Religious freedom and contraception

[xjx388]

No. That's flat out not true. Women take it for many reasons other than to stop pregnancy.

And insurance (even the one provided by the Catholic Church) covers those instances. So does Medicaid. If they have no coverage and can't get Medicaid they can buy it at Wal-Mart for $9. Problem solved.

This is sticking your head in the sand. People do have sex and it is a public health issue. People make lots of decisions that impact society and their health including smoking, unprotected gay sex, not exercising, poor diet, etc.. We can either do something to help society or not. We choose to help. Now, I'm fine with finding ways to increase personal responsibility. But this idea that people who make bad choices can suck it is rather short sighted and ignorant of human behavior and social health.

But the pill doesn't really impact public health at all. I can see how you might make that argument for condoms, but again -cheap and widely available so there's no need for a mandate.

If there were no impact to society then perhaps. But unwanted children cost society. Women who do get pregnant and have complications increase social costs and decrease productivity. It's good for the individual. It's good for the employer. It's good for society.

Pregnancy is easily prevented and you don't need insurance to buy BC. Heck, I even support it being sold over the counter. The "morning after" pill is available OTC right now for around $40.

I've no problem with that but then the problems are a bit more complicated isn't it?

How so? It seems simple to me: If you want Birth Control, go to Wal-Mart and buy it for less than $10. Done.

 

[RandFan]

And insurance (even the one provided by the Catholic Church) covers those instances. So does Medicaid. If they have no coverage and can't get Medicaid they can buy it at Wal-Mart for $9. Problem solved.

I explained why the problem isn't solved.

But the pill doesn't really impact public health at all.

Pregnancy carries risk. Unwanted pregnancy burdens insurance companies. Harms the individual and costs society.

Pregnancy is easily prevented and you don't need insurance to buy BC. Heck, I even support it being sold over the counter. The "morning after" pill is available OTC right now for around $40.

Facts:

Providing the service WILL

• Help individuals.
• Help employers.
• Lower the costs for insurance companies.
• Help society.

In a perfect world, no. We don't live in a perfect world. So you can keep hyping the perfect world scenario but that isn't going to advance the discussion.

How so? It seems simple to me: If you want Birth Control, go to Wal-Mart and buy it for less than $10. Done.

Why should I respond if you refuse to read my posts.

Such incorporation should include the full range of reversible and permanent contraceptive drugs, devices and procedures; related clinical services necessary to appropriately supply those methods

Now, you can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and humming but that isn't going away. Brookings and Guttmacher based on evidence from the CDC says that it will help employees, employers and lower insurance costs and thus help society. Again, no brainer.

 

[xjx388]

I explained why the problem isn't solved.

I believe that what you have explained is, as Ziggurat said earlier, why Birth Control should be freely and widely available. I agree wholeheartedly with this. In fact, I'll go a step further and say it should be available over the counter.

Pregnancy carries risk. Unwanted pregnancy burdens insurance companies. Harms the individual and costs society.

Facts:

Providing the service WILL

• Help individuals.
• Help employers.
• Lower the costs for insurance companies.
• Help society.

In a perfect world, no. We don't live in a perfect world. So you can keep hyping the perfect world scenario but that isn't going to advance the discussion.

I agree that people will be helped with the availability of Birth Control. But that's a moot point; it's available and cheap. Those are not good arguments for mandating it's coverage in health insurance.

Why should I respond if you refuse to read my posts.

Now, you can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and humming but that isn't going away. Brookings and Guttmacher based on evidence from the CDC says that it will help employees, employers and lower insurance costs and thus help society. Again, no brainer.

While I agree that BC is a Good Thing and should be freely available, I disagree with the idea that it should be mandated to be included in Health Insurance. If an employer wants to provide insurance that covers it, that's fine and dandy. But if an employer does not want to cover itbecause of religious reasons, that should be fine and dandy as well. I fail to see the argument that it must be covered by insurance when it is easily obtainable without insurance. I'm sorry if I've missed it, please point it out to me.

No one forces a person to work for the Catholic Church. I would argue that you should NOT work for the Church (or attend one of their Universities) if you don't agree to respect their principles. When my wife was interviewing for a Family Medicine residency, she had the opportunity to work for a Baptist run program. It paid significantly more than any other residency she could have gone to. The catch was that she was not allowed to counsel anyone about how to get an abortion or to provide birth control. She refused to compromise her standards and did her residency elsewhere. Simple.

 

[RandFan]

I agree that people will be helped with the availability of Birth Control.

Thanks. Good.

But that's a moot point; it's available and cheap.

The pill isn't the only need. So long as the experts are advising this and saying IUD's and other methods are necessary then it's simply not moot.

No one forces a person to work for the Catholic Church.

• Churches have an exemption.
• Church owned organization don't.
• When you accept public funding you give up some control.

I would argue that you should NOT work for the Church (or attend one of their Universities) if you don't agree to respect their principles. When my wife was interviewing for a Family Medicine residency, she had the opportunity to work for a Baptist run program. It paid significantly more than any other residency she could have gone to. The catch was that she was not allowed to counsel anyone about how to get an abortion or to provide birth control. She refused to compromise her standards and did her residency elsewhere. Simple.

I understand your argument and it's not without merit. For me when it comes to public health and the experts recommend it, well, that's my priority. Get the experts to change their opinion and I'll look at it again.

 

[johnny karate]

No one forces a person to work for the Catholic Church. I would argue that you should NOT work for the Church (or attend one of their Universities) if you don't agree to respect their principles. When my wife was interviewing for a Family Medicine residency, she had the opportunity to work for a Baptist run program. It paid significantly more than any other residency she could have gone to. The catch was that she was not allowed to counsel anyone about how to get an abortion or to provide birth control. She refused to compromise her standards and did her residency elsewhere. Simple.

No one forces the Catholic Church to engage in business in the secular world.

Why should they - or anyone else - be given special exemptions based on religious dogma the rest of society might not practice or believe in?

 

[leftysergeant]

Why can't they just buy it? It's less than $10 . . . and they can get it free from Planned Parenthood and other sources. Why must everything be provided to them through health insurance?

Because it is not an over-the-couter affair and sometimes an unexpected problem arises.

Why don't you just bandage up your own lacerations and just put a splint on your broken arm?

 

[crimresearch]

No one forces the Catholic Church to engage in business in the secular world.

Why should they - or anyone else - be given special exemptions based on religious dogma the rest of society might not practice or believe in?

Laalaaalaaalaaalaaalaaa They can't heeeeeear you.

 

[Corsair 115]

Supposedly the Canadian system is cheaper with better outcomes. Supposedly a proven track record. That should have been the model to sell the public on. Instead we end up with this monstrosity and the loyal followers can do nothing but praise the great accomplishment.

The Canadian system was often criticized during the health care debate, as were the UHC systems of other nations. Many of the criticisms were at best half-true, if not outright falsehoods, such as the infamous IBD editorial which stated that Stephen Hawking would surely have died had he been subject to the awfulness of the British NHS.

Boiled down, the arguments against UHC systems was Socialism!!!!

 

[xjx388]

No one forces the Catholic Church to engage in business in the secular world.

Why should they - or anyone else - be given special exemptions based on religious dogma the rest of society might not practice or believe in?

Because the First Amendment forbids the government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

 

[johnny karate]

Because the First Amendment forbids the government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

That doesn't follow from what I asked you. No one is saying the Catholic Church shouldn't be free to practice their religion.

The question is why should the Catholic Church - or any religious institution - be given special consideration in their dealings in the secular world?

 

[xjx388]

Because it is not an over-the-couter affair and sometimes an unexpected problem arises.

There is plenty of birth control available over the counter. Why not advocate the The Pill be OTC as well? That's a much simpler solution than a mandate.

Why don't you just bandage up your own lacerations and just put a splint on your broken arm?

Lacerations and fractures are injuries that require medical treatment. And for minor, self-limited stuff -cuts, sprains, bumps, bruises, coughs, colds, etc. people should treat themselves. Birth control should be one of these minor things that anyone should have access to.

 

[xjx388]

That doesn't follow from what I asked you. No one is saying the Catholic Church shouldn't be free to practice their religion.

It follows just fine. In fact, just about everyone on here is effectively saying that the Church should not be free to practice it's religion; i.e., refuse to provide Birth Control.

The question is why should the Catholic Church - or any religious institution - be given special consideration in their dealings in the secular world?

As I said, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with religious practice. Forcing the Catholic Church to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice.

 

[Bri]

Lacerations and fractures are injuries that require medical treatment. And for minor, self-limited stuff -cuts, sprains, bumps, bruises, coughs, colds, etc. people should treat themselves. Birth control should be one of these minor things that anyone should have access to.

Birth control isn't a one size fits all proposition, nor is it possible for most women to know what type is best for her particular situation. Also, do you think women should install their own IUD's?

-Bri

 

[leftysergeant]

There is plenty of birth control available over the counter. Why not advocate the The Pill be OTC as well?

Because it would be dangerous and stupid.

Birth control should be one of these minor things that anyone should have access to.

You have no freaking clue what sort of monitoring proper contraceptive regimens require, have you?

Most people are incapable of doing it themselves.

 

[leftysergeant]

It follows just fine. In fact, just about everyone on here is effectively saying that the Church should not be free to practice it's religion; i.e., refuse to provide Birth Control.

When they hire professionals to engage in any sort of business, they are no longer engaged in a religious practice. Mundane labor laws apply.

As I said, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with religious practice. Forcing the Catholic Church to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice.

They are still perfectly at liberty to staff their hospitals completely with priests, nuns and monks.

 

[johnny karate]

It follows just fine. In fact, just about everyone on here is effectively saying that the Church should not be free to practice it's religion; i.e., refuse to provide Birth Control.

As I said, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with religious practice. Forcing the Catholic Church to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice.

That's... utter nonsense. The Catholic Church isn't having the right to practice their religion infringed upon. They're simply being asked to follow the same rules the rest of society does. They're free to not use contraception all they want. But there is no constitutinally protected right to impose that practice on anyone else.

 

[Bri]

As I said, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with religious practice. Forcing the Catholic Church to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice.

No, the First Amendment doesn't forbid the government from interfering with religious practice in all circumstance according to the Supreme Court. If it's against my religion to provide safe working conditions for my employees, the government isn't required to accomodate me. See post #7 of this thread for a more detailed explanation.

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

Birth control isn't a one size fits all proposition, nor is it possible for most women to know what type is best for her particular situation.

It wouldn't be hard to educate women about this. Pharmacists could help. Planned Parenthood is another option. Or she could get advice from, you know, a doctor.

Also, do you think women should install their own IUD's?

-Bri

Absolutely.

The IUD costs about $200-$400 to put in and last several years. It's affordable for the vast majority of women even without insurance.

 

[Bri]

It wouldn't be hard to educate women about this.

Sure, we could send them all to medical school.

The IUD costs about $200-$400 to put in and last several years. It's affordable for the vast majority of women even without insurance.

It's one of the most cost-effective forms of birth control available. What does that have to do with whether it should be distributed over the counter?

There's a reason that most forms of birth control (other than condoms) require a prescription.

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

Because it would be dangerous and stupid.

Not as dangerous and stupid as you think.

Link
Link