Not to mention that it's not a very good descriptor. There are plenty of stupid atheists.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:17, Sat 10 Dec 2011.

Speaking of offensive atheists: R.I.P. Hitchens.  He may been a huge jerk, but you can't accuse him of lacking wit, integrity or energy.

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up recently.

The Obama administration is now going to require all hospitals, including religious ones, to offer abortions. This applies to all hospitals which provide services to the general public, so a Catholic hospital can avoid it if they limit services to only Catholics. Hospitals have one year to comply (which, conveniently, puts the comply date after elections). A quick survey of my local area shows that about half of the hospitals in my area are religious, predominantly Catholic.

The RCC responded by publishing a public letter, and sending it out to be read in churches, saying they will not comply with the law. This may be a case of the Church encouraging civil disobedience.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...ma-letter-in-church/

Thoughts?

Unless I missed something, I didn't see abortion anywhere in those stories.  But, yes, it is an attack on religious rights.  If there was going to be an attack on religious rights, this would be the one I would okay with.

They require the offering of chemical abortion pills and morning after pills. The Church can't comply because it would be a violation of their ethics. In their view, assisting someone with an abortion is identical to murder. And to be clear, this isn't denying abortion; they can still go down the street to the clinic if they want. But it's denying doctors the right to not participate in acts they find morally offensive.

Shouldn't that be a personal moral choice if the woman or couple decide to follow the teaching of the faith or not with the consultation with their cleric. In fact most American Catholic women use birth control now from the latest statistics but oppose abortion seems to me a sensible approach.

I agree. But doesn't the cleric also get a moral choice, about whether to be part of that process or not? If someone came to you and said "I'm tired of my children, and I'd like you to kill them for me," you too now have a moral choice (and a moral obligation to act correctly), even if it's someone else who is "choosing".

I said consult not listen to in the end its between the party and their diety figure, if any is worshipped. I have a simple solution if they don't want to follow the law don't take any government funding not medicare, medicaid, health insureance they don't approve of and so forth. Then they can do what they want to.

No, they can't. If they accept members of the general public, they MUST offer these medical procedures that they believe to be sinful. And that's an issue to me. Just like I don't think anyone here would dream of forcing a woman to have an abortion if she didn't want one, I can't imagine forcing a doctor to conduct one.

This is a very different issue from denying a person an abortion. I've heard of doctors saying, "this procedure is available, but I find it morally unconsciousable, and I personally can't proceed. However, I will put you in contact with some people who can complete this for you." The medical procedure is still completed and no one does anything they find morally wrong.

In the past, religious hospitals could get around these requirements by simply providing the person a referral to a place where the person could have the procedure done.  From my understanding, under Obama's new law, there is no exception like this and the religious hospitals will be forced to provide the procedure regardless of their moral objections.

In reply to katisara (msg #240):

I think there may be a communication issue here (or maybe I've simply missed some part of the news being over here in the UK rather than the states).  I didn't see anything in your link about Obama requiring hospitals to perform abortions (there was something about that being the law in MA, put in place when Romney was governor).  Rather, the change mentioned (and the one I've seen in the news) is that religious businesses (not churches, but the businesses/charities/etc. beyond the church that are subject to normal hiring laws such as no religious discrimination) will have to offer the same type of health insurance that all other employers have to, which includes covering birth control.  That's significantly different from forcing hospitals to perform abortions, so if you have something indicating that's what's being done please post it.

On the issue of having to cover birth control, I'm of slightly mixed mind.  My first reaction is "sheesh, if we just had single payer, the government could cover birth control and this would be a non-issue," but that's not really in the cards in the US, unfortunately.  My next thought is, "do I really care if catholic hospitals don't offer insurance plans that cover birth control to their employees?  Not really, why not just let it go?"  Then I think, "where does the limit on religions not being subject to the same laws as everyone else get set?  What if I'm 'morally opposed' to not stabbing people in the face?  Do I get an exception to laws that stop me from doing so?  What if I form a cult that requires members to stab people in the face to get into heaven?  Does my religious freedom mean I'm allowed to do it?  Surely not.  This isn't an anti-catholic law; it's a blanket law that applies to everyone, and catholics don't like it.  No one is being forced to take birth control against their will, no one is being forced to have abortions.  It's only saying that employers don't get to make health decisions for their employees, even on moral grounds."  So I've got a number of different positions bouncing around in my head, and I'm not sure where I stand on it yet.  On the one hand I don't like the government forcing groups to do anything they don't want to.  On the other, I don't like the idea that "I'm religious!" is an excuse for not having to follow the laws that everyone else does.  There's also the issue that catholic hospitals can decide to not provide insurance, and accept the penalties for that (I'm assuming it'd be some financial penalty like a fine or a tax, rather than anyone spending time in jail over it).  Finally, I think if instead of catholics it were muslims objecting to some requirement in the law on religious grounds, the reaction to it would be very, very different.  Doesn't really change whether it's right or not, but it gets in my craw a bit that some of the same people arguing that it's constitutional to ban mosques in a town, are the ones complaining that Catholic businesses (again, not churches) will have to buy the same health insurance plans that all other businesses do.  And, I suppose, as a final issue weighing in is the fact that I find the catholic church's opposition to birth control to be irrational and counter-productive, since access to birth control correlates strongly negatively with abortions (ie, abortions rates are highest in areas where women have least access to birth control).

In reply to Heath (msg #247):

Heath, can you gives us a link on this?  I've been hearing a lot about the birth control covered by health insurance issue, this is the first I've heard of the having to provide abortions issue.  I would have guessed that the latter would make more waves than the former.

I heard it on the news.  No link to that, I'm afraid.  The issue being discussed was that this exception for religious hospitals disappears under Obama's new law, which then forces them to perform the abortions or provide birth control regardless of their religious prohibitions.

For me, I'm for birth control and against abortion, but I would never in a million years require or expect a Catholic hospital to provide birth control if that is contrary to its religious tenets, and I certainly would not threaten them with withdrawal of their funding (i.e., putting them out of business for sticking to their moral principles).  This is wrong in every sense of the word.

We see here a clash of separation of church and state (where some people want to eradicate religion altogether) and freedom of religion (where there had been exceptions to allow for moral objections).  The argument that somehow the state is supporting a religion in violation of the constitution by allowing the hospital to have exceptions for its own moral imperatives is a sad commentary on our overly secularized society.

Hmm, I'm still a bit skeptical here.  All I'm reading is that hospitals (again, not churches) are going to have to provide the same kind of insurance that any other employer does.  They don't have to provide abortions.  At least not from anything I've seen so far.

Also, churches, and purely religious organizations will still have the religious exceptions, but groups that are not purely religious (ie, have to follow the same hiring laws as everyone else) won't be.  So already Catholic churches are not allowed to require the doctors that work there be Catholic.  Do people feel that is an infringement on religious rights?

I may have been mixing up two stories in my head. Sorry about that.

Here's what the insurance issue is:  It forces "religious employers to pay for insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs that may cause abortions."

So the insurance issue appears to be is forcing Catholic-run employers (including, for example, Catholic colleges) to use insurance that provides objectionable services, such as abortion and birth control, rather than letting them choose insurance companies (i.e., fund with their money) that fit with their moral convictions.

It is based on a regulation issued by Obama regarding Obamacare.  Because it is an election year, Obama has granted an extra 12 months for the religious institutions to comply so as to avoid the controversy, but it's now come to the forefront.

What will happen from here, most likely, is a challenge to Obamacare based on constitutional right to freedom of religion.

And this story is similar to what I was talking about regarding Catholic hospitals:

http://www.religiondispatches....unch_a_new_campaign/

That particular story is an opinion piece opposing the Catholic position; it's all I found in a quick search.

The two stories are somewhat related, but there are two distinct issues: 1) the insurance provision, and 2) the hospital provision of services.

The law includes "morning after" pills, which qualifies it as a chemical abortion.

I think my stance on this should be pretty predictable. I don't think anyone should be forced to engage in, or directly support, something they find morally repugnant. That's completely different from saying people should be allowed to stab other people in the face. If I think blood transfusions are wrong, I should be allowed to not get one, and if you want one, I should not be required to give you one. And I don't think this is specific to any particular religion, or even religions in general.

If I'm not mistaken, though (and it's quite possible I am, I'm not fully up on this issue, I admit), that it's not stopping them from shopping around, but rather requiring that all insurance plans cover these things?  It's not that there are to be plans that they'd like to get, but can't because of the rule, but rather that all plans have to cover these things, so there will be no plans that they're completely happy with, no?  It's not picking specifically on catholics, it's just making them play by the same rules as everyone else, no?  It's a lack of an exception, rather than a rule made specifically for them, right?

Also, I'm still curious as the question in my previous post:  Is it an imposition on religious hospitals that they cannot discriminate based on religion when hiring employees?  Already they might be forced to hire a qualified atheist, or even a satanist, even if they found such views morally objectionable.  Is this something that infringes unduly on religious freedom?

Tycho, I believe your reading is correct. If before CathIns refused to pay for abortions because they believed it was morally equivalent to murder, they now are required to fund them. And Catholic Hospital is required to provide some of those services. The insurance part I'm a tad more comfortable with, because it's less direct at least.

Hospitals can either be open to the public, and have to meet the same requirements of other locations (and thusly, hire atheists and satanist), or they can be a closed, religious institution that only offers services to people of their religion (and thusly, can limit hiring based on religion).

They're not required to pay for, or perform, abortions, though.  They're being required to provide health insurance of a certain standard, if they provide it.  And from what I'm seeing, this isn't anything new.  It's already the law in 28 states, and has been for about a decade now.  Many catholic hospitals are already supplying their staff with health insurance that covers contraceptive, and not really making much of a fuss about it.  Ironically, polls seem to be showing that evangelicals are the ones most worked up about this.  A majority of catholics actually seem to think that work places, including catholic affiliated ones, should be providing health insurance that covers contraception.  Catholic Bishops are upset, but apparent not most catholics.

I was thinking about this more today, and came up with this line of thought.  Christian Scientists (the religion, not scientists who happen to be christians) don't believe in medical intervention.  When they opt not to get treated for a curable/treatable condition most of us think that's a bit crazy, but figure it's their own business.  When they opt to refuse treatment for their children, we get a bit more uncomfortable, and there's cases to be made for and against the idea that they shouldn't be sentencing their children to death when the techniques needed to save them are available.  But if any of them tried to argue that a christian scientist can decide that their employee can't get this or that treatment, I think we'd all agree that would be crossing the line.  Your boss doesn't get to make your healthcare decisions for you, no matter what their religion is.  Now, the case of insurance isn't quite so extreme as that, since the employer is paying for it.  But it's still trying to influence the employees healthcare decisions.  It's not about whether catholic employers are being forced to use contraception against their religion.  It's whether catholic employers get to try to keep certain healthcare options that they don't like away from their employees.  It's not buying contraception, its buying insurance, and the employee uses it as they see fit.

I don't think your example here bears out. There's a difference between saying "you may not do X" and "I will not support you in doing X". I don't think my teenager kids should do pot. I wouldn't try to stop them from doing it (outside of my house, because it smells). But that's different from their expecting me to pay for it.

There's a few issues here, and they're being grouped together.

1) "Morning after pills" are a form of chemical abortion, and are being wrapped into this bill as 'contraception'. So yes, this bill covers abortions in the strictest sense in the term.

2) This bill does cover employers/insurance providers, that they must pay for things, even if they find it morally objectionable.

3) This bill also covers doctors working at hospitals, that they must provide services, even if they find it morally objectionable.

4) This is forcing religious organizations to choose between helping people outside of their religion, and violating the tenants of their faith.

You are focusing solely on #2, which I think is the kindest of the three points, and probably wouldn't be such an issue.

Now I do agree with you on #2. An insurance provider has to enable people to get medical services, and if you're not comfortable doing that, you probably shouldn't be an insurance provider. If that results in Catholic employers paying for insurance which provides for these choices, that's just the compromise we have to make, but buying a service which ALSO enables people to acquire ANOTHER service, which you find morally objectionable is not in itself a sin, so keep on rolling.

But I disagree with you over every other point.

Consider for instance #3. A doctor's job is to do what is right by his patients, *even when he disagrees with his patient's choices*. You cannot find a licensed doctor in the US who would be willing to chop off my arm, even if I asked, because it's clearly doing harm to me. And if the doctor honestly believes that the fetus is one of his patients, he is morally *obligated* not to perform an abortion. This isn't reducing the woman's choices, because there are plenty of doctors who will provide that. However, ruling the other way does violate someone's choice; the doctor's. And if we as a country are agreeing that abortion (or contraceptive) is an individual's moral choice, it would be ethically wrong to say that it's ONLY the choice of one person in that equation.

Consider also #4. If Christian Scientists set up a hospital where they wouldn't do any invasive surgery, and I turned up on their door step with a broken arm, they would still fix me despite my not being a Christian Scientist. However, with this law, they would be required, by law, to not treat me.

Now expand the scope a little. Look at how many religious organizations are at work in your local area. Four out of eight of my closest hospitals are Christian. Two out of three local schools (specifically, the two that don't have penises drawn on the playground equipment). Imagine you're raising a kid in the city. The local public school is covered in litter and is failing at every metric. You apply to the local Catholic school, which charges a third of its competing private school. You make it in, but ... they have to reject you, because if they accepted you, they would be required by law to violate their moral tenants elsewhere.

How does this benefit you and your neighborhood, if suddenly half your hospitals and schools close shop? Is this a social good? Because I'm failing to see how that outweighs the evil of people paying $80/month out of their own money to buy birth control pills.

Just wanted to post the follow-up on this.

Obama has come to a compromise. Health insurers will still be required to provide for all the same serivces, but employers will not need to specifically provide that coverage. Speaking for myself, I'm very happy for this compromise, and I'm really impressed that Obama backed down as much and as quickly as he did.

In reply to katisara (msg #258):

Sorry for the delay in replying, was out of town all weekend, so didn't get a chance to respond.  From your message, it sounds like we're not too far apart on the shoulds of the issue, but have different assumptions about what the ruling actually says.  My understanding is that #2 on your list is the only thing covered by the decision.  No doctors are forced to do abortions, and no hospitals are required to offer them (at least not by federal law--it sounds like some states already have laws in place that might cause this).

I've only read a couple quick articles today on the "compromise" that Obama offered, so am not totally up on it yet.  From what I gather, it sounds like he's said "okay, Catholic hospitals etc., can offer plans that don't include birth control...but if the employee wants to, they can ask the insurance company to include it, and they'll have to do so at no extra cost."  If the insurance company's actually accept this (Obama says they will, as it's cheaper to cover birth control than pregnancies), seems like everyone should be able to accept it to me.  Accept from what I've read, the bishops don't.  Which, from my position of limited information, makes it look like this was less about birth control, and more about the bishops wanting to create a fuss to remind Obama/democrats that hey, you can't just assume you'll get the Catholic vote every time while not addressing our wants.  Though, ironically, most catholics seem to be more down with the democratic view, while the church leaders seem to take a more republican view.

Anyway, I was thinking about this a bit more, especially after hearing that the bishops rejected the compromise position, and thought of this:  would anyone respect the bishop's position at all if they said "we also don't want our employees to be able to spend their paychecks on birth control because we don't want our money supporting that kind of thing."?  No, of course not.  Once you give someone a paycheck, it's not "your money" anymore, and you don't get to limit how they spend it, no matter what you religious convictions are.  To me, the insurance thing seems the same.  It's not "their money" once they spend it on insurance, it's the employee's insurance, and it's up to the employee how it gets used.  It sounds like it's not just that the bishops don't want to pay for birth control; they actually want to limit employee's access to it as much as they can.  That, in my view, isn't religious freedom; it's imposing one's views on others.

Like that's an excuse!! I'm never talking to you again, Tycho. *runs to room for a cry*

;P




I think you're right on every mark except for the conclusion.

The shout from the initial ruling wasn't about birth control so much as freedom of religion. People should be free to practice their religion within that appropriate space. When Obama's first ruling came out, it was so upsetting that the Council of Bishops drafted up letters to be read in churches across the country.

The ruling has been largely rescinded, and many Catholic groups, including the Catholic council on health care, have said that the new ruling is very good.

The Council of Bishops does indeed still disagree, but whereas before it was about freedom of religion, it seems like now the issue is indeed about birth control. I'm not aware of a new letter being given out to churches, or any calls for civil disobedience like we saw before.

To briefly wrap up the birth control concern; the Catholic Church does consider birth control to be interfering with God's creation of life, and therefore as grave a sin as murder. Obviously, anyone who believes in instutitionalized murder or its equivalent will feel they have to speak out against it at every opportunity. And yes, as individuals, we have a responsibility to see that our dollars don't go to unethical things, like murder, illegal wars, etc. I think you and I agree on this, even if we don't always agree on the particulars of what is 'unethical'.

So the Bishops' response really is completely expected; Obama is not going to make contraceptives any more difficult to attain than before. The Bishops can't go on record saying 'hey, we're back to the old situation and the old situation is a-okay'. They of course HAVE to say 'any funds going to contraceptives is not acceptable', because that's what they believe. But that's not the same as same as saying that the new compromise does address the specific religious freedoms concerns that caused the real uproar before.

There's a number of high-ranking Catholics who give Obama credit for fixing things (and a number who are grumpy because Obama is a liberal who supports contraceptives). So in the end, I think Obama brought things around to how they were, for better or for worse.

Another article on the topic, basically stating the same facts, but taking the opposing position that the compromise really isn't (c/o NY Times):

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c...nd-conquer/?emc=eta1