Tweet
The vast majority of Americans think it is morally fine to use birth control, and that view is shared by over 80 percent of Catholics. There are in fact relatively few things that the American people find as morally acceptable, according to Gallup. Divorce, gambling, pornography, same sex relationships and wearing fur all are less morally acceptable to the population.
Major Catholic Universities and institutions recently filed a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services about the requirement that insurance companies cover birth control for the institutions’ employees. These institutions are quasi public organizations that serve the public in general and receive a huge amount of public funding. Yet they are fighting to receive special treatment simply because the people that own/control them hold an incredibly fringe idea about what is morally acceptable.
There is little public support for the idea that birth control is morally wrong, even among Catholics, who strongly believe contraceptives are simply health related medical products that people want and should be allowed to use. We are dealing with a serious slippery slope problem if any publicly supported company or organization can demand they be exempt from any generally applied regulation because the owner claims it runs counter to some idea of religious belief.
This is not about direct religious institutions, such as a church, for which there are already special exemptions. This is about publicly supported organizations, open to the general public, that are merely owned or controlled by individuals or groups who think their personal beliefs, no matter how fringe, should trump what the vast majority of Americans consider the best public policy by the government.
24 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Good grief, what’s the beef with pornography? Does this mean I have to throw out the old Playboys from my hallway closet?
Too bad they didn’t ask “Would it be morally acceptable for the government to require you to pay someone elses bills?”
“Judge not, lest ye be Clarence Thomas”
Very interesting Gallup snapshot of our society’s beliefs about conduct.
Would it be morally acceptable for the government to require you to pay someone else’s bills?
No way they’re asking that, what with it being the elephant in the room and all. The red states would lose the Federal money gravy train.
Ok. But then why do I have to “pay” for someone’s Viagra prescription?
IMO, I’d rather see birth control covered so that people have access to it to hopefully prevent unwanted pregnancies. Coverage of child births – whether wanted or not – is much more expensive than birth control, itself. So the argument about not having to pay for something that someone else uses is rather specious.
IMO, Viagra (and the like) just encourage people to have sex (which is fine by me; I don’t care) but does nothing to prevent either pregenancy or STDS. But it begs the question: why should I have to “pay” for that?
Interestingly enough the pederastic Catholic self-righteously pious but immoral Catholic Bishops remain ever silent about Viagra prescriptions.
Color me skeptical about all of this bogus bullshit.
When did the Health and Human Services mandate come out that requires Viagra be covered by employers health insurance?
They better leave my porn alone. “The can take it when they pry it from my cold dead hand…….the left one.”
This is an employment compensation issue, not a religious freedom issue. An employer should have no more say in how you use your health insurance benefit than they do on how you spend your paycheck.
Should a religious employer be able to ask for receipts for every dime of your paycheck to make sure you didn’t walk into CVS and buy condoms?
Once again, democrats loose a messaging battle they could easily win.
Doesn’t matter, the vast majority also wants a Single Payer based Health system, the PTB could care less.
It says that 7% say Married people having an affair is morally wrong. That’s crapola. 40% of married people DO have affairs. Somebody’s fudging.
“Would it be morally acceptable for the government to require you to pay someone elses bills?”
Hope I didn’t have to contribute to Dick Cheney’s heart implant.
This could be your opening line for government-forced sterilization.
In a related poll:
Do Catholics even give a shit about what the Catholic Church says about anything from birth control, to divorce, to issues of social justice, even to abortion?
The price for having universities and other institutions where Americans work should be that the Catholic Church has to follow the laws that protect Americans’ basic rights.
This is not a religious freedom issue (except perhaps if we’re talking about the rights of workers not to be discriminated against by employers based on their religious beliefs – why should churches have the right to discriminate, while other employers do not?).
“This is not about direct religious institutions, such as a church, for which there are already special exemptions”
Why do Religious institutions get special exemptions from this mandate?
How many Catholic Hospitals, schools and charities are self insured?
In other words the Catholic Church is the insurance company that provides insurance for its employees and students.
What is the difference between a Church employing a person as a book keeper, and being able to offer that employee health insurance that is NOT covered by this new mandate. And a Catholic school that hires a book keeper and is self insured, by the Catholic Church but is now required to buy insurance for that employee that IS covered by this mandate?
Aren’t Abortion pills required to be covered by this new mandate?
Abortion is pretty low are your list of acceptable moral behavior.
Is it better to have health insurance that pays for everything except birth control, or to have no insurance at all?
Because if the Catholic Church loses this law suit, it’ll just stop offering health insurance.
I thought President Obama promised if we like our health insurance we could keep it, but now it seems like more and more employers are no longer offering the health insurance we liked.
Is this correct? Among other things, the Catholic Church is an insurance company that charges premiums and pays out on claims?
If the Catholic Church loses this lawsuit and stops offering health insurance, it would be the moral equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. They’d instantly lose the moral highground.
I’m not sure who the “we” is in this statement. Clearly, it does not apply in this case.
“… if the Catholic Church loses this law suit, it’ll just stop offering health insurance.”
GOOD!
If Notre Dame’s compensation package fails to keep pace with other public and private universities, watch the exodus of qualified employees, particularly professors. When that happens their educational ranking will plummet. My bet is that they won’t let this happen.
” President Obama promised if we like our health insurance we could keep it…”
He also promised a “Public Option,” The more people that get forced into individual, for profit insurance market, the sooner they will be screaming for reform. Can you say Medicare for all? That is a good thing.
Medicare for all!
Is it just that the solution is too obvious?
I’d rather it was Healthcare for all, the medical part you can choose and shop around for.
How about Medicare for all (who want it).
Medicare for all is just another government mandate to buy health insurance (from the government).
“How about Medicare for all (who want it).”
Works for me.
Do you really think private for profit health insurance companies can compete with Medicare? Unless of course they are able to cherry pick only 20 to 40 year olds with no medical history. Make that 20 to 40 year old men since women of child bearing age can get expensive in a hurry.
We have 4 plans at work. Most employees get one of the “normal” 80/20 type insurance plans. I take the High Deductable HP (fully paid for by the company) and supplement it with a Medical Savings Account (paid for by me, but it rolls over into my personal account year after year). I haven’t made an insurance claim in 15 years, since I have to pay the first $5000 deductable. But I expect to retire with $70K in my MSA, which should pay for a lot of Medicare deductibles and co-pays.
“… and supplement it with a Medical Savings Account …”
Only time I ever worked for a company with an M SA, it was use it or lose it. No rollover.
Totally my fault. Let me correct.