Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama/Catholic Contraception Controversy Boils Down to Workers’ Rights
The great new religious battle over the proposed new federal rule requiring contraception coverage for women actually boils down to the basic precept that worker rights apply across all of society, including within religious institutions. But it also reveals the political machinations of the right, the suspect motives of the Catholic bishops and another crucial weakness in the much heralded Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act passed by the Democrats and signed by President Obama two years ago.
First, it is striking how America’s all-male Catholic hierarchy has seemingly colluded with Republicans in miraculously conceiving this issue as a potential “wedge” issue to mobilize blue-collar Catholics against President Obama and the Democrats.
Second, it is almost amusing to see bishops, now pretending to launch a last-ditch effort to prevent a sudden and unique incursion by the Obama administration against the freedom to practice their religion. The Catholic hierarchy has decisively “lost the war at home “ already, as Gail Collins notes, but is choosing to pick a political fight. The majority of Catholic women use birth control. Federal rules required contraception's inclusion for more than a decade, as Daily Kos reports:
In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.
With more than half the states also requiring insurers to include contraception in women’s health care packages, Catholic universities, schools and hospitals are obligated to provide birth-control services to their employees. (Most states have an exemption for churches.)
Further, Catholic doctrine is trumped by the Constitutional principle that members of all faiths must obey the law. Noted attorney David Boise explains that freedom of religion as outlined in the Constitution is quite different from the bishops’ version:
Everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose. [But] there isn`t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer.
The fundamental point is underscored in this exchange between Boise and his MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell:
O`DONNELL: So, this is just simple labor law. …Labor [law] requires certain conditions in the work place and so forth. This is one of those.
BOIES: And tax law and workman's comp law. I mean, there are all sorts of laws that apply to every employer in this country, and you don`t exempt religious employers just because their religion. You are not asking anybody in the Catholic Church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal law that every employer has to comply with.
Employers who provide health insurance are currently required in 28 states to provide contraceptive services and other reproductive care as part of a strategy of preventive care, which coincides with the conclusions reached by the medical experts consulted in writing the Affordable Care Act.
But the contrived issue of contraception is being perceived by the Republicans as a chance to split working-class Catholics voters from Barack Obama.
It appears to be a textbook case of the Right developing what Thomas Frank, author of What’s the Matter with Kansas?, diagnosed astutely as an “election-season” issue. The Republicans have been immensely creative in inflating issues like gay marriage and gun rights to immense proportions to attract the votes of working-class and low-income voters, facilitated by the frequent Democratic failure to tenaciously push economic justice with the same level of conviction shown by the Right.
For the Republicans and the Right, the notion of including contraception as a standard part of women’s health insurance offers yet another chance to demonize Obama for “overt hostility to faith,” according to Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum. Pulling out all the stops, Santorum even raised the specter of Obama unleashing savage anti-religious forces that would literally re-introduce the “guillotine” of the French Revolution for the faithful and patriotic.
For the Catholic bishops, this conflict re-ignites their hope of rolling back contraceptive rights, established in a 1965 Supreme Court decision, and also trying to further shrink abortion rights. While the strongly-held sentiment of Americans for contraceptive rights is obvious, the Catholic leaders are trying to regain lost ground by lining up with a retrograde movement. As journalist Barbara Miner observed five years ago:
The movement against birth control has moved beyond the fringe. Across the country, many pharmacists won't fill birth control prescriptions, some hospital emergency rooms refuse to dispense emergency contraception and some state legislatures are cutting funds for family planning.
The Catholic bishops hope somehow to add fuel to this movement and thus turn the clock back a century or two, with this anti-contraception push being wrapped up with anti-abortion rules in the name of protecting "religious freedom." Feminists like Barbara Miner and Katha Pollitt are appalled by this campaign. As Miner told In These Times,
The medical community accepts that contraception is an integral part of medical care for women. If the Catholic Church and its institutions are serious about promoting healthcare, they should follow the best practices and give their employees the best quality care, and that includes contraception.
For the Republicans, it also provides another chance to castigate Obama’s healthcare plan, which they previously stigmatized with preposterous lies about creating “death panels” and staging “a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy.”
But we must recognize that the Republicans would have had no opportunity to raise the issue if America had a single-payer healthcasre system instead of the current employer-based structure.
Workers would thereby have a standard package of benefits that would not be tied to their employers’ beliefs and they could choose their own doctors and hospitals.
Instead, the Affordable Care Act retains citizens’ dependence on their employers choices, opening the door for the Catholic bishops to seek to dictate women’s options. The ACA also enshrines and subsidizes the insurance corporations that maximize profits by minimizing care, as well as still leaving out 30 million Americans from health coverage, as O’Donnell drove home emphatically.
Reflecting on the ACA's flaw that allows the Right and the Catholic bishops to attack women’s right to contraceptive care, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vermont) points out
We`d be better off if we had a single-payer health care system where you didn`t have employers involved.
A more recent struggle offers hope of the public rallying behind women's reproductive rights, "I think we can learn from the way that people rallied behind Planned Parenthood when the Susan G. Komen Foundation tried to cut off their funding," Miner says.


64 Comments so far
Show AllSo we have an organization that has sheltered child abusing priests, and actually moved them around from parish to parish thus enabling the activity. Add to that their silence over the war mongering activity of the US. For example, how many late term unborn babies have been killed by the US military? Where is their outrage over that?
Now they become holier than thou over birth control. WTF?!
Like George Carlin said: "When it comes to BULLSHIT...BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULLSHIT... you have to stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion.
There is a difference between the parties that have a chance to win the White House. Living in Michigan I can vote for the nutty Ron Paul because he understands how crazy our foreign policy is, and is against the war on drugs. Michigan hates Romney because he was against saving the American auto industry.
The problem with Ron is while he sees the absurdity of our foreign policy, he doesn't see the absurdity of his domestic policy. And as much as I would like to see a sensible foreign policy with less war and military cuts, his cutthroat policy of deregulation, less taxes for the rich, going back to the gold standard, his destruction of all civil rights for minorities, and more scare me as we progress further down the road of greed is good and screw the environment.
We would have great foreign policy maybe, but with a wreck of the economy for all but the 1%. It would be look out 3rd world countries, we can go downhill faster than you.
There are two kinds of people in this world: 1) those who believe there are two kinds of people in this world, 2) those who don't.
This comes to mind when I read a sentence like =contraception coverage for women actually boils down to the basic precept that worker rights apply across all of society, including within religious institutions=.
The issue under contention has more facets than a dodecahedron constructed of mirrors. Each facet boils down to some intensely held belief.
Mine is that this issue should not exist in the first place. Human social contract should provide health care from the aggregate population covered, covering the universe of members, and paid for by the aggregate or gross national product. The insurance industry should be kept at bay from health care by sharpened bayonets, or canisters of tear gas - whatever the hell it takes to make them keep their capitalist peckers in their underpants.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the phrase: "I'm not going to pay for someone's this or that which is against my morality." History shows moralists are equally obnoxious, even murderous, when no financial burden upon them is involved. "You will live in my theocracy and obey my God without complaint or rebellion, or I'll effing kill you."
Don't ever say that to me. Don't ever say that to me.
Trylon
I agree. If we had nationalized health care. The same services would be provided to everyone for the same contribution. It would be a personal choice if you chose to partake of something that was contrary to your personal religion. It wouldn't be a church telling everyone else what they would or wouldn't be willing to pay for. Or our government exempting some and not exempting others based on a "religious test".
If we ever get an administration courageous enough to attempt to pass a national health service law, I'm sure the RC bishops would be right onto that, too. But what really bugs me about this latest escapade is that those bishops objecting to ObamaCare had no problem demanding that RC women be excluded from participating in that part of it--whether they wanted to or not. It's as though Eliot Ness had taken to raiding the churches and smashing their bottles of communion wine. Imagine the howl if that had happened.
From the Feb 10, 2012 article @ Common Dreams: 'President Obama Makes 'Accommodation' on Birth Control Policy' - } 'Planned Parenthood has now issued a statement endorsing Obama's "accommodation": “In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women’s health, 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." “We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman’s ability to access these critical birth control benefits." {
So why are so many presumably 'pro-choicers' here, still having such a Tizzy Fit over this issue when Obama & the Catholic Church have come to an accommodation that's even agreeable to PPFA? Could it be that hearing the combo of Catholicism vis-a-vis pro-choice has had a 'dog-whistle' effect??? IMO: Its time to move on to something else- like demanding Medicare for ALL [which Obama took off the table] or at-least the Public option [on which Obama waivered].
Or fighting to raise the minimum wage to $10 - $12/hr so we won't have cases like the woman Walmart worker [Girshelia Green] who has had 3 pay raises at Walmart yet is still paid LESS Than $10/hr! Thus she can't even afford to buy Walmart's health-insurance plan - which Obama{Romney}care is going to mandate that she buy! [Note this YouTube video 'What's Wrong at Walmart' @ www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP8dxUqzrwU ]!
-OR- Fighting against the NCLB / RTTT Corp Education 'Deform' attack on the teaching profession & their unions - when most teachers are women [many are Black & Brown women]! By the way- What's NOW's & the Feminist Majority's position on the NCLB / RTTT Corp Education 'Deform' issue? - Do those main-stream ostensively 'liberal' women's rights organizations even have an official position on this issue???
The fact that the corrupt pro-pedophile leadership of this vatican cult still has political power in the United States is absurd. They have proven themselves to be totally immoral and their hatred of women is legendary. 98 percent of catholic women don't care what they think so I assume their support is coming from older men who can't gey pregnant so the hell with them.
Well, it sure comes as a surprise to me that workers have rights in the greatest democracy and freest country that ever existed in the history of the universe.
Do they really have rights? That is good news to me.
TM
What a tempest in a teapot. Bibi and Barky are champing at the bit to begin World War 3, and the media gives us condoms and birth control pills versus religious freedom.
Besides...
Hey! Ratzinger! There are 7 billion people on the planet now. How many more do you want? Would another 7 billion do it for you? Another 14 billion? 21 billion? Please. Give us a number that will satisfy you so that your "flock" may then be allowed to use birth control.
Actually, the insurance coverage is only for prescription or physician-installed contraceptives. Non prescription contraceptives (condoms) were never covered.
You can calm down a bit about the contraceptive issue. Catholics worldwide ignore the hoary old "contraceptives are sinful" . The countries with some of the lowest fertility rates and population declines - Spain, Southern Germany, Italy, probably even Ireland, are Catholic countries. In the US, the largest family sizes are in the Protestant-dominant south, and the smallest, in the Catholic dominated north. The countries with the highest fertility rates are Muslim countries. Muslims have no objection to birth control.
Fertility rates and population growth have nothing to do with availability of contraception, becasue contraception is already available everywhere, nor religion. They have to do with standard of living. Having a large family is a perfectly rational social and economic decision for a poor family in an peasant (or even not-so peasant) agrarian culture, and this agrarian tradition, tends to persist, disfunctionally, for a few generations after the rural poor move to the cities. But it always does die out, and replacement level or lower birth rates are achieved once living standard is improved. This (along with China's one child law) is why population is stabilizing on its own and nobody knowledgeable about the issues considers population to be a problem. The problem is the distribution of wealth, and disproportionate planetary environmental impacts among the population, not the population. Throw you old yellowed copies of Ehrlich away.
I think you misunderstand the source of people's anger. It isn't that Roman Catholic women are being denied birth control; it's that the president of the USA rolled over and did what the RC bishops demanded in denying RC women the same coverage under his health plan that all other women got. I'm sure many people object to various provisions of the plan, but they don't get to call the shots on other people's coverages.
The point you make about pverty and family size is good I heard it explained once this way. They are not poor because they have large families. They have large families because they are poor. (And need the income generated by working children).
What a smug arrogant bunch of crap here, PDJ. If you mean that birth control is always available to persons of means, then you'd have a point. But please, the Catholic Church's adamant commands against sane measures of birth control mean less money goes to health centers (and much needed programs) in foreign lands. There women ARE denied access to birth control. Your post is entirely based on the experience of an American of at least some $/means.
One problem I have with this article is the subtext that Democrats are STILL the team that fights FOR the people. And while denying women sovereign rights over their own bodies has ALWAYS been the mark of the most retrograde of societies and persons, the nation's move rightward is too often hinged on this particular issue. Although wars, ecocide, and fiscal graft are certainly serious problems, the lack of control over one's own reproductive destiny impacts half the population... so it is not an insignificant matter.
I agree with the poster who pointed out the growing population numbers. Only an institution as misogynistic as the Catholic Church could do unto Mother Earth (too many children) what it would like to do to all women of child-bearing age. An institution less in keeping with the Truth of the Spirit, and the state of our beloved planet, would be hard to come by.... oh, wait! I CAN think of a contender... The Taliban!
You completely, totally, and utterly miss my point and I'm not going to get into some kind of pissing match with you over it. Think what you like, do what you like.
You make Very good points to counter the over-population hype- although [And I know a lot of folk here are going to disagree] the Earth's carrying capacity both in terms of space & even at current food production levels- could be as HI as 20 -30 Billion [I'm willing to show this via data]- BUT As you suggest, it will likely level off at 9 -11 Billion by around 2100.
The author talks in terms of Obama protecting workers rights but glosses over the constitutional issue of 'Separation of Church & State'. I'm going to say it again- I'm NOT Catholic -BUT- Either 'Separation of Church & State' is to be respected, or revised it, or Strike it from the Constitution! Now If Catholic [or other religious] run institutions failed to offer health-insurance to workers or had discriminatory hiring & labor practices toward women [excluding the Catholic ministry] or generally, I'd agree completely - But, to best of my knowledge, this isn't the case. Then there's the example of Walmart- which 'theoretically' offers it's employees {mostly women} health-insurance which likely covers birth-control & maybe even abortion -BUT- Walmart pays most of its {women} workers so poorly &/or these plans are so costly- that most of it's average {women} workers can't afford it! - So what's better- Having affordable health coverage from religious based institutions that are exempt from covering birth-control {& abortion} -OR- Working for secular institutions that 'theoretically' [IE: on paper] provide these services but whose plans are actually UnAffordable to most of its {women} employees??!! I seriously doubt that many women teachers & staff at Catholic [religious] run schools / universities & women employees & staff at Catholic [religious] run hospitals & clinics are going to voluntarily quit [due to this issue- even those who aren't Catholic] -&- run to Walmarts - because Walmarts 'theoretically provides plans that cover these services but pays so poorly that they won't be able to afford them [Note: The 'Obama{Romney}-care' mandate will likely force Walmart {women} workers to carry its plans that they can't afford- AnyWay!]! AND- Most of these Catholic / Religious run institutions have been around well before Roe-v-Wade, - So if they refuse to comply based on religious & constitutional grounds [Separation of Church & State] would it then be better for the Gov't to force them to shut down??? [Note: The Catholic School System is the 2nd largest in the US {w 7500 schools w over 2.3 million students} only surpassed by Public Schools.. & how many universities {244 - including Notre Dame, Georgetown, DePaul & Loyola, etc} & hospitals {625} were set-up & are still run by Catholic & other religious institutions? Would the person claiming that a Catholic hospital is the only one near where they live be better off if it was forced to close down - & then they'd have NO nearby hospitals??]??
The fact is this is a squabble that Obama could have avoided by granting pertinent exemptions based specifically for religious based medical institutions & employers. IMO: He decided to 'compromise' because he's got Irish Catholic Chicago Dem Bill Daley [son of the late 'Boss' Daley] as his Chief of Staff' - Who let Obama know that he really didn't need to pick this fight w the Catholics in Election YR 2012!
And since when has Obama been a champion of workers rights & protections anyway? Has he pushed for 'Card Check' as he promised? What happen to his promised green jobs initiative?? What did he do about 'Medicare for ALL' or the Public Option? Hasn't he voluntarily put Social Security on the chopping block? Didn't he put a 2 yr freeze on federal workers pay? What about RTTT's assault on the teaching profession & unions - Aren't Most Teachers Women???
Not that you should care a whit, but I'd actually read your posts if you'd use paragraphs.
Maybe I'm missing something here. Is anyone being required, as a condition of employment, to USE birth control? While there are situations where I think contraception should be mandatory, (methamthetamine use for one) there doesn't seem to be any personal use requirement involved here, where does infringement of rights come into this? "Just say no"
As I watch listen or otherwise take note of the discussions related to contraception and abortion I am constantly struck by how few (if any) women are spokes people for the 'pro life' 'discourage access to birth control' issues. American Family Coucil, Focus on the Family the Council of Bishops etc al ad nauseam are men! Can we please just let women take care of themselves, they can do just fine without meddling. Now ,where is the outrage from all these fine men about the high infant mortality rates in this fine country. And those rates are related to poverty and poor health care...so where is the outrage that Universal health care is a far away as it was when we were promised it in 2008. Obama dug himself a hole and fell in when he decided to take the single payer etc off the table.
It is not a workers right to destroy life. Life is the superior value.
Sorry, but to me, your statement is a bit disingenuous, considering that ALL life is "the superior value (sacred, if you belief in a Creator), and humankind has lived to destroy life from the time we came to be on this planet.
Perhaps one's focus goes back to 1776 only. Amerindians valued life highly and lived successfully on this continent for over ten thousand years. America's culture of death has brought the planet to crisis in just 236 years. Unfortunately facts do not register with idealogues. For idealogues, the big picture is elusive.
An apology to my native ancestors, whom I credit for much of my own values concerning the earth and caring for it and all of its inhabitants.
What you say about N. America's culture of death is so true. And we are so happy to spread that culture across the globe..
And male supremacists get to decide that a woman's life is less
superior to sperm or a fertilized egg -- ?
Those same male supremacists who have oppressed women and
children for 2,000 years?
You can embrace democracy and equality for all, or you can follow
male-supremacists. Democracy is superior to male-supremacy.
Equality for all is superior to male supremacy. It's your choice.
Life is much greater than a gender issue.
.
My understanding of this agreement is that the Catholic institution will not have to list contraception on their employee insurance benefit booklets, but prescription contraception will still be covered "on the sly". So, theoretically, the Catholic employer group plan rates will be a bit lower, but the premium payers in general will pay a bit more to cover the Catholic cleric's or administrator's religious freedom. But the amount is probably tiny and completely buried by other cost increases in the dysfunctional US health care system, So I really can't get too indignant about it. Give them their religious freedom and get back to more important issues like health care for all regardless of condition of employment.
It is not the women who are demanding to have this benefit denied them, it it? And any women who reject birth control are free to avoid using it. So where's the "religious freedom" in allowing a bunch of male priests to exclude women of their faith from getting a benefit open to all other women?
You need to read my comment again.
Under the deal, the woman employee's insurance will still cover contraception! It will just be provided as free individual coverage separate from the Catholic employers group coverage.
Lawrence O'Donnell expands the next night on this mess:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/46321122#null
Nice little rant here.
And then here's a story that was on Marketplace that talks about the impact of the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception in countries that are vulnerable to the man-made rules of the Catholic Church:
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/food-9-billion/philippines-too-many-mouths
Thanks, Samalabear. PDJ REALLY needs to read this. The canard that women produce LOTS of offspring with the hope that 50% will survive may have been true decades ago, but that's seldom the case now. If a 3rd world woman is struggling to survive and her mate jumps her, you can be sure the wish for yet another child is not the over-riding spirit of the moment.
I trekked through Nepal and saw only WOMEN bent over carrying huge bales of hay on their backs up some seriously taxing terrain. Where were the men? In town drinking. And when I got to the Buddhist monastery I met a lovely British woman who came to Nepal to help out in an orphanage. I'd met another couple at the airport coming to do the same work. She later explained to me that if a woman's husband leaves her, she often feels forced to abandon the children in order to secure another mate. Lots of children end up abandonned as a result. SAD.
The generalizations that pass for universal truths are appalling for their narrow minded ignorance. They're typical views of White Guys who have never been anywhere and generalize about the world through the viewpoint alloted from their "other" head.
No. They have large families to provide labor on the family farm, and provide for them in old age.
You account of what you saw as a white tourist in Nepal sounds terribly racist and classist. You are implying that south Asian brown men are all lazy shiftless misogynistic drunkards.
Thank you.
I think it's high time these few churches who're trying to control the whole government, and people not even of their faiths, should have to start paying taxes.
Oh, that's right - the largest of them doing the most to take control has never even been a citizen of this country. We could at least tax their churches that are here though.
What I see here is a classic example of we want our rights, but you can't have yours. You can't stand the concept of not working for an employer who's beliefs don't mirror your own. You think you have the right to walk into any place of employment and force your beliefs upon your employer. Deal with it. No church should be forced to hire employees who's beliefs contradict their's. Why would you even want to work in that environment, unless it was to cause problems? I detest organized religion, but this country was founded on some basic rights and you want to take that away.
I think you have it backwards. It is overly simple to say that people have a choice where they work. Yesterday, someone's posting said that where he lives the only hospital within a reasonable distance is Cathollic, so some of the services hospitals in other parts of his state are not available at his. And the women who work there cannot receive some of the benefits received by women in other parts of his state.
When I read the Constitution, I do not see anything that says that the Catholic hierarchy has a special set of privilges and powers. If they don't want to provide the services other hospitals provide, they should stop accepting funds from the federal government. Let the Vatican support them.
In my mind the following cannot be erased. An establishment that accepts public funds cannot be an establishment of religion because it accepts favors from a City, County, Sate, or the Federal Government hence is not protected by the first amendment of our constitution. Unfortunately that simple truth has been fucked over so completely already that there exists no longer a "separation of church and public funding" in our nation. President Obama has confirmed this with his latest genuflection.
Your argument is specious. Running a hospital is not the same as holding Sunday Mass. Medical care is a secular activity governed by law and medical practices. That a religious institution desires to run a hospital then that is a business decision. In the operation of this business the church must conform to the legalities of the business.
I am pretty certain denominational hospitals rely extensively on people of all faiths and non-faiths for their expertise as doctors, nurses, radiologists, truck drivers, accountants, and on and on.
Your claim is not only specious it is ill thought and juvenile.
See Sheepherder's post. IF the only health care option is a Catholic Hospital, than damn it... that hospital has to consider others. How DARE a church that led the Inquisition, devised the burning of women as witches, instituted the cruel "conversion" of Natives throughout the Americas, took a blind eye to slavery and the rise of Naziism lecture ANYONE on the premise of "pro life"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I didn't even get to the sex crimes against children!
Put a stake in it!
Terrific comments -- "Put a stake in it!" --
Just want to point out that the genocide vs the Native American and the
enslavement of Africans here were the subject of Papal Bulls -- in each
case, instructing the "discoverers" to "enslave them or murder them."
Those Papal Bulls gave official license to the cruelty and torture and
genocide vs the Native American and the violence required to enslave the
African here -- and they still stand despite UN efforts to get the Vatican to
overturn them.
Rather this is a classic example of male-supremacist religion no longer
able to control their own members regrarding the use of birth control and abortion
and seeking government to exert that control for them by banning birth control
and abortion.
This is a democracy in theory ONLY because we have Separation of Church and
State which is our highest guarantee of freedom of thought and personal conscience.
There is no organized patriarchal religion which wasn't forced on nations and
citizenry. "Introducing the Cross with the Sword." Democracy ends that reign of
terror. When citizens are free to choose, they choose democracy over religious
dictates and male hierarchies.
You have some very odd understanding of "religious freedom" if you think that a
non-Catholic employee should be forced to forgo birth control and abortion simply
because their employer may be the Catholic Church. Indeed, this is not only about
the Catholic Church trying to control their own Catholic employees who wish to
use birth control and abortion. Needless to say, they would like to impose their
religious dictates on all of society. Instead -- Celebrate democracy and freedom of
conscience - not male-supremacist dictates.
.
..
I just saw a news item stating that the Catholic Bishops have rejected Obama's "accomodation." Apparently they do not know how to "take yes" for an answer. I suppose Obama will have to do a "walk to Canossa" to placate them. I hope he has a stiffer backbone than that.
Obama has constantly proven that he has a wet noodle for a spine (except for when it comes to killing women and children in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the fucking coward).
I'm not sure you're paying attention. All Obama did was force the insurance companies to pay for the coverage instead of the religious institution. The women are still getting coverage.
Though Obama spent too much time trying to accommodate the Republicans/reach across the aisle, it is something he campaigned on. He did not get elected promising to be Ralph Nader. His policies have been more progressive than most CD posters seem to realize or want to admit though. Interesting too that all the posters here take the side of Obamacare, negating the previous talking point from some on the left that the bill was worse than the status quo or some such nonsense.
Patriarchy -- and its underpinning =
Organized patriarchal religion -- and its economic invention =
Capitalism =
THE UNHOLY TRINITY
The Catholic Hospitals get tax money subsides. In Florida if you get taxpayer money to help you in Florida you must pea in a cup. Oh, sorry that is just for poor people. This contraception issue is also about controlling the morals of poor people. The ban on contraception remains in the church due to the silent complicity of the high percentage rate of catholics who can afford access to it and therefore secretly ignore it ( one bishop said it is O K if you don't tell anyone.") But most of these catholics do not care about the women in the overpopulated catholic dominated third-world where planned parenthood is denied and they have no access to any education, medication or supplies for contraception due to the catholic ban on birth control. I have for many years been trying to get them to realize how much suffering and dying from lack of reproductive health care is happening to the poor in catholic countries. The catholics that use it in secret just look at me and stare. So don't expect them to care about the working poor Americans who will not have access to birth control. As long as they have what they need that's all that matters. How do they change the church? Stop putting money in the collection basket , using their hospitals, donating to their Hope fund (who knows if that money is used for paying for lawsuits against Bishops who covered up the abuse of children) donate to Catholics For Choice.
Well said.
Your quote } 'How do they change the church? Stop putting money in the collection basket , using their hospitals,...' { And I'd add stop working for their institutions, & going to their schools. Which is the whole point- Why work for or go to a Catholic run hospital or school - if you vehemently disagree w their position on birth-control & abortion??? Rather than insist that the Gov't take a position that likely treads all over the principal of 'Separation of Church & State'!!!
Many People here sound like they want to see Catholicism just vanish. And Believe me I've got my own issues w Catholicism beyond what's been VALIDLY articulated by some here - I can go back to the establishment of Catholicism as the state run Church of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine- circa 325 ACE- & then on to the Crusades, etc... - But the Historical reality is that Catholicism has been around Way Before even the US was founded & it's likely to be around after most here are gone!
I must clarify that the suggestions are mine and not Catholics for Choice. But I truly believe the only way to end Catholic church abuse of women and children is to cut off financial funding.
The U.S.Constitution gives us the right to practice our religion, not inflict it on others.