The LA Times blog referred to my friend Ben Mitchell and his fellow panelists at the hearing on the HHS mandate as “hyperbolic.” Mitchell, in particular, employed Roger Williams’ famous comparison of violations of religious liberty with “the rape of the soul.”
It is interesting to note that religious people, of a variety of persuasions, tend to naturally understand how serious a problem the HHS mandate presents. What the department did, deliberately and with full knowledge of the consequences, was to create a very real and urgent crisis for institutions with a religious identity (especially the Catholic ones). We could call this kind of crisis a “God and Caesar crisis” in which an individual or a community must choose between obeying God or obeying the coercive force of government. ”Rape” is not an absurd metaphor to employ when we are talking about the use of raw power to force an action against conviction.
Now, it is obvious that religious belief cannot command a blank check, but the old standard was essentially that religious belief (and action) would remain undisturbed as long as it did not pose a threat to the peace and safety of the community. It should be obvious that declining to fund contraceptives in an insurance policy is far from an affirmative threat to either peace or safety. After all, there are many low cost ways to obtain contraceptives and no one is forced to work for a religious employer. The coercion being employed is what is hyperbolic. No one should be forced into a God and Caesar crisis with so little regard for the alternatives and so little regard for conscience.
February 21st, 2012 | 9:14 pm | #1
I’m siding with the LA times on this one. Do I like the contraceptive mandate as it exists now (meaning that religious institutions don’t actually have to pay)? Yeah. I think it’s sensible. I do think, however, that there was reasonable concern when the bill required religious institutions to pay for contraception outright. But even as a Christian I recognize that “rape of the soul” is not a good word to use when trying to have a sensible discussion on this issue.
First of all, it co-opts the severity a crime committed largely against women, which is undermined by how these panels that addressed an issue having to do with women’s health involved no consideration of the voices of women (even though some wanted to speak). Even though rape can happen to anyone, it does carry specific connotations because of how it has been done throughout society, which has largely been against women. Second of all, even if one believes that forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception is wrong, it certainly isn’t tantamount to a complete violation of one’s deeply held beliefs. It would still be wrong because it’s a belief being violated, but the government isn’t asking one to abandon the notion of the Trinity. Thus using the language of rape, as if one was being forced to be converted to an entirely different faith, is hyperbolic and sensationalist.
“It should be obvious that declining to fund contraceptives in an insurance policy is far from an affirmative threat to either peace or safety.”
No, it isn’t obvious. Some women need to take oral contraceptives, for instance, due to irregular periods that cause severe hormonal imbalances. Fellow commenter Livingston Dell said it well in another post on this topic:
February 22nd, 2012 | 11:04 am | #2
And those women who need the hormones found in birth control pills to stabilize their cycles receive them from insurance companies, through Catholic institutions, as far as I am aware. Needing the hormones as medicine is a valid use. I had a friend who needed them for that reason and was a good lesson in the sensibility of the Church’s teachings.
February 22nd, 2012 | 1:08 pm | #3
Therese,
That’s good, and I’ve talked to Catholics who have that view. I think that’s, as you said, the sensible position. But the prevailing argument I’m hearing from the Christian community is that to providing contraceptives at all, even for legitimate, non-contraceptive reasons, is a moral affront. (Which is moot now, because the Catholic institutions aren’t even having to supply the contraceptives). That’s what I was responding to.
February 23rd, 2012 | 9:36 am | #4
Nikolai,
You keep treating this discussion as if the point were now moot because the administration has issued a “compromise”. That is by many many accounts, simply not correct. I point you to this quote from Reason magazine (hardly a staunch defender of catholicism)
“But they (hospitals etc) will have to pay for the medical coverage, the price of which will reflect the cost of paying for contraception and sterilization. “Ultimately,” Harvard economist Greg Mankiw noted on his blog the day after Obama’s announcement, “all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.”
The wording has changed slightly (though there is dispute even on that score as apparently none of the ‘new’ language has made it to the Federal register) but the effect remains very much the same.
But perhaps you can explain to me the difference between “you must supply your employees with contraception” and “you must supply your employees with insurance which covers contraception”. Placing it at one remove does not eliminate the moral issue….
February 24th, 2012 | 4:35 pm | #5
david c.,
The quote from Reason you cite is an argument against the government providing contraception at all, not a defense for exempting religious institutions from a contraception mandate. Basically, you’re saying, “Well, the religious institution is indirectly aiding contraception purchasing by customers,” the logical implication of which is that insurance companies shouldn’t provide contraceptives at all, because if they did then religious institutions that support them would be complicit in the “sin” of contraception. I think that’s an extreme case.
Moreover, the logic of “well, they’ll pass it on to the consumers” is somewhat unfounded because I haven’t heard or read any statistics confirming that this will be tantamount to a huge increase in premiums for religious institution’s health care.
February 28th, 2012 | 8:55 am | #6
Nikolai Volk ,
I’ve read your comments on this subject on this and several other threads . As I see it , you seem adamant in shoving this unconstitutional mandate down Catholic institutions’ throats . The president’s ” compromise ” is an illusion , not a solution .
RE: ” huge increase in premiums ” ? Since when is this the standard ? We don’t want to pay for it ( any of it , with the exceptions Therese Z mentions above ) , at all . Simple logic states that this will be an incremental cost to the insurance companies and if they take their fiduciary responsibility seriously ( and that is their legal responsibility ) , they will simply pass this cost on to their customers (i.e. , the Catholic institutions ) .
How familiar are you with the Belmont Abbey College law suit . During the G.W. Bush administration several emplyees at this small Catholic college in N.Carolina sued the school in federal court for not covering contraception in their health insurance plan . The G.W. Bush justice dept . dismissed the case . When Pres. Obama took office his justice dept. reinstated this case . This was done long before Obama Care was passed ( this was a leadind indicator of what they would do within Oamacare — The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act ) . Combine the Belmont Abbey case , the recent Supreme Court case where the Obama administration wanted the authority to define a church’s ministers ( and was slapped down 9-0 ) , and this HHS mandate on contraception ( including the morning after and week after pills and sterilization ) and how can you deny that this is an administration with precious little respect for religious liberty ?
What other modern administration has demonstrated this level of contempt for religious liberty ?
Tell me why this administration seems to not want religious institutions to act in the public square in conformity with their religious faith ? How can these institutions retain their religious character when they are being forced to act against their conscience ?
You minimized the cost of ” compliance ” in another thread by saying the fine/tax is only
$ 2000 per employee. Well , for Catholic Charities nationwide , that is 70,000 employees X $ 2000 = 140,000,000 , per year !
Tell me why it doesn’t seem like the Obama administration either wants to secularize our institutions or drive us out of these services altogether ?
February 28th, 2012 | 2:48 pm | #7
chuck,
First things first: there is not a unified, systematic plan by the Obama administration to undermine the freedom of religion. The Obama administration wasn’t trying to keep the teacher’s job in the magisterial exception case. The people who were suing to get the teacher compensated weren’t the administration… it was a teacher. The Obama administration had nothing to do with it. I’m not a big fan of the Obama administration in a lot of ways, but a supposed war against religious freedom isn’t one of those things.
Second, I don’t know which thread you were reading, but I never brought up the $2000 fine statistic. In fact, under Obama’s compromise, there is no fine. The complaint people are making is that the cost of contraception will be passed onto the churches, not that the churches will be fined a specific amount for not providing contraception. My argument in comment #5 above furthers this by saying that even though by basic economic logic it makes sense that the insurance companies would pass the costs onto the consumer, since birth control isn’t the costliest of medical care one could require the churches aren’t going to be taking on these massive spikes in premium costs, if at all.
But third, and most importantly, you ignore what I say in comment #5 above. If you take your position to its logical conclusion, that means that no insurance company should provide birth control, religious or non-religious. One way or another, the church would be indirectly paying for contraception some way, which is apparently the most immoral thing in the world. I think the Obama compromise is completely logical, and the churches are not having to directly provide the contraception.
But a point of clarity: I’m not saying I like the initial mandate. I’m quite unclear what I think about it. On one hand, I do recognize the Catholic church’s position, and I want to respect it. On the other hand, I recognize (unlike most people who are adamantly against this issue) that the birth control pill is legitimate medicine, not a license to have constant sex whenever and wherever. Birth control is necessary medicine for some women, and the whole point of health insurance is to provide for the patient’s needs. It cuts both ways: the government is sidestepping the church, and the church is sidestepping the health needs of many women who need birth control. That’s why I’m talking about this issue.
BUT, now that the churches aren’t having to directly pay for contraception, I don’t see any problem at all.
February 28th, 2012 | 2:59 pm | #8
And in addition to my third point in the previous comment, I guess what I’m saying is that your problem is with mandates at all, which means you’re really arguing against Obamacare, not against this specific mandate. (That’s fine; my skepticisms with the Affordable Insurance Act are many.)
February 28th, 2012 | 9:49 pm | #9
Nikolai,
I dearly wish you would stop trying to characterize the Obama administration’s “new” position as a “compromise”. There is near unanimous agreement among Catholics (both left and right), most conservatives, and many evangelicals, as well as a variety of others that it is nothing of the sort. Particular given that there is NO change in the language of the mandate…
February 28th, 2012 | 10:16 pm | #10
Yes, there is. Obama said so himself. Even if you want to argue that the Catholic church is still having to pay for contraception one way or another, Obama changed the mandate from its original design. See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/obama-birth-control-compromise_n_1280063.html
Again, your objection really amounts to being against health insurance companies providing contraception at all. That’s a separate issue.
February 29th, 2012 | 9:28 am | #11
There’s a compromise because “Obama said so?”. Hmmm. I bet that wasn’t enough ‘proof’ for you when it came to the previous administration and oh, say, the Iraq war?
Do some research on the mandate itself. Point to where the language has been changed and get back to me. In the mean time I will stick with the chorus of voices (not just Catholic) who insist that there is no compromise and that this represents an unprecedented intrusion into church-state relations. Do you really think that ALL of those varied voices are really objecting to ANY contraception coverage in insurance? Not to mention that this language also covers abortifaciants ….
February 29th, 2012 | 12:41 pm | #12
david c.,
I think that Nikolai’s point is that it would be in Obama’s best political interest to actually change the language of the mandate. It wouldn’t make sense for him (and his administration) to say he would change the language, and then not change it especially in an election year where he is looking for a partial catholic vote (which he actually got quite a few in 2008).
I do agree that this still doesn’t solve the problem of self-insured institutions, but I think that it is at least a step in the right direction, and I don’t see any problem in giving at least some credit to Obama for making a step that way.
February 29th, 2012 | 12:50 pm | #13
Right, because if those who are opposed to the Bill say that the mandate hasn’t changed, then they must be right. The opposition usually doesn’t have bias on a subject like this, right?
Obama was clear on the change in provider. Now the churches don’t have to directly supply the contraceptives; the insurance company directly does that. You can make arguments like this one:
This reflects the change of the mandate, while arguing that it isn’t a change in reality. That’s fine. But to say that Obama didn’t switch things up from the initial mandate is false.
March 1st, 2012 | 4:01 pm | #14
The Executive Branch of the government overstepped. If this is all about health, why is birth control being pushed? Why not testicular cancer screenings? Why not children’s vitamins? Why not flu shots? Why not mammograms? Why birth control? The pill does not make a woman “healthier”. It cures no disease. Yes, it can stabilize hormones, but in that case the Church would agree that taking the pill for a reason OTHER than contraception is fine. Does anyone know if this mandate forces companies to buy condoms for their employees? If not, why not? I find this mandate to be one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever witnessed as an American because of the huge overstep of the President’s Office and Administration.
March 1st, 2012 | 10:54 pm | #15
“If this is all about health, why is birth control being pushed? Why not testicular cancer screenings? Why not children’s vitamins? Why not flu shots? Why not mammograms?”
Those are probably all covered, I’d imagine. It’s not like birth control is the primary emphasis of the health care bill; it was just made a big deal, so it only seems like it’s the biggest part of the bill. In reality, it’s a pretty minor provision.
“Why birth control? The pill does not make a woman “healthier”. It cures no disease. Yes, it can stabilize hormones…”
Should health care not cover cancer treatments because it doesn’t cure cancer? The last part of that sentence is important, and you shouldn’t overlook it. For some women, birth control is the only option for irregular periods, mood issues, or hormonal imbalances. Birth control does make those women healthier.
March 2nd, 2012 | 10:02 am | #16
And please do not overlook the last part of the sentence I wrote, “but in that case the Church would agree that taking the pill for a reason OTHER than contraception is fine.”
If used for medicinal purposes, the Church is fine with that.
When Rick Perry forced Texan girls to get a shot to prevent an STD, the left went nuts, as they should have. The government does not have the right to force people to take medicine that conflicts with their conscious or beliefs. Nor do they have the right to force people to pay for medicine that would to the same.
What if a right wing president said everyone needs to own a gun, and their employer should pay for it? There was no vote. No consulting Congress. The president just decides, for the safety of the family, all families should own a gun. He feels that’s the best way to make families safe. Not everyone can afford a gun, so you need to help your neighbor pay for his. How insane would that be? It’s ludicrous.
This is not about birth control pills, or guns. It’s about respect for beliefs. It’s about tolerance. Tolerance goes both ways. And the President needs to be tolerant of views he does not agree with, and he’s not.
March 2nd, 2012 | 12:40 pm | #17
Stacy you said,
“This is not about birth control pills, or guns. It’s about respect for beliefs. It’s about tolerance. Tolerance goes both ways.”
I agree. So should Nikolai, being a pacifist, be forced to pay money that is no doubt funding state mandated killings abroad? Similarly, should pacifists in states that allow the death penalty be forced to have their tax dollars used to kill American Citizens?
As you stated, the knife cuts both ways. The fact is that citizen’s money is used for things they disapprove of, and often times things they aren’t even aware of. I find is repulsive that my tax dollars being used to torture prisoners in Guantanamo bay, but unfortunately I don’t get an exemption. So should I?
March 2nd, 2012 | 1:29 pm | #18
Great points, LD, that I have pondered myself. Part of what upsets me about the President’s actions is that they seem to have been done in a vacuum. The death penalty is a state issue. In my state, it was voted on by the people. We are not a complete democracy, where everyone would vote on everything, and that’s a good thing. But the Constitution is there to protect the minority, or unpopular point of view. Clearly, taking the pill is the popular point of view. And not taking it, or in this case, paying for it, is the unpopular point of view. It would be concerning, too, if the President, or the Supreme Court, made a decision to ban or limit the speech of an unpopular group, say for instance the KKK. It would be understandable because of the offensive nature of their message. But that is an opinion. Again, going back to my crazy gun reference ;o) from before, it is an opinion about what is the best way to be safe. The President has his opinion on the best way for women to be healthy. But we have checks and balances for a reason. He did this without the consult of Congress, and for that matter, without much regard for the Bill of Rights. LD, I think you make a very good point, but part of my concern with this issue is the balance of power in our country. I feel George W. abused his power as well. And that’s the very reason George Washington was not our King. He became our President. He recognized that this great experiment would not work without a balance of power and a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Again, it’s not about birth control, guns, torture, capital crimes. It’s about tolerance. The balance of power provided by the Constitution, our roadmap, is what protects us from overruling each other regarding points of views that are unpopular.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact