It is fine for the Roman Catholic Church to teach against contraception, and to insist its adherents make no use of it, but completely specious to claim that they are morally compromised by providing insurance coverage that happens to include this benefit to people who are under no obligation to use it, nor, in some cases, under any obligation to adhere to the teaching.Read the rest here
Otherwise, any Jehovah Witness-sponsored organization should have the right to insist that its secular employees not be covered for blood transfusions; 7th Day Adventists should be able to forbid their non-church employees from being fed hospital food containing meat, and Jews and Muslims, pork. And let's not even get started with the Christian Scientists, who ought, under this understanding, to be able to refuse the need to provide health insurance to anyone who works for them.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Some "truth to set you free" about religious freedom
Love this piece -- Religious Freedoms Are Limited -- by the brilliant Tobias Haller:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Otherwise, any Jehovah Witness-sponsored organization should have the right to insist that its secular employees not be covered for blood transfusions;"
Blood transfusions are necessary to preserve the life of the people who receive them, the need for it is involuntary and there are no alternatives. Birth control is not necessary to preserve life, the need for it is voluntary and there are alternatives.
"7th Day Adventists should be able to forbid their non-church employees from being fed hospital food containing meat,"
My kids were both born in a 7th Day Adventist hospital, and they did. The hospital cafeteria did not serve meat. And in any case, what's that got to do with health insurance? Are you proposing that such hospitals be required by law to serve hospital employees meat?
"And let's not even get started with the Christian Scientists, who ought, under this understanding, to be able to refuse the need to provide health insurance to anyone who works for them."
You mean they can't? I was not under the impression that an employer was required by law to provide health insurance.
It is fine for the Roman Catholic Church to teach against contraception, and to insist its adherents make no use of it, but completely specious to claim that they are morally compromised by providing insurance coverage that happens to include this benefit to people who are under no obligation to use it, nor, in some cases, under any obligation to adhere to the teaching.
It is specious for the author to state that this insurance coverage "happens to include this benefit". No insurance coverage happens to include a benefit. Benefit plans are reviewed with a fine-toothed comb by both the employer and the insurance company to determine what is covered, what's not (e.g., breast enhancement), what the limits are, etc. Anything in an insurance plan is there because of negotiations between the employer and the insurance company.
What we have here is the government intruding itself into those negotiations and telling an employer whose sole purpose for existence is to promulgate a moral code by both word and deed that their deeds must not match their stated mission - that the Catholic Church must conform to the Federal government's moral code, not it's own.
Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? It works both ways, folks. Read what the founders of this country said on the matter and you'll find that they held that such separation was to protect the Church as much as it was to protect the State. This is a prime example of exactly that.
And so that you will understand my perspective properly; I'm not Catholic, I see no problem with people using birth control, and I and my wife have used various forms including hormonally-based forms. I think the RCC is wrong on this issue. But I also think they have the right to be wrong and the Federal government (as well as other levels of government) is in clear violation of the First Amendment here.
Once the church moves into the public sphere, it agrees to be ruled by public laws. It is just anohter employer who is Roman Catholic. Zack Beauchamp writes,
:
The only institutions covered by the birth control mandate have chosen to participate in the broader market, a zone of private life governed by political rules. It's incumbent on critics to explain why this particular rule is a dangerous expansion of state power over market actors as compared to, say, forcing a Randian executive to follow minimum wage laws. If they can't, then it seems like the coverage requirement protects women's rights without appreciably increasing the state's threat to private associations.
Moreover, this law dates back to the Bush era, and church institutions have had no problem adhering to similar rules in 28 states. This is a manufactured "crisis" in which the RC Bishops are attempting to co-opt the state to enforce their theocratic rules-- rules which their own congregants refuse to follow.
Latitude for religious freedom ends when that "freedom" infringes on the freedom and rights of others.
"then it seems like the coverage requirement protects women's rights without appreciably increasing the state's threat to private associations."
Since when do women have a right to have birth control pills be covered by insurance? There are no women's rights at stake here.
"There are no women's rights at stake here."
Really? And your female friends are in agreement with you on this, RonF?
Why is it that Viagra is covered by health insurance? World population has more than doubled in my lifetime, having passed 7 billion. Aren't we doing a good enough job procreating?
And why would religious conservatives oppose any policy that results in lowering the total number of abortions?
eally? And your female friends are in agreement with you on this, RonF?
I have no idea. I imagine some would agree and some would disagree.
Why is it that Viagra is covered by health insurance?
If you need birth control your reproductive system is working. If you need Viagra it isn't. On the theory that health insurance is supposed to pay for fixing health problems it makes perfect sense. But I wouldn't scream about it if health insurance didn't cover Viagra.
And why would religious conservatives oppose any policy that results in lowering the total number of abortions?
Is there any evidence that it does? I mean actual evidence, not a presumption on your part. Again, remember that we're not talking about banning birth control pills for the whole population, we're talking about requiring a small number of people who have full-time jobs to pay for their own.
There's also the consideration that conservatives generally have other plans for ways to reduce abortions.
Post a Comment