Being a big fan of liberty, I read Bishop Edward Burns’ “Defending Religious Liberty” (A Bishop’s Perspective, Sunday, Feb. 5) with interest. Not to my surprise, I found that we have vastly different concepts of liberty and that we disagree on the salient facts regarding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) decision to require access to standard forms of contraception in employer-provided health plans. You wouldn’t know it from Burns’ piece, but the HHS mandate does not require anyone to purchase or use birth control, rather it merely requires that those who want it have access to it. Nor does the mandate apply, as Bishop Burns contends, to all employers. Churches and other institutions that teach religious doctrine are explicitly exempted.
Framing this as a debate about religious liberty neglects the Catholic Church’s inconvenient truth, namely that birth control is wildly popular in the United States; 99 percent of American women and 98 percent of American Catholic women use birth control. Thus portraying the HHS mandate as an “unconscionable” blow to “the religious liberty of all citizens” only highlights the profound disconnect between the conscience of the church and the consciences of women in this country.
This disconnect is equally evident in Burns’ statement that previously he “could not imagine any decent person” wishing the HHS mandate upon religious institutions. Setting aside the issue of whether or not I am a decent person, I can say that I strongly support the HHS mandate simply because I think women deserve equal treatment with men. As well, it wouldn’t have taken a great deal of imagination to see this day coming given the fact that 28 states already require contraceptive coverage in health plans and 8 of those states, like the HHS mandate, allow for only narrow religious exemptions.
In addition, numerous Catholic institutions already offer contraceptive coverage for their female employees and have for years. This includes Catholic universities like Georgetown and Seattle University and health care providers like Catholic Healthcare West, which runs 40 Catholic hospitals in the western US. Where is the outcry against these Catholic institutions that have been willingly “violating their own consciences?” I guess the headline “Georgetown University compelled by federal government to offer employee health benefits it already offers” just isn’t that catchy. The simpler answer is that there are a lot of good reasons for Catholic schools and hospitals to offer contraception as part of their health care packages, such as the fact that many of the people they employ are not Catholic. Even more fundamentally, civil rights law and common sense both tell us that selectively removing preventative care and prescription items that apply only to women from employer health plans is blatantly discriminatory.
Some have predicted that the HHS mandate will rally people to rise up and reclaim their religious liberty. Personally I don’t see it. Where are hoards of women, Catholic and otherwise, demanding that their religious rights be restored by making them pay more out of pocket for their birth control? The only people I really hear complaining about this decision are Catholic bishops. How many of them are women so that the HHS mandate even impacts them in any material way?
I would never advocate for treating people of faith as “second class citizens,” however the Church’s insistence on trying to treat women as second class citizens is both misguided and out of touch. Winning the right for a handful of Catholic schools and hospitals to exclude contraceptives from their female employees’ health insurance coverage will do nothing to change the fact that nearly all women of child bearing age in this country use birth control. The church would be better served to keep itself relevant by not pretending that we live in a time when women can be told they can’t use birth control.
In closing, I took a poll in my household and 1 of 1 women surveyed disagreed with Bishop Burns’ contention that using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy is “as if having a child were a disease.” Rather, the prevailing sentiment was that ensuring fair access to affordable contraception enables people to better chose when they are going to have children, which increases the chances that those children will be born into stable, healthy, and loving environments.
• Hood lives in Juneau with his wife and three daughters.
Comments (61)
Add commentpoll
Mr Hood lives in Juneau with his wife & 3 daughters, yet surveyed only 1 of the 4 women in his household.
The one thing that doesn't
The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience" ~Atticus Finch
Just because 98% of Catholic American women use contraception does not mean that the government should be able to mandate that the other 2% have to offer to pay for it when that goes against their conscience.
By choosing to focus on the supposed small number of people who follow this Catholic teaching, the Church's supposed bias against women, and the Catholic-in-name-only institutions that are already acting against Catholic teaching, your article essentially bypasses the main point.
The govt makes me pay for all
The govt makes me pay for all kinds of things that go against my conscience...
If you are employed...
...are you going to tell me you can't afford to buy your own rubbers? Cheaper than the alternative(s). Abstain if your too broke to not get pregnant. On the other hand, well, you get the picture.
ignoring the principle of the argument
Forget the numbers, percentages, contemporary norms, and errant private universities--
The Catholic Church is taking a stance on a principle that is central to its identity: life is a gift from God. Whether or not you agree, the Catholic Church has always defended this principle as a centerpiece of its beliefs. There is no middle ground and arguments that start with "yeah, but--" will always fall flat on their face. Contraception, as a principle, is convenience. It's a choice. The audacity of mandating the provision, access, whatever you want to call it, of something that runs counter to the Church's principles rates the strongest objection and stalwart refusal to accommodate.
ignoring the principle of the argument
Forget the numbers, percentages, contemporary norms, and errant private universities--
The Catholic Church is taking a stance on a principle that is central to its identity: life is a gift from God. Whether or not you agree, the Catholic Church has always defended this principle as a centerpiece of its beliefs. There is no middle ground and arguments that start with "yeah, but--" will always fall flat on their face. Contraception, as a principle, is convenience. It's a choice. The audacity of mandating the provision, access, whatever you want to call it, of something that runs counter to the Church's principles rates the strongest objection and stalwart refusal to accommodate.
Free condoms!
Planned Parenthood used to offer free rubbers. I would bet they still do.
Vows of abstinence break easier than condoms.
Not many took the Bishop's rant seriously. His employer is becoming more and more irrelevant in today's age.
Great article, Mr. Hood
The opening was perfect. Your presentation of the facts germane. Your conclusions impeccable.
The logical extension of Burns' position is that any religious belief or act is above the law. So if my church's position, say, was that church leaders should indoctrinate children with early sexual experiences, who is the government to deny my church that freedom?
Janice Joplin
Maybe she was right, freedoms just another word for nothing left too lose, nothing, nothing baby if it ain’t free.
National Cancer Insitute facts
A National Cancer Insitute US Governments website (National Institute of Health) www (dot) cancer (dot) gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
factsheet quote: "Some studies have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking oral contraceptives"
Maybe K. Sebelius needs to read these facts if she really cares about women, also these pills sometimes cause abortions, a fact that the manufacturers fully admit. I guess in a few decades we will be having Congressional hearings just like the ones we had a few years ago with the tobacco industries.
birth control pills cause cancer
Also In a July 29th 2005 press release, the World Health Organization declared that combined estrogen-progestogen Oral Contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans. Specifically, they said that "Use of OC's increases risk of breast, cervix, and liver cancer." The data was presented by a working group of 21 scientists from 8 countries convened by the cancer research agency of the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Companies that make birth control pills also have admitted a link between the drug and breast cancer.
world health organization
In a July 29th 2005 press release, the World Health Organization declared that combined estrogen-progestogen Oral Contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans.
world health organization
states that ... a working group of 21 scientists from 8 countries convened by the cancer research agency of the W.H.O., the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Companies that make birth control pills also have admitted a link between the drug and breast cancer. and our gov't wants to mandate that we provide these pills to our citizens?
@MarkyJoe
Where's the mandate that says that because something is covered in a healthcare plan, everyone has to use it? My group healthcare plan covers PSA tests for men...I doubt I will be getting one anytime soon. I also doubt my husband will be getting a cervical test anytime soon. There are plenty of medications that people take that have possible dangers. It should be up to the individual to research side effects and decide for themselves.
@MarkyJoe: please learn how
@MarkyJoe: please learn how to read. The government is mandating that healthcare providers cover contraceptive services. This is hardly giving out pills to everyone.
Also please learn how science works. Unlike your stilted political views, you can't pick some studies and ignore others. When SOME studies conclude something, it means SOME OTHER studies do not, which means WE DON'T KNOW whether birth control pills cause cancer, assuming none of the studies are seriously flawed.
Also, those twinkies you eat also cause cancer.
Offering someone any medical
Offering someone any medical treatment or service is not forcing them to use it. It gives them the choice to decide if the practice is in conflict with their beliefs.
The right sided GOP has simply taken the issue as another way to have Obamacare appear as a bad thing. I'm confident the same GOP leaders would rally if it has been a religious leader who did not accept some other procedure as a reason to flog Obama. It is a campaign talking point and not much else.
The same fanatics who see this issue as infringing on their religious beliefs are the ones rallying to have their definition of what is a family rule the country. I doubt these same individuals would ever accept the claims that polygamy is just a religious belief.
Religious beliefs have become far to intertwined with Americas politics.
"Religious beliefs have
"Religious beliefs have become far to intertwined with Americas politics." So have pharmaceuticals...
claire, but that is the point.
You are saying that a business organization should be allowed to not pay for ANYTHING that goes against the 'conscience' of it's leaders, regardless of the makeup of it's employees.
You understand, of course, that Catholicism is not the only religion in this country. So you are saying that Buddhist run businesses should be allowed to not pay taxes because they do not believe in war. And that Muslim run businesses should be able to disalow coverage for transplants, or pig valves to employees who are not of their faith. And that businesses run by someone who is a Christian Scientist should be allowed to offer no health care at all.
The basic problem with Christians, is that they do not see the broader picture, because they only consider their own religion when considering any argument having to do with religion.
Yes, but pharmaceuticals have
Yes, but pharmaceuticals have some uses. They may be terribly manipulative corporations that convince us to overmedicate ourselves and pay an arm and a leg to do so, but there's no denying that their products have real uses. Most of them, anyway.
Amen, my brother
Thanks for giving some insightful facts, Eran. I agree that the Catholic Church is picking a fight in the culture wars of this country that it can't win. It's particularly depressing to watch the church turn itself into a political football over an issue that further alienates women from the church. I ask again, would a church that allowed women in leadership positions take such a view?
good comment
I saw this good comment on a news site elsewhere: "I find it strange indeed that a 2000 year-old male-dominated institution with a reputation for pedophilia has any credibility whatsoever on the issue of women's reproductive rights."
I agree and add, where's the same indignant outrage over a much bigger problem of continued child molestation scandals in the Catholic church.
Religious freedom?????
In a country that will criminally prosecute and incarcerate parents for not giving their child some medical treatment that conflicts with their religious beliefs it seem ridiculous to claim a health care policy providing any procedure or practice is an affront to one's religious beliefs.
mandates
According to everything I have read, there are already mandates in 20 plus states regarding birth control being offered in health care plans with no exemptions for religious entities, one of them being Massachusetts. Why havent I heard the Catholic church up in arms about those health care plans?
In my opinion...
As a practicing Catholic, I’d just like to say that the idea that Catholic institutions must provide health care coverage that includes access to contraceptives is somehow a violation of conscience is tenuous. Furthermore, Bishop Burns’ inclusion as an ally one of the most bigoted organizations in this country, the border-line hate group Focus on the Family, is revolting and shameful. Finally, the USCCB’s uproar about this “attack on religious liberty” is an insult to the scores of people of all creeds across this planet and throughout time that have faced genuine religious persecution.
That being said, I acknowledge that the Church’s teaching on contraception is morally sound and authoritative. However, the idea that that teaching somehow absolves the Church from obeying the law is completely off base. Does this ruling present a moral paradox? Yes. Life is a paradox. Is this ruling unjust? No, deal with it. This “outrage” is completely disproportional to the reality of the situation.
@Han Solo
Very well written, thank you for sharing your view.
health care and disease?
since when did pregnancy become a disease? and abortion become a right (rite?)
Fact checker on all three articles about this topic
That's right, there are three articles in today's dead-tree edition. Online, only Hood's gets front page recognition. I can't even find Longenbaugh's letter on-line, though Heidersdorf's is under the letters tab.
I appreciated reading all the opinions published today. Each writer clearly laid out their positions. I did notice a style difference, however. As one might expect on a topic like this, there are facts and emotions intertwined in the paragraphs.
Emotions coupled with facts can make one's position more compelling to the right audience. But we shouldn't forget that emotions alone do not make a claim true. We need facts for that.
Hood's My Turn has 714 words with eight facts. His opinion had the most facts of all three letters. To her credit, Dee Longenbaugh's letter (Don't Take The Money) while having the fewest words still had six facts. Of course, it isn't surprising our town's local book goddess can produce such an economic ratio of words to facts. Heidersdorf letter, at 370 words came in with the fewest facts, one.
But don't take my word for it, my figures could be mistaken. I do make mistakes. The good news is, you can check the facts and the emotional opinions for yourselves.
Mike
Church and Politics
Mr. Hood,
Thank you for your well-written paper.
The argument given by Burns was not based in reality for our country. Perhaps in a country of primarily Catholics, where religion was included in the government, it might be possible to limit health care options in such a way. But in America, where church and politics are supposed to be separate, it does not work.
As swimmergirl said, why would we focus just on one religion? If we start eliminating items that offend a follower of every religion of Americans, we are left with nothing.
It's up to individuals to use or not use the offerings that are available based on their own wishes and beliefs.
religious liberty
"Religious liberty has been granted to churches and to individuals not by the State but by the hand of God,” Bishop Lori pointed out. “It is the first of our freedoms in the Bill of Rights and at the heart of all the other freedoms.”
The Bill of Rights certainly
The Bill of Rights certainly sounds like the state to me.