Not sure what all the rumpus is about? Check out the Becket Fund's FAQ. Why did the HHS mandate come into being in the first place? An interesting point raised (links in the original). Excerpts:
...I read the NIM study and checked the research on which it (and the subsequent HHS mandate) was based. It was not surprising that every single premise drew on research from the Guttmacher Institute of Planned Parenthood. Nor was it surprising that President Obama, to whom Planned Parenthood is a key donor, would be adamant about enforcing directives based on its agenda.
When this first emerged, I began tracking what I knew would follow: a flurry of MSM op-ed pieces, health blogs, and new studies reinforcing the notion that longterm, compliance-light methods of contraception are the solution to women's health and the country's progress. Another one hit today, in the New England Journal of Medicine. Based on studies conducted in St Louis, it repeats the claim that IUDs and implants are highly effective in preventing the "disease" of pregnancy, and glosses over the very real health risks associated with these methods. The study was funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (started by Warren Buffett and named for his wife), a major funder of and recipient of donations from--surprise! surprise!--Planned Parenthood. Two of the study's authors are quite forthcoming about being in the pay of the companies that manufacture IUDs and implantables. Ho hum.
But another study is also making news today--one I only learned about from attempts to refute it because it turns the party line on its head. In the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Melissa S. Kearney and Phillip B. Levine ask "Why is the teen birthrate in the United States so high and why does it matter?" In their extensive review of studies (which include, but are not limited to, some conducted by Guttmacher Institute researchers) Kearney and Levine refute nearly every premise behind the HHS mandate. They present a persuasive case for looking at teen and young adult pregnancy not as a disease, but as a symptom of poverty and lack of alternatives. Among their findings:
Unintended pregnancy rarely correlates with unwanted pregnancy or unhappiness, even when women note that their pregnancies resulted from contraceptive failure.
Only 2% of young sexually active poor women who were not using contraception cited the cost of contraception as prohibitive.
Women in the NIM's "high risk" category become pregnant and remain pregnant by choice in much higher numbers than Planned Parenthood's studies reflect.
Pregnancy is not a statistical factor in women's ability to escape poverty. There is no economic difference between poor women who have had children as teenagers or young adults and poor women who have not.
Factors that do make a difference include access to education, employment, reliable child care--and marriage...
...all of the signs were there from the start, you know. Maybe everyone hasn’t connected the dots, though. If you think that Joanne’s post still isn’t enough, here are some more hints for your consideration...
in that “Accommodation,” which did nothing to ameliorate the moral dilemma faced by the Church, and by her faithful, the evidence of who is behind the whole thing was very clear: NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Recall their rapid agreement to the Administrations proposal? It’s all right here in black and white,
Planned Parenthood’s response:
The Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work.
NARAL’s response:
Today’s announcement makes it clear that President Obama is firmly committed to protecting women’s health.
As Cardinal Dolan said to Charlie Rose the other day, that’s also about the same time that the Administration stopped talking to the Church. You may recall that President Obama, and his dutiful hands at the HHS Department informed Cardinal Dolan, and the USCCB that the mandate is a fait accompli. And they published the law as it was written, and have never budged again.
And so the Church is suing the U.S. Government, because unlike the folks at Susan G. Komen, see, we don’t back down from defending life against bullies and thugs that believe killing baby human beings is an acceptable practice. You can jail us, you can fine us, and you can even kill us, but we will never back down from shining the harsh light of truth on this despicable, sinful, practice...
Yes, what is the rumpus about? Notwithstanding the bishops' arm waving about religious liberty, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences. Contrary to bishops' assertions and the widespread belief of those who trustingly accept their claims, the law does no such thing.
Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forces employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers consider immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government (which, by the way, would generally amount to far less than the cost of health plans). Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved. Solved--unless an employer really aims not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather to control his employees' health plan choices so they conform to the employer's religious beliefs rather than the law, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer would need an exemption from the law.
Indeed, some have continued clamoring for such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.
In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.
Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.
The bishops are coming across more and more as just another special interest group with a big lobbying operation and a big budget—one, moreover, that is not above stretching the truth. The bishops want the government to privilege their business enterprises by allowing them to offer their employees health care plans conforming to the bishops’ religious beliefs rather than the law. They’re so keen on this that they have resorted to a media blitz centered on the false claim—sometimes uttered in priestly tones by bishops themselves—that the law forces employers to act contrary to their consciences. Bunk!
"The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government (which, by the way, would generally amount to far less than the cost of health plans)."
Evidence?
"rather to control his employees' health plan choices so they conform to the employer's religious beliefs rather than the law,"
So you're saying that, in fact, the mandate does "force employers to act contrary to their consciences" by requiring them to pay to provide their employees with health plans which include coverage for things which run against the conscience of the employer.
"complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed."
I don't think the objection to fines for non-compliance rest upon people being forced to pay for things they object to, but rather upon the fact that they're being fined for not paying for objectionable treatments.
"those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!)"
That's not the "accomodation" announced at all. The accomodation, as announced, would supposedly not require employers to pay directly for the objectionable services, but would rather require insurance companies to contact employees and offer them the option to choose the services rather than expecting the employer to openly make them available. Supposedly, this would come at no increased cost to the employer.
"They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar."
No. They believe that they have the right to pay for plans for their employees which do not cover objectionable services. They do not want to be forced to pay for a plan that covers contraception, sterilization, or abortion-inducing drugs. They know that these insurers may cover such services and so the money of the insurer may go towards such things. They simply don't want to be paying for plans that specifically cover certain services.
"The bishops want the government to privilege their business enterprises by allowing them to offer their employees health care plans conforming to the bishops’ religious beliefs rather than the law."
If the law is requiring the bishops to do things in violation of their religious beliefs, then it is the obligation of the courts to determine whether or not that law is in violation of the First Amendment. It is not something unheard of for a law to restrict religious liberties and then to be found unconstitutional.
"the law forces employers to act contrary to their consciences."
You have said several times in the course of this response that the bishops are attempting to put their religious beliefs before the law. That would mean that the law forces those bishops to act contrary to their consciences. If that claim is bunk, then you have been speaking bunk.
"sometimes uttered in priestly tones by bishops themselves
And in what other tone would a bishop speak? Actually, back up--what the heck is a priestly tone?
2 comments:
Yes, what is the rumpus about? Notwithstanding the bishops' arm waving about religious liberty, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences. Contrary to bishops' assertions and the widespread belief of those who trustingly accept their claims, the law does no such thing.
Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forces employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers consider immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government (which, by the way, would generally amount to far less than the cost of health plans). Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved. Solved--unless an employer really aims not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather to control his employees' health plan choices so they conform to the employer's religious beliefs rather than the law, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer would need an exemption from the law.
Indeed, some have continued clamoring for such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.
In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.
Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.
The bishops are coming across more and more as just another special interest group with a big lobbying operation and a big budget—one, moreover, that is not above stretching the truth. The bishops want the government to privilege their business enterprises by allowing them to offer their employees health care plans conforming to the bishops’ religious beliefs rather than the law. They’re so keen on this that they have resorted to a media blitz centered on the false claim—sometimes uttered in priestly tones by bishops themselves—that the law forces employers to act contrary to their consciences. Bunk!
"The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government (which, by the way, would generally amount to far less than the cost of health plans)."
Evidence?
"rather to control his employees' health plan choices so they conform to the employer's religious beliefs rather than the law,"
So you're saying that, in fact, the mandate does "force employers to act contrary to their consciences" by requiring them to pay to provide their employees with health plans which include coverage for things which run against the conscience of the employer.
"complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed."
I don't think the objection to fines for non-compliance rest upon people being forced to pay for things they object to, but rather upon the fact that they're being fined for not paying for objectionable treatments.
"those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!)"
That's not the "accomodation" announced at all. The accomodation, as announced, would supposedly not require employers to pay directly for the objectionable services, but would rather require insurance companies to contact employees and offer them the option to choose the services rather than expecting the employer to openly make them available. Supposedly, this would come at no increased cost to the employer.
"They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar."
No. They believe that they have the right to pay for plans for their employees which do not cover objectionable services. They do not want to be forced to pay for a plan that covers contraception, sterilization, or abortion-inducing drugs. They know that these insurers may cover such services and so the money of the insurer may go towards such things. They simply don't want to be paying for plans that specifically cover certain services.
"The bishops want the government to privilege their business enterprises by allowing them to offer their employees health care plans conforming to the bishops’ religious beliefs rather than the law."
If the law is requiring the bishops to do things in violation of their religious beliefs, then it is the obligation of the courts to determine whether or not that law is in violation of the First Amendment. It is not something unheard of for a law to restrict religious liberties and then to be found unconstitutional.
"the law forces employers to act contrary to their consciences."
You have said several times in the course of this response that the bishops are attempting to put their religious beliefs before the law. That would mean that the law forces those bishops to act contrary to their consciences. If that claim is bunk, then you have been speaking bunk.
"sometimes uttered in priestly tones by bishops themselves
And in what other tone would a bishop speak? Actually, back up--what the heck is a priestly tone?
Post a Comment