Contraception is hardly a controversial subject, unless you bring select tenets of certain religions into the equation.
As almost all of us surely know by now, President Barack Obama has mandated that most American employers include free birth control services in health insurance packages for their employees. Undoubtedly, this was done as a means of reaching out to the pro-reproductive rights community, which has been less than flattered with the president's record as of late.
While the lion's share of public and private sector entities impacted by Obama's mandate seem fine with its impositions, there are a few notable exceptions, and they are speaking up loudly. Chief amongst these is the Roman Catholic Church. In addition to being our country's single largest organized religion, it runs a multitude of hospitals and educational institutions from coast to coast. According to recent polling data, virtually all Catholics use contraception themselves, but church teaching nonetheless forbids it for purely theological reasons.
Now the Church hierarchy wants the federal government to make a special exception for Catholic institutions; to shield them from the same standards that apply to everyone else. There are a few other religions pursuing similar courses of action, but the Catholic Church is by far the most aggressive and influential. The president has not yet budged in face of this criticism, which grows increasingly severe by the day. I personally hope that he opts against creating exclusive privileges for select groups simply because they have the ability to utilize a unique bully pulpit.
No sane man or woman can argue that the religious twist to this quagmire should be ignored. For fundamentalist Catholics, using birth control is a terrible sin of sorts, and no one has the right to force them to do something against their own will. However, this is the beautiful thing about life in a free country; as a consumer, you can pick and choose what you want and do not want. If hardline Catholics, or members of any other religious denomination for that matter, do not like contraceptives, then they should avoid them. Case closed.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
It seems to me that the violation of the First Amendment in this controversy is being committed by the administration as it seeks to impose its liberal views on a religion.
The First says, in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... (emphasis added)
It is the second clause which the administration appears to be violating -- it is attempting to force the Church to rescind an internal policy which affects only Catholics, and thus is "prohibiting [the Church's] free exercise [of its religion]."
Whether the teaching against contraception is or is not observed by the individual members of the Church is immaterial because it is an internal teaching of the Church and none of the government's business.
The Obama mandate is yet another egregious attempt by the liberal establishment to impose (by force) its tenets on the rest of the population.
2 - Dr Dreadful
I do sympathize somewhat with the Church's concerns, although as Joseph so deftly highlighted, it lost credibility on this issue (and many others) long ago.
I don't see why the Roman Catholic Church as an employer - or an employer affiliated with it - should be forced to provide contraceptive services as part of its health insurance package, any more than it would be reasonable to force Planned Parenthood as an employer to provide abstinence-only family planning services as part of its benefits package.
On the other hand, birth control is a pretty basic medical need, and it seems unfair for an employee not to be provided with coverage merely because their employer Doesn't Wanna.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
In the New Testament we are told in at least two places that we are to follow the law of the land, and Jesus followed the law of the land even unto His death on the cross. Now I really can understand the RCC's position, but in order to build and operate a hospital, an organization (religious or otherwise) must follow federal regulation without exemption.
If the RCC had wanted to avoid this situation, they should have refrained from building a hospital and instead simply paid other medical institutions to provide medical services which are not against RCC doctrine. Of course, the RCC couldn't make a profit on that, but there it is.
4 - Clavos
FYI, Glenn, the Church doesn't make a profit on its hospitals.
And the book of fiction you refer to as new testament has no standing regarding Federal government regulations or any other secular law, for that matter.
5 - mortimerzilch
I fail to see where the Government of the United States has the standing to force religious organizations to act contrary to their clearly stated and long standing beliefs. The Constitution clearly states that the Government shall not interfere in free religious practice. If someone works for the Church, it goes without saying that the Church will not pay for your abortion, or abortifacant. That THIS Executive is attempting to coerce this violation of the Constitution, and may have packed the Supreme Court so as to agree with him, MERITS IMPEACHMENT...if this Executive had not also the Legislative Branch in his pocket too. So what we have is an immoral and illegal law demanding enforcement. Did I say "NAZI!"...yes, I did.
6 - Arch Conservative
"If hardline Catholics, or members of any other religious denomination for that matter, do not like contraceptives, then they should avoid them. Case closed."
I do believe they do avoid them Mr. Kotter er I mean Cotto.
How about this one though...........
If hard line secularists have the need for contraceptives, they should not seek employment or medical care from a Catholic hospital but instead go to another medical provider that believes in the use of contraceptives. Case closed.
"If the RCC had wanted to avoid this situation, they should have refrained from building a hospital and instead simply paid other medical institutions to provide medical services which are not against RCC doctrine."
So what you're saying basically is that the Catholic Church does not have the right to provide medical care if they are not going to provide it in a manner consistent with the left wing worldview Glenn?
7 - FrKeyes
Author misses the point. Of course,, I as a catholic will not use or condone the use of contraception. But I do pay taxes and now the mandate is requiring me to pay for contraception and abortion against my conscience. Regardless of the opinion of this author, I am sane and I disagree with him. His decision to belittle my faith is unbecoming of civil discourse.
8 - Arch Conservative
You're right FRkeyes, the author and some of the ensuing comments don't try very hard at disguising the disdain felt toward religion. Of course they'll come up with some clever (at least they will think it's clever) bullshit about why that's not true, but we know that it is.
9 - roger nowosielski
How would the rights of the employees of the Catholic hospital be jeopardized if they were required to use other-than-Catholic medical facilities for their contraceptive needs.
This seems to be the crux of the matter, which thus far doesn't appear to have been addressed.
10 - Dr Hussein Eegor
I do pay taxes and now the mandate is requiring me to pay for invasions and bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan against my conscience.
I do pay taxes and now the mandate is requiring me to pay for unwanted children against my conscience.
11 - Jason Menges
Life begins at conception. OC work to prevent implantation which occurs after conception. Church cannot support such meds.
12 - Joseph Cotto
Clavos,
That certainly is one way of looking at the situation. I think it boils down to you and I interpreting the First Amendment differently in this matter. Regardless of our respective opinions, I believe that we both want to see religious liberty sustained and upheld. Perhaps we each have different perspectives on how this might be done.
Dr Dreadful,
Excellent points all around. This is why I find the mandate to be acceptable; it holds everyone to the exact same standard. No special treatment or favors brought into the picture. It is hard to argue with that.
Glenn,
It would appear that, despite our vast political differences, our respective lines of reasoning are aligned here. If the feds force one sector of employers to provide a basic, non-controversial health insurance service, then the same should hold true for all employers. Creating loopholes and exemptions might seem nice in the short run, but in the long term, all it does is create serious problems.
mortimerzilch,
Unless speaking about anti-Semitism, anyone who uses the "Nazi" argument is immediately disqualified from the hall of rational debate. Thanks for stopping by, though.
Arch,
"If hard line secularists have the need for contraceptives, they should not seek employment or medical care from a Catholic hospital but instead go to another medical provider that believes in the use of contraceptives. Case closed."
Not such a bad idea. I do not know if this practice is already used by most hardline secularists, but if it is, they would score points for a total and complete lack of hypocrisy. I strongly doubt, however, that this is the case.
FrKeyes,
I respect your opinions and the desire to see your tax dollars spent wisely. However, as taxpayers, much of our money goes towards programs that we might find unfavorable. This is simply the result of living in a society which has a remarkable freedom and diversity of ideas. I never even hinted, nor do I believe, that those who disagree with me are not mentally sound. Honestly, I have no clue as to how you came to this conclusion. Also, I never denigrated the Catholic faith in any fashion. It works fine for untold millions, and that works fine for me.
Roger,
An astute question deserving of an article-length answer.
13 - Glenn Hussein Contrarian
Clavos -
And the book of fiction you refer to as new testament has no standing regarding Federal government regulations or any other secular law, for that matter.
Your viewpoint concerning the Bible doesn't matter. What does matter is that the RCC claims to follow the commands of Jesus and the apostles, and in this case is having a real problem doing so. There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out someone's hypocrisy when they don't follow the rules that they claim to uphold.
14 - Fred0321
What the author of this article neglects to say is that the Church, and all churches, are guaranteed freedom to practice their faith by the Constitution of the United States. Whether individual Catholics follow the moral teachings of the Church is immaterial. The Church is guaranteed the right to practice her faith without government interference. This means that the Church cannot be forced by the state to violate her beliefs.
For those who support the state's insistence that the Church be forced to act against her moral teachings, the question is, "who is next?" If the state can compel the Church to act against her beliefs, who is safe in this society? The case is definitely not closed.
15 - Christopher Rose
Although members of churches should be free to follow their religion, I don't understand why any church is allowed to run a business.
It is already bad enough that churches are not taxed on their incomes but a church running a business is crossing the line.
16 - Clavos
Although members of churches should be free to follow their religion, I don't understand why any church is allowed to run a business
If you're referring to the RCC's hospitals, Mr. Rose, they are businesses, yes, but non profit ones, and they aren't the only church-affiliated hospitals in this country; among others, there are Jewish hospitals and Presbyterian ones, as well as Baptist and Methodist institutions.
It's not a question of their being "allowed," as you put it, it would be unconstitutional for them to be prohibited. Operating a business is not a crime; not even if operated by a church.
I agree with you in re their tax exempt status.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
"Non-profit" is not the same thing as "not making money". Think about that the next time you walk down the aisle at the supermarket and see "Newman's Own" products lining the shelves. With all the tax breaks a 'non-profit' has, it's actually a pretty good business model.
But the point is this: hospitals have to operate within federal guidelines. Not requiring them to do so is setting the industry up for all kinds of problems.
18 - Christopher Rose
I take your point, Clavos, and thought Glenn's point was worth taking note of too.
I remain uncomfortable about church's running businesses though; if they want to support a business they can always make donations to it, but all businesses obviously need to be regulated and running any business - and particularly a hospital - along any kind of religious lines is a clear source of conflict, as we see in the debate about contraception.
19 - Warren Beatty
Re:comment #1, Clavos, you could not have expressed yourself better! Bravo!
FWIW, follow this link and this link for more infomation.
20 - Zingzing
clavos, you do realize that exempting the catholic church from a law would be against the first amendment, right?. It's the same as writing a law that only they have to follow. Subjecting them to the same laws as everyone else... where's the trouble?
21 - Clavos
Subjecting them to the same laws as everyone else... where's the trouble?
Subjecting them, zing, constitutes government interference in a religious matter -- in violation of the First Amendment.
But I can see where the liberal administration would be true to its situational ethics and anti-religion mindset -- I can see, but do not approve.
I'm anti religion, but only for myself; I have no problem with religious practitioners who do not attempt to impose their beliefs on me -- either directly or indirectly, through the government.
22 - Clavos
Oh and I do not believe the government should be imposing lifestyle decisions on the citizenry. Thus, I do not agree with the government dictating that any entity should supply contraceptive information (or the contraceptives themselves) to anyone -- there are too many citizens who do not support that practice, and their taxes should not be forcibly used to impose something to which they are opposed, no matter how much "good" for society liberals think would be attained.
23 - Christopher Rose
Surely health care professionals should provide such information?
That isn't imposing a lifestyle decision on anybody is it?
Going back to my point about churches operating businesses, even on a non profit basis; isn't that how they extend their reach and seek to impose their views on others?
As to citizens getting a say on what their taxes are used for, that has to be a total non-starter.
Government would become totally impossible if using tax income on things to which citizens objected wasn't allowed - or if tax expenditure was only allowed on things to which the citizenry didn't object.
24 - Clavos
Well, that's your good liberal opinion, but it is the right of all entities in a democracy to proselytize their viewpoints -- it's in fact essential to a democracy to defend that right to freedom of speech, which may well be the most basic tenet of a democracy.
As for using taxes for non-approved ends: if enough people disapprove in a democracy (i.e., whatever constitutes a legal majority), then yes, the government should immediately cease that practice to which they object.
25 - Clavos
Surely health care professionals should provide such information?
Not necessarily; i.e., if they disagree with a practice, and such disagreement does not endanger life or the patient's health, it would be unconstitutional to force them to provide it.
Patients who disagree with such practices (non life or health threatening) in any given medical facility can always seek another.