2012.02.09
Editorial: Contraceptive coverage
Contraception and the church
Catholic-run institutions should not be able to skirt an employer mandate.
President Barack Obama has sent out peace feelers to U.S. Catholic Bishops opposed to an administration ruling that employer-provided health insurance must offer employees an option that includes contraception coverage — no exception for religiously affiliated institutions like hospitals and universities. The president should stand firm.
As usual, the editorial misses the entire point of the Obama/contraception debate. It is an issue of religious freedom not healthcare. Faith is not governed by polls, but by doctrine. It is not up to any government to dictate such.
Once again your “fish wrap” sides with government and secular society.
Comment by James Seay — February 9, 2012 @ 5:56 am
How is something an”option” when it MUST be offered?
Comment by BUD — February 9, 2012 @ 7:55 am
Well if a poll says so, I mean. Don’t we all loathe the Catholics anyways? What was the question in the poll?
Comment by Uptheriver — February 9, 2012 @ 8:59 am
If Catholic Hospitals and Universities do not want to follow the rules of the Affordable Care Act (where health insurance plans should cover the cost of contraception) then they should stop taking all federal funds (medicaid, student grants, research grants and other federal funding).
Comment by SDBlacksburg — February 9, 2012 @ 9:43 am
This has nothing to do with religious freedom. it is a matter of secular policy. The administration is not forcing the Catholic church to go against their beliefs. If the Catholic church doesn’t want to cover the costs at their affiliated institutions they just need to stop taking federal funds and the rule won’t apply to them anymore.
Comment by Dave F — February 9, 2012 @ 10:14 am
What is too infrequently mentioned in this debate, including the RT editorial, is that a large number, often a majority, of the employees of these Catholic institutions (hospitals, universities) are NOT Catholics. This is not a matter of the Catholic Church being forced to offer its own believers something contrary to its tenets, it’s a matter of them denying all of its other employees that which the general public now has a right to.
Comment by Bill in Bedford — February 9, 2012 @ 10:44 am
Right on Dave F and SD Blacksburg! This is not a slam dunk case for the howlers IMO:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/pro-choice-gop-warns-party-that-contraception-fight-will-be-a-disaster.php
http://www.religiousinstitute.org/news/major-mainstream-religious-leaders-support-white-house-on-contraceptive-coverage-in-health-care
Catholic Charities go all over the world buying converts for the aid offered and instead of bringing contraceptives and family planning practices that could literally save millions of lives and alleviate real suffering, they bring dogma and doctrine that 95+% of their own followers do not “follow”.
On the issue of the value and sanctity of life the Catholic Church does not have a leg to stand on. Not when they were advising victims to stay quiet and get over it, not when they were moving and hiding pedophiles, not when they were running abusive orphanages, not when they were telling women to stay with an abusive brute, not when they were telling women to have child after child after child and not when they stand up KNOWING that the times and people and needs have changed and that one word from them could literally change so many lives for the better.
Your tax exempt conglomerates are not churches and places of worship and you do not get to treat your employees as chattel who must follow the dictates of your religion even if they are not Catholic. Employees should not have to pay for their reproductive care and medications because you need to maintain your historic levels of hypocrisy. That is just as sinful as anyone who practices family planning and avails themselves of the modern medicines to help alleviate suffering and stop having more children than they can afford or handle.
Shame on the Catholic Church for being a roaring hypocrite and shame on partisan sycophants like Boehner who seek to make political points off a decision that supports the health and well being of America’s women.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 10:51 am
So regarding the matter of secular policy…anyone that receives federal funds is subject to all federal laws, irrespective of beliefs. Is that right? There can be no cases where an individual, agency, group, whatever disagrees with a law and can therefore ignore it if they receive federal funds?
If that’s the message, I can think of one particular instance in the past where a federally funded agency instituted a very specific set of guidelines to sidestep a law with which they disagreed…should they have been reprimanded and forced to obey the law? (The law has since been changed, btw).
Comment by 89Hoo — February 9, 2012 @ 12:21 pm
“Shame on the Catholic Church for being a roaring hypocrite and shame on partisan sycophants like Boehner who seek to make political points off a decision that supports the health and well being of America’s women.”
And shame on Timmy Kaine for trying to…uh….trying to…uh, what in the world is Timmy trying to do??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/kaine-splits-with-obama-on-birth-control-rule/2012/02/08/gIQAL7YvzQ_story.html
Comment by Phil Chitwood — February 9, 2012 @ 12:27 pm
Get elected? Just a guess.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 12:58 pm
89Hoo #8, you know better than that. The churches and their employees are exempt, this is talking about the BUSINESSES that the church runs, the conglomerate if you will. Sure, it COULD BE that DePaul, Boston College, Loyola, Notre Dame et al ONLY EMPLOY practicing Catholics, but I do not believe that to be the case. If your religion is not even a factor in your hiring how can it be a factor in your insurance coverage?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 1:05 pm
Do you have any idea how many people are employed at these places?
The Catholic Church in 2006
69.1 million Catholics (23% of the U.S. population)1
18,992 parishes2 (46 new parishes in 2005)3
42,271 priests / 5,252 brothers / 67,773 sisters4
573 Catholic hospitals treated 84.7 million patients in 20055
6,511 elementary schools and 1,354 high schools, with over 2.5 million students enrolled6
231 Catholic colleges and universities with a total of 763,757 students7
http://old.usccb.org/comm/cip.shtml#toc9
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 1:35 pm
11 – Sandi, the premise is that entities – individuals, businesses, organization, churches, charities, universities, whatever – that receive federal funds are bound by federal laws, irrespective of whether or not they agree with the laws by which they are bound. The law makes no distinction. It’s the price of receiving the federal funds.
The corollary, then, is that it is illegal to ignore that law and still receive federal funds. And that any attempts to sidestep, ignore, or otherwise obfuscate those laws are illegal and should be punished. The only legal way to avoid the penalty is to eschew the federal funds, irrespective of the nature of the organization or even of its protests.
Right?
Comment by 89Hoo — February 9, 2012 @ 1:36 pm
The Congress will most likely overturn this HHS ruling. If not it will go to the SCOTUS which recently sided with the Luthran Church in a case about dealing with their employees. Freedom of religious conscious will prevail.
I hope the ruling stays intact till Nov. It will only damage Obama’s re-election efforts.
Comment by John R — February 9, 2012 @ 2:38 pm
I don’t think this particular argument has anything to do with any federal funds. Maybe I just missed that part of it? Any links to offer?
If you are just asking my opinion, then no, I do not think anyone, or any entity should be able to accept federal funds and hold themselves exempt from federal laws on employment or any other.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 3:06 pm
I do not think Congress wants to have this fight and whether the right wing court will side with the business is doubtless but not necessarily correct.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 3:12 pm
Sandi, my question was spawned by Dave F’s comment in Question 5:
…The administration is not forcing the Catholic church to go against their beliefs. If the Catholic church doesn’t want to cover the costs at their affiliated institutions they just need to stop taking federal funds and the rule won’t apply to them anymore.
I realize I didn’t specify you, but you did applaud his comments in your comment number 7.
Comment by 89Hoo — February 9, 2012 @ 3:23 pm
Right-wing court…heh…you’re a funny lady, Sandi.
Comment by 89Hoo — February 9, 2012 @ 3:35 pm
15 – Okay, then, should a head of a federal agency, be permitted to encourage his employees from obeying a federal law, not matter how bad the law, even to the point of devising a specific policy to illegally circumvent the law?
Comment by 89Hoo — February 9, 2012 @ 3:37 pm
No, I wasn’t being funny at all:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/January/26/health-tracking-poll-scotus-massachusetts-kff.aspx
“Majority Of Americans Think Ideology Will Affect High Court’s Ruling On Health Law”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 3:49 pm
Sorry #19, you lost me 89Hoo. “encourage his employees from obeying a federal law”???
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 4:03 pm
I applauded Dave F because, as I said, I agree with his sentiments. I do not think that it applies here though I could be wrong.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 4:10 pm
Tell me…
Who said that anyone who works for the Catholic Corporation is actually mandated by anyone including the Federal Government to use a contraceptive? The Catholic Corporation employs thousands of people that are not necessarily Catholic in their religious practices. To deny those individuals access to contraceptives is a form of discrimination. This is nothing more that the right wing loonie tunes trying to find something else to bluster about. You can bank on the fact that when the election gets closer, they’ll start beating up on Pro-choicers and Gays. They are as predictable as day and night.
See, that’s the problem when a “church” starts acting like a corporation. The Catholic Church is nothing more than a glorified corporation that is sitting atop billions in assets that because of our unnatural awe of the church will never be taxed and the value will never be realized.
Note…Churches, stay out of politics and Politics, stay out of churches.
Comment by Will — February 9, 2012 @ 5:58 pm
Speaker Boehner has stated the House will take up this HHS ruling. The way the Dems are heading to the tall grass on this issue, it should pass both houses of Congress. If not, so much the better for the GOP.
Will Obama veto it? I suspect not if he wants to get re-elected. This was a major political blunder. It could has been put off till after Nov.
The GOP would love to have this as a campaign issue in Nov.
What a bunch of stumble bums in this Admin.
Comment by John R — February 9, 2012 @ 9:34 pm
The right wing really is a mystery at times. First, they all want to get up in arms when the pro choice people speak out about a woman’s right to choose.
Now they are getting their underware in a knot because people are being offered the option to take advantage of contraception so as to avoid those pregnancies that might otherwise end in abortion.
Are those people only satisfied when they have something to complain about regardless of how stupid it is?
Comment by Will — February 9, 2012 @ 11:02 pm
I’m amazed at the number of people here willing to defend a foreign government. That is what the Vatican is, isn’t it? We have diplomatic relations with them right?
You can’t be a good American while being a good Catholic. It’s time to pack those priests, bishops, and nuns up and send them to Italy.
(Oh yes I did…..)
Comment by Scott M. — February 9, 2012 @ 11:08 pm
Wingnut phrase of the day, “stumble bum.” Obama is crazy like a fox, this issue will split the Republicans right down the middle and alienate conservative women voters in droves. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
Comment by Art Hill — February 10, 2012 @ 2:39 am
Go ahead Boehner, step in it!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 7:41 am
Anti-Catholicism, just as anti-Semitism and Israeli hate, seems to run deep around here!(See commentary elsewhere on equating “McCarthyism” and fear of Iran)
Alas, I am old enough to remember when rubbers were only sold in the men’s room at gas stations and bus stations, no one ever talked about them in polite company.
Obama wrongly thought he was picking a fight only with the Catholic Bishops and since most Catholics practice contraception, it was no big deal.
How wrong he was! But then Obama scorns those “who cling to God and guns”.
This is a big deal. The government is legislating religious ideological belief. But Obama and his feminist allies can’t win this argument when the issue is drawn correctly as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of religious conscience.
The voters get even if the lefties don’t!
Comment by John R — February 10, 2012 @ 9:10 am
John R…
I think you may be the one surprised come election day.
You are right about one thing. I am anti big religion like the Catholic Church because they aren’t a church…they are nothing more than a corporation running around cloaked in some kind of religious shroud. They are more concerned about money than they are anyone’s soul.
As for the contraceptives, they are actually called condoms in the 21st century. The use of the term “rubbers” is a demeaning and negative connotation for their actual purpose. But then again, I suppose that would deliver the kind of insensitive and inflammatory message that the right wingers would like to transmit.
Comment by Will — February 10, 2012 @ 7:31 pm
Yeah, it is really deep here but no worries Arab and Muslim hate is still the rule. I cannot even believe you had the nerve to post that one but I guess you think we just forget all the bile from the past.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 10:39 pm
No, Catholic and Christian hate is the rule Sandi. We make excuses, bend over and bow down to the Muslims. PC-Merica! Cutting off heads, scolding women rules the day. Oh but they don’t do that.
Comment by mattyr — February 11, 2012 @ 8:47 am
@32 mattyr, of course some Muslims do those things. I don’t think anyone here says otherwise. I do think some feel the need to point out not all muslims do these things and therefore it’s wrong to use too broad a brush.
I tend to point out the stupid things Christianity brings with it because I think it important to remind the Christians here their religion is no better than the Muslims.
I will praise the good and condemn the bad in all people. The good that is done by the religious could still be done without the need for religion.
Comment by Scott M. — February 11, 2012 @ 11:45 am
“We make excuses, bend over and bow down to the Muslims”. Oh Yeah? Find ONE thread, ONE, just ONE where the conservatives here have EVER, ONCE, not insulted and showered “hate” on Muslims, Islam and anything “Arab” when the chance to do so was presented? Just ONE. Happy hunting.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 11, 2012 @ 3:07 pm