religious employers must cover birth control

[diggitydot]

I think it's safe to assume that ANY subject that even remotely brushes up against religion or reproductive choices is going to automatically become a debate.

Truly, I don't have a problem with any large employer having to follow federal laws. No one is forcing people to TAKE pharmaceutical contraceptives, just making the insurer cover them as part of the preventative care coverage, so I don't agree with the religious freedom angle. I also don't agree with a lot of things covered by my insurer (like phony boner pills for octogenarians), but another person's medical issues are none of my business.

Also, Plan B is not an abortifacient. It doesn't affect an existing pregnancy.

[Phoebe]

Dh works for a Catholic hospital and we aren't Catholic. I am happy to see BC needs to be paid for by the employer. Religious issues aside. However, I think a lot can happen in a year.

[HouseofWool]

I get frustrated with this. I currently use a hospital that is Catholic. Their providers are not allowed to perform a tubal ligation or Essure at their facility, but can do a vasectomy. If I wanted either done, it would have to be at the other hospital in town using their ancillary staff but my doctor. The double standard isn't right.

[Chrisada]

DH works for a large Catholic hospital and I and many many others are very happy with the decision. It's ridiculous that we pay for insurance and can't get an IUD covered. And the vast majority of employees at this hospital are not Catholic. It's a part of a very large Health System and is under the same management as the non-Catholic facilities. So should they also not cover out of wedlock births for their employees because it goes against the Catholic faith? And perhaps they should not hire homosexuals. It's ridiculous. And this hospital very actively recruits non-Catholics. The president of the hospital isn't even Catholic.

[GrayMatterWife]

Legally (and I would suggest that the enactment of this HHS administrative rule is a legal issue), this is not about the ease of access to birth control. Framing it as such may make it more appealing in news soundbites, but it creates a red herring. You could actually stick in ANY issue (abortion access, IVF services, adoption services, experimental cancer treatment, same-sex partner benefits accupunture--or something far more run-of-the-mill) that one religious employer may provide while another doesn't, and the real issue is the same: whether, as a matter of federal constitutional, there is a limit to state involvement in the religious decisions of religious institutions is permissible and under what circumstances.

Admin: should we move this to debates?

[HouseofWool]

Admin: should we move this to debates?

Done

[Ladybug]

I think in modern times the hospitals are a nonprofit business not the health missionaries that they started as.

Honestly, the church needs to break ties with the hospitals. Should they be forced to perform abortions? It's a inevitable push coming down the road. They Cannot remain true to their doctrines in this health care environment. Sell the hospitals and use the money to support other catholic charities and social work.

[SuzySunshine]

Ladybug brought up the fine line I was going to bring up. At Mayo, St Marys is the main hospital, the hospital that started it all and it is still run by the nuns. The other Mayo hospital, less then a mile down the street, is not catholic and all OB/Gyn is done there - NONE is done at St Marys because of the issues that Kris brought up and the possibilities of an abortion needing to be done for medical reasons. I do not know if they do elective ones.

Ever since I struggled with my infertility and was basically told that taking fertility drugs and helping the process along in anyway was against the church I pretty much have taken that part of the catholic teachings out of my life. I am still Catholic and still believe but I think religion as well as politics should stay out of people's bedrooms.

[SoonerTexan]

Also, Plan B is not an abortifacient. It doesn't affect an existing pregnancy.

This is something we can never really agree on because of different definitions on where life/pregnancy begins. The Catholic Church believes it begins at fertilization and Plan B can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, hence an artificially induced abortion in our eyes. I say artificially induced because of course I understand naturally occurring abortions (miscarriages) sadly happen every day.

Their providers are not allowed to perform a tubal ligation or Essure at their facility, but can do a vasectomy. If I wanted either done, it would have to be at the other hospital in town using their ancillary staff but my doctor. The double standard isn't right.

You're right, that is a double standard. Sterilization for either sex is against Church teachings (except for a procedure needed for other medical reasons, like a hysterectomy). It's interesting you came across that. But either way, you do have a choice in the provider you are going to.

So should they also not cover out of wedlock births for their employees because it goes against the Catholic faith?

It actually doesn't. Pre-marital sex does, but the resulting pregnancy certainly does not.

Honestly, the church needs to break ties with the hospitals.

That would cause a heck of a lot of funding issues. It's also an integral part of Catholic social teaching.

was basically told that taking fertility drugs and helping the process along in anyway was against the church

Not true at all. Whoever told you this didn't know what they were talking about (and it very well could have been a priest). IVF, etc. are against Church teachings but fertility drugs such as Clomid most certainly are not.

And this hospital very actively recruits non-Catholics. The president of the hospital isn't even Catholic.

But it is partially funded by a Catholic organization. I certainly don't think Catholics organizations should only actively recruit Catholics...they would miss out on a lot of talent. But either way, it wouldn't be an option. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that would be religious discrimination.

It's interesting how the religious discrimination argument is argued both ways on this issue. On one hand, you have people saying the Church is interfering in their sex lives by refusing to pay. On the other, you have Catholics who argue you are forcing them to violate their conscience by forcing them to pay for something they don't agree with. I argue that the first group still has a choice, while the second does not. Nothing is stopping you from from using contraception on your own with no fear as to how it could affect your employment, or seeking employment with an organization that does cover birth control. I'm sure the Church teachings on birth control were no surprise to many of you (though it obviously is still woefully misunderstood) when you took the job.

It seems a little odd to say, "Stay out of my bedroom" and then insist the Church pay the bill.

Legally (and I would suggest that the enactment of this HHS administrative rule is a legal issue), this is not about the ease of access to birth control. Framing it as such may make it more appealing in news soundbites, but it creates a red herring. You could actually stick in ANY issue (abortion access, IVF services, adoption services, experimental cancer treatment, same-sex partner benefits accupunture--or something far more run-of-the-mill) that one religious employer may provide while another doesn't, and the real issue is the same: whether, as a matter of federal constitutional, there is a limit to state involvement in the religious decisions of religious institutions is permissible and under what circumstances.

And as usual, GMW hits the nail on the head.

[Pollyanna]

ST is EXACTLY right on all points. Nicely said.

[v-girl]

ST is EXACTLY right on all points. Nicely said.

I agree.

[HouseofWool]

I get frustrated with this. I currently use a hospital that is Catholic. Their providers are not allowed to perform a tubal ligation or Essure at their facility, but can do a vasectomy. If I wanted either done, it would have to be at the other hospital in town using their ancillary staff but my doctor. The double standard isn't right.

It gets even more interesting because my BIL works for this particular hospital and is covered under their insurance. I highly doubt that they paid for his vasectomy out of pocket.

As for changing hospitals, it is easier said than done. I prefer to be with the hospital that is affiliated with Mayo. Mayo is an hour closer than the next closest teaching hospital (which is affiliated with the other hospital in town - which happens to be Lutheran, there are no secular options available). Particularly with C's health issues, I like the collaborative method that Mayo uses. It is the hospital where I was born so the vast majority of my medical records are there.

[SuzySunshine]

Well we'll agree to disagree about the fertility thing because I talked to 3 priests all of which told me even IUI was against the teachings of the church, and one of these priests married us and I've know him for YEARS (he's a monsignor) and one did our marriage prep and even did quite a bit of research on it for me.

Regardless I think the church should stay out of people's health, infertility is a disease, just like cancer yet they would never tell someone with that that they can't be treated.

[SoonerTexan]

You are right about IUI. In a nutshell:

• Any procedure which assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential is moral.
• Any procedure which substitutes or suppresses a need for marital intercourse is immoral.

Which is why Clomid and other similar drugs are okay, with the understanding that the couple will not participate in selective reduction if the treatment results in multiples.

Please don't take this as a personal judgment. I just know there is a lot of confusion and misinformation about what the Church believes in this area.

Interestingly, the Church does treat infertility as a disease and takes it very seriously. TCOYF/FAM/NFP helps loads of Catholics/non-Catholics become pregnant (and avoid) and it was a method developed by a Catholic doctor and furthered by the Church. The Church has also put a lot of time, money, and research into women's health and fertility. Ever hear of the Creighton Method, NaPro Technology, or the Pope Paul VI Institute? Probably not, but they have helped many people (including some I know personally) overcome infertility and other gynecological problems. There is this perception when it comes to fertility issues that the Catholic Church is anti-science and has a "sorry, your fault, too bad, tough luck" attitude when the opposite is really true. I'm certainly glad the Church hasn't stayed out of fertility because none of this would have come along.

http://www.popepaulvi.com/

http://www.naprotechnology.com/

[MarissaNicole]

Oh my I am such an idiot... major lightbulb moment for me reading this thread. Looking back last year, I couldn't figure out why my nuvaring was so rediculously expensive when I still had a Blue Cross and Blue Shield PPO. (Guess what, I ended up coming off birth a few months earlier than expected because of the cost). I guess I didn't realize that employers could pick and choose what things were covered because I figured that was something the insurance companies dictated.

So now I have a ton of questions:

So does that mean that catholic institutions pay slightly less for their employees coverage because certain things are not covered?

I strongly believe that catholic individuals shouldn't have to perform procedures they are not comfortable with, but I am not sure where I stand about them dictating what insurance covers. I know that my insurance is AWESOME if I stay within the hospital network that DH works for, and it isn't quite as good if I go outside... so my thought was that if you needed for example an abortion (never thought of the birth control issue before), you would merely have to pay a little out of pocket because you would have to go to a doctor who doesn't work for the hospital ... it never occurred to be that it wouldn't be covered at all.

Although it would limit a woman's options if her insurance wouldn't cover it, that's why they have free clinics right? Planned parenthood does them for people who don't have insurance don't they? Also since PP helps out people without insurance, do they also help people who are insured by a catholic company?

Since the mother's life is an exception to abortion (at least I thought it was), does that mean that the Catholic employer would cover the abortion if it is necessary to save the mother's life? What about if the baby wasn't going to live - would a mother have to carry it until her body decided it was time?

Also I think ST clarified that the Catholic church is okay with birth control for non-contraceptive purposes, but do they distinguish for purposes of insurance? For example if I need b/c it for other reasons although they think its okay do they then cover it, or still opt not to?

So before this most recent healthcare bill does that mean that all employers could dictate what insurance companies covered? For some reason I thought it was the insurance company that determined this based on the plan. It always ticks me off to hear that insurance will cover viagra, but then deny birth control for a woman who needs it to regulate her cycle or control cramps. [/I]