A Democratic Party Constituency Punched In The Face

[dulcinea]

Catholics have been Dem Party supporters since the 19th century.
For whom will my mother and her Catholic acquaintances vote in this election?

[lennygoran]

Catholics have been Dem Party supporters since the 19th century.
For whom will my mother and her Catholic acquaintances vote in this election?

She'll probably be persuaded to vote against Obama because of this Obamacare contraceptive issue but I hope I'm wrong. Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

Catholics have been Dem Party supporters since the 19th century.
For whom will my mother and her Catholic acquaintances vote in this election?

She'll probably be persuaded to vote against Obama because of this Obamacare contraceptive issue but I hope I'm wrong. Regards, Len

I don't know why dulcinea is asking us how her mother and her friends are going to vote, but the silent (vast) majority of people who call themselves Catholics dissent in practice if not in theory from the church's teaching on birth control. Unfortunately, they do not own the church as a collection of employers and therefore do not have any input into its lobbying efforts.

April 14, 2011

(Reuters) -- Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.

The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.

"In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible," said the report's lead author Rachel Jones.

She said most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant practice contraception, and most use highly effective methods like sterilization, the pill, or the intrauterine device (IUD).

"This is true for Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants, and it is true for Catholics, despite the Catholic hierarchy's strenuous opposition to contraception," Jones said.

Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD, according to the Guttmacher Institute research.

The numbers are slightly higher among women who identify as Evangelicals or Mainline Protestants, research showed.

The latest data is from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG).

The findings nearly match previous NSFG data from 2002, which showed that 97 percent of Catholic women were using birth control, and are consistent with a trend tracked over the last decade by Catholics for Choice.

(Reporting by Lauren Keiper; editing by Barbara Goldberg and Greg McCune)

[lennygoran]

[quote="jbuck919"]Unfortunately, they do not own the church as a collection of employers and therefore do not have any input into its lobbying efforts.<

Yep there's the Catholic church looking for another exemption from laws other Americans are expected to follow! Wonder how bad all this will be for Obama--despite Romney and his Romneycare in Ma I guess he'll milk this real hard! Regards, Len

[dulcinea]

Unfortunately, they do not own the church as a collection of employers and therefore do not have any input into its lobbying efforts.<

Yep there's the Catholic church looking for another exemption from laws other Americans are expected to follow! Wonder how bad all this will be for Obama--despite Romney and his Romneycare in Ma I guess he'll milk this real hard! Regards, Len

Remember this quotation from the Constitution of YOUR country?:
Congress shall make no law... PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (religion).

[jbuck919]

Unfortunately, they do not own the church as a collection of employers and therefore do not have any input into its lobbying efforts.<

Yep there's the Catholic church looking for another exemption from laws other Americans are expected to follow! Wonder how bad all this will be for Obama--despite Romney and his Romneycare in Ma I guess he'll milk this real hard! Regards, Len

Remember this quotation from the Constitution of YOUR country?:
Congress shall make no law... PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (religion).

The Catholic Church is free for the moment not to offer its employees health insurance at all (though that may change when the Affordable Health Care Act kicks in fully). If it is going to have a secular payroll paying employees with secular benefits, then it can't demand sectarian exceptions; let it sponsor its own insurance plans if that's what they want. Not to mention that it is in this kind of behavior that a great and mega-historic church identifies its interests with those of fringe sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[lennygoran]

Remember this quotation from the Constitution of YOUR country?:
Congress shall make no law... PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (religion).

Yes free to pray as they wish but not to get out of paying their property tax like the rest of us! Regards, Len

[RebLem]

This whole thread seems idiotic to me, and I am talking about all posters. We are the last developed country in the world to attempt the construction of a universal health care system. Surely we are not the first country in the history of the world to have been confronted with these issues, and yet NO ONE has wondered how other countries have dealt with it. Why do you suppose that is? I think it is typical American jingoistic arrogance masquerading as American exceptionalism. Its why so much of the thoughtful world hates us.

Agnes, are you there?

[Steinway]

Remember this quotation from the Constitution of YOUR country?:
Congress shall make no law... PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (religion)."

How about his one?

Congress shall make no law..Prohibiting the right of every American over 21 years old to excercise his/her right to vote for the candidates of their choice.

I feel as strongly about that as I do about your statement.

[RebLem]

Remember this quotation from the Constitution of YOUR country?:
Congress shall make no law... PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (religion)."

How about his one?
Congress shall make no law..Prohibiting the right of every American over 21 years old to excercise his/her right to vote for the candidates of their choice.
I feel as strongly about that as I do about your statement.

I have never seen that wording in my copies of the Constitution, and I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand.

[Teresa B]

This whole issue of the Catholic Church not wanting to allow even its non-Catholic employees to have insurance coverage for birth control pills is just Theater of the Absurd. And with 98% of Catholics apparently being OK with birth control, what possible reason could there be for this stupid, pointless, anachronistic pseudo-moral dilemma?

Hmm, let's see. Key words--women, control...

Teresa

[jbuck919]

This whole thread seems idiotic to me, and I am talking about all posters. We are the last developed country in the world to attempt the construction of a universal health care system. Surely we are not the first country in the history of the world to have been confronted with these issues, and yet NO ONE has wondered how other countries have dealt with it. Why do you suppose that is? I think it is typical American jingoistic arrogance masquerading as American exceptionalism. Its why so much of the thoughtful world hates us.

I have pointed out many times in my posts that Americans are congenitally unwilling to admit that any other country has had a good idea from which we should be learning. And your penultimate sentence, which I have danced around a number of times without stating the idea so succinctly, seems to me to be the best explanation for this.

Speaking only for myself, it would still never occur to me to look to another country for how they dealt with this particular issue because few if any of them have plans where the private employer is in the loop with regard to providing insurance coverage. If you mean that the way we are addressing the issue is ridiculous because our premise is an improvement on but nevertheless a continuation of an inherently problematic and inferior way of doing health care, then I agree, but in sweating this detail we won't learn anything helpful from countries that have never used our "system."

The question remains whether any national health care plan, perhaps in a traditionally Catholic country, has been coerced into restricting the coverage of contraceptives. A search turned up little. There is this article about Ireland, which still does not answer that question, but it does show that other countries have had to cope with the influenza of the Church of Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracept ... of_Ireland

[RebLem]

This whole thread seems idiotic to me, and I am talking about all posters. We are the last developed country in the world to attempt the construction of a universal health care system. Surely we are not the first country in the history of the world to have been confronted with these issues, and yet NO ONE has wondered how other countries have dealt with it. Why do you suppose that is? I think it is typical American jingoistic arrogance masquerading as American exceptionalism. Its why so much of the thoughtful world hates us.

Agnes, are you there?

Agnes tells me via PM that she is unable to respond @ the present time because she's having a computer problem that allows her to send PMs but not to submit posts in the forums. She says she is going to seek the assistance of a computer tech to fix the problem.

[jbuck919]

And a late development, sort of:

The New York Times

The Caucus - The Politics and Government blog of The New York Times
February 7, 2012, 7:53 am
White House May Look to Compromise on Contraception Decision
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR


The White House may be open to compromising on a new rule that requires religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control, a senior strategist for President Obama said on Tuesday morning.

David Axelrod, who serves as a top adviser to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program that the president would “look for a way” to address the vocal opposition from Catholic groups who say the rule forces them to violate their religious beliefs against contraception.

“We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions,” Mr. Axelrod said.

The comments come as last month’s decision has prompted a furor among religious groups while providing Mr. Obama’s Republican opponents with fresh ammunition to claim that the president wants the federal government to control the provision of health care.

Mitt Romney, the president’s likely Republican opponent in the fall, seized on the issue in a campaign appearance in Colorado late Monday evening.

“This same administration said that in churches and the institutions they run, such as schools and let’s say adoption agencies, hospitals, that they have to provide for their employees, free of charge, contraceptives, morning-after pills — in other words abortive pills and the like at no cost,” Mr. Romney said at a rally in Centennial, Colo. “Think what that does to people in faiths without sharing those views. This is a violation of conscience.”

When the Obama administration last month unveiled rules that would require some religious hospitals, colleges and other institutions to provide free coverage for contraception to their employees under the new health care law, it might have seemed to be a political winner.

The idea of birth control being covered by insurance companies is popular across the political spectrum, even among Catholics. The new policy will exempt churches themselves and will have no effect on doctors who object to prescribing contraception. And the decision means the president’s health care law will help make birth control cheaper for millions of women.

“The administration decided — the president agrees with this decision — that we need to provide these services that have enormous health benefits for American women and that the exemption that we carved out is appropriate,” Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said Monday afternoon.

But Catholic groups, including some friendly to the White House, are loudly objecting. David A. Zubik, the Catholic Bishop of Pittsburgh, told the Catholic News Agency that the rule is a “slap in the face” to Catholics.

“This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone – not only Catholics; not only people of all religion. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens,” he wrote.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops posted a fact-sheet on its blog saying the rule will force “institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral.”

Mr. Axelrod noted that there are similar rules in 28 states and that its intention is to provide employees of the religiously-affiliated institutions with access to “the same package that every other woman in the country has, the same right and access to basic preventive care.”

But Republicans like Mr. Romney are framing the issue more broadly in an effort to use it during the presidential campaign.

Their accusation is that Mr. Obama is waging a war on religious freedoms. They argue that the president’s decision on contraception can be seen as an expansion of efforts to extend the reach and power of the federal government, even into the affairs of religious groups.

Mr. Romney on Monday urged his supporters to sign a petition calling on Mr. Obama to “stop the attacks on religious liberty.” In a Twitter message Monday morning, Mr. Romney called on Republicans to “stand with me and sign the petition” on his Web site.

“The Obama administration is at it again,” Mr. Romney says in the introduction to the petition. “They are now using Obamacare to impose a secular vision on Americans who believe that they should not have their religious freedom taken away.”

Mr. Romney’s criticism of the president for the contraception rule is part of a concerted effort by Republicans to use the issue in the coming elections. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a Catholic, has introduced legislation that would more broadly exempt religious institutions from the requirement.

“From a practical standpoint,” Mr. Rubio wrote in The New York Post about the health care rule, “this will force Catholic organizations to make an unacceptable choice: Ignore a major tenet of their faith, or not provide any insurance to their employees and be punished with a federal fine for violating Obamacare’s mandate on employers.”

And the Republican critique has gotten some support from unlikely places. An editorial in Monday’s USA Today said the decision set off a “predictable backlash” by imposing a policy that is contrary to Catholic doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.”

“In drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform, the Obama administration didn’t just cross that line. It galloped over it,” the paper wrote.

Senior White House officials on Monday defended the decision, saying that the policy balances the rights of religious organizations with the interests of their female employees to receive affordable contraception.

“The employees at these institutions ought to enjoy access to the free contraceptive care that their colleagues in other places are going to receive,” one senior administration official said during a briefing with reporters on Monday.

And Democratic strategists outside of the White House said they believed the president would not suffer politically from embracing a policy that helps women pay for birth control.

Geoff Garin, a pollster who has worked for decades with Planned Parenthood and other women’s groups, predicted that the attacks from Mr. Romney and other Republicans would only work with voters who are hard-core Republicans anyway — not with people inclined to support the president.

“At the end of the day, in an election, the people most likely to care about this thing will be younger women who care about their access to affordable birth control,” Mr. Garin said.

White House aides said Mr. Obama would have faced similar criticism from the other direction, from supporters of greater access to contraception, if he had decided to exempt big religious hospitals and colleges — who employ people of all different faiths — from making birth control accessible and affordable.

And they said a one-year delay in implementing the law would give the administration time to work with religious hospitals and colleges to “allay” their concerns about how it would work.

“You make the best substantive call about what you think the right thing is to do,” one senior official said during the Monday briefing. “And the politics fall where they may.”

But this is an election year, and it appears that Mr. Romney — if he becomes the nominee — is prepared to try to use the issue to undermine support for the president among Catholics and people of other faiths.

It also gives Mr. Romney a new opportunity to attack Mr. Obama’s health care plan. In an opinion article published late last week in The Washington Examiner, Mr. Romney vowed to issue waivers to roll back the health care plan and to undo the contraception decision.

“I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith,” he wrote. “Such rules don’t belong in the America that I believe in.”

Whether that attack gains traction among independent voters in important swing states this fall may depend on how well the White House responds.

If it can frame the issue as one about affordability and availability of a popular form of health care for women, it may be successful in neutralizing the impact of Mr. Romney’s broader attacks about religion.

But if Mr. Romney is successful in creating doubt among blue-collar, religious voters in states like North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia — constituencies that Mr. Obama struggled to attract in 2008 — it could hurt the president politically.

Mr. Garin said he was confident that the president could win if he made his case effectively.

“As in any political debate, you can’t give the other side free rein to define the issue,” he said. “As long as the president and his supporters are clear that what he did is draw respectful bounds between the interests of churches and the interests of employees, then he’s got a winning hand.”

[Teresa B]

But Republicans like Mr. Romney are framing the issue more broadly in an effort to use it during the presidential campaign.

Their accusation is that Mr. Obama is waging a war on religious freedoms. They argue that the president’s decision on contraception can be seen as an expansion of efforts to extend the reach and power of the federal government, even into the affairs of religious groups.

Amazing, isn't it, that this is twisted into an assault on President Obama, accusing him of trying to "expand the power of the federal government", as per the usual blather. No one bothers to mention the real issue at the heart of it--women's control over their own destiny, in this case their reproductive choices. Mitt Romney (who is a pro-choice moderate and takes these positions purely out of political pandering), and the other hypocrites who want to give the Church its "freedom" might want to consider 50% of this country, and think again about who is more important to pander to, the Catholic Clergy, or the 50% of the voters who are women?

Teresa

[RebLem]

This debate is fraught with all manner of statistical data on public opinion polling, and frankly, I strongly suspect both sides are fudging the data. When a pro-lfe pollster does it, I'll bet they phrase the question to emphasize abortion and pretend that the data showing only about half or less believe in it applies not only to abortion, but to all birth control measures as well. The opposite for pro-choice pollsters. I strongly suspect ALL the polling.

I am not a believer. I consider myself a recovering Catholic. But the extravagant rhetoric against the Church heirarchy in this matter is ticking off a lot of people you would not expect. Including me. For a variety of reasons, including some things the Church has brought on itself having to do with sexual abuse scandals and the attempt to manage the public reaction to it, the anti-clerical rhetoric has, in the opinions of many in not only the practicing but the extended Catholic community, in which I include myself, become excessive. Its starting to really irritate people, many more than most might expect. Its like everybody dreading Thanksgiving because of the way they know Uncle Harry will behave. But let an outsider, someone who has just married into the family, start dissing Uncle Harry, and the family pulls together. Something like that is happening in much what I call the extended Catholic community.

What particularly irritates me is something I haven't seen discussed anywhere in or on the news and punditry media. Although a lot of nonsense and jingoistic excess has infected the public debate in the name of American Exceptionalism, it is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Properly contained and proportioned, and limited to a few areas where the American perspective is legitimately different from much of the world, it is a very good thing. One of the things that makes me proud to be an American is the fact that we welcome people here who are persecuted in many other places, inlcuding societies we ordinarily think of as free and organized into a relatively broad minded polity. We have extended ourselves in all sorts of ways, made exceptions to many American norms, to accommodate the sensibilities of all manner of religious groups--Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, the Amish, the Old Order Amish, the Dunkards, the Hutterites and others too numerous to mention. And yet many are disposed to stand fast against the doctrinal position of the largest single denomination in the United States, the Roman Catholic Church. Something is wrong here.

So, how do we resolve this? I actually have a modest proposal. Accede to the demand of the Catholic Church with regard to what sort of restrictions on reproductive rights they insist on in insurance policies for their employees. And then, for everyone who has to pay out of pocket for birth control as a result, provide a dollar for dollar tax credit, with no deductible and no upper limit, on their personal income taxes. That way, the sin, if there is one, rests solely on the individual. The employer would not be complicit.

[Teresa B]

Rob, I think some compromise will be found, which is fine as long as the employees who need birth control are able to get it at the same cost , and thus are not discriminated against as non-Catholics or Catholics who desire birth control (98% of them, apparently).

I just find the whole thing repugnant because it seems to me that the ongoing insistence of the Catholic Church that birth control is a sin despite the fact that virtually every member flouts the rule--and it is so painfully clear that the ability to limit the number of pregnancies and children is a huge step in the equal rights of the female human population in a civilized society--the so-called "right" of the Catholic Clergy to restrict the health benefits of women (Oh, sure, they can all seek employment somewhere else..) seems to me a sad, sad anachronism in the name of religious freedom.

The nonsense that the Obama administration is "trampling on religious freedom" is insane. What about the freedom of women not to have to bear 10 children if they don't desire it, or their health does not warrant it?

Teresa

[jbuck919]

A friend from college years completed his Air Force career and entered the John XXIII Seminary near Boston, which is for late vocations. Last May he was ordained a priest in the Diocese of Charleston, SC. When our friendship was current he was lapsatus like myself and the last person I would have thought ripe for a re-conversion. He did not respond to my letter of congratulations; maybe he realized that what I really wanted to say was "What's wrong with you? How can you look yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing what you will now have to defend?"

[lennygoran]

yet NO ONE has wondered how other countries have dealt with it.

I've brought up the PBS show on health care in 5 other countries many times--the show reveals all those countries are content with their national health care programs. You think Keaggy has watched it yet--I'll bet $10,000 he hasn't!

"In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... opsis.html

Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

So, how do we resolve this? I actually have a modest proposal.

Not modest enough for me--the Obama policy already got it pretty much right--no need for more exceptions for the Catholic Church or other religious institutions on this. Regards, Len

[John F]

As I understand it, this isn't about forcing birth control on Catholics but making it available to non-Catholics who work in Catholic-run schools, hospitals, even churches. A non-Catholic janitor should surely have the same health care services whether she works at CalTech or Notre Dame. And if she works at Notre Dame, she shouldn't need to buy supplementary health insurance because the school's own benefits package, which in effect is part of her compensation, omits this basic aspect of women's health.

[RebLem]

Rob, I think some compromise will be found, which is fine as long as the employees who need birth control are able to get it at the same cost , and thus are not discriminated against as non-Catholics or Catholics who desire birth control (98% of them, apparently).

I just find the whole thing repugnant because it seems to me that the ongoing insistence of the Catholic Church that birth control is a sin despite the fact that virtually every member flouts the rule--and it is so painfully clear that the ability to limit the number of pregnancies and children is a huge step in the equal rights of the female human population in a civilized society--the so-called "right" of the Catholic Clergy to restrict the health benefits of women (Oh, sure, they can all seek employment somewhere else..) seems to me a sad, sad anachronism in the name of religious freedom.

The nonsense that the Obama administration is "trampling on religious freedom" is insane. What about the freedom of women not to have to bear 10 children if they don't desire it, or their health does not warrant it? Teresa

You just don't get it. Almost all Christians, not just Catholics, believe that morality is not something you vote on. It is based on eternal, unvariable divine law. You can vote, or course, with your feet and/or your wallet by withholding its contents, of course, but that's about it. And, for that matter, although 98% of Catholics may use birth control at some time, as far as I know, no one has ever asked them how they feel about it. Is it something that they feel at ease about, or is it something that bothers their consciences but that the do anyway for the sake of expediency? Not that an untroubled mind in that circumstance would make a difference to the Church or God.

Catholics also believe that they have an obligation to avoid and avoid being what is called "an occasion of sin." Occasions of sin can be anything from an attractive person who tempts you, to a set of circumstances that encourages immoral behavior. Its why wise parents always give their daughters a few bucks when they go on a date so they can get a cab for themselves if boyfriend gets to be too much. And if you tell a church that it must facilitate what it believes in good conscience to be sin, then that is forcing them to be occasions of sin, too, a moral position which is simply unacceptable to them and is not required by any society with a rigorous concern for religious liberty.

[jbuck919]

As I understand it, this isn't about forcing birth control on Catholics but making it available to non-Catholics who work in Catholic-run schools, hospitals, even churches. A non-Catholic janitor should surely have the same health care services whether she works at CalTech or Notre Dame. And if she works at Notre Dame, she shouldn't need to buy supplementary health insurance because the school's own benefits package, which in effect is part of her compensation, omits this basic aspect of women's health.

By that reasoning, the church should not be pushing for anti-abortion legislation because abortion is only "murder" if Catholics do it. This is not a matter of church discipline, like celibacy. The Catholic Church teaches officially that contraception is evil, sinful, and objectively morally wrong for everybody, not just for Catholics, and therefore will not abet the practice among its non-Catholic employees. Perhaps you are letting the comparative magnitude of an act of contraception and an act of abortion affect your reasoning, because it is in fact difficult to believe that a modern supposedly mainstream religious institution would maintain stringently so outlandish a teaching.

[RebLem]

As I understand it, this isn't about forcing birth control on Catholics but making it available to non-Catholics who work in Catholic-run schools, hospitals, even churches. A non-Catholic janitor should surely have the same health care services whether she works at CalTech or Notre Dame. And if she works at Notre Dame, she shouldn't need to buy supplementary health insurance because the school's own benefits package, which in effect is part of her compensation, omits this basic aspect of women's health.

By that reasoning, the church should not be pushing for anti-abortion legislation because abortion is only "murder" if Catholics do it. This is not a matter of church discipline, like celibacy. The Catholic Church teaches officially that contraception is evil, sinful, and objectively morally wrong for everybody, not just for Catholics, and therefore will not abet the practice among its non-Catholic employees. Perhaps you are letting the comparative magnitude of an act of contraception and an act of abortion affect your reasoning, because it is in fact difficult to believe that a modern supposedly mainstream religious institution would maintain stringently so outlandish a teaching.

And, btw, John Francis, although this policy does, of course, affect women disproportionately, it affects men, too, as the Church opposes both condoms and vasectomies as well.

[John F]

By that reasoning, the church should not be pushing for anti-abortion legislation because abortion is only "murder" if Catholics do it. This is not a matter of church discipline, like celibacy.

Not by my reasoning. The church may push for any legislation it likes, just as you and I can. What it can't do is deny its employees, or anyone else, the equal protection of the laws, on any grounds including religious. If abortion were outlawed once again, for whatever reason, the law would apply to everyone, and I would think that provision of the constitution would be maintained. The Supremes decided Roe v. Wade on different constitutional grounds, due process.

Here I am, talking as if I were a constitutional lawyer. Unfortunately our real constitutional lawyer, Ralph, has no time for our discussions any more, so we have to improvise as best we can.

P.S. Obviously this applies to other forms of contraception than abortion, and to men as well as women, but abortion is always the focus of the argument, and the last I heard, only women get pregnant.

[lennygoran]

By that reasoning, the church should not be pushing for anti-abortion legislation because abortion is only "murder" if Catholics do it. This is not a matter of church discipline, like celibacy. The Catholic Church teaches officially that contraception is evil, sinful, and objectively morally wrong for everybody, not just for Catholics, and therefore will not abet the practice among its non-Catholic employees.

For me the answer is the church should pay the same for public health care programs just like others and be forced to obey those laws if appropriate--if it becomes the law they are not entitled to any tax or other break--their members can use any health care program or not use it. Catholics pay tax that support public schools--yet they don't have to send their children there--it's their call but they should be forced to pay their share for worthy public programs. Regards, Len

[RebLem]

Meanwhile, while all the so-called "liberals" in this forum are busily determined to teach them Catliks a lesson, dammit, even though they would never think of doing that to the Amish or any other religious group, everyone has carefully avoided my suggestion for a compromise resolution. Everyone here seems to think that compromise is evil. That's something liberals have said until now was the exclusive province of doctrinaire, anti-democratic right wingers.

[lennygoran]

everyone has carefully avoided my suggestion for a compromise resolution.

I haven't ignored it--I just don't think it should be done--but it probably will be done because Obama has to worry about getting elected. People's beliefs about their religion should never trump the general public's welfare imo--that's what the Catholic church is attempting here. If contraception is deemed to be an essential part of good health policy it shouldn't matter what religious leaders think. Can parents refuse traditional medical care for ill children on religious grounds--I say no--the fact that they still do is an outrage! Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

Meanwhile, while all the so-called "liberals" in this forum are busily determined to teach them Catliks a lesson, dammit, even though they would never think of doing that to the Amish or any other religious group, everyone has carefully avoided my suggestion for a compromise resolution. Everyone here seems to think that compromise is evil. That's something liberals have said until now was the exclusive province of doctrinaire, anti-democratic right wingers.

I think we may have to swallow compromise here, but your proposal is discriminatory, in that no one else is allowed to realize a dollar-for-dollar tax reduction for unreimbursed medical expenses, and if you did not specify the Catholic Church and let everyone do it for birth control, secular employers would sue to be relieved from having to provide it as part of their benefit in order to cut costs. IOW, instead of just the Catholic Church not paying for contraception, no employer would.

[John F]

Meanwhile, while all the so-called "liberals" in this forum are busily determined to teach them Catliks a lesson, dammit, even though they would never think of doing that to the Amish or any other religious group

What other religious group (A) objects to all forms of birth control on principal and (B) is large enough to bother mentioning it by name? There are 66.4 million American Catholics and less than 1/4 million Old Order Amish. Besides which, the Amish neither prohibit birth control nor think of it as immoral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish). So what's your problem, exactly?

everyone has carefully avoided my suggestion for a compromise resolution. Everyone here seems to think that compromise is evil. That's something liberals have said until now was the exclusive province of doctrinaire, anti-democratic right wingers.

I didn't notice it because the way that message was going, I didn't read it through to the end. Now that I have, I say it's unrealistic, especially if abortion is included among the methods of birth control, which is what abortion is for. Congress is not going to vote for governmental funding of abortion, as you surely know - no compromise is possible on that score, and it isn't liberals who would block such a compromise, as you also surely know.

[diegobueno]

The United Church of Christ has supported reproductive justice issues since the 1960’s. Here is a compilation of statements and General Synod resolutions on freedom of choice, family planning and reproductive health.

BREAKING NEWS!

Geoffrey A. Black, General Minister and President of the UCC, has joined other faith leaders in a statement supporting the ruling of the Department of Health and Human Services requiring religiously affiliated institutions, except for houses of worship and similar sectarian institutions, must include contraception coverage without co-pay in health insurance plans offered to their employees.

Current Landscape of Reproductive Justice

After the Supreme Court decision in 1972, Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the U.S., the UCC has joined with other faith groups to protect women’s equal and fair access to abortion and family planning which have been under attack consistently. The strategies of those seeking to overturn Roe have shifted to state legislatures. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, we have seen an unprecedented number of state laws introduced and passed which restrict women’s health options.

The Guttmacher Institute provides state by state information on the status of current legislation.

Recently, in Ohio, Ohio Conference Minister, Rev. Bob Molsberry, and UCC minister Rev. Dr. Leslie Taylor, testified before a state senate committee considering a bill that would prohibit abortion after a fetal heartbeat was detectable.

http://www.ucc.org/justice/womens-issue ... stice.html

[jbuck919]

The UCC is also the only denomination with a mainstream lineage (it is, ironically, the main organized descendent of the Congregational Church, i.e., the Puritans), that is completely and officially accepting of homosexuality, including in its ministry. I wouldn't make too much of it being vocally liberal in other areas as well. If the Southern Baptists go to bed with them on this, do let us know.

[RebLem]

Meanwhile, while all the so-called "liberals" in this forum are busily determined to teach them Catliks a lesson, dammit, even though they would never think of doing that to the Amish or any other religious group, everyone has carefully avoided my suggestion for a compromise resolution. Everyone here seems to think that compromise is evil. That's something liberals have said until now was the exclusive province of doctrinaire, anti-democratic right wingers.

I think we may have to swallow compromise here, but your proposal is discriminatory, in that no one else is allowed to realize a dollar-for-dollar tax reduction for unreimbursed medical expenses, and if you did not specify the Catholic Church and let everyone do it for birth control, secular employers would sue to be relieved from having to provide it as part of their benefit in order to cut costs. IOW, instead of just the Catholic Church not paying for contraception, no employer would.

That could provide a stimulus for union organizing drives, which, to my mind, would be a good thing.

[Agnes Selby]

Dear Rob, I really cannot say much about this issue.
Having been educated at St. Vincents College in Sydney,
I am aware that Catholics have been practicing contraception
through various methods. I can't see why the Catholic Church
has decided to prohibit it. It has not yet come up in Australia.

[Teresa B]

Rob, I think some compromise will be found, which is fine as long as the employees who need birth control are able to get it at the same cost , and thus are not discriminated against as non-Catholics or Catholics who desire birth control (98% of them, apparently).

I just find the whole thing repugnant because it seems to me that the ongoing insistence of the Catholic Church that birth control is a sin despite the fact that virtually every member flouts the rule--and it is so painfully clear that the ability to limit the number of pregnancies and children is a huge step in the equal rights of the female human population in a civilized society--the so-called "right" of the Catholic Clergy to restrict the health benefits of women (Oh, sure, they can all seek employment somewhere else..) seems to me a sad, sad anachronism in the name of religious freedom.

The nonsense that the Obama administration is "trampling on religious freedom" is insane. What about the freedom of women not to have to bear 10 children if they don't desire it, or their health does not warrant it? Teresa

You just don't get it. Almost all Christians, not just Catholics, believe that morality is not something you vote on. It is based on eternal, unvariable divine law. You can vote, or course, with your feet and/or your wallet by withholding its contents, of course, but that's about it. And, for that matter, although 98% of Catholics may use birth control at some time, as far as I know, no one has ever asked them how they feel about it. Is it something that they feel at ease about, or is it something that bothers their consciences but that the do anyway for the sake of expediency? Not that an untroubled mind in that circumstance would make a difference to the Church or God.

Catholics also believe that they have an obligation to avoid and avoid being what is called "an occasion of sin." Occasions of sin can be anything from an attractive person who tempts you, to a set of circumstances that encourages immoral behavior. Its why wise parents always give their daughters a few bucks when they go on a date so they can get a cab for themselves if boyfriend gets to be too much. And if you tell a church that it must facilitate what it believes in good conscience to be sin, then that is forcing them to be occasions of sin, too, a moral position which is simply unacceptable to them and is not required by any society with a rigorous concern for religious liberty.

Oh, I get it. Whatever Christians believe about morality, they would of course believe it's based on divine law. But some churches have altered their interpretations of divine law based on new knowledge and the advancements that have occurred through the millennia. We now believe slavery is morally wrong, for example. Perhaps the 98% of Catholic lay people have joined the 21st Century, and have realized that it's a different world than it was in, say, 100 AD. Perhaps the 98% understand, at least in civilized countries, that women are human beings who should have the same rights as men, and the society we live in today is not one in which women's role is purely to produce as many offspring as possible until they reach menopause or die. The so-called moral anguish that the Catholic Clergy is experiencing about allowing women to obtain coverage for contraceptives is a guise under which they can maintain the position of more oppression for women. No one has said any Catholic woman must use birth control, only that the Church's purchased insurance policy cover it for those who seek it. There could probably be a compromise in this specific requirement, as long as the enrollees were compensated an equivalent amount. If the Church is not into keeping women down, then their clinging to old stances that are clearly harmful to women in this day and age have painted them into a 1st century corner. Either way, it's still a sad anachronism.

[RebLem]

Oh, I get it. Whatever Christians believe about morality, they would of course believe it's based on divine law. But some churches have altered their interpretations of divine law based on new knowledge and the advancements that have occurred through the millennia. We now believe slavery is morally wrong, for example. Perhaps the 98% of Catholic lay people have joined the 21st Century, and have realized that it's a different world than it was in, say, 100 AD. Perhaps the 98% understand, at least in civilized countries, that women are human beings who should have the same rights as men, and the society we live in today is not one in which women's role is purely to produce as many offspring as possible until they reach menopause or die. The so-called moral anguish that the Catholic Clergy is experiencing about allowing women to obtain coverage for contraceptives is a guise under which they can maintain the position of more oppression for women. No one has said any Catholic woman must use birth control, only that the Church's purchased insurance policy cover it for those who seek it. There could probably be a compromise in this specific requirement, as long as the enrollees were compensated an equivalent amount. If the Church is not into keeping women down, then their clinging to old stances that are clearly harmful to women in this day and age have painted them into a 1st century corner. Either way, it's still a sad anachronism.

It is precisely advances in our scientific understanding that are responsible for the Catholic position on these issues. Before pregnancy was as fully understood as it is today, abortion was only forbidden for the period after the beginning of "quickening," which is basically the period when a pregnancy is sufficiently advanced for a belly bulge to begin appearing on the woman's body. But when we identified the details and came to understand that the potential for a human being was there right from the point of fertilization, the Church's position began to harden.

[John F]

Tales From the Kitchen Table
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: February 8, 2012

This is a really old story, but let me tell you anyway.

When I was first married, my mother-in-law sat down at her kitchen table and told me about the day she went to confession and told the priest that she and her husband were using birth control. She had several young children, times were difficult — really, she could have produced a list of reasons longer than your arm.

“You’re no better than a whore on the street,” said the priest.

This was, as I said, a long time ago. It’s just an explanation of why the bishops are not the only Roman Catholics who are touchy about the issue of contraception.

These days, parish priests tend to be much less judgmental about parishioners who are on the pill — the military was not the first institution in this country to make use of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” system. “In most parishes in the United States, we don’t find them preaching about contraception,” said Jon O’Brien of Catholics for Choice. “And it’s not as though in the Mass you have a question-and-answer period.”

You have heard, I’m sure, that the Catholic bishops are in an uproar over an Obama administration rule that would require Catholic universities and hospitals to cover contraceptives in their health care plans. The Republican presidential candidates are roaring right behind. Mitt Romney claimed the White House was trying to “impose a secular vision on Americans who believe that they should not have their religious freedom taken away.”

Let’s try to work this out in a calm, measured manner. (Easy for me to say. I already got my mother-in-law story off my chest.)

Catholic doctrine prohibits women from using pills, condoms or any other form of artificial contraception. A much-quoted study by the Guttmacher Institute found that virtually all sexually active Catholic women of childbearing age have violated the rule at one point or another, and that more than two-thirds do so consistently.

Here is the bishops’ response to that factoid: “If a survey found that 98 percent of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so?”

O.K. Moving right along.

The church is not a democracy and majority opinion really doesn’t matter. Catholic dogma holds that artificial contraception is against the law of God. The bishops have the right — a right guaranteed under the First Amendment — to preach that doctrine to the faithful. They have a right to preach it to everybody. Take out ads. Pass out leaflets. Put up billboards in the front yard.

The problem here is that they’re trying to get the government to do their work for them. They’ve lost the war at home, and they’re now demanding help from the outside.

And they don’t seem in the mood to compromise. Church leaders told The National Catholic Register that they regarded any deal that would allow them to avoid paying for contraceptives while directing their employees to other places where they could find the coverage as a nonstarter.

This new rule on contraceptive coverage is part of the health care reform law, which was designed to finally turn the United States into a country where everyone has basic health coverage. In a sane world, the government would be running the whole health care plan, the employers would be off the hook entirely and we would not be having this fight at all. But members of Congress — including many of the very same people who are howling and rending their garments over the bishops’ plight — deemed the current patchwork system untouchable.

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

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

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

The bishops should have at it. I wouldn’t try the argument that the priest used on my mother-in-law, but there’s always a billboard on the front lawn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/opini ... table.html

[Teresa B]

Oh, I get it. Whatever Christians believe about morality, they would of course believe it's based on divine law. But some churches have altered their interpretations of divine law based on new knowledge and the advancements that have occurred through the millennia. We now believe slavery is morally wrong, for example. Perhaps the 98% of Catholic lay people have joined the 21st Century, and have realized that it's a different world than it was in, say, 100 AD. Perhaps the 98% understand, at least in civilized countries, that women are human beings who should have the same rights as men, and the society we live in today is not one in which women's role is purely to produce as many offspring as possible until they reach menopause or die. The so-called moral anguish that the Catholic Clergy is experiencing about allowing women to obtain coverage for contraceptives is a guise under which they can maintain the position of more oppression for women. No one has said any Catholic woman must use birth control, only that the Church's purchased insurance policy cover it for those who seek it. There could probably be a compromise in this specific requirement, as long as the enrollees were compensated an equivalent amount. If the Church is not into keeping women down, then their clinging to old stances that are clearly harmful to women in this day and age have painted them into a 1st century corner. Either way, it's still a sad anachronism.

It is precisely advances in our scientific understanding that are responsible for the Catholic position on these issues. Before pregnancy was as fully understood as it is today, abortion was only forbidden for the period after the beginning of "quickening," which is basically the period when a pregnancy is sufficiently advanced for a belly bulge to begin appearing on the woman's body. But when we identified the details and came to understand that the potential for a human being was there right from the point of fertilization, the Church's position began to harden.

If that's the case, why will the Church's position on the contraceptive issue not soften? You can try to justify the Church's positions as much as you want, and as the excellent points made by Gail Collins in the above post attest, the Priests have the right to express their "moral indignation" in this election year. My point is, it makes no sense in 2012 to restrict women's access to decent health care. I realize the issue is supposedly not contraception per se, but the "bigger" issue of government intruding on a religion's freedom to practice its doctrine. Unfortunately, it's a doctrine that ought to have been abandoned long, long ago.

[John F]

From last night's PBS NewsHour. This is outrageous.


RAY SUAREZ: Given the position of the church, Anthony Picarello, and the current state of the ruling from the Obama administration, is there a middle ground? Can a compromise position be found that leaves both sides getting most, but not all of what they want?

ANTHONY PICARELLO, general counsel, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: The executive branch has this decision entirely within their control. So they can do what we have been urging them to do from the outset, which is to remove these items from the mandate, so that people are not forced against their consciences to subsidize them, to sponsor them in health plans.

They could also dramatically increase the breadth of what is an extremely narrow religious exemption that they proposed in the first instance, which covers really only individual churches and basically a very small perimeter around that. So it leaves out charities. It leaves out hospitals. It leaves out schools. They have the power entirely within their hands to expand that. We have been hearing lots of talk for a long time about a desire to accommodate, but we haven't seen any action. And so I think we're going to wait until we see action before we . . .

RAY SUAREZ: But I'm trying to figure out what a broadened -- to use your term - a broadened ruling might look like, since the two positions are mutually contradictory.

ANTHONY PICARELLO: I don't know that there's so much of a contradiction.

I think, again, what we're looking for in terms of breadth is to protect the religious liberty interests and consciences of all of those who would be affected by the mandate. So that means employers -- religious employers, yes, but also employers with religious people running them or other people of conviction who are running them. It means religious insurers. And they do exist. Under this mandate, they're required to include in their policies that they write things that they don't agree with as a matter of religious conviction, and individuals as well who have to pay for it through their premiums.

So all of those entities are the folks whose conscience rights are affected. And the bishops are concerned with all of them, and they have advocated for all of them.

RAY SUAREZ: It sounds like you want something even broader, not just for the colleges and universities and hospitals, but even Catholic employers.

ANTHONY PICARELLO: Yes, because the principle here is that of religious liberty. And it's not only religious employers that are entitled to religious liberty under the Constitution. So all of those should be protected. They should not be put in this situation in the first place. They shouldn't be required by the government to provide, through sponsorship and subsidy, benefits that are offensive to their moral beliefs.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics ... 02-09.html

Let me try to get this extraordinary position straight. Insurance companies per se have no religious or moral beliefs or conscience, but the executives who run them may. So if a Catholic becomes CEO of Blue Cross, then Blue Cross should be able to drop birth control from its health insurance policies to avoid offending the CEO's moral beliefs? And when the Catholic CEO retires and a new CEO takes over, with no conscientious objection to birth control, the company may resume coverage of birth control?

[lennygoran]

From last night's PBS NewsHour. This is outrageous.

Definitely, religion rearing it's awful head again on fair and sensible policies--policies already being carried out by many state governments!

"HHS says that part of its proposal is modeled on the most common exemption used by the 28 states that already require contraceptive coverage to be offered in health insurance policies."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08 ... e-to-women

Regards, Len

[keaggy220]

From last night's PBS NewsHour. This is outrageous.

Definitely, religion rearing it's awful head again on fair and sensible policies--policies already being carried out by many state governments!

"HHS says that part of its proposal is modeled on the most common exemption used by the 28 states that already require contraceptive coverage to be offered in health insurance policies."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08 ... e-to-women

Regards, Len

Your PBS article is, of course, biased and slanted, leaving out a lot of detail. You should really broaden your news input.

I just read with interest that there was much debate inside the White House regarding this decision. Bill Daly was especially vocal against this decision. Apparently lobbyists won the day - NARAL lobbied vigorously and shifted the tide to include religious organizations in this decision.

Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary, said the decision was "balanced." "Balanced" meaning that religious organizations either violate their conscience and become part of the collective, or to end insurance coverage for their employees. Of course her interpretation of "balanced" is not the same as mine...

This is the very first time in American history - since the first settlers came here expressly to escape religious persecution, that Big Brother has forced citizens to directly purchase what violate their beliefs. The administration was kind enough to give religious organizations a year to decide. But I suppose this is all part of the burden of being so much more enlightened than previous generations. Sometimes the enlightened need to push the herd...

It's interesting that this comes on the heels of another unprecedented assault on religious freedoms by this administration, a failed assault - where Big Brother tried to dictate hiring practices of religious organizations.

[John F]

"HHS says that part of its proposal is modeled on the most common exemption used by the 28 states that already require contraceptive coverage to be offered in health insurance policies."

Also from the PBS NewsHour transcript:

ANTHONY PICARELLO: There are 28 states that have some kind of contraceptive mandate. None of them are as broad as the one that the federal government has imposed. For example, the federal government mandate includes a mandate to provide sterilization. Only Vermont does that among those 28 states.

On top of that, most of those states have religious exemptions. And of those, all but three are broader than the one that HHS has chosen. So, basically, there's a lot more accommodation for religious exercise at the state level. And on top of that, states don't even [require you] to take advantage of the religious exemption in order to avoid it in other ways, for example, by self-insurance. Even in the restrictive states, many Catholic entities are able to avoid this by self-insurance.

[lennygoran]

Your PBS article is, of course, biased and slanted, leaving out a lot of detail. You should really broaden your news input...This is the very first time in American history - since the first settlers came here expressly to escape religious persecution, that Big Brother has forced citizens to directly purchase what violate their beliefs.

Why am I not surprised by your attack on poor PBS! When are you church people gonna pay your correct share of the taxes--no one is forced to use the contraceptive measures but you have to pay for the poor public that needs but can't afford them--iow your employees who may not be Catholic or even religious. Isn't it bad enough you don't pay property taxes! Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

Never let it be said that the NY Times is incapable of a wishfully thinking headline.

The New York Times

February 10, 2012
Obama Acts to Calm Furor on Birth Control Coverage Rule
By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — President Obama, seeking to dampen a runaway political furor over birth control and religious liberty, unveiled a plan on Friday that is meant to calm the right’s ire about a new administration rule that would require health insurance plans — including those offered by Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and charities — to provide free birth control to female employees.

Casting himself as both “a citizen and a Christian” trying to balance individual liberty versus public health, Mr. Obama announced what administration officials called an “accommodation” that they said sought to demonstrate respect for religious beliefs. It will be similar to the path taken in several other states — particularly Hawaii — that have similar rules, but would require that insurance companies, and not religious institutions, offer contraceptive coverage at no cost.

“Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women,” Mr. Obama told reporters in the White House briefing room. He said the “political football” his foes were making of the new rule prompted him to speed up work on a solution. “It became clear that spending months hammering a solution was not going to be an option.”

But administration officials also acknowledged that the revision announced Friday would most likely fail to mollify the Catholic bishops who have waged war against the rule or, for that matter, Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail who have joined the fight. At most, the compromise could potentially help the president shore up support among wavering Democrats, who have also expressed doubt about the rule, along with more liberal religious organizations and charities, who oppose the rule but not as vehemently as the Catholic leadership.

The administration plan most closely resembles Hawaii’s, in which employees at religious institutions whose health insurance plans do not offer free contraception can get birth control through side benefits. The difference, though, is that whereas in Hawaii the employees nominally pay for the benefits, the Obama proposal would shift the cost to insurers. Administration officials hope that insurers will not object because in the long run, they argue, contraceptives end up saving more money than they cost because they prevent unwanted pregnancies.

The administration’s move won an important endorsement from Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, whose support the White House sees as essential to show that the policy is backed by some religious organizations. In fact, Sister Carol’s endorsement was so important that Mr. Obama called her Friday morning — along with Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York and Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood — to inform her of the compromise.

“The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions,” Sister Carol said in a statement. “The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed.”

Abortion rights groups also seemed open to the White House shift and blamed the controversy on conservative efforts to undermine the president.

“We’re reassured that it appears that no woman, no matter where she works, will lose birth control coverage, but it’s outrageous and disheartening that this important step forward for women became a target of the far-right,” said Stephanie Schriock, president of Emily’s List.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said the Obama administration’s action represented a reaffirmation of the commitment to ensuring contraceptive coverage. “Unfortunately, some opponents of contraception may not be satisfied,” she said.

The administration announced the birth-control rule last month, and since then, Republican presidential candidates and conservative leaders have sought to frame it as an example of the administration’s insensitivity to religious beliefs, prompting Mr. Obama’s aides to explore ways to make it more palatable to religious-affiliated institutions, perhaps by allowing some employers to make side insurance plans available that are not directly paid for by the institutions.

[BWV 1080]

The Real Trouble With the Birth-Control Mandate
Critics are missing the main point. There are good reasons that your car-insurance company doesn't add $100 to your premium and then cover oil changes.
By JOHN H. COCHRANE

When the administration affirmed last month that church-affiliated employers must buy health insurance that covers birth control, the outcry was instant. Critics complained that certain institutions should be exempt as a matter of religious freedom. Although the ruling was meant to be final, presidential advisers said this week that the administration might look for a compromise.

Critics are missing the larger point. Why should the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decree that any of us must pay for "insurance" that covers contraceptives?

I put "insurance" in quotes for a reason. Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill.

Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses. There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn't add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn't charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste. You'd have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you'd end up spending more.

How did we get to this point? It all leads back to the elephant in the room: the tax deductibility of employer-provided group insurance.

If your employer pays you $100 less in salary and buys $100 of group insurance for you, you don't pay taxes on that amount. Hence, the more insurance costs and covers, the less in taxes you seem to pay. (Even that savings is an illusion: The government still needs money and raises overall tax rates to make up the difference.)


Corbis
To add insult to injury, this tax deduction does not apply to portable, guaranteed-renewable individual insurance. You don't get the tax break if your employer gives you the $100 and you buy a policy—a policy that will stay with you if you get sick, leave employment or get divorced. The pre-existing conditions crisis is largely a creature of tax law. You don't lose your car insurance when you change jobs.

Why did HHS add this birth-control insurance mandate—along with "well-woman visits, breast-feeding support and domestic-violence screening," and "all without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible"—to its implementation of a provision of the new health-care reform law? "Because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies," says the HHS advisory panel. Because these "historic new guidelines" will make sure "women have access to a full range of recommended preventive services," says the original HHS announcement. To "increase access to important preventive services," echoes White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

Notice the doublespeak confusion of "access" and "cost." I have "access" to toothpaste because I have two bucks in my pocket and a competitive supplier. Anyone who can afford a cell phone can afford pills or condoms.

Poor women who can't afford birth control are a red herring in this debate. HHS isn't limiting this mandate to the poor anyway. We all have to pay. The very poor typically don't have employer-provided health insurance in the first place. "Allowing women to space their pregnancies"? Was there some sort of federal ban on birth control before this?

It's not about "access" and it's not about "insurance." It's because Americans, when paying even modest co-payments, choose to spend their money on other things. They prefer a new iPod to a "wellness visit" to the doctor. As the HHS unwittingly admits: "Often because of cost, Americans used preventive services at about half the recommended rate."

Remember, we're supposed to be worrying about skyrocketing health-care expenses. Doubling the number of wellness visits and free pills sounds great, but who's going to pay for it? There is a liberal dream that by mandating coverage the government can make something free.

Sorry. Every increase in coverage means an increase in premiums. If your employer is paying for your health insurance, he could be paying you more in salary instead. Or, he could be lowering prices and selling his product to you and all consumers more cheaply. Someone is paying. Not even HHS tries to claim that these "recommended preventive services" will lower overall costs.

Here's a good mandate: Let's mandate that every time a government official says that the government is going to "help" some category of voter, he or she has to say who they are going to hurt in the same sentence. Because it has to be someone.

But what about the fact, you may ask, that unwanted children are a burden on society as well as to their mothers? Perhaps there is a social interest in subsidizing birth control? Perhaps there is—but if so, this is an awful way to do it.

Related Video


Editorial board member Joe Rago on how HHS's contraception rules reflect the inherent problems with ObamaCare and government-mandated health care.

The minute pills are "free," under insurance, the incentive for drug companies to come up with cheaper versions vanishes. So does their incentive to develop safer, more convenient, male-centered or nonprescription birth control. And by making pills free but not condoms, the government may inadvertently be contributing to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

The taxes and spending we argue about are the tip of the iceberg. Salting mandated health insurance with birth control is exactly the same as a tax—on employers, on Catholics, on gay men and women, on couples trying to have children and on the elderly—to subsidize one form of birth control.

If the government wants to subsidize birth control, OK, pass an explicit tax, and sensibly subsidize all birth control. And face the voters on it. The tax rate and spending debates that occupy the media are a small part of the effective taxes and spending that the government achieves by these regulatory mandates.

There is also the issue of religious freedom. Our nation is divided on social issues. The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don't have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society.

The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and they resign themselves to chipping away at its edges. No, we should throw it out, and fix the terrible distortions in the health-insurance and health-care markets.

Sure, churches should be exempt. We should all be exempt.

Mr. Cochrane is a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

[jbuck919]

Deleted by poster pending further thought.

[keaggy220]

Notice the doublespeak confusion of "access" and "cost." I have "access" to toothpaste because I have two bucks in my pocket and a competitive supplier. Anyone who can afford a cell phone can afford pills or condoms.

Poor women who can't afford birth control are a red herring in this debate. HHS isn't limiting this mandate to the poor anyway. We all have to pay. The very poor typically don't have employer-provided health insurance in the first place. "Allowing women to space their pregnancies"? Was there some sort of federal ban on birth control before this?

It's not about "access" and it's not about "insurance." It's because Americans, when paying even modest co-payments, choose to spend their money on other things. They prefer a new iPod to a "wellness visit" to the doctor. As the HHS unwittingly admits: "Often because of cost, Americans used preventive services at about half the recommended rate."

Nailed it... It's the same as the iPad & Macbook toting OWS protesters with their fancy LL Bean tents who are angry about how much they committed to pay for their college degree. Personal Responsibility is so early 20th century...

[living_stradivarius]

but rubbers are super cheap compared to babies on welfare

[keaggy220]

but rubbers are super cheap compared to babies on welfare

A bullet is cheaper than old people in assisted living too...

[living_stradivarius]

but rubbers are super cheap compared to babies on welfare

A bullet is cheaper than old people in assisted living too...

but with a rubber it's like you're shooting blanks