Religious freedom and contraception

[Ziggurat]

The administration didn't make this decision in a vacuum. The fact is that the majority of medical experts on a panel appointed to investigate the question agree that birth control should be offered free of charge as a matter of public health.

Who picked the members of the panel?

The administration may not have made their decision in a vacuum, but the panel didn't operate in a vacuum either.

 

[Bri]

It already does this under Title X. Thus, every woman has access to affordable birth control. We already have the least restrictive means.

That's simply not true. Some women don't have easy access to or cannot afford birth control. Read the recommendation. Are you saying that providing coverage for contraceptives won't increase their use?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Who picked the members of the panel?

You tell me. The recommendation was by a panel of the Institute of Medicine, which is a nonpartisan, non-governmental arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The administration asked the Institute of Medicine to make recommendations, but as far as I know didn't pick the panel members.

The administration may not have made their decision in a vacuum, but the panel didn't operate in a vacuum either.

Are you saying the panel was biased? Most of the studies I've seen have concluded the same thing. Do you have evidence that most health experts disagree with the recommendation?

-Bri

 

[bookitty]

Does anyone else find it utterly surreal that we are arguing the benefits of birth control in 2012?

 

[keale]

Its the year 2012 and we are still arguing these issues? Really? I need to move to a shack in the pacific northwest with my rifle and supplies.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does anyone else find it utterly surreal that we are arguing the benefits of birth control in 2012?

We're not arguing about the benefits of birth control. We're arguing about the benefits of the government forcing employers to provide insurance coverage for birth control. I know you've got these two issues deeply confused, but they are not in fact the same.

 

[Bri]

We're not arguing about the benefits of birth control. We're arguing about the benefits of the government forcing employers to provide insurance coverage for birth control. I know you've got these two issues deeply confused, but they are not in fact the same.

If there are benefits of birth control, and providing coverage would increase their usage and decrease unintended pregnancy, then it is in the public interest to do so. Do you disagree?

-Bri

 

[johnny karate]

Does anyone else find it utterly surreal that we are arguing the benefits of birth control in 2012?

I can't wait for other social issues from the 1950s to make their way back into public debate. Because it's about time somebody did somehing about this "Elvis" fellow.

 

[Ziggurat]

If there are benefits of birth control, and providing coverage would increase their usage and decrease unintended pregnancy, then it is in the public interest to do so. Do you disagree?

I disagree, primarily because I don't think these are the only relevant considerations (and this is about requiring coverage, not simply providing it), but also because I disagree about the magnitude of the benefits of this requirement.

 

[johnny karate]

We're not arguing about the benefits of birth control. We're arguing about the benefits of the government forcing employers to provide insurance coverage for birth control. I know you've got these two issues deeply confused, but they are not in fact the same.

It seems on this specific issue, the question has already been asked and answered.

Here's a link to the report Bri referred to upthread. Feel free to peruse and tell us which parts you disagree with and why.

 

[xjx388]

Does anyone else find it utterly surreal that we are arguing the benefits of birth control in 2012?

No. We are arguing whether or not the Catholic Church (or any other religious institution) should be forced to pay for BC against their own religious beliefs.

I think it's a little surreal that anyone actually thinks this is a good idea.

 

[johnny karate]

I disagree, primarily because I don't think these are the only relevant considerations (and this is about requiring coverage, not simply providing it), but also because I disagree about the magnitude of the benefits of this requirement.

A panel of experts disagrees with you.

That leaves you with two options:

1) Grin and bear it. Kind of like the way every citizen in a civilized society does when it comes to paying for something they disagree with through taxes, etc. Personally, I'm still waiting for my refund for the Iraq War.

2) Cancel your health insurance and pay for all your medical expenses out of pocket. That way, you won't have to worry about being saddled with the costs for other people.

 

[johnny karate]

No. We are arguing whether or not the Catholic Church (or any other religious institution) should be forced to pay for BC against their own religious beliefs.

I think it's a little surreal that anyone actually thinks this is a good idea.

What's surreal is that anyone would think the First Amendment gives a religious institution the right to impose their dogma on the rest of society.

The Catholic Church is free to not use contraception all they want. However, in their dealings in the secular world, our rules apply, not theirs.

 

[Ziggurat]

A panel of experts disagrees with you.

That leaves you with two options:

1) Grin and bear it. Kind of like the way every citizen in a civilized society does when it comes to paying for something they disagree with through taxes, etc. Personally, I'm still waiting for my refund for the Iraq War.

2) Cancel your health insurance and pay for all your medical expenses out of pocket. That way, you won't have to worry about being saddled with the costs for other people.

Curious. Evidently the fact that we live in a democracy never crossed your mind, because the obvious third option (change the policy through political action) didn't even occur to you.

Plus, of course, there's a gaping logical chasm between what I want to do myself and what I want other people to have the freedom to do even if they choose differently than me.

 

[RandFan]

Does anyone else find it utterly surreal that we are arguing the benefits of birth control in 2012?

Its the year 2012 and we are still arguing these issues? Really? I need to move to a shack in the pacific northwest with my rifle and supplies.

I can't wait for other social issues from the 1950s to make their way back into public debate. Because it's about time somebody did somehing about this "Elvis" fellow.

• Title X has been in place for 40 years.
• For 40 years the religious have been paying for birth control.
• Suddenly there is outrage because the govt has asked secular organizations owned by churches to cover co-pay for BC services.

For the life of me I can't figure it out. Seriously.

 

[Bri]

I disagree, primarily because I don't think these are the only relevant considerations (and this is about requiring coverage, not simply providing it), but also because I disagree about the magnitude of the benefits of this requirement.

If there are benefits of birth control, and requiring coverage would increase their usage and decrease unintended pregnancy, then it is in the public interest to do so. Which part do you disagree with?

Do you think it's not in the public interest to increase usage of birth control, or do you think their benefits don't outweigh ... what? Is your concern about religious freedom, or something else?

-Bri

 

[bookitty]

No. We are arguing whether or not the Catholic Church (or any other religious institution) should be forced to pay for BC against their own religious beliefs.

I think it's a little surreal that anyone actually thinks this is a good idea.

If the religious institutions stop taking federal funds for hospitals which have employees and patients which are not of that religion, they will not be forced to pay for BC. Religious institutions (churches, for example) are already exempt.

Although I do not understand how someone who is arguing against preventive medicine over some hyper-narrow definition of "lifestyle choices" can say that this argument is actually about religious freedom.

 

[RandFan]

No. We are arguing whether or not the Catholic Church (or any other religious institution) should be forced to pay for BC against their own religious beliefs.

• They've been doing it for 40 years.
• We are talking about secular organizations owned by religions.
• It's a perception only.
• Freedom of religion/conscience isn't a black and white all or nothing issue.

I think it's a little surreal that anyone actually thinks this is a good idea.

It's a public good. It helps employers. It helps employees. It helps society.

Living Our Faith

The Catholic Church is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. This means it is exempt from corporate income and property taxes. However, the Catholic Church must pay taxes on unrelated business income from any non-religious activities. Individuals (e.g., priests, deacons) do pay regular income taxes.

Those taxes fund Title X.

 

[johnny karate]

Curious. Evidently the fact that we live in a democracy never crossed your mind, because the obvious third option (change the policy through political action) didn't even occur to you.

I didn't list that option because it gives you no relief in the short term, and isn't even guaranteed to give you relief at all. But it is certainly an option. Good luck at the ballot box, and in your efforts to eradicate this scourge destroying the fabric of America.

Plus, of course, there's a gaping logical chasm between what I want to do myself and what I want other people to have the freedom to do even if they choose differently than me.

I don't see how anyone's freedoms will be infringed upon. Everyone has the freedom to cancel their health insurance if they are morally or ethically opposed to certain aspects of it. And if the Catholic Church doesn't like following the rules of a secular society, they are free to cease all dealings with it. God bless America!

 

[Ziggurat]

If there are benefits of birth control, and requiring coverage would increase their usage and decrease unintended pregnancy, then it is in the public interest to do so. Which part do you disagree with?

Well, how about the part where no costs (financial or otherwise) are even considered in this statement.

It's amazing how many things become worthwhile when we only consider the benefits.