It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by charles1952
The Church's position is that they've made a deal with the worker, so much work for so much pay. Whether the worker saves or spends his money, or how he spends it, is not a worry to the Church. It has lived up to it's end of the bargain and it's all done. Whether they're right or not, the Church doesn't think that they're buying contraceptives directly just because they're paying wages to an employee.
About the insurance company and it's premiums. There's at least one really big problem, and that is that many Church institutions self-insure. That means that under the mandate the institution will be required to pay directly for birth control.
A White House official said the administration will begin meeting “in the coming days” with religious organizations and insurers to try to hammer out policies “that respect religious liberty and ensure access to preventive services for women enrolled in self-insured group health plans sponsored by religious organizations.” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also emphasized last week that the administration is looking for a solution that will not require religious institutions to pay for contraception.
There's another thing. Would the government go for a regulation that said all compnies had to pay X number of dollars for the required coverage, but churches and their institutions could pay less than X? The amount less would be the same as the amount the insurance company pays for birth control procedures and drugs. I think the country would not accept it.
What is the Church upset about? Well on a general level, it's upset about the mandates, just like the 26 states taking their lawsuit to the Supreme Court are upset. On a specific level, they're upset that the government is not allowing a religious exemption, that they are being forced to do something they see as sinful.
There was a time when the US drafted soldiers to fight in World Wars and later. Some religious groups had religious exemptions allowing them to follow their conscience and not obey a law that violated their religion. The courts upheld those exemptions, which is what the Church is asking for now.
That makes me think that if someone is getting it for excessive bleeding, or some other condition, no problem.
The Church cannot approve contraceptive interventions that “either in anticipation of the marital act, or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, have the purpose, whether as an end or a means, to render procreation impossible.”
You're right that this will make it cheaper for women. (Just as a barely related side thought, what would this do to Planned Parenthood? It would have to cut into their birth control programs, wouldn't it?)
It may be more likely that the Church is upset that Obama is making it easier for their employees to get contraception (the women don't have to pay for it now).
That's good news, glad to see it. He's going to be going up against a tough audience, though.
I agree - this is a valid issue. I think the Obama administration is going to make an honest attempt to deal with this.
There might be a solution here, but I'm a little confused. So, all the contraceptives get paid for from non-church money, what happens to the unused money in the church money account? Does it go back to the Church? If it stays with the insurance company, it could be argued that the money is not really separated. It goes into the same pockets as the non-church money. It's not as though the Church money has a mark on it that distinguishes it from non-church money.
How about if the insurance company agrees to separate out premiums received by the Church, and only pulls money out of the non-Church premiums to pay for the contraception? That way, the Church's premiums are not involved at all, and no one has to pay more or less than X.