separation of Church/State (unless you don't like Church policy)

[Usually Lurkin]

Push the Government into everything, and you have to take church out of everything. It's downright unconstitutional. Catholic Charities in California are not allowed to follow Catholic doctrine.

(and why in the world does insurance cover contraceptives in the first place?)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- In a precedent-setting decision, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Roman Catholic charity must offer birth-control coverage to its employees even though the church considers contraception a sin.

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

Wait a minute.

This organization:
1. offers secular services
2. doesn't directly preach Catholic doctrine
3. doesn't even mandate that it's employees be Catholic,
but refers to itself as a Catholic organization?

I fail to see how anyone's rights are being infringed upon. If they hire a woman, knowing beforehand she isn't Catholic, then it's her business.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Psychedelic Fuzz
Wait a minute.
. . .
I fail to see how anyone's rights are being infringed upon. If they hire a woman, knowing beforehand she isn't Catholic, then it's her business.

Her business for them to give her money to do something they think is sin?

[Mavdog]

I'm guessing, but it is typical for an emploee to pay some of the premiums for the health insurance, so the Catholic Church and the employee are paying for the insurance coverage.

The issue it seems is if the Catholic Charities is a religious enterprise, which was specifically excluded from the law mandating such contraception coverage if I recall, or if the Charities is not a religious organization and thus included. The court ruled that due to the broad religious affiliation of the employees they didn't see them as a religious organization.

BTW insurance cos. should provide contraception just as they provide other preventive health benefits.

[Usually Lurkin]

You are right, Mavdog, the question is whether or not the Catholic Charities is a religious organization.
The dissenting judge wrote:
"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."

from Catholic Charities press release:
"This case was never about contraceptives. It was never about insurance. It was about our ability to practice our religion—providing food, clothing and shelter to the neediest among us—as a religious organization which is part of the Catholic Church."

to them, what they are doing is preaching Catholic doctrine. This is part of their religion.
It seems a little restrictive (and forcibly discriminatory) to require that a religion's ministries have to be performed only by those in the religion, and only for those in the religion.



To the general question of contraceptives coverage:
If an employer must provide avenues to sexual enjoyment free from the consequences of disease and pregnancy, why is there any consequence that an employer does not have to protect their emplyees from? Why should employers not be allowed to define that list for themselves, even if their definition happens to be (gasp!) religiously derived?

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

I agree that the question is whether this charity is a religious organization. Whether or not they characterize themselves as such, the things in my previous post, qouted from the CNN article, make that assertion a little shaky.

That said, the Catholic Church doesn't approve of contraception.If they hire a woman who is not a Catholic, their responsibility is to make sure she knows they don't approve, not to deny the coverage outright.s group has 180 full time employees, not clergy, not volunteers, not even Catholic. That makes it a business, and it should be subject to the restrictions that "secular" businesses are.

The government is not mandating that the group's Catholic employees must abandon doctrine and use the birth control. Therefore, no one's rights are being intruded upon.

If I went to work for a Hindu, should he not give me a lunch break because he knows I'd go eat a hamburger?

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

As much as I respect both of your opinions, I just don't see this in the same light.

LRB, I don't see the overt forcing of anyone's religious beliefs on anyone else here. Non-Catholics working for (and being paid by) this organization deserve the same rights and priviledges given to others working at for-profit organizations. I don't think the court decision should be overturned...the law mandating coverage is a different question.

UL, While I don't see the forcing of anyone to adhere to (or conversely to break) religious beliefs, and thus don't have a problem with it, I could see how you do.

We can agree that the standard should be the same. Whether it is the government's place to decide this issue is another debate entirely. Lots of businesses and groups are founded on religious principles, but can't be looked upon as religious organizations. What I'm contending is that is this particular case, the distinction is blurred for the reasons I enumerated above. I'm not so sure it should qualify strictly as a religious organization, and that exceptions to the laws governing employee's insurance shouldn't be made here, or anywhere.

I don't see a question of faith here, just an entity that should have to give it's employees the same coverage that any other would.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Psychedelic Fuzz
As much as I respect both of your opinions, I just don't see this in the same light.

LRB, I don't see the overt forcing of anyone's religious beliefs on anyone else here. Non-Catholics working for (and being paid by) this organization deserve the same rights and priviledges given to others working at for-profit organizations. I don't think the court decision should be overturned...the law mandating coverage is a different question.

UL, While I don't see the forcing of anyone to adhere to (or conversely to break) religious beliefs, and thus don't have a problem with it, I could see how you do.

We can agree that the standard should be the same. Whether it is the government's place to decide this issue is another debate entirely. Lots of businesses and groups are founded on religious principles, but can't be looked upon as religious organizations. What I'm contending is that is this particular case, the distinction is blurred for the reasons I enumerated above. I'm not so sure it should qualify strictly as a religious organization, and that exceptions to the laws governing employee's insurance shouldn't be made here, or anywhere.

I don't see a question of faith here, just an entity that should have to give it's employees the same coverage that any other would.

Insurance coverage is not an inailiable right. Many don't have any insurance and have to pay for their own medical bills or rely on charity from the government or private organizations to pay for their treatment. Some even have to go without. Since government determines what the specifics are for working, that would give it control over any organization that hired people by your logic. Every church that has paid workers whether it be for cleaning, preaching, or playing the organ would fall under the control of the government. This would greatly limit the freedom of people to practice their religion.

If the Catholic church was not to pay for the woman's contraception, there are many ways she could still get the cotnraception. However if the Catholic Church is forced to pay for it, there is no way that the church can follow it's religious tenants. It is not a right to get a free ride. It is not a right to have others provide for your wants and needs. It is unjust for someone to take our possesions from us for the sake of imposing the religious beliefs of the many. And thinking that the woman has the "right" to free contraception is every much a religous belief as abstaining from sex outside marriage.

[Caliente]

[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

(and why in the world does insurance cover contraceptives in the first place?)

UL, contraceptives have other uses besides birth control. They are sometimes used to regulate a woman's cycle and to relieve severe symptoms brought on by a woman's cycle. There are also health benefits associated with the hormones in birth control pills.

[LRB]

UL, contraceptives have other uses besides birth control. They are often used sometimes to regulate a woman's cycle and to relieve severe symptoms brought on by a woman's cycle. There are also health benefits associated with the hormones in birth control pills.

Caliente, you are absolutely right that there are in fact valid medical reason to take contraceptive devices other than to prevent pregnancy. However, if a church doesn't believe in any medical care at all, and some do, I would think it would be fine not to provide any health insurance at all. That would stop individuals from getting the medical care, only prevent the church from paying for it.

[Mavdog]

LRB, remember that these employees are helping pay for this insurance. The Church isn't "giving" them anything but compensation for the work done by the employee.

The Church employs these workers and offers them benefits. They are not volunteers, being catholic was not part of the criteria for getting the job, they are employees.

Among those benefits is health insurance. The State law says all healthcare plans should include birth control. IF the employee wants it, it's available.

The ruling says as there is no religious criteria, the employees are not asked to be in the church, the employees are just that- employees- and the Church is subject to the State law.

This is about religious freedom of the employee to NOT be forced to adhere to the Church's doctrine. If the Church wishes to to employ only Catholics, they can. but they didn't, so they lost the case.

It doesn't matter that the Church is a not for profit, that it is doing what they feel their mission is, they are employers. It's about employee-employer, the employer just happens to be a church.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
LRB, remember that these employees are helping pay for this insurance. The Church isn't "giving" them anything but compensation for the work done by the employee.

The Church employs these workers and offers them benefits. They are not volunteers, being catholic was not part of the criteria for getting the job, they are employees.

Among those benefits is health insurance. The State law says all healthcare plans should include birth control. IF the employee wants it, it's available.

The ruling says as there is no religious criteria, the employees are not asked to be in the church, the employees are just that- employees- and the Church is subject to the State law.

This is about religious freedom of the employee to NOT be forced to adhere to the Church's doctrine. If the Church wishes to to employ only Catholics, they can. but they didn't, so they lost the case.

It doesn't matter that the Church is a not for profit, that it is doing what they feel their mission is, they are employers. It's about employee-employer, the employer just happens to be a church.

Mavdog, the employees may pay for the insurance, but they are paying less because the insurance doesn't cover birth-control coverage. But whether they were paying for the insurance or not was not addressed in the court case.

The State law says all healthcare plans should include birth control.

Actually this is not true. The law, which is called Women's Contraceptive Equality or WCEA, only requires nonreligious organizations to provide birth control and then only when the company provides prescription drug benefits as part of it's health plan. So for employess an working in a Catholic church building would be exempt from benefiting from WCEA. However a Catholic hospital founded and funded by a part of the Catholic church and being a nonprofit organization would need to provide contraceptive insurance if they provided prescription drug insurance. The stated intention of the law is address the percieved discrimination against women since they were shown by a state study to pay more for child birth and contraception on average than men. So the premise is following the 14th amendment in attempting to enforce equal rights. However the legislature allowed large exceptions of organizations which did not have to provide contraceptive insurance.

The 1st major task is discrepancy is whether the WCEA was in accordance to the 1st amendment in the extremely narrow definition that it gave to religion. This infact divided the Catholic church into separate parts, leaving some as religious and deeming others as secular. Another challange is to whether the benefit to society by forcing Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive insurance was sufficient to place the rights of the 14th amendment over the rights of the 1st amendment. In essence the government is forcing a religious based organization to go against it's concience because it conflicts with the expressed concience of the majority of citizens. The reason why we had the 1st amendment was to protect against invasions of the government in this manner. Certainly there are arguments about 14th amendment rights, but that does not justify completely throwing the 1st amendment out the window so to speak. It's quite clear that generally California is one of the more "liberal" states in the US just as Texas is one of the more "conservative". Californians tend to place equal rights for women over freedom of religion for all as a general rule. Certainly there are millions of exceptions, but we're talking about the majority of voters.

Now I know 1st hand that female contraceptive medication is very expensive from 1st hand knowledge of having to pay for it for my ex-wife for several years. And she was taking it for a medical condition and not for birth control, but our insurance still refused to pay for it despite the doctor's diagnois. However, this issue is not about taking it for medical reasons, but only for contraceptive ones. So we're talking about a economic disadvantage of fertile women who engage sexual intercouse with fertile men and who do not wish to become pregant. Now let's just consider women in this group who work for a nonprofit organization that is religiously based and falls outside the WCEA definition of a "religious organization". Now let's narrow it further by only including those organiztions which have prescription healthcare plans and currently don't provide contraceptive insurance. Not all Catholic Charities organizations refuse to provide contraceptive insurance, but some do. The difference is that they are controlled by the local hiearchy of the church and there are different interpretations on how they should handle this issue. Generally the courts have sided in the past with allowing the established church hierachy settle the matter in most religious conflicts. The courts have ruled that they are incompetent to decide matters of religious doctrine there being very few and rare exceptions. So we have a group of women and a religious group which both are relatively small compared to the entire population of California. It's discrimination of some women who chose to work for this religous group in certain capacities over some men who work for the same organization versus the right of the religous organization to follow it's concience. Or it would have been this if the WCEA didn't exempt religious organizations but narrowly define those organizations. This narrow definition alone poses the question whether some religions are being favored over others. In other words was the law a case of religious gerrymandering.

I don't see the relative rights of society in this case being near the level of importance of the right to follow their religious concience of the Catholic church. I would much rather have a governemnt that intrudes upon our lives as little as possible and still preserve our society. In this case, I believe it was wrong for the government to intervene.

[Mavdog]

LRB, re-read what you wrote;

Quote (from Mavdog post)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State law says all healthcare plans should include birth control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To which LRB responded:

Actually this is not true. The law, which is called Women's Contraceptive Equality or WCEA, only requires nonreligious organizations to provide birth control and then only when the company provides prescription drug benefits as part of it's health plan.

OK, there is a qualifier based on the religious org exemption.

So YES, the state law does make birth control mandatory if a) the group is non-religious and b) if prescription benefits are included. The first point is really what this case was all about, the question of if the Catholic Charities was a religious org or not. The second point is a duh...if the healthcare plan wasn't providing prescription benefits, it certainly wouldn't cover prescribed birth control.

[Chiwas]

Twilight zone.

You're walking in a twilight zone. By definition, there is no definition there. Two opposite rules in the same place in the same moment.

But in a Sate of Law, the employees must be protected by the laboral laws.

"To Ceasar what is of Ceasar, to God what is of God".

[Chiwas]

I was reading last night a science book, in which in one of the chapters the author is analyzing the anachronism of Church related to the advance of the technology and the very society. I took a part of it, which he quoted from the German magazine Stern, that seemed very interesting:

The sexual appetite of the creatures of God disturbs the main representatives of the Church excessively. The catechism not only condemns the people who live in free love without conscience remorses, but that also recommends moderation to the marriages. The example that must be followed is the one of Tobias of the Old Testament, that before meeting in the bed with its wife, prayed to the creator.

Within the framework from this tradition, and in the "glory of the truth", it is gotten to affirm that the man is a impure being who has inherited his sinful nature from his first parents Adam and Eve, which let themselves seduce by the diabolic serpent and were punished with the expulsion of the Paradise. All sinners need the acquittal, on which the Church has the monopoly.

The last part, "All sinners need the acquittal, on which the Church has the monopoly", is the weakest link of my Church for me, and of any Church who could pretend to have the power of God in its hands.

[LRB]

For those of you interested in learning more about this case I would read the actual ruling from the court. Here's a link. Be warned it's very lengthy, 80 pages or so. I think the 1st 53 pages deal with the ruling and the majorities opinion. The next 23 contain the dissenting opinion. The rest just list the parties and other factual detail as such.