why doesn't anyone point out the obvious about religious organizations and contraception...?

[mike_c]

That being, of course, that women of faith are not compelled to use contraception whether their employer provides insurance coverage for it or not-- it's a personal decision that churches would be better advised to counsel their believers about rather than making it a national debate. Women who have moral objections-- however misplaced the rest of us find them-- are free to follow their conscience as they see fit and NOT use contraception if doing so violates their principles. Does the Catholic church think all its female employees are so morally bankrupt that they'll all go out and begin having causal sex with everyone they meet just because they're mandated to provide insurance that covers contraception? Might some of them be capable of thinking the matter through for themselves and making an informed and conscientious decision? Or is that perhaps just what the church is worried about, LOL.

Seriously though-- why isn't anyone asking the obvious question: Doesn't the church trust its female employees to follow their conscience? Or is that what they're worried about? And if that's the case, then haven't they already failed, and shouldn't the whole conversation need to be reset to reflect that failure?

[rfranklin]

1. they know their followers are not trustworthy in this case...

In fact, Catholics are more likely than Americans in general (52 to 49 percent) to say that religiously affiliated employers should have to provide contraception coverage, according to the PRRI survey...

....A majority of Catholics (58 percent) support the contraception mandate generally. While Catholic Church teaching proscribes the use of artificial birth control to avoid conception, 98 percent of Catholics use contraception, according to separate surveys.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/catholics-support-contraception-mandate_n_1261046.html

[mike_c]

4. then there's no issue of conscience, or religious freedom...

...or anything of the sort. The whole issue is maintaining institutional control of women's reproductive options.

[immoderate]

3. They don't trust.

It's not their business plan. They forbid.

--imm

[russspeakeasy]

5. Because, that would be "giving up control".

Real or imagined, you just don't give up power/control.

[libodem]

6. For it is HE that has made us

And not we ourselves. Flys in the face of good sence and science. They hate that.!

[elleng]

7. 'Anyone' does, early and often.

The real heart of this issue is, I think, requiring Catholic institutions to include in their health insurance choices, for employees, contraception options, which it is assumed costs those Catholic insitutions something. I am not sure that it does, in fact, cost them anything, but it might. I do think that's a legitimate concern, but quite marginal and NOT worthy of the huge kerfuffle it's caused.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. The argument is that The Church should not be forced to pay for something

that is against their faith.

Everyone knows that Catholic women can make their own choices, that isn't the discussion.

This is about money going from the church to the insurance companies that provide a service the church is against.

It is for their employees, not for members of their congregation.

The truth is that it is all bull shit. This is just a blip and we are on the right side of it. In a month nobody will even remember this happened.

[Nikia]

9. How much are we talking about paying though?

Not every employee will be getting contraception whether it is because they are male, past child bearing age, already surgically sterilized, want to become pregnant, or don't believe in using it. Most insurance plans are at least partially paid for by employees. Are we talking about $5 or $10 per employee max? If insurance companies charge more than that, someone is getting ripped off especially since including birth control may decrease the number of births which are more expensive than a year of birth control pills.

[zbdent]

10. it's not really about their followers ...

it's about power and control ... they talk "religious freedom" in politics ... but they want the reins of power in their hands.

[hfojvt]

11. Suppose you were a person who thought that smoking cigarettes was bad for people

Suppose also that you owned a very large business. Would you be okay with a law that forced you to provide free cigarettes for all your employees? Would, for example, the American Cancer Society have no problem with a law forcing them to provide free cigarettes to all their employees who want to smoke?

[Warren DeMontague]

14. It's like pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions. If you can't DO YOUR JOB

because of what you think "God" wants, fine- find another line of work.

[hfojvt]

15. And you call yourself a libertarian

People who follow their conscience = bad
people who do their job = good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_trials

[Warren DeMontague]

16. no, I'm someone who believes in personal freedom AND reasonable regulation.

pharmacies AND insurance providers are government-regulated institutions, and so people who want to be in the pharmacy or insurance business can damn well follow the government's regulations pertaining to that business, or find another line of work.

I also don't think Platypuses should be allowed to drive taxis or fly jetliners, which is a position I find fully compatible with my stand on individual liberty.

[GeorgeGist]

12. The requirement does not apply to churches ...

just to their 'businesses'.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. can rastafarians smoke pot? faith healers neglect to take kids to the doctor?

No.

There are all sorts of laws which religious institutions need to abide by. If they want to be in the insurance business, they can damn well deal with covering contraception.