Health insurance and paying for contraception

[Binary]

As I understand it, the USCCB’s opposition to upcoming insurance requirements is that it will force Catholic employers to violate their consciences. Since all health insurance plans will be required to cover contraceptives, Catholic businesses will in effect be subsidizing practices they find morally impermissible.

So what about us Catholics who don’t own businesses? Do we have a moral obligation to drop our health insurance if this law passes? I don’t even know if my current health insurance plan covers contraceptives. Would I be materially supporting contraception if my plan does cover it?

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t think there is a problem as long as you aren’t directly paying for your own plan. Most people have their insurance paid for by their employer. If you were presented with different options: one covering contraceptive services and one not, it would behoove the Catholic to choose the latter. Most people don’t have such an option.

One option that may benefit all is if the employer would be allowed to increase their employees’ wages by a set amount to defray the cost of insurance and have that meet the requirement for providing insurance.

 

[Nate13]

Yeah I don’t know all the intricacies of how it works but it would seem to me your only paying for your plan. I would definitely stink that you have to pay for the option to receive contraceptives for free that you have no plan on using, but I don’t see that as being particularly sinful. You could probably argue some very indirect facilitation of evil, but it pales in comparison the facilitation of evil that would be required of business owners and religious organizations who are directly being required to facilitate others sins.

 

[Binary]

I am having money withheld from my check to pay for insurance (just checked my paystub to verify). As far as I know, I could opt out of making these payments. I don’t see the moral difference between my situation and those of Catholic business owners.

 

[Nate13]

I am having money withheld from my check to pay for insurance (just checked my paystub to verify). As far as I know, I could opt out of making these payments. I don’t see the moral difference between my situation and those of Catholic business owners.

Is your money paying for someone else to use contraceptives? Right now all your doing from what I see is throwing money down the tube for something you will never use. You could argue indirect cooperation because of the fact that your part of the health insurance company as a whole, but overall what your being required to do does not compare to what is being required of the Church.

The sin that the Church does not want to commit is scandal. Can you explain how what your doing could be considered scandal?

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P80.HTM

 

[SonCatcher]

I am having money withheld from my check to pay for insurance (just checked my paystub to verify). As far as I know, I could opt out of making these payments. I don’t see the moral difference between my situation and those of Catholic business owners.

In all likelihood, that withholding is much less than the actual cost of your insurance premiums. Many families would be impoverished by attempting to pay the entirety of their insurance premiums (even if you could find publicly available coverage that lacked the offending “benefits”). Premiums that aren’t even tax-deductible (thereby increasing their effective cost). In such a case, it does become necessary to evaluate the impact of going it alone against staying in the program.

The principle of double-effect comes into play.
You accept insurance at reasonable personal cost (morally neutral) to provide for the physical well-being of your family (morally good). Said insurance happens to cover contraceptive services (morally repugnant), though your family doesn’t receive those services (hurrah for your soul).

Since you do something neutral for something good, it seems there is nothing wrong.

Meanwhile, paying a great amount for insurance may actually be morally bad if it needlessly impoverishes your family.

YMMV - talk to your confessor for details.

 

[Binary]

Thanks for the perspective, guys. So why can’t Catholic business owners invoke the principle of double effect for the same reasons?

 

[SonCatcher]

Thanks for the perspective, guys. So why can’t Catholic business owners invoke the principle of double effect for the same reasons?

If there truly isn’t an insurance plan a Catholic employer could choose that lacks the offending coverage, then he can invoke double effect.

However, if there is insurance available that would lack it then the Catholic employer should be able to choose it.

 

[Binary]

If there truly isn’t an insurance plan a Catholic employer could choose that lacks the offending coverage, then he can invoke double effect.

However, if there is insurance available that would lack it then the Catholic employer should be able to choose it.

Perhaps I misunderstand the USCCB’s position, but it sounds like they could morally comply with the mandate based on what you’re saying.

 

[Nate13]

If there truly isn’t an insurance plan a Catholic employer could choose that lacks the offending coverage, then he can invoke double effect.

However, if there is insurance available that would lack it then the Catholic employer should be able to choose it.

Yeah that is my thought as well. An employer probably could invoke double effect.

To invoke double effect though you have to show that the action your committing is not an intrinsically evil action, and does more good than it does evil.

Despite this though we should never roll over and just accept being required to do evil. There are many many other ways this contraceptive mandate could be done, and it seems to many the administration has chose the method that does the most harm to religious institutions.

I think while a business owner may be able to claim just paying will do more good than harm, religious institutions could not. The scandal caused by them rolling over to the mandate would do far more harm to the Church then the good that would come from paying for insurance.

 

[Nate13]

Perhaps I misunderstand the USCCB’s position, but it sounds like they could morally comply with the mandate based on what you’re saying.

To invoke double effect you must show that more good than evil would come from your action, and that the action your committing is not intrinsically evil. If the Bishops roll over on this I think its fairly easy to see that more harm would come to the Church because of it than good.

Directly facilitating evil I believe is also an intrinsic evil.

 

[Binary]

To invoke double effect you must show that more good than evil would come from your action, and that the action your committing is not intrinsically evil. If the Bishops roll over on this I think its fairly easy to see that more harm would come to the Church because of it than good.

Directly facilitating evil I believe is also an intrinsic evil.

They have my support all the way. I guess what I’m concerned about is that they will continue to oppose it as vehemently as they have, it will take effect anyway, and then they will say “well, we tried, but now we’re going to make the best of a bad situation and keep these insurance plans, despite our earlier talk of ‘cannot/will not comply.’”

Do you think that’s likely?

 

[Nate13]

They have my support all the way. I guess what I’m concerned about is that they will continue to oppose it as vehemently as they have, it will take effect anyway, and then they will say “well, we tried, but now we’re going to make the best of a bad situation and keep these insurance plans, despite our earlier talk of ‘cannot/will not comply.’”

Do you think that’s likely?

They have said they will not. Individual organizations may step out of line, but the Bishops have declared multiple times “they will not comply”

 

[tm30]

This thread is an example of why we need to fight this tooth-and-nail. The government has no right to present before its citizens the choice of violating their consciences or providing for their basic needs. The Church recognizes that the moral burden inflicted on individuals cannot be separated from the moral burden inflicted upon the Church.

 

[SonCatcher]

This thread is an example of why we need to fight this tooth-and-nail. The government has no right to present before its citizens the choice of violating their consciences or providing for their basic needs. The Church recognizes that the moral burden inflicted on individuals cannot be separated from the moral burden inflicted upon the Church.

agreed