I find it funny that they're all up-in-arms about abortion, but when contraception prevents abortion, they get all huffy about that. "My religion says contraception is evil!" Well then live with a higher abortion rate than if you all just used contraception. Being against both options is simultaneously asinine and insane.

But if it's religious liberty for Catholics to deny their employees birth control benefits, is it also religious liberty for Christian Scientists to deny their employees ALL health benefits?

good point.....where does this end....fact is..it won't.

Mike, I think the federal money issue is a legitimate point. I don't know the practicality of it given the current system (because I don't really know the current system(s) involved) but it is worth entering into the discussion.

I don't think the government should be able to tell a religion organization that it has to do things that violate the long standing teachings of the church.

On a side note, is the Church of Scientology required to provide psychiatric health services to its employees?

Rob- one would hope so. I worry so much about Tom Cruz ;-) lol

The problem is that this organization is not just the Church. It's a public facility providing public services; an organization whose employees do not have to be Catholics or ascribe to Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church is simply insisting that because it funds these hospitals that it's funding take precedent over the employee's individual rights. This is yet another example of a situation where a business' or an organization's desires/wants/rights come into conflict w/ an individual's desires/wants/rights. So to whom do you side?

Let's say we take the side of the individual, well then what's the cost to the Church? They still get to help people, they still get to run their hospitals, they still get to spread the word of God, and hell they might even be able to convince people who would otherwise be seeking contraceptive coverage or abortion coverage to consider otherwise. Remember the law isn't mandating that the individual take the coverage, just that the coverage be existent so that the individual has a choice.

Let's say we take the side of the Church, well then what is the consequence to the individual? Imposition of religious doctrine onto a non-believer (I.E. forcing, by law, that there not be a separation between the church and the individual against the individual's will), unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and if the hospital denies care to those in desperate need potentially death.

Seems like the lesser of the two evils is to side w/ the individual.

The Catholic Church is simply insisting that because it funds these hospitals that it's funding take precedent over the employee's individual rights.

This is one of the points we disagree. Most faith based services/business do not see the funding as its major role. They see this as a service of their faith, not a business conducted with church money. This is true for schools. We allow faith based curriculum. Why? Because attending (or working there) is a choice with the full knowledge that it is a part of the faith's services.

If your argument is true, the government should NOT allow faith tenets to be taught in faith-based schools. How do you make an exception for that?

The Catholic Church does not fund these hospitals, they just control them no different than any other hospital group. These hospitals take Medicare money as well as other federal funds for building, equipment, etc., just like the other hospital groups. The only difference is that the Catholic hospitals are not for profit. If the Catholic hospitals and institutions do not want to comply with federal laws, then they should turn down the money. These institutions are fully aware of the federal laws and regulations that are attached to federal monies.

If the Catholic hospitals and institutions do not want to comply with federal laws, then they should turn down the money. These institutions are fully aware of the federal laws and regulations that are attached to federal monies.

Two points:

1. Those opposed to this requirement are not disagreeing on a federal law or regulation level but on a Constitutional level. That is where the argument for or against will eventually have to be made.

2. This law was NOT a part of federal regulations until now. So they were not "fully aware." The only difference in this law is that it specifically requires that the Church as "owners...managers...operators" of the hospital provide something that specifically violates its long standing teachings.

My prediction: The administration will change this requirement...and sooner rather than later.

So, will i be prosecuted for taking a cold shower to stop my sinful urges? Is that concidered a contaceptive?

Private Catholic schools are not open to the general public, RobDon. Private Catholic hospitals are. Private hospitals- no matter who is on the board or who is funding them- can not deny patients. Private Catholic schools usually only hire people who are of the faith, almost always hiring nuns to teach and priests to handle administrative duties. This is not the same w/ Catholic hospitals which usually hire the general public and don't make a distinction between the two. The two are not the same and you cannot draw a comparison between them.

Do they see the services they provide as an extension of their faith? Yes. But they extend that to the general public and as such they are subject to the general rule of the public. If they don't want to service the general public then they have the right to decide not to. You are, once again, asking that an exemption be given to the business in order to uphold the business' feelings, but you do not care if this hinders the individual. This is what I do not understand. Both will be inconvenienced, but the Church- by admission of it's own faith- has more to lose by not complying w/ the law.

headline from Think Progress

HEALTH

Many Catholic Universities, Hospitals Already Cover Contraception In Their Health Insurance Plans

By Igor Volsky posted from ThinkProgress Health on Feb 7, 2012 at 10:10 am

The Church cannot hide behind the separation of church and state at the same time they take public funds. These funds come from people of various faiths or the lack thereof. It is an either or proposition just like conditions attached to federal funds for the states. They are free to take the money with conditions or reject the money. There are states that were denied road funds because of their drinking laws until they complied with federal rules for the funds. This may happen with cell phones and driving in the near future when states will be required to pass laws about cell phone usage in a moving vehicle if the states want road construction funds. No one makes them take the money; they have a choice.

Mike, I acknowledge your public funds argument as one that should be in the debate. It is the only consideration I see outside the first amendment. If the hospital is not deemed to have first amendment protection, then everything else comes in to consideration.

Pilot, a church doing something voluntarily is not the same as the federal government requiring it.

Mouzer, non-Catholics can and do attend Catholic schools and not all staff, especially non-professional staff like custodians, grounds, cafeteria workers, etc are not Catholics. So there is a strong parallel.

This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. No one is stopping the Catholic hospitals from expressing their opinion. The issue is whether the Church can take federal funds and then pick and choose which mandates they want to follow. This is the same type of argument Republicans have been making about mandates. They want the money with no conditions attached. The mandates are to further a policy such as education funds being used for special ed for kids. Federal money for any medical facilities has mandates attached. No one is forcing them to take the money and no one is compelling them to go against their religious principles. If they don't want to follow the mandates, they can reject the money and run the institution free of the federal mandates that violate their principles.

Mouzer, non-Catholics can and do attend Catholic schools and not all staff, especially non-professional staff like custodians, grounds, cafeteria workers, etc are not Catholics. So there is a strong parallel.

When you attend Catholic school they specifically ask you what your religion is and they specifically tell you, you will be taught Catholic doctrine alongside your normal studies. You are selectively hired for the Catholic school. This is NOT the same as a hospital. Catholic schools do not openly accept people from the public. You must apply for admission to be enrolled and then you must adhere to their strict doctrine, of which they inform you prior to your attendance. Private hospitals do NOT do this nor can they by law. If I fall and break my leg and the only hospital nearby is a Catholic hospital the ambulance will take me there and that hospital is required to, by law, treat me for that injury. They cannot and do not ask you what your faith is before they decide whether or not to accept you to the hospital for treatment. The same goes w/ the hiring decisions of the employees. Very few public hospitals still exist in the United States. County hospitals are very sparse in this country which means that private hospitals often have to treat you regardless of whether they'd like to or not. In the case of hiring people this also means there isn't a competitive alternative available to the hospital. Because of this they also have a monopoly factor that the school system does not. The two are not comparable. You are making a false comparison fallacy here. Not only this but legally speaking the laws the govern the two are also segregate.

So, yet again, I ask of you- why do you feel that it's OK to discriminate against the individual as opposed to the business? Both are in conflict and historically when that happens we in the US have taken the side of the individual. I do not understand why people would suddenly argue that the business should get precedent. As I said above the Church has more to gain from accepting the regulation than it loses by doing so.

again I say...Romney is his own worst critic. Let him keep on talking himself into a corner. Obama is gonna call him on all this flip-flopping....hahaha....let the figiting and uncomfortable laughs begin.....he will have a meltdown in a presidential debate against Obama.

And many Catholics go against church dogma and believe in contraceptives too.

Let's face it, the GOP have turned this issue into a political bludgeon. It's sickening what depths they will sink to to win an election.

Hear, Hear!

I don't see either how the "Church's" unwillingness to cover certain medical treatments/prevention for its employees as not discriminatory. What is this "I should be free to exercise my own theological brand of discrimination" that religious people/organizations? Unless there were some oath of faith to the denomination the employee signed, I don't see why any religiously-affiliated organization would even try to preach to flock that isn't reallt theirs. They could always, of course, limit hiring to only those in their denomination, but I don't see that flying over too well in today's age.

Btw, is the church opting to not cover Viagra for the non-procreative variety of making whoopie?

I don't see how the Church would have a doctrinal problem with offering coverage for something that its people don't use -- after all, their health plans offer obstetrical coverage for their unmarried employees.

Or is this another of those selective application of doctrine things?

Is the Church howling about having to extend spousal benefits to people not married within the Church, or, even worse, having to cover Viagra for men who are on their second or third marriages?

Do they offer obstetrical coverage to unmarried female employees?

Mitt Romney thinks the morning-after pill is the abortion pill?...

You missed MSNBC's Florida Primary coverage where a Gingrich campaign worker constantly said, "Democrats abort your babies!"

Even the majority of catholics don't believe in the church's views on contraception.

I'm sorry, but what am I missing here?

On this point, you are. Lay aside the issue of federal law requiring these institutions to provide certain services/coverage to their employees. In the Catholic church (and many faiths), those following the faith don't get to, necessary, determine what the faith is. It is not a social club but a religion.

Granted, religion and faith do change over time but just because certain followers or even a majority of the followers do certain things does not mean that the tenets of the faith now have to be changed to acommodate or approve that behavior.

Here's a great example, most people lie yet most faiths say lying is wrong. Should these faiths now be forced to changed?

Dog, again, I'm not talking about the issue at hand, the federal health requirements. I'm just talking about a faith or religion does not change, usually, just because the followers condone something the faith does not.

I'm afraid I have not done a very good job explaining this. Maybe someone else can do it more succinctly.

RobDon,

Thanks for the reply. I fully understand what you're saying. Many, many religions are authoritarian. Top down. Some are the other way.

My question was more to the battle changing from abortion, plan B, etc. to contraception.

When the Plan B battle started, I started to see some hints about birth control being the next target. I find it interesting how rapidly it has progressed.

You make a valid point. There has been more conversation/controversy surrounding contraception...Rick Santorum has definitely entered into this area.

RonDon,

The reason for Santorum is because of his very orthodox beliefs. From what I've been able to determine, Santorum is most likely a member of Opus Dei. He sent his sons to one of their high schools. OD is extremely secretive of who is and who isn't a member. He was asked the question directly by a Catholic magazine and tap danced with his response.

For me, that's all that needs to be said about his views.

I don't know a lot about Opus Dei other than it is a group with the the Catholic church. I would caution, to not allow the entertainment industry to provide your only analysis. Here's a story in the Times that seems fair as it relates to the Santorum boys school.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/us/the-heights-a-catholic-school-draws-beltway-conservatives.html?_r=1

I would say that part of the point Santorum tried to make does make sense. That is the sexual promiscuity that contraception and the "sexual revolution" brought has contributed to many unwed pregnancies that statistically leads to poverty and a much lower standard of living. It is certainly not the only cause.

Santorum's argument is based on surface logic and pseudo-science. Abortions and unwed pregnancies have decreased since the 1900's and cross-sectional studies show that every nation in which women have free access to contraceptives have lower rates of pregnancies, especially unwed pregnancies. The whole "giving a kid a condom makes him more promiscuous" argument is based in bologna science. What's even more infuriating is that Santorum wants to create a dynamic in which the man works and the woman stays at home. He has openly stated before that he doesn't want women to be paid equal wages for equal work and that he wants our society to be oriented towards enforcing the familial dynamic. What this means is that socially he wants to encourage businesses to pay women who are single less than women who are married and to be less likely to hire women who are single. He also wants men to be paid more. Women who are paid less and given less economic opportunities then can't achieve the same rates of income which makes it nearly impossible for a single mother to move upwards economically. This is by social design; this is not because marriage or lack there of in pertinence to childbearing creates poverty or wealth. Santorum makes an argument in which he takes correlations and assumes they are causes instead of rightly pointing out his own hypocrisy.

Sorry but as a lesbian I can go on and on about how much disparity exists between females and males income wise and how much even more exists married vs not married wise. I recognize you, RobDon, weren't making his argument and you were merely just putting it forward, but it just drives me nuts that he's allowed to say it and isn't immediately rebuked. His very ideas about 'the family' (whatever that is) are the ideas that make the problem he is protesting. It's just insane.

I probably should have tempered my words. It is a fact that unwed mothers (and understandably so) have economic struggles at a much hire rate than others. Any and all considerable factors should be part of the discussion to rectify it. It is not an indictment, it is a fact (without judgment).

Granted, religion and faith do change over time but just because certain followers or even a majority of the followers do certain things does not mean that the tenets of the faith now have to be changed to acommodate or approve that behavior.

You mean like eating meat on Fri. which used to be a mortal sin!?

Sorry RobDon I can not control my sarcasm regarding the hypocrisy of the CC.

I recognize you weren't issuing judgement Rob. I wasn't addressing the idiocy of the argument to you because you weren't arguing it- you were explaining Santorum's position. I was saying that Santorum is a hypocrite and an idiot when it comes to that particular belief structure because he assumes correlation is causality and then assumes changes based on that flimsy logic. It says a lot more about him and his reasoning abilities than it does anything else. You were simply saying that this is what Santorum believes. I thought I made that distinction clear in my post? Sorry for not doing a better job. My words weren't directed towards you. I was venting my frustration w/ him being allowed to put that argument forward in the public realm because of how ridiculous it is.

...we are arguing about individual right to get contraception.

You've missed the point of those opposed if this is what you thing it is about. As already pointed out most Catholics use some form of contraception. So they are getting it from somewhere without this federal requirement. They have the right, it is a matter of whose paying for it.

This is about forcing a religious institution run by the church to do something that the church teachings is against.

RobDon,

With all due respect, it is you who is missing the point. A hospital is not a "religious institution", regardless of who owns it. It is a health care provider, not a church.

Hospitals serving the general public (not just Catholic parishioners) are reasonably excluded from religious exemptions. So, this is about the right's attempt to reduce access to female reproductive services either via a constitutional amendment saying that life begins at conception, defunding organizations that perform legals services that the right doesn't (e.g., Planned Parenthood), or now, supporting the Church's efforts, through it's hospitals, to restrict access to contraception.

This IS about the right to privacy, the right to access women's reproductive services, and more specifically, the right to access contraception. Many in the media who frame this as an attack on religion have frequently demonstrated, through many of their other positions that they don't care about freedom of religion (e.g., required prayer in public schools, required teaching creationism in public schools). That's just how they want to frame this debate to, as is common, demagogue the issue to form a false impression of victimhood and get some cheap votes.

When a church enters the public domain and offers services to the general public, it cannot expect to retain all the rights conferred to it as a religious institution. As a public employer, federal law requires that it offer a minimum level of coverage, which under the ACA includes contraception. Catholics are free to not use this coverage (but they do, anyway), and the church can issue their dictates to their members who voluntarily ascribe to their value system. What they cannot do is deny coverage to non-Catholics who work in their public institutions.

Personally, I think this issue is prima facie evidence for getting employers out of the business of providing healthcare coverage, which in truth is a form of compensation. This wouldn't be an issue in a single payer healthcare system.

What about a Catholic school? Why are they allowed to teach tenets of the Catholic faith to non-Catholic students and non-Catholic employees? It is a service of, an out growth of, a part of the Catholic church.

My prediction: The Obama administration will back down on this requirement and soon.

Because parents choose to send their kids there for whatever reason. When you hire employees you hire them to fill a need. AND you should provide coverage according to the law. If you only want to hire catholic employees then good luck.

My two cents is that if the CC doesn't wake up and change with the times it will become obsolete. In some aspects I hate to see it to go, but seriously, to maintain the mores of the dark ages is asking tooooo much!

Bob, I wish the issue was as easily decided as you've laid out. Unfortunately, it is more complicated.

What if the church runs a feeding program from it's basement and hires an out of work lady who doesn't follow their faith but needed a job. Should the church have to provide her with a service that violates its long standing teachings?

You make valid points about an institutions relevancy or their ability to hire or retain their followers. But who gets to make the decision they need to change? The government?

See, it is a complex issue, not a cut and dry/black and white decision. IMHO

What if the church runs a feeding program from it's basement and hires an out of work lady who doesn't follow their faith but needed a job. Should the church have to provide her with a service that violates its long standing teachings?

Yes. The Church is choosing to hire this person knowing full and well that this person doesn't belong to their faith or otherwise will require those services. The Church already knows it has to provide these services to the employee so it, as an organization, has to consider this when hiring. If the Church doesn't want to conform to the law then they are free to not hire the woman. If, however, the organization feels that hiring the woman would be better for her then they are choosing to have to provide services to her.

I do not understand this: conservatives argue that unions are inherently bad and that if a business doesn't provide the benefits and/or salary that you want then you should exercise your free-will and simply not work for the business. Yet when it comes to demanding that the business employ the same logic conservatives suddenly become protective of the business' rights.

If my religion can't reconcile changes in society and modern concepts with its moral principles, then it will lose its relevancy.

Precisely. That's why it's so important to go back to the 18th century. Or maybe the 16th, since the whole Enlightenment is part of the problem.

RobDon and others, I really think this would not be much of an issue at all even with the CC except for the fact the the right wing is fanning the flames of discord over this. It has become a media event and worse a political circle jerk.

If it was a "Life Threatening" situation?