I have to disagree with Kathleen Parker’s column, “Bar the door: A mob is out to force you to adopt their beliefs” (TNT, 2-5).
Her premise – that the Obama administration’s actions on the health care requirement of providing contraceptives for women is a “siege” on our nation’s belief in freedom of conscience and religious liberty – is nothing but Republican hyperbole.
The Affordable Health Care Act requires all health insurance provided by employers to cover contraceptive protection. If, according to my numbers, 85 percent of all women want this option to be provided, how can requiring an employer to follow the law be labeled a siege on religious liberty, and in particular, on Catholicism?
If businesses – and that is what these Catholic institutions are – are allowed to pick and choose what and which laws it wishes to adhere, where does that lead us?
Where in the health care act does it say that a woman must partake in using contraceptive measures? It doesn’t – only that the health insurer provide it, if requested. Clearly, freedom of choice, of conscience, has not been impinged.
What the Catholic Church is promoting is clearly a “siege” on a woman’s right to choose. What the church has clearly said is that women should have no choice in procreation and no means in preventing or ending an unwanted pregnancy, and none will be afforded by a church-affiliated employer.
Clearly, the Republican right has once again obfuscated the truth behind its own pro-life ideology.
Pssst….Catholics voted for Obama in huge numbers….
Andy not being Catholic I don’t have all the answers but I do know this. Contraception is against their beliefs. Asking, no telling them to offer it is simply telling them to disreguard their beliefs and therefore taking away their freedom of religion. How about people who disagree with the Catholics simply don’t work for them and don’t use their facilities, problem solved.
oldman4 is correct. As far as I am currently aware, contraception, other than through abstinence or the rhythm method, is strictly forbidden by the Catholic Church. Requiring a Catholic owned and operated organization to pay for the distribution of contraceptives goes against the very core of Catholic beliefs. This is where “the wall of separation between the state and the church” must come in to play that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of The Constitution of The United States.
It does not matter if the business that is owned and operated by The Catholic Church is staffed by non-Catholics and/or serves non-Catholics, the money that was used to establish that business came from the church, and the money that is produced in order to maintain that business is church money. The federal government has no right whatsoever to force The Catholic Church, or any other church, to spend that money on practices or products that violate the very core beliefs of the church. The First Amendment protects churches against that sort of thing.
Money that is paid for employee health-care benefit plans is Catholic Church money, and the church should be the sole determiner as to how that money is to be spent on behalf of its employees. If the employee or potential new-hire is not satisfied with a health-care plan that does not include contraceptives, or even male enhancement drugs to make things equitable, then that employee may 1. Accept the job and plan as it is, and purchase additional health-care insurance elsewhere. 2. Accept the health-care plan as it is and pay out-of-pocket for other non-covered items, or 3. Refuse the job and seek employment elsewhere.
There is no compelling reason why any church must be forced to spend it’s money paying for services it fundamentally cannot support due to it’s religious creed. This is why the First Amendment was included in The Bill of Rights of The Constitution.
To oldman4 and muckibr, I ask then, if a public restaurant refuses to serve a Black family, because of the owner’s beliefs, does it make it right for said owner, to not serve the Black family? What you both propose is as much the same. Maybe the employee wasn’t afforded the option of declination or acceptance of the church rules upon hiring. Maybe the skill set of the employee is particular for the needs of said institution, and that institution is funded by the church and public monies. Much like we do not allow discrimination in our public restaurants, so to, business ‘institutions’ should not be discreminating against employees for religious differences.
aasmussen, How can you bring up a case of Black discrimination and ignore the issue I brought up with discrimination against Smokers.
Civil Rights Laws in this country, which have been accepted by the churches, prohibit everyone from discriminating against a Black family that wants to eat in any restaurant in the country. Churches have agreed to those laws and abide by them. It’s not a similar comparison at all.
Discriminating against smokers, under the guise of cutting health-care costs and lost work days is perfectly acceptable in this country for any business, church-owned or not.
Why can’t an organization, CHURCH-OWNED OR NOT, decide that they can save money on their health-care expenses by refusing to provide contraception, abortion and male-enhancement benefits, just like it may decide to NOT cover cosmetic surgery. All of these services actually fall into the category of ELECTIVE services or procedures, that are NOT necessary for life-saving or life-extending health care needs.
If an employer can say, our plan does NOT pay for tummy-tucks and nose jobs, why can’t it also say it doesn’t cover birth control and Viagra?
great question, aasmussen.
The one I’ve been posting is “if the Catholic Church decides cancer is “God’s will” can they then not provide cancer treatment as part of their health care benefits?
Funny how the church wants their “choice” and doesn’t allow their parishioners to choose.
Muckibr – what about “4. Organize your coworkers and bring the Catholic Church to the negotiating table for your benefits”?
Your option 4. is perfectly valid Manuel, but I think you and I both know that: If the employees of a Catholic owned organization would organize and go to management to demand contraception/abortion/male enhancement coverage, the Catholic-owned organization would more than likely choose to shut down the business rather than violate its canons.
I think this was recently demonstrated when some Catholic adoption services decided to shut down their adoption organizations rather than agree to adopt out children to same-sex couples.
Now, on that issue I totally disagree with the Catholics, but I have to admire them for sticking to their principles. I know that seems like I’m contradicting myself, but I’m really not.
Oh, and Manuel, don’t take offense at this, but your “If the Catholic Church decides cancer is God’s will…” scenario is a lot like the argument some make to say that if same-sex marriage is allowed then people will start marrying their pets. It doesn’t work. It facetious, and you know that, don’t you? Come on! You know it’s a bogus argument.
aasmussen, My apologies first. I didn’t bring up my “Smokers Discrimination” scenario in this thread, but it is in the next “ABORTION: Proposed law is not about choice”.
I can repost it here if you like, or you can go to the next topic to check it out. I still feel it is a much more apropos case than anything involving racial discrimination or Civil Rights Laws, because Smokers Rights are being discriminated against under the guise of cutting health-care costs.
“Money that is paid for employee health-care benefit plans is Catholic Church money, and the church should be the sole determiner as to how that money is to be spent on behalf of its employees.”
Interesting statement, Muckibr. I would have thought that the money (and subsequently the church) was owned by the parishioners. Maybe you have outlined the problem in a nutshell. We have a case of the tail wagging the dog, when you consider that 79% of Catholics want the church to change it’s position on birth control.
This is not as simple as you stated. The church is taking money from those 78% and ignoring their wishes. Why should a handful of priests be the sole determiners on money that was donated by the parishioners, 78% of which passively disagree with them?
muckibr – smoking is a choice, and one that is proven to be detrimental to health, thus causing problems with health care programs. Female fertility isn’t a choice. Birth Control doesn’t cause known cancers that can cost up to a million dollars for treatment.
Sorry, bud. You’ve picked the wrong battle this time.
“You know it’s a bogus argument.”
When you already have religions that oppose medical treatment, how can you say it’s “bogus”?
The Christian Scientists oppose damned near all medical treatment, citing “God’s will”.
I’d say that concrete proof is anything but “bogus”
The day when a Catholic Hospital is shut down because of union negotiations, I’ll be impressed. Meanwhile, they enjoy the revenue far too much.
Shutting down an adoption agency was nothing more than token.
Sorry…I left out Jehovah’s Witnesses as another religion that opposes health care.
Actually, it there was ever an argument FOR nationalized heath care, this one is it.
No one HAS to seek care, but those that want it can readily get it.
Businesses wouldn’t be paying for it, unless they try screaming for the “taxpayer” position, which would be funny coming from a church.
Manuel, “The church is taking money from those 78% and ignoring their wishes. Why should a handful of priests be the sole determiners on money that was donated by the parishioners, 78% of which passively disagree with them?”
Simply because The Catholic Church is not like The United States. It’s not a Democratic Republic. Parishioners don’t get to vote of what the rules are. The Vatican determines the rules for the church, and that’s just the way it is.
Manuel, “smoking is a choice, and one that is proven to be detrimental to health, thus causing problems with health care programs. Female fertility isn’t a choice. Birth Control doesn’t cause known cancers that can cost up to a million dollars for treatment.”
1. Having sex, regardless of one’s fertility, is a choice. And one that can cause pregnancy.
2. Some forms of birth control have been found in the past to cause health hazards, and have been either reformulated or completely taken off the market. Who is to say that current birth control drugs and devices will not be found to be bad for one’s health?
3. Choosing to have sex, with multiple partners, does cause the spread of STDs. Birth control devices and drugs ay not cause people to be promiscuous, but they certainly do enable such behavior.
But none of that is even relevant to this issue. It’s the federal government interfering with the constitutionally protected beliefs of a church. This is clearly a First Amendment issue. It will most likely end up being decided by the courts.
But, perhaps there’s a way we can skirt around the issue and make it simply a business decision.
How about this:
If I as a small business employer, in and effort to provide my employees with a reasonable health-care benefit package, I offer them a plan that covers ONLY Medically Necessary Services and Drugs, because that’s all I can reasonably afford to pay for, given my meager profit margin.
Medically necessary is legal terminology that includes only those procedures, services and drugs that will protect employee’s health and life from naturally occurring illness and/or accidental injury.
Naturally occurring illness includes things like colds, flu, cancers, infections, and those illness which can be contracted by almost anyone at any time under similar circumstances and environments through no fault of their own.
Accidental injuries includes those situations where an employee, through no fault of their own is subjected to experiences that cause physical harm or damage requiring the necessity of medical treatment.
Things like non-necessary cosmetic surgeries, self-inflicted injuries such as that which may be caused by cigarette smoking or illegal drug use, or attempted suicide would not be covered by the plan.
Also not covered would be elective medical treatment such as male sexual enhancement drugs, male or female contraception, and abortions that are determined not medically necessary for saving the life of the mother.
The philosophy being that, some things happen beyond our ability to control and our health-care coverage is designed to help you through those difficult times. However, other things happen because we cause them to happen by unwise actions taken on our own part, and for those situations you need to be responsible for yourself.
By covering Medical Necessities we can offer our employees a health-care benefits that cost the company $1,000 per employee per year, and the employee $500 per year with a $10 co-pay for prescription drugs and $25 co-pay for doctor visits and hospital stays.
However, if we have to cover all possible medical situations, even those which are clearly self-inflicted either deliberately or due to one’s own negligence, then the cost to the company per employee would be $10,000, and each employee would be required to pay $5,000 annually with a $500 co-pay per each prescription and $1,500 co-pay for doctor visits and a $3,000 per day co-pay for in-hospital stays.
As a small business owner I can only afford what I can afford, and if I’m required by the government to provide health-care insurance to my employees for every possible conceivable health problem they might somehow contract or cause, then I just can’t stay in business.
Far fetched? Maybe. But ask yourself; How many companies offer a health-care plan that covers every single possible conceivable health care problem that anyone could possible ever experience on this Earth? Not one I bet.
So, why should the Catholic Church have to provide any health-care coverage to its employees beyond what would be considered MEDICAL NECESSITIES, of which birth control, male sexual enhancement and other similar elective treatments clearly are not Medically Necessary?
You equate male enhancement with birth control? You don’t find birth control a medical necessity in 2012?
WOW….I don’t want to be in the muckibr house when Mrs muckibr reads this.
Then there is this:
“1. Having sex, regardless of one’s fertility, is a choice. And one that can cause pregnancy.”
You’ve set the male species back about 10 decades with that kind of talk.
“The Vatican determines the rules for the church, and that’s just the way it is.”
So we have a foreign country telling us which laws they want to follow?
(yes…the Vatican IS a country)
Oh…and since benefits are paid in lieu of wages, technically it is the employee’s money, not the Church’s that is paying for the medical coverage.
When the smoke clears, we have a power play on the part of the Conservative side of the Catholic Church.
Maybe the church should just pay more wages and let the employee purchase his own insurance. See….THEY DO HAVE A CHOICE!
Well, I don’t want to pay for vasectomies either! Every sperm is sacred you know!
“Maybe the church should just pay more wages and let the employee purchase his own insurance.”
And that may well be what it comes down to Manuel. But here’s the problem with that. We all know that if you have to buy your own health-care insurance policy by yourself, rather than getting it as part of a group plan, you are going to have to pay a whole lot more for it out of your own pocket.
And, I’ve been pretty surprised by the kind of nasty comments you have made towards me in this dialogue, when I have made none towards you. Seems when someone agrees with you Manuel, you are buddy buddy, but let that same person disagree and you go on the attack.
You know that what I write was that male enhancement is equivalent to birth control because they are both “elective” procedures and NOT “medically necessary” procedures. And that all I said about that. You went on a nasty attack to make it seem like something entirely different. I never did that to you pal! Read my posts. I never made one single nasty comment to you or about you Manuel.
And Frida, I would agree that Vasectomies should be in the same category as other birth control that the Catholic Church should NOT be required to pay for. But still, I would NOT prohibit any man from getting a vasectomy if he chose to, because he has that right. He just does NOT have the right to make the Catholic Church pay for it.
Either you people get the logic of my argument or you don’t because either you are allowing your emotionalism or bigotry cloud your view. Mine is a logical view based on the First Amendment wall of separation between Church and State. If you can’t understand that, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
muckbir? This is our house, (United States- us the tax payers), our rules, (Constitution- Supreme Court Ruling Roe vs Wade) and if the Catholic Church wants to tell us what to do, they are going to have to pay and contribute to the household expenses. (Taxes) Until then, they have no say.
‘What you both propose is as much the same.’
Hardly. Denying service to a black family denies them the fundamental right of freedom.
Abortion and contraception are about the sanctity of life. Clearly not for a lot readers here, but for many. Abortion permits a woman the freedom to choose, yes, but it robs the helpless, voiceless infant from her right to live!
Roe v. Wade simply says abortions are legal. It DOES NOT say the Catholic Church is required to pay for them.
The rule IN OUR HOUSE is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
That’s The FIRST Amendment of the United States Constitution, OUR RULE!!!
Until we all live up to it, no one has a say! Catholics, whether you like it or not, live here in OUR HOUSE WITH THE REST OF US and they have as much say as you do!
Muckibr – seriously? Who is to say that current birth control drugs and devices will not be found to be bad for one’s health?
That kind of speculation not supported by reality – even Pope Benedict has backed off by stating that condom use for PREVENTING DISEASE is OK as “the lessor of evils”
And…c’mon, get real…only 2% of Catholic women follow that mandate.
When 98% of Catholics don’t agree with the Pope why should this MOOT canon law affect public policy in the US?
Because beerBoy, The Catholic Church is not a democracy, and it is protected in this country by The First Amendment, and of all the people on these blogs I would have expected you to logically see that much.
muckibr….please…get your sense of humor back. None of my comments were “nasty”. I was hoping to lighten the conversation. I guess I failed.
Now, allow me to not be humorous. I find your comment about “elective birth control” to be archaic in the least and more towards neanderthal-like. In a world where two incomes barely makes most families survive, putting them in the position of less access to birth control is perpetuating the problem. Frankly, I tried to use humor to lighten that statement, but I should have just spoke directly.
To equate smoking tobacco to birth control, by calling them both “choice” is rather ridiculous also. You are there comparing a human drive characteristic to a true choice. Don’t you wish I was still using humor, as opposed to this direct honesty?
As to the group insurance versus person insurance issue….it’s not the employee’s fault that the employer (Catholic Church) is messing with their benefit package to impose its will. Again, not humorous, but direct and to the point.
To make any of this a “First Amendment issue” is playing right into the sweet spot of the Ring Wing Extremists of our country.
I think Chris Matthews said it best (if there is a best) – “by making it mandatory they are asking the Church to fund that which they teach against”. Well, since I’m not drawn to religion and in fact am repelled by THIS kind of religion, I’m of the position that the church isn’t funding birth control, they are compensating their employees and they should stop sticking their collective noses in private business. Of course, I don’t stand in awe of any church, so I speak my mind.
Sorry I offended you. It was unintentional. I’ll avoid controversy with you in the future if that will help or avoid humor.
I should probably be open here and say that when I first married, my wife was Catholic. I’ll never forget the priest who tried to intimidate me with “you know your son will be Catholic”. Well, after all the church, private school, etc…..he attends a non-denominational protestant church today.
The Catholic Church SHOULD listen to its parishioners. They pay the bills, at least in the US. They seem to have the latin countries buffaloed, althought their birth rates are declining and I don’t think it’s because they are avoiding sex.
“Abortion permits a woman the freedom to choose, yes, but it robs the helpless, voiceless infant from her right to live!”
Yes, Karen Santorum chose to live and be a mother to her other children. Her other children were not ROBBED of a mother.
Funny, I thought an “infant” was a NEW BORN According to the American Heritage Dictionary: “A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk.”
Everybody, pay attention!
I want to start a business, but it ‘s going to cost $100,000 to get it started.
So, I want each and every one of you on this blog to give me $10,000 to create my start-up capital.
What!
You say you won’t!
Then YOU are denying me the RIGHT to start my business.
What!
You say I DO have a RIGHT to start a business, but YOU don’t have to pay for it!
How is that ANY DIFFERENT AT ALL, from …
Women have a right to get birth control, but The Catholic Church doesn’t have an obligation to pay for them?
Tell me what the difference it!
muckibr? Are you saying that your credit is so bad that you couldn’t get a business loan or NO bank would lend to you that you had to BEG for your money for your right to open your business? Isn’t that the same as a woman who cannot afford birth control, nor health insurance, planned parenthood and so she has to go to a back alley and beg for some chop shop doc to do a coat hanger operation? Not only is your reasoning a RED HERRING but you are taking us down a SLIPPERY SLOPE in logic. Once an employer gets to select who gets what care, then how long before people are denied basic care due to any willy nilly reason? How does one religious organization get so much say in a country that practices freedom of religion, and separation of church and state- get to lobby and legislate what the rest of us do and they don’t even pay taxes?
If you are a business, regardless of Religion, you should not deny people these options. I worked for a Christian non profit and they paid for it. I feel it falls under “equal opportunity”.
muckibr – Catholic hospitals are businesses, not churches. Just as Catholic-owned apartments must meet the same regulations a secular landlords do, it is reasonable for a BUSINESS to meet the same regulations as all other businesses do.
Please – by all means – explain how the requirements regarding health insurance are “law respecting an establishment of religion”.
It’s beyond me why the heck insurance should have to pay for anyone’s birth control. It’s cheap, pay for it your self.
As someone who was raised Catholic, went to parochial school, was an altar boy, a lector and taught catechism – I never remember “not wearing a condom” ever being considered the “free exercise” of our religion.
Orthodox Jews believe that the sexes must be segregated and (according to contemporary standards) sexual discrimination is mandated by Scripture. According to muckibr we then should excuse any and all businesses run by Hasidic believers to overtly practice sexual discrimination to the point that women have to sit in the back of the buses and may be physically abused if they dare disobey Scripture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/nyregion/bus-segregation-of-jewish-women-prompts-review.html
Flanagan – hydrocodone (vicodin) is cheap. Insurance pays for that.
When the employee is paying part of the premium you can no longer claim that “the church is paying for it”
beerBoy, “According to muckibr we then should excuse any and all businesses run by Hasidic believers to overtly…”
Very wrong, and a cheap shot. I haven’t mentioned anything at all about Hasidics. And you know that! Let’s stay focused.
Let’s stick with Catholics, birth control and abortion if you don’t mind, and not fall into using tactics and methods of some others use on these blogs okay. I was sure you were above that sort of thing.
Manuel, When the church administrator of the hospital goes to pay the bills each month, looks on the General Ledger under Health-Care Benefits and sees the line items Birth Control/Contraceptives and Abortion Procedures, then it’s not theoretical. It is actual.
The owner of the hospital, the church, is paying the bills and the bills includes those line items. Those payments are NOT made to the employee, but to the Health Care Insurance Provider.
muckibr – no. That is incorrect. The payment is made to an insurance company that doesn’t itemize. The payroll department is obliged to pay a premium to the insurance company and take money from the employees pay to pay the rest of the premium.
Can you avoid trying to make this an emotional argument? No one is “cheap shotting” you nor making “nasty comments”. Neither beerBoy nor I will stick to a closely defined topic by you or anyone else because this is an issue that affects all religions that wish to attempt this ploy.
“church administrator of the hospital”
Actually, I’d like to know what this is. The person in charge of payroll deductions and accounts payable might not even be Catholic, much less a “church adminstrator of the hospital”.
muckibr – why don’t you address my challenge about employee paid premiums?
Manuel, your “challenge” is at the level of arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while it is sinking. It’s trivia. It is not the main issue.
It doesn’t make a bit of difference if the payroll manager is a Catholic or not. The Church owns the hospital, and is the ultimate authority responsible for the operation and decision making of the hospital.
When I worked at a Catholic Hospital in Tacoma, they opened a new administrative building, and did something that I don’t believe is done by most businesses. Before anyone moved in to the new OFFICE BUILDING, they held a Blessing Ceremony of the building with a real Priest and everything!
It was just an office building right? But to The Catholic Church it is an extension of their Holy Mission. Do you suppose Boeing or Microsoft Bless their new buildings? Does Starbucks Bless every new coffee shop they open?
So…what you are saying….is that The Catholic Church wants special consideration as an employer?
The Church has the right to not participate in the business marketplace.
As to your “blessing” issue – don’t be so sure about who violates the religion in the workplace issue. I’ve witnessed prayer at workplace meetings, being held by religious minded people who owned a business. They had no right, but they did it anyway.
I guess, if I was a Satanist and I “blessed” my buildings, then I can decide what government laws I’m going to follow…based on “First Amendment” rights? How about a Muslim? Can a Muslim business owner require all women to wear head coverings? The list goes on and on.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I doubt that the First Amendment was designed for the Catholic Church to impose its will on employees and I do find it interesting that they’d involk said amendment, considering their past complaints about protestors of their churches.
By the way, the only way that the issue is the Titanic is that if we allow religions to govern our country, we have sunk the boat that was created by the Pilgrims.
Oh and yes…the MAIN ISSUE is the employees right to govern their benefit package. It’s part of a compensation package AND is partly paid for by the employee out of THEIR EARNINGS
muckibr – I guess applying your logic to another religious organization’s behavior is a “cheap shot”….
Again – how is being able to opt out of insurance regulations necessary for practice of a religion?
“So…what you are saying….is that The Catholic Church wants special consideration as an employer?”
Nope! Just saying that The Catholic Church, deserves the same protection under the First Amendment that all other religious organizations in this country have a right to expect, because that is the law of the land.
Now you are doing the same thing as beerBoy when he brought up Hasidics. We are NOT talking about Satanist or Muslims or anyone else here. We are discussing the Obama Administration requiring The Catholic Church to violate its religious canons. Let’s focus on that and not create any, what do the other guys call them, straw men?
The employees, in any business, have NEVER governed their own benefits package. The closest it has ever come to that is union negotiations. The employer is always in preeminent control of what goes into the benefits package, simply because “The Benefits Package” is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a RIGHT of the employee.
“The Benefits Package” has always, ONLY ever been an additional inducement to get the employee to join this company over their competitor, by offering a better salary and bennies than the other employer. If the employee doesn’t like the package, he or she has always had to option to get a better salary and benefits package from another employer.
“The Benefits Package” is NOT and has NEVER BEEN an EMPLOYEE RIGHT! That in itself puts it beyond the reach of the government to control.
Churches constantly violate the rules granting them not-for-profit/tax free status. Before the 2008 election my dad told me that the priest told him (and all the other parishoners attending that Mass) that he would go to hell if he voted for a supporter of Pro-choice. This is a clear violation of the non-politicking requirement.
I am very supportive of the Church’s right to do what it wants in Church. But when they insist that their business operations, have to be granted additional FINANCIAL breaks, I lose my patience.
Tax the churches. Do not provide them any special breaks in their business dealings.
Now you are doing the same thing as beerBoy when he brought up Hasidics. We are NOT talking about Satanist or Muslims or anyone else here.
WE are talking about what the 1st Amendment requires so…yes…any principle that applies to one religion needs to be applied to all religions. That is the way Constitutional principles work – the Supreme Court makes a ruling which sets a precedent (except of course Gore v. Bush) which applies to many, many different cases that – on the surface – really have nothing at all to do with the original case.
Now you are doing the same thing as beerBoy when he brought up Hasidics. We are NOT talking about Satanist or Muslims or anyone else here.
Followed by:
Just saying that The Catholic Church, deserves the same protection under the First Amendment that all other religious organizations in this country have a right to expect, because that is the law of the land.
Which is it – a specific case that doesn’t apply to all other religions or a universal principle that must be applied to all?
(gotta say – this dialogue must be a little confusing to those who keep claiming muckibr is MM or any of a number of other “Libtards” on this board)
Religion is the bane of mankind.
Eighty-five percent of women want health insurance to cover contraception Andy says. So let’s be democratic. A majority of us want Obamacare to be repealed. Let’s hear it for democracy.
It appears that conservative participation in the forum has reduced to the point that my side is arguing with itself.
muckibr – I’m thinking you’ve not negotiated a whole lot of labor contracts. Benefits are negotiated in lieu of wages and the company loves the tax values. I’m going to suggest that almost every Catholic Hospital has to mean the Nurses Union at the negotiation table. Thus the benefit belong to the employee, by contract.
Avoid your emotional ties to this subject because they are not serving you well in the category of logic or research.
“(gotta say – this dialogue must be a little confusing to those who keep claiming muckibr is MM or any of a number of other “Libtards” on this board)”
Ya think, beerBoy? LOL Last night’s exchange accusing me of “nasty comments” should eliminate all thoughts of muckibr being me. Of course, he could still be “Kardy”. You know how “Kardy” would take the opposite side of the fence just to distract the conservatives.
Keep in mind, that “The Benefits Package” is NOT and has NEVER BEEN an EMPLOYEE RIGHT! That in itself puts it beyond the reach of the government to control.
The simple solution to all this is for The Catholic Church to not provide any health-care benefits at all to any of its employees.
It can simply say to the employee, “Here is the amount of money we paid as the organization’s portion of the payment for your previous health-care benefits package. You may use this to purchase your own health-care benefits package from any provider you wish to contract with on your own.”
Is that okay with all of you?
Or the church could just stop operating hospitals. That wouldn’t help much with health care costs or unemployment, but it would solve the problem created by Obama and his minions. Ain’t those unintended consequences a bitch.
Oh…something tells me that there would be a company more than willing to pick up the hospitals that the church abandons.
“problem created by Obama and his minions”
Here is the reality of the issue….it’s a talking point for the GOP.
More than just a “talking point’. This could cost Obama many many votes.
muckibr – exactly what the GOP wants. Why do you think this came to fruition?
If you think that a church who has the overwhelming majority of its women ignoring the “stand on birth control” is all of a sudden worried about the health care benefits of its employees, many of whom are not Catholic, I do believe you’ve missed the mark.
98% of Catholic women don’t follow the church on birth control, but they are going to take employees to task? This is a political issue and if the Catholic Church is going to continue participating in political efforts, they need to start paying taxes.
Of course those women who have been ignoring the church on this issue may have something to say about it come November. I’d say the Komen issue just illustrated the power of an angered women.
A. The GOP didn’t create this issue. This issue came into fruition because of decisions and announcements made by the Obama Administration did.
B. 98% of Catholic Women, regardless if they don’t follow church birth control or not, DO NOT make Catholic Church policy or canon. The Catholic Church is not a democracy.
C. Your own personal animosity against The Catholic Church is obvious when you echo some other bigots who hysterically call for The Catholic Church to “start paying taxes.” How about the Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, LDS and other Christian sects as well?
Kudos to you Muckibr. It’s not easy going against the grain.
I, for one, wish Hillary would upset the apple cart. We need her now not in 2016!
Well, Muckibr, your thin skinned act is over, I see.
Since you’ve thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll let you know that as far as I’m concerned ALL churches should pay taxes and any church regardless of denomination, that gets involved in politics should have their non-profit status pulled in a heartbeat.
So much for your claim of “bigotry”.
Yeah, 98% of women don’t set church policy, but they do vote. It doesn’t appear that they support the church on this issue. The United States IS a democracy and the Catholic Church doesn’t have a vote. Any speech from the pulpit against Obama or any legislation is a violation of their non-profit status.
The fight should be a good one. One overdue in the United States. Sooner or later churches have to become law abiding businesses.
“This issue came into fruition because of decisions and announcements made by the Obama Administration did.”
Interesting how you pull that talking point in. The Obama Administration isn’t the sole passer of the health care reform act. Congress was also responsible.
Is the church going after all of the Congressional reps that voted for the act?
Hmmm……”kooky”, huh?
Of course, the GOP isn’t behind this at all.
This stinks as bad as the Kenyan Konspiracy.
98% of the women in the church ignore the stand on birth control and…
“This could cost Obama many many votes.” ?????
Right out of the GOP playbook.
Manuel, please take the 8 or 9 minutes to watch the PBS video at this link. PBS offers a fair and balanced look at this issue from both sides.
If nothing else, please not the there is specific mention that this was caused by a new rules created by The Dept, of Health & Human Services, which is part of The Obama Administrations Cabinet and headed by an Obama appointee. It was not a rule voted into “fruition” by the GOP. As much as I would like to, we cannot put the blame for this issue on the Republicans. This is President Obama’s own issue.
AIR DATE: Feb. 6, 2012
Obama Administration, Catholic Leaders Clash Over Contraception Mandate
Catholic leaders are pushing back against a new Department of Health and Human Services ruling requiring employers who offer health insurance to provide contraception free of charge. While churches are exempt from the rules, Catholic hospitals and universities must comply. Betty Ann Bowser reports on the controversy.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june12/catholics_02-06.html
Corrected text from above. (Sorry for the multiple typos!)
If nothing else, please note there is specific mention that this controversy was caused by new rules created by The Dept. of Health & Human Services, which is part of The Obama Administration’s Cabinet and headed by an Obama appointee.
(BTW, The Secretary of HHS is Kathleen Sebelius, former Governor of Kansas, who is also a Catholic.)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june12/catholics_02-06.html
Muck: The truth is that the Catholic Church is a patriarchal, puritanical purveyor perpetrating perilous pain on women.
sandblower, I’m sure you think your comment of 6 p-words is clever, but it is simply the most blatantly bigoted comment posted on this topic yet. No points for cleverness. Sorry.
Also, please see my response to you in the next topic: “ABORTION: Proposed law is not about choice. ” Then, really do some careful reading about these two topics before posting your next comment. I would hate for you to seem even more foolish to everyone than you currently do now.
Your own personal animosity against The Catholic Church is obvious when you echo some other bigots who hysterically call for The Catholic Church to “start paying taxes.” How about the Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, LDS and other Christian sects as well?
So calling for a revision on the tax code as many religious institutions defy the regulations preventing overt politicking is “bigotry”???!!!! All I want is for the tax code regarding not-for-profits to be enforced.
I have no “personal animosity” towards the Catholic Church. Though I disagree with the Church on more than a few issues and think that organized religion is more about the accruing of power on the earthly plane than spirituality, I am proud of my Catholic culture (especially the emphasis upon “good works” seen in activists like Dorothy Day)and rather sad that JPII destroyed Vatican II.
Clearly this issue is one you hold near and dear. But you have devolved into irrational attempts to demonize those who disagree with your views through projection of imagined motivations.
I find it refreshing that you disagree with me on this issue but your rhetoric has sunk to a level that is repulsive.
et tu beerBoy? I have NOT tried to demonize anyone here. If you believe I have, prove it with quotes from my posts. I challenge you to prove it.
I do NOT hold the Catholic Church near and dear. I haven’t been to Mass in more than 35 years.
However, I do hold The Constitution in very high regard. And violating one or its most preeminent principles, the First Amendment, is not acceptable to me It should not be to you or any other American either, especially by those who simply wish to satisfy some personal vendetta against The Catholic Church or all religion in general.
I can’t help the fact that my arguments have been too solid and too logical for others to argue rationally, so that they felt they had to go far afield and charge the church with other things way beyond the scope of this issue. And then they follow that up with other punishment they would make upon The Catholic Church like making it pay taxes as if it were just a business and not a religious organization.
I have argued only within the scope of this topic, which is, on this topic, the Obama Administration’s new HHS regulation to force Religious Organization, The Catholic Church being the main focus, to pay for birth control and abortion services. All my arguments, scenarios and criticism have been limited to that realm. All of them.
For those two people who claimed general animosity towards the church, posting unjustified criticisms with the charge that The Catholic Church should be “taxed” just because! I recognized them for what they are, which is anti-Catholic Bigots. The words they posted to frame their charges exposed them as what they are. I simply recognized that. And for the one who simply spouted a 6-p word snipe at The Catholics, I called him out as anti-Catholic Bigot as well. What they wrote reveals what they are.
Did I ever call you, beerBoy, a anti-Catholic Bigot? No. So why does YOUR rhetoric employ that assumed charge when you and I both know it was never made? At least, that charge was never made by me. If you think it has, then again I challenge you to prove it.
I have not even made any anti-Obama comments, have I? I have not made any anti-Democrat statements, have I? When others have claimed this was prompted by Republicans, I stepped up and said NO it wasn’t, didn’t I? When others have misunderstood and said this was an issue about POOR WOMEN, I corrected that misperception, didn’t I?
beerBoy, if you think my “rhetoric has sunk to a level that is repulsive” then you are apparently repulsed by the truth. I’m sorry for you. I thought much better of you before reading that statement of yours.
muckibr – you are in denial.
I responded to your ad hominem attack as you did not identify who you were attacking.
Calling those who disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution “bigots” “hysterically calling” due to “personal animosity” is, in no way, what any rational human being would call “arguments (that) have been too solid and too logical for others to argue rationally”.
Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with the non-unanimous Supreme Court decisions knows that, clearly, there are different interpretations of the Constitution. The Obama Administration must think that this is within the bounds of the Constitution. Why are you insisting that your interpretation is the only “truth”?
muckibr says:
Feb. 9, 2012 at 8:25 am I do NOT hold the Catholic Church near and dear. I haven’t been to Mass in more than 35 years.
Finally, the real issue surfaces.
beerBoy – I sensed early in this discussion that there was an issue that probably had to do with membership in the Catholic Church. There is really no other reason to attack people for opposing views and to go off on the bigotry rant because someone wants this church or any other church to adhere to the law.
I’m certain that this mindset is well indoctrinated and not worth further discussion.
“Why are you insisting that your interpretation is the only “truth”?”
Because I believe my interpretation is truth. This is The United States of America. I have a right to believe that. I have logically analyzed the issues in relation to my understanding of what America is all about and the protections guaranteed us in The Constitution and my knowledge of The Catholic Church, and I truly believe the Obama Administration HHS rule, and Washington state legislators who have proposed HB 2330 and SB 6185 are wrong. I am entitled to believe that.
Are YOU here to tell me that I DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT to express my views if they disagree with yours beerBoy?
I also happen to believe that at least 3 people here have exhibited clearly bigoted attitudes by their written comments. They made bigoted comments out of frustration, due to their inability to argue successfully against my logic. That’s not an ad hominem attack. That is simply a statement of what I believe is fact, and is clearly proved by documented evidence in their own written comments.
Plus, I have just reread every single one of my comments on these two threads, and not one of them was written in a hysterical frame of mind, and not one of them appears to me in the rereading to seem in any way hysterical. Not one of my comments included any ad hominem attacks of any kind against anyone.
In fact, after rereading all of my comments I would say that if anything, the comments and ideas I have postulated could have been written in very similar words by a Vulcan, if such a being really existed in the real world. I have endeavored to maintain logic in all that I have written on these two blogs, and I believe I have succeeded. If you can’t see that, well that’s your opinion and your problem, not mine.
I will state my premise one more time for clarity.
1. The Catholic Church is NOT denying contraceptives, birth control or abortion to anyone, by its decision to not include payment for contraceptives, birth control or abortions in its employee health-care benefits package.
2. The Catholic Church is simply saying, if anyone who works for a Catholic owned organization wants to use contraceptive, birth control or abortion they are free to get those drugs, devices and services if they choose to, but the can NOT expect The Catholic Church to help pay for them through its employee health-care benefits plan.
3. The Catholic Church is making this distinction because under the canons of The Catholic Church, to perform, promote or pay for such drugs and services is a sin.
4. If the Obama Administration or the State of Washington insists on forcing The Catholic Church to sin, then they are prohibiting The Catholic Church from practicing its religion, and that is clearly in violation of The First Amendment.
5. This applies to ALL religious organization in The United State, not just Catholics, but The Catholics are currently the main focus of this controversy.
It’s pretty simple to see the logic here, but only if you are able to look at it logically and objectively without filtering it through preconceived prejudices.
Live long and prosper!
beerBoy, you might want to remind Manuel that you too are a non-practicing Catholic. Maybe you consider yourself an ex-Catholic or lapsed-Catholic, however you want to put it. But, I think you must acknowledge now that Manuel has some serious issue against Catholics based on his previous comments and now this latest comment of his.
My being a former or lapsed Catholic has little to do with my stand on this issue. I will freely admit that I am not, by any definition, a “Good Catholic.” I have a lot of issues with The Catholic Church. A lot! Which is why I quit going to Mass and quit contributing to the church.
Some people will disagree with this, mostly Catholics I suspect, but I believe that one does NOT need to be a Good Catholic to be a Good Christian, but one must be a Good Christian in order to be a Good Catholic.
I do believe I am a Good Christian. But I am most definitely not a Good Catholic.
I just happen to believe that on this issue The Catholics are right and damn near everyone else, including you, Manuel, sandblower, and Frida are dead wrong. And that’s MY RIGHT as an American, and if you don’t like it, that’s your right. But all of you, at least try to be be decent human beings and knock-off the personal attacks and other silly crap, okay? It doesn’t make you look good.
Go in Peace!
muckibr – I consider myself a non-practicing Catholic as I realize that my Catholic upbringing is part of my heritage, my culture and that will never change so I can never be an “ex-Catholic” and “lapsed Catholic” seems to passive – I made a very specific and difficult choice. I no longer consider myself a Christian because I do not accept the central tenet of Christianity – that the only path to salvation is through Christ. Don’t even really buy into the whole salvation/damnation thing anymore.
If I have to classify my spiritual beliefs/feelings/ideas it would be as a catholic (Adjective: including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.) seeker who is currently, perhaps, closest to being a Deist.
muckibr – what I comment upon is how, as this discussion has progressed, your posts have gotten longer and longer WITH INTERMITTENT ALL CAPS and accusations that are unfounded challenging, not the ideas presented, but the motivations of the person who is disagreeing with you.
To wit:
Are YOU here to tell me that I DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT to express my views if they disagree with yours beerBoy?
The above statement infers that I have somehow stated that you don’t have the right to express you opinions. This I have never stated. What I have done, however, is to critique your postings on this subject as becoming emotionally based and accusatory, demonstrating what appears to be your belief that your “interpretation is truth”.
Almost every one who posts here believes that their interpretation is correct……so what? My interpretation of your posts on this issue is that you have become so passionate about this issue that you don’t recognize the difference between calm logical discourse and emotional responses ACCENTED WITH SHOUTING.
beerBoy, no SHOUTING on my part. I simply use all caps on some individual words or phrases to add emphasis, so that other clearly understand the meaning of my comments better, and respond that that, rather than defect on some minutiae. If I were shouting, then all the words would be in all caps. If I could encode BOLDED characters in these comments, I would use that, but I don’t know how to do that on these blogs so I use caps in place of bolding. Hope that makes sense now, and that you understand.
You present an interesting take on your non-practicing Catholicism. I might say the same for myself, but I have never quite described it that way, because I am a Christian. Bad Catholic, but I think a Good Christian. I think probably I am more of an ex-Catholic, because I just don’t see myself ever going back to The Church. But, who knows, I might.
Take care my fellow former Mackerel Snapper! (Just a joke!!! No offense meant to you or any other Catholic, okay?)
ManuelMartini
Feb. 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm
You equate male enhancement with birth control? You don’t find birth control a medical necessity in 2012?
WOW….I don’t want to be in the muckibr house when Mrs muckibr reads this.
Then there is this:
“1. Having sex, regardless of one’s fertility, is a choice. And one that can cause pregnancy.”
You’ve set the male species back about 10 decades with that kind of talk.
“The Vatican determines the rules for the church, and that’s just the way it is.”
So we have a foreign country telling us which laws they want to follow?
(yes…the Vatican IS a country)
____________________________________________________________________
Guess what the Church has been around a couple thousand years. Do you think Catholocism should be outlawed in the U.S.? Are you saying that, being the Catholic Church is based out of the Vatican. We are not to attend or should not believe in their teachings? Are you saying I should have to go out and buy you a box of condoms or morning after pills for your activities? Why do we need you or the government telling us what to pay for in this case?
Objective – your post is very confusing. I have no idea what it is you are trying to say.
nor do I beerBoy….but…as I posted on the “abortion” thread….
I called my daughter in law as she works for Providence. Part of her compensation is a Group Health policy that provides both birth control pills and abortion.
So much for the Catholic Church’s argument.
This is strictly an attack on Obama.
I diasagree with you Mr. Asmussen. The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It’s as simple as that. You don’t have to like the Church’s beliefs or support them and maybe a majority of Americans don’t, but the Constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority. On a practical note, I’m a bit amused when people like you are running around yelling “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” over the failure to provide birth control for free. If a woman works at a Catholic (non-profit, by the way) hospital and says she can’t afford monthly birth control, I’d like to ask what she’s paying for her cable, internet, cell phone bill, makeup, restaurants, etc. per month. Priorites Andy, priorities. You may have noticed that the Obama administration is backtracking now. Sheer politics. Need that Catholic vote. So much for their principaled stand to help women.
President Obama today, just moments ago, has announced a compromise that will preserve the First Amendment Rights and Protections for Catholic and other Religious organizations, and still provide women with birth control at little or no cost to them. The issue seems to be resolved, and The First Amendment was mention specifically as a prime motivator to devise this solution.
Thank you Mr. President!!!
Just as an aside…I enjoy (most of the time) reading posts and am often impressed by the knowledge and thought that goes into them (certainly not all…wish the knuckle draggers/name callers/”can’t stay on the thread” folks would stay off). That said, some of you are WAY WAY too long. I, and I’m sure others, don’t/won’t read the really long ones and marvel at the free time you “book writers” must have. Brevity, my friends, brevity.
But whitecap, sometimes you just can’t explain things in a few sentences for people to really understand what the point is. Write something too brief and there are those who will twist your words so badly they no longer bear any resemblance to what you meant. You know what I mean?
“I called my daughter in law as she works for Providence. Part of her compensation is a Group Health policy that provides both birth control pills and abortion.
So much for the Catholic Church’s argument.
This is strictly an attack on Obama.”
I copied and pasted this comment for those trying to ignore it.
Whitecap – according to your comment, if a Church believes black people are the descendents of Cain (as the Mormons did) and refuse them employment, that is acceptable under the First Amendment. I think you need to study up on the Constitution and the subsequent laws passed since 1776.
Meanwhile according to employment precident in Washington State, the Catholic Church is the one that compromised – and then created a false negative about the President.
“Washington state passed an abortion reform bill in 1970, and Group Health’s Board voted to include abortion in its basic coverage.” ghc.org
Providence St Peter Hospital offers Group Health as one of the benefit options for employees.
This issue is not about a universal belief application.
whitecap, Do you see now how some people will go to extreme lengths to twist your words to mean something that you never wrote, or even meant with the words you did write.
(I read and reread your comments whitecap and you never once mentioned “black people”, “Cain” or “Mormons”, yet there it is in the grossly gnarled and twisted recap of your comment. This is the same guy who charges other people and organizations with telling lies, posting his own lies against you.)
There are some very unscrupulous commenters here, and that’s why sometimes posts to unravel their lies do get a little long. This twisting of your words above is an excellent as well as an all too common example, I am sorry to say.
I hope you now understand why sometimes I tend to get a little long-winded.
MM…you should just quit.
1. I did not say those things.
2. Your analogy (birth control/racial discrimination) is fallacious on several levels.
3. The Constitution was not ratified in 1776, but in 1788.
4. Did you listen to Obama’s speech today? Did you hear him agree that this is a religious freedom issue?
Whitecap – you’re not real good at reading for context are you? What I posed was an analogy based on a REAL LIFE issue with another religion and how their “belief” would be a violation of rights. Churches are not excused from the law because they believe something different.
Now – as to Obama – a brilliant move and statement from the political sense. Why give the Republicans a stick to beat you with when that’s what they want. As of this moment, they are groping for the new spin on this issue to try to make Obama the bad man. 68% of Americans thought it was a good move. Good luck GOP
“(I read and reread your comments whitecap and you never once mentioned “black people”, “Cain” or “Mormons”
Geeez muckibr, you are predictable. Even Whitecap KNEW it was an analogy, dispite the unrequired denial.
Oh..and as to the 1776….I was being rhetorical. I’m betting the sun doesn’t shine in that air tight cavity of yours. LOL
Now for those wanting to see the truth about the Catholic church’s business concern in Olympia WA, providing GHC for their employees…..
click the box below/right—————————–>
MM
Please provide all the outrage you had when people attacked Bush when he was PRESIDENT.
Your outrageous support of BHO is most humorous and borders on hypocrisy. But we all know your history.
I noticed the music site is no longer available. How can we book the piano now?
When, in recent history, has the President or administration had the audacity to believe they have the power and presence to make decisions for it’s citizens? This administration, good or bad, has resolved to force ” The Affordable Health Care Act ” such as it is? on the public while ignoring the more pressing issues of the economy and our standing in the global forum. What is the end result of this rediculous health care bill?
shifting the costs from medicare/medicaid to the general populace and business. There are no net benefits other than more government buearocracy. Not addressing the costs of health care or the fundamental flaws in the health care system at all.
The “end around” is to simply make insurance companys “absorb” the cost of contraceptives. Sure the cost will just disappear into thin air!!!!! Repeal this program and replace it with something that makes sense and elect a leader. End this foolish administration’s attempts to repeat Europe’s mistakes.
took14 – what music site? What piano?
Now to the subject. Are you saying that Providence Hospital doesn’t provide Group Health Cooperative as a health care option for it’s employees?
That’s the subject to which I’m speaking. Read the thread and see if you can catch up.
“When, in recent history, has the President or administration had the audacity to believe they have the power and presence to make decisions for it’s citizens?”
Everyone one of them, with Congress voting. Oh…you said “European”. I thought you were serious about the discussion.
Whitecap – your post: “The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It’s as simple as that.”
….would stipulate that the Mormons could deny a job to a black person because they believed him to be “marked” as a descendent of Cain.
THERE – no more need for denial or wiggle room. Did you get it that time, muckibr?
beerBoy also cited the Bob Jones University issue, prohibiting inter-racial dating.
These are very real issues that debunk your claim and assessment about “First Amendment” rights for religion – as you stipulate.
Obama capitulates and compromises. This is what he does. This is what he has always done. How is this weakness in statesmanship somehow now some sort of clever campaign strategy?
Update – Obama compromises with a policy that would allow Church-run businesses to not pay for contraception, instead passing the cost on to insurance companies which would actually SAVE the insurance companies money because contraception benefits are much cheaper than birth/child health costs.
And American Bishops complain.
What are they complaining about? Not any break in the 1st Amendment protects but a public policy that was brought about by legislative action. This has nothing to do with Church freedoms – it is inserting Church morality into public policy through politicking. Which is strictly against tax code regulations for non-profits.
It will never happen due to political fallout but the tax code is very clear – the Bishops who are politicking are putting their dioceses at risk of having their tax-free status revoked.
Now I would have to agree with you beerBoy.
The wall of separation between church and state in the First Amendment has been recognized. The government (via the Obama compromise) has backed-off and is no longer hammering against that wall.
Now it seems the Catholic Bishops see this as some sort of opportunity to effect change in government, and that is wrong. They need to back away from the wall themselves and be satisfied that the First Amendment has been upheld.
They risk a lot more than losing tax-exempt status. If they knock down that wall, they risk potential legislative elimination.