Religious freedom and contraception

[RandFan]

On what basis are you differentiating between a Church and the hospital it owns?

Purpose of being. If the primary purpose is secular or ecclesiastical.

• Church = Worship, teaching religion, administering to the spiritual welfare of members.
• Hospital = treating the sick and injured.

What about a school? A church-owned hospital or school are parts of it's ministry.

The law would determine what is the primary purpose of the institution. Secular or ecclesiastical.

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:

I've been treated at Catholic hospitals. I didn't have to worship or believe in god at all. There was no proselytizing or witnessing or religious instruction. No religious services. Some churches own gun manufacturing businesses. That doesn't mean that making a gun is religious.

 

[Neally]

If you want a different model that is for you to come up with. I'll gladly stand by this study.

And I'll gladly review any evidence you'd care to provide that compares the net cost to a business offering full coverage for contraception vs a plan with no contraception. Get back to me when you have one.

Then you wouldn't need a doctor's prescription for them would you? You know, like you do for the coverage under discussion?

There's a lot of drugs and medical appliances that I can get with and without a prescription now, but see, I don't what to have to pay for it, so I need the government to mandate that I get it free if the doctor okays it.

 

[RandFan]

And I'll gladly review any evidence you'd care to provide that compares the net cost to a business offering full coverage for contraception vs a plan with no contraception.

I don't think anyone buys it Neally. The CT and your explanation is lame.

 

[Neally]

I don't think anyone buys it Neally.

Agreed. I don't know why they would, nor why you introduced it as evidence in the first place given that it doesn't model what it purports to model. Some people actually bought into it without looking close enough to see the flaw.

 

[tyr_13]

This is a strange comparison on many levels . . .

How is not having sex a punishment? Are we mental 5-year-olds? "It's not fair! I want to do it now! Wahhhh!" Jeez . . .

Denying people the prescriptions their doctors and medical experts have judged to be necessary simply because it relates to sex is about punishing people for having sex based on archaic religious idiocy. Sex is part of life. What other 'optional' activities are we going to not cover?

OK what are the others?
Actually, I think it is. Many insurances won't cover OTC stuff, for example. The ones that do tend to be more expensive.

Addressed many times already in this thread alone. But what prescribed birth control is over the counter?

Because that was the argument in Fluke's testimony. She says, in effect, it's too expensive so it should be covered at zero-cost. Another good standard is 'medical necessity.' What is 'medically necessary' about BC? Not use of OCs for non-BC purposes, mind you -which is already covered. "Not wanting to get pregnant," is not a medical necessity.

Wanting to get pregnant is not a medical necessity either. You've just argued against all reproductive health care. I'd advise that you listen to Fluke's testimony again.

Then her need was obviously 'medical necessity.' It would be covered by any medical insurance plan. That's not what this is about.

Of course it is related.

Exactly. Mandating coverage does not somehow make it more affordable or more widely available. Barriers still exist. This is true with every illness - most stuff is not covered at zero-cost. So then that argument for mandating goes out the window.

That's just outright wrong. How can you believe that? Mandating it be covered doesn't make it more available? By definition that's what it does.

 

[tyr_13]

There's a lot of drugs and medical appliances that I can get with and without a prescription now, but see, I don't what to have to pay for it, so I need the government to mandate that I get it free if the doctor okays it.

Where is the laughing dog when you need it?

 

[RandFan]

Agreed. I don't know why they would, nor why you introduced it as evidence in the first place given that it doesn't model what it purports to model. Some people actually bought into it without looking close enough to see the flaw.

There is no flaw. That's a lie.

• Two models.
• Both with sterilization.
• That's called parity.
• We can compare the two to see what is different.
• One has additional BC. The other doesn't.
• You can't arbitrarily remove sterilization from one model and leave it in the other.
• You can't because that removes a principle variable that affects the model.

What you are doing is dishonest.

 

[johnny karate]

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

Religious institutions aren't being "forced" to do anything. If they don't want to follow the rules of a secular society, they don't have to participate in it.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

Of course they do. And they can exercise that right by not participating in a secular society that would require them to. What they don't have a right to do is have the rules of secular society changed to accomadate them.

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.

Again, they're not being "forced" to do anything. They're perfectly free to shut down their secular institutions if they don't want to follow the rules of a secular society.

A Catholic hospital is not a secular institution.

Not to repeat what others have said in response to this, but... ha ha! What?

 

[xjx388]

Of course they do. And they can exercise that right by not participating in a secular society that would require them to. What they don't have a right to do is have the rules of secular society changed to accomadate them.

And now we get to the heart of the matter. So is the real agenda to force the Church to close down it's hospitals?

Again, they're not being "forced" to do anything. They're perfectly free to shut down their secular institutions if they don't want to follow the rules of a secular society.

Not to repeat what others have said in response to this, but... ha ha! What?

Can you quote the law that defines what a secular institution is? Or is this a term that you are attempting to use to ignore or downplay the religious mission of Catholic hospitals?

 

[RandFan]

And now we get to the heart of the matter. So is the real agenda to force the Church to close down it's hospitals?

No. That's a straw man.

Can you quote the law that defines what a secular institution is? Or is this a term that you are attempting to use to ignore or downplay the religious mission of Catholic hospitals?

How is it religious? I've been treated at Catholic hospitals and they did not proselytize to me, didn't ask me to pray, did nothing religious. Following the admonitions of Christ doesn't make everything they do religious.

 

[johnny karate]

And now we get to the heart of the matter. So is the real agenda to force the Church to close down it's hospitals?

That's like saying requiring a restaurant to follow health code regulations is really an agenda to force them to shut down.

Can you quote the law that defines what a secular institution is?

Do you really need that to know the difference?

Or is this a term that you are attempting to use to ignore or downplay the religious mission of Catholic hospitals?

What is the "religious mission" of Catholic hospitals? Please be specific and offer citations.

 

[xjx388]

No. That's a straw man.

No straw man. He says it right here:

They're perfectly free to shut down their secular institutions if they don't want to follow the rules of a secular society.

It's a reasonable inference based on that statement.

How is it religious? I've been treated at Catholic hospitals and they did not proselytize to me, didn't ask me to pray, did nothing religious. Following the admonitions of Christ doesn't make everything they do religious.

Read the directives I linked to above. Their mission is entirely religious.

 

[RandFan]

No straw man. He says it right here:

It's a reasonable inference based on that statement.

An option to follow the rules of society or close down isn't the same as forcing the church to close.

Read the directives I linked to above. Their mission is entirely religious.

That doesn't magically turn medicine into religion. If it did I wouldn't go there.

BTW: xjx388, if you open a lemonade stand and declare it part of your religion won't make it religious.

 

[xjx388]

That's like saying requiring a restaurant to follow health code regulations is really an agenda to force them to shut down.

Nothing like it at all actually.

As I quoted you above, you are the one who said that they should shut down their institutions if they don't want to deal with the secular world.

Do you really need that to know the difference?

Well if it's not a legal definition then it seems to me like you are just making it up. What's the difference between a secular and a religious institution? Nothing but purpose. If you read the directives I quoted in an earlier post, you will realize that the Catholic hospitals serve a religious purpose.

What is the "religious mission" of Catholic hospitals? Please be specific and offer citations.

Here: Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services.
Employees agree to this when they work for a Catholic hospital. So maybe they shouldn't work for a Catholic hospital if they don't like the conditions of employment?

 

[RandFan]

Here: Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services.

That they declare it a "religious directive" doesn't make it religious anymore than you declaring yourself Napoleon makes you an emperor.

You want to do religion? Here's some advice, do religion.

 

[johnny karate]

Nothing like it at all actually.

As I quoted you above, you are the one who said that they should shut down their institutions if they don't want to deal with the secular world.

You're putting words in my mouth to distort the meaning. That's rather disingenuous. I never said they should shut down. I said they had the option to shut down to counter your repeated complaint that they are somehow being forced to do something.

Well if it's not a legal definition then it seems to me like you are just making it up.

What's the legal definition of a restaurant? What's the legal definition of a school? Honestly, this tack of defining that which is self-evident is childish.

A religious institution is one in which the practice of religion is the primary purpose.

What's the difference between a secular and a religious institution? Nothing but purpose. If you read the directives I quoted in an earlier post, you will realize that the Catholic hospitals serve a religious purpose.

Here: Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services.

I asked for specifics. You linked a multi-paged document. That tells me nothing. Your previous post referred to a "religious mission". Please provide a quote from that document that details the "religious mission" of a Catholic hospital, and explain how that mission somehow differs from simply providing medical care to those who need it, as any hospital would do.

Employees agree to this when they work for a Catholic hospital. So maybe they shouldn't work for a Catholic hospital if they don't like the conditions of employment?

Perhaps. Please provide a quote from that document that specifically states non-Catholic employees will be held to the rule of Catholic dogma, even when it contravenes the law.

 

[leftysergeant]

Here: Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services.
Employees agree to this when they work for a Catholic hospital. So maybe they shouldn't work for a Catholic hospital if they don't like the conditions of employment?

In other words, get the hell out of the health care profession.

That is what it would amount to as more and more community hospitals are absorbed by the for-profits and the Franciscan organization.

 

[dc1971]

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

He's not talking about tyranny, he's talking about religion. Interesting that you should use such an analogy!

 

[dc1971]

No one thinks that.

Oh no?