The Catholic League’s head, Bill Donohue, made headlines with his statement that Catholics were prepared to fight the Obama administration’s new free-contraception mandate “maybe even in the streets.”
Yet another remark in the same story now featured on Drudge also deserves scrutiny. NARAL’s president Andrea Miller scorned Catholic leaders for not dutifully accepting the decree that would force Catholic institutions to violate core Catholic principles:
The Catholic hierarchy seems to be playing a cynical game of chicken and they don’t seem to care that the health and well being of millions of American woman are what’s at stake here.
Yes, how can millions of feeble-brained American women possibly survive in a world in which a pack of birth-control pills requires a co-pay? Our very well being will suffer unless big Daddy government makes it illegal for any employer to offer health insurance coverage that doesn’t include free contraception.
This is modern feminism’s great triumph: Being able to paint American women as so dependent on government, so completely incapable of caring for ourselves, that we cannot tolerate even a few rogue employers failing to provide the most comprehensive health insurance possible. So what if such mandates undermine core liberties, like the freedom of religion and association, enshrined in our Constitution? Better to sacrifice such trivia than to expect that any American woman would have to take responsibility for some small portion of her own health decisions and expenses.
Catholics of all political stripes are outraged by the administration’s casual willingness to chip away at their ability to practice their religion. American women should similarly unite against the tired use of the specter of pathetic, helpless women to justify growing government’s power.
NOW, NARAL, OWS - all claim to speak for us. They do not speak for me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis isn't really about an individual catholic's religious freedom, especially in light of the fact that millions of American catholic women use contraception and the HHS ruling does not compel any woman to use contraception offered as part of an employer health plan. It's about the power of the catholic church.
When someone proves to me that jesus forbade contraception I might listen--the catholic church's retrograde position on contraception is a product of "doctrine" developed by men, not any god.
Finally, as I've said a number of times, if the church wants to be free of any government regulation, it should give up its tax-exempt status on the federal, state and local level. It's hypocritical to complain about the government but at the same time receive millions in benefits from tax exemption at the expense of tax payers, including myself, who aren't catholics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, with your initial paragraph you totally miss the point, as usual. It isn't whether the employees will use the benefit, but whether the employer who is paying should be required to underwrite it.
And, why should anyone have to prove to *your* satisfaction the basis for their religious doctrine? That's the whole point of religious freedom.
Also, a lot of the entities complaining about this mandate aren't tax-exempt. But, they *are* run by religious organizations. Why shouldn't they be allowed to act on their consciences?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGWB: You've missed the point, as usual:
(i) there is nothing that compels an individual to use the benefit. I'll also point out that many religious (including catholic) run organizations offer these benefits already.
(ii) can't come up with a response to the basis for the catholic church's prohibition other than to punt and say no one should question doctrine? Not surprised. By this "reasoning" any arbitrary "doctrinal" position shouldn't be questioned when it has an impact on non-religious activity.
(iii) my point re the tax exemption, and it applies big time to the catholic church, is that they should follow the words of jesus and render unto caesar what is caesars, i.e., pay taxes like the rest of us rather than be a parasite on the fiscal body (I use the word "parasite" as that's what many bloggers and commenters on this blog use to describe government-sponsored benefits for the poor.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusei) Strawman, as that isn't the argument. And, that is what I explained. And, about which, you are being purposely obtuse.
ii) *You* don't have a right to determine that church's doctrine, no. If you're a Catholic, and you want to enter the priesthood and aim to be Pope or in the College of Cardinals, then you can change their doctrine. You can argue doctrine with them all you like. But you don't have any right to determine what is a *valid* doctrine or not.
iii) As long as they don't take more than they give, then it's hard to see them as parasites. Still, if you're arguing about the Catholic church itself, you'll need to go elsewhere with that argument - it isn't on the table. Any of the organizations we're talking about here are not likely to be exempt due to their religious nature, but due to their non-profit nature. So, you'll have to argue that all non-profits should pay tax on their donations - like that Boy Scout troop taking donations at their car wash, or on those Thin Mints from the Girl Scouts, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis was from Sebelius' USA Today response yesterday:
"It's important to note that our rule has no effect on the longstanding conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception. Nor does it affect an individual woman's freedom to decide not to use birth control. And the president and this administration continue to support existing conscience protections."
I really can't decide which was worse. Her having to assure women that they would still have the freedom to decide not to use birth control. Or the fact that that was the second sentence in the paragraph.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is nothing whatsoever hanging in this balance.
A box of 36 condoms is <$20 at your local, chain, discount store and will last even the most affectionate couple for a month. They are even cheaper via Amazon.com.
Don't tell me that any employed woman in the US is unable to cough up $10/month (the guy should pay at least half), to buy her own birth control.
But if she really, truly can't possibly find $10/month, well, abstinence is free.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll of this usurpation of Constitutional rights is cloaked in the guise of "women's health"! Obama and his supporters have a real way with words and no one in the media seems to challenge them. How do birth control and day after pills protect a woman's health? Do all women have some inherent disease that requires them to take these pills in order to be healthy? Do women who fail to take said pills and have a sexual encounter that produces a pregnancy infallibly destroy their health? I thought that pregnancy was the natural and correct result of the sexual act...determined by both nature and God as the normal way to propagate the species. Is pregnancy now considered a life threatening disease? Make the Democrats discuss the mandate for what it is.....a method to give women free access to sex without consequences....a sanitized version of population control or a display of the most selfish, self centered life style imaginable. Catholic institutions have never told non-Catholic employees that they can't use contraception or abortion pills. That is up to the non-Catholic's conscience. But the government won't give the same consideration to Catholic institutions who are trying to follow a Catholic conscience. It's time to get the government out of health care.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems to me that someone needs to ask the hierarchy governing the 28 states that already mandate contraceptive coverage why it hasn't been getting it's knickers in a twist over the requirement on the state level. Possibly their Excellencies are rabid supporters of states' rights, but who knew?
We also have to understand what the Church is refusing to pay for, which is left unclear. First of all, if you want to use anything more reliable than condoms or foam, and most of us do, you need to see a gynecologist and get a prescription for it--diaphragm, IUD, pills, etc. Now, if they are just refusing to pay for the prescribed item, that can be expensive in itself but not a huge burden. But, if they are also refusing to pay for any gyn visit that is coded as "contraceptive care," they are in effect telling the women who get insurance from them that they will have to pay their own primary care bills as long as they are fertile, since most women have a gyn as their primary provider and the annual checkup is at least partially devoted to discussing and renewing the contraceptive prescription. That can run into hundreds of dollars a year very very quickly, and go much higher if repeat visits are needed for one reason or another--needing a refit on a diaphragm, switching hormone formula on the pill, etc. Like it or not, affordability is a real issue for many women This has nothing to do with "victimization;" I suspect attitudes here have a lot to do with whether or not one is in favor of contraception itself or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse