Comments on: Politics and Principle in the Contraception Mandate

By: Exploring My Own Inconsistency on the Contraception Debate « The Company of the Eudaimon

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:22:51 +0000

[...] Robert T. Miller asks: “By what logic, however, does the Church restrict this argument to just religious institutions? If these practices are morally wrong in the way the Church clearly says they are, how may the government force any employer who objects to them to funding them? Do the Catholic bishops believe that the government may legitimately compel people do wrong, unless such people are religious institutions?” ↩ Share this:FacebookTwitterStumbleUponDiggRedditLinkedInEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

By: John Hinshaw

John Hinshaw — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:22:07 +0000

Amen! Amen! I have been saying this since the introduction of Obamacare. Our Bishops have grown comfortable in supporting all sorts of mandates against private business, under the advisement of the Catholic Social Industry. They were comfortable because all sorts of “conscience protections” were afforded them. Now that the abortion regime has changed the increment (not the goal), will our Bishops retreat to comfort there again?

By: Peg

Peg — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:05:59 +0000

A person’s last refuge is his or her conscience and Obama is trying to shove that aside. Harry, thank you for your comment. I spent a few hours at Mt. Vernon yesterday, twice watching the film that describes George Washington’s opinion of religious freedom and reading books on the Bill of Rights. If ever there was a case that demonstrated the infringement of religious exercise by an oppressive government, it is this one. We do not practice our religion at the indulgence of the government. Obama cannot take away what he did not give us. He is not God and we are not his creatures.

I do not know if I can accept the right of the government to censor the letters of the military chaplains, either, or tell Catholic priests what they can and cannot say to their congregations in the armed forces. The government says it is seditious, but I do not trust the government. That is a pernicious fall-out from Obaba’s attack on my first amendment rights. Even if we ultimately “win” this, he has weakened my bonds of allegiance to this country.

By: JB Nola

JB Nola — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:47:00 +0000

Ray Ingles mentions Frum, who is correct – that the GOP chose the wrong argument. To wit, see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81198666/Gospel-of-Obama-per-Dr-Krauthammer

By: Peg

Peg — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:45:37 +0000

Ray Ingles, David Frum lists issues of overwhelming and obvious public health concern. Nina Totenberg tried this line of “attack”‘ too, and failed. Medicines and transfusions save lives. vaccinations also save lives and keep diseases from spreading to others. What does Frum think happens when contraception, abortions and sterilization are not covered by some insurance programs at some organizations?

By: FRIDAY RELIGIOUS LIBERTY II | ThePulp.it

FRIDAY RELIGIOUS LIBERTY II | ThePulp.it — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:48:37 +0000

[...] Politics and Principle in the Contraception Mandate – Robert T. Miller, First Things [...]

By: Joe Z

Joe Z — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:18:28 +0000

This point is fair enough, but the post answers itself. The Church has already said that these things are immoral (not just ritually prohibited) and has been ignored by a large majority of the population. So this is a fall-back measure, to be sure. I don’t know that you can fault the bishops for using an effective fall-back measure when the more general statement of the principle has already been rejected.

Good for Miller for making distinctions clear, though.

By: Blake

Blake — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:57:26 +0000

If health insurance became an individual or group thing (like through a church or club), what kind of problems would that cause?

Then Obama would just be passing a law regulating what groups can or can’t do, or what insurance policies must have.

The problem isn’t our health care; the problem is that the progressive movement is faced with the crumbling of its ideology. All the grand promises have failed. Progressivism has failed. There is no way within capitalism to do what they claimed to be able to do. They must either force us to submit to the state in the form of outright socialism, or they must give up and go home – there is no other direction left for them to go.

By: Phil Swain

Phil Swain — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:55:25 +0000

Thanks, Robert Miller. I would like to hear the bishops speaking out on behalf of the consciences of their flock at least as much as they’re speaking out on behalf of their own consciences. What’s the point of having a church institution with a clear conscience, if all the laity have violated their’s.

By: sally rogers

sally rogers — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:38:36 +0000

I’ll be interested to hear an analysis of the issue of giving scandal under this new proposed arrangement by the White House.

As I understand it, the compromise is as follows. Someone is hired by a religious employer and gets health insurance that, as an initial matter, does not include contraceptives. Then, at some point, the insurance company holding the policy contacts that employee and says – Hey, if you want free contraceptives, here are the steps to take. We, your insurance company will provide them to you free of charge.

How does this mitigate the risk of scandal? The implication is that the scandal is mitigated by the fact that it’s not the employer who is providing the contraceptives, it is the insurance company. But the insurance company is chosen and paid for by the employer. And somehow it’s “the insurance company” that is paying for the free contraceptives, not the religious employer.

That strikes me as kind of bizarre. Where does the insurance company get the money to pay for the contraceptives? From other, non-objecting employers? I very much doubt that. From the insurance company’s profits? Not likely. They get the money from the employer with whom they are contracting.

Can this kind of shell-game about who is “paying” for the contraceptives mitigate the concern about scandal? I would think it would only mitigate that concern for people who are very naive or uninformed. At the end of the day, the insurance paid for as part of the employer’s compensation package is covering contraceptives.

Or am I missing something?