Contraception Coverage and Relgiious Organizations

US religious based organizations to include contraception in insurance coverage.

Until recently religious businesses such as universities and hospitals did not have to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees. Other, non-religious, groups did have this requirement. Currently a Catholic television station is suing the US government saying the requirement is a breach of their religious freedoms.

I'll do my best to outline the logic of both sides.

From the side of the DHHS: It is illegal to discriminate based on religion in hiring unless you are a church or your organization is smaller than X employees. Therefore, Universities, hospitals, television networks, though you may be affiliated with a religious group you have people not of your religion working for you, in theory. Those people deserve the same mandated coverage as any other employer has to provide. Therefore, to protect the health rights of your employees not of your religion, you must offer contraceptive care.

From the side of the Catholic Church and EWTN: We are a religiously oriented group. Our moral mandates do not allow contraception. You cannot require us to offer contraception because it is against our religious freedoms by requiring this you are infringing them.

I did my best to be unbiased there but its probably pretty clear which side I personally agree with. I feel the network's position is essentially saying "we can't trust the women of our faith to not use contraception if its easily available to them." The law doesn't force anyone to use contraception, but the argument is similar to the one a few years back involving pharmacists refusing to provide birth control medication on moral grounds. In this case my siding of one or the other is based on "harm done." By not making contraception available the groups are putting women in a potentially harmful situation, either emotionally, or physically. The same is true of the pharmacist. The only thing being harmed by the network providing the coverage or the pharmacist the medication, is an ethical breach. At the same time, if my religious and spiritual beliefs included a god that would send me to burn in hell for attempting to prevent harm in the present I might feel differently.

What are your thoughts or opinions on the matter?

In short, this country was founded on the basis of religious freedoms. I think the DHHS has a better argument in the matter however, for the sake of the employees and their families who would need that kind of care.

I guess the question becomes, "If I hold an ethical obligation under my religion to avoid a prescribed behavior am I also obligated to enforce that obligation on others?"

I don't think that's ethical in itself. If people have the right to believe what they want to believe, then enforcement would be deemed immoral because it contradicts that same freedom.

Oh, this topic is the theme of my week. Religious wing-nuts thinking they should force their opinion on others, particularly women. I just told someone off this morning (a WOMAN!!) who thinks women should just accept the fact that they were raped and give birth to their rape baby!! Because it's a gift from GOD!! The Christian god doesn't seem to like women very much does he?.. Either that, or the people who interpret archaic Christian sentiments don't think women should be able to make those choices themselves. It makes me sick to my stomach, really! Number one, that a women could actually have such a self-defeating mentality, but two, to use religion to justify it as if they were a scared child clinging to hem of the mother's dress! Pitiful! Especially since a lot of rape cases is really incest! Yuck! I personally want nothing to with it!

Planet of Chaos::::Ah but here is where a bit of an issue does exist in your statement. You rolled all Christians up into the same generalized category. One cannot make blanket assumptions/judgement based on knowledge of a small group. In order to view it appropriately one must learn about all the different faiths that touch upon child birth and decisions therein to make an accurate statement. Now i do not know all the beliefs of them all but I do know there are many out there that do believe that in cases of rape a child may be aborted or given up for adoption because of the undue stress to the mother. Now I *do* know for a fact that Judaism (see birth-religion of Christianity) sees it as such. And many different Christian churches do keep the same or similar beliefs, the mother must be of good health to be able to care for a child, therefore if death were to be imminent in childbirth, abortion is an option, if it is rape and the mother's mental capacity would be compromised then abortion or adoption is an option. Now I am not Christian or follow any other "mainstream" religious practice, but I do agree that a child should be allowed to live, unless falling under these certain circumstances.


Red Lila (original post):::: As the fact that they ARE a religious organization, and in reality to impose that a company of ANY influence be required to offer anything out side the scope of basic healthcare, then they should not and cannot be TOLD to offer anything more. Like health insurance companies that cover elective surgeries and others that do not..that is a choice. Contraceptives are an ELECTED choice, and if they would look deeper into the healthcare provider being used by such entities, I am sure that contraceptives are covered as part of the plan and being that we have the HIPA act, they cannot tell an employer or anyone else what they are being prescribed or having surgery for. It is a touchy subject, but we also have many organizations that someone can go to (that still fall under the privacy act) for contraceptives at little to no cost, like Planned Parenthood. So DHHS and the Church have little to no argument outside of a minor lawsuit. If someone wants to use a contraceptive, then there are ways to obtain it without the knowledge of anyone. So for me, and many others I would assume, the argument is moot and many should open their eyes about things, and options that they do have, all the while still maintaining their own personal privacy.

Red Lila wrote: I guess the question becomes, "If I hold an ethical obligation under my religion to avoid a prescribed behavior am I also obligated to enforce that obligation on others?"

And to reply to this, you are not obligated to "enforce" it but to educate the person(s) on that ethical obligation and hope that they follow it or not, and if they do not. Do not chastise them for it, it is not your place, not the place of others. We were given free will and I can guarantee that when found out (as I know many religious people that cannot keep their mouths out of others' business) then they will get enough flak from others. And if they went about certain things in the right way, then no one would ever be the wiser.

On the same token, the Church (among other belief systems) regard sex as a way to enjoy the act of creating life, and anything that stops life from possibly happening is against their tenets. And as we all know, the best contraceptive is abstaining from sex (I personally know as 2 of my kids are "birth control" babies, their moms were actively taking B.C. when they conceived.)

I didn't mean to sound like I was lumping all Christians into one group, cuz there are some who actually think! But when taken as a whole, the pro-life movement is a religious movement based on Christianity. I was talking about women's rights, as a separate entity from this mentality! Nobody should have to carry a child and possibly harm their body because of religious obligations. Furthermore, no zealot should be able to force their beliefs on anyone. Especially not in an institution that is supposed to promote health, like a hospital or a pharmacy.

The Pro-Life Movement is based on a form of Christianity, mainly Catholicism. But I agree that no one should be forcing any belief on others, but those that choose to follow, should learn to adhere to or at least acknowledge the beliefs.

As a Libertarian I don't like a lot of the stuff that governments mandate.

I'm definitely not anti-contraceptive, but I don't like government getting involved in this kind of stuff either. Benefits are there to lure potential workers. If you don't like the benefits, look for a different employer. Free-market...

I'm not staunch on this point-of-view though. I'm open for my opinion changing...I can change!

MTFBWY,
LTK