November 6, 2011

So I have a question.




You've likely heard of the decision by the Obama administration to require employers - including Catholic hospitals and schools - to pay for insurance that would provide its employees with insurance to cover the costs of birth control and abortion.

So I hate to be logical here, but if members of some faiths are allowed to establish conscientious objector status, thus avoiding military service (even in times of war) on the basis of their religious convictions, why should Catholic institutions be forced to provide services that are 100% contrary to the tenets of our faith?

To quote the president of the Catholic University of America, John Garvey, "It does not take a college education to see the hypocrisy in offering to pay for the very services we condemn in our theology classes and seek forgiveness for in our sacraments."
StumbleUpon

6 comments:

  1. That's yet another reason I think the system should be reformed in the total opposite way Obama is trying. Instead of encouraging more comprehensive plans paid for in a way you don't control, I think that for the majority of people the majority of normal healthcare expenses (including birth control if you choose to use it) should be paid for out-of-pocket. Health Insurance should only pay extraordinary expenses-I'm thinking along the lines of $5000/person, $10,000/family per year deductible. I'd also eliminate the tax advantage of employer sponsored plans. In short, I'd make the ones paying for healthcare and the ones using it one and the same in most cases.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with RAnn's approach in general. Has anyone ever wondered why people demand that the Catholic Church get out of their bedrooms and then think it's just fine to install the government there? That's what Obamacare does. Repeal and replace.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've thought about the deductibles lately...the question is, what would you call extraordinary expenses? The C-section you don't actually have to have, because you didn't actually have to conceive the child? There's $8-10K right there. But at the same time, I wonder when we get the benefits statement and see how much our (very good) insurance pays b/c of Julianna's surgeries, etc., I always wonder how they can possibly make $$ if everyone's like us. I guess not everyone is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think a major part of the problem is that health care is so outrageously expensive. I would agree that we should bear most of the costs ourselves, if healthcare was affordable.

    I understand the irony in the health care plan with regards to abortion, but not so much with birth control. Not all employees of Catholic institutions are of the Catholic faith, and if they choose to use birth control, they should be covered. If you argue that birth control shouldn't be covered, then I'd make the argument that women employed by Catholic institutions who give birth to children who were conceived out of wedlock should also not be covered.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have asked that same question. I work for the Church and we should not be paying for people to have abortions or use birth control. It makes no sense and is not right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A whole hearted Amen to this. I hope this is reversed. It's just crazy.
    Blessings,
    Charlotte

    ReplyDelete