Not siding with bishops on conscience exemption is foolish

Not if the money comes from the Church/Diocese itself - as is the case with schools. As I said, if you'd care to read, the execution of the solution is not easy. But it is the cleanest resolution.

But to do that will actually make it harder for the church-sponsored institutions to continue their work at this scale. It forces them out of an area in which they do great good and leverage the federal money by using the Chrch's money. The end result is that overall access to healthcare might eb negatively affected in order to provide mandated benefits against the consciences of the institution. These contraceptive benefits are given preferential treatment over other needed care. Nothing legally requires employers to provide orthodontia, or hearing aids or orthotics or all cancer-treatments.

Phyllis Zagano is right - AND, the bill is specifically crafted to favor ccertain religous views over others. Example - the Amish are specifically exempted from providing ANY health insurance, based on their religious beleifs, but Catholic institutions are denied a conscience exemption becuase the Catholic teaching on social consciousness and service to the larger community requires us to provide services to the larger community - not just Catholics. So the government is favorng religions that remain self-isolated from the body politic. Whatever one's viewpoint on birth control, if the Governent can do this, it could do the same thing if a religion requireed its beleivers to oppose an unjust war, or segregation, or capital punishement or that advocated for laws protecting the poor- if the governmetn did not regard them as socially appropriate.

Where is freedom of religon then?

This is correct. The mandate does not depend on whether Catholic organizations accept government money (grants and such) or not. However, the administration knows that the fact that we do accept such grants and that we use that money to employ many people, will make it more difficult to explain what's going to happen if the mandate doesn't get rescinded. Basically, a lot of people are going to lose their jobs.

Perhaps the government needs to hear the little Churchill's little jest:

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"

Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "

Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"

Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

So whether we have to lay off 1 person or 1000, complying with the mandate is wrong. The price is not the thing that's at issue.

I believe Mr. Jenkins has hit the nail on the head for me - that some form of safe, reliable and accessible birth control is preferable IN ALL CASES to that of an environment that may foster or turn a blind eye to abortion. He is right in saying that Catholic women will not be returning to a pre-birth control mentality so the "greater good" in this case would truly afford the opportunity to see a reduction in abortion. That I can live with.

Thanks for your post. You have helped clarify a lot of what has been troubling me and why, about this situation.

Bishops break out in shingles in the face of ambiguity; laity live with it each day in their homes, jobs and social life.

Chancery offices constantly view the faithful as so befuddled that, without unctuous instruction, they would confuse the holy water fountain with a birdbath.

First of all, who ever said birth control was "safe." Oral contraceptives are a class 1 carcinogen and no one is talking about that. The media and the government have an agenda here in not disclosing this information. Other forms of birth control are not safe as well, if they were, you wouldn't hear so many disclaimers as to what types of side affects can occur while using them. Lastly, none of them, I repeat, none of them, are as effective as people think and none of them are effective in preventing actual sexual diseases. Second, can anyone at all tell me why pregnancy is being considered a "disease?"

There may be a lot fewer "Indians" as soon as Catholic institutions start to shut down. A lot of you work for the Church. You may lose your jobs! You might be forced into retirement without enough to live on! Don't you get that?

The HHS mandate specifically states that abortifacients are NOT included in the mandate. As a Catholic I am overwhelmed by the lies generated by the bishops that are seemingly motivated by political hate for our president. Jesus says to pray for our enemies - if he is such an enemy, where is the call to prayer? George W. Bush started Medicare Advantage in 2003 which is funded by federal dollars. Almost any Medicare Advantage plan pays for abortion on demand (check it out online). Where was the bishops' outrage then??? I wonder how God would have responded if the bishops were to read a letter seeking prayer for our president instead of generating fear and anger?

Then where does it begin? And I noticed you use the term personhood, which is a term that only clouds the issue further. Once you have conception, you have to begin the discussion of new life in earnest because a clock begins ticking - a process has begun. Without conception you can talk all day about life because the clock is not ticking.

Let's look at it this way. I say human life begins at conception and so any human interference from that point on is morally wrong. You disagree, saying a new human life doesn't begin until a few days (hours?) later.

Your belief would allow abortion up to your point of personhood being reached (have the scientists got that nailed down yet?). Mine does not allow it all. Contraception yes, abortion no.

What if I'm wrong? What's the worse outcome? A woman must carry a baby to term? A child is born that is not wanted by the parents or perhaps will be raised in a home with insufficient resources -- a result we must address as a society? Serious challenges to be sure.

And what if you're wrong?

One of the key ideas that animated Roe v. Wade was the FACT that fetuses were NOT counted in the Federal Census, hence, they were NOT PEOPLE and had no, repeat NO political rights. Current law across the land regards the products of conception as property, able to be disposed of at will by the owning woman.

One is granted the status of Person with political rights by the birth mother, in agreement with the attending physician. If either of these two individuals say no, the products of conception can, and are, disposed of as waste. /see --> partial birth abortion /

The overwhelming opinion of Americans is: children are property. Children do not gain the independent right to life until the age of 16. Many atheist ethicists are calling for legalizing involuntary euthanasia for children younger than 6 (like in Holland), especially for children with spina bifida, Down's syndrome, congenital deformities, etc. However, they would allow for the elimination of inconvenient or difficult children as well.

I agree. The world needs far fewer people and far more cockroaches. Cockroaches are honest.

Well, that's disingenuous. Not "denying access"? Really? At the very least, it is placing a financial barrier to access compared to women who are covered under the law by ALL other employers. No matter how much outrage is expressed, the employer is NOT a victim. The employer is being mandated to provide the means via benefits - no different in kind from WAGES - for their employee to practice HER freedom of conscience. This is just another example of the hierarchy splitting meaningless moral hairs and some Catholics colluding in throwing women, NON-CATHOLIC women, under the bus.

Even if we believe that access is not denied because she can use her wages to purchase the deadly item, and assuming health insurance is not inherently a form of compensation, the ONLY way to ensure that the employee does NOT endure an unjust financial barrier to practicing her right to freedom of conscience is to increase her wages to the required amount so that she may do so, freely and without undue hindrance. Employers are not required to purchase or use birth control; they merely compensate the employee via benefits to purchase whatever she wants to purchase, without getting permission from her employer. EMPLOYERS MAY NOT PRACTICE THEIR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE BY RESTRICTING HER FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.
Denying her access to the mandate IS discrimination.

But, hey, let's open that door, so that any religious institution performing any public service, may enact any moral restriction upon their employees compensation package that might encourage personal practices the employer deems abhorrent, no matter how legal & acceptable those practices may be outside their faith community. There is more than one employer that would enjoy this kind of empowerment, dictating their employees’ conscience, by imposing it upon employees who do not freely share the employer's religious views.

I can't wait until other religious institutions get into the hospital, education & social services game serving the PUBLIC. Their employees can be denied health insurance coverage for, perhaps, modern healthcare or blood transfusions. Sound silly doesn't it? I guess that depends upon one's perspective: the hierarchy easily dismisses many women’s desperate need to limit the size of their family without being involuntarily limited to practicing Catholic-sanction methods.

I know what will solve this! Catholic institutions must hire only Catholics who support and practice this contraceptive ban. Good luck with that!

It is very surprising that allegedly "progressive" Catholics, who claim to support women's rights, are lining up behind bishops with a long history of unrepentant misogyny. Is it in part blowback because of the public humiliation Catholics have endured due to the hierarchy's shameful & deceptive, if not criminal, activities that endangered your children?

Spare me the faux outrage that "the government" DARES to mandate that non-catholic employees, working for employers who serve the PUBLIC and receive taxpayer funding, might achieve reproductive justice of this kind. Are they outraged that they pay for plans that cover viagra? Surely that medication enables mortal sin? Oh, wait, I forgot, enabling some immoral acts are less dreadful than restricting the possibility of pregnancy, no matter the consequences to women and their families. In essence, women have no right to control her own reproductive destiny, and there is no grey area to that restriction except abstinence. What a high standard the hierarchy sets for others' behavior! They must themselves be irreproachably moral.

Now I understand how the bishops' have been enabled to continue their bad behavior with seeming impunity.

But you failed to answer the main question....what are women with maladies that need to be cured/regulated by birth control pills to do if their insurance doesn't cover this type of medication???? Are bishops aware that there a myriad of uses for these hormones other than birth control?

The Viagra argument goes thus:

Sex outside of marriage is a serious sin. Hence, providing coverage for Viagra-type drugs for unmarried male employees forces the Church to pay for something that her own teaching says is sinful. So where is the outcry from the Catholic Church about being forced to offer Viagra coverage to her unmarried male employees? Of course, the laws of many states prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status. Why does the Church accept that the laws of our democracy do not allow her to deny certain men access to coverage for a drug whose use can be immoral, while she cries "persecution" when asked to provide coverage for a women's drug that is sometimes used in ways that the Church holds to be immoral?

The point is that the heierarchy is picking and choosing which of their sexual mores they will draw a line in the sand for. Most folk consider it not coincidental that this group of unmarried men chooses to deny women contraceptive coverage, while permitting unmarried men to have Viagra coverage.

I disagree. Viagra is an unnatural aid for male sexual expression and I am forced to pay for it in my insurance. ED drugs are linked with an explosion in HIV cases in the senior set, treatment I am forced to pay for through both private and public insurance. Viagra allows couples who are for the most part past their fertile years to engage in non procreative sex.

No, the real apples and oranges thing going on here is Catholic men get to have sex and Catholic women get to have babies.

The church sees nothing wrong with viagra for use within a marriage? Doesn't sound like them.

RedMaggie on Feb. 01, 2012.

You stated:

"Coolmom:

Since I do not know what your diocese is, I do not know if your bishop is not taking stands on social welfare but I would be surprised if that is true, as most of the USCCB has been active in supporting the rights of the elderly and poor. I suggest you check your facts on that one by calling your diocesan office and asking that question. The media highlights the one stance by the church, but not the others."
------------------------------------------
Coolmom knows what is written in her diocese's Catholic newspaper. And I know what is written in mine (and a neighboring diocese).

Do the rights of the elderly make comprise an editorial? No.

Does the concern for the poor, the homeless (including children) call for a special collection in all churches? No.

Does the bishops go regularly to Soup Kitchens to see how many are using the services? No.

But does the bishop get on a soap-box for issues regarding "pelvic theology"?
YES, YES, YES!

I agree entirely with Coolmom!

mcassidy, if this is the Australian Bishop you are referring to then your statement is very misleading. Did you have someone else in mind?

Link: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10273