Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

[iloveangels]

Yes. I agree with this. The thing is, this HHS mandate was never necessary! The nation is awash in contraception! There is no shortage of it, and no need for mandated coverage by those whose religion and whose conscience it offends. It seems rather like a forced test to ensure that everyone bow at the altar of the state religion of secularism, rather like Caesar requiring Christians to offer incense at his altar as a test of loyalty.

Yes, and of all the medical services that they could offer for free, why these? These apply to only half the population, the female half. Why did they not choose to offer chemotherapy for free instead, for instance? Men and women both contract cancer and that would apply to both men and women.

Why are they targeting only half the population for free services? Why these services and not other services which are also needed, and potentially applicable to the entire population, not just half?

 

[JonNC]

President Obama has announced a compromise he is willing to enact on his mandatory abortion pill and contraceptive mandate. Employees of religious institutions that don’t believe in that sort of thing will have to ask the organization’s insurance company for the coverage, whereupon the insurance company will have to provide it free of charge without raising the institution’s rates. Thus the insurance company, not the faith-based employer, will be paying for the morning after pills and contraceptives. And the faith-based employer would not be directly providing for them. Rather, the employee would get them off the books.

See washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-to-announce-adjustment-to-birth-control-rule/2012/02/10/gIQArbFy3Q_story.html

Does this really solve the problem?

Aren’t all of the expenses of an insurance company ultimately and necessarily passed on to the customers?

Hi Iggy,
Before I comment, I want to say how much I’ve enjoyed your recent contributions to CAF.

I wish to briefly comment on the bolded, then on the broader issue if I may.

To say that this “compromise” is ok because the insurance company will pass the costs on simply ignores a second moral breach by the administration, that being, without consent of the insurance company, the government has dictated that they must turn over their property to others without compensation (the ability to charge others for that property only increases the number of victims of what can only be called theft.
I see no constitutional power granted to the Congress or Executive to, by regulatory fiat, dictate that insurance companies’ property is subject to redistribution at the whim of a president or HHS secretary. The attack on property rights here is no less tyrannical than the attack on religious freedom.

On the broader issue, it is clear for anyone to see that when government assumes upon itself powers not granted to it by the people in the Constitution, the victim is and must be individual liberty. I would therefore suggest we listen to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, along with the Constitution.

Jon

 

[alohafri]

I wonder if they are taking this into account? I am sure the church has no problem if the pill is used for medical reasons other than birth control. If they are using that stat it is deceiving.

What DOES the church say about the pill for medical reasons? I can’t seem to find the information.

 

[Nate13]

What DOES the church say about the pill for medical reasons? I can’t seem to find the information.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

 

[oneofmany]

What DOES the church say about the pill for medical reasons? I can’t seem to find the information.

That would need to be answered by a Catholic doctor. BUT if a woman is taking it for years, it has to be for birth control.

I know it can be prescribed for many things, even to clear up acne but I don’t think it needs to be taken for years and years. It should be for a temporary problem and taken care of fairly fast. If one needs to take it for years I am sure there are other meds for the issue.

Plus, the morning after pill is never for anything else but preventing pregnancy.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I don’t believe in nuclear weapons, but I still have to pay taxes that are used to build these monstrosities. Our new health insurance laws are not forcing anyone to use birth control or to have an abortion. I think that our Church leaders should stop trying to use secular law to enforce their dictates onto the general population. Other religions have legitimately different viewpoints about abortion and birth control. Scripture does not support the idea that abortion is murder. See Exodus 21:22. According to the Law of Moses the penalty for causing an involuntary abortion is just a monetary fine. None of those 613 Laws prohibit voluntary pregancy termination even though that practice was recorded in ancient Egypt at the time that the Hebrews were enslaved there.
I further believe that all the ranting by Church leaders on this issue is really nothing more than a smokescreen which diverts attention from the real issues of aggressive war, nuclear weapons, and unilateral disarmament. Our great Teacher, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef, provided us with the perfect example as to how to deal with enemies. He refused to fight and paid a terrible price as a result. His followers should give up warfare and accept the consequences .

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t believe in nuclear weapons, but I still have to pay taxes that are used to build these monstrosities. Our new health insurance laws are not forcing anyone to use birth control or to have an abortion. I think that our Church leaders should stop trying to use secular law to enforce their dictates onto the general population. Other religions have legitimately different viewpoints about abortion and birth control. Scripture does not support the idea that abortion is murder. See Exodus 21:22. According to the Law of Moses the penalty for causing an involuntary abortion is just a monetary fine. None of those 613 Laws prohibit voluntary pregancy termination even though that practice was recorded in ancient Egypt at the time that the Hebrews were enslaved there.
I further believe that all the ranting by Church leaders on this issue is really nothing more than a smokescreen which diverts attention from the real issues of aggressive war, nuclear weapons, and unilateral disarmament. Our great Teacher, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef, provided us with the perfect example as to how to deal with enemies. He refused to fight and paid a terrible price as a result. His followers should give up warfare and accept the consequences .

I thought you guys might have a problem with birth control too. Not so, eh? Interesting.
If they get away with this, wait til you see what’s next.

 

[MorningSong51]

Absolutely.
This is the thing about most, what I call, “Random Statistics”. Statistics quoted out of context of the specific study and related stats contained in said study.
They really tell you nothing of any value and worse, they give a false impression.
Then you add in the “telegraph effect” of these things being passed around and you have something like this:
“XYZ study found that, of 3,517 women responding who identified themselves as Catholic, 3,440 said that they had used some form of artificial birth control at some time in their life.” Of these, 2,174 said it was during a period when they were not practicing their faith, 896 said it was during a period of high stress and family difficulty, and 1,854 say that they now believe they were wrong to have used it.
This what is published in some reputable journal…
But after being passed around and discussed by several people it becomes reported at coffee breaks and over lunch as:
98% of Catholic women use artificial birth control.

NOTE ON ABOVE - THESE NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP BY ME AND REPRESENT NO PUBLISHED STUDY - DO NOT REPEAT THEM OUTSIDE OF THIS CONTEXT!!!

My point being here that even a well conducted study seeking to obtain good clear and useful numbers can quickly become useless by being quoted out of context and without supporting information - usually by people who have little idea of the necessary rigors involved in developing, conducting, analyzing and reporting a good statistical study.

More often these things are used by people with some agenda which this particular number (out of context) seems to support or can be used for shock value.
Then others, who don’t recognize the misleading and “out of context” character of the statement, repeat it…and on it goes…

I hate that statistics have such a bad reputation among the masses. Statistical analysis can and does provide much good information. Unfortunately they are too often misused - misapplied - the result of poorly designed experiments and studies - and then they are worse than useless.

Color me frustrated :banghead:

Peace
James

Agree! Totally - Yes, also I applaud you for explaining this to everyone. Even the best polls have problems with fashioning their questions to avoid bias, confusion, and distortion (Asher 2001, 44-61). The numbers - and I want to say “numbers” are statistical figures, so whoever conducted that research only wanted the percentage. Instead of using these numbers to benefit an agenda, they had been used to show what percentage of the majority used them, was it used to discredit? Personally, I don’t think that it was. Even though, at the initial viewing, sent shock waves to many of us - I still believe that the numbers were used to offer these services to women without guilt of coming within the church’s domain. Again, these figures are not going to sway the church into feeling different or will it change its view on contraceptive, nor can the majority or minority of people within the congregation change the doctrine of the church - so really, it was the mentality behind it: see article: Birth Control

Again, and also color me with the same frustration, and being the thought behind the actions,that whoever flipped the bill on this research did not really thing about the church and its members or if they did, it wasn’t done with the right intent.

 

[MorningSong51]

That would need to be answered by a Catholic doctor. BUT if a woman is taking it for years, it has to be for birth control.

I know it can be prescribed for many things, even to clear up acne but I don’t think it needs to be taken for years and years. It should be for a temporary problem and taken care of fairly fast. If one needs to take it for years I am sure there are other meds for the issue.

Plus, the morning after pill is never for anything else but preventing pregnancy.

Only problem with taking birth control for medical reasons - and I’ll give one example: endometriosis, stopping these pills will cause the symptoms of endometriosis to return and another, if you do get pregnant - endometriosis, still can return back after the pregnancy. Also, and not to step on your toes, birth control hormones are the hormone therapy that is least likely to cause bad side effects. For this reason, many women can use them for years. Other hormone therapies can only be used for several months to 2 years. Ovarian cancer risk is higher in women who have endometriosis. Using birth control hormones for 5 or more years lowers this risk. Danazol may increase ovarian cancer risk.

Women should check with their physicians to seek out other alternatives that will work for them - and the one that I used was covered under my health insurance, at the time. The insurance company, didn’t like it because of the cost, but it was covered. Also, especially with OB/Gyn, check with the rectory at your church or with the women within your parish, to get their personal intake - and that the physician is complying with the church doctrine.

 

[oneofmany]

My niece had endometriosis really bad. She suffered with it for years but she wanted children. She had 3 children and got a hysterectomy after the 3rd. Her pregnancies were very bad as well.

That is another question for a Catholic doctor but if one is going to have a medical problem that could led to death, then a final solution like hysterectomy should be called for IMO. If she stayed on birth control pills it would result in the same thing—no more children plus maybe aborted children from the pill interfering with fertilized eggs.

 

[amsaric]

To me sex is a tool for creating babies and no more,

Sex is also the the way a married couple connects in the most intimate way and becomes one person in love. It’s not just a procreational tool. It’s also an expression of married love.

 

[JRKH]

I don’t believe in nuclear weapons, but I still have to pay taxes that are used to build these monstrosities.

I agree with this, and in fact our taxes are also used to fund things like planned parenthood which provides abortion services. So essentially we are already, as you say, "pay(ing) taxes that are used to (fund) these monstrosities (abortion).
The matter under discussion is essentially different.

Our new health insurance laws are not forcing anyone to use birth control or to have an abortion.

Note the essential difference between the first statement and this one…“Taxes” and “Insurance”. Taxes are paid directly to the government and go into a general fund. Some of the things that taxes are used for I might disagree with, but…I must pay my taxes.
“Insurance” is another matter entirely.

I think that our Church leaders should stop trying to use secular law to enforce their dictates onto the general population.

As you say above, the law does not force anyone to have an abortion. But the question then becomes, who pays for it. Who provides the coverage, the information etc on the matter? The Church is not forcing it’s dictates on the general population. They are simply saying that the Church, and it’s affiliated organizations, cannot, and will not, pay for these things. Forcing them, by law, to do so is a violation of the Separation of Church and State. And this is the real crux of the matter.

Other religions have legitimately different viewpoints about abortion and birth control.

And they are free to purchase whatever insurance coverage best fits with their beliefs and principles. Why should the Catholic Church and those who believe like we do have our religious freedom curtailed?

I further believe that all the ranting by Church leaders on this issue is really nothing more than a smokescreen which diverts attention from the real issues of aggressive war, nuclear weapons, and unilateral disarmament. Our great Teacher, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef, provided us with the perfect example as to how to deal with enemies. He refused to fight and paid a terrible price as a result. His followers should give up warfare and accept the consequences .

I suppose that this is a matter for an entirely different thread.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Only problem with taking birth control for medical reasons - and I’ll give one example: endometriosis, stopping these pills will cause the symptoms of endometriosis to return and another, if you do get pregnant - endometriosis, still can return back after the pregnancy. Also, and not to step on your toes, birth control hormones are the hormone therapy that is least likely to cause bad side effects. For this reason, many women can use them for years. Other hormone therapies can only be used for several months to 2 years. Ovarian cancer risk is higher in women who have endometriosis. Using birth control hormones for 5 or more years lowers this risk. Danazol may increase ovarian cancer risk.

Women should check with their physicians to seek out other alternatives that will work for them - and the one that I used was covered under my health insurance, at the time. The insurance company, didn’t like it because of the cost, but it was covered. Also, especially with OB/Gyn, check with the rectory at your church or with the women within your parish, to get their personal intake - and that the physician is complying with the church doctrine.

My niece had endometriosis really bad. She suffered with it for years but she wanted children. She had 3 children and got a hysterectomy after the 3rd. Her pregnancies were very bad as well.

That is another question for a Catholic doctor but if one is going to have a medical problem that could led to death, then a final solution like hysterectomy should be called for IMO. If she stayed on birth control pills it would result in the same thing—no more children plus maybe aborted children from the pill interfering with fertilized eggs.

If I may interject here just briefly and with respect…

On these boards, by their very public nature, we are limited to sharing and upholding the documented Church teachings. In other words, all we can do is uphold what is “normative” in Catholic teaching. This can sometimes sound harsh, dogmatic, unfeeling etc.
BUT…
We cannot really know and understand the great many variables and nuances that go into a specific issue being dealt with by very specific and unique individuals. We cannot, on the public board) have the kind of deep, personal, private conversation necessary to really begin to understand another over time. That is what pastor’s, councilors, doctors, and spiritual directors are for.

My point here being this. When a person has concerns that relate to their specific circumstance, health issue, marriage, etc and so forth…They need to take these concerns to their pastor. The need to talk things over honestly, openly, and prayerfully with him, or whomever he recommends. Then, after some time to really sort through the various issues and combinations of issues, the person needs to be guided privately by their pastor’s advice. AND…This is the key in this matter…Privately.

By privately I mean that, the determination arrived at remains between you, your councilor/pastor and your spouse - period. This is especially true if you have received some sort of dispensation from your pastor - for whatever reason.
The problem occurs when some very personal and unique “dispensation” is spread around and, instead of being something very private, morphs into “Father so-and-so says it’s alright to use the pill”…

Bottom line is - Always start from the normative teaching…If there is cause to consider something outside the “norm” make an appointment to speak with your pastor and, as we often suggest here at CAF, be guided by his (name removed by moderator)ut. BUT then be very quiet about it.

Peace
James

 

[Catholic_Press]

Catholic bishops, energized by a battle over contraception funding, are planning an aggressive campaign to rally Americans against a long list of government measures which they say intrude on religious liberty.

More…

 

[BeMyLove]

There has never been a time, in my lifetime, where we as Christian Catholics need to rally around and give our full support to our Bishops and Clergy as they face the enemy. Please pray!

 

[Manny_DeStefano]

There is more than one level of evil occurring in this mandate. Unquestionably, Obama has intruded upon the free exercise of religion. He did so, after assuring Archbishop Dolan that religious fundamantals would not be infringed upon. He lied.
The administration has focussed this battle upon the “right” to contraception, an alleged women’s reproductive right, whatever that means. God alone gave women the ability to reproduce by way of His devine creation and the sacrament of marriage. I have examined our founding documents at great length throughout the course of my 35 year law practice, and have found a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am not able to locate the right to reproduce that is supposedly guaranteed in the Constitution - perhaps I have an out of date version of that document. in Griswald v Connecticut The Supreme Court found a right to privacy when they determined that contraception must be made open and available. They did not order We the People to provide them for free.
Obama has sophistically presented RU 486 as a contraception method, niot the abortion medication that it is, killing a baby.
The administrati9n has decidedd to divide us, women whose “rights” to contraception are being fought for by the benevolent Obama and the evil church with their desire to subjugate and supress women by challenging the mandate. the issue of violation of the First Amendment has been swept under the rug, particularly by the main stream media, and is being presented as a womens rights issue. Since most Catholics do not abide by Pope Paul’s stand on contraception, the administration knew that they would win thi battle so long as they could control the issue. They have done so and they have already won.
The scope and magnitude of evil of this president is frightening.

 

[Munus43]

What everyone here seems to lose sight of is simply this, individuals who have health insurance that provides contraceptive coverage as a benefit, have the choice to use the benefit or not. If using birth control dooms the offender to the fires of hell, well then I’m afraid that many Catholics are doomed regardless of how good they’ve been. The statistics stating the percentage of people who have at one time or another during their reproductive years used some form of contraceptive is very close to the truth. In the past I often said that American Catholics are shopping cart Catholics but heard a better description recently, “Cafeteria Catholics.” They take what they like and leave what they don’t. I would imagine that providing contraceptive coverage as a benefit in a health insurance plan would certainly be more cost effective then covering the expense of births. I believe this is a win/win for insurance companies.

 

[Miriam1947]

On the broader issue, it is clear for anyone to see that when government assumes upon itself powers not granted to it by the people in the Constitution, the victim is and must be individual liberty. I would therefore suggest we listen to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, along with the Constitution.

Jon

Perhaps if Catholic Charities, the Catholic Hospital Association and the bishops and nuns hadn’t gotten into bed with the government those many years ago, we would not be fighting for our religious freedom today.

It would be nice if the leadership in the USA at least believed in and followed the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Instead they voted for social programs over the unborn. And government enforced giving is not charity it is stealing.

 

[fix]

What everyone here seems to lose sight of is simply this, individuals who have health insurance that provides contraceptive coverage as a benefit, have the choice to use the benefit or not.

No one lost sight of it. It just is not the issue at play here.

 

[JimG]

What everyone here seems to lose sight of is simply this, individuals who have health insurance that provides contraceptive coverage as a benefit, have the choice to use the benefit or not.

Individuals are free to use it or not. But under the mandate, employers who have a moral objection to providing this coverage have lost their right to obtain insurance coverage that is morally acceptable to them.

Catholic institutions may violate their religion by providing immoral coverage. Or they may accept the mandate and abandon their religion. Or they may cancel insurance coverage and pay a fine for exercising their religion.

Catholic insurance companies which now provide morally acceptable coverage will be forced out of business because of their religious convictions.

Catholic businesmen who wish to provide morally acceptable coverage may abandon their religion and obey the mandate, or keep their religion, drop insurance coverage, and pay a fine for exercising their religion.

Is this still America?

Do we still have freedom of religion?