Creating a Catholic Ghetto
August 25, 2011
Christopher T. Haley
There has been some talk lately—though not nearly enough—about the new healthcare mandate authored by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This mandate, with the deceptively benign title “Guidelines for Women’s Preventive Services,” is set to go into effect in August 2012 as part of the Affordable Care Act. That means it will become law without going before the legislature. And if it does, starting a year from now, all healthcare plans will be required to cover a variety of “treatments” that many Americans find objectionable, and Catholics particularly find morally unacceptable.
For example, under the heading of “contraceptive care and counseling,” the guidelines will require healthcare plans to cover all FDA approved contraceptives. This list includes extremely controversial drugs like Plan B and “Ella,” which can act as abortifacients, as well as voluntary sterilization—not to mention counseling in favor of such “treatments.” Neither the IOM, which allegedly provides “unbiased and authoritative advice,” nor the HHS specifies exactly which “illnesses” are being treated, leaving one to assume that pregnancy and fertility are now considered threats to women’s health—but don’t worry: the HHS assures us that the guidelines “are based on scientific evidence.”
However, most Americans are overwhelming opposed to the federal government requiring them to pay for such services. This is perhaps because they understand that these so-called “health services” are elective and that pregnancy and fertility are not diseases that must be prevented or cured.
The main criticism of the mandate is that it offers a conscience exemption that excludes Catholic institutions from participating in and serving the larger culture. Specifically, the mandate exempts religious employers, which it defines as follows: “a religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code.”
This definition is so narrow that it excludes almost all Catholic institutions as they now operate. The conjunction, “and” before the fourth article ensures that almost no religious organization satisfies the criteria; “or” would have been limiting, but “and” is crippling. Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities do not serve primarily Catholics, they serve everyone; there is no baptismal requirement to receive services from Catholics. We do not serve people because they are Catholic; we serve people because we are Catholic. And the same goes for members of other religious groups.
The IOM, HHS, and the president fundamentally misunderstand the aim of religious institutions and the role they play in our society: at its core, this mandate is an assault on the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause. Catholic employers would no longer be free to serve or employ non-Catholics, except at the cost of violating deeply held and reasoned moral and religious convictions about human life and dignity. But then, not serving our neighbors also violates deeply held and reasoned moral and religious convictions about our mission to serve others. Thus, by providing only two equally unacceptable and offensive options to Catholic teaching, the mandate de facto prohibits the free exercise of the Catholic religion.
The HHS, led by the pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius, and heavily supported by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, is putting the Catholic Church between a rock and a hard-place. Indeed, this mandate directly and unabashedly lays the groundwork for the creation of a Catholic ghetto. It would force Catholics to serve primarily other Catholics, thus removing the overwhelmingly positive influence of Catholic charities, social services, hospitals, and schools on the broader culture.
The impact of Catholic institutions currently far exceeds the number of Catholics in America; Catholic hospitals, for instance, took well over 100 million visits and admissions in 2009, while there are just over 68 million Catholics in America. The doctors, nurses, and staff at Catholic hospitals are not primarily Catholic, and most importantly, the patients are not primarily Catholic. Catholic Charities USA, one of many Catholic charities, alone served almost 10 million people in 2009; the US Conference of Catholic Bishops oversees the federal program to serve victims of human trafficking and sex slavery; the list goes on—and none of these services “has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose.”
The actions of the administration would drastically reduce the number of people receiving aid from Catholic institutions, effectively forcing more people to go without aid, or to seek aid from state subsidy, thus increasing the tax burden on those who pay for such subsidies, and effectively reducing the role of faith in our communities, while denying many people basic services.
The actions of the administration are in keeping with the prevailing secularist ideology: religious beliefs, practices, and institutions are seen as essentially private matters, best kept out of public discourse and away from the public sphere. While I have focused here on the Catholic Church, this mandate would affect not only the Catholic Church, but every church, every religious community, every individual believer. It must be opposed.
Christopher T. Haley is a Research Fellow at the Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.25.2011 | 10:22am
GlennB says:
I think it would be great if the Catholic Church led us in a day of silent protest. Set a day that is a workday and encourage those of every faith that oppose this dangerous encroachment on religious liberty to stay home from work on that day and join with others at their church, synagogue, mosque etc. to pray and send a message to Washington that we will not obey this immoral and unconstitutional law. Those in and close to Washington DC could gather on the Mall. People could gather at their state capitols. It is time for the Church to get prophetic. When the ancient church defied Caesar, they went to their deaths. What we risk is, at least for now, much smaller. May the Lord glorify His name on such a consecrated day.
8.25.2011 | 11:16am
Joe DeVet says:
I agree that the directive is very harmful to Catholic institutions and a negative development from the standpoint of the Common Good.
However, I can't help but note that we Catholics brought this upon ourselves. First, had Catholics voted with an authentic conscience, we would not have an Obama presidency--think, no Kathleen Sibelius, no Obamacare. Even Obama's meager record would have informed an awake and aware Catholic that his anti-life policies would have evil consequences--though I admit, even though I thought Obama was toxic from my earliest knowledge of him, I did not know it would be this bad.
Further, the USCCB has been lobbying for socialized medicine for decades. Including Obamacare--with the three reservations, which were 1) abortion funding, 2) inadequate conscience protection, and 3) lack of free services for "immigrants." Except for these objections, they were in favor of the legislation. They should have realized that ANY federal takeover of medicine, especially under this administration, would be bad news.
Now that the US bishops have their long-held wish, they have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. They now have "life issues" far beyond what they had to deal with before, and they will find themselves helpless in the face of them all.
However, I can't help but note that we Catholics brought this upon ourselves. First, had Catholics voted with an authentic conscience, we would not have an Obama presidency--think, no Kathleen Sibelius, no Obamacare. Even Obama's meager record would have informed an awake and aware Catholic that his anti-life policies would have evil consequences--though I admit, even though I thought Obama was toxic from my earliest knowledge of him, I did not know it would be this bad.
Further, the USCCB has been lobbying for socialized medicine for decades. Including Obamacare--with the three reservations, which were 1) abortion funding, 2) inadequate conscience protection, and 3) lack of free services for "immigrants." Except for these objections, they were in favor of the legislation. They should have realized that ANY federal takeover of medicine, especially under this administration, would be bad news.
Now that the US bishops have their long-held wish, they have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. They now have "life issues" far beyond what they had to deal with before, and they will find themselves helpless in the face of them all.
8.25.2011 | 11:56am
David Nickol says:
Here's the nub of the problem: "Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities do not serve primarily Catholics, they serve everyone; there is no baptismal requirement to receive services from Catholics."
It is precisely *because* these Catholic organizations are an integral part of our society that it becomes a problem when they insist on providing only "Catholic approved" services. It places limitations on what non-Catholics, who may only have access to Catholic facilities, can expect as health care.
It is also ironic that Catholic health care facilities would be aghast at the idea of providing contraceptive services when it's estimated that around 95% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use contraceptives. Advocates of broader religious exemptions want, in effect, to deny on the basis of Catholic teaching something that non-Catholics and the overwhelming majority of Catholics consider standard medical coverage.
I am not in favor of denying conscience rights, but when Catholic hospitals and other medical facilities are such an integral part of the nation's healthcare system, there has to be some kind of compromise that both respects rights of conscience without depriving non-Catholics (and Catholics!) of the medical services they expect.
It is precisely *because* these Catholic organizations are an integral part of our society that it becomes a problem when they insist on providing only "Catholic approved" services. It places limitations on what non-Catholics, who may only have access to Catholic facilities, can expect as health care.
It is also ironic that Catholic health care facilities would be aghast at the idea of providing contraceptive services when it's estimated that around 95% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use contraceptives. Advocates of broader religious exemptions want, in effect, to deny on the basis of Catholic teaching something that non-Catholics and the overwhelming majority of Catholics consider standard medical coverage.
I am not in favor of denying conscience rights, but when Catholic hospitals and other medical facilities are such an integral part of the nation's healthcare system, there has to be some kind of compromise that both respects rights of conscience without depriving non-Catholics (and Catholics!) of the medical services they expect.
8.25.2011 | 12:21pm
Mark says:
Yes, David, you are in favor of denying conscience rights...
If you are a nurse, no conscience rights.
If you are a doctor, no conscience rights.
If you are a hospital administrator, no conscience rights.
If you are a pharmacist, no conscience rights.
If you are David Nichol, no logic.
If you are a nurse, no conscience rights.
If you are a doctor, no conscience rights.
If you are a hospital administrator, no conscience rights.
If you are a pharmacist, no conscience rights.
If you are David Nichol, no logic.
8.25.2011 | 12:26pm
Craig Roberts says:
@David Nickol
By your logic kosher delis should be forced to serve non-kosher food. Many of their customers are not Jewish, and most of their Jewish customers are not strictly observant of kosher rules.
Therefore kosher delis "want, in effect, to deny on the basis of (Jewish) teaching something that non-(Jewish) and the overwhelming majority of (Jewish) consider standard (food)."
By your logic kosher delis should be forced to serve non-kosher food. Many of their customers are not Jewish, and most of their Jewish customers are not strictly observant of kosher rules.
Therefore kosher delis "want, in effect, to deny on the basis of (Jewish) teaching something that non-(Jewish) and the overwhelming majority of (Jewish) consider standard (food)."
8.25.2011 | 1:16pm
David Nickol makes a good point about the give-and-take needed in a pluralistic society. There's constant tension in organizational discernment about what accomodations can be made without compromising the organization's integrity. In the case of WPS, note that the vast majority of women who want to contracept already do so (see http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html ). Free condoms are available at many secular social agencies and schools. And, so I understand, condoms are pretty affordable. Granting religious employer conscience exemption would allow Catholic instituions to preserve their integrity without placing an undue burden on women who want to contracept.
8.25.2011 | 1:49pm
Michael PS says:
When the National Health Service was set up in the UK, most of the existing voluntary hospitals, along with their endowments, were simply confiscated and ownership vested in the Minister of Health on the “appointed day.”
There was no question of compensation: being held on charitable or “purpose” trusts, they were deemed to be, in effect, ownerless; the 1947 Act simply substituted the Minister for the existing trustees. I believe some trivial sums were paid to certain governors for loss of office.
Those exempted were hospitals that served a limited group, the King Edward VII Hospital for Officers, the Royal Masonic and others.
There was no question of compensation: being held on charitable or “purpose” trusts, they were deemed to be, in effect, ownerless; the 1947 Act simply substituted the Minister for the existing trustees. I believe some trivial sums were paid to certain governors for loss of office.
Those exempted were hospitals that served a limited group, the King Edward VII Hospital for Officers, the Royal Masonic and others.
8.25.2011 | 2:09pm
Richard says:
I have to disagree with David Nickol here. Catholic service agencies are presented with a diktat that says that they have to surrender their (indispensable) social services or their souls. I use Catholic Charities regularly (for the reason that you can talk about your faith with receptive counselors) and am convinced that this is a move to destroy either the integrity or the social mission of the Church. The Church has no litmus test whatever for those who walk through the doors of their social service agencies except that they be human beings in need. There is no evangelizing at all.
It is precisely because we are indispensable (for now), and because we are entitled to freedom in the practice of our religion, that the state would be wise and humane to not require us to do what we cannot in good conscience perform. Those who want abortion or contraception or the rest will find no paucity of these "services" elsewhere, including free clinics. The fact is that many who sponsor these "forcing moves" in the name of human rights want to force the Catholic Church out of a position where they can do good in the public eye. The ultimate aim with many is a Church diluted to the point of homeopathic insipidity or annihilated altogether. I've seen it coming for years and expect that it will be pushed to a ruinous completion unless Americans vote the misoCatholics out. In a country in which religious principles have been so steadily degraded as our own, I am not optimistic.
Some will point to the large number of nominally Catholic women who practice birth control and abortion ask, "Well, whose religion is it?" The pastoral function of the Church belongs to those who hold the Keys of Peter, the Pope and the bishops. Those who disagree are free to choose one of the innumerable religious and nonreligious alternatives to Catholicism.
Richard
It is precisely because we are indispensable (for now), and because we are entitled to freedom in the practice of our religion, that the state would be wise and humane to not require us to do what we cannot in good conscience perform. Those who want abortion or contraception or the rest will find no paucity of these "services" elsewhere, including free clinics. The fact is that many who sponsor these "forcing moves" in the name of human rights want to force the Catholic Church out of a position where they can do good in the public eye. The ultimate aim with many is a Church diluted to the point of homeopathic insipidity or annihilated altogether. I've seen it coming for years and expect that it will be pushed to a ruinous completion unless Americans vote the misoCatholics out. In a country in which religious principles have been so steadily degraded as our own, I am not optimistic.
Some will point to the large number of nominally Catholic women who practice birth control and abortion ask, "Well, whose religion is it?" The pastoral function of the Church belongs to those who hold the Keys of Peter, the Pope and the bishops. Those who disagree are free to choose one of the innumerable religious and nonreligious alternatives to Catholicism.
Richard
8.25.2011 | 2:33pm
Patrick says:
@David Nickol, you are confused when you say in effect that Catholic hospitals want to impose their beliefs on non-Catholics. It's the Obama Administration that is trying to impose new rules. The Catholic hospitals aren't changing a thing.
The people who go to Catholic hospitals - Catholics and non-Catholics - understand they are doing business with an institution that bases it's service to the community on a set of well-established, long-held moral values. They've had this understanding for generations and they keep coming back to our hospitals for healthcare services year after year.
Clearly, it's the administration that has the problem here, not the hospitals or their patients.
The people who go to Catholic hospitals - Catholics and non-Catholics - understand they are doing business with an institution that bases it's service to the community on a set of well-established, long-held moral values. They've had this understanding for generations and they keep coming back to our hospitals for healthcare services year after year.
Clearly, it's the administration that has the problem here, not the hospitals or their patients.
8.25.2011 | 3:02pm
David Nickol says:
Patrick,
I took very great care not to say anything about "imposing beliefs." This is not a matter of "imposing beliefs." It is a matter of finding ways to respect both the rights of healthcare providers AND the rights of patients. Please read what I said: "There has to be some kind of compromise that both respects rights of conscience without depriving non-Catholics (and Catholics!) of the medical services they expect."
This is a rare case, but a possible one. A woman is rushed to the hospital in danger of death from a problem pregnancy—let's say pulmonary hypertension. If the ambulance takes her to a non-Catholic hospital, she may get a lifesaving abortion. If the ambulance takes her to a Catholic hospital, she may be denied the abortion and die. Let's say she is Jewish, and her religious beliefs not only allow abortion, they pretty much mandate it. If the woman is taken to a Catholic hospital, not only may she be denied lifesaving treatment, the hospital may be open to a wrongful death lawsuit.
There has to be a way to avoid such problems. I am not saying the way is to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. I am not defending the current HHS guidelines. I am saying the provider AND the patient must both be considered. There has to be balance. Simply giving providers an absolute right to refuse certain kinds of treatments is as extreme a solution as declaring providers have no right to opt out of providing any treatment they have conscience objections to.
I took very great care not to say anything about "imposing beliefs." This is not a matter of "imposing beliefs." It is a matter of finding ways to respect both the rights of healthcare providers AND the rights of patients. Please read what I said: "There has to be some kind of compromise that both respects rights of conscience without depriving non-Catholics (and Catholics!) of the medical services they expect."
This is a rare case, but a possible one. A woman is rushed to the hospital in danger of death from a problem pregnancy—let's say pulmonary hypertension. If the ambulance takes her to a non-Catholic hospital, she may get a lifesaving abortion. If the ambulance takes her to a Catholic hospital, she may be denied the abortion and die. Let's say she is Jewish, and her religious beliefs not only allow abortion, they pretty much mandate it. If the woman is taken to a Catholic hospital, not only may she be denied lifesaving treatment, the hospital may be open to a wrongful death lawsuit.
There has to be a way to avoid such problems. I am not saying the way is to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. I am not defending the current HHS guidelines. I am saying the provider AND the patient must both be considered. There has to be balance. Simply giving providers an absolute right to refuse certain kinds of treatments is as extreme a solution as declaring providers have no right to opt out of providing any treatment they have conscience objections to.
8.25.2011 | 3:18pm
David says:
This article is spot on. Under the circumstances, it is even more troubling because the only options are to violate your faith (provide coverage for "contraceptives") or simply cease to exist as an employer.
One question I would like to know if how they make the determination of whether a church or religious institution meets these tests.
Nevermind Catholic Charities and hospitals, a crafty attorney could take this non-exemption and claim that the Church itself must cease to employ anyone if it refuses to provide contraceptive coverage. Specifically, lets look at part (3) of the exemption: "primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets." Well 98% of catholic women in America use birth control. (According to Guttmacher: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/98-percent-catholic-women-birth-control_n_849060.html). No doubt, at least 5% of men also disagree with the Church's position on birth control. That would make a majority of Catholics that disagree with the Church's religious tenets. Therefore, in this sense, the Catholic Church does not serve primarily people who share its religious tenets. Will it be enough that your simply claim membership in the Church, or can the government now look at what the members actually believe on a case by case basis to make the determinations?
One question I would like to know if how they make the determination of whether a church or religious institution meets these tests.
Nevermind Catholic Charities and hospitals, a crafty attorney could take this non-exemption and claim that the Church itself must cease to employ anyone if it refuses to provide contraceptive coverage. Specifically, lets look at part (3) of the exemption: "primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets." Well 98% of catholic women in America use birth control. (According to Guttmacher: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/98-percent-catholic-women-birth-control_n_849060.html). No doubt, at least 5% of men also disagree with the Church's position on birth control. That would make a majority of Catholics that disagree with the Church's religious tenets. Therefore, in this sense, the Catholic Church does not serve primarily people who share its religious tenets. Will it be enough that your simply claim membership in the Church, or can the government now look at what the members actually believe on a case by case basis to make the determinations?
8.25.2011 | 4:13pm
Jon Altman says:
Talk about an over the top reaction! 98% of Roman Catholic women use birth control. It's the Bishops, and this writer, who are wrong.
8.25.2011 | 4:31pm
mrd says:
To David Nickol:
I must comment on the issue of pulmonary hypertension and the "life saving abortion". Actually there are now therapies that allow a patient with pulmonary hypertension to carry the pregnancy to term. ( Not without risk, but I have personally been involved in a case where a patient was treated and successfully delivered) In many case a secular hospital would discourage this approach or put pressure on the patient to choose otherwise, so the existence of the Catholic hospital allows for more choice not less.
In fact a Catholic hospital must close rather than obey the directives. To a Faithful Catholic contraception and abortion are worse then physical evils, they are sins. Any physical evil, even death is relatively trivial, as all must die, but sin has eternal consequences. It doe not matter whether you believe this, it is what Catholics believe. If this action results in the forced closure of Catholic hospitals, ( and I think it will) then there will be less health care not more.
I am a Catholic physician, If I was forced to violate my conscience or stop practicing medicine, then I stop practicing medicine ( very easy choice,) If you think that makes the world better so be it, but ultimately it makes for less medicine. Most of the time Catholic health professionals are treating people for things that have no controversy associated with them ( like emphysema, cancer, heart disease etc...) I think you and your allies ultimately use issues like contraception because it is a tool for you to attack an oganization you hate.
I must comment on the issue of pulmonary hypertension and the "life saving abortion". Actually there are now therapies that allow a patient with pulmonary hypertension to carry the pregnancy to term. ( Not without risk, but I have personally been involved in a case where a patient was treated and successfully delivered) In many case a secular hospital would discourage this approach or put pressure on the patient to choose otherwise, so the existence of the Catholic hospital allows for more choice not less.
In fact a Catholic hospital must close rather than obey the directives. To a Faithful Catholic contraception and abortion are worse then physical evils, they are sins. Any physical evil, even death is relatively trivial, as all must die, but sin has eternal consequences. It doe not matter whether you believe this, it is what Catholics believe. If this action results in the forced closure of Catholic hospitals, ( and I think it will) then there will be less health care not more.
I am a Catholic physician, If I was forced to violate my conscience or stop practicing medicine, then I stop practicing medicine ( very easy choice,) If you think that makes the world better so be it, but ultimately it makes for less medicine. Most of the time Catholic health professionals are treating people for things that have no controversy associated with them ( like emphysema, cancer, heart disease etc...) I think you and your allies ultimately use issues like contraception because it is a tool for you to attack an oganization you hate.
8.25.2011 | 4:39pm
David Nickol says:
David,
You say: "This article is spot on. Under the circumstances, it is even more troubling because the only options are to violate your faith (provide coverage for "contraceptives") or simply cease to exist as an employer."
An employer who did not wish to provide health insurance that covered contraception could simply not provide health insurance. If that made them noncompetitive with other companies that did provide insurance coverage, they could give their employees a certain amount of money with which the employees could purchase the health insurance of their choice. There is no possibility of the government shutting down any employers because of this provision.
You say: "This article is spot on. Under the circumstances, it is even more troubling because the only options are to violate your faith (provide coverage for "contraceptives") or simply cease to exist as an employer."
An employer who did not wish to provide health insurance that covered contraception could simply not provide health insurance. If that made them noncompetitive with other companies that did provide insurance coverage, they could give their employees a certain amount of money with which the employees could purchase the health insurance of their choice. There is no possibility of the government shutting down any employers because of this provision.
8.25.2011 | 4:40pm
Stephen says:
@John Altman,
Catholic institutions (like every institution) have core principles that define their missions and inform operations. A Catholic hospital offers ethical and moral health care to ALL patients. The institution must serve its mission regardless of the individual's disposition.
Catholic institutions (like every institution) have core principles that define their missions and inform operations. A Catholic hospital offers ethical and moral health care to ALL patients. The institution must serve its mission regardless of the individual's disposition.
8.25.2011 | 5:10pm
John says:
The Catholic hierarchy might have brought this on itself by not speaking clearly and strongly over the last couple of decades in the public square. The Catholic hierarchy could still play a strong role in standing against this legislation if the bishops would stand together.
Catholic institutions serve others who can choose to come or not to that Catholic institution. Its unreasonable to expect Catholic institutions to cooperate in practices -contraception, abortion, etc.- that go against Catholic teaching. Those that wish to obtain these "services" can go elsewhere.
An important point not raised yet is protection of Catholic healthcare workers. Again, the best long term protection for them is the Catholic bishops speaking out in a consistent, unified and public voice over the long term.
Catholic institutions serve others who can choose to come or not to that Catholic institution. Its unreasonable to expect Catholic institutions to cooperate in practices -contraception, abortion, etc.- that go against Catholic teaching. Those that wish to obtain these "services" can go elsewhere.
An important point not raised yet is protection of Catholic healthcare workers. Again, the best long term protection for them is the Catholic bishops speaking out in a consistent, unified and public voice over the long term.
8.25.2011 | 5:20pm
David says:
David N.
You're right. However, given my understanding of Obamacare, the other option is to stop providing any health coverage, thereby forcing employees (because not getting health insurance is not an option) to get their insurance from one of government approved plans in the insurance exchange. That is even more problematic, because those plans, in addition to having the required "contraceptive" services, also have a rider that each person pays to go into a pot so that abortion can be paid out of that pot (and not federal funds). Thus, the Catholic organization under your hypothetical would be paying more money to its employees knowing that they will be forced to spend it in a manner that is antithetical to its beliefs. Not sure how that remedies the problem.
To my knowledge, there is no individual conscience protection to religious employees outside the scope of an employer-provided plan.
We are not dealing with people who have honest concerns or intentions. These laws serve a teaching function, which is that failure to approve of the government's current position on contraception and abortion will have consequences. Kathleen Sebelius, who coddled and protected a murderer in Kansas (Tiller), is no friend of the Church or life.
You're right. However, given my understanding of Obamacare, the other option is to stop providing any health coverage, thereby forcing employees (because not getting health insurance is not an option) to get their insurance from one of government approved plans in the insurance exchange. That is even more problematic, because those plans, in addition to having the required "contraceptive" services, also have a rider that each person pays to go into a pot so that abortion can be paid out of that pot (and not federal funds). Thus, the Catholic organization under your hypothetical would be paying more money to its employees knowing that they will be forced to spend it in a manner that is antithetical to its beliefs. Not sure how that remedies the problem.
To my knowledge, there is no individual conscience protection to religious employees outside the scope of an employer-provided plan.
We are not dealing with people who have honest concerns or intentions. These laws serve a teaching function, which is that failure to approve of the government's current position on contraception and abortion will have consequences. Kathleen Sebelius, who coddled and protected a murderer in Kansas (Tiller), is no friend of the Church or life.
8.25.2011 | 5:52pm
David Nickol says:
David,
You say: "That is even more problematic, because those plans, in addition to having the required 'contraceptive' services, also have a rider that each person pays to go into a pot so that abortion can be paid out of that pot (and not federal funds)."
This is incorrect. Only persons who choose to have abortion coverage pay for it, and they do so out of their own pockets by buying a separate "rider."
Also states can opt out of having their state healthcare exchange provide any abortion coverage at all. As one site I checked put it: "The healthcare reform law allows states to exclude elective abortion coverage from being offered on the state health insurance exchanges due to begin operating in 2014. The legislation has exemptions for rare cases where the mother's life is in danger from "a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury" including "a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." This means persons getting their insurance through the state exchange will not even be able to purchase abortion riders with their own money.
States also have the authority, and a number of them do so, to prohibit any insurance company from providing coverage for abortion.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/map-state-abortion-coverage-ban
You say: "That is even more problematic, because those plans, in addition to having the required 'contraceptive' services, also have a rider that each person pays to go into a pot so that abortion can be paid out of that pot (and not federal funds)."
This is incorrect. Only persons who choose to have abortion coverage pay for it, and they do so out of their own pockets by buying a separate "rider."
Also states can opt out of having their state healthcare exchange provide any abortion coverage at all. As one site I checked put it: "The healthcare reform law allows states to exclude elective abortion coverage from being offered on the state health insurance exchanges due to begin operating in 2014. The legislation has exemptions for rare cases where the mother's life is in danger from "a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury" including "a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." This means persons getting their insurance through the state exchange will not even be able to purchase abortion riders with their own money.
States also have the authority, and a number of them do so, to prohibit any insurance company from providing coverage for abortion.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/map-state-abortion-coverage-ban
8.25.2011 | 6:21pm
Chris Balducci says:
Except for their names, there is very little "Catholic" about most Catholic hospitals and clinics nowadays. They are often run by non-Catholics. They take government money like other hospitals. I would prefer a much smaller network of primary care clinics that survive on private donations and run on truly Catholic principles than the bloated CINO health care system that exists now. This mess is one argument in favor of religious institutions not accepting government money. God bless.
8.25.2011 | 7:11pm
Jon Altman says:
Conflating birth control and abortion is intellectually dishonest. 98% of Catholic Women don't believe that using birth contol is a "sin." Essentially, the only Catholics who do believe this are the members of the USCCB. The reason the Bishops have not been "more in the public square" on the issue of birth control is that they know they have NO support on the issue from the people in the pews who pay the bills.
I fail to see how covering a procedure that 98% of Catholics support can, in any way, impair the "Catholic identity" of a Catholic hospital.
I fail to see how covering a procedure that 98% of Catholics support can, in any way, impair the "Catholic identity" of a Catholic hospital.
8.25.2011 | 7:27pm
Bethanie Ryan says:
Thank you for this article. You make a good point that no one is making, that Catholic institutions have a much further impact than simply the population of Catholics. The people who are so dependent on Catholic services should also be speaking out against this law.
8.25.2011 | 7:38pm
MTJ says:
Joe DeVet has it nailed. The lay faithful of the Church have long followed the bishops in their leftward tilt on various social issues. Catholic voters and politicians, had they been faithful to the Magisterial teaching of the Church, could indeed have warded off the onrushing disaster of socialized medicine. The bishops have only themselves to blame for thinking that they as shepherds could negotiate with the the current adminstration for certain exemptions to the new law. (Note to the naive in the hierarchy: politicians lie!) If these new healthcare mandates are deleterious for Catholic institutions, they are deleterious for EVERYONE, and the bishops should have opposed the new health care law on principle, for the sake of all Americans.
8.25.2011 | 7:46pm
Michael PB says:
I question this 98% statistic that everyone is throwing around like the gospel truth.
I am sure it is a high number (I wouldn't even be shocked if it were in the 80s) but statistics are too manipulative and that is too high of a number to be credible.
The problem is a life issue and the Church's identity is to protect life at all costs. So even if 100% of the people were using ABC, it does not follow that the Church as a whole should give in intellectually, morally, and spiritually to the whims of the world and not protect the reminder that all should be open and protective or life and the ability to create that life.
I am sure it is a high number (I wouldn't even be shocked if it were in the 80s) but statistics are too manipulative and that is too high of a number to be credible.
The problem is a life issue and the Church's identity is to protect life at all costs. So even if 100% of the people were using ABC, it does not follow that the Church as a whole should give in intellectually, morally, and spiritually to the whims of the world and not protect the reminder that all should be open and protective or life and the ability to create that life.
8.25.2011 | 8:07pm
Richard says:
Jon,
No one (I hope) is conflating birth control and abortion. They are evils of a different order though a common root. It is well to remember that probably the most important advocate of both in American history was Margaret Sanger, a passionate atheist who hated Catholicism and hoped through the subversion of Judaeo Christian sexual morality to undermine Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. She has been horrifyingly effective.
Nietzsche said somewhere that there was one Christian and He died on the cross. There is a deep truth here, and that is why I am not surprised if 98% or whatever of American "Catholics" disapprove of any particular teaching of the Magisterium. Jesus saw the people who came to hear him as sheep without a shepherd. He did what he could to bring them to spiritual life and left the apostles to carry on His work. The Pope and bishops are following in their footsteps. If many people don't like it, no wonder. They crucified the Master.
Best,
Richard
No one (I hope) is conflating birth control and abortion. They are evils of a different order though a common root. It is well to remember that probably the most important advocate of both in American history was Margaret Sanger, a passionate atheist who hated Catholicism and hoped through the subversion of Judaeo Christian sexual morality to undermine Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. She has been horrifyingly effective.
Nietzsche said somewhere that there was one Christian and He died on the cross. There is a deep truth here, and that is why I am not surprised if 98% or whatever of American "Catholics" disapprove of any particular teaching of the Magisterium. Jesus saw the people who came to hear him as sheep without a shepherd. He did what he could to bring them to spiritual life and left the apostles to carry on His work. The Pope and bishops are following in their footsteps. If many people don't like it, no wonder. They crucified the Master.
Best,
Richard
8.25.2011 | 8:40pm
Jon Altman says:
The article and several of the comments very much DOES conflate abortion and artificial birth control. It's a distinction that pretty much every Roman Catholic woman in the Western World manages to make.
8.25.2011 | 10:20pm
David Nickol says:
Richard,
You say: "No one (I hope) is conflating birth control and abortion. They are evils of a different order though a common root. It is well to remember that probably the most important advocate of both in American history was Margaret Sanger . . . . "
You are incorrect.
Margaret Sanger advocated birth control. She opposed abortion, and of course it was, with a few exceptions, illegal during her lifetime. Here are a couple of quotes:
"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." [1920]
"To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." [1938]
You say: "No one (I hope) is conflating birth control and abortion. They are evils of a different order though a common root. It is well to remember that probably the most important advocate of both in American history was Margaret Sanger . . . . "
You are incorrect.
Margaret Sanger advocated birth control. She opposed abortion, and of course it was, with a few exceptions, illegal during her lifetime. Here are a couple of quotes:
"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." [1920]
"To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." [1938]
8.26.2011 | 1:14am
John says:
Jon,
The Church is a gift from God, a vessel of his his love and activity on earth. She is the bride of Christ. She is made up of sinners and a few saints; some sin more grievously or more often than others. In "carrying" and guarding the truth of love revealed and declaring on morality, however, she will not err. Her members may in large numbers - 98%, 99%, 99.99% etc., though hopefully less, stray. She must continue to proclaim the truth. Contraception is wrong, abortion is wrong, neglecting the poor is wrong, neglecting aging relatives is wrong, detracting from others reputation is wrong and watching pornography is wrong. To name a few examples. Many people, Catholics included commit one or more of these sins, all of which take away from their own, and others happiness now, and in some cases perhaps eternally. The Church cannot change the teaching handed down by God through the natural law, revelation to the Jewish people and taught specifically by Christ, developed to meet specific challenges, because some of her children don't practice correctly or hold incorrect opinions. The Church must at least hold to the truth and better, live in the truth in the real world. Her bishops should lead those that stray back to the truth. If they don't, or if they lead them to stray, or worse break their trust with them they surely will be held to account.
Additionally, society should think through what it would mean to have faithful Catholics forced to the fringes of the healthcare field, if not off the field altogether. Healthcare is increasingly delivered with a paucity of human compassion, rather focusing on fulfilling documentation and financial criteria. Many are frustrated with the healthcare system due lack of simple kindness and concern for them in their anxious and vulnerable state. Not all faithful Catholics provide compassionate care ... but many do.
The Church is a gift from God, a vessel of his his love and activity on earth. She is the bride of Christ. She is made up of sinners and a few saints; some sin more grievously or more often than others. In "carrying" and guarding the truth of love revealed and declaring on morality, however, she will not err. Her members may in large numbers - 98%, 99%, 99.99% etc., though hopefully less, stray. She must continue to proclaim the truth. Contraception is wrong, abortion is wrong, neglecting the poor is wrong, neglecting aging relatives is wrong, detracting from others reputation is wrong and watching pornography is wrong. To name a few examples. Many people, Catholics included commit one or more of these sins, all of which take away from their own, and others happiness now, and in some cases perhaps eternally. The Church cannot change the teaching handed down by God through the natural law, revelation to the Jewish people and taught specifically by Christ, developed to meet specific challenges, because some of her children don't practice correctly or hold incorrect opinions. The Church must at least hold to the truth and better, live in the truth in the real world. Her bishops should lead those that stray back to the truth. If they don't, or if they lead them to stray, or worse break their trust with them they surely will be held to account.
Additionally, society should think through what it would mean to have faithful Catholics forced to the fringes of the healthcare field, if not off the field altogether. Healthcare is increasingly delivered with a paucity of human compassion, rather focusing on fulfilling documentation and financial criteria. Many are frustrated with the healthcare system due lack of simple kindness and concern for them in their anxious and vulnerable state. Not all faithful Catholics provide compassionate care ... but many do.
8.26.2011 | 2:17am
Don Roberto says:
Catholics seem intent on burying or giving away the "talents" God placed in our hands. Almost unbelievable that any Christian would vote for someone with a 90% plus approval rating from NARAL or NOW or any similar abortion advocacy group. One can't help but feel that materialistic libertinism, a tool of the Enemy, is ascendant.
I'm with GlennB: we must gather our forces and protest. We are called to defend the innocent and resist the evil manipulations of the neo-pagan elite.
We should all write our friends, priests, and bishops to suggest that on the Lord's Day, Sunday, October 7, the 440th anniversary of the miraculous victory at Lepanto (which also seemed like a hopeless cause), we picket our local legislators' offices, nationwide, to demand freedom of religion.
†
I'm with GlennB: we must gather our forces and protest. We are called to defend the innocent and resist the evil manipulations of the neo-pagan elite.
We should all write our friends, priests, and bishops to suggest that on the Lord's Day, Sunday, October 7, the 440th anniversary of the miraculous victory at Lepanto (which also seemed like a hopeless cause), we picket our local legislators' offices, nationwide, to demand freedom of religion.
†
8.26.2011 | 5:49am
Richard says:
David Nickol,
I hope you're right. It would throw into confusion the ranks of Planned Parenthood, founded by Sanger and perhaps the chief American champion of abortion. They certainly say little about this early objection of Sanger to the termination of life in the womb. The quotes seem genuine, but they are in conflict with the spirit of other remarks she made about young life:
**********************************
In her Woman and the New Race, Sanger offered a conflicting message about this issue. On the one hand she wrote, "I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." Pro-lifers would heartily agree! She even referred to "babies" in the womb—not using the now "politically correct" term, fetuses: "There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion."
Her message was inconsistent, however. Not only did Linda Gordon, author of Woman's Body, Woman's Right—a major work dealing with the history of birth control in America—indicate that Margaret Sanger "defended women's rights to abortion," 6 Sanger herself, in the very volume denouncing abortion already cited, wrote, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 5 This hardly sounds pro-life.
********************************
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-american-abortion-mentality/
This quote is taken from the site for the Institute for Creation Research, which not all will take seriously, but the bibliographical data is, I believe, correct.
Perhaps a more serious source is an article from the UK Apologetics net which, while hostile to Sanger, makes some attempt to to justice to her record and not make her an untter master of depravity.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-american-abortion-mentality/
It claims, unfortunately without quotes from her own work, that in later life she had a change of heart about abortion and came to support it as a useful way to get rid of the unfit:
******************************************
Abortion
On abortion, Margaret Sanger was initially violently opposed to abortion, in fact, it was the terrible failed abortions which she witnessed while living in New York City which convinced her that the widespread use of contraception would be far better. However, in her later life she appeared to soften, then completely change her view on this and became more concerned that the health of the mother should be protected with better health care as and when abortions became necessary.
"...Margaret Sanger and her organization began to be primary sponsors of abortion rights during her lifetime. But because she had associated herself with Adolph Hitler, praising him for his racial politics of eugenics, she changed the name of American Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood during WW II in order to disguise her racist past." (Source: Linda Gordon, 'Woman's Body; Woman's Right' - Grossman, 1976, p347).
Sanger's organisation did not die with her. International Planned Parenthood is now one of the major abortion-promoting bodies in the entire world. For this, it is said to receive millions of tax dollars each year through U.S. Federal and State Government funds.
Sanger's path down this slippery moral chute would be followed by numerous later liberals who would disregard the life of the child in the womb with astonishing ease, the basis of such a cavalier disregard for human life being, of course, in Marxist social theory and in the rejection of Christian values.
*******************************************
Sanger was a complex woman and a slippery subject, giving plenty of ammunition to both her friends and enemies. She is ultimately not the focal point for an opposition to abortion. The enemy is the wrong itself, not those who may or may not commit it. Love the sinner, hate the sin, is one of the most difficult parts of the Christian's charge, and one often scoffed at by enemies of Christian morality as humanly impossible. Maybe so, but God does it and we are called to be perfect as he is perfect, with his grace and sublime example.
Best,
Richard
I hope you're right. It would throw into confusion the ranks of Planned Parenthood, founded by Sanger and perhaps the chief American champion of abortion. They certainly say little about this early objection of Sanger to the termination of life in the womb. The quotes seem genuine, but they are in conflict with the spirit of other remarks she made about young life:
**********************************
In her Woman and the New Race, Sanger offered a conflicting message about this issue. On the one hand she wrote, "I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." Pro-lifers would heartily agree! She even referred to "babies" in the womb—not using the now "politically correct" term, fetuses: "There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion."
Her message was inconsistent, however. Not only did Linda Gordon, author of Woman's Body, Woman's Right—a major work dealing with the history of birth control in America—indicate that Margaret Sanger "defended women's rights to abortion," 6 Sanger herself, in the very volume denouncing abortion already cited, wrote, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 5 This hardly sounds pro-life.
********************************
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-american-abortion-mentality/
This quote is taken from the site for the Institute for Creation Research, which not all will take seriously, but the bibliographical data is, I believe, correct.
Perhaps a more serious source is an article from the UK Apologetics net which, while hostile to Sanger, makes some attempt to to justice to her record and not make her an untter master of depravity.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-american-abortion-mentality/
It claims, unfortunately without quotes from her own work, that in later life she had a change of heart about abortion and came to support it as a useful way to get rid of the unfit:
******************************************
Abortion
On abortion, Margaret Sanger was initially violently opposed to abortion, in fact, it was the terrible failed abortions which she witnessed while living in New York City which convinced her that the widespread use of contraception would be far better. However, in her later life she appeared to soften, then completely change her view on this and became more concerned that the health of the mother should be protected with better health care as and when abortions became necessary.
"...Margaret Sanger and her organization began to be primary sponsors of abortion rights during her lifetime. But because she had associated herself with Adolph Hitler, praising him for his racial politics of eugenics, she changed the name of American Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood during WW II in order to disguise her racist past." (Source: Linda Gordon, 'Woman's Body; Woman's Right' - Grossman, 1976, p347).
Sanger's organisation did not die with her. International Planned Parenthood is now one of the major abortion-promoting bodies in the entire world. For this, it is said to receive millions of tax dollars each year through U.S. Federal and State Government funds.
Sanger's path down this slippery moral chute would be followed by numerous later liberals who would disregard the life of the child in the womb with astonishing ease, the basis of such a cavalier disregard for human life being, of course, in Marxist social theory and in the rejection of Christian values.
*******************************************
Sanger was a complex woman and a slippery subject, giving plenty of ammunition to both her friends and enemies. She is ultimately not the focal point for an opposition to abortion. The enemy is the wrong itself, not those who may or may not commit it. Love the sinner, hate the sin, is one of the most difficult parts of the Christian's charge, and one often scoffed at by enemies of Christian morality as humanly impossible. Maybe so, but God does it and we are called to be perfect as he is perfect, with his grace and sublime example.
Best,
Richard
8.26.2011 | 12:57pm
M. Chen says:
I hope that Catholic charities and healthcare givers will maintain their high moral standards despite pressure to do otherwise. That's what it means to be "salt and light" in a dark world. As a protestant, I hope that the Catholics stick to their guns, if you get my drift. I'm very thankful for St. Mary's where I had my firstborn.
8.26.2011 | 1:49pm
Michael PS says:
Richard
Had you taken the trouble to read Margaret Sanger's much-quoted remark that " The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it" in context, you would have seen at once that it has nothing to do with abortion. It is actually taken from "Women and the New Race," which, as even you acknowledge, is violently opposed to abortion. It occurs in Chapter Five, entitled "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families."
"Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months.
This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five...
The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members... The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers."
In other words, she is claiming, in rather colourful language, that, in large families, the many children who die are better off than the survivors.
The absence of quotations to show that she ever changed her views on abortion is accounted for by the simple fact that there is not a shred of evidence that she ever did so: she certainly did call for the compulsory sterilization of the unfit, now a Crime against Humanity in International Humanitarian Law. A number of States adopted such laws and, in 1924, the Supreme Court upheld them in Buck -v- Bell, amid the deafening silence of the Christian Churches
Had you taken the trouble to read Margaret Sanger's much-quoted remark that " The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it" in context, you would have seen at once that it has nothing to do with abortion. It is actually taken from "Women and the New Race," which, as even you acknowledge, is violently opposed to abortion. It occurs in Chapter Five, entitled "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families."
"Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months.
This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five...
The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members... The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers."
In other words, she is claiming, in rather colourful language, that, in large families, the many children who die are better off than the survivors.
The absence of quotations to show that she ever changed her views on abortion is accounted for by the simple fact that there is not a shred of evidence that she ever did so: she certainly did call for the compulsory sterilization of the unfit, now a Crime against Humanity in International Humanitarian Law. A number of States adopted such laws and, in 1924, the Supreme Court upheld them in Buck -v- Bell, amid the deafening silence of the Christian Churches
8.26.2011 | 5:13pm
Richard says:
Michael P.S.,
You must take up the argument as to whether or not Sanger came to accept abortion in later life with Linda Gordon (in a book not available to me), as I have already stated that I cannot find such a statement in Sanger's own words on the net. Her horror of the large family may well have come from her own youth, since her mother died of tuberculosis, her constitution no doubt weakened by her having bourne eighteen children.
But I cannot accept Sanger as a moral hero. She was (in her own words, time and again) a eugenicist to the point of genocide, particularly with blacks, but also with Catholics and other human groups she considered inferior genetically and burdens on the race.
As I said, she was a complex woman and I am content to leave the judgement of the ultimate disposition of her soul to God.
Best,
Richard
You must take up the argument as to whether or not Sanger came to accept abortion in later life with Linda Gordon (in a book not available to me), as I have already stated that I cannot find such a statement in Sanger's own words on the net. Her horror of the large family may well have come from her own youth, since her mother died of tuberculosis, her constitution no doubt weakened by her having bourne eighteen children.
But I cannot accept Sanger as a moral hero. She was (in her own words, time and again) a eugenicist to the point of genocide, particularly with blacks, but also with Catholics and other human groups she considered inferior genetically and burdens on the race.
As I said, she was a complex woman and I am content to leave the judgement of the ultimate disposition of her soul to God.
Best,
Richard
8.26.2011 | 10:55pm
Dianne M says:
When I was a child I spoke as a child. I now understand how evill the contraceptive and abortion industry is in this country and in the world. When you work to change the definitions so that birth control pills are not listed as abortofacients on the grounds that the egg hasn't implanted yet, When you deny that pregnancy begins at conception, so that you can legally sell pills and convince people that they are not abortion babies already conceived, that is evil. Ella's website and Plan B both say that even though taken up to 48 hours after sexual intercourse it isn't an early abortion because even though that egg is fertilized and the cells have started dividing it hasn't implanted in the uterine wall. If they can force Catholic institutions to follow thier will on contraception, it will not be long before they start pushing for abortion. After abortion will be euthanasia and assisted suicide. They will label them as humane, the right of the individual, and like contraception to the poor they will label them cost cutting measures. Then they will restrict the amount of pain meds a terminally ill cancer patient can be given, unless they are committing assisted suicide because it is addictive or not healthy (like assisted suicide is) Then, as they have in the past they will push for mandatory sterilization in those deemed unfit, They will push for amniocentisis to test for abornmalities to be a standard part of prenatal care, even though there is risk to the baby, and eventually they will attempt to legislate that it is the caring standard to terminate any pregnancy where the mother is carrying a child with any defect found on an amniocentis, be it spina bifida or genetic diseases, or even downs syndrome. It is the horrible and proverbial foot in the door. Just remember, Hitler started his master race project by labeling people as costly. Then he started eliminating people. When you start labeling abortion and contraception as cost control measures, you are on his same stomping grounds. When you say that babies would be better off not being born. You might as well be Margaret Sanger. She called minorities, the poor human weeds. Oh and Obama's science czar? He once wrote that if you could keep it from affecting livestock and control the area where it was used and maintaned an effective dosage, he would not be against putting sterilants in the drinking water. That would be John Holder, who advises the President today. When you look at the thought processes of people pushing for this, you can see where this is headed, and it isn't going to be good when we get there.
8.28.2011 | 11:53pm
Michael says:
Richard,
I agree with you that Sanger was complicated and that abortion proved too easy a temptation for liberals, but there’s been a strange campaign to discredit Planned Parenthood through Sanger. First, Sanger’s brand of eugenics is distorted to look more racist and genocidal than it was, and then it is asserted that Planned Parenthood secretly keeps some racist and genocidal dream alive.
I think there’s enough wrong with abortion and with Planned Parenthood that we don’t have either to distort Sanger’s record or to paint Planned Parenthood as Hitler-lite, but I’m seeing more of my friends buy the theory and it pops up occasionally on First Things.
Linda Gordon belongs to that generation of feminist historians in the eighties who took as their historical project self-critique. So she and others wanted to show how feminism itself was too often racist, classist, or homophobic. Those who want to distort Sanger thus seize on some of Gordon’s comments much like creationists seize on things Stephen J. Gould has said about evolution.
It’s always good to hear your thoughts.
I agree with you that Sanger was complicated and that abortion proved too easy a temptation for liberals, but there’s been a strange campaign to discredit Planned Parenthood through Sanger. First, Sanger’s brand of eugenics is distorted to look more racist and genocidal than it was, and then it is asserted that Planned Parenthood secretly keeps some racist and genocidal dream alive.
I think there’s enough wrong with abortion and with Planned Parenthood that we don’t have either to distort Sanger’s record or to paint Planned Parenthood as Hitler-lite, but I’m seeing more of my friends buy the theory and it pops up occasionally on First Things.
Linda Gordon belongs to that generation of feminist historians in the eighties who took as their historical project self-critique. So she and others wanted to show how feminism itself was too often racist, classist, or homophobic. Those who want to distort Sanger thus seize on some of Gordon’s comments much like creationists seize on things Stephen J. Gould has said about evolution.
It’s always good to hear your thoughts.
9.8.2011 | 4:37am
Maren Bevans says:
I think theres enough wrong with abortion and with Planned Parenthood that we dont have either to distort Sangers record or to paint Planned Parenthood as Hitler-lite, but Im seeing more of my friends buy the theory and it pops up occasionally on First Things. Her message was inconsistent, however. Not only did Linda Gordon, author of Woman's Body, Woman's Righta major work dealing with the history of birth control in Americaindicate that Margaret Sanger "defended women's rights to abortion," 6 Sanger herself, in the very volume denouncing abortion already cited, wrote, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 5 This hardly sounds pro-life.
1.30.2012 | 2:21am
John Givens says:
Well, it has all come to fruition.
And David Nickol says that the Church can just not provide health coverage and cash instead.
Except that there are fines and penalties for this approach under the same health-care law.
So much for those on the 'religious left' defending those they disagree with. So tolerant. So 'progressive.'
And David Nickol says that the Church can just not provide health coverage and cash instead.
Except that there are fines and penalties for this approach under the same health-care law.
So much for those on the 'religious left' defending those they disagree with. So tolerant. So 'progressive.'
Trust me, ministry leaders are doing all we can to educate our boards and co-workers about conscience protection, why we need it, and how our ministry benefits the common good. I have emailed your reflection to several colleagues. Again, my thanks.