The media is all atwitter over employers having to pay for birth control, even if their fundamental belief systems dictate otherwise and all that. I understand why everyone's upset. I think.
A lot of people view making religious institutions pay for birth control as forcing them to do what runs contrary to their tenets, restricting the religious freedom of, say, a Catholic hospital. Of course, employees do not always share the faith of their employer. As such, a non-Catholic researcher at a Catholic hospital who is denied birth control may feel that her or his religious employer is making decisions for her or him and is thereby restricting her or his religious freedom. If legally mandated employer-provided birth control is going to be an issue, some entity, the religious institution or the individual employee, is going to feel that their religious freedom is being assaulted. Okay, that makes sense. If that sums it all up nicely, I understand why everyone's got their panties in the proverbial bunch
Also, if the above is the case, shouldn't the individual win? I'm certainly no constitutional scholar, but doesn't the great document protect the religious freedom of individuals first? And, if so, isn't the solution clear? Or is this a case of a majority religion forcing itself onto a new generation, wherein many Catholics, for instance, don't see anything wrong with birth control? Last I checked, the majority of Catholics don't have an issue with birth control, but our church fathers tell us what's okay, not our own consciences, apparently.
If you're Catholic, working at a Catholic hospital, and you disagree with the tenet about birth control being such a big deal that it's worth making a bigger stink about than good works, and then your employer decides you're not a good enough Catholic and makes the birth control decision for you, is that the worst way to assault someone's religious freedom? Or does it matter?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
John -
I think you might find this article of interest, since GOP Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) is about to propose a measure that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it:
Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.
Individuals too can opt out of coverage if it is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs, radically undermining “the basic principle of insurance, which involves pooling the risks for all possible medical needs of all enrollees.” As the National Women’s Law Center explains, Blunt’s language is vague enough that “insurers may be able to sell plans that do not cover services required by the new health care law to an entire market because one individual objects, so all consumers in a market lose their right to coverage of the full range of critical health services.” As a result, a man “purchasing an insurance plan offered to women and men could object to maternity coverage, so the plan would not have to cover it, even though such coverage is required as part of the essential health benefits.”
But hey, this is Freedom, right?
2 - Theophile
Hi John,
Perhaps insurance is just a form of gambling, but worse than gambling, as You are placing You're bet on the evil event taking place. With normal gambling(which is frowned upon in some religious circles), there is a payoff, or jackpot, which "could" be obtained, and with insurance of worldly goods actual compensation takes place, in the event of loss. But to mandate that everyone buy "health insurance" is nothing but fraud by Chicago style extortion, unless of coarse "they" can actually guarantee replacement, restoration, or acceptable repair of health, then it would just be extortion. Umm.. has anybody other than God been able to guarantee such things?
3 - jamminsue
John, Lovely article. Thanks for making the points you did. I agree, Jesus was fairly tolerant according to some of the Gospels; it was the crazies like Augustine and Damien that screwed things up.
4 - John
That's downright chilling, Glenn. Imagine an employer deciding that births outside of wedlock are morally objectionable and then refusing to pay for prenatal care and delivery.
5 - John
Thanks, jamminsue.
6 - baritone
The thing that maddens old atheist me is that religion still trumps women's health. When are we ever going to move away from idiotic superstition and take control and responsibility for our lives. Right wingers, libertarians and the like are always grousing about how people should carry their own weight. Yet, they virtually always defer to some god or other as the ultimate care taker. Screw that!
I would be more than happy to wage war against religion. It is the scourge of our existence.
7 - Arch Conservative
"The thing that maddens old atheist me is that religion still trumps women's health"
Will you please cut the f-ing semantic bullshit Btone. Why is it that to every lefty women's health equals abortion. For most women abortion is never even a health issue that they will have to deal with.
The left likes to claim those whose who are pro life are extremist, vitirolic and use false rhetoric. However if I am a man who loves his wife and daughter, does his is best to provide a good life for them and who treats every woman that I interact with with the same level of courtesy I'd like to be treated with myself but happen to disagree with the pro-choice zealots on one single issue, abortion then I am a misogynist who is engaging in a "war on women" because I hate all women and seek to control their lives. Talk about ridiculous overblown rhetoric and extremism.
Oh and for the record I am very much pro-life but not religious even in the slightest. I was raised Catholic but turned in my holster and crucifix the day my parents stopped making me participate in the religion and the only time I have stepped foot inside any sort of church since then has been to attend funerals out of respect for the loss of family and friends. I imagine that there are many atheists across this once great nation whose consciences tell them that abortion is wrong. I know that there are millions of women that are pro-life despite the usual suspects, NOW, NARAL, PP etc etc assertion that they speak for all American women.
Even I as a conservative on all issues fiscal and most issues social do not appreciate the manner in which some of our more fundamentally religious (that's all religions and not just Christinaity) fellow citizens approach the rest of us. However it is not religion that is the scourge of our existence but rather the culture of political correctness and the entitlement mentality that has been foisted upon us by the left and both of our major political parties that is the true scourge of our existence. We're becoming a nation of whiny crybabies demanding more and more handouts from big brother, each generation growing exponentially more dependent than the last.
8 - Christopher Rose
Anybody who is depicting the pro life view as "extremist, vitriolic and use[ing] false rhetoric" is probably overstating the situation.
Surely the important issue here is to recognise that the decision as to whether to end a pregnancy or not is a very personal one that in most normal situations should be decided by the pregnant person.
Religious dogma and political correctness are both problems, as is the current state of party politics, but we should all be looking to have a greater degree of personal freedom and choice for everybody, even when we disagree with some of those choices, rather than trying to force others to agree with our personal views.
9 - Arch Conservative
"Anybody who is depicting the pro life view as "extremist, vitriolic and use[ing] false rhetoric" is probably overstating the situation."
You're British and currently residing in England if memory serves me Christopher?
Well here in America the "phrase "war on women" is used on a daily basis. The litmus test is a single issue. If you oppose abortion you are waging a "war on women." There is no context, no discussion of other issues concerning women, just that single issue and the application of the phrase "war on women."
For my part as someone who is pro-life I at least make the attempt that many on the pro-choice side do not. I get it that I'm not the one carrying the baby and it's unreasonable and unfair for me to expect a woman who I have absolutely no connection to in any way to bring that baby to term. That makes complete sense to me. However I believe life begins at conception and I do not wish to live in a society where abortion is thought to be as mundane as getting the oil changed in your car. My beef is not so much with the women who decide to have abortions but the industry that promotes abortion through lies and propaganda.
As I said I am not religious in the least. So I believe the solution to the abortion problem lies not in demonizing the women that have them or trying to overturn Roe but rather in drastically eliminating the number of choices as to whether to abort or not and fostering a culture that sees it as baby and not a "choice" because in reality it is a baby. I am a very staunch supporter of birth control. I believe birth control should be a covered benefit under health insurance plans. I'd have absolutely no objections whatsoever to my tax dollars going to the funding of the dissemination
of birth control and birth control education if it could be linked to lowering abortions and not associated with those organizations providing abortions.
I also think there should be more picture of aborted babies readily available for adults to see. Some may say it is in poor taste but it is the ultimate reality of what abortion actually is. When you're looking at a picture of an aborted baby or viewing a video of an abortion being performed all the pretense and rhetoric from either side falls away and you're left with nothing but your conscience and the truth. That is the way it should be for anyone on either side of the issue who wishes make an empassioned argument. I have personally viewed both but I often wonder how many on the left who are so sure that it's a "choice" and not a baby have done likewise.
10 - Jordan Richardson
I do not wish to live in a society where abortion is thought to be as mundane as getting the oil changed in your car.
What an overstatement, especially considering the ease with which you toss around violent rhetoric.
Nobody with any rationality treats abortion as "mundane," not even the Evil Planned Parenthood. There's no shortage of "aborted fetuses" for people to see, either, so wanting more of that gross imagery to appeal to emotions only coarsens your position. You want some woman who was raped by her brother to choose not to abort because she saw an ugly picture on a placard?
11 - Arch Conservative
What violent rhetoric have I thrown around Jordan?
And no it was not an overstatement. I have viewed and personally spoken to countless prochoicers who think abortion is "no big deal." "If a woman gets pregnant she can just have an abortion" Of course they view it as commonplace and mundane Jordan. It's the reason Planned Parenthood does not offer counseling or refer for counseling before or after abortion.
You know people that are antiwar often use as part of their argument pictures of war casualities and that is all fine and dandy but if someone suggest viewing a picture of an aborted baby as part of the process of determine how one feels about abortion that is unnecessary? The fact is that a picture of an aborted baby has absolutely nothing to do with my views as someone who is prolife. The picture is the ultimate reality of what abortion truly is. It's not rhetoric, it's not political. It is what it is regardless of your view on the issue. It's what happens when a woman has an abortion an I can only assume jordan that your objection is based on the fact you are uncomfortable with confronting the reality of abortion and you're uncomfortable with others doing so too because it may serve to undermine the position which you've already committed to.
Lastly rape and incest combined account for less than 1% of all abortions. While it is a valid point to raise because it happens, it's the smaller picture and not the larger.
12 - Christopher Rose
Arch, if you oppose abortion to the point where you are trying to prevent others doing so rather then you are by definition waging a "war on women".
If you are ever in a situation where abortion is one of a range of options in your life, you have the right to make your views known but you don't have the right, nobody should ever have the right, to force that view onto others against their will.
I do agree that there needs to be a time limit on abortions but it is really none of our business how people feel about it; you seem to be appalled by those who consider it a mundane choice but I don't really see how we can go around regulating how people should feel and I rather suspect that there is a difference between seeing it as a mundane choice in theory and how a person is going to feel when actually in that situation.
13 - Christopher Rose
In terms of the USA, I am far more bothered by the view that killing is wrong, but state execution isn't; that seems like a far more profound corruption of ethical behaviour and reason to me.
14 - John
"we should all be looking to have a greater degree of personal freedom and choice for everybody, even when we disagree with some of those choices, rather than trying to force others to agree with our personal views"
Amen. This gets right to the heart of all of this.
15 - William Weber
Should the individual get to decide what to do with their body or the government? Abortion involves the unborn. When to abort the unborn [is] a medical issue and the decision lies between the person and their doctor. There are those who want to legislate-medical issues who have no training in medicine medical procedures. Those who do have the training cannot agree. Why does it have to be decided by anyone but the individuals involved? That is the bigger issue. Should the individual right to decide be protected or should the institution (religious or government) right to decide for someone take precedence?
16 - baritone
Arch, you are splitting hairs. Many believe that ANY kind of contraception is tantamount to an abortion.
Yeah, most abortions are a messy affair. So is sausage making. Ever see a monkfish? Ugly as sin, yet we EAT those.
Also, the notion that there is ever anything "mundane" about the decision to abort a pregnancy is bogus. Most abortions are uncomfortable at best and can be quite painful for the woman. It is rarely an easy decision, but birthing and raising unwanted children is hardly a preferable choice.
And, as you complain about slapping the moniker "war on women" on anything regarding abortion, how about the Right claiming everything pro-choice people say and do is a "war on religion?"
And I still beg to differ. Religion IS the scourge of human existence. Always has been, always will be. Your mantra about "entitlement mentality" is a strawman argument fostered mainly by the very rich who simply can't stand those who are not.
17 - Clavos
So is sausage making
QFT
In high school, I worked for three years as an apprentice in a sausage factory.
Haven't eaten any sausage since then...
18 - Dan(Miller)
Perhaps I didn't get a memo, but how does the refusal of a church or other religious organization to subsidize contraception or abortion medications deprive a woman of her right to either?
Aside from refusing to pay for her lifestyle choices, are such organizations preventing her from using funds of her own or available from other sources to facilitate her own choices? Or is she depriving herself of such choices because she would prefer not to use such funds to accommodate her choices? If so, why should a church or other religious organization be required to pay for something she would prefer not to pay for?
19 - Zingzing
Archie: "Why is it that to every lefty women's health equals abortion."
the real question is why you equate birth control w abortion. The article is about birth control. Before you showed up, no one was talking about abortion. First gabby giffords and now this... What's with blowing into a room and blathering about random shit w you these days?
20 - Zingzing
Dan, It's a health issue and should be covered by health insurance. bc is expensive. Telling your employee to pay for it themselves is basically the same as cutting off the option in many cases. And it disproportionately affects the poor, who can least afford a child... What consequences do you see there?
21 - Zingzing
To archie's #11: "And no it was not an overstatement. I have viewed and personally spoken to countless prochoicers who think abortion is "no big deal." "If a woman gets pregnant she can just have an abortion" Of course they view it as commonplace and mundane Jordan. It's the reason Planned Parenthood does not offer counseling or refer for counseling before or after abortion."
I've never heard anyone pro-choice say that. That's incredibly dumb, so if they said that to you, you may have been being mocked. Or you're making it up. I think it might be the last one, because you're either lying or ignorant of the fact that planned parenthood most certainly does offer counseling before and after any abortion procedure. Spreading lies and propaganda is terrible, Archie, as you yourself say. So why do you do it? Just ignorant? Or do you just do what you have to do?
22 - Dan(Miller)
Zingzing, you say,
Telling your employee to pay for it themselves is basically the same as cutting off the option in many cases.
What is your basis for that statement?
I assume, probably correctly, those those covered by insurance by virtue of their employment at churches and other religious organizations are paid. In addition, I understand that there are voluntary organizations such as Planned Parenthood, ready willing and able to provide such services at little or no charge. How, then, are their options cut off?
Am I mistaken as to these things?
23 - Zingzing
Are there no work houses?
Yes, they are paid, but not enough in some cases, which you must have figured was my point, right? And planned parenthood works through your insurance, unless you don't have any. So, if it's not covered, I don't know that planned parenthood will cover it. And because you have health insurance, I don't know that you'd qualify for programs designed for those without health insurance. Plus, the right wants to immediately defund pp, so they could be gone well before this law takes affect. So don't count on planned parenthood to solve your problems, Dan.
24 - Zingzing
"What is your basis for that statement?"
Wait, did I miss a joke?
25 - Dan(Miller)
Zingzing, re #24 -- no you did not miss a joke and I was not joking.
I asked the basis for your statement and you provided none in your #23 beyond that it may be accurate in "some cases" and that you don't know whether employees of churches and other religious organizations declining to provide contraception and abortion insurance would receive help from Planned Parenthood and other similar voluntary organizations.
There are many things that I "don't know," but supporting an earlier assertion in that fashion would not likely be deemed a suitable response to a question.