I have no problem with Viagra being covered. I think the Viagra analogy does not work as well in this context where we are talking about the church. But it does come into play when discussing parity for men and women under anti discrimmination laws.Originally Posted by alan
Actually, to be specific, the catholic church teaches that sex in marriage has two aspects: 1. unifying and 2. procreational -- and it's in that order. (Catechism, page 2, section Purpose of Marriage)
It is not to say that one aspect is more important than the other, but that the first aspect is emphasized to allow for the fact that some couples do not have children. This may be due to fertility issues, or using the natural methods of birth control available to people. This is to allow that the marriage is still covenant, and that the couple is still moral. For many, it is the presence of children that would indicate the health of the marriage, for example, but this process of defining 1, then 2, was a method of getting the cultural burden of childlessness off of women.
That being said, this is also why Natural Family Planning is allowed. Personally, I fall in alignment with this opinion piece, which outlines NFP in the catechism. The catechism is quoted, so you can see that NFP and in fact -- the concept of birth control -- is considered appropriate in certain circumstances that only the individual couple can discern.
It is merely the method of birth control that is under contention, and I have often questioned for myself *why* the method is questioned, but not the actual construct of birth control itself. I think there is a denial that NFP is a form of birth control, really.
But, here is another interesting aspect. This religious rule is for catholics and catholics only. It doesn't apply to anyone else. It is true that a catholic organization that provides free services for women's reproductive health would likely not offer services in antithesis of the religious law. A women's clinic may provide basic health care (pap smears, breast exams), and they may teach NFP as a method of birth control, and they may provide prenatal care and counseling, and perhaps even have doctors who attend births in hospitals. They might facilitate the options for adoption, for example, or help a mother take care of her child after birth. They would also counsel on the moral aspects of their religion and their beliefs therein.
But, as peggy points out, this religious law doesn't mean that basic standards of secular law wouldn't be met, or that they would be released from it. Equal Opportunities and Employment Act -- for example -- comes to mind. An organization looking to hire cannot base the hiring on the individuals race, religion, etc. Right? Even if that is antithesis of a catholic belief. The catholic church, for example, is quite clear on homosexuality. Should homosexuals become a protected class under the EOEA, then guess what? Catholic organizations cannot consider -- in the hiring -- the person's sexual orientation. Though, from what I can tell in the US, they don't anyway (meaning, I know several openly gay men and women who work for catholic organizations such as hospitals).
It is also relevant, as peggy pointed out, that this is already 'in play' in several (28) states. In fact, in 8 states there is no religious exemption. All employers who are providing insurance must provide the same basic care as outlined by that state. In these 8 states, that includes providing prescription birth control. Any catholic organization in these states is subject to this law. And, unless and until it has been brought to the supreme court (actively contested), it is considered per-se constitutional. If it has been contested, and the law still exists, then we can assume that it is constitutional.
[QUOTE=Iris lily;66723]How much should you pay of your income for health care? Percentage? Not for insurance, but for health care? Assuming current health of your family, I'd like to know what number you think you should pay.[/
My income last year was quite healthy. In immediate years past the percentage has come close to forty percent of my net income. We are one catastrophic illness or accident away from financial catastrophe.
That is the case for too many people in the country. That's the problem. I have always had health insurance. Yet its protection is limited. If I get sick and my income goes down and my co pays go way up I could see health care costs going above 50 percent at which point I lose everything even though I have always had health insurance but I'm screwed if I actually have to use it. The point is even people who try to be responsible are on shaky ground.
But there is no disparity. No one is being denied birth control if they want it. It's a matter of who pays for it, and it would appear that our government insists that it be anyone other than the person using it.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
No. It's a question of whether insurance companies and employers should be able to discrimminate against women.
rosebud,
exactly. But I'm not sure that PPACA is going to solve those problems.
what I like about the system here -- which essentially one national insurance system -- is that the basic care is provided for everyone. doctors appointments, emergency care of any kind, pregnancy and birth, health care for children, etc. If you have cancer, you get covered. type 1 diabetes discovered, covered. No extra out-of-pocket expenses.
I find that most people like ACC and are proud of it. It's a working and efficient system. It provides what the people wanted to provide to each other through the government. It makes sense. And, people are loathe to use it, and usually happy with it when they do. That is, people do a lot to take care of themselves (really a lot of health nuts!), and from there, when they do use it, they are happy with the care. It is interesting.
I do think that a socialized system would work in the US, but I'm not sure how it would be formulated to best meet the unique needs of the country itself. And, it does have unique needs.
You may have a different definition of discrimination than I do.
If an insurance company or employer or government forbade women from using birth control, that would be discrimination in my world. But that is not the case.
The real question here is whether or not the government has the authority to force a religious institution to violate it's doctrine. Despite the so-called "compromise", which is simply an accounting trick, this administration has overstepped it's authority. Now we'll see what price it pays for doing so.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I don't see how you can possibly have fun if the consequence is an 18 year sentence of responsibilty for a kid you never wanted to have.The Catholic church maintains that the divine purpose of sex is for PROcreation, not RECreation. You can have fun while attempting to procreate, but the fun can't be its own end.
Trees don't grow on money
The question is, does providing insurance that includes coverage for hormonal birth control or other FDA-approved prescription medications (such as abortificants) violate the church's doctrine?
First, we have to know what that doctrine is. I have provided two links above.
Then, we have to determine if the doctrine applies in this instance.
And from there, whether the church has already made claims against the 8 states where this has already been required. If so, then the logical argument to the second would be found there. And if it has not, then obviously the church (at least in those states and thereby in general) is probably not making a stink about it. and in not doing so, that says that it would not be against the doctrine.
What I want to know is WHERE was the uproar in all these years past when the 28 states, including some "red states" had these laws where all employers had to supply this coverage in their plans, and even EIGHT states that didn't even give an exemption for actual Catholic churches, so the housekeepers at the rectory, for example, who presumably were probably themselve Catholic, had to be provided this coverage.
These Catholic hospitals, universities (and in eight states, the actual churches themselves) have had to provide this coverage for years, but NOW that it is an election year, and all of a sudden that banner has been picked up and that bloody shirt waved all around in the service of politics?
Why hasn't this been a huge problem that should have been shouted from the rooftops, with Bishops sending out letters to parishioners in those twenty-eight states, for years now? Why now?
Now? Because conservatives think they have something they can use to motivate their very conservative base to go out there and vote, because hatred of "libruls" is not reliably enough, and folks can be ridden to a fever pitch on social issues like abortion, birth control, gun control, etc. That's why.
If this was such a "religious freedom" question, it should have been fought loudly and out there in public and all over our media, just as it is now, for years and years.....yet.....up until now, pretty much "sound of crickets". Sure, there may have been protests against these laws in some states, and people against them, but Fox News, the rightwing blogosphere, Rush Limbaugh and company and all these conservative Catholic leaders sure weren't making the noises in past years in all those states that they are making about this.
Could it be that there is an election coming up???????????
And since there is, I, for one, would like ALL women to see plainly which side it is that would, if it could, not only take away women's right to choice, but would, if they could, deny contraceptives and birth control to women altogether.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote