So, how come we're not talking about Komen vs Planned parenthood?

[amarante]

This doesn't necessarily mean that those same women believe that the government should regulate what the Church must provide. I would guess that there are Catholic women (and women of other faiths) who've had abortions but believe it's wrong. In the end, it's just a statistic.

The reason I brought up the statistics about Catholic usage of contraceptives was in response to the original post in which a question was raised as to why there wasn't a great public commotion about it.

Contraception is something that is used by almost every sexually active woman at some point in her life - even Catholics. I would imagine that a lot of Catholics working for "Catholic" institutions would be happy if their health coverage picked up the cost and therefore there isn't to be a large constituency opposing it.

[ClaraB]

Contraception is something that is used by almost every sexually active woman at some point in her life - even Catholics. I would imagine that a lot of Catholics working for "Catholic" institutions would be happy if their health coverage picked up the cost and therefore there isn't to be a large constituency opposing it.

Actually, you have no idea. You presume that everyone who finds BC acceptable must feel the same way about the issue as you do. Again, I have no moral objection to contraception, having used it myself, but I do strongly object to the violation of the First Amendment here. Women do not have a constitutional right to have contraception covered by insurance, but religious groups do have a constitutional right to act according to their religious beliefs. Stop and think for a moment about the number of people served by religious groups that are affected by this decision, and think about what would happen to them if all these institutions were to close their doors (which is a real possibility) - is this really the outcome you want?

[amarante]

Actually, you have no idea. You presume that everyone who finds BC acceptable must feel the same way about the issue as you do. Again, I have no moral objection to contraception, having used it myself, but I do strongly object to the violation of the First Amendment here. Women do not have a constitutional right to have contraception covered by insurance, but religious groups do have a constitutional right to act according to their religious beliefs. Stop and think for a moment about the number of people served by religious groups that are affected by this decision, and think about what would happen to them if all these institutions were to close their doors (which is a real possibility) - is this really the outcome you want?

Actually as I have stated, there is no constitutional right for any organization to not follow the law within certain guidelines - so it's not "unconstitutional" any more than wages/hours and non-discrimination clauses can be applicable to certain operations of any religious organizations.

It's pretty well established First Amendment/constitutional law that the "state" has the ability to regulate secular activities of a so-called religious group.

I had posited a question in one of my responses - should a Christian Science group have the ability to only provide health insurance for prayers? Should Seventh Day Adventists/Jehovah Witnesses have the right to exclude blood transfusions.

I'm not stating that anyone must feel or think the same way I do. I'm merely stating that imposing regulations on the sectarian activities of a religious body is not a violation of the First Amendment.

I posited a theory as to why more people are not "outraged" by Catholic employers being required to have the same basic health care as anyone else and thought it might be because most people actually want birth control to be covered for anyone who wants it. Perhaps that's not the reason but in any event there certainly wasn't any kind of grass movement against the HHS requirement because I don't think most people find it problematic. If they did, wouldn't they have risen in an uproar as they did last week?

Religions have a right to practice their "religion" as it pertains to their religion. When they venture into sectarian pursuits, they become subject to the same laws as other entities and have no more right to defy the law than any other entity. The First Amendment merely prohibits government from restricting the exercise of religion - as it has been interpreted the government can make religious entities subject to sectarian laws when engaged in sectarian activities. And actually they can go further as in banning polygamy which was upheld by the SC in the early 20th century.

[jmarie]

I can't stand to think that I give to one organization and they, in turn use the money that I intended for their use, for something I had no idea they were supporting.

I guess I don't get the idea of Foundations.

I gave to Komen several times. If I had wanted to give to planned parenthood, then I would have. I feel the same way about the Salvation Army. I gave to them to support their work, lots of times, but my biggest contribution was during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, only to find out that they saved back millions if not billions of dollars to help in other areas.

Locally, I used to give to the salvation Army, to help with local disasters, until I saw first hand how hateful they were to the people who contacted them for help.

I went to a church and tithed faithfully, until I found out that once a year they used tithes to take all employees and their families on retreats for weeks at a time, cross country. when asked about it an answer was never forthcoming. No transparency in their budget, either.

Yeah, it goes both ways being upset at this Foundation.....and about all of them if you thing long and hard enough about it.

When I give to an organization, THAT is the organization I am giving to. I can make up my own mind where I want my dollars to go and it makes me mad that they do this!

[Gumbeaux]

....... but religious groups do have a constitutional right to act according to their religious beliefs.

Not without a LOT of restrictions.

[donleyk]

Religions have a right to practice their "religion" as it pertains to their religion. When they venture into sectarian pursuits, they become subject to the same laws as other entities and have no more right to defy the law than any other entity. The First Amendment merely prohibits government from restricting the exercise of religion - as it has been interpreted the government can make religious entities subject to sectarian laws when engaged in sectarian activities. And actually they can go further as in banning polygamy which was upheld by the SC in the early 20th century.

This what keeps getting blurred in debate.

I also want to commend everyone on their thoughtful and civil comments and say thanks. I've enjoyed reading this thread.

[mkc]

Just saw that Karen Handel has resigned from Komen.

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-ko...155421251.html

[lola777]

I am so happy that Karen Handel has finally been swept out of the Komen organization with the broomstick she rode in on.

Women's health issues are relevant and personal, and politics should NOT play a part in decisions concerning our bodies. It's disturbing that people in positions of power can make incredibly inaccurate decisions, such as where the MONEY will be spent, especially in a "nonprofit" organization. I'm very disappointed with the Komen foundation, which I've supported for YEARS, and they seem to forget the name is "for the CURE".

Many years ago, as a teen, then a young newly married woman, I relied on Planned Parenthood for my Pap smears, exams, and low-cost birth control pills. They helped me and thousands of others maintain good health, when I wasn't able to afford private gynecologists visits.

I'm sending another donation to Planned Parenthood this week. I KNOW they do good works for women.

[cminmd]

If anyone wants to support a group that fights cancer by funding cancer research, not putting up pink ribbons, I recommend Army of Women.

http://www.armyofwomen.org

From their website:

Our revolutionary initiative has two key goals:

To recruit one million healthy women of every age and ethnicity, including breast cancer survivors and women at high-risk for the disease, to partner with breast cancer researchers and directly participate in the research that will eradicate breast cancer once and for all.

To challenge the scientific community to expand its current focus to include breast cancer prevention research conducted on healthy women.

Also, I am Catholic, so I say this as someone whose but was in mass on Sunday to hear my priest go on from the pulpit how the church is going to waste my donation fighting this law. Catholic religious organizations do not have to have insurance to provide BC to their members. The policies that cover the church staff, the religious orders ect can have or not have anything in them the church wants to pay for. It is only when the Church gets into secular services- schools, universities, hospitals ect where Catholic service providers are treated like any other service provider and expected to follow the ACA that was passed into law.

To play devils advocate, their is also a law that says if you hire a member of the National Guard and they are activated and deployed overseas, when they return you must give them a job comparable to the one they did for your company at the same pay as when they left. If you think religions have the right to deny women birth control because of a "protect life" belief, do you also think the church has the right to refuse to provide a job to a soldier who has taken a life while in uniform?

Of course, the catholic church would never do that. We seem to only deny communion to politicians to support abortion, never to anyone who supports the death penalty or wars. Poor women make much better whipping girls than soldiers.


Also, I think Handel ran for gov of GA, not SC

[RiverFarm]

Just read this in the Huffington Post and thought that an article featuring Rep. Diane DeGette, co-chair of the Congressional Pro Choice Caucus, made some excellent points. It noted:

Supporters of the birth control rule also take issue with it being characterized as "an assault on religious freedom." They argue that the alternative, which is allowing employers to cherry-pick health benefits for the women they employ based on the employers' religious beliefs, encroaches on individual liberty.

"My question is: Who has the conscience? The employer who might have some generalized religious charter, but who's employing vast numbers of people who aren't of that religion, or the individual who's exercising his own religious conscience?" DeGette asked.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) predicted to reporters that if Republican lawmakers try to repeal the new rule through legislation, there will be a massive backlash equal to the one that hit Susan G. Komen for the Cure last week when it tried to defund Planned Parenthood.

"We saw a mobilization of women around the country that was unprecedented when breast cancer screenings were going to be taken away from Planned Parenthood," Schakowsky said. "We've seen ourselves be discriminated against in health care before, and we're not going to go backwards. It will be at their peril that they try to undo this."

The Obama administration said Wednesday that it has no plans to back down on the birth control rule, although it will work with faith-based organizations to help them implement it.

[beacooker]

So should Catholic employers be able to fire employees who use birth control? Since they are paying that employee's salary, aren't they then essentially paying for the birth control, thus yet again infringing on the Catholic church's religious rights?

We seem to only deny communion to politicians to support abortion, never to anyone who supports the death penalty or wars. Poor women make much better whipping girls than soldiers.

Too true. And let's not forget the whole sexual abuse of children thing.

[daisylover]

The reason I brought up the statistics about Catholic usage of contraceptives was in response to the original post in which a question was raised as to why there wasn't a great public commotion about it.

See, I think there was less of an uproar because the mainstream press and nightly news broadcasts didn't report on it in the same way they did Komen. (especially given that the decision was made Jan. 20 and we're now at Feb. 9)

In the end, I wonder if the mandate didn't include the morning after pill if there would be less of a fight.

We seem to only deny communion to politicians to support abortion, never to anyone who supports the death penalty or wars. Poor women make much better whipping girls than soldiers.

Catholics are not alone in this. You are joined by many religious organizations, including non-denonimational.

As for child abuse, as we're finding out in LA and saw with Penn State...I'd say we're seeing an issue with how organizations handle child abuse, not churches solely.

[amarante]

See, I think there was less of an uproar because the mainstream press and nightly news broadcasts didn't report on it in the same way they did Komen. (especially given that the decision was made Jan. 20 and we're now at Feb. 9)

I'm not sure what media you are referencing but both stories were reported.

The big difference is that a grassroots SOCIAL media uproar began when the news about PP was announced. It was the backlash that became the huge story as well as the horrible way in which Brinker handled the story that fed the news cycle.

Because most people are in favor of the HHS ruling, there hasn't been an equivalent grassroots uproar. If you follow the news, it's being reported in terms of how the Republican leadership is attempting to exploit it as a wedge issue.

I guess it might earn points among the right wing but I don't think the majority are against employers all being required to adhere to the law and supply birth control with an exception for organizations when they are acting purely as religious organizations - i.e. parish churches or convents.

[beacooker]

As for child abuse, as we're finding out in LA and saw with Penn State...I'd say we're seeing an issue with how organizations handle child abuse, not churches solely.

True, and its really a red herring in regards to this topic. However, I can no longer hear the words 'Catholic church' and 'morality' together without doing a big .

[RiverFarm]

Gail Collins has an excellent column on this in the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/op...WT.mc_ev=click

She says in part:

The churches themselves don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage. Neither do organizations that are closely tied to a religion’s doctrinal mission. We are talking about places like hospitals and universities that rely heavily on government money and hire people from outside the faith.

We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body?

Organized religion thrives in this country, so the system we’ve worked out seems to be serving it pretty well. Religions don’t get to force their particular dogma on the larger public. The government, in return, protects the right of every religion to make its case heard.

[SDMomChef]

Gail Collins has an excellent column on this in the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/op...WT.mc_ev=click

She says in part:

That was a great column and summed up how I feel on the isssue. I am Catholic. I used birth control pills. But that is irrelevant. The issue is NOT whether the Catholic Church must provide birth controls. The issue is whether the Church as an employer who provides health insurance plans for employees must allow contraceptives as covered services.

The exemption does apply to functions of the church that involve people primarily of the same faith, e.g. parishes and Catholic K-12 schools. Catholic hospitals? Is their mission to spread the teachings of the church? Catholic hospitals are some of the largest hospitals in the country, employing thousands.

To me, Catholic hospitals have moved far from being affiliated with the Catholic church and are indistinguishable from other non-profit churches.

I read that Marco Rubio has introduced a bill that would prevent ANY employer from being required to have a health plan to conver contraceptives. A non-partisan board determined that contraceptives were considered a preventive health service. It doesn't require that any person actually use contraceptives - it makes it available - affordable.

As, I look at PP, I think it is extremely important as an organization, regardless of whether it provides abortion services. It provides low income women with access to birth control pills, cancer screening and other health services that they otherwise not have access too. It is an example of a private organization that is providing an essential service to women.

I can't remember where I read it - I will try to find the link. It was the story of a woman who had breast cancer when she was 20. It is in remission. When she graduated from college, she no longer could be on her parents health insurance. She was denied insurance coverage from her new employer because of a pre-existing condition. PP was the only affordable option for her for mammograms.

As I read that, all I could think about was how Obamacare (which I think he should be proud to have it called that) would have allowed her to stay on her parent's plan if she didn't immediately get a job and when she did get a job, she would have had coverage because insurers can't deny coverage for a pre-existing condition. And, now it is making it more affordable for women to have access to contraception and control over their reproductive health. Remind me why Obamacare is evil and destrying America?

[amarante]

Ironically, 28 states including Georgia already have a law requiring health insurers to cover contraceptives if they cover other prescription drugs.

In Georgia there is not even an exemption for churches

[syzygy]

The issue is whether the Church as an employer who provides health insurance plans for employees must allow contraceptives as covered services...

...I read that Marco Rubio has introduced a bill that would prevent ANY employer from being required to have a health plan to conver contraceptives. A non-partisan board determined that contraceptives were considered a preventive health service. It doesn't require that any person actually use contraceptives - it makes it available - affordable...

The Guttmacher Institute has put out an interesting study.

So if the majority of women use contraceptives for purposes other than birth control, what about the rights of those women? And whose business is it, besides the women and their doctors, what purpose they are using said contraceptives for? How does the Church get to deny these women health insurance for their health, as opposed to for contraception? And that has nothing to do with religious freedom.

[amarante]

The Guttmacher Institute has put out an interesting study.

So if the majority of women use contraceptives for purposes other than birth control, what about the rights of those women? And whose business is it, besides the women and their doctors, what purpose they are using said contraceptives for? How does the Church get to deny these women health insurance for their health, as opposed to for contraception? And that has nothing to do with religious freedom.

That's an interesting study but I think that it muddies the waters so to speak. I would hate to see it put forth as a compromise since I think birth control - or any medical issue should not be subject to religious rather than scientific/medical justifications. I would not support a directive that allowed women to get birth control pills ONLY if they had a non-contraceptive purpose stated.

I am old enough to remember when abortions weren't legal except to save the health of life of a mother. If you were sophisticated enough, you could get a doctor to sign off on your emotional inability to have a child. And of course, those with means flew to Puerto Rico or London for a legal abortion.

Poor women resorted to back alleys and knitting needles.

Legalizing abortion saved lives and health of women and certainly access to birth control (affordable) is probably the most effective means of lowering abortion rates - if that is really what is behind the war on contraception.

Probably not save for work but George Carlin effectively nails it for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

[Robyncz]

The issue of whether or not a Catholic employer should or should not have to provide coverage for contraception is just one more example of how our health insurance system is completely screwed up!

It's absurd that our access to health insurance (and, therefore, our access to health care) is connected to employment status. It is absurd that our system makes it so difficult for individuals to choose (and be able to pay for) coverage that makes sense for them. And I think it's absolutely absurd that more people don't recognize this for the huge problem that it is.

[LaraW]

The Guttmacher Institute has put out an interesting study.

So if the majority of women use contraceptives for purposes other than birth control, what about the rights of those women? And whose business is it, besides the women and their doctors, what purpose they are using said contraceptives for? How does the Church get to deny these women health insurance for their health, as opposed to for contraception? And that has nothing to do with religious freedom.

From the view of the Catholic church it does not matter the reason that a woman is taking BCP. BCP and other forms of contraception are against the teachings of the church. BCPs can be an abortificant, where a fertilized egg does not implant in the uterus because the BCP makes an environment that has lower blood etc, maknig a less hospitable environment for the fertilized egg.

The teachings of the church is that life begins at the moment of conception, i.e., when an egg is fertilized. Agree or disagree about that but that is what the Church's teaching is, and that is why they are upset about this.

I guess I don't get what the hoo-ha is about. If you want BCPs covered by insurance then don't work for a Catholic organization. Or a Mormon organization for that matter. I used to work for a company that was owned by Mormons and BCPs were not covered. Big deal. Nobody told me that I could not work there if I took them, it would be the same if I worked for a Catholic organization. They just don't want to be required to pay for them.

Robyn, I totally agree that its crazy that access to healthcare is determined by employment. Its messed up.

[amarante]

I guess I don't get what the hoo-ha is about. If you want BCPs covered by insurance then don't work for a Catholic organization. Or a Mormon organization for that matter. I used to work for a company that was owned by Mormons and BCPs were not covered. Big deal. Nobody told me that I could not work there if I took them, it would be the same if I worked for a Catholic organization. They just don't want to be required to pay for them.

How far do you want to take that argument - to the logical conclusion that any so-called religious organization can disobey labor laws in terms of its employees? Could they flout laws against child labor? Can they refuse to hire women if they feel that a woman's place is in the home?

[LaraW]

How far do you want to take that argument - to the logical conclusion that any so-called religious organization can disobey labor laws in terms of its employees? Could they flout laws against child labor? Can they refuse to hire women if they feel that a woman's place is in the home?

I could be wrong but I don't think there is anything in Canon law regarding labor laws, child labor or women in the workplace. Canon law does however define life beginning at the moment of conception, and BCPs can be in violation of this teaching.

[amarante]

I could be wrong but I don't think there is anything in Canon law regarding labor laws, child labor or women in the workplace. Canon law does however define life beginning at the moment of conception, and BCPs can be in violation of this teaching.

But then you are singling the Catholic Church out for special treatment. The nature of our society is that it is based on laws and constitutional principles that apply to everyone.

It's quite established constitutional law that the state can regulate activities of anyone including religious organizations when they engage in sectarian activities not related to their religions.

Jewish people (for example) still need a civil divorce even though Jewish law requires a Get and technically that is sufficient under Jewish law.

[LaraW]

I only talk about Catholics because that is what I am familiar with. I know Mormons have similar views on BCPs but I cannot comment on the views of other religious organizations because I do not know what their views are. If Methodists or Lutherans or Seventh Dsy Adventists (just thinking of hospitals in my area) have religious views that prohibit use of contraceptives then they should not be required by law to provide coverage. People who want BC of whatever type can still get it.

[amarante]

I only talk about Catholics because that is what I am familiar with. I know Mormons have similar views on BCPs but I cannot comment on the views of other religious organizations because I do not know what their views are. If Methodists or Lutherans or Seventh Dsy Adventists (just thinking of hospitals in my area) have religious views that prohibit use of contraceptives then they should not be required by law to provide coverage. People who want BC of whatever type can still get it.

The issue isn't one of birth control or which religious organizations are anti-birth control.

The issue is one of the constitution which does not let religious organizations disobey ANY law when they are involved in non-religious activities.

The government certainly has the right to regulate in these arenas. As I posted earlier 28 states already require all employers to cover contraception in the same manner they cover any prescription drug.

Labor laws (to be specific) exist precisely because we don't want employers making illegal demands on their employees or not following relevant labor laws and then essentially saying if you don't like it, don't work here.

[JenniferJJ]

I guess I don't understand why birth control should be required to be covered under any health care plan, regardless of why an organization does not want to cover it. Not every thing is covered under most health care plans. So who cares that some people take birth control pills for reasons other than preventing conception. When I went to my cardiology appointment, I had to pay $800 in lab fees. I was born with a heart defect and had open heart surgery when I was six, and now they are finding out that people in their 40s and 50s (who would have been the first generation of people having this surgery as a child since it was quite new in the 60s and 70s). So anyway, I NEED to go to my cardiologist for occasional check ups.

So if I have to pay $800+ for my cardiology appointment, I have a hard time understanding why people should have free birth control for their acne and to make periods easier. I have very painful periods, and after talking with my doctor, I decided to just deal with them than be on the pill. It's not for religious reasons, I just don't want to put any more chemicals in my body.

But anyway, like Laura said, nobody is requiring anyone to work at a Catholic institution.

[Gumbeaux]

So if I have to pay $800+ for my cardiology appointment, I have a hard time understanding why people should have free birth control for their acne and to make periods easier.

Because it is a medical condition.

[JenniferJJ]

Because it is a medical condition.

Yes, but I know of very few health plans with no charges for anything. I'm sorry, but I think that acne and annoying period are less important than heart conditions, which could lead to a heart attack. I've had all three. And if I have to pay for the more serious condition, I don't there should be a problem paying for the less serious condition.

[amarante]

Yes, but I know of very few health plans with no charges for anything. I'm sorry, but I think that acne and annoying period are less important than heart conditions, which could lead to a heart attack. I've had all three. And if I have to pay for the more serious condition, I don't there should be a problem paying for the less serious condition.

Actually you might find your condition covered when health plans all have to provide certain basic services.

It's unclear whether you aren't being reimbursed for these services because of co-payments, high deductibles or they are just completely excluded. A complete exclusion would be odd.

Birth control would be handled in the same way as any other prescription drug is handled - i.e. same co-payments; probably limitations regarding the formulary and incentives to go with generics.