-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.
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?
“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”?
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.
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.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.
@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.
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. . . .”
“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.
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.
“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.
“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.
@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.
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.
“You’re not a person until you’re in my phone book.” – Bill Hicks
“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…?????
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 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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!
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.
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?)
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.
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.