• Tue, Dec 17 - 4:30 pm ET

NY Archdiocese Wins Right To Deny Employees Birth Control Coverage, Of Course

aog61377The Affordable Care Act mandates that insurance companies cover birth control. The NY Archdiocese employee plan won’t though – because yesterday a federal judge ruled that they don’t have to.

Churches are already exempt from providing contraceptive care, but the Archdiocese wasn’t comfortable with any of their employees having their birth control covered by a third party, which is what was happening as a result of the Affordable Care Act:

The plaintiffs had filed suit last year once the accommodation for religiously affiliated employers was finalized, arguing that the law’s requirement they fill out a form to self-certify their institution should be exempt from the law’s coverage requirement was itself too much of a burden on their religious beliefs because it forces them to be complicit in a “scheme” to arrange a third party to provide services with which they fundamentally disagree.

U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan wrote that the religious nonprofit plaintiffs “demonstrated that the mandate, despite accommodation, compels them to perform acts that are contrary to their religion and there can be no doubt that the coercive pressure here is substantial.”

The decision affects more than 25,000 employees – people who will have to come out of pocket for birth control thanks to the church. Are there not more important things to focus on? Are there not hungry people to feed? Or poor people to clothe? Or homeless people to give shelter? The church is so busy forcing their will on employees who don’t even maintain the same religious affiliation – they are wasting precious resources.

This effort can only lead me to believe that the church is more offended by birth control than by abortion. Sorry, but in the real world things just don’t disappear when you turn a blind eye to them (like all of the church’s molestation scandals). Just because the church is in deep, horrific denial about the fact that people will have sex for reasons other than procreation – doesn’t mean their employees shouldn’t benefit from family planning resources that they’re not even paying for.

The Catholic church is overstepping their bounds here. If God spoke to me right now, I’m sure she would agree with me.

(photo: Getty Images)

Share This Post:
  • Rachel Sea

    When I am the Boss of Everything the religionists will have to keep their dumb beliefs to themselves.

    • larrybud

      They are keeping them to themselves. You’re the one trying to impose your beliefs on them.

      Man, you people have a funny definition of force.

    • meteor_echo

      “You’re the one trying to impose your beliefs on them.”

      She is trying to impose her beliefs on the Catholic church? So, she’s basically giving them the taste of their own medicine for once?

  • http://wtfihaveakid.blogspot.ca/ jendra_berri

    The Catholic church: Ovulate or else.

    • larrybud

      So what? Don’t like it, don’t join. In other words, MYOB.

    • Kim

      Because if there’s one thing the Catholic church is known for, it’s minding their own business.

    • http://wtfihaveakid.blogspot.ca/ jendra_berri

      I was born and raised Catholic, baptized and confirmed, and went to Catholic school from junior kindergarten through OAC (That’s grade 13). Even if I don’t practice, as far as the Church is concerned, I’m theirs. Hence totes my business. I can criticize them if I darn well please. Anyone can, but us lapsed folks have earned the right even more.

  • Mystik Spiral

    Fuck you Catholic Church. Dumping your ass when I was 15 was the best decision I ever made, even though my mom still wants us to get back together.

  • alice

    i love how there’s a sacramental seal to protect penitents: anything a person confesses, even murder or rape – is nobody’s business but God’s and the confessor’s.

    BUT: patient/doctor confidentiality? pfffff. fuck that shit. what goes on with your doctor is EVERYBODY’S BUSINESS, obviously. Awww, you thought you could make private health decisions for yourself? that’s cute.

    Privacy is only for confessed sinners.

    • larrybud

      Everyone who works for the church can buy their own rubbers, and, shh, the church doesn’t even have to know! No privacy concerns here at all.

    • Mystik Spiral

      Birth control pills are only available by prescription. And many women, myself included, have to take BCP for medical reasons not pertaining to preventing pregnancy. It’s nobody’s business except mine and my doctor’s. The Catholics don’t seem to care about that, though.

    • alice

      simply answer me this:

      does the Church force you to lead a Christian life, or guide you to lead a Christian life?

  • Kheldarson

    The Church is not in denial that sex is used for other things than procreation. Theology of the Body (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm), penned by Pope John Paul II, outlines that sex is for both the intimate enjoyment of a husband and wife as well as for procreation. This also coincides with the idea of the Church being a Culture of Life. What this means is, yes, we have sex for pleasure, but part of that pleasure is the knowledge that new life can come from it. It becomes a reflection of the Holy Trinity, in which the Father gives to the Son who receives and from that giving and receiving comes forth the Holy Spirit. That’s why birth control is considered just as bad as abortion; it’s preventing the covenant that we are to have with God.

    Granted, it does suck for those who don’t believe as we do, but living in a way that supports Catholic teaching is in the contracts. So why is this any surprise?

    • AP

      One would generally assume that someone who chooses to work for a religious organization would either a) believe in the religion’s teachings and follow them or b) be on board with paying lip service to the religion’s teachings as a stipulation of their job.

      Even secular companies expect their employees to buy into the company’s mission, and if they can’t, to seek employment elsewhere. With a religion, that expectation simply goes further.

    • jane

      If you work there in a religious capacity, sure. But the cleaning people? The person hired to do the photocopying? I highly doubt that all 25,000 people who work for the diocese are practicing Catholics.

      I’m pretty sure that Pfizer doesn’t care if the people mopping the floors are Christan Scientist as long as the linoleum is shiny in the morning.

    • Kheldarson

      But Pfizer would care if said janitor was posting anti-pharma rants while associated with the company.

    • Kay_Sue

      I’m sorry? I missed how personal medical health history or decisions become a rant against the organization itself.

    • jane

      taking birth control in the privacy of your own house with a privacy-protected prescription from your doctor hardly equates with making a public anti-Catholic statement.

    • candyvines

      Many people take birth control for reasons other than preventing children.

    • angela

      And when religious employers have offered insurance in the past that did not cover birth control, this did not exclude using the same hormones or even the same prescription for non-contraceptive purposes.

      Do realize that there are many drugs that are not covered by insurance companies if the diagnosis does not meet the coverage guidelines.

    • Kelly

      Explain to me why I should give a rat’s fuck about your beliefs and why exactly those beliefs of YOURS should impact my or anybody else’s medical insurance.

    • Kheldarson

      You personally don’t have to, but if you work for them, guess what? You’ve agreed to. In most contracts for religious groups, there’s a clause saying that one agrees to uphold the teachings of the group. So if you’ve signed the dotted line, then you can’t complain when they continue to do as they’ve always done.

      It’d be like someone who’s anti-gun working for a gun store and getting upset about being made to sell guns. We’d tell them that they need to find a new job because their beliefs don’t align with the company’s. Same here.

    • jane

      No, it would be like someone who takes a job for a cleaning company who then sends him in to clean a gun store being forced to use their own money to purchase a gun once per month to support the gun store even though the employee doesn’t want or need a gun.

      If you need to uphold the employers values to do the job, then it makes sense. You’re not going to hire someone who sabotages your business, be it guns or praying. But if the person doesn’t work in any kind of capacity that directly supports the mission of the business, then they have every right to expect that their rights to privacy (and speech, and religious freedom, and and and) would be respected as everyone else’s.

    • Kheldarson

      That’s still not quite right for an example. It’d be like a pharmaceutical company hiring a maintenance man who writes anti-big pharma posts on social media. We, again, wouldn’t blame the company for parting ways with the individual because there’s obviously a disconnect in values, even if he’s only the maintenance guy and doing such rants on his free time. Companies have the right to protect their image. So why is this different? You know what kind of company you’re signing onto; the Church hasn’t hidden its dogma.

    • Mel

      You can’t expect people to “sign on the dotted line” to agree to discrimination.

    • Kheldarson

      How is this discrimination? You have a right to medical care; they still receive that. Reproductive rights represent a choice: a choice which the Church cannot even tacitly accept, which not speaking out against having to allow the use of birth control would represent. Further nobody makes you sign on the dotted line to anything. An applicant chooses to apply to and accept a job. If you find during the process that they represent/support/ enforce a position you don’t, why would you agree to work there?

      Also, why is it okay to force a RELIGION with a specific set of beliefs to go with something that is against the very basis of their beliefs?

  • Nica

    No one is being forced to work for the Archdiocese. If you don’t like the rules, you are free to seek employment elsewhere…

    • candyvines

      And you’re free to worry less about other people’s reproductive choices.

    • Nica

      I have no worries about anyone’s reproductive choices but mine, but I do worry about this increasingly blurry line between church and state… It’s a slippery slope…

    • Mel

      Not worried as long as it doesn’t affect you? That’s convenient.

      “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”

      __ Martin Niemöller

    • Nica

      How do you know it doesn’t affect me? You’re making an assumption there… That said, if this law ends up being upheld, the end result will be employers like the Archdiocese and other Catholic organizations not offering health insurance to their employees at all. Who is that helping?

      I can pay for my own birth control if needed, but it’ll be a whole heck of a lot harder to get the government out of my church once they get their foot in the door…

    • Mel

      You said that you don’t care about anyone’s rights but your own. And saying that you don’t want to prevent discrimination b/c you’re hoping to keep the discriminators happy so they don’t make it worse is absurd. You don’t give into a hostage taker’s demands so that they don’t shoot a hostage!

      Good for you for affording your own BC. Most, like me, can’t pay premium prices for medicines. That’s why we pay for health insurance. You really think the government wants into your church? Get real. Keep your church out of my vagina, then we’ll talk.

    • Gangle

      Honey, the Catholic Church has treated itself like a state since it began… it was the church started by state. For centuries they had their fingers in every single political pie going… why do they now suddenly want to act like they are bowing out now?

    • Nica

      I think folks are losing the point of it here. It’s not that the Archdiocese is FORBIDDING women (or men, for that matter) from USING BC, they are not PAYING for it. To read some of these “arguments”, you’d think that the Catholic church was marching right into your vagina and forcibly ripping out your IUD.
      Health insurance is a BENEFIT offered by certain employers, not a REQUIREMENT. I’m a believer that the best government is the least goverment and I’m not really sure why the government is even getting involved in this one. You work for the Church, you play by their rules. If you don’t like the rules, leave. There are much bigger fish to fry.
      Furthermore, we’re not talking large sums of money here. Generic bc runs about $20/month. Name brands are about $60/month. IUDs run about $600 or so and are good for up to 10 years! Vasectomies are about $700 and they’re good forever. So I don’t think it’s about the money.
      My employer pays a rider on our health insurance for bc/sterilization and it runs about $36/employee/year, last I checked (a couple years ago now). Removing that rider is by no means a huge cost savings on a policy that runs about $9000 per employee per year.

    • NYBondLady

      Mommish logic:
      “Everyone’s premiums should be raised by $X a month to pay for BC! BC is a right for every woman!!”
      Church:
      “Ok, well how about we keep premiums where they are and you can spend that saved $X on BC, but you have to go get it yourself”
      Mommyish:
      RAGE RAGE RAGE you should PAY FOR MY BC! IT SHOULD BE COVERED NO MATTER WHAT IT SHOULD BE FREE FREE FREE. BC IS A RIGHT, STAY OUT OF MY UTERUS

    • Smb48

      I literally just laughed out loud. But, of course now will come the replies that we are just trolls who should get out if we don’t agree with them.

    • NYBondLady

      Ha, despite having been a commenter here for a few months now, I am still called a “troll” quite often. But here, sometimes unfortunately, opposition/counter-point = troll.

    • meteor_echo

      Trolling requires sharp wit and good timing. Unfortunately for you, your mind is like a vortex of stupid ideas. Sometimes two collide and you say something.

    • Smb48

      Yes, her sound and logical argument of if you want it, pay for it was a really stupid idea. But I guess since you don’t have anything pertinent to add to the discussion means calling other people names. Witty.

    • meteor_echo

      Sound? Logical? Do they even have reading glasses where you came from? In what world is it logical for someone to cover medications to make someone’s dick point upwards, but to not cover a medication that prevents pregnancy (which, by the way, causes medical problems or even death)?
      Logic, to both of you, is like a magnet that is turned to you with whatever pole that will repel you. You are never attracted to it, and it stays away from you.

    • Nica

      Yeah, and birth control has NO medical risks whatsoever. There’s NO proven link between hormonal bc and blood clots and stroke. IUDs don’t perforate the uterus, rectum and abdomen as well as increase the incidence of ectopic pregnancies. There are zero complications from vasectomies and tubal ligations.
      I’m by no means against birth control, but to say that bc should be be covered because pregnancy is so risky isn’t exactly the strongest reason…

    • meteor_echo

      Repeat this very argument to me once birth control displaces pregnancy and childbirth as the #1 cause of death of women in the whole world, okay? Everything is a risk, but certain risks are way more widespread than others, and I don’t think even you could deny them.

    • NYBondLady

      Ok so your logic is basically: X is covered, so Y should be too!
      No, the presence of a certain coverage is neither necessary NOR SUFFICENT for the mandate of another type of coverage.
      And, by the way, no one here is arguing for or against Viagara coverage. Maybe I’m wrong, but are men out there outraged if this is or is not covered?

    • meteor_echo

      However, the presence of a certain coverage is necessary if you want to employ a certain layer/group of people. They could only decide to hire men if they don’t want to pony up the cash to cover a specifically female-oriented medication. But no, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
      So, why is Viagra covered, then? It can most certainly be used for some guy to help him jerk off, which is as much of a ~sin~ as using birth control.

    • NYBondLady

      It’s not up to you or me to decide what an employer offers. There are countless examples outside the world of healtcare benefits that have the effect of excluding “certain layer/groups” of people (salary differentials, shift times, office location, physical demands).
      I don’t understand “have their cake and eat it too”
      If an employer is going to offer more coverage, premiums will rise. It’s probably a wash for the employer.
      I don’t know why Viagara is covered. I don’t care. I am sure you think that is some greater war on women by white males in board rooms, but there is a cost/benefit to everything.

    • NYBondLady

      Hey, Smb48, let’s be friends.

    • alice

      no, you are missing the point. frankly, most people are.

      this is a political move. plain and simple. nothing more. it’s not about religious beliefs at all.

      do you – or anyone here – really think that if the church DIDN’T put restrictions on what a health insurance network could potentially cover, that EQUALS “condoning everything insurance could cover”?

      of course not. that’s silly.

      so you may say “well the church isn’t going to *make it any easier* for a someone to get BC!”

      but i would say: it has NEVER been the church’s way to force a path for it’s followers. it has ALWAYS been the church’s way to guide us. not restrict us. the church prays for our strength to resist temptation. not for our blindness.

      so you say “well the church believes BC is a sin, so it can’t be forced to endure the partnership of an insurance network that deals in sin”

      but i would say: tough shit. that’s our WORLD.

      when a priest buys a newspaper at 7-11, he “endures the partnership” of a company that sells Playboy.

      when an archdiocese gets a website, they “endure the partnership” of a WWW that thrives in sin.

      when the church issues weekly paychecks to it’s employes, they “endure the partnership” of a Federal Reserve that allows US Currency to be accepted…anywhere in the US! even abortion clinics!

      and when the church offers health insurance to it’s employees, they “endure the partnership” with a network of doctors that provide a host of health services.

      so until the chruch starts vetting every single doctor within that health insurance network, and every single hospital and clinic within that network, just to make sure that everything offered by this giant network is 10000% cohesive with the church’s beliefs, i’m calling HYPOCRITE and POLITICS.

      tl;dr

    • larrybud

      Do you guys even understand this ruling? This doesn’t affect your reproductive choice at all.

    • Smb48

      No, you’ve stumbled upon the Land of Hysterical Women, logic doesn’t work for them. And with that, I’m out.

  • Mel

    Using religion to discriminate is gross. This is one of the reasons the new pope is definitely not my “Person of the Year.” Talk is cheap. Dialogue is important but not while his minions continue to set humans and especially women as far back as they can get away with. They should be ashamed of themselves. As ashamed as any extremist who uses religion as a weapon of war or other abuse. Shame on the Court for allowing this nastiness. And shame one anyone who argues that “if you don’t like it don’t work for them.” The same argument could be used to discriminate against anyone for anything. It’s no different than “if you black people don’t want to be abused then don’t work for a white man” and “if you gays don’t want to be denied rights, don’t work for a straight man” and “if you women don’t want to be paid less for equal work, don’t work for a man.”

    • Kheldarson

      No, it’s different. You don’t have a choice to be gay, black, white, etc. You have a choice as to use birth control or not. If you make that choice, good for you, but there are others who don’t necessarily agree with your choice. You can expect them to not stop you, but you don’t have the right to ask them to support you.

    • Mel

      Living in a society means that you don’t just get to allow the rights that apply to you or that make you happy. It’s about group rights. If you don’t want to use your health insurance to pay for birth control, super. Don’t buy any. But don’t use your religion to decide what choices of mine are approved. I don’t want “support” because the right to use whatever medicines I want is not a favor that they’re granting me. It’s about medicine and science and freedom. Keep your religion out of my laws and my health coverage!

    • Kheldarson

      Then don’t apply to work for my religion!

    • Mel

      Where does it stop? You’re fat, so I don’t want to pay for your heart medicine b/c you chose to put yourself in this position! I don’t drink or smoke, so I’m not going to cover your liver or lung cancer! I don’t like how you spend your money on things I think are frivolous, so I’m not going to pay you a living wage. I don’t like the way you live and the choices you make, so I’m not going to allow for your lifestyle!

      Slippery slope indeed….. I’m less worried about your church and your “religion” as I am worried about setting worker’s rights back 100 years. Stop trying to send us back to the stone age.

    • Kheldarson

      Birth control is not necessary to continue living, unlike medicines to treat cancer and heart issues. And a living wage is just that: the wage we need to stay alive. Birth control does not fit those same categories.

    • Mel

      You don’t get to decide that and neither does your church. It’s between me and my doctor, so keep out!

    • Kheldarson

      And you and the law don’t get to dictate what my religion teaches and supports. Separation of church and state works both ways.

    • NYBondLady

      Kheldarson, I agree with you but be prepared for an uphill battle here. Two things:
      Many arguments are based on the “keep your religion out of my reproductive rights.” The Church is not denying access to BC for anyone, it’s just not PAYING for it. You could argue that the church is completely removed from the reproductive choice making. If you want BC, you are free to go out and get it. If you don’t want it, then you’re not stuck paying for it?
      Second: For the church, they are using this BC talking point as proof that the ACA is deeply flawed and probably illegal/immoral.
      The other side? ALL ABOUT MONEY. Yes. If

    • candyvines

      Has the church changed its stance on abortion? Until then this is about much more than money.

    • NYBondLady

      I think it’s more about money for the people who want the BC, and for the church, it’s more about proving the point that the ACA is deeply flawed.

    • candyvines

      The church is really sticking it to the Obama administration and totally not to working people.

    • alice

      “Hey Insurance Carrier, Archdiocese here. We understand that you provide birth control access to millions of people. We think that’s a pretty big sin. It goes against our religious beliefs. It disgusts us frankly. Birth Control is WRONG.

      But you know what? We still want to do business with you. So here’s all of our money. Yeah, we know, some of that money is going to pay for other people’s birth control. We can’t stop you there. But do us a favor and at least stop any of our employees from accessing it. Because ..*wink wink* .. YOU CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY FOR BIRTH CONTROL!”

      ^^ when politics supersede principles

    • Shelly Lloyd

      “Birth control is not necessary to continue living…” tell that to my sister who had to have her ovaries removed due to ovarian cancer. Which pretty much made her infertile. Thankfully she did not work for a catholic employer who would have prevent that.

      And while hormonal birth control may not be needed in every case, what about women who suffers from PCO or other hormonal imbalances? Without birth control they would suffer from symptoms that would greatly impact the quality of their life.

    • Sarah Morgan

      Lots of medicines are not necessary to continue living, such as allergy medicines, psoriasis medicines, and, oh yeah: VIAGARA. Why should hormonal birth control pills be viewed any differently? I will remind you as well, that birth control pills are not always prescribed simply for birth control. They correct hormonal imbalances.

    • NYBondLady

      Actually, a lot of insurance companies have health assessments and surchargers for smokers. They are “restricting” access, you could say.

    • Mel

      And, frankly, if your only argument is “agree with me or get the fuck out”, then having a reasonable discussion with you is impossible. Gross.

    • Kheldarson

      How’s your position any different? I understand your position, but you’ve done nothing but deny my religion’s base beliefs as being even valid. I’ve only said you don’t have to support, work for, or associate with my belief system if you don’t choose to. But neither do you get to impose your belief system upon mine.

    • Mel

      Are you hearing yourself? “you don’t get to impose your belief system on mine” It’s EXACTLY what you and your ilk are trying to do.
      I would never try to deny your beliefs. They simply don’t belong in the law. Keep them in you home and house of worship and keep them away from me.

    • Kheldarson

      I do hear myself. Nobody is trying to impose the Church’s position OUTSIDE of the Church. You’re not Catholic, don’t work for the Church, then do what you like! I don’t care and, to a practical extent, neither does the Church. But you don’t get to pass a law to force the Church to support something it inherently stands against.

    • Mel

      Your religion is trying to pass a law that says a THIRD PARTY has to discriminate on your behalf! That’s no different than saying that any business that you patronize has to follow your orders. You buy gas as BP? Well BP is not allowed to spend money on anything you don’t like. That’s outrageous and shameful and you’re clearly not a person that can accept reason and fairness. I don’t normally engage in generalizations and name calling, but you and anyone agrees with you is shameful and disgusting and I’m embarrassed for you. Buzz off.

    • Kheldarson

      If BP spends money on things I don’t like, I don’t spend money at BP. It’s that simple. I don’t understand why this is an unacceptable answer when it comes to the Church. Don’t like what they’re doing as a private, protected entity, then don’t associate with them.

    • Nica

      There should be NO laws concerning what OPTIONAL health insurance does and does not cover. Let’s keep the LAW out of it entirely…then, everyone is happy.

    • larrybud

      Inaction is not imposing someone’s belief. If the Church doesn’t want to pay for contraception coverage, this doesn’t infringe on any of your rights. You can still buy your own contraception.

      The imposition is when YOU tell the church what they must do.

    • Mel

      *SMH* You’re still not getting it. If your employer offers health coverage, that’s it, that’s your only option short of buying private insurance which is outrageously unaffordable and of little actual value. My employer is my sole source of health coverage and uncovered medicines are prohibitively expensive. So, if my employer decides he doesn’t feel like covering something it is a de facto denial of access for me!

    • Nica

      Private insurance is more affordable than you think, especially if you are able to forego maternity coverage, afford a larger deductible, etc. There are a lot of options out there…
      That said, given the relatively low cost of any bc method, you’d still be best off paying OOP for contraception and taking your employer’s coverage.
      Or, even better, work for a company whose beliefs match your own so it’s not an issue…

    • larrybud

      Here’s where your freedom comes into play: Get a new employer.

      Your employment is a voluntary agreement between you and your employer. You don’t have a right to your job, any more than your employer has a right to force you to work for him. You don’t like how he operates, you quit. If he doesn’t like how you operate, he fires you.

    • NYBondLady

      “that’s your only option…” except for all your other options!
      My employer is my sole source of salary. If he doesn’t feel like paying me more, he is denying me access to many things, is he not?
      All sarcasm aside. there are lots of options for someone seeking BC, as there are lots of options for me to make more elsewhere (at the top of the list would be: find a new job).

    • NYBondLady

      What about women who don’t have employer-provided health insurance? And will be forced to pay high premiums and deductibles under the ACA?

    • larrybud

      Then keep your laws out of my religion. Goes both ways.

    • candyvines

      Why do you really care if someone else uses birth control?

    • NYBondLady

      I don’t care, just don’t make me pay for it.

    • Mel

      Then I guess that goes for everything, right? I don’t have kids and don’t care about yours, so I’m going to insist on paying fewer taxes! I don’t like that your husband uses viagra, so I’m not going to allow him on your employee provided healthcare policy as a family member! I don’t like your parenting decisions, so I’m not going to celebrate your kids’ birthdays or holidays! I disagree with your personal choices, so you’re outta here!

    • NYBondLady

      Those examples are not the same as mandating someone to provide something for someone else.

    • Mel

      They are precisely the same, and your denial proves your lack of reasoning on this topic. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it wrong. This is no different than in the past when white-owned businesses saying they didn’t care where blacks went as long as they didn’t stay there. You’re saying if you don’t like the church’s policies, stay away. How is that any different? Just b/c it’s not your thing, doesn’t mean you get to decide for everyone. You don’t get to discriminate, and you shouldn’t want to.

    • NYBondLady

      It is an issue of who bears the burden of service/cost.
      A better example:
      I am a pizza shop. One day a customer comes in demanding to be served Chinese food. I don’t offer Chinese food. Well, someone, probably the government, declares that everyone should have “access” to Chinese food because it’s really good. Now I am MANDATED to provide Chinese food. The burden is now on ME, as is the cost of providing such a good.

    • Mel

      You only think that example is “better” because it makes your case while making no sense at all. Well played.

    • Smb48

      I would like you to pay for my son’s occupational therapy for his autism. I would also like you to pay for his ADHD medicine so he can go to school. I would also like you to pay for my dad’s heart medicine which keeps him alive. Is that ok with you? No?
      Why not, if I have to pay for my and your birth control, why should any other medicine be any different?

    • CMJ

      Technically, other people on those insurance plans are paying for that…as is your or your dad’s employer as is the person who pays the premium. That’s the way insurance works.

    • Smb48

      I can say for without a doubt that no one’s insurance premiums have gone up because of my son’s ADHD medicine. But my father’s (single 60 year old man) have doubled to pay for the additional things that are included in Obamacare, such as “free” birth control. That’s the diffence.

    • Smb48

      Sorry, difference.

    • Mel

      This sounds like one of those nonsense reports that Fox has been running. If his premiums did go up, you can be it’s because HE’S getting better coverage, not because he’s paying for some slut’s whore pills. If his premium doubled like you say, then he must have had some shitty “coverage” that doesn’t actually cover much of anything when it comes to actual claims. So then he would either be bankrupt or the bill would be passed on to taxpayers like yourself when he actually ended up needed a surgery or hospital stay. Yeah, you’re right, the president sure stuck it to him!

    • NYBondLady

      I really don’t like this. It screams “we know what’s best for you, you dumb idiot”

    • Mel

      Which is exactly what the church is trying to do to women. I don’t really care if you don’t like it. It’s wrong and that’s that. I don’t like a lot of things, but tough noogies for me! I’m an adult and that’s the way it goes sometimes.

    • NYBondLady

      No, it’s leaving the CHOICE up to women. Take it or leave it. Pills, IUD, whatever. I would say that the church trusts the women to make the right decision for themselves, and to spend their money how they see fit.

    • Smb48

      No he had great coverage, but continue on with the name calling, it really helps your case. Btw, I don’t even kinda watch Fox News, and I’m for damn sure not a conservative.

    • Mel

      I don’t need help for “my case.” My case is based on logic and facts and human kindness. Your case appears to be based on religious doctrine, selfishness, isolationism and judgement.

    • Smb48

      My case is based on one of the freedoms that this country was built on, separation of church and state. The government should not mandate a religion to do anything against its beliefs. Period. You don’t have to agree with them, but that’s the way it is. I personally don’t. But they have every right guaranteed them in the Constitution to operate their religious institution the way they want based on their faith.

    • NYBondLady

      LOLZ. human kindness. Like, feelings?

    • CMJ

      I am sorry, but no co-pay birth control is not the sole cause of higher premiums. Free preventative care for everyone (prostrate screenings, colonoscopies, well visits), no lifetime maximums, and no denial because of pre-existing conditions are why some people’s premiums went up.

      You do realize that insurance companies have no problem proving birth control at no copay, right? It’s cheaper for them than paying for childbirth and all the child’s subsequent health needs. And for the record. It’s not free. I hate that people say it’s free. There is no co-pay. We pay a premium for insurance. People aren’t asking anyone for free birth control. They are asking for a prescription to be provided under an insurance plan THEY PAY FOR.

    • Smb48

      Making a 60 year old man without a uterus pay for maternity, wellness Pap smears and birth control isn’t raising his premiums? Huh? I guess he might use all of those.

    • Mel

      Simpleton. I’m sad for you.

    • CMJ

      Once again, that’s how insurance works. I would pay for those free prostate screenings. And immunizations for children. I have neither a prostate or children.

      The difference is, I don’t care! I would gladly pay a higher premium so someone with children or with a prostate could have proper well-care and preventative coverage.

    • Mel

      Thank you CMJ! It’s refreshing to hear from someone who gets how the system actually works instead of railing against things that don’t specifically please them at the moment.

    • NYBondLady

      Everyone here knows how insurance works. The problem lies in the government telling [private] insurance companies and employers how to operate within the realm.

    • Smb48

      There is a difference in paying for insurance that you might need one day, and insurance you will never need. You shouldn’t have to pay for prostate exams you are not a man. Same with him. If you want to pay extra for someone else, shouldn’t that be a choice?

    • Smb48

      Ys, they do take on SOME of the costs, but now I would like you to bear the burden of ALL of them.

    • Mel

      CMJ is right. I (figuratively) am paying for all of those things because as a young, healthy person I’m charged a higher rate to offset the cost of people who do spend lots, like your family. And I’m happy to do it! Just like I pay more taxes than poor people, yet I don’t get better civil services or more votes. It’s the only way a society can function, and I’m happy to be a part of it. If you want to be an isolationist, you should go build your cabin in the woods and get off the grid. Keep in mind, when you do that, you’ll be solely responsible for all of those healthcare needs you listed…

    • Mystik Spiral

      What about people who take birth control as medication, not to prevent pregnancy?

      Why aren’t we taking heart medication away from people who eat fatty foods and don’t exercise?

      Why aren’t we taking diabetes medication away from people who eat sweets?

      I personally don’t believe that anyone should have more than two kids. Why should I pay for the hospital costs for you to birth your 3rd, 4th and 5th kid?

    • NYBondLady

      Who is “we?”
      If you want to start your own insurance company, then you are free to include all of these provisions.
      And if you don’t, then you are free to seek out insurance plans that offer this kind of coverage, or lobby your carrier to include this type of coverage.
      BUT, you are NOT free to mandate another insurance company to implement policies that YOU deem acceptable.

    • candyvines

      Some of my tax money (not nearly enough) goes to schools. I don’t have kids in school, but I can see why having an educated population is a good thing. We pay for lots of things we don’t personally use. Even if you don’t use it, I don’t understand how you can think that birth control is a bad thing. Access to affordable birth control for people who would like it is cheaper for everyone than babies – especially unwanted ones.

    • NYBondLady

      It’s not the same.This is not a matter of making sound economic decision or not. It doesn’t really matter if BC will save a company $1 or $1Billion, or maybe even cost $1. The issue is, and will always be: can you FORCE a private entity to MAKE this business decision?

    • Anon

      Love how you say “you have a choice to use birth control” when some women actually don’t. I mean sure, I guess they could put up with one month + long periods because they don’t “have” to use BC, but I’m pretty sure no one wants to go through that, not even you.

  • Pingback: Right to Choice vs. Right to Beliefs | Life as a Catholic American

  • Smb48

    I’m confused. The Church isn’t telling your doctor that you are not allowed to take birth control, just that they are not going to pay for it. No one should make a Religion pay for something against their core beliefs.

    I think the church’s stance on birth control is ridiculous, so that’s why I would never work for them. See how easy at was?

    • NYBondLady

      Thank you! This is really all about the money.

    • Alexandra

      THIS!!!!!!

    • candyvines

      It’s not that easy. How nice for you that you can choose where you want to work in this economy, not everyone has that luxury. The church in New York runs six hospitals – do you think every employee is Catholic? And please don’t forget that insurance does not only cover the employee, but their spouses and children as well. I think the teenaged children of church employees should have access to birth control. Or anyone for that matter.

    • Smb48

      They do, no one is denying their right to birth control, they just have to pay for it.

    • NYBondLady

      Again, confusing ACCESS and COVERAGE.

    • candyvines

      Not confused. Restricting access by not covering.

    • NYBondLady

      That’s some stretch of the word “restricting.”
      My employer is restricting me from Ferraris, $1,000 handbags, and a boob job.
      You do understand that the costs of insurance will GO UP with more coverage. Isn’t that a form of restricting as well?

    • Smb48

      So no one had access to birth control before Obamacare? News to me, since I’ve been on it for a long time and even paid for myself (GASP) when I didn’t have insurance.

    • Kim

      I’m a little confused. In the article it said that “…law’s requirement they fill out a form to self-certify their institution should be exempt from the law’s coverage requirement was itself too much of a burden on their religious beliefs because it forces them to be complicit in a “scheme” to arrange a third party to provide services with which they fundamentally disagree.” I’m not American, so I don’t know how the system works, but that sounds like they already don’t need to provide it and now they’re also refusing to fill out a form so employees can get it elsewhere. If that’s the case, it goes beyond simply upholding their own beliefs and into interference withtheir employees ability to access it at all. I could be misunderstanding though.

  • meteor_echo

    Every single time the Catholic church speaks, my middle finger gets a raging boner.

  • larrybud

    If you don’t like the benefits your employer is offering, go get different employment. You don’t have a right to force an employer to give you something. Employment is a voluntary exchange between labor and money. Without voluntary consent by both parties, there is no employment.

    So if you don’t like the rules the church has, don’t work for the church.

    • NYBondLady

      welcome to the lion’s den, larrybud.

    • Mel

      It’s more like a bunch of children stomping and screaming “I DON’T WANNA AND YOU CAN’T MAKE ME!”

      You tell me if I don’t like it I can go somewhere else? Well I say to you and the church that if they don’t like it they can call go off the grid and no be part of this system that they loathe so. But remember, when you leave a society, you lose it’s protections. I doubt the people complaining about paying for the pill want to be left to their own devices as they claim… It’s easy to talk the talk.

    • Smb48

      Everyone who thinks people should pay for their own medicines should live off the grid? Seriously? God forbid people take personal responsibility for their own choices. Those of us defending a court of law for upholding the Constitution and not mandating a religion to do something AGAINST their beliefs? We are clearly the ones not using logic. I’ll say again, I don’t agree with the church’s stance on birth control. I also have a CHOICE to work for them, or worship with them and if my beliefs don’t match, then I won’t.

  • ted3553

    the part that frustrates me most about this argument is that the church is saying that you know there’s often a consequence to having sex when you’re not trying to get pregnant and you may not be happy about getting pregnant from having sex but they also don’t want you to prevent a bad outcome. So I tell my kid that drinking and driving is dangerous but then I tell them they should drink drink at a party but can’t take a cab or call me and if they do get in an accident, they’re just going to have to deal with it on their own. Genius

  • candyvines

    The birth control pill was invented by a catholic, BTW.

    • NYBondLady

      I don’t see how this matters one way or another.
      And Gregory Pincus was a jew.