Morning Read: Contraception debate in NY and the North Country
The national debate over a Federal requirement that religious groups provide full health coverage — including contraception — to employees continues to simmer, with hearings yesterday in Washington.
The issue also remains front and center on the Diocese of Ogdensburg’s website, with Bishop Terry LaValley’s letter describing the Obama administration initiative as “a heavy blow” to religious freedom and tolerance.
You must know that we cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. Even those who may disagree with the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life recognize that the government has no business forcing religious institutions to sponsor and pay for procedures which violate those teachings.
We’ve asked Bishop LaValley for an interview and hope to sit down with him soon. Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting that Roman Catholic institutions in New York have been living with a similar state law for roughly a decade.
Although Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York has vociferously argued that a national requirement for religiously affiliated institutions to cover birth control in their insurance plans is immoral and unacceptable, some Roman Catholic organizations in his own backyard have for 10 years been grudgingly complying with a state law making them do precisely that.
Many Roman Catholic institutions in NY now “self-insure” in order to avoid the state law (which Catholic leaders sued unsuccessfully to block) but others have added contraception services to their insurance policies.
NPR’s Rob Stein looked in-depth at some of the issues behind this debate, including the fact that many faith groups now see some “contraceptives” as de facto abortion methods, a shift that has reignited the topic.
A new NY Times/CBS poll shows that most Americans (60%) and most Roman Catholics (58%) are more in line with President Obama’s position on all this than with the bishops and the Church hierarchy. How about you?
What do you take away from this debate? A fight over religious freedom? A swing back to 1950s-era thinking? Comments welcome and — remember — keep it civil and respectful.
.png)
If contraceptives are viewed as “de facto abortion methods” then abstinence must be also. Just THINK of all the sweet little babies I could have had.
The Catholic church is a fading institution, out of touch with it’s members, severely diminished by scandal, and locked in the dark ages. The good work that Catholic institutions have done will be lost, and we’ll have to rely on government to take up the slack. I’m pretty sure that’s not what their leadership wants…
The Catholic Church is actually growing and is still the largest Christian Church in the world. Certainly the US Church is having its ups and downs right now. I do think this may turn for our benefit as US Catholics become smaller and more devout in belief and practice.
The Church as always will be fine.
But I don’t think this is a fair law in what it requires and even though in NYS we have had the same sort of law the Catholic institutions have found ways to not directly pay for contraception and abortions, which are a matter of our beliefs and not open to debate by the state, at least according to the US constitution. Unless the new “State Church” demands certain beliefs?
Anyway you might be right you may see Catholic institutions unable to continue as large as they currently are, right now they are some of the largest if not the largest private providers of charity and health care to the poor in the United States.
We will see what happens, I still think the compromise Obama laid out is as good as we can expect and I respect the President for his stance.
I consider the morning after pill and the IUD as forms of abortion. Abstinence is not a form of abortion in that it does not kill a life form.
The religious right is attempting to stack the future debate in their favor by breeding like rabbits. Google quiverfull.
While many on the left are concerned about over-population and the effect that has on people’s quality of life and the environment, the quiverfull folks have found a simple method (and it isn’t the rhythm method) to skew the future polls in their favor.
knucklehead: Are you suggesting future environmental issues might make the left take a stand on limiting family size? Heaven forbid!
Yes. It is a well documented reality that as societies become better educated, wealthier, and have greater access to health care two things happen.
They begin to become more liberal, as a whole, and they begin to have smaller families.
If you are suggesting that liberals are trying to force couples to limit the number of children they have, you are absolutely incorrect. There are those on the Right who attempt to spread that lie, but the fact is that Liberals and Conservatives all want the same thing – they want succeeding generations to have better lives.
Sometimes we on the Left get the idea that conservatives care more about a fetus than they do about the life that a born child will live. It might be nice to believe that all large families live like the Waltons but that isn’t reality.
A man asks mostly men (who comment on here) to discuss the rights of women – why doesn’t that surprise me?
While it can be argued that this is overreach by the gov’t, for me, this issue is just another example of how this entity continues to resist moving out of the past and into the 21st century. From prohibiting women to become priests to avoiding paying taxes on their vast wealth, to prohibiting members to use birth control, to refusing to report pedophile priest to authorities, etc…I was raised a Catholic but left the church years ago for reasons such as this.
To your point, John, a Daily Mail story:
‘Where are the women?’ Outrage after birth control hearing is led by panel of five MEN
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102411/Birth-control-hearing-Capitol-Hill-led-male-panel.html#ixzz1meAbEH5z
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102411/Birth-control-hearing-Capitol-Hill-led-male-panel.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
And why is it that the Catholic Church can force their priests and nuns into birth control by not allowing them to have sex?
One aspect of democracy is that we have to tolerate differences of belief/opinion. Belonging to an organized religion does not exempt you from that. My tax dollars pay for many things I don’t use including some I don’t particularly approve of but I’m not obliged to use or participate in them and tolerance on my part contributes to an overall tolerance in society that allows me to live as I want. Universal health care has to offer the same to all or it isn’t universal. No one is telling them they have to use contraceptives if they don’t want to. The notion that an employer could dictate what forms of health care are available to those they employ based on the employer’s belief system is anti-democratic. Under that philosophy if an employer could argue that they didn’t believe in medical intervention at all and totally deny health care to their employees. This whole debate could have/should have been avoided by having a single payer system supported through taxes.
The crux here is that employees of the Church first have to want contraception, and then the Law states the employer, the Curch, should cover the cost. The health care bill is not forcing people to take contraception.
I think the health care bill is trying to be comprehensive, not dictatorial, as i would suggest is the Church’s general approach.
Fundamentally, this is about large institutions (hospitals, universities etc.) either providing health policies that cover the health needs of the women who want and need these services, or else being able to discriminate against women under the guise of the employer’s (not the worker’s) religious dogma. DHS studies showed that access to birth control from insurance improved women’s health, and the health of their children. Planned parenthood (the act, not the organization) is a public health goal and the right thing for society to encourage.
It is interesting that the Bishops are making a big deal about this now. 28 states already have this mandate – some for years. No less a personage than Justice Antonio Scalia has stated in Supreme Court opinion that churches are required to adhere to legally passed and reasonable civil laws, even if they go against some church beliefs. “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” This goes back to the 1870’s, when the Mormon Church challenged laws against polygamy, or more recently (1980’s) when an Amish employer was required (against his beliefs) to withhold and pay Social Security taxes.
The Catholic Church is actually growing and is still the largest Christian Church in the world.
Sure the church may be growing slightly in Africa and Asia, but it sure isn’t growing in Bishop LaValley’s diocese. Just look at the Saranac Lake area. 40 years ago SL had three Catholic priests. Bloomingdale and Lake Clear had their own priests. We had a Catholic high school and elementary school run by nuns. Now we have a single priest ( I don’t think he has an assistant) that serves the entire area, the nuns and Catholic high school are long gone, the elementary school is barely surviving and the diocese had to close down their seminary for lack of interest. Oh yeah, and the Carmelite and Franciscan monastaries in SL cleared out years ago. Clearly, the Catholic church seems to be dying. At least in the USA.
PNElba,
Very true. I wonder how other religions are faring in places like SL? It seems like parts of the world are becoming much more secular in general. Other places don’t seem to have that trend, and that is in the parts of the world that are growing rapidly. The global trend is probably more toward religion than away from it. But I am not sure.
For the catholic church I don’t think their position on contraception really has much to do about the trend. It looks like most practicing Catholics just rely on the fact that they were taught that god gives them all a free will to make their own decisions when it comes to some things. Let them have access, which I think this “compromise” does. Adam didn’t have to eat the fruit from the tree in the garden but god still gave him the chance to pick it. Why can’t the hard line in the church just view it that way?
John –
If I read your complaint correctly, then I can only respond – pish.
The In Box is read by a lot of men and women and, obviously, women are free to chime in — and often do.
The suggestion that this was meant as sort of a boy’s club conversation is daffy.
By the way, I am a long-standing user of contraception. The notion that this is exclusively a women’s issue is equally wrong-headed.
–Brian, NCPR
Paul has an excellent point about free will. Not all religions try to control the actions of other based on their beliefs. I view my beliefs as a guide to MY behavior but I don’t demand that others adhere to my beliefs. When belief becomes control of others it steps out of being religion and becomes government. It is our democratic government that is being attacked here, not religious freedom.
to ad add to Brian Mann’s point – vasectomies are expensive, and you probably wouldn’t get one if it wasn’t covered by insurance. Im not sure what the Catholic church’s position on vasectomies is, but I assume it is considered a form of contraception that they would not want to cover.
RE: Participation by women in the “In Box”. While I don’t entirely agree with John I do note that we don’t often see comments by women. Come on Ladies. Chime in. What do you think?
Peter,
The Catholic church has strongly condemned all artificial methods of Contraception (a position also held by most Protestant churches up to 1930, when the Anglican church voted for change). This includes the contraceptive pill, condoms and also medical procedures such as Vasectomy and Sterilisation. Infact the church regards contraception as mortally sinful.
From: http://catholic.christianityinview.com/morals.html
BTW, a if you die with a mortal sin on your soul you are condemned to the burning fires of hell. So be careful with that contraception.
We have a lot of chatter here by people with limited knowledge on what contraceptives do- how they work. Some of the “methods” allow fertilization but prohibit implantation thus when life begins at conception the debate is on- life isn’t allowed to continue. Blame the broader interpretations on Onan.
What “the people” favor is not necessarily church doctrine or policy. Many churches are not democratic organizations. Some Amish won’t put slow moving vehicle signs or even lights on their vehicles (or acquire building permits) on claims of religious principles. Others tolerate the signs etc. Depends on the congregation.
My take away is my employer doesn’t pay for crowns or on my teeth, I do. It doesn’t pay for toothpaste or dental floss or mouth wash. It does pay for semi-annual dentist visits. What they chose to pay for is their business.
Birth control pills cost $10 a month or so. Generally they are not medically necessary.
This is a church-state issue. Some church based organizations have chosen to pay- key word choice. More important is the restraint on establishing a religion or free expression thereof. Thus the state no longer supports collection of tithes or enforces failure to observe the sabbath.
To say the insurer for a church must provide the service but the church doesn’t have to pay for it is a farce.
The healthcare law is wrong to begin with that is the crux.
It noteworthy how aggressive the Catholic Church is in agitating against gays having equal rights under GOVERNMENT law and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Many people wish the Church would’ve been half as aggressive in this in acting against priests who rape boys, rather than protecting them to save its own image. Control your own body = evil. Control someone else’s body = not a big deal. And they wonder why people, including myself, are fleeing the Church in droves.
From avoiding laws to being exempt from property taxes to imposing its morality on what marriages the state recognizes, the Catholic Church is the nation’s leading beneficiary of SPECIAL RIGHTS.
The “Church” and the “State” have been in direct competition since inseption.
Do you expect any different behavior?
They only agree rarely, and it’s rare the agreement is based on what’s best for the “People”.
Ponzi schemes the lot of them, but the “church” isn’t satisfied with just our money, they want our souls too.
If the “Church” does not evolve along with the “people” thay will eventually perish.
…….thus when life begins at conception the debate is on- life isn’t allowed to continue…..
Can we use honest words here. So called pro-lifers use the term “life begins at conception”. No, the sperm and egg cells were both alive before conception. What I think you mean but don’t want to say is that “personhood” begins at conception. The minute two haploid sets of chromosomes become combined into one cell – that is now considered a person with all the rights of a citizen.
If this is the case, can someone bring a class action suit on behalf of all the frozen embryos out there? It’s like they are being kept in prison against their will (do they have a will at the 64 cell stage?).
If a mother drinks alcohol that affects her fetus, can the child bring suit against the mother in the future?
Jeff’s mention of the Amish is an interesting one. Amish in southern Indiana are as conservative as the communities in St. Lawrence County. The DOT in Indiana ruled that if you want to take buggies on state roads, you have to have a large orange triangle and a bright light (not a kerosene lantern). The health and safety of all Hoosiers trumped the religious beliefs of some. The Amish adapted.
This is much the same issue in the contraception coverage requirement.
Clever tactic of the Obama administration to make contraception the issue.
Just three weeks ago, abortion was at the root of the issue:
“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception.”
But, since the administration is on the wrong side of the abortion debate, they have decided to change the debate.
I figured the anti-Catholic haters would come out on this.
That is fine, the Church certainly deserves some criticism, but on this issue it is a clear invasion of the state into the rights of a private, voluntary, Church. The wonderful thing about our country and the Catholic Church is that if you don’t like the Church don’t go; leave find a different path it is a voluntary organization. If you don’t like the Church don’t work for a Catholic institution.
The Church teachings are spiritual in nature and have not changed, this is not some sort of “new” teaching the Catholic Church is coming up with. The only reason the Church is unique is that it isn’t modern, I would not want a modern Church, I think most of us desire an ancient Church.
The Church is not trying to impose this teaching on anyone, it is however trying not to be forced to pay for something it believes is wrong and in the case of abortion is evil.
If the Catholic Church wants to rule a country, they can all return to Vatican City and do what they like unaposed.
It’s smaller than America, seems managable…..
PNElba- no I am beginning with the point of conception. Sperm cells are as alive as blood cells -but they cannot divide. There already has been a lot of contention about un-implanted frozen embryos. The stem cell issue ties into it too.
TomL- The Amish dress as they do and follow practices as they do because they seek to be separate from the world. But the buggy sign is an external issue because of the necessary interaction with the world. Some Amish misunderstand their own doctrine but then for them every church stands under its own bishops within the conference. It is certainly nothing as personal as medicine. Most Amish opt out of social security, unemployment insurance and in some states worker’s compensation, saying the Church will take care of them.
Jeff, as much as I understand your post, you’re wrong. Especially on these three points:
“Generally, the pill is not medically necessary”
Doctors estimate that more than half (58 percent) the women on the pill use the pill to decrease pain and cramps during a period, normalize heavy or irregular periods and prevent ovarian cysts.
“This is a church-state issue”
No church or state should ever dictate what happens between a patient giving informed consent to a doctor.
“The healthcare law is wrong to begin with”
The health care law was created to ensure every American has access to health care. Contraception is health care.
And you’re not a doctor.
The Church certainly does not want to prohibit anybody from doing anything, or dictate anything; it can’t and does not have the right to do so.
However it can control what IT PAYS FOR, and if you want to do something that the Church teaches against why would you expect the Church to pay for that? When you work for the Catholic Church it seems bizarre to demand that the Church that you CHOSE to work for pay for something that it finds immoral.
It seems very straight forward to me it is a true invasion of the state in establishing what religions should teach and do.
Sure if you hate the Church and just want to stick it to the Church yeah ok I understand that, but certainly people see the logic in the stand of any private spiritual or religious group not wanting to pay for things that go against its own teachings?
I still think there are plenty of workarounds and solutions.
Jeff, I respectfully disagree with you. Whether to use contraception or not is indeed a personal choice. But whether, as an employer, to provide others with this option should they want it need not be a personal choice – the government can, and often does, override individual’s personal religious (or other) beliefs. It is like that for an Amish employer – he (or she) may choose not pay into the payroll taxes for himself, but if he hires someone, he is required to pay in for them. This was decided by the US Supreme Court in US vs. Lee (1982) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/252/case.html .
Moreover, the large church-owned institutions that are being required to cover contraceptive health care (universities, hospitals, large charities) receive substantial funding from the US Government – our tax dollars. Churches are exempt. The US Government has a right and a responsibility to make sure that employees that are supported by tax money receive all compensation they earn.
……no I am beginning with the point of conception. Sperm cells are as alive as blood cells -but they cannot divide.
Jeff, first you can’t choose to define what is alive. The cell theory states that all living things are made of cells. Sperm and eggs are cells so by definition they are living. BTW, there are many cells that reach an end stage and cannot divide further and are still alive, so I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about sperm being unable to divide. Sperm and eggs are cells, thus they are alive – so life began before conception. Somehow you can’t bring yourself to say what I think you mean -personhood begins at conception.
“but certainly people see the logic in the stand of any private spiritual or religious group not wanting to pay for things that go against its own teachings?”
Religious groups are not exempt from abiding by the laws of the land. A church can not discriminate against people based on race, for example… even if that was their teaching.
Furthermore, in this case, no one is forcing the church to spend money on anything it doesn’t believe in. If the NY policy is used as the model, which it sounds like it will be, the institution will not be paying for these services… the insurance companies will.
The irritating thing about this is that Republicans and conservatives are much more united and outraged about this issue than are Catholics. Many Catholics, including members of the church hierarchy are satisfied with the compromise proposed by the Obama administration. Others are not. But Republicans are outraged.
It seems like more mindless opposition to the health care law.
What it seems like to me is grasping at anything possible that the Republicans can in order to find fault with Obama. Their stated agenda, above all other objectives including the good of the country, is to insure that Obama is not re-elected. They said as much right after he won the presidency and have leapt on every opportunity to find fault even if it was something they had agreed with before he was elected.
“The Church certainly does not want to prohibit anybody from doing anything, or dictate anything; it can’t and does not have the right to do so.”
Actually i think they DO try to dictate.
“However it can control what IT PAYS FOR………”,
Churches in America must first obey the Government they exist under, the struggle is in fact whether they can or can not control what they pay for.
“.. and if you want to do something that the Church teaches against why would you expect the Church to pay for that?”
That sounds like like a catch-22 for them. It’s a tough row to hoe, wanting to be in control.
Me?, i want nothing more from them but to practice what they preach, and pay their way like any one else. They can start with back taxes on property holdings….Unless of course God said they shouldn’t have to?
Again, if they want uncontested controll of the inner workings of a country…..
I also cant let this tidbit pass…
The quote that JDM posted above is not, and was never, representative of the issue.
This quote…
“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception.”
… is not from a news source, or a government official, or a politician. It was taken from a letter written by a Catholic Cardinal. At best we can say it is his misinterpretation of the issue. More likely, it is intentional misinformation about the issue.
Making it about abortion makes their stance seem a bit more reasonable, and fires up the emotions of those opposed to abortion. However, abortion inducing drugs are not, and have never been, part of this discussion. This is only about birth control.
Again, you can reference the policy in place right here in NY State for the last 10 years – it is the model for the one that will be used.
I think the thing that complicates all this — and one of the things I hope to ask Bishop LaValley about — is the fact that the Church exists at a weird crossroads in American society.
They provide a lot of quasi-governmental services, often with government funding.
What’s more, a lot of those services deal with issues — adoption, medical care, etc. — that are very, very sensitive.
(If they were just, say, providing homeless shelters, it might not be such a flash point.)
Further muddling things is the fact that many “Church” employees are non-Catholics and have zero interest in having their lives influence by Church teaching.
Finally, the Church’s doctrine dictates at least some behaviors that many practicing Roman Catholics tend to ignore or reject in overwhelming numbers.
So I think the idea that this is a “church-state” issue is too simplistic.
It’s more like a “church-state-lots-of-individuals-and-they’re-all-blurred-together’ issue.
I’m not taking sides, or suggesting that any POV is right (or wrong).
But I guess I do think anyone who tries to frame this in simple terms is overlooking a lot of texture and nuance.
–Brian, NCPR
And yet the Church hierarchy wants their view of these matters to prevail.
If they don’t want to follow the law, can’t the Church just quit taking federal tax dollars and tax breaks? Isn’t that an easier way out?
It is beginning to sound as though the Republican Party has ceased to exist and has morphed into the Holy Republican Church. Now we have two RC churches.
By the way and for the record, the Onan form of birth control is also a mortal sin (according to the Catholic Church) that will send you to Hell forever and ever. In case you don’t know what the Onan form of birth control is, it is masturbation.
Back in the day when most Catholics would go to Confession on a regular basis, teenage Catholic boys were going to Confession every Saturday so they wouldn’t embarrass themselves by not receiving the Holy Eucharist on Sunday.
My, how times have changed. Now you hardly see anyone going to Confession more than once a year, if ever.
But it is none of the state’s business how Catholics feel about the Catholic Church or a particular teaching. To bring up who follows what doctrines of their own Church really is meddling in the private affairs of a Church and really does violate the constitution, if that is what the state is doing. Maybe the state could establish the “official” Catholic Church that did what it was supposed to do and followed and bowed down to the state in all matters. I don’t think they are though, I think this was just not well thought out and I think Obama has backed out as much as he can.
Brian from my perspective I would like to see you ask Bishop LaValley what he felt was really wrong with the current Obama position and also how the North Country Catholic institutions have been operating in the past couple of years under New Yorks current laws which also mandate contraception?
OA the easiest thing to do would be to simply stop offering health care benefits. They could simply take that money and give it directly to the employees to buy insurance on their own. As a Catholic that is what I would prefer to have happen or in the extreme get out of all of these institutions that employ non-Catholics and take government money.
I mean these institutions may have to phase out of all government funding and become much more purely Catholic, which would mean closing more hospitals and less access for the poor to health care.
“The Church certainly does not want to prohibit anybody from doing anything, or dictate anything”
Same sex couples who want to get a state marriage and pregnant women who want to seek an abortion would surely disagree with you.
“But I guess I do think anyone who tries to frame this in simple terms is overlooking a lot of texture and nuance.”
Everything has it’s shade of grey when discussing the problem, the solution generally lies in the black and white of it.
“neither hot or colld” gets spit out i heard….
“…the easiest thing to do would be to simply stop offering health care benefits. They could simply take that money and give it directly to the employees to buy insurance on their own.”
Do you have any idea how much health insurance costs when purchased by an individual in this state? The last I looked it was well over $1000 per month. And the other problem with your solution is that, when individuals decided to pocket the amount they were given for insurance– or spend it on beer and lottery tickets as some undoubtedly would– then when they got really sick, they’d go to the emergency room, and be unable to pay their tab– a practice that drives hospital costs ever higher for the rest of us, as the hospitals spread the unreimbursed costs to the rest of us.
Try again.
But Brian-MOY the Church cannot order someone not to get an abortion and it cannot order a same sex couple to do anything one way or the other.
It can use its voice in the public square however to say what it believes is true and it has a right to do so. But only the government has the power to order people to do anything. Certainly in this case the government has the power to tell the Catholic Church to do this, I think it is unconstitutional and will speak against it; and I think many would think it is a constitutional right to get an abortion and the government agrees with them.
But the Church is not going away and will not be silenced; hopefully it will be free to follow its own teachings, but maybe not.
It won’t be a disaster if this falls the wrong way for the Church, they will simply have to start looking at ways to not do it, the one thing the Church could never do for example would be to foster an abortion through something like the morning after pill.
Maybe once again God is at work telling the Church that it is indeed time to withdraw even from doing some of its good works in society as the cost is to high?
The reason that Catholic Charities originally existed was because the state social services were discriminating against Catholic immigrants denying them help, so the Church stepped in. Today Catholic Charities serves a majority of people who are not Catholic which is one of the reasons they are not exempt. One option would be to become an agency that serves only members of Catholic parishes.
“One option would be to become an agency that serves only members of Catholic parishes.”
That is also against what the church teaches. My great uncle was a Josephite that served on missions in the south and my aunt was a Dominican sister of the sick poor almost everyone they served were not catholic just poople in need of help.