White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that American women “deserve” to have their employers buy them health insurance plans that cover sterlizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, with no fees or co-pay, even if the employer is a Catholic or Catholic organization that adheres to the church teaching that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortifacients are morally wrong and that Catholics cannot be involved in them.
“I understand that there have been objections and that some people disagree with us and we are going to work with institutions that have concerns here,” Carney told reporters. “But I think it’s important to note here that we believe these services are important and that American women deserve to have access to that kind of insurance coverage regardless of where they work.”
On Jan. 20, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized a regulation, under the new health-care law, that requires all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions. The regulation has an exceedingly narrow exemption for “religious” employers that would effectively cover only an actual parish church—but not a Catholic hospital, university, or charitable organization. Catholic individuals, Catholic business owners and Catholic insurers would be compelled by the mandate to act against the teachings of their church.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told HHS in September that the regulation was an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” and has urged the administration to rescind it in its entirety. Carney has said that President Barack Obama supports the regulation.
At Catholic Masses over the past two Sundays, Catholic priests across America have read letters from their local bishops decrying the mandate as a direct attack on the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and call on Catholics to resist it.
For example, in Catholic churches in Virginia on Sunday, priests read a letter from Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde and Richmond Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo that said: “In so ruling, the administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.”
When I went to Sunday mass at our local parish church, two Sundays ago, the Priest began his homily by saying “This President has declared war on the Catholic Church. It’s just like what Adolph Hitler did.” I quietly left my seat and walked out. This resulted in several things. First and foremost, I ended up getting involved in a very productive discussion with the Priest in question, as a result of which, I’ve subsequently gone to a half dozen masses there in two weeks. Second, I ended up getting in a very productive and respectful discussion of the issues on the Commonweal website. Here’s the thread (I have 3 or 4 contributions, beginning about 3/4 of the way down in the comments section; first comment appearing at “Larry Weisenthal 01/31/2012 – 7:49 am”):
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=17002
I am very disappointed in the inflammatory wording in the tabloid-style headline of this blog post. The general topic of religious freedom deserves better than this.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Dem Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper: I Wouldn’t Have Voted for Obamacare If I’d Known About HHS Regulation
She didn’t READ the BILL before agreeing to it.
Fool!
She lost her seat because of that.
Good!
Now she hopes she can trust Obama to live up to his other empty words?
Does this female never learn?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Hey Larry, how are you doing?
I read through many of the comments attached to the article you linked. There are some very intelligent, thoughtful people who congregate there.
As for your particular comments from that site, and I do not mean to belittle them at all as you obviously put thought into them, they do not mean anything where religious freedom is concerned. I say this because the issue at hand isn’t whether the policy itself promoted by Obama would be good, and by your information that you presented, one has to at least consider that it might. No, the real question is whether the federal government has the right, or ability, to force upon a religious organization a requirement that goes against the OFFICIAL church stance.
Per this site; http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
So, the official Catholic church’s stance on contraceptives(artificial) has been identified. I do not see any way around this, despite the possible, and probable, individual catholic choices that are made regarding contraception.
The 1st Amendment states;
The bolded part is the important one, regarding this issue. Congress cannot make a law that forces a religion to go against it’s principles, or teachings. On this particular issue, Congress has made a law that establishes a requirement for a religious institution to go against it’s own teachings. There is no way around this, regardless of any other statistics one could throw out there.
Hi John, Thanks for reading my comments and for stating yours.
The HHS regulations wouldn’t apply to “true” church institutions. It wouldn’t apply to a Church. It wouldn’t apply to a typical parish school. It wouldn’t apply to a Church-related institution which only employed Catholics.
Most Catholic hospitals today are Church-affiliated institutions and not Church-run institutions. These (and most institutions of higher education) employ many non-Catholics and often receive a consequential degree of government support, from insurance payouts to grants. And each of the affected agencies will have the opportunity to work with HHS over the next 18 months to come up with an acceptable way to see that the non-Catholic employees in question can receive the services in question. There are some reasonable-sounding proposals under consideration. It’s the beginning of a process and not a fiat.
Here is a smattering of thoughtful comments from a related Commonweal blogpost:
and
and
and
And so on.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I am seriously glad that you are so happy with the government forcing stuff down people and religious institutions throats. We’ll make sure to return the favor when it is our turn.
Hi Aqua, you say:
You already have. It was called the Iraq War.
– LW/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Even if what you stated about most Catholic hospitals being affiliated with, instead of run by, Obama made it clear in his initial decision that no waivers, for any reason, would be granted. To argue as you just did, is to separate the issue out into degrees that Obama never did. Thus why I find it in violation of the First Amendment.
What’s more, your second highlighted paragraph above makes a statement that is not seen as fact by everyone. That is, it states that “Contraception is not a religious matter but one of natural law.” I beg to differ on that one, mainly due to what is understood to constitute “natural law”. Natural law theory is based on moral objectivism, or moral realism, and/or the morality based on the nature of the world and of the human beings populating it. In nearly all cases, though, this morality is based as well upon God’s will. And, as religion and God’s will overlap, one has to conclude that contraception is most assuredly a matter relating to religion, as well as that of natural law. I cannot see how one can separate the two as being unrelated.
And, in that same highlighted comment, the other two points hardly matter at all, considering the Catholic Church’s official stance on contraception.
On top of that, regardless of any discussions in the works on this issue, like say, allowing certain Catholic institutions a waiver while others have to submit to the law, only raises the issue regarding waivers more. I would be just as adamant about my support for defeat of Obamacare if the President had granted the Catholic church unrestricted waivers on this issue. Why? Because the use of waivers, especially if they are granted by political motives, to exempt individuals, or groups, from having a law applicable to them, also violates another VERY important clause in the US Constitution.
The “Equal Protection Clause”, identified in the 5th Amendment, and further clarified in the 14th, essentially states that no person or group will be denied such protection under the law as is enjoyed by similar persons or groups — i.e., persons similarly situated must be treated similarly. The granting of waivers to exempt individuals and groups from a law violates this. It leads to being a nation of “rule by man” instead of “rule by law”. If the law isn’t good enough, or is too restrictive, or whatever other reason, for one group of people, then it isn’t good enough, or is too restrictive, for ALL people.
The contraception issue and the waiver issue are closely related in regards to Obamacare, which is why I brought it up.
Hi John, This is turning into (from my perspective) an entirely wonderful discussion, but I can’t give it the attention it deserves until tonight or tomorrow. Can I have a temporary rain check? You do make very thoughtful points in #7, and I’d like the chance to respond in the future. – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
P.S. Just to make certain that we are actually arguing about the same thing, here’s the statement of policy, directly from Sibelius:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/Kathleen-Sebelius-contraception-exemption/52975092/1
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I don’t know if I’ll be available then, Larry, and in any case, I have some errands to run now anyway. One of them being grabbing another bottle of Single Malt Scotch, my new favorite thing. Not for getting drunk, mind you, but for the taste experience, which I love. I guess the discussion will have to be more of a running discussion, each of us commenting as time allows.
Hi John,
I’m a Kentucky bourbon man, myself (sipped neat). Made in the USA. You should be aware of the fact that, while genuine KY bourbon must, by law, be aged in new oak barrels, Scotch whiskey is first aged for two years in USED KY BOURBON BARRELS and then aged some more in USED port wine barrels.
Here’s where it gets really interesting: A used bourbon barrel contains approximately 2 gallons of bourbon, inside of the wood. What happens during the process of aging whiskey is that the wood “breathes” in and out, as temperatures change with the changing seasons. So all that bourbon leaches out into the Scotch whiskey; when you drink Scotch, the best part of it is Kentucky bourbon.
The Scotch distillers refer to the barrels as “American oak casks.” The KY distillers just call them “used bourbon barrels” (which, by law, can’t be used any longer for aging bourbon).
The source for the above was my tour guide at the Woodford Reserve distillery, in Versailles, KY, about 4 years ago.
– Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Trap set, game snared.
Shoved that right down your throat didn’t we. Go ahead and say Bush lied about the intelligence. Every respected intelligence agency in the world agreed.
But Obama……Obama lied. Obama promised the Blue Dogs, and especially Bart Stupak that what is now happening would not happen. He lied to get their votes and stabbed them right in the back. Lied to the American Bishops so they would support Obamacare and stabbed them in the back. He has lied at every single turn in this debate and others.
You are a fraud. If you will lie in the same manner that Obama lies, you cannot be taken seriously any longer. I see you say you were at Mass. Are you a Nancy Pelosi Catholic?
Personally, I see nothing wrong with contraception. I see nothing wrong with the morning after pill. I even believe abortion should be legal, even though I am personally against it. But do not tell my Church what they should and shouldn’t do. That is not the job of the government. You can use you “affiliated” adjective all you would like. If the Catholic Church pulls their funding and backing of the Universities and Churches, the “affiliated” organizations will cease to exist. And they will pull their funding and backing Larry, make no mistake about it. One in six hospitals will close when they do.
Hi Aqua, There’s no need to be so hostile.
Number one, I’ve never once in my life said that George W Bush “lied” about anything. I sign my name to everything. I’ve been commenting on the Iraq War for 9 years. Probably 1,000 posts. You can Google to your heart’s content, and you’ll never find me claiming that Bush ever lied about anything.
Of course, I’m aware of the votes you cite. There is no way that a Democratic administration would have invaded Iraq. But you had the President of the United States giving speech after speech, in which he juxtaposed the terms “Saddam Hussein” and “9/11” repeatedly. I heard many interviews with people who were volunteering for military service and with people in the active military. When asked the reason, they usually said something like “payback for 9/11.” They never said “to get Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, even though he didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.” At the time of the Iraq invasion, over 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. Not a single intelligence organization in the world claimed this to be the case.
The justification within the UN and international community was WMD. This was an honest mistake. Faulty intelligence. But what created the overwhelming political climate supporting invasion was the widespread but false belief that Saddam was directly complicit in 9/11. Politicians being politicians, they are spineless lemmings. You’ve got the Commander in Chief, with the bully pulpit, giving speech after speech about 9/11 and Saddam and WMD and a populace who wants the country to go out and kick some butt, in response to 9/11, and what politician is going to go against this type of a — carefully orchestrated — tide?
No, Obama didn’t lie to Stupak! You want to go conflating abortion with contraception. They are not the same thing. Half of all pregnancies in the USA are not planned. 40% of non-planned pregnancies end in abortion.
Contraception is, according to Church teachings, a violation of “natural law.” To my knowledge, there isn’t anything scriptural prohibiting contraception. In Pope Paul VI’s encyclical (Humanae Vitae) against contraception**(see below), he specifically states that “lesser evils” may be tolerated to prevent “greater evils.”
Since 1985, there has been the increasing availability of access to contraceptive services and better contraceptive services. As a result, there are now 380,000 fewer abortions (“murders”) every year. Contraception is a violation of “natural law.” Abortion (“murder”) is a violation of the 5th Commandment. A lesser evil to prevent a greater evil. At some point, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops will figure this out.
Little appreciated fact: the number of abortions, adjusted for population, is approaching the levels which existed BEFORE Roe v. Wade. With the institution of universal access to contraceptive counseling and contraceptives, the abortion rates will go down way below those existing before Roe v Wade. Obama will have prevented more murders in one year with this one act than the sum total of all the anti-abortion politicians in previous history.
In any event, several things must be considered: first, who’s consciences are being violated? A hospital administrator or University President who is being forced to buy an insurance policy which covers contraception for Catholics who choose to ignore Church doctrine on contraception (which includes 98% of Catholic couples, at one time or the other). and also covers contraception for non-Catholics. What happens to non-Catholics who don’t get contraception counseling and contraceptives? If they get pregnant, which many will, and they hadn’t intended to get pregnant, as in the case of many, there’s a 40% chance that they will “choose” to have an abortion.
So the hospital administrator will be racked with guilt over having to pay for contraception insurance for people who don’t share his religious view that contraception is a grave sin, but he won’t lose a minute’s sleep over the babies that will be murdered. He doesn’t worry about those murdered babies. Those aren’t his concern. What he worries about is having to pay for contraceptives for the 98% of all people, including Catholics, who would rather prevent conception than be faced with the “choice” of having to murder a baby.
In any event, the policy in question was the one recommended by the non-political, non-partisan Institute of Medicine (link to the full report is in one of my Commonweal comments, linked above). It’s a policy in place at the state level in 28 states, including California. The administration has allowed for an 18 month period for institutions to work with the administration to come up with a policy that everyone can live with.
Your predictions about the Catholic Church pulling back its funding over the insurance/contraception issue are demonstrably false. The exact same insurance regulations proposed by the HHS are already in effect in California, New York, and Oregon, at the state level. To my knowledge, not a single Catholic-affiliated institution (school, hospital, charity) has closed or been de-funded because of this.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
**End note: In the Papal encyclical, Paul VI states that lesser evils may be tolerated to prevent greater evils or to promote greater good. He goes on to state, however, that merely fostering stronger families or other societal benefits from contraception are not a sufficient “greater good” to justify contraception. He doesn’t address the issue of secular government policy, in a setting of unrestricted availability of abortion on demand. If one balances the “evil” of contraception with the evil of abortion, this is certainly a case in which the lesser evil is vastly preferably to the greater evil. As I wrote above, I think that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops will eventually figure this out.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
There is no need to be hostile? There has been an ever increasing and overbearing encroachment by this administration on personal liberties. They (Obama) is openly hostile toward anyone, any institution, or any State that does not agree with them.
Wrong….At the state level an organization can opt out of providing coverage. At the federal level, under Obamacare, you cannot. And if the Catholic Church backs down from this, I will no longer be Catholic. I’m sure the Church won’t miss me, but I will no longer support a Church I no longer believe in.
You say:
Dem Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper says different:
You say:
Are you serious?? Forcing Catholic organizations to provide contraceptives in their insurance plans is going to save the world, prevent murders, cease the rise of ocean levels, and produce unicorns that expel skittles from their rear orifices?
I really don’t care how you or anyone else tries to rationalize this so you can sleep at night. The bottom line is this. Obamacare forces Catholic organizations to provide insurance for their employees. The federal government will not allow Catholic organizations to hire Catholics only because of discrimination laws. That is except in the case of a religious leader and Obama’s EEOC tried to get around that and got their butts handed to them in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church And School v. EEOC. People that want something in their health insurance that the Catholic Church does not provide do not have to work for Catholic organizations. The federal government has no right in this matter whatsoever and it is a violation of the first amendment.
Hi Aqua, In my reference to unnecessary hostility, I was referring to your comment as follows:
I’ll get back on the rest, later tonight.
– Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I take it from your earlier posts that you are Catholic. If so, you know that the Pope can change all of this with the stroke of the pen. Not a previous Pope, the sitting Pope. You can pull all the writings of all the Popes all the way back to Peter, and it will not matter. The Church does not currently approve of contraception and most certainly does not approve of abortifacients. As such, the federal government does not have the authority to force the Church to do so. Obama and his followers may believe he is the messiah, but the Catholic Church does not believe this to be the case and neither do I.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You set this up as an exercise in moral relevance. You were at Mass, you walked out, and you have had some debates with Catholics on a website, which doesn’t seem to have swayed many opinions. And yes, I absolutely believe that Obama lied and I showed where Kathy Dahlkeper says as much: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-kathy-dahlkemper-i-wouldnt-have-voted-obamacare-if-id-known-about-hhs-regulation_626302.html
If you shore up the administrations argument that has been based on nothing but lies and deceit, what else am I to assume.
How about I attack this from another angle. Thanks to Obama, my health insurance went up 29% this year. This is the last year they can raise insurance by double digits without some sort of justification, which by the way means that all of them will raise it exactly 9.9% every year for eternity. As a result of my insurance going up, we had to make some concessions. One of those was in prescriptions. I have good cholesterol levels, but my triglycerides are a bit high. They hang around 150 to 201, enough that my doc wants me to take fenofibrate. My cost for the fenofibrate has gone up 300%. I’m not complaining, I like red meat and I am almost certainly responsible for the deaths of scores if not hundreds of cows. So, I am eating more chicken, fish, and I’m doing that wonderful ipad app, Couch to 5k. It is called personal responsibility. Why has personal responsibility been thrown to the curb in our country? Does the government need to take care of every aspect of everyone’s life.
Also, planned parenthood, the vatican of the left provides birth control in all forms…….for free or discounted prices. Why does the Catholic Church need to do so as well. What’s next? Is Obama going to make the Church donate money to planned parenthood or face charity discrimination charges?
Hi Aqua, to address some of your assertions:
Firstly, as a point of information, I’m not a confirmed Catholic, though I’m regularly going to mass, for personal reasons.
You assert that state insurance mandates allow for religious opt outs and if such opt-outs are not allowed, Catholic supported hospitals, schools, charitable institutions will close:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/spib_ICC.pdf
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/03/3407594/contraception-mandate-outrages.html#storylink=cpy
To my knowledge, one in 6 Catholic hospitals did not close, contrary to your predictions. I’m not aware of a single closure of any institution, owing to the existence of this policy.
You say that Obama lied to Stupak. He didn’t. Your quote from Rep Dahlkemper doesn’t support this. She never calls Obama a “liar.” She makes it clear that the agreement was about abortion and not contraception. She’s just being a politician, trying to “excuse” her role in ObamaCare passage, in a tough election year. Obama’s Executive Order (which Stupak et al required for their support for ObamaCare) covers abortion, not contraception. Possibly Dahlkemper is referring to emergency contraception (e.g “Plan B”), but, contrary to assertions to the contrary, drugs like this are not abortifacients, e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15192056
Your insurance going up 29% had nothing at all to do with ObamaCare. Blue Cross of CA announced a 39% one year increase, in January of 2009, when ObamaCare was thought to be dead in the water. California Blue Shield announced a 59% increase a year ago, but they were careful to state that it had nothing to do with ObamaCare http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/business/la-fi-insure-rates-20110106.
The total cost of the various mandates to date of ObamaCare to existing insurance policies is very small. Health insurance costs doubled during the 8 years of the Bush administration. The factors causing health care cost inflation are all the obvious things, which have nothing to do with ObamaCare. We can get very specific on this, if you wish.
There is no doubt whatsoever that abortion is a far greater evil than contraception and contraception is the single most effective thing which can be done immediately to prevent abortions. The fall in abortion rate, coinciding with the explosion of reproductive services, had been just stunning. As I wrote, we are almost now back to where we were before Roe v Wade and we’ll go down much further and faster, given the implementation of ObamaCare.
The Obama administration is allowing 18 months before implementation, to allow for all the remaining issues to be worked out. The intention to do this was first announced last July, after the Institute of Medicine recommendations came in. It’s all being done with full transparency. They are being appropriately responsive to political reactions. They have stated their intention to work with the impacted institutions (and this needs to be done on a case by case basis, contrary to John Galt’s position, because there is a big difference between a parish school and a for profit “Catholic” hospital partly owned by a private equity firm, e.g. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110221/MAGAZINE/110219947 )
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
She doesn’t need to call him a liar for him to have lied. But, just to make sure I seal the deal that Obama lied, here is what Stupak said about the executive order….emphasis mine.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2010/03/21/171322/stupak-presser/
Obama lied.
So the Churches in Wisconsin were unable to self insure and were hoping for the federal law to fix this anyway. That is you response to saying my beliefs are demonstrably false? In California, there is an exemption to self insure as well, there was nothing as to how many have or have not been able to.
So the bottom line from you is this. The Catholic Church showed some signs of bending over and taking it once, maybe they’ll take it again on the national level. It doesn’t matter if the leaders of the Church or the members of the Church believe this infringes on their religious liberties because you and Obama don’t believe it infringes on our religious liberties. Got it. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Just so you know, there is a very good chance that this will be out of the hands of the American Bishops if it is implemented.
How very gracious of them and you to allow the issues to be worked out before they trample on another piece of the Constitution.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
In response to your #10, and yes, clearly off-topic here; Not all Single Malt Scotches are aged in used bourbon barrels. Some are aged in sherry oak casks from Spain, others are aged in rum oak casks, and there are others aged otherwise as well. But yes, there are many that are aged solely in, or partially in, used bourbon barrels from the US. It is just ONE of the things that adds to the depth of the tasting experience when one drinks a Single Malt. One can also taste the hint of salt from the Islay’s and Speyside’s as an example. I wouldn’t claim that the best part of Scotch is the bourbon, and particularly not amongst the better Scotches. I just hope my wife will continue to allow me to purchase new bottles every now and then, as some of them are quite expensive, but well worth it as I understand.
Anyway, back to the topic itself.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Sorry, Larry, but I’ll take any word from a current Obama admin with a very healthy dose of salt. I do understand the distinction being made, though, but guess what? I still don’t agree with it, and I wouldn’t agree with it even if it was a GOP WH doing the same.
Hi Aqua (#18): No, Obama didn’t lie. The conscience clause (Hyde amendment and subsequent executive orders) applied to abortion and not to contraception. It also applied, on the individual level, to “point of service,” i.e. the physician or pharmacist. It didn’t apply to members of the Board of Directors of a religious-affiliated hospital.
Yes, California and Wisconsin contraception mandates had exemptions for institutions which self-insured. I don’t have the time to go researching this, but I can’t imagine that there are more than a handful of exemptions. The largest hospital in the Wisconsin state capital, home of the state university, couldn’t self insure. Also, there are 8 states with contraception mandates and no exemptions, including the People’s Republic of Georgia (the one with the capital city of Atlanta, not Tbilisi). And Catholic hospitals, universities, and large charities did not close their doors, as you predict they would.
Here’s the point: this was never a big, front burner deal until it got associated with Obama. Scott Walker took office with a solid GOP legislative super majority. What was their priority? Righting this egregious attack on First Amendment rights? No, union pension reform.
This wasn’t something cooked up by Obama and Holder and Sibelius; it was the result of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, following a 6 month study by the IOM.
I’m disappointed, if not dismayed, to have so much emotion invested in an issue which is mostly theoretical and entirely esoteric, while ignoring the consideration of something which is entirely real, which is 1.2 million abortions per year.
What is theoretical and esoteric is how money is collected and distributed, under insurance contracts. The issue is forcing Church-administered businesses, providing highly secular services, and employing large numbers of the non-observent (both non-Catholics and Catholics) to buy insurance policies which cover contraceptive services for those individuals who wish to receive them.
All of us are forced to pay for things in which we don’t believe and which contravene our religions and personal moralities. I’m against capital punishment (so is the Church) and I was against the Iraq War; yet I was forced against my will and conscience to pay for both.
I don’t accept that the personal moralities of the board of directors of a hospital or college is of greater consequence than my personal morality or the personal morality of anyone else, when it comes to distribution of government-mandated personal or corporate expenditures.
What do you think about a businessman who is a Jehovah’s Witness being required to offer health insurance policies which covered blood transfusions, in contravention of that person’s religious teachings. What about a Christian Science-affiliated institution? How about Scientology-affiliated institutions being required to pay for insurance policies which cover mental health services?
It really is a slippery slope, when it comes to claiming religious freedom — not at the level of the individual or at the level of a true, clearly religious entity (church, church school, mission, etc.) — but at the level of the Board of Directors of a large business, engaged in primarily secular activities.
It’s been pointed out that (1) Catholic-affiliated institutions already have to live with such insurance mandates at the state level and (2) Catholic-affiliated institutions already do subsidize contraceptive services through paying money to insurance companies which offer contraceptive services to other employers, thus subsidizing these latter policies through the profits which the Catholic institutions provide to these insurance companies.
When you actually start tracking the flow of dollars (“follow the money”), things really do become theoretical and esoteric.
Let’s talk about something real. Let’s talk about something really evil. Abortion.
For all the heated political and religious rhetoric against abortion, the single greatest thing which has saved the most babies from being killed by abortionists is contraception. After Roe v Wade, abortions went way up. Everyone knows that. What people don’t know so much is that, since 1985, abortions have gone way down. A decline of something like 380,000 per year, since then:
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/images/stats_by_year.jpg
This coincides with an explosion of contraceptive services and with the increasing availability of better contraceptives. Adjusted for population, the number of abortions is descending to the level existing before Roe v Wade.
Half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Of the unplanned pregnancies, 40% end up with abortion (baby killing). A lot of unplanned pregnancies occur because of ineffective use of contraceptives. This is why it’s not only important to pay fo the contraceptives, but also to pay for counselling (part of proposed HHS regulations) on effective use of conraceptives.
If the HHS regulations go into effect and ObamaCare is not repealed by the GOP, the number of babies killed per year will drop dramatically, to well below the levels existing before Roe v Wade. So while the social conservatives rant and rage against Roe v Wade, without accomplishing anything of substance, supporters of contraception have been quietly preventing the slaughter of 380,000 babies per year and this “liberal” Democratic admininstration will prevent the slaughter of an additional half million per year, over time.
I discussed above how Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae states that lesser evils may legitimately be carried out to prevent greater evils. Contraception is a violation of natural law. Abortion is a violation of the 5th Commandment.
But the Catholic Bishops are more concerned about “following the money” in an esoteric economic sense, than in actually doing something effective, in terms of going after the true evil elephant in the room. And the conservatives, who were never troubled when the State of Georgia and other states pioneered this mandate, suddenly go ballistic when the Obama administration follows the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine and models its mandate directly on existing mandates at the state level.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
While you make good points, I believe the one you made above is not applicable. We are not talking about you or I having to pay for what someone else does. We are talking about the government essentially forcing a religious entity to do something against their own official stance on the issue.
Capital punishment? While you, and the Catholic Church, may be against it, they are not forcing you to engage in it yourselves. You have the option not to be a judge, DA, or prison worker(warden to guard) who may have the job of either sentencing someone to death, or carrying out the sentence.
The Iraq war? While age may have played the major part in you not joining the military when the Iraq war began, an individual still had the option of not joining the military for the reason of not supporting such an action by our government. The government didn’t force anyone to join to fight in that war, and didn’t put down any marches or protests by people who felt like you do about it.
Here, though, the government is forcing something upon the public for which they have no option but adherence to the law.
So, not the same thing, in my opinion, and not applicable to the debate here.
Hi John (#22): The proposed HHS rule won’t compel Catholic Hospitals to dispense contraceptives or Catholic doctors to prescribe contraceptives. It won’t compel Catholic schools to teach contraception. All it will do is to compel large institutions, engaged in primarily secular activities and employing non-Catholics, which provide insurance coverage for their employees, to include coverage for contraceptive services (including counseling) as part of the policies. As previously noted, such mandates are required by law in 28 states, including in 8 states which don’t provide exemptions. The rest I explain in #21.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Yes he did.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/10/03/text_of_the_executive_order_on_abortion/37797
You mean the way placing pseudoephedrines behind the pharmacy counter will reduce the manufacturing of meth.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/51131
I know, “trust the government, we know what we’re talking about.”
As for your disappointment, tough. I’m disappointed that you feel you interpretation of religious freedom is the only one that counts. And since you believe that only you know the answer to stopping the number of abortions and it is through infringing on religious freedoms, the rest of us should just shut up and take your word for it because you’re a doctor and attend Mass. Sorry, I’m not going to play along.
Also, didn’t know about the Georgia law. I do now. You know what the great thing about a State passing a law as opposed to the feds passing a law? The one in Georgia will be overturned by the end of Summer.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
And even with that, my argument is still the same. What you are arguing, in regards to how the Catholic church is associated with the organization, is simply a matter of degree of participation.
The Catholic Church, as I see it, has two options available. One, either end any sort of affiliation with those entities affected by the law, thus preserving their own principles and viewpoint, or, two, simply acquiesce to the laws stipulations, and violate their own principles. You seem to believe that it isn’t such a big deal for them to do so, which, practically speaking, probably isn’t. However, it is a fact that the federal government is demanding a religious institution violate it’s official stance on an issue. That is what I take issue with.
Hi John: Firstly, as pointed out, these insurance mandates are already in effect at the state level. They were never previously considered to be a big political deal until they appeared in a regulation drafted by the Obama administration. Second, we aren’t talking about “the Catholic Church,” which is exempt from such requirements, as are such entities as parish schools. What we are talking about are largely secular businesses, such as universities and hospitals, run by boards of trustees and boards of directors, and employing large numbers of non-Catholics.
Hi Aqua: No, Obama didn’t lie. In your linked quote from the Atlantic, he’s reaffirming the conscience clause when it comes to abortion. Abortion is different than contraception.
Your meth lab quote is irrelevant. The facts are that both common sense and compelling statistics (quoted and linked by me earlier) indicate the more contraception and better contraception results directly in fewer abortions, in an era where half of all pregnancies are unplanned and 40% of unplanned pregnancies end in abortion.
Regarding the Peoples Republic of Georgia (capital Atlanta): The fact remains that 28 states have mandates for contraception, including many with only onerous exemptions (e.g. Wisconsin, California, New York) and 8 with no exemptions at all. Again, this only rose to the level of an egregious abrogation of First Amendment rights when it became associated with Obama.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
The big lie at the heart of the Obama administration’s attack on traditional religious institutions is that access to birth control REQUIRES churches to pay for it for all of their employees.
This is a conflation the availability of birth control with funding for birth control.
They are not the same.
Women in America can get birth control.
The government can fund organizations — indeed, it already does with the monies that go to Planned Parenthood — that provide all these birth control options.
Forcing religious organizations to pay for birth control, sterilization and abortifacients, however, both exceeds the government’s power and contravenes the limitations the Bill of Rights imposes on government.
This is not about whether women should have birth control; it’s about with the government can force churches to pay for it….plain and simple.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You do not understand the South at all. Obama has absolutely nothing to do with this. It’s the federal government. I would be just as upset if this were being done under a republican administration. I do not march in lockstep with the republican party. That’s what democrats do.
I don’t think so. This graph says differently:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/georgia.html
There was an 18.3% increase in population in Georgia between 2000 and 2010.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13000.html
You have to make some assumptions, since I have no intention of digging into the census to break down the categories of population increase. But I will err on the side of increased females of child bearing age, which according to the graph is 15-44.
So, let’s say the increase in population for that demographic is 7.5%. That is close to insignificant statistically speaking when compared to the graph. If you adjust the graph to take that population increase into account, you would hardly get the fewer abortions you are crowing about. If the trend continues, it appears that there will be an increase in abortions. Even here, in the Peoples Republic of Georgia (capital Atlanta); where your messiah’s plan has been in place for 10 years. Guess my meth lab analogy isn’t that irrelevant after all.
Oh, and it will be repealed here in Georgia. I’ve already written my State Senator and the GOP president of my county.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I believe you are missing my point entirely. You seem to be basing your argument on, (1) the very technical aspects of the law and the relationship between the Catholic church and hospitals, universities, etc., and (2) that there wasn’t an outcry when states did it, meaning the entire objection is solely due to the fact that Obama is the face of the new federal law.
So, to answer those points;
(1) Regardless of the technical aspects of the law in relation to the Catholic church’s relationship with the different entities, and in particular those of hospitals and universities, the government IS, in fact, telling a religious organization that their particular values do not matter. And, the Catholic church itself, as I stated, has just two choices, assuming the law stands, and assuming the Catholic church won’t change it’s official position. That is, they can either go along with the law, without objection, and compromise their principles, or, they can disassociate themselves from those hospitals, universities, etc.
(2) This argument simply doesn’t matter, if one is concerned primarily on the right/wrong aspects of the issue. To use this is to essentially state that two “wrongs” make a “right”, or, that since no objection was raised prior to the federal law, that it automatically makes it “right”. Also, and this is an aside, you are bringing up individual states, which will not garner the sheer volume of outcry that a federally based law will. As such, it is entirely probable that conservatives within those individual states HAVE raised the outcry, but since it wasn’t a national issue, not many knew about it. That is an assumption, of course, but a very plausible one.
What one should be arguing for/against on this issue should be the merits of the issue, and boiled down to the essence of the issue as well. Such as, does government have the right to tell a religious organization how it should/will believe? No, it doesn’t. From there, the discussion can move to your point in (1), which has merit. Your point (2), as I said, shouldn’t matter in the slightest.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Well Larry, someone finally talked to Congressman Stupak. He says….Obama lied.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/02/09/former-democratic-congressman-key-obamacares-passage-betrayed-contraception-mandate
Hi Aqua:
Let’s take things in context; here’s what Stupak said:
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/02/09/former-democratic-congressman-key-obamacares-passage-betrayed-contraception-mandate#ixzz1ludom3iH
Now, of course you want to put the very worse spin on this. It’s being portrayed by some conservatives as Obama and Holder and Sibelius wanting to get together and make war on the Catholic Church. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, the mandate came from an intensive, 6 month, Institute of Medicine review, unanimously supported by all the doctors on the review panel. The mandate was directly modeled after mandates already in existence in 28 states, 8 of them with no religious exemptions at all and others with exemptions only for religious institutions which self insure, which virtually none are capable of doing. So this was the status quo. But it wasn’t an important issue for conservatives until it got associated with Obama.
I intend to go back and read the cited references to the “conscience clause,” when I’m able in the next couple of days. There may be an honest misunderstanding, on the part of one side or the other, about whether or not “providing” a given service extends not only to point of service (i.e. requiring a doctor to write a prescription or a hospital to provide a service or a pharmacist to fill a prescription) but also to providing an insurance policy which covers the service when provided at an outside institution by a provider who’s conscience is not troubled by providing contraceptive services.
As Stupak says (which is the same thing the Obama administration has said) there will be sufficient time and opportunity to “work this all out,” before the mandate takes effect in August, 2013.
I’ll say it again, though. If you really believe that abortion is murder, you should want more contraception, not less, particularly in the case of non-Catholics who are not about to resort to “natural” family planning.
Key statistics: 50% of pregnancies are not planned. 40% of non-planned pregnancies end in abortion. With the advent of increased availability of better contraceptives, the abortion rate (adjusted for population growth) has come down dramatically since 1985, to levels approaching those existing prior to Roe v Wade.
The conscience of the Bishops is more troubled by the thought of non-Catholics practicing contraception than by the thought of non-Catholics having abortions. I personally find this very troubling, and I’ve gone to morning mass every day this week (today’s reading and homily was about how even the wisest of people — King Solomon, in this case — can make some really terrible decisions). The American Bishops are dead set on avoiding a lesser evil, with the inevitable result that there will be a far greater evil perpetrated. They ought to closely read Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. Lesser evils may be tolerated to avoid greater evils. In this case, violation of “natural law” versus violation of the 5th Commandment. His Holiness never considered a situation such as this, I’m certain. This is a case of penny wise and pound foolish, to the Nth degree, spiritually speaking.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
There was no spin on my part, much less worse spin. Stupak says he believes the conscious clause would have prevented exactly what happened and is disappointed in the administration. Ergo, Obama lied. He lied to get Stupak to vote for his stinking healthcare bill. I have absolutely no idea how you can look at that and not come to that conclusion. Wait, yes I can.
As for this:
I showed you statistics from the People’s Republic of Georgia, Capital(Atlanta), that this claim does not pan out statistically. The number of abortions has rising since 2000 and the passage of the mandatory contraceptive clause. Until then, it was actually declining. Are there other factors involved? I’m sure they are. But according to your statistics, they should have no bearing whatsoever. Give the people contraception and there will be less abortions. Not happening. And furthermore, it shouldn’t be any of you concern. Religious freedom in this country is paramount.
Maybe you should read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/the-contraception-coverage-debate-isnt-just-about-the-bishops/252780/
Finally, I don’t care how much you feel it is justified. You do not get to dictate to me how I should feel about my religion.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I was really trying to stay out of the theology part of this. To me it is nothing more than an affront on religious freedom. But now you are wiser than the Pope in regards to canonical law? If Pope Paul VI thought contraception to be the lesser of evils, he could have made a Papal Bull and this discussion would never have taken place. As it stands now Christ was pretty clear on this when he spoke to Peter, (note to my non-Catholic friends, this is not a discussion about whether or not Peter was the first Pope. I respect your views on this, but my view differs). Matthew 18:18, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
So, it is what it is. It is not your decision to make. As it is, the Church is very understanding when it comes to contraception, but it does not mean it should change its moral view.
Feel free to pull all of Pope Paul VI’s writings that you want. I assure you that Pope John Paul II read them all. I’m sure Pope Benedict XVI has read them as well. They could have issued a Papal Bull as well. They do not agree with your view.
Hi Aqua: I don’t think that this particular issue has ever come up before, at the level of the papacy. This was not a decision made by the Pope, ex cathedra. It was a political position taken by the US Council of Bishops. Yes, I know that that there is a delegation of authority. I’m not challenging that; I’m simply saying that, in my opinion (and strictly as a collateral issue) it seems that the Bishops are worrying about the prospect of non-Catholics practicing contraception, when the result of ineffective contraception is more abortion.
Here are some more interesting statistics:
Read more: Contraception – Challenges Of Contraception – Contraceptives, Countries, Abortion, and Rate – JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/1767/Contraception-Challenges-contraception.html#ixzz1lvxDEPrZ
I think that the examples of the UK and the Netherlands are striking. Both are countries where abortion is freely available. The Netherlands in particular, is even more of a “free love” country than in present day America. And it’s a free abortion country. http://southholland.angloinfo.com/countries/holland/abortion.asp But they’ve got an abortion rate which is 1/4 that of the USA. We kill 4 times as many babies per capita than they do.
I’m sure that contraception has prevented the slaughter of 100 times the number of babies as the sum total saved by Operation Rescue and all the political efforts of all the social conservatives and all of the Catholic Bishops in the last 35 years. By far, the most effective thing which could be done to further reduce abortion is greater availability of more effective contraception, combined with more effective contraceptive counseling — which is part of the proposed HHS insurance mandate.
If you really want to prevent abortions, don’t vote for Santorum; vote for Obama, is my conclusion. We are already approaching an abortion rate existing before Roe v Wade. With ObamaCare and the proposed HHS contraception mandate, those numbers will plummet further, as in the case of the UK and the Netherlands. What creates a demand for abortion is not availability of abortion, but non-availability of contraception.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Nope, it has been a Papal decree for quite some time. The very Pope Paul VI you cite had the chance to change it.
What he did instead of reversing the Church’s stance on contraception is now known as the “Rhythm Method.”
http://what-when-how.com/birth-control/canon-law-and-contraception-birth-control/
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have reaffirmed this stance.
You do not have to sell me on contraception, although I am not sold on the statistics that it reduces the number of abortions in the numbers you cite. After our first two children, my wife was told that it would be in her best interest to not have any more. She seems to get anemic during pregnancy. I don’t remember exactly what they called it, but they said another pregnancy would put her and the child in danger. We talked to our priest and explained the situation and told him we would be using some form of birth control. He couldn’t exactly send us off with his blessing, but we left knowing the Church was still behind us. My wife ended up getting pregnant. The birth control pills failed. We never once considered abortion, even though I was scared to death I would lose her and the baby. And if it had come down to the possibility of losing her, I know what I would have done. What she would have done is a different story. Even though the pregnancy was difficult (she was on bed rest for the last 4 months) my son turned 17 last Friday. My wife was fine. Before he was born, we went back to our priest and explained that my wife would have her tubes tied. Again, the Church was behind us, but they couldn’t exactly hold a parade in honor of our decision. After our son was born they immediately took my wife to surgery and performed the procedure. The doctor cut a ligament and she bled internally for 12 hours. She spent a week in the ICU. But two weeks later she and our son came home happy and healthy. She received quite the hospital room upgrade and after the insurance company told me our son couldn’t stay in the hospital just because my wife was there, the doctor somehow made that matter disappear.
TL:DR Version: I understand the need for contraception. I know for a fact that many Catholics use it. Even so, we still respect the Churches stance on the issue. Contraception is readily available for anyone. You can go to the health department and get condoms by the gross, for free. Planned parenthood provides birth control pills, for free. And even if your insurance doesn’t cover it, a prescription for birth controls pill is not that expensive. They are around $40 a month. This is not an issue about contraception, it is an issue of religious freedom. The Catholic Church may change its mind one day, but it should be allowed to do it in their own time and way.
Hi Aqua: First of all, thanks for sharing your personal story. It’s altogether admirable, and it’s wonderful that it all worked out, after all your tribulations.
What I was referring to, in Humanae Vitae, was the specific statement that, in some situations, lesser evils may be tolerated to prevent greater evils, or to promote greater good. His Holiness went on to note that giving advantages to families or to society do not constitute sufficient greater good to justify artificial contraception. He doesn’t address the issue of whether or not the policies of secular government permitting artificial contraception are not lesser evils than would be the alternative of not permitting artificial contraception in a society where the alternative is abortion on demand. I’m sure that the preferred position would be no contraception and no abortion, but that’s entirely unrealistic. Catholics have an abortion rate of 0.22 per 100 per year, which is, if anything, greater than society at large (which makes sense, if they, as a population, make lesser use of artificial contraception).
I don’t know how else you can interpret the abortion statistics, pre and post Roe v Wade and pre and post greater availability of better contraceptives, and how else you can possibly interpret the USA vs the Netherlands, for example, or Russia versus the rest of the world, over time, as a function of availability of contraceptives. Contraception clearly prevents abortions. And the statistic that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned and 40% of unplanned pregnancies end in abortion puts this into perspective, number-wise.
Personally, I think that Sibelius, Obama, et al are doing the work of angels, with respect to trying to implement a policy which will clearly have a dramatic effect on abortions, in a good direction. It would clearly be wrong to mandate anyone to use contraception who didn’t want to use it or to force a doctor to prescribe contraception, if he/she didn’t want to, or a hospital to do tubal ligations or vasectomies, if it didn’t want to. But that’s not what this is about. It’s simply about what coverage is provided under an insurance policy.
Look at it this way: the money used to buy the insurance policy is not the employer’s. It’s basically compensation earned by the employee. It’s the employee’s money. No one is forcing the employee to use contraception, just as the government is not forcing the employee to get a colonoscopy or any other covered service mandated under the insurance law. No one’s conscience need be violated.
The net result of an employer receiving an exemption from providing an insurance policy with contraception coverage will be more abortions. And for what? As I wrote before, when you actually “follow the money” it becomes an entirely esoteric and theoretical exercise. Is it the employer’s money or the employee’s money that’s getting spent on the insurance policy? It’s clearly the employee’s money. He’s earned that insurance policy by virtue of the work he does for the employers, just as he’s earned his salary and his vacation and sick time and 401K contribution. And let’s say that St. Elsewhere gets an exemption and purchases Blue Cross without contraceptive coverage. But Blue Cross provides policies which cover contraceptives for other employers and the money St. Elsewhere contributes to the Blue Cross bottom line helps to subsidize the contraceptives for the other employees.
It’s quite esoteric and theoretical — the flow of co-mingled money and trying to carve out a distinction between an employee’s earned wages and an employee’s earned benefits. What’s real is abortion. If you really care about abortions, in a concrete sense, rather than in an abstract philosophical sense, you should support the efforts of the Obama administration to, as Stupak said, “work something out,” which would preserve the contraception coverage.
With regard to just having people pay for their own contraception, that is all well and good for a highly educated middle class person. The health insurance mandate also provided for contraceptive counseling — what’s the best contraceptive, given the situation and how to use it. I agree that Planned Parenthood does a good job of it, but conservatives are always trying to de-fund it, even though Planned Parenthood prevents 220,000 abortions per year. Contraception prevents abortions. “Natural law” versus the 5th Commandment.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
The work of angels, huh? The Church, as a matter of conscious, does not provide contraception in the prescription plan for the healthcare insurance they provide, at any Catholic institution. The federal government is now going to force them to do it. Statistics, however you wish to portray them, do not matter. It is a matter of religious freedom, and therefore this is an infringement on religion.
I try another way. It is now the Summer of the year 2014. Obama has been reelected. Scientists discover that the consumption of port reduces the rate of breast and ovarian cancers by 99%. The price of pork predictable increases by 1000%. Obamacare being in full gear now decides that the best way to get the much needed pork to women in through their employer provided healthcare. A doctor writes a prescription and the women can pick up their allowance of pork at the butcher, fully covered by the employer paid prescription plan. Of course the Jewish and Muslim communities become outraged because their insurance plans must now cover pork. But hey, they’re clinging to some stupid notion that pigs are unclean animals because it is written in some obscure text. We know better, because everyone knows bacon is delicious. But Obama mandates that Jewish and Muslim institutions that are not Synagogs and Mosques, must provide the pork plan. (Of course we all know that Obama wouldn’t do this because he wouldn’t want to upset the Muslims).
Would that be fair to those religions?
First they came for the Catholics, but I did not speak out because I was not Catholic.
Who’s next? Because we’ve seen this story before.
Hi Aqua, You say:
No, that is not correct:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=643350
With regard to the pork/Jew/Muslim thing, we already have it. Scientologists don’t believe in psychiatry or psychotropic drug therapy. State insurance mandates mental health coverage. I’m sure that I could dig out other examples. But, yeah, if it were shown that universal consumption of pork would be good for individual and family health and reduce abortion rate by 75%, and if it were an established precedent that food supplements were covered by insurance, then, of course, it would be appropriate to mandate inclusion of this as a covered benefit in all employee policies, including those issued as a work benefit by Jewish Hospital of Louisville, for example. No one’s forcing the hospital to serve pork and no ones forcing anyone to use the benefit to obtain pork, just as no one has to get a colonoscopy, even though it’s a mandated, covered benefit.
The Church isn’t “providing” anything. The workers earn their insurance coverage through their labors. Insurance is compensation for services rendered, not some sort of a gift.
Just as maintained all along, this is the continuation of a long, completely transparent process, giving all points of view the opportunity to weigh in.
Here’s the eminently sensible accommodation now proposed by the Obama administration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-to-announce-adjustment-to-birth-control-rule/2012/02/10/gIQArbFy3Q_story.html
If the Bishops object to this, they’ll lose whatever moral high ground they think they have.
The people with the moral high ground are the people who are actually doing something concrete to prevent abortion. Those would be the people working hard to make contraceptive services (and the knowledge in how to use them properly) freely and universally available.
What creates the demand for abortion isn’t the free availability of abortion services, it’s the lack of availability of contraception services and/or lack of knowledge in how to use them. Don’t you think it’s mind-boggling that the Netherlands, home of free love and legal drugs and legal gay marriage and FREE abortions, has 1/4 the abortion rate of the most conservative, abortion-restricted states in the USA? No one ever wants to be in the position of having to get an abortion. It’s a last resort, but the Bishops are working as hard as they can to make it as hard as possible for everyone to have access to contraception! Given their way, artificial contraception would never be used by anyone and we’d then have 5 times as many abortions as we have today (i.e. 7 million per year), just like Russia did, before they went on a national push to make contraception widely available.
You are trying to make the Bishops into martyrs for the faith and the Catholic Church as a persecuted institution. Neither could be further from the truth.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Update:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/