Most of you have probably been exposed to some of the recent 'discussion' about the new health care law requiring employers to cover certain procedures and drugs in their plans that the church is morally opposed to. Mostly I just wondered what people thought of this. I thought the letter my bishop wrote, which I assume was similar to the others, presenting the issue as a 'direct assault on our freedom to practice our religion' was a little overstated. It seemed to me more a move to help ensure that all people had access to health care, although perhaps overstepping those bounds, and less a somewhat shrouded attempt to rid Catholics of their freedom to practice religion. Perhaps the question comes down to whether it is justifiable to restrict the freedom all Americans have to practice their religion in the case of these certain types of health care. I assume it is sometimes acceptable to restrict freedom of religion, as we outlaw things like polygamy and honor killings that some people undertake for religious reasons. In googling the issue, I found an article that was somewhat interesting, but I especially thought this particular section was interesting:
"In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI declared, that it is the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay. The current bishops’ response would say that it should be selective, contrary to the 2010 statement from the Vatican. The question then becomes, who should decide the parameters of that selectivity?"
Here's the whole article, if you're interested: The Bishop's Outrage: A Catholic's Response
I would be honored to know what anyone else thinks about the matter.
"In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI declared, that it is the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay. The current bishops’ response would say that it should be selective, contrary to the 2010 statement from the Vatican. The question then becomes, who should decide the parameters of that selectivity?"
Here's the whole article, if you're interested: The Bishop's Outrage: A Catholic's Response
I would be honored to know what anyone else thinks about the matter.
I have thoughts, but I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the issue overall. Nor am I sure that I fully understand the issue, just as a preface.
ReplyDelete1. I have concerns about what the Church thinks of us-women, Americans, humans. The mandate isn't saying "Hey, Catholic Church, start shoving the pill down all of your female employees' mouths." It's not even telling them to provide it. It's telling them to include it as an option covered in healthcare plans. I'm pretty sure I have access to a lot of things in my health insurance plan that I will never use. The outrage over the matter seems to indicate that women working for these Catholic employers really don't have the capacity to make Catholic-approved ethical decisions. Furthermore, I tend to think that a woman who decides to use c,a,s will probably do so regardless of health coverage- I have no proof of this outside of anecdotal evidence, so should anyone like call me out on that, you may. Given my assuption, however, either way the the institution is covering the cost. It's either as part of insurance or as part of the salary.
2. I'm not sure I get what an abortifacient is. I've never thought of "THE PILL" as such though my current reading is telling me otherwise. But I also thought the fertilized egg had to implant for it to be called conception and my recent google search tells me otherwise. What an informative evening.(Side note this is part of what I read, and I don't care what anyone says: pregnancy is very akin to an alien invasion in your tum: "It is what attaches the egg to the inside of the uterus, and actually eats its way into the uterus. The trophoblast actually pulls the egg to the inside of the endometrium. Trophoblast even invades the mother’s blood vessels and diverts her blood to the fertilized egg.")
3. Do the health care plans cover the likes of Viagra? I'd be curious. I realize that these aren't ethically viewed as equals. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know. There is a wider socio-cultural setting. I do think we tend to ignore any and all context around sex and pregnancy and that might be dangerous.
4. I'm not sure that I think it's necessary for plans to cover this to the extent that seems to be outlined. Other health services aren't free to me. Maybe we could have some wiggle room that if you don't pay for contraceptives you will pay for employee's childcare costs?
5. What is the penalty if the institutions don't comply?
I had 10. Here are the rest...
ReplyDelete6. I don't think it's a direct attack on Catholicism. That seems kind of like we have an inflated ego and the world is just persecuting us now. In addition, the statement that "This is the first instance in the history of our country that any administration is forcing some of its citizens to purchase something that violates their conscience" is false. In the exact same way I pay taxes that support initiatives that violate my conscience (wars, the death penalty, environmental degradation, an unjust education system to name a few). Where is the outrage over that? Those are things that I as an individual can't avoid. As an individual I can choose not to get birth control. That seems more just. I can't choose not to help fund war. This inconsistency in message really really frustrates me.
7. I really passionately resent the fact that "reproductive rights" debates come up during campaigns. I really don't see this as actually trying to solve any problems. We're really just trying to win cheap votes with this rhetoric, and it insults me.
8. I have concerns about overpopulation.
9. I think Jesus must get a kick out of the fact that we claim to be a Christian society.
10. It appears that the Administration is looking to talk about compromise because of the response. This represents 2 things to me:
a) The squeaky wheel gets the grease and we should start squeaking about other important things.
b) The Obama Administration is willing to learn and grow. I won't lie that I find a political candidate who can acknowledge an imperfection with grace to be appealing. Maybe there is still hope for our political system.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete