Women oppose contraception mandate on legal, medical grounds [CNA]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CNA_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CNA_News

Guest
Washington D.C., Feb 28, 2012 / 01:35 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Women in fields ranging from law to medicine denounced the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, arguing that it violates religious freedom and promotes a culture that degrades women.

“This whole idea of contraception, sterilization and abortifacients as being necessary for a woman’s health is actually demeaning to women,” said Gloria Purvis, a policy director at a major financial services company and board member for the Northwest Pregnancy Center and Maternity Home.

She explained that this idea is based on the belief “that women, because of our fertility, are deficient, and we need fixing,” and warned that the mandate “further presses this false perception into the American psyche.”

Purvis took part in a Feb. 27 panel of women at the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C. that spoke out against the Jan. 20 mandate announced by the Obama administration.

The federal rule, which has sparked intense protest from religious groups in recent weeks, will require employers to provide health insurance plans that include contraception, sterilization and abortifacients.

Purvis, who has also served on the National Black Catholic Congress’ Leadership Commission, said that the Catholic Church is engaged in a spiritual battle for religious freedom.

She added that the ability to create and foster life is already “undervalued” in our culture and predicted that if the mandate succeeds, it will further an attitude of “hostility toward motherhood.”

The Catholic Church offers true liberation for women, she said, explaining that “it’s the Church that allows me full membership without asking me to check my fertility at the door.”

Dr. Marie Anderson, chief medical officer of the Tepeyac Family Center in Fairfax, Va., said that as an OB-GYN, she feels set up to be a “pawn” in the administration’s attacks on liberty and human dignity.

Anderson, who serves as the president of the Northern Virginia Guild of the Catholic Medical Association, said that women should not accept a culture that assumes they will allow their bodies to be “violated” by medication.

“People talk about the pill as if it were candy,” she said. “And it’s not.”

She outlined a long list of serious side effects associated with the birth control pill, including deadly blood clots and strokes.

Anderson said that it is “just wrong” to “break” a healthy reproductive system with medication.“It’s taking fertility, which is a healthy state, and calling it a disease.”

She added that birth control rejects the amazing opportunity for “taking part in a miracle, that of bringing a life into a world” and instead “turns sexual relations into merely a contact sport.”

“Women deserve better,” she said.

Maria Montserrat Alvarado, director of operations for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, emphasized that the debate “is a First Amendment issue.”

She said that it is “completely untrue” to suggest that the current debate is a battle between the Catholic Church and American women.

Nor is it “an access issue,” she added, explaining that income-based clinics across the country already offer access to contraception for those who desire it.

Rather, she said, it is about the rights of religious individuals who deserve to be treated as full citizens.

“It’s not for the government to decide what qualifies as violating my own conscience,” added Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director to the Judicial Crisis Network.

The American founders understood human nature and created a limited government in order to fight against the human “tendency” toward tyranny, Severino explained.

They knew that rights come from God, not the government, and they listed freedom of religion as the first of these cherished rights in the First Amendment, she said.

Severino denounced the modern idea that government has the authority to force people to violate their consciences. “That is the definition of tyranny,” she said.

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/Y-Na92X-i2g

Full article…
 
I agree that Churches should not be required to follow some secular laws. However, the proposed law about birth control is one that does not apply to churches but to hospitals and organizations run by religious organizations… Obama changed it so the Church does not have to pay for the coverage for people under their employ, so I fail to see the objection. Also, is it fair to take federal money and not abide by federal rules? My understanding is that Catholic Charities , for example, gets 68% of its funding from the government. If true, than I see no problem in asking the Church to comply. This is not about government control over religion…it is about setting up a preventive health care program that will lower costs. How can the Church demand that non-Catholics who work for them have to abide by their religious rules? Is that not too much control as well?
 
I agree that Churches should not be required to follow some secular laws. However, the proposed law about birth control is one that does not apply to churches but to hospitals and organizations run by religious organizations… Obama changed it so the Church does not have to pay for the coverage for people under their employ, so I fail to see the objection. Also, is it fair to take federal money and not abide by federal rules? My understanding is that Catholic Charities , for example, gets 68% of its funding from the government. If true, than I see no problem in asking the Church to comply. This is not about government control over religion…it is about setting up a preventive health care program that will lower costs. How can the Church demand that non-Catholics who work for them have to abide by their religious rules? Is that not too much control as well?
No one is required to work for any Catholic institution. Employees know full well what is being offered prior to agreeing to work at the place.

In regards to taking government money. The government isn’t gifting them money. It is payment for services rendered. I assume you would be fine if your employer decided to start dictating how you could spend your paycheck? Because after all your getting money from them, so they should get to dictate how you spend it, right?:eek:
 
Every single day the government dictates how my taxes are spent. In this situation the Church is NOT being asked to give any money…it is up to the non-Catholic individual to make that arrangement with the insurance carrier if they want coverage for birth control and then pay for it themselves… I simply don’t see anything wrong with that at all. If given the chance I would not have given one dime to the Gulf, Iraq or Afghanistan wars. . …I .would love to have the same concession that the Catholic Church is getting so that I don’t have to contribute to these wars simply because I find them immoral.

If it worked the same way as the insurance plan…I would simply call the government and say sign me up for the war and here is my payment. 🤷
 
Every single day the government dictates how my taxes are spent. In this situation the Church is NOT being asked to give any money…it is up to the non-Catholic individual to make that arrangement with the insurance carrier if they want coverage for birth control and then pay for it themselves… I simply don’t see anything wrong with that at all. If given the chance I would not have given one dime to the Gulf, Iraq or Afghanistan wars. . …I .would love to have the same concession that the Catholic Church is getting so that I don’t have to contribute to these wars simply because I find them immoral.

If it worked the same way as the insurance plan…I would simply call the government and say sign me up for the war and here is my payment. 🤷
Sorry to inform you, but once that money leaves your pocket, it’s no longer your money and you don’t get to choose how it’s spent. Forcing a self-insured Catholic institution to pay for birth control is forcing the Church to pay. And the birth control rider is not an option. It is required by everyone to have as part of the minimum level of insurance. You don’t take it, you get fined.
 
I live in a state that has just passed a law to force (not offer) women to have an unnecessary sonogram before having an abortion. The original bill said that the sonogram had to be an internal one. It was changed because of the outcry. The cost of this mandated procedure must be incurred by the woman herself as insurance companies will not pay for a test that is not necessary. I am against abortion but two wrongs do not make a right. Our Diocesan paper defended this bill.

Now I find out that this kind of forced procedure is already going on in other states. I don’t know if the woman has to pay for them in every state but that is true here. . If the Church is defending this kind of thing than I don’t feel they have any right to complain about the birth control bill…this too is government interference…only in this case it seems to be government interference that they like. . I feel this kind of mandate will just create more late term abortions. If they don’t have the money now- they will come back when they do. Or, even more likely, go to another state.

It may be just one Bishop defending the bill…I don’t know but it is definitely wrong.
 
I live in a state that has just passed a law to force (not offer) women to have an unnecessary sonogram before having an abortion. The original bill said that the sonogram had to be an internal one. It was changed because of the outcry. The cost of this mandated procedure must be incurred by the woman herself as insurance companies will not pay for a test that is not necessary. I am against abortion but two wrongs do not make a right. Our Diocesan paper defended this bill.

Now I find out that this kind of forced procedure is already going on in other states. I don’t know if the woman has to pay for them in every state but that is true here. . If the Church is defending this kind of thing than I don’t feel they have any right to complain about the birth control bill…this too is government interference…only in this case it seems to be government interference that they like. . I feel this kind of mandate will just create more late term abortions. If they don’t have the money now- they will come back when they do. Or, even more likely, go to another state.

It may be just one Bishop defending the bill…I don’t know but it is definitely wrong.
Given the gravity of killing a baby in the womb, don’t you think it is is a small intrusion for the woman to be given the choice of viewing an ultrasound?

There is evidence women considering an abortion would like to see an ultrasound:

“In one of the few studies of the issue — there have been none in the United States — two abortion in British Columbia found that 73 percent of patients wanted to see an image if offered the chance. Eighty-four percent of the 254 women who viewed sonograms said it did not make the experience more difficult, and none reversed her decision.”

nytimes.com/2010/05/28/health/policy/28ultrasound.html
 
I as a catholic support the pill being covered by insurance. I’m on the pill and have been for a while.
 
I as a catholic support the pill being covered by insurance. I’m on the pill and have been for a while.
Why should someone else have to violate their conscience to pay for your birth control? That’s quite self-centered. I’m sure you can find low-cost birth control without encroaching on my religious freedom.
 
I as a catholic support the pill being covered by insurance. I’m on the pill and have been for a while.
But why should anybody else be forced to pay for your personal choices.

Why shouldn’t gym memberships be a part of the HHS mandate? Obesity is a public problem and insurance covered gym memberships could cut down obesity rates.
 
I recall legally, in the state of Washington a similar contraception and abortion service mandate was ruled illegal, as it went against religious freedom. I wouldn’t not be surprised if the same happened with Obama’s mandate.

“Becket Fund victory: Federal judge upholds religious liberty in Washington state”

michellemalkin.com/2012/02/23/becket-fund-victory-federal-judge-upholds-religious-liberty-in-washington-state/

snippet:
A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Washington state cannot require pharmacists to dispense emergency contraceptives if to do so violates their religious beliefs.
U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton declared the state regulation unconstitutional because it trampled on pharmacists’ right to “conscientious objection.”
The ruling only applies to Washington state but is sure to reverberate nationally, as it comes in the midst of a roiling political debate about a new federal regulation mandating that all health insurance plans – even those sponsored by religious employers – provide free birth control.
 
Why should someone else have to violate their conscience to pay for your birth control? That’s quite self-centered. I’m sure you can find low-cost birth control without encroaching on my religious freedom.
Judgmental much? Guess what sweetie, I’m 26 and a virgin. My doctor has me on birth cotrol because I was only having 2 periods a year. That put me at a high rist iv ovarion cancer later in life. Most of my female friends that take the pill don’t do so for birh prevention, but because of valid health reasons. So sorry if my high chance of cancer offends your faith, but whatever:shrug:
 
But why should anybody else be forced to pay for your personal choices.

Why shouldn’t gym memberships be a part of the HHS mandate? Obesity is a public problem and insurance covered gym memberships could cut down obesity rates.
Not a personal choice, my doctor wants me on it to regulate my pwriods and preven me from having ovarion cancer in 20 years. I’d call that a valid reason.
 
Not a personal choice, my doctor wants me on it to regulate my pwriods and preven me from having ovarion cancer in 20 years. I’d call that a valid reason.
And I believe the way it currently way it works is you can discuss with your employer or insurer if you want to have contraception as part of that package, but it shouldn’t forced on an employer to pay for contraception.
 
Here is an interesting question: is viagra still covered by insurance? If so, why should An employer pay for some old dude to have an erection?
 
Given the gravity of killing a baby in the womb, don’t you think it is is a small intrusion for the woman to be given the choice of viewing an ultrasound?

There is evidence women considering an abortion would like to see an ultrasound:

“In one of the few studies of the issue — there have been none in the United States — two abortion in British Columbia found that 73 percent of patients wanted to see an image if offered the chance. Eighty-four percent of the 254 women who viewed sonograms said it did not make the experience more difficult, and none reversed her decision.”

There is a big difference between a woman wanting an ultra sound and being forced by the state to have one. I have no problem if the woman is asked and says yes, especially since she is required to pay for it regardless. I think it is a terrible ineffective way to limit abortions- because there are so many better thinks we can be doing. All this will do is force the woman to another state or, if she does not have the money, to a later term abortion. As far as I am concerned the earlier an abortion is preformed on a woman who is determined to have one—the better. Plus the Medical Association said a sonogram early on shows nothing. If the state is requesting it…the state should pay for it. Personally, this is one law I would like to see the ACLU get involved in. Because there is no question it is not Constitutional.
 

Re: Women oppose contraception mandate on legal, medical grounds [CNA]
I as a catholic support the pill being covered by insurance. I’m on the pill and have been for a while.​

I agree with you 100%. The government is not trying to force the Church to pay for anything. The women would request coverage through her insurance. I get angry because in trying to prevent abortion, the church overlooks that birth control is a heck of a lot better option for someone who is not emotionally, or mentally ready to have a child than abortion later. . EVERY CHILD DESERVES TO BE WANTED. . I was a case worker and saw so many children in families that were hungry, neglected or abused that I simply don’t believe every person who has sex should be a parent. You can’t stop them from having sex…and birth control is a lot better than an abortion OR EVEN WORSE – having a child grow up in a horrible family situation where they are mistreated and abused. Read the papers - it happens every day. I wish all the Church leaders would be forced to visit a few houses where the children have been mistreated physically, mentally and spiritually. Birth control is definitely the lesser of the evils. In an ideal world we would not be dealing with this - but the world is far from ideal…and children take the brunt of it.
 
I live in a state that has just passed a law to force (not offer) women to have an unnecessary sonogram before having an abortion. The original bill said that the sonogram had to be an internal one. It was changed because of the outcry. The cost of this mandated procedure must be incurred by the woman herself as insurance companies will not pay for a test that is not necessary. I am against abortion but two wrongs do not make a right. Our Diocesan paper defended this bill.

Now I find out that this kind of forced procedure is already going on in other states. I don’t know if the woman has to pay for them in every state but that is true here. . If the Church is defending this kind of thing than I don’t feel they have any right to complain about the birth control bill…this too is government interference…only in this case it seems to be government interference that they like. . I feel this kind of mandate will just create more late term abortions. If they don’t have the money now- they will come back when they do. Or, even more likely, go to another state.

It may be just one Bishop defending the bill…I don’t know but it is definitely wrong.
I am opposed to BOTH the forced sonogram procedure and the birth control mandate. The first is an intrusion of a woman’s civil liberty, while the second is an intrusion of an institution’s religious liberty.
 

Re: Women oppose contraception mandate on legal, medical grounds [CNA]
I as a catholic support the pill being covered by insurance. I’m on the pill and have been for a while.​

I agree with you 100%. The government is not trying to force the Church to pay for anything. The women would request coverage through her insurance. I get angry because in trying to prevent abortion, the church overlooks that birth control is a heck of a lot better option for someone who is not emotionally, or mentally ready to have a child than abortion later. . EVERY CHILD DESERVES TO BE WANTED. . I was a case worker and saw so many children in families that were hungry, neglected or abused that I simply don’t believe every person who has sex should be a parent. You can’t stop them from having sex…and birth control is a lot better than an abortion OR EVEN WORSE – having a child grow up in a horrible family situation where they are mistreated and abused. Read the papers - it happens every day. I wish all the Church leaders would be forced to visit a few houses where the children have been mistreated physically, mentally and spiritually. Birth control is definitely the lesser of the evils. In an ideal world we would not be dealing with this - but the world is far from ideal…and children take the brunt of it.
You really think the Church hasn’t actually been there for children who aren’t wanted or treated fairly? For the children that have been abused and mistreated? The Church knows exactly whats been going on in this world for a millennia. The church is the reason we have orphanages and hospitals. The Church runs some of the most successful charities in the entire world. Saints like Mother Theresa spent their lives helping children all over the world and never profited from it or lived in any state above complete and total poverty.

No, the Church understands perfectly what the world is like. The Church still won’t change it’s policies, not because it’s “right” but because they teach the Truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top