Religious freedom and contraception

[Augustine]

Thanks.

First let me say that I commend the author for conceding that the issue is, in part, about women's health.

That said, it needs also be acknowledged that freedom of religion AKA freedom of conscience, is a fundamentally important right found in our constitution. The thing is that the balancing of religious perceptions of evil with health should, IMO, fall to health. Contraception being evil is a religious dogma. No secular analog exists. For some, blood transfusions are evil. For others modern medicine is evil. Because of this, in some states, children can be abused and neglected to the point of death. I think most reasonable people would agree that in the case of a child's health, religious belief ought to take a back seat.

IMO, lacking secular reasoning for any religious prescription then health should take precedent. I understand why this is difficult for the Jesuit. I would appeal to him that if he thinks that religious dogma should not take precedent over the health and life of a child then he ought to concede that any organization that receives federal funds needs to acquiesce to the state when it comes to women's health.

Well, I think it's important to look at the three questions he poses:

1. Can we agree that the revised mandate compromises religious liberty?
2. If so, is increased access to contraception so vital to the common good that it warrants a contravention to religious liberty?
3. Finally, are there any other ways to achieve the same end without or with less of a burden on religious liberty?

When you look at the CDC's statistics of why women stopped using contraception (link), the percentages for "too expensive", "insurance did not cover it", and "too difficult to obtain" are all very small (3.4% being the highest number). So, when looking at compelling religious employers to provide first-dollar coverage for contraceptives, is the "juice worth the squeeze"? The largest reasons why women stop taking contraceptives are side effects (pills), or decrease in pleasure (condoms). (Heck, the percent of women who stopped taking the contraceptive because it failed and they became pregnant is greater than the percentages that stopped taking it for cost or availability!) If contraception is already covered under 90% of health plans, is the small number of religious employers worth the imposition on religious beliefs, when cost and availability are the least likely reasons for women to stop using contraception?

 

[RandFan]

If the employer is an actual religious institution, I don't see how you can (or why you would want to) force that institution to provide a service they consider to be the ultimate evil. I haven't seen one argument on here that it would serve some pressing government need or that there's no other way for people to get birth control other than through mandated coverage. Absent those factors, forcing the Catholic Church in this way serves no legitimate purpose.

Of course Obama found a way. The "how" is easy. The govt just does it and it's up to the courts to decide if it passes constitutional muster. Given the Catholics on the bench I would say it might not pass muster. Any time previous little to no doubt it would pass. Religious freedom is not and should not be a means to per se circumvent public good. But, I will concede that "other options", if they are reasonable can shift the balance back to the church.

That aside, "ultimate evil"? Really? The pews are emptying. Does anyone not get why? When superstition trumps reason time and time again people get tired of it. Who are these men in funny hats dictating that contraception is the "ultimate evil"?

One of the things that gets me about religion is the utter contempt they have for their followers. They think they can tell them that the combination of sperm and egg results in a human being when such a combination does not produce a being with a brain giving it the ability to think and suffer. They then tell them that preventing this combination naturally is okay but to do so artificially is AN ULTIMATE EVIL. That's just insulting to intelligence and appealing to god hardly plasters over the gaping holes. Do these men really think so little of their congregants?

Well, I suppose if the Catholics believed that god carried the sun across the sky in a chariot it would be sacrilege to wear sun screen or something.

 

[Augustine]

One thing I liked about the article was the way it demonstrated that it was possible to have a dialogue without disrespecting the other person's position or religion.

 

[Bri]

One thing I liked about the article was the way it demonstrated that it was possible to have a dialogue without disrespecting the other person's position or religion.

I completely agree with you there. I admire the author for acknowledging and recognizing the validity of the arguments made by both sides.

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

If you disagree with the law as it is applied to secular businesses, then you are correct that the burden of proof should be on the government to show that such an imposition provides a greater good. However, if you only argue that this provides an imposition on religious institutions, then the burden of proof is on them to show why an exemption should outweigh the law as applied to all other businesses.

That's the thing - no one has demonstrated that a greater good is served. Therefore, unless anyone has an actual argument towards that, I don't see how we can mandate the RCC (or any Christian employer) to violate their own morality.

 

[RandFan]

Well, I think it's important to look at the three questions he poses:

When you look at the CDC's statistics of why women stopped using contraception (link), the percentages for "too expensive", "insurance did not cover it", and "too difficult to obtain" are all very small (3.4% being the highest number). So, when looking at compelling religious employers to provide first-dollar coverage for contraceptives, is the "juice worth the squeeze"? The largest reasons why women stop taking contraceptives are side effects (pills), or decrease in pleasure (condoms). (Heck, the percent of women who stopped taking the contraceptive because it failed and they became pregnant is greater than the percentages that stopped taking it for cost or availability!) If contraception is already covered under 90% of health plans, is the small number of religious employers worth the imposition on religious beliefs, when cost and availability are the least likely reasons for women to stop using contraception?

I'm sorry you didn't like my answer. I stand by it. I looked at the three questions. A.) I find the red herring fallacy of why some women choose to stop contraceptives absurd. B.) Give up the public funding and then we can talk.

See, you can have panels of men bemoan attacks on religious liberty until the cows come home but let's be honest here, money and politics usually trumps principle. Right?

 

[RandFan]

One thing I liked about the article was the way it demonstrated that it was possible to have a dialogue without disrespecting the other person's position or religion.

Yes. And that is fine and I can have that discussion. However, when someone starts engaging in sophistry, using evocative language to make their case then that is when my "diplomacy dike breaks" (to paraphrase Tim Minchin). Keep the "ultimate evil" out and we can talk. I'm willing to respect your opinions so long as you don't insult my intelligence.

 

[Augustine]

Yes. And that is fine and I can have that discussion. However, when someone starts engaging in sophistry, using evocative language to make their case then that is when my "diplomacy dike breaks" (to paraphrase Tim Minchin). Keep the "ultimate evil" out and we can talk. I'm willing to respect your opinions so long as you don't insult my intelligence.

Are you blaming your reaction and your words on what another poster said?

 

[RandFan]

That's the thing - no one has demonstrated that a greater good is served. Therefore, unless anyone has an actual argument towards that, I don't see how we can mandate the RCC (or any Christian employer) to violate their own morality.

• Scientology believes that psychology is immoral.
• Jehovah Witnesses believe blood transfusions are immoral.
• Many faiths believe modern medicine is immoral.
• Many business owners believe that HIV medicine is immoral.

When it comes to health it's not up to the govt to create a patchwork of what can and cannot be covered under an employers health care to accommodate religion.

That's the greater good.

 

[RandFan]

Are you blaming your reaction and your words on what another poster said?

I'm not "blaming" anything on anyone. If you would like a discussion I'm happy to have one with you and I will be civil with you. If I think it appropriate to respond to someone else engaged in sophistry according to the dictates of my conscience then I will do that.

 

[Neally]

Are you saying that if I apply for a job where the boss is a vegan he should be able to deny my high blood pressure med coverage because he believes meat is evil?

Sure, not to you specifically but an employer can and does decide on what health plan to offer his employees. Including discounts for employees that don't smoke, etc. Some plans cover only cover major medical situations and have high deductibles. I don't know of any that include cosmetic surgery. Shocking isn't, that your every medical need and desire isn't fully paid for! But Obamacare is working to fix that horrid injustice.

Oh, and the cost went up just a tad,

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

 

[RandFan]

Sure, not to you specifically but an employer can and does decide on what health plan to offer his employees. Including discounts for employees that don't smoke, etc. Some plans cover only cover major medical situations and have high deductibles. I don't know of any that include cosmetic surgery. Shocking isn't, that your every medical need and desire isn't fully paid for! But Obamacare is working to fix that horrid injustice.

Nice straw man. Employers can choose from a range of plans but cannot opt out of specific procedures for religious reasons.

Oh, and the cost went up just a tad, http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...bamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

Yes. It happens. Can't excuse it but there you go. Sadly it's not the best plan but it will be one hell of a lot better than what we have. That's for damn sure.

 

[crimresearch]

If the employer is an actual religious institution, I don't see how you can (or why you would want to) force that institution to provide a service they consider to be the ultimate evil. I haven't seen one argument on here that it would serve some pressing government need or that there's no other way for people to get birth control other than through mandated coverage. Absent those factors, forcing the Catholic Church in this way serves no legitimate purpose.

Did you answer the question as to why muslim organizations should or shouldn't be able to force Sharia dictated health care restrictions on non-muslim patients, or students, or employees the same way?

 

[Neally]

Sadly it's not the best plan but it will be one hell of a lot better than what we have. That's for damn sure.

Sorry, I couldn't get past the headline, "Health reform makes health care more affordable", when in fact, my health insurance premiums went up as a direct result of Obamacare.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, I couldn't get past the headline, "Health reform makes health care more affordable", when in fact, my health insurance premiums went up as a direct result of Obamacare.

I know Neally. I realize your anecdotes trump all other facts and reason and more importantly, at the end of the day, this is just about you. So, instead of considering the arguments and evidence all you need to do is ask "what's in it for me"?

 

[leftysergeant]

I haven't seen one argument on here that it would serve some pressing government need or that there's no other way for people to get birth control other than through mandated coverage. Absent those factors, forcing the Catholic Church in this way serves no legitimate purpose.

Google "pre-existing conditions."

 

[Neally]

I know Neally. I realize your anecdotes trump all other facts and reason and more importantly, at the end of the day, this is just about you. So, instead of considering the arguments and evidence all you need to do is ask "what's in it for me"?

There are plenty of others that have had their premiums go up, but let's not forget that we have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

 

[Tony]

There are plenty of others that have had their premiums go up, but let's not forget that we have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

My premiums have gone down while my coverage has expanded. Looks like your insurance company is suffering from mismanagement.

 

[cwalner]

There are plenty of others that have had their premiums go up, but let's not forget that we have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

You are absolutely right. Now would you care to show that overall, costs go up specifically because of adding contraception.

I imagine in my case it would, since I am a single gay male, I would never utilize the additional coverage, but that is seriously overshadowed by all of the heterosexuals on the same plan that don't wish to be breeders (at least not at the moment).

Your argument is about as convincing as denying Global Warming because it snowed in your town last winter.

 

[RandFan]

There are plenty of others that have had their premiums go up...

"Plenty"? Well, why didn't you say so. An assertion for an unknown amount certainly makes the report a lie, right?

...but let's not forget that we have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Exactly, you want cutting edge military equipment you've got to brake some eggs. But then cool fighter jets for defense is different than long term savings in health care. I guess there are different trade offs.