What do folks think about this? The HHS department has decided that every insurance plan must provide free birth control (no co-pays or deductibles) as well as some some women specific preventive care. Men are out of luck.

Religious institutions with moral objections (which in this instance is understood primarily to be the Catholic Church) will only have very limited exemptions that will not include hospitals or schools or other organizations which do not serve only that particular religious group's members.

Birth control is already widely available and widely used. It doesn't seem fair to say that not only does whatever plan you purchase have to include birth control but that the people who use birth control will get it free while other people's premiums rise to cover the usage. If I don't need it why shouldn't I be able to get a plan that doesn't have it?

I have zero moral objections to birth control but I don't see how it's fair that something that is a choice for many people needs to be mandated with no co-pay while medicines/office visits for such life threatening conditions as hypertension, various cancers, diabetes, heart disease ,etc will continue to require co-pays and deductibles.

Religious Freedom

Thoughts?

I object to religious organizations being required to provide services or medications that violate their religious principles.

"Religious Liberty" is a catchphrase used by the religious right to oppress upon everybody else in their views and prefered policy unchecked. I'm reminded of a recent Tennessee bill trying to ban bullying*, and people wanted a "religious exception." Translation: In the name of Jesus, we want to be allowed to beat up gay people up.

As for birth control, better people use pills than go for abortions later on since nothing with pills has been terminated except a menstrual cycle, nothing has been lost. Plus last I checked, nobody is shoving these pills down women's throats while somebody has a gun to their head.

If you want to be Bristol Palin, nobody is stopping you from not taking the pills.


*=How you can enforce that? A different conversation for a different day.

I agree. I have no problem at all with birth control, but a mandate just doesn't seem right.

If you work for a Catholic organization, do you not have insurance now? Do you not have a prescription plan that will pay for birth control pills? If the answer is yes, then what's the difference between that and this??

If I understood correctly, the difference is the HHS (Health and Human Services) is mandating no copay for birth control versus people with other health problems. This is tantamount to saying that people seeking birth control have greater rights than those suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure etc. It also drives up everyone's premiums.

Agreeing with Lilo, it's not for the HHS dept to determine who has greater rights when it comes to getting health care.

I somehow missed that point. I thought the Church was objecting to being forced to provide the birth control option to their employees because the Church considers birth control a sin. And if that's the case, what's the difference if there's a copay or not?

That is also one of the things that religious organizations are protesting. There is no right involved. There is no right to health care. Federal and state laws establish health care access and its application. That's all. Some people tend to commingle constitutional rights, natural rights, and statutes. Any court challenge to copay requirements would probably be based on the 14th amendment's requirement of equal protection of the the law. If it were successful, only then might one correctly claim a copay-related right.

That's the point that I was agreeing with. It wasn't for moral or religious reasons. I'm a practicing Catholic, but I'm not blind to the fact that the Church's stance on birth control is archaic. It's just that I don't think the HHS department has any right to determine that birth control should be put ahead of chronic diseases when determining co-pay.

Hey SB!

The Church (although they're out front on this I don't think they're the only impacted group) has a group of associated organizations that they run yes-charities, adoption agencies, schools, universities,etc. Most of these groups do provide health care coverage for their employees. A tiny few (SHHHHHHHHHH) may already provide coverage that includes birth control pills and other things that go against Catholic teaching.

But most do not. Most purchase coverage that doesn't include items that are problematic from the Catholic POV. The new rule says that not only does the employer have to purchase coverage that includes birth control and sterilization, but also that there can be no co-pays or deductible. The Church wanted an religious exemption to this requirement for itself and all of its subsidiaries but HHS declined.

So someone actually working directly for the Church would still fall under an exemption for religion. Someone working in any of the subsidiaries would not.

EG. the secretary for the parish priest would be exempt but the principal for the Catholic school would not be. The Catholic school would have to purchase policies that included bc for all of its employees.

For the Catholic leadership (no clue about rank and file) this is infuriating because they would be forced to purchase things they consider wrong or even sinful. So there's gonna be a fight...

Although I disagree with the Church's stance on birth control, it would be against their doctrine. But it gets into murky areas, doesn't it? For example, Bon Secour Health Systems is a huge faith-based healthcare organization. However, all of their employees cannot possibly be Catholic. Why should the Church impose a faith-based doctrine on their employees?

Well to play Angel's Advocate here.. the Church would say they aren't imposing anything on anyone. People have a choice to work there and presumably know the rules and benefits before they sign up.

The Administration took the opposite view. I think this will end up being decided in the courts of course.

The employees of any church owned organization are free to engage in activities the Church does not approve/condone; they just couldn't require the Church to help pay for them, which is why Dolan was so seemingly peeved.

Folks who believe in universal healthcare would disagree with that statement.
From the Church's standpoint, would this be a first amendment issue or equal protection or both?

Speaking of Catholic adoptive agencies, this case reminds of Church-run agencies that were forced to withdraw from states where they would not comply with gay adoption rules. It's getting harder and harder to be Catholic.

Religious organizations then should have no business providing medical services. There's medical moral code and that should be universal among every medical facility.

Yes. But the issue is whether (free) contraceptive coverage, abortifacients and sterilization fall under the expectation of universal coverage the way that say treating someone for a gunshot or cancer might.

Previously when the State has tried to force the Church's hand on this issue the Church has been able to dodge the issue either by self-insuring or removing itself from providing services. I don't know what the rank and file Catholics think but the leadership is adamant that they will not comply with this mandate. That would mean either closing down institutions or refusing to provide coverage for anyone. Some might think they're playing "chicken" but I don't think so.

Contraceptives are already pretty cheap and easy to obtain. It seems needlessly provocative to attempt to force religious institutions to pay for and/or provide instructions on how to obtain items which are anathema to them. Although PP is not a religious institution (though some people seem to have the same level of devotion one would normally associate with a church), imagine if the HHS under a President Romney or President Santorum determined that contraception was not medically necessary and thus every institution was hereby prevented from purchasing a plan that included it. PP would hit the roof. Or imagine if it was medically proven that alcohol and pork cured cancer and every business was then required to provide free drinks and ham in its cafeteria. Kosher and halal would get no exemption. Or... you get the point.

Every religious group has rules, which may seem silly to outsiders or may in fact even be silly, but under the First Amendment, they should have a right to follow those rules, absent breaking the law in some other aspect. The Church is not preventing anyone from getting bc; it's just saying we're not providing it/paying for it.

Okay, I'm not sure I get it. Is the issue about mandating all insurance providers to include contraceptives in their plans? If so, I'm not for it as well.



Yet one stumbles upon accounts of rape victims, who are brought into these medical facilities without their consent (probably they are unconscious) and are refused to be given morning after pills. Paying for it through their own insurance is one thing, but providing it and offering the choice to the patient is another issue.

Yup. All insurance providers will have to include free (no co-pay or deductible) contraceptives in their plans. The only exception is for people who literally work at the church. Church hospitals, charities, schools or social service agencies would have to bend the knee and purchase contraceptive coverage.





Yes, AFAIK Church hospitals would not provide those sorts of options. It's against their moral stricture.

Ouch. I'm against that as well if it makes any difference. The employer should pay their share of premium and let the employee choose whatever insurance they want to have. That's absurd.



That's why I say they should have no business providing medical care. Medical care has its own moral code. There should be a separation of medicare and religion just as state and religion. What about patient's rights and choices?

Well put, Afs .

Their institution; their rules. If you go to a Catholic institution they don't ask you to become Catholic or believe as they do but they do ask you to abide by their rules. If you don't like it the door swings both ways.

Again, I think their rule on bc is misguided. I have no issue with bc. But it's not my hospital/school/social service agency...

Exactly, Lilo.

I know you don't advocate what they do, merely their right to do so under the constitution, yet, that should be applied to a place where I go on my own accord, when I'm not incapacitated to make a decision for myself, like a school. When they take a rape victim who is usually badly beaten and not able to make a decision for herself to a Catholic hospital, all the bets are off. More importantly, what if a person does not know about these choices that would have been given to her in another establishment? A patient should have a right to be presented with all the options available regardless of his/her doctor's beliefs. This is just unprofessional attitude sanctioned by religion.

Well unfortunately I'm not up on all the case law/court decisions that have come down on this already although other board members might be. There have been cases such as you reference. Generally it seems to be the case that Catholic hospitals are under no obligation to provide patients options with which they disagree although they MIGHT be under some obligation to inform such a patient that there are other options available to her, just not at their hospital. And Catholic theologians disagree about just what constitutes "birth control" and think that in an emergency situation, different moral calculus may apply. And anyway doctors may well ignore such rules if they feel the patient's health requires it.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboemer12.htm

http://www.connsacs.org/documents/CatholicHospitalsECfinal.pdf

http://www.womensenews.org/story/our-daily-lives/050811/the-wait-catholic-hospital-after-rape

But these are things which are already being dealt with however inelegantly by current laws, hospitals and individual morality. The new proposed HHS rule goes further..

Again, it's like pills are being shoved down people's throats. If said patients eligible for them don't want them, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO USE THEM. This is not fucking tyranny people.

This isn't China with their population control methods of the past or whatever.

What next, we allow religious-affiliated organizations the right to freely ignore every other laws that "conflict" with their views? Let Mosques stone adulterous women. Let cults practice cannibalism and ritual sacrifices. Let the LDS practice legal civil polygamy as they did in the 19th century before the Federal government forced them not to.

C'mon people.

You know, if my doctor said prayer would lower the blood pressure, Mine would hit the roof and I'd turn red. Good job there doc. I hope one day I could answer such a comment with a mere conceited mocking chuckle, though I'm sure that would raise the blood pressure as well.

While I'm with you on your 1st paragraph, I don't see why we shouldn't let Mosques stone women who accept their punishment according to Islamic laws? I mean would that fall under insanity? What about BDSM? Should that be outlawed as well? Is it outlawed? Why should government dictate how many spouses we should have if we are content with the size of our family and the relationships?

There's one clear conflict in the stoning case if the condemned does not want to abide by their sect's laws, one can't fall out of Islam, or the punishment is also death. At that point I think government should put a stop to that madness. Otherwise let them roll the way they want to.

But there is a difference between breaking the law in terms of violence or abuse and being forced to pay for bc, sterilization and abortifacients.

The individual members of the church already, via taxes, pay for a number of things not approved of by church doctrines (war, death penalty, birth control, etc) They aren't trying to stop that. They also aren't preventing any member of their church or employee of an affiliated organization from practicing bc or having abortions or getting sterilized.

All they are saying is that their church shouldn't be forced to pay for those things.
Additionally, if the Christian Scientists and Amish have exclusions, the Catholics want one too.

From the new HHS rule


That's too much. If I believed that eating pork is forbidden, or that women have to cover their hair and speak only to their husbands/male relatives, or that drinking alcohol or caffeine is sinful, should I have to post information in my place of worship giving directions to everyone about when and how to break these rules?

Bottom line is the Church won't comply. They will shut down the agencies or refuse to pay fines. From both a political and policy standpoint I don't see the point of trying to make the Church bend on this.

But hospital isn't a place of worship for a certain religious group. It is supposed to comply with medical laws and offer medical help to a wide range of people. Either they should pull out of the medicine, or comply with the codes of conduct that's required of any facility of that sort.

Yes, but it's questionable as to who exactly the HHS quote is referring to when it lists "employers who do not offer coverage.." since the mandate would include everyone except the literal brick and mortar church. Would the church have to put up such rules? Even if the Church does what it's done in similar situations and refuse health coverage for everyone it seems like this order indicates they would still have to tell folks where to get contraceptives. Free Speech concerns?

This particular mandate comes out of the Affordable Care Act , which the SOTUS has agreed to review but in addition there is a separate lawsuit just started that claims that independent of whether the Affordable Care Act is upheld in whole or part, this contraceptive mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under this law, government can only interfere with free exercise of religion if strict scrutiny is used-meaning that there is a compelling government interest and the "interference" is the least restrictive way to compel government interest.

There's a difference between raising taxes to provide free bc for everyone, which the Church wouldn't like but would have no constitutional reason to oppose and requiring that the Church itself underwrite such activities. That's the way I see it anyway. I know that reasonable people can differ..