Question for Catholics/others who oppose the contraception mandate

[Anonymous]

I am a Catholic, and I was initially sympathetic to the Church's religious liberty concerns about the mandate. I haven't heard anybody else put it this way, but here is my question: I gather that the Church and other Catholic employers object to being required to buy into insurance pools that make contraceptives etc. available because they don't want to fund, even indirectly, something that the Church teaches is immoral. But every time I go to CVS or Safeway to buy something, aren't I also indirectly funding these same drugs, even though I don't buy them myself? Is the difference that the government is forcing the employer to participate in the insurance pool, but nobody is forcing me to go to CVS for my toothpaste? I am really curious how those who find the mandate objectionable distinguish these two situations.

[Anonymous]

Probably more to the point, all of these religious organizations use the same PBMs. - the pharmacy benefit managers - who sell and profit from these drugs.

Two of the PBMs own 60% of the market, ten own almost 100% and if you went with a small one that didn't provide contraceptives then your employees would pay through the nose for drugs because PBMs are the entities that negotiate drug prices.

So basically they will do business with the companies who are the middlemen for contraceptives if it saves them money.

[Anonymous]

the church has it's own heathcare insurance program I. E. It's own drugstore that doesn't carry the abortion pill.

[Anonymous]

Also it makes the employee work for and save the " little" money needed to pay for the sexcapades or fetus snuffing activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the church has it's own heathcare insurance program I. E. It's own drugstore that doesn't carry the abortion pill.

No, they are self-funded. But they use regular insurers to manage them, regular drug stores to dispense drugs, and they use PBMs to administer their drug programs. Only the hospitals have their own drug stores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also it makes the employee work for and save the " little" money needed to pay for the sexcapades or fetus snuffing activities.

. Excellent point. The church shouldn't subsidize sin especially when it is so cheap.

[Anonymous]

Since when are contraceptives a sin?
And as an employer you do not have the right to interfere with employees medical descisions

The church is happy to receive funds from people who do use contraceptives

[Anonymous]

The church isn't stopping anyone from purchasing contraceptives. If one doesn't want to pay for walmart contraception they are a deadbeat bum.

[Anonymous]

Take a step back -- in the weeds.

The Church's opposition is to the government mandating something which is against their religious beliefs. If there was a mandate with an exception there wouldn't be a problem. But the "accomodation" really isn't an accomodation, just double speak.

For that reason your example is all off. The govnerment doesn't mandate that you go to CVS to buy toothpaste.

[Anonymous]

this country was founded on and the constitution protects religious rights and freedom. there is no right to heathcare or contraception. made up rights that impede other peoples freedom don't cut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a step back -- in the weeds.

The Church's opposition is to the government mandating something which is against their religious beliefs. If there was a mandate with an exception there wouldn't be a problem. But the "accomodation" really isn't an accomodation, just double speak.

For that reason your example is all off. The govnerment doesn't mandate that you go to CVS to buy toothpaste.

OP again. I think that has to be the distinction. It just struck me that once the mandate was changed so that the employer is providing the contraceptives only indirectly through premiums (I know they haven't figured out what to do with self-funded plans yet), it's a little bit more like subsidizing other people's contraceptives when I buy toothpaste at CVS. I run in to my priest at Safeway and 7/11, and it just struck me that Catholics already participate in an economy that includes things the Church teaches are immoral. It's pretty much unavoidable.

[Anonymous]

Some claim that the Quran directs Muslims to kill all non-believers (I do not assert this to be the case, but for the sake of argument ...), so does the First Amendment forbid us from stopping a Muslim American from exercising his religion by killing all the non-Muslims he encounters?

I know that's a ridiculous case, especially since not even the most extreme interpretation goes that far, but it illustrates that there is a line that separates exercise of religion from imposing upon others. Exactly where that line falls is a complex issue, and Obama made an effort to accommodate those who disagreed with the first attempt in the case of birth control insurance.

I can see disagreeing with the present version, but to frame it as an attack on religion rather than a technical negotiation strikes me as disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some claim that the Quran directs Muslims to kill all non-believers (I do not assert this to be the case, but for the sake of argument ...), so does the First Amendment forbid us from stopping a Muslim American from exercising his religion by killing all the non-Muslims he encounters?

I know that's a ridiculous case, especially since not even the most extreme interpretation goes that far, but it illustrates that there is a line that separates exercise of religion from imposing upon others. Exactly where that line falls is a complex issue, and Obama made an effort to accommodate those who disagreed with the first attempt in the case of birth control insurance.

I can see disagreeing with the present version, but to frame it as an attack on religion rather than a technical negotiation strikes me as disingenuous.

thats why we have the second amendment so that we can kill them first in self defense. see what geniuses the founders were!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a step back -- in the weeds.

The Church's opposition is to the government mandating something which is against their religious beliefs. If there was a mandate with an exception there wouldn't be a problem. But the "accomodation" really isn't an accomodation, just double speak.

For that reason your example is all off. The govnerment doesn't mandate that you go to CVS to buy toothpaste.

Employees access to reproductive services is not against church doctrines
Some funny priests say you must not use them, that does not mean that you have to use them if you have the coverage to do so
The government mandates that religion is separate from the law. So employee benefits are the same for all employees, even if you do not like it.

Nothing here takes away the liberty of the individual or the institutions to practice their beliefs

Or do you believe you are being persecuted?