Religious freedom and contraception

[Ziggurat]

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!

By this logic, no tyranny could ever be oppressive as long as people could leave. Yeah, not good enough reasoning for me.

 

[RandFan]

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!

Exactly.

• Hire people.
• Pay them money.
• They buy birth control
• You pay for birth control.

• Hire people.
• Pay for co pay to cover BC.
• You pay for birth control.

• Own a secular organization.
• Pay taxes.
• Taxes fund Title X.

High time to get over the outrage.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

Wait... isn't one of the arguments for women paying for their own birth control is that it's cheap?

By this logic, no tyranny could ever be oppressive as long as people could leave. Yeah, not good enough reasoning for me.

I never said anything about people "leaving", I said they could opt out. And I'm pretty sure it isn't tyranny if you can opt out of it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I never said anything about people "leaving", I said they could opt out. And I'm pretty sure it isn't tyranny if you can opt out of it.

Leaving is opting out of the government of a country, obviously.

 

[johnny karate]

Leaving is opting out of the government of a country, obviously.

Sure. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people canceling their health insurance policies. Bit of a difference. And I still don't see how "tyranny" plays into it.

 

[RandFan]

Sure. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people canceling their health insurance policies. Bit of a difference. And I still don't see how "tyranny" plays into it.

Religions have an exemption. We are talking about secular organizations owned by religions. I think it is a bit disingenuous that people will not acknowledge the facts. The purpose of the organization isn't explicitly religious. Now that doesn't mean that all bets are off of the table. It's just that it changes the game somewhat. You have to operate within certain limits to be an employer. It's a matter of balancing rights. In the end, due to Title X (something else most refuse to acknowledge) they pay for BC regardless.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And yet no one questions forcing them to put women in sinful positions of authority over men.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people canceling their health insurance policies. Bit of a difference. And I still don't see how "tyranny" plays into it.

You're arguing that a government control doesn't matter if there's a possible way out of it. I'm showing the logical endpoint of such an argument.

 

[johnny karate]

You're arguing that a government control doesn't matter if there's a possible way out of it.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that no one's freedoms are being infringed upon in this particular case because they always have the option to not participate in the activity they find so objectionable.

I'm showing the logical endpoint of such an argument.

I don't see how deriving tyranny from mandatory coverage of contraception in a health insurance policy employs logic of any kind.

 

[Bri]

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.

My question was whether you agree that there's a public benefit to requiring contraceptive coverage. I didn't indicate that it would necessarily be cost effective to do so (although clearly I think that it would be). If you agree that there's a public benefit to doing so, then I assume you disagree that it's cost effective to do so. Is that your argument?

My question was what do you think are the costs that would outweigh the benefits? Monetary costs? Incursion on religious freedom?

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

The recommendation mentions studies that indicate that it will likely be cost-negative.

In other words, other people have considered the costs. But you didn't. At least, not in your above post.

But they also said that cost savings wasn't the reason for the recommendation.

Are you saying that they simply ignored the costs? Or that we should ignore the costs? Because that's a non-starter. as far as I'm concerned.

Plus, of course, that's the purely accounting costs. There are other non-financial costs, which you have also ignored in the immediately preceding posts.

 

[Ziggurat]

And yet no one questions forcing them to put women in sinful positions of authority over men.

1) There's nothing sinful about that under Catholic doctrine.

2) The government has a compelling interest in preventing certain forms of discrimination, including gender discrimination in many cases. It's much harder to make a similar argument regarding contraceptives, both because the Catholic church doesn't want to pay for male contraceptives as well as female contraceptives, and because contraceptives operate medically on exactly the biological aspects of human anatomy where males and females are fundamentally different.

 

[Bri]

In other words, other people have considered the costs. But you didn't. At least, not in your above post.

Sorry, the post to which you are referring wasn't a statement, it was a question. I was asking if you agreed with the statement that there is a public benefit to requiring coverage of contraceptives. If so, what do you think are the costs that outweigh the benefit?

Plus, of course, that's the purely accounting costs. There are other non-financial costs, which you have also ignored in the immediately preceding posts.

Again, I didn't ignore any costs. I was asking you a question not making a statement. What do you think are the costs that outweigh the benefits?

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

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.

OK. Here's a summary from the report:

The evidence provided to support a recommendation related to unintended pregnancy is based on systematic evidence reviews and other peer- reviewed studies, which indicate that contraception and contraceptive counseling are effective at reducing unintended pregnancies. Current federal reimbursement policies provide coverage for contraception and contraceptive counseling, and most private insurers also cover contraception
in their health plans. Numerous health professional associations recommend family planning services as part of preventive care for women. Furthermore,
a reduction in unintended pregnancies has been identified as a specific goal in Healthy People 2010 and Healthy People 2020.

How do you interpret that to mean that religious institutions should be forced to pay for coverage?

No one argues that contraceptive coverage isn't a good idea. Sure it is. This panel of experts has demonstrated that, yes indeedily-doo, BC is a good idea. But just because it's a good idea doesn't mean that you can force religions to pay for it. It needs to be more than just "a good idea."

Abortions are a good idea. Here's a scientific article proving the benefits of abortions. Should we mandate coverage? Should we force religious institutions to provide and pay for them?

 

[RandFan]

How do you interpret that to mean that religious institutions should be forced to pay for coverage?

I wouldn't have a problem with it. But govt has prohibited tax dollars from going to abortions. No such prohibitions exist for contraception. It's a moot point.

 

[xjx388]

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.

No one thinks that.

But I do think that the Catholic Church has the right to not spend it's money on acts it considers morally wrong.

As RandFan has mentioned countless times, the CC's tax dollars are already being spent on things it objects to: War, abortion counseling, etc. But the CC can't opt out of general taxes as has been established by many court rulings. Those exist for the common good and no one is making the argument that they should get an exemption for this.

But this isn't a general tax. It's forcing the CC to directly spend it's money on funding BC.

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.

A Catholic hospital is not a secular institution.

 

[cwalner]

A Catholic hospital is not a secular institution.

Wrong. It is a business that provides a public accommodation. As such, it is rightfully subject to the secular rules and regulations of all such businesses. If they want to avoid this, they can stop charging patients or their insurance carriers (including the government in the case of Medicare) for services and provide them on 100% charity basis.

Until they do that, they are secular institutions.

 

[RandFan]

But this isn't a general tax. It's forcing the CC to directly spend it's money on funding BC.

• General tax = A.) ad hoc rationalization. B.) special pleading.
• It's not directly spending money on funding of BC. It's given to an insurance company as a co pay to cover BC.

A Catholic hospital is not a secular institution.

The determination as to secular is in what it does primarily and not who owns it. A hospitals primary function is to provide medical services. Medicine is secular.

 

[bookitty]

OK. Here's a summary from the report:


How do you interpret that to mean that religious institutions should be forced to pay for coverage?

No one argues that contraceptive coverage isn't a good idea. Sure it is. This panel of experts has demonstrated that, yes indeedily-doo, BC is a good idea. But just because it's a good idea doesn't mean that you can force religions to pay for it. It needs to be more than just "a good idea."

Abortions are a good idea. Here's a scientific article proving the benefits of abortions. Should we mandate coverage? Should we force religious institutions to provide and pay for them?

Slowly. From the top.
Religious institutions are already exempt.
Secular institutions owned by religions and those which accept federal funding are not exempt.

For example, Catholic hospitals treat 12% of patients in the US. However, a majority of those patients and the hospitals employees are not Catholic. Those hospitals also receive federal funding. They are secular institutions owned by the church.

A hospital is not a church. No matter who owns a hospital, the employees and patients are still protected by federal laws. A catholic-owned hospital can not discriminate based on race or religion. A catholic-owned hospital will still need to be checked by health inspectors. Being owned by a religious institution does not make a business or non-profit exempt from federal regulation.

There is a reason The Enlightenment was so opposed to Rome.

 

[xjx388]

Slowly. From the top.
Religious institutions are already exempt.
Secular institutions owned by religions and those which accept federal funding are not exempt.

On what basis are you differentiating between a Church and the hospital it owns? What about a school? A church-owned hospital or school are parts of it's ministry.

For example, Catholic hospitals treat 12% of patients in the US. However, a majority of those patients and the hospitals employees are not Catholic. Those hospitals also receive federal funding. They are secular institutions owned by the church.

This does not make them secular. They are a Catholic ministry. They are run under Catholic Directives by Catholic ministries. When someone is employed by a Catholic hospital, this is what they are agreeing to:

9. Employees of a Catholic health care institution must respect and uphold the religious mission of the institution and adhere to these Directives. They should maintain professional standards and promote the institution’s commitment to human dignity and the common good.