<p>
</p>
<p>This administration has said no such thing. Most women in the United States do not want a pregnancy to result from every sexual encounter for their entire reproductive lives.</p>
<p>I don’t see what is so hard to understand about that or why you would go off in the wood on some odd idea that it means that pregnancy is seen as a disease.</p>
<p>Hanna, Thank you for explaining this,
</p>
<p>“And by mandating ALL do that which some VOLUNTARILY did thus forcing the issue of the moral objection have awoken a rather angry bear.”</p>
<p>Nope. You got that wrong again. The laws in all 28 states MANDATED the provision of contraceptive services. Period. (In 8 states, they MANDATED that church employers do so as well.) Those who did so voluntarily didn’t get to make the choice because they were religious, but (according to Claremarie, and I’ll take her word for it), because they are self-insured. Boeing, for example, is self-ensured, as is Weyerhauser, etc., etc.) The voluntary nature had nothing to do with religion.</p>
<p>And let’s be clear: the Administration’s rules just followed the accepted practices in those 28 often heavily Catholic states. They made no “new” determination.</p>
<p>Fortunately (in my view), even the self-insured chose to provide the services. Catholic churches themselves, Catholic hospitals, Catholic social services, Catholic health systems, Catholic colleges and universities - they all provide the services. They are services that Catholics want, and Catholics use, and those providing them - with priests and monsignors and nuns and church-goers on their boards - don’t seem to have a doctrinal problem in providing them.</p>
<p>I love this “awakened bear”. It is the best thing to happen to the Administration - and to all women - this year.</p>
<p>07DAD: Whether the rank and file likes it, approves of it, follows it, or ‘cares’ is mute because the Catholic church is run just like a large company. </p>
<p>DS goes to a Catholic high school. They have a dress and hair code in place. It is rarely if ever enforced. No one cares. However, you can bet your communion wafer that if the local city came in and said - here is OUR dress code and you must follow it…everyone must now wear XYZ and you - dear school - must provide it…there would be a return to the letter of the law.</p>
<p>I personally would love to see this policy change. There are some very good books written about the what actually happened inside the Vatican during the process of ‘making law’ on the issue of contraception. The dissent within the ranks at the time of the vote was huge! And, in the end it was a political power maneuver which was no different than what happens in a secular government. However, when pushed, the men with the big hats will throw down the gavel and enforce the law on the books. Thus the mandate awoke the bear.</p>
<p>It is indeed an odd idea that pregnancy is regarded as a disease or illness to be prevented. But that is what the HHS, in its infinite and expanding wisdom, has determined, and that is why contraception is included within the category of preventive services that must be provided without any charge to the patient. </p>
<p>Those who argue that millions of women take oral contraceptives for medical, non-contraceptive reasons are missing the point – the ONLY reason that those drugs will be on the list is because they are FDA-approved contraceptives. If your doctor prescribes a different medication to control your migraines or PCOS, you’re out of luck. Not covered.</p>
<p>Mini: simply put, your point of view is that a religious belief has no place in healthcare. Even if the healthcare provider is very clearly a member of that religion. And as I stated before, you find your right to a service (note…the law in 28 states has not been in place since 1776 and thus is a newly granted ‘right’) trumps any and all moral objections held by the provider. I understand your point very clearly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reminds me of the Texas saying–“Big Hat, no cattle.”</p>
<p>Brazil just started a national program to provide birth control which included a pro BC/abortion speach by the Catholic president while the Pope was in Brazil visiting. </p>
<p>Mexico City just spproved an ordinance that allows legal early pregnancy abortions.</p>
<p>The CEO has lost control over the rank and file.</p>
<p>dietz,</p>
<p>The Church doesn’t “enforce” its teaching on artificial contraception like a dress code. As we all know, plenty of “practicing” Catholics disregard that teaching, and they still come to Mass and receive communion, even though most of them have put themselves in a state of mortal sin that makes them ineligible for the sacrament. Just as large numbers of Catholics regularly violate Church teachings against greed, envy, and coveting one’s neighbor’s goods. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a haven for saints. Sinners who know they are sinners can repent, confess, and start over. Sinners who think they are saints are a different story, and the Church has little power over them, despite what many critics of the elderly men in dresses have posted.</p>
<p>Ah…but is easier to be a saint than to live with one :)</p>
<p>And I applaud the the speaker in Brazil. And atta boy to Mexico…do you know if either of these countries are mandating their catholic healthcare providers to provide these services? Or are they provided by state/national facilities?</p>
<p>And I agree the CEO has lost control. I would caution against assuming ‘big hat - no cattle’ applies. It could get quite ugly if Catholic services decides to pull out of markets or stop any of their many many supportive works in communities. When guys behind the guy with the big hat go up against the guy with the mandate pen and his assorted minions…think clash of the titans.</p>
<p>“There are some very good books written about the what actually happened inside the Vatican during the process of ‘making law’ on the issue of contraception. The dissent within the ranks at the time of the vote was huge!”</p>
<p>Yes, but in the end, the vicar of Christ made his decision. It wasn’t up for a vote. And because the priests and bishops who have come of age since the 1960s are considerably more orthodox and faithful to the Church’s teachings than their predecessors, it’s hard to understand how the dwindling number of “dissenters” within the Church can continue to believe that some future Pope will cave to the culture. It’s not going to happen.</p>
<p>Living with a true saint would be wonderful. It’s living with a sinner who THINKS he is a saint that is trying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is indeed, clairemarie, and I can’t understand why you should hold such a belief. The rest of us think pregnancy is a medical condition that women often want to prevent.</p>
<p>Mini; I sit here reading the latest love note from my insurance co:…“prescription drug plan is amended. Drugs obtained at a Non-Participating pharmacy are not covered, unless Medically Necessary for a covered emergency, including Drugs for emergency contraception.” So, unless I have an emergency… I need to go to a participating pharmacy because not everyone will cover me . Is this an undue burden…should I ask for a mandate that ALL pharmacies are required to participate?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Vicar at the time was leaning the other way. The outstanding question was whether or not the pill was an abortifactant. They went under the assumption that it was, we since know that it is not. Humane Vita was written at a later time and arguably did a bit of ‘back fill’ on history. And I disagree with your prediction…I think this dogma will change and horror of horror …at some time women will be ordained. The ban on ordination was also a politically motivated move by the early church. I just disagree with the posters who find it not only necessary, but their right to enforce the change by secular mandate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I work for the Catholic Church and sadly, this is exactly how pregnancy is viewed under the terms of our employee benefits—as an illness. Despite the fact that the Church teaches that birth control is unacceptable, female Archdiocesan employees do not receive any paid maternity leave. Per the employee handbook, a pregnant woman must use her sick days if she wants any paid time off before or after the birth of her child. If she used her sick days to actually be sick, she’s out of luck. (FMLA is unpaid.) In this way, the Church as an employer penalizes women who heed Catholic doctrine, and does not take responsibility for the consequences of its teaching.</p>
<p>So, to solve this conundrum, why don’t all the Catholic owned businesses in the United States only hire Catholics? Only Catholic doctors, nurses, professors, teachers, pharmacists, techs, custodians, administrators… If there were only Catholic employees, I sincerely doubt whether anyone would care about whether birth control, tubal legations, vasectomies or anything else was covered by insurance. Surely the Catholic employees would be fine with whatever the Catholic church wanted to have covered by insurance.</p>
<p>Eastcoascrazy; been thinking that myself…problem solved…let’s take a vote.</p>
<p>In the mean time…I think I’ll take myself over to an easy thread, something quite clearly black and white to everyone…something along the lines of …is it worth 55K+ to send your kid to school XYZ and is it possible to have a any kind of worth while life if you don’t attend an Ivy. I’ll report back with the answers…</p>
<p>No marginal or dissident Catholics allowed in your scenario, eastcoastcrazy. Only the good ones…</p>
<p>“simply put, your point of view is that a religious belief has no place in healthcare”</p>
<p>I’d narrow that in an important way. I think many of us are saying that YOUR religious belief has no place in MY health care. Religious belief ought to play an important role in making medical judgments for oneself and one’s dependents.</p>
<p>dietz,</p>
<p>You may well WANT women to be ordained, but that issue, too, has been definitively resolved in the negative. And “we” know that some forms of oral contraceptives prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, which the Catholic Church regards as a chemical abortion. The Church teachings on both these points are quite clear. Have you read them?</p>