Plan B Forum

The top US Republican in Congress has called for action against a White House contraception rule that has angered Catholic leaders.

Speaker John Boehner said legislation was needed against the rule, which means Church-linked institutions must buy health insurance that covers birth control costs.

Catholic leaders say that would force them to violate religious beliefs.

White House officials say they want to find ways to to allay Church concerns.

But one report in the New York Times on Wednesday said the administration would not back down from the rule.

Under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law, employers must offer insurance that includes contraceptives.

Churches and other houses of worship were given a waiver under the new law, but institutions including Catholic universities and hospitals are not exempt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16953621

Forcing an organisation to provide "insurance which provides contraceptives," does not force anyone to take contraceptives.

Where to get contraception

Contraceptive services are free and confidential, including to people under 16 as long as they're mature enough to understand the information and decisions involved. There are strict guidelines for healthcare professionals who work with people under 16.

You can get contraception free from:

most GP surgeries (talk to your GP or practice nurse)
community contraceptive clinics
some genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics
sexual health clinics (these offer contraceptive and STI testing services)
some young people’s services (call 0800 567123)

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraceptio ... ption.aspx

It's really quite simple. If Catholic employees are observant, none of them will be accessing contraceptives, hence none of them will be violating church teachings. If there are non-Catholic employees, following Catholic teaching should not be a requirement of employment, therefore they should be able to access contraception. No one's principles are violated, and everyone's rights are protected.

So remind me again what the problem is?

The church which is still running the largest child-sex ring in human history is trying to force their employees at for-profit hospitals to conform to their own fucked-up morality?


Is that about right?


Just take all of the RC church property and throw their child-rapist asses out of the country.


yrs,
rubato

The Church is being coerced into subsidizing the killing of babies.

Clear enough?

No it is not, contraception is not "the killing of babies." Clear enough?

So that's why priest want to bum fuck children? They won't be killing babies then?

It all makes sense.

dgs49 wrote:The Church is being coerced into subsidizing the killing of babies.

Clear enough?

Contraception does not "kill babies". And it is merely the opinion of ignorant superstitious bigots that a blob of protoplasm smaller than a lima bean is a "baby".

Depriving women of the means of controlling their fertility causes ignorance, poverty and Malthusan hell.

yrs,
rubato

Abortion is killing babies. That is also included in the mandate. Covering artificial birth control is subsidizing conduct that the Church considers immoral.

Congratulations, Hen. You have defined yourself.

Birth control is not abortion.

But artificial birth control is also contrary to Church teachings, (it is probably the single most ignored teaching among Catholics, but it is Church doctrine, nonetheless)

I really haven't looked into this in detail, but I have seen some politically liberal Catholic pundits, who are usually in lock-step with Obama on nearly everything, (when they aren't criticizing him for not being Liberal enough) like Mark Shields and EJ Dionne, come out against the Administration on this.

Lord Jim wrote:But artificial birth control is also contrary to Church teachings, (it is probably the single most ignored teaching among Catholics, but it is Church doctrine, nonetheless)

And if Catholic employees in Catholic institutions are acting like good Catholics, then it won't be an issue, will it?

Oh, wait...

Scooter wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:But artificial birth control is also contrary to Church teachings, (it is probably the single most ignored teaching among Catholics, but it is Church doctrine, nonetheless)

And if Catholic employees in Catholic institutions are acting like good Catholics, then it won't be an issue, will it?

Oh, wait...

It doesn't really have anything to do with the It has to do with the fact that they employ people not of their faith and therefore should not be inflicting thier beliefs on them.

I would have assumed that part of it to be a given. If the Catholic Church wants to be an employer, then it needs to act like one, including dealing with the fact that not every employee shares its values. I figured that the Catholic Church would NEVER be asking for special privileges to impose its own dogma on non-Catholic employees, but was concerned only for the impact of the policy on its Catholic employees.

Am I wrong? Is the Catholic Church demanding that all of its employees act like Catholics? Is the Catholic Church asking for exemption from the prohibitions on religious discrimination imposed on every other employer?

How about this: the church must provide health insurance plans with birth control for their employees who chose such a plan, but for the employees (catholic or not) who do not want to be part of such a plan, the church can self-insure (it surely has the resources) and provide a different plan so long as that plan is identical in all respects to the other plans, minus the birth control. It doesn't completely take the issue away, but it let's the church "subsidize" fewer plans. The church provided plan must also be subject to same openness, disclosure, auditing, as the other plans.

(I think the issue is BS, but I'm also aware it could become a huge distraction).

Except that requiring an employee to disclose whether or not they are planning to use birth control to their employer is a gross violation of privacy.

Of course it is, but employees make choices about health care plans and options all the time, without any violation of privacy.

Scooter wrote:I would have assumed that part of it to be a given. If the Catholic Church wants to be an employer, then it needs to act like one, including dealing with the fact that not every employee shares its values. I figured that the Catholic Church would NEVER be asking for special privileges to impose its own dogma on non-Catholic employees, but was concerned only for the impact of the policy on its Catholic employees.

Am I wrong? Is the Catholic Church demanding that all of its employees act like Catholics? Is the Catholic Church asking for exemption from the prohibitions on religious discrimination imposed on every other employer?

The point I was making if they could claim that all thier emplyees were of the religion they would have a point (hence the exemptions)

And I was being sarcastic. Obviously the Catholic Church is seeking to impose its dogma on employees in a way that would not be tolerated of any other employer.

The Roman Catholic Church is already exempt from the requirement.

Institutions affiliated with the RCC, however, are not. But many RCC-affiliated institutions -- e.g., DePaul University, the largest Catholic University in the nation -- already provide coverage for prescription contraceptives.

What the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is really trying for is a plan which would allow any employer -- whether or not affiliated with the RCC or with any other religious institution -- to be able to refuse to provide contraception as part of the health insurance which it offers to its employees. The RCC simply does not like contraception, and it wants to make contraception as unavailable as possible, regardless of whether the provider, the insurer, or the recipient is or is not Catholic.

It's RCC doctrine, damn it, and that means that all of us need to be forced to comply with it. Because Jesus loves us.