Cleansing the Public Square
Ricochet's Anne Coletta wrote an excellent post about the executive order "mandating that all health insurance policies must include contraception and voluntary sterilization at no cost to the patient." She rightly notes that statistics seem to verify that the costs and availability of contraceptives do not appear prohibitive for women who want them. So the recent HHS directive should be understood as promotion of contraception, rather than merely ensuring women have it available as an option.
Let's also briefly consider that "the women's prevention package will be available Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases, resulting in a slight overall increase in premiums." Leaving aside for the moment the costs forced on private insurers, that date should catch your eye. It suggests the President's administration believes this could be a significant issue in next year's elections.
Why? Perhaps because the executive order is, as Phil Lawler explains, implicitly anti-Catholic:
The new policy includes just the shadow of a “conscience clause,” in an obvious bid to pre-empt criticism from religious institutions that oppose contraception—in other words, to state matters simply, from the Catholic Church. But the religious exemption is defined so narrowly that it would apply only to an institution that was run by Catholics, for Catholics, for the purpose of fostering Catholicism—that is, a Catholic institution that had no impact on the outside world.
This “religious exemption” would not apply to Catholic hospitals, which employ non-Catholic doctors, nurses, and staff. It would not apply to Catholics schools with non-Catholic students and teachers. It would not apply to Catholic charitable agencies that serve the poor whether or not they are Catholic.
Cardinal Daniel Dinardo puts it bluntly:
...under the new rule our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics,” Cardinal DiNardo continued. “Could the federal government possibly intend to pressure Catholic institutions to cease providing health care, education and charitable services to the general public?
Read that again and let it sink in, because that's what is happening here. It's what fascist governments almost always do. They seek to either ostracize and destroy the Church or corrupt it into a tool of the state. Either way, the goal is for government to monopolize all social services and for all citizens to devote themselves utterly to the state.
Many Ricochet members are not Catholic, but should be equally concerned about the increasing attempts to drive the Church and religion in general out of the public square. Liberals are trying to give the federal government absolute authority over every aspect of our lives and to banish dissent through both legal and non-legal pressures.
Some Catholic charities have already been forced out of public service by government in states like Massachusetts. If this assault on our freedoms continues across the nation, it will not be only Christians who suffer the consequences.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Jul '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Aaron, thanks for linking to the original post - a powerful piece.
My take on the timing is a bit more prosaic, but that doesn't make it any less depressing... or sinister. Simply put: Obama is not a shoe-in for re-election and is in danger of depressing his base. You know, that segment of the population that is most rabidly pro-abortion. This move is a sop to these people, something to promise in return for ginning up voter enthusiasm - just like bribing children with monetary rewards if they behave at Aunt Marge's.
I don't know how this is playing in your local media, but here television news coverage was overwhelmingly positive - with clips of local "women's advocates" praising this as a long overdue step towards a more just society. The notion that treating pregnancy as a disease is somehow problematic would strike these people as quaintly anachronistic. Sad.
Edited on Aug 3, 2011 at 7:32pmAug '10
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Quite apart from the morality of contraceptives, the more basic problem with the policy is that it guts the concept of insurance, which is to spread the risk of costly unexpected occurrences. Having your health insurance pay for birth control is like having your homeowner's insurance pay for your gardener. Neither are unexpected expenses that only apply to a small, unfortunate minority. You either choose to use birth control (or a gardener), or you don't; either way, the expense is fixed and predictable every month.
Providing free birth control is a welfare function. What Obama is trying to do is force a welfare role onto insurance companies, getting them to redistribute money from birth control non-users to birth control users. What I'd like to know is how he manages to do this at the stroke of a pen, without Congress passing a law. Is this something hidden half way down page 2137 of Obamacare?
May '10
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Excellent points, Paul.
Apr '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
As the original post says, it is an HHS ruling, not an executive order, which the president issues. Obamacare leaves almost everything subject to HHS discretion/whim.
As to the politics: I think you are right that it is an appeal to Obama's base, but it also avoids the disastrous publicity of having Catholic hospitals in head-on conflict with the government before the election. We are reaping what the bishops have sown by not insisting that "Catholic" politicians behave like Catholics in their public actions. I doubt that even this will be enough.
Jan '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
It will be interesting to see what the Catholic & Evangelical Communities do with this. They seem to have been coopted the last few years, willing to accept things like this for the 'greater good' of universal health care.
Jan '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Paul DeRocco: Quite apart from the morality of contraceptives, the more basic problem with the policy is that it guts the concept of insurance, which is to spread the risk of costly unexpected occurrences. Having your health insurance pay for birth control is like having your homeowner's insurance pay for your gardener. Neither are unexpected expenses that only apply to a small, unfortunate minority. You either choose to use birth control (or a gardener), or you don't; either way, the expense is fixed and predictable every month.
Providing free birth control is a welfare function. What Obama is trying to do is force a welfare role onto insurance companies, getting them to redistribute money from birth control non-users to birth control users. What I'd like to know is how he manages to do this at the stroke of a pen, without Congress passing a law. Is this something hidden half way down page 2137 of Obamacare?
Hear, hear!
Jan '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
One telltale sign that the government's interest isn't exclusively the welfare of the citizens is how jealous they get when someone else provides service.
If government was simply an organization trying to serve the people, they would never resent or deny others from doing so as well. Think of it. If a neighbor's house burned down and you wanted to help, would you seethe in anger because other neighbors wanted to help also? Of course not. You'd welcome them.
It's happened in every country, and now it's happening here. Governments resent the churches for providing services to people, because charity wins loyalty. Even though the churches go out of their way to offer charity without expecting return, governments see the church as stealing the loyalty that rightfully belongs to them.
This isn't the church's first rodeo. We've seen the pattern before ... and it's unmistakable here.
Feb '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Imagine that a woman lets her birth control prescriptions laps. Then wants to start again.
In some cases - maybe just in particular states - getting a new prescription means a visit to a doctor. I am uncertain whether this is new appointment is truly necessary, but this new mandate suggests that doctors will be encouraged to restart such prescriptions over the phone....
So, does this really improve women's health?
Edited on Aug 4, 2011 at 8:11pmMay '10
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Technically, you are correct. That is what the term "executive order" is generally used to describe. But the HHS can't wipe its nose without the President's approval. He can fire Sebelius at any time.
More importantly, this was done without direct legislative approval. It was an executive decision — a symptom of our representatives' now-ubiquitous habit of circumventing the Constitution by delegating authority to administrators and committees. These days, more policy decisions are made without Congress than through it.
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Tim Carney has an interesting piece on Planned Parenthood, the drug industry, Obama and contraception crony capitalism.
Mar '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Obamacare creates a huge moral hazard and a thousand bad incentives and it should be repealed on those grounds. If it is not repealed, it should definitely be amended to provide a conscience clause with teeth.
But contraception is not controversial in any way for me. I'm a Protestant, so I reject the magisterium's teaching on this and many other things. Transubstantiation, for example.
Nevertheless, it is not surprising that since Obamacare takes on the responsibility for providing medical care to millions of Americans, it would include reproductive health care. I don't think this one provision was dreamt up in isolation by atheists in a smoke-free, green-compliant-lightbulb lit backroom as part of a stealth campaign against religion.
Mar '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Thanks for the link, Aaron. Also, the Weekly Standard has a piece today titled "Obamacare Mandates (Free) Coverage of Abortion Drug" so this is gaining some traction. Two issues are in play: the government mandate of free contraception--what else can they demand insurance companies cover at taxpayer expense? and the government requirement that citizens opposed to abortion must now pay for it. What a mess.
May '10
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
I'm safe saying this on Ricochet but I'm a crackpot everywhere else: this is a fascist administration.
May '10
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
This is an attempt to appeal to women voters in the 2012 election, something conservative Republicans fail miserably at. Women voters were important in 2008 and will be in 2012. Republicans (even conservatives) don't mind pandering to the boomers, otherwise they would've pushed for entitlement reform in the debt ceiling debate. But anything that might have the appearance of improving women's reproductive health is seen as an attack on the Catholic church?! Good grief. Democrats are doing a much better job of discussing issues important to women in a positive light, for example, providing resources for women to have healthier babies. Most of these coverage mandates are covered already, at least that's the case with my insurance. Taxpayers already directly fund contraceptives for service members and military dependents, so DoD is antinatalist or hates religion or something, I guess.
If the government considered pregnancy a disease, than why does this mandate cover prenatal testing? If healthcare coverage should only include disease, than why cover preventative treatments at all? What's next, deny coverage of deliveries, c-sections, NICU stays and hospital stays because pregnancy is such a "benign condition?"
Edited on Aug 4, 2011 at 1:01pmMar '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Karen: Most of these coverage mandates are covered already, at least that's the case with my insurance. Taxpayers already directly fund contraceptives for service members and military dependents, so DoD is antinatalist or hates religion or something, I guess.
If the government considered pregnancy a disease, than why does this mandate cover prenatal testing? · Aug 4 at 9:56am
My question is WHY is the government mandating insurance companies cover this at no cost to the female policyholder? Do we have so much money laying around that we as a country can afford this? Aren't we all competent enough to decide which insurance company provides the coverage we need? Why not let the market decide? And the other issue, which affects all who are against abortion (Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, atheist alike) is that some of these "contraceptives" cause the created embryo to be aborted. Even though the government is not supposed to fund abortions, through this HHS regulation, the government now is mandating we pay for abortions.
Health care coverage can include prenatal coverage, but often insurance policies have a maternity add-on--all policyholders are not paying for a service they do not want or need.
Mar '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Karen:
If healthcare coverage should only include disease, than why cover preventative treatments at all? " · Aug 4 at 9:56am
Because they prevent disease?
Jul '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Karen, I was going to expand on my previous post by discussing just this item. I don't think the administration is willfully trying to attack or subvert Catholic institutions - to be honest, I don't even think they have the awareness to see that this policy would be offensive. It's politics pure and simple. Most of the country agrees with Crow's Nest in that they have no problem with contraception per se. This policy is simply an attempt to curry favor with middle class women and couples who will see it as one less thing they have to pay for. And let's face it, most people will not take the time to worry about the ethics involved, the policy implications, or the fact that they are being subsidized by other policy holders. Finally, the timing couldn't be more cynical: "you better re-elect me or you'll never see these benefits".
Edited on Aug 4, 2011 at 12:54pmMay '10
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
Now, hang on. There is a crucial difference between these two dogmas. Transubstatiation is an article of faith, while the immorality of artificial birth control is a question of natural law, like, say, the immorality of lying or of adultery.
That the Church prohibits it is only one reason (and not the deepest one) Catholics refuse it. Further 1) The Church prohibits because it is immoral; it is not immoral because the Church prohibits it. 2) One need not be a Catholic to see its immorality.
If you're not Catholic, you don't have to fast on Ash Wednesday, or abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent. These are positive laws of the Church that apply only to her members.
But no one should imagine that because he is not a Catholic, he can practice artificial birth control without doing wrong or incurring guilt.
Edited on Aug 4, 2011 at 12:54pmApr '11
Re: Cleansing the Public Square
katievs
...Transubstatiation is an article of faith, while the immorality of artificial birth control is a question of natural law, like, say, the immorality of lying or of adultery....no one should imagine that...he can practice artificial birth control without doing wrong or incurring guilt. · Aug 4 at 12:51pm
Right, katievs. It is unfortunate that the Natural Law argument in Humanae Vitae is so complicated (3-4 steps) and involves so many (2-3) assertions couched in unfamiliar philosophical terminology that Progressives can dismiss it as peculiarly RC with brilliant retorts like "If you don't play-a da game, you don't make-a da rools".
I think a slightly more theological and theist approach covers almost all the same ground while showing that Orthodox reservations are not peculiar or whimsical: In the creation of a new human being, there are three persons acting, the father, the mother, and God (spare me your Trinitarian quibbles). Deliberately to make the act infertile is to set one's will against God's, which is the basic definition of sin.