All the ongoing discussion of birth control has become a distraction. Basic health care coverage includes coverage for women’s’ procedures and tests, including birth control measures. When a woman law student spoke to Congress, explaiconservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh 
called the girl a “slut.” Limbaugh is well established in the conservative hierarchy, and a powerful spokesman. Candidates seek his endorsement, and cower before him. But he isn’t known for his diplomacy and civilized attitudes.
The issue in discussion before Congress, and on the Limbaugh program, is not difficult to understand. The Catholic Church strongly abhors abortion, which they extend to birth control measures to prevent pregnancy, or morning after pills to terminate pregnancy at the earliest possible moment, considering such practices murder. Murder in that it robs an innocent unborn child of a life that may have extended to a hundred years. A hundred years of happiness and living is no small thing. Many non-Catholics share that same view. Now the Catholic Church has employees, and these employees are required to have insurance, at the expense of the employer, the Church. With each factor covered in the insurance, the cost rises. This is nothing new, and expected. But since the Catholic employees are expected to have a moral position of adversity to abortion, and birth control, The Catholic decision makers have hoped to avoid the added expense incurred from the rights to abortion and birth control.
It seems that the Catholics are asking, or demanding that the government aid them in their ban of life limiting procedures for Catholics . Some employees assuredly woulopt for birth control if it were available to them. The religion also acknowledges that the populace has free will, and the capacity to make decisions independent of catholic teaching.
So, again, the Catholic Church wants the government to aid and abet their non-support of certain medical measures available to the general public. Seen in that simple light, there is no doubt that the church is attempting to transcend the law governing all people, and that they are going to have to pay for the entire policy.
Obama has leaned over backwards, rightly so in his conscience, to respect the Catholic teachings. But the issue seems obvious. If I am in error, someone please correct me.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Yes. You're in error. You make the fatal assumption - prompted by leftist indoctrination - that everyone wants to government to do something. The problem here is not the Catholic Church wanting the government to do something, it is that Obama wants the government to do something. The Catholic Church and Rush Limbaugh are on the side of the government doing less in this case.
As is so often the case, government initiative in this case takes away free choice and takes away options and takes away liberty. Government is usurping our freedom of conscience. All people who object here are saying is that they would like government to leave them the hell alone to make these choices for themselves.
And it's a far more universal problem than just birth control. Every person who will be taxed to pay for Obamacare is going to potentially have their right or choice taken away. When their money is used to pay for someone else's abortion or sex-change or some other procedure they would never pay for themselves or to which they have moral objections the government is taking away their right of free choice. It seems grossly ironic that people who believe in a "woman's right to choose" should be perfectly willing to take away everyone's free choice in pursuit of it.
This is the great inconsistency of the modern American left. It's why I cannot be a Democrat despite being pro-choice, pro-gay and generally anti-war. You cannot make people equal by making them less free. That defeats the purpose.
Dave
2 - Dr Joseph S Maresca
Ultimately, the Supreme Court will rule on this issue. The ruling can go either in favor of the Church as a religious freedom issue or the government by affirming personal choice over religious doctrine.
I look forward to reading the briefs for and against.
3 - Christopher Rose
If the Catholic church doesn't want to contribute to health insurance, their choice is obvious, stop employing people.
As is often the case with these dubious religious organisations, they are trying to abuse their privileged position.
Dave, you have had some success in influencing my political perception over the years but I think you are on the wrong side of this argument.
Not everything that takes away a degree of freedom is automatically a bad thing; sometimes it just comes down to making a choice and the evidence from all around the world is clear that a system of universal health care is a net benefit to a country.
Sometimes, though not always, the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few.
4 - roger nowosielski
Well, it's because Dave's idea of freedom, a libertarian that he is, is unconnected to the well-being of, and the concern for, the larger community. It sort of floats in outer space.
5 - Zingzing
Dave ignores the fact that under the old health care system, we all paid for these things as well. "liberty" is nothing but a political construct to him and has no basis in reality.
6 - Dan(Miller)
Roger, re #4
How far would you go in contending that freedom should be connected to the well-being and the concern for, the larger community? To what extent should it be connected at the expense, and against the religious principles, of a smaller community?
7 - Christopher Rose
I'd say that there isn't a simple answer.
Sometimes freedom has to be paramount and other times other considerations out weigh it.
Absolute freedom is an impossible, unattainable and undesirable condition.
8 - roger nowosielski
@8
I wasn't referencing this particular issue, DM, which clearly involves conscience (only characterizing Dave's general position).
You're right, of course, to pick up on the tension; and yes, there's got to be a fine balance. But the libertarian concept of freedom does away with the tension, which is my main beef with Dave.
9 - Zingzing
Also find it funny that Dave's concern for employers' religious freedoms trumps the other things he lists...
10 - Dan(Miller)
Christopher, re #7
Of course there is no simple answer. Thank you for making my point better than I did. In my view a simple, and wrong, answer has been articulated.
An Agnostic, having used contraceptives (at my own expense) for years and having no moral scruples against doing so, I find the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, significant here. To what extent are the rights there guaranteed (against Government establishment of religion, prohibiting its free exercise, abridging the freedom of the press and of speech and to assemble peacefully to seek redress of grievances) trumped by new "rights" neither guaranteed nor mentioned in the Constitution?
11 - Christopher Rose
Well, as I said in #3, Dan, if these religious organisations don't want to finance certain aspects of these universal health issues, their choice is stop being employers, which I, for one, don't think they should be anyway.
12 - Dan(Miller)
Christopher, re #11
Yes, religious organizations could certainly do that, though I don't think it should be necessary. Were they to do so, would that serve the needs of the many (your phrase in comment #3) who rely upon the hospitals and other services provided by religious organizations?
13 - Christopher Rose
So you think religious organizations should be above the law? I couldn't disagree more.
Your question is pointless because other bodies could easily provide those services.
14 - lottie jump
the supreme court will decide. the supreme court that has SIX catholic members. the same supreme court that just said that the lutheran church is above the law. no, they didn't say the lutheran church is exempt from the law. they said the lutheran church is above the law.
according to that ruling, if a church secretary in a catholic church saw a priest looking at child porn and called the POLICE instead of the bishop, then she could rightly be fired with no legal recourse. what kind of culture does that encourage? we already know ALL TOO WELL.
so yes, ironically enough, the same institution that has raped children all over the world, brutally beaten orphans all over the world, and at least in spain STOLE and SOLD children, i.e. child trafficking, this SAME INSTITUTION wants you to have more children. and what would they like to do with these children?
the roman catholic church is a POLITICAL INSTITUTION. the vatican is ITS OWN STATE. if the bishops want to lobby the US govt AND CONTROL OUR LAWS then they should register as foreign lobbyists.
get the catholic church and all churches out of schools and hospitals and all public services if they REFUSE TO OBEY THE LAW.
the truth is, the clergy and many devout american catholics,e.g. rick santorum, TRULY BELIEVE that the ONLY REAL AUTHORITY ON EARTH IS THE VATICAN. our governments are merely fictions that they permit us to indulge in, but they aren't real. and that is why the catholic church CONTINUES TO GET AWAY WITH THEIR ORGANIZED CRIME and why they still have the nerve, the gaul even, to suggest that they have any morality whatsoever.
15 - Dan(Miller)
Christopher, re #13 -- So you think religious organizations should be above the law? I couldn't disagree more. Not at all. And I believe the laws, and Obama Administration executive orders, should not be above the Constitution.
You also say, Your question is pointless because other bodies could easily provide those services. Then perhaps they should.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Christopher -
You've made four comments so far in this thread and I agree with everything you've said - good points all. Is this a parallel universe I woke up to? Oh, wait - this is 2012, isn't it? I wish I'd never heard of those Mayan calendars....
17 - lottie jump
just to recap:
1) the vatican IS a government. it's just not our government. it is a foreign government. and that's why it provides the services that governments typically provide.
2) the catholic church has been proven time and time again to be an agent of organized crime, including child trafficking. RICO charges should be brought against the church asap.
3) at the very least american bishops should be registered as foreign lobbyists.
4) nothing will be done because the supreme court is controlled by catholics who believe themselves to be little life-long popes.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan (Miller) -
(1) On the difference between the freedoms of larger communities and smaller communities, are you alluding to blue states (normally more urban) and red states (normally more rural)? If so, I'd reply that red states normally receive more in federal taxes than they give, whereas blue states generally pay more in taxes than they receive...and remember, in the modern Republican world, money equals speech and freedom, thanks to Citizens United.
(2) As Chris said, the RCC doesn't have to employ anyone. Instead of running the hospitals themselves, they could use the money to pay other hospitals to do the procedures they approve of, and NOT pay other hospitals to do the procedures that the RCC doesn't approve of.
But if the RCC wants to run a hospital, they MUST follow federal guidelines for all hospitals.
19 - Dan(Miller)
Glen, re #18
(1) No, I wasn't, as should have been obvious from the context.
(2) It does not seem to be an issue of procedures performed on patients at RCC hospitals, yet. It seems to be a matter of whether, as employers, hospitals must facilitate the provision of contraception and a other goods. Perhaps they should simply cease having hospitals.
There has been no significant comment here on the primacy of the Constitution to federal guidelines; that strikes me as important.
20 - Cindy
Will The Government Aid the Catholic Church in Enforcing Her Principles?
They are one and the same principals. Are they at odds?
21 - John Lake
Cindy,
The point being, if the Catholic Church had its way, her employees wouldn't have the life/conception options available to the rest of society. That Church is highly moral, and the government is in danger of becoming too moral.
22 - Cannonshop
#189 with that repeated saw of "Money", glenn, you ignore that those same red-states get most of it in the form of increased Federal meddling, control, and suppression...for the benefit of the Blue states.
Most "Red" states, Glenn, are predominantly populated by people who would be just fine with LESS Federal spending, if the Feds would only let them alone, allow them access to their resources, etc. etc.
But the Federal level won't accept that, nor will you Democrats.
AS to why that is, or why the Catholic Church (which does NOT recieve federal tax money, or anyone else,f or that matter) should be compelled to pay for elective medical treatments that run directly counter to their morals?
The answer, of course, is that our Civil Masters in D.C. see all americans as equally serfs, here to be forced to support the theories of their betters.
23 - Jet Gardner
As much as I love being often ignored when I try to make a point, I'll risk it again. Good people fled England and crossed the Atlantic to be free of persecution from government instituted religion.
Even up to the mid 1900s you could be killed or persecuted in Ireland just on the grounds of whether you were Protestant or Catholic.
The radical right wing of this country has tried everything they can think of to make sure this country stays CHRISTIAN, persecuting the very people their ancestors fled England to escape!
To fear god is to fear your minister or priest, giving him/her the horrendous and absolute power to put words in the Lord's mouth and emphasize or ignore passages in the bible.
These words have falsly been used to kill millions of Jews, torture and murder hundreds of thousands during the Spanish Inquisitions, and used as an excuse for slavery. Now you want to entrust likeminded people with the reins of our government?
If you have any doubts this country is heading for a religous theocracy, ask yourself this one question...
How many Jewish, Hindu or Muslim holidays does the U.S. Government officially recognize with days off or official celebrations... Then ask yourself why.
Then ask yourself where the black race would be in the U.S. without government intervention, forcing itself on the will of the people to free them from slavery.
So many people are aghast at the overreactions of muslims at the accidental burning of a book... turn those same eyes on a rabid southern baptist preacher claming the earthquakes in Haiti were because of a deal with the devil, or Rick Santorum's crusade against gays...
Or your next door neighbor who says jews will never enter the kindom of heaven unless they accept Christ as their savior.
The only way to protect a people from itself is through government.
24 - roger nowosielski
@21
"... if the Catholic Church had its way, her employees wouldn't have the life/conception options available to the rest of society."
Explain that, John,
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
#189 with that repeated saw of "Money", glenn, you ignore that those same red-states get most of it in the form of increased Federal meddling, control, and suppression...for the benefit of the Blue states.
Based on WHAT???? Exactly HOW do you get to the conclusion that red states have "increased meddling, control, and suppression for the benefit of blue states"????
Out of all the things I've seen you write, Cannonshop, that's about the most inexplicable. Actually, come to think of it, it's NOT inexplicable - it's merely another example of a conservative making up crap that sounds good to him just because it gives him an excuse to hate the other guy...never mind that the crap has ZERO evidence to back it up and a WEALTH of evidence that proves it false.
That federal spending you say red states would "get along just fine without" includes Social Security, military bases, and Medicare. Are you sticking by that statement?