Subscribe
Previous Post
Today in my google news feed, I came across an item saying the Obama administration had mandated that all food stores selling refrigerated goods must sell beef, even if the store otherwise only sells vegetarian or vegan foods. What could possibly be the rationale behind that?, I wondered, clicking through to the “story”—which turned out to be a satire intended to demonstrate the unfairness of the administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans cover birth control. But requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control pills is nothing like requiring vegan stores* to sell beef, for two very simple reasons.
1. You can buy beef all around; not so for birth control. As it stands, the majority of (if not all) supermarkets and food-sellers carry meat (even convenience stores carry beef jerky, hot dogs, etc.). There would be nothing to gain by mandating that a few stores that didn’t start doing so. If a nearby vegetarian foods store didn’t sell beef, you could simply zip over to your nearest regular supermarket to pick some up. But most birth control is only available with a prescription, purchasable at a pharmacy, and affordable with health insurance. With the majority of insured Americans covered under employer-sponsored health insurance plans (and the individual health insurance market so pathetic and prohibitively expensive), it’s not like most women can just say, ‘Oh, my plan doesn’t cover contraception? I’ll just switch.” Health insurance plans are not like supermarkets.
2. The government has a legitimate interest in ensuring widespread access to contraception—not to beef. Contraception is incredibly important to women’s health. It helps prevent unplanned pregnancies, which helps reduce the number of low-income and/or single mothers who may need to receive government assistance or may turn children over into the foster system (not to mention reduces the abortion rate, something that’s not necessarily a ‘legitimate government interest’ but is, nonetheless, considered a good thing by many people—including religious conservatives and Catholics who oppose the birth control mandate). There’s no real reason, however, why the government would have a legitimate interest in promoting beef consumption or any sort of arbitrary dietary choice.
In the comments to the original comparison post, author Diane M. Korzeniewski writes:
One thing I’m certain of is that if vegetarian shop owners were forced to carry beef, a good many non-vegetarians would be in an uproar. There would be a much bigger stink.
Um, that’s because such a move would be a pointless, intrusive and unprecedented (in this area) exercise of government power. But regulating health plans and what sorts of coverage they must provide is already something the government does. Unlike some sort of weird beef carriage mandate, the HHS’ birth control mandate is not a novel or surprising regulation. Yes, some Catholic universities and organizations might have problems with offering health insurance that offers birth control, but people in all sorts of businesses and industries have all sorts of problems (ethical, political, practical) with all sorts of government mandates. You don’t get to pick and choose what regulations you follow.
* Let’s put aside for a moment the fact that there is possibly no such thing. Have you ever come across an all-vegan, or even all-vegetarian, store?
I am a Democrat. I support Obama. I am also a conservative Christian, although not Catholic. This is a really biased piece that refuses to decently and humanely acknowledge others’ beliefs. You are deliberately pointing out only how the satire falls apart, without regard to how the satire is relevant to the issue. It is really sad that there is no respect for (certain) Christian views. You can give all the reasons you want about why you disagree with the view about contraception and abortion, but the fact is, it is against a group’s moral stand. Why is it ok suddenly to infringe upon those rights?
One of the problems with this article is that it fails (purposefully?) to engage the entire issue. The HHS mandate requires that religious employers provide insurance that covers, not only contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancies, but hormonal and invasive contraceptions where the primary or secondary method of preventing pregnancy is by causing a spontaneous abortion. Let’s be clear, all hormonal contraceptives work primarily by preventing conception. However, all of them also work by making the uterus hostile to the implantation of the blastocyst, causing spontaneous abortion should conception occure despite the contraceptive. The IUD is an invasive contraceptive that only works by preventing implantation. The mandate also requires coverage for sterilization, including elective sterilization. The mandate also applies to all religious employers, irrespective of whether or not they receive federal money.
Beyond all of that, this is a basic case of religious freedom. As such, it will not stand. The Obama administration is trying to argue that the HHS mandate complies with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which allows the federal government to “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion only if the burden is both “in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”
Ms. Brown may be of the opinion that the government has a “legitimate interest in ensuring widespread access to contraception.” That is debatable but, still, it is a stretch to say that the government’s interest is compelling. It is also difficult to argue that burdening the religious liberty of religious organizations (never mind the exclusions, they are so narrow as to be transparently absurd) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a more restrictive means, other than requiring that churches budget for the purchase of contraceptives and pass them out at the parish door.
Ms. Korzeniewski’s comment suggests that she’s not kept up with the news. Many organizations, not only Catholic ones, have raised a stink about this mandate. Even liberal Catholics who supported Obama are opposed to this mandate on grounds of religious freedom. I find it interesting that, while all religious organizations are covered by the mandate, the only one getting any attention is the Catholic Church. Is this suggestive of a “those blasted Catholics!” paradigm in covering the story?
Ms. Brown’s argument that you don’t get to choose which regulations you follow is telling in light of the recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling on Hosanna-Tabor. The Court ruled that religious organizations most certainly do get to choose which regulations they follow, if a regulation violates the free exercise clause of the Constitution.
Here’s the thing. The Catholic Church has teaching against any contraceptive. They believe that if you don’t want children, then you should not have sex. This mandate requires the Catholic church, as an employer, to provide a medical service that directly violates what they believe to be a command of God. Should not God be above the government? If the President tells you to murder someone, but your conscience tells you not to, whether or not you believe in God, then you should not do so.
That is what the article was trying to impress. The government is trying to force individuals to violate their conscience. I for one believe that if a woman does not want to get pregnant then she should not have sex. Also what happened to only paying for services rendered? I will not pay for something i will not use. That is my right as a consumer.
Thank you for this. You’re absolutely right.
In addition to the points you made in the post, it’s worth noting that the “Catholics” who are up in arms about this HHS ruling are primarily the men who run the Catholic church. Out in the pews, where the vast majority of Catholic women are using – or have used or will use – birth control at some point in their lives, it’s quite a different story.
The vegan-store-beef-mandate is total bologna.
I’m one of those ‘Out in the pews’ and I think you are wrong on a couple of points. Many of us women who have used contraceptives in the past are now sorry we did, because we recognize how evil contraception is. More importantly we never expected (or considered it right) that the government should mandate coverage in the manner the HHS is now trying to do. At the very least we would expect our Church to be exempt from having to provide us something which it considers so wrong. I believe the First Amendment requires that.
Your first point is unclear. This isn’t going to change the availability of birth control — just who pays for it. As you say yourself, you need a prescription and a pharmacy to get birth control. This mandate isn’t going to change that. What it is going to do is require people who are morally opposed to birth control to PAY FOR IT for others. So, it’s more like requiring a vegan store to pay for my hamburger. This already happens for any one who works for a regular business and pays into her healthcare plan, regardless of that person’s individual principals. So be it. But If someone is working for a Catholic organization, they knew it when they applied for the job. It’s not like they are working for a company that just decided to arbitrarily stop funding contraceptives.
It’s like all these kids who go to Catholic colleges and complain that they have to take Theology. There are plenty of places to work or go to school that aren’t Catholic. If contraception is a make or break deal for you — choose somewhere else. Don’t come to my party and insist on changing the music.
It’s very hard to make an analogy that doesn’t seem random to folks who ascribe to moral relativism. As Catholics, we believe there are things that are wrong, and we can’t just go along with the majority. We aren’t saying make birth control unavailable — we’re just saying don’t make us complicit in its distribution.
Catholic organizations aren’t just “annoyed”. They are put in a serious bind — basically, comply with the mandate OR continue being Catholic. Our Constitution protects religion, but our current president does not.
@by Fig – That’s a distortion — The Catholic Church isn’t asking that everyone be required to follow its religion teachings — Only that it not be required to pay for something that goes against them. You can work for a Catholic organization and take birth control. Just pay for it yourself, or through your spouse’s insurance, or go to any of the places that are happy to help you out. But don’t ask the Catholic Church to pay for something that goes against it.
@ Allison — If you subscribe to a “different brand of ethics”, work for a different organization. That is in no way discrimination. If you are a vegan, you wouldn’t choose to work for McDonalds — are you claiming they discriminate against you by serving meat? Also, see my comment to Fig — The Catholic organizations aren’t trying to prevent you from getting birth control — just keep from being required to pay for it. Now, where’s my burger?
Denying coverage of birth control IS denying access to it. It is very expensive without coverage by your insurance company. In college I paid 75$ a month for my birthcontrol, and it was money I could scarcely afford, what with my income of 600$ a month.
You suggest using your spouse’s insurance. Well, what about all those women who aren’t married, or whose husbands aren’t eligible for coverage through their jobs, or whose husbands also work for a university or hospital or school operated by the Catholic Church?
You also suggest ‘going to one of the many places willing to help you out”. I assume you’re talking about planned parenthood, but guess what, they’re not going to be able to suddenly pick up the cost of covering all these extra birth control costs, especially with Catholic groups and other right-wing anti-choice groups pushing to cut off their support from various states (ie, Illinois).
The part of this that makes me REALLY angry is that the Catholic Church claims to be Anti-Abortion. Fine. Be Anti-abortion, but recognize that birth control reduces unplanned pregnancies and therefore reduces abortions. But don’t be hypocrites and cut off the supply of birth control to women in their child-bearing years if you truly want to prevent abortions.
“What it is going to do is require people who are morally opposed to birth control to PAY FOR IT for others. So, it’s more like requiring a vegan store to pay for my hamburger.”
No one is asking you to pay for someone else’s birth control, just like no one is asking me to pay for your heart medication/insulin/blood pressure pills. You pay into your company’s insurance plan so that if/when the time comes, you can go to the doctor and your insurance company will cover part or all of the visit and the subsequent prescriptions. Paying into your insurance coverage means one thing: that you (and your spouse and/or children) are covered by insurance. That’s it – that does not mean that if I work at your company or if I have the same insurance plan, I get free birth control. It means that if I want birth control, the insurance company will cover it – as long as I pay MY monthly premium. We are asking insurance companies to pay for the birth control if we want it, not for you to pay for anything. You don’t want birth control? Fine, don’t ask your doctor to prescribe it.
You might argue premiums will rise and in that way, you will “pay” for birth control. However, I highly doubt that (in fact, i bet premiums could fall with fewer unplanned pregnancies requiring medical care). And what about the premiums that are so high because of the weight problem in this country? Because of smokers getting lung cancer? Because of fraudulent insurance claims? What if i say i won’t pay into insurance companies that cover healthcare for the obese? For smokers? That have ever gone to court to fight a claim (that would be every insurance company EVER)? No, of course not. Because while I don’t love high premiums, I sure do love insurance when I need it, even if I think someone who does something I don’t believe in, like eats beef, and later needs an angioplasty because of plaque-filled arteries.
That analogy is no good, by the way. I’m just trying to play along.
“You don’t get to pick and choose what regulations you follow”
I take issue with that statement because there is legal precedence in the United States for religious groups being able to choose which regulations do and do not align with their moral beliefs.
To quote Cardinal-Designate Timothy Dolan:
“The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.”
If the government is going to decide that Catholic organizations are required to provide health insurance that includes birth control, they need to eliminate other religious, legal exemptions.
The difference between your suggestions and the requirement for the Catholic Church to provide health care is that The Amish exemption affects only the Amish. The Christian Scientist exemption effects only the Christian Scientists. The Quaker exemption affects only the quakers, not everyone who works for a quaker institution.
The Catholic Church was asking that everyone who works for their institutions be required to follow their religious beliefs with respect to birth control. That’s not only bad policy (good luck finding OB Gyns or Delivery nurses to work in your hospital (most ob gyns and delivery nurses are women, busy women, who don’t have time for 7 to 9 children) and want their birth control included in their health care coverage), it’s bad Catholicism. Catholics traditionally respect ecumenicalism, which respects the religious traditions of other groups, including those Christian groups that don’t give a hoot about women using birth control.
Obama is about controlling the population, every business and every church. people who want government to control them should move to countries that are already like that. Since Obama has been Pres we have had our internet privacy threatened as well as many other freedom issues. Its ok to have big government controlling everything, but what happens when big government comes after something you hold dear. By then it will be too late to stop it. Remember, a government big enough and powerful enough to give you everything you want is big enough and powerful enough to take everything you have.
Also, how did you find the super-appropriate article photo? lol
Stock photo database for the win. ;0
By the way, there ARE all-vegan stores in Portland, Oregon. We have an all-vegan grocery store, an all-vegan clothing store, an all vegan tattoo shop, and a good handful of all-vegan patisseries, bakeries, and restaurants. There’s even a vegan strip club.
With regard to the discussion — In this day and age it’s, in my opinion, practically immoral to be opposed to such a sensible thing as birth control. This is not the dark ages any more, people, we have over populated the planet. Opposing wider distribution of birth control in today’s world is a bit insane, regardless of what your bronze age guidance tells you.
Aha. Of course there are. Good to know. ;-)
Oh funny! One of our bloggers wrote something similar: A Vegan Buddist Working at a Steakhouse http://blog.tellthemsc.org/2012/01/a-vegan-buddhist-working-at-a-steakhouse/
Keep up the good work!
Thanks!
OK what this comes down with. Before a person goes yo work for a religious company or hospital they should know the facts. They should not get to go in and change the morals teachings. Just like Catholic hospitals should not have to perform abortions which they see as murder
Where in the world do you live that you cannot buy birth control at every CVS, Walgreens, grocery store pharmacy, Walmart pharmacy..not to mention mail order pharmacies…that argument is bogus.
And you are missing the point completely. This is supposed to be a free country. We are not supposed to be forced by an out of control federal government to provide or pay for things we are against. If the government decided we needed more population at some point, are you going to stick with this same argument that they can outlaw birth control to attain whatever goal they want? FREEDOM people, have we completely lost the meaning of that concept??????
No one is forcing birth control on anyone against their will; they’re simply saying insurance plans must make it available to people who want it.
And where in the world do you live that you can walk into any CVS or grocery store and walk out with the pill, or an IUD, or the Nuva Ring? I’ve lived a lot of places, and in every one of them, you needed a doctor’s prescription.
You are taking an incorrect look at the comparison:
Vegans believe that eating meet is morally wrong, so forcing them to sell it would go against their core moral values.
Catholics and many other religions believe that birth control is morally wrong, so forcing them to provide it would go against their core moral values.
This country was founded on religious freedom. Allowing the goverment to limit those freedoms goes against this basic precept.
What about the ‘religious freedom’ of people who want to subscribe to a different brand of ethics. If employers are choosing what insurance that a person has access to then they are pushing their own religion. I could not work for a place if it meant I couldn’t have access to birth-control (I believe that overpopulation is a problem and I would have an ethical issue with having lots of children). Doesn’t that mean that I am being discriminated against for my beliefs?
I think the problem that the government should be getting involved in is making sure there is a genuine choice for people. Employers should NOT be making those decisions for people. That is just a scary concept. Change the law so people can transfer between health insurance companies easily and then you don’t need to worry about employer or government ethics.
Catholics “believe” that birth control is wrong? Where are all the 7,8,9 and 10-children families? Clearly many, many Catholics use birth control. That is not abstinence at work. That is The Pill!
Believe me, I understood the comparison the original author was making re: moral beliefs. I just think it’s bunk. If a Catholic employer is against providing health insurance that covers birth control, they’re more than welcome to stop providing health insurance for employees. No one’s forcing them to offer it. But if they do choose to offer health insurance, there’s nothing wrong with saying it has to comply with the same standards that all health insurers must follow.
@Allison totally agree with you! Making it easier to switch would be ideal.
@Mickey Historically Catholicism has been opposed to birth control, but people aren’t always strictly religious, and in recent years it’s become more acceptable. Not all religious rules are always strictly followed. My father is Catholic and he has 9 brothers and sisters because his mother didn’t believe in birth control. But you can bet my dad sat me down in 7th grade and lectured me on the importance of using condoms! I also liked to eat burgers on Good Friday; that pissed him off, though. Haha