Religious groups must offer employees birth control: US Court

[Catholig]

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071001/ts_alt_afp/usjusticereligionhealth;_ylt=Anui.jVyYyTidD5zn0Pe1AFMEP0E

The above link talks about the Supreme Court rejecting a plea made by some Catholic groups who don’t want to give out birth control to their employees - my question is “now what?” Is the Church going to comply with these laws and violate her moral teachings? What about Catholic Hospitals who are forced to give ECs? I mean…I’d simply stop charity work, until they accept our faith.

Catholig

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Perhaps they should stop offering benefits, instead simply paying employees whatever it costs instead.Then the employees can get benefits themselves?

Chris

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Perhaps they should stop offering benefits, instead simply paying employees whatever it costs instead.Then the employees can get benefits themselves?

Chris

But that would make things too easy!

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Anti-religious Socialism (what has its basis in Marxism) at work.

When Positive Law conflicts with Natural Law, we have an obligation to ignore the Positive Law even to the point of persecution.

 

[Elzee]

Perhaps they should stop offering benefits, instead simply paying employees whatever it costs instead.Then the employees can get benefits themselves?

Chris

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. For employess to individually secure the same type of coverage they can get via their employer due to lower group rates, their employer would have to belly up a LOT more in employee compensation.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I thought, by virtue of the First Amendment, Catholic organizations did not have to provide things that violated the Freedom of religion, just as Catholic hospitals do not have to give out BC or do abortions.
But I might just be wrong.

 

[ljprevo]

Perhaps they should stop offering benefits, instead simply paying employees whatever it costs instead.Then the employees can get benefits themselves?

Chris

The laws restrict that. I don’t know where it is at exactly, but to give an employee a $ amount to get benefits elsewhere is illegal.

They would just have to drop thier benefits and increase thier pay, which would be taxed, unless they offer a Health Visa Card that can put $ tax free towards it.

This whole thing is crazy.

 

[mary_bobo]

But that would make things too easy!

Not to worry. If we get Hillarycare, businesses can (and will) discontinue health care for their employees. Why should they pay for something that is going to be “free”? It’s those pesky little unintended consequences things again.

 

[Pug]

I thought, by virtue of the First Amendment, Catholic organizations did not have to provide things that violated the Freedom of religion, just as Catholic hospitals do not have to give out BC or do abortions.
But I might just be wrong.

The law in question does allow an exception for a fully Catholic organization that only employs Catholics, etc. Catholic Charities, however, employs and serves non-Catholics, so they don’t fall under the exemption that is built into this particular law, afaik. So what is happening appears to be a dispute about what is and is not a Catholic organization.

I wonder what Catholic Charities is going to do?

 

[brittrossiter]

Unfortunately, for Catholic Charities, the only solutions may be to either stop hiring non-Catholics or to stop providing health insurance benefits.

This is an utter travesty of a law.

 

[Nohome]

Unfortunately, for Catholic Charities, the only solutions may be to either stop hiring non-Catholics or to stop providing health insurance benefits.

Or Catholic Charities could simply pay for the insurance benefits and never mind the choices their employees make about birth control. That is, comply with the rule. It’s not like they are forcing BC pills down the throats of their staff, they are just providing health insurance.

It is no different than if a staff member uses their medical insurance to get a vasectomy. It simply isn’t the employer’s business.

Nohome

 

[Elzee]

Or Catholic Charities could simply pay for the insurance benefits and never mind the choices their employees make about birth control. That is, comply with the rule. It’s not like they are forcing BC pills down the throats of their staff, they are just providing health insurance.

It is no different than if a staff member uses their medical insurance to get a vasectomy. It simply isn’t the employer’s business.

Nohome

The difference is they could exempt coverage for certain procedures for certain reasons. For example, they would only cover vasectomies (or birth control pills) if it was needed for a MEDICAL reason other than birth control, and they should have the right to impose this limitation. It is the employer’s business if the employer is a Catholic Institution. They should have the right to not fund procedures that are against the teachings of the Church.

It’s kind of like a breast reduction scenario that is very common in most group plans. Most group insurance will cover this procedure but ONLY if it’s needed for a medical reason (back problems, etc.) - NOT if it’s only for cosmetic reasons.

 

[SemperUbiSubUbi]

I don’t see how it is “none of the employer’s business”. A health care plan is provided as an incentive to work for an employer, or to benefit the employee, or to facilitate work. If an employee can take offense at frequent speeding in a company car, or using a company computer to look at porn, then why not using company provided insurance for services or materials the employer finds objectionable?

 

[Nohome]

I don’t see how it is “none of the employer’s business”. A health care plan is provided as an incentive to work for an employer, or to benefit the employee, or to facilitate work. If an employee can take offense at frequent speeding in a company car, or using a company computer to look at porn, then why not using company provided insurance for services or materials the employer finds objectionable?

What about speeding in a personal vehicle, paid for with money received from work? How about naughty web surfing at home, again using pay from one’s job? Benefits, like pay, are quid pro quo, they are given in exchange for something. Here the charity gives pay and benefits in exchange for the services provided by the employee. What the employee decides to do with what is given to them is entirely their business.

Nohome

 

[LRThunder]

What about speeding in a personal vehicle, paid for with money received from work? How about naughty web surfing at home, again using pay from one’s job? Benefits, like pay, are quid pro quo, they are given in exchange for something. Here the charity gives pay and benefits in exchange for the services provided by the employee. What the employee decides to do with what is given to them is entirely their business.

Nohome

Assuming that is true, why can’t the employees obtain birth control on their own? Why should their Catholic employers be forced to offer it to them?

 

[brittrossiter]

Assuming that is true, why can’t the employees obtain birth control on their own? Why should their Catholic employers be forced to offer it to them?

Exactly.

In a way, I can feel the frustrations of Catholic employers in New York who are now forced to violate their consciences. My tax dollars here in Ohio (as well as all other Ohioans’ tax dollars) are (in part) being used to purchase Viagra for the inmates in Ohio’s correctional institutions.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world…

I’m getting more and more depressed as I type this.

 

[Nohome]

Assuming that is true, why can’t the employees obtain birth control on their own? Why should their Catholic employers be forced to offer it to them?

The State of New York enacted the Women’s Health and Wellness Act in 2002. It requires health plans to cover contraception and other services aimed at women, including mammography, cervical cancer screenings and bone-density exams. New York is one of 23 states to require this.

Catholic Charities could just elect not to provide medical insurance. Or, they could provide medical coverage that does not include a perscription benefit. Both options would not be very appealing to staff and could affect recruitment and retention.

My point is that an employer pays for medical insurance, not the individual medical services obtained by their staff. If people paid for birth control on their own they are still using monetary resources they got from working at Catholic Charities.

Nohome

 

[mdgspencer]

The National Catholic Register just put out an article on this, criticizing Church leaders for not even fighting some of this. This includes requiring Catholic hospitals to provide abortion producing drugs to rape victims in Catholic hospitals and requiring contraceptvie health coverage by Catholic organizations in New York and California. Catholics are being pressured under force of law to violate their religious beliefs, and I think that it will become increasingly obvious that it is necessary not to conform to such laws. After all, the Church is the kingdom of God on earth. Whether this would mean people going to jail or if it is possible to use alternatives, such as dropping employee health coverage altogether, for example, we will have to see. Catholics in such countries as China, communist Ukrane, and of course ancient Rome refused to obey laws violating their religion, and it may well be necessary to pay the price of doing this. No one like to suffer, but that may be the price of loving and obeying God.

 

[Nohome]

Catholics are being pressured under force of law to violate their religious beliefs, and I think that it will become increasingly obvious that it is necessary not to conform to such laws.

Nobody is being pressured to do anything. The law doesn’t mandate that staff must violate their religeous beliefs. Nobody is being required to use birth control. It is the individual employees that make the decision to use birth control, not Catholic Charities.

Nohome

 

[KathleenElsie]

The law in question does allow an exception for a fully Catholic organization that only employs Catholics, etc. Catholic Charities, however, employs and serves non-Catholics, so they don’t fall under the exemption that is built into this particular law, afaik. So what is happening appears to be a dispute about what is and is not a Catholic organization.

I wonder what Catholic Charities is going to do?

This is why IMHO they should only hire Catholics and provide services to Catholics. Otherwise I think they should change their name and become secular in name also. They don’t follow Catholic teaching in many cases anyway.