Healthcare

[cho_pilo]

So apparently there are provisions in the US new health care bill that would force employers like Catholic hospitals to provide birth control and the morning after pill to their employees as part of providing health insurance. The right wing people are going crazy about this, saying that this proves Obama wants to attack religion, specifically the Catholic church. What do you think? Should all employers have to provide health care, no matter what that specifically entails? Or should an employer, due to religious belief, be able to withhold certain kinds of medical services their employees? What if the employee supports the institution but happens to use contraception, like 98% of Catholics in the US do? What if you are an employee and are not Catholic? Is this an attack on religious freedom?

 

[Heuchler]

Catholics should not have to pay for someone else to buy birth control and abortive medicines. If people are going to commit that sin, the least they could do is pay for it themselves. It is unreasonable to force an institution directly opposed to these things pay for them.

 

[Allegra]

I think that it is a violation of religious rights to force an employer to financially support something that goes against their concience.

I do think it’s a deliberate attack on religious institutions, trying to force them to go against their beliefs. The employees this would impact know they are working for the Church and most of them that work for Catholic services and schools are Catholic themselves. If they do use ABC they are probably fine with purchasing it themselves, especially if the alternative is losing their insurance entirely or even losing their job if the organization is shut down.

I also don’t believe birth control counts as healthcare in the first place. It doesn’t cure or prevent an illness. (except in the case of certain pills being used for endomitriocis and the like) That would be like me saying that I really like tatoos and my health insurance should pay to remove my tatoos so I can go out and get new ones.

 

[pilots13]

I agree with the statement that birth control is really an elective drug/procedure (like lasik) vs a preventative or “necessary” drug/procedure (checkups, cancer treatment, etc). And you can obtain birth control with out using your health insurance (condoms). So I find this a stronger argument against making it mandatory than any other.

A couple questions/observations I had on this topic

1. I presume diocesan health plans do not currently cover any kind of birth control? (haven’t been up to my parish to ask what our archdiocese covers)
2. Insurance covering birth control doesn’t necessarily equal people using birth control.

 

[NeedImprovement]

So apparently there are provisions in the US new health care bill that would force employers like Catholic hospitals to provide birth control and the morning after pill to their employees as part of providing health insurance. The right wing crazies are going ape**** about this, saying that this proves Obama wants to attack religion, specifically the Catholic church …I s this an attack on religious freedom?

Might be more advantageous to have an in-depth look before posting.

Someone who is having an in-depth look is Thomas Peters. He has gone to the trouble of compiling a list ( the list can be viewed here) .

As it currently stands ,

“Of the 183 dioceses (by my count) in the U.S. who have a bishop currently serving as its head, 169 of them have issued statements. So more than 90% of bishops who head dioceses have spoken out against the Obama/HHS mandate.”

There are lots of links provided leading to statements by the dioceses on his list .

Here is a link to the president of the USCCB Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s statement : Bishops Vow to Fight Coercive HHS Mandate .

Here’s one to A letter from Archbishop Dennis M. Schnurr concerning HHS edict , to give readers an idea.

 

[cho_pilo]

I think that it is a violation of religious rights to force an employer to financially support something that goes against their concience.

Once the church starts taking on employees, they’ve entered the realm of the state, and as such they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. If it were a violation of religion rights for the state to force the church to provide the same healthcare as everyone else does to their employees, then by your logic it would also be a violation for equal opportunity employment to apply to them as well. Do you think church-based organizations should be able to discriminate in the hiring process if it were a part of their belief system that, say, women shouldn’t be allowed to work for wages?

I do think it’s a deliberate attack on religious institutions, trying to force them to go against their beliefs. The employees this would impact know they are working for the Church and most of them that work for Catholic services and schools are Catholic themselves. If they do use ABC they are probably fine with purchasing it themselves, especially if the alternative is losing their insurance entirely or even losing their job if the organization is shut down.

As an employer, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Again, following your logic, the CEO of Google, if Catholic, should have the right to deny his or her employees birth control coverage. You see how stupid this is yet?

I also don’t believe birth control counts as healthcare in the first place. It doesn’t cure or prevent an illness. (except in the case of certain pills being used for endomitriocis and the like) That would be like me saying that I really like tatoos and my health insurance should pay to remove my tatoos so I can go out and get new ones.

Also, I don’t think it’s a good idea for you to use profanity in the forums. Even if it’s mild profanity, you could get banned.

It’s not the same thing at all, but one can make an argument as to the necessity of birth control in a health care bill. I think it’s one of those “for the greater good” things, personally.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Once the church starts taking on employees, they’ve entered the realm of the state, and as such they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. If it were a violation of religion rights for the state to force the church to provide the same healthcare as everyone else does to their employees, then by your logic it would also be a violation for equal opportunity employment to apply to them as well. Do you think church-based organizations should be able to discriminate in the hiring process if it were a part of their belief system that, say, women shouldn’t be allowed to work for wages?.

Hi Cho Pilo,

Please try for a moment to put yourself in the position of someone who can’t in good conscience use or help another person use birth control or arbortificient drugs. Before these new laws that would have seemed like a really personal choice. But now all of a sudden that person can no longer be an employer.

A person who otherwise could have found employees willing to work for him without being given birth control, all of a sudden is prevented by law from doing that. He can no longer function as a full citizen. And the law seems like a very abitrary intrusive government intervention into the freedom for people to contract with each other. Being an employer shouldn’t require someone to be part of the state, it should be based on free agreement between employer and employee.

Now, if someone were to, for example, be against the use of money, it would be obvious why that person might not be able to be an employer. But why does a moral opinion on birth control have to prevent someone from being an employer? The two shouldn’t be linked through law.

You might still say “tough luck” but understand that you’re taking away the ability of a segment of the population to earn a living. This is really serious business. Everyone has a right to earn a living and being forced out of business because of your religion is not something people should accept . A government that forces you out of business because of your religion does not deserve any loyalty from its citizens.

 

[raaucoin]

Yes this is an attack on religious freedom. But I have more important concerns right now! I’m headed home to pack a bag for the hospital. Apparently contraception is an important component of women’s health care that I’ve been neglecting for myself. The way the President and the Sec,of HHS put it, women are at GREAT RISK if they do not have birth control.

Well, here I am at 43yrs and have never been on birth control, my health must be failing as I sit here typing.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

It’s not the same thing at all, but one can make an argument as to the necessity of birth control in a health care bill. I think it’s one of those “for the greater good” things, personally.

That’s a utilitarian mindset, not one that is Catholic.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

So apparently there are provisions in the US new health care bill that would force employers like Catholic hospitals to provide birth control and the morning after pill to their employees as part of providing health insurance. The right wing people are going crazy about this, saying that this proves Obama wants to attack religion, specifically the Catholic church. What do you think? Should all employers have to provide health care, no matter what that specifically entails? Or should an employer, due to religious belief, be able to withhold certain kinds of medical services their employees? What if the employee supports the institution but happens to use contraception, like 98% of Catholics in the US do? What if you are an employee and are not Catholic? Is this an attack on religious freedom?

No, they shouldn’t have to. What if the government forced Muslims who were in the food business to sell pork? It doesn’t matter if most muslims eat pork or not, because they’re not following their religion. If a person doesn’t want to follow their religion, they don’t have to, but a religion shouldn’t have to follow the people who claim to follow that religion when they don’t. You shouldn’t force religions to go against what they believe.

 

[Allegra]

Once the church starts taking on employees, they’ve entered the realm of the state, and as such they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. If it were a violation of religion rights for the state to force the church to provide the same healthcare as everyone else does to their employees, then by your logic it would also be a violation for equal opportunity employment to apply to them as well. Do you think church-based organizations should be able to discriminate in the hiring process if it were a part of their belief system that, say, women shouldn’t be allowed to work for wages?

As an employer, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Again, following your logic, the CEO of Google, if Catholic, should have the right to deny his or her employees birth control coverage. You see how stupid this is yet?

It’s not the same thing at all, but one can make an argument as to the necessity of birth control in a health care bill. I think it’s one of those “for the greater good” things, personally.

Were it the case that some religion didn’t believe in women working, I would say, yes they would have the right to not hire any women. That’s like saying that the Church must be required to appoint woman as priests and pastors of churches, even though the Church doesn’t believe a woman can be a priest. I’m a woman and I don’t know why I’d want to work for a religious institution against their will anyway. No, I don’t think my point of view is “stupid”. If the law can’t be followed by everyone in good conscience, then it’s probably an immoral law in the first place. Yes, I think that the president of Google should be allowed to deny coverage for birthcontrol if he or she wants to for moral reasons. I haven’t heard any convincing arguement as the the necessity of birth control at all, much less in a health care bill. Contraceptive medications run the risk of doing harm to the health of the person who is taking them and do absolutely nothing to make them healthier. (Unless you count pregnancy as a disease.) I certainly don’t see where they are a “greater good” or even any good whatsoever. If the “good” you are refering to happens to be population control, than you have to conceed that the issue really isn’t people’s health at all.