The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionJ'ACCUSE! Why Obama is wrong on the HHS conscience regulations
by Michael Sean Winters on Jan. 21, 2012
President Barack Obama lost my vote yesterday when he declined to expand the exceedingly narrow conscience exemptions proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The issue of conscience protections is so foundational, I do not see how I ever could, in good conscience, vote for this man again.
---------------------------------
More NCR coverage:
The news story: HHS delays, but does not change, rule on contraceptive coverage
Opinion: J'ACCUSE! Why Obama is wrong on the HHS conscience regulations
Analysis: White House refuses to expand conscience exemption
----------------------------------
I do not come at this issue as a Catholic special pleader, who wants only to protect my own, although it was a little bracing to realize that the president’s decision yesterday essentially told us, as Catholics, that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our Church has built over the years to be Catholic in ways that are important to us. Nor, frankly, do I come at the issue as an anti-contraception zealot: I understand that many people, and good Catholics too, reach different conclusions on the matter although I must say that Humanae Vitae in its entirety reads better, and more presciently, every year.
No, I come at this issue as a liberal and a Democrat and as someone who, until yesterday, generally supported the President, as someone who saw in his vision of America a greater concern for each other, a less mean-spirited culture, someone who could, and did, remind the nation that we are our brothers’ keeper, that liberalism has a long vocation in this country of promoting freedom and protecting the interests of the average person against the combined power of the rich, and that we should learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I defended the University of Notre Dame for honoring this man, and my heart was warmed when President Obama said at Notre Dame: “we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity -- diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief. In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.”
To borrow from Emile Zola: J’Accuse!
I accuse you, Mr. President, of dishonoring your own vision by this shameful decision.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to live out the respect for diversity that you so properly and beautifully proclaimed as a cardinal virtue at Notre Dame. Or, are we to believe that diversity is only to be lauded when it advances the interests of those with whom we agree? That’s not diversity. That’s misuse of a noble principle for ignoble ends.
I accuse you, Mr. President, of betraying philosophic liberalism, which began, lest we forget, as a defense of the rights of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be honest and admit that, three hundred years ago, the defense of conscience was not high on the agenda of Holy Mother Church. But, we Catholics learned to embrace the idea that the coercion of conscience is a violation of human dignity. This is a lesson, Mr. President, that you and too many of your fellow liberals have apparently unlearned.
I accuse you, Mr. President, who argued that your experience as a constitutional scholar commended you for the high office you hold, of ignoring the Constitution. Perhaps you were busy last week, but the Supreme Court, on a 9-0 vote, said that the First Amendment still means something and that it trumps even desirable governmental objectives when the two come into conflict. Did you miss the concurring opinion, joined by your own most recent appointment to the court, Justice Kagan, which stated:
“Throughout our Nation's history, religious bodies have been the preeminent example of private associations that have ‘act[ed] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State.’ Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984). In a case like the one now before us—where the goal of the civil law in question, the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, is so worthy—it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws. To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies ‘independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’ Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).”
Pray, do tell, Mr. President, what part of that paragraph did you consider when making this decision? Or, do you like having your Justice Department having its hat handed to it at the Supreme Court?
I accuse you, Mr. President, as leader of the Democratic Party, the primary vehicle for historic political liberalism in this country, of risking all the many achievements of political liberalism, from environmental protection to Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, by committing a politically stupid act. Do you really think your friends at Planned Parenthood and NARAL were going to support the candidacy of Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich? How does this decision affect the prospects of Democrats winning back the House in districts like Pennsylvania’s Third or Ohio’s First or Virginia’s Fifth districts? How do your chances look today among Catholic swing voters in Scranton and the suburbs of Cincinnati and along the I-4 corridor in Florida? I suppose that there are campaign contributions to consider, but really, sacrificing one’s conscience, or the conscience rights of others, was not worth Wales, was it worth a few extra dollars in your campaign coffers?
I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to know your history. In 1978, the IRS proposed a rule change affecting the tax exempt status of private Christian schools. The rule would change the way school verified their desegregation policies, putting the burden of proof on the school, not the IRS. By 1978, many of those schools were already desegregated, even though they had first been founded as a means to avoid desegregation of the public schools. But evangelical Christians did not look kindly on the government’s interference in schools they had built themselves and, even though the IRS rescinded the rule change, the original decision was the straw the broke the camel’s back for those who wished to separate themselves from mainstream culture. They formed the Moral Majority, entered that mainstream culture, and helped the Republican Party win the next three presidential elections. You, Mr. President, have struck that same nerve. Catholics built their colleges and universities and hospitals. They did so out of religious conviction and, as often as not, because mainstream institutions did not welcome Catholics. It is one thing to support a policy with which the Catholic Church disagrees but it is quite another to start telling Catholics how to run their own institutions.
I accuse you, Mr. President, of treating shamefully those Catholics who went out on a limb to support you. Do tell, Mr. President, how many bullets have the people at Planned Parenthood taken for you? Sr. Carol Keehan, Father Larry Snyder, Father John Jenkins, these people have scars to show for their willingness to work with you, to support you on your tough political fights. Is this the way you treat people who went to the mat for you?
Zola, of course, wrote his famous essay in response to the Dreyfuss affair. Then, the source of injustice was anti-Semitic bigotry. Today, while I cannot believe that the President himself is an anti-Catholic bigot, he has caved to those who are. In politics, as in life, we are often known by the company we keep. Hmmmm. Sr. Carol Keehan, a woman who has dedicated her life and her ministry to help the ill and the aged or the fundraisers and the lobbyists at NARAL? Is that really a tough call? I have not joined the chorus of those who believe that this administration is “at war” with the Catholic Church. Yet, I must confess, when I first learned the new yesterday, an image came into my head, of Glenn Close and John Malkovich in “Dangerous Liaisons” when Ms. Close looks at Mr. Malkovich and says, “War!” That said, while not wishing to detract one iota from the gravity of this decision, the bishops are well advised not to read more into this than is there. It is a shameful decision to be sure, but it is not the end of the world and war is a thing to be avoided whenever and however possible.
Some Catholics have sought to defend the President, to hope that there might be some silver lining in the decision, to argue that because many Catholics use contraception, or because some states already mandate this kind of coverage, this decision is really no big deal. The fact that there is much to defend in the President’s record does not mean that anyone need defend everything in that record, especially something as indefensible as this decision. And, it is a mistake of analysis to see this as a decision about contraception. The issue here is conscience.
Some commentators, including those in the comment section on my post yesterday, have charged that people like me, Catholics who have been generally supportive of the President, were duped, that we should confess our sins of political apostasy, and go rushing into the arms of a waiting GOP. I respectfully decline the indictment and, even more, the remedy. Nothing that happened yesterday made the contemporary GOP less mean-spirited, or more inclined to support the rights of our immigrant brothers and sisters, or less bellicose in their approach to foreign affairs, or more concerned about the how the government can and should alleviate poverty. It is also worth noting that the night before the decision, Mr. Gingrich said that he would halt the U.S. Justice Department’s suit against the State of Alabama regarding that state’s new anti-immigration law, a law that raises exactly the same kind of issues of religious liberty and the rights of conscience as are raised by the HHS decision. Religious liberty cuts both ways. Nor, is religious liberty the only issue. Voters should still consider how candidates for the presidency are likely to address a host of issues. As for myself, I could not, in good conscience, vote for any of the current Republicans seeking the presidency.
But, yesterday, as soon as I learned of this decision, I knew instantly that I also could not, in good conscience, ever vote for Mr. Obama again. I once had great faith in Mr. Obama’s judgment and leadership. I do not retract a single word I have written supporting him on issues like health care reform, or bringing the troops home from Iraq, or taking aggressive steps to halt the recession and turn the economy around. I will continue to advocate for those policies. But, I can never convince myself that a person capable of making such a dreadful decision is worthy of my respect or my vote.
A powerful, well-written
A powerful, well-written statement by a columnist whom I respect and most often with. But not this time-- at least not yet. I will say you are causing me to think this through more deeply but I think your wonderful rhetoric is just that and that this is not parallel to the Dreyuss case.
The mish-mash of our health care approach is such that some propose druggists have the right not to fufill certain legal prescriptions against their consciences.These "conscience issues" are part of a larger dialogue. Don't write off Obama yet. And I will consider more deeply your arguments.
The author, a liberal
The author, a liberal democrat, my butt...going on and on stating nothing of substance. Don't we all know what the first amendment states by now. A powerful well-written statement by a columnist, who sets a 'straw dog' argument. An argument where there is none. As others repeatedly state kindly know the difference between 'availability' and 'coercion'. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Religious liberty is a profession of ones faith. It is not restricting the usage e.g of contraceptives to those who wish to use them.
"No one is forcing anyone to
"No one is forcing anyone to do anything."
Except there is, the government is forcing Catholics to provide contraception coverage against their conscience.
Wrong. Catholics don't have
Wrong.
Catholics don't have to take government money. They can do whatever they want with their own money.
Catholic institutions will be
Catholic institutions will be forced to buy contraception whether or not they take government money. The HHS requirement is irregardless of whether an institution receives federal funds. It is a blanket requirement, excepting only churches themselves.
Even churches might fall out
Even churches might fall out of the exemption because of their extensive social outreach (to everyone regardless of creed) as well as their willingness to hire musicians, secretaries, janitors and the like without requiring those people to be Catholics. In order to qualify for the exemption Catholic parishes would have to fire anyone who wasn't Catholic (possibly in violation of employment law even after the Hossana-Tabor decision) and which would also violate Catholic beliefs about the dignity of people/workers and brotherly love.
"No one is forcing anyone to
"No one is forcing anyone to do anything."
Except there is, the government is forcing Catholics to provide contraception coverage against their conscience.
What makes you think that
What makes you think that most Catholics are against contraceptive coverage? Do NOT equate the limited number of ecclesiastics with the vast majority of Catholics. They are NOT the same, not by a long shot.
Truth is not determined by
Truth is not determined by popular vote.
A lot of CINOs don't see a problem taking artificial contraceptives, especially abortifacients, because they are moral relativists with poorly formed consciences.
Faithful Catholics understand the grave, mortal implications of infanticide and contracepting.
Apparently you're a member of the former not the latter.
"No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:3
If I were a medical
If I were a medical professional I could not in good conscience prescribe or provide contraceptives to anyone. Nor could I cooperate in procuring or providing abortions for anyone. The reason is that such actions constitute material cooperation in something intrinsically and gravely evil. Need I point out that such cooperation is specifically forbidden by the Catechism of the Catholic Church or that respect for life and the integrity of each sexual act are fundamental and infallible teachings of our Church? That is the immutable law of God. Catholic Christians have been faithful to that law for two millenia, sometimes at the cost of their lives. That is why the Church cannot and never will comply with the dictates coming from the present administration. It is absurd to suggest that 'No one is forcing anyone to do anything'. The administration is forcing faithful Christians, especially faithful Catholics, to violate their consciences on matters of the utmost seriousness.
What you are stating is a
What you are stating is a complete "untruth":
Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion has been anything but consistent. What most people--including most Catholics- think of as "the Catholic position" on these issues actually dates from the 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI. Prior to that, church teaching was a mixed and jumbled bag. The pope decided to tidy up the tradition and change it by saying that contraception and sterilization were sins against nature and abortion was a sin against life. As Gudorf says, "both contraception and abortion were generally forbidden" in previous teaching but both were often thought to be associated with sorcery and witchcraft. Pope Gregory IX in the Decretals of 1230 treated both contraception and abortion as "homicide." Some of the Christian Penitentials of the early middle ages prescribed seven years of fasting on bread and water for a layman who commits homicide, one year for performing an abortion, but seven years for sterilization. Sterilization was considered more serious than abortion because the issue was not framed as "pro-life" but rather, the driving bias was anti-sexual. The traditional Christian attitudes toward sexuality were so negative that it was only reproductivity that could justify this activity. Abortion frustrated fertility once; sterilization could frustrate it forever and therefore it was more serious. Also, since the role of the ovum was not learned until the nineteenth century, the sperm were thought to be little homunculi, miniature people, and for this reason male masturbation was sometimes called homicide. Clearly Christian historical sexual ethics is a bit of a hodge podge. To really understand it and to arrive at an informed judgment on Catholic moral options it is necessary to be instructed by a little more history.
Although it is virtually unknown in much public international discourse, the Roman Catholic position on abortion is pluralistic. It has a strong "pro-choice" tradition and a conservative anti-choice tradition. Neither is official and neither is more Catholic than the other. The hierarchical attempt to portray the Catholic position as univocal, an unchanging negative wafted through twenty centuries of untroubled consensus, is untrue. By unearthing this authentic openness to choice on abortion and on contraception in the core of the tradition, the status of the anti-choice position is revealed as only one among many Catholic views.
The bible does not condemn abortion. The closest it gets to it is in Exodus 21-22 which speaks of accidental abortion. This imposes a financial penalty on a man who "in the course of a brawl" caused a woman to miscarry. The issue here is the father's right to progeny; he could fine you for the misdeed, but he could not claim "an eye for an eye" as if a person had been killed. Thus, as conservative theologian John Connery, S.J. said, "the fetus did not have the same status as the mother in Hebrew Law."
Following on the silence of scripture on abortion, the early church history treats it only incidentally and sporadically. Indeed, there is no systematic study of the question until the fifteenth century. One early church writer Tertullian discusses what we would today call a late term emergency abortion where doctors had to dismember a fetus in order to remove it, and he refers to this emergency measure as a "crudelitas necessaria," a necessary cruelty. Obviously this amounted to moral approbation of what some call today inaccurately a "partial birth abortion."
One thing that develops early on and becomes the dominant tradition in Christianity is the theory of delayed animation or ensoulment. Borrowed from the Greeks, this taught that the spiritual human soul did not arrive in the fetus until as late as three months into the pregnancy. Prior to that time, whatever life was there was not human. They opined that the conceptum was enlivened first by a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and only when formed sufficiently by a human spiritual soul. Though sexist efforts were made to say the male soul arrived sooner---maybe a month and a half into the pregnancy---the rule of thumb for when a fetus reached the status of "baby" was three months or even later. As Christine Gudorf writes, the common pastoral view was "that ensoulment occurred at quickening, when the fetus could first be felt moving in the mother's womb, usually early in the fifth month. Before ensoulment the fetus was not understood as a human person. This was the reason the Catholic church did not baptize miscarriages or stillbirths."
"Reflecting the pious belief in a resurrection of all the dead at the end of the world, Augustine pondered if early fetuses who miscarried would also rise. He said they would not. He added that neither would all the sperm of history rise again. (For that we can all be grateful.) The conclusion reached by Latin American Catholic theologians in a recent study is this: "It appears that the texts condemning abortion in the early church refer to the abortion of a fully formed fetus." The early fetus did not have the status of person nor would killing it fit the category of murder.
This idea of delayed ensoulment survived throughout the tradition. St. Thomas Aquinas, the most esteemed of medieval theologians, held this view. Thus the most traditional and stubbornly held position in Catholic Christianity is that early abortions are not murder. Since the vast number of abortions done today in the United States, for example, are early abortions, they are not, according to this Catholic tradition, murder. Also, all pregnancy terminations done through the use of RU 486 would not qualify as the killing of a human person according to this Catholic tradition of "delayed ensoulment."
In the fifteenth century, the saintly archbishop of Florence, Antoninus, did extensive work on abortion. He approved of early abortions to save the life of the woman, a class with many members in the context of fifteenth century medicine. This became common teaching. For this he was not criticized by the Vatican. Indeed, he was later canonized as a saint and thus as a model for all Catholics. Many Catholics do not know that thre is a pro-choice Cathlic saint who was also an archbishop and a Dominican.
In the sixteenth century, the influential Antoninus de Corduba said that medicine that was abortifacient could be taken even later in a pregnancy if required for the health of the mother. The mother, he insisted, had a jus prius, a prior right. Some of the maladies he discussed do not seem to have been a matter of life and death for the women and yet he allows that abortifacient medicine even in these cases is morally permissible. Jesuit theologian Thomas Sanchez who died in the early seventeenth century said that all of his contemporary Catholic theologians approved of early abortion to save the life of the woman. None of these theologians or bishops were censured for these views. Note again that one of them, St. Antoninus, was canonized as a saint. Their limited "pro-choice" position was considered thoroughly orthodox and can be so considered today. In the nineteenth century, the Vatican was invited to enter a debate on a very late term abortion, requiring dismemberment of a formed fetus in order to save the woman's life. On September 2, 1869 the Vatican refused to decide the case. It referred the questioner to the teaching of theologians on the issue. It was, in other words, the business of the theologians to discuss it freely and arrive at a conclusion. It was not for the Vatican to decide. This appropriate modesty and disinclination to intervene is an older and wiser Catholic model.
What this brief tour of history shows is that a "pro-choice" position coexists alongside a "no-choice" position in Catholic history and neither position can claim to be more Catholic or more authentic than the other. Catholics are free to make their own conscientious decisions in the light of this history. Not even the popes claim that the position that forbids all abortion and contraception is infallible. The teaching on abortion is not only not infallible, it is, as Gudorf says "undeveloped." Abortion was not the "birth limitation of choice because it was, until well into the twentieth century, so extremely dangerous to the mother." There was no coherently worked out Catholic teaching on the subject, as our short history tour illustrates and there still is not. Some Catholic scholars today say all direct abortions are wrong, some say there are exceptions for cases such as the danger to the mother, conception through rape, detected genetic deformity, or other reasons. Gudorf's sensible conclusion: "The best evidence is that the Catholic position is not set in stone and is rather in development."
http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/moderate_RC_position_o...
This argument is sophistry.
This argument is sophistry. The fact that some Catholic theologians allowed for abortion in case of danger to the life of the mother does not make them "pro-choice" as that term is used in the modern context. By the standards of the "choice" philosophy, these theologians would have been considered "anti-choice extremists" for only allowing that exception. The use of the term "pro-choice" to describe the views of sixteenth century theologians is a kind of anachronistic propaganda, seeking the approval of past authorities for a position that would have been foreign to them.
Your argument about Tertullian providing "approbation" for the form of a dilation and extraction abortion in which all of a fetus except his or her head is allowed to leave the body before crushing his or her skull ("so-called" partial birth abortion) is another example of this type of argumentation. The procedure that you say he referred to as "a tragic necessity" was done to save the mother's life. In contemporary circumstances, D & E/partial birth abortion, whatever name you wish to apply to it, is not generally, if ever, used to save the mother's life. The intent when it is used is to destroy the child for some other reason.
Within the context in which they took place, the procedures you describe as having met the approval of theologians would have come closer to what the Church would now call a secondary effect of an attempt to save the mother's life, without which, given the lack of neonatal care at the time, the child would not have been able to survive.
If the current argument over abortion were only over whether or under what circumstances to permit a medical procedure that ends the life of a child in the womb to save the mother's life, or to, say, remove a child who has already died in the womb, then the tenor and content of the argument would be much different than they are.
As for your arguments about "delayed ensoulment", look at what you yourself said in your first paragraph. Until the 19th century, the process of fertilization and reproduction was not well understood. I always find it bizarre to hear so-called progressives who advocate for "science" rely on a medieval theological understanding of biology to support their claims against the Church's position on abortion.
And you are mixing arguments.
And you are mixing arguments. There is still no consensus on ensoulment. Aquinas's position is just as valid and perhaps more valid than the position ensoulment occurs at conception. In any event, we don't have a legitimate definition of "soul" other than it is eternal. If the soul is eternal it didn't come into existence at one particular time and space. Personal ego or self aware consciousness derived from biological processes is a different story. Those are products of a given time and space. Ego consciousness and 'soul' are not the same and too often this debate on abortion seems to treat them as if they are.
"By unearthing this authentic
"By unearthing this authentic openness to choice on abortion and on contraception in the core of the tradition, the status of the anti-choice position is revealed as only one among many Catholic views". The "anti-choice" position (as you label it) was sometimes one among many, but always the OFFICIAL position of the Church proclaimed by those appointed by Christ to speak for the Church and maintained for two millenia. The fact that there frequently were dissenters from that teaching (it's hard to find a teaching that did not have dissenters) does not nullify that fact or mitigate its importance, quite the opposite. As Catholics we are required to accept the solemn teaching of the Church, not the voice of dissenters from that teaching. In short the long line of dissenters do not form an alternative magisterium.
On a slightly different note, it speaks badly for the administration that it would seek to coerce Catholic and other Christians into violating their consciences, or would think the Church can ever accept this coercion. Constitutional scholars will, no doubt, be appalled by it. They will also be appalled by the ham-fisted attempt by the administration to control the appointment of leaders within various religious denominations. Indeed, Ordinary citizens will surely see a glaring violation of the First Amendment here.
Thanks “Outsider” for your
Thanks “Outsider” for your competent historical-materialist-approach to some of our less publicized “Church History.” From my point of view there is still lodged the cardinal point of our intimate relation to science through our people like Padre Nicolaus Kopernik, Galilei Galileo, Padre Gregor Johan Mendel etc.
1) As you mention, not until 1827 was science able to demonstrate that the great “macho staff of life” (no reference to bread) was only 50% responsible for new human life. Previous to this great scientific feat, the female womb was considered by EVERYBODY, as no more than a comfy nest to receive, protect and nourish during 9 months, the spark of human life placed there by the male sex organ. The Holy Spirit fathered Jesus, thus protecting him “on his paternal side” from that “sinful line of the paradisiacal Adam”.
2) After 1827, science now claimed a 50/50% role for the female in PRODUCING the “spark of human life”, and so in 1854 we have Pope Pius IX (“Pio no no” in Italian) proclaiming that now also Mary of Nazareth, the Mother of Jesus had been protected from the “sinful line of Adam” “on his maternal side”. Thus we have the first of our only two infallible dogmas to date: “The Immaculate Conception of Mary”. Also as a spin off of this new 50/50% conception (no pun intended) of “feminine power”, we have the ignition of the spark of the struggle of women for recognition for their equal human rights that today has come a long way, but still has a much longer way to go in our very own Church.
3) Through our scientific people we managed to curb the unholy Spanish Inquisition and other un-Christian obscenities in our Church. Even today the work by our people in modern bio-ethics strives to maintain us in a sincere relation with modern reality, despite the senseless rupture that some hierarchic personalities would like to promote by their non-scientific “pelvic hang-up”.
Justiniano de Managua 25 de enero 2012
Fundamental? Yes, of course!
Fundamental? Yes, of course! INfallible? Hardly. The "ex Cathedra" is used of late to push the envelope of ultra conservatism within the Church. No such statements have been issued in modern time. Fundamental teaching is clear and non-negotiable. However, infallible means "for all time." Be careful about throwing around that term... it's usage has been minimal ever since the term entered our radar from Vatican I. Even then, many cardinals opposed the end result.
The teaching on contraception
The teaching on contraception and abortion enjoy the equivalent of infallibility. They are unchangeable teachings.
The Roman church has
The Roman church has effectively garnered the market on 'no backing down', no room to maneuver self trapping. Its use of such words and phrases as 'intrinsic' and 'objectivley disordered' has set its foot in cement. These wordings along with many other proclaim its arrogance in the same manner as its self admonition of infallibility at the first Vatican Council.
Now to put contraception on an equal footing with abortion is the folly one would only expect to hear on the ship of fools. Anyone of rational mind noting that the church states both are 'intrinsic evils', knows that the ears have located words of absurdity. The second Vatican Council by vast majority wished to relax the restrictions on contraception. Wherein lies the 'intrinsic evil'. We all have learned that something evil in itself has no door to open. Thusly, it is the church itself, those who impose will by wordings, not thought, and certainly doing whatever to disallow such thought from valid dicussion. The post,to which this replies, exemplifies the mindless
creep infiltrating the church today...those who refuse to check their brain and become nodding mindlessly faithful are not welcome.
With all due respect I must
With all due respect I must disagree with you. The Church's position is not arrogant. It doesn't leave room to maneuver or back down because it knows it is proclaiming the truth. Words like 'objectively disordered' and 'intrinsic evil' are used not out of arrogance but only because they express the reality involved. The Church teaches (and its faithful members believe) it is guided by the Holy Spirit and is inerrant in its FUNDAMENTAL doctrines, which include its teaching on abortion and contraception. If you are a Roman Catholic you must know that. If you are not, then the Church may seem like a 'ship of fools' and indeed it does contain and always has contained a goodly number of fools! It has always and probably always will seem foolish to the non-believer. Saint Paul emphasizes that point in 1 Corinthians 1:22-24,"For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God".
As regards opening doors to evil: at the second Vatican Council the Church set up a commission to examine certain modern methods of birth control because it was thought they might be radically different from primitive methods in that they might not frustrate the sexual act and prevent it from achieving its natural purpose. It was thought that the pill, for instance, might be akin to natural family planning methods and therefore morally acceptable. When it became clear that that is not the case, that it does in fact frustrate the sexual act, then the Church had no choice but to reject it. No door was opened to contraception. It, like abortion is considered INTRINSICALLY evil. In that regard they are on "an equal footing". That does not mean it is EQUALLY as evil as abortion, since it does not involve the taking of innocent life. In that regard they are not on an equal footing.
Both here and in the
Both here and in the discussion about ordaining women, we get the 'equivalent' explanation. If these teachings are infallible, why hesitate to state that? Why resort to 'equivalent' teachings? It's saying, "We're sure but not so sure." Could it be that this is how the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church (I mean all one bililon of us)from error?
I believe that this whole
I believe that this whole controversy is less, as the hierarchs would frame it, a matter of the right to “religious liberty,” thus a First Amendment issue, but rather much more a matter of the right to privacy and “equal protection of the law,” thus a Fourteenth Amendment issue.
Catholic hierarchs have yet to embrace the concept that women have equal rights in a democracy. President Obama is where he is because he has to safeguard those rights.
As recent history sadly has demonstrated [especially as evidenced in the child sexual abuse and exploitation scandal], there is nothing compelling the hierarchs to observe the moral or legal rights of any individuals, be it in the civil or canonical world.
Catholic hierarchs who operate in an all-male feudal oligarchy are used to twisting moral imperatives to suit their political needs. That is the real “moral relativism,” Joseph.
I guess President Obama is just being responsive to the demands of millions of American women, and men, many of who vote, and who insist on preventive reproductive health care coverage in their health insurance programs.
Looking at the politics, Obama seems to be better at political math than the hierarchs. I’m sure that President Obama didn’t go out of his way looking for this fight. He just knows how to count.
Besides, I’m sure that many of the Catholics who advise the president have told him that the vast majority of Catholics, those who are probably more inclined to vote for the president, find their Catholic hierarchs alienated from and irrelevant to their every day lives. As my teenagers would text, NBD!
It's sad to see hierarchs like Mahony and Dolan expressing over-the-top outrage and consternation at this human rights decision by the president. If they think they can bully and intimidate Barack Obama, they should check out what happened in Pakistan with OBL!
Catholics, as apparently is the case with Michael Winters, who self-righteously announced that President Obama has lost their vote over this decision need to get a grip. Most of them were not going to support the president in the election anyway. Now they will just get to jump up on their high horses, spouting righteous indignation, feeling better about their prejudices. They should vote for their fellow Catholic and paragon of Gospel values, Newt Gingrich. Knock yourselves out!
The vast, vast majority of Americans don’t care what the hierarchs think about birth control. Most Americans just want reliable, affordable, quality health care for themselves and their children.
Conscience matters. You seem
Conscience matters. You seem to fall into the "I'm Catholic, but not really ..." camp. Fine. I respect your decision as a matter of your conscience. But you need to respect my decision to carry out my religious beliefs as I see fit as a matter of my own conscience. Right now, you and the Obama Administration don't. When the state can force church-affiliated organizations to do things they believe morally wrong, we're headed down a dangerous road. Read up on Mexicon in the early 20th century.
Mr. Obama's decision on bin Laden wasn't nearly as brave as some would have you believe. Think about it. We needed to be sure the right guy was dead or captured, and this was the only way to do that. Just because Biden and Ms. Clinton didn't want to do it, didn't mean it wasn't a pretty clear cut decision. I served in the Army. Be careful about giving this or any President too much credit for the remarkable job the military does. A lot of military members will tell you they will execute the decisions of their elected leaders, but when it comes to telling them how to do it, politicians just get in the way. They are dilettantes playing armchair general in a world of professionals.
Well, then, Mormon sects who
Well, then, Mormon sects who believe in polygamy should be able to practice polygamy. Faiths that believe that gay marriage is fine should be able to provide health insurance for gay partners - no matter any "law" that may get passed banning gay marriage or in the absence of any laws recognizing gay marriage. Indian tribes who use peyote in their rituals should be able to get peyote even if state laws deny it. Why can't a company led by a member of the American Nazi Party be allowed to discriminate against someone on the basis of country of origin, color of skin, religious affiliation? All they have to do is create a church, call it faith, and it is okay. It is all a matter of faith.
We have to find a way to draw some lines around what one faith may require of individuals. I don't support the Catholic Church being given a legal right to coerce people who work for them to live by a faith tenet they do not accept. And I am a Catholic.
I love reading comments from
I love reading comments from people who clearly have no idea for what proposition the 14th Amendment stands. The 14th Amendment makes sure that government provides due process under law--not controlling what a church does or does not do.
In fact, here is the part discussing due process:
". . .nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . ."
Which part a church not providing recreational abortions constitutes a state depriving a person of life, liberty, or property? In fact, it problably could be argued that the state paying for recreational abortions without a trial to the infant, constitutes a taking of life without due process of law.
It most certainly does not grant the government the right to decide what theology is true and right. Thus, if a synagogue wants to keep out a Klansman (Sen. Byrd, for example), it has that right. If it does not find it keeping with its theology to murder babies, it has the right not to participate.
If you want recreational abortions, don't sign up to be a nun. If you want to be a Mormon pastor, don't buy a bar. Simple stuff, folks.
"Recreational abortions"???
"Recreational abortions"??? Really?
Comments like that certainly indicate the black pit of ignorance you live in. In all my years of practice I have never encountered one woman who considered abortions "recreational." To express that vulgarity is to violate every canon of decency and respect for women.
Obviously, Orwell's Dilemma, you must not think that women qualify as "person[s]" whose rights to "life, liberty" are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Don't know the heat that Mr
Don't know the heat that Mr Winter's and Sister Carol Keehan took to get backing for Preident Obama's health Care plan? They gave cover to the anti abortionist Democrats to vote for the bill. All but one of them lost their seats in Congress. How about Father Jenkins at Notre Dame? You can't accuse him of being anti Obama,or a right wing nut, and he has issued a statement critical of the HHS decision. I find all this discussion on abortion very academic. I'm wondering if any of those arguing for a more "liberal" line on abortion have read Dr Bernard Nathanson's book on why he quit NARAL, an organization he helped establish, or viewed an ltralsound of an actual abortion. The problem is this country is that we are mentally divided over carrying for the most vulnerable. Some foam at the mouth over the evil of abortion and the rave on about welfare mothers with food stamps. Others become defenders of the weak, but think its ok to allow the ripping a living being limb from limb while in its mother's body. We need to refernce live from begining to end.
The President has shown his
The President has shown his horns and tail. We conservatives warn you, but were classified as "Henny Pennys".
This man's ruination of this once great country has to be ended. Now, we all know where he stands. Are you with God or Mammon?
this column is as shameless a
this column is as shameless a play for a post in the Newt press office as anything INDISTINCTLY CATHOLIC ever posted here.
Oh please, grow up and cut
Oh please, grow up and cut the drama! Covering contraceptives for those who choose to use them is not coercion. Not covering them is. Vote for whomever you wish but understand that women are adults and can and should be allowed to make moral decisions the effect their lives. Deal with the fact the we live in a pluralistic society and Catholic institutions employ many nonCatholics. The bishops and all Catholics should continue to speak out for the dignity of all human life - transform the world through dialogue and example. The bishops have offered NO compelling examples of mature discipleship. We influence more people by a generous life well lived than by force or pushing singular agendas.
There is such a lack of
There is such a lack of respect for the moral theology tradition of the Catholic Church. We cannot have it both ways --- the encyclical on Human Life, which Sean Michael Winters acknowledges, makes perfect sense because it is grounded in the natural law. Catholics who continually reject and bash this important doctrine are harming the Body of Christ. Sterilization and contraceptive measures destroys the intrinsic connection of the unitive and procreative meaning of the sexual act. Catholics are not the only people of faith who feel violated by the actions of the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Humanae Vitae itself reflects
Humanae Vitae itself reflects a lack of respect for the people that make up the Church. It discounted the findings of a papal commission in which a clear majority of bishops (I think 13/16), and theologians (12/16), doctors and lay people (including women) who had studied the topic proposed that the Church could allow some forms of artificial birth control. Afterwords, other members of the Church's magiserium called HV an affront to collegiality. That its findings have met with such resistance, including the resistance of many who have been educated in theology, as well as a large portion of adult Catholics at least suggests the possibility that it doesn't make perfect sense.
If the Truth is
If the Truth is disrespectful, so be it!
Women are also adults who can
Women are also adults who can choose for whom to work. If she does not want to work for a company who does not give her the full choice of health insurance she demands, who is forcing her to work for that company?
seen the job market
seen the job market lately?
and NO job will be free to offer comprehensive health coverage anymore, once the bishops start dictating private health care policy.
Well said, Linda. Thank you.
Well said, Linda. Thank you.
Seriously, pregnancy is a
Seriously, pregnancy is a preventable disease? I think not. If a person chooses to have sex, they choose to live with the consequences. Working in the medical field, and having a wife and daughters, and from speaking to a few doctors, there are nearly NO health reasons for contraception medication. There is medications to regulate the menses that do not keep someone from getting pregnant. Furthermore, it takes TWO to make a child, I do believe since a baby is not technically the woman's body, in all fairness, the father must needs be given a choice as well, or are we being one sided and unfair when we say it's only the woman's choice. Thank you.
Thank you, well said. I like
Thank you, well said. I like your argument, see its ligic and agree with you more than with the columnist whose stance I appreciate, as well. That said, I am pretty sure this matter will head to the US Supreme Court and be overturned. I always have to hesitate when i find myself in agreement with the bishops. Very sad to say, but true. There simply is no maturity or sagacity there at all any more.
AMEN!!!
AMEN!!!
Amen! Catholics have to
Amen! Catholics have to learn, like all zealots, that in a multicultural country we cannot other people's private decisions. Nothing is more highhanded than to order someone who wants to control fertility to have sex without protection because you wouldn't use it if you were them. Pay your taxes, let it go. You cannot insist that others can't use birth control if they have insurance with any portion of federal support any more than others can insist that pork never be served in a cafeteria that gets public funds, or that all school meals must be vegan because there are taxpayers who can't bear the thought of consuming animal protein. Do you know anybody fearing that Sharia law could be forced upon this country? That's why--the same idea. NO ONE, including Catholics, wants to be forced to live by someone else's moral code, and the government is NOT empowered to permit such a thing, let alone participate in enforcing it. If you can't stand being in a multicultural country, move out.
Then pay for it yourself.
Then pay for it yourself.
Right! These people have to
Right! These people have to learn their place. Who do they think they are? They have the conscience rights that Obama gives them, and nothing more. They should be grateful that he lets them have any conscience rights at all.
I share Linda's concern
I share Linda's concern --especially regarding women (and men) being able to make moral decisions that effect their lives. Contraceptive coverage for all wouldn't preclude a Catholic from refusing to take advantage of its availability, even at no extra personal expense. When will the Bishops realize their magisterial responsibilities include not only promulgating a moral teaching, but doing it in a way that becomes persuasive!! One doesn't help Catholics grow into greater moral maturity by forbidding access to something the Bishops (or, in their opinion, God) believe is wrong. Stop the "paternalism", teach more effectively, and realize each adult can and must make his/her own decisions for their lives. (See Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, on "Conscience")
Men and women are free to
Men and women are free to make moral decisions. However if a man or woman decides to abort or use contraceptives, I have to realize it is a serious sin on my part to help them carry out that decision. I take my Faith seriously and could no more cooperate with them than I could supply ammunition to a man who wants to shoot his wife. I believe with the Catholic Church that contraception and abortion are major social evils and I am obligated to, at the very least, do nothing to promote them.
Brother or Sister Anonymous,
Brother or Sister Anonymous, you say that you believe with the Catholic Church. The Church is not just the hierarchy (bishops) or magisterium (bishops in their teaching role), but all of us. If there were no laity there would be no church.
And if this discussion of the article demonstrates anything, it is surely that there is not unanimity of Catholics on contraception.
It would be helpful to study the canonical doctrine of reception, which simply stated says that if a teaching is not widely accepted, it has no force.
Re: "teach more effectively'
Re: "teach more effectively' - Since when does a teacher teach the students to 'do their own thing' - a contradiction in terms. There would be chaos and no 'teaching'.
this issue is an example of
this issue is an example of living in a free society. It is up to the Church to find a way through the issue and all it seems to want to do is to decry decisions and policies. Would that the Church put on a positive perspective of living in a multi dimensional society. As Catholics we enjoy many freedoms living here with no fear. Let's stop crying and trying to tear our government down over one issue.
This issue is an example of
This issue is an example of living in a free society. It is up to the Church to find a way through the issue and all it seems to want to do is to decry decisions and policies. Would that the Church put on a positive perspective of living in a multi dimensional society. As Catholics we enjoy many freedoms living here with no fear. Let's stop crying and trying to tear our government down over one issue.
Amen! Well said,
Amen! Well said, Linda.
.
Now that MSW has picked up his vote and stomped off in a snit, one has to wonder exactly who among the opposition meets his moral standards? Can he really look the other way when considering the significant moral draw-backs to each of the four remaining GOP contenders? Can he really stomach the overt bigotry, racism and callous disregard for the poor and sick, so blatantly on display in the GOP debates?
.
What MSW has done with his drama-fit is to reinforce the image of the Catholic Church as a sex obsessed cult led by a group of ostensibly celibate men with a perverse interest in dominating female reproductive organs, all while trying to force their religion on everyone else under the ruse of "religious liberty".
.
Re: "a sex obsessed cult led
Re: "a sex obsessed cult led by a group of ostensibly celibate men with a perverse interest in dominating female reproductive organs, ...." What about the rest of the male sex-at-all-costs population?
I have supported President
I have supported President Obama in the past and I do not like the economic and social policies of most of the Republican cnadidates, but I feel a lot like Michael does. I haven't figured out what I will do in the election yet but I feel like the Democratic Party has pushed me away.
Women can make these decisions, yes, but they also decide for whom they will work - no one compells them to work at a Catholic institution and the Church's stand on these issues is not a secret. If I choose to work for a secular employer that does to cover hearing aids or orthodontics, that is a choice. Nothing requires or should require all employers to offer all sorts of coverage - and contraception is even more elective than orthodontics or hearing aids.
The government setting preconditions of social utility on the exercise of First Amendment rights is chilling to me.
Now listen, RedMaggie, women
Now listen, RedMaggie, women can and do decide for whom they work. But to ask that they give up their livelihood because they chose to support the mission of a Catholic institution - sometimes at great sacrifice of income potential - in order to receive coverage for contraception - often based upon clear medical need - is disturbing.
This issue is far more complex then facile analysis can convey. Catholic institutions rely heavily upon the good work and devotion of employees of faiths other than our own. They owe those employees access to complete health care.
And for Catholics, Humanae Vitae clearly states the choice to use contraception or not is the prerogative of the partners in the sacramental union of marriage - according to their consciences. The bishops have clearly bungled this issue by allowing a very few in their number to lead the charge on an issue of teaching with which the Catholic faithful in this country and around the world clearly disagree.
If you don't vote for Obama, fine. But have a better reason than this. Rethink it. That's what I'd tell my five grandchildren.
Recreational abortion is not
Recreational abortion is not a core mission of the Catholic Church. (Okay, I'm not Catholic and so may not have this on the best authority, but I feel rather strongly that recreational abortion is not a core mission of the Cahtolic Church.) Thus, someone who favors recreational abortion would seem to be an odd choice for someone who would be interested in furthering the mission of the Catholic Church.
I can't agree more. The
I can't agree more. The Church at the higheest levels is run by a bunch of elderly- supposeldy celibate men who have not much idea of family life or what it means to have too many children as is primarily the lot of the poor in the world. Contraception is a hard won right for women and should be supported by the church. It is also primarily a private and medical issue that should not concern the Church at all. We have too many people already on this earth and as I recall, we are supposed to be the stewards of this earth. Stop the drama and get real!
It is for the reason that we
It is for the reason that we live in a pluralistic society that I feel that I should not have to pay for someone's decision to use contraceptives. If someone want to use them, fine! Just do not ask me to be to one to help pay for them.
Good point! Just because I
Good point! Just because I sell heroin on the streets does not mean I force people to use it, and therefore I'm not responsible for the effects on them. In fact, in can now be argued that if I don't offer to sell them the drugs, I am in fact coercing them not to use drugs, taking away the option for them to choose not to use them as a result of their own moral decision.
Perfect!
Linda, Did you read the
Linda,
Did you read the article? Covering contraception's is not the issue. It is forcing an institution to cover something that they are fundamentally against. My wife and use contraception, but I am against a government forcing a religious institution to okay all birth control, some of which, creates an abortion such as RU 486.
While I think the government has the right to force issues on people, like buying health insurance, this is an entirely different issue.
I do not like drama as much as the next person, but this is a legitimate issue.
You said it all... Thank you
You said it all...
Thank you Ms. Dailey. In approximately 120 words, I believe you stated all that needed to be said.
"Covering contraceptives for those who choose to use them is not coercion" -- I'm confounded at how thoughtful individuals whose personal beliefs differ than others', believe they are entitled to deny others' options in making personal life choices.
I suppose the irony in my comment: as a man, I don't even believe I have a right to discuss options that ultimately concern women and their right to choose what they deem is best for themselves.
Well said, Ms Daily! Thank
Well said, Ms Daily! Thank you for saying it!
Linda - you obviously didn't
Linda - you obviously didn't read the NCR comment code before responding. Please address the topic and keep your hateful and anti-Catholic opinions to yourself.
The point of this ruling is more than contraceptives...it is the deliberate intrusion of our government upon our religious freedom. Today it is contraceptives, what will it be tomorrow with Obama in charge?
Also, the USCCB, Cardinal elect Dolan and many other members of the Church have been very vocal for many months in opposing this and other matters that may affect our religious freedom. I guess you (Linda) missed all of this.
Dear "Anonymous", Linda did
Dear "Anonymous", Linda did NOT violate the NCR comment code - but YOU just have. Please address the topic and keep your hateful and anti-woman opinions to yourself. You are using the word "conscience" to support codified misogyny, and you seem to think that "conscience" is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to coerce fellow Americans, many who are NOT of the Catholic faith, to be bound by sexist tenets that are, at their core, unAmerican, because in America, women have equal agency to men per our country's laws, and they enjoy the freedom to choose when, where, how, and with whom to start or grow their families, without coercion or interference by any religious group.
Any Catholic person is more than welcome to decline the personal usage of effective contraception, or the use of any other life-saving medicine, for that matter, should such medicines somehow offend one's own "conscience". What a Catholic employer receiving Federal funding, or an employer of any other organized religious group receiving Federal funding, in the United States, does NOT have a "right" to demand, is that they be permitted to codify gender-based discrimination into health care coverage.
The President's clear-minded, compassionate ruling, in addition to the recent victories in Kentucky and Illinois for American values, over the RCC ham-handed medieval attacks on personal dignity, all send a message loud and clear to the small-minded men at the Vatican that America will not bow to theocracy, and will continue to strengthen the wall between Church and State. Winters' apoplectic screed against Mr Obama leaves one to wonder, will he support the serial adulterer, wannabe polyamorist, and conscience-devoid Mr Gingrich instead? How does a vote for an conscience-challenged individual, who basically bought his way into Catholicism, prove any kind of "conscience" whatsoever? How is that a stand for "conscience"? Does "conscience" in the latter-day RCC mean only "continued Dark Ages subjugation of females as breeding livestock"?
Well done goatini! What
Well done goatini!
What the Church seeks, and those who claim their "religious freedom" is at stake want, is the power to tell someone who does not agree with them that they have to live by the Church tenet anyway.
It is one thing for a Church or any faith to seek to influence others. It is quite another to seek the power to control what others may do. And that is what the Catholic Church is trying for - power to dictate how others may live.
No, MSW, it isn't about birth control and sterilization. It is about being sure that individuals continue to have the right to order their own lives without a religion having a right granted by government to control their choices.
Yes, women are adults who can
Yes, women are adults who can and should be allowed to make moral decisions that affect their lives, but I shouldn't be forced to pay for their decisions if they disagree with my own moral beliefs. No one is saying that women should not have the right to purchase contraceptives (although some are also abortifacients), but why should they be at no cost to the purchaser, which means that everyone else is paying for them? And why should a church be forced to susidize employees' choices which are against the church's teachings? Contraception is an elective medication; women can always keep their knees together if they don't want to have children. And please don't cry RAPE; what per cent of contraceptive users are taking them just because they are afraid they will be raped someday and get pregnant? Also contraceptive use can harm a woman's health; why should a church be forced to subsidize an agent which can harm women? And, in case you're wondering, I am a woman.
Right, and I was forced to
Right, and I was forced to pay for two wars I in conscience disagreed with and felt dirty for having to support with my involuntarily taken tax money. And those two wars were opposed by the Vatican just like birth control. So when you are attacking Obama, please don't forget Bush.
Well said, and thank you for
Well said, and thank you for posting
thank you LINDA!! AMEN AMEN
thank you LINDA!!
AMEN AMEN AMEN!
I hope TNR notices Mike's shameless obseqiousness to them here and gives him a job as a newsboy so we can have our NCR back, at least this one corner of this Holy Mother of a Church, but that's like hoping all the imposed wojo veneration would just GO AWAY!
Ot Newt's press office, which is where Mike comes from anyway, polital propaganda
like this.
Our President NEVER had Mike's vote!
Newt did.
Gee Charles mroe of your Love
Gee Charles mroe of your Love coming out.
No one says women can't use
No one says women can't use contraception. The Catholic Church does teach (and always has, although you don't seem to know or, perhaps, to care) that they shouldn't. But my having to pay for other people's contraceptives and sterilizations IS coercion. Making Catholic (or ANY) companies pay for these things is coercion. If you want to take birth control pills, get an IUD, have yourself sterilized -- I'm not stopping you. But don't ask me to pay for it. Besides being against my beliefs, these things have nothing to do with curing anything that's the matter with you. They are drugs given to and procedures performed on healthy people, to prevent what is supposed to happen to healthy people. Health insurance premiums are supposed to pay for drugs and procedures for sick people. People are suffering from real illnesses, broken bones, etc. Why should my insurance money go to your vasectomy instead of that?
That just dumb. These adults
That just dumb. These adults have the choice to not go to these hospitals.
Thank you, dear Linda. This
Thank you, dear Linda. This hyperbolic attack on one of the smallest parts of the health policy, and one of the most ignored parts of the Church's "teaching" is plain stupid.
Galileo must be having a great laugh in heaven. Once the church lead the world through dark ages to enlightenment. Now, it seems, many of the church's "leaders" are still in the dark about SO MUCH.
Contraception out, but Viagra covered, and no such passion regarding the very Catholic ideal of prenatal care for all.
"Preach the Gospel always, only when extremely necessary use words." - Francis of Assisi.
Oh, please...just because you
Oh, please...just because you disagree with Mr. Winters doesn't mean that his opinion piece is inappropriately dramatic. Passionate and heartfelt, yes...but appropriately so, in the best tradition of persuasive writing. Your statement that "covering contraceptives for those who choose to use them is not coercion" is false on its face: Those who have to pay for the coverage are coerced into doing so in violation of their consciences. They are coerced because they are forced under penalty of law to pay the entire cost—without any co-pays—of contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization. "Not covering them is [coercion]" is equally false: Those who wish to use contraceptives are not prohibited by law from doing so. Rather, they remain perfectly free to use whatever contraceptive or abortifacient or sterilization methods they choose. Where is the coercion in that? And why is it appropriate for Planned Parenthood and NARAL to push their “singular agendas” but not appropriate for convinced Catholics to do so?
Post new comment