-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’s not a human life until its viable outside the womb.”
and your biological science source for this would be?
“That’s the criteria of human life beginning as both defined by law and science as demonstrated in Roe.”
As we discussed before there is a difference between science and technology that you don’t seem to be able to grasp.
“I’m arguing your definition of human life is wrong.”
You reject the scientific definition so you argue against it because the scientific definition doesn’t fit your belief system. Provide a more scientific definition then. Show me the biology / medical book where it says that the fetus is not alive.
“It is wrong because whether or not a human is an actual human life is the same criteria as it has been since the beginning of hominids and the same criteria for all complex organisms…”
Now that is patently false and you have only to read Roe and the summary of the history of the philosophical understanding of when human life begins contained therein to know that this has changed throughout history. Nowhere in there though will you find science. The justices look at philosophy and then skip science to move straight to technology. Granted there is a frame of reference shift between the fetus whose natural environment is the womb and the 9 month old human whose natural environment is the world, but that doesn’t change the fact that in both places it is alive.
“the RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to the states…”
Ok, but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
“Thus the RFRA was ruled unconstitutional for state and local applicability; however, it still applies to the federal government. The Act was amended in 2003 to only include the federal government and its entities, such as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.”
The HHS mandate is a federal rule right? Nice strawman back at you.
“RCC dogma based blather at me all you like the bottom line is you seek to impose your religious ideology…”
Where have I made an appeal to dogma? You are the one putting their beliefs ahead of science.
“You might as well be trying to force insurance companies to not pay for abortions.”
Now you’re exaggerating and just being silly.
RRjp, think Gene nicely answered that. (Thanks Gene)
rrjp,
“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?”
Bullshit. There is a difference between life in general and viable human life. It’s not a human life until its viable outside the womb. That’s the criteria of human life beginning as both defined by law and science as demonstrated in Roe.
“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.”
More reductio ad absurdum? ROFLMAO Also, nice straw man you’ve got there. I’m arguing your definition of human life is wrong. It is wrong because whether or not a human is an actual human life is the same criteria as it has been since the beginning of hominids and the same criteria for all complex organisms – can the form continue to perform the functions of life in its natural environment independently of the parent organism. Your example uses a simple form of life outside its natural environment that eventually dies because it cannot viably survive in the open.
“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”
Actually it makes perfect sense or all those babies born with underdeveloped lungs but nurtured through the period because of technology like oxygen chambers would be dead, i.e. not people. Technology allows us to foster viability to otherwise non-viable organisms. Life begins when it is viable. That technology can give us an edge on nature is something you should be thankful for, but it does not change the fact that viability is being defined by medical technology.
And while we are in the legal arena, which you display just as much incompetence as you do in understanding the fundamentals of biology, the RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997. That it is still causing litigation is only tribute to its fundamental legal flaws.
As to the rest of your bullshit, you can wait until you are blue in the face. Until a being capable of survival independent of the parent organism (aided by technology or not) is viable? It’s not a life. It’s a mass of differentiated cells at one of many stages of pre-natal development. You can throw your RCC dogma based blather at me all you like the bottom line is you seek to impose your religious ideology on those who may not share your views and thus violating their 14th Amendment rights by attempting to interfere with the regulation of health care insurance to provide access to services you don’t approve of. You might as well be trying to force insurance companies to not pay for abortions.
Good luck with that.
And by good luck I mean I’ll be laughing to watching your beloved RCC run afoul of the Constitution.
@Zarathustra
I support your right to say it. To make the federal govt actually do it is unconstitutional.
@leejcaroll
Right. So why are you trying to bring the church into it by making them pay for it?
Most amazing thoughts regarding a woman’s “right” to have non-procreative sex. No one is denying her ability and desire to do so; she should simply take her own responsibility for her own voluntary actions and NOT expect society, especially religious groups, to cover for her decisions. After all, the facts show that Birth Control Pills (BCP) DO NOT give 100% protection / prevention against pregnancy. BCP is certainly not the only method of contraception either and BCP is not as “safe” as many misinformed people would like you to believe. A woman is free to decide to have tubal ligation, IUD devices, timing of her cycle, and last but not the least…not to have sex during her midcycle when she is most likely going to get pregnant. Perhaps that is unthinkable although we all like to believe that a woman does have a frontal lobe for something. Actually, simple celibacy is the surest way for not getting “unplanned” pregnancy; unless you are chosen by Divine Power. Leave the Catholic Church, the Moslems, the Buddhist, the Hindus etc alone if you just want to have sex for fun! Oh, BTW Zarathustra on this blog should check the facts of that name before throwing stones at the Catholic church or anyone who disagrees with his / her arguments. Zarathustra was born in Bactria (or Aria) as the son of a not very powerful nobleman named Purushaspa and a woman named Dughdhova. Zarathustra was the third of five brothers. He became a priest and seems to have showed a remarkable care for humans and cattle. The family is often called Spitama, which is a honorary title meaning ‘most beneficient’, but was later taken for a family name. Zarathustra’s life changed when the god Ahuramazda granted him a vision. A spirit named Good Thought appeared and ordered Zarathustra to oppose the bloody sacrifices of the traditional Iranian cults and to give aid to the poor. Zarathustra started to preach that there was a supreme god, the “wise lord” Ahuramazda, who had created the world, mankind and all good things in it through his holy spirit, Spenta Mainyu…….It seems that Zarathustra was a believer of a “pre-Christianity” concept. Check this link http://www.livius.org/za-zn/zarathustra/zarathustra.htm Wonder what would have happened had Zarathustra’s parents used BCP those days….
And a cry shall go up throughout the land…. FUCK the CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!
rrjp, your bias is showing. And contraception, forget the argument re health, is a medical and health issue between doctor and patient, not doctor, patient, government and someone else’s church.
I am seeking for any competent author, extended time within this region. Exceptional article!
Carol Levy,
“To extend this ban to all institutions tangentially related to the church is outside the bounds of the reason for the exclusion.”
The reason for the exclusion is the first amendment of the Constitution and applicable federal law. The administration is just seeing how far they can push it. Seven state’s attorneys general have also filed suit against the rule. One of those AGs is a woman.
“Contraception is an elective intervention…”
“The Church lies and hurts women in the process. This is the reason, not contraceptive, for use of contraceptives: The World Health Organization (WHO) has concluded…”
Again you are conflating the drugs with the purpose of their use, so let’s use more accurate terms. The word “contraception” as used by the church in the first quote means, “blocking pregnancy”. It does not mean, “estrogen and progestin”. The rest of what you are saying here is a straw man argument. The church is not saying to ban use of estrogen and progestin for all purposes. That is just something you and others are making up or misunderstanding. The church is just saying that they don’t want to pay for you to take estrogen and progestin if you are perfectly healthy and just using the hormones for the purpose of artificially blocking pregnancy.
“Birth control pills lower your chance of getting endometrial (lining of the uterus) cancer, ovarian cancer, and ovarian cysts.”
They also increase your risk of breast, liver, and cervical cancer as well as heart attack and strokes.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
and from the link you provided:
“Contraceptives also have numerous side-effects and risks of serious complications. The side-effects of the pill include headaches, depression, decreased libido and weight gain. Documented serious complications include heart attacks, cervical cancer and blood clots. Recently, a class-action lawsuit, brought by 123 English women against three pharmaceutical companies, alleges that a form of the pill — the “third generation pill”, — has caused death, strokes and life-threatening blood clots.”
Taking any drug has side-effects. That’s why reasonable people tend to avoid taking drugs they don’t have to take.
The Viagra thing is a non sequitur. The question is what is the normal function. Are you restoring the normal function or preventing the normal function? Those are not the same.
“This is an all out attack on women and their reproductive rights and health.”
There is no right to employer funded health care that I am aware of. My employer doesn’t offer dental coverage. That doesn’t mean I have the right to make them offer it or claim that it’s an all out attack on teeth everywhere.
“It does not encroach on your right to practice your religion as you see fit.”
Yes, it does. Being an accomplice to a crime is also a crime. Being an accomplice to sin is also a sin.
“Just do not force it on me if I work for you and cannot afford the hundreds of dollars these medications will cost if I need them.”
The key word there is, “need”. If you “need” them to treat a legitimate medical condition, that is one thing. If you are perfectly healthy and just “want” them to block pregnancy that is another.
Amanda Marcotte:
Fighting the mansplaining anti-sex police
I realize talking about and defending female sexual pleasure is a hard thing to do. Our society still has a ton of shame around the topic. But that’s what this fight is about.
I have to disagree… what THIS IS REALLY ABOUT, IS: If someone, anyone, stands up to the church’s backwards thinking on sexual matters, then they’re going to claim that it’s discrimination! I say church… Shut the F**k UP!!!! You have become IRRELEVANT, in the 21st century!
Rrjp, Ok so let it be that the church has the opt out, as they do. To extend this ban to all institutions tangentially related to the church is outside the bounds of the reason for the exclusion. The church is supposed to be ‘pro-life’ but if you are a low level employee who does not have the money to afford medical treament that can be called ‘contraceptive’ then tough luck for you. Not very religious, spiritual, or pro-life.
From the church: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/contraception/contraceptive-mandates.cfm
Proponents of contraceptive mandates argue that because some health plans voluntarily cover Viagra all health plans should be required by law to cover contraception. But Viagra, used properly, treats a medical condition and restores reproductive function while contraception does just the opposite.
Myth: Contraception is basic health care.
Facts: Contraception is an elective intervention that stops the healthy functioning of healthy women’s reproductive systems. Medically it is infertility, not fertility, that is generally considered a disorder to be treated.
The Church lies and hurts women in the process.
This is the reason, not contraceptive, for use of contraceptives:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has concluded that women living with HIV or at high risk of HIV can safely continue to use hormonal contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.
Below from: http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/med-uses-ocp.html
Acne,.
Endometriosis: Most girls with endometriosis have cramps or pelvic pain during their menstrual cycle. Lack of periods (“amenorrhea”) from low weight, stress, excessive exercise, or damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy:
Menstrual Cramps: When over-the-counter medications don’t help with severe cramps, birth control pills may be the solution because they prevent ovulation and lighten periods.
Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS): Heavy Menstrual Periods: Birth control pills can reduce the amount and length of menstrual bleeding.
Because there is less menstrual bleeding when taking birth control pills, you are less likely to get anemia (low number of red blood cells, which carry oxygen from the lungs to the tissues). Birth control pills lower your chance of getting endometrial (lining of the uterus) cancer, ovarian cancer, and ovarian cysts.
(And as for your list, not all contraception is 100%, condoms beak, foams, etc don’t always work. And interesting you reference PP since so many are trying to get rid of it, and therefore low cost health care, as well as contraceptive, for wmen. This is an all out attack on women and their reproductive rights and health. It doesnot encroach on your right to practice your religion as you see fit. Just do not force it on me if I work for you ad cannot afford the hundreds of dolars these medications will cost if I need them. And as long as the church covers viagra they do not have a leg to stand on – let’s enable the ability to get em pregnant then force them to stay that way and have a child. Yep, I am sure that is what Jesus said. The more I write the more I becoome convinced this is all an effort to resubjugate women.)
carol levy,
“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”
The objection of the church here is that as long as the health insurance is in any way underwritten / provided by the church or objecting believers and provides contraceptives to those who intend to use them primarily for the purpose of contraception, it puts the church / objecting believers in the position of cooperating with the contraceptive act, which violates its tenets. It is the government forcing the church / objecting believers to become an accomplice to acts they object to for religious reasons. It’s not just the act itself that is considered sinful, but also being an accomplice to that act can be considered sinful. The church is just asking to be left out of it. The mandate forces the church to be party to something they don’t want to be party to. Like a lot of people here, I think the best solution to all of this is a single payer system like every other first world country seems to have.
“that can cost in the hundreds of dollars.”
I believe I’ve also covered this one before in this thread. Condoms are on sale at drugstore.com right now for $6 for a 12 pack. Planned Parenthood and local health departments provide subsidized and often free contraceptives and they are covered by Medicaid. Generic Ortho Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen can be had for $9 per month from WalMart and Kroger. The cost argument just doesn’t add up and certainly doesn’t justify throwing the first amendment under the bus.
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!!!!
@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.
@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…
“‘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.
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.
@ 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!