| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
john152
Joined: 26 May 2011
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:51 pm Post subject: Obama's birth control coverage mandate on Catholic Hospitals |
 |
|
I remember going to a Catholic Hospital. My wife was going to have a baby, we were thinking this would be our last one. So my wife asked about sterilization after the birth. They told us they can not do the procedure because of their beliefs. We are not Catholic, but we absolutely respected their beliefs and how they stood up for what they thought was right.
Fast forward a few years and the Obama Administration forces Catholic Hospitals to cover contraceptives for their employees starting in 2013. If this is allowed then I�m fairly sure they would be forced to cover these services for their patients in the future, since the line of thinking is these are such essential medical services President Obama needs to force religious employers to cover these (There is a narrow exemption for churches, but not for Hospitals, or most other organizations).
Why should a hospital be forced to cover sterilization, birth control, and other things for their patients or employees? Why should a religious medical institution which is motivated to provide quality medical care by their faith be made to use their own money to fund something they believe is morally wrong?
I believe Catholic hospitals should be forced to cover essential medical services like blood transfusions and diabetes medication in their employee medical plans. However, pregnancy and babies are not a disease. If people really want to get sterilized or obtain contraceptives they can just open up the phone book and find the services themselves.
For more information see
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/top-house-republican-vow-legislation-overturn-obama-rule-174006216.html
I also have a link to letter by a Catholic Bishop
http://www.diopitt.org/hhs-delays-rule-contraceptive-coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why should a hospital be forced to cover sterilization, birth control, and other things for their patients or employees? Why should a religious medical institution which is motivated to provide quality medical care by their faith be made to use their own money to fund something they believe is morally wrong? |
Is it providing quality medical care by denying what some do view as essential care? A lack of birth control is what keeps many in poverty. And such a lack, can for a few be life threatening.
Why should a hospital dictate its idea of morality onto its employers by denying them such services?
Should there be a tiered healthcare system based on religion?
Further, do they receive federal funding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why should a hospital be forced to cover sterilization, birth control, and other things for their patients or employees? Why should a religious medical institution which is motivated to provide quality medical care by their faith be made to use their own money to fund something they believe is morally wrong? |
Is it providing quality medical care by denying what some do view as essential care? A lack of self control is what keeps many in poverty. And such a lack, can for a few be life threatening.
Why should a hospital dictate its idea of morality onto its employers by denying them such services?
Should there be a tiered healthcare system based on religion?
Further, do they receive federal funding. |
Fixed that.
As long as the Catholic institutions receive Federal funding, they should comply.
However if they were a private institution they are perfectly justified in denying certain services.
Or they could simply work around it by specializing. Remove pre-natal care altogether from their service package.
Should a foot doctor be forced to provide birth control? That's a loophole around the requirement. Though they should think about the consequences of such a move. Might not be the slick end around they think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
As long as the Catholic institutions receive Federal funding, they should comply.
However if they were a private institution they are perfectly justified in denying certain services.
|
I agree with this. Also, not everyone who works at these places or Catholic and would like the same options as their counterpart at non Catholic hospitals which would include birth control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john152
Joined: 26 May 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This applies even if they receive zero federal funds, and it applies to many employers not just hospitals. They are being forced to pay for this. So the Obama administration is forcing them to support birth control. This essentially the government telling the church what it has to support.
The first Amendment does guarantee religious freedom where the government does not interfere with religions or give preference to one over another and that has helped to reduce religious tension in America despite our great diversity making America a better place to live. So from a Libertarian perspective the government should not be telling a church what it has to spend its money on, especially if it violates their beliefs.
Another sad thing about this is how Obama broke his campaign promise.
http://join.catholicadvocate.com/promises/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| john152 wrote: |
This applies even if they receive zero federal funds, and it applies to many employers not just hospitals. They are being forced to pay for this. So the Obama administration is forcing them to support birth control. This essentially the government telling the church what it has to support.
The first Amendment does guarantee religious freedom where the government does not interfere with religions or give preference to one over another and that has helped to reduce religious tension in America despite our great diversity making America a better place to live. So from a Libertarian perspective the government should not be telling a church what it has to spend its money on, especially if it violates their beliefs.
Another sad thing about this is how Obama broke his campaign promise.
http://join.catholicadvocate.com/promises/ |
I agree that if they receive zero Federal funds they should not be forced to provide it.
And as I said, there is a convenient way around it. Simply stop providing reproductive medical services altogether. You can't be forced to provide those things if you don't have qualified staff to dispense and prescribe them.
I do object to those who think that every hospital and practicing Catholic should have their freedom of religion quashed under some sort of abortion agenda. There are plenty of doctors out there who are willing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/catholics_need_to_preach_what_we_practice/
The number of Catholics who use some form of birth control is staggering. Many non-catholics work for catholic hospitals, so why should they have to have inferior coverage. Catholics who work there don't have to use it, but they probably will as well. In the eyes of the government they are an employer, so they should comply with the same laws as every other employer. To do other wise would give unnecessary special treatment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| john152 wrote: |
The first Amendment does guarantee religious freedom where the government does not interfere with religions or give preference to one over another and that has helped to reduce religious tension in America despite our great diversity making America a better place to live. So from a Libertarian perspective the government should not be telling a church what it has to spend its money on, especially if it violates their beliefs.
|
By allowing Catholic hospitals to opt out would be showing a preference over other non-Catholic hospitals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john152
Joined: 26 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| john152 wrote: |
The first Amendment does guarantee religious freedom where the government does not interfere with religions or give preference to one over another and that has helped to reduce religious tension in America despite our great diversity making America a better place to live. So from a Libertarian perspective the government should not be telling a church what it has to spend its money on, especially if it violates their beliefs.
|
By allowing Catholic hospitals to opt out would be showing a preference over other non-Catholic hospitals. |
You bolded the part of my quote about giving a preference to one religion over another religion. In fact there are many non-Catholic people of other faiths and no faith at all that support birth control who are standing with Catholics. Many of us realize if Catholics can be forced to violate their faith we will too in the future, other don't like this rule for non-religious reasons.
Here is an article in the secular Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577209112780407698.html
If someone wants to get birth control or be sterilized there are many choices out there. If they want someone else to pay for their birth control 9 out of 10 employer health plans cover it already so just factor it in when applying for jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
1. They get federal funding.
2. We're talking about hospitals, not the church itself.
3. As others have noted, the hospitals serve non-believers.
Maybe the Catholic Church could also wake up and realize it is the 21st Century, where the majority of Catholics use a variety of forms of birth control.
Sorry if some of us aren't sympathetic whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A more articulate argument than the one I made
| Quote: |
The churches themselves don�t have to provide contraceptive coverage. Neither do organizations that are closely tied to a religion�s doctrinal mission. We are talking about places like hospitals and universities that rely heavily on government money and hire people from outside the faith.
We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| john152 wrote: |
You bolded the part of my quote about giving a preference to one religion over another religion. In fact there are many non-Catholic people of other faiths and no faith at all that support birth control who are standing with Catholics. Many of us realize if Catholics can be forced to violate their faith we will too in the future, other don't like this rule for non-religious reasons.
|
OTOH, the decision to exempt religious employers from certain areas of healthcare could lead to further infringements of workers' rights. What else can be denied to workers in the name of religion; No gays, no non-Christians, no interracial couples?
| Quote: |
| If someone wants to get birth control or be sterilized there are many choices out there. If they want someone else to pay for their birth control 9 out of 10 employer health plans cover it already so just factor it in when applying for jobs. |
Is this number true? Should a person struggling to find a job have to compromise their health to find employment? Should a person deny themselves employment from an institution that the applicant as a tax payer has help fund? How do we protect workers from having their rights and benefits stripped by religious doctrine operating outside church? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
A more articulate argument than the one I made
| Quote: |
The churches themselves don�t have to provide contraceptive coverage. Neither do organizations that are closely tied to a religion�s doctrinal mission. We are talking about places like hospitals and universities that rely heavily on government money and hire people from outside the faith.
We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body? |
|
Yes, I was going to bring up that argument. What if the employer belongs to a religion which doesn't believe in medical treatment because it would be interfering with God?
Besides, health care is a fundamental right, not a "benefit". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Besides, health care is a fundamental right, not a "benefit". |
Sadly a lot of Americans seem to disagree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
