“Darn tooting.”
Back in October when the HHS contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandate issue was more under the radar than it is now (the announcement on January 20 was far from the first communication about it from the administration), President Obama bragged about it during a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Chicago.
From the White House transcript:
And to make sure that those laws are upheld, we appointed two brilliant women to the Supreme Court. (Applause.) We repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell” so that every single American can serve their country, regardless of who they love. (Applause.) And, yes, we passed health care reform because no one in America should go bankrupt because somebody in their family gets sick. (Applause.)
Insurance companies can’t drop your coverage for no good reason. They won’t be able to deny your coverage because of preexisting conditions. Think about what that means for families all across America. Think about what it means for women.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Birth control –
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. You’re stealing my line. (Applause.) Breast cancer, cervical cancer are no longer preexisting conditions. No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth. (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Darn right!
THE PRESIDENT: Darn tooting. (Laughter.) They have to cover things like mammograms and contraception as preventive care, no more out-of-pocket costs. And while it will take a couple of years for all the reforms to fully take place, already we’ve got seniors all across the country who have gotten $250 to help them pay for their prescription drug benefit. And nearly 1 million young adults already have health insurance because of it — 1 million more young people. That’s an incredible achievement. The Affordable Care Act is working. (Applause.)
That the president would mock the conscience rights of Americans — Catholic bishops were already educating churchgoers in bulletin inserts, urging them to oppose the coming mandate — is not all that out of character though. Back when we were arguing about the whole of Obamacare itself and abortion funding, the president of the United States actually accused Catholic bishops of lying about the language of the proposed legislation.
“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate. And there’s some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness,” he told liberal religious activists during a conference call in the summer of 2009.
And, again, it is not just Catholic bishops or Catholic pewsitters this administration is hostile to.
"That the president would mock the conscience rights of Americans ..."
Explain to me again how this regulation would require anyone opposed to birth control to use birth control?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse...no ya don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, it requires no such thing whatsoever.
This whole thing is just another proxy war for control, on the part of a group of formerly-powerful men who run the Catholic church, and have seen their power to shape the lives of their constituents wane mightily in the wake of ineffectively addressed scandal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, explain to all of us how paying for someone else's use cannot be a violation of one's conscience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExplain the notion of a right to birth control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt requires organizations that do not believe in providing birth control to provide birth control. Is there some massive inability to get birth control right now? Explain to me again where the federal government has the authority to force religious organizations to violate their consciences, in violation of RFRA?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI attempt to your question in my imagined conversation with Rousseau
Me: Can you explain to me your principle of general will?
Rousseau: (in an over the top French accented English – think Clouseau) But, of course, general will is the rule of law as proscribed by the will of the people.
Me: And, if I understand correctly, you say you experience freedom when you submit to the general will?
Rousseau: Qui Qui. The citizen has total freedom within the constraints of the general will.
Me: Are there limits to the general will?
Rousseau: Yes, the limits to the general will are set by the will of the people.
Me: How does the general will hold sway over individual liberty?
Rousseau: An individual’s liberty is guaranteed subject to the constraints of the general will, of course.
Me: I see. Is my freedom of expression, association and property ownership constrained by the general will?
Rousseau: Well of course. Are you listening? That is what I just said. But within those constraints you can express, associate and own property as you please.
Me: Is freedom of religion constrained subject to the general will?
Rousseau: Of course your religious freedom is constrained subject to … uh … oh, I see … uh, your religious freedom is guaranteed by the general will.
Me: What do you think about the US Constitution in that it expressly forbids the government to limit or constrain speech, worship and association, private property ownership thus preventing the general will from intrusion in those areas.
Rousseau: Have you read the South African Constitution? I understand some of your people think it is a better model. Some other people think US Constitution is pretty old and hard to read. In any case, please follow me, as I would like to introduce you to my friend Monsieur Robespierre and his new toy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeople and organizations already are required to fund things they disagree with, through taxes for example. My tax dollars go to fund capital punishment and the military, both of which I (and, by the way, the Catholic Church) oppose on moral grounds.
What about the church that believes all medical care is immoral because it thwarts G-d's will? Such churches exist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What about the church that believes all medical care is immoral because it thwarts G-d's will? Such churches exist."
They'd be unlikely to offer health insurance to there employees, for one; and it would be tyranny if they were required to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAm I the only person who thinks that the government dictating what kind of health insurance that any employer must provide under any conditions smacks of tyranny? Did our forebears shed their blood for this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, it doesn't. It forces them to provide health insurance policies that cover birth control, which is different.
There is no religious belief in America for which that is a violation of doctrine or "conscience".
I completely understand why a person who thinks that contraception is a sin would not want to facilitate people's access to contraception in any way, and for that reason, I'd probably lean against the rule, but the overheated rhetoric that people is purely outage for the sake of outrage. (Well, really outrage for the sake of outrage + imagined political gain).
It's no more a violation of conscience to require a Catholic to fund an insurance policy that pays for contraception than it is to require them to keep paying the salary of an employee that they know uses their money to visit prostitutes. In each case, if there is a sin, the sin is that of the employee alone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There is no religious belief in America for which that is a violation of doctrine or "conscience". "
Thank you great religious scholar gbh. Thank you for confirming that you know more than the churches about their own beliefs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProve me wrong, Livewire. Show me the scripture or canon law that is violated if a Catholic hospital pays for an insurance policy that covers contraception.
I can wait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSir,
If you have time, read Humanae Vitae for some background. Another good encyclical is Cast Connubii. You can find them with a simple Google search. If you really want to understand the very clear teaching of the Catholic Church, try being ambitious and pick up a copy of John Paul II's Theology of the Body. If you do not have time, Christopher West condenses it well in his books and tapes (Ascension Press).
This is settled teaching of the Church and, thus Christ, so to force a Catholic organization to violate that principle is a breach of religious liberty. It really has little to do with whether or not you agree with the teaching. If we Americans cannot make that simple distinction then we are in more trouble than I thought.
Why are people afraid to put their names to their comments?
God bless,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDan Hoffman
Daniel - you slide by the real issue here without even mentioning it, let alone analyzing it.
Of course I know that it is a violation of Catholic teaching for a Catholic to use contraception.
But that's not what this is about: no-one is being forced to use contraception, Catholic or otherwise.
The question is whether there is any basis in scripture or canon law that extends responsibility for an individual's choice whether or not violate church teaching to an institution that indirectly makes it easier for a person to make that choice.
(By the way, I'm pretty sure I know the answer to the question. There isn't. Which is why all this rhetoric strikes me as overblown and hysterical, and therefore probably motivated by something - politics, power, control, etc. - than it is be an honest representation of church principles.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSir or Ma'am,
First, thank you for a thoughtful reply. That is rare these days in the blogosphere.
As to making an analysis, that is a bit difficult in this format since it is a blog and I was only pointing to Catholic documentation on its clear teaching that abortion, sterilization and artificial birth control are intrinsically evil. This ruling is not about an individual's decision to use birth control or seek sterilization; it is about asking an organization to forcibly comply with acts that it teaches are morally evil.
Pardon the rather mundane example but because I like to go to the mall and, perhaps, visit the food court does that mean that the government should force Chik Fil A to open its doors and serve me chicken?
Another interesting case study would be to read the life of St. Thomas a' Becket. The King of England chose to pick a fight over an issue that would draw emotional reactions against the Church but Becket saw it for what it was (a breach of religious liberty) and chose to fight. His charity and courage in the face of unrelenting pressure to allow the throne to dictate how the See of Canterbury should handle the internal life of the English Church resulted in his physical demise; however, as you know, Becket's shrine became one of the most popular sites for medieval pilgrims. In the end, he like More a few centuries later, won.
God bless,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDan Hoffman
I don't have to. The church has made it abundantly clear it does. I understand if the letter that was read in Catholic churches used big words, but try to understand.
The burden falls to you to prove why the Catholic Church is incorrect in their own doctrine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's exactly the problem: The humans who fabricate doctrine in the name of religious faith don't have to justify anything, and when anyone challenges it they can fall back on the "god inspired us" canard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It's no more a violation of conscience to require a Catholic to fund an insurance policy that pays for contraception than it is to require them to keep paying the salary of an employee that they know uses their money to visit prostitutes."
It's the difference between presuming an employee spends his money illicitly, and being required to provide him with vouchers for the bunny ranch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's no more a violation of conscience to require a Catholic to fund an insurance policy that pays for contraception than it is to require them to keep paying the salary of an employee that they know uses their money to visit prostitutes. In each case, if there is a sin, the sin is that of the employee alone.
Not even close to being the same. In the first case, "a Catholic" is really "all Catholics" but in the second, "an employee" is not "all employees." In addition, the prostitute seeker doesn't have to seek prostitutes. He could use that money to groom dogs to make them look like tigers. Or go bigfoot hunting. Or maybe he's really into all three. The point is that he can take that money and do whatever. Even if the employer knows the person is using part of his salary for prostitutes, the employer isn't being forced by the government to keep that worker on the payroll. And if the employee does something that irks the employer because it so violates a moral code agreed to at the time of the hire, they'll kick him out of the company. The Catholic, on the other hand, is forced to use money for abortions, contraception, sterilization. There isn't an opt out (technically there is, but the strings attached to it are as tyrannical as the mandate). There isn't a choice to spend that money on other things or not at all.
Big difference between committing a sin on your own vs. being forced to commit one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse