+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? (/showthread.php?tid=131632)
So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - beagledave - 02-07-2012
It's not just conservative Catholic bishops who are annoyed with how the Obama administration has handled the health care regulations regarding contraceptive coverage.
I agree with E.J. Dionne (a generally liberal writer for WaPo)
"As a Catholic, I wish the Church would show more flexibility on this question. But as an American, I understand why its leaders felt that the broad contraception mandate encroached on the Church’s legitimate prerogatives. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here."
The National Catholic Reporter is generally regarded as the liberal media outlet for Catholics.
Mark Shields is a prominent liberal, Catholic journalist.
Douglas Kmiec was a prominent backer in 2008 and Obama's former ambassador to Malta.
Melissa Rogers describes a viable alternative used in Hawaii.
Re: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - cbelt3 - 02-07-2012
yes
Re: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - $tevie - 02-07-2012
Can someone explain what the problem is, exactly? The health care plan provides the coverage, not the company. My health care plan covers plenty of things that I'm never going to use.
Re: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - beagledave - 02-07-2012
$tevie wrote:
Can someone explain what the problem is, exactly? The health care plan provides the coverage, not the company. My health care plan covers plenty of things that I'm never going to use.
You mean explain why an organization might be bothered by the notion that they are required to pay for services (administered by a third party insurance company) that they have ethical objections to?
Really?
There is a big difference between "I'm never going to use this service" and "I find this service morally objectionable".
Re: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - $tevie - 02-07-2012
I can't figure how how they are "paying" for the services. You mean because their premiums go into the company's pot and the company's pot covers the services?
Re: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - cbelt3 - 02-07-2012
I'll state this VERY simply.
1- The Democratic Party has made access to Abortion and Contraception a "Women's Rights" issue. And those who disagree are happily labeled "Misogynistic". Fine, great, politics in action.
2- To sell it, Abortion and Contraception has also been labelled a "Public Health" service.
3- People are allowed to refuse Immunizations (which are at the heart of Public Health) for "Religious or Ethical issues".
4- Church organizations which hold Abortion especially and Contraception somewhat to be against their principles are being forced to PAY to provide them as part of their health insurance programs.
Can you see the conflict between points #3 and #4 ? When someone can refuse an immunization that is the center of true public health (you get sick, other members of the public will get sick too) and NOT refuse to provide procedures and medications that affect the health of one individual only ... and use the same reasoning ?
It's confusing as hell.
(Note... a huge majority of American Catholics pay for their own contraceptives. There was usually a line at the drug store to buy condoms after 5 PM Saturday 'Date Mass'. )
Re: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - Acer - 02-07-2012
Apparently, a significant percentage of Catholics disagree with or actively ignore the ban. If the Church were doing its job, its members would not use the services even if available, making the whole thing a moot point.
Re: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - Pops - 02-07-2012
I don't know. This one is a real problem for me. Though an atheist with some serious concerns about the Catholic Church, I can understand the problem with forcing them to provide coverage which contradicts serious theological and moral issues for them.
Yet, providing an exemption would seem to open up a huge can of worms where other private companies would be able to pick and choose based on some set of personal beliefs of a CEO or board of directors.
Re: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - cbelt3 - 02-07-2012
Acer wrote:
...making the whole thing a moot point.
Not So !
It's really all about Government being able to force people into doing something they believe is unethical. Is THAT something you agree with ?
Re: So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it? - beagledave - 02-07-2012
cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=Acer]
...making the whole thing a moot point.
Not So !
It's really all about Government being able to force people into doing something they believe is unethical. Is THAT something you agree with ?
This.
“Throughout our Nation's history, religious bodies have been the preeminent example of private associations that have ‘act[ed] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State.’ Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984). In a case like the one now before us—where the goal of the civil law in question, the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, is so worthy—it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws. To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies ‘independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’ Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).”
Justice Kagan (Obama appointee)