General Question

jca's avatar

What is the recent argument about Catholic church having to fund birth control?

Asked by jca (36043points) March 17th, 2012

There is an argument going on with one of my FB friends and another of his friends. My FB friend (actually the son of a good friend of mine) is very against the Catholic church having to fund birth control, because it’s against their faith. The friend is writing that if the government funds the hospitals, then the law of the land supercedes all.

Can someone explain this argument to me? Do you agree or disagree that the Catholic hospitals should fund birth control? I can’t even jump into the argument because I don’t know much about it.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

26 Answers

Mamradpivo's avatar

At the risk of being flippant, the crux of the issue is that a bunch of old men are scandalized that their employees and customers may be having sex.

whitecarnations's avatar

I think your friend is saying that the law of God is no longer present, that the law of the land will just take over the, “word”.

supersede |ˌso͞opərˈsēd|
verb [ with obj. ]
take the place of (a person or thing previously in authority or use); supplant: the older models have now been superseded.

JLeslie's avatar

It’s about Obama mandating all health insurance cover birth control a few weeks ago. Since the church runs hospitals and other businesses, they provide health insurance like other businesses, but many thought it was a church and state issue. That the government should not be able to force the Catholic church to offer birth control in their medical plans since the religion is against it. A compromise was come to already though.

jca's avatar

@JLeslie: I know they came to a compromise, but this person was writing that it was wrong that they have to pay for the BC.

@whitecarnations: I know what supercede means. :)

JLeslie's avatar

It is a little confusing to me to. I think the compromise means the third party insurers offered by the Catholic employer still have to offer the birth contol. Here is an article

Sunny2's avatar

The Church did not think that the medical insurance they bought their employees should have to cover birth control for women. The compromise was that insurance companies recognized that birth control was much less expensive for them than pregnancies and births, therefore they, the insurance companies, would pay for birth control for women, at no cost to the Church. Everybody’s happy and it’s all taken care of.
That’s my understanding.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the US Constitution. The Catholic church has always been against birth control and abortion because it’s part of their belief system. Obama, having replaced God, is now saying that, in his infinite wisdom, his dictates overrule any other religion and that the Catholic church must provide birth control and abortion for its employees.

Nullo's avatar

No, they shouldn’t have to participate in the birth control thing at all. The way that it was set up a few weeks ago would put the Catholic Church in a moral position roughly analogous to the guy buying alcohol for a minor, and they wanted none of that. Making it a requirement is the government violating the SOCAS.
While we’re at it, Catholic hospitals and pro-life doctors ought not to be required to perform abortions, either.

JLeslie's avatar

@Nullo I don’t think any doctors are forced to perform abortions. Doctors either offer it as a service or they don’t. In Catholic hospitals when a womans life might be in danger from her pregnancy, if it is not acvute, she has to be transferred to another hospital to have the procedure. Catholic hospitals won’t block or tie tubes at a woman’s request unless it is reviewed by an ethics board and approved. That last one pisses a lot of people off, my veru Catholic girlfriend had to go to a hospital farther away to get it done. She did not even bother to present her case to the Catholic hospital near her, because she was so annoyed by the whole thing.

There has been controversy about giving prescriptions for BC pills and for morning after pills, including a court case I know about where a girl was raped, and the ER doctor did not give her the morning after pill, nor offer, nor tell her many times it is given as routine for raped women if they want it. She wound up pregnant, and sued, because she was morally ok with morning after, but not with a later abortion, and she felt the doctor decided for her. This was back when the morning after pills were newly approved in the US, a lot of people did not know there was a way to prevent pregnancy in this manner. I don’t remember how the suit was settled.

Rock2's avatar

This is a phony issue drumed up by Democrats to get liberal women excited so they will come out and vote for Obama in the Presidential election. It isn’t working. Don’t give it a second thought. Think about how we are going to get out of all of this national debt.

JLeslie's avatar

@Rock2 Well, the Republicans made it really easy to think the Republicans are scary shit on these topics. I actually agreed that the mandate might be too far, because I like the separation of church and state, and I saw from the view of most Republicans, but then they go an start introducing legislation to force a woman to tell thekr employer why they need birth control? That is just beyond stupid. It flies in the face of right to privacy about our medical conditions. Really really dumb. They are keeping the discussion alive, and for some reason they must think it is helping them, even though many Republicans, including John McCain who I just saw on TV saying the Republicans have to stop such talk.

I would bet Barbara and Laura Bush are appalled by the legislation trying to be passed by these crazy right wingers. I can’t speak for them, but I know they have brains in their heads on these issues, and understand how complex woman’s health is. Honestly, how can politicians with college degrees be so dumb, so ignorant.

Nullo's avatar

@JLeslie I was speaking of a possible future, one which I am sure that at least a few people want.

Rock2's avatar

@JLeslie
Well, I guess it works on the weak minded..

CaptainHarley's avatar

@Rock2

Which includes about ⅔ of Washington, DC!

Rock2's avatar

@CaptainHarley
Closer to 9/10 when you count all of the sissy men.

mattbrowne's avatar

In Germany, the Catholic Church as an employer has to pay 50% of the employee’s health insurance. It is the state that defines what is covered by health insurance which includes birth control and abortion (when all rules are being followed).

So the Catholic Church already funds birth control in countries other than the US, so I see no reason why US laws can enforce the same in the US as well. In Germany the Catholic Church would lose its right to employ people if it disagreed with the laws.

JLeslie's avatar

@mattbrowne That is a very interesting point.

Nullo's avatar

@mattbrowne But there, the law gives them no choice. Here, it does, and they want to keep it that way. In Germany they are, in effect, acting under duress.

jca's avatar

@Nullo: I was just talking to a friend of mine about this yesterday, he’s a very devout Catholic. He said the Catholic church would rather shut down hospitals than go against their beliefs. So why that threat in the US and not in Germany?

Nullo's avatar

@jca Cultural conditioning, perhaps?

jca's avatar

@Nullo: Not sure. It’s the same church all over. Catholic is the umbrella, US and Germany are the little sub-species.

JLeslie's avatar

@Nullo I agree with @jca that makes no sense. I mean this is a big moral thing for the catholic church, they see it as killing a life supposedly. If insurance covered killing a 2 year old, would the Catholic curch help fund it? Is there any amount of money or good deeds that would balance the church going along with that? If the church is going to equate abortion and birth control to murder, equal to a murder of any human life, then it would not matter what part of the world the insurance requirements are.

My opinion is the Catholic church generally is not very upset about birth control. They allow natural family panning, which is preventing pregnancy. There is no real logic in allowing a couple to abstain on fertile days, but not allowing using a condom or BC pills, it is to the same end.

The Catholic church values science, education, logic, medical science. It is not like 500 years ago. Sure Catholics don’t want their church being told what to do by the government, but I would bet most crazy bat shit legislation introduced is not the Catholics. Just a guess, my own stereotyping and generalizing. That law they are trying to pass that a woman has to tell her employer why she needs birth control pills? That is absolutely stupid. I hate the word stupid, but here it fits. What happened to medical right to privacy? Let alone women’s rights in general. Sometimes the right wing is its own worst enemy. The Republicans should blast the guy who came up with that, and then they would be given some credit for having a brain. The person who thought that was a good idea should be strung up by the party, and anyone who votes yes. There are some Republicans saying it is ridiculous as I mentioned above.

Nullo's avatar

@JLeslie @jca Have you considered that sub-species notwithstanding, everybody has some national culture sticking to them?

JLeslie's avatar

@Nullo Can you explain further what you mean? I don’t understand your last comment.

mattbrowne's avatar

Well, the US population is 4 times that of Germany, but the abortion rate is 12 times higher. Plus percentage wise there are more Catholics in Germany than in the US

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo-health-abortions

So I’d say the duress of the Catholic Church in Germany is lower in the US.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther