Wednesday, February 8, 2012

You Must Comply: On Mandatory Birth-Control Funding for Religious Institutions

I'm not a political writer. But, today, I'm going to pretend I am, because I think it is the only way to get my jaw off of the ground.

In case you haven't heard -- and you may not have, because coverage for this seems to be quite limited (I mostly found reference to it on Catholic-associated websites), the United States Department of Health has made a new rule, which did appear in the Courier Post, a New Southern New Jersey paper:

At issue is the Jan. 20 announcement of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that the nation’s new health care law requires nearly all employers to provide insurance plans that offer free birth control to women. While the Obama administration had already stated that churches and houses of worship would be exempt from that provision, Sebelius said religious-affiliated institutions like hospitals, colleges and charities must comply.
Are they serious? -- "religious-affiliated institutions like hospitals, colleges and charities must comply"?


Just a few days ago, I wrote about a young woman who fought her school board to have a prayer taken down and I gently implied that perhaps we are becoming a country that is intolerant of religion -- that instead of forcing banners to be taken down, maybe we should be putting up banners of all faiths.

I never dreamed anything like this could happen.

First, let me be clear: This is not, for me, simply a Catholic issue. This is an abomination against religious belief and against the very nature of the philosophies that our country claims to hold dear. (Or maybe it was all myth.) And while I previously raised questions about how the First Amendment is interpreted -- whether it really is a violation if a governmentally-affiliated institution displays a prayer -- I cannot see how anyone could fail to see this announcement as a direct, and brazen disregard for the First Amendment, which states, as you (if not most of our politicians and political candidates) know:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [my italics]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I have been wracking my brains to come up with any possible arguments that this new regulation is okay in America. It was hard. But one might frame it as Planned Parenthood did in a note to Sebelius (from the same newspaper article above):

Despite incredible pressure from anti-women’s health groups and legislators determined to undermine women’s access to birth control, you stood strong and did the right thing.
The right thing in whose eyes? The implication of this new law is that access to birth control and abortion drugs, etc., is a right all Americans, especially women, have. The Catholic Church disagrees. Whether I agree or disagree or whether you agree or disagree is not the point. It seems I am one of the few remaining individuals who respects everyone's beliefs, these days.



If it were a fundamental evil the Church was committing -- an indisputable atrocity, like human sacrifice -- I would support governmental intervention. And while some may see birth-control as wrong and some may see birth-control as essential, the Church's ban against it is a religious choice based on its perception of truth, in terms of morality. The Church is not taking away something; it is refusing to provide something that goes against its deepest convictions, and one can choose whether or not to be an employee of a Catholic institution. As a Catholic school employee, I was conscious of the health care circumstances from day one. As a man, under my insurance, I could not get a vasectomy paid for, if I wanted one; so, this is not just an issue for women.

I feel like a guy in a vampire movie who is the only one who knows the debonair dinner guest is really a neck-biter. Everyone I talk to seems pretty blase' about this. "Ah, well...some think this is an issue of big government going too far..." someone said to me today.

Some see it? How the hell else could we see it?

And what happens if the Church complies? Do they offer birth control and insurance money for vasectomies and tubal ligations and birth-control pills and then tell Catholic employees they are not allowed to take advantage of it, on pain of excommunication? Or, is Truth and conviction now something that should shift with the passing of a law?

Well, it seems Bishop Joseph Galante, of the Diocese of Camden in New Jersey, is sure of his stance: "We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

Is the Catholic Church in America now forced to operate as an outlaw institution? Which faith is next?

Again, I call for tolerance of religion. (People chirp all the time about tolerance, but, in the end, most only tolerate what is easy for them to swallow.) Leaders of all religious groups in America would be wise to stand together, behind the Catholic Church, on this one. The government should never be allowed to force them to go against their beliefs, either. I would be equally disturbed if this happened to any religion in the U.S. -- and this new announcement does affect the beliefs of others, to be sure. The difference is, the Catholic Church is one of the few that runs numerous tangent institutions, like schools, hospitals, etc. Remember: the churches themselves are safe; it's the church or house-of-worship-related institutions that are being forced to comply with birth-control funding.

Well, at least we will never become a society in which religious groups are ultimately forced to pray in secret. That has never happened in history, so why should we expect it should happen in America?

If I am wrong about this let me know -- make your case with sound reasoning, though, not based on the idea that you think religion is crap. You may think religion is crap, but many people love their religions dearly and the majority of them are not pedophile priests or Westboro Baptist Church redneck, intolerant, evil-hearted, homophobic jackasses. It's so lame to reduce a religion to ashes because of the actions of some maniacs and morons that might have acted in a perversion of its name. (This is the same thinking that leads people to label all of Islam evil because of terrorists who act in its name.) Let's not torch the whole farm because a row or two of tomatoes is rotten.

It's fashionable to blame religion for the world's ills, these days. Maybe we should blame intolerance or religion, instead. There's a big difference.

But I want to hear what you have to say, because I don't want to be wrong about something this big. I just ask that anyone who disagrees not reduce what I said to a defense of my own religious beliefs -- which it is not, for those out there who employ the "skim-and-comment-visciously" approach. As I said, my beliefs are not the issue and I am just as angry if this affects any other religion. The issue is that, as I see it, the literal point of the First Amendment is being ignored. And, as I see it, this is an indication that peaceful religions everywhere in the United States are in danger of being forced into similar corners (cells) by a government that is overstepping its essential boundaries and that is carrying itself with an arrogance that is being missed by just about everyone.

I'll tell you: I'm about to take my ball and go home. I'm officially scared.

(Addendum: Here is a statement by the White House, complete with doublespeak conclusion edited, no doubt, by poor Mr. Winston Smith.)

(Addendum 2: [Hat Tip: William Lutz] Apparently, to blame the Obama administration entirely for this is a mistake. Read this article in Mother Jones. Either way, I still think it is a fundamental violation of the constitution.)

51 comments:

  1. Funny...I was going to write about this today, but you said everything I was going to say, so I will have to think of something new. LOL. I read an article the other day that other denominations have joined with the Catholic Church to fight against this bill. (tried to find it to link here, but Google isn't cooperating) But, like you said, this isn't about "who's right and who's wrong". It's about the Government telling, ORDERING those who believe this is wrong MORALLY that they must ditch their beliefs and comply, or else. This is very wrong. Would our Government dare tell an Islamic woman she can no longer wear her hijab because it makes her LOOK like a terrorist? I'm sure the thought crossed the minds of some after 9/11 but PLEASE! It is part of their beliefs they hold dear. (I know this is a bad example, but it COULD happen) What's next? It's a scary world, my friend. I work so hard at teaching my kids good morals, but it seems to be the unpopular thing these days. Tolerance is so one sided. If it is a Catholic belief, people say it's "over the top" or "Catholic's need to get with the times"...if an Islamic family walks by in hijabs, they are immediately seen as a threat...if an atheist walks in, you better bow to him/her and be tolerant because, you know, most religious people aren't and we wouldn't want to offend. *insert eye roll here*. Sorry...made it a bit more about religion than you wanted, but how can it not be? Tolerance is a 2 way street. I will tolerate you, but do NOT walk on MY beliefs and force some law on something my Church holds sacred. My Church holds LIFE sacred. Sounds so bad, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No reason not to write about it, Carmen! Great to hear from you, as usual...

      Delete
  2. I'm sorry, but why can the Church see itself as a business with employees one minute and a religious institution the next when it's convenient?

    Point is, if the Church is employing people, then I believe that they are beholden to the same rules that every other business is. And in this country, birth control is an essential part of public health. To deny that option for women is to be irrational.

    When it comes down to it, PEOPLE are the ones who have the right to decide what's best for them. The Church is guidance for those who call themselves Catholics - they shouldn't be in the business of controlling the decisions of their flock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EDIT: I should have said, "To deny that option for women is to be medically irrational."

      Also, I think it would be important to note that birth control pills have use outside of just birth control, but I guess that's for another debate.

      Delete
    2. Nick, I'd argue it's not another debate. A woman should not have to provide a doctor's note saying that her prescription for a hormonal contraceptive is for treating her endometriosis. It's a private medical issue, and the Church has no business stepping into the doctor-patient relationship.

      Delete
    3. Nick -- the Catholic church establishes schools and universities for the health of the Catholic Church, as well as for reasons of charity and kindness -- let's face it. Therefore, its business ventures are extensions of its teachings. This should be understood by all employees. It is a different entity than your average business. I'm a little surprised you don't see this as a complete offense against the First Amendment. Catholic schools and hospitals are "religious establishments" -- the exact word used in the Amendment. I believe that some principles are more important than practical outcomes. We cannot tell ANY religion to go against its morals. It's wrong. Your argument that the Church sees itself as a business is invalid. Doesn't matter. It is a Catholic business. I see your passion, as a doctor, for the well-being of the American human, and I deeply respect it. But this all seems, to me, like a step toward an Orwellian future and I'm no Chicken Little. I think it is indisputible that the right to believe and practice one's beliefs, religious or otherwise, is the most important thing of all. Heath care problems can lead to the death of people; the destruction of freedom of thought and philosophy can lead to the death of a culture.

      Delete
    4. ... that is not to say we should blow off health care issues, by the way. It's just meant to underscore the imprtance of freedom to think and to practice one's religion.

      Delete
    5. (I wish I could have written down my entire thought process, because it's been a ridiculous few minutes here, going back and forth with myself.)

      Your words: "And what happens if the Church complies? Do they offer birth control and insurance money for vasectomies and tubal ligations and birth-control pills and then tell Catholic employees they are not allowed to take advantage of it, on pain of excommunication?"

      Honestly? Yeah. Exactly. If they are so committed to their religious dogma to deny services like this, if they are so committed that they are doing the "moral" thing by not paying for these services, then why not just excommunicate every member who uses birth control pills?

      Because they know that would cripple them as a institution, and that all of their services, churches, and tithings would evaporate. It would be ridiculous. There's a greater good they are working towards, much to their credit.

      But what does that mean? Practicality trumps morality? That's against the entire point of these dogmatic ideas - although it is exactly what the Church practices.

      If you want to remain a fringe group that has explicit moral codes that prevents entry based on archaic beliefs, that's fine, you have that right under the First Amendment. But you should also be prepared for the public backlash that pursuing those beliefs will entail.

      Delete
    6. The point of my words, that you quoted is that is would, in fact, be ridiculous -- the church, to its credit, is not in the habit of invading people's personal lives; the message is that one needs to make one's own moral decisions. As a Catholic, I have NEVER had my life pried into by anyone in the Church. (Here come a million horror stories about crazy priests. Once again, every nut is an anomaly, not an indication of an unjust world...)What is the Church supposed to do when it is forced into this? Instead of saying: "We won't pay for something we don't believe in," now they qwill be in a position of doing what 'nora rightly fears: inserting themselves into the patient's business. (I have been to services in other denominations at which the reverend asked the parishioners to write down the names of anyone who had not been attending church. This sort of thing never happened in all my years as a Catholic.) In another conversation, by the way, today, a fellow teacher pointed out that there are medical reasons, according to the church, for which contraception is okay -- which would answer 'nora's question about other medical uses.


      But I still want this picture to be bigger thasn the Catholic Church, Nick. I, like everyone, in every religion who is a thinker, often question things the Church says. I still stand on the idea that this is the sort of thing a free society cannot permit. If one commits one's self to a religion, one, for the most part, is accepting its rules. If the Church's stance is seen by someone as unfair, then it will remain so in their eyes. ' nora may be right about the to-may-to/to-mah-to thing, but I just can't see a reason for such a departure for the First Amendment.

      Delete
  3. Err. Can I just point out for a moment that contraceptive drugs are quite often prescribed to women for purposes other than contraception? What about those women?

    Unfortunately, much of this -- like much of what underlay your post about the nude yoga instructor -- winds up being about the fact that our culture still doesn't recognise women's bodies as belonging to them, rather than existing solely for the use and enjoyment of men as sex toys and incubators of babies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, I agree. I understand the rights of religious institutions to express their beliefs, but what about the rights of women to receive appropriate, confidential medical care?

      No one is preventing the Church from expressing their position on birth control, and no one is forcing birth control on women; what they are doing is allowing women to seek medical care if they deem it necessary, which is a basic human right that, I believe, goes beyond an institution's dogma - a male-dominated institution's dogma, by the way.

      Delete
    2. Nora -- I do hope you saw the last post as it was intended: a call for seeing the body, male or female, as a thing of beauty and which deserves a dignified depiction. You raise an excellent point about birth control pills for treatment. That does open another can of worms.

      Nick and Nora -- I think this is less about what is right concerning the Catholic Church than it is about what a government should not do. I clearly said this is not as much about defending the church's position as it is in defending against a government crossing the lines. Nick's position is essentially that the government shoudl be able to force a religious institution to go against its primary teachings. Whether one agrees with those teachings or not, this cannot happen.

      Delete
    3. Chris, I did see it that way, and I agree with you. I'm just pointing out here that the underlying issues are in fact the same. My body may be a thing of beauty (or not) and it is deserving of respectful treatment, but it's also mine. I should be the one who gets to decide how it's treated -- whether that's in the context of sex, procreation, or medicine.

      Secondly, I don't see this as about the government forcing a religious institution to go against its primary teachings. I see this as a case of the government saying 'basic health care and doctor-patient confidentiality are a right, and cannot be denied to anyone, regardless of sex or creed.'

      This may be 'you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to,' but it is personal for me. I taught at a Catholic school for 4 years. Such health coverage as the teachers had denied us hormonal contraceptive drugs under any circumstances at all. I'd not have been any more impressed by having to send a doctor's note to the pastor (or worse, the archbishop) explaining why I needed them for non-contraceptive reasons, had I needed them. The archbishop should not get to decide how endometriosis (for example) is treated.

      Ironically, the school also didn't provide for maternity leave. It turned out I didn't need that either, but that's a different problem.

      Delete
    4. 'nora -- I do see your points. I think a key distinction I draw here is that the Church does tend to lt one make one's own decisions. Everything I have been taught relates strongly to the freewill idea. But, that said, I think the stance of not helping someone to make the "wrong" decision is a logical one. Each person makes his or her own choice, but the church doesn;t want to make what it sees as the wrong one easy. Whether the church needs to reform its ideas is a whole other discussion, to me.

      See comments to Nick above, too, especially regarding other medical uses of contraceptives...

      Delete
    5. Oh -- and I didn't want to disregard the negative experience you had. Fortunately, I have seen less rigid treatment of similar matters in my diocese, so maybe things are coming around. I hope so. Part of pro-life, it seems to me, is to encourage it with things like maternity leave...

      Delete
    6. Chris, may I lovingly (caritas!) suggest that your experience of the Church letting one make one's own decisions is likely coloured by the fact you grew up a boy (and now are a man) in it? Please believe me when I say it's very different for girls.

      When I signed on with the school as a 20-something woman, I was told flat out that insurance didn't cover contraception. OK, fine, if birth control is my only concern, then my boyfriend (later fiance, now husband) and I can walk ourselves to the drugstore and pick up a box of condoms, and neither Blue Cross nor the parish are any the wiser. But, I asked, what about other medical uses, and I used the endometriosis example, because I had some friends who had suffered from that and been on hormonal contraceptives to treat it. The answer was "no." Or "maybe with a doctor's letter and Father approves, but probably still no."

      That, to me, is the antithesis of the whole free will idea, and the very definition of "invading people's personal lives."

      I should note also that erectile dysfunction medications were fully covered.

      Delete
    7. 'nora -- see my comments after Natalie's for more on this, but I thought of two other things. First, the uniqueness of your experience is certainly disturbing. No one in our school is dependent on "Father" making a decision -- the insurance policy is the policy, across the diocese. Your school sounded a little renegade -- a little too much localized power. I fear that somewhere a bishop might have been disturbed to know this was happening. Just a thought. Second, I'm sure the Church would argue that Viagra and the like encourage the creation of life, while "the pill" prevents it. (I'm sort of holding a book in front of my face in protection after having even mentioned it, but, alas, there is some logic there...)

      Delete
  4. Back again, sorry.

    Ok, let's say I concede to the idea that a religion and a business aren't subject to the same rules.

    If Catholic institutions such as universities and hospitals want to accept federal funding for scholarships and benefits, then, isn't it reasonable to say that they have to pay for birth control and other "objectionable" medical services that the government says are necessary for public health?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'd like to point out a non-religious angle to this.

    I work for a small business. In recent years, because times are tight, we've been asked to pay more and more of the cost of our own insurance premiums; otherwise, the company would fold. What started as a token contribution out of my own pocket has now risen to around 50% of the premium. Every year, I'm asked to pay more, without a corresponding raise in salary. The annual premium increases have not been small; I paid $780 more in 2009 than I did in 2008.

    Every time the government mandates that this or that must be covered, it's going to make the cost of providing health coverage more expensive, thus making the cost of doing business even more expensive. Lots of people who work for large organizations, especially big corporations, act as if mandates like this one have no cost, because they rarely feel the cost, as it's hidden in their lower starting salary, the raise they won't get, or the year-end bonus that's smaller than it would have been.

    So I suppose I'd rather see businesses have leeway in selecting what their health plans do and don't cover, if doing so keeps costs down. I know that would pass along specific costs directly to individuals, but if costs keep rising in my little anecdotal but quite real corner of the world, my colleagues at our small, woman-owned business (nearly two-thirds of whom are female) could end up unemployed, with no health coverage at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that angle, Jeff. And it serves as a splash in the face to pull me away from an argument I find myself arguing, even though I didn't want to. This, to me, is not a religious argument, but a matter of governmental boundaries, which, in this particular case, happen to apply to a religious institution. It is helpful to consider this from an angle of pure business: the idea of rising costs.

      Delete
  6. Nick, the HHS mandate applies to *all* employers, regardless of whether they accept federal funding or not, so that line of reasoning is a bit of a red herring in this case.

    I think it's also important to remember that Catholic institutions are not seeking to deny women and men their "right" to contraceptives. They are refusing, because of their religious beliefs, to pay for them (i.e., to contribute directly to something the Church considers morally wrong). There is a difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't aware of that, thanks.

      Practically speaking, though, isn't denying funding for something the same as denying rights? The outcome is the same - less people using birth control.

      Delete
    2. I don't think it is the same as denying rights, Nick. (Hey, it's my blog -- I can chime in when I want to.) Philosophically, freewill is an important part of Catholic ideology. The Church says: "This is wrong; you shouldn't do it." People are free to choose to pursue birth control. The Church just isn't going to provide an incentive for something it believes is wrong. According to what I know about the Church, people do have a right to choose their actions. But I do wonder -- will less people use birth control, really? Maybe some -- but a significant amount? An interesting question.

      Delete
    3. Oh, and thanks for weighing in, Kate Marie!

      Delete
  7. I don't have the time to look this up right now, but I thought I remembered reading some recent article on this issue that cited a study showing that denial of contraceptive coverage does *not* significantly affect an individual's use of contraceptives. I may be misremembering, though. I'll try to find it when I have more time. Thanks for the welcome, Chris! I really enjoy your blog. Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with you about this issue. To my mind, it's a terrible violation of religious freedom and conscience, and I think the church has to make a stand, or face a more egregious violation (not far) down the road (mandating abortion coverage, for instance).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you like the blog, Kate Marie -- so good to know smart people are keeping up with it. (And I mean this for you and everyone else who is speaking up here, regardless of viewpoints.) Maybe I am biased, but the commenters on this blog are of some of the highest quality I have seen. If the blog is interesting, I give them at least half the credit. Hope to hear from you again, soon, and thanks for the support, both on this issue and on the blog in general.

      Delete
  8. Wow this has been so intriguing to see everyone’s responses that I just had to chime in!
    I can see the point of so many of your arguments.

    As a woman, my gut reaction is stick it to the man; it’s my body you better let me do what I want and provide me the contraceptives whether for their intended purpose of ‘birth control’ or for medical purposes. And I don’t need to tell you anything so there!

    As a Catholic, I completely understand where they are coming from and feel as though the government is crossing the line in telling these institutions what they ‘must do’ (what’s up 1984!) At what point does it stop? So the government tells us today that the Church affiliated hospitals must cover contraceptives/abortions/etc.; what’s next? They must cover doctor assisted suicide? I’m being completely over dramatic, I know, but just using an example of something that no one (that I know of) believes in. But if the government says it can be covered if the patient wishes it, does it make it okay, even though it is considered morally wrong?

    As a (future) small business owner I understand the costs of rising health insurance and see the effect it has on my own family’s business. The cost of health insurance is outrageous. At what point do we (or can we?) get regulation on how much health care costs? Because I’m pretty sure an Ace bandage doesn’t cost $10,000. Or it better perform miracles. (pun intended)

    Lastly, will having these Catholic institutions pay for this coverage really help women of all ages have better access to birth control? I look back on all the girls in our high school class who have already had 1, 2 even 3 kids at this age. I’m not knocking it because to each their own circumstances, but you’re telling me that their families didn’t have medical insurance with a prescription plan? Even if they didn’t, they couldn’t go to a planned parenthood to get birth control or head to a drug store to get condoms? I don’t think that the Catholic institutions offering to cover birth control is going to teach people sexual responsibility. I have a few friends who have no medical insurance who have managed to not get pregnant and get the medical screenings as they needed them from whether from Planned Parenthood or paying for a doctor’s visit.

    But alas, who knows what this will all bring. There are cameras at stop lights and our conversations can be listened to at any time. Orwell was definitely onto something…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natalie, for me it's not about "sticking it to the man." It's about how there is at least one "religious institution" out there that's using religion as an excuse to deny women basic medical care. If I'm shelling out for my health insurance, should I REALLY have to go to PP to get treatment because my health insurance won't cover something so basic as a hormonal therapy that might also be used a birth control?

      I haven't checked the numbers, but I'm wondering if Viagra (covered) was really cheaper than the Pill, too. And there is frankly a much deeper problem with the way we pay for prescription medication in this country, so I think costs really ought to be addressed in that larger context.

      You can probably argue that the school wasn't representative of all Catholic institutions in the U.S. I really don't know if it was or not. I just know what my experience was.

      Delete
    2. (edit: and you get regulation when executive branch agencies get the authority from Congress to regulate things. If as a nation we want the costs of health care regulated, we have to stand up and tell our Congressional representatives we want that. And now I'm going to my day job, where I work for a regulatory agency -- not in HHS).

      Delete
  9. 'nora -- I'll use this spot to respond to what you said before, because I think something you said is very important here: "You can probably argue that the school wasn't representative of all Catholic institutions in the U.S..." You also mentioned, earlier, that being a boy and a man could have resulted in my not having seen the church as invasive. This is true on two levels; first, simply my sex; second, I was a public schol kid who went to CCD and church, so I didn't get the full Catholic experience. Because of this, I am not sure individual experiences are a good way to look at this. (My current school has been a wonderful experience for me -- but I can't speak for others.)I suppose it is inevitible that we get into our own experiences and whether or not the Church has been fair, but I still submit that this is not the point. The Church might be wrong about stuff (How can we ignore the male-oriented slant -- a thing that many see as wrong and that the church defends with numerous arguments?), but(the to-may-to/to-mah-to thing again?), I think that is something for the Church to work out within itself, not something for the government to force. Natalie is right to fear becoming "overly dramatic" and the slope is getting more and more slippery as we speak, but I don't think we afford to ignore the implications of "the next step." I still agree with you on the use of "the pill" for other medical reasons -- it is sometimes, as far as I know, essential for a woman's health. That is indeed a difficult knot,but I am not sure is justifies the church taking restrictions off of something that it considers a basic evil. (And, like I said, my understanding is that it is allowed for several reasons, distasteful as the scrutiny necessary to make that decision might be to many women.)

    Natalie -- You raise an excellent question about birth control and the effects of the church thereof. The stats are a little up in the air, for sure. Thanks for commenting so thoughtfully and honestly -- not that I'm surprised!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris, I get what you're saying. The problem, thornily, is that we have to thread the needle between "the church working it out for itself" and the responsibilty of the government to protect the rights of its citizens.

      (At the risk of being overdramatic, I'll note that similar arguments were made about the South 'working out' the legacy of slavery and racism, and yet I know very few people who contend that the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea).

      Delete
    2. Well said, 'nora -- and points well-taken. Still, I can't see not providing money for contraception for ethical reasons worthy of comparison to slavery. It may interpreted as a kind of subjugation, but it is hardly slavery, especially since anyone is free to walk away from the Church. Yet, "thorny," the issue remains. (Sadly, there are probably more dopes out there than we know who think the civil rights act was a bad idea.)

      Delete
    3. Chris, you're misunderstanding me, I think, or at least you're still framing the debate only in terms of contraception, which is not my point. The Church has a long and ugly history of making decisions for women based on the notion that women are less rational and more inclined to sin than men. This is not very far from the attitudes that denied African-Americans the vote and other civil rights. That's what the Church needs to address.

      You can argue that my school's policy was uniquely sexist or unkind or even stupid, and perhaps it was, but it was also legal. My only recourse was to get a job elsewhere. That's where the government's responsibility to protect civil rights comes in. I haven't had a chance to read the HHS rule itself in full yet, just news accounts of it, and I know those may be inaccurate, but I am quite prepared to believe it's imperfect and even ham-handed in some respects. I also know that rules like it go through many layers of legal and policy review before they're published and the issue of freedom of religion must have been discussed. The requirement wasn't imposed lightly or out of disrespect for religious teachings on sexual morality. It was included because HHS saw it as necessary to fulfilling their responsibility.

      HHS will be sued over it -- I'd be surprised if some groups didn't had suits ready to file as soon as the rule was published -- and the issue will be hashed out in the courts. I'll only suggest that looking into HHS' reasoning might be worthwhile.

      Delete
    4. 'nora -- along those lines, take a look at the link I added to the post. It seems this law has been in place longer than it seems. I haven't read it in full yet, but it seems interesting.

      I get your points. The question is where we see the line. I used human sacrifice as a ridiculously obvious situation in which the government would need to intervene. The questions is: At exactly what point does a religious institution's attitude or action begin to merit governmental intevention. I guess we all have a different idea of that.

      I see a series of anti-society posts in my future. It all makes me sick -- not the differences of opinion on this, but the mess of a world that has been made by groupthink.

      Delete
    5. Chris, on a quick look I'd say yes, the Mother Jones piece is a useful corrective to some of the current media frenzy. I'll also take a thin sliver of umbrage at your doublespeak remark on the WH release. I write regulatory and policy text for a living, and man, it is hard. You do your best and someone is still suing your agency or calling you a parasite on the public or a thrall to big interests. Ouch.

      If you're interested, I can try to track down links to the actual text of the Jan 20 HHS rule and maybe the earlier rule as well. They would both be in the Federal Register and probably on regulations.gov as well.

      Delete
  10. "My body may be a thing of beauty (or not) and it is deserving of respectful treatment, but it's also mine. I should be the one who gets to decide how it's treated -- whether that's in the context of sex, procreation, or medicine."

    The point is this...where the Catholic Church is concerned, your BODY is here to serve God and be a witness to others. The hierarchy: 1. God 2. Your Spouse 3. Your Family. Of course it is MY body, but God gave me this body, therefore it is His above anyone else. If contraception is morally wrong, then NO ONE...not Government or anyone should be allowed to force the use of contraceptives on me. I think the point Chris was trying to make is more about the Government stepping in where they should NOT. Of course, not everyone is going to have the same beliefs as Catholics, but be respectful of the morals of the Catholic Church and don't force them to have to do things against their beliefs. I completely understand the use of contraceptives for medical reasons. Personally, I think that is something the Church needs to look into because if it is being used for a medical condition and NOT to prevent pregnancy, I don't believe in any way God would frown upon that. I recently had to have surgery to remove the walls of my uterus because of severe endometreosis and a slightly prolapsed uterus. This surgery has made it impossible for me to ever have anymore children. (I think I procreated enough, though...8 children later) Do I feel I did something morally wrong by having the surgery? No way! It was for my health.

    Anyway, the bottom line is this...the Government is crossing the line in FORCING THEIR beliefs on the Church. If the Government doesn't want to put God first, so be it. But, don't make my Church go against their moral beliefs. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But shouldn't I have a say in how I manage my relationship with God and God's will for the use of my body?

      Honestly, this is why I walked away from the Church -- I was tired of being bludgeoned by people who believed that I was too stupid or concupiscent to do the morally right thing without constant supervision.

      I do not accept your conclusion about the nature of the bottom line; however it seems you are not interested in discussion, so I won't pursue this conversation further.

      Delete
  11. correction..."Government or anyone should be allowed to force the use of contraceptives on me"...of course no one can force me to USE contraception...duh! Not how I meant that statement to read. Basically, the Church (which includes their hospitals, etc) should not be forced to PAY for contraceptives when it is something they do NOT believe is morally right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not so sure any religion has the right to invade the patient-doctor relationship, regardless of theology. Saying "I won't pay for this!" is basically saying you understand the nuanced medical rational behind a decision better than your employee does.

    Your job is to teach, not to make medical decisions for your flock. Which is exactly what denying birth control is, regardless of the intention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the way, I feel the word "Orwellian" could aptly describe an organization of males making medical decisions for its female members, if you happen to view it that way.

      Delete
    2. Nick -- You are stretching things a lot because you think the Catholic church ought to provide something it does not believe in -- something it believes is immoral. Saying "I won't pay for this" is nothing at all like saying you understand the nuanced medical rationale behind a decision. No medical decision is being made for ths flock. Any sheep is free to leave the flock at any time. They are not denying birth control, they are simply not helping in the attainment of it. I agree, as I said, with 'nora in terms of allowing birth control pills to be used to other things -- and, in fact in conversation with a priest today, it was confirmed that the Church is okay with the use of hormonal contraceptives for other reasons. I know many people don't like that the church would be involved in that, but it considers birth control to be completely wrong. I keep saying, whether you or I believe in this is irrelevant. People can either pay for birth control pills or buy condoms or abstain or...do other stuff I won't write about. Not gettin gyour birth control paid for is not a tragedy. I know plenty of women who paid for the pill out of pocket while they were in college, even. Many insurance plans don't cover certain drugs -- it just so happens that the Church has an ethical reason for not covering birth control pills. In the end, we are still talking about ths Church. My whole original point is that this is a dangerous precedent for government to set. I say respectfully -- and yo uknow i mean that -- that you are letting your distaste for the Church blind you to the bigger picture of human freedom. People who leave the church leave and no one hunts them down. People who go against the government get put behind bars. This is so much bigger than birth control pills of the lack of fairness of Church teachings. We should be debating church policy in another forum. This is about the freedom of humans to have beliefs.I'm petrified that people would rather see religion regulated by the goverbnment than see people who choose to work for an worship with the Catholic church have to pay a monthly fee for the pill. It petrifies me. I think your reasoning is unsound in spots and I think your passion for your fellow man (an admirable thing, as I already said) in this case is being limited to their physical well-being. I'd rather be dead than be told that I am not allowed to believe what I believe. Doing this to the Church could result in many people in this country being told they can't practice their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

      Delete
  13. Nora...I WAS having a discussion. I don't push my beliefs on anyone and was in no way saying YOU should not do what you think is right for YOU. What I said is the Government should NOT force my Church to pay for something they believe is morally wrong. If you don't like the Catholic teachings, don't be Catholic. But I don't appreciate the Government stepping in where it doesn't belong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carmen Rae, I see a discussion as a conversation in which the participants try to understand each other's perspectives, even though they may not agree with each other. Your posts addressed to me did not give me that impression; rather, you seemed to be intent on shouting (all those capital letters) your own opinion over my own. If that was not your intent, then I am sorry to have misunderstood you. Nevertheless, I do not see the point in continuing to debate the issue here.

      Delete
  14. I'd like to make my last comment on this, because in the huge (and much appreciated and respected) discussion as a result of this piece, I fear some of my point might get diluted. I just want to underscore one thing: My concern is a global concern for the freedom of religion. It so happens the Catholic Church is the most directly affected by this law. We have debated a great deal on policy of the Church --but the policy is just that: debatable. I'm worried about all debatable policies in all religions might become subject to governmental regulation. To me, that would be horrible. To me, it seems to be a disregarding of the First Amendment. To others, in this case, it does not. Now we wait and see...

    ReplyDelete
  15. The billowing debate on contraception storming the American interweb has led me to ruminate and muse far too much about the intrinsic (im)morality of such an action. If you know me, you know I think using contraception is actually the morally appropriate decision for most individuals, and that choosing not to use contraception (because of murky beliefs rooted in groupthink) is less aligned with morally positive reasoning. Of course, I'd also tell you that any logical decision is dependent upon the emotional, visceral response a person has to a given topic, and in this case, my distaste for the use of religious documents and institutions to justify a belief logically colors my rationale (much as each of the above responses is similarly attached).

    As much as I would enjoy a conversation on the morality or immorality intrinsic to contraception, it has been heavily addressed by others, and likely more succinctly or correctly.

    How, exactly, would a law requiring medicine to be offered infringe on "free will" or the freedom of perceived choice*? The Church, and all other large religions, are institutions and function as organizations (albeit mini-governments unto themselves); it'd even be fair to say that, globally, the Church is more of a political organization than a religious organization (whereas, on the local level, churches can [do not always] function as places of honest religious belief]). The freedom of choice is an individual experience - the Church itself has no free will because it is not an individual. Its inhabitants, its followers, DO have a certain freedom of choice, and as such, should be, strictly speaking, given the opportunity to pursue a certain choice. The Church, as an organization, should encourage, and perhaps even forbid, its followers from choosing the antithesis of the Church's viewpoint; however, if we are talking PURELY of freedom of choice, if contraception coverage becomes mandatory, there is not a single individual whose freedom of choice is being impinged upon by the law. Rather, by refusing to allow coverage on the moral basis of a group, the Church is preventing the members of its congregation from making a choice and impinging upon their freedom; furthermore, that an institution would so vehemently defend a perceived right on a moral basis suggests an unwillingness to trusts in its own followers and employees.

    Of course, I recognize that the above paragraph can be taken and applied to other, less savory topics. Could the government apply similar logic to abortions, end-of-life decision making (including doctor-aided suicides), and almost anything else? Certainly. There must be some checks and balances, and if a law has gotten this far, I'm hopeful some have fallen into place (I have not read the law, nor do I intend to, simply because I consider legalese distasteful).

    ReplyDelete
  16. ...(continued)

    I do see, however, Mr. Matt, your concerns that the government will overstep its bounds, and that you can (reasonably) believe they already have. Indeed, the government oversteps its bounds in every generation. This contraception issue is one of sex, gender, freedom, age, and so much more; the government has, perhaps, gone farther than most Americans feel is acceptable. Most Americans, however, don't spend time looking at the rampant sexism, racism, genderism, and so many other -isms ruining various thought processes. Most Americans don't attend to the idea that anti-contraceptive beliefs are rooted deeply in a historically patriarchal and anti-feminine society, and that to change the view, radical changes must occur. Whether the government has the right or responsibility to attempt to execute that change is the matter of debate.

    To me, everyone has a certain right to a perceived choice, and one of the government's jobs should be to protect individual choices over institutional choices. I hope I haven't come across disrespectfully.

    * I do not believe in free will, at least conventionally. I do think human beings have a (limited) sense of control over certain choices, but I can not ascertain a solid reason to believe we have a true choice - we are a composite of our experiences, genetics, and geographical location in such a way that choice is necessarily limited, and thus not fully free.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Huh. Truly fascinating discussion, here -- I thank you all for it. My knee-jerk reaction is to be in favor of the regulations as I vehemently support womens' rights to make their own healthcare choices, but on further consideration, I do agree with you Chris...it's crossing a line. While I may not agree with the Church's stance on providing birth control coverage, I support their right to have that stance.

    Ultimately the conclusion that I came to is that if the government truly wants to protect and provide for the health of it's citizens, then healthcare should not be left to employers -- universal healthcare is in order. As long as health insurance is left to be provided by the employers, I think that the employer should be able to mandate what it covers. It actually takes me back to the smoking ban discussion from a while back. (Sorry for opening another can of worms!) I'm still opposed to it beause my opinion has always been that it should be left to the bar owner to establish the smoking policy, and then patrons and employees alike can choose whether or not to frequent/accept employment at that particular establishment. (Did I just compare the Church to a bar? This was certianly not meant with any offense, I hope none will be taken).

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have searched and read on this subject for several days. This, in my opinion, is by far the most rational and informative discussion I have seen to date. I have read just about every sentence above and have decided to join in.

    First I would like to state that I agree in most part with everything Chris has said. I would say that I am a Christian(non-denominational) although I was briefly brought up in a Catholic household. I feel that the government has no right to determine what is available in the churches insurance policies. From my understanding of insurance policies a business can not force you to invest in their policies, therefore you can privately seek your own personal insurance(one which covers contraception). I do agree that if you have a medical condition that is treated with certain types of contraception, that it should be allowed, but written clearly in the policy that those are the ONLY circumstances. I would also like to add that there are many forms of contraception and that many are provided FREE OF CHARGE!
    I would also like to bring up the fact that the legislation being passed seems to me to be sexist. The major arguments have been brought against the legislation by women for women's health. Why is no one adding in men to this legislation? Are they simply talking about birth control pills or are they including condoms into this? It is a personal qualm I have that certain activists only think of individuals in like circumstances, i.e. women for women's health instead of EVERYONE'S health. I think instead of putting contraception on insurance policies would should just make ALL contraception FREE! I would much rather pay taxes to insure we are ALL getting the protection we need than to pay taxes for unplanned pregnancies. In the end I feel that it would be cheaper anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will add more as this discussion receives replies!

      Delete
    2. James -- thanks so much for reading and chiming in on this. I have already sort of decided to sit out on further dicussions on my piece, for fear of getting too annoying. But you raise a good point: vasectomies are not paid for, either, by the Catholic church--nor are other forms of birth control used by men, so it is a topic worthy of discussion. It is, indeed, not just a women's issue.

      Thanks again for reading!

      Delete