St. Thomas students have mixed views about President Obama’s proposed compromise to allow faith-based institutions to opt-out of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ mandate requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception.
On Friday, Feb. 17, the president gave religious institutions with moral objections a way out. If an employer declines to cover contraceptive devices for religious reasons, insurance companies would be required to provide separate coverage to the employee at no additional cost, shifting the expense to the insurer.
“I think it’s a good attempt at a compromise,” freshman Mary Conway said. “It’s a step in the right direction, but I don’t think many people are going to be satisfied with it that were upset with it before.”
Many Catholic organizations, which included universities and hospitals, called the original proposal an attack on religious liberty.
Employees currently on a St. Thomas health care plan have contraception covered. However, students are either covered by their parent’s plan or by insurance purchased through the school. The university’s student insurance does not cover contraceptives.
The Rev. John Malone said the university’s insurance policies, including the employee health care policy, exist for “very good reasons,” which Malone said are rarely discussed.
“As a university we’re under fiduciary obligation to hire the best people we can in different areas,” Malone said. “And when you do that you have to be competitive with other institutions.”
Malone said this often requires hiring someone who may have a different religious background, with different views on birth control.
“We are a diverse community, and we should respect the consciences of other people,” he said.
Senior Abby Kowitz said that she is “very against” the mandate and does not find the new ruling a compromise. She said the church will still be indirectly paying for the contraceptives.
“If your religion as a Catholic is not to provide or use contraceptives, you should not be required to provide them to others,” Kowitz said. “I think it just puts Catholics in a position now where they have to choose between the law and their conscience.”
She acknowledged that not everyone comes to St. Thomas solely for its Catholic identity, but “at the end of the day, St. Thomas is a Catholic institution and so they should stay true to that foundation of (the university’s) Catholic identity.”
Some organizations, like the Catholic Health Association, are satisfied with the compromise. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, is not and has pledged to oppose the rule.
Junior David Brandes, a political science and history major, points out that not every St. Thomas professor is a practicing Catholic, which is why he feels the compromise is “a good thing.”
“I don’t think that anyone here should be forced to follow any real Catholic teachings,” Brandes said. “I think that’s definitely a very personal choice. I think it’s very possible to work here and not have any kind of Catholic belief system.”
Brandes said all women should be allowed access to cheap or even free contraceptive care because it can prevent unwanted pregnancy or abortions.
“I’m sure there are plenty of people that work here that don’t work here because it’s a Catholic institution but simply because they think of it as an education environment and as a source of income,” he said. “I don’t think they should be penalized because of that.”
Kristopher Jobe can be reached at jobe1276@stthomas.edu.
The position of Catholic Charities U.S.A reported in an earlier version of this story is in dispute and has been removed.
Following Church teachings for a Catholic is not a matter of personal choice, it is a requirement. Failure to follow the teachings of the Church puts one outside of that same Church. So if Mr. Brandes is a self-described Catholic, he needs to drop that label since he is not actually a Catholic. Catholics will realize that the one thing that makes us all Catholics is not a title, a secret handshake, etc. What makes us a Catholic is a shared set of beliefs and a shared Rite of Worship in the Holy Mass. To depart from either of those principles, puts someone outside of the Catholic Church.
And to Fr Malone, just because non-Catholics work at UST does not mean that the University or any Catholic institution should allow them to have easier access to contraceptives. Similarly Catholics institutions should not make it easier for people to have greater access to pornography, heresy, or anything else which the Church condemns. To do so is to be an accessory to sin.
Attending a catholic university does not make one catholic; I did not see a single instance where Mr. Brandes described himself as catholic.
The contraception mandate “compromise” isn’t a compromise at all, but an accounting gimmick. It doesn’t change the contraception mandate one iota, it just shifts it from directly mandating contraception to indirectly mandating it. It still requires Catholic institutions to violate their religious tenets and it is still immoral and in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Every Catholic bishop who heads a diocese (about 180 in all) has condemned the mandate as an egregious attack on the Church and on religious freedom, and it is the bishops, not the Catholic Health Association, that It is also the latest in a string of anti-Catholic moves by the Obama Administration. The Holy Father himself has expressed concern about these recent moves by the U.S. government, and I hope my fellow Catholics and Tommies, students, alumni, and faculty, join me in standing with the Holy Father and the bishops in letting President Obama know we won’t stand for this sort of anti-Catholic despotism. We will not comply with this mandate!
Also, Catholic Charities does not support the revised HHS Mandate at all. They issued a statement responding to mischaracterizations about their stance on their website, which can be found here:
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/
That statement reads as follows:
“In response to a great number of mischaracterizations in the media, Catholic Charities USA wants to make two things very clear:
1. We have not endorsed the accommodation to the HHS mandate that was announced by the Administration last Friday.
2. We unequivocally share the goal of the US Catholic bishops to uphold religious liberty and will continue to work with the USCCB towards that goal.
Any representation to the contrary is false.”
Thank you Michael. I wanted to ask this reporter where he found those facts about Cahtolic Charities. It was a very broad, and hugely incriminating claim without any back-up, so it is great that you provided that correct information. I want to point out that whether Catholic or not, every American should be fervently opposed to this mandate because it is unconstitutional. Any piece of legislature that forces an individual to choose between their religion and the law forces them to be a second-class citizen. The question is not whether you agree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, it is whether you believe in the freedoms we are granted by the American constitution. I truly hope and beleive that every non-Catholic UST faculty, staff, or student does not wish to rob each Catholic of their religious liberties.
Characterizing moves such as this as “anti-Catholic despotism” is, as most would acknowledge, extreme hyperbole. The purpose of the health care mandate is to provide access to important health care services for all citizens. Catholics are a minority in this country. Decisions for the entire population should not be based on Catholic ideals.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It does not say that every single thing the government does must conform to every religious creed. The government, with the current compromise, is not forcing the hand of any Catholic or Catholic organization. It is providing the service to people who want it, regardless of who they work for.
The current administration does not have some vendetta against the Catholic church. It is simply making it possible for everyone to get important health care services. Before you tell me that contraception is not important, please take a step back and look at this from a non-Catholic perspective. No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control. They still are perfectly free to follow their beliefs if they desire.
@Stefan. You say, “No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control. They still are perfectly free to follow their beliefs if they desire.”
Yet what you overlook is that by providing birth control to anyone – Catholic or not – Catholic institutions are violating their own beliefs. The Church does not teach that only Catholics can’t use birth control. She teaches that birth control is morally reprehensible for everyone; it just happens that Catholics are the only ones who seem to listen to what She affirms.
Matthew,
It seems to me that that is the problem the compromise sought to fix. Catholic institutions are no longer required to provide it directly. Yes, large insurance companies must provide contraceptives. But these companies represent countless other organizations, not just Catholic ones. Birth control will not have to pass from the hands of a Catholic organization to another person. Therefore, Catholics who believe that contraception is wrong will not have to violate their beliefs. Another company not affiliated with the Church will be required to do so. While contraception from the Catholic perspective is morally reprehensible, it is not so for a majority of this country’s population. We live in a republic with democratically elected leaders. The good must be taken with the bad. While this compromise may not appeal to Catholics, it is certainly not unconstitutional.
On a side note, I appreciate the civility of this conversation and hope that we can maintain that as long as it goes on. From my perspective, attack and slander are the biggest problems with civil discourse in our country. Unfortunately, they seem to be the only tactics utilized by our politicians.
I believe many of you would say that the core issue of this argument is the notion of religious liberty. This is again not quite right. While many are making this an argument for religious liberty, the actual argument is far more important for Catholics. Those Catholics who observe the Traditional Catholic Faith simply reject the notion of religious liberty all together. The Church teaches that Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, is the King of all peoples, all places, and all time. For many people, this doctrine stops there. Yet, if Christ is indeed king of all, then all peoples and nations should act in conformity with His divine law, even if they are not Catholics. One need only see how the moral code of many societies (e.g. forbidding killing, stealing, prostitution, etc) is a reflection of the Divine Law which also forbids such practices. To say that any nation has the right to violate Divine Law is a violation of the doctrine of Christ’s Kingship. If Christ is King (which all Catholics are bound as a matter of dogma to believe), then all Catholics must respond to the HHS controversy by not seeking to stand up for religious liberty. Rather, these same Catholics should be fighting against the HHS mandate for the reason that it offends God.
Stefan,
Ant-Catholic Despotism is certainly strong language, but I wouldn’t use those words if I didn’t sincerely believe that this is what the HHS Mandate amounts to. The contraceptive coverage provided by the insurance companies for Catholic groups will be considered part of the same policy offered by those groups, and, even though the Catholic organizations won’t be directly paying for the contraception, they will be doing so indirectly via increased health insurance costs in order for the insurance company to recoup the cost of providing the free contraception. The compromise is an accounting gimmick and nothing more. If it is unjust to force Jewish or Muslim delis to pay for pork for their employees, or to force Quakers to finance munitions plants, then why is it not immoral to force Catholic organizations to pay for contraception. Why the double-standard in our society? Paying for contraception, even indirectly, is considered material cooperation in a grave evil. Why can’t the government respect the religious freedom of the Church? Most of the founding fathers hated Catholics and the Catholic Church, yet they respected her freedom. Why can’t Obama and Sebelius do the same?
Stefan, for once you and I agree on something! I, too, am grateful for the opportunity for a civil, reasoned discussion. A rare thing these days on controversial topics!
THE CIVIL LAW / CONSTITUTION TRAMPS ANY FORM OR RELIGIOUS DOGMA, BELIEF etc.
@Paul, civil law must answer to Divine Law
Michael, does it concern you that St. Thomas pays employees salaries, and those employees might use those wages to buy contraceptives? Should the university, as a Catholic institution, limit what its employees buy with their paychecks to ensure it is not indirectly cooperating in grave evils?
Also, there is a double standard because separate standards apply to separate situations. Americans have a fundamental right to contraception. There is no fundamental right to buy pork or finance munitions plants. Hence, the double standard.
The more troubling double standard, I think, is that you question why the government can’t respect the religious freedom of the Catholic Church, yet say nothing about respecting the freedom of those who are not members of that Church. Living in a society of many different faiths requires compromise. One religion’s rules cannot be the rules for all. That is why we have the First Amendment, and it applies to all Americans, not just Catholics.
@Matthew I understand that tenent, and agree that if someone believes in it, they should probably argue on that grounds. However, if I do not believe in Catholicism, then I am in no way beholden to those beliefs, whether you think I am or not. Just because I think that you are subject to my laws (under my belief system) does not mean that you are.
@Michael I can buy that argument a little more. However, I would still argue that, while in the eyes of Catholic leadership it may still be indirectly immoral, because of the indirectness and the way it is framed, it is certainly not unconstitutional.
@Paul While I agree that the civil law and constitution is the ruling law of this country, religious reasoning can have a place in civil discourse because it is a facet of many people’s moral code. Also, you might want to use spellcheck and turn off the CAPS lock ;)
Go ABBY!!! For those of you who go to a catholic school and arn’t catholic yet expect to have contraception covered is kidding themselves. Although you don’t follow the Catholic Churches teachings you are still attending a catholic school and can’t expect them to compromise their beliefs for your pleasure.
This issue is not about contraception, birth control, or even abortion, which the administration has conveniently sidetracked in the discussion, but about the flagrant violation of the first amendment of our constitution by our president, who swore to uphold it in its entirety. Everyone, religious or not, should be offended by this illegal and unwarranted action. The president does not have the power to mandate that anyone purchase anything, nor does he have the power to mandate that a private company furnish a service free of charge. All Catholic bishops have unanamously objected to Catholic institutions and individuals being made to purchase or support that which is objectively against ones conscience. I am unsure of the quotes attributed to Fr. Malone in this article, but all true Catholics must follow the direction of the bishops when it comes matters of faith and morals, and this is one of those. Everyone should demand conformance to the constitution by our government and judiciary officials or we become a state of relativism. St. Thomas, being a Catholic institution, must follow the laws and teachings of the Catholic Church or lose its Catholic identity.
@ Paula, agreed.
Those who argue that this is a violation of religious freedom seriously misunderstand what that idea means in the United States. The First Amendment states, in relevant part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Nothing about requiring insurance providers to cover contraception prevents UST from exercising its religion. As Doroth Samuels wrote in the New York Times, “The rule does not interfere with church governance, prevent anyone from voicing opposition, or force anyone to use contraceptives in violation of religious beliefs.” What would violate the First Amendment, however, is the government choosing the side of the Catholic Church and imposing its beliefs on millions of people who do not share them.
Wrong Brandon. I think that “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” should be clear to anyone of knowledge and reason. The government cannot mandate anyone to do or to pay for anything that violates his conscience, which is exactly what this mandate does. Even outside of that, the president does not have the power to mandate that anyone buy anything nor mandate that any private company supply a product or service free of charge. If you don’t know that, you are not living in the same country I am. And, if you are going to quote someone with an authoritive statement on religious freedom, please quote someone with knowledge and authority to make a relevant statement. That would not include anyone from the ultra liberal New York Times. They have no clue as to what might violate anyone’s religious beliefs. What violates the first amendment is the mandate for a Catholic institution to provide and pay for anything that violates the religious beliefs and core teachings of the Catholic Church. If you cannot understand that to violate the first amendment, check with one who knows and understands the true teachings of the Church and the Constitution.
Dick,
there is no reason to get overly preachy and catty.. Brendan was voicing his opinion on the subject, and I think discussion of this topic should be kept civil.
My problem with your argument(two-fold), Dick, is that the GOP routinely passes and enacts laws that blatantly violate the separation of church and state. the GOP routinely spouts off about how the Dems are waging a war on religious freedom, but where is that GOP support for the religious freedom of Wickens, Muslims, or other religions beyond Christianity and Judaism? If you look at the records, the GOP really cares about “religious freedom” whenever their own religion is threatened, but they never really look out for the other guy.
Dick, your argument additionally falls short on empirical data regarding what the president can and cannot do. While the Constitution does not expressly give the President (notice the “P”) the authority to do a lot of what the office does, here are three other examples of the President “mandating that any private company provide a service free of charge”:
1) the abolition of separate bathrooms for blacks and whites
2) FDA warnings on alcohol containers (free information)
3) Nutrition facts on food containers (free information)
…more below
Dick, your example is further flawed because the GOP has routinely violated the separation of church and state on several occasions… One does not need to look further than the Utah State Legislature passing a law banning “Abstinence-based Education”, allowing only “Abstinence-only Education”.. of course with the option to drop sex education altogether. This law is based on religious sentiments of the religious right, and blatantly ignores evidence from the NIH and several other studies showing that “Abstinence-Only Education” does not work.
Furthermore, where are the bills signed by GOP leaders allowing Muslim girls to wear hijabs in school because of their religious beliefs? Many school districts around the nation ban all hats from being worn, and that includes hijabs. Where is the GOP when these religious rights are being sacrificed?
Dick, please stop attacking the President’s legitimate actions as unconstitutional simply because you disagree. If you want to prove the unconstitutionality, show me scholarly Constitutional articles and Supreme Court opinions…otherwise you are simply bloviating on your religious opinions, not on Constitutional law.
Tom, I’m not familiar with all those instances you’re talking about, but I fail to see how they have much bearing on this particular instance with the HHS mandate. It seems like you’re appealing to quasi-related cases to try and respond to an issue thats of a different nature entirely. The past history of the GOP doesn’t have much bearing on whether or not this action by the federal government is unconstitutional.
I’m sure I’m just reiterating whats been said, but this issue, at its core, is not about the Catholic belief on contraception or abortion. It’s about the federal government forcing a religious employer with moral oppositions to contraception to materially cooperate in the providing of said-contraceptives to its employees, thus forcing the religious employer to violate their convictions. This is an impinging upon an employer’s right to the free exercise of their religion. Additionally, the “accommodation” offered by the federal government isn’t an accommodation at all; as Michael said earlier, religious organizations will forced to cooperate by increasing the amount they pay the insurance company to cover the cost of contraceptives.
The full text of the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
This mandate can violate the Constitution in two manners: It indirectly causes Catholic institutions for having to purchase birth control or the government is unfairly giving an exception to the Catholic church. The first is an indirect violation, the second a direct violation. Constitutional law (the law of the United States) would say to go with the lesser of the violations (which in my mind isn’t a violation because its the individual that is making the choice to use birth control and therefore sin, not the Church).
Just like our political system, St. Thomas is becoming ever-polarized between the roughly 15% devout Catholics and the 15% non-Catholic-everything, with the rest of the student population in the middle. Our mission statement says that we are “inspired by the Catholic intellectual tradition.” We are not the Catholic Church. We aren’t Steubenville, as much as some students want.
The whole idea of a liberal arts education is to embrace the diverse world that we live in. Growing up with a Catholic education my whole life, if there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that the Church is all about freedom of individual choice. An employee is within their full power to use or not use birth control and therefore, choose to sin or not sin. The burden of the sin falls on the individual, not the provider.
No one is perfect, including the government, but it acts when it feels there’s a compelling interest. If you look at the pending court cases, the government makes a very compelling case for the need of reigning in a health care system that is simply broken. Congress drafted and passed the law, with Republican input. Obama endorsed it and signed into law. That’s how the system works here in America. Since St. Thomas accepts federal funds and employs a diverse group of faculty and staff whose view also have to be respected by law, this mandate is not the end of the world, although come Dec. 21st, 2012 who knows :)
“An employee is within their full power to use or not use birth control and therefore, choose to sin or not sin. The burden of the sin falls on the individual, not the provider.”
– I’d argue that it’s irrelevant for anyone to bring up the ol’ “it’s the individual’s choice to use birth control so the employer doesn’t have to worry,” because the issue with this mandate is inherently about conscience rights, not the individual using birth control. The HHS mandate is taking away one’s right to not be forced to violate his or her conscience; in particular, religious employers with a moral opposition to birth control are being forced to materially cooperate in the providing of it to individuals. The primary objection is not to people using birth control (though that’s an issue in itself), what’s being objected to is the federal government forcing, as I said before, religious employers to violate their consciences. What sort of country do we live in where it’s acceptable to force Catholics to pay for something they object to for somebody else’s convenience? How can this mandate be said to support the “common good” when it takes away the rights of conscience of Catholics, who are part of the “common”?
“Growing up with a Catholic education my whole life, if…
… there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that the Church is all about freedom of individual choice.”
– I’m not sure what kind of Catholic education you received, David, but the Church is certainly not supportive of the use of freedom and individual choice in the sense that [I perceive] you using the words. The Church would say:
“Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God” (CCC 1731).
The way the Church understands the use of freedom is quite different from the way secular society understands it:
“The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, “the subject of this freedom,” is “an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods.” Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the…
moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth” (CCC 1740).
Apologies for the huge comments but I figured the issue deserves an adequate response!
@Ryan: I could really care less what the CCC says… This is not a question for the state, and not religion.
The argument that you bring is flawed because decisions for the state should not be made from religious dogma. This decision is based on the simple notion of equality: a secretary at UST should have the same rights as a secretary at the U of M regarding healthcare. Apologies, but the Catholic institutions need to start realizing they exist in a secular state, and religious institutions have to play by the same rules as private entities.
I’m going to ignore the comments about my ‘real Catholic education’. For the record though I went to a Sinsinawa Dominican High School and Catholic parochial grade school.
St. Thomas’ official policy on employment, as created in the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
“The University of St. Thomas will not discriminate against or harass any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance. With respect to religion and creed, as permitted by law, the university reserves the right to exercise discretion in employment decisions to employ persons who share and are committed to the values and mission of the university.”
This is on the bottom of every official notice or memo the university circulates and admissions sends out. It is on the Dean of Law’s job listing online. The university cannot discriminate their employees (and students for that matter) according to religion, amongst other things.
Apparently the Catechism lays things out simply enough and easy to understand, why should St. Thomas worry about their Catholic employees using birth control in the first place? At the end of the day, the law will trump…
Matthew, I debated for a long time whether or not I should respond to your comments, but I decided that I made my case in the article, and I’d leave it at that. However, I will say one thing: saying that I’m “not actually Catholic,” as if your opinion is end-all, is the epitome of arrogance. Maybe you should leave that judgement up to God, eh?
Didn’t see the recent comments!
@ Tom: I did not base any of my arguments from religious dogma; my citations from the Catechism were to establish the Church’s views on freedom and individual choice. My arguments were based on (what I hope is) a widely held respect for the inviolability of the conscience, which doesn’t presuppose any religious dogma. I would agree that people should have equal access to healthcare, but the issue is complicated when said healthcare carries with it moral concerns, as it does for Catholics. Regardless of your views on contraception, would you agree it’s unjust to force somebody to commit what they perceive to be moral evil, regardless of your own views on the moral character of the matter?
@ David: The heart of this matter is not what employees want to do with birth control. What Catholics are fighting for here is protection of their right not to be forced by the State to commit moral evil by cooperating in the purchase of birth control. People might think the law will trump, but this mandate is inherently unjust towards Catholics and won’t go unchallenged. Alas, by Fr. Malone’s comments in the article it looks as though St. Thomas has already caved in this matter.
@Ryan… you are joking, right?
Look at CCC and tell me that the document is devoid of Religious Dogma (points of faith that are understood to be the core teachings of the religion). I’m sorry, but quoting ANYTHING from the CCC would constitute using a document of religious dogma.
Also, “forced by the State to commit moral evil”? Wow. First, you are bringing religion into a secular state. This country was founded on the principles of freedom of faith for all, not endorsing one religion’s view on contraception.
Secondly, I highly doubt you would be singing the same tune when it comes to paying for our military. Many people in this country believe that our invasion of Iraq was unjust and “morally evil”… does that mean I can withhold some of my federal taxes because I don’t want to pay for an immoral war? NO!
Ryan, I’m sorry, but you need to learn that United States of America does not constitute the United States of Catholicism, and Catholic institutions have to play by the same rules that everyone else does. If you feel so strongly that religion should be the base of the state, I would recommend Iran… I hear they are great to Catholics.
Tom,
My citations from the CCC were directed towards David in establishing the Catholic view on freedom. I didn’t apply those statements from the CCC to any argument against the HHS mandate, my apologies if it seemed that way.
In the case of the mandate, the Church is not trying to dictate morality to the rest of the country or enshrine the Catholic view in law for everyone. Rather, Catholics are objecting to the State’s imposition to force them to do things repugnant to Catholic morality. If people want contraceptives, the Church doesn’t have, and shouldn’t have, the power to limit or stop that person’s ability to make a free choice. But when a mandate requiring the provision of said contraceptives requires Catholic employers to violate their consciences by paying for them, as it does in this case, the State should not and cannot require that they cooperate. I asked you before but I’ll re-state the question (and it’s not rhetorical): Do you think it’s unjust to coerce someone to commit an act they find morally evil, regardless of your own views regarding the moral character of the act?
I’m not trying to (nor did I ever) argue that the Church should be the foundation for the State. Church doctrine even goes against such notions: “the Church does not intervene in technical questions with her social doctrine, nor does she propose or establish systems or models of social organization[93]. This is not part of the mission entrusted to her by Christ” (CSDC 68). I’m only asserting that the federal government ought not be able to force Catholics (or anyone) to violate their consciences.
And again, Ryan, I assert that the federal government can and should “force catholics (or anyone) to violate their consciences.” While I get that you believe that the catholic argument against contraception is more sound than pacifists who wish to not pay for the American military, I completely disagree. These two arguments state that they feel they should be exempt from certain expenditures because of what they believe (hence they are comparable).
We cannot make exceptions to laws simply because of your belief structure… That is just not the way the country works. While I could cede that the catholic frustration to the HHS mandate is valid (I don’t), I would still believe that they are private institutions within a federal state, and that each private institution should be treated equally… That means those employed in a catholic institution **MUST** be granted the same access to contraception that all other private institutions give.
My reasoning for all of this? Many women use contraception for uses OTHER THAN birth control (i.e.- legitimate healthcare use)… I will never agree with you that this type of healthcare use can be taken off the table by an employer…
… just like I would never agree with someone if they argued that pacifists could take 25% of their federal taxes back since they disagree with war… That is just absolute madness.
I’d take the Catholic uproar over this non-issue a lot more seriously if poll, after poll, after poll, didn’t find that 98% of married Catholic couples use contraception. Maybe the Bishops should take care of things in their own house before worrying about their non-Catholic employees.
@ Tom: I never said anything about my views on paying for the American military. I don’t know enough about the issue to argue about it, so I’ll just stick to the debate over religious freedom.
Our government is obliged to make laws that respect people’s belief structures. Recall the first article of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [.]” Persons and groups have an absolute right to the free practice of their religion. The HHS mandate is coercing these persons and groups to go against the tenets of their religion and the dictates of their consciences. What you’re arguing for is a totalitarian form of government where the State can have complete control over every aspect of society. Our founding fathers understood the role that religion plays in a society and would not have been supportive of forcing it out of the public square, and they certainly didn’t seek to establish a totalitarian government. I quote: “I assert that the federal government can and should ‘force catholics (or anyone) to violate their consciences.’” If the government can force people to violate their consciences, what do we have left?
In regards to using contraceptives for legitimate healthcare issues, the Church is not opposed to their use in all cases where a woman’s health is in jeopardy. I’m not exactly sure where the exemptions are, but there are cases where the Church deems it legitimate.
@ Dan: That 98% statistic has been shown to be false. The Washington Post did a good exposé on it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html.
Did you read that article? It states, “98% of Catholic women have used contraception at some point in their lives.” The data on Catholics and contraceptives goes a long way back – a 1973 study showed 66% of Catholic women used contraception. No matter how you look at the statistics, its extremely hypocritical for the church to be coming out so strongly on this issue. No surprises there…
Ryan, I’m also afraid you severely misunderstand the meaning of the first amendment, which is as much about freedom from religion as freedom to practice religion. Persons and groups absolutely do not have an absolute right to practice their religion – specifically when their practice limits the freedoms of others. And if we are going to talk about the founding fathers, we should mention that the vast majority of them were deists. They even went as far as to specifically state in the Treaty of Versailles that the United States was in no way, shape, or form, based on the tenets of christianity.
oh Ryan… you make me want to throw something out of a window. I never said you were not in favor of paying for our military. I was using that argument as a corollary to show how irrational your argument is.
Furthermore, if the church is for some cases of contraception for “legitimate” purposes, why would they not cover it? The Catholic Church (and you) are highly hypocritical.
Finally, you are out of your mind if you think quoting the 1st amendment will make your opinion more valid. Dan makes the correct point; if this law allowed for the exception of the Catholic church because of moral qualms, THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE LEGALLY RESPECTED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION!!!!
Go take a Constitutional History class, and then you can come back to this argument.
@ Dan – Your quotation is taken out of context and the WP article only ever uses that quotation to later cite its inaccuracies. Regarding the 1973 study, according to the WP article it’s more accurate to say that 66% of married Catholic women of childbearing age at the time of the study used contraception – which is far different than saying 66% of Catholic women. Anyways, I’ll cede that there are a lot of Catholics, among them a large number of people who are Catholics in name only, who don’t follow the Church’s teachings on a number of matters. No surprise there. But does that make the bishops hypocritical for reacting strongly to this issue? The Church’s teachings are what they are regardless of the percentage of the laity that chooses to follow them.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “when their practice limits the freedoms of others”? I take you to be saying that by exercising their religious freedom, Catholic employers are limiting the freedom of employees who want contraceptives to obtain them. This seems to me to be mixing up “freedom” with “entitlement.” …
… Employees are free to go to a number of places to obtain contraceptives, many at little cost (Planned Parenthood, for example), but their reproductive freedoms don’t entitle them to make their employers go against principles so that they can obtain contraceptives at no cost.
Point taken about the founding fathers. I wasn’t trying to make a point about any one of their individual religious convictions, but rather that they understood better than we do today the importance of religion in the public sphere.
@ Tom – Don’t go throwing stuff out of windows! I responded the way I did because you said “I get that you believe that the catholic argument against contraception is more sound than pacifists who wish to not pay for the American military” when I hadn’t made any statements about the relationship of those two things. We can discuss the HHS mandate without appealing to arguments about the American military, though, so I’d propose we do so.
Regarding the covering of contraceptives in cases where it’s medically required, I don’t know if Catholic employers cover the costs or not.
Regarding the First Amendment, the establishment clause refers to (forgive me if you already knew this) the inability of the government to a) establish a national…
… religion, and b) give preference to any religion. Allowing Catholic institutions to be exempt from funding contraceptives would hardly be a move towards giving preference to Roman Catholicism and would rather show respect for religious liberty and conscience rights.
First of all I don’t know of anyone who gets birth control to go and have ,lots of sinful encounters. Second of all the government would absolutely be giving the Catholic Church prefernce by exempting it and only it from certain provisions of a nationwide law. The catholic church chooses to practice in the United States; it is not entitled to free reigns over the land and law as if this is the Middle Ages. Third of all, correct me if I’m wrong, but the CC in sections 2376-77 says nothing of purchasing artificial birth control, simply the use of it. Therefore, the Church is not at fault for funding it for those who are actually sinning it in their eyes by using it. Fourth of all, this isn’t unprecedented in the history of the nation. In 1990 Supreme Court Case, Employment Division Departmen of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, the Court said that a law that banned peyote did not infringe on the First Amendment becasue it had only “incidentally impacted” the religion of the Native Americans in its general applicability and was not aimed direct at their religion (which an excemption of the Catholic Church would be). I respect the Church’s opinion (even though Im not a real Catholic in your eyes Ryan) but the Church does not have final say over the law, only the spirit.