Health care rule offends the conscience
By Taylor Hall
After watching Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan square off on Oct. 11, my friend and I had a discussion about why I was voting for Mitt Romney. There are many reasons I would like to vote for President Obama. I think he would care more for the middle class; however, there is one line I cannot cross. I cannot vote for such an extreme liberal who will not allow a very simple provision that could exempt Catholic institutions from having to pay for contraception. Contraception is something that the Catholic Church finds gravely immoral.
A question that the debate poses: Is there really a problem? When Ryan accused the Obama administration of assaulting religious liberties of the Catholic Church, Biden said:
“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy – any hospital – none has to either refer contraception. None has to pay for contraception. None has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”
Hall lives in Floyd. He taught English in Korea for the past two years.
October 26, 2012 - 6:20 AM
It is sad that the Catholic Church chooses not to trust the families in it’s pews. But that is certainly “C’est la vie” for Catholics all over the world.
Reproductive services include much more than just contraceptives and while excluding that one line of care is the desired church doctrine (dogma), NOTHING in any insurance policy, doctor’s regimen of care or even a person’s life makes them choose it. One look at your pews proves that your Catholics are using birth control, making them pay seems to be your only real position on the issue.
True religious workers have been exempted, so this is merely another employer wanting to dictate personal choices and make sure that people “pay” for choosing against their bosses wishes. Sad, just plain sad.
Sandi: You confuse the people in the pews making choices with the institutin being forced to do something. If the individual chooses not to abide by Catholic dogma, that is an idividual choice, no one is being forced. The problem is requiring a church to fund something it is patently opposed to. It is like forcing a Mosque or Jewish Temple congregation to serve bacon in any cafeteria they operate. Yes, I know that assumes that people have a COnstitutional right to eat bacon. But it also illustrates that the availability of bacon or contraception is not limited to whether or not it is provided by a religious employer. People can get their bacon and contraception outside the employment relationship. You correctly point out that Church dogma is not adhered to by many in the faith, but it is by many and it IS a big part of the faith. Can we then stop making airlines and others carry Kosher meals because many Jews do not follow the Kosher laws? For me, a Catholic, this is not about abortion or contraception, those are not my issues. kind like the Nuns on the Bus, it’s not whether you have them, but how they are cared for after you do. That is why this issue, as Mr. Hall stated, is not about the reprodutive services themselves, but about the governmnet intruding into the religious institutions ability to define its dogma and then forcing it to violate its faith under penalty of law. Just buy your bacon at a different store.
You know; I think it’s time we got rid of the Free Exercise Clause. Keep the Establishment Clause but get rid of that damned Free Exercise one.
Life would be so much better.
While we’re at it the Second one can go too, and we already ignor the 9th and 10th. just ditch them as well.
No Eric Andrew, I do not believe I “confuse” anything. What I am saying is that the faithful already make the decision you are wanting to “protect” them from.
Paying for reproductive services encompasses more than just birth control. The “institutin” is their employer, not their God, maybe not even their church. It is not the place of an employer to make that “choice” for their employees. In fact, it is hideously out of bounds. None of these employers are holding church every work day either. You are the one confusing the relationship of a church and an employer, IMO.
The employer pays for many services under insurance coverage that their employees may never avail themselves of. Even if an employer pays for reproductive coverage, there is no obligation for any Catholic to partake of the evil fruit you so abhor. None. The employer should not be able to decide the health care decisions of their employees unless it impacts their job or the cost of the service (i.e. smokers and the obese paying more).
If an employer elects to offer health insurance coverage and even if they pay all or a portion of it for their employees, that is not the same relationship as the clergy and parishioners or the church and priests/nuns. Every employee of any of these institutions (odd you don’t even call them churches yet want the church exemption to apply…) is not even necessarily a practicing member of the faith and you know this too.
Employers are “forced” to withhold and match tax payments, pay unemployment insurance, pay for Workers Compensation and General Liability Insurance. Employers are “forced” not to discriminate. Employers are “forced” to comply with OSHA and Employment Laws. Why you think employers should be exempt from paying for reproductive services offered under their health insurance is very selective and telling.
Insurance coverage routinely covers reproductive services so an employer would have to willfully choose to exclude coverage not include the coverage. The institution is not required to offer insurance, but if they offer insurance, they must offer all of the mandated coverage to have a healthy workforce. Unless they are literally a church with people literally working as clergy.
This law is not about forcing any “congregation” to do anything. This is a law for employers. What church offers insurance to their congregation?
Yes, “People can get their bacon and contraception outside the employment relationship”, however if a church employer offers health insurance, like Workers Compensation Insurance, they have to abide by the rules mandated.
The Catholic families with 10-12 children are rare anymore. For a very good reason. That the Catholic church wants to force their followers to pay for their own reproductive care so you can pretend you are upholding some principle is akin to them hording riches at the Vatican while people in many of your mission areas go hungry, uneducated and also without reproductive care that could ease their suffering, so that you can give them your dogma attached to your aid.
You may “confuse” the role of an employer with that of customer service as you see fit, but the rules should apply to Catholic (and other) religious institution employers just as they do for other employers.
Claiming this is only about “the governmnet intruding into the religious institutions” is too little too late when they abide by the other employer laws and responsibilities.
3 – are you saying we should charge people for exercising their faith? Or imprison them? An establishment clause is pretty pointless without the free exercise clause.
Sandi: You keep talking about employer choosing to offer insurance. Obamacare removed that choice and now not only dictates that they must offer or face a penalty, but dictates what must be provided. The difference is an employer offering a plan that the employee can partake in or not that coincides with the religious beliefs of the employer. If you don;t like the offered plan, don’t buy in. It is the mandate that offends Free Exercise. Let the employer provide what it wants and let the employee buy in if they want. If the employer needs to “sweeten the pot” by offering more salary to make up for the uncovered procedures in order to be competitive in the marketplace, so be it. It is not FORCED to violate its tenets. Your argument that the faithful do not adhere to the tenets is irrelevant, but you are correct that not all employees of Catholic institutions are Catholic. They may WANT a plan that is not in accord with the Catholic dogma, but they CHOSE to work for the institution and were given the option to participate in the insurance coverage or not. All Obamacare does is take away choices.
7 – in the propagandist world of the Obamanista, Eric, MANDATORY IS VOLUNTARY! See, employers actually DO have a choice – provide insurance or face a prohibitive fine. Ergo, any choosing the former is acting voluntarily.
See? WAR IS PEACE! FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH! MANDATORY IS VOLUNTARY! Right out of Minitrue. Orwell would be proud.
What “Obamacare” does is offer some consistency and equitable coverage in the employee’s favor.
Yes, I keep talking about employer’s “choosing” because for once, all of the choices are not the exclusive domain of the employer.
Any employer is free to pay the penalty if they do not want to offer health insurance. That is choice. No one said they had to like it. My guess is their employees have not liked the restrictions for a very long time.
Research has determined that preventive care in reproductive health proves the efficacy and importance of it. That is why it is mandated for health insurance coverage.
The “religious beliefs of the employer” are not the problem of the employee unless their religious beliefs and practices are contingent on their being hired. For hospitals and universities that is just not the case.
What the mandate “offends” is the control the church wants over their employees. Those days are over.
Free Exercise is not for companies. The employer cannot just “provide what it wants” anymore. People chose to work to live, and the religious restrictions of their employers beliefs are not fair to employees. If someone has to give, it should not be the employees.
ALL people are free not to partake of any medical service or drug they do not want, for whatever reason; religion, superstition or whim.
But whose “propagandist” -ista was it that decided it should all be the employer’s choice?
All the employers’ choice, Sandi? What are you talking about?
The very essence of the issue here is the forcing of the ACA on all.
That in itself is unconstitutional & the other issues are real but latent.
It’s not just Catholics, or any religion. (But Obama did lie to Catholics, & I hope they remember Tuesday next).