I am a supporter of Obama but I see a fundamental difference between covering birth control pills because I want to have sex with my DH and covering birth control pills because they serve some health benefit (ovarian cancer for example). I have never understood the rationale for the former. Whether an insured wants to have sex, and how often an insured wants to have sex, has very little to do with health. Health insurance is supposed to cover my health related expenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read the article? According to Dionne, "At issue are regulations promulgated Jan. 20 by the Department of Health and Human Services that required contraceptive services to be covered by the insurance policies that will be supported under the Affordable Care Act." It's not just any old employer plan

I did, in fact, read the article. But I don't think my response changes because it is the government-mandated insurance program. Just because it is gov't-mandated only supports the argument that the more company-sponsored programs continue to have gov't requirements forced upon them, the more likely it is they become more $$ and more likely that companies will consider abandoning their plans altogether. Whether it is a financial obligation or an "moral" mandate, these additional mandates only drive costs up and make healthcare coverage and access more scarce.

OK - then you're just arguing against the law, so the Church's particular believes are irrelevant. The article - and as I understand it, OP - are only opposing this particular application.

Anonymous wrote:TheManWithAUsername are you really equating Catholic Hospitals, who treat all regardless of means to pay, with 'polluting factories' and 'hotels that discriminate against blacks'? Perhaps you are using argumentum ad populum? Social justice is a central tenant of Catholicism, and treating the poor, feeding the poor, teaching the youth, etc. are all 'collateral activities' that the Catholic Church engages in and financially supports - and you equate that with racism and pollution? Seriously?

OK...so you seriously thought that I was equating feeding the poor with polluting? How about you cut the BS and engage in a real exchange, if you're going to start one?

I'm equating running a hospital with running a hotel or a factory, I'm equating laws against some kinds of racism and against polluting with laws regulating insurance plans, and I'm equating the violation of those various laws across these contexts. If it makes it simpler for you: Do you think the Church should be immune from employment discrimination laws and environmental regulations as applied to its hospitals?

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:If the majority doesn't like this aspect of the health care law, then I guess it will be amended.* Until then, it stands as the expression of the society's values.

So, when a majority stood for Jim Crow that was just fine, just wait until society's values changed? So slavery was fine too until society changed its mind?

I was responding to your claim that "The overwhelming majority of America does not believe that providing artificial contraception is a mandate, independent of their own beliefs."

Anonymous wrote:Personally I believe that it will be a sad day indeed when government intervention causes Catholic Hospitals to close rather than violate their core principles, Catholic schools to close rather than provide instruction that violates their core principles, and Catholic Charities to close because government mandates that they must violate their core principles.

Lots of days would be sad, but none of the ones you listed appears near, and the latter two are nothing but red herrings. And opposition to birth control is a "core principle?" How many core principles are there? I would hope that we could list about 50 principles more important to Catholicism than that. It certainly isn't followed like a core principle.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:A previous poster - not The Man - indicated that employees were too stupid to know they were applying for work with and working for a Catholic institution. Because the employees were too stupid, we need the government to mandate to the Catholic institutions how they need to behave, to protect the poor stupid workers. Really? If our schools are turning out graduates that stupid, perhaps we need to focus on education, and not the reproductive and family planning benefits the Catholic Church will offer to its employees?

I didn't read that post, if it exists, but in general the argument in favor of workplace regulation and against the laissez-faire approach is that employees only have a limited number of possible employers. E.g., if you're a nurse in a relatively small town, it may be the Catholic hospital or nothing.

Did you read the article? According to Dionne, "At issue are regulations promulgated Jan. 20 by the Department of Health and Human Services that required contraceptive services to be covered by the insurance policies that will be supported under the Affordable Care Act." It's not just any old employer plan

I did, in fact, read the article. But I don't think my response changes because it is the government-mandated insurance program. Just because it is gov't-mandated only supports the argument that the more company-sponsored programs continue to have gov't requirements forced upon them, the more likely it is they become more $$ and more likely that companies will consider abandoning their plans altogether. Whether it is a financial obligation or an "moral" mandate, these additional mandates only drive costs up and make healthcare coverage and access more scarce.

Anonymous wrote:To me, all the church is suggesting is that if it is providing or contributing to the coverage for its employees, it should be able to do so consistent with the values upon which the institution was based. It doesn't feel it should be obligated to pay for a benefit to others (that it really has no obligation to provide) that is inconsistent with that. Doesn't seem too out of line to me.

Did you read the article? According to Dionne, "At issue are regulations promulgated Jan. 20 by the Department of Health and Human Services that required contraceptive services to be covered by the insurance policies that will be supported under the Affordable Care Act." It's not just any old employer plan.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
You somehow missed/avoided the main point, which is that this is in their collateral activities. Why don't you take a crack at my rhetorical questions - why can't the Church start a hotel that discriminates against blacks or a factory that pollutes? Or do you think that they should be allowed to?

TheManWithAUsername are you really equating Catholic Hospitals, who treat all regardless of means to pay, with 'polluting factories' and 'hotels that discriminate against blacks'? Perhaps you are using argumentum ad populum? Social justice is a central tenant of Catholicism, and treating the poor, feeding the poor, teaching the youth, etc. are all 'collateral activities' that the Catholic Church engages in and financially supports - and you equate that with racism and pollution? Seriously?

TheManWithAUsername wrote:If the majority doesn't like this aspect of the health care law, then I guess it will be amended.* Until then, it stands as the expression of the society's values.

So, when a majority stood for Jim Crow that was just fine, just wait until society's values changed? So slavery was fine too until society changed its mind?

Personally I believe that it will be a sad day indeed when government intervention causes Catholic Hospitals to close rather than violate their core principles, Catholic schools to close rather than provide instruction that violates their core principles, and Catholic Charities to close because government mandates that they must violate their core principles.

A previous poster - not The Man - indicated that employees were too stupid to know they were applying for work with and working for a Catholic institution. Because the employees were too stupid, we need the government to mandate to the Catholic institutions how they need to behave, to protect the poor stupid workers. Really? If our schools are turning out graduates that stupid, perhaps we need to focus on education, and not the reproductive and family planning benefits the Catholic Church will offer to its employees?

It seems like people are missing the fact that there is no reqquirement for employers to provide any type of healthcare coverage. Although most companies do offer it these days, they only started providing it to be more competitive. Now, however, it seems like company-provided healthcare is the norm and an expectation, rather than a benefit. To me, all the church is suggesting is that if it is providing or contributing to the coverage for its employees, it should be able to do so consistent with the values upon which the institution was based. It doesn't feel it should be obligated to pay for a benefit to others (that it really has no obligation to provide) that is inconsistent with that. Doesn't seem too out of line to me.

Dionne said: "I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings."

Catholic institutions and those who manage them are not being asked to go against their teachings. They are not being asked or forced to USE birth control. They don't have to promote it. They simply are not allowed to deny birth control to those, within their institution or outside of it, who don't agree with that belief.

If the Catholic church is going to provide services to the general community, it needs to act in accordance with the rules and regulations of the land. If we as a society have elected a government that mandates the availability of birth control for all, the only thing the Catholic church can do about it is preach against the use of contraceptives to their flocks, and attempt to persuade more people to come over to their view.

Or if enough people are really outraged by this, then next time elect some conservatives who will not be so eager to make birth control widely available. Your choice.

I vote for free birth control for all....

The nuns run the hospital systems, and they are not against it. If there is any hiding going on, it is to keep the bishops at bay.

Sadly, this proves that you are completely out of your element in your knowledge of the church. The nuns run the hospital systems!?! Are you for real??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The catholic church has no right to dictate what its insurers provide to their customers.

Yes, no employer should ever be able to decide what type of insurance it provides for its employers! Those employees probably had no idea they were working for a Catholic institution. Many of us get confused. Georgetown isn't St. Georgetown! Very confusing.

Will your ob/gyn prescribe birth control at Georgetown? Sure. OK, so stop the pontificating.

Which is the point. It is their choice and they do it. Then why can't another institution make a different choice? Choice is only acceptable if it fits the "right to choose" stance.

But hey, thanks for proving my point!

Uh, you aren't getting it. OB/GYN practices at ALL of the Catholic hospitals prescribe birth control. So they have already decided that this is ethically acceptable. They will even make money off of the visit to get a script. And yet the same institutions are protesting this.

Providers at Catholic institutions do not provide birth control for contraception purposes, instead for things like heavy menstrual periods or heavy cramping. This is how many providers who believe in using it, but cannot provide it as such do it. They have decided that loop-holing the system is ethically acceptable to them, but that does not change the baseline tenet of a Catholic hospital. The Church has always stood firmly against birth control.

Anyone whose OB/GYN is at one of the Catholic systems will tell you otherwise.

The nuns run the hospital systems, and they are not against it. If there is any hiding going on, it is to keep the bishops at bay.

Anonymous wrote:This is where you are wrong. If they did this, then Caesar would be dictating their foundations and beliefs based on what is "modern". A religion based on moral standards should just change because thats the modern thing to do? You advocate that the decision to provide artificial contraception is something that an overwhelming majority of America would agree is right, just like the overwhelming majority considers racism wrong.... but this is where you are wrong. The overwhelming majority of America does not believe that providing artificial contraception is a mandate, independent of their own beliefs.

You somehow missed/avoided the main point, which is that this is in their collateral activities. Why don't you take a crack at my rhetorical questions - why can't the Church start a hotel that discriminates against blacks or a factory that pollutes? Or do you think that they should be allowed to?

If the majority doesn't like this aspect of the health care law, then I guess it will be amended.* Until then, it stands as the expression of the society's values.

Anonymous wrote:Of course, the overwhelming majority of DCUM does believe it should be a mandate and will go to such ends of anger talk and show their lack of any reasonable thinking when confronted with a thread like this.

If we're so despicable, go post elsewhere. Instead of boo-hooing about what unfair partisans we are, try making an argument that proves how unreasonable we are (as if we all share the same opinions anyway). Statements like this one make you, not us, look close-minded and prejudicial.


* Ha, ha, I realize. We know that it's generally much more about what corporations want, but that's a much bigger issue.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Why can't a church start a large hotel that refuses to serve people of color? Why can't a church start a factory and dump waste water into a drinking reservoir?

As a PP said, if the Church wants to get out of everything other than worship, it's a different conversation. Until then, they can STFU and conform to modern and (moderately) reason-based morality, as expressed in law, in their collateral activities. Give to Caesar.

BTW, "One of Barack Obama’s great attractions as a presidential candidate was his sensitivity to the feelings and intellectual concerns of religious believers." - what a bunch of horseshit. That wasn't a major issue in the campaign. Why would anyone ever have thought him insensitive to those concerns, given that he himself was a regular churchgoer?

Damn liberal media Washington Post!

This is where you are wrong. If they did this, then Caesar would be dictating their foundations and beliefs based on what is "modern". A religion based on moral standards should just change because thats the modern thing to do? You advocate that the decision to provide artificial contraception is something that an overwhelming majority of America would agree is right, just like the overwhelming majority considers racism wrong.... but this is where you are wrong. The overwhelming majority of America does not believe that providing artificial contraception is a mandate, independent of their own beliefs.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of DCUM does believe it should be a mandate and will go to such ends of anger talk and show their lack of any reasonable thinking when confronted with a thread like this.

Why can't a church start a large hotel that refuses to serve people of color? Why can't a church start a factory and dump waste water into a drinking reservoir?

As a PP said, if the Church wants to get out of everything other than worship, it's a different conversation. Until then, they can STFU and conform to modern and (moderately) reason-based morality, as expressed in law, in their collateral activities. Give to Caesar.

BTW, "One of Barack Obama’s great attractions as a presidential candidate was his sensitivity to the feelings and intellectual concerns of religious believers." - what a bunch of horseshit. That wasn't a major issue in the campaign. Why would anyone ever have thought him insensitive to those concerns, given that he himself was a regular churchgoer?

Damn liberal media Washington Post!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The catholic church has no right to dictate what its insurers provide to their customers.

Yes, no employer should ever be able to decide what type of insurance it provides for its employers! Those employees probably had no idea they were working for a Catholic institution. Many of us get confused. Georgetown isn't St. Georgetown! Very confusing.

Will your ob/gyn prescribe birth control at Georgetown? Sure. OK, so stop the pontificating.

Which is the point. It is their choice and they do it. Then why can't another institution make a different choice? Choice is only acceptable if it fits the "right to choose" stance.

But hey, thanks for proving my point!

Uh, you aren't getting it. OB/GYN practices at ALL of the Catholic hospitals prescribe birth control. So they have already decided that this is ethically acceptable. They will even make money off of the visit to get a script. And yet the same institutions are protesting this.

Providers at Catholic institutions do not provide birth control for contraception purposes, instead for things like heavy menstrual periods or heavy cramping. This is how many providers who believe in using it, but cannot provide it as such do it. They have decided that loop-holing the system is ethically acceptable to them, but that does not change the baseline tenet of a Catholic hospital. The Church has always stood firmly against birth control.

Anonymous wrote:Might be time for the catholic church to go back to church activities, and spin off the hospitals to more tolerant groups...of course, the church won't, because its power no longer lies in the pews

You realize that religious instutitions opened their doors to the sick because no one else would take them in. Perhaps, it would be best to revert to those for profit hospitals...