Contraception mandate tramples religious freedom, US bishops say

We can not allow the government to violate anyone's religious freedom.

I'm confused by the above statement.

No one is forcing anyone to use birth control.

Not having the insurance companies covering the cost of birth control can and is a hardship to many women.

There is NO reason that birth control should be exempt from the health insurance policy.

Then go find another insurance company that does cover it.

Then go find another insurance company that does cover it.

Utter nonsense if you get your insurance from your employer then you really don't have a choice in your provider unless you want or can afford to have private health insurance.

Who should pay the extra cost of private insurance since the insurance from the employer doesn't cover a needed medically prescribed drug?

If you don't want birth control don't get it but to deny other people the right to have birth control is just wrong.

If you don't want birth control don't get it but to deny other people the right to have birth control is just wrong.

I am not denying it, I am saying I have the right to refuse to pay for it.

I would not want to pay for venereal diseases, acne treatment, urology, cardiology, breathing treatments, you get my point, as I do not suffer from these or a host of other maladies, unfornately, as a member of group coverage, I pay for a lot of other people's medical conditions. It is par for the course.

I would not want to pay for venereal diseases, acne treatment, urology, cardiology, breathing treatments, you get my point, as I do not suffer from these or a host of other maladies, unfornately, as a member of group coverage, I pay for a lot of other people's medical conditions. It is par for the course.

If you can find a company that does not make you pay for these, then join it.

If you can find a company that does not make you pay for these, then join it.

Then perhaps YOU should find a company that does not make you pay for birth control.

Then perhaps YOU should find a company that does not make you pay for birth control.

This new bill restricts my ability to do so. That's the problem with it.

Then perhaps it's time for you to move to a country that is ruled by a theocracy government, maybe Israel or Iran. The United States is not, if you have a problem with birth control, don't use it.

Then perhaps it's time for you to move to a country that is ruled by a theocracy government, maybe Israel or Iran

First you tell me to find a company that agrees with me. Then you tell me that companies should not be allowed to agree with me.

The United States is not, if you have a problem with birth control, don't use it.

Under this new bill I am forced to pay for it.

That's life. I pay for a lot of shyt I don't agree with spiritually, like war.

That's life. I pay for a lot of shyt I don't agree with spiritually, like war.

Yes, but there is no law requiring me to buy stock in Xe or Halliburton.

Under this new bill I am forced to pay for it.

Are you seriously trying to say the birth control is NOT a medically necessary for over half the population in the country?

We are not talking about teenagers but adult women many who are married who chose not to have so many children that they can't afford to feed, clothe, house them much less provide education pass high school.

Every child should be wanted, loved and cared for and that comes from the proper use of birth control.

We are talking about women in the work force who get their insurance through work or women who get their health insurance through their husband's employer provider who need access to affordable birth control which has been denied to them because some people want to control other peoples private sex lives.

If you are against birth control no problem don't use the many options that are available but when you try to impose your sense of morality on the rest of us be careful of what you wish for the person who decides what is the best medically treatment for YOU just might be ME!

Are you seriously trying to say the birth control is NOT a medically necessary for over half the population in the country?

It is not necessary for anyone.

We are not talking about teenagers but adult women many who are married who chose not to have so many children that they can't afford to feed, clothe, house them much less provide education pass high school.

Then buy some birth control yourself.

If you are against birth control no problem don't use the many options that are available but when you try to impose your sense of morality on the rest of us be careful of what you wish for the person who decides what is the best medically treatment for YOU just might be ME!

I would never expect you to pay for my use of birth control either.

Comisar, I really hate when people say idiotic things. You stated you should not be required to pay for a coverage (birth control) that you do not agree with. I, in return, responded that there are many covered procedures I do not "want" to pay for but are required to do so as a group member of my employer's plan, but c'est la vie. I have no problem paying for any service that I might not need. So, why would I need to search for another insurance company. We all pay for coverage and medical procedures we do not use or might morally object to on every policy sold.

BTW, where do you buy health insurance that customs policies to only require you to pay for medical conditions and procedures "you" deem are worthy and dictate what other members can have?

I, in return, responded that there are many covered procedures I do not "want" to pay for but are required to do so as a group member of my employer's plan, but c'est la vie.

But the government does not require the company to pay for those procedures. That is the difference.

But the government does not require the company to pay for those procedures.

The government doesn't have to require the company to pay for those procedures because they're not the type of women's reproductive healthcare that's been excluded from so many plans for so long.

The government doesn't have to require the company to pay for those procedures because they're not the type of women's reproductive healthcare that's been excluded from so many plans for so long.

So you admit the government is trampling on personal freedom. Is it to hard to simply select a plan that covers birth control? Further, plans that exclude birth control are not discriminating against women.

So you admit the government is trampling on personal freedom.

No. There's a religious exemption. The Bishops are just whining.

Is it to hard to simply select a plan that covers birth control?

Yes. Private insurance is wildly expensive; that's why most people get theirs through their employer - the rates are lower because of the pooled risk. When that's the case, you have to go with whatever plan your employer has. Are you not from the USA?

Further, plans that exclude birth control are not discriminating against women.

How do you figure that?

Private insurance is wildly expensive; that's why most people get theirs through their employer - the rates are lower because of the pooled risk. When that's the case, you have to go with whatever plan your employer has.

You are free to choose your employer.

How do you figure that?

Unless the plans are providing for male condoms and denying all female forms of birth control, it's not discrimination.

You are free to choose your employer.

And Catholic-affiliated employers are still free to choose not to provide a health plan covering contraceptives. In fact, ALL employers are still free to choose not to provide ANY health plan whatsoever if by doing so they would be required to violate any part of their conscience. Easy out, and no trampling on their personal freedoms as they would be perfectly free to choose from the pool of potential employees happy to accept a job without health-care benefits.

Unless the plans are providing for male condoms and denying all female forms of birth control, it's not discrimination.

That's an extremely illogical conflation. Condoms don't require a prescription and/or a visit to a physician; birth control pills and tubal ligations do.

And Catholic-affiliated employers are still free to choose not to provide a health plan covering contraceptives. In fact, ALL employers are still free to choose not to provide ANY health plan whatsoever if by doing so they would be required to violate any part of their conscience

The article appears to indicate otherwise.

That's an extremely illogical conflation. Condoms don't require a prescription and/or a visit to a physician; birth control pills and tubal ligations do.

If you wish to reject that comparison, then a better comparison would be if they are paying for vasectomies but not tubal ligations.

The article appears to indicate otherwise.

That's because it's from the Catholic News Agency.

If you wish to reject that comparison, then a better comparison would be if they are paying for vasectomies but not tubal ligations.

That's not a good comparison, either. Permanent sterilization isn't the first choice for birth control for most couples, it's the LAST choice.

How about this for a bit more clarity on the discrimination issue: Health insurance plans that won't cover birth control pills for women won't cover them even if that's NOT the reason they're being prescribed.

so citizen cain seems to be upset because of mandated insurance coverage for birth control and yet on an entirely DIFFERENT thread was upset about abortion. Let me point out to you that LACK of birth control is usually a precursor to ABORTION. Lack of a $1 pill or condom leads to what you see as the greatest (threat?) impediment to human life in the USA.

You can't have it both ways. "If A then NOT B". "If NOT A then B". "If NOT A then NOT B" doesn't follow unless B is "Babies" (A is "birth control") (and I left "abortion" out of the equation just for you - but it is the "B" part for most women who don't want children)

That's not a good comparison, either. Permanent sterilization isn't the first choice for birth control for most couples, it's the LAST choice.

Then what would be a good comparison?

Let me point out to you that LACK of birth control is usually a precursor to ABORTION. Lack of a $1 pill or condom leads to what you see as the greatest (threat?) impediment to human life in the USA.

That's a red herring. People do not fail to use contraception because they can't afford it. People do not use contraception because they are too idiotic to remember it. That can not be fixed by destroying the first amendment.

Then what would be a good comparison?

Honestly, I don't really think there IS a good comparison. Men and women, by virtue of our biology, have very different healthcare needs. Birth control is one of those that disproportionately affects women, so refusing to provide it effectively discriminates against women. I don't think that's how the first amendment was intended to be used, do you?

Also consider the relatively recent history of birth control. Until the 1930's contraceptives were illegal under the Comstock "obscenity" laws and it wasn't until 1965 that birth control pills and other contraceptives could even be prescribed, and then only to married women. In 1973, that was overturned. And any number of women, probably even some of them reading this article, could tell you of their even more recent difficulties in getting a physician to agree to a tubal ligation - some because they required their husband's permission, others because "you don't have enough children yet/might change your mind" etc.

These objections haven't always been couched in religious terms, either. Most were moral objections, which aren't really protected under the first amendment as far as I know. And not all health insurance companies who do or have refused to cover birth control have a Catholic affiliation, some still just oppose the idea of it. Which is, again, discriminatory against the women whose lives and health are at stake.

I don't think that's how the first amendment was intended to be used, do you?

It must protect even unpopular beliefs, or it is worthless.

And any number of women, probably even some of them reading this article, could tell you of their even more recent difficulties in getting a physician to agree to a tubal ligation - some because they required their husband's permission, others because "you don't have enough children yet/might change your mind" etc.

I can see why a doctor in today's lawsuit culture might want to be careful before he sterilized someone.

And not all health insurance companies who do or have refused to cover birth control have a Catholic affiliation, some still just oppose the idea of it.

And if they were supporting male birth control, it would be discrimination.

And if they were supporting male birth control, it would be discrimination.

Birth control is is intended to prevent birth, which only affects women's health, so that's STILL not a good comparison. At least as far as Catholic-affiliated healthcare providers are concerned, since they're adamantly against birth control, period. Anti-birth control policies discriminate against women and are detrimental to women's health for the simple fact that only women give birth.

I'd be interested to know whether there are or ever have been any providers willing to cover vasectomies but not cover tubal ligations or hormonal birth control. I seriously doubt they exist but I could be wrong.

It must protect even unpopular beliefs, or it is worthless.

I just don't see the right to the provision of inadequate, discriminatory healthcare as a First Amendment issue, unless you can also argue that the First Amendment rights of women to religious freedom should also be protected in their healthcare needs. For instance, my company health plan was arbitrarily switched a couple of years ago to a Catholic-affiliated hospital network. What gives them the right to trample on MY First Amendment rights by imposing THEIR religion on my body via my medical care? And before you say "You have the right to switch employers or find a new plan"

“Under the new rule our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics,” said Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops' pro-life committee.

They have the right to switch, too.

Or they can provide medically sound, unbiased healthcare to ALL their clients.

At least as far as Catholic-affiliated healthcare providers are concerned, since they're adamantly against birth control, period.

So they are not discriminating, they are applying the rules equally.

They have the right to switch, too.

Well, no. They either have to start practicing religious discrimination- which will result in a lawsuit- or give up their first amendment rights.

So they are not discriminating, they are applying the rules equally.

Their anti-birth control rules are anti-woman but you're never going to get that so I'll stop beating that dead horse. It's a waste of time and annoys the pig.

They either have to start practicing religious discrimination- which will result in a lawsuit-

They already are - which is the point I'm trying to make - and I hope it does result in a lawsuit, if it hasn't already.

or give up their first amendment rights.

They've been forcing women to give up their first amendment rights for generations; maybe they'll develop a more compassionate perspective now. One can only hope.

They already are - which is the point I'm trying to make - and I hope it does result in a lawsuit, if it hasn't already.

How? If they pay for no one's birth control, they're not discriminating. They're applying the rules to everyone. That's not discrimination.

In May of 2000 the Catholic Church, in both Mexico City and Guadalajara voiced some comments critical of the ruling political party. It immediately received a warning from Ministry of the Interior, reminding them that meddling in politics is strictly prohibited by the Mexican Constitution. This confirms that there are still anti-clerical laws in effect and that the government will not hesitate to invoke them should the Church continue to speak out on political matters.

http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/668-the-catholic-church-in-mexico-triumphs-and-traumas

If they don't wish to follow the federal mandate, then don't accept any federal money. Meaning, they can't accept Medicare payments, etc. They need to do what is best for the clientelle, not the dogma of the church!