While the Obama administration's recent decision on contraception has caused a stir, it's worth pausing to appreciate the fact that most Roman Catholics already agree with the White House.
A majority of Catholics believe their employers should be required to provide coverage for contraception and birth control, according to a poll released Tuesday from the nonprofit research organization the Public Religion Research Institute.
The poll found that a solid majority of Catholics, 58 percent, say contraception and birth control should be a required, no-cost benefit under their company's healthcare plan.
Support, not surprisingly, is fairly broad among most groups. The only constituency opposed to the coverage in this poll was self-identified white evangelicals. The Public Religion Research Institute released this chart with its survey results:
By the reasoning of the White House's critics on this issue, people of faith are apparently hostile towards people of faith.
Incidentally, let's also note that many Catholic institutions already cover contraception in their health care plans. Igor Volsky had a good report on this earlier:
Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees. For instance, a Georgetown University spokesperson told ThinkProgress yesterday that employees "have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control."
Similarly, an informal survey conducted by Our Sunday Visitor found that many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits.
As this "controversy" continues to unfold, here's hoping these details don't get left out of the debate.
Leave a Comment:
The catholic bishops should worry less about insurance covered birth control,and more about perverted predatory"employees" that prey on young children.One of whom I understand will be testifying at the Vatican.
With all due respect, these "details" should not be part of the debate. This is a first amendment issue, not a popularity contest. Now the courts may ultimately decide that parochial schools, faith based hospitals, etc. are not a part of the church and then the conversation may turn to some of these secondary issues, but until then the issue revolves around...
Does the federal government under our Constitution have the authority to tell a faith based owned and operated service/business that it has to violate its own tenets to comply with the law?
This is the issue - does a faith run school or hospital qualify it for protection under the first amendment.
read below you tell me?
Once again Rob religious schools are not open to the general public nor do they usually employ people who aren't of the faith. I went to Catholic school for a long while and I do not know of any instance in which one of my teachers or administrators wasn't a Catholic. But when you open a hospital to the public you are forced to, by law, treat everyone who comes your way. The only difference between a private hospital and a public hospital in so far as the clientele they accept is that those who cannot pay for medical care are, by law, required to be stabilized and then they are to be transferred to a public hospital that will take them IF the private hospital doesn't want to make an exception for their stay. Schools, on the other hand, are allowed to use selective screening for their reception. They are NOT the same (for the last time).
So this, AGAIN, becomes a question of who gets inconvenienced. If the law sides w/ the Church's right to discriminate against it's employees then that means their employees may a. end up getting pregnant as a result of the lack of coverage b. may have abortions as a result of the lack of coverage or c. if it's a medical issue prompting them to receive contraceptives (remember birth control is only one reason for taking the pill, it's not the only reason) then it quite possible could kill that individual. If the law sides w/ the individual's right to have the policy offered then a. the individual still can choose not to receive contraceptives or can change his or her mind later on and take the coverage off his/her care b. the Church still can talk to this person about why they believe contraceptives are bad and still potentially convert that person to their way of thinking and c. the Church still gets the assistance of that worker and still gets to stay open and operational to the general public. Now tell me who has more to lose from that scenario?
I do not understand how you can logically state that, when the two are in conflict, the law should side w/ the business over the individual. I am sure there are instances in which businesses have to be protected, but this is not an example of one as far as I can see. Why do you feel OK in saying 'well the individual can work somewhere else or get coverage somewhere else' but you don't feel OK in saying 'well the Church can stop providing services to the general public if they don't want to be forced to deal w/ the general public.' It makes no sense.
This is for fellow Catholics and Americans to not allow this to happen again as in 2004!!!!!!!
Do not allow the Republicans and Roman Catholic Church make this a new vitriol political new talking point. To hear parish priests are preaching from the pulpit during homilies as in 2004 Noooooooooo!!!!!!! Not again.
Here is my remembrance from back then;-(
Okay Where to begin;-)
I am a former every Sunday sometimes more Roman Catholic going parishioner. So what happened to this former want to be Priest and a former Layperson to my Roman Catholic Church.
"The Church itself." The racism(in American Catholic Churches), prejudices, lying, hypocrisy, etc.. I could and did live with til 2009. With a break in late 2004.
I live in Arizona. Have been a advocate for Mexican-Americans Rights as participating U.S. Citizens most of my life. Began as far back as 3rd grade.
What changed?
In 2004! With all the increased standing up against racism and prejudices going on for me since 1997 and after 9/11. There had been a major increase in hate towards Latin-Americans. Which as you all see has continued increasing.
We had marches standing up against the political vitriol that was going on in the early 2000's. Sometimes in the hundreds of thousands.
Also in 2004 I was an advocate for the legal residents who did not speak and/or understand English very well when we were fighting for the creation of a Union for newspaper carriers of the AZ Republic Newspaper.
I spoke to also wrote to Catholic officials of the Phoenix Diocese. This was after Pope John Paul the 2nd declared Latin Americans the backbone of Our Roman Catholic Church. We accounted for 42% of Catholics around the world at that time. Got no help or support.
In 2004 the diocese of Colorado demanded commanded that all American Catholics vote for Republicans that year. Why is not the issue here. The issue is when American Latin-Americans asked for there help on supporting our heartache they did nothing.
And now they wanted all Catholics to vote Republican. Republicans who condone Racism in there party. We must vote for them. They who hate us of color.
This went nationwide being spoken in OUR Catholic Churches Pulpits. Politics in MY Church was now being preached openly during Mass.
I had put up with racist comments before, during, after, and outside of church. Until I found one that was more tolerant of someone like me and my family.
Sure we could have gone to Spanish Speaking Masses and did sometimes to feel like we belonged.
And guess what I and most of my family do not speak Spanish!!!!!!!
But that was not a "excuse to not go to mass for me." Wanting to belong at times Yes;-)
The politics during Mass in 2004. And Asking Telling Us NO! Commanding Us to vote for racists for an agenda that Our GOD would say to us"it is not for you to judge that is for me" "your only commandment is to Love All"
You know "All-Inclusive"
So for a time I stopped in 2004
So here mainly for you Roman Catholics, Republicans, and the like geez!
You can vote for Continued Racism! As Michael Steele does only 2% of Black-American votes repub.
My niece who I raised left my Roman Catholic Church(no longer catholic) because how they treated her and the Americans of color. Not just in AZ but Texas(college) and Louisiana(marriage) Caucasian Roman Catholic Churches and the Parochial junior high and high schools she went too in here in AZ.
"It was The adults!"
She by the way is half Mexican-American and half Black-American. To her she is Bi-Racial.
To Americans she is Black?
thank you all for your patience in getting through this;-)
"Live Laugh Love""
Is there a source on this? (My guess is not.)
Most everything else seems to be personal experience. I'm sorry for any and all racial hate or disrespect you have experience.
As for as the church politics, they can advocate a position on an issue but not a party or candidate. I hope you reported any of this you saw.
None, of this addresses the first amendment question I asked in comment 29.
yes
Okay, Tperky said "If you are Catholic, you support child rape and that is backwards and stupid to me." (Or thereabouts- that was the gist). I have no religion, haven't found one that interprets the religious books the way that I do. Anyway, I have a very good friend who is Catholic and she is quite adamant that the Catholic Church cover-ups for the pedofiles is absolutely abhorrent. I think you are stereotyping Catholics by stating that. For the record.
As far as the whole include birth control, do not include birth control. I feel like it should be included in a lot of the plans (because more women take it than do not), but there should be a plan or two available that do not, to allow for those who do not want to contribute to birth control usage by others. Let the individuals who are getting the coverage choose for themselves which plan they want, and that solves all of the problems. I do think that birth control usage helps prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortions, but those people who are vehemently against it, should not have to pay for it.
I prefer a tax exempt status for Frank Zappa...but I don't complain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afIVLB4Ss2g
It would be an interesting analysis to see how many plans cover Viagra and Cialis. The irony of withholding contraception while covering male potency medication is not lost here!
It would be an interesting study to see how many plans cover Viagra and Cialis. To cover a male potency RX but not women's contraception--the irony is not lost here!
When the Roman Catholic Church runs a business such as a hospital or school, they compete with others who are running the same businesses. That Church is now asking that it be exempt from one cost of doing business that its competitors pay. Why should the Roman Catholic Church be able to run businesses that are exempt from expenses that its competitors are required to pay? Let's have a level playing field.
I posted this on the other contraception blog but here it is again:
This important issue along with the abortion issue and gay marriage issue has been reduced to a political circle jerk. The politicians don't care one way or the other who uses or gets contraception (except radicals like Santorum). Matters like these that are near and dear to our hearts are being used like medieval jousting swords. These ass hole politicians need to knock each other off their high horses and get back to basics. God, I love my analogies!
Newsblog, where do you get your kitchen equipment?
I am sooooooo envious of that metaphor salad.
Mixed metaphors and sarcasm are my forte. I cultivate them but it is really easy to do since there is soooooo much to be sarcastic about!
What kind of soiled amendments do you use?
"soiled amendments" easy the very words of the politicians themselves! Those words just breed a yeasty froth of contempt that I use to spice and dish up my salads with. Ya getting hungry???
This weekend I attended Mass at a Roman Catholic Church as part of Scout Sunday observances, for the first time in several years.
During the Mass the letter from the bishop of our diocese was read condemning the Obama administration for requiring employers to provide comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception, as part of any employer sponsored health care plan. In the letter the argument was made that this policy is an attack on Roman Catholics and religious liberty.
I am not going to argue the constitutional issue. I can argue that one flat or round and sometime the courts will decide it. However, the idea this policy is an attack on Roman Catholics is clearly wrong.
My father was one of five brothers who survived infancy and four of them lived to adulthood. He also had three sisters who lived to adulthood. My paternal grandmother was not a Roman Catholic, but she did belong to a Christian sect which, like the Catholics, believed it was wrong to attempt to control fertility or prevent conception. As a result, my grandmother had either a child, a miscarriage, or a stillbirth every year from the time she was married until she entered menopause.
I did not see any families in church that looked like my father's family. Because of Scout Sunday there was a pancake breakfast after church, sponsored by the Cub Scout Pack. I looked around. I didn't see any families like my father's at breakfast either.
The Obama administration has not made an attack on Roman Catholics. The Obama administration has simply made it harder for Catholic Bishops to pretend that anyone is paying attention to them on the topic of contraception.
Obama has sided with Roman Catholics against their bishops.
Write a comment...
Roman Catholic Bishops--errrrr I feel a bad metaphor coming on. I'll stop now.
There was a bishop some where in the mid-west (where else?) who was prepared to excommunicate anyone who defied his stand on birth control and abortion.
I don't know for sure, but the older generation probably fell in line out of fear of burning in hell forever. Hopefully the younger generation let it go in one ear and out the other. The point is, the Church can no longer rule by fear and threats. It is not their job anymore and never should have been. Their job is to help people with their spiritual lives and leave contraception alone especially as they know nothing about raising a family and should know nothing about sex. (there's a laugh)
Those old bishops are living in the dark ages and the Church will go down or morph into some other kind of Christianity unless they step a foot in the 21st century and deal with 21st century problems in an enlightened and compassionate manner. End of sermon!
Legal charity status a bigger issue.
Churches cannot directly engage in political activity.
Non-profit status must be revoked by the IRS for any institution engaged in significant political activity. That includes trying to influence elections and government policy.
Gingrich got in trouble with the House Ethics Committee for the same kind of thing and had to pay a $300,000 fine because of this during the 1990s. He was using a non-profit school to conduct political campaigns.
Non-profit status establishes a strict separation between church and state. Government is prohibited from influencing religion, and religion is prohibited from influencing government.
A more important distinction is that Unemployment Insurance is collected by government, but distributed to charities that include Work Investment Board (WIB). Only non-profit organizations can participate in government partnerships. The WIB is written into law in most states using this rule.
Similar arrangements exist for other organizations, like churches.
Loss of non-profit status would terminate all partnership arrangements, contracts, and tax-exempt status.
If these limitations did not exist, then a wealthy person could influence politicians to write their company or church into public law so that they could profit directly from tax revenue and use that to influence elections. That is obviously illegal.
Several churches have violated federal tax code by attempting to influence contraception, abortion, and LBGT rights. That makes all of those organizations libel for back-taxes dating to the time of the original infraction.
Churches are free to do these things, but they are also free to pay taxes and terminate any government partnerships if they do so.
Members of the supreme court could be subject to impeachment if they vote in favor of churches on a dispute like this, so this is not a trivial issue. That becomes possible if the GOP screw up is so bad that Democrat politicians achieve super-majority in both house and senate.
I was brought up Catholic. My mother gave birth to 9 children. I remember afer her 8th child was born the Dr. told my mother she should not have anymore children. I remember my father pounding on the dinner table saying "no doctor is going to tell us what we are going to do in this family." My father was a devout Catholic and followed the rules of the church. My mother had her9th and last child born with Down Syndrom. My mother heart stopped after this birth and they had to shock her heart to bring her back. My mother had a hysteroctomy as her insides were falling out. Back in the day the Pope stated that women could not refuse their husbands sex. Priests told us we could not masterbate as it would contribute to mental illness. Aso it was taught that masterbation would cause problems with less interest for sex to give to your husband when one got married. Men were given a free hand to sew their wild oats. Men were not responsible because they could not help themselves and it was up to the women to stay them off. We also were told that men have sperm that builds up in them and it must be released. Women are still called whores and slut for their sexuality. My last comment is to say that I hear a lot of comments on the news that government is too big especially with this contraceptive issue. I believe that religion and churches has too much power trying to control women's bodies and their health.They want the law changed so abortion would not be legal. Just because something is legal does not make it morally right. It is up to the woman who will bear the child to decide what she will do. Everyone must answer for their moral failings. This is where the priest or minister can be of some help so the woman in this situation makes the right choice, one they can live with.
I agree, Since when is it a MAN's business and especially one who is supposed to be celibate and not marry or have a family? How dare these pompous asses tell anyone what to do with regard to family planning when they don't know what they are talking about. How can they even help people with a moral decision when they don't have the understanding of what families and particularly women go through?
I'm so sick of the Catholic Church and all their b.s. about how women are supposed to be treated I could scream! It's one reason I hot footed it out of there.
I never met an evangelical that I wasn't destine for hell.
Count me in as one of the majority. I'm a real person. A real woman, mother and wife. I'm not a hypothetical, and years ago, we got caught up in this issue. My husband was working for a Catholic hospital system at that time and our health insurance was provided through his employment. After the birth of our last child, I became very ill and was told that I should never become pregnant again because doing so could be life threatening and certainly threatening to my health. Our insurance would not pay for my husband's vasectomy. Instead, we were told that if I did become pregnant and it did indeed prove to be life threatening, they'd consider paying for termination. This kind of legalism baffles me. Of course, I'm not Catholic, so I really struggle with a belief system that would offer a service they consider more sinful than one that is supposedly a sin, but a lesser one? Let me say that I'd never want these people making a decision for me if my life really was in danger. I will also add that I've never felt that my own life was held in so little regard or that my husband and children's well being was given so little consideration.
No family should ever be put into this situation. This is the 21st century. Birth control is a reality. We are a developed country that understands women's health depends upon the ability to practice contraception. There's a reason most of us my age have great grandmothers who died very young.
Did everyone notice that quote about 98% of Catholic women using birth control, no matter what the church preaches?
I don't think Obama has anything to worry about in regards to the Catholic vote.
I used the pill for a while to control acne and regulate my cycle. It's the only thing that worked. Am I a sinner then? I was single and not sleeping around lol.
My father's own mother died in child birth giving birth to him. It was my grandmother's 9th child. It was up to my Aunt Rose who was 19 at the time to raise the 2 or 3 little ones who were still very young and my father who was just born. I can only speculate that my father never put it together that his mother died from the rigors of childbirth as they said she died from heart failure. He was so obedient to the church that he felt like it was his responsibility to continue to bring children into the world to be in God's good graces. It's what the Catholic church preached during the 60's. Gone are the days that the church has that kind of power and control over the parishoners. Birth control is here to stay. Adults who are seeking permission from the church to use birth control are acting like children and not ready for the responsibility of being in an adult relationship.
Why should insurance pay for birth control anyways. Its an option to have sex. No one is forcing you. People understand that sex is used to make babies. If you dont want babies don't have sex or take the steps to prevent it. You aren't forced to buy car insurance if you don't have a car.
Why should insurance pay for anything? You don't have to smoke so if you get lung cancer your insurance shouldn't have to cover it. You didn't have to live in that building that had asbestos so why should your insurance company have to cover that? You didn't have to go into that building that was on fire and break your leg, why should your insurance cover that? These are all choices- insurance companies should be at will to punish behavior they don't like and reward behavior they do. If people don't like it they can just buy from one of the other 3 insurance companies...all of whom have the exact same policies.
Le sigh.
How inane Mark. How does one stop rape and insest should it happen? Taking contraceptives does stop pregnancy or hadn't you heard?
Well the argument just doesn't make sense. If you believe in free will then you believe everything is a choice which means that any medical condition you want to point to was a matter of choice and not determination. You got skin cancer? Well that's obviously because you were outside too much. DENIED. You have heart disease? Well you should've been a vegetarian all your life and you shouldn't be 40 pounds overweight. DENIED. The list just goes on and on. I mean I'm sorry to make it into a slippery slope argument, but I don't know how you'd argue this legally that wouldn't just allow an insurance company to opt out of providing coverage for whatever procedures the company felt were too expensive to cover. We already know that they will deny people coverage for cancer treatment if they can, that they will deny people life saving surgery if they can, that they will deny people transplants and everything else if they can....I just don't see how you can conclude this one area can stay exempt and not be legal justification for other areas? And if that's the case then how is it that insurance keeps it's relevancy if it doesn't actually cover the care you need?
BTW Mark a. birth control isn't just used for sex (not that there's anything wrong w/ that) and you could be dooming some people to death by denying them coverage, especially if they can't fork over the extra cash on top of the cash they're already paying an insurance company and b. you are aware that getting rid of birth control inhibits your sexuality, correct?
I have no plroblem with abortion being covered if a rape occurred. There is a tiny percentage of victims that actually get pregnant from rape. You ask why should insurance pay for anything mouser. That's isn't the question. You buy insurance for unforeseen events in ones life. Sex is not an unforeseen event. If you want insurance that pays for birth control and abortion, I have no problem with you seeking that company out and choosing that plan. I have a problem when my tax money goes to pay for it or when legislation forces insurance companies to pay for it. That makes all our rates go up.
This "controversy" is sure being hyped by the Catholic Church. Anytime they can change the subject from the child sexual abuse scandal to something else is a good thing in the eyes of the bishops. The victimizer now wants to play the part of the victim.
If i don't take contraception imagine what will happens,i have a VNS implanted,i take allot of medicines.what kind of baby will i bring to this world?
How much will rise the popularity,or we should have to don't have sex any more
This is just the latest is a long string of evidence that the American health care system makes no sense. Why should businesses be forced to offer health care to our employees at all? It wastes a tremendous amount of resources, not only in terms of the cost of the benefits themselves but more in terms of the personnel required to deal with this complex system. It thus puts us at a competitive disadvantage internationally.
Furthermore, are only people who work at companies large enough to supply good benefits (and their close relatives) deserving of health care?
The only logical solution is universal health care. We need to get the handling of benefits off the backs of American businesses so that they can thrive, and we need to make sure that every American, regardless of their employment situation, has access to quality healthcare so that they can thrive.
A few pertinent questions: 1. If an employer remunerates employees with cash, and the employees choose to use that cash to buy illicit drugs, is the employer “buying” the drugs for them? 2. If an employer includes paid vacation in the pay package, and the employee chooses to go to Las Vegas for her vacation, is the employer “paying” the employee to go out and drink and gamble? 3. If an employer includes a normal (nonreligious) insurance policy in the pay package, and the employee chooses legal health procedures that go against the employer’s religious beliefs (i.e. blood transfusions, birth control, organ transplants, etc., is the employer “providing” those services to the employee? Is there any substantial different between these three cases? I think not.
In this light we see that this whole controversy is being misrepresented. The only religious liberty issue involved is the freedom of employers with religious beliefs to one way or another make ethical choices for their employees, taking away their right to choose.
A Jehovah’s Witness who owned a company could choose to remove any possibility of blood transfusions from the health insurance he includes as part of his pay package. This is ridiculous, and the Catholic clergy should should be ashamed of themselves for having distorted this thing as a religious freedom issue — the only freedom here is the freedom they wish to take away from their non-Catholic workers, who have earned their pay packages and should be treated as adults who can make the decisions of how to use them on their own. This (mine) is an essentially CONSERVATIVE argument.
I haven't read all the blogs, but it is essential that contraception be included in insurance policies and in hospitals and other facilities receiving funds. HHS is doing its' job. The media and politicians will try to twist it to political advantage. Be careful. I am not voting for any Republican, but the Roman church has long placed itself above the law because it still believes it has power and control over people who use its religion as their faith. This issue has rekindled in me, a 75 year old non-believer, the feelings I had since early childhood about Christianity, and later about Islam. Their purpose is not to help people through this life, but to proselytize to gain power and control over more people and their lives. I abhor this, and when a church runs a business, Christian or Islamic, they have no right to ignore the regulations concerning government funding A curse on all their profane actions. Go ahead and vote for Rick Santorum, but leave my rights alone.
I wonder which Super Pac is making huge donations to the Catholic Church. I am catholic I've used many forms of birth control and I also know that money talks.
Let's play the whole tape out. No contraception = More poor, hungry and possibly abused children. More foster children. More Adoption Agencies. More Food Stamps. More Medicaid. More lives broken. I think the world would welcome more beautiful children. Now, may not be a good time to do that.