“The crowd was curious but well behaved.”The strangest thing about yesterday’s Stand Up For Religious Freedom rally in San Francisco were the “undecided” gentlemen who came dressed with brassieres on their heads. This was curious because there was no rain was in the forecast. About these fellows, more in a moment.
Of course you will have already heard of these rallies from the legacy media, because yesterday there were 148 of them in different cities across the nation. So let’s instead examine the folks attended this event in San Francisco, a city famous for its welcoming attitude, where the citizenry is tolerant of everything—except differing opinions. Tony
For example, meet Tony, standing here with a homemade sign. Tony is a successful pharmaceutical rep., always ready to laugh, and who has recently applied to the Redemptorist Fathers, a group which “takes the simple vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience,” and whose only goal is to teach kids and pray for the likes of us. “Us” includes those who have not yet escaped the womb, the deadliest place for children under one.
Father Frank PavoneMary Beth Binacci was our hostess and warmed up the crowd by telling us, “Most believe it is a foregone conclusion the Democrats are going to win the election.” Response: loud boos, which ushered on Father Frank Pavone, a well known anti-abortion speaker.
He quoted the chief of the UN Population Fund who said that “religion was the final frontier in the battle to promote reproductive health.” Ah, if only we could eliminate the one last thing which stands in the way of complete “reproductive health,” a code phrase meaning free—perhaps even mandatory for some—abortion on demand. Then life, what’s left of it, would be perfect.
Pavone recommended this video, in which Representative Trey Gowdy asked Health and Human Services (yet another growing branch of our government) Kathleen Sebelius how she came up with the idea to mandate that the Catholic Church must pay for abortions and birth prevention for its employees. “Through conversations,” she said.
That’s the miracle of bureaucracy: two unelected government apparatchiks jawing by the water cooler can move the course of the nation. No wonder so many want to enter government. Pavone recalled that Sebelius gave the Church one year to “adapt” to the new mandate. “You don’t adapt to injustice, you oppose it.”
Freedom from religion crewAbby Johnson took over from Father Pavone and thanked the crowd for coming, especially since, she said, “There is no fruitier place on earth than San Francisco.” Now this quip set the bra-wearing cross-dressers off, who began to shout, “Bigot!”
A new use for brassieresI made my way to them and asked the person on the right (pink feathers, wearing something mocking a nun’s habit) why he had come. “To protest against Cordileone,” he said. He meant the newly installed traditionalist Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, who ran afoul of the gay-rights flock by supporting California’s Proposition 8 (which disallowed gay “marriage”). Unfortunately for this small group of protesters, Cordileone, though scheduled, was unable to attend.
This was disappointing, but protesters are made of stern stuff, so they decided to stick it out. And to participate. They sang the National Anthem with everybody else, and even recited the Pledge of Allegiance—except for the line “Under God”, to which the tall purple fellow (none would give me their names) flipped the bird. Or birds, I should say.
I asked the faux nun what in particular made him angry and he said, “I don’t see what’s wrong with abortion. I had a very refreshing abortion this morning. I recommend it for everyone.”
Let them eat cake?Meanwhile, two guys were walking a poster around and around the grounds. It had a picture of The One in flowers and a dress, with the large word “Cake” crossed out, under which was printed “Change.” I asked one of the standard bearers what it meant and he said, “Barack Obama likes cake but wants change.” So that’s explained.
Don EvansDion Evans, CEO of Religazine Media, said regarding abortion, “For those who say, ‘I don’t know if it’s a life yet’, I say, Just leave it alone! Let’s see what it becomes!” Which is the best one-line distillation of natural rights I’ve heard.
Kevin A. McGary president of the Frederick Douglas Foundation
Craig DeLuzCraig DeLuz, President of the Frederick Douglas Foundation, told of us a recent conversations in the barber shop. One gentleman told him, “I’m voting for Obama because he’s down for black people.” To which he responded, “What’s the matter with you? You’re a regular church goer” and Obama was against everything he said he believed. He said he had to “spray some Lysol in your ear and get rid of that stinkin’ thinkin’.”
He told us to “vote for who more closely aligns with your principles.” He also sought to frighten the media and asked everybody to bring their bibles to the voting booth. Can you imagine the stories next morning if people did?
Marie StoughterMarie Stoughter, who hosts the African-American Conservatives radio program (what? you haven’t heard of this from the media?), began her speech with a dramatic, “I am not a Democrat.” She let it sink in, and then said, “I am not a Republican. I am a Christian.” She said this election was not about the price of gas but “about the price of my soul. I cannot vote for those who support abortion and the abhorrent practice of partial birth abortion.” Some may recall The One is for partial birth abortion.
Marie Hazel LewisMarie Hazel Lewis mounted next, and boy could she pierce the air. What’s left of my hearing, partially destroyed from listening to bad music as a youth, was temporarily paralyzed. Luckily, her meaning was clear. She is a college student and was asked by a professor to answer the question, “What steps would you take to increase condom use by your boyfriend.” She said, “Save it until you get married.”
This was an unacceptable answer, thought perfectly consistent with disease prevention, the subject of the test. The prof. refused to accept this answer and told her she would lose points if she did not try again. She refused on religious grounds.
Another student, Amelia Calderon (not pictured) from Sacramento State, and an indication The One might have lost the coveted youth vote, mocked, “Oh, I’m so great. I’m the first black president. You have to bow down to my wishes.” Miss Calderon reminded us that contraception is not “health” care because contraception is not necessary to insure women’s health. “Can we stop the president from imposing his beliefs on us?” she asked, “Yes we can!” came the answer.
Anne MorseThe photogenic Anne Morse was our last student. I say “photogenic” because we she ran up the stage, cameras appeared from everywhere. What was that scientific study that showed Republican women are better looking? Never mind. Her dad is an atheist, her roommates Muslim and Hindu, and all are against The One and his HHS mandate. “We don’t believe there is a war on women!”
Dr Timothy F. JohnsonDr Timothy F. Johnson, of the Frederick Douglas Foundation, and ex-G.I., told us he was serious for traditional marriage. “I am not an African-American. I am American. Doesn’t matter what ship you came over on. We’re all here now and we’ve got work to do.” He said “Barack Obama and Joe ‘I don’t have any sense’ Biden have got to leave 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If you,” meaning folks in the audience, “favor Democrats, you’re conflicted everyday.”
Rochelle ConnerRochelle Conner, chief of God and Government, said, “The government is in violation of our First Amendment…We are witnessing the criminalization of our faith.” She said, “When the word ‘God’ is banned at veteran’s funerals. When the words ‘traditional marriage’ are declared hate speech… We must vote for those who would protect religious liberty.”
Antoine Lamar MillerAntoine Lamar Miller is a pastor in Alameda, and awfully good at rousing an audience. He marveled that so many could show up in a city that spends its time banning a chicken restaurant. He reminded us that “30 million black children are killed by abortion.” Racism anyone? He lamented that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, as he called the cross-dressing protesters who had wandered off, should have stuck around so that he could tell them that he “loved them, that God loves them.” He closed with, “What we believe will not be defined by those in the White House.”
Walter HoyThe last speaker was Walter Hoy. “Mr President, we are praying you have a change of heart with regard to religious freedom. But if not! We are praying you have abandon the HHS mandate. But if not! We will not comply. We will not compromise our faith. We will not!” He asked finally, “We know who to vote for, don’t we?”
The event ended with a sing-along version of God Bless America, after which somebody shouted, “Viva Cristo Rey!” And the crowd answered, “Viva!”
These people can yell as loudly as they’d like, but when you’ve got a candidate as limp-wristed as Romney, it isn’t going to do much good. I long for the old days of the GOP.
Sylvain Allard
October 21, 2012,
A few questions:
Ann Romney has had what she called a «miscarriage». If abortion was illegal how would any woman who would have a miscarriage be able to prove that she didn’t do anything to cause the miscarriage which would really be an abortion?
What would you do with women who would get an abortion? sentence them to death? to life in prison? for something that is not even able to breath by itself.
rank sophist
October 21, 2012,
Sylvain,
Abortion’s legal status and the punishments enacted against perpetrators are different subjects. It is possible to hold that something should be illegal on moral grounds while remaining agnostic with regard to its methods of enforcement. To presuppose that laws are based on pragmatic grounds alone–as you do above, when you suggest that challenges in punishment invalidate a law’s moral grounding–is to beg the question against the opposition. Such assertions must be backed up by argument.
Ye Olde Statistician
October 21, 2012,
for something that is not even able to breath by itself.
At least here we have a criterion! People on respirators can be offed with impunity. And the Heimlich maneuver can be dispensed with. That is better than the usual “no rational thinking,” which leaves every sleeping person at risk.
A
Briggs
October 21, 2012,
Sylvain,
The question as always is: should an employer be forced to violate his religious convictions, in this case paying for birth prevention medication, for his employees simply because they are employees. Where did you discover that employers had this universal duty?
Sylvain Allard
October 21, 2012,
Ye Olde Statistician,
A fetus doesn’t have the ability to breath, even with help, before the 21st week, and even then premature baby that are rescued at this young have many lifetime illness impairment.
Many people are put on respirators, some for a few days and some are unplug and left to die because their condition will never improve, and yes their respirator is offed without impunity.
Abortion later than the 20th weeks are very rare, and usually they are done to save the life of the mother; of course, at some point surgical birth could be preferable to an abortion.
Sylvain Allard
October 21, 2012,
Mr Briggs,
Shouldn’t the question be? Should an individual be denied his own freedom to the profit of his employer freedom?
Freedom is an individual matter; they are not a matter of companies, or company’s owner.
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were present to demonstrate for the rights of everyone to freely express their religion. Saturdays event was no about freedom of religion it was about the imposition of the Roman Catholic Religion on everyone else.
The speeches where laced with racist, homophic, and sexist language.
People whose religion allows for choice are called non-believer and therefore are not entitled to the freedom of their religion. People whose faith allows for marriage equality are called heretics and not allowed to exercise the freedom to believe.
The Roman Catholic Church has the right to impose what ever belief system it chooses upon its membership but not upon the rest of society.
I am an Anglican Christian and my faith blesses same sex couples, respects a woman right to chose and sees GLBTs as children of God.
Thanks for your comments. We agree: The Roman Catholic Church does not have the right to impose its belief system upon society. But neither does the government have the right to force Catholics to abandon their beliefs. And that was the point of this rally.
When a Catholic Employer refuses to provide contraceptive care to a non-catholic employee that is imposing their religion upon others.
The law creates a level playing field. Those who chose not to use contracepts don’t have to and those that chose to can. The individual makes the choice not the employer.
If we give employers the ability to pick and chose what coverage they provide or not provide based on religion then employer will find a religious excuse to not cover antibiotics vaccines or even no coverage at all. The Christian Science do not belief in healthcare. The Jehovah’s Witness don’t believe in blood transfusions. Some Pentecostals don’t believe in taking insulin or antibiotics of any kind.
Katie
October 22, 2012,
No one is “forcing” any one to work for a Catholic employer. Since Catholic employers are not hiding the tenants of their belief system (i.e., faith), no employee should be surprised at to learn of the existence of Catholic employers’ policies with regard to “healthcare.” If Catholic employers were pretending to have a different belief systems or a different set of values, and lured unsuspecting people into their employment, and later said, “Ha, fooled you, no contraceptives for you”—then maybe there would be a case for lively protest.
MattS
October 22, 2012,
@Atta Van Haldol,
“If we give employers the ability to pick and chose what coverage they provide or not provide based on religion then employer will find a religious excuse to not cover antibiotics vaccines or even no coverage at all. The Christian Science do not belief in healthcare. The Jehovah’s Witness don’t believe in blood transfusions. Some Pentecostals don’t believe in taking insulin or antibiotics of any kind.”
this argument presuposes that the employer has an obligation (beyond on arbitrarily created by the government) to pay for the employee’s health care at all.
Sory but if it’s strictly the employee’s choice then it’s the emplyee’s responsibility to pay for it. You do not and can not have rights that impose a duty on someone else.
So how about Catholics who work for baptist employers who think they are not Christian and going to hell. Where is the social justice. Where is the do unto others. You want your cake and eat it too. This is the ultimate in arrogance and selfishness. I thank my God that I am not a Roman Catholic because all I here is hate and not one bit of love. It’s your way or the highway. I’m right your wrong. Here comes the inquisition.
Your are on the wrong side in this debate. It’s not about religious freedom it’s about religious oppression and your comment above proves it. No one should be place in the situation where they need to qualify the religion of their employer before they accept a position.
BTW if a Catholic does not want to follow the rules them they should no go into business. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
A
Briggs
October 22, 2012,
Atta Van Haldol,
You are missing the main point, which is this. Where in the Constitution does it create the responsibility for employers to pay for their employees’ birth prevention drugs? And where in the Constitution does it create the right that an employee, simply by virtue of being an employee and not an employer, should receive these services free? Not “free” from the government, but “free” from their employer? You must answer these questions.
There is in the Constitution a right for people to practice their religion, and the HHS mandate—mandate—violates that right.
If my religion teaches that I should slap ever Catholic I see then then there should not be any laws allowed that would prevent it. No one has the right to use their religion to deny another their equal protection under the law. Your argument is based upon the fallacious assumption the the right of religious freedom supplants all other rights and it does not.
Tom
October 22, 2012,
Catholics United “Supports Obama Administration’s New Compromise Regulation On HHS Contraception Rule.”
“The cost of the contraceptive coverage will be born by the insurance companies and will be offset by the long term cost savings associated with reduced need for maternity care. Using the standard of Catholic moral theology, this solution is acceptable because no Catholic or Catholic institution will be directly involved in what the church deems to be an immoral act.â€
“The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) is grateful that President Obama and the administration listened to the concerns raised about providing effective healthcare coverage in a way that respects and honors the conscience rights of religious institutions. We believe the resolution the President made is a fair and helpful way for us to move forward.â€
Anon
October 22, 2012,
What will happen is that many Catholic hospitals will close rather than comply with the mandate. So, they will be leaving the business, and many will be poorer for it.
Sylvain Allard
October 22, 2012,
Mr Briggs,
«There is in the Constitution a right for people to practice their religion, and the HHS mandate—mandate—violates that right.»
This is the only mention of religion in the US constitution:
Article [I]
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.
And here is the Webster’s definition:
Main Entry:es£tab£lish£ment
Pronunciation:i-*sta-blish-m*nt
Function:noun
Date:15th century
1 : something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group *the literary establishment*
3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established
IMO the part of the definition that correspond to the meaning of the constitution is 1B, not 1D or E.
The definition as per 1B doesn’t give the power to the government to force any Church to proceed with hmosexual marriage for example. The government cannot tell the Chuch what position to take within the Church. But when the Church decides to create a corporation that gives health care, the Church become liables to the same law than any other corporation.
Glen Brisebois
October 22, 2012,
Contraceptives are not health care. Oral contraceptives are actually carcinogenic. Fertility is a normal healthy condition. Don’t ask others to pay for your promiscuous and dangerous behavior. You might as well ask them to pay for your cigarettes.
As regards procured abortion, it is murder, and should be treated as such.
Amen Sylvain and thank you Tom for expressing the reasonable comprise that was made. The issue boills down to the fact that healthcare is a right and that “we the people” have decide that the cost of healthcare shall be born by us as individuals as a benefit of our labor.
We sell our labor to our employer in exchange for salary and benefits. We ultimately are the purchasers of our healthcare not our employer. The argument that the employer has total say on what our insurance coverage should be is feudalistic and places us a servants to the Lords of the Manor and not as free person who sell our labor.
Social justice is built upon the rights of the individual to sell their labor. Businesses cannot make excessive profit on the back of workers but must share profits with the worker whose labor produces the goods and services. A business is only entitled a a fair return on their imvestment and no more. It is immoral for a busness to treat a worker as a commodity.
Glen Brisebois
October 22, 2012,
to Sylvain, you conveniently highlighted the wrong part of the First Amendment. You should have highlighted “the free exercise thereof”.
What is it you don’t get about government coercing people to do what they consider gravely evil?
MattS
October 22, 2012,
@Atta Van Haldol,
No, health care is not a right. (Note: ordinary legislation can not create a right as this can be repealed/amended at any time with little effort).
More specifically, employer paid health care is not a right.
On a fundamental basis you can not have a right that imposes a duty to perform specific acts on someone else as such would be a imposition on the rights of the other person. Paying for something you consume is a specific act.
I believe that denying a woman reproductive choice is gravely evil. I see your position as being gravely evil. I see you as being the perpetrator of a great evil. My God agrees with me and the Bible supports me. Jesus and the Blessed Mother also agree with me. The Saints bare witness with me that this is true.
The RC leadership is wrong. The Pope is wrong. So its my faith against yours. Sounds like a stand off to me.
MattS
October 22, 2012,
@Atta Van Haldol,
The only path to a right to health care in the US is the 9th amendment. Good luck getting any court to recognize a claim under the 9th, they have studiously spent the last 200 years avoiding it. As best as I have been able to determine, the courts have never decided any constitutional issue on the basis on the 9th amendment.
SCOTUS could have decided Roe V. Wade cleanly and simply on the basis of the ninth amendment. Instead they created a mess that has only increased the contentiousness of the abortiion debate.
MattS. I hope that someday you find yourself or a child with a terminal illness that wipes you out financially. Drives you into bankruptcy. Causes you to become homeless and then see how quickly you will come crawling to the government for help.
Healthcare is a basic human right and you my friend are selfish. Jesus said “what ever you do to the least of these you do to me”. Would you deny Jesus healthcare if he asked you to provide it to him.
We are our brothers keeper. And we as a nation have decided to take care of our own.
Joey H
October 22, 2012,
MattS. I hope that someday you find yourself or a child with a terminal illness that wipes you out financially. Drives you into bankruptcy. Causes you to become homeless and then see how quickly you will come crawling to the government for help.
I sincerely hope that you apologize to Matt and take back what you said. Wishing hardship on someone to make a point? You are in grave error on this and I implore you to reconsider – at least on the religious and rhetorical aspects.
Healthcare is a basic human right and you my friend are selfish. Jesus said “what ever you do to the least of these you do to meâ€. Would you deny Jesus healthcare if he asked you to provide it to him.
This is not an accurate statement for many reasons. 1) Healthcare is not a basic human right because you cannot have a right in which other people would be forced to provide services to you. 2) The government does not need to be in charge of healthcare to fulfill this requirement. Many people donate money and provide free healthcare services without any government intervention. In that case, “Doing to the least of his people,” would be fulfilled without government force/funds/programs. 3) Jesus never commands us to create a government program to do what individuals are tasked with doing. People are supposed to give, not be coerced into giving. How can one do the least to His people if they have no choice in the matter?
Joey H
October 22, 2012,
@Atta Van Haldol
I believe that denying a woman reproductive choice is gravely evil. I see your position as being gravely evil. I see you as being the perpetrator of a great evil. My God agrees with me and the Bible supports me. Jesus and the Blessed Mother also agree with me. The Saints bare witness with me that this is true.
The RC leadership is wrong. The Pope is wrong. So its my faith against yours. Sounds like a stand off to me.
Have you actually read anything the Saints have written? While arguing with matters of faith can be somewhat difficult, they don’t just “become a standoff” because a horribly misinformed individual states it as such.
Not a single person on the anti-HHS Mandate side has stated that they wish to refuse women choices in reproductive health care as related to the HHS Mandate/HHS Bill. They want to not be forced to pay for contraception/abortion – that’s it.
Joey H
October 22, 2012,
On a fundamental basis you can not have a right that imposes a duty to perform specific acts on someone else as such would be a imposition on the rights of the other person. Paying for something you consume is a specific act.
MattS,
I am sorry that I overlooked this when I was replying. I would not have repeated what you said had I have seen this.
MattS
October 22, 2012,
@ Joey H.
Repeat away. It seems as though Atta Van Haldol will have to have this pounded into him repeatedly before it sinks in.
MattS
October 22, 2012,
@Atta Van Haldol
“We are our brothers keeper. And we as a nation have decided to take care of our own.”
I can’t disagree with this statement (Note: this was the case before Obama Care). That still doesn’t make health care a basic human right.
As I said before, you can not have any rights that imposes a duty on others to perform specific acts. To do so in the area of health care makes slaves of doctors and nurses.
I saw a survey of doctors on their oppions on Obama Care. 50% of doctors said that as a result of Obama care they would retire if they were in a position to due so. You can’t get health care if there aren’t any doctors. Do you expect the government to force those doctors to continue working at the point of a gun? This is way “rights” that impose a duty to act on other always effectively result in slavery.
The Intent was to make the point on how hypocrtical the argument is that healthcare is not a right, because it is, and not to wish ill on another. It was sarcasim. It is easy to take the position that it is not until you find yourself needing it when you see it as being a basic human right.
I am a nurse and the National Nurses Associton and many physician groups have called for universal healthcare as a basic human right.
Contraceptive care is healthcare. A woman has the right to choose when and if she want to bare a child.
I have spent most of my day trying to make my point but I realize that it is impossible to change to mind of a conservative. I have done so only to present the argument with the hope that those with an open mind and heart could see otherwise.
I am done. This is my last comment. My convictions remain the same and I will defend anyone’s right to disagree. But I will oppose you as you do.
Ye Olde Statistician
October 22, 2012,
A fetus doesn’t have the ability to breath, even with help, before the 21st week, and even then premature baby that are rescued at this young have many lifetime illness impairment.
Then it’s okay to kill those with lifetime impairments? Kiss Hawking goodbye. Also, my left toe has no ability to breath on its own. Why should the inability of one spatio-temporal part of me to breath matter more than that of another spatio-temporal part of me.
Social justice is built upon the rights of the individual… Businesses cannot make excessive profit on the back of workers but must share profits with the worker whose labor produces the goods and services.
I thought you did not hold to RC teachings.
I believe that denying a woman reproductive choice is gravely evil.
On what basis is it defectus boni? Or is it simply an ungrounded whim on you part? The triumph of the will. “I choose. Don’t ask for reasoned arguments. I just CHOOSE!” How does your choice require third parties to supply and pay for it? You wish to eat have lots of sex and not get pregnant. I wish to eat lots of chocolate and not get fat. Is the government obligated to force third parties to pay for my fat-burner pills or my visits to the vomitorium?
I see your position as being gravely evil. I see you as being the perpetrator of a great evil. My God agrees with me and the Bible supports me. Jesus and the Blessed Mother also agree with me. The Saints bare [sic] witness with me that this is true.
My goodness, a religious fanatic! And an Anglican? Apparently with a notional concept of ‘evil.’
The RC leadership is wrong. The Pope is wrong. So its my faith against yours. Sounds like a stand off to me.
That is because you have
a) no idea what the positions are based on; and
b) no idea that in America there are supposed to be certain things the federal government is forbidden to do.
+ + +
I hope that someday you find yourself or a child with a terminal illness that wipes you out financially. Drives you into bankruptcy. Causes you to become homeless and then see how quickly you will come crawling to the government for help.
How progressive and enlightened. Is that Anglicanism or socialism? And what has a terminal illness — which really is a health issue — got to do with coercing third parties to pay for your contraceptives?
Matt
October 22, 2012,
In the hopes that Atta Van Haldol will come back and look at responses to his last comment even if he won’t comment further.
First, I am not a concervative, I am a libertarian. There is a difference. Learn it if you ever want to convince anyone of anything.
Second, I have not here argued against universal healthcare (I don’t think Obama Care is a good way to achieve it). There is a difference between universal health care and healthcare as a basic human right.
Beware the law of unintended consequences. I accept what you say about nurses and physitian groups agruing for health care as a basic human right. I warn you though, that if you ever succeed in actually ensrineing the idea of health care as a basic human right into law, you will not like the consequences. It will ultimately create problems far worse than what we have now.
It is fundamentally impossible to grant rights to an individual that impose a duty to act on others without creating a slave class.
“A woman has the right to choose when and if she want to bare a child.” I agree with this statement. As to contreception, it is very inexpensive. The pill is something on the order of $9 a month, not by any means an onerous cost for a woman to bear herself.
Sylvain Allard
October 22, 2012,
@Glen Brisebois
Why is worse having the government coercing employer, than employer coercing their employee.
Again freedom is an individual right, not a corporative right.
Sylvain Allard
October 22, 2012,
Matt,
9$ is the cheapest it can get but not every woman can take those pills. Contraceptives can cost up to 100$ a month.
Contraceptives are not only used as birth control but also as a way to control some medical conditions.
Women are still paid less than men on average, so add the price of the pills to the fact that a woman salary is on average 70% that of the man and they become very expensive.
Why is Viagra and cialis covered by insurance?
Matt
October 23, 2012,
@Sylvain Allard
Because the employer is not in anyway coercing the employee by not covering some specific drug or medical procedure that the employee thinks he or she should be entitled to. The employee is still free to get the drug or medical procedure on their own dime.
Sylvain Allard
October 23, 2012,
Matt,
Employer refusing to cover health issue relating to women is the worst coercicion of all. Of course, this is not a problem that these decisions are taken by men who probably believe that women can’t become pregnant when it is a legimate rape, men who say they «believe in chastity» but have raped thousands of children accross america, men who understand nothing about what women go through.
At least 20% of women are rape during their life. If they become pregnant because of a badluck like broken condom, rape, incest, they are the one who are stuck with the baby and a job with a lower wage.
The Church doesn’t want to prevent women to have contraceptives not because of their beliefs but because they are misogyne and doesn’t want to accept women has equal to men. They want to conserve power over what a woman can and cannot do.
Leslie
October 23, 2012,
Sylvain Allard may want to get his head checked.
MattS
October 23, 2012,
@Sylvain Allard,
Does the employer not providing coverage for contraceptives prevent a woman who want to get them from being able to do so? The answer is no. The employer neither prohibits it’s employess from using contraceptives nor forces them to take any specific action against their will, so where is the coersion.
Every thing in your last post past the first sentance is a complete non-sequiter.
Sylvain Allard
October 23, 2012,
MattS,
Can every women afford contraceptives? No. Employer therefore impose their belief to their employee ?
No employer should have the right to insert himself between his employee and her doctor.
Joey H
October 23, 2012,
I have spent most of my day trying to make my point but I realize that it is impossible to change to mind of a conservative.
You should really rethink that position, although judging by your posts, you won’t do that. It’s quite possible to change people’s minds. What is not possible is to spout your opinion as something that is worth reading when you don’t support your thoughts, have grave misunderstandings about what you are speaking, and are relatively poor at arguing.
MattS
October 23, 2012,
@Sylvain Allard,
That still doen’t make it the employer’s obligtion to pay for it. Again the employer isn’t forcing anything on the employee at all.
Me refusing to pay for something you want is NOT me coercing you no matter what it is you want or the surrounding circumstances.
Among other options the employee is free to go work somewhere else that does provide coverage for it.
Sylvain Allard
October 23, 2012,
MattS,
If your employer is a Jehovah and believe that blood transfusion is an evil thing. Should he have the right to prevent your insurance provider to cover blood transfusion? No.
This is the exact same thing with contraceptive which 99% of women use for a period of time in their life.
And never forget that the burden of covering contraceptives has been passed from the employer to the insurer who has to offer it to the women who want it.
Matt
October 23, 2012,
@Sylvain Allard
“If your employer is a Jehovah and believe that blood transfusion is an evil thing. Should he have the right to prevent your insurance provider to cover blood transfusion? No.”
Even if they did, it wouldn’t constitute coersion.
“And never forget that the burden of covering contraceptives has been passed from the employer to the insurer who has to offer it to the women who want it.”
Unless the women who want the contraceptive coverage have to pay an extra premium out of their own pocket for that coverage it is utter nonsense to argue that the cost won’t be passed on to the employer. That extra coverage will cost the insurance company money to provide. They aren’t going to just eat the cost.
Ye Olde Statistician
October 24, 2012,
Women are still paid less than men on average, so add the price of the pills to the fact that a woman salary is on average 70% that of the man and they become very expensive.
That’s an artifact. Except among the older cohorts, women employed continuously and competently for five years as a chemical engineer will be paid the same as a man employed continuously and competently for five years as a chemical engineer. The inequality comes in because proportionately fewer women enter the engineering professions versus clerical or administrative positions.
Why is Viagra and cialis covered by insurance?
Exactly. They should not be, except as prescribed treatment for a medical malfunction. Pregnancy is not a malfunction, but rather the natural end of the procreative act.
Can every women afford contraceptives? No. Employer therefore impose their belief to their employee ?
Hey, I cannot afford a health club membership, and health is a right, so my employer should be forced to pay for my health club membership!!!
Leslie
October 24, 2012,
‘Sylvain Allard’ is like a character in Prof. Briggs’hypothetical conversations, except way more stupid.
Sylvain Allard
October 24, 2012,
MattS,
This article explain the compromise pretty well and how it was vastly accepted.
Second: I have read many stories on the so called compromise. All have mentioned that Catholic institutions will not have to pay for contraceptive coverage but such coverage will be provided any way.
Not one single story has mentioned who WILL be paying for that coverage. If you think the insureance companies will provide that coverage at no cost then you are delusional.
If you can not show who will be paying for it, I assert it will end up being the Catholic Institutions because the insurance companies will simply raise the premiums on the rest of the coverage to compensate.
Sylvain Allard
October 24, 2012,
Matt,
Ask yourself why catholic institution don’t have any in the matter we have been discussing?
The leaders of the catholic church say one thing and do the other. They protect theur own and they are ready to destroy anyone life/freedom to do it.
School and hospital institution are not the church they are employer and have to act like they are employer.
And finally it is the insurance that has to pay for it. 1)very few people are affected and the cost is negligeable for an insurrance company (viagra cost more) 2) under Obamacare the level of profit and overhead are fixed. This is why insurance industry had to repay something like $150 million (or is it $1 billion) in over perceive premium for 2011.
MattL
October 24, 2012,
Sylvain said, “And finally it is the insurance that has to pay for it.”
Yes, and “the insurance” pays for it from the magical money tree, right? The jig is up, Sylvain, now we know you’ve been trolling us!
“…very few people are affected and the cost is negligeable for an insurrance company…”
Yes! The classic concentrated but small benefit with dispersed cost. And then people wonder why the cost of things keeps going up.
The religious implications of health insurance mandates about contraception and abortifacients are clear Constitutional violations. “Congress shall make no law” seems pretty clear in this case, penumbras need not apply!
MattS
October 24, 2012,
“Ask yourself why catholic institution don’t have any in the matter we have been discussing?”
Don’t have any what? Is it too much to ask you to speak itelligably?
Your link is a red herring, there is nothing in it that has anything to do with the dispute at hand.
“And finally it is the insurance that has to pay for it.”
As I said before, this view is straight up dilusional. How do you prevent the insurance company from passing that cost on, especially if they burry it in premium rates for other coverage?
MattS
October 24, 2012,
“2) under Obamacare the level of profit and overhead are fixed. This is why insurance industry had to repay something like $150 million (or is it $1 billion) in over perceive premium for 2011.”
Cite?
This shows a complete lack of understanding of what the terms overhead and profit mean in a business context.
Overhead is the fixed (not directly dependent on the amount of product/service produced/delivered) costs such as rent and utilities that a business incures by simply existing.
Profit is revinue – expenses.
The cost to the insurance company to provide contreception coverate is a non-overhead expense. If they provide that coverage without passing the cost on, that recuces their profits. If they pass the cost on with no markup, it has no effect on their profits at all, so even if your 2 is true it does nothing prevent the insurance company from passing the cost of contraceptive services on to the employer.
Sylvain Allard
October 24, 2012,
Matt,
With what money medication ever get paid with. 10-15 years ago medication like viagra did not exist. Yet when it came on the market it got covered by insurance, even if the price per pill is preobitive, and no one raised an eyebrow on that. Where did the money come to cover it? Was this money magic? The worst is that Viagra only purpose is so that men can have sex.
Contraceptive pill reduces the cost of health care, not only for women but also for the insurer. Contraceptives for women onlike viagra for men, are not only used so women can have sex. They are also have medical use to help prevent cancer and other illness for certain conditions.
Even if it was to prevent cancer for only one women the investment would be worth it since it is much cheaper than treating cancer and this also doesn’t consider the fact that contraceptives reduces the number of abortion.
MattS
October 24, 2012,
@Sylvain Allard,
One last point on your #2 above. The big insurance companies all supported Obama Care. Do you really believe that they would have done so if it contained any effective limits on their profits?
Sylvain Allard
October 24, 2012,
my last comment didn’t post.
Sylvain Allard
October 24, 2012,
Matt,
«The religious implications of health insurance mandates about contraception and abortifacients are clear Constitutional violations. “Congress shall make no law†seems pretty clear in this case, penumbras need not apply!»
If it is the case than the court will reverse it, but I don’t think article 1 applies to corporation/institution. Hospitals and schools run by catholics are not religious intitution. They are institution run by a religious organization which is entirely different.
The state cannot pass a law that would say, for example, that the catholic church, or any church, as to celbrate gay marriage, or that the church should not discriminate against women and should should ordinate them as priest. But government can impose to a catholic school or hospital that they should not disciminate against women, race or religion in their acceptance of student and employee.
Sylvain Allard
October 24, 2012,
MattL, MattS,
1-) Covering contraceptives will lower the cost of health care, because contraceptive pills are not just used to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They are also used to prevent some illness and cancer in a non-negligeable part of the women population.
2-) how does any new medication get covered? Viagra type medication is very expensive and its only use is so men can have sex. Sex is not a life necessity and this type of medication is very expensive and yet it is covered! Where did the insurance take the money for that? But how outrageous that the insurance do something that could help women.
Sylvain Allard
October 24, 2012,
MattL, MattS,
1-) Covering contraceptives will lower the cost of health care, because contraceptive pills are not just used to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They are also used to prevent some illness and cancer in a non-negligeable part of the women population.
2-) how does any new medication get covered? V… type medication is very expensive and its only use is so men can have sex. Sex is not a life necessity and this type of medication is very expensive and yet it is covered! Where did the insurance take the money for that? But how outrageous that the insurance do something that could help women.
My link is very relevant in showing how religious group are selective in what they choose to believe. The church is against rape, pedophelia yet anytime something happens they always choose to protect their men. They never side with the victim of their own making.
MattL
October 24, 2012,
Sylvain,
Insurance companies get their money from the premiums they charge. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
If paying for contraceptives make stuff less expensive, then why does it require a mandate from the government. Wouldn’t the insurance companies do this automatically?
None of the Constitution “applies to a corporation or institution.” It applies to the government, and gives them certain powers, and denies them certain powers. I feel sorry that you can’t understand plain language like, “shall make no law.” I also feel sorry that you think that it’s OK to remove rights from people so long as you’re only taking them away from groups of people (i.e., corporations).
MattS
October 24, 2012,
@Sylvain Allard
“My link is very relevant in showing how religious group are selective in what they choose to believe. The church is against rape, pedophelia yet anytime something happens they always choose to protect their men. They never side with the victim of their own making.”
None of this is relevant to the issue at hand.
“1-) Covering contraceptives will lower the cost of health care, because contraceptive pills are not just used to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They are also used to prevent some illness and cancer in a non-negligeable part of the women population.”
People have been making this argument about all sorts of preventative medicine for decades. I have yet to see even the smallest scrap of evidence that it is actually true.
“2-) how does any new medication get covered? V… type medication is very expensive and its only use is so men can have sex. Sex is not a life necessity and this type of medication is very expensive and yet it is covered! Where did the insurance take the money for that? But how outrageous that the insurance do something that could help women.”
New and more expensive drugs are the main driver behind incresing premiums for perscription drug coverage.
You are completely ignorant about the US constitution and how businesses in general and health insurance providers in particular operate.
The insurance companies would not have been supporting Obama Care if they didn’t expect it to INCREASE their profits.
Sylvain Allard
October 25, 2012,
MattL,
I’m sorry that you have little understanding of what the law means and to whom freedom and liberty applies.
Freedom and liberty are a matter of individuals, not one of collectivity, to few exceptions. It is the individuals rights that have to be protected from both the corporation and the government.
Article 1 of the contitution states: «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.»
The key word in this article is not that the government «shall make no law» since it is obvious that the government makes laws. The key word is to whom the article apply. This article applies to the individuals, the press, and establishment of religion.
The question then becomes what did the founding fathers meant when they stated «respecting an establishment of religion». I posted above the definition of establishment explaining that IMO 1B is the definition that applies to the constitution.
Then what the constitution really means is that the government cannot make laws that would interfere with the practice of religion. The practice of religions concerns the Churches doctrines, beliefs and practices. It, in no way concerns institution created and run by a religious organisation. Such organisation are subject to the same laws that applies to any other corporative institutions about which the government has the ability to regulate has they want, and do.
You have all the civil right movement of the 1960s which forced the states to stop segregation and other discrimanation.
The UN Charts on Human Rights was sponsored by the wife of FDR and apllied specifically to individuals. It is the individuals right that are protected not groups. The reasons why the Charts mention the liberty of religion, race, of sexual orientation, sex, and disabilities is because that these were the ones targeted by the German extermination camp. Germans killed about 10 million people 5-6 were considered jewish, the rest were handicape, slavic people and gays.
MattL
October 25, 2012,
Sylvain,
The key word in this article is not that the government «shall make no law» since it is obvious that the government makes laws. The key word is to whom the article apply. This article applies to the individuals, the press, and establishment of religion.
Wrong. That bit of language applies to the Congress. It says that they shall not have the power to do certain things. Still, I’m baffled that you think that people lose their rights once you’re talking about several people doing something as opposed to one person.
We’re talking about individual rights exercised collectively. Your argument is like saying that I am free to write or say whatever I want, but if I’m being paid to do so, then the government can censor me for my views.
If you can force people to do things counter to their religion, how are you not prohibiting the free exercise? Now, there are legitimate exceptions (e.g., honor killings, suicide bombings). But contraception and abortifacients are clearly not in the same league as that stuff.
Yes, I agree, there’s a lot of similarity between Jim Crow and most things where Progressives want to use the government’s monopoly on legitimate use of force. We’re better off without Jim Crow, and we’ll be better off without Obamacare and the entire HHS Department and any law that says, “The Secretary shall…”
I couldn’t care less what the UN Charter on Human Rights says (or Eleanor Roosevelt, for that matter). Roosevelt didn’t care about individual freedom (his participation in Wilson’s fascism and his own during the New Deal is pretty conclusive there). And I can’t see how some UN document matters as far as US law is concerned.
I get that most people (including in the US!) can’t understand the brilliance of the US Constitution with respect to limiting the power of government. You want to prevent another holocaust? Why would you keep giving more power to governments?
Thorny
October 25, 2012,
The central dispute in this controversy is caused by a distortion of the healthcare market caused by allowing tax exemption for employer based premium support. This is discrimination against the self-employed and those who work for companies who are exempt from the mandate to provide insurance (e.g., companies who have less than 50 employees).
This employer provided health premiums have the effect of further hiding the costs associated with healthcare, such that the vast majority of people, such as we have seen in this conversation, believe that it is essentially a free right. This hidden support for premiums has generated a lot of money for the medical research industry, but at the same time it has frozen the small guy out of healthcare due to the staggering costs.
Obamacare, since it didn’t reverse this market distortion, makes it more expensive to hire and raises taxes on those who can least afford to pay them (and yes, it is a tax increase on the middle and lower class–See Justice Robert’s opinion). The result is a constant debate over what everyone will ask someone else to pay for. The idea that Obamacare will end the political war over healthcare coverage is fairy-tale dreaming, as evidenced by this argument.
If we want to consider healthcare a right, it should be an individual right and not one tied up to one’s employment. Do workers gain more rights just because a business adds a 50th employee? Since hiring that employee would cost the business a massive amount of money to not only cover that person, but the other 49 as well, wouldn’t it be smart for that employer to not employ that person?
As regards to contraception coverage, Griswold v. Connecticut clearly shows that the government cannot restrict the sale of contraceptives. They will be available–period. If we had a commonsense healthcare system that was not illogically tied to employement, it would be nobody’s business whether a person purchased contraception. (I am against it myself, being an NFP teacher, but I am looking at this through the lens of what the government can do.)
Health care will not be solved until it really becomes an issue for the individual, rather than the employer. This can be done through allowing the market to create levels of coverage that can cut through the cost floor and allow individual purchase at a reasonable price (similar to the way that supermarkets have drastically reduced the cost of food–though, admittedly not always in a good way–different discussion) or by coming up with a single-payer system that gives the government more power to control what must be covered. Either way, people who wanted contraception could get it paid for and they would not be imposing on the culpability of others to participate in actions they deem immoral (government participation eliminates complete culpability on the individual, since he is free to disagree with the government).
I find it ironic that so many that wish to say the First Ammendment speech right only apply to individuals when they argue against Citizen’s United, would then turn around and deny that individuals have First Ammendment free exercise rights if they are sole propriators of a large company. Can’t have it both ways–well, except in our disfuntional society today.
These people can yell as loudly as they’d like, but when you’ve got a candidate as limp-wristed as Romney, it isn’t going to do much good. I long for the old days of the GOP.
A few questions:
Ann Romney has had what she called a «miscarriage». If abortion was illegal how would any woman who would have a miscarriage be able to prove that she didn’t do anything to cause the miscarriage which would really be an abortion?
What would you do with women who would get an abortion? sentence them to death? to life in prison? for something that is not even able to breath by itself.
Sylvain,
Abortion’s legal status and the punishments enacted against perpetrators are different subjects. It is possible to hold that something should be illegal on moral grounds while remaining agnostic with regard to its methods of enforcement. To presuppose that laws are based on pragmatic grounds alone–as you do above, when you suggest that challenges in punishment invalidate a law’s moral grounding–is to beg the question against the opposition. Such assertions must be backed up by argument.
for something that is not even able to breath by itself.
At least here we have a criterion! People on respirators can be offed with impunity. And the Heimlich maneuver can be dispensed with. That is better than the usual “no rational thinking,” which leaves every sleeping person at risk.
Sylvain,
The question as always is: should an employer be forced to violate his religious convictions, in this case paying for birth prevention medication, for his employees simply because they are employees. Where did you discover that employers had this universal duty?
Ye Olde Statistician,
A fetus doesn’t have the ability to breath, even with help, before the 21st week, and even then premature baby that are rescued at this young have many lifetime illness impairment.
Many people are put on respirators, some for a few days and some are unplug and left to die because their condition will never improve, and yes their respirator is offed without impunity.
Abortion later than the 20th weeks are very rare, and usually they are done to save the life of the mother; of course, at some point surgical birth could be preferable to an abortion.
Mr Briggs,
Shouldn’t the question be? Should an individual be denied his own freedom to the profit of his employer freedom?
Freedom is an individual matter; they are not a matter of companies, or company’s owner.
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were present to demonstrate for the rights of everyone to freely express their religion. Saturdays event was no about freedom of religion it was about the imposition of the Roman Catholic Religion on everyone else.
The speeches where laced with racist, homophic, and sexist language.
People whose religion allows for choice are called non-believer and therefore are not entitled to the freedom of their religion. People whose faith allows for marriage equality are called heretics and not allowed to exercise the freedom to believe.
The Roman Catholic Church has the right to impose what ever belief system it chooses upon its membership but not upon the rest of society.
I am an Anglican Christian and my faith blesses same sex couples, respects a woman right to chose and sees GLBTs as children of God.
All,
This article is also particularly timely and relevant.
Atta Van Haldol,
Thanks for your comments. We agree: The Roman Catholic Church does not have the right to impose its belief system upon society. But neither does the government have the right to force Catholics to abandon their beliefs. And that was the point of this rally.
When a Catholic Employer refuses to provide contraceptive care to a non-catholic employee that is imposing their religion upon others.
The law creates a level playing field. Those who chose not to use contracepts don’t have to and those that chose to can. The individual makes the choice not the employer.
If we give employers the ability to pick and chose what coverage they provide or not provide based on religion then employer will find a religious excuse to not cover antibiotics vaccines or even no coverage at all. The Christian Science do not belief in healthcare. The Jehovah’s Witness don’t believe in blood transfusions. Some Pentecostals don’t believe in taking insulin or antibiotics of any kind.
No one is “forcing” any one to work for a Catholic employer. Since Catholic employers are not hiding the tenants of their belief system (i.e., faith), no employee should be surprised at to learn of the existence of Catholic employers’ policies with regard to “healthcare.” If Catholic employers were pretending to have a different belief systems or a different set of values, and lured unsuspecting people into their employment, and later said, “Ha, fooled you, no contraceptives for you”—then maybe there would be a case for lively protest.
@Atta Van Haldol,
“If we give employers the ability to pick and chose what coverage they provide or not provide based on religion then employer will find a religious excuse to not cover antibiotics vaccines or even no coverage at all. The Christian Science do not belief in healthcare. The Jehovah’s Witness don’t believe in blood transfusions. Some Pentecostals don’t believe in taking insulin or antibiotics of any kind.”
this argument presuposes that the employer has an obligation (beyond on arbitrarily created by the government) to pay for the employee’s health care at all.
Sory but if it’s strictly the employee’s choice then it’s the emplyee’s responsibility to pay for it. You do not and can not have rights that impose a duty on someone else.
So how about Catholics who work for baptist employers who think they are not Christian and going to hell. Where is the social justice. Where is the do unto others. You want your cake and eat it too. This is the ultimate in arrogance and selfishness. I thank my God that I am not a Roman Catholic because all I here is hate and not one bit of love. It’s your way or the highway. I’m right your wrong. Here comes the inquisition.
Your are on the wrong side in this debate. It’s not about religious freedom it’s about religious oppression and your comment above proves it. No one should be place in the situation where they need to qualify the religion of their employer before they accept a position.
BTW if a Catholic does not want to follow the rules them they should no go into business. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Atta Van Haldol,
You are missing the main point, which is this. Where in the Constitution does it create the responsibility for employers to pay for their employees’ birth prevention drugs? And where in the Constitution does it create the right that an employee, simply by virtue of being an employee and not an employer, should receive these services free? Not “free” from the government, but “free” from their employer? You must answer these questions.
There is in the Constitution a right for people to practice their religion, and the HHS mandate—mandate—violates that right.
If my religion teaches that I should slap ever Catholic I see then then there should not be any laws allowed that would prevent it. No one has the right to use their religion to deny another their equal protection under the law. Your argument is based upon the fallacious assumption the the right of religious freedom supplants all other rights and it does not.
Catholics United “Supports Obama Administration’s New Compromise Regulation On HHS Contraception Rule.”
http://www.catholics-united.org/content/press-release-catholics-united-responds-hhs-lawsuits-%E2%80%9C-insult%E2%80%9D-persecuted-christians-worldwi
“The cost of the contraceptive coverage will be born by the insurance companies and will be offset by the long term cost savings associated with reduced need for maternity care. Using the standard of Catholic moral theology, this solution is acceptable because no Catholic or Catholic institution will be directly involved in what the church deems to be an immoral act.â€
Statement on White House Resolution on Healthcare Coverage and Conscience Protection
https://lcwr.org/media/public-statements
“The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) is grateful that President Obama and the administration listened to the concerns raised about providing effective healthcare coverage in a way that respects and honors the conscience rights of religious institutions. We believe the resolution the President made is a fair and helpful way for us to move forward.â€
What will happen is that many Catholic hospitals will close rather than comply with the mandate. So, they will be leaving the business, and many will be poorer for it.
Mr Briggs,
«There is in the Constitution a right for people to practice their religion, and the HHS mandate—mandate—violates that right.»
This is the only mention of religion in the US constitution:
Article [I]
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.
And here is the Webster’s definition:
Main Entry:es£tab£lish£ment
Pronunciation:i-*sta-blish-m*nt
Function:noun
Date:15th century
1 : something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group *the literary establishment*
3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established
IMO the part of the definition that correspond to the meaning of the constitution is 1B, not 1D or E.
The definition as per 1B doesn’t give the power to the government to force any Church to proceed with hmosexual marriage for example. The government cannot tell the Chuch what position to take within the Church. But when the Church decides to create a corporation that gives health care, the Church become liables to the same law than any other corporation.
Contraceptives are not health care. Oral contraceptives are actually carcinogenic. Fertility is a normal healthy condition. Don’t ask others to pay for your promiscuous and dangerous behavior. You might as well ask them to pay for your cigarettes.
As regards procured abortion, it is murder, and should be treated as such.
Amen Sylvain and thank you Tom for expressing the reasonable comprise that was made. The issue boills down to the fact that healthcare is a right and that “we the people” have decide that the cost of healthcare shall be born by us as individuals as a benefit of our labor.
We sell our labor to our employer in exchange for salary and benefits. We ultimately are the purchasers of our healthcare not our employer. The argument that the employer has total say on what our insurance coverage should be is feudalistic and places us a servants to the Lords of the Manor and not as free person who sell our labor.
Social justice is built upon the rights of the individual to sell their labor. Businesses cannot make excessive profit on the back of workers but must share profits with the worker whose labor produces the goods and services. A business is only entitled a a fair return on their imvestment and no more. It is immoral for a busness to treat a worker as a commodity.
to Sylvain, you conveniently highlighted the wrong part of the First Amendment. You should have highlighted “the free exercise thereof”.
What is it you don’t get about government coercing people to do what they consider gravely evil?
@Atta Van Haldol,
No, health care is not a right. (Note: ordinary legislation can not create a right as this can be repealed/amended at any time with little effort).
More specifically, employer paid health care is not a right.
On a fundamental basis you can not have a right that imposes a duty to perform specific acts on someone else as such would be a imposition on the rights of the other person. Paying for something you consume is a specific act.
I believe that denying a woman reproductive choice is gravely evil. I see your position as being gravely evil. I see you as being the perpetrator of a great evil. My God agrees with me and the Bible supports me. Jesus and the Blessed Mother also agree with me. The Saints bare witness with me that this is true.
The RC leadership is wrong. The Pope is wrong. So its my faith against yours. Sounds like a stand off to me.
@Atta Van Haldol,
The only path to a right to health care in the US is the 9th amendment. Good luck getting any court to recognize a claim under the 9th, they have studiously spent the last 200 years avoiding it. As best as I have been able to determine, the courts have never decided any constitutional issue on the basis on the 9th amendment.
SCOTUS could have decided Roe V. Wade cleanly and simply on the basis of the ninth amendment. Instead they created a mess that has only increased the contentiousness of the abortiion debate.
MattS. I hope that someday you find yourself or a child with a terminal illness that wipes you out financially. Drives you into bankruptcy. Causes you to become homeless and then see how quickly you will come crawling to the government for help.
Healthcare is a basic human right and you my friend are selfish. Jesus said “what ever you do to the least of these you do to me”. Would you deny Jesus healthcare if he asked you to provide it to him.
We are our brothers keeper. And we as a nation have decided to take care of our own.
I sincerely hope that you apologize to Matt and take back what you said. Wishing hardship on someone to make a point? You are in grave error on this and I implore you to reconsider – at least on the religious and rhetorical aspects.
This is not an accurate statement for many reasons. 1) Healthcare is not a basic human right because you cannot have a right in which other people would be forced to provide services to you. 2) The government does not need to be in charge of healthcare to fulfill this requirement. Many people donate money and provide free healthcare services without any government intervention. In that case, “Doing to the least of his people,” would be fulfilled without government force/funds/programs. 3) Jesus never commands us to create a government program to do what individuals are tasked with doing. People are supposed to give, not be coerced into giving. How can one do the least to His people if they have no choice in the matter?
@Atta Van Haldol
Have you actually read anything the Saints have written? While arguing with matters of faith can be somewhat difficult, they don’t just “become a standoff” because a horribly misinformed individual states it as such.
Not a single person on the anti-HHS Mandate side has stated that they wish to refuse women choices in reproductive health care as related to the HHS Mandate/HHS Bill. They want to not be forced to pay for contraception/abortion – that’s it.
MattS,
I am sorry that I overlooked this when I was replying. I would not have repeated what you said had I have seen this.
@ Joey H.
Repeat away. It seems as though Atta Van Haldol will have to have this pounded into him repeatedly before it sinks in.
@Atta Van Haldol
“We are our brothers keeper. And we as a nation have decided to take care of our own.”
I can’t disagree with this statement (Note: this was the case before Obama Care). That still doesn’t make health care a basic human right.
As I said before, you can not have any rights that imposes a duty on others to perform specific acts. To do so in the area of health care makes slaves of doctors and nurses.
I saw a survey of doctors on their oppions on Obama Care. 50% of doctors said that as a result of Obama care they would retire if they were in a position to due so. You can’t get health care if there aren’t any doctors. Do you expect the government to force those doctors to continue working at the point of a gun? This is way “rights” that impose a duty to act on other always effectively result in slavery.
The Intent was to make the point on how hypocrtical the argument is that healthcare is not a right, because it is, and not to wish ill on another. It was sarcasim. It is easy to take the position that it is not until you find yourself needing it when you see it as being a basic human right.
I am a nurse and the National Nurses Associton and many physician groups have called for universal healthcare as a basic human right.
Contraceptive care is healthcare. A woman has the right to choose when and if she want to bare a child.
I have spent most of my day trying to make my point but I realize that it is impossible to change to mind of a conservative. I have done so only to present the argument with the hope that those with an open mind and heart could see otherwise.
I am done. This is my last comment. My convictions remain the same and I will defend anyone’s right to disagree. But I will oppose you as you do.
A fetus doesn’t have the ability to breath, even with help, before the 21st week, and even then premature baby that are rescued at this young have many lifetime illness impairment.
Then it’s okay to kill those with lifetime impairments? Kiss Hawking goodbye. Also, my left toe has no ability to breath on its own. Why should the inability of one spatio-temporal part of me to breath matter more than that of another spatio-temporal part of me.
Social justice is built upon the rights of the individual… Businesses cannot make excessive profit on the back of workers but must share profits with the worker whose labor produces the goods and services.
I thought you did not hold to RC teachings.
I believe that denying a woman reproductive choice is gravely evil.
On what basis is it defectus boni? Or is it simply an ungrounded whim on you part? The triumph of the will. “I choose. Don’t ask for reasoned arguments. I just CHOOSE!” How does your choice require third parties to supply and pay for it? You wish to eat have lots of sex and not get pregnant. I wish to eat lots of chocolate and not get fat. Is the government obligated to force third parties to pay for my fat-burner pills or my visits to the vomitorium?
I see your position as being gravely evil. I see you as being the perpetrator of a great evil. My God agrees with me and the Bible supports me. Jesus and the Blessed Mother also agree with me. The Saints bare [sic] witness with me that this is true.
My goodness, a religious fanatic! And an Anglican? Apparently with a notional concept of ‘evil.’
The RC leadership is wrong. The Pope is wrong. So its my faith against yours. Sounds like a stand off to me.
That is because you have
a) no idea what the positions are based on; and
b) no idea that in America there are supposed to be certain things the federal government is forbidden to do.
+ + +
I hope that someday you find yourself or a child with a terminal illness that wipes you out financially. Drives you into bankruptcy. Causes you to become homeless and then see how quickly you will come crawling to the government for help.
How progressive and enlightened. Is that Anglicanism or socialism? And what has a terminal illness — which really is a health issue — got to do with coercing third parties to pay for your contraceptives?
In the hopes that Atta Van Haldol will come back and look at responses to his last comment even if he won’t comment further.
First, I am not a concervative, I am a libertarian. There is a difference. Learn it if you ever want to convince anyone of anything.
Second, I have not here argued against universal healthcare (I don’t think Obama Care is a good way to achieve it). There is a difference between universal health care and healthcare as a basic human right.
Beware the law of unintended consequences. I accept what you say about nurses and physitian groups agruing for health care as a basic human right. I warn you though, that if you ever succeed in actually ensrineing the idea of health care as a basic human right into law, you will not like the consequences. It will ultimately create problems far worse than what we have now.
It is fundamentally impossible to grant rights to an individual that impose a duty to act on others without creating a slave class.
“A woman has the right to choose when and if she want to bare a child.” I agree with this statement. As to contreception, it is very inexpensive. The pill is something on the order of $9 a month, not by any means an onerous cost for a woman to bear herself.
@Glen Brisebois
Why is worse having the government coercing employer, than employer coercing their employee.
Again freedom is an individual right, not a corporative right.
Matt,
9$ is the cheapest it can get but not every woman can take those pills. Contraceptives can cost up to 100$ a month.
Contraceptives are not only used as birth control but also as a way to control some medical conditions.
Women are still paid less than men on average, so add the price of the pills to the fact that a woman salary is on average 70% that of the man and they become very expensive.
Why is Viagra and cialis covered by insurance?
@Sylvain Allard
Because the employer is not in anyway coercing the employee by not covering some specific drug or medical procedure that the employee thinks he or she should be entitled to. The employee is still free to get the drug or medical procedure on their own dime.
Matt,
Employer refusing to cover health issue relating to women is the worst coercicion of all. Of course, this is not a problem that these decisions are taken by men who probably believe that women can’t become pregnant when it is a legimate rape, men who say they «believe in chastity» but have raped thousands of children accross america, men who understand nothing about what women go through.
At least 20% of women are rape during their life. If they become pregnant because of a badluck like broken condom, rape, incest, they are the one who are stuck with the baby and a job with a lower wage.
The Church doesn’t want to prevent women to have contraceptives not because of their beliefs but because they are misogyne and doesn’t want to accept women has equal to men. They want to conserve power over what a woman can and cannot do.
Sylvain Allard may want to get his head checked.
@Sylvain Allard,
Does the employer not providing coverage for contraceptives prevent a woman who want to get them from being able to do so? The answer is no. The employer neither prohibits it’s employess from using contraceptives nor forces them to take any specific action against their will, so where is the coersion.
Every thing in your last post past the first sentance is a complete non-sequiter.
MattS,
Can every women afford contraceptives? No. Employer therefore impose their belief to their employee ?
No employer should have the right to insert himself between his employee and her doctor.
You should really rethink that position, although judging by your posts, you won’t do that. It’s quite possible to change people’s minds. What is not possible is to spout your opinion as something that is worth reading when you don’t support your thoughts, have grave misunderstandings about what you are speaking, and are relatively poor at arguing.
@Sylvain Allard,
That still doen’t make it the employer’s obligtion to pay for it. Again the employer isn’t forcing anything on the employee at all.
Me refusing to pay for something you want is NOT me coercing you no matter what it is you want or the surrounding circumstances.
Among other options the employee is free to go work somewhere else that does provide coverage for it.
MattS,
If your employer is a Jehovah and believe that blood transfusion is an evil thing. Should he have the right to prevent your insurance provider to cover blood transfusion? No.
This is the exact same thing with contraceptive which 99% of women use for a period of time in their life.
And never forget that the burden of covering contraceptives has been passed from the employer to the insurer who has to offer it to the women who want it.
@Sylvain Allard
“If your employer is a Jehovah and believe that blood transfusion is an evil thing. Should he have the right to prevent your insurance provider to cover blood transfusion? No.”
Even if they did, it wouldn’t constitute coersion.
“And never forget that the burden of covering contraceptives has been passed from the employer to the insurer who has to offer it to the women who want it.”
Unless the women who want the contraceptive coverage have to pay an extra premium out of their own pocket for that coverage it is utter nonsense to argue that the cost won’t be passed on to the employer. That extra coverage will cost the insurance company money to provide. They aren’t going to just eat the cost.
Women are still paid less than men on average, so add the price of the pills to the fact that a woman salary is on average 70% that of the man and they become very expensive.
That’s an artifact. Except among the older cohorts, women employed continuously and competently for five years as a chemical engineer will be paid the same as a man employed continuously and competently for five years as a chemical engineer. The inequality comes in because proportionately fewer women enter the engineering professions versus clerical or administrative positions.
Why is Viagra and cialis covered by insurance?
Exactly. They should not be, except as prescribed treatment for a medical malfunction. Pregnancy is not a malfunction, but rather the natural end of the procreative act.
Can every women afford contraceptives? No. Employer therefore impose their belief to their employee ?
Hey, I cannot afford a health club membership, and health is a right, so my employer should be forced to pay for my health club membership!!!
‘Sylvain Allard’ is like a character in Prof. Briggs’hypothetical conversations, except way more stupid.
MattS,
This article explain the compromise pretty well and how it was vastly accepted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/obama-shift-on-contraception-splits-catholics.html?_r=0
Leslie,
I see that providing argument is above your level of education.
Sylvian Allard,
First: I don’t consider the New York Times a reliable source.
http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/tp/journalismscandals.htm
Second: I have read many stories on the so called compromise. All have mentioned that Catholic institutions will not have to pay for contraceptive coverage but such coverage will be provided any way.
Not one single story has mentioned who WILL be paying for that coverage. If you think the insureance companies will provide that coverage at no cost then you are delusional.
If you can not show who will be paying for it, I assert it will end up being the Catholic Institutions because the insurance companies will simply raise the premiums on the rest of the coverage to compensate.
Matt,
Ask yourself why catholic institution don’t have any in the matter we have been discussing?
Here is a big part of the answer:
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/reported-sexual-assault-notre-dame-campus-leaves-more-questions-answers
The leaders of the catholic church say one thing and do the other. They protect theur own and they are ready to destroy anyone life/freedom to do it.
School and hospital institution are not the church they are employer and have to act like they are employer.
And finally it is the insurance that has to pay for it. 1)very few people are affected and the cost is negligeable for an insurrance company (viagra cost more) 2) under Obamacare the level of profit and overhead are fixed. This is why insurance industry had to repay something like $150 million (or is it $1 billion) in over perceive premium for 2011.
Sylvain said, “And finally it is the insurance that has to pay for it.”
Yes, and “the insurance” pays for it from the magical money tree, right? The jig is up, Sylvain, now we know you’ve been trolling us!
“…very few people are affected and the cost is negligeable for an insurrance company…”
Yes! The classic concentrated but small benefit with dispersed cost. And then people wonder why the cost of things keeps going up.
The religious implications of health insurance mandates about contraception and abortifacients are clear Constitutional violations. “Congress shall make no law” seems pretty clear in this case, penumbras need not apply!
“Ask yourself why catholic institution don’t have any in the matter we have been discussing?”
Don’t have any what? Is it too much to ask you to speak itelligably?
Your link is a red herring, there is nothing in it that has anything to do with the dispute at hand.
“And finally it is the insurance that has to pay for it.”
As I said before, this view is straight up dilusional. How do you prevent the insurance company from passing that cost on, especially if they burry it in premium rates for other coverage?
“2) under Obamacare the level of profit and overhead are fixed. This is why insurance industry had to repay something like $150 million (or is it $1 billion) in over perceive premium for 2011.”
Cite?
This shows a complete lack of understanding of what the terms overhead and profit mean in a business context.
Overhead is the fixed (not directly dependent on the amount of product/service produced/delivered) costs such as rent and utilities that a business incures by simply existing.
Profit is revinue – expenses.
The cost to the insurance company to provide contreception coverate is a non-overhead expense. If they provide that coverage without passing the cost on, that recuces their profits. If they pass the cost on with no markup, it has no effect on their profits at all, so even if your 2 is true it does nothing prevent the insurance company from passing the cost of contraceptive services on to the employer.
Matt,
With what money medication ever get paid with. 10-15 years ago medication like viagra did not exist. Yet when it came on the market it got covered by insurance, even if the price per pill is preobitive, and no one raised an eyebrow on that. Where did the money come to cover it? Was this money magic? The worst is that Viagra only purpose is so that men can have sex.
Contraceptive pill reduces the cost of health care, not only for women but also for the insurer. Contraceptives for women onlike viagra for men, are not only used so women can have sex. They are also have medical use to help prevent cancer and other illness for certain conditions.
Even if it was to prevent cancer for only one women the investment would be worth it since it is much cheaper than treating cancer and this also doesn’t consider the fact that contraceptives reduces the number of abortion.
@Sylvain Allard,
One last point on your #2 above. The big insurance companies all supported Obama Care. Do you really believe that they would have done so if it contained any effective limits on their profits?
my last comment didn’t post.
Matt,
«The religious implications of health insurance mandates about contraception and abortifacients are clear Constitutional violations. “Congress shall make no law†seems pretty clear in this case, penumbras need not apply!»
If it is the case than the court will reverse it, but I don’t think article 1 applies to corporation/institution. Hospitals and schools run by catholics are not religious intitution. They are institution run by a religious organization which is entirely different.
The state cannot pass a law that would say, for example, that the catholic church, or any church, as to celbrate gay marriage, or that the church should not discriminate against women and should should ordinate them as priest. But government can impose to a catholic school or hospital that they should not disciminate against women, race or religion in their acceptance of student and employee.
MattL, MattS,
1-) Covering contraceptives will lower the cost of health care, because contraceptive pills are not just used to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They are also used to prevent some illness and cancer in a non-negligeable part of the women population.
2-) how does any new medication get covered? Viagra type medication is very expensive and its only use is so men can have sex. Sex is not a life necessity and this type of medication is very expensive and yet it is covered! Where did the insurance take the money for that? But how outrageous that the insurance do something that could help women.
MattL, MattS,
1-) Covering contraceptives will lower the cost of health care, because contraceptive pills are not just used to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They are also used to prevent some illness and cancer in a non-negligeable part of the women population.
2-) how does any new medication get covered? V… type medication is very expensive and its only use is so men can have sex. Sex is not a life necessity and this type of medication is very expensive and yet it is covered! Where did the insurance take the money for that? But how outrageous that the insurance do something that could help women.
Pingback: William Briggs, Statistician to the Stars…
MattS,
My link is very relevant in showing how religious group are selective in what they choose to believe. The church is against rape, pedophelia yet anytime something happens they always choose to protect their men. They never side with the victim of their own making.
Sylvain,
Insurance companies get their money from the premiums they charge. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
If paying for contraceptives make stuff less expensive, then why does it require a mandate from the government. Wouldn’t the insurance companies do this automatically?
None of the Constitution “applies to a corporation or institution.” It applies to the government, and gives them certain powers, and denies them certain powers. I feel sorry that you can’t understand plain language like, “shall make no law.” I also feel sorry that you think that it’s OK to remove rights from people so long as you’re only taking them away from groups of people (i.e., corporations).
@Sylvain Allard
“My link is very relevant in showing how religious group are selective in what they choose to believe. The church is against rape, pedophelia yet anytime something happens they always choose to protect their men. They never side with the victim of their own making.”
None of this is relevant to the issue at hand.
“1-) Covering contraceptives will lower the cost of health care, because contraceptive pills are not just used to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They are also used to prevent some illness and cancer in a non-negligeable part of the women population.”
People have been making this argument about all sorts of preventative medicine for decades. I have yet to see even the smallest scrap of evidence that it is actually true.
“2-) how does any new medication get covered? V… type medication is very expensive and its only use is so men can have sex. Sex is not a life necessity and this type of medication is very expensive and yet it is covered! Where did the insurance take the money for that? But how outrageous that the insurance do something that could help women.”
New and more expensive drugs are the main driver behind incresing premiums for perscription drug coverage.
You are completely ignorant about the US constitution and how businesses in general and health insurance providers in particular operate.
The insurance companies would not have been supporting Obama Care if they didn’t expect it to INCREASE their profits.
MattL,
I’m sorry that you have little understanding of what the law means and to whom freedom and liberty applies.
Freedom and liberty are a matter of individuals, not one of collectivity, to few exceptions. It is the individuals rights that have to be protected from both the corporation and the government.
Article 1 of the contitution states: «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.»
The key word in this article is not that the government «shall make no law» since it is obvious that the government makes laws. The key word is to whom the article apply. This article applies to the individuals, the press, and establishment of religion.
The question then becomes what did the founding fathers meant when they stated «respecting an establishment of religion». I posted above the definition of establishment explaining that IMO 1B is the definition that applies to the constitution.
Then what the constitution really means is that the government cannot make laws that would interfere with the practice of religion. The practice of religions concerns the Churches doctrines, beliefs and practices. It, in no way concerns institution created and run by a religious organisation. Such organisation are subject to the same laws that applies to any other corporative institutions about which the government has the ability to regulate has they want, and do.
You have all the civil right movement of the 1960s which forced the states to stop segregation and other discrimanation.
The UN Charts on Human Rights was sponsored by the wife of FDR and apllied specifically to individuals. It is the individuals right that are protected not groups. The reasons why the Charts mention the liberty of religion, race, of sexual orientation, sex, and disabilities is because that these were the ones targeted by the German extermination camp. Germans killed about 10 million people 5-6 were considered jewish, the rest were handicape, slavic people and gays.
Sylvain,
Wrong. That bit of language applies to the Congress. It says that they shall not have the power to do certain things. Still, I’m baffled that you think that people lose their rights once you’re talking about several people doing something as opposed to one person.
We’re talking about individual rights exercised collectively. Your argument is like saying that I am free to write or say whatever I want, but if I’m being paid to do so, then the government can censor me for my views.
If you can force people to do things counter to their religion, how are you not prohibiting the free exercise? Now, there are legitimate exceptions (e.g., honor killings, suicide bombings). But contraception and abortifacients are clearly not in the same league as that stuff.
Yes, I agree, there’s a lot of similarity between Jim Crow and most things where Progressives want to use the government’s monopoly on legitimate use of force. We’re better off without Jim Crow, and we’ll be better off without Obamacare and the entire HHS Department and any law that says, “The Secretary shall…”
I couldn’t care less what the UN Charter on Human Rights says (or Eleanor Roosevelt, for that matter). Roosevelt didn’t care about individual freedom (his participation in Wilson’s fascism and his own during the New Deal is pretty conclusive there). And I can’t see how some UN document matters as far as US law is concerned.
I get that most people (including in the US!) can’t understand the brilliance of the US Constitution with respect to limiting the power of government. You want to prevent another holocaust? Why would you keep giving more power to governments?
The central dispute in this controversy is caused by a distortion of the healthcare market caused by allowing tax exemption for employer based premium support. This is discrimination against the self-employed and those who work for companies who are exempt from the mandate to provide insurance (e.g., companies who have less than 50 employees).
This employer provided health premiums have the effect of further hiding the costs associated with healthcare, such that the vast majority of people, such as we have seen in this conversation, believe that it is essentially a free right. This hidden support for premiums has generated a lot of money for the medical research industry, but at the same time it has frozen the small guy out of healthcare due to the staggering costs.
Obamacare, since it didn’t reverse this market distortion, makes it more expensive to hire and raises taxes on those who can least afford to pay them (and yes, it is a tax increase on the middle and lower class–See Justice Robert’s opinion). The result is a constant debate over what everyone will ask someone else to pay for. The idea that Obamacare will end the political war over healthcare coverage is fairy-tale dreaming, as evidenced by this argument.
If we want to consider healthcare a right, it should be an individual right and not one tied up to one’s employment. Do workers gain more rights just because a business adds a 50th employee? Since hiring that employee would cost the business a massive amount of money to not only cover that person, but the other 49 as well, wouldn’t it be smart for that employer to not employ that person?
As regards to contraception coverage, Griswold v. Connecticut clearly shows that the government cannot restrict the sale of contraceptives. They will be available–period. If we had a commonsense healthcare system that was not illogically tied to employement, it would be nobody’s business whether a person purchased contraception. (I am against it myself, being an NFP teacher, but I am looking at this through the lens of what the government can do.)
Health care will not be solved until it really becomes an issue for the individual, rather than the employer. This can be done through allowing the market to create levels of coverage that can cut through the cost floor and allow individual purchase at a reasonable price (similar to the way that supermarkets have drastically reduced the cost of food–though, admittedly not always in a good way–different discussion) or by coming up with a single-payer system that gives the government more power to control what must be covered. Either way, people who wanted contraception could get it paid for and they would not be imposing on the culpability of others to participate in actions they deem immoral (government participation eliminates complete culpability on the individual, since he is free to disagree with the government).
I find it ironic that so many that wish to say the First Ammendment speech right only apply to individuals when they argue against Citizen’s United, would then turn around and deny that individuals have First Ammendment free exercise rights if they are sole propriators of a large company. Can’t have it both ways–well, except in our disfuntional society today.
Peace.