Priest Gives Obama's Mandate "The Finger (?)"

reply to post by kaylaluv

Dear kaylaluv,

Thank you for showing up. If I had to eliminate all but 100 ATSers you'd be in the saved group. Really nice to see you.

OK, let's build a bridge.

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.

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.

Oh, and please remember that when I say "the Church position," that's just my understanding of it. I'm not a spokesman at all.

With respect,
Charles1952

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.

That seems like just an attempt at rationalization to me, but I'll go with 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).

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.

I agree - this is a valid issue. I think the Obama administration is going to make an honest attempt to deal with this.

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.

thehill.com... ty

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.

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.

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.

What about the women who are prescribed birth control for other medical reasons, such as to regulate menstrual cycles, reduce heavy bleeding, or reduce severe pms symptoms? When it really is regarding the health of the woman, the Church would rather these women suffer needlessly?

reply to post by kaylaluv

Dear kaylaluv,

I did a little looking and I think I can answer at least one of your questions. That's the one about birth control prescribed for medical problems.

I found a publication of the US bishops setting forth directives for ethical health care. Here's the link: www.ncbcenter.org...

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.”

That makes me think that if someone is getting it for excessive bleeding, or some other condition, no problem.

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).

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?)

I agree - this is a valid issue. I think the Obama administration is going to make an honest attempt to deal with this.

That's good news, glad to see it. He's going to be going up against a tough audience, though.

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.

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.

I just had a thought. Another problem might be a Church official signing a piece of paper saying that Worker so-and-so is now entitled to free contraceptives. That signing of the insurance policy might be too much for a Churchman to go along with.

I keep getting the feeling that this whole business could have been avoided if the religious community had been consulted about these regs and the solution worked out before everyone had hardened into their positions. What about a separate birth control policy available to anyone but funded and operated entirely outside the Church or it's institutions? There has to be something better than this mess.

With respect,
Charles1952