Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Let me be clear on my position - I would have no problem with an 'opt-out' clause although, it is a little problematic bc of the slippery slope. Once you make exceptions for one group...

But what I would have more of a problem with us a wholesale change to policy that prevents coverage for others bc of the Catholic Church's position on this issue.

Do you think it is constitutional to force private citizens to pay for other citizens contraceptives? (I'm not limiting it to the church -- just in general).

Not to be flippant but 'forcing,' others to be part of a paid in pool of premiums that yields broad benefits is the definition of group insurance.

Think of it this way, personally I don't engage in many activities that lead some to medical treatments via their insurance but as part of a bigger pool, I technically subsidize it through my premiums.

Funny how none of you have touched the self-insured thing with a ten foot pole yet.

Plus the issue is not how group insurance works. It's forcing a religious organization to violate the tenets of their faith. You guys just cannot bring yourselves to realize that just because the almighty government thinks something is good or desired, doesn't mean they get to throw the free exercise clause out the window and make them.

I hope you also realize that the end result will not be that you get to ramrod this down the Catholic Church's throat. If the Obama Administration doesn't come to its senses, or the SCOTUS for some reason doesn't smack it down, they will simply drop healthcare coverage. Perhaps, they'll make some of it up with a stipend the employees can use to purchase their own insurance, but it won't pay for all of it (partly because the gov't will charge the Church a penalty) and the coverage won't be as rich over all as what they had before but hey...at least they'll them some no-baby pills!

How come NARAL, NOW, Emily's List, Planned Parenthood and the like aren't stepping up to make this a non-issue?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

It has been suggested that if contraceptives were made more available to women that there would be fewer abortions and fewer children born out of wedlock. The stats don't support that conclusion though:

When the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed more than 10,000 women who had procured abortions in 2000 and 2001, it found that only 12 percent cited problems obtaining birth control as a reason for their pregnancies. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of teenage mothers found similar results: Only 13 percent of the teens reported having had trouble getting contraception.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-safe-legal-rare-illusion.html?_r=2&hp

He goes on...

At the same time, if liberal social policies really led inexorably to fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, you would expect “blue” regions of the country to have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions per capita than demographically similar “red” regions.

But that isn’t what the data show. Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on. “Safe, legal and rare” is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don’t always seem to deliver the “rare” part.

What’s more, another Guttmacher Institute study suggests that liberal states don’t necessarily do better than conservative ones at preventing teenagers from getting pregnant in the first place. Instead, the lower teenage birth rates in many blue states are mostly just a consequence of (again) their higher abortion rates. Liberal California, for instance, has a higher teen pregnancy rate than socially conservative Alabama; the Californian teenage birth rate is only lower because the Californian abortion rate is more than twice as high.

These are realities liberals should keep in mind when tempted to rail against conservatives for rejecting the intuitive-seeming promise of “more condoms, fewer abortions.” What’s intuitive isn’t always true, and if social conservatives haven’t figured out how to make all good things go together in post-sexual-revolution America, neither have social liberals.

[Grumps 3,704]

It has been suggested that if contraceptives were made more available to women that there would be fewer abortions and fewer children born out of wedlock. The stats don't support that conclusion though:

When the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed more than 10,000 women who had procured abortions in 2000 and 2001, it found that only 12 percent cited problems obtaining birth control as a reason for their pregnancies. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of teenage mothers found similar results: Only 13 percent of the teens reported having had trouble getting contraception.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-safe-legal-rare-illusion.html?_r=2&hp

He goes on...

At the same time, if liberal social policies really led inexorably to fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, you would expect “blue” regions of the country to have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions per capita than demographically similar “red” regions.

But that isn’t what the data show. Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on. “Safe, legal and rare” is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don’t always seem to deliver the “rare” part.

What’s more, another Guttmacher Institute study suggests that liberal states don’t necessarily do better than conservative ones at preventing teenagers from getting pregnant in the first place. Instead, the lower teenage birth rates in many blue states are mostly just a consequence of (again) their higher abortion rates. Liberal California, for instance, has a higher teen pregnancy rate than socially conservative Alabama; the Californian teenage birth rate is only lower because the Californian abortion rate is more than twice as high.

These are realities liberals should keep in mind when tempted to rail against conservatives for rejecting the intuitive-seeming promise of “more condoms, fewer abortions.” What’s intuitive isn’t always true, and if social conservatives haven’t figured out how to make all good things go together in post-sexual-revolution America, neither have social liberals.

Great post! I recently hear Rick Santorum getting slammed (by Neil Boortz) where Santorum was quoted saying that "contraception doesn't work." Boortz then went off on the stupidity of the quoted when it was pretty clear that Santorum meant "contraception doesn't work to reduce teen pregnancy rates.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

A bit of a side note in all this...an article in Business Insider raises some good points, even if you still disagree with the Catholic Church over whether the Pill should be available:

Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control

Michael Brendan Dougherty and Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry | Feb. 8, 2012, 4:39 PM

Painting the Catholic Church as "out of touch" is like shooting fish in a barrel, what with the funny hats and gilded churches. And nothing makes it easier than the Church's stance against contraception.

Many people, (including our editor) are wondering why the Catholic Church doesn't just ditch this requirement. They note that most Catholics ignore it, and that most everyone else finds it divisive, or "out-dated." C'mon! It's the 21st century, they say! Don't they SEE that it's STUPID, they scream.

Here's the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It's given us some of the world's greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it's not that they're a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.

So, what's going on?

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That's it. But it's pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it's probably never been as salient as today.

Today's injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

1. General lowering of moral standards

2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy

3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.

4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

Because it sure sounds like what's been happening for the past 40 years.

As George Akerloff wrote in Slate over a decade ago,

By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father

.

Instead of two parents being responsible for the children they conceive, an expectation that was held up by social norms and by the law, we now take it for granted that neither parent is necessarily responsible for their children. Men are now considered to be fulfilling their duties merely by paying court-ordered child-support. That's a pretty dramatic lowering of standards for "fatherhood."

How else are we doing since this great sexual revolution? Kim Kardashian's marriage lasted 72 days. Illegitimacy: way up. In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women. By 2010, it was 40.8%. In 1960 married families made up almost three-quarters of all households; but by the census of 2010 they accounted for just 48 percent of them. Cohabitation has increased tenfold since 1960.

And if you don't think women are being reduced to objects to satisfy men, welcome to the internet, how long have you been here? Government coercion: just look to China (or America, where a government rule on contraception coverage is the reason why we're talking about this right now).

Is this all due to the Pill? Of course not. But the idea that widely-available contraception hasn't led to dramatic societal change, or that this change has been exclusively to the good, is a much sillier notion than anything the Catholic Church teaches.

So is the notion that it's just OBVIOUSLY SILLY to get your moral cues from a venerable faith (as opposed to what? Britney Spears?).

But let's turn to another aspect of this. The reason our editor thinks Catholics shouldn't be fruitful and multiply doesn't hold up, either. The world's population, he writes, is on an "unsustainable" growth path.

The Population Bureau of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations sees (PDF, h/t Pax Dickinson) the rate of population growth slowing over the next decades and stabilizing around 9 billion in 2050…and holding there until 2300. (And note that the UN, which promotes birth control and abortions around the world, isn't exactly in the be-fruitful-and-multiply camp.)

More broadly, the Malthusian view of population growth has been resilient despite having been proven wrong time and time again and causing lots of unnecessary human suffering. For example, China is headed for a demographic crunch and social dislocation due to its misguided one-child policy.

Human progress is people. Everything that makes life better, from democracy to the economy to the internet to penicillin was either discovered and built by people. More people means more progress. The inventor of the cure for cancer might be someone's fourth child that they decided not to have.

So, just to sum up:

• It's a good idea for people to be fruitful and multiply; and
  
• Regardless of how you feel about the Church's stance on birth control, it's proven pretty prophetic.
  

http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2

Now, that said, one comment hits the connection to this and the current powergrab on the head:

So the Church’s opposition to birth control is not that it is ritually wrong, like a Jew having to eat pork or a Muslim having to touch a dog, but morally wrong: something destructive to the human person regardless of religion, creed, or nationality. Even so, the Church does not go around trying to outlaw it for people who insist on damaging themselves. She merely says that she refuses to help underwrite it. And even that is not enough for the secular totalitarians of the Obama Administration.

[arnaldoabru 11]

How did the Catholic Church "bury" the Soviet Union?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

That's a phrase sometimes used to mean "outlived", not that they were responsible for their death.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Meanwhile, the Church in Washington state does battle with the next wave of oppression: the attempt to force the Church to pay for abortions.

Yeah, no slippery slope here.

[arnaldoabru 11]

That's a phrase sometimes used to mean "outlived", not that they were responsible for their death.

Didn't know since 1% of Russins are Catholic

Maybe the aurthor should use the phrase "outlived" instead

[TitanTiger 20,510]

That's a phrase sometimes used to mean "outlived", not that they were responsible for their death.

Didn't know since 1% of Russins are Catholic

Maybe the aurthor should use the phrase "outlived" instead

Perhaps. Though it's not that uncommon in our vernacular.

Then again, that wasn't really the point of the article was it?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Meanwhile, the Church in Washington state does battle with the next wave of oppression: the attempt to force the Church to pay for abortions.

Yeah, no slippery slope here.

Two days later and nobody has touched this article either...

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Meanwhile, the Church in Washington state does battle with the next wave of oppression: the attempt to force the Church to pay for abortions.

Yeah, no slippery slope here.

Two days later and nobody has touched this article either...

Yeah. Why is it that Ron Paul is the only one out there that seems to give a rip about the government infringing on our rights anymore? Because the Stupid Evil Party and the Evil Stupid Party have both sold their souls to the devil on the matter, just in different ways.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Right now it's:

"Don't give me that slippery slope stuff. We're just talking about contraception, nobody want's you to pay for someone else's abortion"

Two years from now it'll be:

"Mandatory insurance coverage for abortions is a women's health issue. Either you hate women, or you are in favor of this policy."

[MDM4AU 336]

Right now it's:

"Don't give me that slippery slope stuff. We're just talking about contraception, nobody want's you to pay for someone else's abortion"

Two years from now it'll be:

"Mandatory insurance coverage for abortions is a women's health issue. Either you hate women, or you are in favor of this policy."

Well, abortions are used for more than just killing babies I'm sure. Furthermore, insurance companies will be saving money not having to pay for all those pesky vaccinations and 26 years of being on their parent's insurance.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Explain to me how a secular company would claim an exemption based on the free exercise clause.

You do realize such exemptions have been in place for almost two centuries now, right? I'm not naive, I understand history.

Well then certainly you understand how 'secular humanist' have used the judicial system to successfully argue for free exercise purposes (tax exemption, conscientious objection and on and on). In fact, the irony is, many religious fundamentalist have railed against this very notion: secular humanism is a religion for free exercise clause purposes and it is not a religion for establishment clause purposes.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

A reader letter makes some salient points:

I’ve been thinking about the mandate all week and I’m confused by something. How did we get to a point where contraception equaled an essential medical service to provide? And moreover that contraception was a limitless right higher than most other legal rights Americans have?

We live in a nation of laws that generally impose rights and duties. We often prioritize them but even the rights we hold dearest have limits. There is the age old example of the right of free speech being limited by the inability to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater. I imagine a religion holding ritual human sacrifice as a central tenet would have a hard time finding cover under freedom of religion. And our freedom of press is limited by libel and slander.

But reproductive rights? They are the only rights where there are no limits. Suggest limiting abortions to legal adults? You hate women. Suggest that parents, who have to fill out forms in triplicate to get their minor children’s ears pierced or allow the school nurse to give them a Tylenol, also be notified if their minor child receives the invasive medical procedure that an abortion is? You hate women, and worse young women. Suggest that pharmacies – privately owned businesses – ought to decide whether or not they carry contraception? You hate women. How the hell did we get to a place where reproductive freedom is the only limitless freedom?

And moreover how did we get to hold this right as the cardinal one? The right that outweighs all others, including freedom of religion? And in the case of contraception, which again is not a medical necessity like chemotherapy or antibiotics which are courses of treatment for disease, but is instead a voluntarily chosen drug to be used to engage in voluntary sexual activity, how is this voluntary course of action a sacrosanct right? Especially when necessary things like food and housing aren’t?

I am beyond baffled, especially as it is clear to me that I can’t engage this issue with my liberal friends as they move immediately from “Well contraception is a right” to “Why does your Church hate women?” without so much as a blink and I’ve yet to read any real legal chops on the subject that don’t do the same.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Explain to me how a secular company would claim an exemption based on the free exercise clause.

You do realize such exemptions have been in place for almost two centuries now, right? I'm not naive, I understand history.

Well then certainly you understand how 'secular humanist' have used the judicial system to successfully argue for free exercise purposes (tax exemption, conscientious objection and on and on). In fact, the irony is, many religious fundamentalist have railed against this very notion: secular humanism is a religion for free exercise clause purposes and it is not a religion for establishment clause purposes.

Conscientious objections to combat is something that has never exclusively applied to religious concerns. Tax exemptions exist for all sorts of non-profit organizations. This is not some newfound worry that continuing a long held practice of opt-outs for religious organizations would suddenly cause to crash down on us.

And you disregard some of my concerns based on a perception that they are slippery slope arguments? This is a complete red herring.

[BamaGrad03 0]

A reader letter makes some salient points:

I’ve been thinking about the mandate all week and I’m confused by something. How did we get to a point where contraception equaled an essential medical service to provide? And moreover that contraception was a limitless right higher than most other legal rights Americans have?

We live in a nation of laws that generally impose rights and duties. We often prioritize them but even the rights we hold dearest have limits. There is the age old example of the right of free speech being limited by the inability to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater. I imagine a religion holding ritual human sacrifice as a central tenet would have a hard time finding cover under freedom of religion. And our freedom of press is limited by libel and slander.

But reproductive rights? They are the only rights where there are no limits. Suggest limiting abortions to legal adults? You hate women. Suggest that parents, who have to fill out forms in triplicate to get their minor children’s ears pierced or allow the school nurse to give them a Tylenol, also be notified if their minor child receives the invasive medical procedure that an abortion is? You hate women, and worse young women. Suggest that pharmacies – privately owned businesses – ought to decide whether or not they carry contraception? You hate women. How the hell did we get to a place where reproductive freedom is the only limitless freedom?

And moreover how did we get to hold this right as the cardinal one? The right that outweighs all others, including freedom of religion? And in the case of contraception, which again is not a medical necessity like chemotherapy or antibiotics which are courses of treatment for disease, but is instead a voluntarily chosen drug to be used to engage in voluntary sexual activity, how is this voluntary course of action a sacrosanct right? Especially when necessary things like food and housing aren’t?

I am beyond baffled, especially as it is clear to me that I can’t engage this issue with my liberal friends as they move immediately from “Well contraception is a right” to “Why does your Church hate women?” without so much as a blink and I’ve yet to read any real legal chops on the subject that don’t do the same.

This is a question I've asked numerous times and nobody has touched it. I don't see how contraception is so inalienable of a right that it is constitutional to make others pay for it.

And as that article points out, apparently its more inalienable of a right than is freedom of religion.

Abortion is next. You watch. The "you hate women" crowd will come out in masses.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Conscientious objections to combat is something that has never exclusively applied to religious concerns. Tax exemptions exist for all sorts of non-profit organizations. This is not some newfound worry that continuing a long held practice of opt-outs for religious organizations would suddenly cause to crash down on us.

And you disregard some of my concerns based on a perception that they are slippery slope arguments? This is a complete red herring.

I've never disregarded your concern. In fact, I think it is sincere and in some regards, well-founded. However, what I vehemently disagree with is the hyperbole (i.e., 'shredding the Bill of Rights') manner in which you present it.

As for the slippery slope, we can agree to disagree about 'exceptions' for certain sects who scream the loudest.

[RunInRed 16,487]

This is a question I've asked numerous times and nobody has touched it. I don't see how contraception is so inalienable of a right that it is constitutional to make others pay for it.

And as that article points out, apparently its more inalienable of a right than is freedom of religion.

Abortion is next. You watch. The "you hate women" crowd will come out in masses.

Let me play devil's advocate: Why is it constitutional for me to have to pay for lung cancer treatments or a liver transplant that are the direct result of people smoking and drinking?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Let me play devil's advocate: Why is it constitutional for me to have to pay for lung cancer treatments or a liver transplant that are the direct result of people smoking and drinking?

It's not. And you shouldn't have to.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Conscientious objections to combat is something that has never exclusively applied to religious concerns. Tax exemptions exist for all sorts of non-profit organizations. This is not some newfound worry that continuing a long held practice of opt-outs for religious organizations would suddenly cause to crash down on us.

And you disregard some of my concerns based on a perception that they are slippery slope arguments? This is a complete red herring.

I've never disregarded your concern. In fact, I think it is sincere and in some regards, well-founded. However, what I vehemently disagree with is the hyperbole (i.e., 'shredding the Bill of Rights') manner in which you present it.

As for the slippery slope, we can agree to disagree about 'exceptions' for certain sects who scream the loudest.

I'm still trying to ascertain what new problem with exemptions leaving the previously existing policy on religious exemptions would suddenly create. You've asserted that allowing religious organizations to keep the opt-out they've had for decades on this matter would lead to all sorts of shenanigans by other groups trying to shoehorn their way into the religious exemption. But I fail to see how and you haven't given a viable demonstration to the contrary.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

This is a question I've asked numerous times and nobody has touched it. I don't see how contraception is so inalienable of a right that it is constitutional to make others pay for it.

And as that article points out, apparently its more inalienable of a right than is freedom of religion.

Abortion is next. You watch. The "you hate women" crowd will come out in masses.

Let me play devil's advocate: Why is it constitutional for me to have to pay for lung cancer treatments or a liver transplant that are the direct result of people smoking and drinking?

Allow me to do so in return...how are situations of life and death analogous to the non-life threatening sexual choices of some?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Allow me to do so in return...how are situations of life and death analogous to the non-life threatening sexual choices of some?

And also, we aren't talking about a personal contract entered into with a private company.

We are talking about the government mandating you and I subsidize other people's lifestyle choices in the bedroom. And I know a number of life insurance and health insurance plans take into account age, health, smoker vs non-smoker, etc.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Let me play devil's advocate: Why is it constitutional for me to have to pay for lung cancer treatments or a liver transplant that are the direct result of people smoking and drinking?

It's not. And you shouldn't have to.

Yet, we all do. Where's the equivalent outrage?

[Grumps 3,704]

Let me play devil's advocate: Why is it constitutional for me to have to pay for lung cancer treatments or a liver transplant that are the direct result of people smoking and drinking?

It's not. And you shouldn't have to.

I agree completely.