-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.
“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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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?
@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?
RRJP,
I grew up in 1950’s when the RCC had that power and used it. They’d like to have it back.
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?
Obama has betrayed his Catholic voters and they will never vote for him again.
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.
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.
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.
bill,
Spin
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.
Mike,
I think I agree with you….So often others are concerned with the Others Sins….Not their own….
Hey, maybe we can get them to opt out of RAPING little boys too! What do you think?
I am having trouble seeing why we can’t let these people opt out of anything they choose to….
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.
@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.
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.