Catholic Texans Fight Contraception Mandate
Catholic churches and affiliated organizations in Texas say they won't stand for a new federal law that would require many employers to provide contraception coverage in their health insurance plans.
Although churches are exempt, other religiously affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities are not. In Austin, for example, the Seton Healthcare Family, a major nonprofit hospital system that provides health care to 1.8 million Central Texans, doesn't cover contraception for its employees, and has no intention of starting.
“As a Catholic health system, Seton Healthcare Family does not cover contraceptives for participants in the employee health ...
Comments (44)
Arin Seventwentyone via Texas Tribune on Facebook
yeah. they "hurrah" in the pew... and then go home and take their birth control.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
More: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-obrien/catholics-birth-control-contraception_b_1110212.html
Erica Bozovich Hart via Texas Tribune on Facebook
it was also explained to me by an insurance person that employers pick and choose what to cover anyway when they self fund their own plans and just have an insurance co. administer them (and according to her a lot of large organizations self fund). SO it seems there are plenty of loopholes to avoid having to cover BC if organizations (Catholic or otherwise) choose not to. Yet another "issue" that isn't really an issue, created by the GOP to distract from real issues.
Sharon Cooper Morgan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Violation of religious freedom? Nonsense! This is a freedom of choice issue for the 98% of Catholic women who use birth control. The other 2% can choose to not use contraceptives.
Sharon Cooper Morgan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Violation of religious freedom? Nonsense! This is a freedom of choice issue. For the 98% of Catholic women who choose to use birth control and for the 2% who choose to not use birth control.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Is everyone employed by Seton Catholic?
Chris Bazan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
the catholic church and its shrinking base needs to move into the 20th century...I mean 21st century
Samdavis
The GOP will turn this birth control funding into an issue just like they have done with gay marriage in the past. The same people who want to destroy church/state separation will rail against the Obama administrations "war on religion". In the end it won't matter. The tide is turning against these people as the economy recovers and as many Catholics look on the out of touch hierarchy of the church with disdain. They'll listen to the rantings of bishops, pontiff, and priests and then go cast their vote for whomever they please.
Kathi Thomas via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Why don't Catholic women who use birth control stand up for this? It would be nice if their partners, who also benefit form birth control, would stand up, too. Until a majority of the people in the church stand up to a ridiculous practice, it will remain the same, and they'll continue to flout the rules while pretending to be in compliance.:(
Imelda B. Robles via Texas Tribune on Facebook
What about the people who work for these catholic institutions who aren't catholic? What about their rights? I'm surprised this is even an issue. Aren't there more important things to worry about like jobs?
Mary McAllister
As a “lapsed Catholic” I’m amazed at the hypocrisy of the church’s position especially in light of the millions paid in restitution for child abuse. Stalwart Catholics will say that the 2 issues are unrelated. But it’s time that all citizens recognize that religious organizations must follow federal mandates. Catholic hospitals are US employers. That is unless y’all are OK with Shiria Law.
Tim Thomas via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The church is welcome to go back to being a church and not offering birth control. It's just the fact that they want to dabble in the private sector that's causing the problem. No one would support the Catholic church opening a restaurant and claiming exemption from food safety rules because they believed God would keep their customers safe. Leave the private sector or play by its rules. That's not infringing on your religious rights.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Yep, same old scare tactics by the GOP to distract misinformed voters from the REAL issues. Don't be distracted or fooled. I'm more worried about religion taking over govt. than govt. taking over religion.
gypsy314 ne
Im glad Obama and crew are showing there true colors now Americans see the real Obama and democrats that seam to care more about how to put it too the American people. Jobs I say pipeline, cheating American voters out of there votes I say illegal aliens signing up to vote, marriage I say DOMA law Obama failure to uphold the laws he took the oath. This is a just a few of what democrats and Obama has failed the American people.
Democrats and Obama has lied so much he is flip flopping on just about everything. The American people deserves better and 2012 will bring a true President for the American people.
Anyone BUT Obama and democrats
Tim Tukaram Spotswood via Texas Tribune on Facebook
They said the church is exempt. But the hospital is not a church. You want to run a business for the general public you should follow the same rules. They should be paying tax on a hospital to but you know they are not.
Katie Boal via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I'm catholic and I use birth control. And my VERY catholic mom believes in contraception too!!
Sarah Sanders
I'm so glad to see an article on an issue like this which affects many women, especially in Texas. Contraception plays a big role in women's lives and futures and should be taken seriously.
Leon Drozd
Simple concepts here. This is a free country. If folks are beholden to the Pope and that religion, then don't take taxpayer money. Government serves ALL of the people and not just those of certain relgious ideologies. DON'T MESS WITH AMERICANS.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Watch and share this video with everyone you know. This is the *Personhood Amendment.* http://parentsagainstms26.com/2011/10/17/trust-families-video/
Mary Bell Lockhart
Freedom of religion does not rest with the churches, it is an inalienable right of the people. Requiring all health plans to provide contraceptives - when the individuals choose to take them - does not violate the rights of the church in the slightest. The individual women have rights to both privacy in their health care decisions and in religious practice. Thus the choice to obtain contraceptives rests entirely with them. Failure to cover contraceptives in a health insurance plan is a violation of the rights of the individuals. It inadequately provides for the women in the plan and places their health at greater risk. The Federal government has authority to set standards and requirements for health insurance plans - for the protection of us all from these ideological restrictions. The church's demands are just another instance of them seeking to impose their will on people, not just of their particular faith, but of any faith or none. We are not a theocracy, but they behave very much like the Taliban of America. Then they pretend that someone is trying to establish Sharia law in our government. Not so, this is a cover for them as they are trying to establish Christian law in our government. Even most Christians oppose that.
homas
58% of Catholics support the mandate (and 98% use them). The bishops no more represent their parishioners than the US or state legislators represent their citizens. I'm all for religious freedom but it doesn't include the freedom to place limits on my healthcare.
Dale Hoskisson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Do people on here really not see a problem with the government dictating to a nonprofit, religiously affiliated charity organization what it must include in its health care? It is hard for me to believe that you do not see this as infringing on the rights of the religious organization that runs the hospital. They believe that contraceptive drugs are immoral but the govt is saying "we don't care do it anyways." if the people working at the nonprofit want that type of coverage then pay for it out of pocket or get a job with someone who covers it. The individuals have choices. The govt is giving the nonprofit no choice and is trampling on their second amendment rights. People, free exercise of religion is a right; guaranteed access to birth control is not. This new law applies to all religious organizations including charities, clinics, hospitals, and shelters run by denominations of all kinds. This is not about what you believe about contraception; it is about allowing religious organizations to freely practice what they believe which is the only verifiable right being attacked here.
Dale Hoskisson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
And to those suggesting that the church charities should just shut down and focus on Sunday meetings, I ask: who is going to step in and fill the role that these nonprofits are filling? The government? For profit entities? Either option is a loss for the customer. I think we should be promoting and encouraging more nonprofits to fill these needs regardless of their religious affiliations (or lack thereof).
Fernando Velazquez via Texas Tribune on Facebook
They have a choice to get a job somewhere else? That's your response? When the GOP stops playing games and passes a bipartisan jobs bill you can start using that as a response.
Russ Savage
Fight the mandate!!!! Stand up for your principles people! YOUR TEXANS FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!
Renee E. Babcock via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Dale, these organizations are not churches: they do not exclusively hire church members, they do not exclusively serve church members, and they do not primarily provide religious education. They are perfectly happy to follow secular laws that allow them to get federal funding. They can't have it both ways. And frankly, the *church* needs to get with the 21st c., and stop discriminating against women, stop telling them that birth control is immoral, stop controlling what reproductive decisions women make. BC is used for so many serious (and usually very painful) medical conditions besides preventing pregnancy, and to just say go pay for it out of pocket shows a callous disregard for the medical needs of women. This is a women's health issue, and the last person I would ever trust to be able to make an informed decision on women's health issues is a celibate priest.
Stanley Moore via Texas Tribune on Facebook
How do they feel about Viagra?
Maybe they should spend more time protecting little girls and boys.
Dale Hoskisson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Renee, I appreciate your thoughtful response above, although nothing you wrote above explains the basis that gives the government the right to issue this mandate. I do not mean to sound callous when I suggest that individuals have a choice for BC, but they do. They could also receive BC through federally funded title X clinics. If the government feels so strongly, why not increase the facilities to provide the drugs themselves? Again, the issue is not BC itself, it is the protected right to freely exercise religion. These type of laws generally include a religious exemption, due to clauses in our federal constitution, from these type of mandates. In this case, the religious exemption is so narrowly drafted so as to force these religious organizations to provide a service they believe to be morally wrong. I think that is wrong.
Renee E. Babcock via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Then these organizations need to decide if they'll continue to follow other federal laws and put their hands out to receive federal funds.They want to have their cake and eat it, too, and they can't. And frankly, the church ought to spend a lot less time being morally outraged by what their female employees may or may not be doing, and spend more time worrying about cleaning their own houses. Because see, the issue actually is about BC, and about women's health rights as a whole. The fact that the church wishes to discriminate against women while also putting out their other hand to take advantage of the system shows blatant hypocrisy. They want to keep controlling women's sexuality. It's not as simple as you make it out for women to just go elsewhere to get BC - sometimes, there simply isn't any elsewhere (and paying out of pocket can be very expensive), esp as the far right has waged an unrelenting war against women's health. There have become fewer and fewer places for women to go for health care and BC. It's time to stop discriminating against women, because at heart, that's exactly what this issue is all about.
Dale Hoskisson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I'm not sure what cake are they eating or how they "taking advantage of the system". They are not lining their pockets with gold by accepting federal funds. They are not even using the funds to make a profit. Nor are they using the money to evangelize. They are feeding the hungry and clothing the poor. They are helping children join a family through adoption. They are educating our future generation. They are trying to fulfill and live what they believe in by serving others. I think it is bad public policy to mandate that charities go against their core principles just bc they receive federal funding. I applaud the work they do and hope it can continue without the changing restrictions placed on it by our govt. right now their only choice is to stop serving those of other faiths and pay huge fines or to stop offering these services altogether. Again, bad public policy.
David Spratt
This is not about birth control , it is about Governmental control. It is up to each individual to decide whether they will abide by the beliefs or tenants of an individual religion. If Catholics individually choose to use birth control or have abortions that is their decision , but forcing the religious institution to provide a service or product that contradicts religious teaching is Un Constitutional. What is next, forcing Mormons to serve tea and coffee at all homeless shelters or any meetings of any organization supported by the Church? Besides all that , why should some have to support programs like abortion with their money if they do not believe in it? Contraception , and abortion services are to be had all over the place and if wanted, those using them should pay for them. There is no Constitutional right to abortion or contraception, or even health care for that matter. As far as basic health care goes , there is no Constitutional right to sex. It is not necessary in the same sense as if a person has an illness and if they do not get some help they will die. Health insurances should only be required to cover basic needs to keep a person alive , functioning and healthy. Sex is a choice and not a necessity like air , water or food. Undertaken by most For personal pleasure, if you cannot afford a condom or a child if one happens along,,, then do not do it !! Just as with many other things today , a lot of people want a lot of things and think someone else should subsidize them.
This is a case of the camel coming further and further into the tent , and some seem to be satisfied with ultimatly giving the camel access to the entire tent.
The use of the question of abotion, Morning after pill, contraception is just a diversion by the government to gain more control and have precedence for extending mandates in ever reaching ways.
mary westemeier
Does this mean the Catholic health system will stop doing VASECTOMIES?? They currently are doing those, which is a form of contraception. Oh, I forgot...those are for the men.
Didn't the Catholic Church always condone the "rythmn method"?? The use of "natural, physical timing" to avoid a pregnancy? So how come the Catholic health system pays for ED drugs, which counter the "natural, physical timing" of erectile dysfunction and avoids pregancy. Oh, I forgot...that is for the man.
Or is this ANOTHER hypocritical statement to the women in the Catholic church- you know, from all those MALE PRIESTS that won't allow any females in the Church hierachy.
Audrey Fisher via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Dale: the point should be that everyone should play by the same rules to receive FED funding. In a strange way, some here in TX are all for a smaller FED and reduced Funding - as long as it doesn't affect them.
Tim Tukaram Spotswood via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Why should the church have to provide birth control? Priest and alter boys don't need birth control.
Anya Khan
Dear anti Catholic bigots. The church cannot only hire Catholics for the hospitals...it is against the law. Gee y'all are stupid. Forcing the church to violate its beliefs violates the Constitution. Telling priest what they can and cannot preach violates the constitution..
Renee E. Babcock via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Dale, we're talking about hospitals and universities. Some may be caring for the poor, but that's hardly their target demographic. They're businesses as much as (if not more) than they are charities. And it is irrelevant if they're taking federal funds to line their pockets - no one suggested as much. But if they're going to put their hand out to ask for and receive federal funds, which these organizations are, then they have to play by the fed's rules. If they don't want to play by the fed's rules, then they'll have to forgo the federal funding they're getting. They seem more than happy to accept that money, so they can't say we'll follow all the rules which are okay, but not this one.
Dale Hoskisson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Again, these types of laws have religious exemptions. This one does as well. So the govt disagrees with your premise that everyone must play by the same rules. The problem with this mandate is that the govt is changing the rules that have been played by in the past. the mandate is broader and the exemption narrower. The drafting of these exemptions has gotten narrower over time to the detriment of religious freedom. "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Besides the free exercise of religion argument, one might also take a step back from this and ask a broader question: what gives the govt the right to mandate to any organization what they should include in their health care plans? In your response, please use the constitution.
Renee E. Babcock via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Churches don't take federal funds and are exempt from this policy. Hospitals and universities are not churches, and do take federal funds. As such they have to follow federal law. No one is restricting the church's religious expression. No one is going to be forced to use BC if they don't want it. It just says they have to stop discriminating against women.
Renee E. Babcock via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Oh and the Commerce Clause gives the government the right to do this.
Alma Rosa Vera via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The church is free to leave the country. They, too, have a choice!
Dale Hoskisson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Renee, that is your opinion. The fact is this administration is changing the rules that have been played by You are saying you like the change. I'm saying I don't. However, it cannot be disputed that the rules have been changed. It also cannot be disputed that the change in the rules pushes against the freedoms that the churches had in running these nonprofits affiliated with the churches core mission. Again, you are ok with the change. I am not. I knew my opinion and the presentation of facts in this forum would not be taken well after reading the first 15 comments but I felt the facts deserved a hearing. Goodbye.
Renee E. Babcock via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Here are some more facts: a number of Catholic -affiliated already cover BC in their health plans. Also, 28 states already require this, and 6 of those 28 don't even exempt churches. Hasn't seemed like such a big deal to the churches and their rights until the feds said now this has to happen in all states. This is a women's health issue, something celibate priests have no business weighing in on at all. Facts are facts: if they want to continue receiving federal funds, they have to following federal laws. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/?mobile=nc
Anya Khan
Dear bigots,
Even if a Catholic hospital doesn't take funds, they would still have to follow this discriminatory law. The Obama Administration, that I voted for, has decalred war on the Church, it schools and hospitals Catholic Relief Services, and military Catholic chaplains