Should Obamacare Dictate Birth Control?

[Scuzz]

http://news.yahoo.com/government-force-catholic-hospitals-birth-control-181200841.html



The new regulation has mandated all health care insurance plans must cover sterilizations and approved birth control methods, which include the so-called "morning after pill," which many pro-life advocates regard as a pharmaceutical form of abortion. There is a religious conscience clause, but it does not apply to individuals or to employers that are not primarily purposed for the promulgation of religious faith, such as Catholic hospitals, universities or charities.

Does Obamacare requiring Catholic Hospitals insurance plans to provide care against catholic teaching violate the constitution?

[Jason Townsend]

...asks a guy on his blog? Seriously?

[Scuzz]

This includes E.J. Dionne, a liberal Catholic who writes for the Washington Post, who, while he wishes the Church would be more open to contraception, nevertheless expressed to be troubled (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-breach-of-faith-over-contraceptive-ruling/2012/01/29/gIQAY7V5aQ_story.html) over the Obama administration's trampling of religious liberty. Dionne is not the first nor will he be the last Obama supporter who has become appalled at the gap between the president's rhetoric and his actions.

It bothers him.

[Lorini]

I mean seriously, here we are, trying to protect women from the religious ravages of the Taliban (among other things of course) and we need to ask the question of whether or not a religion is entitled to deprive anyone of needed health care? Really?

[Scuzz]

I mean seriously, here we are, trying to protect women from the religious ravages of the Taliban (among other things of course) and we need to ask the question of whether or not a religion is entitled to deprive anyone of needed health care? Really?


that didn't take long

[Lorini]

that didn't take long

So are we done with this now?

[Tortilla]

I've heard a lot of buzz on this issue lately because the local Catholic bishop is really bothered by it and he's using his pulpit to denounce the mandate. Catholics are not happy about having to buy whore-pills for sluts. Because obviously that's what happens with birth control, women turn into sluts right? I can't think of anymore more qualified than a celibate religious official to make a judgment on these topics so it must be a correct conclusion.

[Jason Townsend]

You're complaining the thread went partisan fast? Instead of posting the E.J. Dionne column you posted a no-comment link to some Yahoo user-added blogpost decrying quote "the Obama administration's trampling of religious liberty."

How about this story? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html)

Among other charming anecdotes,


One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary.

“If I want children, I’ll need a fertility specialist because I have only one working ovary,” she said.

Can you feel the liberty! Lots of new babies for Jesus on that one!

What does Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities have to say? "No one would go to a Jewish barbecue and expect pork chops to be served."

Hahah good one Michael. If someone could tape this (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=3039697&postcount=34) to his windshield I'd be grateful.

[Lorini]

So sad that this issue is considered partisan. I agree it is partisan but it shouldn't be.

[Jason Townsend]

So sad that this issue is considered partisan. I agree it is partisan but it shouldn't be.

When the other side has certain views I'd say "partisanship" in the sense of vehement, uncompromising disagreement is no vice.

[Jason McCullough]

Nothing says value-neutral language like "dictate"!


Does Obamacare requiring Catholic Hospitals insurance plans to provide care against catholic teaching violate the constitution?

No. This has been easy answers to easy questions......

[Telefrog]

This thread is going to go places.

[Scuzz]

Personally I am rather ambivalent regarding the requirement. Government dictates all the time what business's have to do and I think when you run a hospital you are running a business, not a religion.

But it does seem to be causing a "separation of church and state" kind of reaction.

I used the opening link because it was the first thing I came across after hearing about this, plus it seemed to cover both sides.

[madkevin]

Government dictates all the time what business's have to do and I think when you run a hospital you are running a business, not a religion.

If only there was some other option.

[jeffd]

Outsourced to Kevin Drum (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/public-money-and-public-policy).


But I want to make a broader point. I'm unhappy with the creeping growth of religious conscience exemptions to public policy, and this affects my belief that such exemptions ought to be pretty limited. I can live with exceptions for abortion, for example, but not contraception.
...
If the Catholic hierarchy wants to maintain its barbaric position that contraception is immoral, there's nothing I can do to stop it. But it's a position that maims and kills and immiserates millions throughout the world, and there's simply no reason that a secular government needs to—or should—humor them over this. I don't think the church will stop providing charity care because they object to the contraception rule, but if they do then we'll just have to find others to step in. We're living in the 21st century, and in the 21st century contraception is almost unanimously viewed as morally benign and practically effective. It's a boon, not a curse, and there's simply no reason that a secular government supported by taxpayer dollars should continue to indulge the pretense that it's not.

Shorter version: you shouldn't get an exemption to every law based on religious beliefs, and this particular belief is outmoded and barbaric and really deserves no legal deference from a secular democracy.

[Adam B]

I bet Catholic hospitals have to sterilize their surgical equipment too, even though that's not in their book either.

GET THE GUMMINT OUTTA MAH RELIGION

[RichVR]

Try again without using "Obamacare".

[Brian Rubin]

This thread is damned entertaining.

It's also sad when a woman's health is threatened on moral grounds. :(

[Fiids]

Catholics are not happy about having to buy whore-pills for sluts.

A gem, this.

[Brian Rubin]

Try again without using "Obamacare".
Heh, I was wondering about that. The term seems...disrespectful, to me. But hey, if Bush had proposed it, would they have called it "Bushcare"?

[Crispus]

Outsourced to Kevin Drum (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/public-money-and-public-policy).

Shorter version: you shouldn't get an exemption to every law based on religious beliefs, and this particular belief is outmoded and barbaric and really deserves no respect from a secular democracy.

Just another example - similar to sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws - where religious and human rights conflict. I really don't see how religion is going to survive the increasing number of these conflicts, long-term. As the number of people indifferent to religion continues to grow, I foresee increasing pressure to remove the special, first-amendment-inspired exceptions that have been granted to religious organizations.

[Lorini]

Religion will survive. The stupidity may not, but there's a lot more to religion than the stupidity.

[jeffd]

Just another example - similar to sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws - where religious and human rights conflict. I really don't see how religion is going to survive the increasing number of these conflicts, long-term. As the number of people indifferent to religion continues to grow, I foresee increasing pressure to remove the special, first-amendment-inspired exceptions that have been granted to religious organizations.

Red herring. No religious organization is losing its first amendment protections here. The First guarantees freedom of worship. Freedom of worship does not imply an exemption to any law that one finds objectionable.

[Mark Asher]

Personally I am rather ambivalent regarding the requirement. Government dictates all the time what business's have to do and I think when you run a hospital you are running a business, not a religion.

But it does seem to be causing a "separation of church and state" kind of reaction.

I used the opening link because it was the first thing I came across after hearing about this, plus it seemed to cover both sides.

Government can always trump religion. Mormons are not allowed to practice polygamy, for example. I believe it's possible for a guardian to be appointed to a child of Christian Scientists so that the child can receive medical care.

The law isn't forcing anyone to use birth control. I don't see how that violates Catholic teaching. Catholic employees of the church can simply not use birth control, other than the super reliable rhythm method.

The Catholic church doesn't get to define what constitutes health care.

[Crispus]

Government can always trump religion. Mormons are not allowed to practice polygamy, for example. I believe it's possible for a guardian to be appointed to a child of Christian Scientists so that the child can receive medical care.

The law isn't forcing anyone to use birth control. I don't see how that violates Catholic teaching. Catholic employees of the church can simply not use birth control, other than the super reliable rhythm method.

The Catholic church doesn't get to define what constitutes health care.

It seems similar to the situation where some religious pharmacists didn't want to distribute birth control. They didn't like it, but were essentially told that if they didn't comply, they could find another line of work. The difference is that now, instead of pharmacists complaining, entire hospitals are complaining. The outcome will probably be the same, though - either they can do what they're told, or they can get out of the business.

Of course, the Catholics might very well choose the latter. In Illinois, when the Catholic adoption agency was told it needed to either allow gay parents to adopt children or else lose its contracts with the state, the agency chose not to change.

[Murbella]

My religion forbids paying tithe to anyone but the church. Where can i apply for religious based exemption to taxes?

You can do whatever you want with your own religious beliefs, the problem comes when you want to discriminate against other people based on your religious belief and/or attempt to force them to follow aspects of your religion against their will.

[RichVR]

I want to see the Bushcare stats. And the Nixoncare numbers. Really, what the fuck else could we call a system that has to do with the health planning of a nation?

I'll bet the Georgewashinton care sucked.

[GatInDaHat]

I want mandatory dick amputation for priests that abuse children.

[Brian Rubin]

I want to see the Bushcare stats. And the Nixoncare numbers. Really, what the fuck else could we call a system that has to do with the health planning of a nation?

I'll bet the Georgewashinton care sucked.

Hahahhah






I want mandatory dick amputation for priests that abuse children.

[Mark Asher]

It seems similar to the situation where some religious pharmacists didn't want to distribute birth control. They didn't like it, but were essentially told that if they didn't comply, they could find another line of work. The difference is that now, instead of pharmacists complaining, entire hospitals are complaining. The outcome will probably be the same, though - either they can do what they're told, or they can get out of the business.

Of course, the Catholics might very well choose the latter. In Illinois, when the Catholic adoption agency was told it needed to either allow gay parents to adopt children or else lose its contracts with the state, the agency chose not to change.

Are there really entire hospitals complaining? And they are complaining about having to fund a healthcare plan that includes contraceptives for their employees? Why do they think they get the right to determine the reproductive behavior of their employees?

[Murbella]

If a bunch of old men won't tell women what to do with their body, who will?

[Calistas]

I, for one, just love the direction this forum is going post-January.

[Anders Hallin]

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/contraception-US/statsandfacts.html

• Virtually all American women aged 15–44 who are sexually experienced have at some point used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning (99%). This is also true of Catholic women, 98% of whom have used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. [2]

• Modern contraception is highly effective. Among American women at risk for unintended pregnancy, the 65% who use a contraceptive method consistently and correctly account for only 5% of unintended pregnancies. The 19% who use a method inconsistently account for 43%, and the 16% who do not use a method at all account for 52%. [3]
[...]
• Most women who use the pill do so to prevent pregnancy; however, more than half also identify noncontraceptive health benefits, such as treatment for excessive menstrual bleeding, menstrual pain and acne, as reasons for use. [7]

In other words, it's probably the most universal of all medical care, so why shouldn't insurance cover it?

[Timex]

Doesn't most contraceptive in pill form still have an associated increase in the risk of heart attack and stroke? Anyone know how big an increase that is?

[Brian Rubin]

Doesn't most contraceptive in pill form still have an associated increase in the risk of heart attack and stroke? Anyone know how big an increase that is?
Why ask this question?

Regardless, I did look on WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pills?page=3) and found the following:


Are There Side Effects of Birth Control Pills?

Yes, there are side effects of birth control pills, although the majority are not serious. They include:

Nausea
Weight gain
Sore or swollen breasts
Small amount of blood, or spotting, between periods
Lighter periods
Mood changes

The following side effects, easily remembered by the word "ACHES," are less common but more serious. If you experience any of these, contact your doctor immediately. If you cannot reach your doctor, go to an emergency room or urgent care center for evaluation. These symptoms may indicate a serious disorder, such as liver disease, gallbladder disease, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, or heart disease. They include:

Abdominal pain (stomach pain)
Chest pain
Headaches (severe)
Eye problems (blurred vision)
Swelling and/or aching in the legs and thighs

[Lorini]

He asks the question so that the discussion will go off on yet another tangent. He does this nearly constantly, to the point that I'm probably going to simply /ignore him.

[Mark Asher]

Doesn't most contraceptive in pill form still have an associated increase in the risk of heart attack and stroke? Anyone know how big an increase that is?

In terms of cost associated with the medication, if you mean will insurance companies bear increased expenses due to side effects of contraception, just remember that pregnancies are quite expensive. And then the baby usually gets added to the health plan. Any insurance company that doesn't cover the cost of contraception is foolish.

[yamo yamo]

Get your Obama out of my pants.

[Brian Rubin]

Get your Obama out of my pants.
What?

[Timex]

In terms of cost associated with the medication, if you mean will insurance companies bear increased expenses due to side effects of contraception, just remember that pregnancies are quite expensive. And then the baby usually gets added to the health plan. Any insurance company that doesn't cover the cost of contraception is foolish.

I was actually asking more out of curiosity than anything, if anyone knew the answer. I know that my GF can't take the pill due to increased risk of blood clots, but I don't know how big that risk increase actually is.

It seems like it could have an impact on an insurance company's thought process regarding the pill, but I don't think that's really the case here, since I think that MOST insurance companies actually do cover this if your doctor prescribes it. I think the cases in question here are a religiously motivated insurance provider who doesn't want to promote the use of the pill.

[Brian Rubin]

I was actually asking more out of curiosity than anything, if anyone knew the answer. I know that my GF can't take the pill due to increased risk of blood clots, but I don't know how big that risk increase actually is.
This is likely more to the individual's specific health issues rather than problems with the pill as a whole.

[jeffd]

I was actually asking more out of curiosity than anything, if anyone knew the answer. I know that my GF can't take the pill due to increased risk of blood clots, but I don't know how big that risk increase actually is.

It seems like it could have an impact on an insurance company's thought process regarding the pill, but I don't think that's really the case here, since I think that MOST insurance companies actually do cover this if your doctor prescribes it. I think the cases in question here are a religiously motivated insurance provider who doesn't want to promote the use of the pill.

No, it's religiously motivated employers who don't want to pay for an insurance plan that includes any form of contraception.

[Hugin]

I was actually asking more out of curiosity than anything, if anyone knew the answer. I know that my GF can't take the pill due to increased risk of blood clots, but I don't know how big that risk increase actually is.

It seems like it could have an impact on an insurance company's thought process regarding the pill, but I don't think that's really the case here, since I think that MOST insurance companies actually do cover this if your doctor prescribes it. I think the cases in question here are a religiously motivated insurance provider who doesn't want to promote the use of the pill.

The risk of heart attack for healthy women under the age of 35 on the pill is negligible/unproven. For women over the age of 35, it probably about doubles the (very low) heart attack risk.

For women over the age of 35, or women with risk factors for heart disease, they can use a progestin only form of birth control, either a pill, or a shot (Depo-Provera), or a progestin hormone IUD, which don't seem linked to increased heart attack risk, or they can use non-hormonal forms of birth control (condoms, copper IUDs).

The risk of heart attack goes up sharply for post-menopausal women, but such women generally aren't taking hormonal birth control, for obvious reasons.

[Scuzz]

I was actually asking more out of curiosity than anything, if anyone knew the answer. I know that my GF can't take the pill due to increased risk of blood clots, but I don't know how big that risk increase actually is.

It seems like it could have an impact on an insurance company's thought process regarding the pill, but I don't think that's really the case here, since I think that MOST insurance companies actually do cover this if your doctor prescribes it. I think the cases in question here are a religiously motivated insurance provider who doesn't want to promote the use of the pill.

My wife also had problems with the pill, however now it is very common for doctors to prescribe the pill to non-sexually active young girls to help with menstrual problems. I know our insurance has covered both my daughters for that reason.

They better had not been screwing around. :)

[CLWheeljack]

My wife also had problems with the pill, however now it is very common for doctors to prescribe the pill to non-sexually active young girls to help with menstrual problems. I know our insurance has covered both my daughters for that reason.

They better had not been screwing around. :)

Conversely, I recall my wife saying that for some insurance policies which don't cover the pill for contraception, you can claim that your periods are cripplingly painful, and they'll prescribe it for that. I don't know how common that kind of policy is anymore though.

[Nezz]

You're complaining the thread went partisan fast? Instead of posting the E.J. Dionne column you posted a no-comment link to some Yahoo user-added blogpost decrying quote "the Obama administration's trampling of religious liberty."

How about this story? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html)

Among other charming anecdotes,



Can you feel the liberty! Lots of new babies for Jesus on that one!

What does Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities have to say? "No one would go to a Jewish barbecue and expect pork chops to be served."

Hahah good one Michael. If someone could tape this (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=3039697&postcount=34) to his windshield I'd be grateful.
Since nobody objects to the medicinal use of the hormone pill, whereas the contraceptive use of the pill is not medicinal, the discussion could profit from clearer definitions and clearer thinking.

Contraceptives are taken to increase bodily pleasure, not health. Covering them with health care plans necessitates a discussion about what sorts of pleasures the public should support, and why.

[Lorini]

Since nobody objects to the medicinal use of the hormone pill, whereas the contraceptive use of the pill is not medicinal, the discussion could profit from clearer definitions and clearer thinking.

Contraceptives are taken to increase bodily pleasure, not health. Covering them with health care plans necessitates a discussion about what sorts of pleasures the public should support, and why.

I'm so astounded by this statement I simply am sitting here with my mouth open. You really believe that?

[Scuzz]

Contraceptives are taken to increase bodily pleasure, not health.



If you could convince most of the youth of that statement imagine how the birth rate would go down. :)

MTV would lose a top show.

[Nezz]

I'm so astounded by this statement I simply am sitting here with my mouth open. You really believe that?
The contraceptive is taken to enable intercourse where otherwise abstinence would have been necessary. That means the intercourse is only practiced for the associated pleasure. Unless you think abstinence is unhealthy, I see no connection to health.

[AaronSofaer]

That's a very Republican approach to public policy, where the effects of something in the real world are handwaved away in preference to a falsely reductionist approach.

[Brian Rubin]

The contraceptive is taken to enable intercourse where otherwise abstinence would have been necessary. That means the intercourse is only practiced for the associated pleasure. Unless you think abstinence is unhealthy, I see no connection to health.
You do realize how...batshit that sounds, right? Please tell me you do.

[Scuzz]

The contraceptive is taken to enable intercourse where otherwise abstinence would have been necessary. That means the intercourse is only practiced for the associated pleasure. Unless you think abstinence is unhealthy, I see no connection to health.


I think that is the head in the sand approach to birth control.

[Lorini]

Dude's a troll. Out of this particular branch of the discussion.

[Hugin]

Since nobody objects to the medicinal use of the hormone pill,


What?




whereas the contraceptive use of the pill is not medicinal, the discussion could profit from clearer definitions and clearer thinking.

What?



Contraceptives are taken to increase bodily pleasure, not health.

What the actual hell?

[Nezz]

Nope. The troll is calling out the Catholic position and poking fun at it, and then proving incapable of rationally interacting with it.

[Telefrog]

Nope. The troll is calling out the Catholic position and poking fun at it, and then proving incapable of rationally interacting with it.

For clarification, is this your position, or are you playing devil's advocate?

[Nezz]

I think that is the head in the sand approach to birth control.
I suppose that's also what AaronSofaer meant with reductionist.

The important thing to note, which was also the whole point of Humanae Vitae, is that the end doesn't justify the means. It doesn't matter what the outcome of an intrinsically immoral action is, such an action must never be chosen. If you're committed to the position that intentionally rendering a sexual act infertile is such an action -- which the Church is --, that does limit your policies, but I don't think it's fair to call it "head in the sand", as if the consequences were deliberately ignored.

[Nezz]

For clarification, is this your position, or are you playing devil's advocate?
It's mine.

[MattKeil]

Nope. The troll is calling out the Catholic position and poking fun at it, and then proving incapable of rationally interacting with it.

Precisely how do you rationally interact with an organization that actively protects pedophiles but balks at providing health care that includes the option of contraception?

ProTip: You don't know how birth control pills work or what they are used for.

[Telefrog]

It's mine.

Ah, nevermind then. Carry on being a crazy person.

[madkevin]

Unless you think abstinence is unhealthy, I see no connection to health.

Who doesn't think abstinence is unhealthy? That's like saying "unless you think breathing is unhealthy".

[Pogue Mahone]

I subscribe to Mae West's philosophy - I think sex is a misdemeanor. The more you miss, demeanor you get.

Ok, it's not quite as funny written down, but you get the idea.

[AaronSofaer]

I suppose that's also what AaronSofaer meant with reductionist.

The important thing to note, which was also the whole point of Humanae Vitae, is that the end doesn't justify the means. It doesn't matter what the outcome of an intrinsically immoral action is, such an action must never be chosen. If you're committed to the position that intentionally rendering a sexual act infertile is such an action -- which the Church is --, that does limit your policies, but I don't think it's fair to call it "head in the sand", as if the consequences were deliberately ignored.


I'm a consequentialist (I believe that's the correct term for it). I reject the concept of actions in and of themselves having morality; only outcomes should be considered.

Most invocations of "the ends don't justify the means" are actually fallacies; they fail to consider all of the ends that a certain means entails, failing to consider the undesired consequences of actions as being legitimate consequences that need to be taken in account.

So in this case, you're weighing consequences. You have the (proven futile! No seriously, it doesn't work) route of abstinence-only education and refusing to supply information or safer-sex supplies, or you have the route of providing that information and those supplies, while still having leeway to preach that they shouldn't have sex.

In the first case, the consequences involve people dying, getting pregnant as teenagers and ruining their lives, spreading STDs due to ignorance, etc.

In the second case, the consequences involve fewer people dying, fewer lives ruined, fewer STDs spread... and oh yeah, you're violating a very tenuous interpretation of a story in the Bible.

[Note that I consider the following statement true: If an entity has the capability to effect a change and does not, then responsibility for the delta in consequences rests (though not exclusively) with the entity.]

So essentially, I consider the Catholic Church, and every entity which opposes sexual education and safer sex material dissemination, to be responsible, in a non-trivial sense, for the death and life-ruination of hundreds of thousands of human beings in the US alone. Every year. And those hundreds of thousands of sins - yes, for to permit a death or the ruining of a life which you had the capability to stop is a sin - is supposed to be less than the alternative? No. Humans do not act in a vacuum, nor does the Church. Actions take place upon the context of the world as it is, not as you believe God wills it to be, and the Church's position is a blazing pillar of precisely the kind of evil that Jesus preached against.


... Anyway, given that the forces acting against the dissemination of both information and birth control do, in fact, oppose the use of hormonal birth control (and other things potentially related to sex) for health reasons, this argument is pointless. But I still felt that I should give you the long version of my opinion, because the alternative is actually doing my legal research.

[John Many Jars]

HANDS (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/11/23/former-high-ranking-catholic-theologian-church-overrun-with-homosexual-homophobes) OFF THE WHITE WOMEN OBAMA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUnO4gK_56g&feature=related)

[ReptileHouse]

Very well said, Aaron. I agree completely.

[unbongwah]

The contraceptive is taken to enable intercourse where otherwise abstinence would have been necessary. That means the intercourse is only practiced for the associated pleasure. Unless you think abstinence is unhealthy, I see no connection to health.
So, the crux of your argument is that sexual intercourse for non-reproductive purposes is purely recreational and therefore shouldn't have mandated coverage under health-insurance plans?

Well, that's certainly a...novel approach. But that makes about as much sense as arguing that people who get fat by eating more than they need to survive did it because they enjoyed it and therefore health insurance shouldn't pay for, e.g., weight-loss programs to help them lose that weight. It may technically be true, but it seems like a penny-wise pound-foolish, cutting-your-nose-to-spite-your-face approach to a serious health issue.

[John Many Jars]

and therefore health insurance shouldn't pay for, e.g., weight-loss programs to help them lose that weight

Or for heart disease, or blood pressure, or diabetes, etc. Just because they paid a premium doesn't mean their self-gratification must be indulged!

[Calistas]

If you could convince most of the youth of that statement imagine how the birth rate would go down. :)

MTV would lose a top show.

Like5

[Calistas]

The contraceptive is taken to enable intercourse where otherwise abstinence would have been necessary. That means the intercourse is only practiced for the associated pleasure. Unless you think abstinence is unhealthy, I see no connection to health.

INTERCOURSE?! With my wife?! For pleasure!?!? The madness of such a proposition!

You ladies must be gutted you aren't married to this complete and utter moron.

[ReptileHouse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

[John Many Jars]

It's attitudes like that in husbands that drive the adultery industry.

[Nezz]

So essentially, I consider the Catholic Church, and every entity which opposes sexual education and safer sex material dissemination, to be responsible, in a non-trivial sense, for the death and life-ruination of hundreds of thousands of human beings in the US alone. Every year. And those hundreds of thousands of sins - yes, for to permit a death or the ruining of a life which you had the capability to stop is a sin - is supposed to be less than the alternative? No. Humans do not act in a vacuum, nor does the Church. Actions take place upon the context of the world as it is, not as you believe God wills it to be, and the Church's position is a blazing pillar of precisely the kind of evil that Jesus preached against.
You're asking the Church to teach a responsible way to sin, to sin with lessened consequences. Let us teach a course on how to rob a bank without killing anyone. Let us teach how to rape with minimal injuries. Let us disseminate daggers to gangsters, so their victims might not get shot.

It would be a betrayal of everything the Church has received. She exists to guide people to heaven, not to a slightly more comfortable level of hell.

Perhaps states can do these things, when the circumstances demand it. The Church, never.

... Anyway, given that the forces acting against the dissemination of both information and birth control do, in fact, oppose the use of hormonal birth control (and other things potentially related to sex) for health reasons, this argument is pointless.
I don't know who these forces might be, but I hope to have demonstrated that we can oppose their madness together. A hormonal pill used for health reasons is obviously not a contraceptive, and not morally problematic. Even nuns receive them. (Personally, I find it medically dubious to use hormones as prophylactic because of the severe side effects, but that's a completely different discussion.)

[MatthewF]

^-- Crazy person, for the record.

[AaronSofaer]

You're asking the Church to teach a responsible way to sin, to sin with lessened consequences.

No. I'm asking the Church to choose the lesser sin over the greater sin; to choose to violate the laws against teaching people about sex rather than commit murder.

You know what's a betrayal of everything the Church has received, to use your words? Letting people die. There are even commandments about it!

So the question becomes which sin you follow, because every path you walk is fraught with sin.

Past that point, nothing you've said in your post is relevant to the argument I made. I understand that the Church, and your average true-believer theist in general, rejects consequentialism. That's fine; but if you want to argue that the Church should be permitted to violate the laws of the State, the onus is on you to demonstrate why I should give a fuck, and a deontological plea that doesn't actually engage with my ethos isn't going to do that.

Further, if you (generic you, not you specifically) want to convince me that the Catholic Church is not (in part) responsible for the deaths and the ruining of lives of hundreds of thousands of people every year in the United States, again, you'll have to actually engage with my mental paradigm to do so.



I don't know who these forces might be, but I hope to have demonstrated that we can oppose their madness together. A hormonal pill used for health reasons is obviously not a contraceptive, and not morally problematic. Even nuns receive them. (Personally, I find it medically dubious to use hormones as prophylactic because of the severe side effects, but that's a completely different discussion.)

Well, "those forces" includes the Catholic Church.

[Murbella]

You're asking the Church to teach a responsible way to sin, to sin with lessened consequences. Let us teach a course on how to rob a bank without killing anyone. Let us teach how to rape with minimal injuries. Let us disseminate daggers to gangsters, so their victims might not get shot.

It would be a betrayal of everything the Church has received. She exists to guide people to heaven, not to a slightly more comfortable level of hell.

Perhaps states can do these things, when the circumstances demand it. The Church, never.

I don't know who these forces might be, but I hope to have demonstrated that we can oppose their madness together. A hormonal pill used for health reasons is obviously not a contraceptive, and not morally problematic. Even nuns receive them. (Personally, I find it medically dubious to use hormones as prophylactic because of the severe side effects, but that's a completely different discussion.)
Maybe when a women (the man is fine of course) has sex without being married you could just stone her for being a sinner? That seems like it would make both sides happy.

[John Many Jars]

You're asking the Church to teach a responsible way to sin, to sin with lessened consequences. Let us teach a course on how to rob a bank without killing anyone. Let us teach how to rape with minimal injuries. Let us disseminate daggers to gangsters, so their victims might not get shot.

Let us speak with the pomp of a moral and secular authority we have not had since the Renaissance. Let us equate the use of vaginas with that of deadly weapons, for vaginas are the gates to Hell. (Actually, they are, but going the other direction.)

[Two Sheds]

Actually, in context of this thread, nobody's asking the church to teach anything. They're asking church-affiliated employers to fall in line with the rest of employers and offer the same things to their employees. I don't really give a shit what backwards, woman-fearing nonsense they teach in their church. They can either not employ people at these hospitals and universities, or they can offer the same basic employee benefit as everybody else.

[Lorini]

And since they are so right and righteous, them offering birth control should mean that no one takes them up on their offer, correct?

[MattKeil]

Maybe when a women (the man is fine of course) has sex without being married you could just stone her for being a sinner? That seems like it would make both sides happy.

Also required according to Deuteronomy and/or Leviticus, I'm sure.

[Jasper Phillips]

The best part of all this is just who is most at risk for unwanted pregnancies? The "silver ring" crowd that is so sure abstinence is the best policy.

Aside from being ethically abhorrent, the Catholic Church's policy here demonstrably doesn't work -- it turns out the kids lasciviously and unresponsibly fucking around (literally!) are primarily the ones following their shrewd plan of ignorance.

More generally, why should anyone take the Catholic Church seriously on matters of sexuality? It's run by celibate men who couldn't get laid even if it was allowed -- that is without molesting children. When they finally become responsible (again, literally!) and stop trying to sweep such travesty under the rug perhaps it will be time to hear what they have to say on the matter.

But let's be honest, that's not going to happen, is it?

[KWhit]

The Catholic church is seriously still teaching against birth control? I thought that backwards-ass way of thinking was dead - even for the religious nutters.

[Fiids]

I don't think the Pope wants fewer Catholic pregnancies. The Vatican knows just what it's doing here.

[RichVR]

Hey up until 1980 or so the official Catholic birth control was the Rhythm Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods). Also known as Vatican Roulette (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Vatican_roulette).

[Ranulf]

I mean seriously, here we are, trying to protect women from the religious ravages of the Taliban (among other things of course) and we need to ask the question of whether or not a religion is entitled to deprive anyone of needed health care? Really?

We are not going over there to protect Afghan women from the tallyban nor should we. If you want to form an Abraham Lincoln brigade and go over there as a merc force, by all means. I might even toss you a donation of body armor and a rifle. These days all our troops are doing over there is dying needlessly and guarding opium fields while we kill are own people back home for daring to smoke a weed, even if that weed might help them fight cancer.

The Catholic church is getting what it deserves for supporting obamacare in the first place. They don't mind the government getting involved in people's lives as long as it supports their ends. However, when they have to pay the piper, they start complaining... oh woe is them. Fuck'em.

[RichVR]

Every time I see "obamacare" I disregard the person that said it. Stop with the tea party buzzwords.

Pro tip: It's the Democratic party. Not the Democrat party. It's healthcare not obamacare.

[Brian Rubin]

Every time I see "obamacare" I disregard the person that said it. Stop with the tea party buzzwords.

Pro tip: It's the Democratic party. Not the Democrat party. It's healthcare not obamacare.
Thank you.

[Murbella]

I overheard someone say a term that made me laugh today. Obamneycare.

I guess i've been living under a rock though because it was the first time i heard the term. Obviously i've heard romneycare, but merging the two just amused me as it is pretty catchy.

[Scuzz]

Actually, in context of this thread, nobody's asking the church to teach anything. They're asking church-affiliated employers to fall in line with the rest of employers and offer the same things to their employees. I don't really give a shit what backwards, woman-fearing nonsense they teach in their church. They can either not employ people at these hospitals and universities, or they can offer the same basic employee benefit as everybody else.

Exactly, we are talking an employer in this case. A hospital serving a community. Not a church teaching their flock.

And in a modern age to teach abstinance is fine as long as you also teach birth control along with it.

[Murbella]

Aren't abstinence camps proven to be a complete waste of money?

[Pogue Mahone]

What's an abstinence camp? Doesn't sound like much fun.

[Canuck]

It's the opposite of band camp.

[Robert Sharp]

You know what's a betrayal of everything the Church has received, to use your words? Letting people die. There are even commandments about it!


I don't think this is correct. Which commandment says this? Where in the Bible does it say this? I'm pretty sure that the Bible's stance on this is to allow God's will.

[Jason Townsend]

Well, an expansively minded jurist might do something with Leviticus 19:18 or Luke 10:27 and equivalents. Thou doth not want to get ovarian cysts because of bizarre theo-biological quibbling, so give them not unto others.

[Robert Sharp]

Oh yeah, I forgot that one. Are you sure 'unnatural womb bubbles' means 'cysts' though?

[Chris Gwinn]

What's an abstinence camp? Doesn't sound like much fun.

Back in my day, we just called it scout camp. The abstinence wasn't viewed as a feature.

[Anders Hallin]

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/catholics_need_to_preach_what_we_practice/

I first learned that Catholics don’t always practice what the church preaches about contraception when I was pretty young, no more than 12. My stay-at-home mom did the laundry, and it was my job to help her fold the clothes and put them in everyone’s drawers when I got home from school. One day putting my father’s socks away, I found a box of condoms at the back of his sock drawer. After a few awkward attempts at conversation, my devout Catholic parents came clean: They had only three kids, and almost all of our relatives had comparably small families, because most Catholics planned their families, too.

No one expected women’s lives to be an unbroken series of pregnancies and births anymore. It was better for women that way – but also for children. (Not to mention for husbands, who no longer had to confine sex to the times of the month when women weren’t ovulating if they wanted sexual pleasure without a special bonus nine months later.) The church was a wonderful institution, my parents said, but it was very old, and it sometimes took a while to catch up with the times. Kind of like the way Grandma still said “icebox” for “refrigerator.”

That was at least 40 years ago. Far from catching up with the times, the leadership of the Catholic Church is trying to drag the rest of us backward.

[Murbella]

What's an abstinence camp? Doesn't sound like much fun.
Religious indoctrination camp that attempts to force people to follow religious doctrines and avoid "sins."

Similar to the Gay Conversion camps (there is a more common used name for these but i cant think of it at the moment) where people send their children to find jesus in order to get rid of the gay, abstinence camps attempt to brainwash kids in to thinking sex before marriage and contraceptives are evil , self destructive and ultimately fatal to their eternal souls.

Both types of Jesus camps are likely equally ineffective. Abstinence camps are probably better though as the kids just ignore it instead of the risk of suicide Gay Conversion camps seem to have.

[John Many Jars]

Abstinence camps are a great place to get chicks to go off alone with you. They trust you because you're at abstinence camp, plus, you know, they're wearing the armor of faith. Then you just whip out the old "Anal isn't technically sex" routine, and you're waxing her like Ratzinger.

[Calistas]

Like!

[Tin Wisdom]

Only 2% (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-contraceptives-religion-idUSTRE73C7W020110413) of American Catholic women actually observe the Church's strictures regarding birth control. Even Catholic news organs acknowledge that Catholic parishioners worldwide disagree (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/poll_catholic_education_on_contraception_ethics_ne eds_work/) with the Vatican's teachings on the matter.


79 percent of 1,009 United States Catholics surveyed agreed with the statement ["using condoms is pro-life because it can prevent the spread of AIDS"]. The respondents in other countries who agreed with the statement numbered 90 percent in Mexico, 86 percent in Ireland, 77 percent in the Philippines and 59 percent in Ghana.

The nearly 4,500 respondents were also asked whether church teaching on condoms should change. Sixty-three percent of U.S. respondents said yes and 22 percent said no. Majorities agreed in Ireland and Mexico. In Ghana, 63 percent assented to the current teaching, and Filipinos were divided evenly.

In all countries, majorities said they had never heard a Catholic priest or bishop speak against the use of condoms.

[Nightgaunt]

Reading this thread is depressing. Except for Aaron's consequentialist explication and Nezz's attempts to explain the Catholic position, most of the other responses are just risibly ignorant and wretchedly rude.

If you're a consequentialist like Aaron, then you're not going to agree with the Catholic Church. That is what it is. Once you have determined which consequences are preferred (harder than it sounds), you'll also be better disposed to the government generally coercing people to behave in ways that make them healthier or whatever.

So the Catholic Church doesn't take that position. It explicitly rejects consequentialism in favor of a teleological method. Whatever. You don't have to be a teleologist to question the approach that the Obama Administration has taken here, because regardless of how it arrives at the conclusion, the question is about how the government should negotiate the moral opinions of religious groups with regard to mandated healthcare.

The Church itself--the parishes and dioceses--already have an exemption and do not have to pay for healthcare plans that cover contraception and sterilization. You may want them to do so or think they're barbarians for not. Again, whatever. The broad conclusion is that this exception protects the conscience of the organization, allowing it to participate in the nation's healthcare system without violating its strongly held beliefs.

(Strongly held beliefs that, yes, a majority of its members do not always follow. Irrelevant. The Church recognizes it is full of sinners. This does not--cannot--change its doctrine. The Catholic Church is not a democracy.)

So the new rules apply to Catholic organizations that serve people outside of the faith. Hospitals, colleges, social services. But these are still Catholic organizations, in many cases run by the parishes or dioceses. To pay for services for their employees that they believe are immoral is no less of a violation when the recipients of those employees' care are non-Catholic. The distinction makes no sense.

Also, let's be reasonable and admit that no one is FORCED to work for a Catholic institution. And if they do, it's not crazy to think that that Catholic character of the institution won't have consequences that employees may or may not like. An employee can judge the value of contraceptive coverage as part of their decision as to whether or not that organization is a place they want to work. (And, no, the Church is not forcing employees to follow its doctrine. If they buy contraceptives on their own, they will not be fired. It is simply refusing to pay for that practice itself and opposing the coercion of the government to do so.)

What's absurd is that the Catholic bishops WANT to support Obama's healthcare plans. I think it's even accurate to say that they support universal single-payer healthcare. But the Obama Administration have turned their allies into enemies by trying to dictate to the Catholic Church what "women's health" means. The Church will not change its opinion that contraceptives and sterilization to prevent pregnancy do not qualify. (Note that it does not oppose use of "the pill" to manage actual reproductive disorders; in that case the inability to become pregnant is a side effect.)

So now there's a new conundrum for any consequentialists out there: What's better? That the employees of Catholic institutions have to pay for their own contraceptives and sterilization? Or that Catholic institutions--hospitals, universities, social services--shut down and/or narrow their services drastically to no longer serve non-Catholics?

[AaronSofaer]

Once you have determined which consequences are preferred (harder than it sounds), you'll also be better disposed to the government generally coercing people to behave in ways that make them healthier or whatever.


Like wearing seatbelts and not drinking and driving, which I'm sure are perfectly fine to violate if they're against your organization's sincerely-held religious beliefs?

Besides, this is a strawman of my argument. Respecting the preferences of others, even if you think they're murderous sinners who are doing their best to drag progress backwards (which I feel about the Catholic Church's hierarchy) is important, even if they're wrong and their actions have massively negative effects, as the Church's actions do.

However, the law is the law, and at a certain point, you do not allow parties to simply ignore civil authority, just as you do not allow pharmacies to refuse to give out medicines they disagree with even if that pharmacy is being run by someone of some particular influential faith.



(And, no, the Church is not forcing employees to follow its doctrine. If they buy contraceptives on their own, they will not be fired. It is simply refusing to pay for that practice itself and opposing the coercion of the government to do so.)

You are incorrect in this matter.



So now there's a new conundrum for any consequentialists out there: What's better? That the employees of Catholic institutions have to pay for their own contraceptives and sterilization? Or that Catholic institutions--hospitals, universities, social services--shut down and/or narrow their services drastically to no longer serve non-Catholics?

I estimate the probability of the latter to be just as low as the possibility of all pharmacies run by people who would prefer not to distribute birth control closing at once, leaving millions of Americans without access to a pharmacy.

However, even if that were to come to pass, it would have a non-trivial chance of leading to a watershed moment in the context itself, which a properly prepared party might use to further sway public opinion on certain matters of policy.

The consequentialist equation is vastly too complicated in a situation like this to be broken down to as falsely simple a question as yours.

[Hugin]

So the new rules apply to Catholic organizations that serve people outside of the faith. Hospitals, colleges, social services. But these are still Catholic organizations, in many cases run by the parishes or dioceses. To pay for services for their employees that they believe are immoral is no less of a violation when the recipients of those employees' care are non-Catholic. The distinction makes no sense.

Religious freedom, much like Freedom of Speech and everything else covered in the Constitution, is not absolute. If my religion said I needed to kill all black people and burn down all red houses, that wouldn't be permitted by society.

Society tries to make a reasonable accommodation, in this case by giving a broad range of exemptions segments of religious institutions that are deemed by reasonable people to be more purely religious in scope. However, where such institutions start to reach into matters of say, public services, they come under greater scrutiny. Otherwise where does it end? Do Catholic hospitals refuse to give care to those who've been divorced? Had sex out of wedlock? Don't take communion? Haven't been baptized?

[Murbella]

So now there's a new conundrum for any consequentialists out there: What's better? That the employees of Catholic institutions have to pay for their own contraceptives and sterilization? Or that Catholic institutions--hospitals, universities, social services--shut down and/or narrow their services drastically to no longer serve non-Catholics?

I'd say phasing these organizations out as soon as possible and replacing them with ones that are more concerned with actually doing their jobs and supporting the common good than pushing their religious beliefs is better in the long run for all involved parties.

[Nightgaunt]

However, the law is the law, and at a certain point, you do not allow parties to simply ignore civil authority, just as you do not allow pharmacies to refuse to give out medicines they disagree with even if that pharmacy is being run by someone of some particular influential faith.

Not sure what you're addressing here. No one is flouting the law. The bishops are fighting the law and I assume they will bring legal challenges to it. If they fail to have it changed, they will respect the law and some of these services will shut down or become Catholic-only. (Not all of them--I'm sure some institutions, especially those not directly under the bishop's see will find ways to justify accepting the HHS rule.) Perhaps they'll find other ways to operate, but they won't just roll over; they can't.



You are incorrect in this matter.

Really? What do you know that I don't know?


Otherwise where does it end? Do Catholic hospitals refuse to give care to those who've been divorced? Had sex out of wedlock? Don't take communion? Haven't been baptized?

First, a Catholic institution would be betraying its mission if it did any of those things. Second, that's not the issue at all. The hospitals are not refusing care to anyone coming to them as patients. This is about healthcare benefits for their employees, and who pays for what. The Church simply won't pay for pharmaceuticals used for purposes it deems immoral. More specifically, it will not be coerced by the government into doing so. Can you see the difference?

Murbella -- That may be what happens, but I doubt that's what the Obama Administration was hoping for.

[AaronSofaer]

Not sure what you're addressing here. No one is flouting the law. The bishops are fighting the law and I assume they will bring legal challenges to it.

Presumably. But when they have exhausted their legal challenges, which they shall and to no avail - just as the Christian Scientists did, and the Amish - then they shall have to provide the medical services for their students that their schools' students (for example) require.



Perhaps they'll find other ways to operate, but they won't just roll over; they can't.


Of course they can. Just as pharmacists who are Catholic have "rolled over" and will dispense medication that they see as "sinful".





Really? What do you know that I don't know?

*shrug* I've had friends fired from Church-related jobs because it was suspected they were gay (suspected, mind you) or because they were "living in sin" or purchasing contraceptives.

I even have a friend in North Carolina (you'll forgive me if I don't give you her personal information beyond that) who was fired from her job as a teacher at a Catholic private school because she got her daughter the HPV vaccine.

Is this information I need to look up for you? I can (tomorrow, because it's 11:30PM and I'm exhausted), but you should probably do a cursory search yourself first.



First, a Catholic institution would be betraying its mission if it did any of those things.

In what way is it a betrayal of its mission to refuse to support sinners in their sins, when you've just been making the argument that it's a moral imperative for them to accept the deaths and the ruins of hundreds of thousands of lives per year because to do otherwise would be to support sinners in their sins?



This is about healthcare benefits for their employees, and who pays for what. The Church simply won't pay for pharmaceuticals used for purposes it deems immoral. More specifically, it will not be coerced by the government into doing so.


Let me quote you from an article posted earlier in this thread.



One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary.

“If I want children, I’ll need a fertility specialist because I have only one working ovary,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Georgetown, Stacy Kerr, said that problems like this were rare and that doctors at the health service knew how to help students get coverage for contraceptives needed for medical reasons.


It's not just about the Church and affiliated organizations not wanting to hand out birth control to sinners. People with genuine medical needs are also being denied coverage just so that the Church can stand tall on its stupid little murderous "high ground", and then lie through their teeth about denying women medicine that they need to not develop cysts. Good times, good times.

[Mark Asher]

Yeah, here where I live a Catholic school teacher who gets divorced and then remarries without getting her first marriage annulled can be fired for "living in sin." It's ridiculous.

[Two Sheds]

So the new rules apply to Catholic organizations that serve people outside of the faith. Hospitals, colleges, social services. But these are still Catholic organizations, in many cases run by the parishes or dioceses. To pay for services for their employees that they believe are immoral is no less of a violation when the recipients of those employees' care are non-Catholic. The distinction makes no sense.

Also, let's be reasonable and admit that no one is FORCED to work for a Catholic institution.

I don't care. I'll be the first to argue for personal religious freedom (and have been many times on this board), but this is another matter entirely. I don't care who runs the hospital or the university. If we're going to say that all workers are entitled to this health coverage, then that's that. We shouldn't have exceptions here for this employer, and a different package for that employer, and over here this factory owner believes in the healing power of prayer so he gets an exemption on everything. It's nuts.

I care about religious freedom to the point that it steps on anybody else's rights. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, so I believe everybody has a right to healthcare. And I believe basic things like birth control should be provided by that healthcare, because there's no downside other than giving Catholics a sad face.

Yeah, you're right, nobody is being forced to work for the Catholic hospitals and universities. No problem; just go find another job. I hear the market is great. One should not have to factor in his or her employer's religious beliefs when deciding to take a job or not. And in the end, the employer is not paying for contraceptives. They're paying for health coverage. What that coverage gets used for is none of their damn business.

[Jasper Phillips]

That's exactly it. People have a right to privacy, and thus a right to keep the damned Catholic Church out of their private lives -- what the healthcare is used for is none of the Church's business.

Some stodgy old "the image of the church is more important than whether children get molested" Clerics don't like it? Too bad. Even their followers are overwhelmingly too smart to follow their bad ideas, so why should the rest of us be expected to follow suit?

[Murbella]

To paraphrase and misquote a book, in a good, godly country, everything that walks in His light is the Church's Business.

[Jasper Phillips]

Fortunately the US is not a theocra... errr, I mean "a good, godly country"!

[Murbella]

Santorum might argue that point.

[Nightgaunt]

In what way is it a betrayal of its mission to refuse to support sinners in their sins, when you've just been making the argument that it's a moral imperative for them to accept the deaths and the ruins of hundreds of thousands of lives per year because to do otherwise would be to support sinners in their sins?

Precisely because treating a divorced person's kidney stones is NOT supporting a sinner IN HIS SIN. It's just supporting a sinner. Which is kinda the point. The answer to the second part of your equation comes back to the consequentialism (and your dubious extrapolation of contraception to death).


It's not just about the Church and affiliated organizations not wanting to hand out birth control to sinners. People with genuine medical needs are also being denied coverage...

An unfortunate story and, I'm pretty sure, not in keeping with Church doctrine.

[AaronSofaer]

Precisely because treating a divorced person's kidney stones is NOT supporting a sinner IN HIS SIN. It's just supporting a sinner. Which is kinda the point. The answer to the second part of your equation comes back to the consequentialism (and your dubious extrapolation of contraception to death).

Even if I accept your premises, the Catholic Church would then be fully within their rights to deny coverage for STIs.

Trololol.




An unfortunate story and, I'm pretty sure, not in keeping with Church doctrine.

Their policy, their responsibility. You can't just handwave away the consequences of a policy by saying that the consequences are against doctrine.

I've seen no evidence whatsoever that it is against Church doctrine, anyway, other than the word of a PR official whose statement is directly contradicted by the facts of the case.

[Strollen]

I don't understand why birth control is covered benefit for health INSURANCE in the first place much less why Uncle Sam is the business of dictating that employers should provide it.

The purpose of insurance is to protect people financially from uncommon and/or expensive events. Birth control fails miserably on both conditions. The vast majority of couples will use birth control for large portions of their lives. Second it just isn't very expensive; condom cost $.50 a piece so $10 would cover most everybody for month and (a lot longer for some of us :( ) . Likewise birth control pill can be obtained starting at $10/month for good shoppers and $25/month for most women. More over organizations like Planned Parenthood provide birth control for free to the young and the poor.

This a pretty silly benefit for an insurance to provide, since the administrative cost of handling co-pays and negotiating payments with drug company and drug stores almost certainly adds more overall cost to the system, than small saving realized by individuals.

However, this is America and if companies and insurance companies want to compete for business and employees by adding stuff to their health insurance benefit, I say good for them.

What I don't understand is why this is a good idea for the Federal government to be involved in. Is there studies that shows how two otherwise identical health insurance plans, the one that offers birth control results in significantly better health? I rather doubt it.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

I am atheist and have particular animosity to the Catholic church, although I believe that Catholic Charities do more good than harm. Still in my readings of the Federalist papers the founders felt THE most important constitutional right we have is freedom of religion. One of the tenets of the Catholics is the importance of charity, it seems to me that this law significantly impacts the ability to perform charity since it order to provide charity service they church is forced to offer birth control pills, something they view as sin.

Now freedom of religion isn't absolute. If there is a compelling state interest like preventing bigamy, than religious freedoms lose out. However, what is the compelling state interest in this case? Is it really worth depriving millions of Catholics (as deluding as they maybe about birth control) of their religious beliefs, so Sue can save $10/month buying the pill, while costing Sue employer $10/month in higher insurance cost?

[AaronSofaer]

None of what you just said makes any sense.

I mean, I could pick your post apart point by point (for example, regular doctor visits aren't "insurance" kind of stuff under your argument; do you want to argue that regular doctors visits shouldn't be covered under medical insurance?) but it makes so little sense that it just leaves me shaking my head and going "Where's that Sparky gif?".

[John Reynolds]

My son had to be born in a 'special' room at the hospital in 2007 because my 37yo wife (and I was just shy of 43) and I had decided that two kids was enough. And due to placenta previa a scheduled C-section was required and we decided on a tubal ligation. So because of this procedure being scheduled the delivery had to be performed in a special room away from where the church-sanctioned deliveries were regularly performed. God apparently can't see into this special room and therefore wouldn't be aware that the sin of a ligation would be performed. All this in the 21st century. True story, guys.

So, yeah, I'm a little leery of allowing a ass-backwards religious org like the f'n Catholic Church dictate anything regarding how our country functions on any level.

[Lorini]

Having an unplanned child is not a 'small savings'. Freedom of religion never included the ability for any religion to freely practice any belief it has. Supposedly there were tribes that practiced cannibalism. So would that would be OK here under 'freedom of religion'? No. Mormons are not permitted to practice polygamy even though it's a practice that was done in Utah before Utah became a state. So trying to frame this as a violation of freedom of religion is ridiculous. Before the late '70's those same Mormons believed black people were children of Set and weren't worthy of the same rights and treatment as white people. Would that have qualified them to discriminate against blacks if they did run a hospital? No.


This a pretty silly benefit for an insurance to provide, since the administrative cost of handling co-pays and negotiating payments with drug company and drug stores almost certainly adds more overall cost to the system, than small saving realized by individuals.

This is a pretty silly statement because birth control is a lot cheaper than having unplanned kids from the insurer's point of view. Or maybe you hadn't realized that? One would think that insurer's would have condom vendor machines everywhere if they weren't such wusses and afraid of the radical right. Birth control is absolutely a cost saving health related expense from an insurer's point of view.

Or were you just trolling? As Aaron says, not much of what you said Strollen made much sense at all.

[Strollen]

Having an unplanned child is not a 'small savings'. Freedom of religion never included the ability for any religion to freely practice any belief it has. Supposedly there were tribes that practiced cannibalism. So would that would be OK here under 'freedom of religion'? No. Mormons are not permitted to practice polygamy even though it's a practice that was done in Utah before Utah became a state. So trying to frame this as a violation of freedom of religion is ridiculous. Before the late '70's those same Mormons believed black people were children of Set and weren't worthy of the same rights and treatment as white people. Would that have qualified them to discriminate against blacks if they did run a hospital? No.


Nice strawman. I explicitly singled polygamy as example of a religious belief, that courts/society (rightly IMO) has said, "sorry your religious freedom doesn't extend that far". Needless to say cannibalism and racism fall into the same category.




This is a pretty silly statement because birth control is a lot cheaper than having unplanned kids from the insurer's point of view. Or maybe you hadn't realized that? One would think that insurer's would have condom vendor machines everywhere if they weren't such wusses and afraid of the radical right. Birth control is absolutely a cost saving health related expense from an insurer's point of view.

Or were you just trolling? As Aaron says, not much of what you said Strollen made much sense at all.

Of course birth control is much cheaper than unplanned and unwanted kids. However this not even the right comparison.

If your insurance plan offer birth control pills as benefit, you typically have to pay a copay of $10-$30 like you would any other drug.

If your insurance plan does NOT offer birth control pills than you can go to your local pharmacy and get birth control pills or condoms also for $10-30.

The out of pocket cost difference between being covered and NOT being covered for birth control is negligible. So it seems that all of this controversy is being generated for no good reason other than to make a point that a Catholic church is being wrong about birth control. I agree that they are, but I am struggling to find why there is a need to piss off Catholics to provide a benefit, which isn't actual benefit.

[AaronSofaer]

If your insurance plan offer birth control pills as benefit, you typically have to pay a copay of $10-$30 like you would any other drug.

If your insurance plan does NOT offer birth control pills than you can go to your local pharmacy and get birth control pills or condoms also for $10-30.

The out of pocket cost difference between being covered and NOT being covered for birth control is negligible.


I can only assume that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about here, because what you've said can pretty much be summed up as "Superficially true, but totally misleading and largely false".

Taking medication which your insurance doesn't cover can fuck you over for future coverage, many prescriptions are for 3 months at a time (which means paying 90 dollars or more), some insurance doesn't actually have copays above, say, 10 dollars (instead they have very low caps, usually), the doctor's visit itself is much more expensive than 10-30 dollars if you aren't covered by your insurance, the list of shit wrong with everything you've said in this thread is too long to actually go over and I've already put too much effort (which is about thirty seconds of effort) into responding to an obvious troll.

tl;dr, yet another shithead troll without a tenth of the skill that BillD or Flowers has goes on ignore.

[Jason Townsend]

Defraying or paying for drug costs are a big part of "what health insurance is for." If health insurance were like liability coverage for totalling your car it'd be cheaper. Also your cost ranges being equal... ok I'm with Aaron.

As for "pissing people off to not much gain," hast anyone said this is a vote winner? To the contrary, horseshit culture-war wedge crap like this usually redounds to the benefit of the crazier, more cynlcal party with the excitable constituencies. The point is to not sandbag 98-99% of women working for Catholic employers in order to assuage the delicate consciences of a the world's most ridiculous sex authority.

[Jason McCullough]

This discussion is ridiculous (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/catholics-do-not-have-moral-objection-contraception).


Two new polls today shed some light on this question. The first one, from the Public Religion Research Institute, asked if all employers should be required to offer healthcare plans that cover contraception:

All Americans: broad agreement, 55%-40%
Catholics: broad agreement, 58%-37%

But maybe respondents weren't specifically primed to think that some employers are churches that have theological objections to birth control. So the second survey asked the general question first (getting similar results to the PRRI survey) and then asked specifically if Catholic hospitals and universities should be included:

All Americans: broad agreement, 57%-39%
Catholics: broad agreement, 53%-45%

In both cases, the numbers are much higher for Democrats and Independents. It's really only Republicans who object much, which strongly suggests that most of the objection is rooted in ideology, not religious conscience.

[Strollen]

Defraying or paying for drug costs are a big part of "what health insurance is for." If health insurance were like liability coverage for totalling your car it'd be cheaper. Also your cost ranges being equal... ok I'm with Aaron.



Ok for the sake of argument lets say I agree that paying for drugs is one of the reasons we have health insurance.

My "silver" Kaiser program has no prescription drug benefit, but for an extra $150/month I can upgrade to Gold, which the most common program used by in employers. I then would have access to 30 day supply of contraceptives for a $30 copay. The platinum plan would cut the price to $15 copay but very few have such a plan.

Now lets say that I am girl and worked for a Catholic charity and had the same plan but no contraception benefit. How would including contraceptives as benefit make health care more affordable? When I can pick a generic birth control pill like Microgestin for <$20 at Costco or Walmart?

It seems to me that Catholic worker is better off just having my doctor write me a prescription and ignore the hassles of dealing with the insurance company.


But forget my plan, look at your health insurance plan and tell me why it would help a women with your insurance.

I've been doing this internet thing long enough that if I want to Troll and I certainly can, but this isn't an instance.

[Mark Asher]

Are there generic birth control pills?

As to the cost of the doctor's visit, if you have health insurance that doesn't cover birth control I would still think the doctor's visit should be covered. Is there health insurance that doesn't cover routine checkups?

We're not talking about uninsured people here, but insured people whose insurance doesn't cover the cost of birth control. Since birth control is usually pills and I'd think there are generics now, is it really a big expense to pay for the prescription out of pocket?

I've actually had times where my health insurance had a copay that was more expensive than the cost of a generic drug, so I paid out of pocket instead.

[Nezz]

This discussion is ridiculous (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/catholics-do-not-have-moral-objection-contraception).
The way I understand religious freedom, it includes the freedom to choose a method for reaching a moral judgment as an organization. Presuming that a democratically formed consensus by a majority of its members must necessarily have an impact on how the religious organization exercises its judgments already encroaches upon this freedom.

Put another way: Suppose the Catholic Bishops in the US formed a religious organization all by themselves. Would this organization not be free to dissent from the consensus of everyone surrounding them, just because it's very small?

[Two Sheds]

We're not talking about uninsured people here, but insured people whose insurance doesn't cover the cost of birth control. Since birth control is usually pills and I'd think there are generics now, is it really a big expense to pay for the prescription out of pocket?


Planned Parenthood says $15-50/month, other sources say $10-100/month. So somewhere in there. Also, different birth control pills have varied side-effects on different women. You might be able to afford the $20/month generic at CVS, but what you really need is the $80 name-brand. If that's not covered by your insurance, shit adds up.

[Scuzz]

Are there generic birth control pills?

As to the cost of the doctor's visit, if you have health insurance that doesn't cover birth control I would still think the doctor's visit should be covered. Is there health insurance that doesn't cover routine checkups?

We're not talking about uninsured people here, but insured people whose insurance doesn't cover the cost of birth control. Since birth control is usually pills and I'd think there are generics now, is it really a big expense to pay for the prescription out of pocket?

I've actually had times where my health insurance had a copay that was more expensive than the cost of a generic drug, so I paid out of pocket instead.

Birth control pills are still expensive, my daughter takes them for menstrual problems. And the co-pay is $50 a month.

[ReptileHouse]

Why is the cost relevant? The question is whether a religious organization can pick and choose what to cover based on doctrine.

[Jason McCullough]

The way I understand religious freedom, it includes the freedom to choose a method for reaching a moral judgment as an organization. Presuming that a democratically formed consensus by a majority of its members must necessarily have an impact on how the religious organization exercises its judgments already encroaches upon this freedom.

Put another way: Suppose the Catholic Bishops in the US formed a religious organization all by themselves. Would this organization not be free to dissent from the consensus of everyone surrounding them, just because it's very small?

The popular discussion is not occuring on the organizational level; it's going on as "goddamn government making me sin." Which it isn't, judging by those numbers; "Catholicism" in the popular media is dominated by a bunch of crank groups and the Catholic heirarchy, who Catholics don't agree with.

[Scuzz]

Why is the cost relevant? The question is whether a religious organization can pick and choose what to cover based on doctrine.


Damn it man, are you forcing us back on topic?

[Jason Townsend]

The girl at Georgetown who eventually got ovarian cysts (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html?_r=1) was paying "about 100 a month" out of pocket till she gave up.

[Jason McCullough]

Hey, I wonder (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/riddle-me-this).


What I want to know is where are all the concern trolls on this bus issue? If waving the Bible around is reason enough for a public instititution, even those that take federal dollars like universities and hospitals do, to discriminate against women, then I want to see some consistency here. I want E.J. Dionne to claim that New York's Jewish population is going to rise up en masse in protest because a very small minority of religious fanatics want the right to treat women like shit. I want all the liberal dudes hand-wringing right now about how Obama went a step too far to expand that argument, and talk about why certain buses that serve the public should be able to force women to sit in the back to appease the fanatics' religious sensibilities. Riddle me this: if giving Catholic-owned businesses the right to discriminate against women is freedom of religion, then why isn't it okay when bus companies have signs requiring women to sit in the back to appease a small segment of the Jewish population?

[Jason Townsend]

What bothers me is how defensive and hand-wringy the tone is on the part of the White House, in a conversation that seems mostly to take place among

1. Totally insane right wingers
2. The Whitehouse
3. Pop-corn-eating media organs going, hmmm, culture war's really heating up.

Who cites numbers like McCullough's, which should end this insanity like cold water? No one that I'm seeing.

[Strollen]

Planned Parenthood says $15-50/month, other sources say $10-100/month. So somewhere in there. Also, different birth control pills have varied side-effects on different women. You might be able to afford the $20/month generic at CVS, but what you really need is the $80 name-brand. If that's not covered by your insurance, shit adds up.


This internist has has a website which helps people find lower cost medicine in there area Leslie List, it is only operating in two areas Chicago and Dallas right now. She posted here (http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/09/contraceptive-pill-prices-huge-price-range.html)on the wide range of birth control pills in Chicago $9 to $84 a month for newer drug that is still under patent.

I have searched in vain to find the actual regulations HHS is adopting is it a cap on the co-pays of birth control pills, or are all birth control device available free of charge? In either case the real winners of this mandate are going to be the drug companies especially if the pills are free.

If all birth control pills are free there is no incentive for the average woman not get the newest and best patented drug at $80-100/month. Of course as Dr. Leslie Ramirez points out in almost all cases the generic drug works just fine. This will drive up the total cost of birth control in the country.

There is no free lunch so the cost of this "free benefit" will be passed on the public in the form of having to pay more for insurance either directly or in via lower salaries.

You've got to hand it to the drug companies lobbyist when they get a bunch of liberals pushing to make them more money.

[Jason Townsend]

Co-pays are still going to make more expensive drugs more expensive, even waiving objections to the incredibly dubious idea that all the little cash-value-maximizing homo-economicus women are going around picking the most expensive free estrogen they can under the All Drugs Are Totally Free Plan of Catholic Institution X.

Consider, momentarily, that liberals are angry about what we say we're angry about. And if it's a machiavellian drug company conspiracy at least invent some supporting fiction about how that happened. Unless that is what it looks like when you troll.

[Strollen]

Co-pays are still going to make more expensive drugs more expensive, even waiving objections to the incredibly dubious idea that all the little cash-value-maximizing homo-economicus women are going around picking the most expensive free estrogen they can under the All Drugs Are Totally Free Plan of Catholic Institution X.

Consider, momentarily, that liberals are angry about what we say we're angry about. And if it's a machiavellian drug company conspiracy at least invent some supporting fiction about how that happened. Unless that is what it looks like when you troll.

It does appear that mandate is that all form of birth control are free.

Anyway I am pretty sure that Catholics are pissed about having to provide a service that goes against a core believe that "Every Sperm is Sacred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8)" Liberal are pissed that Catholics have such an idiotic and dangerous belief and are using some bogus religious freedom argument to keep contraceptives from their workers.

I am pissed that rather than attempting to control health care costs were making the problem worse by creating yet another entitlement, free birth control pills.

I feel better after listening to my favorite Monty Python song so I am done with this.

[MatthewF]

Wait, so if birth control pills costs are nothing or near-nothing, that somehow doesn't lower the cost of health care? It's been said several times in this thread that birth control pills aren't just used for birth control. Hell, just read the article Jason linked in post #131.

[Lorini]

They are still cheaper than unplanned children but apparently that's not the point.

[Jason Townsend]

As a (formally speaking) Catholic I've watched the church hurtle into very conservative politics. My baseline - admittedly a fairly recent thing - was the post-Vatican II period where traditional liberal Catholic selectiveness about doctrine and values coincided with a comparatively liberal period in terms of what the church actually pushed, not much different from mainline Protestantism. So on various issues I've seen the church get more and more conservative and more and more serious about making people actually agree to things, and get more and more tied up in partisan politics.

So the Church's views on contraception aren't new. The church going to war with the President's "religious oppression" hand in glove with the GOP is. Also the type of regulation which wound up triggering the fight. Uncontrolled health care costs are indeed a problem, but uncontrolled contraception costs? Are they cheap or expensive on average or just kind of in between? I suspect the latter, but the cases in which it's expensive make the "let sky-wizard-based sex discrimination slide" repugnant in a concrete way. Doesn't mean it's the only reason to oppose it.

[Jason McCullough]

Who cites numbers like McCullough's, which should end this insanity like cold water? No one that I'm seeing.

For no apparent reason the cable networks - who absolutely no one watches, their viewer numbers are unbelievably low - drive the day to day political conversation. And they're entirely about conflict narrative.

[Strollen]

For no apparent reason the cable networks - who absolutely no one watches, their viewer numbers are unbelievably low - drive the day to day political conversation. And they're entirely about conflict narrative.

You're right cable news networks have a very low viewership, although probably include most folks on P&R. The reality is that all traditional news outlets have fallen dramatically. The combine night viewership of the network news show is ~20 million. The circulation of WSJ, USA Today, NY Times, Washington Post is ~5 million. The Daily Show gets about 2 million. From I what I can tell most American's are blissfully ignorant of 90% what is discussed on P&R including this issue.

[jeffd]

I definitely do not watch cable news.

[Jason McCullough]

You're right cable news networks have a very low viewership, although probably include most folks on P&R. The reality is that all traditional news outlets have fallen dramatically. The combine night viewership of the network news show is ~20 million. The circulation of WSJ, USA Today, NY Times, Washington Post is ~5 million. The Daily Show gets about 2 million. From I what I can tell most American's are blissfully ignorant of 90% what is discussed on P&R including this issue.

CNN's primetime viewers (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/november-2011-ratings-cnn-improves-daytime-and-primetime_b100102) are 640k, daytime 400k. Fox is around 2 million (http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/cable-essay/data-page-2/); the entire cable news audience is maybe 4 million. Daytime is half that.

[Jason Townsend]

I'll watch CBC newsworld over lunch or something, but I don't even like CTV's cable news, much less CNN or something of that nature. It's interesting to ponder where the heck "folks generally" get their political news, such as it is. GOP primary ads?

[Scuzz]

I definitely do not watch cable news.


Ditto. :)





And no one is saying (or are they) that birth control should be provided "free" by the Catholic Hospitals, only that it should be included in the insurance offered their employees. Based on the co-pays employees would most likely still be paying something for the pills no matter what the reason is that they use them.

[Strollen]

Ditto. :)





And no one is saying (or are they) that birth control should be provided "free" by the Catholic Hospitals, only that it should be included in the insurance offered their employees. Based on the co-pays employees would most likely still be paying something for the pills no matter what the reason is that they use them.

My understanding (and I have yet to find to link to the details) is that if you provide insurance for your employees (and doesn't Obamacare require all medium employeers to provide insurance?), than you have to provide all contraceptive options free of charge.

This is certainly the impression I get from this Op Ed in today's WSJ written by Democratic Senator Boxer, Murray, and Shaheen.


It was a historic victory for women's health when the Obama administration changed the law to require private health plans to provide preventive services including breast exams, HIV screening and contraception for free. This new policy will help millions of women get the affordable care they need.

On a side note I am surprised that nobody watches Cable News. I am news junkie and religiously (hehe) watch the PBS Newshour. But when I am surfing the net and generally playing game, I typically have CNBC, CNN, Fox or MSNBC (in that order) on for background noise/news. Along with reading the WSJ, Washington Post and typically checking out Realclear Politics, The Atlantic, and NRO. So where do P&R readers get their news.

[charmtrap]

On a side note I am surprised that nobody watches Cable News. I am news junkie and religiously (hehe) watch the PBS Newshour. But when I am surfing the net and generally playing game, I typically have CNBC, CNN, Fox or MSNBC (in that order) on for background noise/news. Along with reading the WSJ, Washington Post and typically checking out Realclear Politics, The Atlantic, and NRO. So where do P&R readers get their news.

I basically never watch television news, unless a blog that I read links to something online. I get most of my news from blogs & Google News. I read a dozen or so blogs and most anything worth reading gets linked at some point somewhere.

On the days of the week when I commute, I listen to Morning Edition or All Things Considered or Marketplace...whatever's on NPR when I'm on the road.

EDIT: Also, don't discount QT3 as a news source...there's a lot of linking to interesting stories around here and at that other forum as well...

[Jason Townsend]

I'd say there are fair number of "gold standard" media pillars like NYT/BBC/NPR/PBS who are paying old-fashioned news-gatherers with a measure of journalistic principle, and lots of more interest-focused news sources like bloggers/columnists/etc. Compared to the 1980s and 1990s there's really no upside to TV as a medium.

[Scuzz]

My understanding (and I have yet to find to link to the details) is that if you provide insurance for your employees (and doesn't Obamacare require all medium employeers to provide insurance?), than you have to provide all contraceptive options free of charge.

This is certainly the impression I get from this Op Ed in today's WSJ written by Democratic Senator Boxer, Murray, and Shaheen.

Quote:
It was a historic victory for women's health when the Obama administration changed the law to require private health plans to provide preventive services including breast exams, HIV screening and contraception for free. This new policy will help millions of women get the affordable care they need.

How do insurance companies provide all that "for free"? Although I think some of that may be covered by most companies now "Preventive Care Benefits". I think our Blue Shield covers the first two items along with free physicals once a year.

But it does seem like the cost of handing the pill out for free (while sweet for us) would be very expensive to an insurance company.

[Scuzz]

I'd say there are fair number of "gold standard" media pillars like NYT/BBC/NPR/PBS who are paying old-fashioned news-gatherers with a measure of journalistic principle, and lots of more interest-focused news sources like bloggers/columnists/etc. Compared to the 1980s and 1990s there's really no upside to TV as a medium.

The internet (and the people on it) have convinced me that all media sources are biased and that none should be trusted.

[Jason Townsend]

The internet (and the people on it) have convinced me that all media sources are biased and that none should be trusted.

All humans and human institutions are biased. Also, nothing is knowable. Navel-gaze navel-gaze. The sources I mentioned are high quality in relation to their peers and past standards.

Doubtless to many conservatives the idea of the residual professionalism-and-public-interest-oriented media is an evil librul plot, but thus far they don't seem to have convinced people to stop trusting PBS / NPR. I'm sure given time reality can be entirely obliterated.

[Strollen]

How do insurance companies provide all that "for free"? Although I think some of that may be covered by most companies now "Preventive Care Benefits". I think our Blue Shield covers the first two items along with free physicals once a year.

But it does seem like the cost of handing the pill out for free (while sweet for us) would be very expensive to an insurance company.


I figure one of three things is going to happen: Option A the administration, is going to convince the birth control, condom, and IUD to give away the product for free and CVS, Walmart, Wallgreen and the other pharmacies will dispense them free of charge. Option B the insurance companies will graciously absorb the cost of providing these service because contraceptives save money. C. The insurance companies will pass along the cost in the form higher premiums. My money is on C.

[Jason McCullough]

My understanding (and I have yet to find to link to the details) is that if you provide insurance for your employees (and doesn't Obamacare require all medium employeers to provide insurance?), than you have to provide all contraceptive options free of charge.

Technically that just means you have to put it into the baseline policy and can't charge a separate co-pay, or make it a rider option. It's not free as much as it has to be treated the same as any other covered treatment. It'd be roughly analogous to the state insurance regulator ordering automobile insurance companies to make tire coverage a mandatory part of full damage auto insurance.

[RichVR]

http://i.imgur.com/5a08z.jpg

[Nightgaunt]

The popular discussion is not occuring on the organizational level; it's going on as "goddamn government making me sin." Which it isn't, judging by those numbers; "Catholicism" in the popular media is dominated by a bunch of crank groups and the Catholic heirarchy, who Catholics don't agree with.

Do keep in mind that there are very, very many "cradle Catholics" who are not regular practitioners, but identify as Catholic in a cultural, not religious sense. That can skew the numbers of polls like this, although I won't claim to know by how much.

[Jason McCullough]

Gosh, now we're discussing who's a real Catholic.

[ridge]

The right wing is so ugly. They really need to fire their strategists. This is just the newest attempt to create a wedge issue, energize their morlocks, and just all around distract people from jobs and their rewriting of the STOCK, insider trading bill.

Even states like Georgia have legislation for the Pill. Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 33-24-59.6. It is consistent non-sense from Republicans. They keep dragging us into these non-debates rather than just damn govern properly.

This whole contraception rule is from the 1960's when a Catholic helped to invent the Pill. A handful of religious $#@%-suckers decided to control women's careers and health.

[ReptileHouse]

Gosh, now we're discussing who's a real Catholic.

I don't think that's what he's getting at. A more apt political analogy would be primary voters vs. registered voters. The politics of folks who vote in the primaries tends to skew differently than those who self-identify with a party via their registration.

[Jason McCullough]

"By 19 points, and slightly exceeding the general public, Catholics approve of the rule" isn't an observation about the politics. It's the premise of the objection - that Catholics are opposed to birth control - is bullshit.

[ReptileHouse]

I don't disagree with that. I'm only saying that your "CiNO" remark is off the mark. It's fair to ask for more drill down into the data to see what other interesting correlations there are.

[Ranulf]

The right wing is so ugly. They really need to fire their strategists. This is just the newest attempt to create a wedge issue, energize their morlocks, and just all around distract people from jobs and their rewriting of the STOCK, insider trading bill.

Even states like Georgia have legislation for the Pill. Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 33-24-59.6. It is consistent non-sense from Republicans. They keep dragging us into these non-debates rather than just damn govern properly.

This whole contraception rule is from the 1960's when a Catholic helped to invent the Pill. A handful of religious $#@%-suckers decided to control women's careers and health.

Darn tootin! Govern properly! Whats proper by the way? A handful of jack booted do gooders due to the actions of some drug addicts have decided to control people's health regarding the common cold among other things sudafed helps.

My state, the lovely Oregon (along with a few others) requires me to see a doctor to confirm I have a cold, he has to go through the workup to avoid legal/insurance issues and gives me a prescription for the real deal sudafed. So co-pay plus meds plus time is now pushing $40+ for cold medicine that I used to be trusted to buy over the counter. If I had no insurance, well its worse. This is to fight the meth scourge, which I'm told Oregon is now winning with less local meth cookers. Not that stuff doesnt still come in from Mexico of course.

So the law will stay in place, and its spreading to more states. I laugh now at people who bitch about having to give their ID to buy some sudafed along with amount limits. Indiana arrested a granny last year for buying .025 grams more in a week than allowed. Go buy a gun, you get the same treatment. Prove you're not a druggie/wacko bastard, its for everyone's safety. Screw the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

If reproductive rights are inviolate and the cost should be born by all so should my fucking cold meds. Of course once you let the government (or a religion) mandate by force for one aspect of your body you give them control of it all eventually.


Like wearing seatbelts and not drinking and driving, which I'm sure are perfectly fine to violate if they're against your organization's sincerely-held religious beliefs?

Oh please, seatbelts are no longer about safety but revenue generation. You can't have 2 generations growing up with pro seatbelt propaganda (and car alarms for it on engine start) then turn around and fine people for not wearing one. Anyone under 40 puts the belt on by habit without even thinking about it. For fuck's sake its now recommended you don't take off your seatbelt (to reach your license etc.) until the cop gets to your door for fear of getting a ticket.

For your reading enjoyment, "a Libertarian Catholic" on this whole farce:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=201678

PS, Fuck the Catholic church you whiny late comer bastards. You're getting what you deserve.

[foogla]

Wait. Seatbelts are not about security? Like, you think you can hold on to the steering wheel in a head on collision?

[IainC]

It's true that the car companies are all in the pockets of Big Seatbelts.

[Ken at Popehat]

1 . I think the Catholic Church is kind of full of shit on this. 28 states require contraception coverage already. Where was the nationwide campaign about that? This smacks of a coordinated effort with the GOP.

2. That said, I think that a government that can order institutions to offer birth control insurance coverage can also order institutions NOT to offer birth control coverage (and then I doubt the Catholic Church would be complaining). I'd vastly prefer that people just avoid working for, or patronizing, or donating to, Catholic entities that decide not to cover contraception. God knows I would never take a loved one -- particularly a female loved one -- to a Catholic hospital for anything more potentially complicated or controversial than a broken finger: http://ncronline.org/news/justice/nun-excommunicated-allowing-abortion I don't want my doctors -- or my loved ones' doctors -- worrying about being fired or excommunicated based on religious dogma if they make a recommendation based on their best medical judgment.

[Scuzz]

I figure one of three things is going to happen: Option A the administration, is going to convince the birth control, condom, and IUD to give away the product for free and CVS, Walmart, Wallgreen and the other pharmacies will dispense them free of charge. Option B the insurance companies will graciously absorb the cost of providing these service because contraceptives save money. C. The insurance companies will pass along the cost in the form higher premiums. My money is on C.

Agreed.

[Scuzz]

My state, the lovely Oregon (along with a few others) requires me to see a doctor to confirm I have a cold, he has to go through the workup to avoid legal/insurance issues and gives me a prescription for the real deal sudafed. So co-pay plus meds plus time is now pushing $40+ for cold medicine that I used to be trusted to buy over the counter. If I had no insurance, well its worse. This is to fight the meth scourge, which I'm told Oregon is now winning with less local meth cookers. Not that stuff doesnt still come in from Mexico of course.

Wow, Oregon law sucks. We can still buy that stuff here but it is behind the counter and you have to go through the pharmacist to get it so he can check the computer on your buying record.

And central California is where meth comes from....not Mexico. :)

[MattKeil]

Oh please, seatbelts are no longer about safety but revenue generation. You can't have 2 generations growing up with pro seatbelt propaganda (and car alarms for it on engine start) then turn around and fine people for not wearing one.

...why not?


Anyone under 40 puts the belt on by habit without even thinking about it. For fuck's sake its now recommended you don't take off your seatbelt (to reach your license etc.) until the cop gets to your door for fear of getting a ticket.

So then...what's the problem? If everyone's constantly wearing seatbelts, how can anyone be fined for not wearing seatbelts? What a strange paragraph you've written.


PS, Fuck the Catholic church you whiny late comer bastards. You're getting what you deserve.

"Late comer"?

[Scuzz]

"Late comer"?



If you weren't with Henry the 8th your late to the party.

[Ken at Popehat]

Also -- of all the arguments in favor of the HHS contraception mandate, the one I find least persuasive is "most Catholics don't even believe/practice that." It's one thing to say that the government can mandate private parties to extend insurance benefits that violate their religious beliefs; there are colorable arguments about that. It's quite another to say the government should be able to decide which religious beliefs are genuine or sincere or sufficiently widespread or sufficiently followed by adherents to a particular religion.

[Hugin]

Also -- of all the arguments in favor of the HHS contraception mandate, the one I find least persuasive is "most Catholics don't even believe/practice that." It's one thing to say that the government can mandate private parties to extend insurance benefits that violate their religious beliefs; there are colorable arguments about that. It's quite another to say the government should be able to decide which religious beliefs are genuine or sincere or sufficiently widespread or sufficiently followed by adherents to a particular religion.


I disagree. I think it's a compelling argument. The Government always has to make judgments about how serious a stated belief is, that's what gives it the ability to reject people who make up ridiculous claims like the aforementioned "my religion requires me to eat lobster and steak". We know that some religious beliefs are held in a highly serious and unbreakable manner, but others are regarded in a more lax fashion, this is true of every religion everywhere. If the Catholic church claims their anti-contraception stance is serious enough to justify the real harm it does to women, the fact that most Catholics don't follow that teaching is to me a big deal.

[Scuzz]

Birth control (or lack thereof) is part of the church dogma, however not so much it's American followers. Does that remove it as a serious church objection? It seems like religious leaders (of several faiths) are speaking out against this move while I wonder how many church goers would welcome the move.

[Jason McCullough]

I disagree. I think it's a compelling argument. The Government always has to make judgments about how serious a stated belief is, that's what gives it the ability to reject people who make up ridiculous claims like the aforementioned "my religion requires me to eat lobster and steak".

In that case the government is determining whether something is a religion, not whether someone is actually an adherent.

[Murbella]

Is it too early to bring up "my religion is right, yours is wrong?"

Republicans are hilarious though. They get so up in arms over Sharia law and then they get mad when they are denied their western version.

There was just a case about honor killings too so maybe we need to let those murderers go free because they were just practicing their religion.

[Jason McCullough]

Surprise (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/gop-bill-lets-any-employer-deny-birth-control-coverage.php?ref=fpnewsfeed) fucking surprise (http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/02/whats-it-all-about-then_09.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FbRuz+%28Eschaton%2 9).


That was no consolation to Catholic leaders. The White House is "all talk, no action" on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed."

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

[Anders Hallin]

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/the-real-divide-here-is-on-gender-not-catholicism
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/02/07/Catholics-favor-healthcare-contraception/UPI-60501328655161/

But there's another aspect to this story I want to talk about. The polling data makes this clear that there's no conflict between Catholics and everyone else. But there are two groups that show huge divergences in the polling data on this: men and women.


However, women were significantly more likely to favor free contraception through employee healthcare plans at 62 percent versus 47 percent of men, while 54 percent of women agreed religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should provide this coverage versus 43 percent of men.

[Ranulf]

...why not?



So then...what's the problem? If everyone's constantly wearing seatbelts, how can anyone be fined for not wearing seatbelts? What a strange paragraph you've written.



Thats the point idiot. We've been socialized to always wear our seatbelts for decades along with little things like warning lights and chimes. Now they decide to push "click it or ticket" laws. Uh, we're already wearing our seatbelts and we didn't need code compliance laws that cause fines if we dare to not wear a seatbelt. It went from "wear your belt for safety" and yeah it makes sense, I've lived through a crash where it helped. Then it was, if we stop you for something else and notice you don't have it on (uh how exactly?), we'll fine you. To we'll stop you and fine you if we see you just driving down the road. It has nothing to do about pushing safety, they've already done that for decades. But now they need more money and want more control. Petty little shit to generate cash for the state.

Regarding the Catholic church, they're late to the fight. They had no problems with obamacare (sorry the affordable healthcare act) and other laws as long as it didn't impact them. Human nature I suppose. So I have little sympathy for them.

[Sören Höglund]

If anyone needs more proof that this is much ado about nothing. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law)


President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

...

"We have used [the EEOC ruling] many times in negotiating with various employers," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "It has been in active use all this time. [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000."

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling. DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago. (DePaul officials did not respond to a request for comment.)

As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between the administrators of Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered. The Weekly Standard opined on the issue in 2009—more proof that religious employers were being asked to cover contraception far before the Obama administration issued its new rule on January 20 of this year.

[JeffL]

Welp, it's an election year. So Obama has backed down:


Senior administration officials tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama on Friday will announce that religious employers will not have to cover birth control for their employees after all. He will demand instead that insurance companies will be the ones ultimately responsible for providing free contraception.

In essence, the organization will not have to pay, but the insurance company itself will be required to pick up the tab. So women get free birth control with no co-pay or out of pocket cost, but no money out of the organization's pocket.

[salwon]

Looks like caving's the choice. Very smart move by Obama.

[charmtrap]

Unfortunate, but the political calculation seems reasonable enough. Is birth control for a few Church employees a hill worth dying on?

[wahoo]

Welp, it's an election year. So Obama has backed down.



It's interesting how this thread plays out vs inside the beltway. Inside the beltway, the story is how pissed the Catholic left is. The administration caved b/c his supporters on the left are pissed at him (nuns, EJ. Dionne), at least count at least 6 sitting Dem senators had protested the rule. The former head of the DNC and the Dem nominee for Webb's Senate Seat in VA went against the Administration on this. Biden, Panetta, De Parle and other senior ofifcials were against this from the start.

This thread has depicted the argument between the standard conservative Catholic bishops vs. Administration. That's not really the issue. It's that the Catholic groups that backed PPACA got blindsided on this and felt it was betrayal. The administration had to change course quick b/c they were going to be continually hammered on this, including by sitting Democrat politicians.

[Hugin]

Welp, it's an election year. So Obama has backed down:



In essence, the organization will not have to pay, but the insurance company itself will be required to pick up the tab. So women get free birth control with no co-pay or out of pocket cost, but no money out of the organization's pocket.


Seems like a reasonable compromise. Insurers have to make contraceptive coverage available, and they can't charge extra for it. Women will get the healthcare they need and deserve, the insurance companies shouldn't complain because the costs will be low, in fact they might save money.

Honestly, if the Catholic Church still wants to complain after this, fuck them. The Pope doesn't run the country.

[CLWheeljack]

Its weird to me that birth control seems like _the_ issue that the Catholic Church is willing to go to the mat on. Seems like there are probably a lot of other tenets of the church that are equally inviolate but don't draw a similar response. (Maybe there isn't, I don't know Catholicism that well, but it seems like a weird place to draw your line in the sand).

[JeffL]

Frankly, I like Obama for doing this. The intent is still covered - free birth control for all women. The "What" is covered. The "How" of whether a Catholic organization (and Catholic hospitals provide a huge amount of health care in the nation) has to pay for it, which opposes some of their core beliefs or an insurance company does is something that can be tweaked without hurting anyone.

Obama saying, OK, I screwed up on this, I'm man enough to say let's change it, that's more important than fighting over it. Good for him. He's making his speech now.

[Nezz]

Its weird to me that birth control seems like _the_ issue that the Catholic Church is willing to go to the mat on. Seems like there are probably a lot of other tenets of the church that are equally inviolate but don't draw a similar response. (Maybe there isn't, I don't know Catholicism that well, but it seems like a weird place to draw your line in the sand).
There aren't that many governments trying to mandate that the Ghost doesn't proceed from the Son. Perhaps there should be, I hate how the constant reactions to an over-sexualized society skews the external communication, as if it was the Church who's obsessed with the topic.

[Scuzz]

I heard coming into work today that 28 states (if my memory is right) currently require religious groups to offer contraception. Most apparently do it by offering multiple plans, some with contraception and some without, thus putting the burden (choice) on the employee.

[Jason McCullough]

Wahoo, that is interesting. Where'd you learn that?

[charmtrap]

I read about that the other day...it's mostly the states you'd expect (CA, MA, NY, WA, IL) plus some you wouldn't (TX, GA). There's a list buried in Wikipedia somewhere, but I can't retrace it.

[Scuzz]

nevermind.....

I deleted this as I was responding to something not aimed at me.

[Scuzz]

It's interesting how this thread plays out vs inside the beltway. Inside the beltway, the story is how pissed the Catholic left is. The administration caved b/c his supporters on the left are pissed at him (nuns, EJ. Dionne), at least count at least 6 sitting Dem senators had protested the rule. The former head of the DNC and the Dem nominee for Webb's Senate Seat in VA went against the Administration on this. Biden, Panetta, De Parle and other senior ofifcials were against this from the start.

This thread has depicted the argument between the standard conservative Catholic bishops vs. Administration. That's not really the issue. It's that the Catholic groups that backed PPACA got blindsided on this and felt it was betrayal. The administration had to change course quick b/c they were going to be continually hammered on this, including by sitting Democrat politicians.

It wasn't just catholics either. The priest, pastor or whatever who Obama had at his swearing in has come out hard core against it.

[wahoo]

Wahoo, that is interesting. Where'd you learn that?

Politico has a piece on the internal White house article. I was surprised by Nancy De Parle, who's the heavy policy health care hitter, opposition.

Jake Tapper/ABC has Pannetta's objection and how the White House knew they were gonna piss of the Catholics.

Lead from Dionne's piece which was the red alert to the Administration that they had screwed up:

One of Barack Obama's great attractions as a presidential candidate was his sensitivity to the feelings and intellectual concerns of religious believers. That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health-care law. His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the church who had originally sought to derail the health care law.

[wahoo]

Seems like a reasonable compromise. Insurers have to make contraceptive coverage available, and they can't charge extra for it. Women will get the healthcare they need and deserve, the insurance companies shouldn't complain because the costs will be low, in fact they might save money.
.


Impossible to do and impossible to enforce. Mandated benefits increase health insurance costs.

Whatever your feeling on birthcontrol is, to say that it would drive down costs flies in the face of a slew of empirical, academic research highlighted by PPACA's #1 economist Jon Gruber's research on the incidence of mandate ofmaternity benefits.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Lorini]

I would love to see links on how unplanned pregnancies are cheaper than birth control.

[Scuzz]

Impossible to do and impossible to enforce. Mandated benefits increase health insurance costs.

Whatever your feeling on birthcontrol is, to say that it would drive down costs flies in the face of a slew of empirical, academic research highlighted by PPACA's #1 economist Jon Gruber's research on the incidence of mandate ofmaternity benefits.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.


I agree. There is no way free contraception stays "free". Someone will pay for it somewhere.

[Two Sheds]

I would love to see links on how unplanned pregnancies are cheaper than birth control.

They are more expensive in money, sure, but you get unquantifiable joy out of them and they are technically a "blessing." And who knows how much that's worth? So it's basically a wash.

[wahoo]

I would love to see links on how unplanned pregnancies are cheaper than birth control.

Birth control is cheaper, which is why they're a regular feature in most insurance packages. But of course, their value is added to the premium. They're not free.

Also realize that mandating free means that some people who are now purchasing birth control will now have "free" birth control with zero reduction in their chance of being pregnant.

There are studies that show birth control packages are considered "cost neutral". But that assumes that insurance companies can charge for birth control and not hand it out for free.

Good read on the issue from Ezra Klein's blog:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-catch-in-obamas-contraceptives-compromise/2012/02/10/gIQA5mbG4Q_blog.html

[Lorini]

They are more expensive in money, sure, but you get unquantifiable joy out of them and they are technically a "blessing." And who knows how much that's worth? So it's basically a wash.

Never knew an unplanned pregnancy was a blessing. Also didn't know about the unquantifiable joy part either. But since people are asserting that providing birth control costs more than not providing birth control (given that a third of the pregnancies in this country are unplanned), I'd just like to see the math.

[Scuzz]

Never knew an unplanned pregnancy was a blessing. Also didn't know about the unquantifiable joy part either. But since people are asserting that providing birth control costs more than not providing birth control (given that a third of the pregnancies in this country are unplanned), I'd just like to see the math.

As far as I know all insurance programs already cover pregnancy and it's assorted costs whether you need them or not (even those who have been fixed or had hysterectomies cannot opt out of that coverage I have been told) so those are being paid for as is. Birth control may not be so it truly is an added cost.

As for Two Sheds statement I read that as being sarcastic, at least as the father of two I saw it that way. :)

[Lorini]

I was being somewhat sarcastic as well. No, we are talking about actual costs to the insurer, not costs to the consumer. The insurer incurs costs when there is a pregnancy, whether or not they have already accounted for those costs. When a pregnancy that they assumed was going to happen doesn't happen, then they save money. A lot of money over the course of 18 years + 9 months. So there in fact can be a free lunch, because assuming the insurer has accounted for a pregnancy that doesn't happen, that results in additional revenue to the insurer that can be used to cover the cost of birth control.

[Nezz]

I was being somewhat sarcastic as well. No, we are talking about actual costs to the insurer, not costs to the consumer. The insurer incurs costs when there is a pregnancy, whether or not they have already accounted for those costs. When a pregnancy that they assumed was going to happen doesn't happen, then they save money. A lot of money over the course of 18 years + 9 months. So there in fact can be a free lunch, because assuming the insurer has accounted for a pregnancy that doesn't happen, that results in additional revenue to the insurer that can be used to cover the cost of birth control.
On the other side of the bill, you have the unwanted pregnancies caused by birth control, namely when the easy availability of birth control enabled a sexual encounter that otherwise would not have happened, and the birth control fails, which it does in about 10% of applications.

[Lorini]

On the other side of the bill, you have the unwanted pregnancies caused by birth control, namely when the easy availability of birth control enabled a sexual encounter that otherwise would not have happened, and the birth control fails, which it does in about 10% of applications.

Even a 10% failure rate would not result in a cost vs not providing any birth control at all. There's just no numbers to support this.

[AaronSofaer]

On the other side of the bill, you have the unwanted pregnancies caused by birth control, namely when the easy availability of birth control enabled a sexual encounter that otherwise would not have happened, and the birth control fails, which it does in about 10% of applications.


Except that people have vast amounts of unprotected sex under abstinence-only programs or without access to prophylactics, with the corresponding sky-high pregnancy rate, so what the fuck, dude.

[Scuzz]

Except that people have vast amounts of unprotected sex under abstinence-only programs or without access to prophylactics, with the corresponding sky-high pregnancy rate, so what the fuck, dude.


Do you really think that most un-protected sex is due to a lack of contraception options or a combination of "laziness" and "stupidity"? By that I mean couples who just have sex and don't care. I am sure there are probably stats out there somewhere on that but I would wager that even if contraception options were available free at every McDonalds there would be people having sex without without using them.

[jeffd]

I agree. There is no way free contraception stays "free". Someone will pay for it somewhere.

We're sort of playing fast and loose with the definition of free. Recall that employer provided health insurance is just provided in lieu of additional cash compensation (for various stupid reasons that make it cheaper to get insurance through your employer than on your own). In essence, even if the employer is "paying" for the contraception coverage, it's really just going to come out of the employee's compensation one way or another. Wahoo is right in that there's no free lunch. What's ridiculous is the shell game that the Church is playing here.

Political snark: the same people who are screeching about how Obamacare is trampling on religious freedoms are by and large the same people who fearmonger over Sharia. Our political discourse is so fucking stupid.

[Jason Townsend]

I doubt the other side is interested in compromise - if a thin dime from employer pay-in is going to the insurance company I'm sure it'll still be "Obama's War On Catholicism."

My anger at the right wingers is sharing space with my exasperated disgust at the "liberals with conscience qualms." For fuck's sake people. I'm surprised the capitulation wasn't worse, with those morons pushing for an own-goal.

[Scuzz]

We're sort of playing fast and loose with the definition of free. Recall that employer provided health insurance is just provided in lieu of additional cash compensation (for various stupid reasons that make it cheaper to get insurance through your employer than on your own). In essence, even if the employer is "paying" for the contraception coverage, it's really just going to come out of the employee's compensation one way or another.


Maybe I am mis-understanding you but if you mean that employees would have received through wages amounting to the difference in the increased costs of health care over the last ten years I somehow doubt it. When insurance costs have gone up employees pay has not gone down, except in those ever increasing instances where employees are now picking up a percentage of the costs.

[jeffd]

Maybe I am mis-understanding you but if you mean that employees would have received through wages amounting to the difference in the increased costs of health care over the last ten years I somehow doubt it. When insurance costs have gone up employees pay has not gone down, except in those ever increasing instances where employees are now picking up a percentage of the costs.

I'm interested if you can provide a model where health insurance isn't offered in lieu of wages. It's obviously not one to one, but it's pretty well excepted that under some other form of insurance scheme (e.g., one that didn't provide preferential tax treatment to employer-provided insurance and also made it possible to get a reasonable insurance product on the individual market) that employee wages would be significantly higher. Employer provided health insurance heavily distorts all sorts of things, and it gives rise to ridiculous "controversies" like this one.

[Scuzz]

In the thread regarding whether Romney was a dick for not being willing to pay extra for Jewish retirement home patients getting Kosher meals there were people who thought he should have been willing to pay the extra money because of their religious beliefs, now we have people telling us those religious beliefs regarding contraception mean nothing. Interesting. Or have I mis-read the situation.

[Hugin]

Impossible to do and impossible to enforce. Mandated benefits increase health insurance costs.

Whatever your feeling on birthcontrol is, to say that it would drive down costs flies in the face of a slew of empirical, academic research highlighted by PPACA's #1 economist Jon Gruber's research on the incidence of mandate ofmaternity benefits.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The next time I run into Jon, I'll ask him. I have a hard time imagining that birth control costs the country more than pregnancies, abortions, and other medical stuff people use contraception for (STD prevention, control of other medical issues).

[jeffd]

Probably it's a combination of both.

I don't believe that, as a general rule, our society is obligated to offer deference to religious beliefs. Not all religious beliefs are inviolable. For instance, we (wisely) aren't about to let Muslims set aside US law so they can practice sharia.

Insofar as we do give organized religions a pass, it should be done on a case-by-case basis, with some solid analysis behind it. What's the cost to society of deferring to the religious viewpoint? How strongly held is the religious viewpoint? Are there any other factors to consider.

IMO a quick calculus over this nonsense doesn't do the Church any favors. The cost of this exemption is moderate; access to birth control is a net positive to society and especially to women; control over their reproductive rights is one of the most hard-fought and greatest accomplishment of the women's movement in the 20th century (incidentally, it's telling that it's just the usual bunch of older men who are involved in this argument). The belief in question isn't really very keenly felt at all, except by the Church officials themselves. Polling's made it clear that actual Catholics don't much give a shit about the ban on contraception.

In other words, the case to be made here is a pretty weak one. I don't think there's any rational basis on which you can say a secular society ought to defer to a religious institution on this one. Claiming "That violates my religious beliefs" is not, in and of itself, a reason to be exempt from the law.

As far as Massachusetts and the old Jewish folks go: that's actually a bit of a dicier calculus. It's a pretty low cost to society (a few extra tax dollars), but staying kosher is a very strongly held belief. The usual suspects who say "beggars can't be choosers!" aside, I think there's actually a stronger case to be made to deferring to that particular religious belief.

[Scuzz]

I'm interested if you can provide a model where health insurance isn't offered in lieu of wages. It's obviously not one to one, but it's pretty well excepted that under some other form of insurance scheme (e.g., one that didn't provide preferential tax treatment to employer-provided insurance and also made it possible to get a reasonable insurance product on the individual market) that employee wages would be significantly higher. Employer provided health insurance heavily distorts all sorts of things, and it gives rise to ridiculous "controversies" like this one.

I guess to my way of thinking the employer can control (except in a union situation) what he pays his employees. However anyone acquainted with buying health insurance knows that employers cannot control those costs. Those costs have escalated much faster than any wage plan ever would.

I can see where can argue they are in lieu of wages, but how many employees view them as such.

[Jason Townsend]

In the thread regarding whether Romney was a dick for not being willing to pay extra for Jewish retirement home patients getting Kosher meals there were people [who?] who thought he should have been willing to pay the extra money because of their religious beliefs, now we have people [who?] telling us [who?] those religious beliefs regarding contraception mean nothing. Interesting. Or have I mis-read the situation.

Try to keep the weasel-attributions to a minimum, leaving aside the fairly ludicrous comparison of offering an extra menu option to accommodate a widespread religious preference with denying medical coverage to comply with a nigh-universally ignored preference of a clerical hierarchy.

[Scuzz]

Try to keep the weasel-attributions to a minimum, leaving aside the fairly ludicrous comparison of offering an extra menu option to accommodate a widespread religious preference with denying medical coverage to comply with a nigh-universally ignored preference of a clerical hierarchy.

Too much apples and oranges eh. I am not accusing anyone here of anything as I don't remember or care to look up who had what argument on that issue. But in my mind I see the ideas as overlapping and that taking the opposite sides of each requires some rationalization.

[jeffd]

I guess to my way of thinking the employer can control (except in a union situation) what he pays his employees. However anyone acquainted with buying health insurance knows that employers cannot control those costs. Those costs have escalated much faster than any wage plan ever would.

I can see where can argue they are in lieu of wages, but how many employees view them as such.

Employees don't, but employees don't really think like economists. And you're right that the cost of health insurance has accelerated faster than wages probably would have. So has the share paid for by employees.

Like I said, health insurance is just a form of compensation that gets some preferential tax treatment. Money is fungible, the whole "We don't want to give our employees birth control plans with health insurance" is just a stupid argument brought about by the idiotic way that our country handles health care.

[Hugin]

Too much apples and oranges eh. I am not accusing anyone here of anything as I don't remember or care to look up who had what argument on that issue. But in my mind I see the ideas as overlapping and that taking the opposite sides of each requires some rationalization.


At the time, it was made very clear the a key aspect of the Kosher meals thing was that this was a belief these people had held all their lives and took seriously. Whereas the contraception thing is an edict from literally a foreign power that is largely ignored by American Catholics.

[Scuzz]

Employees don't, but employees don't really think like economists. And you're right that the cost of health insurance has accelerated faster than wages probably would have. So has the share paid for by employees.

Like I said, health insurance is just a form of compensation that gets some preferential tax treatment. Money is fungible, the whole "We don't want to give our employees birth control plans with health insurance" is just a stupid argument brought about by the idiotic way that our country handles health care.

Also, while I think "free" is a misnomer, I doubt requiring it would increase costs very much when you compare the way costs have jumped anyway. Giving the employee the option seems like a simple option to me.

[Scuzz]

At the time, it was made very clear the a key aspect of the Kosher meals thing was that this was a belief these people had held all their lives and took seriously. Whereas the contraception thing is an edict from literally a foreign power that is largely ignored by American Catholics.


See, rationalization. :)

[wahoo]

I guess to my way of thinking the employer can control (except in a union situation) what he pays his employees. However anyone acquainted with buying health insurance knows that employers cannot control those costs. Those costs have escalated much faster than any wage plan ever would.

I can see where can argue they are in lieu of wages, but how many employees view them as such.

Your latter point is very different from what JeffD is saying. Jeff is exactly right in laying out the impact that rising health costs have on wages.

To an employer what matters is your total compensation.
Total Compensation=Wages + HI costs + pension costs + vacation/other expenses.

To the extent that HI costs rise more quickly, other areas are held down. So the rapid increases in HI come at the expense of wages. And of course, employees don't know this b/c they rarely see the full cost of HI to the employer.

What's more fun is that a $1 in Health Insurance is greater than a $1 in wages due to the tax subsidy on health insurance instead of wages. So companies and employees have incentives to receive more compensation in insurance, instead of cash. This is why economists believe that the ceiling on high $ HI plans was the best curve bending feature of PPACA.

[jeffd]

Also, while I think "free" is a misnomer, I doubt requiring it would increase costs very much when you compare the way costs have jumped anyway. Giving the employee the option seems like a simple option to me.

Right. It's a stupid issue because at the end of the day the employee is paying for it no matter what. If it costs twenty bucks to provide contraception benefits to someone, that money is going to be paid for, one way or another, and at the end of the day it's the employee who pays for it. There may be lip service given to not using premiums received from Church-backed employers or employees of those organizations to pay for contraceptives, and they'll probably pay some accountants a few bucks to prove it, but because money is fungible, at the end of the day it ends up being a lot of nonsense. Which is why this issue is so fucking stupid in the first place; the settlement is just stupid layered on top of stupid.

Which is to say nothing about the question of whether we ought to be giving the Church a pass on this one. We definitely shouldn't be, the only reason we are is that some insider beltway types got their panties in a twist over the issue.

[Two Sheds]

On the other side of the bill, you have the unwanted pregnancies caused by birth control, namely when the easy availability of birth control enabled a sexual encounter that otherwise would not have happened, and the birth control fails, which it does in about 10% of applications.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life. And I read the internet.

[Jason Townsend]

If it was a stray thought n/m the snippy response, but I don't think there's rationalization required. I wouldn't say there's a legal requirement to offer kosher/halal/vegetarian meals in any context, but it's a nice thing to do to accommodate peoples' heartfelt beliefs at the expense of no one else's.

This is about limiting women's coverage - coverage that they'd really use - in deference to the 'beliefs' of a tiny hard-line minority of Catholics when the mass of the faith - to say nothing of every other faith, given that it's not even a Catholic's only limitation - have voted with their ovaries that it's stupid. The only reason there's mass indignation over this is that it's an election year and a serious bloc of hard-line-catholics have become a significant part of the religious right.

I'm sure somewhere Al Smith is shaking his head pretty hard. Right-wing Republican Ultramontanism, and other things we never expected to happen.

[wahoo]

Which is to say nothing about the question of whether we ought to be giving the Church a pass on this one. We definitely shouldn't be, the only reason we are is that some insider beltway types got their panties in a twist over the issue.


I think where you come down on this issue is where you are on freedom of religion. The country has a long tradition of exempting core religious beliefs from national laws in the belief that the separation of church of state protects both sides.

The concluding WaPo editorial against the President says this: That is all true, yet the significance of the new health-care law is that the federal government will for the first time require all employers to provide insurance coverage for their workers — in other words, to spend their own money to help underwrite this coverage — or, in many cases, to pay a penalty. In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.


Personally, I think the Administration would have a tough time in court b/c they are coercing religions to violate their principles. The Administration would have to argue that Catholic charity groups are not really religious entities.

This is different from a church trying to do something against laws. This is a new law going against an established religious practice.

[Hugin]

See, rationalization. :)


Oh come on. It's trying to evaluate these things in some reasonable kind of way. No one is saying "Accommodations should never be made for any religious belief in any case." And no one is saying "All religious beliefs should be accommodated at all times."

[jeffd]

I'll go back to my first post on the subject: there exists no general rule by which religious views allow an individual or organization to be exempt from the law. Insofar as they receive a pass, it should be on a case by case basis. In this case, I believe it's demonstrated adequately that in fact this isn't a deeply held belief, and that the costs of the exemption are high enough to deny it.

[Jason Townsend]

^ likes this post

[jeffd]

HIT THE LIKE BUTTON THEN!

Oh, wait...

[charmtrap]

So, now that I've actually read everyone's statements, and what the rule actually is, it's hard not to count this as an unqualified win for Obama. He appears accommodating to religion, thereby blunting some of the idiotic "war on religion" bullshit. He forced his future opponent (whoever it is) to defend an unpopular hard-right position on birth control and women's health issues. And he got what he wanted anyway, which was full coverage for women's contraception.

By my count, that's a 3-0 shut-out for Obama.

[Andy Bates]

As far as Massachusetts and the old Jewish folks go: that's actually a bit of a dicier calculus. It's a pretty low cost to society (a few extra tax dollars), but staying kosher is a very strongly held belief. The usual suspects who say "beggars can't be choosers!" aside, I think there's actually a stronger case to be made to deferring to that particular religious belief.

If you care to actually have the facts about the Romney side-issue, he did not veto providing kosher meals to elderly Jews; he voted against paying $600,000 to add a kosher kitchen to the facilities, when they were already having catered kosher meals being brought in (and that vote was overturned anyway). So no, it wasn't an issue of denying kosher meals to Jewish residents.

We now return you to your normal discussion, "Freedom of religion is good, but only as long as those beliefs agree with mine."

[RichVR]

So, now that I've actually read everyone's statements, and what the rule actually is, it's hard not to count this as an unqualified win for Obama. He appears accommodating to religion, thereby blunting some of the idiotic "war on religion" bullshit. He forced his future opponent (whoever it is) to defend an unpopular hard-right position on birth control and women's health issues. And he got what he wanted anyway, which was full coverage for women's contraception.

By my count, that's a 3-0 shut-out for Obama.

This. QFT and all the rest.

[jeffd]

Occasionally I click through one of Andy's posts, just to see if he's offering up anything worth thinking about, or if it's just his usual trollish nonsense. This was one of those times. So Andy, here you go.
http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0909/that-chicken-keep-fucking-that-chicken-demotivational-poster-1253223506.jpg

[Brian Rubin]

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life. And I read the internet.
Successful troll is successful. ;)

[Brian Rubin]

So, now that I've actually read everyone's statements, and what the rule actually is, it's hard not to count this as an unqualified win for Obama. He appears accommodating to religion, thereby blunting some of the idiotic "war on religion" bullshit. He forced his future opponent (whoever it is) to defend an unpopular hard-right position on birth control and women's health issues. And he got what he wanted anyway, which was full coverage for women's contraception.

By my count, that's a 3-0 shut-out for Obama.
Word.

[Andy Bates]

Occasionally I click through one of Andy's posts, just to see if he's offering up anything worth thinking about, or if it's just his usual trollish nonsense.

In this case, it was a factual correction, followed by a snarky comment. But I appreciate the time and effort it took to come up with that GIF!

[Tortilla]

In this case, it was a factual correction, followed by a snarky comment. But I appreciate the time and effort it took to come up with that GIF!

It was a jpg, not a gif, actually. It's cool though, I think we all know that posts including correct details have never been your forte.

[Disconnected]

Successful troll is successful. ;)

Seriously though, try to consider the lives of the employees if he actually had a point, and we use real failure rates for birth control.

I'm leaning towards them being so busy fucking they'd never show up for work at all :D

[Andy Bates]

It was a jpg, not a gif, actually. It's cool though, I think we all know that posts including correct details have never been your forte.

As opposed to your forte: correcting irrelevant details in order to feel superior.

[RichVR]

This is so much fun. The President comes up with a perfect solution to the issue and people hate it. You know what? He should have told the fucking religious fanatics to go fuck themselves. Hey "Cardinal O'Connor, go piss up a rope."

[charmtrap]

You should read NRO's Corner...oh, boyee, they're pissed. Anything that gets that pack of morons riled up has got to be good.



In the scenario addressed by the Obama administration’s cockamamie “compromise,” religious organization employer (call it “A”) wishes to purchase health insurance from B insurance company for C, its employees, but not cover birth-control services that violate A’s religious principles and that the First Amendment protects A from having to subsidize.

Obama is telling A that it can pay B and that the payments will not cover birth control services for C; he is then telling B to cover the birth-control services for C — but only because A is making the payments. A is thus deceived by Obama’s representations into paying B for C’s birth-control services.

That is fraud. If you tried to pull something like it, federal agents and attorneys would investigate and prosecute you. And if millions of dollars were involved, the sentencing guidelines would dictate many, many years of incarceration.

Hahahaha, "fraud"!

[Murbella]

This is so much fun. The President comes up with a perfect solution to the issue and people hate it. You know what? He should have told the fucking religious fanatics to go fuck themselves. Hey "Cardinal O'Connor, go piss up a rope."
Agreed.

Maybe I am wrong, but i am pretty sure the idea of religious freedom, separation of church and state, you name it, does not mean that popular religions can ignore laws they don't like. If this was the case, stoning a woman for sitting next to a man without male family members present would be legal and the church of Ron Paul The Savior would have millions of Americans refusing to pay taxes.

Somewhat disappointed in Obama for not sticking to his guns fully, but at least he didn't bend knee to the Vatican.

Nothing really changes though. Republicans will still accuse him of being at war with Christianity/religion in general because he doesn't immediately make the USA a theocracy.

[Jason Townsend]

Hahahaha, "fraud"!

Seriously. I didn't realize till I read the details that the White House plan was as clever as it was. Almost makes me believe the whole thing was indeed Presidential ju-jitsu on the GOP, but with the Democratic Party I never attribute to genius what might have arisen through dumb luck.

[Andy Bates]

Maybe I am wrong, but i am pretty sure the idea of religious freedom, separation of church and state, you name it, does not mean that popular religions can ignore laws they don't like.

No, it means that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The right to religious freedom comes into play before the laws are enacted, not after.

[charmtrap]

This is so much fun. The President comes up with a perfect solution to the issue and people hate it. You know what? He should have told the fucking religious fanatics to go fuck themselves. Hey "Cardinal O'Connor, go piss up a rope."

The Catholic hierarchy is angry because Obama gave them what they asked for, not what they really wanted. What they wanted was to block their employee's access to contraception but that's unpopular, so what they asked for was a rule where they don't have to pay for it...and that's what they got, strictly speaking.

What Obama got is better than telling the bishops to fuck off...he got to appear like he was willing to compromise while his opponents look like sore losers, AND he gets the contraception covered. I'm with Jason there...it's hard to credit the brilliance of Democrats after some of their boneheaded moves over the years, but this was some ninja shit.

[Andy Bates]

I'm with Jason there...it's hard to credit the brilliance of Democrats after some of their boneheaded moves over the years, but this was some ninja shit.

Yeah: He gets to compromise on his original mandate, AND he gets all the anger from Catholic Church for threatening their religious freedom in the first place!

Hey, maybe the Republicans should come up with a clever move like that: Gingrich could threaten to shoot a puppy, and once he backs down, he'll be a hero!

[charmtrap]

Yeah: He gets to compromise on his original mandate, AND he gets all the anger from Catholic Church for threatening their religious freedom in the first place!


By a 61-34 percent margin, those surveyed this week approve of the Obama administration requiring all employee health plans to provide birth control coverage as part of health care for women.

The Catholic hierarchy has relentlessly opposed the birth control requirement. Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain has addressed the issue in a March for Life sermon, a statement earlier this week and an article. All warned about threats to religious liberties.

But the flock isn’t buying it. The Fox poll 58 percent of Catholics endorsing birth control coverage. It tracks almost exactly with a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute released earlier this week. It, too, found that 58 percent of Catholics were in approval.

Sixty-seven percent of women surveyed, and 65 percent of Catholic women, supported the contraception/birth control requirement. Fifty-three percent of men surveyed endorsed birth control coverage.


Please note the source. But, do keep spinning, please.

[Andy Bates]

Please note the source. But, do keep spinning, please.

Note the source for what, the claim that the President is facing anger from the Catholic Church? How about the article you just quoted: "The Catholic hierarchy has relentlessly opposed the birth control requirement." Do you need me to cite the letters from church leadership? And I never claimed that a majority of Catholics oppose the President's policy, but even if 58% of Catholics support having birth control coverage, that means that there could be up to 42% who oppose it. Making a decision that you ultimately back down on while alienating 42% of the Catholic Church isn't exactly a smart move.

[RichVR]

You know what annoys the fuck out of me? All of the "news" services making such a big fucking deal about O'Connor becoming a cardinal. Who gives a shit? Some old fat fuck in a black dress is being given a new "title". This is news? Fuck him and fuck the assholes that think this is important.

[Tortilla]

As opposed to your forte: correcting irrelevant details in order to feel superior.

No actually, I was just going for a factual correction followed by a snarky line? I thought you'd already established that was cool?

[Mark Asher]

Note the source for what, the claim that the President is facing anger from the Catholic Church? How about the article you just quoted: "The Catholic hierarchy has relentlessly opposed the birth control requirement." Do you need me to cite the letters from church leadership? And I never claimed that a majority of Catholics oppose the President's policy, but even if 58% of Catholics support having birth control coverage, that means that there could be up to 42% who oppose it. Making a decision that you ultimately back down on while alienating 42% of the Catholic Church isn't exactly a smart move.

But Obama was always going to get grief from the Catholic church because of his abortion stance. That 42% is likely the 42% that was going to vote Republican regardless of this issue.

I don't see how this makes Obama look bad. What's wrong with compromising? What's wrong with finding a different solution that works and appeases at least some of the complainers? I know it's the Republican schtick to never compromise -- we saw that in action with the brinkmanship by the House Republicans that nearly led to default -- but outside of that group of hardcore conservative numskulls who would never, ever vote for Obama anyway, I don't think compromise is a dirty word.

Edit: Also, this is not going to make any Republicans who castigate Obama over this look good with female voters. And who do you think is going to come across as moderate and reasonable in this argument? The person who thinks contraceptives should be a routine part of health care coverage, or the person who argues that women should be denied access to contraceptives by their health care plans?

[Andy Bates]

No actually, I was just going for a factual correction followed by a snarky line? I thought you'd already established that was cool?

Only when correcting relevant factual details. Sorry I didn't make that clear earlier.

[Andy Bates]

I don't see how this makes Obama look bad. What's wrong with compromising? What's wrong with finding a different solution that works and appeases at least some of the complainers?

There's nothing wrong with compromise; what's wrong is creating a mandate that violates the religious rights of an entire group of people in the first place.

If I draft a law that says, "All Jews are forbidden from wearing yarmulkes at school without permission," and then back down and decide not to pass it, I couldn't just wave away any criticisms by saying, "What's wrong with compromise??" The problem is that the law should never have been drafted to begin with. It makes me look bad for even considering it without thinking through the consequences.

Edit: About the 42% who "would have voted against Obama in the first place," that ignores all the people (including prominent Democrats) who openly supported Obama and his healthcare plan, but openly criticized him for this decision against the Catholic Church.