Did Obama punk the Republicans over birth control?

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100
Did Obama punk the Republicans over birth control?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_then_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html

After two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on contraception access under the banner of "religous freedom," Obama finally announced what the White House is proposing an accomodation of religiously affiliated employers who don't want to offer birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it's cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there's very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they're eligible.

That's the nitty-gritty. The fun part of this is that Obama just pulled a fast one on Republicans. He drew this out for two weeks, letting Republicans work themselves into a frenzy of anti-contraception rhetoric, all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty, and then created a compromise that addressed their purported concerns but without actually reducing women's access to contraception, which is what this has always been about. (As Dana Goldstein reported in 2010, before the religious liberty gambit was brought up, the Catholic bishops were just demanding that women be denied access and told to abstain from sex instead.) With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.

My guess is that they'll take their knocks and go home, but a lot of the damage has already been done. Romney was provoked repeatedly to go on the record saying negative things about contraception. Sure, it was in the frame of concern about religious liberty, but as this incident fades into memory, what most people will remember is that Republicans picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage and lost. This also gave Obama a chance to highlight this benefit and take full credit for it. Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along.

Was this Obama's plan all along? Was this a negotiated compromise to get both sides together on an important issue? Or is he taking credit for something that was stumbled-upon as a solution?

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

I don't know if this was Obama's plan all along, but it absolutely disgusts me that a company has control over someone's healthcare to the extent they can prevent their own employees from accessing certain medication.

Score one for socialized medicine.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

There was never any prevention of access to medication. I paid 80 every 3 months for my depo shot because it wasn't covered due to cost. It's asinine to pretend like the Catholic church kept any of their employees from using birth control.

Yes, I think it was a political play.

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

All self insured employers (including gov't) have stipulations on what is covered or not in their insurance that is provided to the employees. This is nothing new at all. Coverage on what prescriptions to coverage of specialists or certain procedures. They all have their limits, but their limits vary. What isn't covered is still available to the insured, it is just whether or not they're willing to pay for these expenses out of their own pocket instead of the insurance company's.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

I think he played the republicans for sure.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

Definitely got played...

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I think that it is fantastic and very clearly shows the raging anti woman bent of this new republican party. It's why I left the party this year.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Oh that's really sad Melissa! You are one of my favourite Republicans, and I'm sorry you don't have a political home where you would feel comfortable. It's a shame what the Republicans are turning into.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

It is sad. I'm in no mans land. Fiscally I'm a republican and socially I'm a raging liberal. If I didn't have such a colorful past I'd start my own dang party (I inhaled, and much much worse, a LOT). This party of weird snake handling religion and woman hating is ugly and I simply won't participate in it.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Sometimes I admire the 2-party system of the US because it's easier to get stuff done but this is the really bad part of it. The funny thing is we would be in the exact same place in the US as I wouldn't have a political home either.

You should move to Canada to start your political party, no one cares what you used to do and you are a hero if you choke a protester Wink

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I'm an independent now.....and its lonely. My favorite book of all time (The Brothers K by David James Duncan) made me idealize running away to Canada and having a friend goat......but these dang kids might make it hard.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

No way, they need a friend goat too! Your poor goatless children.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

total political play.

My insurance doesn't cover BC 100% and I pay $35 a month for it now, but that is the best price in years.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"elleon17" wrote:

total political play.

My insurance doesn't cover BC 100% and I pay $35 a month for it now, but that is the best price in years.

$35 a month is ludicrous. I cringe thinking about what it used to cost.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Mine is $10 a month.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"Beertje" wrote:

All self insured employers (including gov't) have stipulations on what is covered or not in their insurance that is provided to the employees. This is nothing new at all. Coverage on what prescriptions to coverage of specialists or certain procedures. They all have their limits, but their limits vary. What isn't covered is still available to the insured, it is just whether or not they're willing to pay for these expenses out of their own pocket instead of the insurance company's.

This *is* something new. This is a mandate that requires nearly all insurance policies to offer contraception. Employers would no longer be able to choose not to offer this coverage.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

Well since Obama's compromise has been rejected, I don't see that anything is resolved yet.

After initially telegraphing optimism about President Obama’s decision Friday to amend the religious exemption for mandatory birth-control and sterilization coverage, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has declared total opposition to any compromise on the issue.

The organization wrote that it will continue pushing for a complete end to the birth-control mandate “with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency” than before the Obama administration decided to let nonprofit church-affiliated employers such as hospitals and universities, and not just churches, technically opt out of the requirement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-bishops-blast-obamas-contraception-compromise/2012/02/11/gIQAlGVO7Q_story.html

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"Spacers" wrote:

This *is* something new. This is a mandate that requires nearly all insurance policies to offer contraception. Employers would no longer be able to choose not to offer this coverage.

My statement was in response to Blather's.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

I dont understand how choosing not to offer birth control automatically equals anti-feminism. They are not telling employees you cant use birth control, just saying they wont pay for it.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I just typed out this super long reply, but then realized it was unnecessary.

That is like saying I'm not anti-AIDS, but if you get it, I won't pay for your treatment. Dirty aids person. Dirty don't want to have a baby to further the kingdom person. Are you kidding me? I don't want to pay for my BCP because some religious freak pretends to be a Dr while diddling little boys! That crazy!

Krazy with a cap K.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Well since Obama's compromise has been rejected, I don't see that anything is resolved yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-bishops-blast-obamas-contraception-compromise/2012/02/11/gIQAlGVO7Q_story.html

Its interesting that you are so interested in the Catholic Churches view......aren't you an evangel? I'm guessing so. Many of my friends dont WANT 5 kids, or two husbands, or being grandparents while only in their 40's. They LOVE birth control, and they love the fact that God made us smart enough to employ it Smile

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

I just typed out this super long reply, but then realized it was unnecessary.

That is like saying I'm not anti-AIDS, but if you get it, I won't pay for your treatment. Dirty aids person. Dirty don't want to have a baby to further the kingdom person. Are you kidding me? I don't want to pay for my BCP because some religious freak pretends to be a Dr while diddling little boys! That crazy!

Krazy with a cap K.

Well.. I don't think employers should have to offer health insurance at all.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"Potter75" wrote:

I just typed out this super long reply, but then realized it was unnecessary.

That is like saying I'm not anti-AIDS, but if you get it, I won't pay for your treatment. Dirty aids person. Dirty don't want to have a baby to further the kingdom person. Are you kidding me? I don't want to pay for my BCP because some religious freak pretends to be a Dr while diddling little boys! That crazy!

Krazy with a cap K.

I dont think that analogy works unless you are saying that the normal reproductive cycle is a deadly disease. Aids is a medical condition, of course it should be payed for by insurance.
Maybe I just see this different because my insurance doesnt pay for my pills? I gladly pay the 32 bucks a month because my house is crazy busy with 4 kids. My insurance company has played the odds that people will pay the money so they dont get pregnant, and so far the employees are either okay with it or have not raised a big enough deal for them to change it. They do pay for a tubal or vasectomy though.
I dont see this as having anything to do with a crazy boy molesting dr.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Well.. I don't think employers should have to offer health insurance at all.

I agree with this too, and I dont believe the government should be able to mandate employers to offer insurance.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Also we all have Free Birth Control.. excluding cases of abuse (rape). It is called abstinence. Why should we have to pay for a choice?

MissyJ's picture
Joined: 01/31/02
Posts: 3214

"Potter75" wrote:

Its interesting that you are so interested in the Catholic Churches view......aren't you an evangel? I'm guessing so. Many of my friends dont WANT 5 kids, or two husbands, or being grandparents while only in their 40's. They LOVE birth control, and they love the fact that God made us smart enough to employ it Smile

Melissa, perhaps she is interested as she recognizes that the issue is one of dictating not only Catholic organizations/businesses are required to do contrary to the core tenets of the Church -- but also one which impacts other religious and/or pro-life... and sets a stage that is far more reaching... particularly as applied to religious freedoms.

One of the questions often brought up within discussions about this topic -- whether online or from various news media outlets is how can the Catholic Church dictate what a woman can do?

Truly, within this argument they are NOT telling them that. The Catholic Church has the stance that everyone does have free will. While we, (as a people of faith), may choose to pray for an individual making choices outside of the Church's tenets (whatever those are... since we pray for one another as a part of EVERY Mass), it is still your (general *you*) individual *right* to choose -- abortion, contraception, sterilization, etc. This is not *just* about birth control.

What the Church IS saying however is that the Catholic Church and other religious / pro-life organizations should not be mandated to do something that is so vitally offensive to their core religious beliefs... including esp. that belief that life begins at conception. Again, they are not preventing anyone from exercising their free will in choices made. They are saying that THEY should not be forced to pay for it in violation of their core beliefs.

The "accommodation" offered by President Obama was not acceptable as the Church and other religious groups/organizations impacted would still be required to subsidize the insurance company in a virtual shell game.

This impacts far more than "Catholics" or even those that are pro-life. This is just the beginning of a slippery slope to strip everyone from liberties that fall outside of what the GOVERNMENT determines is "best" for you... whether it violates the core religious liberties or not. Other potential examples that could be mandated: Those of Jewish or Muslim beliefs may find it becomes "illegal" to practice their faith re: circumcision; or find mandates to fund coverage for assisted suicide/euthanasia contrary to their religious views; and more.

Again -- the Catholic Church is NOT saying that *you* cannot choose birth control, abortion, sterilization, etc. The stance is that religious institutions should not be mandated to pay for those choices in violation of their core beliefs.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Does anyone believe that it's NOT in the overall best interest of a company to have healthy, productive employees? Just wondering. I'd also be curious to know what the annual per capital health spend is for the U.S. govt.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

Its interesting that you are so interested in the Catholic Churches view......aren't you an evangel? I'm guessing so. Many of my friends dont WANT 5 kids, or two husbands, or being grandparents while only in their 40's. They LOVE birth control, and they love the fact that God made us smart enough to employ it Smile

I'm not Catholic and don't agree with their stance on many things, which is really beside the point here. Missy has already stated my position perfectly so I'll just stop there.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

$35 a month is ludicrous. I cringe thinking about what it used to cost.

I know. I did order it online this past time and saved money. $72 for 3 months worth.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"Potter75" wrote:

Its interesting that you are so interested in the Catholic Churches view......aren't you an evangel? I'm guessing so. Many of my friends dont WANT 5 kids, or two husbands, or being grandparents while only in their 40's. They LOVE birth control, and they love the fact that God made us smart enough to employ it Smile

I would love 5 kids, but the simple fact is we can't afford it. We couldn't afford to have another (well we could, but I would have to quit my job and we would have nothing left over because the cost of living here is high comparitively). BC is a neccessity if I want to have a sex life. lol!

I hate being on it because I am very sensitive to the hormones, so I can't wait till the day I don't have to be. Wink

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

How do Catholics prevent pregnancy, exactly?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"MissyJ" wrote:

Melissa, perhaps she is interested as she recognizes that the issue is one of dictating not only Catholic organizations/businesses are required to do contrary to the core tenets of the Church -- but also one which impacts other religious and/or pro-life... and sets a stage that is far more reaching... particularly as applied to religious freedoms.

One of the questions often brought up within discussions about this topic -- whether online or from various news media outlets is how can the Catholic Church dictate what a woman can do?

Truly, within this argument they are NOT telling them that. The Catholic Church has the stance that everyone does have free will. While we, (as a people of faith), may choose to pray for an individual making choices outside of the Church's tenets (whatever those are... since we pray for one another as a part of EVERY Mass), it is still your (general *you*) individual *right* to choose -- abortion, contraception, sterilization, etc. This is not *just* about birth control.

What the Church IS saying however is that the Catholic Church and other religious / pro-life organizations should not be mandated to do something that is so vitally offensive to their core religious beliefs... including esp. that belief that life begins at conception. Again, they are not preventing anyone from exercising their free will in choices made. They are saying that THEY should not be forced to pay for it in violation of their core beliefs.

The "accommodation" offered by President Obama was not acceptable as the Church and other religious groups/organizations impacted would still be required to subsidize the insurance company in a virtual shell game.

This impacts far more than "Catholics" or even those that are pro-life. This is just the beginning of a slippery slope to strip everyone from liberties that fall outside of what the GOVERNMENT determines is "best" for you... whether it violates the core religious liberties or not. Other potential examples that could be mandated: Those of Jewish or Muslim beliefs may find it becomes "illegal" to practice their faith re: circumcision; or find mandates to fund coverage for assisted suicide/euthanasia contrary to their religious views; and more.

Again -- the Catholic Church is NOT saying that *you* cannot choose birth control, abortion, sterilization, etc. The stance is that religious institutions should not be mandated to pay for those choices in violation of their core beliefs.

Excellent post!

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

WEDNESDAY, FEB 15, 2012 8:00 PM ESTCatholic hypocrisy at its worst

Bishops condone much more direct contradictions of church dogma. The birth control uproar is a cynical power play

BY GENE LYONS

Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan is interviewed at the North American College in Rome, Feb. 14, 2012.

TOPICS:BIRTH CONTROL, CATHOLIC BISHOPS
[FONT=Georgia]For the record, the priest who married my wife and me in 1967 advised us that we could in good faith practice birth control. He reasoned that as Pope Paul VI was then preparing an encyclical regarding faith and sexuality, young Catholics could reasonably assume that church dogma regarding contraception would soon change to reflect contemporary realities: specifically that a couple intending to bring children into their marriage might legitimately seek to do so in their own time.
A university chaplain, he no doubt understood how the combination of Rome’s authoritarianism and theological nit-picking tended to drive educated young people from the church. Anyway, everybody knows how that worked out. Next came Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s 1968 doubling down on the church’s blanket condemnation of artificial means of birth control — a blast from the medieval past as most American Catholics now see it.
“Vatican Roulette,” we called it, and like the vast majority, declined to play. Surveys have shown that approximately 13 percent of the faithful agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s categorical ban on birth control; a mere 2 percent actually practice what the bishops preach. For most, it isn’t a serious personal issue. Sure, Your Grace, whatever.
For that matter, birthrates are declining in Catholic countries around the world. And a blessing it is, if poverty and human dignity concern you.
Until the U.S. Conference of Bishops recently got crosswise with the Obama administration, even the church rarely emphasized the contraceptive issue. So at first, I was mainly struck by the sheer quaintness of it all. (As, evidently, were many Catholic universities and hospitals quietly complying with state laws mandating contraceptive coverage.) The bishops’ indignant fulminations about their wounded consciences put me in mind of the hilarious production number in Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life,” with its chorus of impoverished Catholic urchins singing[INDENT]“Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.”
[/INDENT]
Coarse jokes about priests, altar boys and contraception virtually wrote themselves. I’ll spare you. But while we’re at it, let’s light a candle for Sinead O’Connor, an eccentric woman in combat boots with a shaven head, who tore up the pope’s photo on “Saturday Night Live” in 1992 to protest clerical sexual abuse of children in her native Ireland: wrecking her U.S. career to make a point entirely lost upon most viewers at the time.
In a bankruptcy proceeding last week, the diocese of Milwaukee listed 8,000 claims of sexual abuse among its liabilities. I’m with Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce, who writes that the great contraceptive kerfuffle with the Obama administration represents a fairly obvious power play by “the institutional American church to regain the power and influence in the secular government that it lost when it was exposed to be a multigenerational conspiracy to obstruct justice.”
If the reader detects bitterness, that’s an error of tone. The best priest I know is prone to remind his parishioners that the church is not God; rather, it’s a human institution, prone to sin and error. Recently watching him bless four little girls who carried alms to the altar, I was moved to think how humble, hardworking priests like him are also victims of the church hierarchy’s grave moral failure.
So you’d think they’d be a bit more modest in their rhetoric, the bishops. Particularly in anything touching upon human sexuality. This may be the place to say that I speak for nobody but myself. Not for Irish Catholics, Catholics in the South, Catholics Who Raise Fleckvieh Simmental Cows, nor even for my wife.
Her issue is how easily rich people are granted marriage annulments. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s marriage was declared null and void after 24 years and three children because — get this — he’d entered it with reservations. Specifically, he never intended to quit “dating.” (Evidently a family tradition.) Never mind that Kennedy’s ex-wife Joan agreed. Mine found it sickening, a patent end-run around the church’s unwillingness to countenance divorce.
For that matter, a couple of bishops attended Newt Gingrich’s third wedding. So don’t tell me they couldn’t find a way to accommodate President Obama’s downright Jesuitical compromise to the effect that Catholic hospitals don’t have to offer employees contraceptive care, but their insurance companies do. Canon lawyers make distinctions like that one every day.
Instead, they’ve settled upon a partisan power play to subvert the First Amendment rights they claim. Look, nobody’s forced to use contraceptives; it’s an individual’s choice, nobody else’s. Religious organizations have the right to believe anything they like, but not to impose those beliefs upon others. By essentially demanding a Catholic veto, the bishops and their GOP allies would impose their theological views upon millions of American women as a condition of employment.
That’s not “liberty,” it’s liberty’s opposite; and precisely what the First Amendment was written to prevent.

Close


[/FONT]

From salon.com
Look, nobody’s forced to use contraceptives; it’s an individual’s choice, nobody else’s. Religious organizations have the right to believe anything they like, but not to impose those beliefs upon others.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

http://catholicism.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=catholicism&cdn=religion&tm=2&gps=169_271_1069_635&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=3&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.ccli.org/

Oh please. I don't take seriously any website that's got this quote on their main page:

The infiltration of the ideology that same sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle is good for society continues, and the last few days it seems I can’t escape it.

I thought Catholics didn't believe in preventing the joining of egg and sperm. Period. I am fully aware of NFP and am a big proponent of it. It's how my son was conceived. But, it IS birth control, plain and simple.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

From salon.com
Look, nobody’s forced to use contraceptives; it’s an individual’s choice, nobody else’s. Religious organizations have the right to believe anything they like, but not to impose those beliefs upon others.

How is saying you shouldn't have to pay for something you disagree with imposing your beliefs on others? Seems like the other way around to me.
Maybe it shoudl read like this.
Look, nobody’s forced to use contraceptives; it’s an individual’s choice, nobody else’s. Government officials have the right to believe anything they like, but not to impose those beliefs upon others.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

How do Catholics prevent pregnancy, exactly?

rhythm method is what I was told when I was old enough to learn about it, basically calculation ovulation and not doing anything during that time. Not really all that reliable a method, hence the days of 8-10 children in catholic families. Wink

PS I'm born and raised catholic. So this might not be doctrine from the vatican, but the 'old school' practice of catholics that I knew in generations before.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"elleon17" wrote:

rhythm method is what I was told when I was old enough to learn about it, basically calculation ovulation and not doing anything during that time. Not really all that reliable a method, hence the days of 8-10 children in catholic families. Wink

PS I'm born and raised catholic. So this might not be doctrine from the vatican, but the 'old school' practice of catholics that I knew in generations before.

It was a rhetorical question, really. Wink

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

lol! Sometimes I'm a little slow to the punch line Wink

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

How is saying you shouldn't have to pay for something you disagree with imposing your beliefs on others? Seems like the other way around to me.
Maybe it shoudl read like this.
Look, nobody’s forced to use contraceptives; it’s an individual’s choice, nobody else’s. Government officials have the right to believe anything they like, but not to impose those beliefs upon others.

What, what beliefs are you saying that the Government is "imposing" on individuals? Equal rights?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

What, what beliefs are you saying that the Government is "imposing" on individuals? Equal rights?

The government is imposing their belief that birth control pills and sterilization and the morning after pill are acceptable by forcing the people in the Catholic church to pay for those things.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The government is imposing their belief that birth control pills and sterilization and the morning after pill are acceptable by forcing the people in the Catholic church to pay for those things.

That's one of the things about living in a society, we all pay for things we'd rather not, but that our society deems are for the greater good. I'd rather not pay for war; that violates every fiber of my being, not to mention my religious beliefs. I'd rather not pay welfare to teenaged moms. I'd rather not pay for subsidizing the dairy industry. But I *am* paying for all of those things because our society has decided these things are worth paying for. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is absolutely for the greater good of society, and there is nothing saying that Catholics or anyone else has to *use* the birth control. The only mandate is that it be available, for free, for those who want it regardless of their religious beliefs. Exercise your own religious beliefs by deciding whether to use it or not, not by refusing to pay for it.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

That's one of the things about living in a society, we all pay for things we'd rather not, but that our society deems are for the greater good. I'd rather not pay for war; that violates every fiber of my being, not to mention my religious beliefs. I'd rather not pay welfare to teenaged moms. I'd rather not pay for subsidizing the dairy industry. But I *am* paying for all of those things because our society has decided these things are worth paying for. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is absolutely for the greater good of society, and there is nothing saying that Catholics or anyone else has to *use* the birth control. The only mandate is that it be available, for free, for those who want it regardless of their religious beliefs. Exercise your own religious beliefs by deciding whether to use it or not, not by refusing to pay for it.

Having a person paying for things indirectly through taxes is also a lot different than telling the Catholic church that they must directly pay for these things. Should the Catholic church be required to provide free abortions too? One of the analogies I have heard is it is like telling a kosher deli they must serve ham sandwiches.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Oh Goodness I hope that the church doesn't get into the abortion giving business. We all saw how it went when they went dabbling into proctology!

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Having a person paying for things indirectly through taxes is also a lot different than telling the Catholic church that they must directly pay for these things. Should the Catholic church be required to provide free abortions too? One of the analogies I have heard is it is like telling a kosher deli they must serve ham sandwiches.

The Catholic Church is not "directly paying for these things" any more than I'm directly paying a welfare mom. :roll: The Catholic Church is, like any decent employer, providing health insurance coverage for their employees; the insurance company is the one who pays for the services provided to the employee.

And your deli analogy is ridiculous. Deciding what to have for lunch is a far different decision than what form of birth control to use; that is a decision that should be between a woman, her partner, and her doctor. Her employer should NEVER be allowed to be part of that conversation. When delis start providing birth control, then we can debate about whether the options have to be kosher or not.

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"Spacers" wrote:

The Catholic Church is not "directly paying for these things" any more than I'm directly paying a welfare mom. :roll: The Catholic Church is, like any decent employer, providing health insurance coverage for their employees; the insurance company is the one who pays for the services provided to the employee.

And your deli analogy is ridiculous. Deciding what to have for lunch is a far different decision than what form of birth control to use; that is a decision that should be between a woman, her partner, and her doctor. Her employer should NEVER be allowed to be part of that conversation. When delis start providing birth control, then we can debate about whether the options have to be kosher or not.

The first paragraph is untrue. All self-insured employers are directly paying for all expenses their insurance company covers. It's just that they're contracting with the insurance company to administer for them. At the end of each year, new rates are figured based on the prior year's medical expenses that came directly from their specific employees. Therefore, the employers who are self-insured are certainly directly paying for any medical expense that was covered through the insurance hence why they are called self-insured.

Just like how many people don't believe insurance should fully cover fertility treatments for various reasons, it's no different than fully covering all types of birth control. They both are not "rights" or "equality" issues. If an employee does not like that their employer refuses it to be fully covered, they have the choice to look elsewhere for employment where they may cover it.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

And your deli analogy is ridiculous. Deciding what to have for lunch is a far different decision than what form of birth control to use; that is a decision that should be between a woman, her partner, and her doctor. Her employer should NEVER be allowed to be part of that conversation. When delis start providing birth control, then we can debate about whether the options have to be kosher or not.

The employer becomes part of the conversation when they have to pay for it. It is not between the woman, her partner and the doctor when she hands the employer the bill. If she wants it to be between her and the doctor she should pay for it herself.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The employer becomes part of the conversation when they have to pay for it. It is not between the woman, her partner and the doctor when she hands the employer the bill. If she wants it to be between her and the doctor she should pay for it herself.

So, this really isn't about birth control in and of itself, is it? It's about the cost. Catholics can practice NFP apparently and the church looks the other way, but as soon as the number of catholic women using birth control is quantifiable with a dollar amount then it becomes the church's concern?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

So, this really isn't about birth control in and of itself, is it? It's about the cost. Catholics can practice NFP apparently and the church looks the other way, but as soon as the number of catholic women using birth control is quantifiable with a dollar amount then it becomes the church's concern?

I don't understand how NFP is in conflict with church teachings? I'm pretty sure that is the method they recommend.

http://foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/family-planning/

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I don't understand how NFP is in conflict with church teachings? I'm pretty sure that is the method they recommend.

http://foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/family-planning/

From what I know and have read catholics are against the prevention of joining egg and sperm. I didn't realize any method of bc was 'recommended'.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

It's all about a diagnosis code;)

I used to work for a Catholic based health care system and the insurance did not cover birth control unless you were diagnosed the right way (menorrhagia, etc).

Pages