Facing vocal opposition from religious leaders and an escalating political fight, the White House sought on Tuesday to ease mounting objections to a new administration rule that would require health insurance plans — including those offered by Catholic universities and charities — to offer birth control to women free of charge.
The White House has been skittish from the start about the new rule, which was announced last month only after internal debates at the White House that, to some extent, pitted women — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is Catholic; Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the deputy chief of staff, on one side, arguing forcefully in favor of the rule, administration officials said.
On the other side, cautioning that the administration tread carefully and look for ways to minimize another major break with the church, they said, were several Catholic men who are close advisers to Mr. Obama: Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and William M. Daley, the chief of staff at the time. Also weighing in, administration officials said, was Denis R. McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, whose purview does not naturally extend to health issues, but who is a Catholic.
In the end, it was Mr. Obama himself who made the decision, aides say, calculating that at the end of the day, the issue of public health access outweighed the concerns of the religious institutions.
Just a couple of facts. Here’s the bare bones of the law:
What is considered a large business?
You are generally considered a large business if you have more than 50 employees.
Do I have to provide health insurance to my employees?
The law does not require employers to provide health insurance.
Starting in 2014, large businesses (those with 50 or more full-time workers) that do not provide adequate health insurance will be required to pay an assessment if their employees receive premium tax credits to buy their own insurance. These assessments will offset part of the cost of these tax credits. The assessment for a large employer that does not offer coverage will be $2,000 per full-time employee beyond the company’s first 30 workers.
For my part, I don’t consider these covered services “free” to the employee. My assumption has always been, as both an employee and an employer, that I earn or pay renumeration in exchange for work provided. I haven’t considered any benefit I got through an employer “free” since I was 16, working Sunday mornings at IHOP, and was told I got a “free” uniform but maybe I’m too cynical and jaded. Maybe health insurance, like employer contributions to retirement plans, is not earned but is instead yet another way dead-beat employees are scamming the system.
And here’s the services that have to be covered with no out of pocket cost to the employee:
Well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, HPV testing, STD counseling, HIV testing and counseling, breastfeeding support and supplies, contraception, and screening and counseling for domestic violence.
The issue that is important to me is whether the government can effectively regulate large businesses, because that’s really a key portion of the health care law. I don’t know that I would have introduced this key portion in the context or women’s health, because we are absolutely incapable of discussing women’s health without a laser-like, exclusive focus on reproduction, but that’s water under the bridge.
I did want to mention Kathleen Sebelius, though, and thank her for at least attempting to approach this from a public health angle:
In 2011, Forbes named Secretary Sebelius the 13th most powerful woman in the world. Before her Cabinet appointment in April, 2009, she served as Governor of Kansas beginning in 2003, where she was named one of America’s Top Five Governors by Time Magazine. From 1995 to 2003 she served as Kansas Insurance Commissioner. She was a member of the Kansas House of Representatives from 1987 to 1995.
Secretary Sebelius is the first daughter of a governor to be elected governor in American history; her father John Gilligan served as Ohio’s Governor from 1971-75. She holds a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Kansas and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Trinity Washington University. She is married to Gary Sebelius, a federal magistrate judge. They have two sons, John and Ned, and a daughter-in-law, Lisa.
She’s been plugging away on the health care law for years now and she just seems like the kind of hard-working, low-key, practical public servant that we really, really need in this country. She’s the daughter of a governor and was a governor herself, and yet she’s not a lobbyist or working for an industry she once regulated.
smintheus
Supporters of this rule ought to be able to frame the issue in these terms: Do Catholic hospitals and universities get to tell their employees that any health insurance they buy on their own cannot cover contraception? Because if the institutions choose not to offer health insurance, then the employees will be making the arrangements for themselves…yes, with money paid by those institutions indirectly rather than directly into the health plans.
Because if Americans don’t want employers to be able to meddle in their personal decisions like that, and they don’t, then there is no issue except in the minds of some meddlesome bishops.
iriedc
I do really like VP Biden, but Gov Sebelius was on my personal wish list for VP in 2008. I’m glad that they are both part of the Obama Administration.
Maude
It will be howls of HE SOLD US OUT, He’s worse than Bush.
He caved.
The uproar will continue as the religious institutions are dragged into the 21st century. It seems that it is always about control and sex.
I wast to see how Obama does this. I doubt he’ll throw baby out with bath water.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Keep this quote around.
Rick Taylor
No one is impressed if I tell them I have a moral objection to giving tax dollars to go to wage a war of aggression to kill hundreds of thousands of people and make refugees of over a million. But when a group says the all knowing in the sky told their leader with the funny hat that he really doesn’t want women to have safe effective birth control, it’s just horrible if we force them to spend money in a way that would violate their principles.
jibeaux
I’ve read polling that said Americans are 55% in favor of this, 40% opposed.
American Catholics are 58% in favor. It’s a vocal minority.
shortstop
The problem with all of this is that the GOP and the church are successfully framing it as a religious issue rather than an employment issue. I really don’t think most people understand that churches themselves are exempt.
They really, really don’t understand that we’re asking religious groups who engage in commerce to obey laws governing commerce. And they really, really, REALLY don’t understand that if these jerks get a free exemption rather than have to pay not to play like everyone else, it’s not just declining to cover contraception, it’s looking for taxpayers to subsidize their belief system.
Kent
Two comments:
1. I suppose Catholic organizations and others will now be supporting the public option as an alternative to employer sponsored plans as they don’t seem to want to take the responsibility themselves.
2. Working for a “Catholic” employer is not necessary a matter of choice. In my town there is a Catholic hospital and a Baptist hospital. They are both in a mad competition to see which can become the most vertically integrated healthcare corporation and as a result are both buying up all the local doctors groups and clinics. Essentially they are trying to lock up their income streams by controlling all the clinics that feed patients into the hospitals. The upshot is that employees of most of the local clinics around town are finding that through no action of their own, they are suddenly employees of a large Catholic healthcare corporation. And if they want to continue in their chosen profession as a nurse, x-ray technician, dietician, etc. they really have no choice but to continue working for their Catholic employer or leave town.
This is not the 1930s where nuns worked as nurses in the local Catholic hospital. These are large aggressive corporations that are heavily subsidized.
shortstop
Well, jibeaux’s polling seems to contradict my worry.
I do hope I’m wrong, wrong, wrong.
Dick Move
Employers want to control which health insurance plan their employees have access to for more than one reason. Sure, they want the insurance plan to only cover procedures and prescriptions of which the employer approves. But employers also want to spend as little as possible on their employees’ health insurance, then inflate the cash value of that insurance. That way, they can claim that they’re actually compensating their employees at a much higher level than they really are. That gives them all kinds of leverage they wouldn’t otherwise have–in hiring, bargaining, fishing for tax breaks, influencing legislation, and on and on.
I guess what I’m getting at is that, for employers, it is about the moral outrage… sort of. But really it’s mostly about the money, and the power to manipulate the environment in which they do business.
kay
@shortstop:
That’s really not my issue with it. It’s perfectly valid as an issue, it’s just not what worries me.
What worries me is, large employers are going to fight new regulation tooth and nail, and now they have an opening.
It’s too easy to second-guess, but I might have started the fight with the context of large businesses, generally, and gone from there.
I think people will like that there is some consistency and security in their health insurance, but that isn’t going to be the focus, because that’s boring and wonkish.
danimal
In three months, the bishops will have a new
scandalissue that riles them up. Better to go with the best policy and endure the wrath of Rome for a news cycle.And really, how many parishioners are thinking “Damn straight I need contraceptives” while listening to the celibate man condemn Obama in front of the altar?
The decision to use contraceptives is a personal choice, and the bishops are having a terrible success rate in convincing their own followers to do as they say. Maybe they should tend to their own first.
Dr.BDH
You’re absolutely right that employer-provided health insurance is part of the employee’s compensation. It happens to be one that’s exempt from payroll and income tax, making it one of several tax code provisions that benefit employees. If the employee has to pay for insurance out of pocket, the benefit will be reduced by the taxes paid on the income earned that goes to the premiums.
Rosalita
@Rick Taylor:
This!!
jibeaux
@shortstop: Don’t worry, I can’t remember where I saw that poll. Wait, I guess that means you should worry. :)
But it’s not exactly a secret that rank & file Catholics in the 21st century feel pretty much the same about abortion and birth control as the American population in general does. Hell, if you polled on women & married people serving in the clergy you’d probably get the same results. It’s the dudes with the funny hats making the rules and getting the mic. The question is why do folks stay in that church? I was raised it, but I left it. Incense and real wine are nice, but not really enough in the end.
amk
The real america that matters.
Fuck the rethugs and their media enablers.
Steve
I would be fine with a compromise that created a carve-out for religious hospitals, charities, etc. (but not just any old random place where the boss happens to be Catholic). I realize I am throwing some people under the bus with this position and I will accept the criticism. I just think sometimes it’s okay to take 95% of what you want to avoid a political fight.
Where I think I respectfully disagree with Kay is that she seems to see this sort of compromise as a camel’s nose under the tent towards taking away the administration’s ability to regulate large employers altogether. In my view, it’s a pretty limited conscience exception and I don’t see how the slippery slope could end up benefiting employers like Wal-Mart (if they even offer health insuranc in the first place). But maybe I don’t fully understand her position.
Percysowner
I really want to ask all these commentators that are SO opposed to making Catholic, non-religious institutions pay for contraceptives this question. Well after the Civil Rights Act passed the Mormon Church continued to consider African-American to be the spawn of Cain and less than human beings. Because this was a deeply held religious belief should they have been allowed to refuse to hire African-Americans in non-church roles? Would a Mormon supported hospital be allowed to refuse to hire an African-American doctor, for example?
I really don’t think any of the commentators would say yes, but someone should ask as they declare that the religion THEY believe in should be exempt from the rules that everyone else has to abide by.
mistermix ... World Peace
I hope that Obama holds tight on this one, because I think that ultimately it’s a political nothing — it won’t change votes. The voters who are making the noise are single-issue forced birthers, and they aren’t voting for any Democrat no matter what.
Also, too: the Republicans control the House. Let’s see them pass a bill adding a religious exemption for contraception. My prediction is that they won’t, because this issue is a loser.
gene108
@jibeaux:
Crying baby gets the milk.
Vocal minorities bullying their way to control things happens far to often.
******************************
My major criticism of the PPACA is it doublesdown on requiring employers to provide health insurance, rather than setting up a system where individuals have their own plans, which are independent of employer sponsored plans.
@shortstop:
I wonder, if this could be framed as “imagine if Muslims were imposing their religious views on non-Muslims”, because basically Catholics are forcing their religious dictates on non-Catholics.
It’s really an issue about workers rights versus employers getting special treatment to not offer basic services to their employees because of their beliefs.
rlrr
This whole brouhaha sort of glosses over the fact that many Catholic hospitals and colleges already have health plans which cover contraception…
gene108
@jibeaux:
Celibate men making rules about the use of birth-control makes a lot of sense.
geg6
@jibeaux:
This. Rank and file Catholics are with the president. Something like 98% of Catholic women use birth control at some point. The polls are showing that most Catholics want birth control to be covered. Many states already require Catholic hospitals and colleges to cover it. The only hue and cry is coming from the
child abuse cartelhierarchy like the deeply creepy bishop of Pittsburgh (local guy) and loudmouthed assholes like Bill Donohue.rlrr
@geg6:
The Catholic Hierarchy
Requiring health plans to cover contraception: “OUTRAGE!”
Revelations about priests sexually abusing minors: “meh.”
CA Doc
Just dashed off a message to http://www.whitehouse.gov to encourage the President to stay the course. Polls support his position but a nice barrage of emails encouraging him to hang tough will help too.
jibeaux
@gene108: It remains in my permanent memory, hearing some hat-wearer pontificating on the radio…the issue was a nun who had worked tirelessly in a Catholic hospital for many years. She ok’ed a non-elective abortion for a woman who was about 11 weeks pregnant or so and whose life was in danger if she continued her pregnancy for a medical reason which I forget. The nun was fired or some such for this decision, because as he intoned “You cannot take life to save a life.” The pregnant woman in question was already a mother to two young children. I just exploded. This is the POV of someone who spends his life pontificating on philosophical questions. This is not someone who spends his life going home to a woman he loves, or calling the daughter he loves, or spent a single moment of this entire wankfest of his existence considering what it means to say that a grown woman, with people who love her and depend on her, has to roll the dice for her life with an 11 week old fetus.
shortstop
Unfortunately, I’m not seeing/hearing any rank and file Catholics being interviewed about their support for this requirement. I’m continually hearing GOP politicians and church leaders skewing the facts to make this about religious oppression rather than workers’ rights and laws governing folks choosing to participate in commerce. I’m seeing organized, if not particularly effective, commenting/letter-writing campaigns from ostensible “I’m a liberal catholic but I don’t agree with this” ringers.
I don’t think we’re handling the messaging well so far, even taking into consideration the MSM’s love of quoting odd church leaders who self-dramatize. There is an unfortunate belief among low-information voters that the Obama administration is hostile to Christianity. I do not think we can assume that people who aren’t paying much attention will understand the parameters of this issue without some effort on our part.
Maude
@amk:
This is a real breakthrough.
Name
@shortstop:
I’m a liberal Catholic and I don’t agree with this. Neither do several of my other liberal Catholic friends, some of whom I’ve known for 10 years as die-hard liberals but who are now threatening to vote for Romney over this thing. My name is Oliver Cleary, and I’m Facebook friends with several people who frequent this blog. They can corroborate my existence.
I posted my reasons for my views in the last thread. Ad nauseam, not gonna re-post it all here. Not even going to keep up with this thread, it’s pointless. I’m not a ringer, and I’m only posting about it here (and only disclosing my name) to refute the notion that there’s no such thing as a liberal Catholic who believes that this violates the Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
I think the Obama Administration is backing down, which is nice. It means I can now vote for him without feeling too bad about it, and hopefully talk my friends down from voting for Romney out of disgust at our shared view that this was an assault on religious liberty.
Mino
Catholics are walking out of services over this, too.
gene108
@geg6:
It is not about rank and file Catholics at this point. It’s about getting other religious fundies fired up about government destroying their rights to practice their faiths as they see fit, i.e. feeding into the Christian persecution complex right-wingers already have.
GregB
@Name:
LOL.
Pro-death penalty and pedophile enabling vs. birth control for non-Catholic employees.
Nice set of values you got there.
Old Dan and Little Ann
slightly o/t but I worked at a tiny Catholic school for a year. When I interviewed I asked what types of benefits they offered. The answer I received was, “the only benefits we offer are spiritual.” I loved telling that one to friends and family.
Steve
I think the problem is not limited to Catholics (as noted, most Catholics are untroubled by birth control) but moreso taps into a general sentiment that the administration is hostile to religion, too controlling towards the churches, or whatever.
I know the conventional wisdom is that the only people who believe such things about the administration are wingnuts who believe in the War on Christmas and think the President is a secret Muslim. Maybe… or maybe not.
I don’t generally see a lot of interest among secular liberals in trying to understand the perspective of swing voters who consider themselves religious. It’s like they’re an alien species.
Mark B
@Name: I’d really like to see how this can be seen as an assault to religious liberty. Religious organizations are free to practice their religious beliefs, but they are still subject to the same laws as everyone else in the public realm. You can’t make the argument that all acts made according to religious belief are exempt from the law all of the time, or else Mayans could practice human sacrifice legally. If Catholic organizations want to get into the health care business, they are going to have to provide the same sort of health care everyone else does.
Raven
@GregB: No shit, fuck em and let em vote for Santorum. That’ll show us.
Redshift
@shortstop:
And older white male pundits, don’t forget them!
Gin & Tonic
@Name: I, too, am a liberal (mostly lapsed) Catholic, and to me, the assault on religious liberty comes in the bishops’ conference wanting to impose their views on doctrine (which are, at any rate, not based in Scripture, but are a realtively recent administrative decision) on *employees* who do not share their faith. Hold Catholics to this doctrine all you want — even though they are overwhelmingly ignoring you — but don’t impose it on the non-Catholics whom you employ.
jibeaux
O/T but I know how much kay hearts Kasich, so I was wondering if she saw this speech? I thought mocking people with Parkinson’s was Rush’s gig?
Kristine
@name:
Are any of them women of child-bearing age? Sincere question–I would like to know.
amk
We got ourselves a new
Nametroll.Mark B
There seems to be a commonly held confusion between religious liberty and the penchant of church administrators to thumb their nose at the law.
rikryah
thanks for this, Kay.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Name:
Yes, you did, they were, and they didn’t make any more sense when they were spouted by Chris Matthews and EJ Dionne.
GregB
This is good news for John McCain.
jibeaux
@Name: If you’re a “die-hard” liberal threatening to vote for Romney because Obama is making large religious institutions, not your little parish office, who are offering health care cover contraceptives the same way they’d cover anything else, then you’re just not a die-hard liberal. You may be a die-hard-anti-contraceptionist, but you’re not a die-hard liberal.
I say lose the six votes and do the right thing by American women, O.
High Priest of Sweatshopotology
I’m a member of a little known religion: Sweatshopotology. Our tenants are as follows:
1. Safe working conditions are immoral.
2. Paying fair wages is immoral.
3. Paying taxes is immoral.
The government is infringing on my religious liberty!!11!!
Emma
@Name: So, if I understand it correctly, you are trying to force the non-Catholic employees of Catholic-owned institutions (not churches) to conform to Catholic religious practices. Over an issue that 90% of Catholics have already pretty much decided in their own lives. And not in the Church’s favor, either. And your friends are so religious that they will vote for Romney even though they know he’s not the best candidate because their Catholicism is more important than their nation.
Do I have that right?
kay
@Steve:
I just don’t find “general sentiment” specific enough. I feel as if you’re leaving non-religious wandering around in a minefield with that.
Where do you see hostility? He’s vastly expanded funding to faith-based orgs. Catholic hospitals will be among the biggest beneficiaries of the expansion in Medicaid. You know how Obama operates by now. There’s not going to be “outreach” or big shows of rhetorical support, but there will be actual support.
Emma
@Steve: Why thank you for pushing women out of the Democratic tent once again.
Zifnab
My Name is Darrel.
(Does anyone but me even remember who Darrel was?)
Comrade Mary
Rachel Maddow: “I realize that a lot of 60-something male pundits look at this and say, “Hmmm — bad politics on the Democrats’ side. But there’s another way to look at it.”
Yep.
Comrade Mary
@Zifnab: I remember Darrel, but I don’t think anyone’s going to make it into a heartwarming movie.
I don’t think Name is Darrel, even in jest. Name, I just think you’re wrong. As mentioned above, employees are paid mostly in salary and partly in benefits. Employers cannot and should not restrict what legal products their employees can choose to purchase with their salaries. (No! Condoms! EVER!) By extension, they don’t get to restrict benefits, either. Their non-Catholic employees should not be restricted by Catholic tenets, and their Catholic employees will have to sort out their own decisions, too. That’s what the confessional is for.
Anyway, if the Catholic institutions choose not to offer health insurance pay a $2000 annual fine per employee, those employees can get into a group policy where they can get contraception. That fine is no more fungible and sinful than the salary they already pay and cannot and do not control.
kay
@Comrade Mary:
My daughter was shocked when the GOP took the House and all those statehouses. She said “when did this happen? all I ever hear is abortion”
Since she only began paying attention in the Time Of Pelosi, she thought this was a new and disturbing development in our national discourse.
I told her Pelosi running the House was actually a brief and fleeting respite from the norm, which is “everything is about abortion”.
Geeno
@amk: This is a big fuckin’ deal as the VP might say.
jibeaux
I mean, the whole point of saying you’re “die-hard” is that you die HARD, not that you die at the sight of a quarter-centimeter pill that’s been in heavy, heavy use for half a century.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I knew Daley was pretty much an asshole, but I’m disappointed in Biden.
tesslibrarian
@Comrade Mary: I was just about to link to this segment from last night. Rachel did an excellent job spelling it out, though there are 60-something female pundits (ahemCOKIEahem) who also need to realize there’s a different perspective.
Steve
@kay: I don’t see hostility at all! I’m just saying, I believe there are people who perceive that sort of thing who can’t just be written off as members of the 27%.
The one poll on this was pretty good but it’s just one poll that didn’t necessarily have the most authoritative wording, and yet everyone is taking it as conclusive proof that “no one objects to this but Bill Donohue, so shut up.”
I think EJ Dionne’s editorial was a signifier that this issue is distressing to more than just the wingnuts, but no one paid any attention to it.
I don’t mind if the administration holds the line. I think they are right on the merits. But I don’t know that they need to have this fight right now, and if they cave, I don’t think they are caving to a bunch of empty chairs.
Culture of Truth
Perusing the wire I see the media is sure, certain, without doubt, that THIS, FINALLY, will be Obama’s ruin, and that white working class blue collar salt of the earth regular folks will see Obama for the snobby religion-hating elitist bastard that he is.
Good luck with that. I don’t buy it.
Steve
@Zifnab: Darrell was Senator John Cornyn, of course.
Mark B
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I guess I missed it, what sort of intemperate utterance is the latest from Joe Biden? Did he forget the name of the sports team in the city he was speaking in again? The guy’s a loose cannon, but as far as I can tell, his heart’s in the right place.
General Stuck
Father Guido Sarducci for Pope!!
efroh
I’ve seriously soured on Sibelius ever since her and the Administration’s cave-in on Plan B. That was just stupid. They’re never going to win those voters, so why alienate your base?
Culture of Truth
I understand objecting to the policy, but not the onstitutional argument. By this logic, any law that said “do this, don’t do that” could violate the First Amendment “free exercise clause”.
Steve
@Emma: You’re welcome. Really doesn’t matter to anyone that Obama basically held the line singlehandedly on $300 million in Planned Parenthood funding when Boehner demanded deep cuts as part of the government shutdown debate, does it? He gives ground on this issue, none of that matters and he just doesn’t care about women, end of story.
Emma
@Steve: Actually, it matters a great deal. And that’s not what I said. I did not mention the President atall, atall. I said YOU were willing to push women out of the Democratic tent in order to compromise.
Also, you know, is not as if the Church doesn’t have an out. Don’t offer the option and pay the difference.
Culture of Truth
@Steve: Hey, an empty chair finished ahead of Romney in Missouri.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Steve:
The polling, and DIonne’s own testimony, suggest that the people offended by this are older men who ignore the Church in their personal lives but feel some kind of weird psycho-sentimental tribal tug where their “Mother Church”, which is completely governed by old men, is concerned. I was raised Catholic and occasionally feel that old tug myself, but their opposition is irrational, and ultimately inhumane. Take this out of the American middle class and look at the effect that backwards, medieval (although barely forty years old) Catholic policy has in the third world, from famine to the spread of AIDS
Mark B
Sooner or later, the Catholic Church is gonna claim that priests molesting children isn’t subject to secular law since it happened on church property. I don’t see a real logical distinction between that and their contention that they should be exempt from providing health care for their employees.
WaterGirl
I like the sound of this:
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Mark B: no intemperate utterance, just the line in the article Kay featured saying he was one of the Catholic men advising Obama to give in to the blackmail of the Red Beanie Brigade, as practicing Catholic Charlie Pierce calls them.
FlipYrWhig
@Steve:
I think people who believe stupid shit like that DEFINE the crazification factor. Fuck them. It belongs in a bag with the War on Christmas.
kay
@Steve:
I think there’s (earned) immediate suspicion of pundit-motive, on my part anyway, so that’s where I come down. I see your point, I just reject that it’s tied to a larger distrust of Obama “on religion” until I see something other than paid opinion writers. To me, that’s speculative.
I would have done it differently, and began with the larger context which is “large employers”. If people want to exempt certain large employers, I’ll deal. I don’t agree with it, but it I’ll deal.
I actually don’t have enough facts from the Catholic Church side. I’d like to know exactly what they won’t cover. I’m not an abstract thinker. If we’re negotiating, and we are, I would appreciate less “lofty” and more facts.
I have to tell you, too, I hate how the church has framed this. As I said in the post, I think employee renumeration is pay for services. I don’t think it’s a generous gift. I think the Catholic Church, in their HUGE role as health care business, compete for employees like everyone else. I’m bothered that we seem to have accepted that employers are “giving” people something, and they somehow retain ownership of our pay. It’s simply not true, but, boy, does that framing benefit employers!
GregB
Surely Joe Biden, Chris Matthews and EJ Dionne are up in arms about the prospect of the Catholic organizations being forced to provide *iagra for single men?
Mnemosyne
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
That’s what’s coming across to me, too. I don’t think I’ve seen any liberal Catholic women publicly criticizing this policy, but I have seen a whole lot of men in their 60s doing it.
And Name, I hate to tell ya, but given that Catholic women are constantly mocking priests behind their back for giving advice on contraception, I’m afraid the Catholic women you know aren’t giving you their true opinion. In fact, they’re rolling their eyes at how out of touch you are with real life.
Steve
@Emma: Wait, so if the administration makes a decision that is bad for women’s health, and I say I’m okay with it, it’s not the administration pushing women out of the Democratic tent – it’s me? It’s so draining to state a dissenting opinion on this blog sometimes.
ellie
I am a Catholic and I just can’t get over how a bunch of men are telling me what I can and cannot do with my body. My mom, who is an 80-year-old diehard Catholic, feels the same way. I just called the White House to support President Obama’s decision and urge others to do the same.
Mnemosyne
Also, too, I’m going to take a moment to rant once again about how much Democrats piss me off sometimes. Yes, yes, we’re all independent actors who want to show that we’re not like those other Democrats but can Democratic politicians line up behind one of Obama’s policies and support it wholeheartedly just fucking once? Please?
amk
@Geeno: you betcha. also. too.
The Other Bob
@Steve:
The problem with this position is that the Government would then be in the position of determining which employer is a “legitimate” religious organization and which is not. Can the government define a religious organization without sanctioning certain religions? This seems to have even greater constitutional questions that the current issue at hand.
Villago Delenda Est
@Steve:
EJ Dionne can fuck off and die.
amk
@Mnemosyne: Let the sun rise in the west first.
/sd boneless wonders called dems.
shortstop
@Name: Meh. You have no credibility. But you do serve as an illustration of how high the financial and authoritarian stakes are for the church in this one.
Steve
@kay: Kay, you’re always so thoughtful and reasonable. You’re like the one person on this blog who can debate things without throwing grenades. I treasure you for it.
The thing that bugs me about the politics of this issue is that they knew it would be a controversial policy – so much so that they ran it up the ladder all the way to the President himself – and yet it feels like they immediately retreated into a defensive crouch without doing anything to push back. EJ Dionne can have his opinion, but where are the administration-friendly columnists making the opposite case? I haven’t seen them.
The fact that sort of blew me away in all this is that 28 states, including New York and California, supposedly already have the same rule. I have not seen Archbishop Dolan denouncing Andrew Cuomo as a Catholic-hater (of course, the rule likely predates Cuomo). Somehow when 28 states had this policy everything was fine, but add the other 22 states and Obama is trampling on religious liberty. Having said that, I fully realize that this is the sort of inconvenient fact that can easily get lost in a political tempest, sort of like the fact that the Ground Zero Mosque wasn’t a mosque and wasn’t at Ground Zero.
FormerSwingVoter
The more I follow politics, the more convinced I become that the Catholic Church is the purest force of evil in the world.
Yeah, I get it. Some religious people are offended that women might have somewhere near as much access to contraception as men do with condoms – even if they work for a religious organization. I understand the argument – it’s just that the argument has no merit, value, or worth.
shortstop
@kay:
Well, I put forth that point just as Steve did, but I’m happy to believe it may be speculative. What I’m really worried about is that we’re opening a door to low-info voters buying the church’s/pundits’/GOP’s framing on this because we are not successfully framing nor messaging…
Exactly. And this is one we should have seen coming. It’s not like we don’t have enough examples of how the Catholic Church AND big business respond to this sort of thing.
FlipYrWhig
@The Other Bob: Kay posted in an earlier thread a set of criteria that had been used in a state (i forget which) to determine what a primarily religious employer (?) was — the standards had to do with the religious composition of the workforce and of the people served.
Culture of Truth
Sex outside of marriage is against the law.
Wait, it isn’t?? [ faints ]
FormerSwingVoter
@Culture of Truth:
Not yet. But not from lack of trying – look at how popular making birth control illegal is to a lot of these folks.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Tweety had some whiny Catholic asshole on yesterday who was whining that this move is angering Catholics against the president because they feel that their religion has ‘been under attack for the last 10-11 years’. Yes, that’s what the asshole said, that members of the Catholic religion feel that they have been attacked for years now.
Neither Tweety nor the asshole said a thing about the pedo priests and the enabling, coverup loving Catholic hierarchy who were doing everything they could to protect the pedo priests, deny victims any justice and enabling the continuation of child molestation and rape by moving the pedo priests around.
The Catholic church of today: Child rape is fine and dandy with us, that’s why we want to keep our women pumping out new victims for us to prey on.
FlipYrWhig
@FormerSwingVoter: It’s even worse than that. It’s not employees of a religious organization at issue, it’s employees of organizations _tied_ to churches, like hospitals and charitable orgs. I don’t see any way it’s defensible for the leaders of a church to dictate to its enterprises’ employees, who aren’t members of that church, what they will allow to be covered on the health plan. It’s ludicrous. It’d be like a Christian Science-affiliated body refusing to offer a plan covering medical treatment.
blondie
I don’t really like to make fun of other peoples’ religions, but I am getting pretty sick and tired of a few Catholic bishops thinking they should dictate American policy. If they want to hang onto their tax-exemption, they should keep their noses out of politics.
Culture of Truth
THEN people will FINALLY stop having all that icky sexy time
FlipYrWhig
@Culture of Truth: Hey, yeah. Can a Catholic hospital refuse to let you put on the company plan an illegitimate child or a second wife?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Odie Hugh Manatee: Tweety had some whiny Catholic asshole on yesterday who was whining that this move is angering Catholics against the president because they feel that their religion has ‘been under attack for the last 10-11 years’.
See Charlie Pierce on that individual, who inadvertently admitted what this is really about: Tribalism.
In a way, this is a weird replay of the Time of the Clenis, when a lot of the most strident “liberal media” voices against Clinton were tribal Catholics: Tweety, MoDo, Sister Mary Cokie and Monsignor Russert– not to celebrate anyone’s death, but thank the FSM his jowly sanctimony is absent from this nonsense. I think it was Atrios who said the pols’ offices in DC all have TVs, and they’re all on political TV all the time. In this case, it doesn’t help that “our” network is dominated by late-middle-aged, male tribal Catholics: Scarborough, Tweety and to my disappointed surprise, Lawrence O’Donnell, with guest appearances by EJ Dionne (who I like, but fuck him on this) and Michael Steele.
kay
@Steve:
I’m not even clear on that part. As I read it, NY and CA have the same (less broad) religious exception to their health insurance rule. I don’t know that NY and CA cover contraception in “required benefits”.
I was really mad last night about the Democrat’s political handling of this (true), so I was TOO MAD to look it up :)
I honestly don’t know anymore. I don’t know that there’s any way to sort of defuse health care discussion with “messaging”. People get really, really upset.
Last week, I was thinking, “it’s so good that we don’t discuss health care in media anymore, because the law is quietly going in, and there’s no screaming” but that was a freaking pipe dream.
Culture of Truth
@FlipYrWhig: One would think, but this would have the awkward effect of denying the actual baby Jesus health care.
FlipYrWhig
@Culture of Truth: He had a pre-existing messianic condition.
FormerSwingVoter
Oh, and for those who find themselves arguing against Catholic/Christians bible-thumpers – including those on our own side – feel free to steal my line:
“I understand the argument. Many within the Church feel that social conservativism is more important to their faith than the teachings of Christ. It’s just that the argument is laughable on its face and does not deserve to be taken seriously.”
Nutella
FYWP destroyed my last three comments so I’ll try again:
The Obama campaign has asked for your opinion on this and provided an excellent infographic. FYWP doesn’t allow links so go to the campaign website and click Issues and then Health Care to find it.
Also too, FYWP.
Steve
@kay: This link says: “At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive.” And it’s also been mentioned that many Catholic organizations already quietly provide this sort of coverage. So one thing on my mind as I say that I wouldn’t be upset by a cave is that I’m not sure how many people would even be adversely impacted by a religious carve-out. Even if it’s only 1 person, it’s not something to be proud of, but all I’m saying is that you can’t die on every hill.
maurinsky
Sooner or later, the Catholic Church is gonna claim that priests molesting children isn’t subject to secular law since it happened on church property. I don’t see a real logical distinction between that and their contention that they should be exempt from providing health care for their employees.
If you are an employee at a Catholic church (I’m a church musician) and a non-mandatory reporter (which I am, since I don’t work with children), you get to go through something called Virtus training, where you are instructed to report any naughty behavior from a clergy member towards a child to the Arch-Bishop….I said “hell, no, if I suspect something like that, I’m reporting it to the police.” So they’re already there, as you might have guessed from how they’ve handled every single child molestation case.
(Mandatory reporters are given similar training, but are instructed to abide by their mandatory reporting rules).
Anywhoo – 98% of American women have used contraception at one point or another in their lives. Many women use it not to prevent pregnancy, but to control horrific periods and cramps (I have a sister whose period would last 3 weeks and give her a week off before it started up again – birth control pills took care of that problem). I get really, really irked when I read men, in particular, arguing that this is not a good fight to take up. It makes me kind of want to stuff a tampon up the ass of whoever is making that argument. I mean, the Republicans are in a full assault against women, and Democratic women are supposed to stand down lest the delicate feelers of people who stood by a religion that actively assisted pedophiles in procuring fresh meat take offense?
No thanks!
blondie
@maurinsky:
Repeated for emphasis!
shortstop
@Steve:
Couldn’t disagree with you more on this point, not only because this kind of shit emboldens the church to continue trying to dictate our healthcare laws, but also because, as Kay rightly points out, it encourages other large employers to try to end-run aspects of insurance regulation. The way to deal with the facts you mention (26 states already require this, many Catholic orgs already cover contraception) is to make people aware of them, not to use them as a basis for retreating.
DFH no.6
I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school way back in the day when most of the teachers were nuns, same for my wife of lo! these many years (and she even graduated from a Catholic college run by nuns). Very happily lapsed for decades now, both of us.
And though my wife and I both agree that the Obama Admin’s decision was the right one, I know she wouldn’t be as intemperate as me when I say fuck all these god-botherers, every one.
Doubly so for “Name” and his asshole “die-hard liberal” Catholic friends who “threaten” to vote for Romney over this. In case you hadn’t noticed, your church is a powerful, important, and well-funded proponent of modern movement conservatism, every bit as much as the Southern Baptists or Mormons. How’s that workin’ out for ya?
“Assault on religious liberty” my ass.
“Name” and all the other “liberal” Catholic apologists are just wrong about that, period.
JC
This is absolute, total, and incredible B.S.
It can’t get any stupider.
We are talking CONTRACEPTION. How can anyone have a problem with that??
Less women pregnant. Less abortions. Better health.
It’s not even close. This isn’t a ‘hill to die on’.
This is common sense!! Are you kidding me??
Mnemosyne
@Steve:
Seriously, I can’t think of a single liberal columnist I would label “administration-friendly” the way I would have labeled Bill Kristol or David Brooks “Bush-friendly” in the bad old days.
As I said, I understand that I don’t belong to an organized party, but it would be awfully nice if public Democrats could support the president just fucking once in their lives.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Mnemosyne: Joan Walsh has been pretty good on this issue, and I say this as someone who is not a fan of hers, but I don’t know if she’s visible enough, quite frankly, to matter. Fifteen years ago, I think MoDo would have been taking on the Bishops, but now she might have to admit that “Barry Obambi” is standing up to someone and is right to do so.
Rick Taylor
I know it’s wishful thinking, but the obvious solution to all this is single payer. Providing health care through peoples’ employers was a compromise, but if it’s just unreasonable to expect them to help carry out a consistent policy, then leave it to the federal government.
Steve
@Mnemosyne: There’s some truth to that. The other side gets a bunch of hacks willing to make any case that’s necessary. We get people who may be awesome progressives in their hearts (or maybe not), but who spend most of their column space babbling about Mitt Romney’s dog.
kay
@Rick Taylor:
I don’t know why that’s a solution. They’d simply say their tax dollars can’t go to fund contraception. It’s what they say about abortion.
kay
@Steve:
I don’t think that’s the basic idea I’m defending. I’m defending the idea that the government may regulate insurance re: large employers.
Either don’t pick this hill, or defend it. I think compromising on this opens the door to compromise on large employer health insurance regulation. Fight this, or pick a better fight in the first place.
I’m actually sort of discouraged and pissed that they’re having such specific messaging/political fights in the WH. Here I was, thinking they had some sort of over-all strategic plan to defend the health care law, and they’re just randomly picking out tiny pieces to screw up.
No one understands the large employer context.
If I’m a regular disinterested person, this is what I have so far on the health care law: Individual mandate, death panels, over age 25 included on parents, abortion, high risk policy (maybe) and contraception.
It’s just incoherent. This is a system. The pieces fit together. We can’t willy nilly throw pieces overboard.
gwangung
Interesting stat from Coates:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/birth-control-and-the-obama-independents/252774/
kay
@gwangung:
This is interesting:
Gretchen
I grew up Catholic. My whole family, including in-laws, is Catholic. So are many of my friends. I simply can’t think of a single, solitary person among them, who would have voted for Obama, and is going to change their vote because of this. This is pundit fantasy-land. Most of them use birth control and consider it their own private business. Some don’t, and also consider it their own private business. And some have “female complaints” that are treatable by birth-control pills, unrelated to sexual activity, and, amazingly, they also consider it their own private business, and don’t wish to explain to pharmacists or employers exactly why they are taking the pills of Satan. Stay out ouf our business, is pretty much the universal response.
Elizabelle
@kay:
Yep. Excellent catch by Ta-Nehisi Coates. (As usual.)
MJ
@CA Doc: Thanks for the link. I just sent them some encouragement to keep standing up for women’s right to equal access to health care coverage. I sure wish the folks on the left who are the most vocal about the President’s alleged “cave ins” on health issues, would be as vocal now when he’s trying to stand firm for women’s access to contraception.
brantl
@Steve: I don’t now why you come to this site, but you’re plain wrong. If they want to run a business that is employing the general public, then they need to treat the general public as the general public, not Catholics. If they don’t like it, get out of business and go back to being a church. There is no way that they should be able to force their beliefs on others, this includes employees.
brantl
@Steve: I don’t now why you come to this site, but you’re plain wrong. If they want to run a business that is employing the general public, then they need to treat the general public as the general public, not Catholics. If they don’t like it, get out of business and go back to being a church. There is no way that they should be able to force their beliefs on others, this includes employees.
gwangung
@kay: Yeah, I think I sorta realized that in the back of my head, but that just brought it to the forefront.
Obvious, really. It’s also a signifier that they’re NOT just for “right wing Protestants” but are including Catholics, too (not many, granted, but…)
brantl
@Name: I’m sorry, you’re an idiot. Grow up. Sorry, but you really need to grow up.
pseudonymous in nc
@Name: you’ve never even bothered to address how Catholic hospitals in Canada cope with their employees being entitled to coverage of abortions under the provincial single-payer system.
Fine. You’ve flounced and concern-trolled here more than enough. Now turn your ire to the institutionalised child rape.
jefft452
Let me get this straight,
My boss has a deeply held belief that according to his religious conscience I’m a sinner and will go to hell
Fair enough, I don’t really care what my boss thinks of the state of my soul, and the 1st amendment prevents the gov from adding “except for the following religions” to the civil rights laws make it illegal for him to discriminate based on religion.
My priest/rabbi/minister thunders that I’m an apostate. “you’re a sinner and a bad man, they tell. And when you die you will sure go to hell”
Fine, that 1st amendment means you cant call the cops on me for heresy
But if Im an xray tech at a hospital that has “Saint” in its name, then the 1st amendment says that MY paycheck (yes, my insurance is part of my paycheck) that I earned, must never be spent on anything that my bosses religion disapproves of?
Name
@Kristine:
As a matter of fact, yes. Several of them are. One of them is even a licensed medical professional.
If you go into the Catholic Church, you’ll find quite a few young people. Quite a few young women. Many of them are far more conservative than I am. I’ve met many who oppose abortion, for example. I feel that abortion and birth control should be legal. (I’m specifically referring to the parishes of Burlington, Vermont, where I lived for several years and which has a reputation as a bastion of granola-Hippie liberalism; but even there, you can find twenty-something women who are hard-core Catholic anti-abortion Republicans. And judging by my conversation with some of the more liberal pro-choice Catholic friends I still have up there, they’re livid over Obama’s decision. Those are the parishes I’m most personally familiar with.)
@shortstop:
At least I have a real name, “shortstop.” My name is Oliver Cleary. I’m a resident of Towson, Maryland. I’m 33 years old. I grew up in Newark, Delaware, and was raised by an atheist and a Unitarian. Both of them were union members; my father is a Vietnam vet who served in the 101st Airborne from 1969-1970 and once threatened to shoot me with a rifle if I ever voted Republican. I converted to Catholicism when I was 31 years old.
I am a person, not an anonymous character assassin hiding behind a pseudonym. I sacrificed anonymity to refute your point that “no liberal Catholics” existed who disagreed with this law. If you like, I can give you my phone number, and you can call me and tell me why you think I’m a liar or why you don’t think I’m entitled to have the beliefs and opinions I have. If nothing else, I think my father and my grandfathers (both of whom were Catholic, and both of whom served in the US Army during WWII) shed enough blood for this country to earn me the right to believe and profess what I want to believe and profess. My atheist brother, Chris, who served in the US Army for 10 years along the DMZ in South Korea, would certainly agree with me.
Sorry I fail your militant-atheist ideological purity litmus test. One might think those were reserved for the Republican Party, but that person would be unfamiliar with the holier-than-thou circular firing-squad that is the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
@pseudonymous in nc:
I did, actually, in the last thread. I said that I thought single-payer would be absolutely constitutional and that it would nullify any arguments involving the Free Exercise Clause. I also pointed out that Canada has no First Amendment, and that I have no idea what the laws are regarding religious expression there; America has a Free Exercise Clause enshrined in its Constitution, and a strict-scrutiny reading of that is ensured by the RFRA. You know, that law that I’ve cited in every single post I’ve made about this topic so far, which no one has yet managed to refute my interpretation of in applying it to this provision of the ACA.
Institutionalized child rape is bad. Glad we got that out of the way. Now you can tell me your argument against my constitutional analysis is so feeble that you have to bring up child rape in lieu of an actual refutation of the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause- i.e., the actual legal analysis that’s relevant here.
I’ll even help you out. Here is the text of the RFRA. “Compelling governmental interest” means a strict scrutiny analysis under prior caselaw. Here is Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao de Vegetal. This seems particularly relevant to this discussion:
@jefft452:
Nope, that’s not how it works at all. You can spend your money however you see fit. You can even take money out of your 401k and spend that on birth control/abortions/whatever you want. Your Catholic employers can’t restrict how you spend your money. The issue is demanding that your employer- a Catholic hospital- directly subsidize your birth control through insurance plans- or pay a punitive $2000 fine for refusing to do so. The Catholic Church views birth control as murder when it is used for contraceptive reasons. Asking them to directly finance it is like asking a Quaker hospital to buy war bonds or face a $2000 fine.
@brantl:
Will do, as soon as you can tell me why the strict-scrutiny standard imposed by Congress under the RFRA and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2006 as applicable to the federal government (but not state governments) is irrelevant to this discussion. Explain to me why that doesn’t matter. Explain to me why my constitutional analysis is wrong. Or, just keep insulting my intelligence and dazzling me with the sheer brilliance of your ad hominem onslaught.
@kay:
Would you apply that same argument to, say, conscientious objectors during wartime? “Conscription is a system. The pieces fit together. We can’t willy nilly let pacifists refuse to fight, or we open the door to larger demands for compromise from the pacifist community.” How do you feel about the language from the Gonzalez case I quoted above, which seems (to me, at least) to directly refute your point here? (Admittedly, it’s just from the synopsis.)
Steve
@brantl: Yeah, the thing is, I don’t really disagree with you on the merits. The question in my mind is whether some of you can process the fact that there are actual people who disagree with you and me on this issue and aren’t wingnuts or sowers of faux controversy.
So far it’s not looking good on that one. Everyone who disagrees is either a wingnut, or even if they’re not, by virtue of disagreeing they’re automatically a wingnut! Okay, awesome. And if the administration decides to compromise on this issue the cries will once again go up, “Why do you care about the opinions of people who will never vote for you?”
FlipYrWhig
@Name:
The Catholic Church views sex outside of marriage as a horrible thing too. And yet if you work for a Catholic hospital and have custody of a dependent child born out of wedlock, isn’t that child covered by the health insurance “directly financed” by the Catholic employer? Should they be able to refuse that out of “conscience”? Or is there a zone of privacy where the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has to butt out of the private lives of the people it collaterally employs? It doesn’t seem like a hard call to me at all. Someone you hire spends your precious money on something you disapprove of. Boo hoo. Too fucking bad. You’re their boss’s boss’s boss, not their confessor.
Name
@FlipYrWhig:
You continue to misunderstand what is meant by “directly finance.” You conflate the issue of directly paying for something as “prying into the lives of employees,” as if refusing to buy Plan B for employees was the same thing as following them around after work and making sure they weren’t fornicating.
You refuse to understand what “directly finance” means. That’s fine, you won’t agree with my position anyway. All I’m trying to do is point out that one can be a liberal Catholic and disagree with the Obama Administration on this issue. If you want to insult me over that, if you want to say I’m not a real liberal and thereby claim that you have the authority to decide what a “real” liberal is, that’s your prerogative. I’ve already made my point, and even if I don’t “win” a comments thread on an atheist blog (whatever the Hell that would look like), the Obama Administration itself is backing down.
FlipYrWhig
@Name: If it’s “directly financing” the destruction of precious life to pay for employee health coverage that could be spent on condoms, which is, for starters, unbelievably circuitous and INdirect… it is likewise “directly financing” fornication to pay for employee health coverage that could be spent on out-of-wedlock children. And the bishops don’t care about the latter at all; they only just discovered the former as an issue after 30 years of actually covering birth control for employees of many of their hospitals without feeling guilty about all the hypothetical baby-killing they did all that time. You’re picking and choosing outrages in blatantly inconsistent ways and calling it “conscience.” Stop doing that. It is none of the Catholic church’s business what employees of its collateral endeavors do or don’t do with their health insurance. It is not a hard call. It is obvious. You’re being rooked. Don’t let them do it. You’re smarter than that.
FlipYrWhig
I mean, here’s how hollow this really is. Let’s say a Catholic hospital was compelled to provide insurance coverage for contraception to its non-Catholic employees. And no one actually used it. Would that still constitute “direct financing”? Um, no. Would the Church have any grounds for finding it abhorrent? How could they? The church isn’t “directly financing” anything. The church’s money goes to something else, from there to an employee (and to an insurance company), from the employee to a provider… or not. At a certain point, it’s not the church’s money anymore, unless you think the church “directly finances” p0rn when someone who works for a Catholic hospital pays for a cable TV package that includes pay-per-view adult movies, _whether or not the employee ever orders one_.
This is an absurd standard you’ve come up with. It’s like AIPAC refusing to cover non-Jewish employees for health care related to uncircumcised pen1ses.
jefft452
@Name: “a Catholic hospital- directly subsidize your birth control through insurance plans- or pay a punitive $2000 fine for refusing to do so”
my employer dosent “subsidize” shit. the insurance that I get at my job is part of MY pay, that I earn by doing work for the employer. MY insurance is MINE, just as much as MY paycheck and MY 401k are MINE. It isnt a gift that the boss gives me because he is a nice guy
FlipYrWhig
@jefft452: Exactly. Employees of Catholic-affiliated charities and hospitals don’t get paid in Vatican scrip. It’s their damn money. If they want to spend it buying communion wafers for snacktime, and they choke on the crumbs and go to the emergency room, that’s covered too. You can hurt yourself on an old-fashioned pope-burning procession on Guy Fawkes Night, and still have your treatment covered by the company health plan. As it should be. The church set up a business, hired some people, and now they’re free to be as blasphemous and sinful as they ever were, and you can’t stop it.
jefft452
@Name: “Asking them to directly finance it is like …”
and another thing
nobodys “asking”, chief
no “pretty please” comply with the same rules as everybody else
Name
Here are some liberal Catholic female friends on Facebook, discussing this issue. I’ve taken out the last names.
Beth
On the HHS birth control mandate: I can usually see both sides of an issue. I have been following since the story broke and I still cannot figure this one out. On what grounds does anyone think that it is acceptable to require a church to violate their beliefs? What exactly is the argument here? Most women want birth control, and it will save money so to Hell with free practice of religion?
Like · · Unfollow Post · 24 minutes ago via mobile ·
Elisabeth likes this.
Rachel It’s unconstitutional. It will be overturned, don’t worry.
19 minutes ago · Like
Beth I’m not really. But I’m puzzled. What is the end game? Does anyone think is can, or should, hold? If only pragmatically, Catholics are the biggest swing vote in the country. I am one of those mythical “liberal Catholics who feel betrayed,” and I keep hearing that I don’t exist. I do. And I vote.
11 minutes ago · Like
Rachel Actually, you and I are the most mythical of all creatures: “liberal Catholic women of childbearing age” that vote and care about this issue.
8 minutes ago · Like
Rachel Or so the pundits would have you believe. Apparently only oppressive white men who want to subjugate women are pushing to protect religious freedom.
6 minutes ago · Like
Rachel The end game is that there are many folks who think that by becoming an employer, you give up freedoms and must be wholly secular in your behavior. These same folks believe the same thing about becoming licensed: pharmacists and doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control, participate in abortions, etc., should lose their licenses or be willing to participate. That’s where this law is headed, if it’s isn’t overturned. But, it’s unconstitutional, so if the Obama administration doesn’t back down ASAP the Supreme Court will step in.
2 minutes ago · Like
FlipYrWhig
@Name: Your liberal catholic female friends are ridiculous. For starters, the whole kerfuffle was not about “churches” but rather OTHER THINGS A CHURCH DECIDES TO SET UP AND RUN. If you are an employee for such an organization, your place of business has no right to prevent you from making moral decisions on your own. If a Protestant institution decided that they couldn’t in good conscience let its health plan cover rosary-bead related injuries because they can’t condone idolatry, would that be fair to Catholics? Think about these things you claim you want as a policy.
Name
@FlipYrWhig:
They’re also young professionals. One of them is a medical doctor who refuses to perform abortions or prescribe birth control for contraceptive purposes, and has convinced me that the entire “conscience objection” kerfluffle is chicken-little hysteria that plays to laymen like me who don’t know how hospitals or comparable medical organizations operate.
Non-profit entities it sets up as the charitable arm of its endeavors. It believes charity is an integral part of its doctrine and duty. We’re not talking about the Church buying out Pizza Hut and running a for-profit business to raise money, here.
No, but they do have the right not to directly pay for your extracurricular activities if those activities conflict with their religious principles. I think the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause provide for that. We’re not talking about flex accounts or 401ks, here. We’re talking about direct payment.
I’m sure the two or three people in the history of the United States who’ve suffered such injuries would be very adversely affected. But if some idiot did manage to half-strangle himself with rosary beads, the hospital records would only reflect treatment for strangulation. HIPAA would prevent his employers from even finding out the specific details. That’s not analogous to explicitly setting aside money for elective rosary bead auto-asphyxiation. If it were a flex account or block money, it would be different.
I have. Quite a bit, actually. I think the Church is foolishly overreaching when it wants to extend this to for-profit private businesses, but I think the Obama Administration shouldn’t have tried to mandate that the not-for-profit arms of religious institutions be exempted from the edicts of religious conscience and be forced to provide their employees with healthcare they view as murder- not even offering that they use a flex account of some kind, in which they wouldn’t have to know how the money was being spent.
jefft452
“It believes charity is an integral part of its doctrine and duty. We’re not talking about the Church buying out Pizza Hut and running a for-profit business to raise money, here.”
An EMPLOYEE of a not for profit is still an employee, his pay is not a charitable contribution by the not for profit,
and since you seem to be too thick headed to get it – insurance is part of the pay!
Once you hire a guy to do work for you, the money you pay him is NOT your money anymore, its his
Name
@jefft452:
No, it isn’t. It’s a benefit. States that have mandated contraceptive coverage have also provided numerous exemptions, such as allowing the non-profits to self-insure.
That’s my point- that direct financing of benefits is different than what you spend your own money on. But money is not the same thing as insurance coverage. Try paying your rent with insurance coverage, see how many four-letter words your landlord hurls at you before he files for eviction.
Honestly, it’s like you read 1 in 3 words I’m typing here. Since you’re a legal expert, tell me why I’m wrong about the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause.