The core issue is about rights of conscience. Forcing institutions (especially religious organizations) to facilitate access to abortion and contraception (some forms of which operate as abortifacients) violates basic human rights. One need not agree with the policies of the Little Sisters of the Poor to respect and protect their right to live by their own core ethical values. In this case, the Obama administration seems obsessed with forcing its policies upon dissenters, and that overrides and impairs the main objective of the ACA - to increase access to healthcare services. It is time for Obama and his officials to respect and fully accommodate the Little Sisters of the Poor.
13
It is because some people will object to it on moral grounds that contraception for teen and adult women needs to be completely free. The government should just pay for it out of the medicare fund. Everyone would benefit from lower unwanted (especially teen) pregnancy rates.
26
Freedom of religion is a right of the individual, not a right of the employer.
At the risk of making people uncomfortable, but in what I consider to be "speaking truth to power", I believe that it is the Roman Catholic Church's profoundly perverted view of sexuality which is responsible not only for their opposition to contraception, but the sexual abuse of many, many children by priests, which crimes were multiplied by the concealment and protection of the offenders by their bishops
If Dante's view of Purgatory is correct, many people have, in their afterlife, had to readjust their attitude on such things.
At the risk of making people uncomfortable, but in what I consider to be "speaking truth to power", I believe that it is the Roman Catholic Church's profoundly perverted view of sexuality which is responsible not only for their opposition to contraception, but the sexual abuse of many, many children by priests, which crimes were multiplied by the concealment and protection of the offenders by their bishops
If Dante's view of Purgatory is correct, many people have, in their afterlife, had to readjust their attitude on such things.
44
I applaud your charitable work, but the frame of reference you use to justify any means to impose your religious beliefs on others is misguided. Re your soda machine example, you are not being forced to provide birth control (that would be the equivalent of soda machines being forced on schools). Providing health benefits is saying here is a currency that you can spend on a variety of health care - similar to currency being used for different purposes. You have no rights to control what your employees spend their money on and you have no rights to deny them benefits once removed from money.
28
The underlying problem here has nothing whatsoever to do with these sisters. The underlying problem is that we have health insurance instead of a universal health care plan and that our health insurance is linked to our employer.
The nuns are just a red herring.
The nuns are just a red herring.
21
Angry atheists are out in force insisting that others bow their beliefs. Where is the atheist version of the Little Sisters? That's right such an organization does not exist.
14
Nobody has the right to use their religion to trample on other people's rights, and that is what the Catholic Church is trying to do--the same Church that looked the other way while its priests sexually molested children for decades. Not much moral force there, in my opinion.
54
Since you don't condone the use of birth control or abortion, can we assume that thanks to your lack of providing birth control coverage to your employees, you will pay for 18 years of financial support to any children that they may have? Or does your religious freedom not come with any responsibility whatsoever for the consequences?
36
If you don't like the abortion and contraception services the government mandates, then don't use them. But don't deny them to your employees who happen not to share your religious beliefs. You can continue your work, if you really believe in it, despite the government making you fill out forms and paying you so that you don't have to support tenets that you deny. True empathy is relieving the mental suffering of those who don't necessarily agree with you: who are they? Your employees who may need these services, which, by the way, you do not directly supply. And also, why don't you give up your tax-exempt status as a protest?
31
Elsewhere? If an ectopic pregnancy is not terminated, the mother will die. I've read the New Testament and the original in Hebrew. They are silent on the subject of terminating pregnancy, so The Little Sisters don't have a liturgical leg to stand on and if they want federal funds, rend to Caesar that which is Caesar's. Remember that?
32
For decades, I have been required by law to pay taxes, which in part pay for executions and the exorbitant cost of housing death-row inmates and their appeals process before the fact.
Yet, I detest the capital punishment -- with a passion. According to my brand of spiritually, it is no more than state-sanctioned premeditated murder, and have never wanted my taxes to support it. But guess what: no one cares about my personal beliefs because it is the law of the land, a product of the rule of law. And so is Obamacare. This is exactly why it is high time Christian orthodoxy came to terms with this as well!
Yet, I detest the capital punishment -- with a passion. According to my brand of spiritually, it is no more than state-sanctioned premeditated murder, and have never wanted my taxes to support it. But guess what: no one cares about my personal beliefs because it is the law of the land, a product of the rule of law. And so is Obamacare. This is exactly why it is high time Christian orthodoxy came to terms with this as well!
28
What a terrific, winsome piece by Sister Constance. I am always amazed that in our rough-and-tumble society we find people like those in this Order who devote their full selves to the care of the fellow man.
It's also quite troubling that there must be a court case like this at all. In government, as in life, there will be differences of opinion. But as we know, the religious beliefs--or lack of religious beliefs--we hold go further than simple opinions. That's why our Founding Fathers made freedom of religion the first clause of the First Amendment. Religious beliefs are so critical that government must not trample upon them except where health, safety, and the general welfare of society so require.
Let's be honest here. The health, safety, or general welfare of our society will not be harmed in the Little Sisters of the Poor and organizations like are allowed to join Visa and ExxonMobil in being exempted from this mandate based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. Those two corporations alone employ nearly 100,000 people--and though not all are subject to the contraception mandate, it's truly amazing that our government considers it acceptable to permit them to opt-out (for financial reasons), but decides to capriciously draw the line at religious beliefs for a substantially smaller number of people.
I applaud the Little Sisters of the Poor for their courage in taking on an opponent of Goliathan proportions, and I pray that they will succeed in their quest.
It's also quite troubling that there must be a court case like this at all. In government, as in life, there will be differences of opinion. But as we know, the religious beliefs--or lack of religious beliefs--we hold go further than simple opinions. That's why our Founding Fathers made freedom of religion the first clause of the First Amendment. Religious beliefs are so critical that government must not trample upon them except where health, safety, and the general welfare of society so require.
Let's be honest here. The health, safety, or general welfare of our society will not be harmed in the Little Sisters of the Poor and organizations like are allowed to join Visa and ExxonMobil in being exempted from this mandate based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. Those two corporations alone employ nearly 100,000 people--and though not all are subject to the contraception mandate, it's truly amazing that our government considers it acceptable to permit them to opt-out (for financial reasons), but decides to capriciously draw the line at religious beliefs for a substantially smaller number of people.
I applaud the Little Sisters of the Poor for their courage in taking on an opponent of Goliathan proportions, and I pray that they will succeed in their quest.
11
Pretty soon, someone is going to come forward and say that paying taxes is against their religion so they should be exempt.
12
The author says that she doesn't want to "start offering benefits that violate our religious beliefs." That is precisely the problem. Our country harbors a great many religious beliefs. Some are anathema to most of us. A few religions advocate illegal drug use, while a couple of religious minorites still practice bigamy and a tiny minority advocate childhood sex and even human sacrifice. The United States accommodates its many faith traditions by refusing to allow religious belief (or individual 'conscience') to dictate the creation of laws that apply to all its citizens. Our constitution forbids the federal government from sponsoring any particular religion.
I'm not a Christian and I don't want to become one. Please stop asking the government, which is mine as well as yours, to bend its laws to accommodate your particular religious 'conscience.' To claim that an insurance law prevents you from continuing your fine work with the elderly is disingenuous.
I'm not a Christian and I don't want to become one. Please stop asking the government, which is mine as well as yours, to bend its laws to accommodate your particular religious 'conscience.' To claim that an insurance law prevents you from continuing your fine work with the elderly is disingenuous.
10
I get that opposition to birth control and contraception is religiously based - so what? Doesn't make the opposition any more or less stupid and offensive. It's the content and effect of the opposition that's important, not its genesis.
"The government" doesn't pay for the coverage of an opt-out, the insurance carrier does - both because that's the law and because it's much cheaper to pay for the coverage than for maternity benefits. Disingenuous statements (that is, lying) isn't excused by obedience to Rome.
Really wish we'd tax churches.
"The government" doesn't pay for the coverage of an opt-out, the insurance carrier does - both because that's the law and because it's much cheaper to pay for the coverage than for maternity benefits. Disingenuous statements (that is, lying) isn't excused by obedience to Rome.
Really wish we'd tax churches.
9
Why not let the women who are employed make their own decisions?
"Here are the options you can take. And if you do not want to use birth control, then you don't have to."
Easy-peasey.
"Here are the options you can take. And if you do not want to use birth control, then you don't have to."
Easy-peasey.
4
Someone please show me one instance of Jesus referring to birth control. I'll wait...forever (since there aren't any)! One might refer to the Old Testament command to go forth and multiply (make more Christians), although by this standard, the Little Sisters of the Poor are not living up to their duty since their outdated stance on this issue is likely driving people from the church.
7
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
---Blaise Pascal, 17th Century mathematician, physicist,
& Christian philosopher
"Our goal with this case is to have the freedom to follow out conscience in what we do and offer. The women who take the vows to become Little Sisters of the Poor do so out of deep love and religious conviction," says Constance Veit. May I ask her how is one's conscience formed, how does it develop? We know that a psychopath, a sociopath, has no conscience. And certain religious sects such as Christian Scientists have dogma that forbids medicine other than prayer for healing or prescribes the laying on of hands. And how are their consciences formed? (At least Ms. Veit or is it Sister Veit didn't use the now Orwellian phrase, "sincerely-held religious beliefs" as her defense.) In our secular nation, laws that apply nationwide are designed, allegedly, for the good of the entire populace. Yet, we have had, until just recently, five Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justices, four of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, likely conscious of the Roman Church's stance on abortion and contraceptives, making their allegiance to a Republican political ploy to taint women's healthcare in their decision-making regarding these laws. Sorry, Sister, but my conscience won't allow your conscience to prescribe my healthcare choices.
---Blaise Pascal, 17th Century mathematician, physicist,
& Christian philosopher
"Our goal with this case is to have the freedom to follow out conscience in what we do and offer. The women who take the vows to become Little Sisters of the Poor do so out of deep love and religious conviction," says Constance Veit. May I ask her how is one's conscience formed, how does it develop? We know that a psychopath, a sociopath, has no conscience. And certain religious sects such as Christian Scientists have dogma that forbids medicine other than prayer for healing or prescribes the laying on of hands. And how are their consciences formed? (At least Ms. Veit or is it Sister Veit didn't use the now Orwellian phrase, "sincerely-held religious beliefs" as her defense.) In our secular nation, laws that apply nationwide are designed, allegedly, for the good of the entire populace. Yet, we have had, until just recently, five Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justices, four of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, likely conscious of the Roman Church's stance on abortion and contraceptives, making their allegiance to a Republican political ploy to taint women's healthcare in their decision-making regarding these laws. Sorry, Sister, but my conscience won't allow your conscience to prescribe my healthcare choices.
7
And Viagra? What exemptions apply to male employees obtaining it?
Just asking.
No organization should be allowed to dictate any part of employees' choices regarding health care.
Yes, birth control is health care.
Get over it.
Just asking.
No organization should be allowed to dictate any part of employees' choices regarding health care.
Yes, birth control is health care.
Get over it.
19
So where does this dogma against contraception come from? "Be fruitful and multiply"? Mission bleepin' accomplished! Most Catholic women of childbearing age use contraception, and it's in large part because they're moral, compassionate people who care enough about human life to avoid creating needless misery for themselves and others.
15
Health insurance is health insurance. There is no such thing as a "religious health plan." Your wonderful work with the poor and your religious convictions do not allow you to choose which medical treatments and procedures your employees may use. It seems to me that you have two options here: either don't offer health insurance at all and increase wages to allow you employees to purchase their own insurance on the exchange, or only hire employees who will agree in writing that they will not use their insurance for birth control. I suspect that the latter option would be rejected by many job applicants, and likely would be illegal, but IANAL.
11
The real difference here is that employees are not children....nor is basic health care in anyway like a soda machine. Even if you were to carry forward the soda example... you aren't just banning employees from buying contraceptives at your location (which would be perfectly reasonable) you are making the product far more expensive everywhere else they choose to go. As a not for profit corporation, with employees, you have to abide by this country's reasonable rules and works standards. These rules are intended to protect the religious freedoms of employees as much as they are intended to protect people from the religious beliefs of their employers.
Consider a counter example, should a devout Muslim charity (one that does similar excellent work) be allowed to require that all female workers be accompanied by male family members anytime they decide to venture outside, or prohibit them from driving cars in their private lives under pain of wage garnishment? No one would find that reasonable. Just as I find it unreasonable for you to be allowed to change the insurance requirements effectively denying affordable contraceptives to your employees.... You are interfering with their private choices outside of work. It is unacceptable. You will lose in the Supreme Court. You will lose because I don't want my Catholic wife to have to wear a Burka as a condition of her employment... I have enough faith in the justices that they will see how the two are related.
Consider a counter example, should a devout Muslim charity (one that does similar excellent work) be allowed to require that all female workers be accompanied by male family members anytime they decide to venture outside, or prohibit them from driving cars in their private lives under pain of wage garnishment? No one would find that reasonable. Just as I find it unreasonable for you to be allowed to change the insurance requirements effectively denying affordable contraceptives to your employees.... You are interfering with their private choices outside of work. It is unacceptable. You will lose in the Supreme Court. You will lose because I don't want my Catholic wife to have to wear a Burka as a condition of her employment... I have enough faith in the justices that they will see how the two are related.
25
You need to go feed the hungry, care for the disaffected and ask God why he gave humans libido. If he/she answers, you'll understand that God also allowed many to be stupid and irresponsibility. Female's are disadvantaged because of reproductive biology and no law, society or culture compensates women for maternity. Reproductive control is necessary in a competive world especially if you're normal sexually. The church needs to get far, far away from women's rights that are in a (modern) sense necessary.
14
Perhaps when God's earth became more populated through the miracles of better health and food production, God decided it was time for the availability of birth control. I understand the Catholic position against abortion. You entirely lose me when it comes to birth control. My father was the youngest of ten (10) children and the only one who finished high school. How is that good?
18
I find these claims absolutely hollow. These nuns have come to believe that they have a right to force their beliefs on the people who work for them. No one is expecting them to use birth control. They are expected to follow the law in providing insurance to their employees. This is hubris disguised as righteousness.
27
Specious argument if I have seen one. There are religions that support stoning of adulterers, genital mutilation, and a long list of acts we do not consider (anymore) civilized. Should they also argue that according to their religious beliefs they should allow to follow their religious mandates? Who can decide which parts of the bible to follow? An eye for an eye is an accepted precept. Where does it end?Religious beliefs can be given deference as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others.
20
The insulting and vile comments from Democrats here are repulsive. I suppose that people who have no morals or principles cannot empathize with the extremely grave situation being debated here: that the government is_forcing_people to compromise their religious beliefs. And contrary to the idiocy spewed by liberals here, i.e. positing a religious belief in human sacrifice, the Christian prohibition against artificial contraception dates back to the earliest days of the Church. The liberal belief in the deification of the State and the elevation of personal hedonism to our society's highest value is the cause of all this hatred and controversy. Left-wing authoritarians support this garbage. Real Americans want a country where the State's role does not extend to persecuting religious faith and forcing citizens to buy or provide products they do not want.
13
I don't understand. Somebody is forcing you to use contraception and birth control? Do you buy car insurance the covers drunk drivers? Because obviously if you do you're promoting drunk driving.
Shame on you!
Shame on you!
4
A correction to an assumption you are making: That schools have removed soda machines from their property "because the school simply doesn't want to be responsible for providing something it believes is bad for its students", implying that it will have no real change in their behavior. Unfortunately, it isn't that "simple". Schools have removed soda machines in an effort to actively improve the health of their students by actively trying to modify their behavior. Therefore, you, as their employer, should not be free to attempt to modify your employees behavior by imposing your own beliefs upon them, against the agreed upon constitutional freedoms of a citizen of the United States.
4
I will repeat the numerous others who have made this point. Why should your religious beliefs be forcibly pushed onto your employees, who may not share your religious beliefs? I'm Jewish, for example. We have no issues whatsoever with contraception, and very few with abortion. Why should your religion dictate what health care I can receive?
7
Sister Veit: I am a nurse. No one respects and admires the work of nuns as much as I. But, magnificent as that work is, nonetheless your religious beliefs don't entitle you to place limits on the healthcare those you care for can receive just because of what your religion tells you. That's forcing others to live by your beliefs. You can't have it both ways.
I'm sorry, but if as a healthcare provider you are unable to bring yourself to provide full healthcare to patients based on their health needs and on what options they choose to avail themselves of--not the options you choose for them--then you are in the wrong line of work.
I'm sorry, but if as a healthcare provider you are unable to bring yourself to provide full healthcare to patients based on their health needs and on what options they choose to avail themselves of--not the options you choose for them--then you are in the wrong line of work.
11
Dear Little Sisters of the Poor,
There are 7.3 billion people in the world, and most of them are poor. A hundred years ago, there were 1.9 billion, and most of them were poor. Your beliefs contributed to over population, destruction of the natural world, and the widening gap between the few rich and the many poor. I know that you must breed in order to build the numbers of those faithful to the Catholic Church, but that hasn't worked very well, because the more children women have the less likely they are to get out of poverty and ignorance. Please do not impose your beliefs on those who work for you, and also, please acknowledge that you and your beliefs are part of the problem, not the solution.
There are 7.3 billion people in the world, and most of them are poor. A hundred years ago, there were 1.9 billion, and most of them were poor. Your beliefs contributed to over population, destruction of the natural world, and the widening gap between the few rich and the many poor. I know that you must breed in order to build the numbers of those faithful to the Catholic Church, but that hasn't worked very well, because the more children women have the less likely they are to get out of poverty and ignorance. Please do not impose your beliefs on those who work for you, and also, please acknowledge that you and your beliefs are part of the problem, not the solution.
16
Keep religious dogma out of our lives. It trumps every other nonreligious person's rights. We should make it clear that religion has no bearing on public affairs. And while we're at it we should stop financing all religious institutions with taxpayers money. They should finance themselves. Having strong religious believes doesn't make them the truth and only truth.
9
I wonder if our Founding Fathers, when they conceived and wrote the Constitution, ever considered or mentioned religion or religious exemptions to the laws passed by Congress? If religious exemptions are permitted and are legal, are there not many other, possibly thousands, of special interest groups which should also be considered? Perhaps one of yours......
2
While a well written piece, there does not seem to be any compelling evidence that your groups rights are being violated. If anything, your position seeks to deny others to a health care option most feel is a basic right. As many others have already pointed out, employees will use birth control either funded by health insurance or with their income.
5
It's disingenuous to say that the Little Sisters' case is not a challenge to the ACA, any more than "grandfathered" corporate exemptions. Both are corporate entities with a multiplicity of faiths and beliefs that advance the religious preferences of some over all....and defeat the essence of acts such as the ACA.
The bottom line is that the ACA is not forcing contraception on any one, only making it available to those who chose it. What the Little Sisters are advocating is de facto denial of a civil right because of a religious bias. This pernicious bias prevents freedom of choice under the guise of 1st Amendment protection that essentially turns that Amendment on its head by forcing it upon non- believers.
The bottom line is that the ACA is not forcing contraception on any one, only making it available to those who chose it. What the Little Sisters are advocating is de facto denial of a civil right because of a religious bias. This pernicious bias prevents freedom of choice under the guise of 1st Amendment protection that essentially turns that Amendment on its head by forcing it upon non- believers.
6
This is yet another argument in favor of separating health insurance from employment.
8
I hope more and more people come to realize just how brilliant is was for the ratifiers of the Constitution take the entire issue of faith-based laws off the table by banning Congress from enacting any.
5
There is an odd connection between the Little Sisters of the Poor seeking to avoid the promotion contraception and “Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million in Privacy Suit” for a video secretly recorded as he had an adulterous and immoral relationship with his friend’s wife. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdi...
Under our great common law tradition, no one is permitted to use the court (or government) to profit from an “immoral” act. There is no “right” to commit “immoral” acts even if they are decriminalized (i.e. perfectly legal). As judges, juries (and politicians) lose their moral compass, morality and legality too often merge into a single standard. Apparently the Hulk did nothing illegal and jury believed the defendant, Gawker.com, needed to be held to a high “moral” standard of privacy that was implicitly breached by posting the sex video.
Our sins apparently need protection from prurient and greedy online predators by demanding a new standard of morality and privacy for shy adulterers like the Hulk. The Little Sisters of the Poor and individual Catholics opposed to artificial contraception (particularly the kind that destroys new life) also want a new standard of morality that draws the line at forcing them to empower what they believe is more or less synonymous with the promotion of abortion and adultery. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to declare that morality still has a place in our law.
Under our great common law tradition, no one is permitted to use the court (or government) to profit from an “immoral” act. There is no “right” to commit “immoral” acts even if they are decriminalized (i.e. perfectly legal). As judges, juries (and politicians) lose their moral compass, morality and legality too often merge into a single standard. Apparently the Hulk did nothing illegal and jury believed the defendant, Gawker.com, needed to be held to a high “moral” standard of privacy that was implicitly breached by posting the sex video.
Our sins apparently need protection from prurient and greedy online predators by demanding a new standard of morality and privacy for shy adulterers like the Hulk. The Little Sisters of the Poor and individual Catholics opposed to artificial contraception (particularly the kind that destroys new life) also want a new standard of morality that draws the line at forcing them to empower what they believe is more or less synonymous with the promotion of abortion and adultery. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to declare that morality still has a place in our law.
3
Keep your religion off my body.
6
I'm not a Catholic. Therefore, no matter who I work for, I should not be required to follow Catholic doctrine. Period. I'm a Buddhist. If you came to work for us, we would not require you to follow Buddhist doctrine.
If you don't like birth control, well then, don't use it. Leave others to their own decisions. It is supremely arrogant of you to think that your beliefs are superior to others'. Your assertions that you should decide for others is like praying in the marketplace instead of the closet. Spiritual life is personal, deeply personal. Who are you to judge others and attempt to control them?
If you don't like birth control, well then, don't use it. Leave others to their own decisions. It is supremely arrogant of you to think that your beliefs are superior to others'. Your assertions that you should decide for others is like praying in the marketplace instead of the closet. Spiritual life is personal, deeply personal. Who are you to judge others and attempt to control them?
11
I'm wondering how much government support is provided (tax exemption, reimbursements for care?). If this becomes a debate about conscience, my conscience is bothered by religious organizations receiving federal money in any form.
11
The degree of personal narcissism required to elevate this trivial matter to the level of a cosmic showdown between God and Government is really interesting to observe.
Veit says she won't promise to obey the ACA statute -- which permits her to acquire an exemption from the provision she dislikes -- because that act of promising under government compulsion is an intrusion on her religious integrity and honor. One would think Henry VIII was asking her to sign a document accepting the king as Supreme Head of the Church -- on pain of death.
How does such vanity get grafted onto an organization called "The Little Sisters of the Poor"?
Veit says she won't promise to obey the ACA statute -- which permits her to acquire an exemption from the provision she dislikes -- because that act of promising under government compulsion is an intrusion on her religious integrity and honor. One would think Henry VIII was asking her to sign a document accepting the king as Supreme Head of the Church -- on pain of death.
How does such vanity get grafted onto an organization called "The Little Sisters of the Poor"?
15
My religion calls for human sacrifice.
Does my religious right override civil law?
Does my religious right override civil law?
8
Yes
1
Sister Constance, your Op-Ed is an excellent, and quite logical presentation of the facts--and in an honest manner. And, the counter-argument that your Order is not a religious one is utter nonsenses. I would like to suggest several points regarding the whole matter, which are as follows:
1. Your piece doesn't at any point address the rights off your Plan Participants, at least not directly. There might also be benefits, which participants in your plan enjoy, that those who enroll directly in ACA would not.
2. Has your Order discussed with your insurance company the ability for it to offer an insurance Rider (provision)--on the Plan--directly to the Participants?
It's important, when considering your Rights, that the Rights of the Participants--Catholic or not--be honored, as well.
I have read many Op-Eds and articles regarding Contraception with Health Care Plans, and yours is truly one of the most honest, and comprehensive that I have come across. Surely, there must be a way to honor the Rights of both your Order and the Plan Participants.
1. Your piece doesn't at any point address the rights off your Plan Participants, at least not directly. There might also be benefits, which participants in your plan enjoy, that those who enroll directly in ACA would not.
2. Has your Order discussed with your insurance company the ability for it to offer an insurance Rider (provision)--on the Plan--directly to the Participants?
It's important, when considering your Rights, that the Rights of the Participants--Catholic or not--be honored, as well.
I have read many Op-Eds and articles regarding Contraception with Health Care Plans, and yours is truly one of the most honest, and comprehensive that I have come across. Surely, there must be a way to honor the Rights of both your Order and the Plan Participants.
1
The Sisters sound like they want a "Sharia version for Catholics" to be emposed on any employee. I have a hard time to keep calling myself a catholic although I used to be very active in a then welcoming "community" church that unfortunately has become too "outspoken" conservative.
5
It is not your "religious health plan", it is a health plan for your apparently diverse workforce. The government is making an accommodation to allow you to avoid having to pay for a service you don't approve of, as a way of balancing your rights and your employees' rights. The government is not dictating how you carry out anything about your religious mission. For example, if the law required that the manner of patient care went against established church teachings, that would violate your rights and I would be on your side.
2
A group of women who don't need birth control telling other women they can't have it. What gives them the right? A truly ossified tenet from an organization morally compromised by harboring child abusers.
6
I'm sure that the sisters are heartfelt in their beliefs. I'm also sure that doctors providing birth control and even abortion are heartfelt in their beliefs. The huge problem is not that the sisters beliefs are being trampled on....its that they ignore that their beliefs trample on the rights of other people. Obviously in almost all of the dealings in society they are kind and charitable, but in this case they are not being either. The exemption is no more a trampling on their rights, then their tax exempt status is trampling on my rights to not support their religion. I think we can almost assuredly say that the majority of these sisters have NOT walked in the shoes of the women who are seeking birth control or abortion.
3
There really should be no exemptions -- you have rights; your beliefs do not.
4
5th century religious edicts attempting to control a dwindling population of adherents in a modern society retards the progress we could be making. When biology and science begin to sit behind the wheel all citizens will benefit. The pious cloak religious believers use to separate themselves from common sense is damaging to the fabric of our nation.
3
This isn't about the Little Sisters of the Poor.
It's about the right of any religious organization to trump the health needs of individuals.
What would be the wishes of other religions regarding contraception, blood transfusions? What else lies buried in all those religious writings and their worldly interpretations? Male and female Circumcision? Masturbation? Dietary requirements? And must we the public abide by those islands of constraint?
It is an undue burden for government to have to vet the individual wishes of religious groups.
government represents us all, including those who do have not chosen to join this religion.
It's about the right of any religious organization to trump the health needs of individuals.
What would be the wishes of other religions regarding contraception, blood transfusions? What else lies buried in all those religious writings and their worldly interpretations? Male and female Circumcision? Masturbation? Dietary requirements? And must we the public abide by those islands of constraint?
It is an undue burden for government to have to vet the individual wishes of religious groups.
government represents us all, including those who do have not chosen to join this religion.
4
All this arguing and hair splitting by Catholics and others who call themselves Christians is absurd. Jesus is very clear about the issue at hand: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...." Pay your damn taxes and get on with your lives...oh, you don't pay taxes because you're already tax exempt? Caesar has cut you a tax break, Jesus says "pay your taxes," and you're STILL arguing? This is childishness.
7
The argument presented is specious.
We all pay taxes on our income. Assuming I actually was a pacifist, I would object to that portion of the US government budget that is spent on the military. I might even have a religious objection, well founded in the teachings of my religion. That does not give me the right to withhold a protrtional amount of my income taxes due that would equal the proportion of the budget expended on the military.
In the same vein, this situation allows the Little Sisters of the Poor to sign a document stating that none of the payment they provide for employees' helathcare will be expended for birth control or abortions. In my hypothetical, I do not even get to sign such a paper to direct my taxes not to be spent on the military.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that empoyees of a religios organization who are not "ministers" (e.g., do not teach or proselytize for the faith as part of the job, for example a janitor, or a bookkeepper) are not exempted under a religious test under the First Amendment. The same should apply to this payment. If you are a "minister" and adhere to the teachings of the faith, you will dispense with the treatment, so withholding the cost should be allowable. However, if you are not a "miister" you should be covered and the organization pays as any organiozation would pay for any employee. They should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on those of other faiths.
We all pay taxes on our income. Assuming I actually was a pacifist, I would object to that portion of the US government budget that is spent on the military. I might even have a religious objection, well founded in the teachings of my religion. That does not give me the right to withhold a protrtional amount of my income taxes due that would equal the proportion of the budget expended on the military.
In the same vein, this situation allows the Little Sisters of the Poor to sign a document stating that none of the payment they provide for employees' helathcare will be expended for birth control or abortions. In my hypothetical, I do not even get to sign such a paper to direct my taxes not to be spent on the military.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that empoyees of a religios organization who are not "ministers" (e.g., do not teach or proselytize for the faith as part of the job, for example a janitor, or a bookkeepper) are not exempted under a religious test under the First Amendment. The same should apply to this payment. If you are a "minister" and adhere to the teachings of the faith, you will dispense with the treatment, so withholding the cost should be allowable. However, if you are not a "miister" you should be covered and the organization pays as any organiozation would pay for any employee. They should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on those of other faiths.
4
The sisters offer their services to all in need, regardless of their clients’ religious beliefs or lack of beliefs. Yet they refuse to offer full health care insurance to all their female employees, regardless of their workers’ religious beliefs or lack of beliefs. The sisters do not impose religious teachings on their clients, but they do impose religious teachings on their employees.
In the old days, that refusal would not have been a problem because there were enough sisters to do all the work of caring for the indigent elderly. But today, with few women taking religious vows, the sisters must rely on secular workers to accomplish their work. It’s time for the sisters to play by the rules in making use of human resources that they cannot find in their own communities. Hypocrisy shows in Sr. Veit's inconsistent application of her stated religious imperative: to "care for the elderly poor regardless of their religious beliefs and hire people to help provide that care who haven’t taken the same vows we have." They extend loving health care to one group and "hire" another not only to have their paid work, but also to deprive them of private, personal health care decisions that employees in our society are entitled to make.
In the old days, that refusal would not have been a problem because there were enough sisters to do all the work of caring for the indigent elderly. But today, with few women taking religious vows, the sisters must rely on secular workers to accomplish their work. It’s time for the sisters to play by the rules in making use of human resources that they cannot find in their own communities. Hypocrisy shows in Sr. Veit's inconsistent application of her stated religious imperative: to "care for the elderly poor regardless of their religious beliefs and hire people to help provide that care who haven’t taken the same vows we have." They extend loving health care to one group and "hire" another not only to have their paid work, but also to deprive them of private, personal health care decisions that employees in our society are entitled to make.
9
There is a huge diffeence between restricting soda machines in schools; children need protection, childhood obesity is epidemic & early habits impact lifelong health.
Offering an option for birth control pills in a health plan - a presciption sometimes used for dysmenorrhea or other medical vulnerabilities as well as dire economic pressures - has absolutley no impact on belief, practice or freedom of religion. It has zero effect on caring for the elderly, unless a non-Catholic employee is forbidden to work with the Sisters.....
Offering an option for birth control pills in a health plan - a presciption sometimes used for dysmenorrhea or other medical vulnerabilities as well as dire economic pressures - has absolutley no impact on belief, practice or freedom of religion. It has zero effect on caring for the elderly, unless a non-Catholic employee is forbidden to work with the Sisters.....
5
I'm sure we all respect the good the Little Sisters do.
It is wrong, however, to ask the government, or anyone else, to accommodate not just religious beliefs, but actions or inactions based on religious conviction. No one questions the sincerity of the Little Sisters' beliefs, but there are those who believe, just as profoundly, that the Little Sisters are wrong in this.
Resolving a conflict like this can only be done through an appeal to common values, as far as they exist, and logic. To assert that one side should get its way *because* that is motivated religiously is to demean the other side.
It is wrong, however, to ask the government, or anyone else, to accommodate not just religious beliefs, but actions or inactions based on religious conviction. No one questions the sincerity of the Little Sisters' beliefs, but there are those who believe, just as profoundly, that the Little Sisters are wrong in this.
Resolving a conflict like this can only be done through an appeal to common values, as far as they exist, and logic. To assert that one side should get its way *because* that is motivated religiously is to demean the other side.
3
Here's a thought: how about you cease trying to impose your beliefs on others? I would defend your right to practice your religion as you choose; don't I have the same rights?
This op-ed piece is exhibit A in the case for what's wrong with religion.
This op-ed piece is exhibit A in the case for what's wrong with religion.
12
With all respect, Sister, you are wrong. Your right to your religion does not trump the rights of others. You cannot impose your beliefs on me or your employees who do not share them. I don't agree with your comment about opting out vs. opting in, either.
But, if it is true that the ACA has permitted such widespread exemptions (why would corporations and the military not want to cover contraception? That seems counter-intuitive to me) that is wrong as well, and should be changed.
But, if it is true that the ACA has permitted such widespread exemptions (why would corporations and the military not want to cover contraception? That seems counter-intuitive to me) that is wrong as well, and should be changed.
5
It seems you are really saying that your good works depend on your religious beliefs. I.e. that you would not be so helpful to others if you were not religious. Therefore the rest of us need to roll over and support your religious beliefs for you to continue.
That's pretty close to extortion, as well as making an unjustified artificial connection between your religion and being good.
That's pretty close to extortion, as well as making an unjustified artificial connection between your religion and being good.
8
When I go to the website for Little Sisters of the Poor, I find that their nursing homes are located all around the country. Its difficult to find out from their website what the financial criteria for admission is, but I suspect that they, like other nursing homes, require their patients to have either private funds or Medicaid eligibility to pay for their care, so its probably tax dollars that are paying for this "ministry", not charitable donations. In my mind, that makes the Little SIsters Homes primarily a not for profit business, not a religious group.
6
I was raised Roman Catholic and now hate pretty much everything about it. After being emotionally, verbally and psychologically abused by nuns and sexually molested by a swim couch employed by a church, I've had about enough of this backwards, antiquated cult and what they have to say about anything. Just because these fanatics are deluded enough to take vows of chastity and have crushed their own healthy sexuality, the government and culture in general has zero obligation to acknowledge, never mind bow to their whims. Are we obliged to respect anything these people say about reproductive issues when they are an apparent factory for producing child molesters and pedophiles.
15
Can you imagine if Planned Parenthood was caught harboring and enabling child molesters? It would no longer exist. How is it possible that *anybody* still considers the Catholic Church a moral authority on *anything*?
2
Sister, you don't know the meaning of faith.
7
I thought comments were moderated. If you have nothing constructive to say, why bother?
1
Very well articulated, Sister Constance. It boggles the mind that many commenters think your order is somehow "imposing" its beliefs on others, when the truth is the exact opposite. You want nothing to do with birth control. Many can't stand that. They can't get past their disagreement with you over what constitutes morality and the lack thereof. This leads to gleeful trampling of your religious liberty in the pursuit of positive "rights" that are younger than the iPhone. The First Amendment says you can EXERCISE your beliefs, not just quietly hold them. I admire your bold stand against the problematic way the government has decided to implement the ACA.
5
No. The law allows them to not provide any birth control. What they're asking for is that no one else provide their employees birth control. The Constitution doesn't provide for complete religious freedom. Why aren't the good sisters arguing for the rights of Mormons to have plural marriages? How about the rights of Muslims to prevent their employees from using alcohol? You can be certain that good Catholics everywhere would be outraged if a Muslim employer tried to stop a Catholic employee from having wine. No, this is about preventing others from having a religious belief other than their narrow conservative one. All the good work of these nuns is being cancelled out by their efforts to prevent women who don't share their exact religious beliefs from exercising theirs.
1
I am not Catholic and I am pro choice. However, I do believe this is an example of how government has gotten too big.
The Pill has been used for more than just birth control such as hormone regulation and severe acne. Hence, its use can also be medical. Denying that access is not acceptable. However, other forms of birth control are for pregnancy prevention only and pregnancy is not an illness, albeit a medical condition. However, if our health insurance is to provide pregnancy care, then why not its prevention? Otherwise, health insurers should technically only cover pregnancies at risk. It is all a slippery slope.
I believe that the sisters would want health insurance to include pregnancy care. It is for this reason that the government should stay more out of our personal business.
Birth control, in and of itself, is affordable. When the health plans did not cover it, women still obtained it. If they couldn't, there was Planned Parenthood. Many women have such high deductible plans due to the ACA that they are paying for it out of pocket anyway. This "problem" wouldn't exist if government stayed more out of our lives.
The Pill has been used for more than just birth control such as hormone regulation and severe acne. Hence, its use can also be medical. Denying that access is not acceptable. However, other forms of birth control are for pregnancy prevention only and pregnancy is not an illness, albeit a medical condition. However, if our health insurance is to provide pregnancy care, then why not its prevention? Otherwise, health insurers should technically only cover pregnancies at risk. It is all a slippery slope.
I believe that the sisters would want health insurance to include pregnancy care. It is for this reason that the government should stay more out of our personal business.
Birth control, in and of itself, is affordable. When the health plans did not cover it, women still obtained it. If they couldn't, there was Planned Parenthood. Many women have such high deductible plans due to the ACA that they are paying for it out of pocket anyway. This "problem" wouldn't exist if government stayed more out of our lives.
2
Fair enough argument, I guess, but it's still very selfish (and un-Christian). You make your workers sound like volunteers who labor out of the goodness of their heart, but they're not. They're hired employees subsidized by your tax-exempt status. This supposed adherence to the dogma of contraception is misguided, and in the end proves only to be about control. You seem to have spent a long time finding a way to argue your point to the Times readership, but did you spend any time asking yourself whether you might be wrong? Whether you're the pawns of the devil?
10
Sister's use of the phrase "our religious health plan" signals her intolerance for the needs and beliefs of those in the order's employ. It is not the right of the Sisters of the Poor to dictate how their employees use their health coverage. It makes me sad to see the lack of compassion demonstrated by the insularity and misogyny of the Sisters.
15
I am happy to read this article; this lady speaks well. Her life devoted to the service of others is deserving of respect from anyone - regardless of faith or religion. I wish the hate-mongering religious nuts would take her message to heart. Her love of fellow humans is a humbling message to all. My infinite respects.
But the author is talking about faith; safely ensconced in her paradigm. Gee, every one is, but the author may be unaware that she is unaware of that. "How could it be," she asks, "that you are not obeying what I believe is True?"
Get real.
Even the smartest gill-breathing fish could not explain what raindrops hitting the surface of the ocean are, and how they got there. Anymore than we can explain god, or her intents. But, I would be un-surprised to learn that it has triggered serious theorizing among sagacious fish. I am sure they talk of a gill breathing god; who produces perfect circles on the horizon when he is upset. Why would our religious faith be any different. How on earth do we know the Truth? No amount of sagacious thinking would get us anywhere near that.
I am very suspicious of anyone who tells me that have a direct connection with god, and has heard her message, and therefore wants other people to do this or that; or stop doing this or that.
Kalidan
But the author is talking about faith; safely ensconced in her paradigm. Gee, every one is, but the author may be unaware that she is unaware of that. "How could it be," she asks, "that you are not obeying what I believe is True?"
Get real.
Even the smartest gill-breathing fish could not explain what raindrops hitting the surface of the ocean are, and how they got there. Anymore than we can explain god, or her intents. But, I would be un-surprised to learn that it has triggered serious theorizing among sagacious fish. I am sure they talk of a gill breathing god; who produces perfect circles on the horizon when he is upset. Why would our religious faith be any different. How on earth do we know the Truth? No amount of sagacious thinking would get us anywhere near that.
I am very suspicious of anyone who tells me that have a direct connection with god, and has heard her message, and therefore wants other people to do this or that; or stop doing this or that.
Kalidan
5
Yep.
I think we so many starving children in my hometown of Philadelphia alone.
And wars we are engaged in all the time killing people. And the missing healthcare for so many people in our country their is plenty of life saving to do.
The other day a worker in a health facility said a mother had come in with a 13 year old girl who had been raped and pregnant. Please explain to me what to do in this situation? You can follow your religious beliefs. But understanding and forgiveness is part of being a person of compassion.
And wars we are engaged in all the time killing people. And the missing healthcare for so many people in our country their is plenty of life saving to do.
The other day a worker in a health facility said a mother had come in with a 13 year old girl who had been raped and pregnant. Please explain to me what to do in this situation? You can follow your religious beliefs. But understanding and forgiveness is part of being a person of compassion.
6
Where are the First Amendment Freedom of Religion protections for the American worker?
12
What good is secular government when the private sector assigns religious doctrine for your life?
According to Catholic doctrine, a misscarried fetus bypasses the Pearly Gates and goes straight to Limbo, where, according to Dante, the immortal souls of sybarites and fornicators are found, doing what they are wont to do for all of the rest of eternity.
3
This argument is literate but specious. You're kidding yourselves, ladies.
7
Your viewpoint is duly noted and what about the viewpoints of your employees. Your rights and responsibilities are more important then theirs. I don't think so, not now or never.
9
While I appreciate the good work of the Sisters, the logic presented here is very flawed. Does this institution only employ observant Catholics? Do you monitor employees on how they spend their paychecks to make sure that they don't use their money to buy pornography or engage prostitutes? Why are you only concerned with the birth control practices of the women? I worked for a long time for a college that did not provide an annual raise one year but sent all employees an accounting of what was their "actual" compensation, which included what was contributed for their insurance. Most people consider benefits as part of their compensation. Once that money leaves your agency account, whether to me or the insurance company, it is no longer your money. You have chosen your faith and you life. The rest of us get to make our own choices.
20
Yep.
I am beginning to think that the Sisters probably do not do much good work. They seem very concerned about limiting access to contraception, which, of course, means more unwanted children and more poverty for women and children.
1
It is easy to admonish the Little Sisters of the Poor for seeking to impose their religious beliefs on the private healthcare decisions of their employees. But the truth is that so long as healthcare is not treated as a right guaranteed by the government equally to all, but instead as an obligation of employers, the effect of the law will be to force some religious employers to violate their consciences by signing forms approving the provision of services that they regard as prohibited by God.
I am an atheist with little sympathy for the medieval sexual morality of the Catholic church. I believe in free contraception and abortion on demand. But I am also a sincere civil libertarian who believes that adherents to those doctrines should be free to practice those beliefs.
There is a mechanism that we have for forcing minorities to pay for things that they don't like but that have the support of the majority. It is called taxes. My taxes go to support all manner of wars and policies that I find repugnant. But nobody asks me to personally and specifically authorize those expenditures.
By the same token, of course, it is perverse that we rely to the extent that we do on religious charities to take care of the poor. I worked in a children's shelter for Catholic Charities that was an oasis in lives of great turmoil. That its services were limited by the funds available from the church testified to the moral abdication of dismantling the welfare state.
I am an atheist with little sympathy for the medieval sexual morality of the Catholic church. I believe in free contraception and abortion on demand. But I am also a sincere civil libertarian who believes that adherents to those doctrines should be free to practice those beliefs.
There is a mechanism that we have for forcing minorities to pay for things that they don't like but that have the support of the majority. It is called taxes. My taxes go to support all manner of wars and policies that I find repugnant. But nobody asks me to personally and specifically authorize those expenditures.
By the same token, of course, it is perverse that we rely to the extent that we do on religious charities to take care of the poor. I worked in a children's shelter for Catholic Charities that was an oasis in lives of great turmoil. That its services were limited by the funds available from the church testified to the moral abdication of dismantling the welfare state.
7
I appreciate your willingness to support the rights of others, even if you don't agree with them. I agree that the government would be better served by directly providing these services (like on its own exchanges!) than keeping the link to employers.
Dear Sisters,
Thank you for your service to God and humanity. I'm asking you, though, to drop your lawsuit requesting you not be forced into providing contraceptives to your employees through the ACA against your religious convictions.
I think you may not understand what women have been subjected to throughout the ages. Us sisters on the "outside world" have been dominated by men in almost every aspect of our lives. Do you know that we used to be considered property? Until we were able to control our decisions to get pregnant, we were forced to breed like rabbits at the whim of the male. Not all women are able to breed in such rapid succession without detriment to their health and their ability to care for their children. Only in a perfect world, which doesn't exist anywhere, might this even be a possibility. Please drop your lawsuit and let us women decide for ourselves the right time for us become pregnant. No human being should be forced into submission by anyone. It is not right.
In this day and age, and culture, you may consider using your highly visible platform to educate young men and women about the dignity of marriage and child bearing. That becoming pregnant before they are ready, too often leads to abortion, which may leave lasting emotional scars on everyone involved. Avoiding abortion is the better stance to take. I am a 65 year old Catholic woman and speak from experience on this matter. May God's blessings be with you.
Thank you for your service to God and humanity. I'm asking you, though, to drop your lawsuit requesting you not be forced into providing contraceptives to your employees through the ACA against your religious convictions.
I think you may not understand what women have been subjected to throughout the ages. Us sisters on the "outside world" have been dominated by men in almost every aspect of our lives. Do you know that we used to be considered property? Until we were able to control our decisions to get pregnant, we were forced to breed like rabbits at the whim of the male. Not all women are able to breed in such rapid succession without detriment to their health and their ability to care for their children. Only in a perfect world, which doesn't exist anywhere, might this even be a possibility. Please drop your lawsuit and let us women decide for ourselves the right time for us become pregnant. No human being should be forced into submission by anyone. It is not right.
In this day and age, and culture, you may consider using your highly visible platform to educate young men and women about the dignity of marriage and child bearing. That becoming pregnant before they are ready, too often leads to abortion, which may leave lasting emotional scars on everyone involved. Avoiding abortion is the better stance to take. I am a 65 year old Catholic woman and speak from experience on this matter. May God's blessings be with you.
5
Religion cannot be allowed to become a universal "get out of jail free" card. The nuns are demanding that the courts allow their religious beliefs to trump secular laws so they can force their religious beliefs on to the public. The nuns have entered the secular world by using a tax-exempt entity to perform secular tasks. They must abide by secular rules. If they win, what's next? Will they demand a tax exemption without having to follow the rules of the Internal Revenue Code because doing so contradicts their religious beliefs that their god's laws trump man-made laws?
4
Interesting that this wonderful organization will take money from the government to care for the poor but keep their non catholic employees from exercising their religious rights. We are all hypocrites.
4
Freedom of religion should not be construed to mean the freedom to impose your religion on others. The "Catholicization" of so many community hospitals limits the rights of women to exercise their Supreme Court mandated rights to abortions.
To go even further -- the fact tax that exemptions for religious organizations and religious donations are tax exempt shifts an unfair burden on those of us who are secularists.
So I ask you, sister, who is trampling on whose rights?
To go even further -- the fact tax that exemptions for religious organizations and religious donations are tax exempt shifts an unfair burden on those of us who are secularists.
So I ask you, sister, who is trampling on whose rights?
6
The debate in the letters page is the microcosm of the dialogue of the deaf
It is a big country, and room for disagreement, and our law allows for religious exceptions, RFRA, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as always , one man's freedom fighter is another woman's terrorist
one woman's bigot is another man's religious libertarian
I support the ladies here, little sisters, and Christian worship, but then I oppose everything about Obama including, well including everything , including his supporters
It is a big country, and room for disagreement, and our law allows for religious exceptions, RFRA, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as always , one man's freedom fighter is another woman's terrorist
one woman's bigot is another man's religious libertarian
I support the ladies here, little sisters, and Christian worship, but then I oppose everything about Obama including, well including everything , including his supporters
4
Little Sisters of the Poor is an excellent organization, full of caring people doing work that greatly improves the lives of vulnerable elders in our society. They merit strong support from us all. But, as employers, they have the same responsibilities as other employers. Employees provide work in exchange for pay and benefits. Employers may not decide to withhold a standard benefit just because that benefit goes against the employer’s personal beliefs. Employers are not dictators; they and their employees are equal parties in a contractual arrangement. The power dynamic in that relationship favors the employer over any individual employee, so we have labor laws, collective bargaining (sometimes), and benefit standards to protect employee’s rights.
Sister Veit misunderstands the employer-employee relationship, seeing it as paternalistic, per her example of a high school administration’s responsibility to remove soda machines for the sake of the students’ health. Employees are far more responsible for their own decisions than are students. Unless an employer requires that all employees commit to some specific system of ethics, as in a religious order, the employer may not pick and choose which of our standard benefits employees may choose to use. The ethical decision about using birth control should be left in the employee’s hands. That is the employee’s religious freedom.
Sister Veit misunderstands the employer-employee relationship, seeing it as paternalistic, per her example of a high school administration’s responsibility to remove soda machines for the sake of the students’ health. Employees are far more responsible for their own decisions than are students. Unless an employer requires that all employees commit to some specific system of ethics, as in a religious order, the employer may not pick and choose which of our standard benefits employees may choose to use. The ethical decision about using birth control should be left in the employee’s hands. That is the employee’s religious freedom.
5
If your position is to oppose birth control on moral and religious grounds, then you should be willing to accept responsibility for the resulting unwanted pregnancies. This means as they say - bellying up to the bar and putting your money where your mouth is. In addition to "living with, loving and caring for the elderly poor", you and your sisters had better be prepared to "live with, love and care for" each child born as a result of your policies. What does this mean in practical terms. It means you offer to your employees with children every single thing that is required to provide a child with a high quality of life and future opportunities - at no cost to the employee - including day care from infancy, health insurance, clothes, food, education, being there through the long nights when the child is sick, taking the child to enrichment programs, giving the child encouragement and love. A living child is not a moral concept. Bringing a child into the world requires commitment, love, strength, money, time. If you and your sisters are not prepared to make this type of commitment, then you and your sisters are hypocrites. I do not make these statements to be facetious. I am dead serious. You and your order have the time, the facilities, the money to provide the necessary services to your employees. If you oppose giving your employees birth control but you walk away from the resulting obligations, to me that is a sin of the worst magnitude.
3
Dear Sister,
Thank you for all your good work.
I would ask you to consider that your right to freedom of religion may end where your employees' health begins.
Best wishes.
Thank you for all your good work.
I would ask you to consider that your right to freedom of religion may end where your employees' health begins.
Best wishes.
6
Well, you can not hire employees, or in the words of Ronald Reagan, "Vote with your feet". What if your religion promoted no minimum wage laws, child brides or no marriages between races?
Why does your emphasis on sex trump everything? Something like 46,000 women die last year from illegal abortions and thousands of children were left as orphans as a result. Where is your conscience on that issue?
As you point out "they can get soda elsewhere" you acknowledge you will not now or ever, eliminate abortion. You just want to pick and choose what rules and laws you follow. The law allows an out and that should suit you just fine. Don't worry about what health decisions the employees make, let God sort it out on judgement day. After all, some religions ban transfusions and some ban all health care. What about them?
Why does your emphasis on sex trump everything? Something like 46,000 women die last year from illegal abortions and thousands of children were left as orphans as a result. Where is your conscience on that issue?
As you point out "they can get soda elsewhere" you acknowledge you will not now or ever, eliminate abortion. You just want to pick and choose what rules and laws you follow. The law allows an out and that should suit you just fine. Don't worry about what health decisions the employees make, let God sort it out on judgement day. After all, some religions ban transfusions and some ban all health care. What about them?
8
Please leave these "poor" sisters alone and let them go about their business of caring for the infirm and elderly among us who have no where else to go. I was educated by some of the kindest Irish nuns during my college years and have very fond memories. These sisters should never have been put in this position in which they are fighting for their religious freedom and principles. You cannot expect them to just throw away Catholic values which they have practiced for ions. Of course, I am glad they are not sitting back and taking this contraception mandate lightly. It is nice that someone (the nuns) are still concerned for religious liberty today. Good luck sisters and I am sure you will win this battle. I will light a candle at Mass for you tomorrow and goodness prevails.
5
I agree, and I appreciate you sharing this.
1
Here's the thing - according to the author's logic, a Jehovah' Witness employer could prohibit blood transfusions, or Christian Scientists could prohibit all medical care. It is just not workable or just. It isn't even good theology! The sisters are falling back on the old Roman Catholic behavior of control, rather than respecting the teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council, which held up the primacy of each persons informed conscience to make their own decision. They are lovely people, but they are wrong about this.
13
If people followed their own consciences in many matters, we would be in a heck of a mess. Today many people have no conscience whatsoever to the degradation of our society. I admire these Catholic nuns for standing up for their consciences so much so that I intend to send them a donation to continue their fine works. I hope they win in court.
3
Sister Constance, thank you for the selfless, loving care of every elderly person. But every person who helps you in your service is not an elderly person. They have every right to live life the way they want it and not be encumbered with more responsibility that they cannot afford. Your love should also be extended to the young people who have rights and needs as young people. You cannot and do not have the right or discretion to refrain the young people. The Law of the Land is on their side and your values have to be within the constraints of that Law. There is a clear separation of the Church and State. You are free to practice your faith but within the Law of the Land. And as such, you cannot thrust your beliefs and withdraw benefits from Citizens.
5
First of all, this isn't about forcing anyone to follow Catholic teachings on birth control - it's about who is required to pay for it. Employees of Catholic entities are free to use birth control without any fear of repercussions.
But the real solution to this problem is to get corporations and other organizations out of the of health insurance business. Get rid of all fringe benefits and mandate that employee compensation be only in the form of cash. Then let employees use that cash to buy the services - including health insurance - that they want.
But the real solution to this problem is to get corporations and other organizations out of the of health insurance business. Get rid of all fringe benefits and mandate that employee compensation be only in the form of cash. Then let employees use that cash to buy the services - including health insurance - that they want.
2
"Employees of Catholic entities are free to use birth control without any fear of repercussions."
And they can eat cake, right?
And they can eat cake, right?
1
Why do the Little Sisters of the Poor have employees and the wherewithal to give anyone health insurance, anyway?
4
That's what happens when you take a vow of poverty: you become very wealthy.
1
The Sisters of the Poor do wonderful work. That however is irrelevant in this case. I fail to see how the government providing birth control to people is infringing on anyone's right to practice their religion. It is the free practice of religion that the Constitution guarantees. The constitution also requires government to be neutral in issues of religion. This issue becomes the ability of the Sisters to impose their religious beliefs on others. The Constitution does grant religious organizations the right to discriminate or the right to impose their beliefs on others. Don't hire people who desire birth control and the issue will go away. The employees who desire birth control are not imposing their beliefs on the Sisters. Following on this argument, Jews and Muslims can object to working any where near pork products or Hindus to the eating of beef.
10
How is this "not about women's access to contraception"? What else is it about? The single most effective thing that the Catholic church could do for the world's poor would be to relax its ridiculous stance on contraception.
18
Ending the requirement of celibacy would definitely improve the clergy too.
2
An observation. By the author's admission, Jesus didn't demand doctrinal acceptance for their works. Why should the Sisters be allowed a more stringent standard, then?
7
The Jesus of history was purportedly a Jew, a religion that focuses on what happens in life, not where one will go in death.
4
The irony of the Catholic Church's position on contraception is, of course, that by insisting that every act of intercourse possibly lead to pregnancy, they are ultimately increasing the number of abortions. It is easier to not have an abortion before conception than after!
Ignoring human nature because of some mythic higher good of the sanctity of sex ("No doing 'it' just for fun... you have to MEAN it!") is a blinkered approach to ending abortion. The new pope has shown an inkling of an understanding of this... the question is will he ever be able to push reality past the so very, very conservative group of Cardinals left by John Paul II.
When the issues of mankind's impacts on God's creation, and the need to limit our numbers to somewhere around the carrying capacity of the planet are factored in, well, the Church's position on contraception is growing increasingly untenable.
Ignoring human nature because of some mythic higher good of the sanctity of sex ("No doing 'it' just for fun... you have to MEAN it!") is a blinkered approach to ending abortion. The new pope has shown an inkling of an understanding of this... the question is will he ever be able to push reality past the so very, very conservative group of Cardinals left by John Paul II.
When the issues of mankind's impacts on God's creation, and the need to limit our numbers to somewhere around the carrying capacity of the planet are factored in, well, the Church's position on contraception is growing increasingly untenable.
10
I printed a comment a few hours ago criticizing the anti-Catholic remarks permitted on this comment board. It has yet to be printed but you continue to print anti-Catholic comments yet will not print my comment. Is there a double standard directed towards the way the Catholic Church is portrayed by your readers as opposed to other faiths? I think this is a fair assessment and accurate one. Remember that we are a religion of over 1.2 billion members and have performed tremendous works around the world for both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. These wonderful nuns serve all religions with no questions asked as to the religion of the residents residing in the nursing homes. They deserve to be heard and their rights respected. I am sure they will win this decision and President Obama could have avoided this Supreme Court battle had he just made an exception for these nuns. I am certain he would have accommodated Muslims and Jews if there were a similar decision being made.
6
I appreciate the work that this order does to care for the elderly, but to compare soda pop with the means for women to have control over their own bodies is patently ridiculous, and frankly, offensive.
13
it's your faith that is wrong. Catholic Charities no longer has a foster child program in Illinois, which is sad, too bad, and and not wrong.
You need to control what you can, not try to control what you can't.
You need to control what you can, not try to control what you can't.
4
It is time to tax religious organizations. I´m getting sick of ¨religious¨people forcing their beliefs on me. If you don´t believe in contraception, don´t use contraception. Isn´t that simple?
15
You want to forbid other people from practicing their religion.
8
It is my sacredly held belief that war is evil. Yet I cannot opt out of paying taxes that go for war.
15
I have a lot of respect for this order and the sisters in it. If we had more people like them, this country would be a better place. However, their employees are not teenagers who must be protected from a bad habit. They are adults who have their own right to choose how to live their lives. The sisters are not morally responsible for their employees' choices. The sisters are citizens of the United States, yet that does not make them morally responsible for other citizens who have abortions.
16
religion, and anything to do w religion, or anyone who takes it seriously make me want to puke
religion requires you to shut off your brain more than heroin does
and th consequences of religious addiction are far more deadly tha n heroin addiction
religion requires you to shut off your brain more than heroin does
and th consequences of religious addiction are far more deadly tha n heroin addiction
6
My taxes pay for your health plan - you are just the method of getting it to people who happen to be your employees. We pay taxes to make up for your non-profit exemption. The nation that we pay taxes to mandates a separation of church and state - why should I pay for your discrimination against women? If they subscribe to your doctrine, they won't use contraception. If they don't, you're forcing them to comply with a doctrine they don't subscribe to just to put food on their family's table. I doubt that any of that is what Jesus had in mind.
19
"But Jesus never demanded that the poor demonstrate strict adherence to religious doctrine before helping them."
That's correct. I suggest that the good sister evaluate whether her order's insistence on placing doctrine (doctrine made by man - men! - and not found in the Bible) ahead of serving employees violates the example of Christ our Lord.
That's correct. I suggest that the good sister evaluate whether her order's insistence on placing doctrine (doctrine made by man - men! - and not found in the Bible) ahead of serving employees violates the example of Christ our Lord.
13
I applaud Sister Celestine and her order for their work with the elderly. It is worthy and compassionate. But the doctrine of the Catholic Church that prohibits birth control is contrary to those values. Perhaps a visit to Ethiopia where the population has more than doubled since the 80s to nearly 100 million, or Niger which has one of the highest birth rates in the world would give the Sister pause. The hardship and suffering experienced in these places, especially among children is staggering and heartbreaking.
Catholic doctrine continues to deny that there is a carrying capacity for countries and the planet despite the overwhelming consensus of economists, scientists, aid workers and others who study and work with these issues on a daily basis.
Individuals should be free to practice their faith, but government should not concede exemptions to religious organizations that have the potential to create grave harm as well as deny the rights of non-believers.
Catholic doctrine continues to deny that there is a carrying capacity for countries and the planet despite the overwhelming consensus of economists, scientists, aid workers and others who study and work with these issues on a daily basis.
Individuals should be free to practice their faith, but government should not concede exemptions to religious organizations that have the potential to create grave harm as well as deny the rights of non-believers.
7
Sister, in your work do you agree to treat the overweight? They are guilty of the sin of gluttony and as such violate one of the core prohibitions promulgated not by the Church hierarchy, as is the case with birth control, but by God him/herself.
How about adulterers? The lazy? The lustful? The proud? Do you investigate every applicant for the charity offered by the Little Sisters of the Poor and reject all who fail your religious tests?
Or is it just women (not, I notice, men) on whom you would inflict your religious judgement?
Sister, the Catholic Church offends many of my own deeply held convictions. The Church is racist, it is deeply and intractably sexist, it is authoritarian instead of democratic. The Church hierarchy has been complicit in child rape around the world, a vile, depraved predation that cannot be excused or shrugged away. Yet I am forced to fund it through tax exemptions, providing direct subsidies for its hospitals and social services and all of the myriad support systems the Church needs to be able to function.
I don't want to do this. I find much about the Church, its teachings and practices, to be offensive, destructive, hypocritical and in fact criminal. Yet I recognize that in a civil society the individual must respect the rights and beliefs of others under the rule of law.
Your Church law does not trump that. Practice your humility and recognize that you don't get to choose whom you support any more than I do.
How about adulterers? The lazy? The lustful? The proud? Do you investigate every applicant for the charity offered by the Little Sisters of the Poor and reject all who fail your religious tests?
Or is it just women (not, I notice, men) on whom you would inflict your religious judgement?
Sister, the Catholic Church offends many of my own deeply held convictions. The Church is racist, it is deeply and intractably sexist, it is authoritarian instead of democratic. The Church hierarchy has been complicit in child rape around the world, a vile, depraved predation that cannot be excused or shrugged away. Yet I am forced to fund it through tax exemptions, providing direct subsidies for its hospitals and social services and all of the myriad support systems the Church needs to be able to function.
I don't want to do this. I find much about the Church, its teachings and practices, to be offensive, destructive, hypocritical and in fact criminal. Yet I recognize that in a civil society the individual must respect the rights and beliefs of others under the rule of law.
Your Church law does not trump that. Practice your humility and recognize that you don't get to choose whom you support any more than I do.
16
You sound a bit confused about what constitutes religious freedom. Nobody's forcing *you* to take contraceptives. The only thing being limited is your power to force your religious beliefs on other people. Even the Pope is more tolerant than you.
21
So organizations run by Catholics want to be allowed to deny health coverage for legal birth control to their employees. Should Jehovah's Witnesses then be allowed to deny their employees health insurance that covers blood transfusions? Should Quakers be allowed to deny health insurance that covers treatment for war wounds? Should Scientologists be allowed to deny coverage for psychiatric treatment?
The First Amendment guarantees individuals the right to worship as they please. If the Supreme Court decides that the First Amendment also entitles individuals to impose their religious views on employees and customers who may or may not hold the same views, our days as a peaceably pluralistic society are numbered.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
The First Amendment guarantees individuals the right to worship as they please. If the Supreme Court decides that the First Amendment also entitles individuals to impose their religious views on employees and customers who may or may not hold the same views, our days as a peaceably pluralistic society are numbered.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
18
There is nothing in the Bible about birth control. This was something added on to Christianity by men who know that if women can decide if, when and how often to have children, they can limit their fertility and have access to education and employment. That, to them, is a threat to the social order that organized religions- all created and written by men- were designed to enforce.
16
Now that we know that the front page articles of the NYT are essentially advertorials, how much does an article like this cost I wonder?
I have some advertorials I'd like published, is there a price list the NYT can email me? Do I contact the ad dept, or the editor's desk?
I have some advertorials I'd like published, is there a price list the NYT can email me? Do I contact the ad dept, or the editor's desk?
2
This is one of those times when the writer needs to step back and look at the big picture. The Affordable Care Act is designed to help everybody, including the poor and elderly. In it's original unadulterated form, it would have helped a lot more people than it does now. Given the constant chipping away and watering down of ACA, not least by the Little Sisters, you are just making the law less effective than it could be. Stick to your moral position but Face The Music - you really don't care about helping as many poor and elderly as the law will allow. Your suit just opens up more litigation and exemptions. ACA was pursued for a moral imperative. Your suit is blatantly immoral. Less people insured on earth equals more human suffering on earth.
8
If only fundamentalist religions such as the Catholic Church would pay for the support of all those children who were the result of the 'accidental' pregnancies that their anti-woman anti-birth control doctrines create.
Instead, any indigent pregnant woman who walks into a Catholic hospital will be welcomed by the staff, who will immediately apply for Medicaid and welfare on her behalf, passing all the costs along to the taxpayers for the next eighteen years of the child's life. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
A win-win for the Catholic Church. They get to fill the pews with even more poor uneducated women and it costs them not a dime!
Instead, any indigent pregnant woman who walks into a Catholic hospital will be welcomed by the staff, who will immediately apply for Medicaid and welfare on her behalf, passing all the costs along to the taxpayers for the next eighteen years of the child's life. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
A win-win for the Catholic Church. They get to fill the pews with even more poor uneducated women and it costs them not a dime!
7
I have nothing but admiration for the work and the dedication of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Who wouldn’t?
But while their dedication to the Lord in their way of life is intrinsically religious, their operation of health care facilities is not. That's why I cannot take their side when it comes to treatment of their employees.
It would be illegal if the sisters required employees to pledge their compliance with the pronouncements of the Catholic Church, even though few Catholics pay any heed to the prohibition of birth control. Yet by precluding that benefit they are doing much the same in forcing their beliefs on their workers. One might well ask why their religious scruples should be ranked higher than their workers’.
My wife and I have had to rethink our willingness to support religious orders and organizations that lack respect for the freedom and dignity of both their lay workers and those in our communities with differing views.
But while their dedication to the Lord in their way of life is intrinsically religious, their operation of health care facilities is not. That's why I cannot take their side when it comes to treatment of their employees.
It would be illegal if the sisters required employees to pledge their compliance with the pronouncements of the Catholic Church, even though few Catholics pay any heed to the prohibition of birth control. Yet by precluding that benefit they are doing much the same in forcing their beliefs on their workers. One might well ask why their religious scruples should be ranked higher than their workers’.
My wife and I have had to rethink our willingness to support religious orders and organizations that lack respect for the freedom and dignity of both their lay workers and those in our communities with differing views.
14
Sister Constance Veit claims that government "tramples" on her religious rights.
Welcome to the club.
As a Quaker and hence a pacifist, it is my religious right and duty to avoid supporting the military. Yet every time I pay income tax, I am forced to do so. If Sister Veit supports my right to avoid paying income tax, then I'll support her right to avoid Obamacare.
Welcome to the club.
As a Quaker and hence a pacifist, it is my religious right and duty to avoid supporting the military. Yet every time I pay income tax, I am forced to do so. If Sister Veit supports my right to avoid paying income tax, then I'll support her right to avoid Obamacare.
29
Reasonable people can have different ideas about abortion, but that does not extend to contraception. The Catholic church's blanket condemnation of "artificial" birth control has resulted in untold misery, including more children in families who cannot afford and do not want another child, and the spread of diseases, including AIDS, that could have been prevented through the use of condoms.
The Sisters, for whom birth control is obviously irrelevant personally, can have whatever irrational attitudes they like towards contraception, but they have no right to impose those beliefs on others. This idea of "We don't like it so you can't have it" is the real immorality here.
The Sisters, for whom birth control is obviously irrelevant personally, can have whatever irrational attitudes they like towards contraception, but they have no right to impose those beliefs on others. This idea of "We don't like it so you can't have it" is the real immorality here.
19
The sisters are welcome to believe that abortion and birth control are bad for their employees, just as Jehovah's Witnesses may believe blood transfusions are forbidden by God and threaten emploees' mortal souls. But a job site is not comparable to a school, employees are not children, and and employers do not act in loco parentis. Employees have a right to manage their own medical care in accordance with their own consciences. They are entitled to the same coverage required of any employer, and their physical health should take priority over the employer's religious scruples.
21
In our town obstetricians that work for a certain Catholic hospital regularly prescribe birth control pills for birth control and the administration looks the other way without any problem. They know that if they forced their obstetricians to not prescribe birth control pills they would all leave and the catholic patients who are receiving the birth control pills would go somewhere else. For some reason if t's good for their income it's ok to prescribe them but if it gives them a chance to object to President Obama and the Affordable Care Act it's not.
11
I am a catholic who tries to live a christian life as Jesus did. In everything that I know about what Jesus did and said, I don't think He ever mentioned birth control. It upsets me that our male dominated church has a set a rules for women that man do not need to follow. It upsets me that the church does not recognize that having a child is a lifelong commitment and that often too many man walk away from that commitment. Preventing a pregnancy is a gift to that unborn child that is destined to a life of struggle and poverty. The church needs to be less political and more spiritual!
18
This article fails to mention the extensive used of the pills best known as contraceptives, in alleviating extensive health problems in women. They are prescribed as a treatment for endometriosis and other medical conditions.
Religious belief or the lack of it is beside the point.
Religious belief or the lack of it is beside the point.
15
THE STATE SHALL Establish no religion, nor inhibit their practice. This Little Sister is proposing that the employee insurance policy be considered as an official document that must follow her religious beliefs. That insurance policy is a public document, in that it must be publicly filed with the government which confirms is status as such. Were the stated cause for legal action to be imposed on the public? That would be the establishment of a religion by the State and, by demanding that the religious tenets of the Little Sisters, while worthy, must be imposed on all US citizens, since the insurance document is not a doctrine that must pass religious muster, but rather constitutional standards. There is ample legal precedent for requiring a community group, regardless of its religious scruples, to make public other government documents. Just to be sure, the healthcare insurance documents need to be identified by a number, not the name of the business offering it. In that way, the Constitutional requirements are upheld. Not acceptable? Well I'm startled that the religious organization that brought the suit wants to engage in a numbers racket. For if the title of the agency document is changed to being numerical the Little Sisters are proclaiming that the writing of certain numbers is a violation of religious tenets. So while not practicing the purported sins they must avoid--even by listing the number of the insurance policy, I say, Hate the sin but love the sinner.
5
The sister's logic and reasoning is an insult to everyone's intelligence. They can live their noble lives as they always have by abstaining from birth control and contraception, and sex entirely for that matter. The ACA does not impact them personally in any way. Rather, they are trampling on the rights of others they employ or associate with. This is just wrong. No matter how they or the conservatives cleverly and reckless frame the debate, they are denying people their choice and freedom.
This is very similar to the fallacious argument that a religious bakery should not have to sell wedding cakes to gay couples. If they are in the business of serving the public, then they simply cant be allowed to descriminate by hiding behind religion. They can still practice their religion at home and at church. And lastly, they have a choice... they can get out of the business of serving the public so they are not conflicted. America has to wake up and see how religion is insidiously creeping into our laws to serve the conservative tools of descrimination. The media must do a better job of properly framing the debate to cut thru the well funded bias forces at work.
This is very similar to the fallacious argument that a religious bakery should not have to sell wedding cakes to gay couples. If they are in the business of serving the public, then they simply cant be allowed to descriminate by hiding behind religion. They can still practice their religion at home and at church. And lastly, they have a choice... they can get out of the business of serving the public so they are not conflicted. America has to wake up and see how religion is insidiously creeping into our laws to serve the conservative tools of descrimination. The media must do a better job of properly framing the debate to cut thru the well funded bias forces at work.
17
Imagine blood transfusion or antibiotics are against my religious beliefs. Do you want to allow me to exclude those or any procedure from my employees' health plans. Imagine it's not religion it's just beliefs. Should I be able to pick and choose procedures on my employees' health plans? And don't tell me it's different it's not religion. Religion is a set of beliefs and nobody's personal beliefs should have privileged status compared to other beliefs. What you are asking is for employers to deny any medicine or medical procedure on the basis of their private beliefs. So you believe that as an employer you have the right to control my medical choices. This is called tyranny.
13
Ms. Veit cares for the elderly, yet doesn't apparently see that everyone suffers when a woman is forced to have her reproductive system controlled by congress, the church, and insurance companies. Just as religion is a right so too are reproductive rights. To equate soda to childbirth prevention is absurd.
Forcing a woman to have a child has life altering effects far more severe than soda deprivation
Forcing a woman to have a child has life altering effects far more severe than soda deprivation
15
Please it is Sister Veit, a Catholic nun. That is how Catholics refer to those who take religious vows.
Are the sisters an insurance company? No. Do they pay for access to the plan of an insurance company? Yes. Did they write the insurance plan? No. Is it "their" plan? No. Do the sisters actually pay for anything? No. They are paying to join the pool of insured which serves to spread the costs and risk associated with health related issues. They are not paying for anything other than that. They are no more paying for birth control than they are for colonoscopies.
Do the sisters want to control the lives of their non-Catholic employees? Yes.
Do the sisters want to control the lives of their non-Catholic employees? Yes.
25
i'd be more impressed if the organized religion of all flavors would take as hard a stand on the (im)morality of spending 3/4 trillion a year of taxpayer dollars on building deploying and maintaining bombs, tanks, planes and implements of mass destruction and in so doing cutting a swath of death and destruction across the planet. Not a peep on that for the most part. I never have understood the myopia around this and the single minded focus on contraception and abortion.
10
According to the Pew Report, there are more citizens of this country who profess "no belief", the "Nones" (not the "nuns") than there are Catholics.
It's time our government started protecting those people rather than persons who take a private oath between themselves and a god.
Constance Veit took a private oath many years ago. From that oath she has received much praise and many concrete benefits: housing, food, medical care, etc., and even the wealth to hire those who are not part of that vow.
She wants us to recognize that she has the right to dictate what medical care her employees will have access to. Since she doesn't believe in either contraception or abortion, then they must go jump through her hoops ...or take a hike.
She was accurate though in one aspect: The Catholic Church and, by extension, the Little Sisters of the Poor, ARE to be compared to Exxon Mobil.
Both are a business that have learned how to manipulate my government. Exxon is first-rate in getting subsides, tax-write-offs, and contracts, and, obviously, so are the Little Sisters. I'd be curious to know how an organization whose members take a vow of poverty can get so wealthy that they can hire outsiders.
Something isn't right here... but then, what do I know?
According to her, I'm just a soda can.
It's time our government started protecting those people rather than persons who take a private oath between themselves and a god.
Constance Veit took a private oath many years ago. From that oath she has received much praise and many concrete benefits: housing, food, medical care, etc., and even the wealth to hire those who are not part of that vow.
She wants us to recognize that she has the right to dictate what medical care her employees will have access to. Since she doesn't believe in either contraception or abortion, then they must go jump through her hoops ...or take a hike.
She was accurate though in one aspect: The Catholic Church and, by extension, the Little Sisters of the Poor, ARE to be compared to Exxon Mobil.
Both are a business that have learned how to manipulate my government. Exxon is first-rate in getting subsides, tax-write-offs, and contracts, and, obviously, so are the Little Sisters. I'd be curious to know how an organization whose members take a vow of poverty can get so wealthy that they can hire outsiders.
Something isn't right here... but then, what do I know?
According to her, I'm just a soda can.
20
If it were not for the Little Sisters of the Poor many of these residents would be without quality nursing care. They might even be homeless or living in squalid conditions. The city nursing homes are abominable and not fit to inhabit. These nuns are doing the work that many of us would never have the courage to do. They have given up their freedom and life to take care of others who have no one else to turn to. They have been practicing their principles for centuries and should not be forced to go against their Catholic teachings which are very dear to them. They are in no way against their employees using birth control but just do not want to have to pay for it with their insurance coverage. Birth control can be purchased at your corner pharmacy for very little money. If it is important for them to have this, they can pay for it out ofvyheirvown pockets.
Leave these kind nuns in peace and let them continue to do the Lord's work which is what they were set out to do. These elderly people would be lost without the caring work this wonderful religious order provides. Sisters keep up the good fight and good luck. Please know that many of us are rooting that you win this very important battle for religious freedom which must be won.
Leave these kind nuns in peace and let them continue to do the Lord's work which is what they were set out to do. These elderly people would be lost without the caring work this wonderful religious order provides. Sisters keep up the good fight and good luck. Please know that many of us are rooting that you win this very important battle for religious freedom which must be won.
2
These employees knew that the Catholic Church held a certain set of values before they joined this organization so why are these nuns being required to pay for contraception that goes against these values. They were not forced to work here and are not being held against their will to stay. This was never a problem for the nuns before Obamacare became the law of the land and I am sure they never dreamed they would be fighting this contraception battle in court. I and many others hope they win this very important case which is about religious freedom for the citizens of our country. Good luck sisters with your day in court and I am praying you are successful in this good fight. Remember you have a higher power on your side.
8
KMW, the rest of us need freedom FROM your religion. You can't force your beliefs on non-believers. The catholic church is always front and center when it comes to denying women (more than half the population) ANY control over their lives. We're to be doormats in between giving birth every year. That's what you signed up for, don't expect the rest of us to. I hope the sisters lose - big time.
2
Moira,
No one forces you to practice the Catholic religion and from your past comments about the Church you would never allow it. These wonderful nuns are being asked to go against their consciences because of the passing of Obamacare. The Catholic Church does no such thing when it comes to controlling women. I know because I am a member of this fine religion and would never remain if they did.
The sisters will win this very important battle of religious freedom with or without your support. They have the support of many of us and their biggest supporter is our Lord. I will be saying a special prayer and lighting a candle for them during Mass tomorrow. The nuns will not lose - big time - as you hope. This will pave the way for preserving religious rights across our country for which we were founded and the reason my ancestors came here.
No one forces you to practice the Catholic religion and from your past comments about the Church you would never allow it. These wonderful nuns are being asked to go against their consciences because of the passing of Obamacare. The Catholic Church does no such thing when it comes to controlling women. I know because I am a member of this fine religion and would never remain if they did.
The sisters will win this very important battle of religious freedom with or without your support. They have the support of many of us and their biggest supporter is our Lord. I will be saying a special prayer and lighting a candle for them during Mass tomorrow. The nuns will not lose - big time - as you hope. This will pave the way for preserving religious rights across our country for which we were founded and the reason my ancestors came here.
1
There is no basis for the idea that the employees knew that their private lives would fall under the Church's jurisdiction. It is one thing of the employees were performing a religious job. Caring for the elderly poor isn't such and isn't the exercise of religion. It is illogical to assume that they accepted the religious restrictions of the Catholic Church in performing what is essentially a secular function.
4
I'd like to opt out of the exemption religions receive from having to pay taxes. The Little Sisters care for the elderly poor and care nothing for other of the poor who have no access to abortion or, if they work for Little Sisters, contraception.
18
The analogy with school soda machines is inapt. That kind of paternalism, appropriate for a school environment, has no place in the workplace. The Sisters are simply intent on doing anything they can to make it harder for their employees to engage in practices that they disapprove of.
23
This is none other than a special interest group wanting it their own way. Healthcare is not something that any organization should be able to opt out from any provision. The individual can opt out of any provision as their conscience dictates. A nun can decide not to have an abortion or a heart transplant or anything else. What she can not be allowed to do is make that decision for other people. This is not a religious issue but one of civic duty. The nuns are not being asked to participate in any form of abortion. What they are being asked to do is to let a doctor and his patient make their own deeply personal decision. What's next other religions opting out of paying for blood transfusions? If the Nun's can not accommodate Obamacare then they really need to seek other more dictator style countries in which to practice. Obamacare in no way infringes on their right to practice their beliefs and they should not infringe on others. Sorry this time the Nuns are just plain wrong.
25
The current right-wing assault on women's rights to control their bodies continues with the series of initiatives, including the Personhood movement, led by conservative Catholics, who are determined in one way or another to eliminate or limit severely access to birth control. And the same groups have dug in against the decriminalization of sodomy (vigorously resisted by the paleolithic Antonin Scalia) and the legalization of same sex marriage.
I wonder if Constance Veit feels morally compromised by her continuing support of an institution that continues to look the other way at the legion of child abuses among its official ranks, a corruption that reaches to the highest levels of the Vatican. If she so objected, that would be a stand worth the self-righteous outrage she pours out in this editorial.
But once again, as so often, the focus here is on the rights of church officials. Constance Veit speaks eloquently about rights for her group. Notice, however, that she is silent about the rights of her employees.
The decriminalization of contraceptive services was decided by the pre-Scalia SOTUS in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut in the 60s. I am assuming that Constance Veit would be please to be relieved of her "personal" ethical burden if the court were inclined to reverse that decision based on the twisted medieval logic of the Personhooders. She would prefer to live in a society where her religious values and not those of Enlightenment secularism would prevail.
I wonder if Constance Veit feels morally compromised by her continuing support of an institution that continues to look the other way at the legion of child abuses among its official ranks, a corruption that reaches to the highest levels of the Vatican. If she so objected, that would be a stand worth the self-righteous outrage she pours out in this editorial.
But once again, as so often, the focus here is on the rights of church officials. Constance Veit speaks eloquently about rights for her group. Notice, however, that she is silent about the rights of her employees.
The decriminalization of contraceptive services was decided by the pre-Scalia SOTUS in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut in the 60s. I am assuming that Constance Veit would be please to be relieved of her "personal" ethical burden if the court were inclined to reverse that decision based on the twisted medieval logic of the Personhooders. She would prefer to live in a society where her religious values and not those of Enlightenment secularism would prevail.
23
I loved reading this article about the good work of Little Sisters of the Poor, but am saddened by the struggle they are being forced to endure in order to be true to their deeply held religious beliefs. This is a classic example of when we should be rallying to protect religious freedoms. If our First Amendment does not protect the free exercise of Little Sisters and their religious beliefs, then what does it protect? It seems like religious freedom in our country is being reduced to almost nothing - a freedom in name only or for your closet but not for real life. There is a way to balance these seemingly competing interests and we must find it so that great organizations like Little Sisters of the Poor and others who do such important work do not disappear. And they will disappear - something that would be a great loss for our nation and the people they serve. It should be of great interest to all of us, regardless of our own beliefs, to employ our best thinking and efforts to find a balanced solution in order to preserve religious freedoms - the well-being of our nation depends upon it.
10
Caring for the elderly poor and hiring personnel to assist, although praiseworthy acts, aren't the exercise of religion. The religious freedom of the nuns isn't threatened by their being unable to dictate what their employees do with their compensation--in this case, health insurance.
1
Under Catholic teaching, God gave man free will. That is, he offered a choice, in the hope that man would make the right choice, at least more often than not. God was pro-choice.
How ironic, then, that the very persons who are supposed to offer the world an example of the strongest faith are the ones Ms Veit feels cannot be trusted. She assumes their faith will fail, and therefore must not be tested. It's a flimsy and hollow virtue that's never tested.
To offer a parallel I've often made: I'm an ethical vegan. I've gone to restaurants with acquaintances, some of whom wear leather etc.; I shop in the same supermarkets and clothing stores as everyone else. All kinds of animal products are on offer. Some, I recall from my distant youth, were even tasty and nutritious, or comfy and attractive. Yet I do not consume any of them, because it is against my moral code. I could, but it would be wrong.
Jesus said to be 'in the world, but not of it' and to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's'. So, what would he do? Theologians' contradictory insistence to the contrary, nobody can know for sure. But I propose, assuming purely for argument's sake that the Church's current teaching on birth control would have his support, he'd coexist with the requirement to offer contraceptives, and also expect his followers to exercise the free moral choice not to take advantage of it.
How ironic, then, that the very persons who are supposed to offer the world an example of the strongest faith are the ones Ms Veit feels cannot be trusted. She assumes their faith will fail, and therefore must not be tested. It's a flimsy and hollow virtue that's never tested.
To offer a parallel I've often made: I'm an ethical vegan. I've gone to restaurants with acquaintances, some of whom wear leather etc.; I shop in the same supermarkets and clothing stores as everyone else. All kinds of animal products are on offer. Some, I recall from my distant youth, were even tasty and nutritious, or comfy and attractive. Yet I do not consume any of them, because it is against my moral code. I could, but it would be wrong.
Jesus said to be 'in the world, but not of it' and to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's'. So, what would he do? Theologians' contradictory insistence to the contrary, nobody can know for sure. But I propose, assuming purely for argument's sake that the Church's current teaching on birth control would have his support, he'd coexist with the requirement to offer contraceptives, and also expect his followers to exercise the free moral choice not to take advantage of it.
11
Please refer to her as Sister Veit. You may not agree with her court case (I happen to) but she deserves respect nevertheless.
3
There is sufficient respect in 'Ms.' and the byline on the article omits 'Sister' and gives her name only as 'Constance Veit'. I will not call her 'sister.'
3
The attacks of Constance Veit will be utterly stunning today. A woman makes a heartfelt plea for an exemption that will affect not a single writer of a comment, yet the "holy wars" for steering government into a preferred social agenda will trample and scream until unilateral victory is theirs.
"...take away their tax-exempt status."...Yes, maybe it is time to do that in a country so angry that people would practice religious beliefs. What began as a gesture of support, much like the marital exemption in the tax code, is just another angle for a small number to game. These "loopholes" say to me that it is time for all people, of every income level, to pay a flat tax, shutting up the progressive tax crowd.
"...what about the women whose 'rights' are denied by this 'exemption'?" Really? Access to birth control requires a woman to spend $275.00 for an IUD. This is the line which true believers will never breach. By bringing the government into every last battle, denying any diversity of thought or practice because someone might be denied "rights", is nothing more than the Trojan Horse for state control that many attribute to religious groups.
I am sure we will hear stories today about how ALL religious groups are with the GOP and seek to deny basic human services or how "science deniers" will kill the planet and block global warming.
Our Founders never sought a tyrranical federal government. And this partly explains voter outrage in 2016.
#didit2yourselves
"...take away their tax-exempt status."...Yes, maybe it is time to do that in a country so angry that people would practice religious beliefs. What began as a gesture of support, much like the marital exemption in the tax code, is just another angle for a small number to game. These "loopholes" say to me that it is time for all people, of every income level, to pay a flat tax, shutting up the progressive tax crowd.
"...what about the women whose 'rights' are denied by this 'exemption'?" Really? Access to birth control requires a woman to spend $275.00 for an IUD. This is the line which true believers will never breach. By bringing the government into every last battle, denying any diversity of thought or practice because someone might be denied "rights", is nothing more than the Trojan Horse for state control that many attribute to religious groups.
I am sure we will hear stories today about how ALL religious groups are with the GOP and seek to deny basic human services or how "science deniers" will kill the planet and block global warming.
Our Founders never sought a tyrranical federal government. And this partly explains voter outrage in 2016.
#didit2yourselves
6
I find it stunning many religious are completely willing to reach into a taxpayers wallet, but not follow the secular rules. You can't have it both ways. Once ypu take the governments money...#didit2yourselves.
1
They demand a law for others that would have no practical effect on themselves.
There are women who are proudly and openly asexual, without envying women who are sexual.
There are women who are proudly and openly asexual, without envying women who are sexual.
It is the tyranny of the Catholic Church in its never-ending quest to force its medieval value system on American women that is the problem. And it uses our political system to try to do so, empowered by the tax breaks granted it through that political system. So it is only common sense to oppose its tax breaks. As an American woman I am tired of picking up the tab for an organization that sees my right to control my fertility as the equivalent of a child drinking carbonated beverages.
I find Ms. Veit's views offensive and her organization a danger to women's health and I have every right to say so.
I find Ms. Veit's views offensive and her organization a danger to women's health and I have every right to say so.
3
The Catholic Church is against birth control because through the Dark and Middle Ages, if a family had eight children, chances are no more than 2 or 3 would live much past 40. It was Catholic doctrine to have as many children as possible to maintain a substantial Catholic population. Today, if a family has 2 or 3 children, chances are they will all live to be 70+. The Catholic Church is living in the 13th Century. That is appropriate in a way, because one of our political parties is also stuck in the 13th Century with their views about Education, Science, the use of military force, their denigrating women and racial minorities, the need to keep wealth flowing to the upper classes.
20
I wonder if the resident pictured had to pass a litmus test to receive support - had she used contraception or had an abortion in the past would they have refused to serve her? Please help me out here what is the difference?
.
.
9
No she wouldn't. This was covered in the article.
3
Sister Constance should never have to feel–nor should any of us–that the government is compelling her to do something that violates her religious beliefs, as long as she doesn't violate the rights of others. But the fact that she feels so compelled is not the fault of the ACA. It is the fault of the pact between congress and the business lobbies that has conferred upon corporations (and organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor) the privilege of being the primary source of healthcare for ordinary citizens. Our taxes subsidize the insurance industry and the corporations themselves, ostensibly to "promote access" to health insurance as a public good, but it has the opposite effect. It makes health insurance much more expensive (since subsidies hide true costs), and restricts access to those who aren't employed by a big company with lots of negotiating power. If Sister Constance wants to be a force for good, she should be advocating for a truly viable public option that grants all citizens equal access to the health care market, and free her of the burden of believing she is making choices for others.
10
Not one person is losing their individual religious freedom via this provided governmental service. And alas! The bitter tyranny of being forced to fill out a form! The author's conclusion that all this somehow prevents them from performing their chosen work, and all they merely want "is that the government allow us to continue that work" is at the least laughable and at the most a purposeful misstatement of the law's consequences. This argument is a thinly disguised attack on the rights of women, pandering to the religious sentiments of people in a disingenuous fashion.
11
This is not an infringement on anyone's religious freedom. If you don't believe in birth control, don't do it. If you are opposed to abortion, don't have one. Nobody is trying to force you to do either of those things. The only people trying manipulate the actions of others are the pro-life advocates who continue their assault on reproductive freedoms. Live your life and leave the rest of us alone.
16
Who is the snake in biblical tales, when did sex became a sin, why was it a sin? Was it better than superstition?
1
Nonsense, This is a clear case of "It violates our religious beliefs. Now, what's your question?"
And the soda analogy is really dumb. Soda IS bad for your health. Are you saying health care is bad for your health? Huh?
I wonder if this care giver objects to her health plan offering vasectomies and viagra?
And the soda analogy is really dumb. Soda IS bad for your health. Are you saying health care is bad for your health? Huh?
I wonder if this care giver objects to her health plan offering vasectomies and viagra?
8
What hypocrisy!!
You simply impose your religious views on your employees. How Christian is that.
On a more general note, if you haven't noticed. There are already too many of us on our little blue planet. Family planning, via any method, is a necessity if we're going to survive.
Something all political and religious leaders need to think about.
PS - when you used the soda argument, you lost everyone,
You simply impose your religious views on your employees. How Christian is that.
On a more general note, if you haven't noticed. There are already too many of us on our little blue planet. Family planning, via any method, is a necessity if we're going to survive.
Something all political and religious leaders need to think about.
PS - when you used the soda argument, you lost everyone,
8
You have no problem taking Medicare and Medicaid payments from a government that also pays for birth control and weapons of mass destruction so I am not impressed by your scruples over the birth control provision of the ACA.
11
I don't see how having an extra benefit that you will never use violates your freedom to practice your religion. If I put fish on a dinner table with a bunch of vegitables, I'm hardly violating the religious rights of Hindus who are vegetarians. They simply pass the fish and eat the veggies.
7
Yeah, because THAT's the direction this issue has been slipping for the last decade...
1
I'm an atheist. As long as you support taking "In God We Trust" off of our money I'll support you in refusing to let the government and my tax dollars provide complete health insurance to your employees.
2
Sister Constance:
Where is your op-ed decrying the gun lobby? Unaffordable health care? Where was your outrage when, for many decades, there was no health care at all for millions of us, and people died of curable diseases and suffered from the excruciating pain of cancer without help?
Where is your op-ed about the twisted Republican rhetoric that falsely co-opts Christ, your most Holy figure, and negates his message of peace, non-violence, stewardship of the earth, care for the vulnerable and the poor, turning the other cheek, and mercy? They say they are Christians, and yet they want wars and walls, expulsion of innocent people from our nation, no compassion for refugees, no safety net for the poor in our country, no welfare, no health care. Theirs is a brutal, cruel worldview that lacks humanity.
Where are the Christians on all this? When you do speak up, how can it be about something like access to birth control for the people who happen to work for you? Won't those who adhere to your faith simply not use birth control, even if the health plan covers it? Have faith in your followers, and respect for those who differ. If they work for Little Sisters, they are already doing far more than many. Leave them alone and let them do their jobs.
Where is your op-ed decrying the gun lobby? Unaffordable health care? Where was your outrage when, for many decades, there was no health care at all for millions of us, and people died of curable diseases and suffered from the excruciating pain of cancer without help?
Where is your op-ed about the twisted Republican rhetoric that falsely co-opts Christ, your most Holy figure, and negates his message of peace, non-violence, stewardship of the earth, care for the vulnerable and the poor, turning the other cheek, and mercy? They say they are Christians, and yet they want wars and walls, expulsion of innocent people from our nation, no compassion for refugees, no safety net for the poor in our country, no welfare, no health care. Theirs is a brutal, cruel worldview that lacks humanity.
Where are the Christians on all this? When you do speak up, how can it be about something like access to birth control for the people who happen to work for you? Won't those who adhere to your faith simply not use birth control, even if the health plan covers it? Have faith in your followers, and respect for those who differ. If they work for Little Sisters, they are already doing far more than many. Leave them alone and let them do their jobs.
11
This editorial writer's life long dedication to helping others is admirable.
However, human overpopulation is a great sin which is destroying the earth. It is a moral imperative from peoples all faiths, or none, to support birth control and the advancement of woman's rights which is strongly correlated with reduced population growth. Unfortunately, the historic doctrines of the Catholic Church have contributed greatly to this sin of over population. Over population is an abomination against the earth and against the welfare of future generations of humans.
However, human overpopulation is a great sin which is destroying the earth. It is a moral imperative from peoples all faiths, or none, to support birth control and the advancement of woman's rights which is strongly correlated with reduced population growth. Unfortunately, the historic doctrines of the Catholic Church have contributed greatly to this sin of over population. Over population is an abomination against the earth and against the welfare of future generations of humans.
4
If these good Catholic sisters were to stop serving these poor and unfortunate people among us, who would take their place? Would the responders on this comment board who are criticizing the Church and nuns so unmercifully, do the tasks that are so needed but not very pleasant. Taking care of the elderly sick is not very satisfying or rewarding work and I wonder how long those finding fault with these nuns would last if required to do this lowly work. The nuns never complain and do it willingly and joyfully. They are extremely dedicated and must be allowed to follow their consciences in peace. They are not committing a mortal sin. Sisters there are still some of us who are on your side in this very important Supreme Court decision and are rooting for you to win this very important battle for religious freedom.
4
it is an unfortunate consequence of history that health insurance is tied, for many people, to their employment. that consequnce should not be used by employers to invade the healthcare privacy of individual employees and mandate their care
9
Thank you for your service to the poor and for your defense of religious freedom. Religious Freedom requires the government to do its utmost to protect conscience. I hope that the Supreme Court takes your concerns seriously and that if there is a less burdensome or restrictive alternative that they require the government to adopt it.
4
I'm sorry you have to live here on earth, in a secular society that has laws that may not agree precisely with your beliefs. As others have noted, having employees subjects you to the laws of our society. If you don't wish to obey the laws of our society, then you can either not have employees or not be here in this country.
Or you can keep your beliefs to yourselves, do the most good possible (according to your beliefs), and let others live their lives on their terms, within our system of laws.
Or you can keep your beliefs to yourselves, do the most good possible (according to your beliefs), and let others live their lives on their terms, within our system of laws.
7
Yet another reason we need a single payer system that will not be controlled by religion. This is just like people who think they should not pay taxes that will go to specific government function. Why are these nuns allowed to not pay for birth control but they have to pay for incendiary bombs and fighter planes? Which they are apparently fine with.
6
No, they're not "fine" with it. Talk to a nun some time.
2
"Jesus never demanded that the poor demonstrate strict adherence to religious doctrine before helping them." Exactly. Jesus was really not about adherence to religious doctrine. Doctrine didn't come from God, it came from men.
4
Not one person is losing their individual religious freedom via this provided governmental service. And alas! The bitter tyranny of being forced to fill out a form! The author's conclusion that all this somehow prevents them from their chosen work, and all they merely want "is that the government allow us to continue that work" is at the least laughable and at the most a purposeful misstatement of the law's consequences. This argument is a thinly disguised attack on the rights of women, pandering to the religious sensibilities of people in a disingenuous fashion.
6
Cafeteria Catholics. The world is filled with them. Gone are the days when each and every Catholic family had 5, 6, 7 or more children. Look around and see how much smaller the average family has become. Like it or not Catholic families use contraception and, if necessary, abortion services. The church should no longer try to pretend that this does not happen. It does and it should be done with confidence that these services are done safely. No one is asking that the church stop it's religious teachings, but at a minimum recognize that the modern world has made these practices common and safe. Continue teaching your religious beliefs, but do not stop serving members of your faith when they feel strongly that there may be times to make exception to these rules. To deny Catholics access to modern safe medicine cannot compete with a cook not making an omelet!
4
By that "logic" an organization run by a Scientologist can refuse to offer mental-health insurance to its employees. One run by a Jehovah's Witness can refuse to cover blood transfusions. One run by a Christian Scientist can refuse to cover any medical procedures at all.
This is not about freedom of religion. It's about your desire to control the private lives of your employees regardless of whether they follow the same doctrine you do. Your freedom of religion ends where the rights of other people begin.
This is not about freedom of religion. It's about your desire to control the private lives of your employees regardless of whether they follow the same doctrine you do. Your freedom of religion ends where the rights of other people begin.
8
Contance Veit seems to be asserting that her right not to be even distantly associated with disseminating birth control to even her most needy clients Trumps (I use the term advisedly) the right of those clients to access to the most common means of family planning.
Team Religious Rights: 1; Team Human Rights: 0, in other words.
Team Religious Rights: 1; Team Human Rights: 0, in other words.
3
Maybe get your own house in order with that little priest issue the church has first before you condemn other choices people make. Oh wait, your in a religion in which women are second class citizens. Sorry but the church has no standing anymore.
2
If your religious beliefs are correct, no one would behave in a contrary manner. However, to use your jargon, God will judge the behavior of everyone. You do not get to judge people that wish to behave contrary to your beliefs. Nor do you get to deny a person her livelihood if she does not dance to your tune. Your attack on working women is appalling. If she can do her job, as defined in rational job description, she needs to be paid without any reference to her personal sex life. Rendering healthcare to people, is a secular activity not a religious act.
2
Women who haven't got the slightest fear of pregnancy telling women who have a real fear of pregnancy, "We know what's best for you."
Ugh.
Ugh.
9
Christ is not reported to have said anything about birth control, but he is quoted as having said "Render Unto Caeser".
The Pope, a noted Catholic authority, recently said that Birth-Control could be used to slow Zika.
The law, in this case, is not compelling anyone to violate their own religious beliefs, and, in this case, should be obeyed.
The Pope, a noted Catholic authority, recently said that Birth-Control could be used to slow Zika.
The law, in this case, is not compelling anyone to violate their own religious beliefs, and, in this case, should be obeyed.
6
Sister,
You deal with poverty and all kinds of suffering on a daily basis - and this is what's most troubling to you? This is worse than disallowing female priests?
I am deeply disturbed by Christian doctrine and the influence that the Church has on liberties in this country. The Church has so much power and wealth. The Catholic Church owns more land in NYC than any other institution - yet the taxpayer paid for Pope Francis' visit and nobody complained. I think there are plenty of things wrong in this country and we should not squabble over trivialities.
You deal with poverty and all kinds of suffering on a daily basis - and this is what's most troubling to you? This is worse than disallowing female priests?
I am deeply disturbed by Christian doctrine and the influence that the Church has on liberties in this country. The Church has so much power and wealth. The Catholic Church owns more land in NYC than any other institution - yet the taxpayer paid for Pope Francis' visit and nobody complained. I think there are plenty of things wrong in this country and we should not squabble over trivialities.
5
Can a store owner refuse to serve gay people because of their status? No.
Same principle.
Same principle.
4
One persons "Closely held religious belief" is another's "Immoral behavior". This type of exemption will be used by more and more groups if approved.
6
I am Catholic, but this sister's implicit claims that Catholic doctrine on abortion and contraception are equivalent are inaccurate. The Church speaks against contraception but leaves individual Catholics free to make their own assessment of its morality as applied to their personal lives. Abortion is held to be the destruction of life and is wrong under all circumstances. And that distinction invalidates the sister's claim.
2
Do men get vasectomies covered? And what about Viagra? Isn't it meddling in the natural reproduction process? If men are old and can't perform, I suppose god does not want them to procreate. What about invitro I fertilization? Or even fertility drugs? None of these are natural either.
I would like more clarification of what businesses are grandfathered in. That part of her article is suspiciously vague.
I would like more clarification of what businesses are grandfathered in. That part of her article is suspiciously vague.
3
As someone who has lived within a 20 minute walk of your San Fransisco operation for 30 years and someone who has donated money and time to your organization...
I find your so-called philosophy troubling. As several commenters have noted, you trample on the rights and religion of others by not offering something to them that they may find important.
Turn the other cheek.
If you insist on the path you are bent on, then I cannot in good conscience continue to give you folks money and support.
In fact, I would work to remove your status as a not-for-profit institution that enjoys a property tax exemption here in San Francisco. Why should I subsidize, as a tax payer with different religious views, your operation on Lake Street?
That property is worth the equivalent of a $1,000,000 a year or more in lost property tax revenue. If you are going to pick and choose what laws you want to be part of, and not turn the other cheek to ones you do not like, then why should I turn the other cheek and let you off the hook for those taxes?
This is a stupid slippy slope you are on. Be careful to where it may lead.
I find your so-called philosophy troubling. As several commenters have noted, you trample on the rights and religion of others by not offering something to them that they may find important.
Turn the other cheek.
If you insist on the path you are bent on, then I cannot in good conscience continue to give you folks money and support.
In fact, I would work to remove your status as a not-for-profit institution that enjoys a property tax exemption here in San Francisco. Why should I subsidize, as a tax payer with different religious views, your operation on Lake Street?
That property is worth the equivalent of a $1,000,000 a year or more in lost property tax revenue. If you are going to pick and choose what laws you want to be part of, and not turn the other cheek to ones you do not like, then why should I turn the other cheek and let you off the hook for those taxes?
This is a stupid slippy slope you are on. Be careful to where it may lead.
9
I'm a little confused. Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor be concerned about providing health insurance coverage for birth control? If they are a Catholic institute for women - and we all know that Catholics don't use birth control, have sex out of wedlock, or have abortions - then why should they worry about their members even using the insurance to get these forms of healthcare? It seems their conscience should be clear, since their members aren't going to use birth control or abortifacients (as per Catholic doctrine) to begin with.
3
The school analogy you cite exists, where it does, for two reasons. One is an empirical behavioral science approach to choice architecture in the school environment. The other is because children are not deemed to be fully capable of sound decision making - and therefore need the administrative nudge. (Whether or not that capability assessment is true for each and every minor of any conceivable age is not the point; on balance it's a fair operating assumption). So your comparison implicitly compares adult lay staff of your order to children, which would not seem to be the soundest footing to rely upon. In a complex interconnected world, one needs to be an adult and accept some complicity in things over which one does not have direct control. Your employees are adults and desserve the full spectrum of care, even if it tramples upon your beliefs. If this is that discomfiting, develop a volunteer model to fulfill your mission if you can - or concede that some arrangements are nice in theory but simply not practicable.
7
If an employee of the Little Sisters of the Poor decided to spend their entire paycheck on porn in their own home, the organization would have no say, so long as the employee's action didn't reflect on the organization. An employer can't tell an employee what they can and can't spend their paycheck on.
Healthcare is a form of pay. The Little Sisters of the Poor should have no more say over what legal forms of health care an employee receives than they do where they spend their paycheck.
Should employee of a Scientology church not receive coverage for psychiatry, as they oppose that? Can a business refuse to cover childhood vaccinations if the owner disagrees with them? Can an employee of Pfizer be denied coverage of Cialis, their competitor's ED treatment? Should an employee of a funeral home be prohibited from receiving treatment for a life-threatening illness, as it is bad for business? Where does it stop?
Provide healthcare or don't provide healthcare as part of your employee's compensation, but you don't get to tell your employees how they can spend their pay or use their healthcare.
Healthcare is a form of pay. The Little Sisters of the Poor should have no more say over what legal forms of health care an employee receives than they do where they spend their paycheck.
Should employee of a Scientology church not receive coverage for psychiatry, as they oppose that? Can a business refuse to cover childhood vaccinations if the owner disagrees with them? Can an employee of Pfizer be denied coverage of Cialis, their competitor's ED treatment? Should an employee of a funeral home be prohibited from receiving treatment for a life-threatening illness, as it is bad for business? Where does it stop?
Provide healthcare or don't provide healthcare as part of your employee's compensation, but you don't get to tell your employees how they can spend their pay or use their healthcare.
15
I would like to applaud this charity for taking a stand for their beliefs. Too often lately, religious organizations and businesses have been under fire because they are defying the political agenda.
Well, allow me to cite the Constitution. Namely: "Freedom of Religion." These sisters have every right to not include birth control in their provided coverage--it would be a direct violation of their belief system. And their beliefs are protected by law.
Now, if their belief system mandated, say, murder, well that would be a different story. However, this charity is simply trying to do good, to take care of people who otherwise could not care for themselves. And now they are under fire, because what? They believe that birth control is morally wrong? How messed up is that?
It shows how far this world has fallen when an issue such as this makes it all the way to the Supreme Court. They don't want to offer birth control? Fine, they don't have to. Someone has a problem with it? Well, then just find a different organization to take part in. It's literally that simple, but because these sisters are citing their beliefs (which is perhaps the most valid reason there is), they find themselves defending their basic rights against the very government formed to protect them.
I wish the Little Sisters of the Poor the best of luck in Supreme Court.
Well, allow me to cite the Constitution. Namely: "Freedom of Religion." These sisters have every right to not include birth control in their provided coverage--it would be a direct violation of their belief system. And their beliefs are protected by law.
Now, if their belief system mandated, say, murder, well that would be a different story. However, this charity is simply trying to do good, to take care of people who otherwise could not care for themselves. And now they are under fire, because what? They believe that birth control is morally wrong? How messed up is that?
It shows how far this world has fallen when an issue such as this makes it all the way to the Supreme Court. They don't want to offer birth control? Fine, they don't have to. Someone has a problem with it? Well, then just find a different organization to take part in. It's literally that simple, but because these sisters are citing their beliefs (which is perhaps the most valid reason there is), they find themselves defending their basic rights against the very government formed to protect them.
I wish the Little Sisters of the Poor the best of luck in Supreme Court.
3
Please stop calling them a charity, they are a government contractor.
"Freedom of religion" also includes "freedom from religion."
1
The Little Sisters of the Poor operate 27 facilities and employ workers who have their own religious beliefs and healthcare needs. Some of their employees may use their earnings to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, gamble, live with another without benefit of marriage. The Little Sisters of the Poor may not approve of their employees' behaviors or condone their employees' religious beliefs or behavior. Should they have the right to insist that employees have no right to their own religious beliefs? Or the right to insist that all employees conform to strict adherence to Roman Catholic religious practices?
Savita Halappanavar, a non-Catholic Indian dentist in Ireland, was 17 weeks pregnant when her fetus died and Irish medical personnel in Galway refused her the surgery she needed to terminate her pregnancy and to save her life. There were no justifiable medical reasons not to provide the surgery she needed, just Catholic religious reasons. Savita died from sepsis. Savita was a Hindu.
American businesses run by religious organizations should not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on employees as a condition of employment or to deny them or their family members modern healthcare and birth control methods that 90% of Catholics use.
The "opt out" option is not a burden for any religious organization.
All Americans, of any religion or no religion at all. should have equal rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Savita Halappanavar, a non-Catholic Indian dentist in Ireland, was 17 weeks pregnant when her fetus died and Irish medical personnel in Galway refused her the surgery she needed to terminate her pregnancy and to save her life. There were no justifiable medical reasons not to provide the surgery she needed, just Catholic religious reasons. Savita died from sepsis. Savita was a Hindu.
American businesses run by religious organizations should not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on employees as a condition of employment or to deny them or their family members modern healthcare and birth control methods that 90% of Catholics use.
The "opt out" option is not a burden for any religious organization.
All Americans, of any religion or no religion at all. should have equal rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
22
Women making decisions about their reproductive health is not schools having children avoid making bad decisions about their nutrition. First, women are fully capable of making their own decisions.Second, there is verifiable objective evidence about the health impact of soda. Simply having an preferential objection to another's choice doesn't have the same impact.
The problem with people who ask and expect to get exemptions to otherwise legal requirements is that they inherently discriminate against those who have different beliefs. What is more insidious about this is that main stream and privileged religious viewpoints are given even more special privilege. Atheists and those with uncommon belief never get exempted from laws and rules even when those rules violate their conscience. How is a Catholic asking for an exemption to a health care any different than someone deciding that the color red is morally objectionable and wanting exemptions for red light tickets? It is time for people to realize religious freedom ends at your personal decision and not at affecting the lives and decisions of others.
The problem with people who ask and expect to get exemptions to otherwise legal requirements is that they inherently discriminate against those who have different beliefs. What is more insidious about this is that main stream and privileged religious viewpoints are given even more special privilege. Atheists and those with uncommon belief never get exempted from laws and rules even when those rules violate their conscience. How is a Catholic asking for an exemption to a health care any different than someone deciding that the color red is morally objectionable and wanting exemptions for red light tickets? It is time for people to realize religious freedom ends at your personal decision and not at affecting the lives and decisions of others.
11
The Order is free not to use birth control, not to have abortions, and not to have sex with anybody. And were the work of the Order 100% self-contained, there would be no problem. But the Order needs the work of others, for which it pays, and when it does that, the Order becomes an employer, subject to the rules of the State. And the State says that part of a health care plan, which the Order must provide, include birth control. The exemption merely says that the Order doesn't have to pay for the birth control. So, if the Order is to live in the real world, it must comply.
14
I am sincerely sorry that this issue is so distressing for the Little Sisters of the Poor. And I hope that all parties can settle this without further damage. I agree with the right of conscience, but I note that historically the Roman Catholic Church only supports the right of conscience for Catholics when conscience agrees with Catholic doctrine. For this reason, those who engage with Catholic institutions are not necessarily accorded the full right of conscience, and I find this unethical, especially in the case of employment. Sister states, "Jesus never demanded that the poor demonstrate strict adherence to religious doctrine before helping them." Jesus did not teach against birth control, and birth control is needed to allow people--the poor included--to responsibly space births, to care for the children they already have without becoming destitute, and to avoid the all-too-familiar physical and emotional toll on women of excessive childbearing. I am certain that Sister has seen this toll during her lifetime; I have witnessed it in mine, and it includes children raising children (their younger siblings), and preventable deaths. If women are respected and valued as the full human beings and full moral agents that they indeed are, deciding on birth control for themselves--the right of conscience--belongs in their hands as individual human beings. The human ability to engage artificial contraception, which has been practiced in ages other than our own, is a gift of God.
17
Employers may genuinely believe that any number of health procedures are wrong, but they are not providing those procedures; they are providing what is supposed to be comprehensive health coverage as a mandated benefit to their employees. The soda machine analogy is telling, because it views employees as "receiving" an allegedly morally-objectionable service from its employer. But an employer is not the "teacher" of its employees. Those employees are adults with rights, and to say that it is morally objectionable to include a service they are against in "their" health plan is truly to assume that they have a right to impose a value upon them as if they were children. That plan is a benefit administered by a health insurance company, and they are simply paying the employer contribution. If they are not paying for it, they have no right to object to a possible use of coverage that insurance companies are required to provide. It is really the rights and beliefs of their employees that are being violated-by them.
13
The Sister has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to participate in a diverse society. The way that she and her organization choose to provide care means that they are creating a structure that goes beyond a purely religious organization. Therefore it must conform to the rules and regulations that govern secular businesses.
Every member of our society has disagreements with some of the rules and laws of our civic structures, yet we cannot choose what laws or regulations we will obey or ignore. We accept that the price we pay to participate in and benefit from our social contract is that we don't always get what we want.
Religious freedom is a protection for the individual to believe what they want and warship how they want. It is not a licence for repression of those that choose differently, nor is it a blanket exemption to shield groups from civic and legal obligations to society at large.
Every member of our society has disagreements with some of the rules and laws of our civic structures, yet we cannot choose what laws or regulations we will obey or ignore. We accept that the price we pay to participate in and benefit from our social contract is that we don't always get what we want.
Religious freedom is a protection for the individual to believe what they want and warship how they want. It is not a licence for repression of those that choose differently, nor is it a blanket exemption to shield groups from civic and legal obligations to society at large.
13
I respect the committed beliefs of these nuns, but I am not convinced. If we are to say that the Constitution requires exemptions from all generally applicable laws whenever someone or some group has a religious objection to compliance, we will have anarchy. In fact, the Supreme Court has previously indicated that the Freedom of Religion clause does not, in fact, require such exemption. That was in the peyote case from 1990.
Moreover, we don't help the poor by making it harder for them to plan the size of their families. Opposing contraception and abortion may be a religious imperative for these nuns, but it is not for our government and should not be for our society. Life is precious, yes, and I do not think that anyone should terminate a pregnancy just because they find the prospect of bearing a child inconvenient. At the same time, the circumstances individual women face are unique and it is simply too much of an intrusion into personal privacy to ban abortion or even to make it difficult, as the nuns would have us do, to obtain insurance coverage for that medical procedure.
As for contraception, I think it is enough to say that no intelligent human being can possibly agree that preventing pregnancy is somehow immoral. In fact, given that there are more than 7 billion humans on this planet and that our numbers are threatening the very functioning of Earth's biosphere, the moral thing to do is to make birth control as available as possible.
Moreover, we don't help the poor by making it harder for them to plan the size of their families. Opposing contraception and abortion may be a religious imperative for these nuns, but it is not for our government and should not be for our society. Life is precious, yes, and I do not think that anyone should terminate a pregnancy just because they find the prospect of bearing a child inconvenient. At the same time, the circumstances individual women face are unique and it is simply too much of an intrusion into personal privacy to ban abortion or even to make it difficult, as the nuns would have us do, to obtain insurance coverage for that medical procedure.
As for contraception, I think it is enough to say that no intelligent human being can possibly agree that preventing pregnancy is somehow immoral. In fact, given that there are more than 7 billion humans on this planet and that our numbers are threatening the very functioning of Earth's biosphere, the moral thing to do is to make birth control as available as possible.
12
Why do we assume that matters of faith are immune to criticism? Why is it enough for anybody to say "This is against my religious belief", and the matter is closed? Faith is a worldview, and as such, it should not be sheltered from a public-space scrutiny and debate. I simply cannot understand the objections of the Little Sisters: their female employees are not forced to use birth control, so shouldn't Catholic nuns respect other people's freedom of conscience? Even if contraception is a sin, how is offering it to your employees different from all the innumerablele occasions for sinning opened up by paying their wages, which they can use for all manners of transgressions? If we accommodate the nuns who refuse to provide birth control for their employees, what next: accommodating Muslims who object to working side by side with uncovered women by forcing everybody into a hijab? My atheism is as dear to me as religion is to a believer. I compromise by sharing my country with people whose views I disagree with. Believers can do the same.
11
The Little Sisters are not being required by the Affordable Care Act to provide anything more then choice to their employees. They are not mandated to provide abortion services, to condone abortion services, or to approve of a woman's and her doctor's decision that a therapeutic abortion is the best health-care decision. They, and their adherents, are free to abstain from considering that course of medical treatment. What they are NOT free to do is make that decision on behalf of their non-coreligionist employees by excluding that procedure from their healthcare insurance policy. "Free choice", Little Sisters, is something you all excercised in becoming Sisters and you are mandated to provide your employees with the same.
11
Unfortunately, the undoubted good work done by The Sisters as described in this article by Ms. Veit does not compensate for the misery and death caused by her church's prohibition of contraception. This policy, which rests on the shakiest of theological grounds anyway, has materially contributed to the world-wide spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. As a gay man, this, together with the church's horrifying record of child abuse - also world-wide - does not incline me toward a charitable view of Ms. Veit's issue. The child abuse issue alone raises the question of to what extent the Catholic Church is in fact an international criminal conspiracy and hence is outside the protections of the law. For far too long the church has acted as if it was above the law but entitled to its full protection. "Above" and "outside" are two very different things. Perhaps it is at last time for the church to realize that, while purely religious matters are not the province of government regulation, civil matters such as labor relations and employee benefits certainly are, as are criminal matters. This last probably won't be brought home to the church until a few bishops and cardinals are hauled off their thrones in handcuffs and sent to jail for their cover-up roles in the abuse scandals.
14
Their organization is not an actual church and therefore not able to exempt themselves. In addition, they receive tax breaks comprised of money from those who appreciate their services but are not willing to support their religious beliefs. It is really quite simple. They either stop taking government money and declare themselves an actual church organization, or allow their employees their freedom of choice.
This issue will be tested with much more vitriol as the same sex marriage 'FADA" and "RFRA" right to discriminate bills start their court challenges. Like the Little Sisters, I suspect these will fail. Your freedom of religion stops at the tip of my nose. There is inherent hypocrisy in this case as other commenters have pointed out. They are cute selective in what Catholic teachings they follow with the services and employees, apparently completely focused on the reproductive system. That is why the upcoming election is especially critical - with several Supreme Court justices old enough to cause concern.
This issue will be tested with much more vitriol as the same sex marriage 'FADA" and "RFRA" right to discriminate bills start their court challenges. Like the Little Sisters, I suspect these will fail. Your freedom of religion stops at the tip of my nose. There is inherent hypocrisy in this case as other commenters have pointed out. They are cute selective in what Catholic teachings they follow with the services and employees, apparently completely focused on the reproductive system. That is why the upcoming election is especially critical - with several Supreme Court justices old enough to cause concern.
11
Dear Sister,
The majority of Catholic women use birth control, and have done so for a very long time. It is not required to admit this in the confessional. A large majority of The leaders in the church hierarchy would have voted many decades ago to allow birth control, but the results of two commissions were ignored by an aging Pontiff.
The teaching of the Church in regards to artificial birth control is simply wrong. In aggregate, world wide, this teaching has resulted in more poverty and suffering, and abortion, than probably any other single cause.
The Holy Father has recently said there is an exemption to the birth control law for women in danger of being infected with the Zika virus. I humbly suggest that the exemption be extended to cover the dangers of lives lived in poverty. And the dangers of lives lived under rules enacted under very dubious circumstances.
The majority of Catholic women use birth control, and have done so for a very long time. It is not required to admit this in the confessional. A large majority of The leaders in the church hierarchy would have voted many decades ago to allow birth control, but the results of two commissions were ignored by an aging Pontiff.
The teaching of the Church in regards to artificial birth control is simply wrong. In aggregate, world wide, this teaching has resulted in more poverty and suffering, and abortion, than probably any other single cause.
The Holy Father has recently said there is an exemption to the birth control law for women in danger of being infected with the Zika virus. I humbly suggest that the exemption be extended to cover the dangers of lives lived in poverty. And the dangers of lives lived under rules enacted under very dubious circumstances.
13
I am a former Planned Parenthood physician, and the former director of sexual health services at a major university. I have provided contraception for hundreds of women, and referred many for abortions. I support the right of all women to obtain safe and inexpensive abortions. I also happen to be an atheist. And I agree entirely with the Sisters of the Poor on this issue.
There is no bright line delineating the right and wrong sides here; reasonable arguments may be advanced which lead to conflicting answers. But clearly the sincere religious beliefs of the Sisters prohibit them from participating in the process of abortion in any way, including merely referring to others.
Respecting these rights need not in any way entail restricting the availability of abortion to their employees. It is easy to obtain information about where abortions are provided, and the government could, and should, make such services readily affordable. The Sisters, here, are not asking for any reduction in abortion services in the community; they are only asking not to be forced to be part of the process.
It seems to me that those demanding that the Sisters be required to act against their beliefs in this way are motivated more by the principles involved (with which I agree) than by any realistic concern about impaired access to services. Given this, I believe the concern for religious freedom is clearly of far greater weight, both legally and morally, then any competing factor.
There is no bright line delineating the right and wrong sides here; reasonable arguments may be advanced which lead to conflicting answers. But clearly the sincere religious beliefs of the Sisters prohibit them from participating in the process of abortion in any way, including merely referring to others.
Respecting these rights need not in any way entail restricting the availability of abortion to their employees. It is easy to obtain information about where abortions are provided, and the government could, and should, make such services readily affordable. The Sisters, here, are not asking for any reduction in abortion services in the community; they are only asking not to be forced to be part of the process.
It seems to me that those demanding that the Sisters be required to act against their beliefs in this way are motivated more by the principles involved (with which I agree) than by any realistic concern about impaired access to services. Given this, I believe the concern for religious freedom is clearly of far greater weight, both legally and morally, then any competing factor.
6
This isn't about abortion; it's about contraception; access to birth control pills, IUD's, etc.
This article is about birth control, not abortion.
Are you saying all birth control is abortion?
Are you saying all birth control is abortion?
1
This case underscores the basic problem with the Unaffordable Care Act -- the linkage of health insurance to employment. I have had the same life insurance policy for years -- regardless of employer or state of residence. My home owners insurance hasnt changed in years, despite 3 changes of employers - nor has my car insurance. The same should be true of my health insurance, which unfortunately changes at the whim of my employer and every time I change jobs.
eliminate the linkage of health insurance to your employer, allow health insurance to be sold across state lines and subsidize people who cant afford it. That is all we need -- not legislation and regulations longer than the Bible!
eliminate the linkage of health insurance to your employer, allow health insurance to be sold across state lines and subsidize people who cant afford it. That is all we need -- not legislation and regulations longer than the Bible!
8
As a priest of the Episcopal Church, I do not share the Sisters' opposition to birth control; as a lawyer who has published in the area of constitutional law and religion, I also do not share their legal reasoning. In fact, I find their argument nonsensical. Being given an opt-out accommodation, they are not being asked to provide contraceptive coverage to anyone. What they are being asked to do is permit the insurer with whom they have contracted for health care insurance to provide that coverage to their employees at another's (the government's) expense as an addendum to their contract; their connection, if any, to the provided coverage is highly attenuated. They are, as Jesus might have said, attempting to strain out a gnat.
48
Just curious, but as you are a man of theological learnings, exactly what did Jesus ever say about "contraception" or "abortion"?
I've looked: I can find nothing.
I've looked: I can find nothing.
1
The Catholic Church is very different from the Episcopal Church and we have an entirely different set of values in which we follow. Our religion has many, many more congregants than yours and there have been members from your church that have become Catholic. Our Churches are very well attended on Sundays and I do not think you can say the same about the Episcopal Church. We are rich in tradition and have been in existence for over 2000 years. Can you boast of that?
The nuns have every right to refuse contraception coverage in their insurance policy which is paid for by their nursing home. It goes against their Catholic teaching and upbringing and this is one of the many faults of Obamacare. I pray these courageous nuns win this very important battle for religious freedom in which our country was founded. I am glad they are standing up to their principles and wish them all the best in this very important fight for religious liberty.
The nuns have every right to refuse contraception coverage in their insurance policy which is paid for by their nursing home. It goes against their Catholic teaching and upbringing and this is one of the many faults of Obamacare. I pray these courageous nuns win this very important battle for religious freedom in which our country was founded. I am glad they are standing up to their principles and wish them all the best in this very important fight for religious liberty.
3
KMW: Perhaps you will provide the verses where Jesus spoke on "abortion" or "contraception"? There seems to be a collective dodge on providing this info. I have looked and those words are non-existent concerning Jesus.
2
Among my fears for the future of our republic is that a secular and well-educated majority, so confident in its own vague progressive materialism and spirituality-without-religiosity, would forget the value of the religious pluralism embedded in our nation's founding that enabled them such liberty of thought and practice! And that they would in turn punish the thoughtcrime of Catholicism or any other unpopular religious group with a Puritanical vigor as of yet unknown to our country, or the Puritans.
Perhaps Catholics should formally request permission from the government to dissent from this new orthodoxy. Noisy protests or op-eds in national newspapers are rather unsightly and make us feel uncomfortable about imposing our worldview and trampling the conscience of those dedicated to serving the least among us. It would be much more convenient if this "religion" thing was better domesticated. May I suggest a new pilot program where citizens sign annual exemption waivers for the loss of their constitutional rights, just to make sure their "freedom" isn't a smoke screen for a right-wing conspiracy?
Perhaps Catholics should formally request permission from the government to dissent from this new orthodoxy. Noisy protests or op-eds in national newspapers are rather unsightly and make us feel uncomfortable about imposing our worldview and trampling the conscience of those dedicated to serving the least among us. It would be much more convenient if this "religion" thing was better domesticated. May I suggest a new pilot program where citizens sign annual exemption waivers for the loss of their constitutional rights, just to make sure their "freedom" isn't a smoke screen for a right-wing conspiracy?
5
During World War II, it was illegal to raise employees' wages (to prevent wartime inflation). So it is a complete accident that health-insurance plans, begun then, are tied to one's employment as a fringe benefit.
There would be no problem if we had single-payer national health insurance, as more advanced countries do. Employers would be irrelevant to the process of seeing that every American had equal basic coverage, and they would not be objecting to this or to that on religious or any other grounds. We would have a healthier, more productive work force. We would save Lord knows how much in marketing, paper shuffling, and physicians' time wasted in learning about zillions of "plans."
There would be no problem if we had single-payer national health insurance, as more advanced countries do. Employers would be irrelevant to the process of seeing that every American had equal basic coverage, and they would not be objecting to this or to that on religious or any other grounds. We would have a healthier, more productive work force. We would save Lord knows how much in marketing, paper shuffling, and physicians' time wasted in learning about zillions of "plans."
12
If contraceptives are required to treat a specific illness(as the oral contraceptive sometimes is)then the Sisters must pay for it as it is a matter of health care. But as pregnancy is not a disease, contraception to prevent it is not a matter of health care but is based,rather, on considerations of personal pleasure, economic interests,life style choices, etc having no bearing upon health care as ordinarily understood. People,for whatever reason, who want to have conjugal union while frustrating its natural end need to pay for it themselves or arrange alternative "health" insurance policies.
2
In other words, you want to rob Americans of their freedom of choice because you have a moral problem with their use of birth control. And your moral problem is based on the false sense of moral superiority that your superstition-based religion bestows upon you. Got it.
1
Your argument could just as well be made toward recreational accidents. If you were to break your leg skiing I expect you are willing cover all the associated medical costs, being a result of your personal pleasure, life style choices, etc.
1
What you disparagingly call "personal pleasure" as though it's something evil is what the Declaration of Independence refers to as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And you cannot use your superstitious beliefs to block my pursuit of happiness. But feel free to make your moral judgements against the vast majority of American who use birth control and contraception, if it makes you feel better.
2
Constance Veit maintains that "the American government should not force its citizens to act in violation of their religious beliefs." Cast purely as an issue of religious freedom, and stripped of any meaningful context, her claim has a surface plausibility. Yet if we stop to think about it, we acknowledge that government *must* sometimes force its citizens to act in violation of their religious beliefs. We (properly) insist that religious claims do not override secular law on matters of child protection, polygamy, and a host of other issues; those claims should not exempt the Little Sisters of the Poor from their legal obligation to comply with the Affordable Care Act.
23
A bedrock principle of many religions is to help the poor, the needy and helpless. Yet there is a stunning absence of protest from religious leaders and groups when laws are passed that favor the haves to the detriment of the have-nots. Selecting particular moral issues, such as contraception and abortion, to fight against on religious grounds, while remaining silent on equally pressing moral issues, such as the death penalty and welfare programs, the religious freedom argument takes on a political flavor. Religious groups that focus on a narrow range of moral issues but allow a wider range of moral concerns to flounder in the political/legal arena do a disservice to society as a whole.
31
I say give them their exemption, and make them pay taxes on their income like everybody else.
7
I would remind the author that the Vatican, as Pope Francis recently pointed out, allowed nuns in Algeria to use contraception to avoid pregnancy. With all due respect, surely nuns in dangerous place would be most able to accept God's decisions about conception and pregnancy. If the Church can provide contraception to nuns, what about other women? Why does the Church exempt its own special group?
3
I can't believe the government can accommodate big corporations but not nuns. There was a time when we operated on a broad consensus that, as Madison put it, our obligation to act consistent with religious belief is a duty, "precedent, both in order of time and of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.” Now we placate corporate interests, while using the power of the state to coerce the Little Sisters of The Poor to violate their sincerely held beliefs.
3
The Sisters are not being forced to either pay for contraception or to use contraception.
3
Religion, by its nature is something absolute. There is no such thing as arguing a point with a religious believer, because their belief in what they believe as being God-given trumps any other consideration. I don't know the details of this case, however if this is a religious organization, and its employees are aware of that going in, then probably they have a right to dictate their policies in accordance with their religious beliefs. I must say, in a certain way adopting an attitude towards an issue as a religious belief certainly does make life simpler, in the sense that you are shielded from having to listen to any other point of view on the matter. I suppose this is why religion is so appealing to so many people. It is an unchallengeable source of power. Who wouldn't want that? The question to me is: is this truly compassionate?
2
It is an unchallengeable source of power. Who wouldn't want that? T
anyone w a working brain , thats who
anyone w a working brain , thats who
1
"I suppose this is why religion is so appealing to so many people. It is an unchallengeable source of power. Who wouldn't want that?"
I agree with that statement to the extent as to how in contrast secular progressives find government so appealing: It is an unchallengeable source of power. And what secular progressive wouldn't want government as an unchallengeable source of power? Indeed, that's their entire agenda in a nutshell.
I agree with that statement to the extent as to how in contrast secular progressives find government so appealing: It is an unchallengeable source of power. And what secular progressive wouldn't want government as an unchallengeable source of power? Indeed, that's their entire agenda in a nutshell.
1
birth control isn't like soda pop. that she equates refusing to offer birth control with refusing to have soda dispensers in schools completely undermines her argument. whatsoever ye do unto the least of these, ye do unto me. doesn't say, as long as " these" agree with my principles.
5
I was reared in a Mennonite and pacifist tradition. The use of tax dollars for military purposes violates this religious ideology. Should religious pacifists be allowed tax exemption or alternative use of the portion of their taxes that are channeled into the military?
10
I see the logic, Little Sisters want to encourage women to make more little sisters so they can have the poor to attend to forever. It's not like a soda machine, it's more like weight loss products. Little Sis must have gotten advice from Oprah, the Weight Watcher's shill. 97% of people who lose weight gain it all back in three years or less. So they buy more weight loss products. It's based on a version of the food pyramid. The base is the big butt, the teeny point on top is the brain.
5
It is unfortunate that the government forces us to choose between our government and out religion. Obamacare is something that most of us didn’t want and now the weakest among us are forced to pay the price. If a woman believes her rights are being violated then she should feel free to look for employment elsewhere.
3
Nope. Sorry.
You employed those of other beliefs and even if you didn't, they deserve the right to choose what, or what not, kind of Health Care to receive. Your beliefs allow you the same. Not to make the choice for them. Use it or don't. They may use it or not. That is none of your business.
By the by... about your taxes.
NEXT!
You employed those of other beliefs and even if you didn't, they deserve the right to choose what, or what not, kind of Health Care to receive. Your beliefs allow you the same. Not to make the choice for them. Use it or don't. They may use it or not. That is none of your business.
By the by... about your taxes.
NEXT!
8
The bottom line here is these religious organizations want the right to control women and pay them less. It is high time these organizations lose their tax exempt status. There is no place for this inequality in our society.
9
We can avoid this discussion completely if we recognize the fact that Catholics use birth control as much as everyone else, in spite of their rules and teachings. The fact that priests and nuns have no use for birth control is a unique exception.
6
Your belief in mythology should not exempt you from living in the real world. This has nothing to do with taking care of the elderly and everything to do with imposing your religion on others.
8
America is one of the most diverse societies in America, a fact we should all be proud of. It is important that we find ways to work together, to live together. How is it that huge corporations like Exxon and Visa -- EVEN THE GOVT OWN MILITARY PLAN -- doesn't have to comply with this mandate so they can save a dollar? Yet those with religious convictions can not receive the same treatment. It is not our place to judge someone elses beliefs, do we scoff at a Muslim's ban on pork or a Native American's use of peyote? The rights of the employees and the sisters are important. The government can provide contraceptives through its exchanges as it does for the other millions of Americans and respect the nuns request to not violate their faith. WIN WIN.
2
What exactly is a "religious health plan?"
2
I'd simply point out that the Little Sisters aren't objecting because they're being told they have to pay for, and to provide, contraceptive coverage.
The Little Sisters are objecting because their insurers are providing contraceptive coverage, as the law mandates, at no charge to them, and which they don't have to touch in any way.
I'm pretty tired of religious people--always Christians, in this country--demanding not only that they get exemptions from the laws everybody else has to follow and insisting that no compromises are possible, but that they have a positive right to discriminate against selected fellow Americans.
The Obama Admin has bent over backwards to accommodate these people. Now, if they don't want to work things out, they need to stop taking Caesar's tax exemptions, infrastructure, educational system, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, and everything else we taxpayers supply that keeps their doors open.
The Little Sisters are objecting because their insurers are providing contraceptive coverage, as the law mandates, at no charge to them, and which they don't have to touch in any way.
I'm pretty tired of religious people--always Christians, in this country--demanding not only that they get exemptions from the laws everybody else has to follow and insisting that no compromises are possible, but that they have a positive right to discriminate against selected fellow Americans.
The Obama Admin has bent over backwards to accommodate these people. Now, if they don't want to work things out, they need to stop taking Caesar's tax exemptions, infrastructure, educational system, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, and everything else we taxpayers supply that keeps their doors open.
15
Since the Little Sisters of the Poor won't be required to pay for contraception coverage, the Little Sisters truly aren't offering it, the diverse citizens of the USA are offering it. Employees of the Little Sisters can follow their consciences which, I believe, is an option open to any and all who practice the Roman Catholic religion. Also, I wonder, do the Little Sisters of the Poor receive any governmental "faith based initiative" funding? If so...think about it. As I always do, I must note here that the Roman Catholic faith is prominent among the many faiths worldwide who have diminished the status of women with much detriment to their health while seeking to exalt sexuality-exclusive notions of virtuous motherhood and virgin-superiority.
6
I can sympathize with Sister Constance: Chrisitians are in this world, but not of this world. Take heart in knowing that you're doing the right thing and fighting for your beliefs - just as though who disagree with you fight for theirs. It's your right to seek relief through the Court. It's too bad your plight doesn't get the same attention as the bogus "Nuns on the Bus" got.
3
Essentially what this comes down to is the Little Sisters want to pay women less.
6
In proposing that the Little Sisters of the Poor would accept a provision that their employees could purchase contraception coverage through health care exchanges, you defeat your claim that you stand on religious principal, and your argument becomes wholly political.
7
thank you for your great work for mankind. Your essay lays out your concerns quite well but the birth control is an OPTION which is easily declined. Certainly you hire people whose own religious beliefs are to be respected and not interfered with. There are other possibilities included in health insurance (e.g. transfusions not acceptable to Seventh Day Adventists) that are a non issue because they can be declined. It is also interesting that there are religious orders in this country who accept Medical/Medicaid insurance for their membership and do not dispute that it has birth control coverage available. Why didn't the church refuse this free health care insurance knowing that it, too, 'violated' religious beliefs?
5
Nothing about the Little Sisters' beliefs are trampling on the rights of their employees.
Just because as an employee I have the freedom of speech doesn't mean my employer is obligated to provide me with a megaphone. And just because employees are entitled to freedom of religion doesn't mean employers are obligated to hand out bibles in the work place.
Employers often do (and should) tailor the benefits they offer to be consistent with their moral or worldviews. I would support the right of an LGBT employer, for example, to not provide insurance that covers conversion therapy.
This is about freedom for everyone, and whether we'll have a pluralistic society that protects everyone's freedom, or whether we'll have a government that can force noble ministries like the Little Sisters to violate their conscience and beliefs. Such an outcome would be especially problematic when the government has many other better alternatives for accomplishing its goal (like using its own insurance exchanges!).
Just because as an employee I have the freedom of speech doesn't mean my employer is obligated to provide me with a megaphone. And just because employees are entitled to freedom of religion doesn't mean employers are obligated to hand out bibles in the work place.
Employers often do (and should) tailor the benefits they offer to be consistent with their moral or worldviews. I would support the right of an LGBT employer, for example, to not provide insurance that covers conversion therapy.
This is about freedom for everyone, and whether we'll have a pluralistic society that protects everyone's freedom, or whether we'll have a government that can force noble ministries like the Little Sisters to violate their conscience and beliefs. Such an outcome would be especially problematic when the government has many other better alternatives for accomplishing its goal (like using its own insurance exchanges!).
4
As a life long Catholic I am always disappointed when it's institutions practice their own form of being "cafeteria Catholics". When I was being coerced as a student to sign letters to my state legislators demanding state aid for parochial schools, the Church had no problem taking government money for religious purposes. Now turnabout is effectively fair play when the goal is the betterment of the welfare of all children of God and a mechanism exists which allows the Church to escape paying for it. Claiming that the ability to help the elderly poor will somehow be curtailed is the equivalent to church sanctioned emotional blackmail. It is an embarrassment.
7
The good sister neglected to mention that her "religious group" is not required to follow the rules if they do not take OUR hard-earned federal/state/local taxpayer dollars to do their "good work". All "religious" groups need to do is stop taking OUR government money, pay taxes on their property, income and donations and they can force their beliefs on anyone who lets them. Simple.
11
You are insane and you want the rest of us to accommodate your insanity. A religious proscription against birth control is immoral, stupid, and fascist. Re-evaluate your ridiculous beliefs. The burden of your superstition is yours and yours alone to bear. How dare you attempt to impose that mental illness burden on the rest of us, We are sane, Get over it, sister.
9
hear, hear !
2
"But Jesus never demanded that the poor demonstrate strict adherence to religious doctrine before helping them."
I don't think Jesus ever said anything about birth control either, or abortion for that matter. In a world getting hotter every year, with more humans than it can sustain, birth control is a blessing.
I don't think Jesus ever said anything about birth control either, or abortion for that matter. In a world getting hotter every year, with more humans than it can sustain, birth control is a blessing.
11
There is no reliable record of anything purportedly said by Jesus. It is all hearsay.
2
The problem I have with your position is that people often take birth control pills for other reasons aside from contraception. Both of my daughters and myself have needed birth control pills for hormonal imbalances. I see this as a doctor/patient decision. Why should persons prescribed birth control pills for other health problems be subject to your religious objections? Medicine prescribed by a physician should not be subject to an employer's consensus. Many medications are being used to treat conditions that is different from their initial intended use. One example is Botox. While it was initially used for the reduction of aging in the face, it is now used to treat migraines. It is important that employers not get in the business of deciding what is best for their employees.
4
The picture says it all - two women who have no need of basic reproductive health care - but have all their other health needs looked after. Yet trying to impose their own moral beliefs on others (in this case employees) through manipulating their access to basic health needs.
The religious community would have better moral standing if they pushed to remove the link between employment and health care - to promote universal health care for all - regardless of means, employment status, gender.
The religious community would have better moral standing if they pushed to remove the link between employment and health care - to promote universal health care for all - regardless of means, employment status, gender.
7
As someone who has taken birth control pills to control endometriosis (a painful medical condition), I find your remarks both ludicrous and fraught with absurd sanctimony.
5
This lawsuit is one of the most absurd and unjust acts committed by the Obama administration. They have given out thousands of waivers to the entire ObamaCare mandate to politically favored groups and yet they insist on the necessity of enforcing this one small piece of the plan on Catholic social service organizations who object to it.
It is all the more absurd because our $4 trillion federal government has a vast array of alternative means of providing free contraceptives and abortifacients if it wishes to do so.
The Obama administration would never think of telling Orthodox Jews what constitutes a violation of Kosher dietary rules or a prohibition of work on the Sabbath. It would never require Muslims to consume pork or alcohol. Yet it presumes the tell Catholic bishops and religious sisters what constitutes a violation of Catholic Church teaching.
An impartial observer could only conclude that this lawsuit is an exercise in anti-Catholic bigotry. They should the nuns alone.
It is all the more absurd because our $4 trillion federal government has a vast array of alternative means of providing free contraceptives and abortifacients if it wishes to do so.
The Obama administration would never think of telling Orthodox Jews what constitutes a violation of Kosher dietary rules or a prohibition of work on the Sabbath. It would never require Muslims to consume pork or alcohol. Yet it presumes the tell Catholic bishops and religious sisters what constitutes a violation of Catholic Church teaching.
An impartial observer could only conclude that this lawsuit is an exercise in anti-Catholic bigotry. They should the nuns alone.
2
The easiest way to counter an argument is to declare it irrelevant, then move on. It may not be a 'money question' to the religious who believe everyone under their roof should follow their teachings, but it is to those who try to pay for their own health care. As noted, it is a free and diverse society. The government isn't forcing anyone to act against their religious beliefs, just as you shouldn't declare yourself the arbiter of other's choices. Before the church decided organ donation was an act of charity, Catholic hospitals refused to allow organ donations to occur, consigning waiting recipients to death.
1
Religious freedom is a two way street. No one can dictate what others must believe nor can believers use their faith to dictate what must believe.
While the nuns claim their freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, that freedom can not be used as a basis to enforce their beliefs on others. Cloaking a position under the theory of "moral question" doesn't change the nuns position of wanting to impose their beliefs on others, isn't a question of religious freedom being denied to them as the question is whether their religious beliefs should be imposed on others.
While the nuns claim their freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, that freedom can not be used as a basis to enforce their beliefs on others. Cloaking a position under the theory of "moral question" doesn't change the nuns position of wanting to impose their beliefs on others, isn't a question of religious freedom being denied to them as the question is whether their religious beliefs should be imposed on others.
3
The government gives big companies like Exxon and Visa a choice about what to cover -- for reasons of cost or convenience. But they won't give the Little Sisters the same choice for reasons of conscience. Why should the Little Sisters have to follow a rule that violates their conscience while others are exempt from for mere reasons of monetary gain? Instead of forcing the Little Sisters to be complicit, there are other ways for the government to ensure that people can obtain birth control -- through healthcare exchanges that the government has said are affordable and easy to use. It shows that this case isn't about whether or not women get affordable birth control. It's about forcing the Little Sisters to violate their conscience for no effective reason.
If you only hire Catholic employees then you could make it a condition of employment, maybe, but this is America. You don't get to dictate he behavior of non-believers nor their protection afforded by the law.
3
Your religious beliefs are really stupid and you need to get over it. The rest of us are tired of your rotten church's sanctimony on this issue. Normal people have sex and you need to get over it.
4
Did Christ also say that believers have the right to dictate to others? Not in the Bible I read.
6
To what extent is this true that Exxon Mobil and Visa, and cities, are exempt?
1
Balderdash, what a ludicrous non argument, from one who compares birth control with access to soda pop. And on top of that are unable to see how specious their reasoning is. That they somehow feel that their religious beliefs trump employees civil rights and allows them to superimpose their will on the greater will of the country is the usual self centered spurious non logic of religion. Our religion requires me to impose myself on others because I'm more special than all the rest of you who have objections to this, that, or the other thing.
Understand this little sister, you like me live in a community much greater than our person. And that many people have passionate objection to much of what is done in our name. But we do not waste everyones valuable time demanding special treatment or favors as small children do.
As is so often true we see institutional religion exercising the advantages we have afforded it to impose itself on others with no regard for spiritual principals let alone what those who it seeks to impose its will on believe. It is always the same, me, me, me. I believe in separation of church and state. This means you follow the same law the rest of us do.
Then there is the Catholic church's imposing its crapulous birth control philosophy on third world communities when there are serious scarcity issues starting with food and housing. The self interested church has no business interjecting itself in these matters on any level.
Understand this little sister, you like me live in a community much greater than our person. And that many people have passionate objection to much of what is done in our name. But we do not waste everyones valuable time demanding special treatment or favors as small children do.
As is so often true we see institutional religion exercising the advantages we have afforded it to impose itself on others with no regard for spiritual principals let alone what those who it seeks to impose its will on believe. It is always the same, me, me, me. I believe in separation of church and state. This means you follow the same law the rest of us do.
Then there is the Catholic church's imposing its crapulous birth control philosophy on third world communities when there are serious scarcity issues starting with food and housing. The self interested church has no business interjecting itself in these matters on any level.
4
I don't believe any employees or potential employees of Catholic institutions are being forced or tricked into anything. As in most organizations or institutions, it's philosophy and mission is very clear and well known. If someone has deep disagreements with them,as with any employer, perhaps it isn't the most appropriate place for them to be working
Sorry, the days of religious freedom are over. Those who do not go along with government policy will end up in jail.
Of course, you can believe anything you want. However, actually acting on your beliefs is now an offense against the state. You are either loyal to the government, or loyal to your religion. You can't have it both ways.
Of course, you can believe anything you want. However, actually acting on your beliefs is now an offense against the state. You are either loyal to the government, or loyal to your religion. You can't have it both ways.
2
You destroy any credibility of your purported faith to use it as cover to harm others.
2
The funny thing is, I believe many people who hold this position think of the state the same way a religious person thinks about their church. Too bad they never would see the irony in that..
2
Religious people, organizations, seek to extend the concept of freedom of religion to areas that do not strictly pertain to that exercise. It does not pertain, for example, when a religious organization is involved in an economic activity. Hiring individuals to perform a task is such an activity and the people who discharge this function have the right to full protection as determined by law.
The State has no right to intervene in the rituals, celebrations, private observance and personal expression of faith, such as attendance, or manner and place of ritual. There is a difference between religious beliefs and sensitivities.
We know, for example, that a woman's bare head and "immodest" dress wound Muslim sensitivities, but we cannot impose regulations to prohibit such behavior, nor can laws be made a la carte.
The State has no right to intervene in the rituals, celebrations, private observance and personal expression of faith, such as attendance, or manner and place of ritual. There is a difference between religious beliefs and sensitivities.
We know, for example, that a woman's bare head and "immodest" dress wound Muslim sensitivities, but we cannot impose regulations to prohibit such behavior, nor can laws be made a la carte.
1
If you want to live in a theocracy, have at it. Go find one to live in. I suggest perhaps Iran as a starting point.
Leave your religion at home. And I'll leave mine there too. Trust me, you don't like mine. Just as I don't like yours.
Leave your religion at home. And I'll leave mine there too. Trust me, you don't like mine. Just as I don't like yours.
4
Your employees are not required to take the same vows as the sister, who themselves, unless they are breaking their vows of celebacy, have no reason to fear unwanted pregnancy. Your employees accepted jobs with your organization to earn a living, hopefully at work they find meaningful. But the bottom line is that they are there for the money and the healthcare benefits. Birth control is a basic part of many women's basic health needs, one she chooses with the advice of her doctor. I never ceases to gall me that religious institutions seek to impose their religious views on their employees, and sometimes the people they are serving and then claim their religious beliefs are being infringed by the requirements of the government, which grants them special tax status. I have no sympathy for your situation at all.
7
Of course the Little Sisters of the Poor are a religious group and they shouldn't have to go all the way to the Supreme Court for this minor legal carve out just to have the freedom to live their vocations in the way they see fit. These women have given their lives to serve in such a humble way, begging for every dollar they receive and then spending those dollars on people who are for the most part otherwise ignored in our society.
Who are they hurting if they don't provide this kind of "healthcare"? No one. No one is forced to enter their order or to work in their facilities. The women who have chosen this way of life choose to live their lives according to their faith and the world is better for it. We have no right to tell them their amazing example of loving their neighbor is illegitimate. We ought to do nothing but thank them, and show them the respect and admiration they deserve by making this minor legal exception. It's the least we can do.
Who are they hurting if they don't provide this kind of "healthcare"? No one. No one is forced to enter their order or to work in their facilities. The women who have chosen this way of life choose to live their lives according to their faith and the world is better for it. We have no right to tell them their amazing example of loving their neighbor is illegitimate. We ought to do nothing but thank them, and show them the respect and admiration they deserve by making this minor legal exception. It's the least we can do.
2
Obviously, they are hurting the employees who do not share their view of morality, who want and need birth control for whatever reason. Anyone is free to follow their conscience by not using birth control, or to follow their conscience by refusing a transfusion or whatever treatment they find objectionable, but birth control (or transfusions) in a health plan should be available.
4
It appears that your understanding of the First Amendment is limited. The Amendment guarantees your right to express your religion in your own home or place of worship. It also guarantees my freedom from your religion. In a civil society, compromises must be made. You live in a world exempt from taxation. I live in a world where I am free to practice any, or no, religion. There are "prices" we all must pay for these freedoms. If you wish to extend your religious ideas into my world, then I may extend mine into yours. If you wish you extend your religious ideas at the expense of my ideas, then you are little different from the Taliban, ISIS or any other fundamentalist. I am free to reject fundamentalism, regardless of your belief. Your religion may not accept compromise, but your presence in a civil society demands it.
5
The small mindedness and inflexibility of some religious people is often baffling. Why do they assume their backward religious beliefs should be imposed on everyone else?
4
The non-ending efforts by certain groups to deprive thousands of women of basic healthcare which Congress mandated be available for every woman in the country should stop now. The whole problem started with the cowardly decision of the administration to offer exemptions to certain religious and non-profit groups. This naturally led to the immoral challenge by for profit companies, exemplified in the Hobby Lobby case, to deprive their employees of basic care care. Now it is up to a woman's employer to decide if she will receive certain basic healthcare coverage which the law of the land provides that she is entitled to receive. I wish the administration would learn their lesson from these non-ending legal challenges and come to the correct and moral decision that no exemptions should be granted to any group whatsoever for this crucial healthcare coverage, period.
5
"The non-ending efforts by certain groups to deprive thousands of women of basic healthcare which Congress mandated be available for every woman in the country should stop now."
What's to stop these women from going to a pharmacy and purchasing it themselves?
"The whole problem started with the cowardly decision of the administration to offer exemptions to certain religious and non-profit groups."
The whole problem started in World War II and FDR allowing companies to offer "perks" like health care as enticement for employment because wages were frozen. Later it's codified and required for employers of a certain size to be required to provide health care for employees. Government created this mess - now everyone thinks they have a "right" to health care. Forget it. You don't have a right to demand anything from anyone that deprives them of their time or money. If you disagree, go out and demand a job, a car, a place to live, or anything else you desire because you think you have a "right" to it.
What's to stop these women from going to a pharmacy and purchasing it themselves?
"The whole problem started with the cowardly decision of the administration to offer exemptions to certain religious and non-profit groups."
The whole problem started in World War II and FDR allowing companies to offer "perks" like health care as enticement for employment because wages were frozen. Later it's codified and required for employers of a certain size to be required to provide health care for employees. Government created this mess - now everyone thinks they have a "right" to health care. Forget it. You don't have a right to demand anything from anyone that deprives them of their time or money. If you disagree, go out and demand a job, a car, a place to live, or anything else you desire because you think you have a "right" to it.
1
There was never better evidence that women and the men who love them MUST pass a Constitutional EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that says NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED IN AMERICA THAT INTERFERES WITH A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTION RIGHTS. We MUST stop these expensive, tiresome attempts to interfere with our Constitutional Right to freedom FROM religious interference.
6
"...pass a Constitutional EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that says NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED IN AMERICA THAT INTERFERES WITH A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTION RIGHTS."
You have a right to reproduce? Fine. You don't have the right to demand that anyone else provide you with contraception at taxpayer expense. I'd demand a constitutional amendment but it would sound as ludicrous as yours.
You have a right to reproduce? Fine. You don't have the right to demand that anyone else provide you with contraception at taxpayer expense. I'd demand a constitutional amendment but it would sound as ludicrous as yours.
1
The constitution specifically protects religious freedom, nowhere in that document can one find the right to have someone else pay for an abortion.
3
I just can't figure why you skinflints want to ban abortion of barely viable fetuses who will consume literally $millions in life-support. You'd pay less tax yourself.
You people can believe in whatever superstition you choose. Just keep it to yourself and don't try to impose it on others. The religious exemption was a mistake.
5
"Just keep it to yourself and don't try to impose it on others." Agreed. Then I'll ask that women don't impose their "right" to contraception by demanding that a third party (taxpayers) fund it. Pay for it yourself.
3
This is a very straight forward case. The so called "accommodation" isn't really an accommodation at all but a scheme to hijack the Little Sisters' health care plan in order to distribute these services they are morally objected to.
And I guess it's okay for the government to exempt massive corporations, municipalities, the military and unions from providing these services but not a group of nuns. The Little Sisters of the Poor have been serving the elderly poor for over 175 years. Their moral objection to helping the government hijack their health insurance to provide these services should not come as a shock or surprise. The Catholic faith has and always will be morally opposed to these services.
The government claimed in King v. Burwell claimed their health care exchanges were awesome and easy to use. Now, they are telling the Little Sisters of the Poor that the exchanges are a total dumpster fire and that women will find the exchanges to hard to use and to difficult to find the plan they need to get these services.
WHICH IS IT?
The simply solution to this would be to leave the Little Sisters of the Poor alone and leave them to serving the elderly poor just like the other 1 in 3 Americans that have been exempt from the mandate.
The government needs to stop this political witch hunt on a ministry of nuns and simply leave them alone.
And I guess it's okay for the government to exempt massive corporations, municipalities, the military and unions from providing these services but not a group of nuns. The Little Sisters of the Poor have been serving the elderly poor for over 175 years. Their moral objection to helping the government hijack their health insurance to provide these services should not come as a shock or surprise. The Catholic faith has and always will be morally opposed to these services.
The government claimed in King v. Burwell claimed their health care exchanges were awesome and easy to use. Now, they are telling the Little Sisters of the Poor that the exchanges are a total dumpster fire and that women will find the exchanges to hard to use and to difficult to find the plan they need to get these services.
WHICH IS IT?
The simply solution to this would be to leave the Little Sisters of the Poor alone and leave them to serving the elderly poor just like the other 1 in 3 Americans that have been exempt from the mandate.
The government needs to stop this political witch hunt on a ministry of nuns and simply leave them alone.
2
It is amazing how ignorant so many NY Times commenters are of the freedom of religion as enshrined in the 1st sentence of the 1st Amendment:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."
Those fleeing religious persecution founded our country. It is inherent in our very being as a nation to uphold religious freedom and to fight ANY impediment by government in any form on the free exercise of religion.
The ACA is just the latest form of the government vigorously promoting secular anti-religious beliefs to the detriment of the rights protected in the 1st Amendment.
It is the government's responsibility to find an alternative means of providing a service when it conflicts with a religious adherents beliefs and missions. And to that same end, we as individuals are free to choose who to work for and where we'll get our healthcare or other services from if our needs conflict with another individual’s or group’s religious beliefs. We are not compelled to consort with those we differ from, as they are not compelled to do so with us.
To say it another way to make it through the obtuseness in these comments, it is not the religious adherents obligation to accommodate their beliefs when at odds with the government's laws, policies or goals.
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."
Those fleeing religious persecution founded our country. It is inherent in our very being as a nation to uphold religious freedom and to fight ANY impediment by government in any form on the free exercise of religion.
The ACA is just the latest form of the government vigorously promoting secular anti-religious beliefs to the detriment of the rights protected in the 1st Amendment.
It is the government's responsibility to find an alternative means of providing a service when it conflicts with a religious adherents beliefs and missions. And to that same end, we as individuals are free to choose who to work for and where we'll get our healthcare or other services from if our needs conflict with another individual’s or group’s religious beliefs. We are not compelled to consort with those we differ from, as they are not compelled to do so with us.
To say it another way to make it through the obtuseness in these comments, it is not the religious adherents obligation to accommodate their beliefs when at odds with the government's laws, policies or goals.
Oops! I don't know where you found your "1st Amendment", but here's the real First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
3
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."
This was Madison's original proposal, not the amendment that came out of Congress and was ratified by the states. I'm puzzled why you cite it as the First Amendment. It's not.
"It is not the religious adherents obligation to accommodate their beliefs when at odds with the government's laws, policies or goals."
So my Aztec friends are free to resume polygamy and human sacrifice?
Check the unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v Reynolds (1879).
This was Madison's original proposal, not the amendment that came out of Congress and was ratified by the states. I'm puzzled why you cite it as the First Amendment. It's not.
"It is not the religious adherents obligation to accommodate their beliefs when at odds with the government's laws, policies or goals."
So my Aztec friends are free to resume polygamy and human sacrifice?
Check the unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v Reynolds (1879).
3
This piece describes very well the work of The Little Sisters of the Poor and the religious doctrines they profess to follow. What comes up short is a feeling of empathy for the secular employees they depend on to get that work done. As with all most all doctrine religions choose to enforce, virtually all of it is created by the hands of man with no demonstrable tether to “divine revelation.” What Sister Veit fails to explain is what religious doctrine condones letting her sign a death writ for an employee whose medical practitioner has concluded an ongoing or term pregnancy would be fatal.
4
I surmise Ms. Viet that along with any religious vows a vow is also taken , in the presence of jesus of course , to support economically till 21 yrs of age all the children conceived and born due to the denial of contraceptive coverage to all employees of the church . If that vow is not taken then who will that burden fall on if the employees cannot support them with an education , medical coverage , food and shelter etc . etc. etc. ? Another extra commandment is desperately needed and consists of only two words : WAKE UP !!!
3
this piece is completely disingenuous. The author begins, "Nevertheless, we have been forced into the spotlight over our position regarding a regulation issued under the Affordable Care Act, namely that we provide health insurance coverage for birth control." No, dear, no one has forced you into the spotlight - you chose this path.
The author concludes: "All we are asking is that the government allow us to continue that work." No one if forcing you to stop working. The choice is yours, and yours alone. Stop being passive-aggressive, and take responsibility for your desire to deny your employees their rightful health benefits.
The author concludes: "All we are asking is that the government allow us to continue that work." No one if forcing you to stop working. The choice is yours, and yours alone. Stop being passive-aggressive, and take responsibility for your desire to deny your employees their rightful health benefits.
11
"No, dear, no one has forced you into the spotlight - you chose this path."
Good for them. Maybe if people and groups like them continue to show the absurdity of the the Affordable Care Act, maybe it can be repealed.
Good for them. Maybe if people and groups like them continue to show the absurdity of the the Affordable Care Act, maybe it can be repealed.
2
I would like to see a politician sponsor a bill that would get rid of all tax exemptions to any religious organization until they prove the existence of God. I am sick and tired of subsidizing these "fairy tale" organizations.
10
The quick response would be them to ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. You obviously believe it is so, so please, what specific evidence do you cite for the lack of the possibility that God exists?
Neither one is likely to be proven one way or the other. People will have different opinions if the big bang was something that just happened, or if that was God's "let there be light." Who can possibly know? But I for one don't think that we should dictate to others what they can or cannot believe because I don't feel the same way.
Neither one is likely to be proven one way or the other. People will have different opinions if the big bang was something that just happened, or if that was God's "let there be light." Who can possibly know? But I for one don't think that we should dictate to others what they can or cannot believe because I don't feel the same way.
When youre trying to regulate those who dedicate their lives to service while allowing large corporations (read donors) to avoid the same regardless of previous existence, you've gone too far.
Regardless of ones faith, nothing says 'religious' group like servicing those in need, regardless of theirs.
Good luck Little Sisters and thank you for existing as you do in these times of need... its easier to look the other way.
Regardless of ones faith, nothing says 'religious' group like servicing those in need, regardless of theirs.
Good luck Little Sisters and thank you for existing as you do in these times of need... its easier to look the other way.
2
Unfortunately, for the Catholic Church and other religious groups, religious freedom is a one way street. They argue for it's application to themselves but, circumstances permitting, will argue against its application to others. Let us not forget that, where and when it has had the influence to do so, the church has campaigned in support of laws that curtail the religious freedom of others by outlawing contraception. This was the case in the United States until as recently as 1965 when a Connecticut law banning contraception was overturned by the Supreme Court.
6
I worked for a farmer for 5 years while I attended public school. He was a simple, hard working man, a bachelor. He worked long hours, but if it was Sunday his car was parked at the local Catholic Church. He was the kindest person I have ever met. He seldom shared his opinions, but when he did it was always I give to others. "Pick the apples from a ladder on the bed of the truck," as the apples that could be reached from the ground were for the people who would walk by. The apples were his. The land was his. But he always left apples for those walking by. I named my son after him.
That is a standard that all people can compare themselves to. Wanting to make life-changing decisions about one's employees is far from his standard.
Someone said something about a golden rule? Not, my religions says "you must . . . ."
That is a standard that all people can compare themselves to. Wanting to make life-changing decisions about one's employees is far from his standard.
Someone said something about a golden rule? Not, my religions says "you must . . . ."
1
"Wanting to make life-changing decisions about one's employees is far from his standard."
Where is the responsibility of the individual's own life-changing decisions?
Where is the responsibility of the individual's own life-changing decisions?
I can understand opposition to abortion. But people who are opposed to birth control simply want what's bad for our species, and hate something that's good (indeed, a death cult).
"But people who are opposed to birth control simply want what's bad for our species..."
Is anyone saying that these women can't get their contraceptives elsewhere?
Is anyone saying that these women can't get their contraceptives elsewhere?
1
"We spend our days caring for, learning from, and serving those whom many in our society would prefer to forget." Except your own employees?
4
Great, but don't accept any federal or state assistance and give up your tax exempt status. Denying health coverage for women, trying to enforce either celibacy or forced pregnancy, is a human right violation and lacks basic compassion.
4
For a Sisterhood "focused on service, not advocacy or policy" this OpEd is quite sophisticated advocacy.
I see a role for you in the Eduardo Cruz campaign.
The Little Sisters also managed a nice stunt getting Pope Francis involved in your assault on the ACA on his visit to Washington.
Many readers are not duped.
BTW, nice photo of Sister Celestine with a resident of the Little Sisters of the Poor - that will be useful as well supporting the Republican Party assault on Obamacare.
It's no secret that there's a Tea Party faction opposed women's rights within the Catholic Church and apoplectic with Pope Francis. The Little Sisters have become tax exempt stooges of this political agenda.
I see a role for you in the Eduardo Cruz campaign.
The Little Sisters also managed a nice stunt getting Pope Francis involved in your assault on the ACA on his visit to Washington.
Many readers are not duped.
BTW, nice photo of Sister Celestine with a resident of the Little Sisters of the Poor - that will be useful as well supporting the Republican Party assault on Obamacare.
It's no secret that there's a Tea Party faction opposed women's rights within the Catholic Church and apoplectic with Pope Francis. The Little Sisters have become tax exempt stooges of this political agenda.
7
The logic behind allowing a religious order to mandate that a health insurance plan for employees omit specific drugs from its formulary is attenuated at best. This is particularly true when the order can avoid any obligation whatsoever to pay for the specific drugs it finds objectionable.
That is not sufficient for the Little Sisters of the Poor; what it comes down to is control. They want to control their employees' choices with respect to birth control, regardless of what their employees want, and even without a financial obligation to pay for the birth control an employee may choose. At best, they want to make it much more difficult for their employees to obtain birth control.
I'm sorry to say this about an organization that obviously does much good, but how selfish that is!
That is not sufficient for the Little Sisters of the Poor; what it comes down to is control. They want to control their employees' choices with respect to birth control, regardless of what their employees want, and even without a financial obligation to pay for the birth control an employee may choose. At best, they want to make it much more difficult for their employees to obtain birth control.
I'm sorry to say this about an organization that obviously does much good, but how selfish that is!
4
the author's complaint that her religious rights are being violated conflicts with a person's civil right to an abortion. in this country civil rights trump religious rights. in countries which enforce sharia law, religious rights prevail over all. in an ideal society, there would be compassion and understanding for all who suffer.
2
I wanted to learn about this issue by reading the arguments of someone on the other side. However, having read and re-read the article, I do not understand the good sister's words. She says that the government does not offer an "exemption" but the government says it offers an "opt-out" that she thinks is actually an "opt-in." I just do not understand exactly how she is defining an "opt-in" (obviously a bad thing from her point of view, but how is it different from an "opt-out"?). Later in the article she says the solution is for the government to offer insurance to her employees from the health care exchanges. Does she mean that the employee who wants contraceptives has to volunteer to be treated like a self-employed person for the entire health care package, or just somehow get contraceptives through health exchanges? If the sister could clarify this, then the next step would be for her to list the advantages and disadvantages to the employee of being denied the health insurance available to all the other employees. Is it possible that the "solution" would be punitive to employees?
In summary, I wish the sister had made her case much more clearly, perhaps wtih a less extensive description of all the good works she does.
In summary, I wish the sister had made her case much more clearly, perhaps wtih a less extensive description of all the good works she does.
2
Constance: No one says you, or any of the sisters need to purchase or use birth control. This is not like soda machines in schools. We don't take soda machines out of schools because we don't believe in soda. Refined sugar harms children. Birth control pills have medicinal uses as well as preventing pregnancy. Moreover, I do not see you offering to care for children born as a result of the Little Sisters' refusal to cover birth control. When you are willing to, then we'll talk. And if I was confused before about your case, your editorial has only confirmed that your claim for exemption is misguided and wrong. All women deserve access to birth control should they choose it through their health insurance plans.
7
Don't hire non-Catholics, then. Oh wait, that would be discrimination. Not providing birth control? That's discrimination too.
6
I laud your service to the elderly. Little Sisters is not required to include contraception in the health plan of its Order, so the Sisters do not have contraceptive coverage when working for the elderly.
The problem with your very impassioned and well written article, Ms. Veit, is that Little Sisters is a large employer providing tax-free health coverage to many employees not of the same faith. Were Little Sisters to win its Supreme Court case, it would be forcing its religious beliefs upon all of those employees.
The ACA exempts your Order and has offered an accomodation to religious orders as employers. You misstated the accommodation as an "opt-in" that makes Little Sisters' plan responsible for the coverage. It is not. Coverage of contraception is removed from your plan and the insurance company must cover and pay for it independent of your plan. If employees agree with your religious beliefs, they will not use the coverage of contraception. If they do not share your religious beliefs, it is their right to have coverage. You are really trying to prevent them from having contraceptive coverage
Further, Little Sisters doesn't have to offer a health plan to its employees. You would pay $3,000 per employee and let employees get plans via the exchanges. You say you want that, but want the ACA changed to avoid paying $3000
A Supreme Court win will prevent millions of employees from having contraceptive coverage. That may be your objective, but should not be your right
The problem with your very impassioned and well written article, Ms. Veit, is that Little Sisters is a large employer providing tax-free health coverage to many employees not of the same faith. Were Little Sisters to win its Supreme Court case, it would be forcing its religious beliefs upon all of those employees.
The ACA exempts your Order and has offered an accomodation to religious orders as employers. You misstated the accommodation as an "opt-in" that makes Little Sisters' plan responsible for the coverage. It is not. Coverage of contraception is removed from your plan and the insurance company must cover and pay for it independent of your plan. If employees agree with your religious beliefs, they will not use the coverage of contraception. If they do not share your religious beliefs, it is their right to have coverage. You are really trying to prevent them from having contraceptive coverage
Further, Little Sisters doesn't have to offer a health plan to its employees. You would pay $3,000 per employee and let employees get plans via the exchanges. You say you want that, but want the ACA changed to avoid paying $3000
A Supreme Court win will prevent millions of employees from having contraceptive coverage. That may be your objective, but should not be your right
5
Since its earliest days, the male-dominated Catholic Church has treated women as second class citizens. Today, there are hundreds of millions of dirt poor women forced by your church to act as breeding stock; they have no access to birth control, are physically and mentally abused and produce children who lead awful lives in poverty. Your answer to their suffering: God will provide, just not while they are living on this planet.
7
You have GOT to be kidding me. Do you actually believe that telling women they cannot use contraceptives or have abortions is "similar to high schools that have removed soda machines from their property because they don’t think soda is good for children." I can't remember the last time a woman got pregnant and was saddled to raising another human being because she bought a soda.
14
The moral of this story is: to keep your faith above the law, keep it out of the law. Total indifference is perfect impartiality. That is how nature judges us all.
2
Thank you Sister for your service! What I find appalling is big businesses have been able to be exempt, but a SMALL group of religious ladies can not. This country was founded on religion, and this falls under freedom of religion- they aren't discriminating against anyone. And let's be honest- even if she didn't have contraceptions paid for for their employees, birth control pills are $10 people! I was able to pay for that as a poor newlywed in college, and not having to go get a loan. But, I believe no matter what Obama made it possible to get them free now no matter what..... Soooo..... Why force a religious person to be in that bind? This is ridiculous that religious serving women can not be exempt from this as well!
1
No one is forcing THEM to take birth control!
1
"Freedom of religion" is a meaningless phrase without its corollary, "freedom from religion." If exercising your "freedom of" requires another to adhere to your tenets, you have trespassed on their right to be free from your particular faith.
I seriously doubt that our Founding Fathers had contraception or abortion in mind at all when writing the Constitution. If we are to constipate the constitution with laws to protect piecemeal every quirk of "faith" of every religious sect, the government will grind to a complete halt, and we are dangerously close to paralysis without kowtowing to religion.
I seriously doubt that our Founding Fathers had contraception or abortion in mind at all when writing the Constitution. If we are to constipate the constitution with laws to protect piecemeal every quirk of "faith" of every religious sect, the government will grind to a complete halt, and we are dangerously close to paralysis without kowtowing to religion.
7
Contraception is essential to avoid a Malthusian catastrophe, and the nuns' opposition to it is utterly stupid. But the Progressive insistence on compelling every part of society to participate in every cause it has, whether a good one like this one or less well-thought out ones like its obsessions with race, gender, and sexuality activism, is equally stupid. The nuns could easily be exempted, and the government could and should more directly provide free and subsidized birth control, without forcing people to act through health plans.
2
The Sister's comparison of not providing birth control to those working for them, to schools not providing soda machines on their property is by far the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard about their 'case'.
I pray to heaven - pun intended - that this Sister and others are not in the teaching profession, because logic is not their forte.
I pray to heaven - pun intended - that this Sister and others are not in the teaching profession, because logic is not their forte.
7
The religious restoration act says that the state cannot "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" unless it is furthering a "compelling government interest" and acting in the least restrictive way possible.
In other words, the government's case against the Sisters is based on the assertion that a. Contraception is compelling govt. interest and b. mandating the Sisters to provide contraception through their health care plans is the least restrictive way of achieving such interest.
While it is possible to make an argument in favor of a., I see no way one could possibly make the case for point b. Is there anyone out there really willing to argue that there are no simple alternatives available to the govt. in providing a relatively inexpensive product that is widely available to all Americans?
In my mind this amounts to nothing more than a purposeful strike at the heart of religious liberty on the part of secularists who understand that powerful religious institutions stand between them and the utopian society of their dreams.
That fact that the govt. chose to engage this particular group is testament to their callous disregard for even the most nobel of religious expressions. What can the rest of the religious among us expect in the future from these champions of "social justice?" And folks wonder how an idiot like Trump could possibly be considerd for the highest office in the land?
In other words, the government's case against the Sisters is based on the assertion that a. Contraception is compelling govt. interest and b. mandating the Sisters to provide contraception through their health care plans is the least restrictive way of achieving such interest.
While it is possible to make an argument in favor of a., I see no way one could possibly make the case for point b. Is there anyone out there really willing to argue that there are no simple alternatives available to the govt. in providing a relatively inexpensive product that is widely available to all Americans?
In my mind this amounts to nothing more than a purposeful strike at the heart of religious liberty on the part of secularists who understand that powerful religious institutions stand between them and the utopian society of their dreams.
That fact that the govt. chose to engage this particular group is testament to their callous disregard for even the most nobel of religious expressions. What can the rest of the religious among us expect in the future from these champions of "social justice?" And folks wonder how an idiot like Trump could possibly be considerd for the highest office in the land?
2
This seems to me to be a case of picking a fight where there doesn't need to be one. If your religion is opposed to using contraception, you, and everyone in your organization, are perfectly free not to use contraception. So where's the problem?
4
She thinks that just because she helps poor people, that she's somehow earned the right to control the private life of an employee that was forced to take a job with her just to feed her family.
And she's lying about the requirement violating her religious beliefs. There's nothing in the Bible that says Christians are supposed to force non-believers into living like them.
When Christ condemned the hypocrites, he was talking about people like her.
And she's lying about the requirement violating her religious beliefs. There's nothing in the Bible that says Christians are supposed to force non-believers into living like them.
When Christ condemned the hypocrites, he was talking about people like her.
8
Sister Veit,
You mention that certain corporations were exempt from providing these services as they '"never updated their plans and are 'grandfathered' in'".
That implies that they did not previously offer contraception in their plans, and hence will not in the future be compelled to do so in the future.
It therefor also implies that your organization previously offered contraception and are not qualified for 'grandfather' status.
If you previously offered contraception in your plan, why are you now attempting to deny that benefit?
Politics?
With due respect your mission would be better served if you put your energies into advocating that our government take responsibility for attending to the needs of all of these unwanted children once they are brought into the world. Something like a third of them, in this Country alone, the richest Country on the planet, go to bed hungry every night.
You mention that certain corporations were exempt from providing these services as they '"never updated their plans and are 'grandfathered' in'".
That implies that they did not previously offer contraception in their plans, and hence will not in the future be compelled to do so in the future.
It therefor also implies that your organization previously offered contraception and are not qualified for 'grandfather' status.
If you previously offered contraception in your plan, why are you now attempting to deny that benefit?
Politics?
With due respect your mission would be better served if you put your energies into advocating that our government take responsibility for attending to the needs of all of these unwanted children once they are brought into the world. Something like a third of them, in this Country alone, the richest Country on the planet, go to bed hungry every night.
1
"The obvious alternative to forcing us to offer these services is for the government to allow our employees to access them through its own health care exchanges."
This seems to be the crux of the argument and no one is addressing it! It seems that what Ms. Veit is saying is that non-religious employees should have the option of getting insurance through the exchange. Is this not feasible? Would it cost more for them? Explain, please!
This seems to be the crux of the argument and no one is addressing it! It seems that what Ms. Veit is saying is that non-religious employees should have the option of getting insurance through the exchange. Is this not feasible? Would it cost more for them? Explain, please!
Medicare For All would have taken care of this too. Ask your Congressman about that.
Where does it end? For what other laws can religious doctrine hold supreme over our secular laws? Why no exemption towards paying taxes for the criminal justice system that delivers capital punishments? Or the weapons that blow up children in foreign lands? Surely, those tax dollars they are forced to withhold and transfer to the government goes against their religious beliefs, or is it the death of unborn cells that matters most to these people?
5
Before we condemn President Obama's insightful birth control efforts or the enormous contributions made by Planned Parenthood these past six decades; ask yourself this one question:
Would the country be better off or worse off with another five or six million more Trayvon Martins, Michael (Gentle Giant) Browns, Freddie Grays, Eric Gardners, Laquan McDonalds, or Tawana Brawleys?
Planned Parenthood today. Planned Parenthood tomorrow. Planned Parenthood forevever...ehhh?
Would the country be better off or worse off with another five or six million more Trayvon Martins, Michael (Gentle Giant) Browns, Freddie Grays, Eric Gardners, Laquan McDonalds, or Tawana Brawleys?
Planned Parenthood today. Planned Parenthood tomorrow. Planned Parenthood forevever...ehhh?
The nature of the ACA has created an instance of clashing freedoms and I feel for Ms. Veit. The nuns claim the freedom of religion exempts them from having to offer birth control coverage to their employees. Nevertheless, their employees also have the freedom, because of their religious liberty, not to have their employer’s religious beliefs imposed on them. The Griswold decision still stands and it gives them the right of privacy in their persons, which allows them to choose how to control their procreation.
The question in this case is whether the government’s remedy to exempt religious institutions goes far enough in protecting religious liberty. The government through the democratic process can mandate what is covered by a health plan and it can require employers to offer plans that meet certain standards. Despite this, the government has offered non-profit religious organizations a remedy in the form of an exemption, which has been upheld at least tangentially by the court.
This leads to why the nuns may lose. The court said in the Hobby Lobby case that the exemption offered by the government for non-profit religious institutions could be applied to for-profit corporations; they would look silly turning around and then saying that remedy wasn’t good enough for the institutions it was meant to protect. I don’t see how they can rule for the nuns without eviscerating their reasoning in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby.
The question in this case is whether the government’s remedy to exempt religious institutions goes far enough in protecting religious liberty. The government through the democratic process can mandate what is covered by a health plan and it can require employers to offer plans that meet certain standards. Despite this, the government has offered non-profit religious organizations a remedy in the form of an exemption, which has been upheld at least tangentially by the court.
This leads to why the nuns may lose. The court said in the Hobby Lobby case that the exemption offered by the government for non-profit religious institutions could be applied to for-profit corporations; they would look silly turning around and then saying that remedy wasn’t good enough for the institutions it was meant to protect. I don’t see how they can rule for the nuns without eviscerating their reasoning in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby.
2
The religious beliefs of an employee must be allowed to supersede those of an employer if Religious Freedom is to have real meaning.
2
You are providing insurance the insured is making the choice with their own free will. By asking for an exemption you are imposing your religious beliefs on your employees.
You are not providing abortion services or birth control. You are providing insurance that meets Federal law in a secular society. The decision on birth control and abortion is solely at the discretion of the user and their health care provider.
You would also do well to call the legislation the Affordable Care Act or the ACA. A small point but the term Obamacare is being used by both sides in a very partisan manner.
You are not providing abortion services or birth control. You are providing insurance that meets Federal law in a secular society. The decision on birth control and abortion is solely at the discretion of the user and their health care provider.
You would also do well to call the legislation the Affordable Care Act or the ACA. A small point but the term Obamacare is being used by both sides in a very partisan manner.
4
Religious freedom was always meant as individual or within a particular faith group practice. Never meant as a tool to impose a particular belief on others, yet the groups - not just this one, proclaiming their rights violated by a particular freedom exercised by others, be it gay marriage, birth control, abortion, atheism, have missed the point of what religious freedom really means. Individual beliefs and freedoms, exercising the freedom of conscience to choose within the confines of settled laws of the country, is what real religious freedom entails.
2
"Tramples on rights"...Hyperbole much? Here the sisters are being asked to comply with the law and behave like any other business but no - their right to control their employees is being trampled. Given a way to avoid subsidizing birth control - that is still not enough since it works through "their " plan. A plan they did not create or control.
Ignored is the fact that birth control has other uses besides preventing conception but that doesn't matter because - reasons. Abortion is sometimes necessary but no - religious doctrine trumps the life of the mother, as was the case with Savita Halappanavar. Perhaps religious doctrine should just stay clear of medicine all together.
Ignored is the fact that birth control has other uses besides preventing conception but that doesn't matter because - reasons. Abortion is sometimes necessary but no - religious doctrine trumps the life of the mother, as was the case with Savita Halappanavar. Perhaps religious doctrine should just stay clear of medicine all together.
4
The core analogy here is to schools banning soda machines from their school building because schools believe soda is unhealthy, notwithstanding that the soda company will pay for the soda machine.
This is said to be analogous to employers providing health care but banning contraception from their plans nothwtithstanding that, under the opt out, the employer won't have to pay for that coverage for their employees.
The analogy is inapposite. The argument is false.
Soda is widely acknowledged as bad for a child's health. Contraceptives for women are a constitutional right.
The Little Sisters object to contraceptives. So a well-tailored opt out was crafted. Thus, the Little Sisters need not participate in supplying contraceptives. But neither can the Little Sisters block their employees from their own constitutional right to have access to contraceptives.
The Little Sisters say it is "their health plan" and they want nothing to do with an opt out feature in that plan. But the health of a country's citizens is a prime civil concern: it is not "their health plan."
The opt out feature is a reasonable accommodation of the Little Sister's religious views while continuing to serve the civil health-imperatives our our society and preserving the guarantee of the constitutional rights of the women involved to have access to contraception, should they choose to use it.
The law does not forcing the use of contraception, but the Little Sisters are forcing people not to.
This is said to be analogous to employers providing health care but banning contraception from their plans nothwtithstanding that, under the opt out, the employer won't have to pay for that coverage for their employees.
The analogy is inapposite. The argument is false.
Soda is widely acknowledged as bad for a child's health. Contraceptives for women are a constitutional right.
The Little Sisters object to contraceptives. So a well-tailored opt out was crafted. Thus, the Little Sisters need not participate in supplying contraceptives. But neither can the Little Sisters block their employees from their own constitutional right to have access to contraceptives.
The Little Sisters say it is "their health plan" and they want nothing to do with an opt out feature in that plan. But the health of a country's citizens is a prime civil concern: it is not "their health plan."
The opt out feature is a reasonable accommodation of the Little Sister's religious views while continuing to serve the civil health-imperatives our our society and preserving the guarantee of the constitutional rights of the women involved to have access to contraception, should they choose to use it.
The law does not forcing the use of contraception, but the Little Sisters are forcing people not to.
1
It is not a "religious health plan." It is a health plan.
6
You could always turn down funding from American taxpayers if you feel there are strings attached. American taxpayers who, in spite of their belief in the separation of church and state, find themselves funding religious institutions like your own.
5
All religions on built on 'tribal values', and necessarily require bigotry at their core. The good people are always defined in terms of some group of "others" (infidels, etc) who are bad.
And while "others" occasionally get to live, they never get to thrive within any designated community of "the righteous".
As such, religion represents, a form of governance that provided a rational path to modern governance, however, unless it morphs to embrace ALL humans, it cannot be relied upon to unite our entire species, let alone individual nations.
And while "others" occasionally get to live, they never get to thrive within any designated community of "the righteous".
As such, religion represents, a form of governance that provided a rational path to modern governance, however, unless it morphs to embrace ALL humans, it cannot be relied upon to unite our entire species, let alone individual nations.
Sorry Sister, your column is somewhat confusing to me. You reference other organizations/plans that get an exemption, which you are claiming a right to. The actual reference isn't clear, and comes across as typical political speech, stating something as fact but not backing it up.
You (and one must assume your order) are claiming you provide a "religious health plan", why don't you offer a "non-religious health plan" for your secular and non-Catholic employees?
You compare "your plan" providing services that violate your religious beliefs, to a school providing or preventing children access to soda. Do you really mean to imply that your order has a parent/child relationship with your employees? Do you really think that your order "owns" the health plan, and it is a "gift" to your employees over which you have control?
Religious freedom means you get to practice your religion without interference; it also means that your fellow humans get to practice their religious or non-religious beliefs without your interference. In other words, polite and civilized people in our society don't get to impose their religious beliefs or practices on others, but other than that practice as you see fit.
My suggestion is that your order look within your kind hearts and find a way to ensure your employees are able to get their full heath care benefits. Sometimes washing your hands is the right thing to do.
You (and one must assume your order) are claiming you provide a "religious health plan", why don't you offer a "non-religious health plan" for your secular and non-Catholic employees?
You compare "your plan" providing services that violate your religious beliefs, to a school providing or preventing children access to soda. Do you really mean to imply that your order has a parent/child relationship with your employees? Do you really think that your order "owns" the health plan, and it is a "gift" to your employees over which you have control?
Religious freedom means you get to practice your religion without interference; it also means that your fellow humans get to practice their religious or non-religious beliefs without your interference. In other words, polite and civilized people in our society don't get to impose their religious beliefs or practices on others, but other than that practice as you see fit.
My suggestion is that your order look within your kind hearts and find a way to ensure your employees are able to get their full heath care benefits. Sometimes washing your hands is the right thing to do.
3
I'm going to be very blunt, Ms. Veit. I do not care if you feel that "Birth-Control ‘Exemption’ Still Tramples on Rights". We have SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICA which means that you have a right to your religious beliefs without government interference and YOU CANNOT FORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON THE REST OF US. This is your problem within your church. Simply do not "serve" anyone who wants to use birth control. Tell them to go somewhere else. You have no right to sue OUR government to try to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us. NO RIGHT.
5
Comparing the Little Sisters of the Poor to a school which has acted to remove soda machines from its facilities, the writer states “The school simply doesn’t want to be responsible for providing something it believes is bad for its students. It’s the same with us.”
But employers aren’t children. And as an employer, the Little Sisters of the Poor do not stand “in loco parentis” for its employees, as schools do for students. Employees are adults and as such should be free to make their own choices to obtain or refrain from obtaining legal and needed medical services including those which their employer believes for religious reasons are “bad” for them.
What if the Little Sisters happened to believe that intermingling white children with children of color was bad for them?
But employers aren’t children. And as an employer, the Little Sisters of the Poor do not stand “in loco parentis” for its employees, as schools do for students. Employees are adults and as such should be free to make their own choices to obtain or refrain from obtaining legal and needed medical services including those which their employer believes for religious reasons are “bad” for them.
What if the Little Sisters happened to believe that intermingling white children with children of color was bad for them?
2
I tried to give the author every benefit of a doubt but at the end of the day what she is really saying is that their employees who choose to use contraception are free to do so but must pay for it out of their own pocket. In other words, a pay cut.
10
The fact of the matter is that we have 7 billion humans on our planet, and we humans have wreaked terrible destruction on our planet. How about considering the life of all? How about fighting for the life of all?
7
How odd that a group of nuns think they have the right to dictate my personal decisions. As I subsidize your life in the form of paying taxes while you pay none, I suggest you mind your own business.
15
No one is forcing you, your employees, those you care for, anyone associated with your organization (or with any organization) to use birth control!
The diverse population you employ deserves access to the same health care as every other employee. You do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others, or to deny your employees an important health care benefit - especially since I assume your organization benefits from a number of non-profit tax breaks.
The diverse population you employ deserves access to the same health care as every other employee. You do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others, or to deny your employees an important health care benefit - especially since I assume your organization benefits from a number of non-profit tax breaks.
9
All articles about this organization should state: "The Little Sisters of the Poor is a government contractor providing services to..." to clarify what they do.
4
Following your religion does not allow one to deny others their rights. Stop hiding behind religion as a way to have your ideas dominate and control others. Plain and simple
6
I worked for over 20 years in a healthcare facility owned by a Catholic nuns’ order. The Sisters eventually had to relinquish their stewardship of the hospital because the order literally was dying, with no new recruits. The ceremonial events in the hospital were dominated by the traditions of the Catholic faith. We all heard morning prayers being broadcast, but were not compelled to participate and continued with our work. The delivery of preventive and therapeutic care to patients of all denominations was based on the best available evidence, which included the dispensing of oral contraceptives. The institution was Catholic but care was secular. Otherwise I would not have worked there. If individual patients did not approve of contraception that was their right. But it could not be denied those who wanted them. And that included many Catholics, the majority of whom of course approve of contraception.
7
That may be the way it used to be but men like Cardinal Dolan of NYC crave power and control. They have failed to convince their own flock to follow their dictates so they want the government to help them our not only by enforcing their beleifs on others but also by giving them MONEY! No more tax or other exemptions for any churchs and no more government contracts or grants. We are a secular country. Nits time we behaved like one.
Their religious rights end where other people's bodies begin. There would be far fewer poor to tend to in this world had not the Roman church decided it was a woman's duty to push put a child every year regardless of circumstances.
While Italy and Spain have the lowest birth rates in the world and a majority of other developed countries have disregarded this so-called sin, the church still works to deny the people of impoverished countries the ability to choose how many children they want and their chance to rise out of poverty.
No one is asking them to use contraceptives or have abortions but they have absolutely no right to deny employees, many of them not even Roman Catholics to do what they want with their own bodies. We need to stop catering to this kind of nonsense
While Italy and Spain have the lowest birth rates in the world and a majority of other developed countries have disregarded this so-called sin, the church still works to deny the people of impoverished countries the ability to choose how many children they want and their chance to rise out of poverty.
No one is asking them to use contraceptives or have abortions but they have absolutely no right to deny employees, many of them not even Roman Catholics to do what they want with their own bodies. We need to stop catering to this kind of nonsense
144
Nobody has any ability to force any employee to use or NOT use contraception or have (or not have) an abortion.
The nuns here are only asking that they don't have to pay for it.
Most insurance does not pay for contraception and did not in the recently past (like 2014!) before Obamacare kicked in. I don't think I ever had a health insurance policy that covered every kind of contraception! My last policy expressly excluded IUDs, because of the high initial cost (about $1500). BTW: they also did not include weight loss surgery, or diet plans, or sex change operations.
If you want UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, or single payer....you've got to accept limits on coverage. For example: many Americans want Canadian-type single payer. The Canadians DO NOT COVER any prescription drugs, including any birth control.
The nuns here are only asking that they don't have to pay for it.
Most insurance does not pay for contraception and did not in the recently past (like 2014!) before Obamacare kicked in. I don't think I ever had a health insurance policy that covered every kind of contraception! My last policy expressly excluded IUDs, because of the high initial cost (about $1500). BTW: they also did not include weight loss surgery, or diet plans, or sex change operations.
If you want UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, or single payer....you've got to accept limits on coverage. For example: many Americans want Canadian-type single payer. The Canadians DO NOT COVER any prescription drugs, including any birth control.
2
M. Mc Carthy
Well said.
Catholic prohibitions against contraception are the equivalent of planks in Republican platforms in places like Texas where the teaching of 'critical thinking skills' is discourage or forbidden.
In both cases, the policies are thinly veiled attempts to increase their 'congregations'.
Well said.
Catholic prohibitions against contraception are the equivalent of planks in Republican platforms in places like Texas where the teaching of 'critical thinking skills' is discourage or forbidden.
In both cases, the policies are thinly veiled attempts to increase their 'congregations'.
2
Belief is one thing and reality is another. Religious belief is just that, a belief which denies reality.
While I do not think abortion is the correct way to approach birth control, If there is a question regarding the health of the mother or the developing child, that is a decision only the mother has the right to make.
Education and the use of birth controls used to prevent pregnancy should be easily available, but mistakes, forced sexual engagement or even simply changing her mind about a pregnancy is reason enough for a resort to this very personal matter.
No matter how much anyone agrees or disagrees, abortion is a choice only the woman involved has the right to make.
While I do not think abortion is the correct way to approach birth control, If there is a question regarding the health of the mother or the developing child, that is a decision only the mother has the right to make.
Education and the use of birth controls used to prevent pregnancy should be easily available, but mistakes, forced sexual engagement or even simply changing her mind about a pregnancy is reason enough for a resort to this very personal matter.
No matter how much anyone agrees or disagrees, abortion is a choice only the woman involved has the right to make.
50
The writer is not objecting to the policies covering abortion. In fact, the law would prohibit the government from covering abortions, so they could not say that they would cover that part of the policy if they were only complaining about abortion. She is objecting that the policies cover birth control.
1
You are saying that you and your order care deeply for the elderly and the poor, so why isn't that compassion extended to women who want the freedom to control when and if they have children? I bet if you had been working all these years with women of childbearing age and had seen the negative impact unwanted pregnancies had on their lives you would have a different opinion. I certainly hope so. If you don't believe in birth control, fine, don't use it. But let the rest of us have the freedom to live our lives in accordance with our beliefs.
8
For conscience to be protected, it must be an "enlightened" conscience, otherwise anything could be protected. An enlightened conscience is one that has been enriched by consideration of all aspects of an issue, and then takes a stand. Merely to claim that one's conscience is being threatened, is not an argument. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas showed this well in the case of conscientious objection, and one would do well to re-read his explanation. In the case of contraception, an enlightened conscience would understand that the Roman Catholic objection is based on an ancient belief called natural law morality. This morality judges actions in terms of consequences. But there are other moralities, equally valid, though not practiced by Roman Catholic nuns, that judge action in terms of the intentions of the person deciding. Even Roman Catholic morality takes intention into considerations; it is called "epieicheia," and can be found explained in any serious textbook of moral theology. Jesus himself used this exemption when he refused to condemn a woman who was accused of immorality. It would seem that nuns might take the example of Jesus as a guide, and therefore be more understanding; that is, have a more enlightened conscience. The charity and devotion of the Sisters of the Poor is exemplary, but their concern for their consciences arises from narrow parameters that do not take into account that there are many religious justifications of morality.
42
Easy answer: universal healthcare provided by the State that covers contraception. If you don't want it, pay out of pocket for specialized plans that fit your religious requirements.
45
This debate sounds somewhat like children that complain because their mom gives them an apple rather than their dad. Instead of eating the apple, they sit on the ground and throw a tantrum. I appreciate the unusually reasoned approach taken in this article of actually identifying a problem and discussing solutions rather than the all too common partisan approach of using any disagreement as a platform to attack those with whom you disagree. We need more of this.
If the goal truly is to provide us women with birth control, then let us find a way to do it. However, the American people have very little imagination if the only way they can see of doing that is through one specific method that forces people to violate their faith. That is especially true when the government has already set up exchanges that could be utilized and indeed are by a large percentage of people. I personally don't have a problem with providing women birth control, but I can respect others that disagree with me. Thank you Sister Constance for adding a level of civility and intelligence to this conversation.
If the goal truly is to provide us women with birth control, then let us find a way to do it. However, the American people have very little imagination if the only way they can see of doing that is through one specific method that forces people to violate their faith. That is especially true when the government has already set up exchanges that could be utilized and indeed are by a large percentage of people. I personally don't have a problem with providing women birth control, but I can respect others that disagree with me. Thank you Sister Constance for adding a level of civility and intelligence to this conversation.
6
The Sisters are not being "forced to violate their faith." The health care is between two parties neither of whom is the Sisters.
They are not paying for the insurance. They ARE attempting to make other people live by the Sisters' religious beliefs.
That they have gone to such lengths to impose those beliefs on their employees, who are independent adults, does not demonstrate faith or humility, but arrogance.
The Sisters have made their choice. They can not, however, force their employees to make those choices. That's not freedom of religion. That's theocracy.
They are not paying for the insurance. They ARE attempting to make other people live by the Sisters' religious beliefs.
That they have gone to such lengths to impose those beliefs on their employees, who are independent adults, does not demonstrate faith or humility, but arrogance.
The Sisters have made their choice. They can not, however, force their employees to make those choices. That's not freedom of religion. That's theocracy.
3
I've seen the Little Sisters in action. I don't care what your religion is or if you have none at all, but you can't deny they are doing the work of angels. I don't see why the government can't leave them alone and let them do their work in peace.
8
They don't even work in neonatal care. They comfort the aging and dying.
They are allowed to do their work in peace as long as they follow certain rules. Do you not think they have to follow the rules governing other nursing homes? Of course they do. Therefore, they should be required to follow the same rules of other employers. I doubt you would be saying this if this was a Muslim run organization and they were making all of the women, regardless of the employee's religious beliefs, wear a head scarf in order to comply with their religious beliefs.
3
They are being left alone. The health care is between two other parties: their employees and an insurance company. None of the money for the insurance comes from the employer, that is from the Sisters.
This is a fraudulent argument intended to impose the employer's religious beliefs on the employees. The Sisters don't pay for the insurance so they are uninvolved in the entire process. All they are doing with this ridiculous and arrogant action is attempting to make independent adults functionally live as Catholics.
They deserve both to lose the case and to be treated as the grotesque hypocrites they are.
This is a fraudulent argument intended to impose the employer's religious beliefs on the employees. The Sisters don't pay for the insurance so they are uninvolved in the entire process. All they are doing with this ridiculous and arrogant action is attempting to make independent adults functionally live as Catholics.
They deserve both to lose the case and to be treated as the grotesque hypocrites they are.
2
What can this person mean when she refers to something she calls a "religious health plan"?? Prayer?
61
"the American government should not force its citizens to act in violation of their religion beliefs..." They are not doing that. That would mean forcing you to take birth control pills. You have every right to say no. You just don't have the right to say no for anyone else.
11
Faith has no place in public policy. It is based upon medieval superstitions and is responsible for many of the ills that plague us.
Certainly, faith should not excuse anyone from following the law of the land.
Certainly, faith should not excuse anyone from following the law of the land.
58
The Supreme Court battle playing out in Washington happens to hinge in large part on the meaning of the phrase "free exercise [of religion]", which the right wing hopes to interpret much more broadly than "conduct of religious observances without interference", up to and including an alleged constitutional right to be a scourge of God lashing patients coming and going at Planned Parenthood clinics.
1
Although the spirit of this piece is no doubt earnest, it is difficult to find sympathy for this position, as it is predicated on the irrational notion that contraception is a priori wrong. Not only does contraception fail to meet even a loose universal standard of a priori wrong but it is demonstrably a posteriori right. This is supported by evidence linking it to substantial social, economic, and health benefits for women, far lower abortion rates, and perhaps even poverty reduction. The soda machine analogy falls flat: high schools don't think soda is good for children for the excellent reason that it is empirically unhealthy for them. There is not only no compelling evidence against contraception, but there is overwhelming evidence for it. The author asks us to accommodate a moral conviction that is both baseless and harmful; accommodating such a conviction, no matter how sincerely held, would make for capricious policy indeed.
151
I don't know the author but why do you assume she is eithe ernest or truthful. It is more likely that she is writing this piece at the behest of the leaders of the Catholic Church or her lawyers and she knows that if she doesn't do it she will lose her job.
Some disagree with war ; they pay their taxes.
If there was universal healthcare, it would be funded by taxes.
However we have the affordable care act through which employers fund the healthcare of their employees; it is a business tax.
Your conscience should govern your actions, not those of whom you hire. When they sit before God, they must defend their choices, not you. I understand that you do not want to enable sin, but it is not for you to judge, nor to condemn, nor to decide for others what is for them a sin.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's : pay your business tax and be content to teach rather than to enforce your morality.
If there was universal healthcare, it would be funded by taxes.
However we have the affordable care act through which employers fund the healthcare of their employees; it is a business tax.
Your conscience should govern your actions, not those of whom you hire. When they sit before God, they must defend their choices, not you. I understand that you do not want to enable sin, but it is not for you to judge, nor to condemn, nor to decide for others what is for them a sin.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's : pay your business tax and be content to teach rather than to enforce your morality.
105
"The government made me acquiesce to third parties doing it." should satisfy the two saints who guard the Pearly Gates, eh?
And it bothers me that your faith limits say a woman's role in the church but I respect your right to be free of my belief about your practices maybe you should try the same
Using government to help you limit people's choices is not acceptable in a free country. Favoring your particular beliefs ain't our role and endorses one specific belief system
Most of your own followers don't believe in your limits maybe you can work on your own flick without any more accommodations
PLEASE
Using government to help you limit people's choices is not acceptable in a free country. Favoring your particular beliefs ain't our role and endorses one specific belief system
Most of your own followers don't believe in your limits maybe you can work on your own flick without any more accommodations
PLEASE
33
I am sympathetic to the spirit of Ms Veit's article. I am opposed to the substance of it. The work of the order is admirable and to be commended. However, there are many forms of religious beliefs. Many of them, including the one about contraceptives, are somewhat arbitrary and definitely impinge on the rights of ordinary people and employees of organizations. The Sisters do not have to pay for the contraceptives. They should be subject to the same rules as all other employers. Chaos would reign if we accommodated all the possible forms of arbitrary religious beliefs for every employer.
The freedom to practice your religion does not extend to the freedom to force your religious beliefs on others. That type of religious tyranny is exactly what the early immigrants to this continent sought to escape. And where does your religious control of others end? Presumably your employees could use the salary you pay them to buy contraception. Would you fire them if you found them doing so? What other intrusions into their private lives would you claim are justified? 98% of Catholic women in this country have used birth control at some point in their lives, yet you seek to impose what is now a fringe religious doctrine on the 98% of Catholics who don’t agree with you. You claim that opting out violates your religious beliefs, but the truth is that doing so in no way hinders your mission of helping the poor. On the other hand you personally remain free to practice your religion and pray to your God as you wish…but you should not maintain you have the right to force those beliefs on your employees—or anybody else.
11
Do we, as a society, seriously believe that the invisible white man in the sky cares if women use birth control?
For some, apparently so. It is so easy to project our beliefs onto our god.
For some, apparently so. It is so easy to project our beliefs onto our god.
9
Sister, it most definitely is NOT like schools removing soda cans from their premises. That is a proven matter of individual and public health. In other words: it's science.
Caring for the elderly is a wonderful thing. You are obviously a good person. But I know many people who do such things without being religious, and who care for people not "as if they were Christ himself," but as if they were the humans that they are. Many of us atheists believe we have a deep moral obligation to care for another.
You cannot, and must not, insert any kind of myth or personal belief to impede access to medications that the FDA has approved. Birth control pills are used for an array of reasons, by the way, including mitigation of severe PMS, skin problems, and severe pain, among other things. Your judgment here is not relevant, good woman.
Choose what you want for yourself, but do not intervene in the government's wise decision that prescribed medications should be covered by all plans. Separate church and state. Remember?
Caring for the elderly is a wonderful thing. You are obviously a good person. But I know many people who do such things without being religious, and who care for people not "as if they were Christ himself," but as if they were the humans that they are. Many of us atheists believe we have a deep moral obligation to care for another.
You cannot, and must not, insert any kind of myth or personal belief to impede access to medications that the FDA has approved. Birth control pills are used for an array of reasons, by the way, including mitigation of severe PMS, skin problems, and severe pain, among other things. Your judgment here is not relevant, good woman.
Choose what you want for yourself, but do not intervene in the government's wise decision that prescribed medications should be covered by all plans. Separate church and state. Remember?
116
No one is forcing the sisters to use contraception or have abortions -- something their church had no problems with until the 19th century -- themselves. And health benefits are part of a worker's compensation: their pay. No employer has a right to bar their workers from using their pay for something the employer objects to on religious grounds. If the sisters can bar their workers from paying for contraception, by the same token, Confucian employers should be allowed to bar Catholic workers from paying for gas to drive to church.
37
Health care has NO religion, decide what you what for yourself, god doesn't care...
30
I'm surprised that the Ms. Veit has time to pursue such a triviality while caring for the elderly poor as if they were Jesus. I'm also a bit surprised that her clients really need birth control in the first place, but I guess she is referring to the poor people she hires to do the heavy lifting, as if they were Christ. Wouldn't want those service people burdened with an unwanted pregnancy when there's work to do emptying bedpans.
To think that offering a service is the same as being forced to accept makes my head explode. I am morally disgusted with much of American foreign policy, drone strikes, our ethanol/corn subsidy, our institutionalized greed, capital punishment, etc. The social contract of our democracy gives me one option. Vote.
The Little Sisters want more than I get. They want a line-item veto. They want their beliefs to be placed above those of everyone else. How offensive! Talk about a lack of humility? Nobody is forcing them to use birth control.
Why don't they only hire Little Sisters who agree with the dicta of their cult? Then there's no problem. Oh... that's right. It's hard to find enough women willing to both earn minimum wage AND who are willing to deny this world in favor of a myth based on a book that says nothing about abortion or birth control.
Anyway...
Why not have employees sign a contract that forbids the use of birth control?
To think that offering a service is the same as being forced to accept makes my head explode. I am morally disgusted with much of American foreign policy, drone strikes, our ethanol/corn subsidy, our institutionalized greed, capital punishment, etc. The social contract of our democracy gives me one option. Vote.
The Little Sisters want more than I get. They want a line-item veto. They want their beliefs to be placed above those of everyone else. How offensive! Talk about a lack of humility? Nobody is forcing them to use birth control.
Why don't they only hire Little Sisters who agree with the dicta of their cult? Then there's no problem. Oh... that's right. It's hard to find enough women willing to both earn minimum wage AND who are willing to deny this world in favor of a myth based on a book that says nothing about abortion or birth control.
Anyway...
Why not have employees sign a contract that forbids the use of birth control?
10
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), even federal laws conceived without any intention to affect religious groups can be nullified by the courts if, in practice, the measures interfere with the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment. The courts can uphold the laws if the government proves that they serve a compelling public need and that no alternative approach would reduce the level of intervention. I assume this act forms the legal basis for the Little Sisters' appeal.
The SC will decide officially whether the ACA violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but Americans will reach their own conclusions about the legitimacy of the Little Sisters' complaint. Since the organization will not have to pay for contraceptive coverage, it might appear that Sister Veit has thrown down the gauntlet over a meaningless bureaucratic regulation. But this rule stipulates that the Little Sisters have to include in their health insurance policies a provision guaranteeing contraceptives to their employees. The law, in short, forces the Little Sisters to publicly associate themselves with a practice which they believe violates God's law. In the public's mind, the organization will endorse actions which in fact it abhors.
I disagree with the Little Sisters' religious views, but it seems clear that to require someone to publicly support behavior which violates her religious values contradicts the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment.
The SC will decide officially whether the ACA violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but Americans will reach their own conclusions about the legitimacy of the Little Sisters' complaint. Since the organization will not have to pay for contraceptive coverage, it might appear that Sister Veit has thrown down the gauntlet over a meaningless bureaucratic regulation. But this rule stipulates that the Little Sisters have to include in their health insurance policies a provision guaranteeing contraceptives to their employees. The law, in short, forces the Little Sisters to publicly associate themselves with a practice which they believe violates God's law. In the public's mind, the organization will endorse actions which in fact it abhors.
I disagree with the Little Sisters' religious views, but it seems clear that to require someone to publicly support behavior which violates her religious values contradicts the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment.
2
Au contraire James Lee!
The Little Sisters are not being asked to support behavior that violates their religious values. They are being asked to comply with the temporal laws of the land, the Affordable Care Act and employer-employee laws to name a few.
You cite the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in your post; well I and many other Americans find the RFRA to be an affront to the Constitution of the United States and it protection of American rights to include religious freedom. The RFRA, a Christian-based law, serves the same purpose as the Jim Crow Laws of the South, sanctioning bigotry, racism, misogyny and discrimination based on sexual orientation. I pray and hope the Supreme Court will find the RFRA to be a unconstitutional a la the Jim Crow Laws.
The Little Sisters are not being asked to support behavior that violates their religious values. They are being asked to comply with the temporal laws of the land, the Affordable Care Act and employer-employee laws to name a few.
You cite the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in your post; well I and many other Americans find the RFRA to be an affront to the Constitution of the United States and it protection of American rights to include religious freedom. The RFRA, a Christian-based law, serves the same purpose as the Jim Crow Laws of the South, sanctioning bigotry, racism, misogyny and discrimination based on sexual orientation. I pray and hope the Supreme Court will find the RFRA to be a unconstitutional a la the Jim Crow Laws.
9
Your argument is misguided and hypocritical. You state that "to require someone to publicly support behavior which violates her religious values" contradicts free exercise of constitutional freedoms. But the very same argument could be made that it is wrong for the Little Sisters to force their employees to adhere to values that would contradict their own. Their employees have the right and freedom to make their own choices. I certainly don't want to be forced to obey my boss's religious beliefs...do you?
1
They clearly are not publicly supporting behavior which violates their religious values. In fact, they are quite outspoken about their objections. Health plans include coverage for substance abuse treatment. Does including this in policies translate into support for abusing drugs and alcohol?
It is a manipulative comment bordering on the vulgar to compare birth control with a soft drink from a vending machine. How little faith you have in humanity, how un-Christ like.
24
They certainly are within their rights to ban sex in the workplace.
1
I get so tired of religious organizations shoving their medieval beliefs on the rest of us. The majority of Catholic women in their child bearing years use contraception, that's a fact. But the church wants to make sure women know their place - firmly under the red Moroccan leather shoes of the Pope. It's too bad that the good Sister feels the need to be a doormat for her church, one that gives not one iota of thought (or care) to women's needs or health. Organized religion is the worst thing that ever happened to womankind. Too bad the good sister is so blinded by it that she can't see that.
30
I was educated by nuns during college (and I must add I received a darn good college education) and I can assure you these nuns are not doormats as you state. Your comment is unfair and untrue. These nuns feel passionately against this contraception mandate and are entitled to their freedom of speech. I am thrilled and very pleased they are standing up to the indignity of Obamacare for which they are being asked to go against their Catholic beliefs and convictions. Someone must and who better than a Catholic nun. These are intelligent and bright women who have dedicated their entire lives to helping the poor and voiceless. I admire these nuns so much that I will be sending them a generous donation so that they may carry on with their good works and continue this important fight for religious freedom.
Jesus did not judge how people live he welcomed them and forgave them. The good sisters might want to refer to our poes recent remarks about birth control. God bless you for your work; but let other people live.
7
The Pope's recent remarks were in the New York Times article on Feb. 18, 2016, "Francis Says Contraception Can Be Used to Slow Zika". He said, "avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil", that contraception is the lesser of two evils, and that men could use condoms so as to not infect their partners.
1
I applaud the NY Times for providing a forum for Constance Veit to explain the Little Sisters of the Poor's basis for their objection to Obamacare.
I am appalled, but not that surprised, at the number of comments on this piece that have an undertone of anti-Catholic sentiment. I daresay these are many of the same people who have blustered against the alleged anti-Muslim remarks of Donald Trump. I guess hypocrisy is not just the province of the right; many on the left are just as guilty.
As a general comment, this whole issue highlights where we are going so wrong in this country. We no longer have any ability to accommodate and compromise on our differences - it is all or nothing. And even if there were any degree of administrative or legal carve out to allow exceptions to Obamacare (or other laws), as needed, aggrieved parties are quick to run to the courts to have non-elected judges opine.
This case brings home why there is such a huge deal being made over the Supreme Court vacancy. The SC has become so partisan and intrusive in usurping the power of the Legislature, the President and ultimately the people, every faction wants to stack the bench to their advantage.
Laws are meant to be for the good of the people, not a theoretical construct on to themselves.
I am appalled, but not that surprised, at the number of comments on this piece that have an undertone of anti-Catholic sentiment. I daresay these are many of the same people who have blustered against the alleged anti-Muslim remarks of Donald Trump. I guess hypocrisy is not just the province of the right; many on the left are just as guilty.
As a general comment, this whole issue highlights where we are going so wrong in this country. We no longer have any ability to accommodate and compromise on our differences - it is all or nothing. And even if there were any degree of administrative or legal carve out to allow exceptions to Obamacare (or other laws), as needed, aggrieved parties are quick to run to the courts to have non-elected judges opine.
This case brings home why there is such a huge deal being made over the Supreme Court vacancy. The SC has become so partisan and intrusive in usurping the power of the Legislature, the President and ultimately the people, every faction wants to stack the bench to their advantage.
Laws are meant to be for the good of the people, not a theoretical construct on to themselves.
6
Seems to me that on this issue it is the Church that is taking the "all or nothing" position -- in fact, that has been the hierarchy's favorite argument ("you can't pick and choose") since approximately forever. They see it as a clincher, but in reality it just takes the same old claim to power and shouts it louder...
3
You misread the tone. Many, perhaps most, of us do not object to any religion practiced in the privacy of one's home and church. What we object to is having any religion held up as more important than any other in the public sphere. We object to the extreme intolerance and unwillingness of many religious adherents to acknowledge and respect the beliefs of others in public. In this respect, many Catholics and Protestants are no different from fundamentalist Jews and Islamic extremists in that all demean and oppress women.
2
There WAS a carve-out for this organization. They decided any compromise was impermissable.
2
Clearly, employer provided health insurance is part of total compensation. It isn't cash compensation but fringe benefits are a part of what you earn in return for your work. Historically this was a way around WWII-era wage controls and has persisted to this day.
It is, essentially, that employees use part of their compensation to purchase health insurance and have pooled their resources to participate in a group plan.
The Little Sisters of the Poor can't and don't attempt to control how their employees spend their cash compensation. Some of this will be used for gambling and other purchases of which the Sisters would not approve. So why is it that the Sisters can attempt to control how their employees spend their non-cash compensation?
Simply, once you have paid your employees, either in cash or in kind, they have the choice of how to use their wages, not their employer.
It is, essentially, that employees use part of their compensation to purchase health insurance and have pooled their resources to participate in a group plan.
The Little Sisters of the Poor can't and don't attempt to control how their employees spend their cash compensation. Some of this will be used for gambling and other purchases of which the Sisters would not approve. So why is it that the Sisters can attempt to control how their employees spend their non-cash compensation?
Simply, once you have paid your employees, either in cash or in kind, they have the choice of how to use their wages, not their employer.
16
I applaud the charitable work of the "Little Sisters".
That charity does not earn them the right to strip others of self determination.
Other judeo/christian value systems and morals which allow contraception and abortionare no less valid and must not be trampled by these self-appointed ayatollahs.
That charity does not earn them the right to strip others of self determination.
Other judeo/christian value systems and morals which allow contraception and abortionare no less valid and must not be trampled by these self-appointed ayatollahs.
11
The argument here is weak. The compromise by the government is to simply have the Sisters sign a form. Then they are not forced to do something they object to. But by refusing to sign the form they are actively disallowing their employees to receive a service they are entitled to seek out by law.
11
The truth is there should have been no compromise at all! Follow the law! Want to live in a theocracy move to the Vatican. I'm sorry but I am tired of those who want relgious exemptions. I feel the same about Christians, Jews, Muslims or others. We are a secular country and we can see what relgious privilege and theocracy does to entire regions. It's time to stop giving relgious organizations a pass.
1
How is insurance coverage any different from money, morally speaking? You pay your employees in money, and what they do with that money is their business. They can use it to pay for birth control or abortion if they want to; or not. Their choice. If you provide your employees with comprehensive insurance coverage, what they do with that ought to be their business as well. Their compensation belongs to them. Employers don't get to micromanage their employees' lives.
10
Ironic.
Study after study shows education and access to birth control reduces poverty among women. If we embraced the data, we'd likely have less of a need for the Little Sisters of the Poor.
Study after study shows education and access to birth control reduces poverty among women. If we embraced the data, we'd likely have less of a need for the Little Sisters of the Poor.
33
Maybe thats the real thing they are fighting for.
2
Ms. Veit's arguments are passionate and cogently expressed. But the opt-out is a good solution, both practically and in moral terms. To argue otherwise is to invert the larger understanding of what rights are. A right does not, as "religious freedom" would argue, enable an aggrieved minority to enforce its views and practices on others.
8
Isn't it interesting one of the most verbal advocates for contraceptives I've ever known was a nun. She came from a poor Catholic family of ten children and this nun's motto was - "My poor Mother." Now that is just common sense.
21
Slippery slope -- next they will say the order should pay no taxes, since tax money is used for purposes that violate their religious sensibilities. They do not pay taxes, but the point is valid. And when they do not contribute, it raises the burden on everyone else -- should I pay more to accommodate their religion? The establishment clause makes it clear that the government does not have the authority to give the Sisters special treatment.
7
Indeed and as we can see give them an inch and they want not only a mile but the entire journey. Enough.
Having read the Gospels over and over again, I find not one reference to contraception or abortion. I find many, many references to loving each other to feeding and caring for the poor, to acing mercifully and without judgment of others. Jesus lived with and preached to and about those on the outskirts who certainly were judged by the religious teachers and organizations of his day. He refused to judge those outsiders nor did he withhold from them the care and love they needed. That should be the model - not a fight over what are clearly very difficult and very personal decisions that need to be made by the people involved, not by the church or by these clearly well meaning sisters.
11
I often wonder if the Church rues the day its all male hierarchy determined the no contraceptives birth control policy. It is an untenable position and one that many Catholics ignore. Had it championed contraception use years ago, the world might be a better place today, the planet would certainly be healthier. KA
13
I wish we lived in a world where women never felt the need to resort to abortion but it seems to me that if one is morally opposed to abortion, contraception is a very good alternative, nipping the problem in the bud, so to speak.
To be against both abortion and contraception seems counter-productive, especially when the rule makers theoretically have no skin in the game because they are supposedly celibate (in the case of Catholic hierarchy).
To be against both abortion and contraception seems counter-productive, especially when the rule makers theoretically have no skin in the game because they are supposedly celibate (in the case of Catholic hierarchy).
11
These are old nuns. Birth control is not an issue for them or for the elderly they care for. It's so hypocritical of them. Denying women of other faiths the right to work and receive health benefits is stunningly bigoted.
12
I believe that this is an extreme definition of rights. No one is making anyone buy birth control. That would be a true violation. This opt out means that the sisters and others cannot control other people's rights. We do not live in a theocracy. We are not Iran. We are not Israel where conservative men refuse to sit next to women on buses or airplanes. We are on a very slippery slope these days.
9
Should we allow an organization run by Jehovah Witnesses opt out of blood transfusion coverage, or one run by Christian Scientists to opt out of any medical coverage at all?
11
An analogy: Should a religious organization be exempt from the federal minimum wage law for its employees simply because its religious beliefs say that work should be motivated only by spiritual gain, not material gain? I think not. This really isn't a complicated issue: If a religious organization has paid employees, it has entered into a civil contract with them and the contract should be governed by civil law.
12
No matter how you look at it, the government should let these nuns live in peace. It is weird to see the government getting so aggressive about having their way on such a simple matter. If the government wants to pay for contraceptives or abortion drugs, it can easily do so through its new exchanges or other programs. Why push these nuns around? They let big corporations get an exemption to this but want the Little Sisters to surrender their own beliefs. Let them serve the poor!
2
No one is pushing them around. They've been granted an exemption from providing the Healthcare coverage they disagree with but it's not good enough for them. Now they're trying to force the government to prevent women from getting the health coverage from others.
That is precisely what the Big Evil Government is doing. This group refuses any compromise.
Bill, what would you think if your employer could arbitrarily choose to withhold health coverage for some important part of your body? Let's say lungs, for example, because only God breathed life into Adam.
Would you be OK with your employer refusing you the comprehensive care everyone else has? Or with them telling you, "If you want drugs or treatment for your asthma, go to the public exchange and buy a plan there or pay out of pocket. We believe this type of care is bad for you as a person, and that's more important than any danger to you from lung problems."
Because that's what you're asking women to accept. Just with a different part of their body, one that most determines the course of a woman's life and health.
Would you be OK with your employer refusing you the comprehensive care everyone else has? Or with them telling you, "If you want drugs or treatment for your asthma, go to the public exchange and buy a plan there or pay out of pocket. We believe this type of care is bad for you as a person, and that's more important than any danger to you from lung problems."
Because that's what you're asking women to accept. Just with a different part of their body, one that most determines the course of a woman's life and health.
With all due respect and appreciation for the work you do, I think your employee's right to their own health care decisions supersedes your right to stick your nose into their private lives.
30
This seems like such an unnecessary conflict. Why can't the government just use its own exchanges to deliver contraceptives to any employee who wants them (like they already do for millions of other people)? The pill doesn't magically work better if it was given to you by forcing a nun to violate her vows.
The saddest thing about all this is that so many people who claim to value diversity seem perfectly happy to stamp it out when they disagree with someone. Diversity-for-me-but-not-for-thee is kind of ugly. Pope Francis visited these nuns to support their beautiful work and their request for the same kind of exemption already given to big companies. Our society should be tolerant enough to have room to both get women contraceptives and let these nuns remain true to their faith and follow their Pope. This isn't that hard.
The saddest thing about all this is that so many people who claim to value diversity seem perfectly happy to stamp it out when they disagree with someone. Diversity-for-me-but-not-for-thee is kind of ugly. Pope Francis visited these nuns to support their beautiful work and their request for the same kind of exemption already given to big companies. Our society should be tolerant enough to have room to both get women contraceptives and let these nuns remain true to their faith and follow their Pope. This isn't that hard.
1
You see to have missed the point. It has been taken out of the hands of the nuns. Now they're trying to force the government to stop providing it.
1
I'll echo the sentiments of many here who admire your good work with the poor. That said, I don't accept your argument from morality. Your morality is a fickle beast indeed if it allows others to shoulder the entire burden of paying for the firefighters and police who protect you; for the teachers and schools who educate the young in your neighborhoods; for the roads and trains you travel on every day; for the military who serve on your behalf; for social security, medicare, and Medicaid which protect those same souls you serve. The list goes on and on. You and your group benefit from an arguably immoral tax-exempt status. You'll forgive me if your argument from morality falls on deaf ears.
15
The Sisters should show as much compassion for their female employees, and the women of America in general, as they claim to do for their patients.
If they are indeed so resistive to government interference and supportive of Catholic tradition, perhaps they should opt out of receiving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements and go back to begging in the streets to support their mission, just like in "the good old days".
If they are indeed so resistive to government interference and supportive of Catholic tradition, perhaps they should opt out of receiving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements and go back to begging in the streets to support their mission, just like in "the good old days".
19
What next? Catholic hospitals will be forced to enter the abortion business? Religious freedom is under attack in this country and no one is immured. These are frightening times in which we live. God help us.
2
Yes. Our freedom to have other than a strict, conservative, mean spirited Christian religious belief is under attack. These nuns must be stopped.
1
If there's any attack, it's only on their right to impose their beliefs on others.
4
Abortion is legal. To me, it is literally a crime for Catholic hospitals to deny this right. Ditto for vasectomies. If the Church, or any church, wants to be a business, they must be follow all laws.
4
Of course the Little Sisters of the Poor are a religious group and they shouldn't have to go all the way to the Supreme Court for this minor legal carve out just to have the freedom to live their vocations in the way they see fit. These women have given their lives to serve in such a humble way, begging for every dollar they receive and then spending those dollars on people who are for the most part otherwise ignored in our society.
Who are they hurting if they don't provide this kind of "healthcare"? No one. No one is forced to enter their order or to work in their facilities. The women who have chosen this way of life choose to live their lives according to their faith and the world is better for it. We have no right to tell them their amazing example of loving their neighbor is illegitimate. We ought to do nothing but thank them, and show them the respect and admiration they deserve by making this minor legal exception..
Who are they hurting if they don't provide this kind of "healthcare"? No one. No one is forced to enter their order or to work in their facilities. The women who have chosen this way of life choose to live their lives according to their faith and the world is better for it. We have no right to tell them their amazing example of loving their neighbor is illegitimate. We ought to do nothing but thank them, and show them the respect and admiration they deserve by making this minor legal exception..
2
They are essentially asking for the right to control women and give them a pay cut. Its not happening.
2
Neither were the nuns forced to open a non-church facility or hire non-pastoral employees. Once they do, they have to comply with civil building codes, OSHA, and the health care mandates. These are civil laws intended to protect general safety, health and equal treatment. A lot of organization perform good works -- that does not confer a privilege to bypass civil laws. The nuns' rights do not trump their employees' rights.
If you read the article, the nuns liken it to keeping sodas out of schools. I would argue that employees are not children, the nuns are not in loco parentis, and what employees do with their paycheck and/or benefit package is not the employer's business. Connecting insurance to jobs is a crazy system, but that's how we do it, and employees are entitled to reproductive coverage as a matter of law.
If you read the article, the nuns liken it to keeping sodas out of schools. I would argue that employees are not children, the nuns are not in loco parentis, and what employees do with their paycheck and/or benefit package is not the employer's business. Connecting insurance to jobs is a crazy system, but that's how we do it, and employees are entitled to reproductive coverage as a matter of law.
4
The Catholic church as failed to get Catholics to follow their doctrine so it is trying to get the government to help them enforce it. Matters of public policy should not be determined by articles of private faith.
13
A woman has a right to an abortion when she wants of needs one for whatever personal reason she has. The Affordable Care Act passed into law and provides employers will provide contraceptives on demand of the employee. Do not accept public money to operate your charity or business if you have scruples. I do not care if your organization is good or bad take the money provide for the provisions. I don't care if they dance on the head of a pin with angels. You like everyone wants an exemption to laws they don't like. Is it not enough all these groups, religions, ministers, churches and all their property is tax free and places a burden on all of us that don't believe in your particular religion. But, we do pay don't we! Obey the law or keep off our money. Treat your employees right. You want to do good by doing bad to others...
9
Seems to me that in cases such as this, it is a touch myopic to simply focus on where your own rights might be infringed upon. In any large society where there are so many individual groups, it is simply not possible to safeguard every single right or every single person. To ask for this functionally means that you are asking for your own right to be held above the rights of others. . What is necessary in this case is to endeavor to balance the rights of one group with the rights of another - hopefully in good will. In the real world that is the only possible solution in most cases. I would argue that this is the challenging task we are up against in this case and in many others, and when one particular group gets caught up in protesting that their particular rights are the issue, they are obscuring the very nature of the task we are faced with. You can't always have your way and neither can I. Let us at least recognize the complex task we have before us.
5
Constance Veit writes, "But for us this is not a money question; it is a moral question about what we offer in our plan. It’s similar to high schools that have removed soda machines from their property because they don’t think soda is good for children. It doesn’t matter that the soda companies will pay for the machines. And the school’s decision doesn’t prevent children from getting soda elsewhere. The school simply doesn’t want to be responsible for providing something it believes is bad for its students. It is the same with us."
Comparing birth control to soda bans in schools? I would laugh, but the consequences to women's autonomy and their right to hold their own beliefs is too grave. Belief is personal; it's what you believe. You opt to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is hubris to presume you have the right to impose those teachings on the women (and men who have wives) who work for your agency. This is not about your beliefs, it's about imposing those beliefs on those employees.
I think it's evil; co-opting another woman's rights to her own belief and her own body is immroral. All the good of caring for the poor in the world does not absolve the Catholic Church or the Little Sisters of the Poor of that sin.
Comparing birth control to soda bans in schools? I would laugh, but the consequences to women's autonomy and their right to hold their own beliefs is too grave. Belief is personal; it's what you believe. You opt to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is hubris to presume you have the right to impose those teachings on the women (and men who have wives) who work for your agency. This is not about your beliefs, it's about imposing those beliefs on those employees.
I think it's evil; co-opting another woman's rights to her own belief and her own body is immroral. All the good of caring for the poor in the world does not absolve the Catholic Church or the Little Sisters of the Poor of that sin.
10
Yep.
I have no tolerance for people, be they Little Sisters, Big Brothers, Obese Aunts or Toothless Uncles, who think their religious beliefs give them the right to mandate an employee's health insurance coverage.
13
While I greatly respect your work, I feel that your tax exempt status requires that you adhere to the law that the rest of us have chosen. If you care to forsake that exemption, then your argument carries more moral weight and may be more persuasive.
7
The whole idea of comparing soda machines to refusing to provide contraception because, like sugary sodas, contraception is "not good for you" is beyond absurdity.
Forcing women to bear unwanted [and perhaps unloved] children is neither merciful nor caring.
Forcing women to bear unwanted [and perhaps unloved] children is neither merciful nor caring.
13
Your work is admirable, but your soda machine metaphor is not, unless your employees are seeking to avoid pregnancy during their lunch breaks. If you are willing to have your employees access contraception using an alternative government plan, the effect would seem the same - the insurance arrangements made by your organization allow your employees to engage in what you see as immoral actions.
1
(With great appreciation for the good work you and other religions organizations do):
First, your case would be more persuasive if organizations like yours would reject taxpayers’ dollars. Many taxpayers aren't interested in contributing to the advancement of one religion or another through public money -- and they have that right. The state protects the rights of the religious -- and protects the rights of those of other religions and the non-religious from having a specific religion’s beliefs imposed on the rest of us. Incidentally, this protects your rights, too.
In addition, religious sensibilities are not an absolute right, any more than the right to speech is absolute. There are lots of religious beliefs, from polygamy to human sacrifice that we as a society deem out of the mainstream and therefore don’t allow. In 21st century America, denial of birth control is well out of the mainstream. If we were in 19th century America, you case might carry more weight.
Finally, rather than fighting the spirit and the letter of United States law, perhaps religious organizations should comply – and should work to convince their stakeholders as individuals not to use birth control as a matter of Conscience. If you’ve used your institutional and public relations power to avoid society’s rules but haven’t actually won the hearts and minds of the people to whom you’ve denied birth control, haven’t you lost the moral argument?
First, your case would be more persuasive if organizations like yours would reject taxpayers’ dollars. Many taxpayers aren't interested in contributing to the advancement of one religion or another through public money -- and they have that right. The state protects the rights of the religious -- and protects the rights of those of other religions and the non-religious from having a specific religion’s beliefs imposed on the rest of us. Incidentally, this protects your rights, too.
In addition, religious sensibilities are not an absolute right, any more than the right to speech is absolute. There are lots of religious beliefs, from polygamy to human sacrifice that we as a society deem out of the mainstream and therefore don’t allow. In 21st century America, denial of birth control is well out of the mainstream. If we were in 19th century America, you case might carry more weight.
Finally, rather than fighting the spirit and the letter of United States law, perhaps religious organizations should comply – and should work to convince their stakeholders as individuals not to use birth control as a matter of Conscience. If you’ve used your institutional and public relations power to avoid society’s rules but haven’t actually won the hearts and minds of the people to whom you’ve denied birth control, haven’t you lost the moral argument?
207
"First, your case would be more persuasive if organizations like yours would reject taxpayers’ dollars."
I agree that private organizations should receive no taxpayer dollars. Would you say the same thing to Planned Parenthood?
I agree that private organizations should receive no taxpayer dollars. Would you say the same thing to Planned Parenthood?
1
No one goes to a home run by the Little Sisters of the Poor of they do not want to. All of their "guests" are elderly and poor. None of them need birth control pills. It highly unlikely that any of their guests need birth control. I don't see why any organization has to give their employees birth control pills. I worked for a utility and the work force was about 75% women. No one expected the company to provide their birth control pills. Since when is it expected of an employer to do so. Do they provide their uniforms, free parking, transporting to work, free lunch! I doubt it. Why are they expected to provide free birth control pills. Give the ladies 5 dollars more a week and they can spend it on whatever they want.
1
You certainly have the right to not participate in government mandated birth control. What you cannot do is receive tax dollars from the government and use those tax dollars to employ others who don't hold to your beliefs and then refuse them medical coverage. It really has nothing to do with the quality of your care or commitment to your vocation. If you want to deny employees government mandated health care benefits, just don't receive any government funds. Your organization displaces other secular employers in your community, so it is not a simple matter of telling people to find work elsewhere. You cannot set yourself up as the employer of last resort for some people and then claim a religious exemption. Refuse government money, downsize your operation and allow other secular organizations to fill the void and provide the mandated coverage.
118
"What you cannot do is receive tax dollars from the government and use those tax dollars to employ others who don't hold to your beliefs and then refuse them medical coverage."
...and also to receive a tax exemption from the government, which also subsidizes you.
...and also to receive a tax exemption from the government, which also subsidizes you.
1
It is a moral question for many of us non-Catholics, as well.
You are an employer. And in a free country, employers are not allowed to control their employees access to health care based on the employers religion.
You trespass on your employees rights when you try to inhibit their access to health care, health care for which they pay themselves.
Your personal religious beliefs are yours, not theirs.
You do not have the right to make other people live by your religion. Even if you provide the health care plan they purchase from you as their employer.
Other people get to make their own decisions regarding health, family planning, and sex. Yes, even when you think they are wrong, they still get to decide for themselves. It is simply none of your beeswax.
I always find it terribly funny when Catholic people exalt their own religious rights in order to trample the human rights of others. There are so many examples of this, many quite horrific, and yet they never seem to learn.
You are an employer. And in a free country, employers are not allowed to control their employees access to health care based on the employers religion.
You trespass on your employees rights when you try to inhibit their access to health care, health care for which they pay themselves.
Your personal religious beliefs are yours, not theirs.
You do not have the right to make other people live by your religion. Even if you provide the health care plan they purchase from you as their employer.
Other people get to make their own decisions regarding health, family planning, and sex. Yes, even when you think they are wrong, they still get to decide for themselves. It is simply none of your beeswax.
I always find it terribly funny when Catholic people exalt their own religious rights in order to trample the human rights of others. There are so many examples of this, many quite horrific, and yet they never seem to learn.
188
Well put.
Also, isn't there something called "free will"? How do good Catholics prove themselves in the face of temptation if not by choosing the right path. The sisters are removing that choice and leaving their employees untested. What will they be able to say for themselves at the time of judgement?
Heaven forbid these employees are saved from the evils of birth control only to bring into the world an unwanted child who potentially goes on to do something truly evil? The nuns are patronizing. Ironic.
Also, isn't there something called "free will"? How do good Catholics prove themselves in the face of temptation if not by choosing the right path. The sisters are removing that choice and leaving their employees untested. What will they be able to say for themselves at the time of judgement?
Heaven forbid these employees are saved from the evils of birth control only to bring into the world an unwanted child who potentially goes on to do something truly evil? The nuns are patronizing. Ironic.
1
Summary: our right to discriminate against our employees and restrict the choices guaranteed them by the Constitution overrides their rights. This is because our beliefs comes from God and theirs are mere personal choices. Oh, we're pursuing this case in the hopes of allowing religious people everywhere in America to impose their beliefs on others.
130
I am an admirer of the work of the Little Sisters of the Poor and thank Sister Celestine and the other nuns for what they selflessly do for our elderly poor.
However I fail to understand how this regulation restricts her religious freedom under our Constitution. The law does not impact the practice or expression of her beliefs. The government is not requiring that she personally use contraception, nor is the government in any way restricting her right to advocate her beliefs to others (including her employees).
As I see it, her religious rights do not include imposing her beliefs (no matter how valid) on her employees. If the employee "sins" by using some portion of their pay package to obtain contraceptives, that "sin" is on the employee - not the employer. She is perfectly free to try to convince her employees of the validity of her beliefs, but does not have the right to impose them under the guise of "religious freedom".
However I fail to understand how this regulation restricts her religious freedom under our Constitution. The law does not impact the practice or expression of her beliefs. The government is not requiring that she personally use contraception, nor is the government in any way restricting her right to advocate her beliefs to others (including her employees).
As I see it, her religious rights do not include imposing her beliefs (no matter how valid) on her employees. If the employee "sins" by using some portion of their pay package to obtain contraceptives, that "sin" is on the employee - not the employer. She is perfectly free to try to convince her employees of the validity of her beliefs, but does not have the right to impose them under the guise of "religious freedom".
2
The Sisters aren't trying to prevent their employees from getting contraception at all. They just don't want to be involved in handing out something that goes against their conscience. As long as religious employers have served the public, they've had the right to tailor they employee benefits to reflect their religious beliefs.
This is also true of liberal employers. I think we could all understand, for example, why an LGBT employee would not want to be forced to provide insurance that covered conversion therapy. It's about being consistent in what we promote and what we believe. But that doesn't inhibit employee freedom to get any services they want elsewhere, and the government has its own insurance exchanges to provide it.
This is also true of liberal employers. I think we could all understand, for example, why an LGBT employee would not want to be forced to provide insurance that covered conversion therapy. It's about being consistent in what we promote and what we believe. But that doesn't inhibit employee freedom to get any services they want elsewhere, and the government has its own insurance exchanges to provide it.
"in a free and diverse society, the American government should not force its citizens to act in violation of their religious beliefs"
Many passages of the Bible can and have been understood to mean that Jewish people are the enemies of Christ. So, on the above view, a landlord who sincerely holds that religious belief should not be compelled to let their property to Jewish people. Again, the Bible explicitly states that people guilty of homosexual acts should be stoned to death (ditto for adulterers, disobedient children, etc.). Suppose A sincerely believes that this is the will of God. If the government should not be allowed to force a person to act in violation of their religious beliefs, it has no right to restrain A from stoning to death a person 'guilty' of homosexual acts. - So the above 'principle' is obviously false. In many cases, forcing a person to act contrary to their religious beliefs is precisely what it should do.
Many passages of the Bible can and have been understood to mean that Jewish people are the enemies of Christ. So, on the above view, a landlord who sincerely holds that religious belief should not be compelled to let their property to Jewish people. Again, the Bible explicitly states that people guilty of homosexual acts should be stoned to death (ditto for adulterers, disobedient children, etc.). Suppose A sincerely believes that this is the will of God. If the government should not be allowed to force a person to act in violation of their religious beliefs, it has no right to restrain A from stoning to death a person 'guilty' of homosexual acts. - So the above 'principle' is obviously false. In many cases, forcing a person to act contrary to their religious beliefs is precisely what it should do.
46
Thank you for explaining your position. Regardless of whether people agree, your religious beliefs are protected. Our very wise founders understood that religious beliefs did not have to be shared or approved to be protected. They understood that those beliefs would quite naturally be derided and denied, although they might not have foreseen their collision with other rights.
Your religious beliefs are a protected and should remain that way.
Your religious beliefs are a protected and should remain that way.
4
Maybe Jesus simply suggested that people can easily avoid having their faith derided by sharing it only with the personality of the universe they believe they serve.
So if your employer is Catholic then your health insurance will not cover contraception, if they are a Jehovah's Witness then you will be denied coverage for blood transfusions, and if your employer is a Scientologist then you will be denied coverage for any psychiatric treatment.
71
Indeed. This is what Hobby Lobby has wrought.
5
The comparison between the Healthcare law and soda doesn't work. Access to soda isn't protected under the law. Healthcare is. Let's be honest here. Not providing all Healthcare required by law isn't good enough for you. You want to prevent women from getting and others from providing, all necessary and legal Healthcare. If this isn't indeed the case then offer an alternative and legal way for the services to be provided that won't violate your conscience.
There is no absolute guarantee to complete religious freedom. Indeed, I'm certain that you would be against complete religious freedon. How do you feel about ending laws against plural marriages? Gay marriage? Hmm?
There is no absolute guarantee to complete religious freedom. Indeed, I'm certain that you would be against complete religious freedon. How do you feel about ending laws against plural marriages? Gay marriage? Hmm?
11
Sister, if you can't stomach the idea of offering reproductive health care to the women in your employ, perhaps it's time your order got out of the business of acting as an employer in the US. Turn your institutions over to some charitable entity that respects the rights of all its employees -- and there are lots of such entities --and let the members of your order volunteer at those institutions.
70
The Little Sisters serve with a passion and love that the law can't require and money can't buy BECAUSE of their faith. The idea that some secular group will just come in and fill their shoes just as well is a poorly thought-out fiction.
1
People who believe they know the mind of God never cease to depress me.
The author is free to exercise her religion, any religion or no religion, and to make decisions that concern her own person accordingly. But is there anything more self-evident that can be said than that her religious views should not empower her to limit the decisions of any other people, especially in their most private and intimate matters?
This has nothing to do with the sister's freedom to believe in whatever superstition she wants: it is about her desire to enforce her superstitions on others. But hasn't that been the history of the Church and of religions (nearly) everywhere?
The author is free to exercise her religion, any religion or no religion, and to make decisions that concern her own person accordingly. But is there anything more self-evident that can be said than that her religious views should not empower her to limit the decisions of any other people, especially in their most private and intimate matters?
This has nothing to do with the sister's freedom to believe in whatever superstition she wants: it is about her desire to enforce her superstitions on others. But hasn't that been the history of the Church and of religions (nearly) everywhere?
60
Sister, coercing people to abide by your religious convictions isn't charity. Its self-serving. Remember that Jesus didn't force anyone to do His will. You shouldn't either.
166
Let's be clear Ms. Viet what your asking for is not religious freedom , it's the right to impose your religious views on thousands of your female employees and their families. RFRA was not meant to be a tool for religious oppression. Signing an exemption form is a simple procedure. Your ability to practice your religion has in no way been compromised. This is not a theocracy. As a member of a secular society you have an obligation follow certain policies like everybody else. You have no right to limit essential health care for thousands of your female employees. The government has a "compelling interest" to insure their access to needed care available to everyone else.
19
I had two aunts who were Little Sisters of the Poor, so it is with sadness that I see the order inserting itself into this political issue on the wrong side of both history and religious freedom. Unless Sister Constance sincerely believes her faith requires her to manage the sexual behavior of other people, in which case she is factually incorrect about the obligations of members of the Roman Catholic Church, then she is incorrect that the opt out provision of the ACA violates her religious freedom. Under the ACA, Sister Constance is free to not use contraception, and that is what the Church requires. More than that us not requires, and violates the religious freedom of others by forcing them to live according tonSister Constance's sexual morality.
16
It's well known that the Catholic Churche's position on contraception is foolish doctrine.
Most Catholics ignore this doctrine out of common sense.
Just a few classroom lessons on how the male and female bodies are set up to help encourage procreation is all it takes. There are all sorts of sensory zones and nerves and a computer system programmed to help make it work on both sides.
The Church imposed this doctrine on the uneducated peasant stock who made up its original congregation when the Church had enormous power over both the populace and the monarchies within its realm.
While you may claim a need for a religious exemption you are not injured and simply can't play dumb to the consequences.
Repeat: it is widely held within the Catholic Church and its membership that the doctrine banning contraception is an archaic doctrine that should be ignored and only your lawyers benefit. You are foolish in your belief and you hurt others needlessly. Because you have no factual legitimate grounds and are not injured.
Most Catholics ignore this doctrine out of common sense.
Just a few classroom lessons on how the male and female bodies are set up to help encourage procreation is all it takes. There are all sorts of sensory zones and nerves and a computer system programmed to help make it work on both sides.
The Church imposed this doctrine on the uneducated peasant stock who made up its original congregation when the Church had enormous power over both the populace and the monarchies within its realm.
While you may claim a need for a religious exemption you are not injured and simply can't play dumb to the consequences.
Repeat: it is widely held within the Catholic Church and its membership that the doctrine banning contraception is an archaic doctrine that should be ignored and only your lawyers benefit. You are foolish in your belief and you hurt others needlessly. Because you have no factual legitimate grounds and are not injured.
7
It is a moral question for many of us non-Catholics, as well.
You are an employer. And in a free country, employers are not allowed to control their employees access to health care based on the employers religion.
You trespass on your employees rights when you try to inhibit their access to health care, health care for which they pay themselves.
Your personal religious beliefs are yours, not theirs.
You do not have the right to make other people live by your religion. Even if you provide the health care plan they purchase from you as their employer.
Other people get to make their own decisions regarding health, family planning, and sex. Yes, even when you think they are wrong, they still get to decide for themselves. It is simply none of your beeswax.
I always find it terribly funny when Catholic people exalt their own religious rights in order to trample the human rights of others. There are so many examples of this, many quite horrific, and yet they never seem to learn.
You are an employer. And in a free country, employers are not allowed to control their employees access to health care based on the employers religion.
You trespass on your employees rights when you try to inhibit their access to health care, health care for which they pay themselves.
Your personal religious beliefs are yours, not theirs.
You do not have the right to make other people live by your religion. Even if you provide the health care plan they purchase from you as their employer.
Other people get to make their own decisions regarding health, family planning, and sex. Yes, even when you think they are wrong, they still get to decide for themselves. It is simply none of your beeswax.
I always find it terribly funny when Catholic people exalt their own religious rights in order to trample the human rights of others. There are so many examples of this, many quite horrific, and yet they never seem to learn.
45
"The obvious alternative to forcing us to offer these services is for the government to allow our employees to access them through its own health care exchanges."
No, Sister, the obvious alternative is for your organization not to employ people. Employers in the United States have to follow employment law. What if your religion didn't believe women should work outside the home? The next religion to request an exemption from the law just might.
No, Sister, the obvious alternative is for your organization not to employ people. Employers in the United States have to follow employment law. What if your religion didn't believe women should work outside the home? The next religion to request an exemption from the law just might.
58
Employers that intend to impose religious law upon employees should advise people in advance of hiring and obtain consent from them. The US legal system should not be burdened with these cases.
6
This problem would be solved if we stopped depending on employers to administer health care, and instead adopted a Medicare-for-all health care system. Why should employers be put in this position? Religious institutions and business owners who regard their religious liberty to be violated within our current system should therefore support a change to Medicare-for-all.
28
It's hard to understand why birth control is not acceptable to these nuns. Don't they abhor abortion? Well, birth control is the best way to ensure it won't be needed.
60
Dear Sister Veit,
Your chosen vocation is selfless, generous, and a wonderful thing for this world. I salute you for it.
Using religious beliefs to deny others their human rights is never defensible. Organized Christianity is full of deplorable examples of depriving people the fundamental right of control over their own bodies: the Inquisition, American slavery, the Salem Witch Trials, encouraging European pogroms, to name a few.
Please look to history. Your organization is doing so much good. It is a shame for it to be tarnished by association with such shameful historical acts.
Lee Stetzer, MD
Your chosen vocation is selfless, generous, and a wonderful thing for this world. I salute you for it.
Using religious beliefs to deny others their human rights is never defensible. Organized Christianity is full of deplorable examples of depriving people the fundamental right of control over their own bodies: the Inquisition, American slavery, the Salem Witch Trials, encouraging European pogroms, to name a few.
Please look to history. Your organization is doing so much good. It is a shame for it to be tarnished by association with such shameful historical acts.
Lee Stetzer, MD
15
I'm sorry but if you or any other employer, religious or not, cannot follow the labor laws of the United States, then you should not be an employer in the United States. If you can't follow the law and cannot persuade enough unpaid volunteers to do your work, then you need to cease to exist as an organization. Your employees should not have to give up the few legal rights they have as workers due to your religious beliefs.
It's long past time that this country stops coddling people and organizations based on their "faith." What's next? You object to the minimum wage because of your "faith"?
There should be no exemption. Not for the Little Sisters of the Poor, not for Hobby Lobby.
It's long past time that this country stops coddling people and organizations based on their "faith." What's next? You object to the minimum wage because of your "faith"?
There should be no exemption. Not for the Little Sisters of the Poor, not for Hobby Lobby.
27
Birth control is practiced by the vast majority of American Catholic women, so the ban can hardly be said to be a serious tenet of the Church. Even if it were, when you made the decision to hire people who don't share your beliefs, you should have understood that you could not use your religious liberty as a weapon to supersede theirs.
Despite the double-talk, you actually do have the ability to opt out of providing birth control coverage. I frankly don't think you should have that exemption, but you do, and you should drop this pointless case and check the box.
Despite the double-talk, you actually do have the ability to opt out of providing birth control coverage. I frankly don't think you should have that exemption, but you do, and you should drop this pointless case and check the box.
76
A health insurance benefit is part of an employee's compensation. I know that from 25 years as a small businessperson. Relax and let your employees decide how they will spend their own money.
40
How much do the Little Sisters of the Poor pay the lay people who work for them? Enough that the lay people would not miss money spent out of their own pockets for effective birth control? I thought not.
6
This is why we need a public option. Employees shouldn't be subjected to the views of their employers when it comes to medical decisions. That is private and medical care should be consistent, affordable and portable. I may use BC pills for PCOS or acne or to prevent pregnancy....but that is my decision and the only person I should have to have that conversation with is my doctor.
If we allow Employers to chip away at our most basic rights, what will they choose next?
If we allow Employers to chip away at our most basic rights, what will they choose next?
9
The thing I fear about a "public option" is that cretinous congressmen and senators would prove their so-called conservatism by working to ban the very things over which we are already arguing.
You don't get to make dictates on how your non-religious employees use their salaries and benefits. If you are allowed to blanket deny a health care service to your secular employees based upon your order's religious doctrines for the faithful, what is next? Can the Christian Science Monitor refuse to allow its health care to cover blood transfusions? What about the salary of your employees? You provide them with cash for their labor just as you provide them with health insurance - can you dictate to them how they spend it as well?
When religious organizations hire in the public sphere, they surrender some of their ability to control their money. That's the way it works for every employer in the country, and it is entirely fair. Otherwise, we return to the days of the Company Store.
When religious organizations hire in the public sphere, they surrender some of their ability to control their money. That's the way it works for every employer in the country, and it is entirely fair. Otherwise, we return to the days of the Company Store.
7
If Sister Viet wrote this in hopes of taking their case to the court of public opinion now that Father Scalia is dead, well, the verdict is in. The court of public opinion finds these institutions guilty as charged.
7
Your attitudes "trample" on others' rights. The fact that you can make your choice implies that others should be able to make theirs. Isn't that part of the Golden Rule? Do unto others? Most of us don't choose a life of chastity, and need the ability to plan our families. Sorry, if you are employing people they have rights too.
6
Sister Veit, with great sincerity, calls for support of her "religious health plan."
What is a "religious health plan?" There is health, and there is religion. The phrase itself illustrates the problem. The sisters can celebrate their religion freely, but cannot control either the religious or health practices of their employees. That is what freedom of religion means.
What is a "religious health plan?" There is health, and there is religion. The phrase itself illustrates the problem. The sisters can celebrate their religion freely, but cannot control either the religious or health practices of their employees. That is what freedom of religion means.
6
This is nothing but sophistry. Another attempt by the Catholic Church to make the Federal Government do to Catholic women what these women have rejected by 95% - namely not to use contraception. The views of the Catholic Church on sex and marriage are simply medieval mysogonist nonsense.
11
It violates your religion. It violates your belief. Maybe. If you actually had faith, you would not be so concerned with serving your righteous lust for control.
4
On further thought:
I have inferred pretty strongly that you don't have faith or you would not be doing this jerky thing you are doing. Who am I to say?
But forcing chastity on those who have not sworn to it, by coercing situations that saddle women with unwanted children, is mean, vicious. And doing that in a crowded world is sadistic and negligent.
I have inferred pretty strongly that you don't have faith or you would not be doing this jerky thing you are doing. Who am I to say?
But forcing chastity on those who have not sworn to it, by coercing situations that saddle women with unwanted children, is mean, vicious. And doing that in a crowded world is sadistic and negligent.
3
Yet another example of why we need a public option or single payer system.
4
It's longstanding law that freedom of one person's religion ends where freedom of another's begins. What you are arguing is that because YOU don't believe in contraception, you have the right to prevent your employees, who may not share your views, from gaining access to it through a mandatory healthcare plan. Your right, however, ended when you decided to go into business.
8
By what authority do you deny women access to birth control through your health plan? Christ had nothing to say about it. Are you a follower of Jesus or of a worldly church?
8
Agreeing to abide by the law in return for permission to opt out of providing contraception doesn't sound like an abuse of anyone's religious freedom to me.
Balking at doing so strikes me as a form of fussiness bordering on unreasonableness. These "Little Sisters of the Poor" have cost the taxpayer a fortune by forcing the government to defend a frivolous case that amounts to little more than tetchiness.
Balking at doing so strikes me as a form of fussiness bordering on unreasonableness. These "Little Sisters of the Poor" have cost the taxpayer a fortune by forcing the government to defend a frivolous case that amounts to little more than tetchiness.
9
What about other people's faiths? The argument that a papal decree, which outlaws the possibility of birth control outside of abstinence is seen nowhere in your bible and has no authority to anyone but Catholic extremists. The rest of us must be allowed to be guided by our own right to freedom from your religious dogma. Nobody is forcing birth control on you so don't force abstinence on us.
6
Sister Constance,
I have supported Little Sisters of the Poor in the past with money. When my mother in law had Alzheimer's,we could only wish that the care she got was a kind and loving as the Little Sisters give. Little Sisters should be the standard others hope to emulate.
But I cannot support your stand on contraception. I am Catholic, and know the teaching. But your right to believe that contraception is immoral butts up against others' right to use it; you are not making the decision to fund it, or for them to use it, any more than if they take their paycheck that you handed them and buy a box of condoms.
We live in a society that has a broad range of beliefs, and the law is not where they should be determined. If you truly believe that contraception is wrong, continue to teach as such. But respect the right of women to disagree; and respect the law which guarantees them that right.
That will male me a lot more comfortable to start supporting you again. Morality is not legality; one religion's beliefs are not everyone else's requirements.
I have supported Little Sisters of the Poor in the past with money. When my mother in law had Alzheimer's,we could only wish that the care she got was a kind and loving as the Little Sisters give. Little Sisters should be the standard others hope to emulate.
But I cannot support your stand on contraception. I am Catholic, and know the teaching. But your right to believe that contraception is immoral butts up against others' right to use it; you are not making the decision to fund it, or for them to use it, any more than if they take their paycheck that you handed them and buy a box of condoms.
We live in a society that has a broad range of beliefs, and the law is not where they should be determined. If you truly believe that contraception is wrong, continue to teach as such. But respect the right of women to disagree; and respect the law which guarantees them that right.
That will male me a lot more comfortable to start supporting you again. Morality is not legality; one religion's beliefs are not everyone else's requirements.
15
This is complete and utter codswallop. I cannot imagine why the New York Times carried such tripe. Moreover, the courts should not have taken this case. Has anyone noticed that any time the Supreme Court agrees to become a committee of revision that ordinary Americans lose out.
As a direct result of the Court's Obamacare ruling, 300,000 in Mississippi and 500,000 in North Carolina, who would otherwise have had extended Medicaid coverage, have none. So much Catholic concern for the poor!
Why aren't these pompous, pius women working to overturn the Court enabled limitations on Obamacare? If they really cared about the poor, that's what they would be doing. Instead they are doing the bidding of the male hierarchy.
I particularly liked the line, "But we’ve been saddened this past year to see misinformation about our pending Supreme Court case result in pain and confusion on all sides of this issue." There is an easy way to fix this problem. Drop the lawsuit. Devote your time and energy to taking care of the poor.
As a direct result of the Court's Obamacare ruling, 300,000 in Mississippi and 500,000 in North Carolina, who would otherwise have had extended Medicaid coverage, have none. So much Catholic concern for the poor!
Why aren't these pompous, pius women working to overturn the Court enabled limitations on Obamacare? If they really cared about the poor, that's what they would be doing. Instead they are doing the bidding of the male hierarchy.
I particularly liked the line, "But we’ve been saddened this past year to see misinformation about our pending Supreme Court case result in pain and confusion on all sides of this issue." There is an easy way to fix this problem. Drop the lawsuit. Devote your time and energy to taking care of the poor.
21
Perhaps the good sister might regard her employees with the same love and respect she affords her patients, as if she were employing Christ himself. Surely she wouldn't interfere with his right to use his health care benefits as he saw fit.
7
Christ has to fulfill people's expectations to be IDed.
How dare you force your beliefs on others. This is not a theocracy. If you insist on not providing full access to commercial insurance policies under the law, you should be taxed as a business. If none of those options are adequate, go to another country or to Rome but stop invading our democracy. Your supposedly concerned care for the elderly is being used to oppress others religious or ethical freedom.
6
The abuse of government to give respect to the claims of anyone to know what God thinks about anything is the most profound insult to intelligence of life in the USA, and it is explicitly unconstitutional.
2
There should never have been an exception to the law. No employer should be able to opt out.
5
Nobody is stopping the Little Sisters of the Poor from honoring their vocations. Freedom of religion means you get to choose your religion, not that you get to choose the religion of anybody else.
2
Well gee, the Pope allowed nuns in Africa to use BC because of the rampage of rape there. Utter, complete hypocrisy.
3
I agree with Sister Veit: the federal government should allow the Little Sisters of the Poor to continue their work.
But Jesus never said anything about contraception. In fact, the closest thing he said about any government policy was "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".
Jesus must be very disappointed that the Sisters are making such a big fuss over contraception instead of serving Our Lord.
But Jesus never said anything about contraception. In fact, the closest thing he said about any government policy was "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".
Jesus must be very disappointed that the Sisters are making such a big fuss over contraception instead of serving Our Lord.
1
I am continually baffled by how people and organizations claim, under the rubric of "religious freedom" their "right" to impose their religious beliefs on those who don't share them.
I have enormous respect for Catholic charities, especially the nursing orders. My dad, despite being Jewish and non-religious, died in a wonderful, kind, caring Catholic hospice. My mom worked for many years with a nursing order on charitable actions in my home town.
But this is a health plan, part of compensation, and religious orders have no more right to deny employees a part of the plan than they do to prohibit said employees from using their salary to buy birth control, especially as they enjoy de facto government subsidies by being tax-exempt.
In other words, dear Sisters: I, as a tax-payer, am PAYING part of your health care plan because I have to cover the costs of public services those income and property taxes you don't have to pay. Oh, and yes, I'm also paying YOUR portion of the ACA you don't!
I have enormous respect for Catholic charities, especially the nursing orders. My dad, despite being Jewish and non-religious, died in a wonderful, kind, caring Catholic hospice. My mom worked for many years with a nursing order on charitable actions in my home town.
But this is a health plan, part of compensation, and religious orders have no more right to deny employees a part of the plan than they do to prohibit said employees from using their salary to buy birth control, especially as they enjoy de facto government subsidies by being tax-exempt.
In other words, dear Sisters: I, as a tax-payer, am PAYING part of your health care plan because I have to cover the costs of public services those income and property taxes you don't have to pay. Oh, and yes, I'm also paying YOUR portion of the ACA you don't!
3
The Little Sisters of the Poor is a tax exempt organization because it is a non-profit religious organization. It is not the same as a public school and to make that analogy is nonsense. Schools are controlled by schools boards who are responsible to the citizens-- the Little Sisters of the Poor are not.
It is laudable that the Little Sisters of the Poor follow Catholic teaching on abortion and contraceptives. It does not mean that you can force others to do the same and receive benefits from the tax code.
It is laudable that the Little Sisters of the Poor follow Catholic teaching on abortion and contraceptives. It does not mean that you can force others to do the same and receive benefits from the tax code.
1
You say that, as an analogy with vending machines, "The school simply doesn’t want to be responsible for providing something it believes is bad for its students. It is the same with us." But is it? Students would argue with the school's paternalistic, but there you're speaking only of health consequences (science-based) from empty calories and soda pop. With respect to the ACA where likewise employees might well argue with your right to impose a belief system with real consequences on their futures, based upon your (minority) religious view of a physical, biological process, the point of view you take is similarly paternalistic, but faith-based (not science-based), and dissimilarly profound. In this country you get to have any belief you want, just do not interfere with others whose values, morals, and religions points of view differ from yours.
4
You can't reason with a religious position, When a religious tenet interferes with health and social responsibility it must be rejected by secular government.
7
I'm sorry, but the attempt to accommodate your beliefs thru the opt out provision that simply requires you to sign a form is more than enough. What you are trying to do is impose your narrow mythology, totally unsupported by the Bible (by the way) on others.
You want to play politics, fine. Then you forfeit your tax exempt status.
You want to play politics, fine. Then you forfeit your tax exempt status.
2
"The obvious alternative to forcing us to offer these services ......."
Sorry, but if you can "opt out" no one is forcing you to anything.
Sorry, but if you can "opt out" no one is forcing you to anything.
3
This conversation becomes much less abstract as we face the Zika crisis and understand that ready access to birth control may become a global health imperative as medical science works frantically to eradicate this horrific virus.
As The Pope vaguely suggested on his travel in South America recently, there may in fact be utility in preventing pregnancies in women infected with the virus--at least until we can find another remedial treatment. That opportunistic "ah-ha!" moment when even the most pious understands that not every pregnancy that CAN happen SHOULD happen.
Those with dogmatic ideological views can maintain that they honor their religious beliefs (while also forcing them on others) while the practical and pragmatic believers among us understand that progress and medical discovery are not in fact sins to be condemned.
As The Pope vaguely suggested on his travel in South America recently, there may in fact be utility in preventing pregnancies in women infected with the virus--at least until we can find another remedial treatment. That opportunistic "ah-ha!" moment when even the most pious understands that not every pregnancy that CAN happen SHOULD happen.
Those with dogmatic ideological views can maintain that they honor their religious beliefs (while also forcing them on others) while the practical and pragmatic believers among us understand that progress and medical discovery are not in fact sins to be condemned.
2
The elderly poor are hardly candidates for birth control.
Congratulations on your devotion. But I think you are wrong on characterizing your organization as a religious one. I agree on the label "social service organization".
Congratulations on your devotion. But I think you are wrong on characterizing your organization as a religious one. I agree on the label "social service organization".
3
At least the sisters are honest that their objection isn't just paying for birth control, it is that they want to actively BLOCK women who work for them from receiving it from the government.
That is not the excersize of religious freedom; that is an abuse of religious and institutional power.
Religious groups should be free to practice their faith; they should not be free to flout laws for the common good or block other Americans from their rights, whether it is accessing public legal records in Boston or full health care benefits. The Church is not above the law.
As a graduate of a "conservative" Catholic college (Franciscan University of Steubenville) I have seen the damage that both unchecked local religious power and Humanae Vitae (the birth control teaching) can do in someone's life, especially in relation to women's health. The Catholic right-wing lives in a world of dangerous medical and psychological fantasy when it comes to women's health and marriage, and they should not be able to foist this on the public, including both secular employees and patients at their hospitals, unchecked by the law.
If you serve and employ the public, you must do so according to public laws. If your "religious beliefs" don't allow you to do that, then serve and employ only Catholics.
That is not the excersize of religious freedom; that is an abuse of religious and institutional power.
Religious groups should be free to practice their faith; they should not be free to flout laws for the common good or block other Americans from their rights, whether it is accessing public legal records in Boston or full health care benefits. The Church is not above the law.
As a graduate of a "conservative" Catholic college (Franciscan University of Steubenville) I have seen the damage that both unchecked local religious power and Humanae Vitae (the birth control teaching) can do in someone's life, especially in relation to women's health. The Catholic right-wing lives in a world of dangerous medical and psychological fantasy when it comes to women's health and marriage, and they should not be able to foist this on the public, including both secular employees and patients at their hospitals, unchecked by the law.
If you serve and employ the public, you must do so according to public laws. If your "religious beliefs" don't allow you to do that, then serve and employ only Catholics.
6
Quite frankly, I just don't understand why the inclusion of birth control in health plans somehow violates the religious freedom of the institution that is providing health coverage. My Catholic upbringing has emphasized free will of the individual, not the prevention of exercising that free will by an institution that objects to the individual's choice. That amounts to an imposition of religious beliefs on others. No one is forcing anyone to use contraceptives, but at the same time, free will is withheld when the option is prevented from inclusion. Having to obtain contraception outside of insurance plans, or as an individual plan can be prohibitively expensive for most working people.
I really don't understand the Catholic church's objection to birth control and other methods of contraception, abortion yes, but birth control has many health purposes other than rampant sexuality as the church seems to see as it's reason for objection. My mother was put on birth control pills after the sixth child as another pregnancy would likely kill her. I was put on birth control pills as a teenager because my periods were wildly irregular and I became seriously anemic - the pill was used as a medication to regulate my cycle. Birth control PREVENTS abortions. Condoms PREVENT the spread of disease. WIth the Tzika virus out there slowly spreading north, even the Pope is considering lifting the church's stance on birth control. Individuals are responsible for their own beliefs.
I really don't understand the Catholic church's objection to birth control and other methods of contraception, abortion yes, but birth control has many health purposes other than rampant sexuality as the church seems to see as it's reason for objection. My mother was put on birth control pills after the sixth child as another pregnancy would likely kill her. I was put on birth control pills as a teenager because my periods were wildly irregular and I became seriously anemic - the pill was used as a medication to regulate my cycle. Birth control PREVENTS abortions. Condoms PREVENT the spread of disease. WIth the Tzika virus out there slowly spreading north, even the Pope is considering lifting the church's stance on birth control. Individuals are responsible for their own beliefs.
6
Surely with the health care options available today we have a way to provide coverage for women and avoid fights with religious groups who are also engaged in providing much-needed services. Perhaps closing the loopholes for big business and government-run plans would be a better use of our tax dollars than fighting this group in court.
2
@ LElizabeth who writes:
"Perhaps closing the loopholes for big business and government-run plans would be a better use of our tax dollars than fighting this group in court."
This group is fighting against the government's ACA in court, not the other way around. So they are the ones wasting our tax-dollars based on their pre-Enlightenment views.
"Perhaps closing the loopholes for big business and government-run plans would be a better use of our tax dollars than fighting this group in court."
This group is fighting against the government's ACA in court, not the other way around. So they are the ones wasting our tax-dollars based on their pre-Enlightenment views.
One could not put forth a more tenuous argument than to claim that signing a piece of paper in exchange for an immediate (and to be frank, wholly undeserved) exemption is too much to ask, except if perhaps one were to claim that the Earth itself is held aloft by Atlas.
We should all ask ourselves why we allow crucial infrastructure services such as education and medical care to be provided by anything other than secular institutions, bound by the rule of law to deliver equal access to, and quality of, services for all.
We should all ask ourselves why we allow crucial infrastructure services such as education and medical care to be provided by anything other than secular institutions, bound by the rule of law to deliver equal access to, and quality of, services for all.
10
Sister, some of us are non-Catholics who work for Catholic organizations. You don't get a vote in what religious community we must belong to, why should you get a vote in our health care options?
By all means, advocate for a single-payer non-employer based health care system. That would solve the problem. But as long as we have the system we do, I find no honor in your position. (And your reminders to us of your Good Works is somewhat offputting as well. You are not alone in serving humanity.)
By all means, advocate for a single-payer non-employer based health care system. That would solve the problem. But as long as we have the system we do, I find no honor in your position. (And your reminders to us of your Good Works is somewhat offputting as well. You are not alone in serving humanity.)
9
The Pope just made an exception for women who have been exposed to the zika virus - was he wrong?
8
The Pope just recently visited the Little Sisters specifically to show support for them in this legal fight and show that he stands with them - was he wrong?
Check out the story of the Pope's visit here - http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pope-visits-nuns-20150923-story.html
Check out the story of the Pope's visit here - http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pope-visits-nuns-20150923-story.html
1
Being against abortion is one thing, but being against contraception is just plain ignorant. There is no basis in the Bible for such a belief. It's Catholic dogma droven by an outdated and ill-conceived policy that tramples on the rights of others, and, in fact, that devalues the sanctity of life.
9
Sister,
You aren't being asked to use birth control. The issue here is your belief that you should be able to impose your religious beliefs on your employees. Who are not children and who are entitled to make their own decisions. And, by the way, most Catholic women choose to use birth control.
You aren't being asked to use birth control. The issue here is your belief that you should be able to impose your religious beliefs on your employees. Who are not children and who are entitled to make their own decisions. And, by the way, most Catholic women choose to use birth control.
6
I am a Catholic and I find this argument disingenuous. Everyone is a victim these days. Please just stop.
6
On Feb. 18, 2016, the New York Times published the article, "Francis Says Contraception Can Be Used To Slow Zika".
The Pope stated that "avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute sin".
I would have preferred that Constance Veit had discussed the nuance of that article rather than comparing women to cans of soda-pop.
The Pope stated that "avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute sin".
I would have preferred that Constance Veit had discussed the nuance of that article rather than comparing women to cans of soda-pop.
6
The members of the Catholic Church in America have already spoken on this issue. 98% of Catholic women have used non-natural birth control according to reliable polls. See here: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/resources/Religion-FP-tables.html Perhaps the Church should follow its members.
6
Considering that human beings are now in the process of running over the planet, or perhaps I should say ruining the planet, and other species are going extinct at the rate that we are well into a Sixth Mass Extinction, I think the Little Sisters and indeed the entire Catholic Church need to rethink what it is that God really wants.
3
As a feminist, I support the Little Sisters. They have been running a woman-owned and operated multinational health care organization for more than 150 years. Yes, they are motivated by their religion, and yes, this means that they make choices (like not offering contraceptive coverage) that I wouldn't make. But if the government has already exempted big businesses that employ millions just to keep a political promise ("you can keep the health plan you have"), then I don't see why they can't exempt the Little Sisters. Women are capable of making choices - and that includes the choice of working for a religious employer. We make tradeoffs all the time and I think it's odd to assume that women who decide to work for the Little Sisters aren't aware of the tradeoffs involved in choosing to work for an order of Catholic nuns. After all, it's the government's policy that changed, not the Little Sisters' beliefs.
5
This argument is no different than the evangelical business owners who claim that being “forced” to serve gay people violates their religious beliefs, or the court clerk several months ago who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because that was against her religious beliefs.
In the end, while all these situations may be distasteful to the religious individuals, none of them actually in any way infringe on those individual’s right or ability to practice own their respective religions. The Catholic women who take a vow of chastity have it fully within their own power not to make use of birth-control which is covered under Obamacare; the evangelicals are in no way forced to become gay themselves simply by providing a service to gays.
What these religious people are really saying is, “I don’t want to have to live in a world in which I acknowledge that there are people are doing things that my religious beliefs find offensive.” Well, as an agnostic, I find many religious practices and the hypocrisy and tyranny of “religious” people to be offensive. So, for me, it is against MY religious beliefs that I have to read about such intolerant people.
So I guess we have a stand-off.
In the end, while all these situations may be distasteful to the religious individuals, none of them actually in any way infringe on those individual’s right or ability to practice own their respective religions. The Catholic women who take a vow of chastity have it fully within their own power not to make use of birth-control which is covered under Obamacare; the evangelicals are in no way forced to become gay themselves simply by providing a service to gays.
What these religious people are really saying is, “I don’t want to have to live in a world in which I acknowledge that there are people are doing things that my religious beliefs find offensive.” Well, as an agnostic, I find many religious practices and the hypocrisy and tyranny of “religious” people to be offensive. So, for me, it is against MY religious beliefs that I have to read about such intolerant people.
So I guess we have a stand-off.
6
Follow your conscience Sister, where you own way of life is concerned, but do not try to impose your views on others. The law should be the same for everyone, and your religion is your problem.
4
I do not see how this is affecting your religious beliefs. No one is making you or a person of your belief use contraception As you say you hire people of all beliefs and it seems to me you are trying to force your beliefs on them. I suggest you focus on caring for the elderly.
7
What if you're an atheist? Why should you get an exemption simply because you claim to believe in some "supreme being" for which no physical evidence exists? When will the Little Sisters fight for my rights as an atheist?
The Affordable Care Act is a violation of my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, period. No one should be forced to purchase something simply because the government will punish you if you don't.
If you truly believe in rights, you will be against the Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act is a violation of my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, period. No one should be forced to purchase something simply because the government will punish you if you don't.
If you truly believe in rights, you will be against the Affordable Care Act.
2
Sister, and why is it fine if your faith tramples on my right to do what I need to do to live my life? You are free not to use birth control or have an abortion, but what gives you the right to prevent others for accessing these services?
All these "religious exemption" debates makes me this that we should also have a right to "freedom from religion".
All these "religious exemption" debates makes me this that we should also have a right to "freedom from religion".
7
I do not have an answer. It appears that the exemptions will soon outnumber the rules. Perhaps now that you have expressed the views of "your side". we can hear views from the "other side". If the NYT will provide that editorial information........
2
For all the people freaking out about Shariah law, here we have yet another group seeking to impose their religious values in the form of a "religious exemption." We do not live in a theocracy (yet), where one religious group gets to define what is moral and what is not for everyone else. If you wish to employ people, then you participate in this society. You deduct taxes from wages don't you? A lot of the tax money pays for war. You are against killing, right? How do you justify paying taxes? Why stop at birth control? Why not go for the whole shebang?
7
So let me understand this, since you obviously don't need the birth control, all those working for you have to just keep having children or maybe just give up sex?
I hope you realize this the year 2016 not 1016. This why the Catholic Church keeps losing people, of course the pedophile scandal is also a major factor but of course you will never discuss that.
I hope you realize this the year 2016 not 1016. This why the Catholic Church keeps losing people, of course the pedophile scandal is also a major factor but of course you will never discuss that.
8
NYT.... is this an example of offering all views to readers, thus we get an op ed from someone who wants to deny birth control on the grounds of religious belief in the 21st century. This is a right most other modern countries include in their h/c for all citizens and don’t let religious believers deny it to anyone.
But your range of views on the op ed page is too narrow and limited. Why don’t you offer your readers all political views? If you offer us this op ed, where are a few op eds or columns by some true progressives, not watered down to not go too far afield from mainstream positions?
We have yet to see any pieces truly explaining or supporting the views of Bernie Sanders, or of any truly liberal advocate in this 2016 campaign. On strong policies to reverse our extreme inequality and dominance of big money over our govt. On how dozens of other nations pay for their universal h/c, or their low cost higher education, or worker protections, or publicly financed elections, etc.
What could be more important to discuss?
Where are some columns about the destructive effects of Citizens United, and the many groups trying to reverse it across the nation? Not a word.
Are these views too radical in our current politics? Denying birth control is hardly mainstream.
But your range of views on the op ed page is too narrow and limited. Why don’t you offer your readers all political views? If you offer us this op ed, where are a few op eds or columns by some true progressives, not watered down to not go too far afield from mainstream positions?
We have yet to see any pieces truly explaining or supporting the views of Bernie Sanders, or of any truly liberal advocate in this 2016 campaign. On strong policies to reverse our extreme inequality and dominance of big money over our govt. On how dozens of other nations pay for their universal h/c, or their low cost higher education, or worker protections, or publicly financed elections, etc.
What could be more important to discuss?
Where are some columns about the destructive effects of Citizens United, and the many groups trying to reverse it across the nation? Not a word.
Are these views too radical in our current politics? Denying birth control is hardly mainstream.
4
O.K., the Catholic's have a good Pope for a change, but for a change he could separate the controversial problem of abortion from simple contraception- which is logical and logically beyond criticism- especially for a Pope who has shown himself to be concerned about the environment and the poor.
It would be good for the planet.
Let's pray.
It would be good for the planet.
Let's pray.
2
Please, someone, explain to me what birth control has to do with health care? Also, why I should be taxed to pay for someone's lifestyle choices?
Let them use condoms! They.re quite affordable.
Let them use condoms! They.re quite affordable.
2
The first answer to your "why" is that this is what insurance is supposed to do. While I consider smokers foolish, if they pay premiums to my insurance company I don't resent them for expecting insurance to pay for their life-saving surgery.
The second is that oral contraceptives are used for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Sandra Fluke was vilified by Rush Limbaugh for testifying before Congress on behalf of a friend who was using the pill to prevent the growth of an ovarian tumor. Taking the pill was easier, cheaper and less invasive than surgical removal of the tumor.
When you can explain how a condom would have done the same thing, you may have a case.
The second is that oral contraceptives are used for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Sandra Fluke was vilified by Rush Limbaugh for testifying before Congress on behalf of a friend who was using the pill to prevent the growth of an ovarian tumor. Taking the pill was easier, cheaper and less invasive than surgical removal of the tumor.
When you can explain how a condom would have done the same thing, you may have a case.
1
Perhaps as the Church has pushed to emerge as a dominant force in the for-profit health field, it should have considered how it might effect the many good people like yourself working there. As much as the government is there to protect everyone's religious rights it also protect others from them. Your rights don't get to keep anyone else form having what the law allows to be acceptable. Sounds pretty moral to me, sorry.
3
In Leviticus, the Bible says you must pay your employee her wages at the end of the day. Do you follow this scriptural mandate? Of course you do not, because it is inconvenient. Regardless of the value of your work, when you hire others to perform it, you do not thereby gain the right to direct their religious lives. No one is forcing you to take birth control, and god forbid that the Jehova's be able to prevent their employees from getting transfusions, or the Christian Scientists from preventing their employees from getting any medical care at all. You have a very nice cocoon in which to practice your religion in America, but once your beliefs affect others, you must follow the law.
7
Sister, I encourage you to look deeply into your heart and conscience and reconcile the Catholic Church position on contraception and their sex abuse scandal. A global scandal that leads all the way to the Vatican. A Church with this history, and no women in it's leadership, has no moral authority to weigh in on the topic of birth control.
11
First Thank You Sister for your great work and the great service that you and the Little Sisters of the Poor do protecting the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society. The work you do honors the work of Jesus and his call for us all to care for the poor and vulnerable. Many people, religious people included talk the talk but you and your charity actually do the work.
Having said that Jesus said nothing about sex or contraception so you are not breaking any moral tenet relating to the wishes of Jesus. The Catholic Church has defined Contraception as wrong and even that now is not a firmly enforced law, most recently in confronting the Zika virus, the Church has shown "leniency" but practically speaking the Church has given up fighting about contraception. So we are left with your own personal objections and that is something that you will have to face. Discomfort is a bad reason to not provide your employees with essential protections. On a larger note, much of the good work done by the Church is undone by the constant focus of sexual morality which as we know Jesus said nothing about.
Having said that Jesus said nothing about sex or contraception so you are not breaking any moral tenet relating to the wishes of Jesus. The Catholic Church has defined Contraception as wrong and even that now is not a firmly enforced law, most recently in confronting the Zika virus, the Church has shown "leniency" but practically speaking the Church has given up fighting about contraception. So we are left with your own personal objections and that is something that you will have to face. Discomfort is a bad reason to not provide your employees with essential protections. On a larger note, much of the good work done by the Church is undone by the constant focus of sexual morality which as we know Jesus said nothing about.
6
I'm OK with any and all religious organizations not providing birth control services to the people they serve as soon as they stop receiving federal dollars and as soon as donations to these organizations are no long tax exempt. I'm tired of subsidizing people who would assert that their rights supercede my rights because they are "religious".
15
I don't have a problem with religious organizations not providing birth control against their beliefs PROVIDED they don't get exemptions from taxes.
Right now, tax payers make up the tax shortfall since your organization is tax-exempt as a religious organization. As an agnostic taxpayer, I don't want my tax dollars supporting religious organizations and having to pay to support beliefs that don't mirror my own.
Right now, tax payers make up the tax shortfall since your organization is tax-exempt as a religious organization. As an agnostic taxpayer, I don't want my tax dollars supporting religious organizations and having to pay to support beliefs that don't mirror my own.
8
Although Catholics are only 24% of Americans there are still five Catholic Supreme Court Justices. There were six before the death of Antonin Scalia. There are three Jewish Supreme Court Justices and President Obama is proposing a fourth to replace Scalia. Jews make-up 2% of Americans. About 52% of Americans are Protestant and 10% are agnostic/atheist.
Birth-control is both a secular and theological issue. The ethical obligation of a lawyer and judge is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias.
America guarantees the freedom of persons to choose or deny religion. But America neither has nor denies religion.
Every American faith that seeks a role in civil secular life must generally abide by and adhere to those rules and laws. While government may provide some reasonable practical accommodations to religion, bending to some amorphous ephemeral theological or moral concerns goes way too far.
Birth-control is both a secular and theological issue. The ethical obligation of a lawyer and judge is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias.
America guarantees the freedom of persons to choose or deny religion. But America neither has nor denies religion.
Every American faith that seeks a role in civil secular life must generally abide by and adhere to those rules and laws. While government may provide some reasonable practical accommodations to religion, bending to some amorphous ephemeral theological or moral concerns goes way too far.
8
To fully follow your conscience, please also reject the subsidies your institution receives from the rest of us (eg, religious tax exemptions)
10
A subsidy is a direct contribution of money, which is different from a tax exemption, which is a waiver from paying tax. You may interpret these as the same thing, but they are quite different.
Sister, I'm sorry but you are wrong about this. Human beings, religious, agnostic, Atheists all have rights. It is every single person's right to take care of their bodies as they see fit. It is the right of people in the US to have protections for THEMSELVES. It is no one's right, not yours, not mine, to tell someone else what to do with their bodies. You provide a service to those less fortunate...that's great. The work you do is selfless and important. You do not have the right to restrict someone else's ability to receive benefits other citizens are receiving, and whether you like it or not, you are restricting them by asking them to take steps that others do not need to take. If someone was forcing YOU to take birth control, then yes, your rights would be violated. But no one is asking that of you, and further, they are not even asking you to pay for or "condone" the taking of birth control. All they are asking is to give the same right to others that every American has, freedom to choose. As a Catholic by birth and a good person(I hope)by hard work, your right should not override mine and others. Religious zealots have stepped too far into the private lives of others over and over again, and as a result, women who may have few alternatives than those provided by the government or through their work, deserve the same treatment as those who could easily pay for contraception.Stick to the work you do well, caring for the needy. Leave the rights of others to them.
9
Ms. Veit, I commend you for taking care of the elderly poor regardless of their religious beliefs. In the same way, you can care for your employees regardless of their religious beliefs, and allow them to follow their own consciences in choosing whether to use contraception or not. To deny your employees access to free contraceptive care that is otherwise guaranteed by law is to impose your religious views on others. And that is wrong.
8
@KMW, Thank you for educating me about the proper form of address for Catholic nuns. I certainly did not intend to show any disrespect toward Sister Veit and hope she will forgive me for my mistake.
Please show respect to this nun by referring to her as Sister Veit. This is how they are referred to in the Catholic Church.
Sister,
I applaud your life's work. It is exceptional. With respect to birth control, it is my understanding that the Church is against its use. So if you don't use it, you should be free and clear of conscience. Your Order's health plan, on the other hand, is not Catholic. It is a policy created and based on the laws of the United States (where you do your work) as articulated in the Constitution. As such, it must follow the rules of the land and not of any religion. This is how so many diverse religions can live together peaceably.. It is simply part of The Little Sisters' business plan that allows you to continue your good work in caring for the elderly. Don't confuse the responsibility for evangelization which is a Church directive obstruct the call to ministry. Life is about choices. I believe your choices are exemplary. Other choices belong to other people.
I applaud your life's work. It is exceptional. With respect to birth control, it is my understanding that the Church is against its use. So if you don't use it, you should be free and clear of conscience. Your Order's health plan, on the other hand, is not Catholic. It is a policy created and based on the laws of the United States (where you do your work) as articulated in the Constitution. As such, it must follow the rules of the land and not of any religion. This is how so many diverse religions can live together peaceably.. It is simply part of The Little Sisters' business plan that allows you to continue your good work in caring for the elderly. Don't confuse the responsibility for evangelization which is a Church directive obstruct the call to ministry. Life is about choices. I believe your choices are exemplary. Other choices belong to other people.
8
You do not require that people you serve adhere to your own beliefs - your order is far more generous than that. Why then do you insist that anyone who works for your group adhere to the beliefs? Can you not respect their differences?
The majority of us who belief that contraception is a necessity in any health insurance plan are not confused about motives: we disagree - for many reasons. Because of the burden that repeated pregnancies can place on a woman, because of the fact that most young people have sex outside of marriage and are in no way ready to raise a child.Those of us who insist on contraceptive coverage openly ARE different from silent Catholics who use contraception anyway: we do not feel that it is an employer's role to dictate employee behavior. Denying certain types of coverage means that the employee will not access that care (i doubt that you can show that your employees are so highly paid that cost is irrelevant to them).
Your conscience is yours; other adults have their own. Allow that: you are not in loco parentis for employees.
The majority of us who belief that contraception is a necessity in any health insurance plan are not confused about motives: we disagree - for many reasons. Because of the burden that repeated pregnancies can place on a woman, because of the fact that most young people have sex outside of marriage and are in no way ready to raise a child.Those of us who insist on contraceptive coverage openly ARE different from silent Catholics who use contraception anyway: we do not feel that it is an employer's role to dictate employee behavior. Denying certain types of coverage means that the employee will not access that care (i doubt that you can show that your employees are so highly paid that cost is irrelevant to them).
Your conscience is yours; other adults have their own. Allow that: you are not in loco parentis for employees.
5
As cosmic genius Stephen Hawking has said: Religion is fairy tales for adults. To allow fairy tales to control reality regarding conception, birth control is the biggest fairy tale of them all. Let's keep religion in churches and out of public life. Amen.
10
My God tells me that you are wrong. Why do you beliefs trump mine?
14
Sister, by comparing my right as a grown woman to control my own body and life to a school controlling access to soda, you are making the same argument our right-wing politicians make: that women are children who must have their choices made for them because they can't possibly do it on their own. It's insulting, offensive, and unacceptable in the 21st century. I stand unwaveringly for your right to have made your choices for your life, though I do not understand them. I ask that you afford me the same respect.
8
Your freedom of religion is not being violated. You are free to believe whatever you like and to act in accordance with those beliefs. You are not free to impose those beliefs on anyone else, including employees who don't share them.
10
"It’s similar to high schools that have removed soda machines from their property because they don’t think soda is good for children."
This is analogy is as revealing as it is false: so women covered under this plan are to be compared to children, and birth control, a substance that they might want, but which is not good for them. Someone has to take charge, or these little girls will hurt themselves!
Such a patronizing attitude toward secular employees is just plain offensive.
This is analogy is as revealing as it is false: so women covered under this plan are to be compared to children, and birth control, a substance that they might want, but which is not good for them. Someone has to take charge, or these little girls will hurt themselves!
Such a patronizing attitude toward secular employees is just plain offensive.
15
Constance Veit has revealed exactly the paternalism of the Catholic Church towards women - which is why it is a pernicious organization and needs to stop getting tax exemptions.
2
Unfortunately in a land that only the Church seems to want to run hospitals we cannot violate the rights of non Catholics while preserving yours. I am sure you would not want your rights to be considered superior merely because they are your rights? The Church must be commended for its role in world wide health care but it cannot be ok in a secular democratic republic for your rights to come at the expense of others. You can agititate for Single Payer so your share of the taxes is no different than anyone else's and maybe it seems less direct than having the company insurance pay for the birth control. We cannot allow Catholic law to dictate the lives of non Catholic employees.
3
"But Jesus never demanded that the poor demonstrate strict adherence to religious doctrine before helping them."
To my knowledge, Jesus never demanded that women not have abortions or have access to contraception, either.
To my knowledge, Jesus never demanded that women not have abortions or have access to contraception, either.
3
That is the question, isn't it? Exactly what did Jesus ever have to say on contraception or abortion? I've never found a word. Now Paul was a whole different breed, into controlling both men and women sexually, but the fact remains:Jesus said nothing and isn't it Jesus that Christians are supposed to worship? Only the Catholic Church, the "Pauline Church" demands that Paul's teachings be placed superior to what Jesus said. However, even Paul never used the words "contraception" or "abortion", not even in all his remarks on when and how women were to "submit" to men.
I REALLY would like someone to provide me the scriptural verses that they insist are there, for there is no "there" there.
And shouldn't that information have been asked for and provided long ago?
I REALLY would like someone to provide me the scriptural verses that they insist are there, for there is no "there" there.
And shouldn't that information have been asked for and provided long ago?
1
"a regulation it developed that would force us to change our religious health plan and start offering benefits that violate our religious beliefs." Your religious belief is binding upon you, not upon your employees. You are not being required to use birth control. The law requires that you offer health care to your employees. If they are women, that health care includes contraception.
No matter how loving and charitable your service is, you are still demanding special consideration, and more to the point, you are proposing to deny your employees health care that they deserve and (with their tax dollars) have paid for. What are you concerned about -- is it that your employees will burn in hell because they have used birth control?
No matter how loving and charitable your service is, you are still demanding special consideration, and more to the point, you are proposing to deny your employees health care that they deserve and (with their tax dollars) have paid for. What are you concerned about -- is it that your employees will burn in hell because they have used birth control?
3
To quote Ms. Veit, "But in a free and diverse society, the American government should not force its citizens to act in violation of their religious beliefs"
Just imagine if this doctrine actually gained currency. The last I heard, Quakers pay the same taxes as everyone else, even though a large fraction goes to support a military to which they are, on religious grounds, opposed. On the day they get THEIR exemption, I'm signing up! And, to be fair, If, subsequently, I am personally attacked by a foreign power, don't bother sending the marines on my account.
Just imagine if this doctrine actually gained currency. The last I heard, Quakers pay the same taxes as everyone else, even though a large fraction goes to support a military to which they are, on religious grounds, opposed. On the day they get THEIR exemption, I'm signing up! And, to be fair, If, subsequently, I am personally attacked by a foreign power, don't bother sending the marines on my account.
6
The fact that this case is at the doorstep of the SCOTUS indicates that lower courts have ruled against the Little Sisters of the Poor. The court, now an eight person body, is very likely to split 4-4 on this issue which means the lower court ruling stands. All of us would be better served if Merrick Garland were able to provide a 9th vote on this issue.
3
"Gitmo" Garland? I have no doubt on how he'd rule on this. I'll pass.
1
Justice Scalia was instrumental to get the Supreme Court to hear these hired plaintiff test cases.
1
I side with the "Little Sisters of the Poor" because they care for those who have
been abandoned by us.
I will trust the wisdom of their charitable and compassionate hearts
rather than anything the government has to say.
If the Supreme Court rules against them, I hope they refuse to abide,
refuse to pay any fine and dare the Federal Marshals to handcuff them
and lead them all on a "Perp Walk" to the Courthouse.
been abandoned by us.
I will trust the wisdom of their charitable and compassionate hearts
rather than anything the government has to say.
If the Supreme Court rules against them, I hope they refuse to abide,
refuse to pay any fine and dare the Federal Marshals to handcuff them
and lead them all on a "Perp Walk" to the Courthouse.
7
I appreciate you standing up for religious freedom.
2
If more women had access to affordable birth control there wouldn't be quite so many poor and the Little Sisters' raison d'être would be diminished. That's why the don't want women controlling their fertility.
And we empower them by giving them tax breaks. This must end.
And we empower them by giving them tax breaks. This must end.
2
Actually, the ACA doesn't trample on your rights. You have a right to believe anything you want to.
You're the ones who are trampling on others' rights. Employing people does not mean dictating to them what they should believe, or how they should behave. That's what you're trying to do.
No one is arguing that you don't have a right to your beliefs -- only that you don't have a right to impose them on others.
This discussion does not go to issues about which you refuse to let your employees enjoy the rights that other citizens do. Instead, I propose that we examine a hypothetical case. What would you say if a Christian Science organization employed people, but refused to give them any medical insurance provided by the ACA that included surgery, blood transfusions, or any other life-saving intervention that included things they didn't believe in? If the govt. required the Christian Scientists to cover them, would you say that their [the CS'] rights were trampled on?!
I notice that you care for the poor elderly. Do you know why they're poor? Perhaps their families had to care for unwanted children, & had to make choices: either the elderly or the children?
You're doing good by caring for these people. But you have no right to deprive employees of their rights as equal citizens of this country. For all the good you do, I think that your effect on your employees is pernicious. You have no moral and should have no legal right to deny them their rights because of your beliefs.
You're the ones who are trampling on others' rights. Employing people does not mean dictating to them what they should believe, or how they should behave. That's what you're trying to do.
No one is arguing that you don't have a right to your beliefs -- only that you don't have a right to impose them on others.
This discussion does not go to issues about which you refuse to let your employees enjoy the rights that other citizens do. Instead, I propose that we examine a hypothetical case. What would you say if a Christian Science organization employed people, but refused to give them any medical insurance provided by the ACA that included surgery, blood transfusions, or any other life-saving intervention that included things they didn't believe in? If the govt. required the Christian Scientists to cover them, would you say that their [the CS'] rights were trampled on?!
I notice that you care for the poor elderly. Do you know why they're poor? Perhaps their families had to care for unwanted children, & had to make choices: either the elderly or the children?
You're doing good by caring for these people. But you have no right to deprive employees of their rights as equal citizens of this country. For all the good you do, I think that your effect on your employees is pernicious. You have no moral and should have no legal right to deny them their rights because of your beliefs.
11
Sister Constance, first I want to thank you for the wonderful work you do in taking care of the poor and needy among us. You have been granted a special gift and you have my admiration in the services you provide. Without these facilities, many would not be shown the love and kindness you bestow upon them.
I am in full agreement with you when you say you should not have to sacrifice your Catholic values by including contraception in your health plans to your employees. These are highly held principles which should not have to be broken and would not even be considered if Obamacare had not made this a mandatory requirement. Religious liberty is still important to many of us and no one should be forced to go against their religious beliefs. This is true more than ever before. I am so glad you are putting up this fight and showing your dedication to Catholic teaching. Sister, we need more like you today and I am going to send a donation to the Little Sisters of the Poor to show my gratitude.
I am in full agreement with you when you say you should not have to sacrifice your Catholic values by including contraception in your health plans to your employees. These are highly held principles which should not have to be broken and would not even be considered if Obamacare had not made this a mandatory requirement. Religious liberty is still important to many of us and no one should be forced to go against their religious beliefs. This is true more than ever before. I am so glad you are putting up this fight and showing your dedication to Catholic teaching. Sister, we need more like you today and I am going to send a donation to the Little Sisters of the Poor to show my gratitude.
5
Just because a woman does good social work does not mean that every opinion she has is correct too. Of course, knowing that 95% of Catholic women ignore the birth control mandate from Rome does mean that the church really feels it needs secular law to force its beliefs on the congregation. That is how I read this article.
1
Perhaps a Jewish employer could require that employees be treated in hospitals with only Kosher kitchens or a Jehovah's Witness could seek an exception from paying for blood transfusions.
We all have theories about what is right and proper, but surely healthcare decisions belong to the patient and to their conscience, not yours.
We all have theories about what is right and proper, but surely healthcare decisions belong to the patient and to their conscience, not yours.
11
"Obamacare’s Birth-Control ‘Exemption’ Still Tramples on Rights"?
How about the rights of employees insured to get the medical services they're entitled to? DON'T THEIR rights count?
Nothing in the law requires people like the writer to DO anything contrary to their rights or beliefs! Just to allow OTHER people to exercise THEIR rights!
And why should any EMPLOYER claim the "right" to cherry-pick the rights that their employees can exercise?
Talk about s slippery slope of a precedent! Next up? Religious employers claiming that employees don't need ANY medical procedures when faith-healing is available? Or that heart-transplants are immoral, since organs from other people or (gasp!) animals are used? Or employers claiming that they don't "believe" that psychiatric healthcare isn't a necessary medical need, so they shouldn't have to provide that coverage in their healthcare plans? The list is endless--and certain to be litigated if a precedent for exclusions based on employers' "beliefe" are established
There's a REASON why the Constitution talks about a separation of church and state!
How about the rights of employees insured to get the medical services they're entitled to? DON'T THEIR rights count?
Nothing in the law requires people like the writer to DO anything contrary to their rights or beliefs! Just to allow OTHER people to exercise THEIR rights!
And why should any EMPLOYER claim the "right" to cherry-pick the rights that their employees can exercise?
Talk about s slippery slope of a precedent! Next up? Religious employers claiming that employees don't need ANY medical procedures when faith-healing is available? Or that heart-transplants are immoral, since organs from other people or (gasp!) animals are used? Or employers claiming that they don't "believe" that psychiatric healthcare isn't a necessary medical need, so they shouldn't have to provide that coverage in their healthcare plans? The list is endless--and certain to be litigated if a precedent for exclusions based on employers' "beliefe" are established
There's a REASON why the Constitution talks about a separation of church and state!
10
The first clause of the first amendment is a blanket denial of power to Congress to enact any law that is based on or honors a tenet of religion.
1
I was opposed to any exemptions from the start, even the "grandfathered" plans. Denying the benefit to employees because the management has a personal objection is just wrong. There is no mandate forcing anyone to use the benefit.
11
An example of how religious beliefs trump common sense. Those who do not wish to use birth control or have abortions are perfectly free not to do so. There is no trampling on any religion to allow people not to follow the tenets of that particular religion. The problem lies not in what is required of health insurance coverage providers but in the fact that health insurance is paid for by employers. A more rational way to handle it is to give employees the money to purchase health insurance which can be either required to be spent on health insurance or captured through taxes if the health insurance is provided by the state.
5
With a single-payer system this particular issue would disappear. There would still be a broader issue, with everyone's tax dollars then paying for medical services that some, like the author, believe are immoral. I believe that the Iraq war was immoral, and also the federal death penalty, but I still pay taxes. That's the cost of living in a civil society. The alternative of a theocracy has even higher costs, as we can still see across the world.
18
The nice thing about single payer is that the cost for it are included in just about every product and service as a tax so everyone has to pay for it.
My thoughts are brief: I consider religious freedom to be our first freedom and should be given carefully and wisely guarded deference when considering the complicated matter of deciding between multiple conflicting freedoms. When a society chips away too much at the foundation that made it great, the whole building risks crumbling.
44
Why assume any freedom comes first? Aren't they equal?
Well said.
Can their "religious freedom" translate into practice that takes @way others' freedom? That is the real question. No one is saying the nuns have to use contraception. They can choose. Their employees need to be able to exercise that right.
I was raised Catholic, but I know that Christ is absolutely not OK with this position. Little Sisters of the Poor, when it hires employees, enters the realm of commerce. In the United States, that means, among other things, paying a minimum wage and providing health insurance. Health insurance is part of the wage payment.
What other people do is NOT between the Little Sisters of the Poor and the government. It is most definitely ONLY between the user of birth control and their God. Who I am CERTAIN approves of the responsible use of birth control.
You make me embarrassed to admit I come from a Catholic family.
What other people do is NOT between the Little Sisters of the Poor and the government. It is most definitely ONLY between the user of birth control and their God. Who I am CERTAIN approves of the responsible use of birth control.
You make me embarrassed to admit I come from a Catholic family.
37
This debate sounds a little bit like children that complain because their dad gave them an apple that they wanted rather than their friend. Instead of eating the apple, they instead sit on the ground and throw a tantrum. I appreciate the unusually reasoned approach taken in this article of actually identifying a problem and discussing solutions rather than the all too common partisan approach of using any disagreement as a platform to attack those with whom you disagree. We need more of this. If the goal truly is to provide woman with birth control, then do it. However, the American people have very little imagination if the only way they can see of doing that is through forcing people to violate their faith. That is especially true when the government has already set up exchanges that could be utilized and indeed are by a large percentage of people.
28
Thank you for sharing this. I 100% agree. The issue isn't about denial of access. It's about why the government can't pick better ways to get this done when it has so many better alternatives.
1
How is this forcing them to do anything? Talk about twisted logic!
Every time I pay my taxes, I guess the government is "forcing" me to kill people. After all, they are dropping bombs out of drones all over the country. Well, then, I guess I can no petition the government for exemption, because I'm a pacifist.
Oh wait. I can't.
Every time I pay my taxes, I guess the government is "forcing" me to kill people. After all, they are dropping bombs out of drones all over the country. Well, then, I guess I can no petition the government for exemption, because I'm a pacifist.
Oh wait. I can't.
2
So once again we are moving the goal post. it used to be that religious conservatives intent on limiting women's access to reproductive healthcare argued that they didn't want to use their money to help provide for such services, which they equated to speech, as this was a violation of their First Amendment rights. Well now that the government will pick up the tab, the author says it isn't about the money at all but a moral question about what they offer in their "religious healthcare plan" which makes it sound like they get their health insurance directly from the Vatican and not some corporate office. I think it is time to say enough is enough. We made a big mistake as a society when we singled out a class of healthcare, specifically for women, and said that access to such care could be circumscribed by the religious beliefs of others. I hope the court recognizes that whether we are talking about religious beliefs or healthcare safety for women, religious conservatives are really talking about taking the rights of women away, including those that could save our lives. It is time for the Court to step in and say enough is enough.
369
Amen, sister! No pun intended. Your comment, as well as the op-ed itself, both illustrate the need for health-care insurance that is not employer-based, i.e., single-payer, toward which the ACA is a baby step. We know that, in the current political/religious climate, the ACA is about all that could have been achieved, but this case shows extremely clearly why it should be a step, not a final accomplishment. Like you, I see that these kinds of objections are attempts to take rights away from women, and I hope, too, that the Court will say, enough is enough. But let's try to work toward a SECULAR, single-payer plan, which will, among many other good things, stop these sorts of attacks on the rights of women, from whatever direction--or at least make them harder to initiate/justify.
1
I'm a Catholic who respectfully disagrees with the church on contraception but not on abortion. Still, I don't see why some companies are grandfathered in and others are asked to tow the line. Obama should either remove all exceptions and exemptions to those grandfathered in or allow this exception which was in place way before Obamacare. Paying for birth control pills is not like paying for a bypass or a bone marrow transplant. For many years, insurance did not cover birth control because it was not considered a medical condition. So let it be. This is not going to diminish the separation of church and state because Catholic institutions have never provided birth control in policies they carried for their own employees. They are not asking ALL insurance coverage not carry it, just their own. It seems like if this was a secular and very large company with a lot of influence and maybe a lot of campaign contributions, Obama would have given them that exemption without any problem.
26
The exemptions are in plans that existed before ACA, and they will expire. So the reference to "similar exemptions" is fallacious, as these are temporary and designed only to ease the transition of existing plans into complete compliance with ACA.
Obviously, there was no previous qualifying health plan for the Little Sister's employees.
Obviously, there was no previous qualifying health plan for the Little Sister's employees.
Excellent points. The government has never explained all of its double standards. Thanks so much for sharing.
First off, PRESIDENT "Obama" didn't write or pass the ACA, Congress did, so if anyone needs to amend the law its Congress. Second the ACA was modeled on a law passed in Massachusetts and written largely by the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation, so despite the constant attribution of the law to PRESIDENT Obama, you can place any blame you feel on your fellow conservatives. Third, with a one payer system we wouldn't have these specious "freedom of religion" arguments because the government would be providing all of the health care. Finally, why are one person's beliefs more important than another? No one if forcing the Little Sisters to change there beliefs and likewise they shouldn't force their beliefs on their employees.
2
Regardless of religious belief, women need birth control to stay healthy, often when they are not sexually active. The hormones are used to regulate their bodies' processes. Birth control is used in this way for things that vary from acute, permanently scarring acne to early onset osteoporosis, the sort that left untreated results in crippling broken ankles. It's also used to regulate births so that women won't get pregnant when it may injure their health or if they are unable to carry a fetus to term for whatever reason. Of course it's also used by women who want to plan having a healthy baby when they can financially afford to raise it.
Restricting birth control access is the opposite of sodas in schools. Sodas in schools are demonstrably bad for children. The sugar adds to diabetes and the obesity epidemic. Birth control is often helpful to women's health. Restricting access to it can and often does harm women's health.
Restricting birth control access is the opposite of sodas in schools. Sodas in schools are demonstrably bad for children. The sugar adds to diabetes and the obesity epidemic. Birth control is often helpful to women's health. Restricting access to it can and often does harm women's health.
312
But the church does not care. It is the woman's duty to reproduce, even if it kills her. Thus the woman is just a cow.
1
"women need birth control to stay healthy"
How did women stay healthy before the invention of modern birth control?
I'm not a doctor but this statement just doesn't pass the common sense test.
How did women stay healthy before the invention of modern birth control?
I'm not a doctor but this statement just doesn't pass the common sense test.
None of the religious employers in the Supreme Court case object to contraception for medical reasons. So your entire concern is not relevant at all to this case.
1
What if my religious beliefs fail to acknowledge the legal rights of others? I find the "soda" analogy unconvincing; perhaps a better one would have been to deal with the critical questions that arise concerning euthanasia. Also, what if my religious convictions do not agree with those of the Good Sisters in this opinion piece? A strong religious argument can be made for an individual's right to choose when or if to terminate a pregnancy, and also for other issues that conflict with traditional Catholic doctrine. I assume the Good Sisters do not ask a patients to subscribe to certain of their religious beliefs in order to be treated by them. Also, would they agree to circumcision, often desired out of a religious conviction? Are there other medical treatments that they could not religiously condone? Probably, I say. Simply put: In this instance, they don't want abortion to be a legal right and are trying this way to work toward that end; until they, it is my conviction they must adhere to the law.
128
"A strong religious argument can be made for an individual's right to choose when or if to terminate a pregnancy, and also for other issues that conflict with traditional Catholic doctrine."
What religious argument would that be? And if you so strongly believe in the individual's right to choose, then would you be in favor of the bakery owner's choice to refuse service to a gay couple?
What religious argument would that be? And if you so strongly believe in the individual's right to choose, then would you be in favor of the bakery owner's choice to refuse service to a gay couple?
Since they care for the elderly, I doubt if any of their "guests" will be demanding birth control. They do have employees who are not necessarily Catholic. The Sisters cannot demand that their employees not practice birth control. But they can say that they will not furnish birth control items to them. I see nothing wrong with that. If I was on a diet and they refused to stop having fattening food to their employees wouldn't the answer be, bring your own lunch. Could I demand that they buy a bicycle for me to use on breaks? Of course not. So buy your own birth control pills or get a calendar and avoid getting pregnant on a bad day. Many a Catholic woman had a calendar in her bathroom. And Most of the time, it works.
1
Denying contraception could actually lead to increased abortions.
I simply do not understand why the opt-out provision on healthcare mandates isn't sufficient for the Little Sisters. It appears that the very idea of its employees, who may or may not be Catholic or even Catholic but not observant of the Church's teaching on contraception (which 93% do not follow in modern America) is anathema to the sisters. But if the contraceptives are provided by an ACA third party health plan, out of federal funds not the Sisters premiums, what is the problem? Another important point: contraceptives aren't only used for birth control--I too them for several years to control excessive bleeding from fibroids.
It's pretty clear that some religious organizations truly don't get the core principle of the first amendment. Which is to provide freedom from religious principles as well as freedom for people who want to worship in their own way.
The sticky wicket, as always, is the blending of secularism, religion, and public funding. The ACA was designed to ensure all employees of all employers receive core benefits. The core benefits are for everyone, religious or otherwise. The Sisters don't have to pay for contraceptives but their employees must have access. This is a good settlement according to the first amendment. What the sisters seek is an imposition of their belief system on all employees, Catholic or not.
And that's just wrong.
It's pretty clear that some religious organizations truly don't get the core principle of the first amendment. Which is to provide freedom from religious principles as well as freedom for people who want to worship in their own way.
The sticky wicket, as always, is the blending of secularism, religion, and public funding. The ACA was designed to ensure all employees of all employers receive core benefits. The core benefits are for everyone, religious or otherwise. The Sisters don't have to pay for contraceptives but their employees must have access. This is a good settlement according to the first amendment. What the sisters seek is an imposition of their belief system on all employees, Catholic or not.
And that's just wrong.
40
Thank you for writing. The idea that the Little Sisters are not a religious group is absurd. With regard to birth control, I do find it ironic that a group of celibate nuns is so intent on this particular piece of church law, which many, many other Catholic women (who are actually at risk of unwanted pregnancy) tend to hold much more lightly. That said, I do agree that if an opt-out is made, it ought to work so that the contraceptive is not paid for by the exempted group. My understanding was that the service would be paid for through another avenue.
As to whether the opt-out ought to be made - I'm ambivalent. I hear the writer's conviction and distress. That said, the danger, I think, is in the possibilities of religious sensibilities cropping up all over the place, e.g., a family which opposes public education on the grounds that the Bible tells them that children should be educated by their parents - would we let them opt out of the portion of their taxes used to pay for public schools; how about an employer who thinks artificial insemination or even cosmetic surgery is wrong because it goes against what God has created - can they opt out of offering coverage for those things?
The slippery slope argument is never considered valid by those seeking exceptions to a rule, but in my mind it always lurks in the background.
As to whether the opt-out ought to be made - I'm ambivalent. I hear the writer's conviction and distress. That said, the danger, I think, is in the possibilities of religious sensibilities cropping up all over the place, e.g., a family which opposes public education on the grounds that the Bible tells them that children should be educated by their parents - would we let them opt out of the portion of their taxes used to pay for public schools; how about an employer who thinks artificial insemination or even cosmetic surgery is wrong because it goes against what God has created - can they opt out of offering coverage for those things?
The slippery slope argument is never considered valid by those seeking exceptions to a rule, but in my mind it always lurks in the background.
44
Do you need see another slippery slope -- that of the erosion of religious rights? How is this different from the erosion of, say, abortion rights? Are only certain rights to be protected and only if you agree with them?
There is a dangerous precedent with ideologues dismissing religious rights, not to mention a hefty dose of hypocrisy. The same group trampling religious rights are those most vocal about protecting other groups' rights.
Religious rights need protection now more than ever precisely because liberals have decided religion and religious beliefs have no value or place in our society.
There is a dangerous precedent with ideologues dismissing religious rights, not to mention a hefty dose of hypocrisy. The same group trampling religious rights are those most vocal about protecting other groups' rights.
Religious rights need protection now more than ever precisely because liberals have decided religion and religious beliefs have no value or place in our society.
2
@Anne-Marie Hislop – Your inclination to give the Sisters an accommodation is consistent with your usual open minded prospective. Your slippery slope arguments however are down right silly. It is long established law that you can’t opt out of a portion of your taxes. Quakers can’t withhold a portion of their taxes that support war and the Amish must educate their children.
1
On the issue of payment, Sister Constance is shading the facts of the exemption. There is no extra cost for contraceptive coverage: the price of the insurance is the same with or without coverage for contraception. The Little Sisters of the Poor simply stipulate that the insurer will not provide coverage, even at no cost.
3
Dear Sister Constance,
What you write about in this op-ed, essentially, is making decisions on behalf of people who work for you. These people earn their salaries from work they do for you and, through their labor, pay directly for a portion of their healthcare coverage. The other portion, the one you ostensibly contribute to, is also as a direct result of the labor of those employees. They earned their coverage. It should be theirs to use as they see fit, in private, and with the confidence and autonomy any other citizen uses theirs.
What you ask for in your lawsuit is tantamount to interference and control over the bodies of your employees. You are not only a nun and servant of your church, but also an employer - a function that is not connected to your religion. The law forbids you from hiring only people who think and believe as you do. The presumption will always be that your workplace is diverse. As such, you must accept that it is a part of your duty as a citizen and employer to ensure that all of your employees' rights are respected. As a church, you are entitled to do as you wish. As an employer, you are bound by our laws.
Oral contraceptives are used in the treatment of very serious and painful conditions. It isn't your place, as employer or church, to decide what treatment your workers should receive, any more than it is mine to tell you how to follow your faith.
Respect needs to go both ways. Respect your employees and their rights. They've earned them.
What you write about in this op-ed, essentially, is making decisions on behalf of people who work for you. These people earn their salaries from work they do for you and, through their labor, pay directly for a portion of their healthcare coverage. The other portion, the one you ostensibly contribute to, is also as a direct result of the labor of those employees. They earned their coverage. It should be theirs to use as they see fit, in private, and with the confidence and autonomy any other citizen uses theirs.
What you ask for in your lawsuit is tantamount to interference and control over the bodies of your employees. You are not only a nun and servant of your church, but also an employer - a function that is not connected to your religion. The law forbids you from hiring only people who think and believe as you do. The presumption will always be that your workplace is diverse. As such, you must accept that it is a part of your duty as a citizen and employer to ensure that all of your employees' rights are respected. As a church, you are entitled to do as you wish. As an employer, you are bound by our laws.
Oral contraceptives are used in the treatment of very serious and painful conditions. It isn't your place, as employer or church, to decide what treatment your workers should receive, any more than it is mine to tell you how to follow your faith.
Respect needs to go both ways. Respect your employees and their rights. They've earned them.
327
The employees' coverage is part of their benefits package, and therefore determined by the employer. If the employees don't like it, then they can quit. Remember, healthcare is a eerie, not a right.
1
Thank you for the best, most concise statement refuting the nuns' case that I have read. Under the nuns' reasoning, couldn't a Muslim business owner require all his female employees to wear a hijab? Couldn't a Catholic businessman deny employment to divorcees? Couldn't an American Muslim judge declare that, in his court, the testimony of a female counts for half that of a male? You want total religious freedom, go found a commune in the Arizona desert. You want to participate in business under secular incorporation laws, don't try to impose your religious beliefs on your employees. It's unconstitutional.
2
These employees are not forced in to working for the Little Sisters of the Poor so your argument, the same that many others are making in these comments, is specious. It is the same warped logic on welfare for work that it was somehow unreasonable to ask welfare recipients to do some work for their benefits.
2
Constance Veit equates keeping birth control from women with keeping soda from children. Women aren't children. Women are adults, and adults make their own decisions -- about soda and, yes, about birth control.
718
Children should not be sold soda IN SCHOOL because it implies the school approves of drinking sugary, non-nutritional soda instead of water or milk -- but they can do whatever they want (subject to their parents approval) after school hours. School is only 6 hours a day. Nobody "needs" to drink soda all day long.
Women are adults, and therefore, absolutely capable of buying and using birth control on their own, without approval from an employer. Birth control pills are $9 a month at Walmart; that is hardly an onerous expense.
Women are adults, and therefore, absolutely capable of buying and using birth control on their own, without approval from an employer. Birth control pills are $9 a month at Walmart; that is hardly an onerous expense.
Yes, and as adult women they should be able to get their contraception elsewhere without the Catholic Church and any other ethical group being forced to violate their beliefs.
Therein lies a major issue. The Catholic Church, as well as most Protestant, Mormon, etc Churches believe women are as children and that, because of this, should be under the control of men; this is why religions that are based on the the god of Abraham are patriarchal and do everything in their power to subordinate women. Just a so many Christians blame, FALSELY, the death of Jesus on Jews, so too do they blame man being kicked out of the garden of Eden on women (not just Eve) and all the "evils" that we/they have created for us all.
3
Oh my. Someone has neglected to inform Ms. Veit that we owe our new healthcare system to the implementation of the New World Order.
5
I'm sorry, but if you're going to rely on the teachings of Jesus, can you tell me where he speaks out against contraception and abortion?
65
While I am confident these sisters are acting in what they believe is good faith, I feel genuine disappointment that of all the challenges facing our world today, this is the issue over which they feel they must take a stand.
Where is that stand they should be taking on policies and attitudes about suffering that now permeate American politics and diminishes the lives of the very people they serve? Where have they been on the hatred and fear-mongering of our political class? Where have they been on gun violence, or the dignity of a living wage, or paid family leave? Where, for that matter, have they been on the Church's harboring of child abusers and profound failure to protect the children they violated?
Living, breathing human beings are suffering within sight, but it is birth control that so penetrates the Little Sisters' sense of injustice that they must act. Too late for tepid assurances that they do not stand against the ACA - that is exactly how their efforts have been harnessed - as a political tool to deny, among other things, Medicaid to those who could so benefit from it.
They are not just "asking that the government allow us to continue that work." They are asking the government to allow them to deny other women birth control as a precondition of those women continuing to help them do their work.
Where is that stand they should be taking on policies and attitudes about suffering that now permeate American politics and diminishes the lives of the very people they serve? Where have they been on the hatred and fear-mongering of our political class? Where have they been on gun violence, or the dignity of a living wage, or paid family leave? Where, for that matter, have they been on the Church's harboring of child abusers and profound failure to protect the children they violated?
Living, breathing human beings are suffering within sight, but it is birth control that so penetrates the Little Sisters' sense of injustice that they must act. Too late for tepid assurances that they do not stand against the ACA - that is exactly how their efforts have been harnessed - as a political tool to deny, among other things, Medicaid to those who could so benefit from it.
They are not just "asking that the government allow us to continue that work." They are asking the government to allow them to deny other women birth control as a precondition of those women continuing to help them do their work.
593
Excellent observation. I'd expand your questioning to say where are the US Conference of Bishops and their front MEN, such as Cardinal Dolan, raising cain about gun violence, living wage, paid family leave, the death penalty, wars we're lied into? How convenient that its the Little Sisters of the Poor...who are funded how?...that are the plaintiffs in this case which offends the rights of their employees under the guise of "religious freedom". We can thank the rightwing Catholics on the SCOTUS for the Hobby Lobby farce that makes this pending case even possible. And thank god that Scalia (the self-anointed Cardinal of the Court) has passed on so maybe the wall separating church and state will be rebuilt in the years ahead. Maybe.
2
Yep.
"Where is that stand they should be taking on policies and attitudes about suffering that now permeate American politics and diminishes the lives of the very people they serve? Where have they been on the hatred and fear-mongering of our political class? Where have they been on gun violence, or the dignity of a living wage, or paid family leave? Where, for that matter, have they been on the Church's harboring of child abusers and profound failure to protect the children they violated?"
The organization is doing what they can within their limitations. What are you doing about the litany of grievances you listed?
The organization is doing what they can within their limitations. What are you doing about the litany of grievances you listed?
1
What did the Sisters of the Poor serve in their cafeterias yesterday?
This question is not a non-sequitur. This is the season of Lent, and during Lent, it is a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. And yet, go to a Catholic university or hospital on a Friday during Lent, and you will find 3rd party food vendors offering meat dishes. The Catholic institutions neither pay for these meat dishes nor force anyone to buy them - they simply tolerate the presence of a 3rd party vendor who offers these dishes, with the expectation that practicing Catholics will make a different choice.
The birth control option is similar. The government is not asking Catholic institutions to directly supply birth control or to pay for it, merely to let a third party offer it so that their non-Catholic employees can receive it.
So, Little Sisters, what did your food vendors serve for lunch yesterday?
This question is not a non-sequitur. This is the season of Lent, and during Lent, it is a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. And yet, go to a Catholic university or hospital on a Friday during Lent, and you will find 3rd party food vendors offering meat dishes. The Catholic institutions neither pay for these meat dishes nor force anyone to buy them - they simply tolerate the presence of a 3rd party vendor who offers these dishes, with the expectation that practicing Catholics will make a different choice.
The birth control option is similar. The government is not asking Catholic institutions to directly supply birth control or to pay for it, merely to let a third party offer it so that their non-Catholic employees can receive it.
So, Little Sisters, what did your food vendors serve for lunch yesterday?
154
Sisters, thank you for your selfless service, for your willingness to give up your time, and also your life really to serving others. While others look more for personal gain and self satisfaction- I love that you pushed all that away, to help others.
I think it's sad that a group of women who are dedicated to serving those in need are being told what to do. This is a religious belief. I believe it falls under freedom of religion.... Or, did something change recently?? I thought that one was pretty straight forward.....
In this case, they aren't discriminating against anyone- I saw someone mentioned the baker, and the county clerk. Which I believe both cases were discrimination- this is different, its a religious belief thats being denied for them. Hypothetically speaking, it'd be like telling a small group of Hindu monks they have to provide cow meat for everyone in their group, no matter if they ate it or not... That would be wrong. But, that's what I feel about this- it's not right- its their religion, and they are being denied the opprotunity to freely worship as they please.
I think it's sad that a group of women who are dedicated to serving those in need are being told what to do. This is a religious belief. I believe it falls under freedom of religion.... Or, did something change recently?? I thought that one was pretty straight forward.....
In this case, they aren't discriminating against anyone- I saw someone mentioned the baker, and the county clerk. Which I believe both cases were discrimination- this is different, its a religious belief thats being denied for them. Hypothetically speaking, it'd be like telling a small group of Hindu monks they have to provide cow meat for everyone in their group, no matter if they ate it or not... That would be wrong. But, that's what I feel about this- it's not right- its their religion, and they are being denied the opprotunity to freely worship as they please.
35
If the Hindu monks were employers providing government-subsidized food for their secular employees in America yes, they would have to allow them to eat cow meat if they so chose. Your example is a poor one: the sisters fight with the government is nothing more than a fight for control, to redefine the meaning of the 1st Amendment.
16
I think it's a shame that only one side of the equation is being considered here. What about the fact that their employees are being deprived of their freedom to avail themselves of services they are entitled to under the law? And, by the way, meat, as far as I know, is not a legally protected service and is not an appropriate comparison. .
7
Actually Emily, this is like telling a group of Hindu monks that employees of their *business* have the right to eat beef and pay for it from their salary.
The sisters are not being denied religious freedom, but rather attempting to deny the civil liberties of their employees.
The sisters are not being denied religious freedom, but rather attempting to deny the civil liberties of their employees.
13
How about you trade in your tax-exempt status, i.e. the subsidy we tax-payers cover that keeps you in business. Then we'll talk...
836
Excellent point!
2
But they'll say it's their religious right.
The Catholic church is just wrong on this and so many other things affecting women. They are barely out of their Middle Ages mentality when control of women was even more perverse.
2
I don't think anyone is saying you can't continue your work, quite the contrary.
I just wonder why your employees must follow your religious rules. Since you believe all contraception is morally wrong, would you fire someone who used birth control? You can say you don't want to have it in the health plan you provide, but even if that were so, your employee would still use the compensation you provide to obtain the birth control. This is no different than using a health plan that is also compensation for employment.
Do you restrict other activities that your religious prohibits and which your employees may take part in? Why not? As an employer you can claim that they not moral or using their compensation for things in which you don't approve.
Everyone admires kindness, caring for others that your work involves.
But in America, you can't compel someone to follow the rules of your religion just because they work for you. If someone is doing their job, then you can't decide how they spend their compensation, which includes health insurance.
Obama has done much good, despite your political objections. Many, many people have received healthcare who have never had it before, thus relieving much pain. It's not perfect, but I'm saddened that you don't see this. You are seeking to assist those who want to get rid of the law and there will be suffering because if it.
I just wonder why your employees must follow your religious rules. Since you believe all contraception is morally wrong, would you fire someone who used birth control? You can say you don't want to have it in the health plan you provide, but even if that were so, your employee would still use the compensation you provide to obtain the birth control. This is no different than using a health plan that is also compensation for employment.
Do you restrict other activities that your religious prohibits and which your employees may take part in? Why not? As an employer you can claim that they not moral or using their compensation for things in which you don't approve.
Everyone admires kindness, caring for others that your work involves.
But in America, you can't compel someone to follow the rules of your religion just because they work for you. If someone is doing their job, then you can't decide how they spend their compensation, which includes health insurance.
Obama has done much good, despite your political objections. Many, many people have received healthcare who have never had it before, thus relieving much pain. It's not perfect, but I'm saddened that you don't see this. You are seeking to assist those who want to get rid of the law and there will be suffering because if it.
744
Next they will ask employees to sign a legal document that they will not use birth control. Look at what has happened in Catholic universities asking teaching staff to sign documents about what they will teach or lose their jobs. Enough!
6
Your religion is against birth control in general simply because it wants to increase the number of catholics on this planet. It is a numbers game, plain and simple. You do not care what the numbers of unrestrained births do to the individual woman, the family, the planet, etc. In particular, you do not see women as equal human beings with a right to make their own bodily decisions; rather, you see them as a 'species' that your god made only for reproductive purposes, nothing else; thus you do not see them as full human beings. That is evil.
3
The Little Sisters aren't trying to stop their employees from getting contraceptives. They just don't want to be involved in handing out something that they believe (and teach) is not consistent with sanctity of life. That's why the soda pop analogy for the school is powerful. The school isn't trying to stop all students from drinking soda. It just doesn't want to be involved in the process of handing out and encouraging that product. In America, employers and organizations make those types of decisions all the time.
2
Nonsense. These kind ladies want to force their religious practice on their employees, simple as that. The whole concern reflects tortured logic in any case: no one who does not want to use contraception is in any way asked or obligated to do so. Insurance benefits are earned, and employees must be allowed to collect and utilize those benefits without interference. Presumably these employees receive a paycheck as well. Will the sisters next ask the employees to account for how they spend their money, to insure it is not used for things the sisters disapprove?
71
Absolutely right and I've been pointing this out for a while.... your employer provided health insurance is part of your compensation. As such, you and you alone can decide how to use such compensation.
4
No matter how you look at it, by hiring people of varied or no religious beliefs, you are forcing all employees to live under your religious prohibitions. What about their freedom of religion?
It also speaks of how little faith you have that fellow Catholics will follow Catholic doctrine. There is nothing in the ACA forcing co-workers to avail themselves of contraception. What harm would there be in offering something that was never used?
Because the reality is you don't trust your fellow believers to follow the same outdated doctrines and so the only option remaining is to try and make the use of contraception as difficult as possible.
It also speaks of how little faith you have that fellow Catholics will follow Catholic doctrine. There is nothing in the ACA forcing co-workers to avail themselves of contraception. What harm would there be in offering something that was never used?
Because the reality is you don't trust your fellow believers to follow the same outdated doctrines and so the only option remaining is to try and make the use of contraception as difficult as possible.
697
@Tom Matthews
A significant line of argument began over abortifacients. Those are not birth control treatments. To some, they are a means to snuff a new life. Would that we were able to make such a simple distinction?
The pro-choice lobby will not rest until absolute purity is enforced by law. Once every woman, of every age, is on birth control (and there are plenty of examples of taking that choice from family discussion), we will turn our attention to "why" American girls are going on birth control, from puberty, and how we can prosecute the boys who "rape" them.
You make excellent points about the personal choices of the insured in your comment. But we live in a nation where personal "choice" must be enforced by law, requiring the law to ultimately prosecute each side in an argument.
There were some pretty interesting teachings about this from Constance Veit's "savior" a couple thousand years ago, but it would cross a secular line to remind readers here that the largely ungovernable real estate is the human heart.
I see no great evidence that Progressives, atheists, or Liberals are up to that challenge any more than religious believers.
And good luck with the Muslim community immigrating to the US. Their beliefs, and backgrounds under sympathetic governments, will have heads spinning here within a few years. They will make strange bedfellows for the Democrats that are likely drooling for a new voting bloc.
A significant line of argument began over abortifacients. Those are not birth control treatments. To some, they are a means to snuff a new life. Would that we were able to make such a simple distinction?
The pro-choice lobby will not rest until absolute purity is enforced by law. Once every woman, of every age, is on birth control (and there are plenty of examples of taking that choice from family discussion), we will turn our attention to "why" American girls are going on birth control, from puberty, and how we can prosecute the boys who "rape" them.
You make excellent points about the personal choices of the insured in your comment. But we live in a nation where personal "choice" must be enforced by law, requiring the law to ultimately prosecute each side in an argument.
There were some pretty interesting teachings about this from Constance Veit's "savior" a couple thousand years ago, but it would cross a secular line to remind readers here that the largely ungovernable real estate is the human heart.
I see no great evidence that Progressives, atheists, or Liberals are up to that challenge any more than religious believers.
And good luck with the Muslim community immigrating to the US. Their beliefs, and backgrounds under sympathetic governments, will have heads spinning here within a few years. They will make strange bedfellows for the Democrats that are likely drooling for a new voting bloc.
1
"by hiring people of varied or no religious beliefs, you are forcing all employees to live under your religious prohibitions." So every time an employer hires employees who have beliefs that differ from the employer, the employer has to offer benefits that contradict the employer's beliefs? Would an LGBT employer then have to offer insurance that covered conversion therapy for Christian employees? Last I checked, that's not how freedom works in our country. I may have the right to freedom of speech, but I don't have the right to force you (or my employer) to buy me a megaphone.
This whole "violates my faith" claptrap would instantly disappear the moment our country put into place a single payer system, aka Medicare for all.
2
It is ironic that the sisters believe that they should impose their beliefs on their employees by excluding benefits but that they should not be expected to respect their employees' religious or health care beliefs or needs, as required by US law.
As for Catholic teaching (as opposed to anything Jesus taught), 98% of Catholics have used birth control rather than follow medieval teachings.
As for Catholic teaching (as opposed to anything Jesus taught), 98% of Catholics have used birth control rather than follow medieval teachings.
89
I am troubled to read that currently a third of all women do not get this health insurance coverage because their employers are exempted.
My reaction is not that the Little Sisters should be exempt too.
My reaction is that the exemptions are already far more out of control than I'd realized, and this must stop.
Birth control should be a part of every health care plan. No exemptions, no exceptions. Everyone ought to be covered, and the coverage ought to include this for everyone.
It is health care. Birth control must be done right, for the good health of the women using it. Women ought not to be put at risk. These are our daughters, our sisters, our wives and girlfriends we love, not some abstract Other.
My reaction is not that the Little Sisters should be exempt too.
My reaction is that the exemptions are already far more out of control than I'd realized, and this must stop.
Birth control should be a part of every health care plan. No exemptions, no exceptions. Everyone ought to be covered, and the coverage ought to include this for everyone.
It is health care. Birth control must be done right, for the good health of the women using it. Women ought not to be put at risk. These are our daughters, our sisters, our wives and girlfriends we love, not some abstract Other.
445
Completely agree. I was unaware how widely applied this exception is. That needs to stop now.
5
And I would bet the Sisters are having no problem whatsoever with their health plan covering Viagra, Cialis, and other erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals provided to men.
7
Amen.
Sister, there are currently 7.3 billion humans trampling the planet thanks in large part to that medieval religious textbook you worship and the human religious aversion to birth control, sex education and modernity.
You may be helping the elderly and the poor that you care for one-on-one in your daily life, but you're helping to hurt many unseen poor and powerless females trapped in a man's misogynistic, patriarchal world of female disenfranchisement in a dangerously overpopulated world already teetering on environmental and resource collapse.
Birth control might just be the greatest Hail Mary gift 'God' ever gave us to save humanity.
You might be a little wiser to take a lower case catholic view of the world than your narrow upper case Catholic view.
It's not just about you, Sister ...it's about 7.3 billion humans and the sanctity of our only home - planet Earth - that your religious book tells us is a gift from 'God'.
Expand your conscience, Sister....'God' and humanity will thank you.
You may be helping the elderly and the poor that you care for one-on-one in your daily life, but you're helping to hurt many unseen poor and powerless females trapped in a man's misogynistic, patriarchal world of female disenfranchisement in a dangerously overpopulated world already teetering on environmental and resource collapse.
Birth control might just be the greatest Hail Mary gift 'God' ever gave us to save humanity.
You might be a little wiser to take a lower case catholic view of the world than your narrow upper case Catholic view.
It's not just about you, Sister ...it's about 7.3 billion humans and the sanctity of our only home - planet Earth - that your religious book tells us is a gift from 'God'.
Expand your conscience, Sister....'God' and humanity will thank you.
467
I think you are being very disrespectful to this wonderful nun, Sister Constance, who has dedicated her life in caring for the poor and elderly among us. What have you done to relieve their suffering and pain? If these women want their birth control, they can go to their local pharmacy and purchase it for very little money. Why should these nuns have to go against their Catholic values which are very dear to them? They are not against their employees using birth control but do not want to have to pay for it. Whether or not you agree with their decision, it is part of their Catholic teaching which is very important. What happened to religious liberty? Did it all of a sudden fly out the window? This is a travesty and I wish these nuns good luck in their fight against Obamacare. You go nuns!
4
Socrates....excellent, well expressed---rational morality.
This is so to the point----’helping to hurt many unseen poor and powerless females trapped in a man's misogynistic, patriarchal world of female disenfranchisement.
....Birth control might just be the greatest Hail Mary gift 'God' ever gave us to save humanity.’
(and especially): ‘wiser to take a lower case catholic view of the world than your narrow upper case Catholic view.’
(too bad that narrow upper case Catholic view dominates much US conservative politics.)
This is so to the point----’helping to hurt many unseen poor and powerless females trapped in a man's misogynistic, patriarchal world of female disenfranchisement.
....Birth control might just be the greatest Hail Mary gift 'God' ever gave us to save humanity.’
(and especially): ‘wiser to take a lower case catholic view of the world than your narrow upper case Catholic view.’
(too bad that narrow upper case Catholic view dominates much US conservative politics.)
21
Well said, Socrates!
10
Someone has to provide this *legal* & *widely accepted* service. Nobody is asking your religious group to violate its beliefs and provide this service. Just certify you don't want to provide it, and the government will. With my tax dollars, not just yours (and you're likely tax-exempt anyway).
238
Totally tax exempt, and with extensive real estate holdings to boot. Nothing poor about the Little Sisters, except perhaps their judgment.
12
The whole point is that they ARE being asked to provide it on their health plan. The Little Sisters aren't being treated like the Catholic Bishops, who get to receive protection and not use their health plan to provide services that violate their religious beliefs.
1
Sister Constance summons the whirlwind; but perhaps it’s high time that someone do this.
At first glance this could appear to be a case of the bureaucratic juggernaut confronting the parochial interests of a small group that insists on peculiarities that inconvenience the behemoth; and a lot of sympathy will be ginned up in defense of the Little Sisters of the Poor against HHS, that gargantuan powerhouse of ideological fervor that got a president to tell Congress and the American people that “you can keep your policy and your doctor if you want to”, and thereby enabled passage of an ACA that would have failed for want of Democratic votes if the lies hadn’t been told.
But the issue is far more basic to who we are as Americans than that.
In the end it’s simply inevitable that public policy will clash with religious conviction; and when it does, there must be civil authority that establishes what is Caesar’s and what is God’s. Public policy, for good or ill, has been determined to be that all women of child-bearing years have easy access to artificial contraception and to abortion services. We’re seeing massive resistance to this policy by the religious, and if we are to be governed by the laws of man and not by the interpretations of some of the laws of God, then we need to settle the matter for good.
I’m afraid that means that Sister Constance must lose her fight, in the interests of drawing a bright line between what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.
At first glance this could appear to be a case of the bureaucratic juggernaut confronting the parochial interests of a small group that insists on peculiarities that inconvenience the behemoth; and a lot of sympathy will be ginned up in defense of the Little Sisters of the Poor against HHS, that gargantuan powerhouse of ideological fervor that got a president to tell Congress and the American people that “you can keep your policy and your doctor if you want to”, and thereby enabled passage of an ACA that would have failed for want of Democratic votes if the lies hadn’t been told.
But the issue is far more basic to who we are as Americans than that.
In the end it’s simply inevitable that public policy will clash with religious conviction; and when it does, there must be civil authority that establishes what is Caesar’s and what is God’s. Public policy, for good or ill, has been determined to be that all women of child-bearing years have easy access to artificial contraception and to abortion services. We’re seeing massive resistance to this policy by the religious, and if we are to be governed by the laws of man and not by the interpretations of some of the laws of God, then we need to settle the matter for good.
I’m afraid that means that Sister Constance must lose her fight, in the interests of drawing a bright line between what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.
183
The ACA would have passed handily and with some Republican votes if the party had not made opposition to national Romneycare an article of faith and told endless lies about it, lies that were far more extensive and radical and inaccurate than Obama's statement (which turned out to be wrong in some circumstances).
74
C3p0:
No, the fact that Democrats wanted to impose on all of America a program that one state had every right to adopt if its people so wished yet was rejected by almost half of America at the time and over half since would have caused the same unanimous rejection by Republicans, as well as by the many Democrats who rejected it as well. Additionally, those Democrats who were gulled not by statements that "turned out to be wrong in some circumstances" but were knowing lies fomented by an HHS hellbent on passing the ACA at any cost would have voted against it as well. It would have failed significantly instead of passing by the skin of its teeth ... on lies.
No, the fact that Democrats wanted to impose on all of America a program that one state had every right to adopt if its people so wished yet was rejected by almost half of America at the time and over half since would have caused the same unanimous rejection by Republicans, as well as by the many Democrats who rejected it as well. Additionally, those Democrats who were gulled not by statements that "turned out to be wrong in some circumstances" but were knowing lies fomented by an HHS hellbent on passing the ACA at any cost would have voted against it as well. It would have failed significantly instead of passing by the skin of its teeth ... on lies.
1
Richard, I read all your posts. I usually disagree with what you say but always appreciate what you say. Why you continue to contribute your thoughts to the New York Times when most people disagree with you is both mystifying and admirable. thanks.
3
Sister, there would be no need for a religious exemption for any employer had Senate Republicans - and let's be fair, a number of Senate Democrats - not prevented this nation's adoption of a single payer system, a system that would liberate all employers from the need to provide health insurance for their employees (and which costs our advanced industrial competitors as much 50% less, as expressed as a percentage of GDP, as does our current abomination of a system).
The votes for such a system existed in 2009-10 in a Democrat-controlled House; but not even an up-or-down vote on the Public Option was permitted in a Senate manipulated by a minority wholly owned and controlled by the forces of greed, selfishness, and malevolence (hereafter referred to as the party of Trump).
Sister, with all due respects, your conscience is only at issue today because our Congress lacked the moral courage to place America on an equal footing with every other advanced industrialized nation in the world. You cry over the equivalent of spilled milk, while too many Americans continue to either pay far more than they can afford for health insurance or not receive insurance or medical treatment at all.
Sister, I am sincerely sorry that your Order was put into the position of having to pay for a medical procedure that might trouble your ethical sensibilities - but this is exactly what happens when men lack the courage to put the good of the many ahead of the selfish interests of the few.
The votes for such a system existed in 2009-10 in a Democrat-controlled House; but not even an up-or-down vote on the Public Option was permitted in a Senate manipulated by a minority wholly owned and controlled by the forces of greed, selfishness, and malevolence (hereafter referred to as the party of Trump).
Sister, with all due respects, your conscience is only at issue today because our Congress lacked the moral courage to place America on an equal footing with every other advanced industrialized nation in the world. You cry over the equivalent of spilled milk, while too many Americans continue to either pay far more than they can afford for health insurance or not receive insurance or medical treatment at all.
Sister, I am sincerely sorry that your Order was put into the position of having to pay for a medical procedure that might trouble your ethical sensibilities - but this is exactly what happens when men lack the courage to put the good of the many ahead of the selfish interests of the few.
299
I don't think taking a birth control pill can be described as a medical procedure.
3
I'm glad the sister pointed out those companies, governments, etc., that are getting exemptions from the law. They should be forced to provide benefits whether they like it or not and that includes the Sisters of the Poor.
16
Wow, what a perfect piece of sophistry
1
This is not about discouraging children from drinking soda. This is about the private decisions of a diverse group of employees who live in modern-day America, and who have a right to take full advantage of all health services that are available to them.
No one is asking the Little Sisters of the Poor to use birth control or to have abortions. But if the organization needs lay workers, those workers are not bound to follow the rituals and practices of the Sisters. Neither should the religious beliefs of the inner circle be visited upon the hired help.
The elderly poor likely have a variety of religious beliefs, or have no beliefs at all. They may have done things in their lives that would violate the tenets of the Sister’s faith. But helping those people does not constitute endorsement of their lifestyles. Neither does providing an insurance plan for employees endorse their reproductive choices.
This is a business arrangement that is being used as a passive-aggressive ploy to impose aspects of one group’s religious beliefs on another group. It has similarities with the case of the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, or with Kim Davis’ refusal to carry out her secular role as county clerk because her religious beliefs did not accept gay marriage.
There is a wall that separates employees from the beliefs of their employers that is being removed, brick by brick. Weakening this wall may have unexpected consequences for those on both sides.
No one is asking the Little Sisters of the Poor to use birth control or to have abortions. But if the organization needs lay workers, those workers are not bound to follow the rituals and practices of the Sisters. Neither should the religious beliefs of the inner circle be visited upon the hired help.
The elderly poor likely have a variety of religious beliefs, or have no beliefs at all. They may have done things in their lives that would violate the tenets of the Sister’s faith. But helping those people does not constitute endorsement of their lifestyles. Neither does providing an insurance plan for employees endorse their reproductive choices.
This is a business arrangement that is being used as a passive-aggressive ploy to impose aspects of one group’s religious beliefs on another group. It has similarities with the case of the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, or with Kim Davis’ refusal to carry out her secular role as county clerk because her religious beliefs did not accept gay marriage.
There is a wall that separates employees from the beliefs of their employers that is being removed, brick by brick. Weakening this wall may have unexpected consequences for those on both sides.
665
The writer's point of view towards her employees is quite patronizing and disrespectful, even arrogant. She is not a school principal and they are not her students. They are independent adults who are entitled to the health care they think is appropriate for maintenance of their good health and happy families. How dare she assume the right to make this decision for them?
68
@James Lee
The fact that it's a government requirement automatically negates any perception that they endorse the coverage, regardless of whether or not it's a private organization. An act mandated removes any imputation of free choice. The issue isn't the consciences of these nuns, since their individual lives aren't being controlled, but their attempt to impose their consciences upon their lay employees.
The fact that it's a government requirement automatically negates any perception that they endorse the coverage, regardless of whether or not it's a private organization. An act mandated removes any imputation of free choice. The issue isn't the consciences of these nuns, since their individual lives aren't being controlled, but their attempt to impose their consciences upon their lay employees.
12
"God's law" can mean absolutely anything, depending on who you ask. That's why "God's law" has no legal standing in this secular republic that we call home.
7
Medical care is not limited by the parameters of your faith. The concept of parsing out individual things like the exam and prescription for birth control from the regular exam was falsely invented by your fellow religious zealots.
It was invented to get past the logical and legal roadblock after Roe v Wade. Prior to the injection of religion, premiums were set by what the employer could afford and not parsed by individual procedures based on whether or not the employer approved of them. Honestly how sick do you have to be to even conceive of such a thing?
The costs involved in “birth control” are negligible and would be covered by virtually any plan that covered doing in office checkup exams.
Those benefits are not yours in any way. You have as much right to tell them what they can do with medical care as you do to tell them how to spend the cash they are paid. The benefits belong to the employee to do with as they see fit.
You are not being asked to provide birth control, you are being asked to stop interfering with the private medical care choices of people who are not you.
BTW your church allows for it when it suits them such as for nuns in places they might be raped. Pretty much destroys your position, that.