Is this country REALLY in a debate over BIRTH CONTROL????

[Grace62]

Rolando wrote:
You forgot "No death penalty"

yes! that too.

[davester]

swampy wrote: Just get the government out of reproductive meddling period.

The entire point of Obama's move is to get the government and the church out of reproductive meddling of any kind. Too bad the church insists on taking government money while meddling with the reproductive choices of people who don't believe in what they're pushing.

[$tevie]

swampy wrote: I guarantee you that if it was men getting pregnant, or trying not to get pregnant, there would never be a problem. :burnout:

This is so true.

[Ted King]

The issue here isn't about birth control in general, but about when an employer is a religious institution and the doctrine of the religion is against birth control/contraceptives.

Some people see this strictly in terms of religious freedom.

Some pople don't think religious freedom applies when a religious institution acts as an employer.

I don't agree with either of those views. Religious institutions cannot function in this society without also acting as employers - that applies for almost every single thing that they do. So to take the position that when religious institutions act as employers, they don't have religious freedom would, in practical reality, mean that the state could limit religious freedom quite radically. I don't think it would be wise to limit religious freedom so greatly - even just in theory. But I also don't think that religious freedom should give religious institutions carte blanche exemption from all government regulations that may clash with some aspect of a religions doctrine. So, as I said in another thread, it's a matter of drawing lines - trying to balance the value of religious freedom with the legitimate government regulation of employers.

I think there are subtle but important considerations that should be taken into account by the proponents of drawing the line way on the side of religious institutions being able to be exempt from government regulation of health insurance coverage. I think there is a tendency to think that health insurance is paid for entirely be the employer. But if you look at it closely, that's not really the case. Without government giving health insurance premiums a tax break, employer provided health insurance wouldn't be viable for all but a minority of employers. So the government is vested in employer provided health insurance. But perhaps even more importantly, the vast majority of employer health insurance plans now require that the employee also pay part of the premiums and for a great many employees, their payments amount to a significant fraction of the premium payments. So it's not only the religious institutional employer who is typically financially carrying the financial investment of health insurance - the government and employees also have financial investment. I think that lessens the claim of religious institutions to say that religious freedom trumps the claims of the government to regulate employers and the claim of an employee of a religious institution to get the same benefit as employees of non-religious institutions if they desire to.

If you aren't convinced, then think of this hypothetical: what if the religious institution didn't actually pay any of the cost of health coverage, but instead just served as a way for employees to get a group discount. Should religious freedom still trump everything else if the religious institution wasn't paying for the coverage of their employees? Should they still be able to deny employees that are paying for their own health coverage a benefit that non-religious institution employees get? I can imagine that some people would still say yes. If so, I don't think there's much more that could be said to convince them otherwise.

[Grace62]

It's not about mandates, it's about access. Federal law now says all American women must have access to birth control, among other basic health services not previously covered in many plans. Employers don't have the right to block that access, whether they are religious or not.

Religious institutions are not required to prescribe, recommend, sell, or dispense the birth control. They just cannot tell health insurance plans that they can't cover it.

Seems really basic to me.

And the largest Catholic institutions in the country already have insurance plans that cover birth control, and it has not been a big deal to them, at all. And they were given the option to opt out, but chose not to. Haven't heard a peep out of the Bishops about that. Because they are well aware that the vast majority of their female employees use birth control, Catholic or not.

This is nothing but political. It plays to the extreme base and helps people like Rick Santorum, but it drives women voters (and not a few men too) away in droves. So Republicans, keep it up!!! Please.

[Ted King]

Grace62 wrote:
It's not about mandates, it's about access. Federal law now says all American women must have access to birth control, among other basic health services not previously covered in many plans. Employers don't have the right to block that access, whether they are religious or not.

This part I have trouble with - I'm not sure of the distinction between mandates and access that you are trying to make. But the rest of what you say seems dead on.

Grace62 wrote: Religious institutions are not required to prescribe, recommend, sell, or dispense the birth control. They just cannot tell health insurance plans that they can't cover it.

That's a good perspective to keep in mind.

Grace62 wrote: And the largest Catholic institutions in the country already have insurance plans that cover birth control, and it has not been a big deal to them, at all. And they were given the option to opt out, but chose not to. Haven't heard a peep out of the Bishops about that. Because they are well aware that the vast majority of their female employees use birth control, Catholic or not.

Plus there are already eight states that don't have religious exemptions in their regulations that require health insurers to cover contraception.

Grace62 wrote: This is nothing but political.

It's hard not see the all-of-the-sudden major pushing of this issue doesn't have a lot of political motivation - the politics of the presidential election in particular.

[Grace62]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
It's not about mandates, it's about access. Federal law now says all American women must have access to birth control, among other basic health services not previously covered in many plans. Employers don't have the right to block that access, whether they are religious or not.

This part I have trouble with - I'm not sure of the distinction between mandates and access that you are trying to make. But the rest of what you say seems dead on.

I think the language being used in this debate is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. Notice who we are hearing from? Bishops, nuns, and politicians.
How about female employees of these institutions? The people whose lives are actually impacted by this decision?
I want to hear the Bishops say: "We want the right to deny federally guaranteed access to birth control to all female employees of Catholic institutions, even though we've had that right for some time now and have not used it."
Let's see if they are even willing to say that. If they frame it as a mandate, they don't have to tell the truth about the situation.

[Grace62]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/opinio....html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimescollins&seid=auto

Gail Collins has an excellent and poignant take on all this.

[Mac-A-Matic]

I really haven't followed this issue very closely - despite my Catholic upbringing and my favoritism towards contraceptives.

I was listening to NPR this evening and the gist I'm understanding is that the Catholic Church (in the form of its hospitals and non-church entities) objects to being forced to provide health insurance that provides free (or "free") contraceptives?

Now Obama is tracking to allow the Church to provide health care (sans contraceptives and at a reduced rate) without the contraceptives, but will force the insurance companies to provide contraceptives gratis directly to the end user?

While I know that the Church is against contraception, are they actually pushing for elimination and prevention of access to contraception? Because, with or without this regulation, women still have access - they just have to pay for it?

So what we're talking about here is who actually has to pay for the contraceptives?

If that is the case, why are contraceptives deemed a necessary provision of health insurance? Why do we (collectively) pay for someone else's contraceptives? Why not leave contraception out of health insurance and let people buy their own contraception (as it is now) on an as needed basis?

[mattkime]

>>Why do we (collectively) pay for someone else's contraceptives?

I'm not sure, but i assume its for the same reason we collectively pay for someone else's boner pills.

Isn't politics fun?