<p>hayden, Lol! I was recently on a med that when I looked it up the first google entry that came up said, “Used to treated adrenal problems in ferrets.” Good grief!</p>
<p>“Just curious…after BC becomes ‘free’, what is the next item on the list we should demand?”</p>
<p>What’s this demand business? In the majority of states (especially conservative ones) it’s already a required part of preventive health services. It’s no big deal. In my state, Catholic health systems and hospitals, Catholic colleges and universities, Catholic charities, Catholic social services, even Catholic churches - even the self-insured ones - provide it to their employees, their dependents, and to students, and have for more than a decade. It’s nt big deal. The Archbishop of Seattle has learned to keep his mouth shut - he doesn’t want to offend even more parishioners, and have more money disappear from the collection plates. There’s no “demand”. It’s just women’s health care. The vast majority of Catholics are fine with it, and when they are not, they end up with tens of thousands of abortions. I don’t think that’s a problem either, but I would prefer women had access to safe, effective birth control rather than to an invasive medical procedure.</p>
<p>“I do not think that courts will find any ‘compelling’, a pretty strong word, interest in providing free contraceptives in violation of religious beliefs.”</p>
<p>I would love, just LOVE the elderly men in dresses to take this to court. Just love it. Hundreds and hundreds of Catholic executives, social service providers, nuns, former nuns, housewives, Catholic Planned Parenthood board members, physicians, nurses would come to testify that it doesn’t violate their religious beliefs. But we won’t see it: money before doctrine.</p>
<p>mini: it is available in some of those states because it was ‘demanded’ either by state law or by patients. What is being asked for is coverage free of charge to the end user for this particular medication. THAT is what is being demanded. The preventative physical exams, tests, Dr. visits needed prior to receiving a valid script are already covered. What is being demanded is prescription coverage for this medication without a co-pay requirement. And do you know whether in those states where ‘it’s’ already part of the preventative services the ‘it’ in question must be given to patients without a co-pay? Must this coverage then also be for all name brands or just generics?</p>
<p>
Did the cat attend The Catholic University of America? LeMeowyne College? Marcatte University? </p>
<p>Sorry :)</p>
<p>mini,
In your state, a person can opt out of maternity care, regardless of gender or age. But insurance is insurance, “one never knows when you may need it.” :)</p>
<p>we can’t opt out :(</p>
<p>“mini: it is available in some of those states because it was ‘demanded’ either by state law or by patients. What is being asked for is coverage free of charge to the end user for this particular medication.”</p>
<p>It is EXACTLY the same as all other preventive services offered now and provided FREE by Catholic churches. Both my daughters receive them FOR FREE from our wonderful self-insured Catholic health system (one, by the way, for polycystic ovaries). By the way, they aren’t really “for free” of course. All preventive health services are PAID for through premiums.</p>
<p>But they advertise “Free Preventive Health Services - Covered in Full!”</p>
<p>xaniamom, the proverbial 30 lashes with the wet noodle to you. :)</p>
<p>Mini: what your state does has no bearing on what any other state may or must do when it comes to health insurance. This is because the insurance industry - and the baseball industry are not covered by anti-trust laws. So, as lovely as your policy sounds, I can not buy it because it is not offered in my state. Where you may be able to opt in/opt out of certain features and benefits, I can not. My DH must carry and pay for maternity benefits with any policy he purchases. I have no problem with this being a state by state issue as long as the talking heads in D.C. refuse to address the anti-trust issue. Until then, I fail to see how they even have the power to enact such a legislation.</p>
<p>the original theme of this thread was Contraception availability on Catholic Campuses…my how far we have strayed.</p>
<p>I’m sorry you can’t buy it in your state. It’s the law in my state, as in 27 others. Of course, CM claims that because the plans are self-insured, the Catholic organizations don’t have to offer it. So I guess they (with their 30 member Boards, all good Catholics, and including monsignors and priests an etc.) just think it is good policy, in keeping with their religion. I would LOVE to see them testify in a court case to that effect.</p>
<p>The federal policy is not a legislative matter. The Affordable Care Act just calls for a set of preventive health services that all insurers must provide, to be set by the Department of Health and Human Services. And this is exactly what they did, no different than requiring vaccinations or other preventive health services.</p>
<p>The Blount Amendment offered today shows the opposition to the rules for what it is. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with an attack on women’s health. More than 60% of Catholics supported the original rules that were proposed. I’ll bet the percentage is only going up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there is something in this.
Maybe we can get the FTC-Consumer Protection, to look into false advertising?</p>
<p>There was a great show on the Oprah channel the last two nights which I would recommend to all. She interviewed members of the Hasidic religion in both Boro Park in Brooklyn, and Crown Heights. It was wonderful seeing the level of respect and kindness that Oprah showed for a religion that was basically foreign to her. It was interesting seeing my husbands reaction to the candor of these women and because of that the show managed to do something that I don’t think another interviewer could have done. Oprah managed to encourage these ulta orthodox women to reveal the beliefs and values of how they live. Rather than a non Orthodox person clicking off the remote and saying they don’t understand, it allowed every person watching to gain a respect and understanding of a religion that very few people are even aware of outside of the major cities. It’s interesting how understanding of doctrine is actually key to understanding and accepting other people. That kind of thing would work well here.</p>
<p>^ I agree. I would like to see a thoughtful explanation of Catholic doctrine that makes it clear why birth control is an “intrinsic evil.” I’m Catholic, by the way–and at mass every Sunday–but this is not something that is taught from the pulpit. My children have attended 12 years of Catholic school, and again, although abortion is discussed, preventative birth control has never been the focus of any theology lectures on making moral decisions. And it is not a topic in our parish’s weekend Religious Education program (for Catholic children attending public school). </p>
<p>Consequently, Catholic themselves don’t have a full understanding of the Church’s teaching against contraception. Even as a very liberal “bad” Catholic, I am open to learning about the tenets of my faith. But the bishops proclaim and demand; they do not instruct. And at the grassroots level, the catechists rarely attempt to teach this doctrine–partly because they neither understand nor comply with it, and partly because the greatest number of children in Religious Education are grade school age and too young for any in-depth explanation. By the time Catholic children are grown, sexually active and married, they are not quick to abide by a teaching that was never ingrained in them in the first place.</p>
<p>I don’t see what benefit the explanation of Catholic doctrine about birth control has to non-Catholics. Catholics are, of course, free to practice whatever tenets of their religion they so choose, and if they don’t wish to use birth control, well, more power to them. That isn’t the topic here, though - the topic is - how come it’s been acceptable for 28 states to require Catholic institutions cover health care for women that includes bc, no one has said a peep, but all of a sudden, there’s a hue and a cry over it? Can we say “election-motivated”?</p>
<p>Mary, it must vary by region, etc. I went to Catholic school for 9 years (kindergarten-8th grade) and, at least at my school, which I definitely didn’t consider too conservative, birth control was preached as an evil. We were taught numerous times that you needed to wait until marriage to have sex and even within a marriage, birth control was not acceptable. The reasoning is that sex is solely for procreation. Birth control was never taught to us in sex ed. It was abstinence only.</p>
<p>romanigypsyeyes, I’m sure you’re right. I have lived in three very liberal parishes! Abstinence only was definitely taught, but I guess what I’m saying is by the time abstinence is no longer necessary (i.e., when you are married, according to Catholic teaching), no educational foundation has been laid for believing that contraception is evil (or more accurately, understanding why it is evil). It may be taught in the pre-Cana classes, but by then, it’s too little, too late. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I wasn’t trying to steer things off-topic –- just agreeing with momma-three that sometimes understanding why people think the way they do leads to richer discussion.</p>
<p>DD attended Catholic high school. The first 6 weeks of Freshman religion class was sex-ed. Wow, I could have learned a few things. Contraception was discussed, in frank 3D detail…up, banana and condom test. One of the first things they did was hand out a diagram of male and female parts with the labels blank. DD’s class results were the same as all previous years. The girls knew the name (both medical and slang) for most of the male parts but were lacking in knowledge of their own equipment. Contraception was not billed as evil, it was presented as a fact of life. As for high school sexual activity…her particular instructor gave what I found to be a courageous answer. Women as a whole will connect intimate activity with emotions on a much larger scale than men, especially HS men who are less mature at this time. If your emotions are involved, a little bit of you is given to the person you are intimate with, just ask yourself how many parts you want to give away.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl: the discussion here is Contraception Assistance on Catholic Campuses - as per the thread title. That topic is which I directed most of my responses until I too fell into the mud of making it a referendum on a church law. A law by the way, which has been in place so long that those capable of making it to the institutions of higher learning should have been aware.</p>
<p>The marraige of man and woman is seen as a union in which children are to be born. Any method that might be seen as interferring in the already conceived child is considered abortion. It is believed that the pill creates a hostile environment for conception thus making it unnatural and not within the doctrine of the church.</p>
<p>
They may have given you this impression, but as doctrine it is totally false. Making the point that people are arguing about doctrine even many catholics don’t actually understand.</p>
<p>^ Correct. The first reason for sex is mutual love and support between husband and wife. The second is procreation. Or at least that’s what I learned from the priests and nuns!</p>
<p>sylvan, that’s what we were TOLD. It wasn’t an impression by any means- it was word for word. </p>
<p>I really don’t care. I’m not Catholic. I don’t care what their “truth” is- I’m just telling you what my Catholic school told all of us.</p>