.
I'm really having a hard time following the birth control mandate question.
A friend told me that she had read some of the comments on a blog and that it was depressing how simplistic the writers (on both sides I think) were about the topic and that none of them thought that it was complicated at all.
Well that's the way blogs are I thought, but then I listened to Senator Boxer and pro and con views on PBS last night and they took the same view.
"This is not a religious issue it is a health care issue," Boxer said.
Then on PBS:
"Of course it is a religious freedom issue since the government is forcing the Catholic Church to do something that is contrary to its fundamental beliefs."
The other side says, "I see it as a health care issue. I don't see it as a freedom of religion issue." Poof. (She was Methodist.) She showed no sign of ever having contemplated any religious aspect of it. She apparently believed that the freedom of religion argument was sufficiently dealt with by saying: I don't see it that way.
It reminds me a bit of the water boarding question. Some were horrified that the Government would water board a known terrorist for information. It was clearly a civil liberties issue they said. [later that day: I am told-not civil liberties rather international law. The point is the same] The other side took the view: I see it as a national security issue. I don't see it as a civil liberties issue. Poof.
Same song, second verse. Strange thing though there has (I think) been a bit of a role reversal. Those who worried over the water boarded terrorists are not the same group as the folks who are now decrying the coercion of the Catholic Church. In fact ...
.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roads – My tax dollars, and yours, pay for municipal, county, state and federal roads. When we vote on funding measures for roads we do so because we need roads.
ReplyDeleteSo, if one of those roads provides access to a sexually oriented business (SOB) am I, through the fungibility of government infrastructure, being forced to support SOBs? The answer is yes. Can I live with that? Again the answer is yes.
Now the government infrastructure analysis is not a perfect analogy with the Affordable Health Care Act and Sebelius’s interpretation of what is a religious activity covered by the 1st amendment, but it is close. The Health Care Act provides an infrastructure path (road) to health care with perhaps a few undesirable bumps (SOBs) along the path.
I am not a fan of the Affordable Health Care Act, but I think its supporters (including Boxer) have the best argument on this issue.
Very well made point.
ReplyDeleteKathleen Sebelius “decided” that birth control is a health issue. She is an appointee that no one voted for, answers only to the President, and she has the power to determine what is/must be covered by health insurance.
ReplyDeleteFor those who are delighted at the prospect of government mandated access to birth control resources just remember that under the Affordable Health Care Act the Secretary of HHS has the power to decide what insurance does not/and may not cover as well. You may not like the next “decision”.
Hi cuz. Glad I found your blog. I have thought a lot about this issue since it ignited such a fire storm. I too am having some difficulty processing all of the arguments. It is my understanding that the facts are the following: the health care act includes a mandate that health insurance plans cover contraception with no co-pay and no deductible. The Catholic Church, which does provide the benefit of a group health insurance policy to its employees, has mandated that Catholics may not use any but natural birth control. Therefore, these two mandates, one from a church and one from the United States Government, are at odds. Now, the way I see it is that, while we do not want our government to ride roughshod over religious freedoms, we also do not want to give organized religion the ability to dictate legislation.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the legislation seek to accomplish? I believe it seeks to make contraception available for all women regardless of their income strata. It's the income strata that is at the heart of this issue. We know that the women in this country already have the legal right to decide whether or not they will use contraception. Even Catholic Women have that legal right of choice. And studies tell us that many, if not most, Catholic women do take advantage of that right. So this law does not seek to provide a legal right to anyone that they don't already have. Access is the key, I believe.
Now we have those who oppose the President on principle telling us that this is about religious freedom and the President is trampling/crushing/trashing/ignoring the 1st amendment which briefly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". The objection is, presumably, that this law prohibits the free exercise of religion.
PART II
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean to prohibit the free exercise of religion? I would imagine that it means that the government can't stop a religion from practicing their religious beliefs. Now, I'm sure the old Mormon Church would take issue with that as well as some of the offshoots that have even recently been arrested and jailed for practicing what they believed were their religious beliefs, as abhorrent as those beliefs may be to the majority. As Senator Mitch McConnell said this morning on one of the news interview shows, "the purpose of the bill of rights was to protect minorities". Yeah, that's what he said, and who am I to disagree? And yet our history includes examples of laws that are in direct conflict with religions. The belief being, I suppose, that the greater good, in those instances, was more important than following the letter of the 1st Amendment.
Now we have this question before us; does the health care law prohibit the Catholic Church from practicing its religion and, if so, is the prohibiting law more important to the greater good than following the letter of the 1st Amendment. Firstly, if the law mandating health insurance policies cover contraception is prohibiting the Catholic Church from practicing its religion then I am at a loss as to how that works. Their religion forbids use of non-natural birth control. Does this law forbid them from practicing that belief? At worst it may make it more difficult for the Church to control, as women who could not regularly afford contraception before would now have literally free access to it. (One could also argue that this is a poverty issue and I would not disagree. We already have legal access to contraception and it is, for most, relatively inexpensive) Is that frustrating for the Catholic Church? Does this shine a bright light on one of their more archaic rules that they continue to support against all reason? YES! And it raises many more questions that the Catholic Church would just as soon not have to discuss I would presume.
But my reason for typing this now very long opinion piece is not to criticize the Catholic Church's beliefs, although it has been so easy for hundreds of years, from the belief that the universe revolves around Earth to the belief in a flat Earth...beliefs that cost some nonbelievers dearly. Given the lack of prohibition of anything in the law, it seems highly unlikely that the law could be found to prohibit the Catholic Church from practicing even its most inane beliefs. I am all for their practicing of these beliefs up to and until those beliefs start to become demands that the Country sculpt its laws to fit the Church's beliefs. I see that as an issue here, quite frankly. The Catholic Church does not like the law in question in spite of the fact that it does not in any way prohibit them from practicing their religion. So that is no longer enough. Now we must shape our laws in such a way as to not offend the Catholic Church? I'm sorry, I don't see any of this in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution anywhere.
Very interesting argument.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are a couple of examples of how we treat the idea that people should be required to do something that is contrary to their religious beliefs. One is the Jehovah's Witness folks who are not required to say the pledge of allegiance. On the other hand parent's can be required to seek medical care for their children even if it is forbidden by their religious beliefs.
I don't know if the SCOTUS has a bright line, but I expect that they do and that it centers on whether or not following a person's religious principle's will result in "irreparable harm" to someone.
Here the Catholic Church was going to be required to pay for something that they were religiously opposed to. They were not objecting to folks having these services they were just opposed to having the C. Church be required to pay the bill. It seems to me that you could argue that this is closer to Jehovah's Witnesses than it is to requiring a parent to seek medical care for a child. What is the irreparable harm that occurs if the Church is allowed to practice what it preaches?
I am in general agreement with Tom's first point (though I support National Health Insurance), but the conservatives have a very interesting question related to Tom's second point. If the Feds can require you to buy a specific product (the health care mandate) can you identify anything that they cannot require you to do?
As TJ would say, "A government that is big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take anything that you have."
Excellent points all Wayne.
ReplyDeleteOne could argue that the irreparable harm is more unwanted pregnancies. I realize that it would be hard to prove so yes, I am making a logical leap, if you will. But it seems just as reasonable as whatever the irreparable harm it is that is taken into consideration in prohibiting Morman males from taking multiple wives in spite of their religious beliefs. I definitely do NOT want more than one spouse and do not claim to understand why anyone would realistically want to. But, what exactly is the harm between consenting adults? Another conversation.
My point is that it's clear that unwanted pregnancies cause all sorts of societal problems, reparable perhaps for the nation and often irreparable for the individual. And because of that the nation should not join the Catholic Church in hiding its head in the sand and pretending that telling people not to have sex for pleasure is actually going to have positive results. All rational thinkers know that reality doesn't work that way. Even practicing Catholics know better.
I've seen posted on other boards owners of small businesses saying that they are Catholic and requiring them to pay for something contrary to their beliefs. If small business owners get some kind of relief because they are Catholic, we will see the Catholic membership roles swell to unprecedented numbers. NO business owner is going to want to pay for this unless they were already providing it. "Are you Catholic?" "Uuuh..yeah...that's the ticket. I'm Catholic."
We may be through discussing this issue but I ran across an argument that I thought was pretty solid and well thought out. (Of course I think that since it supports my beliefs.) But aaany way...
ReplyDelete"This entire debate is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. It is well-settled constitutional law that a statute may infringe on a particular religious belief provided that doing so is not the intention of the law and that the law does so in way that is neutral with respect to particular religious beliefs. So, for example, a law may ban animal cruelty across the board. But it may not do so in a way that favors certain religions while discriminating against others. So, for example, a law may not ban certain methods of animal slaughter if it includes an exception specifically for Kosher practices, thereby burdening adherents of Santeria in the free exercise of their religion (as ritual animal sacrifice is a part of their religion). A law could however lawfully ban certain practices relative to the slaughtering of animals provided that it was religion-neutral. By this same logic, Mormons and Muslims are not exempt from laws against polygamy. And Rastafarians are not exempt from laws criminalizing the possession of marijuana. Likewise, the Catholic Church (or anyone else) is not constitutionally entitled to an exemption from a law aimed at all employers regarding the provision of health insurance to employers. I'm not saying you have to like it. I'm not even saying that that is what I believe that the law should be. But it is well-settled, clear-cut, black and white -- constitutional law 101, if you will. You can disagree all you want about what the law should be. But it simply is not unconstitutional and only a constitutional amendment, or a dramatic and highly unlikely reversal of Supreme Court jurisprudence can change that. Anyone who says it is unconstutional doesn't know the first thing about a very basic aspect of American law."
Found this sentence laying around somewhere
ReplyDelete“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Having a little trouble reconciling the sentence above with the last post on this issue so let me spin it just a little bit.
The constitution does not forbid the Secretary of HHS from prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There, all fixed.
As I said after Tom's first remark I think he is probably right and the Catholics lose this one.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't change the fact that I am still troubled by the way that both sides are absolutely certain that they are right and -- that it is obvious that they are right.
I think that it is a hard question, and I think that those 6 Catholics on the SC might think it is not so easy a question either.
If those who agree with Bruce's source are so absolutely right then why did O back down? I expect that you have already said "politics" which brings up my next question.
Did they not know what would happen? Which do you prefer to believe:
a) They are so stupid that they didn't know this would happen. or
b) They knew this would happen and did it anyway.
If you choose b, then do you wonder why they did it anyway?
Well, I doubt that they're stupid, at least as a whole. There is a quote that says "none of us is as dumb as all of us". But, that aside, I would imagine they're a pretty sharp bunch. So, I take it from your statement Wayne that you have an opinion as to why they "did it anyway". I'm curious what it is. Would you mind sharing? And please don't make your explanation as mind numbing as your statistics problem answer(enter emoticon here to show that I am messin' with ya. It's not your fault that I am mathematically challenged relative to yourself).
ReplyDeleteI was talking to a liberal friend this morning who said that she thought that there were women all over the country who were very offended by all of this and she was sure that they were going to work to see that women's health rights were defended. I expect that she is right.
ReplyDeleteI think that it was a base rousing action. A chance to change the topic of conversation from money to culture wars issues.
You could very well be right. It's a cynical view and I find it more than a little troubling, but just as apt to be true as anything else I guess. But I hear that according to Bill O'Reilly (however it's spelled) the whole effort is for naught anyway because most unwanted pregnancies are due to the women being hammered and they're not going to care about birth control anyway. Such a sensitive soul. Ever since Glenn Beck left Fox Bill is my favorite commentator not to watch.
ReplyDeleteSee Birth Control Mandate 2
ReplyDelete