Morality of getting birth control to prevent others from getting it

[PeterAgain]

The possibility of an “anti-boycott” has occurred to me.

If the government forces insurance companies to give out free contraception, could a group of Catholics go to a store or pharmacy, get all the condoms they could “for free”, then throw them all away? “Anti-boycotts” could be synchronized so that a sudden shortage of condoms occurred across a city, for example. Or conscientious Catholics could get their “free” condoms (destined for the trash) somewhere many Catholics gather. March for Life in DC, maybe. If the whole city of DC (or even just a part of it) ran out of condoms during a Catholic event, people would notice.

On the other hand, the companies who make the condoms would be paid for them, and the businesses targeted would profit. The end result would be that everyone’s insurance would go up.

I choose condoms as the example because some bc pills have other medical purposes, and that would also have to be taken into consideration.

It seems that the boycott would have to be large and well organized for the good to outweigh the bad.
I just want to hear perspectives on this. At first glance, it seems that this might be a Double Effect type situation. I don’t know what I would do if someone organized an anti-boycott.

 

[klusekpl]

I think in such a situation one should consider both pros and cons. As you already have written such an action could have noticeable impact on the public opinion. On the other hand something like that could not only keep the sales at the same level as usually but even boost them. I don’t know how big profits from contraception in a typical pharmacy are and how many of these products are left unsold on the shelves at the end of the month/week/any other period of time. I think that’s an important question - buying all the condoms that would anyway be bought at the end of the month would cause other people not to buy them at all. Doing so if not all condoms are being purchased could only boost the sales and make the owner of the shop buy more and more BC products.

One should ask someone who has access to the info on sales in a typical pharmacy. My mother works in pharmacy but considering the fact that I’m from Europe, information from her would not be of much use for you.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think the mandate has to do with prescription contraception. Condoms do not require a prescription.

Horomonal contraceptives require a prescription…so you cannot just go buy a bunch of pill packs so that none will be available for others.

 

[Corki]

This is a similar tactic to one used at a past World Youth Day. Some anti-Catholic group (I think it was “Catholics” for Choice) was handing out tracts and condoms. There was another organized group who tried to get as many of these “godie bags” as possible in order to destroy them and keep them out of the attendees hands. I am not sure how successful it was.

 

[bmullins]

As Catholics we believe that we cannot do evil to do good. To get the birth control under false pretenses would be a lie, even if it were to do good (prevent someone else from getting it) it would still be a bad action (sinful.)

 

[Corki]

As Catholics we believe that we cannot do evil to do good. To get the birth control under false pretenses would be a lie, even if it were to do good (prevent someone else from getting it) it would still be a bad action (sinful.)

Agreed. However, where is the lie in the OP’s example?

 

[Leegal]

The possibility of an “anti-boycott” has occurred to me.

If the government forces insurance companies to give out free contraception, could a group of Catholics go to a store or pharmacy, get all the condoms they could “for free”, then throw them all away? “Anti-boycotts” could be synchronized so that a sudden shortage of condoms occurred across a city, for example. Or conscientious Catholics could get their “free” condoms (destined for the trash) somewhere many Catholics gather. March for Life in DC, maybe. If the whole city of DC (or even just a part of it) ran out of condoms during a Catholic event, people would notice.

On the other hand, the companies who make the condoms would be paid for them, and the businesses targeted would profit. The end result would be that everyone’s insurance would go up.

I choose condoms as the example because some bc pills have other medical purposes, and that would also have to be taken into consideration.

It seems that the boycott would have to be large and well organized for the good to outweigh the bad.
I just want to hear perspectives on this. At first glance, it seems that this might be a Double Effect type situation. I don’t know what I would do if someone organized an anti-boycott.

No, you don’t get the ABC for free. The coverage is free to the company of organization. One would have to present the insurance card, and obtain the items with no cost – just like when the doctor writes a rx for antibiotics and the pharmacy tells you that the co-pay is $x.xx, for example. Or they may be no co-pay, but an rx is required. So, you could only obtain one month’s supply at a time – possibly 3. That would be the pill.

The morning after pill can only be dispensed one single pill at a time, and you would have to present the insurance card to obtain the one pill for free. No rx required.

You would not be able to take condoms off the shelf of a pharmacy without paying. That would be stealing.

The concept of free is not “free” to the individual – but free of additional charges to the organization or company who buys a policy, as provided by the insurance company, that forces the organization to include this coverage in the policy. Since the government is trying to use force to provide this coverage, they are misguidedly thinking they can provide the coverage free of charge to the organization. They cannot.

 

[PeterAgain]

One would have to present the insurance card, and obtain the items with no cost – just like when the doctor writes a rx for antibiotics and the pharmacy tells you that the co-pay is $x.xx, for example. Or they may be no co-pay, but an rx is required. So, you could only obtain one month’s supply at a time – possibly 3. That would be the pill.

The morning after pill can only be dispensed one single pill at a time, and you would have to present the insurance card to obtain the one pill for free. No rx required.

You would not be able to take condoms off the shelf of a pharmacy without paying. That would be stealing.

The concept of free is not “free” to the individual – but free of additional charges to the organization or company who buys a policy, as provided by the insurance company, that forces the organization to include this coverage in the policy. Since the government is trying to use force to provide this coverage, they are misguidedly thinking they can provide the coverage free of charge to the organization. They cannot.

From Healthcare.gov:

On August 1, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted additional Guidelines for Women’s Preventive Services – including well-woman visits, support for breastfeeding equipment, contraception, and domestic violence screening – that will be covered without cost sharing in new health plans starting in August 2012.

…

Women will have access to all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods

It seems there will not be “cost sharing” (defined on the website as “including copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles”) for the birth control. Insurance companies are being forced to provide without copays etc.

So, the question is, could a group of Catholics get prescriptions for condoms with the intent of removing them from stores and throwing them out? Could they get prescriptions for other birth control and throw it out? They would not be providing any financial (name removed by moderator)ut themselves, as there are no copays or deductibles involved.

Possibly getting a prescription for something when you intend to throw it out could be considered a lie. I’m interested in hearing all sides on this one.

 

[cornbread_r2]

What would you think if Protestants went to a religious supply store and bought up all of the rosaries and statues of Mary just so Catholics couldn’t have them?

 

[Leegal]

From Healthcare.gov:.

It seems there will not be “cost sharing” (defined on the website as “including copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles”) for the birth control. Insurance companies are being forced to provide without copays etc.

So, the question is, could a group of Catholics get prescriptions for condoms with the intent of removing them from stores and throwing them out? Could they get prescriptions for other birth control and throw it out? They would not be providing any financial (name removed by moderator)ut themselves, as there are no copays or deductibles involved.

Possibly getting a prescription for something when you intend to throw it out could be considered a lie. I’m interested in hearing all sides on this one.

My answer is still “NO.”

 

[Holly3278]

Are condoms even going to be covered by the new health insurance mandate? I was under the impression that only prescription things would be covered in addition to sterilizations.

 

[Nate13]

What would you think if Protestants went to a religious supply store and bought up all of the rosaries and statues of Mary just so Catholics couldn’t have them?

The difference would be they would be buying them lol. If they want to go and buy all that up they are more than welcome. The OP is suggesting we just go and pick up what we have already paid for via the government and then dispose of it. The wallet you would be hurting though would be that of the government who doesn’t exactly seem to care about spending so I’m not sure how successful it would be. I doubt you could cause shortages of contraceptives either.

 

[Catholic90]

So, the question is, could a group of Catholics get prescriptions for condoms with the intent of removing them from stores and throwing them out? Could they get prescriptions for other birth control and throw it out? They would not be providing any financial (name removed by moderator)ut themselves, as there are no copays or deductibles involved.

Possibly getting a prescription for something when you intend to throw it out could be considered a lie. I’m interested in hearing all sides on this one.

First, condoms do not require a prescription. Never have.

Second, if you get the prescription for the BC, the companies would be getting the money. Where exactly do you think this money is coming from?

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

If the whole city of DC (or even just a part of it) ran out of condoms during a Catholic event, people would notice.

Yes, they would notice. And probably conclude that supposedly anti-contraception Catholics were hypocrites.

Luna

 

[Leegal]

How did we all manage to survive before this mandate?

People used birth control. People bought condoms.

Now we have mandates and HHS. How did the country manage to survive before without all this interference?

How much does a month of contraceptive pills cost? Somehow these people who use them managed to buy the prescription. Or buy condoms before all this? Maybe it’s covered in their policies.

I don’t want to stop those whose faith does not prohibit the use of contraception from not having access because that would harm our argument that we should NOT be FORCED to accept this coverage by our moral conscience.

It’s really about Catholic organizations being forced into the appearance of support by proving the coverage, contrary to teaching. If a secular institution provides this coverage, and someone uses it, then I’m not prepared to stop them. I don’t know their conscience or their beliefs so I won’t infringe upon them. I don’t want to see Catholic Universities and other faith based organizations forced to go against their Teachings.

 

[Rainaldo]

It seems that the boycott would have to be large and well organized for the good to outweigh the bad.

It would be interpreted on the news as proof that nearly all Catholics use contraception.

Or, someone would say that Catholics are cruelly barring access to condoms in the hopes of punishing people with babies, which is proof that Catholics don’t care about born people, just the unborn, and are obsessed with other peoples sex lives.

I don’t know what I would do if someone organized an anti-boycott.

Actually, the fact you don’t know, is pretty much proof it’s useless. Because if it worked, it would have been done already with other things, and you would have heard about it.

 

[twoangels]

The condom is not covered. It is specifically prescription only medication. The woman goes to the doctor and gets a prescription. She goes to fill her prescription and her insurance company pays the entire cost. She does not have a copay, she does not need to reach a deductible. There is no co-insurance. In other words, the cost of the prescriptions goes into the premium. The theory is that this will reduce unwanted pregnancies which will reduce the number of births the insurance company is having to pay for. It is going in effect before Obamacare mandates that all insurance companies cover maternity care. If it did not, the additional mandate of maternity care for all plans would raise the cost of the premiums expotentially because of how insanely expensive the typical maternity care costs. Typically insurance companies are able to offer plans with lower premiums to people who don’t intend to give birth. Sometimes they have a maternity rider that people can add if they plan on giving birth. Then there is the issue that some people have been denied maternity coverage because they were covered under the plan after they were pregnant. It then gets denied as a preexisting condition.

Obama isn’t trying to improve the health of individuals. Contraceptive coverage is not a huge finacial burden on insurance companies or even individuals. He is trying to make decisions that won’t make it obvious that his Health plan does not solve the problem of the high cost of health care today. He’s just trying to make it so private individuals are less aware of how high the costs have become.