dagblog - Comments for "Birth Control Makes Catholicism Work"

One part of the discussion

Ramona — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:06:39 +0000

One part of the discussion that seems to be overlooked is that if the government is going to take steps to mandate free birth control coverage to every American woman, it has to be available to every American woman who wants it and needs it--and that includes Catholic women.

This particular administration made it a goal to provide just such coverage, at the same time trying to be sensitive to the one religion that forbids contraception of any kind--Catholicism. (The Bishop's Catholicism, that is, and not that the vast majority of the parishioners, who willfully ignore the no contraception mandate.) Obama's solution might be considered a compromise by some, but I see it as a graceful way to satisfy everyone. The bottom line is that every woman will be covered and it's no skin off the Bishops' noses.

I agree with Doc that employee insurance is a contractual benefit, in lieu of additional wages. It's an agreement between parties, a promise made at hiring, part of the package. The company expects loyalty from their employees but never seems to think the same should be expected from them.

But since the Catholic church already provides insurance coverage for birth control at certain facilities operating for the public, why wouldn't women who work for them assume the new mandate would cover their birth control costs? They can't have it both ways. Either the Bishops believe in their own tenets or they don't.

"(Unless of course, you

Patrick — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:20:24 +0000

In reply to Actually, I do not respect

"(Unless of course, you believe that only employers have rights, and only employers can be wronged. I would suggest that any such belief is strictly, ah, faith-based.)"

Unless of course I said, and meant, no such thing.

If we're going to throw around terms like "childish nonsense," the real "childish nonsense" (which is overstated hot air in each case) is treating cash compensation and a benefits package as equivalent - as equally under control of the recipient/employee. Compensation belongs to the employee in the manner and form that is agreed upon.

No employer has control over what happens with cash payments, but they do set the terms of service on plans they offer. A typical insurance plan has many limitations that are not at the employee's discretion, like what health care providers they can use, what co-pays are required for which services and what items are covered at what rate.

Your example of "X dollars of store credit" misses the point. It's NOT dollars you can use however you want. A health pan is a pre-selected group of services you can use, not a wild card you can apply however you see fit.

If you're hung up on whether it's from a vendor on in-house, then fine, consider it coupons to a restaurant chain. "Not good for alcohol. Please tip based on the stated price. On Fridays, this coupon only good for Fish & Chips."

* Barring rare exceptions like non-compete agreements in which a departing employee receives a lump sum, but can't use it to start a competitor

Actually, I do not respect

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:15:00 +0000

In reply to While I disagree with the

Actually, I do not respect any employer's "right" to limit compensation below a reasonable minimum, which is not an absolute right. I do not believe that there is a right to pay someone below minimum wage, for example. And the Constitution will back me up on this; it is illegal, for example, to make someone work for nothing. The law, in this case, sets a minimum for what constitutes health insurance. A prescription for a drug that has to be taken every day in order to regulate menstrual cramps and manage problems such as ovarian cysts is a very reasonable part of minimum coverage.

In fact, as large employers, Church-related institutions are not forced to provide health insurance at all. They are free to opt out and pay a cash alternative that funds the employees' (more expensive) private insurance. They can take the deal or not. They shouldn't, to use your analogy, take the deal and whine. (Unless of course, you believe that only employers have rights, and only employers can be wronged. I would suggest that any such belief is strictly, ah, faith-based.)

And the bishops are, in fact, taking the deal offered to them, which is employees who take less salary by delaying childbirth and limiting the numbers of children. If the bishops wish to employ only those who have large, unplanned families, they are free to do so. But they don't. I taught at an institution where my co-workers were predominantly young and married. All of my colleagues together had exactly zero (0) minor children. How did this miracle take place? The Cardinal never asked himself.

The cafeteria analogy is of course childish nonsense, because the health care is not offered in-house, but through a vendor. The better analogy would be if part of my weekly pay was X dollars of store credit at the local supermarket, but the bishops decided that they had say over how I spent the store account.

Once you give up the idea that compensation belongs to the worker, you've left free-market capitalism behind. If you sincerely believe that the compensation given to a worker belongs to the employer, and that the employer has a right to dictate its use, you are in fact a feudalist. Have fun storming the castle.

Patrick: The thing is in 28

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:29:53 +0000

In reply to While I disagree with the

Patrick: The thing is in 28 states this rule is already in existence and has been since December 2000.

In December 2000, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made it clear that an employer’s failure to provide coverage of contraception, when it covers other prescription drugs and preventive care, is a violation of protections against sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; those protections for employees’ benefits include no exemption for religious employers.

This particular issue has been distorted and exploited by a media all too willing to continue on with demonizing women's reproductive health. They are also completely unwilling to do research to fairly present this issue. The media prefers to do whatever it takes to get ratings and reproductive health serves their purpose of replacing facts and reason with spin. For 12 years there has been no uproar over this ruling by the EEOC, only now, when it is an election year and that HHS will require every state to comply with the 2000 ruling.

According to the Guttmacher Institute:

28 states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDA-
approved contraceptive drugs and devices; 17 of these states also require coverage of related outpatient
services.
 2 states exclude emergency contraception from the required coverage.
 1 state excludes minor dependents from coverage.

 20 states allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the mandate. 8 states have no such
provision that permits refusal by some employers or insurers.
 4 states include a “limited” refusal clause that allows only churches and church associations to refuse to
provide coverage, and does not permit hospitals or other entities to do so.
 7 states include a “broader” refusal clause that allows churches, associations of churches, religiously
affiliated elementary and secondary schools, and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to
refuse, but not hospitals.
 8 states include an “expansive” refusal clause that allows religious organizations, including at least
some hospitals, to refuse to provide coverage; 2 of these states also exempt secular organizations with
moral or religious objections. (An additional state, Nevada, does not exempt any employers but allows
religious insurers to refuse to provide coverage; 2 other states exempt insurers in addition to employers.)

 14 of the 20 states with exemptions require employees to be notified when their health plan does not
cover contraceptives.
 4 states attempt to provide access for employees when their employer refuses to offer contraceptive
coverage, generally by allowing employees to purchase the coverage on their own, but at the group rate.

Welcome back, Patrick. One

Oxy Mora — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:58:39 +0000

In reply to While I disagree with the

Welcome back, Patrick.

One thing the Bishops might not have considered is the competitive hiring environment. If I were a head doctor and found that recruiting had become impossible, I might leave and go elsewhere. But that's their, Bishops, problem.

I wonder, though, where one draws the line on religious beliefs. I could say as a hospital CEO that giving people workers comp. insurance, which I think is now universally required, is wrong based upon my religious belief that people should know how to prevent injuring themselves---sort of a spare the rod, spoil the child concept so prevalent among the religious folks.

While I disagree with the

Patrick — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:27:00 +0000

In reply to Excellent post, Doc. The

While I disagree with the church's position and I think it's wrong, I have to respect their ability to set limitations on what types of compensation it offers employees.

If the church offers employees a health plan with restrictions, then it's up to you to take the job at the compensation offered or not. Yes, those restrictions are forcing their beliefs on employees, but only on those that applied for a job that offered compensation with those restrictions, won the job, and accepted the job knowing those restrictions.

It's not your money. You were paid with a limited plan so you get a limited plan. If you wanted a non-restricted plan, negotiate it up front.

To use your meat-on-Friday analogy, it's as if the church offered you a meal plan at church cafeterias and you're now demanding to order a burger on Friday because they can't impose beliefs on you. Go to Wendy's and buy it yourself, and they can't stop you, but they don't have to give it to you.

When you work for an organization based on a cause or belief, don't expect the employer to offer you things that run counter to the belief.

Nancy, are you in fundamental

Erica — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:29:44 +0000

In reply to We all have choices. Where to

Nancy, are you in fundamental agreemt with the church on every single issue? For example, if you were to discover that your sons had been abused by a priest who was then transferred out of the diocese (a long-standing practice) in order to cover up the problem, would you stick with the team, or follow your own advice and simply find a new team?

Excellent post, Doc. The

Ramona — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:43:05 +0000

In reply to Birth Control Makes Catholicism Work

Excellent post, Doc. The Bishop's arguments are dead in the water, as you said so well:

The claim that Cardinal Law's conscience would have been violated if the organization he led had been "forced to buy contraceptives" is nonsense. The Church does not buy contraceptives, penicillin, X-rays, or any other medical good. It buys a premium for a health plan for its employees, and that plan pays for medical goods and services. But isn't that just buying contraceptives with the Cardinal's money? No. Because the premium on my health plan was not the Cardinal's money, even if his little stamp was on the card. It was my money. It was part of my pay. I had earned it, through the work specified in my contract, and what I did with the benefits I was owed was no more the Cardinal's business than what I did with my paycheck.

Well done. Employees who are

NCD — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:20:54 +0000

In reply to Birth Control Makes Catholicism Work

Well done. Employees who are practicing effective and supervised family planning would also cost less to cover than those who don't, unplanned pregnancies in many cases result in very expensive medical treatment. Multiple pregnancies where a woman is constantly pregnant may, at some point, be a threat to the life of the mother.

So the Bishops want to increase costs to bar good medical policy and health maintenance practices related to a woman's fertility. All because a gang of corrupt holy imposters who run an organization permeated with child molesters believe they can tell everyone else how to live.

Well there aint many nuns

Richard Day — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:27:51 +0000

In reply to Birth Control Makes Catholicism Work

Well there aint many nuns left in this country.

71,000 according to NBC

hrica/#.TzOPPeRfTto

Average age? 70 years plus.

These are 2004 figures.

Not a lot of Nuns' daughters become nuns!

I remember back in 72 or 73; there were very few jobs available to college graduates and a couple of my friends graduated with teaching certificates and the best they could do was to move to the boondocks or teach at a Catholic School.

$7,000 in 1973 still was not a lot of money.

Nancy has good points. We make our choices.

MSNBC was clear about this. In no other country does the government have to run into this issue because there is a one payer system that has nothing to do with employment.

I am more worried about these bible thumping universities and think tanks and textbook publishers and....all claiming religious exemption from everything.

We let this birth control issue slide for Catholics and I predict much harder fights to come from little empires within this country.

It bothers me.