why pick a fight with Catholics right now?

[GusFring]

Who would expect a Catholic institution to give them birth control anyways?

[Fumesucker]

1. Someone who expected them to follow the law?

The law regarding institutions that accept government money...

[zbdent]

7. You know, if it was an "unacceptable" religion getting money from the govt ...

Rush and company would be screaming bloody murder about how the govt had no business "funding" terrorists ...

AAAAAAAND ...

this is how an initially simple idea for a law becomes a 5 pound stack of paper that Boner loves to drop on the floor for dramatic effect ... "Do this. Well, you can do this, but you can't do it for ... and you have to keep XXX from having to pay any fees or ..."

[southernyankeebelle]

8. Well that makes way to much sense.

[mmonk]

35. +1

[FarLeftFist]

3. You mean like a HOSPITAL?!

[HuckleB]

4. If they want to be in the business of health care, they need to provide the best care available.

It's not conscience that keeps one from doing that. It's a lack of a conscience.

[Angry Dragon]

5. I would

[countingbluecars]

6. I have a feeling

most people working at Catholic institutions, including many Catholics, want birth control covered in their health care plans.

[southernyankeebelle]

9. As a catholic I would want it covered and as a catholic I wouldn't go to their hospital to have my

baby.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Which other regulations and laws should religious institutions be allowed to opt out of?

Minimum wage? OSHA requirements? EPA regulations?

[tsuki]

11. I would since we had a catholic hospital imposed on us with no

community input that does not provide adequate health care for women, and has decided that a living will is invalid because they want the dying to suffer.

And we cannot get a scientific hospital in our area because our certificate of need has been filled by a superstitious bunch of misogynists, and you must have a certificate of need to build a hospital.

All hail the monopoly.

[MNBrewer]

12. "Pick a fight"

The fucking Catholic Church has decided it will start it. It deserves a bloody nose, bastard bully that it is.

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/10/minnesota-archbishop-instructs-every-priest-in-the-state-to-push-passage-of-anti-gay-marriage-amendm.html

[HockeyMom]

13. Would you want to be a Rape Victim with only a Catholic Hospital in town?

No Morning After Pill for you. "Make the best of having a rapist's baby". Where have we heard that one? BTW, I am from a place that DID only have a Catholic Hospital in the town.

[Odin2005]

14. Because they coddle sickos who rape kids?

[surfdog]

37. The church had a simple choice

To defend the children being raped , or to defend the rapist

Those sick fuckers are defending the rapist

[PA Democrat]

15. Because 98% of Catholic women have used some form of "banned" birth control.

It's the Church hierarchy that is out of touch.

http://catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2011/IOMsrecommendations.asp

[Warpy]

16. No one expects a Catholic institution to hand out birth control pills

The issue is health insurance, which must cover them. Period.

The church is free to teach everybody that birth control pills pave the way to hell. They just don't get to dictate to insurance companies which standard medical care will and will not be covered.

Are you getting this?

Health insurance companies are separate from Catholic institutions. Non Catholics work at Catholic institutions as well as Catholics. Health insurance covers them all. If they choose to use birth control, then the insurance plan has to cover them. However, no nun or priest will be forced to hand out the packages of pills or insert IUDs.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. I don't think it's picking a fight

But I'm not 100% on board with forcing any religious institution to go against their own teachings.

I anticipate that the Catholic church will either stop offering health care to their employees, or have the insurance company break out the cost of the contraception coverage and add that amount to employees' part of the premium.

[CBHagman]

19. I think you are right on the mark.

Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C., opted to end the practice of offering insurance plans that would also cover an employee's spouse. The reason? D.C. now has same-sex marriage.

The thing is, a gay man or a lesbian, and their respective partners, are just as much in need of health care as the straight or bisexual person. After all, people don't go out and have sex just because they have health insurance, right?

And in some areas, Catholic organizations have dealt with the same-sex spouse or partner issue by adopting rules whereby an employee could have a member of his/her household on the insurance plan (that is, a parent or child or sibling, or, if applicable, a spouse or partner). That struck me as the most humane and fair-minded approach.

As for breaking out the cost of contraceptive coverage, I have a feeling the bishops aren't going to go that route. We've already been through this with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the negotiations for which drove all kinds of weird compromises with pro-life Democrats...and still is mischaracterized as funding abortion.

Full disclosure: I had almost this very same conversation with a priest in my parish on Saturday evening. But that's another thread.

[Tx4obama]

18. Because WOMENS RIGHTS should be protected at 'all times', this is an INSURANCE issue ...

not a religious one.

The Catholic institutions are not being made to purchase and distribute birth control, and it is the insurance company that must give WOMEN the benefits in the insurance policy.

p.s. I am Catholic
and I have no problem with insurance policies offering birth control, everyone will have the right to use the benefit or not to use it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. Catholic institutions are being forced to purchase birth control

Because the premiums they pay for coverage are paying for the contraception.

I also see this as a consistency issue - I'm against allowing pharmacists to opt out of filling prescriptions for contraception or emergency contraception. My belief is that if you don't like the rules of being a pharmacist, you should find another line of work that more suits your personal beliefs.

I see this the same way - everyone knows that the Catholic church opposes birth control. If you want to work someplace that provides birth control coverage, then a Catholic institution should be off the list.

Another option, short of discontinuing coverage, may be to offer health insurance through employment so as to get the group rate, but then make employees pay 100% of the cost.

JMO, YMMV.

[Tx4obama]

21. When you are an 'employer' you should have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

We are not talking about a 'church' and the church 'staff',
the issue is organizations/businesses that employ people.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. We'll just agree to disagree

As I don't think religious institutions of any faith/belief/denomination should have to fund or provide that which is in opposition to their own teachings.

People that disagree are free not to work there, just as pharmacists that don't want to hand out contraception should find another line of work.

I don't believe the Catholic church will budge on this, and the result will be that thousands of people that currently have coverage through their employer will no longer have that available to them.

[Tx4obama]

23. If that were the case then ...

organizations/businesses operated by Jehovah's Witnesses would be asking that insurance companies not allow for blood transfusions.

Etc,

I'm sure there are even more examples out there that show that how employee insurance benefits could be taken away due to religious nitpicking.

Saying that employees can go work somewhere else if they don't like the position of the Church would be like, in my opinion, like saying that African-Americans that weren't allowed to eat at restaurant lunch counters should go find somewhere else to eat.

Civil rights should be the same for everyone.

Access for birth control via an insurance policy should be the same for all workers.

Churches have right to believe what they want to believe and preach whatever it is they wish to preach,
but when an organization/business is employing workers then there are laws and rules that come into play.

p.s. Like you said, we can agree to disagree

[dflprincess]

25. I believe this rule only applies to entities that accept federal funds

So if they don't want to comply with the regulations, they don't have to accept the money.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. No

My understanding is that this has nothing to do with federal funds, but with the health insurance law about what all employer policies must cover, at a minimum.

I just spoke with a friend who teaches at a Catholic school, and she said that they have already been told to be prepared to look for insurance on their own starting next school year. Could just be rumor, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[dflprincess]

29. No, from what I read in the Star Tribune, I had it right.

If a person was working for the church - say as an aide to the Archbishop - any insurance provided would not have to cover birth control.

On the other hand if someone worked at a hospital run by the church but that hosptial accepted Federal funds in any way, then birth control would have to covered. The same would be true of and charity or school that was taking any federal money.

This isn't really a ground breaking decision. Any denomination is free to choose who it allows to be a member of their congregation or clergy even if they have policies that violate the Civil Rights Act. But, any organization run by a church that gets federal money cannot violate the Civil Rights Act and expect to continue to get that money.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. No mention of a federal funds issue

As part of the federal mandate enacted last month, nearly all employers must cover contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which includes birth control pills, sterilization and "morning after" pills -- all of which the Catholic Church morally opposes.

Houses of worship would be exempted under the new rule, but not organizations such as religious-affiliated hospitals, social service agencies and colleges. These organizations will have one year to comply with the new requirement, according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

http://www.startribune.com/local/138538089.html

The only exemptions are for the churches themselves, and it has nothing to do with whether or not federal funds are accepted.

[SharonAnn]

27. Then the Catholic Church shouldn't accept government money (Medicare, etc.)

When they take government money, they have to operate under government rules.

Period.

I'm only OK with them denying birth control coverage if they NEVER take any government money (state or federal).

Since that will never happen, they're stuck.

[DefenseLawyer]

24. I'm still a little sore about the Spanish Inquisition

Though I know holding a grudge isn't really healthy.

[w8liftinglady]

28. I was raised Catholic- my mom and grandparents were good Italian Catholics...

...so were many of my family members.The were also PRO- CHOICE.
My mom,aunts and grandmother have been Planned Parenthood volunteers and activists as long as I can remember. We all have kids.We all believe a woman has a right to safe choice.

Go back to FR now.

[Honeycombe8]

32. Some Catholics are pro-choice, but some are not. The position of the Church...

is that it does not. The bill says they have to offer ALL forms of birth control, even the morning after pill (which is an abortion pill). All forms of bc are against the Church's beliefs, but some in particular are particularly egregious, to them. Notwithstanding the positions of some of its members, like your family.

The point is whether any religion has to sell bc, when its against the beliefs of that religion. It has been exempted from having to do that so far. (It is the Catholic Church and not its members that dictate the beliefs of the Church...we have seen this in refusing to allow female priests, male priests to marry, birth control except for refraining while fertile, etc., etc.)

The OP in particular is questioning whether it was a good move NOW to do this, during a political election year, when the election is going to be tight, and Catholics are swing votes.

I also question whether the timing is good on this one. I also think it was a bad decision. I would tend to think better of it, if it required the selling of the types of bc that aren't abortion. That would be an acceptable compromise, I think, that would accomplish the goal of making bc more accessible, while still giving some respect to the Church's position. This may prompt the Church to cease providing insurance at all.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. I think the church will stop offering insurance

I also think this feeds into slippery slope fears. When the first step is taken to violate freedom of religion, many will fear what the next step will be...

(not my questions, but I can see them being asked) Will the government tell churches that they must allow women priests/ministers or face discrimination suits? Will churches be told that if they perform marriage ceremonies they must open that up to gay couples or face lawsuits? Will religious schools be forced to teach state mandated curriculum?

The only alternatives I see for the Catholic church is to either stop offering health insurance or contract for the group rate but then put 100% of the premium costs onto their employees. Either choice is bad for the employees.

[Honeycombe8]

30. I gotta agree with you on that one, Gus. Bad move, IMO. nt

[GusFring]

34. They're still talking about this on Morning Joe. It's a fight POTUS cant win imo

[GoCubsGo]

40. Rachel Maddow talked about it on the far more widely-viewed "Today Show" this morning.

And, she presents a far more reasoned explanation of why this whole bullshit controversy will not hurt the President, than anything one is going to get from the partisan Morning Joke.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/

[sufrommich]

36. Should Catholic institutions be able to fire gay people too?

Isn't homosexuality a sin? Religion has a right to their medieval views, they don't have a right to make people suffer for them.

[GoCubsGo]

39. They also don't have the right to force their beliefs on non-believers.

Which is what they are trying to do here.

[PeaceNikki]

38. This law does not force using birth control on anyone.

It just insures that medical insurance will cover the cost.

Since there are a variety of methods, a woman needs to seek medical help to make a more informed choice and the best choice for her body. If an individual doesn't believe in birth control methods or abortion - that is their prerogative; Nobody is going to force them personally to have their own abortion/take birth control…nor will anyone judge them over *NOT* taking it. THEIR life is not "ruined" because they've already exercised their freedom of choice by saying "No thank you". However, to deny availability to customers who ARE okay with birth control, abortions etc and want it available…well, that isn't fair to THEIR beliefs…nor is it fair to judge someone choosing to use these practices.

An employer is an employer is an employer, just like a land owner is a land owner is a land owner. I'm really sick and tired of big, corporate churches getting away with not having to adhere to rules the rest of us have to follow. I'll give them the whole not paying property taxes thing, but, when we're talking about how employees are treated? Don't churches have to follow all the rules regarding unemployment comp? Don't they have to follow OSHA rules? Why on earth would they be exempted from following ALL laws that ALL employees have to follow? It's logical that they follow all the rules that ALL employees have to follow!

Birth control is a medication. It is prescribed for many reasons. Yes, also to prevent pregnancy, which will cost the insurance company more money, if a pregnancy occurs

[AngryAmish]

41. Because those assholes need to learn to shut their fucking mouths

Break their backs, make them humble.