Yesterday, many on the left had a hearty laugh about the statement by Bishop William E. Lori on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the administration’s effort to force the church to violate its principles by paying for insurance coverage for practices it opposes. The left-wing site Talking Points Memo in particular thought it was ludicrous for Bishop Lori to claim a government mandate that Catholic institutions pay for contraception is akin to one that would force Jewish delis to serve pork. To the left, the analogy is ludicrous, because getting free birth control from your employer is, they believe, a constitutional right, and a ham sandwich is merely a whim.
But Lori was absolutely right. The attempt by the president to force all employers, even those whose religious convictions forbid them from doing so, to provide insurance coverage for contraception is no different than a hypothetical law that would require all places that serve food to include non-kosher items on the menu.
As Lori said, the fact that many Jews eat pork does not undermine the right of kosher restaurants to exclude it from the menu. Nor should it obligate them to provide ham or shrimp or cheeseburgers to their non-Jewish employees for lunch. Rather than their refusal to do so being a case of observant Jews “imposing their beliefs” on others, a law that sought to force such restaurants to alter their fare to conform with a government dictat would allow the state to use its power of coercion to run roughshod over the religious beliefs of its citizens.
Lori went even further and analogized the president’s “compromise” on contraception by saying it was no different than if the state allowed the kosher delis to not put pork on its menu and to have its employees serve ham sandwiches but forced them to allow pork distributors to set up kiosks on the premises where free ham sanchwiches would be served, the cost for which would be born by the kosher deli owners.
If the analogy sounds ludicrous it is only because there is no national meal plan to feed Americans in the way that Obamacare has nationalized health insurance. But, as Lori points out, there isn’t any more need for anyone who works at a Catholic institution to get birth control from the church than there is for a pork-craving customer to get ham from a kosher deli. In both cases, there is nothing preventing either person from working someplace else or just going down the block to get the item they want from somewhere else. The attack on the church demonstrates not only the contempt of this administration for religious freedom but the threat that its signature health care bill poses to constitutional liberty.
The impulse to impose these regulations on the church has no more to do with the correctness of the Vatican’s ruling on contraception than the validity of kashrut. Both are religious beliefs that must be respected if we are serious about protecting religious freedom in this republic. Such freedom either exists for all or for none.
Bishop Lori’s statement deserves to be read in full:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”
Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.
The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.
Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”
But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.
First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people, who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.
In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.
In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.” You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.
Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu, and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things.
First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.
This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.
The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.
Never mind. Just tell Grandma it's chicken.
I think a better scenario, because it has to do with health, is this: we have very strong evidence that wine is good for the heart. Now let us say that wine could come to be covered under health insurance — not an impossibility. Imagine the outcry if Islamic organizations were forced to pay for alcohol? I suppose that any Islamic association could in fact complain if it paid for insurance and a doctor advised patients to drink alcohol for the heart. I'm surprised the Muslims haven't pulled a kind of amicus curae with the Catholics on this one. But you can rest assured if Obama made the Muslims do something they did not want to do there would be a hue and cry on the left…
Muslims would not give a s–t and would completely ignore any gov't regulation they did not like. Hell, Muslims do not care one iota about ANY LAW even, passed by a democratic legislature and signed by the executive, that goes against their beloved, incredibly stupid Sharia law.
This and some of the other analogies that others have suggested are equivalent to the imposition of support for birth control are false. They neglect the fact that endless pregnancies can be a serious threat to the health and life of many women, which failing to eat pork or drink wine are not. Doctors should have the discretion to prescribe a birth control regimen to women in this circumstance, and medical necessity should override religious objections to provide or pay for them. This should apply whether it involves transfusions for employees of Jehovah Witness institutions, or surgical procedures that Christian Scientists would rather have cured by prayer. In a world where extremist and often non-traditonal religions are spreading bizarre doctrines, and where even a cult like Scientology has attained the status of a religion, a precedent that allows any relgion to dictate the scope and practice of medical care, and overrule decisions made between doctor and patient is dangerous, and violates the spirit of a nation supposedly devoted to protecting the life, liberty and happiness of its citzenry.
Women who practice natural Family Planning do NOT have 'endless' pregnancies. and practicing this natural way of spacing pregnancies does not put her at risk of blood clots, stroke, and death (it is in the literature for the pill)- it also doesn't release dangerous hormones into your water
Mormon organizations would be upset as well. Mormons do not drink alcohol or caffine.
That is perhaps one of the best analogies to illustrate the absurdity of the government’s “accommodation.” Thank you to Jonathan for posting it and for posting Bishop Lori’s statement in full.
There is, it should be said, a bit of irony in this.
Here is the powerful and influential Catholic Church caught in the throes of an unconstitutional act. To whom do they look for help? To the Jews, of course. Given the history of antisemitism in the church, I am happy (if that’s the right word) that our relations are such that we can help them out, even if it’s just as the protagonist of the parable.
We should all remember that these government attacks on the religious beliefs and practices of others are attacks on the religious beliefs and practices of everyone.
It is indeed a wonderful analogy, but it does not go far enough (perhaps that is part of its strength – forcing even a "weak" transgression is anathema to Americans). I keep kosher and viscerally feel the impact of that analogy, but eating ham is not the same as killing according to any interpretation of Jewish law. Catholics (and concerning abortion, many Evangelicals and Orthodox Jews) view abortion & abortifacient medications as killing, plain and simple.
I'm having trouble with the analogy, even though I'm sympathetic to all the concerns about the infringement on religious liberty and very wary about Obamacare. As a Jew, if I were strictly observant, I could still serve a ham sandwich to my non-Jewish neighbor, and that wouldn't violate my conscience in any way. Kashrut in particular is not something Judaism is trying to spread to a larger world. It is not observed for health benefits but because it serves as a way to separate Jews from Non-Jews. In that sense, Kashrut's relationship to Judaism seems very different from the role that contraception plays in the Catholic mindset.
Do not forget that the last surviving person who hid Anne Frank & family from the Nazis — and who rescued her diary — Mep Gies — was Catholic. My guess is that her husband was too.
There’s a fundamental problem though that the Church can’t rise above: its congregations live in the modern world. They contracept in large numbers and they abort. n nCK, at today’s Post is right: President Obama won this round easily. But he’s wrong that it was a “brilliant sleight of hand,” it was readily found, lying faded white and perfectly folded, upon a shelf at high-haunch. n nWhen members of a religious body in overwhelming numbers live their lives not in accordance with the doctrine of that religious body how can you possibly expect anything other than capitulation? n nIn addition, the bishops, who have long forgotten that theirs is a Teaching and not Political Office, have retained so little moral authority they’ve been reduced to this state of subjection. n nA protracted fight on moral ground is not something they can sustain. That’s not opinion, it is fact: if the situation that prevails between Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bernard Law prevailed with your next door neighbor, you wouldn’t even share a meal with him. If you think that’s meaningless, you’re wrong.
mutniy…" posting is totally irrational. nIt does not matter one whit whether the people do or do not practice that particular aspect of theri lives. Bishop Lori has it exactly right. n
"When members of a religious body in overwhelming numbers live their lives not in accordance with the doctrine of that religious body how can you possibly expect anything other than capitulation?" nYour premise is valid only if we accept that those who do not practice a religion are, nonetheless, "members" of it. Under your argument, how can kosher practices possibly survive when non-practicing ethnic jews do not follow them? nSit back and watch, my friend. I think you will find the Church emerging rather stronger from this persecution, and I suspect that my great-grandchildren will be able to find a kosher restaurant in which to dine, if they chose to do so.
I do not understand why the fact that many Catholics are incompletely observant of the tenets of their faith — a circumstance that surely obtains in all religions at all times — makes one whit of difference. The Church — the largest in the US — teaches clearly that contraception, sterilization and the morning-after pill are morally wrong. The government forcing the Church to supply these things to its employees is abhorrent and unconstitutional.
There is a point to this analogy with kosher laws that I do not think is addressed by either Bishop Lori, or your post: I am not a rabbinic authority, but by bringing pork, or other non-kosher foods into an establishment, aren't you are destroying the kosher nature of the restaurant? For example, you cannot serve milk and meat using the same plates if you are keeping kosher. The government can't tell religious jews to ignore those rules without negating religious freedom. And by the way, since there is no one authority in judaism, not everyone will follow the same rules regarding kosher, but the government in the US certainly should not be the arbiter. n nI will leave it to others to discuss if this strentghens or weakens the analogy.
HSC:__Although it may seem to take the analogy too far into the minutae of halacha (Jewish Law), your point in fact does significantly strengthen the analogy. This isn't a minor transgression the government is demanding of Catholics (and those non-Catholics who believe similarly) – the government is insisting that the Catholic institutions do what they consider a violation of "Thou shalt not kill," whether or not the almighty HHS or you or I agree with that interpretation of the proscription. Try telling someone you are true to your religious beliefs "except for the part about killing." That would be as farcical, though far more serious (I say that as someone who keeps kosher), as saying "I run a kosher restaurant except for the ham sandwiches & cheeseburgers." Kind of negates the whole enterprise, doesn't it?
I think the compromise that Obama proposed balances adequately the competing claims of Catholic institutional conscience and the general right to contraceptive services thought to be in the public interest. If the original exemption was too narrow, Obama repositioned the church state line here by not having Catholic institutions directly pay for the insurance that provides the services to which they object to its employees who want them and who may or may not be Catholic. The cost shifting for these services is more than an accounting gimmick. It’s a symbolic and real difference compared to direct payment and reflects accommodation. The continued objection wants these more publicy based institutions to be able to provide insurance that does not cover contraceptive services. That means the employees have to go into their pocket, unlike all other employees, to get the contraceptiion. The continued objection does not want interests balanced. It wants the complete elimination of the provision of contraception. If the choice was an irreducible one between the claims of conscience by public purposes Catholic organizations and the the health needs and rights of their employees, the latter would have to prevail. The objectors should be happy that the choice was not irreducible and and that an accommodation is possible. Once the objectors rejected the accommodation and insisted on the unilaterality of their views, they stepped out of public sympathy and stuck themselves with a-to-them principled position that violates the balancing the Constitution’s guarantees need to make them intelligible and workable in a pluralistic, democratic society.
What "right" to contraceptive services is the Catholic church trying to take away from anybody? Anyone in America can walk in to any drug store and buy all the contraceptives they want to. The issue here is religious liberty versus an unchecked government bossing everybody around all the time in so many ways.
I'm going to take a wild leap here, 5d9j32nkd, and say that you are a man. Your perspective of what constitutes contraception makes it painfully obvious. Yes, anyone in America can walk into a drug store and by CONDOMS. Which rely on the man to put on properly. Any fairly intelligent woman knows that you have to take contraception into your own hands, which means the Pill. My employer does not have the right to interfere in MY religious liberty. Nor to know my beliefs on the subject, which they would if I had to sign up for separate contraception coverage. n n(this is, of course, assuming that you are having consentual sex. women who are being abused then have absolutely no option in this case, and must birth the children that are conceived of their rape) n
Yes Beth I am a man. Cannot any woman walk into any drugstore and buy as many PILLS as she wants to? All I am saying is that it is gov't. tyranny to force decent people of faith, who are doing no harm to anybody else, to be forced to PAY for actions/substances that go against their inner conscience. And by the way, I am not Catholic.
Having stood in line behind women purchasing distinctive round containers, the only difference I notice is that the medications I need to KEEP ME ALIVE cost me more than her B/C bag did. nAnd now, hes are free while mine go up to pay for that???? n nAnd exactly how many pregnancies occur from rape? I once heard less than 1% of all abortions and that is if you were stretching the definition of rape.
No, the issue is the provision of contraceptive services to those who want them and are to be insured for them just like all other Americans in balance with the the claims of religious intuitional conscience. Saying that those employees who want the to be insured services can buy them is just as misconceived as saying the issue is contraception and not the claim of religious liberty. The former is an equally insensitive argument coming from the opposite perspective to the lattter.
I am not here to be sensitive. I am only trying (with futility it seems) to somehow help shore up liberty and Western Civilization. Do you think when the Chinese are running half of the world and the Muslims are running the other half, they are going to give a god—- about "being sensitive"?
Sent from my iPad
Hormonal contraceptives (in pill, injection, ring, or subcutaneous form), diaphragms, and IUDs all require physician examination, prescription, and/or administration. Different forms are prescribed and/or administered based on the physiology of the individual and the intended medical function of the contraceptive. n nThere are many different devices, procedures, and medications categorized as contraceptives, and their use is not limited to elective pregnancy prevention. Millions of American women are prescribed hormonal contraceptives to treat uterine and ovarian disorders, and in these cases the contraceptive effect is a side effect rather than the main medical function. Condoms, spermicides, and other over-the-counter contraceptives do not treat these conditions. n nAsserting that "anyone in America can walk in to any drug store and buy contraceptives" is equivalent to asserting that anyone in America can walk in to any drug store and buy pills. It's technically true, but medically irrelevant. There are many types of pills, pills serve different functions for different patients, any poison control center will tell you that pills are not all interchangable, and pills sell for prices ranging from pennies to thousands of dollars apiece. n nMany women use contraception under physician orders because pregnancy would be extremely hazardous, or even fatal. Contraception saves their health, saves their lives, and (from a coldly utilitarian viewpoint) saves tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment. n nIn the same way that an employer who is not a physician or pharmacist is not qualified or authorized to manage anyone's pills, an employer is not qualified or authorized to manage anyone's contraception.
Christ in the Scriptures said," Life is full of trials and tribulations." I am sorry to sound harsh,but if you are a woman and you cannot become pregnant because it would endanger your health, then 1: Buy your own health insurance that provides contraceptive coverage. 2: Do not have sex with a man who is not sterile. 3: Masturbate till your heart is content. 4: Become a lesbian. 5: Become celibate. In the Bible God says, "I knew you when you were in your mother's womb." I do not remember God saying in the Bible that Life is easy or that there is a universal "right" to contraceptives or abortion. I personally do not have a problem with contraception. I do however, have a problem with unchecked gov't power run by left-wingers and liberals forcing decent people of faith, who have done no harm to anybody else, to go against their inner conscience. Remember God said, " I knew YOU when you were in your mother's womb. Think deeply about that statement from God; that statement did not come from me:5d9j32nkd.
I'm fairly certain that few who oppose contraception on religious grounds advocate lesbianism as some sort of medical alternative. n nThank you for your response. Its patent absurdity is wonderfully revelatory of the irrational nature your position. n
Read my comment Alyson; in the comment I wrote," I personally do not have a problem with contraception." I am also not advocating lesbianism. I am simply trying to retain SOME liberty from the Federal nanny-state gov't. in this country of ours.
AND??? n nThere has never been a challenge to paying for the office visit to the Doctor. nYou get a script from your doctor. nWhy do you have to make your employer pay to fill it? Why not pay for the pills yourself? n nNO ONE is saying you can't see your OB/GYN. No one is saying that….
Completely agree.
NO employer, or individual in any capacity, should be forced to provide any product – for free or at a price – by the Federal government. Any such action – of which there are admittedly under current laws – is unconstitutional and violates our basic right to individual liberty, property, and free trade. n nIt's something of a wonder, given how far Obama and cronies have pushed us in the direction of a totalitarian dictatorship (admittedly with plenty of acquiescence and sometimes active aid of Republicans), why there isn't a widespread movement calling for them all to be tried and imprisoned, or at least large general protests. No doubt, the public school system and media have done their jobs well over the past three generations softening up the hazy-thinking citizenry to tolerate just this sort of thing.
If I tell you I don't like what you're saying, that's not "censorship." Likewise, if I don't sell you something that you can get somewhere else, that's not "banning." n nThe very definition of fascism is the total control of society by the state. Today those who accuse anyone who would opposed them as "fascists" are in fact the greatest fascists of all.
You are exactly right.
"The continued objection does not want interests balanced." n nSo true. The Church recognizes that the Constitution guarantees its interest in the free exercise of religion, whereas the Obama Administration's abuse of discretion in declaring birth control part of a minimum package of "preventative care", is not only not required by the Constitution or the Affordable Care Act, it's probably illegal. n nSeeking to "balance" guaranteed rights and abusive policies defeats the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights.
And ALL mosques MUST have a barbaque Pork festival INSIDE the mosque on every Saturday!
And then they MUST provide free beer and the rock band AC/DC MUST come to provide one helluva great concert that Saturday night.
And the toilet paper must be made from recycled Korans….
I am not aware of any food law requirements in federal guidelines to receive federal grants or subsidies. Evan when you apply for unemployment insurance you have to be ready, willing, able and currently looking for work. The Catholic Church is trying to dictate the terms and conditions before it will accept a government hand out to stay afloat when every Catholic knows that if a Catholic community cannot support a Catholic Church, school, hospital, orphanage or anything else Catholic. The Catholic Church will lock the doors and board up the windows. So please stop trying to make this government dictating religious policy to the Catholic Church. This is the Catholic Church trying to dictate government. policy to the United States government. If the Church is not willing to follow federal guide lines they should not apply for federal funds. Your pork chop argument is totally out of context and makes you less credible for trying to make it.
And all comments must meet the halal test before they will be posted in the koranic web site.
I do not understand how any Catholic or for that matter any person of Conscience still support this Fascist tactic to diminish religous freedom.
I agree with opposition to the gov't mandate here, but a future government interference in Kosher establishments is not quite as farfetched as in the parable, since in some (how many?) states at least the use of the term "kosher" has legal force and at the state level has been legislated about. Of course the Orthodox community has an interest in legal enforcement–a meat packer cannot legally call his pork 'kosher'–but have no doubt–the government foot is in the door.
The only ones forced to do anything are insurance companies. Catholics are not forced to provide contraceptives. The law ALLOWS them to be insured for contraceptives, IF THEY WANT IT. Do you oh-so-pious people even begin to understand the difference between forced and allowed?
And do you understand the difference between the Catholic Church and its employees? The former are being forced to offer insurance plans that offer free contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients. The latter are being allowed to receive these things free of charge.
They are not "receiving things free of charge" any more than your paycheck is a "gift." Contraception is sometimes part of prescribed preventative medical coverage, which many employee earn as a part of compensation.
And if you work for an employer who has a religious objection to part of this, and who told you this before you started your job (or who was so open about it that you had to know), then you just aren't compensated as much as if you work for a secular employer. n nDon't like it, go look for another job…. n
This imposition of government diktat will end when Obama tries to do something like this, and Muslims object, rather than Catholics or Jews.
look, we’re not talking about contraceptives for convents here. nobody is asking them to hand out birth control pills and rubbers at the church door. the catholics want it both ways: they want to run public businesses in the secular sphere but then cry religious intolerance when they are expected to follow the same rules as other businesses. if their catholic employees were not availing themselves of the insurance coverage then there would be no issue but we know that most catholics do use contraceptives despite their church’s teaching and when the catholics hire employees who are not of their faith, those employees deserve the same coverage they would have if they were working for any other business. we can't allow every employer to claim 'religious liberty' in order to pick and choose which laws covering hiring and employment they will follow.
Ajfneri nthats a crock. your arguement is complete bs. the reason i call it bs is because the church is NOT dictating to the governement and the church is not requesting any financial help from the government. its actually the exact opposite , the government is telling the church that they MUST pay for abortions , a lot of people keep bringing it up as contraceptives which are a technical nono in the church but believe me when i say it would not be as big an issue with the church if abortifacents (sp?) were not included under the heading of contraceptives. they shouldnt be anyways since contraceptives prevent pregnancy and abortifacents end one. the Church is fully in the right on this one. the govt has NO business telling the Church that it must pay for something that violates one of the biggest laws of the church , Thou shalt not Kill. this issue is not about federal grants and said grants have nothing to do with the arguement therefore your supposition that the church is dictating to the govt while expecting funds is moot. there are NO monies from the govt to the church involved all monies involved are being required by the govt to be paid to private parties for the express purpose of violating a MAJOR tenet of the Catholic faith. nice try but it doesnt wash
The analogy conflates two different economic concepts: a company's products (including services) versus a company's compensation of employees. Morally and legally, there is great difference between the two. n nCompanies are not legally required to offer compensation in exchange for (non-forced) labor, but they must offer compensation in order to attract labor. There are various categories of compensation an employer and employee may agree to, such as wages, commissions, percentage stake in the company, and health benefits. These categories are each legally defined to protect the liability of of the employer and the privacy and liberty of the employee. n nFor example, the existence and rate of wages is negotiable, but if a company agrees to pay wages, those wages must be issued in government currency; U.S. law has long since categorized wages issued in the form of private currency (like that once issued in some coal-mining company towns) as undue employer infringement on the rights of the employee to spend wages at personal discretion. The employee legally must not be limited to the "company store" and employer housing, but must be free to shop for the best prices, to save, to squander, and to spend money on things that the employer would find morally abhorrent. The wages are not a gift from the employer, they are the negotiated compensation due the employee. The employer is not required to buy or sell ham sandwiches, but if the employer offers compensation in the form of wages, the wages must be paid in government currency that the employee is free to save or spend on anything legal, including ham sandwiches. It is not legal to promise wages, then pay in credit good only at kosher delis and other employer-approved vendors. The latter scenario would infringe on the employee's economic liberty and personal freedom of conscience. n nHealth care is another type of compensation, and like wages it comes in defined categories, such as preventative, dental, and vision benefits. There is less employee freedom here in that dental benefits must be spent on dental care (rather than on entertainment or utility bills), and like wages benefits have financial limits, but the specific content of dental care is not up to the employer. The dentist and patient determine whether the patient gets nitrous oxide, whether or not the employer believes that novocaine would suffice. n nContraception is medically categorized as preventative care, and hormonal birth control is prescribed not only to prevent pregnancy but also to treat a variety of medical problems. The employer's beliefs do not change that medical category. If preventative care is part of the employee's compensation, then the employee is free to receive and use that benefit at a physician's discretion. It is a form of compensation, not a gift. n nIf the employer has the right to exclude contraception, blood transfusions, invasive procedures, animal-based drug products, or other legal physician-authorized care that the employer finds morally objectionable, that means the employer has the right to limit the employee's liberty to use earned compensation. In the same way that employers are no longer legally able to limit employee economic freedom by offering wages in private currency, employers are no longer legally able to limit employee medical freedom of conscience by interfering with physician-authorized use of preventative care benefits. n nThe law does not offer Jehovah's Witness or Scientologist employers a special license to limit employee liberty in this way. The greater size and social cache of the Catholic church should not earn it better or worse legal standing. Employees negotiate for and earn compensation, and have the legal and moral right to use that compensation.
Why does the State of Alaska pay K-12 teachers about twice what some other states do? n nIf Catholic employers don't pay for birth control pills, and this is so important to the employees, they will have to start compensating them some other way or not have anyone working for them. n nIt really is that simple — the Catholic Church isn't dragging women off the sidewalk like the press gangs of 18th Century England, the women working for them have chosen to do so. And can go work for Joe's Abortion Clinic instead if they so choose.
By your definition, I am required to purchase my health care at the "company store." n nI am required to purchase the plan the company offers — which may include a lot of things I don't want. n nYour circular logic is so circular that you have defeated your own argument.
The argument that choosing a new job is equivalent to choosing a new restaurant is specious in that the latter is a trivial pursuit whereas the former has a major influence on one's life. Moreover, the President's solution that allows women to get contraceptives without the church explicitly paying the bill seems to me a fair compromise. This issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment's right of free practice of religion and everything to do with a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear children. n n n n
Please tell me why they should get them for FREE when I have to pay for my pills????
Also, assuming any employee is under age 65, that means that the Catholic Church wasn't saying what it now is about abortion & B/C back 45 years ago. When was Vatican II? Yep — it has been quite consistent in what it believes, and while you have a point about choosing to change employers, these folk made the initial choice to work there at some point. THAT is the choice they made — and now have to live with it.
This is nothing. Wait until they come after circumcision . . .
When the Catholic Church cleans up its pedophilia problem, it might have some moral standing to talk about contraception. n nMeanwhile, as long as we have an employer-based health insurance system, they should have to provide health insurance that meets the needs of all their employees including the large number of their employees who are not Catholics. That includes coverage for contraceptives for those of their workers who choose to use them (which — by the way — includes a fairly large percentage of their Catholic workers.)
I have auto insurance. It pays for me totalling my car, hurting others and such. n nIt does not pay for an oil change, I did that myself the other day. It does not pay for new tires. nIt does not pay for a new battery. It does not pay for lots of maintenance stuff — only CATASTROPHIC UNUSUAL EXPENSES. n nIf a woman ha an allergic reaction to a birth control pill, yes that is what insurance is for. nBut not to buy the pill. It is like me paying someone to buy me my tires — I get a better deal if I buy them directly and not pay a middleman, and I get the ones I want as well.
I do not care for Obama, but requiring employers to provide insurance for contraception, particularly condoms, is good. The church is an employer and should provide this important medical benefit. It can and does prevent serious diseases that kill and maim millions of people every year. If it was discovered that pork would prevent cancer, then Jews, orthodox and all, should change their ways and endorse the consumption of pork. At the least those who want it should be supported to obtain pork wherever they can get it. The GOP appears continue to raise 'social' issues that will get Obama reelected. Apparently, we will have a choice in November of which fool we should vote for. That is exactly why so many don't bother vote at all in this country.
War on religion? Don’t make me laugh. The Republicans and Tea-publicans need a big distraction from the sorry set of presidential candidates that they have fielded. And the churches need a big distraction from all those costly court settlements – a way to rally their dispirited troops, in a a fake “war on religion”. One of the legitimate functions of government is to promote equality and fairness for all, by having everyone play by the same rules. Absolutely NO ONE is coming into our Churches and trying to tell parishioners what to believe…or forcing them to use contraception. BUT If the Bishops (and other denominations) want to start businesses that employ millions of people of varying faiths -or no "faith" at all- THEN they must play by the rules that other workers live by. ..ESPECIALLY if the churches use our tax dollars in the process. Just because a religious group in America claims to believe something, we cannot excuse them from obeying the law in the PUBLIC arena, based on that belief. They can legally attempt to change the law, not to deny it outright. And if they want to plunge overtly into politics from the pulpit, then they should give up their tax-exempt status. Are they churches, or are they super-pacs? They need to decide.- or have the IRS decide for them. Did I miss something, or when it comes to the "sanctity of life", is every single righteous Catholic still a card carrying conscientious objector, still refusing to take up arms, still totally against the death penalty, and still against contraception and birth-control in all its forms? Oh well, hypocrisy is often at the heart of politics, and politics masquerading as religion even more so. This country is an invigorating mixture of all the diversity that life has to offer, drawing its strength FROM that diversity. But TRUE religious freedom gives everyone the right to make personal decisions, including whether to use birth control, based on our own beliefs and according to what is best for our health and our families. It fiercely protects the rights of all of us to practice our faith. It does not, however, give anyone, including the bishops, the right to impose their beliefs on others and discriminate in the name of religious liberty. People of faith should not let themselves be used as pawns in a fake war “against religion”’. The ONLY war going on here is a war against women and families who want to control their own futures. THAT’S what I call liberty! It’s a war …a war between the lies about religious liberty, and the truth. Don’t believe the hype! Think for yourself! Postcript: An interesting point to consider is this: Mitt Romney tried to score some points by telling us that his dad was born in Mexico. HOWEVER, the REASON for that was that his Mormon Grand-dad LEFT the US in the 1880’s because laws against polygamy were passed in the US (and being a Mormon, his Grand-dad wanted to keep his multiple wives). SO… if we follow the “logic” of the people crying crocodile tears about a non-existent “war on religion”, then the US should have allowed polygamy (and who knows what else) just because a particular religion claimed it as their belief. GIVE ME A BREAK! n
Hmm. An interesting comment from Mr. Tobin, whom, I hope, unlike me, is currently doing a better job of observing Sabbat. n nThe question seems to me, something more like, if 98% of Jews wanted to eat catfish, would they be Kosher? n nLooking at the number of cars parked outside most Synagogues in the US on Yom Kippur– a day when I walk– I think the answer just may be "yes."
Good point. n nAnd remember too that no state trooper really expects that the 65 MPH sign means that traffic will not be going faster — they usually don't bother you for anythng less than 70, usually 75. n nCould it be that humans need a line in the sand to cross just a little bit — and if you remove that line because everyone crosses it, the question then becomes what is the next line we cross just a little bit….
Not being aware of Bishop Lori's letter, the following questions were raised with Representative Lowey several days ago; nRepresentative Lowey,your response to my original email failed completely to respond to the specific issue raised. Does the Obama administration have the constitutional right to order individuals, corporations, religious and charitable organizations to purchase anything, including health insurance? Does the Obama administration have the constitutional right to order companies to provide goods and service free? If so can the government order kosher stores to sell pork, Muslim stores to sell alcoholic drinks, religious book stores to sell porno? This is not a question of condoms, contraceptives and abortion which I never mentioned it is about the limits of dictatorial powers of an out of control executive branch of government. n ncc,Senator Schumer
Not being aware of Bishop Lori's letter, the following questions were raised with Representative Lowey several days ago; nRepresentative Lowey,your response to my original email failed completely to respond to the specific issue raised. Does the Obama administration have the constitutional right to order individuals, corporations, religious and charitable organizations to purchase anything, including health insurance? Does the Obama administration have the constitutional right to order companies to provide goods and service free? If so can the government order kosher stores to sell pork, Muslim stores to sell alcoholic drinks, religious book stores to sell porno? This is not a question of condoms, contraceptives and abortion which I never mentioned it is about the limits of dictatorial powers of an out of control executive branch of government.
5d9j32nkd says:
February 19, 2012 at 10:22 am
I am not here to be sensitive. I am only trying (with futility it seems) to somehow help shore up liberty and Western Civilization. Do you think when the Chinese are running half of the world and the Muslims are running the other half, they are going to give a god—- about “being sensitive”?
You misconceive my use of the word sensitive. Substitute nuance for sensitive and you’ll get my point, I think.
I am a Orthodox Chasidic Jew and I fail so to see the pork analogy. n nNobody forces the Cathoic Church to operate Hospitals or to offer Health Insurance for its employees. n nThe reason employers in the U.S. offer health insurance instead of plain cash, is for the tax advantage to both the employers and their workers, as cash is taxed and health benefits are not. We all agree that a Company which decides to provide its workers with voodoo spells or prayers for that matter, cannot in turn claim a tax exemption for such 'treatments'. n nIt is the government's prerogative to delineate which coverage constitutes coverage and what should be part of a minimal insurance package, in order to qualify as a tax benefit. The Catholic Church should have the option not to offer coverage at all, as many companies in the US do not offer health benefits. Even with the new Obamacare mandate; the church can offer a worker to pay him/her cash to buy themselves coverage on the open market and then compensate the worker on any tax loss. My Orthodox observance has extra costs too, [i.e.keeping kosher] that I willingly pay. Similarly the Church should willing to pay for its principled beliefs. n nThe analogy to pork only works if -for instance- my company wins a concession to feed the military or a prison; then the government would have the absolute right to demand pork to be on the menu. It would definitely be a sin for me to feed a Jew in the military pork, [as it would be analogous to putting a stumbling block before a blind person], but I have an option: I, like the Catholic church, would have a choice either not to be in this business or to comply. n n
Your Inner Voice; I believe you are exactly right.