The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

What do you mean by "facilitate"?


The insurance company is required to pay for the birth control coverage.

Yes, the Catholic organization is paying for the birth control....indirectly. However, the Catholic organization is just one of many clients for the insurance company. They are also indirectly paying for the birth control used by other clients of the insurance company.

And I suspect the Supreme Court will ultimately end up ruling on whether mandating insurance companies (third party) violates the 1st Amendment.


A state constitution cannot restrict freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment limits the power of the United States Congress; it does not address what state legislatures may or may not do. In point of fact, a number of the states did have officially recognized "state churches" prior to and after adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and those states would never have ratified a constitution that prohibited them from doing so. I will admit that the courts today frequently act as though constitutional limits on the federal government apply equally to the states, citing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but they are often wrong in doing so. The 14 Amendment was adopted in 1868 and the purpose of Section 1, wherein the Equal Protection Clause is found, was to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The protections set forth in Section 1 were understood to be those which are also found in Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution. That the entire Bill of Rights (or the first eight Amendments, as is sometimes claimed) were not in view is apparent from the fact that President Grant and the Congress attempted in 1876 to pass another constitutional amendment to make the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment binding upon the states. The effort only narrowly passed in the House, but failed in the Senate and lacked support for ratification among the states.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

I haven't seen this argument regarding the 14th amendment made before.

Who supports that point of view?

I've always assumed that the intent of the 14th amendment was precisely to limit the powers of state governments.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

The 14th Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments, which were all about abolishing slavery and protecting the rights of former slaves. I think Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia agrees with the point made in my last post, noting that he argues that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender (in keeping with the original intent of the 14th Amendment). If you Google "original intent of the Equal Protection Clause" I think you'll find plenty of evidence that those who argue the force of the 14th Amendment from an originalist perspective are in general agreement with me.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

can't enter into the American politics side of this conversation

but surely, unless men are prepared to practice total abstinence unless both of the couple decide to have children, then there is really no alternative to contraception of some kind.

It is easy enough for the man LOL I agree .... but having child after child after child is not either physically or mentally good for women (not even to mention unaffordable, which becomes part of the 'mentally').

Yes, there is abuse .... but there is also abuse of viagra ...

There is also the aspect of abortion ... if contraception was unavailable then the already shamefully high abortion rate would increase. In fact if contraception is not available freely and affordably (as in Australia, by prescription) this could be a contributing factor in the high abortion rate.

just my thoughts ... as I said, don't know enough about what is happening in America to join this conversation

_________________
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

Thank you for your thoughts, Dinah. But just to be clear, the issue here is not whether contraceptives should be available, but whether the government should require people of faith to violate their own conscience by providing them. Contraceptives are readily available and that's not going to change. They're cheap too. I've heard birth control pills can be purchased at WalMart for $9 a month. So availability isn't the issue at all. That's a red herring.

I'm not sure that research supports the argument that availability of free birth control reduces surgical abortions. While it sounds reasonable, I've read otherwise, though I can't cite the source at the moment. I suspect the research on that point is mixed. However, I'm quite sure it doesn't reduce abortions in toto for the simple reason that most birth control pills are themselves abortifacient in that they fail to consistently prevent ovulation and instead alter the membrane of the uterine wall so as to prevent implantation and survival of the living embryo.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Actually, it's the "generics for $9 @ Target" argument that's a red herring. Lumping BC medications together like that is like lumping pain meds together. Why should we worry about name-brand Oxycontin going for $6/pill, when you can get a whole bottle of generic aspiring for that?

This is medication we're talking about (and a hormonal one at that) and it's silly to assume that, for a given person, any one medication will be just as safe and effective as another. It's the job of a doctor to make that call, not some random person who feels like dismissing concerns over the costs.

-Dan.

I haven't read the court's opinion on this. I very rarely read court opinions in full in any case.

But I think that one could argue the case you cite without taking the position you have advanced. The question revolves around whether the US constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. If it does, and if my view of the 14th amendment prevails, then Scalia's opinion is in error. If it does not, then the 14th amendment is not germane to the case.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

You and I are in basic agreement, here.

Here's where the side effects of the pill influence this discussion. The pill is Rx medicine. If the pill were OTC medicine, the chances are it would not have come under the mandate, and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

I would argue that the reason the pill comes under Rx medicine is not due to its primary intended effect, but rather due to its possible undesirable side effects. That is the reason why a doctor's opinion is necessary in the course of obatining the pill.

In terms of settling the issue in this forum we should recognize two things: the die hard leftists are never going to agree, no matter what is said. And the conflation of liber and gratis should just not be accepted by the readers in general.

Personally, I'd like to get employers out of the health insurance business entirely. And I'd like to get insurance companies out of the business of managing the cost of prepaid routine care. Birth control certainly falls under that category. Insurance should be used to manage catastrophic hazards, not routine expenses.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

Who pays for contraceptive pills in Australia? Is it paid for by some kind of National Health Service? Is it paid for by the user, out of pocket? Is it paid for by the user's employer? Is it paid for by the user's private insurer, who in turn is paid premiums by the user's employer?

What mechanism is in place in Australia to keep birth controll pills affordable? Is it supply and demand? Is it government price controls? If the government controls prices what mechanism exists to prevent shortages?

If the user pays for birth control pills out of pocket, then the entire issue being debated here would be moot. A hospital operated by the Catholic church in Australia would simply pay their employees, and some employees would choose to use part of their earnings to buy birth control pills, disregarding the urgings of the Catholic church in this regard.

The cost of birth control pills has been estimated in this discussion at $9/month although I use the figure of $10/week. There are plenty of working people in the US making about $20,000 per year and supporting more than one person on that income. For those people, $10/week is not a trifling expense. But in my opinion it's not a catastrophic expense either.

In the past, there was no US mandate that employers pay for birth control pills for their employees. There have been various mandates, mostly at the state level, that employers pay for health insurance for their employees. That mandate has been largely federalized by the recent helth car law, and the manadate was recently contrued by the department of Health and Human Services as mandating insurer paid birth control pills.

In the view of the Catholic church, and also in the view of many Evangelicals, this constitutes an indirect mandate to the Cathollic church to provide birth control pills to their employees. This is contrary to Catholic teachings.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

if cost is prohibitive for some why don't these people simply choose cheaper contraceptive solutions?! -- the whole Ms Fluke speech before a Congressional Panel stupefied me &, i'm sure, countless others

The precedent that led to the creation of the birth control mandate was mandated coverage for Viagra.

One could argue that men should pay for their own Viagra...

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

i don't have an issue with that

this is not a women's or men's health issue in the least, despite the talking pts -- sex is a choice & requires personally responsibility -- it's not a right, guaranteed by the gov't -- the fact this is even an issue does not bode well for our society

I just think that if the GOP isn't careful, they run the risk of being perceived as promoting gender discrimination.

If they are going to go in this direction, Viagra needs to be on the table, too.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!