deny anyone access to contraception, it just doesn’t change the status quo to make it free of cost. So, this appears to be a nonsequitor. Nothing here makes contraception illegal.
This is an interesting area to play devil’s advocate though. For example, if we look at the 10 commandments (some of which are illegal) is there a secular purpose in those being illegal (murder, theft, perjury, etc)?
“Allowing others to have access and the freedom to make their own choices in health care based upon their own religious preferences or lack thereof does not prevent you from exercising your choices.”
Except that all of those free contraceptives have to be paid for somehow, so most likely everyone’s rates will go up to cover the cost. You can be sure that neither the govt nor the insurance companies are going to absorb that cost. My wife is menopausal and couldn’t get pregnant if she wanted to. So why do I have to pay more for contraceptive coverage or subsidize contraceptive coverage for others? Why don’t I have the right to not buy it if I don’t need it?
RRJP,
I grew up in 1950′s when the RCC had that power and used it. They’d like to have it back.
RRJP,
“So are you saying atheism is a religion?”
Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity, so as a matter of linguistics atheism is in some sense not a traditional religion, but it is a choice about traditional religion. Religion is defined not just as the service and worship of God or the supernatural, but as a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. In that respect, atheism (or any philosophy) is treated as a religion for the purposes of Constitutional analysis. The Free Exercise Clause protects that choice.
As an aside, the World Nut Daily isn’t a reputable source of information about anything either. They are nothing but spin. In the case of the article you cited, anti-atheist spin.
“Absence of the rule in question does not deny anyone access to contraception, it just doesn’t change the status quo to make it free of cost. So, this appears to be a nonsequitor. Nothing here makes contraception illegal.”
If people cannot afford it any other way, it is as effective a denial as making it illegal.
“is there a secular purpose in those being illegal (murder, theft, perjury, etc)?”
Yes. Preservation of order, the protection of property/human/civil rights and the Constitutionally defined goal of government to pursue justice are just a couple of the secular purposes behind those laws prohibiting those actions. A society that didn’t punish murder would be awash in the blood of revenge killings. A society that didn’t punish theft would be a society in which property rights meant nothing. A society that allowed perjury to go unpunished would be a society not interested having courts that are objective triers of fact or in establishing justice.
“Except that all of those free contraceptives have to be paid for somehow, so most likely everyone’s rates will go up to cover the cost.”
I think you don’t understand how risk pooling works, but I’ll leave that gap in your education for you to fill yourself. I will say this though: it’s cheaper to pay for preventative health care like contraceptives than it is to pay for pre- and post-natal care for unwanted pregnancies. Pennies now versus many dollars later. You might want to keep that in mind when you are educating yourself about the fundamental concepts of insurance and risk pooling.
Whether it amounts to women’s right to unprotected sex without consequences or it amounts to government’s right to impose male-dominated breeder rights through health care rules, the issue in practice has little to do with religious freedom except to be used as coercion. Religion used for coercion in either camp is unacceptable if religious freedom is the Constitutional basis.
Religious freedom used as sword or as shield for either purpose has nothing to do with religion, or with freedom. Using religion as a weapon is what is inhumane and wrong.
@Gene H
“As an aside, the World Nut Daily isn’t a reputable source of information about anything either. They are nothing but spin. In the case of the article you cited, anti-atheist spin. ”
It was the first thing in the Google search results when I was looking to see if the courts had ruled that atheism is a religion. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Legal_status_of_atheism
“If people cannot afford it any other way, it is as effective a denial as making it illegal.”
SCOTUS has already ruled in other cases that making something hard to obtain isn’t the same as making it illegal. That isn’t even the case here. There are people in the US who can’t afford 50 cents for a condom? Most local health departments give out free condoms and many forms of birth control are covered under Medicaid. I don’t see where an argument can be made for the lack of affordable access under the existing system.
“The Establishment Clause prevents the government from endorsing religious beliefs via laws absent a secular purpose, such a law must neither advance nor inhibit any particular religion and such a law must avoid “excessive entanglement” with religion.”
Let’s break it down to make sure I understand what you are saying. There are 3 criteria:
1) A law must not endorse religious beliefs absent a secular purpose.
2) A law must neither advance nor inhibit any particular religion.
3) A law must avoid “excessive entanglement” with religion.
and the relationship between them is “1 AND 2 AND 3” (i.e. all 3 must be true to pass the test).
Practitioners of several religions seem to feel that this HHS rule will inhibit the practice of their religion, so #2 seems problematic. In addition, if we are considering atheism a religion, does the rule promote atheism?
For #3, I’m not sure what that means practically, but again, if religious leaders feel this will inhibit their religion, there would seem to be some entanglement.
I get the whole risk sharing thing, but I also get business 101 which is, “if it costs the company more it will cost the customer more”.
Mandatory health insurance should be concerned with pathology and bodily malfunction. Pregnancy due to sexual intercourse is the normal bodily function. There is a certain irony that many in our society consider both infertility and pregnancy pathological conditions.
RRJP,
Now you know about WND. The source of information is often as critical as the information itself.
“Practitioners of several religions seem to feel that this HHS rule will inhibit the practice of their religion, so #2 seems problematic.”
Thus illustrating the meaning and the meeting the 3rd prong of the Lemon test. More on that in a bit.
“In addition, if we are considering atheism a religion, does the rule promote atheism?”
No. Secular purpose is not the equivalent of atheism. More people than just atheists think that life doesn’t begin at conception. Some Christians think that too. Being religious or philosophical doesn’t automatically equate to ignoring science. Science tells us that life doesn’t begin until a foetus can survive outside the womb. That is the same standard used in Roe v. Wade. The law and science are in agreement on the issue. The contention that life begins at fertilization is a religious point of view, but it is not the scientific reality.
“For #3, I’m not sure what that means practically, but again, if religious leaders feel this will inhibit their religion, there would seem to be some entanglement.”
Part of the test is advancement or prohibition. The argument that providing contraception is a prohibition of your religion is merely the flip side of the argument that denying contraception is the advancement of your religious standards and a prohibition of others religious standards.
You mentioned that “[p]ractitioners of several religions” take issue with providing contraceptive coverage. Strangely enough, “[p]ractitioners of several religions” also take issue with not providing contraceptive coverage. Herein lies the excessive entanglement.
The simple solution is to offer the services to all and leave the various religious practitioners to avail themselves of the service or not as dictated by their individual conscience and thus avoid any entanglement with any religious practice – no one’s beliefs are advanced and no one’s are prohibited that way.
All three prongs of the Lemon test are met here.
If you don’t want to use contraceptives? Don’t use them. No one is forcing you to use contraceptives.
Since you understand the cost/benefit analysis as it relates to risk pools? Any further resistance to the idea of providing contraception as an option equally must have a religious basis. There is simply no legal, scientific or economic argument that passes scrutiny.
“Mandatory health insurance should be concerned with pathology and bodily malfunction.”
That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but health care is concerned with all aspects of health – preventative, curative and palliative as well as the psychological.
“Pregnancy due to sexual intercourse is the normal bodily function. There is a certain irony that many in our society consider both infertility and pregnancy pathological conditions.”
Getting an infection in response to a virus or bacterial incursion is also a normal bodily function. Some Christian Scientists don’t believe in taking antibiotics (or antivirals), but just because insurance pays for them doesn’t mean they have to take them. Pathological response and treatment is only a part of the total health care picture.
“It would be helpful if, instead of just saying “spin,” you could explain why you believe it to be spin.” (LibertyForAll)
I believe it to be spin because it is spin. Simply read your own words wherein you quote something I actually wrote then rework it starting with the words “Is Blouise saying …” with words I never wrote and then you answer as if I had written them. That is spin bucko … and not to be taken seriously.
@ Gene H
“Science tells us that life doesn’t begin until a foetus can survive outside the womb. That is the same standard used in Roe v. Wade. The law and science are in agreement on the issue.”
With regards to 14th amendment rights perhaps, but then we also have things like 18 USC 1841. For the science, you are completely wrong. At conception, we have an organism with a different DNA sequence than either the mother or father. The DNA at conception is the same DNA at birth. That is a separate organism as defined by science.
“You mentioned that “[p]ractitioners of several religions” take issue with providing contraceptive coverage. Strangely enough, “[p]ractitioners of several religions” also take issue with not providing contraceptive coverage. Herein lies the excessive entanglement.”
Ok… Not sure what religions those would be, but ok…
“The simple solution is to offer the services to all and leave the various religious practitioners to avail themselves of the service or not as dictated by their individual conscience and thus avoid any entanglement with any religious practice – no one’s beliefs are advanced and no one’s are prohibited that way.”
The simpler even less problematic solution is to let each religious organization decide for themselves which insurance product to buy so that they are not forced to buy a product that conflicts with their beliefs. It would be one thing for the government to “offer the services to all” itself (like they do for Medicaid and local health departments), but it is quite another to force religious organizations to buy something that violates their beliefs. Forcing religious organizations to buy these policies does not avoid entanglement. It may avoid objections from the religions that, “take issue with not providing contraceptive coverage”, but it forces the view of those religions onto other religions, thus promoting those religions. The only real way to avoid entanglement is to make no law mandating this coverage and let each religion decide for themselves.
“If you don’t want to use contraceptives? Don’t use them. No one is forcing you to use contraceptives. ”
No one is forcing you to take employment with a religious organization!
“That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but health care is concerned with all aspects of health – preventative, curative and palliative as well as the psychological.”
The word, “preventative”, when used in relation to medicine is usually meant as, “preventative to a pathology”. In what medical or psychological text book do you find pregnancy listed as a pathology? What we are talking about is an elective medical therapy for those desiring to block a totally normal and healthy physical condition. More specifically we’re just talking about forcing organizations to buy coverage for such therapies, right? There are many elective procedures / therapies that are not covered by employer sponsored health plans.
“Getting an infection in response to a virus or bacterial incursion is also a normal bodily function. Some Christian Scientists don’t believe in taking antibiotics (or antivirals), but just because insurance pays for them doesn’t mean they have to take them. Pathological response and treatment is only a part of the total health care picture.”
No, an infection is a pathology. The body’s response to infection (eg. creation of antibodies) is a normal bodily function. Treating the infection is treating a pathology.
If the Christian Scientist church does not want to pay for health insurance that covers antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals, why should we make them do that? If the government wants to offer that coverage itself, I’m all for it.
I suppose next we’re going to require all public, religious, private, and home schools to subscribe to Hustler as part of a literacy, medical science (anatomy) and sex education program. It has an educational secular purpose and doesn’t promote any particular religion!
Missing in the discussion is the fact that these pills are also used for medical reasons having nothing to do with whether a woman should be having sex for non procreative means or using a foam and condom (and this does not always work, no copntraception is 100%). It is the removal of a medical treatment. As already noted, antibiotics are a medical treatment. What if the church is against them (you know – the killing of a germ is the taking of a form of life)? Giving in to the church on a secular issue is letting the church cross the line.
“‘Science tells us that life doesn’t begin until a foetus can survive outside the womb. That is the same standard used in Roe v. Wade. The law and science are in agreement on the issue.’
With regards to 14th amendment rights perhaps, but then we also have things like 18 USC 1841. For the science, you are completely wrong. At conception, we have an organism with a different DNA sequence than either the mother or father. The DNA at conception is the same DNA at birth. That is a separate organism as defined by science.”
Specious reasoning. Just because it is an organism? Doesn’t mean it is a viable organism. Just because you think I’m wrong on the science doesn’t mean that I am wrong. Viability has always been the threshold for human life. That Roe used viability as defined by the current level of science? Is indisputable. Until someone invents a synthetic womb? Life will never begin at conception. Such an invention in reality would only bolster the case for providing contraception.
“‘The simple solution is to offer the services to all and leave the various religious practitioners to avail themselves of the service or not as dictated by their individual conscience and thus avoid any entanglement with any religious practice – no one’s beliefs are advanced and no one’s are prohibited that way.’
The simpler even less problematic solution is to let each religious organization decide for themselves which insurance product to buy so that they are not forced to buy a product that conflicts with their beliefs. It would be one thing for the government to “offer the services to all” itself (like they do for Medicaid and local health departments), but it is quite another to force religious organizations to buy something that violates their beliefs. Forcing religious organizations to buy these policies does not avoid entanglement. It may avoid objections from the religions that, “take issue with not providing contraceptive coverage”, but it forces the view of those religions onto other religions, thus promoting those religions. The only real way to avoid entanglement is to make no law mandating this coverage and let each religion decide for themselves.”
You stipulated the excessive entanglement issue, but then argue on a market based proposition. This does not eliminate the excessive entanglement issue. It exacerbates it.
“‘If you don’t want to use contraceptives? Don’t use them. No one is forcing you to use contraceptives. ”
No one is forcing you to take employment with a religious organization!”
Specious reasoning. Only under very limited circumstance are religious organizations allowed to discriminate based upon religion in their hiring practices and if every religious organization was allowed to discriminate based on religion for every position they must fill, their ability to operate as an organization would grind to a halt in many areas of the country as they would simply not be able to fill the positions needed with qualified personnel from such a limited pool of applicants. Not only does allowing wide-spread discriminatory hiring practices violate the 14th Amendment, it has a vast potential to harm such organizations in areas where their religious preference is in the minority (and even in places where it isn’t).
“‘That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but health care is concerned with all aspects of health – preventative, curative and palliative as well as the psychological.”’
The word, “preventative”, when used in relation to medicine is usually meant as, “preventative to a pathology”. In what medical or psychological text book do you find pregnancy listed as a pathology? What we are talking about is an elective medical therapy for those desiring to block a totally normal and healthy physical condition. More specifically we’re just talking about forcing organizations to buy coverage for such therapies, right? There are many elective procedures / therapies that are not covered by employer sponsored health plans.”
Specious reasoning. We are talking about equal protection and free exercise. Again, if you don’t want to use contraception, don’t use it, but to force others to take lesser services because it offends your religious sensibilities is an infringement of their free exercise.
“‘Getting an infection in response to a virus or bacterial incursion is also a normal bodily function. Some Christian Scientists don’t believe in taking antibiotics (or antivirals), but just because insurance pays for them doesn’t mean they have to take them. Pathological response and treatment is only a part of the total health care picture.’
No, an infection is a pathology. The body’s response to infection (eg. creation of antibodies) is a normal bodily function. Treating the infection is treating a pathology.”
Specious reasoning and incorrect science. The response is the pathology. If you are infected but not manifesting symptoms, you are not pathological but you are possibly a carrier (depending on the nature of the infection).
“If the Christian Scientist church does not want to pay for health insurance that covers antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals, why should we make them do that? If the government wants to offer that coverage itself, I’m all for it.”
Because not everyone who works for the Christian Scientist church are Christian Scientists.
“I suppose next we’re going to require all public, religious, private, and home schools to subscribe to Hustler as part of a literacy, medical science (anatomy) and sex education program. It has an educational secular purpose and doesn’t promote any particular religion!”
Reductio ad absurdum. Improper use of the rhetorical tactic.
You can’t avoid that this attempt to prohibit offering contraceptive coverage is anything other than based in religious ideology and an attempt to infringe upon the free exercise of others. You can’t do that by the terms of both the 1st and 14th Amendments. If the law said Catholics had to use contraception, I’d be using the same legal line of reasoning to argue against it, but it doesn’t. There is only one legal solution: mandated coverage, but not mandated utilization. That is the only way someone’s free exercise isn’t infringed upon.
@Gene H
You stipulated a scientific issue, but then argue on a legal proposition.
For the purposes of science, the question of when does a human life begin is only concerned with the questions of:
1) Can we detect the biological processes characteristic of a living organism?
2) Can we determine the species to be human?
3) Can we determine that the organism is a unique member of the species?
With the fertilized egg, all 3 questions are answered in the affirmative via scientific measurement / observation. No opinion or reasoning (specious or otherwise) or reference to the law (which is not science) is required because we are talking about measurable facts. Any additional criteria are beyond the scope of the question from a biological standpoint.
The viability aspect is perhaps interesting from a legal or philosophical standpoint and as a rationalization for unscientific beliefs and prejudices, but has no bearing on whether something is alive or not according to biology. Escherichia coli can only survive outside the body for anywhere from a few hours to a day but I don’t know of any microbiologist who would conclude that if the bacteria dies after being removed from the body that it was never really alive in the first place. That’s absurd yet that is what you are arguing. To insinuate that the law somehow trumps science when it comes to explaining biology is equally absurd. I don’t need to say you are wrong. Science says you are wrong. Please direct me to the reputable microbiologist who says that the cell / collection of cells is not alive and does not have unique human DNA! If you still don’t believe me, consult any of the standard human-embryology texts yourself (e.g. Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology).
It doesn’t make any sense that the scientific question of when human life begins should be somehow tied to the current state of medical technology rather than the current state of biological science. Great strides in neonatal intensive care have been made since Roe, but that doesn’t mean that the biology of human reproduction itself has changed. The laws of science and nature are not constrained by the laws of man. There is no point in bringing Roe into a discussion of when life begins because as Roe itself says, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.”, so they don’t.
“You stipulated the excessive entanglement issue, but then argue on a market based proposition. This does not eliminate the excessive entanglement issue. It exacerbates it.”
That doesn’t match my interpretation of what I said. Perhaps I can state it more directly. The HHS rule forces people, organizations, and religions, to commit an act. The commission of the act violates the tenets of several religions. Therefore the HHS rule is excessively entangled with religion because it forces business owners, organizations, and religions to take actions that violate their tenets in the case of religions or the tenets of their chosen religion in the case of people. The easiest way to avoid entanglement is to do what the first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law…” While we are in the legal arena though, have you considered the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which became law in 1993? It sets the bar higher than the Lemon Test and I have read that the HHS rule most likely violates this Federal law. RFRA is the basis of the lawsuits brought recently regarding the HHS rule (Belmont Abbey College v Sebelius and Colorado Christian University v Sebelius).
“Not only does allowing wide-spread discriminatory hiring practices…”
Who said anything about discriminatory hiring practices? I’m just saying that if you want a job that offers certain benefits you choose to work for a company that offers those benefits. Some companies offer dental coverage, some don’t. Some offer vision coverage some don’t. If those are important to you, choose to work at a company that offers them.
We can dance around the definition of pathology and whether the nature of pathology is found in the body’s response to the infectious agent or by the action of the infectious agent on the body but I’m still waiting for you to show me the med school textbook that classifies pregnancy as a disease as that was the main point…
@Carol Levy
“Missing in the discussion is the fact that these pills are also used for medical reasons having nothing to do with whether a woman should be having sex for non procreative means…”
Yes, you are absolutely correct and it is an often overlooked but important point. I haven’t researched all religions on this point, but from what I have read, the official position of the RCC on this is that the church is ok with the use of hormones or other drugs that have contraceptive properties when used for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, just not when used for the purpose of contraception. It’s all about the intent. Not all RC institutions seem to understand this, but that is what the official documents say. In fact I have known married Catholic couples where the wife was using hormones to get her cycle back on track because they wanted to have children and she wasn’t able to without getting her cycle back on track first. The church has no problem with that.
“It is the removal of a medical treatment.”
No, not really. Firstly, the church does not object to it and even if they did, we are only talking about the church not being required to provide coverage for it. No one is talking about outlawing any drugs outright.
“Giving in to the church on a secular issue is letting the church cross the line.”
You have it backwards. What is happening here is that the government is saying that is has the right to pass a law to require religions to take actions that violate their tenets. This is the government attacking religion, not religion attacking the government.
Rrjp, as I seem to recall others have made this point already; but just because it is covered does not mean you have to take advantage of it. If you do not want to use contraceptive medications (that is the issue to me, it is a medication and a medical decision by a doctor and his patient) then do not get a prescription for them. But the church should not decide for every person employed by a catholic hospital or institution that they must pay out of pocket for prescribed drugs, medical care, that can cost in the hundreds of dollars.
This does not require anyone to take contraceptives., i.e. an action that violates their tenets. Their is no attack on religion here, just common sense policy.
Old VIRGINAL men, wearing dresses have NO right to set the Policy for the rest of the NORMAL, sexually active, entirety of Humanity….. PERIOD!!!!