commentaries

"... it could morph into abortion coverage at some time (abortifacients such as the morning-after pill are already to be included in the HHS regulations, so in some senses we are already there"

The morning after pill is not an "abortifacient." It is a high dose of regular ol' birth control. It prevents implantation of an egg, it does not discharge an already implanted, fertilized egg. Please stop lying about this medication.

Where does a denomination, a church, draw the line in allowing government to define what is “legitimately church ministry”?

You admit in this very column that many of your church-affiliated organizations put other things (education, health care, charity) above the religious background or persuasion of those you serve. Why can't you use the same kind of division of God/service in employee health coverage?

"But I also do not believe my government should ever force my church to provide something for its own employees that is against its teachings and beliefs."

You are not, nor will you ever, be forced to provide birth control, vasectomies or abortions to your employees. You are simply mandated to provide them with the same access to health insurance coverage as every other employer in the country. If you believe people should not use certain medications and medical procedures, you are perfectly free to continue preaching that message. You are not perfectly free to make medical decisions for others or prevent them from access to those decisions.

If you take public money you follow the same rules as everyone else, period. The church itself is not affected as it does not get public funding.

beebee82 you beat me to it. I was just going to post that exact thing about the morning after pill. As soon as that went into the article it lost any meaning it was trying to gain. Had he stated "RU486" which is an abortificant, then his point might have had some sense and validity, but I have yet to see insurance mandate abortion coverage anyway and federal dollars aren't allowed to be used for any abortion procedures either at places like Planned Parenthood, so this constant use of it as an example to keep from covering birth control pills, which are used for much more than birth control (I know people using it to preserve their future ability to HAVE children as it helps with ovarian cysts without invasive and painful surgery) just irritates me.

Way to go Bishop! Right on. Save the First Amendment!

"I also do not believe my government should ever force my church to provide something for its own employees that is against its teachings and beliefs." - Seriously.. grow up. Life is all about dealing with the fact that you're part of a society that does things against your beliefs, and oftentimes ontop of that you're subsidizing those plans. There are a lot of anti-war Americans, and they still pay taxes that fund the war. There are a lot of non-religious people that occasionally find themselves stuck in non-denomonational prayers. Almost all of us work for companies that do things we find immoral. In Italy, the country that surrounds the beloved vatican, abortions are covered under the national health insurance free of charge. So in essence every time a catholic person in Italy purchases even a candy bar, a tiny portion of that VAT might go to fund an abortion.

It was difficult for me to follow the text. He started with a semantic declaration about self-insurance, then argued that Catholics are not trying to hold others to the same rules they hold themselves to, then seemed to be asking for someone to understand why they don't want to provide abortifacents to anyone, even their own employees. I didn't learn anything here and don't even really understand what specific position he's arguing for. No gaffes, no blunders, just kind of unfocused and rambling.

@beebee82 Levonorgestrel (aka "Plan B") and ulipristal acetate (aka "Ella") are both anovulant (preventing ovulation) and an interceptive (preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum) in their mechanism. The former is a non-abortive way of preventing pregnancy. The latter is a termination of a pregnancy, which makes the drug an abortifacient. How it acts depends on the timing of the woman's cycle. If she has experienced a surge in her luteinizing hormone levels, she will ovulate shortly, and neither Plan B nor Ella will be able to prevent the release of an egg. Should that egg be fertilized, Plan B and Ella work to alter the endometrium to preven implantation, thus causing the loss of a fertilized ovum. This is an abortive effect and the reason why the Church allows the use of Plan B and Ella in rape victims only if urine or blood tests reveal normal levels of LH. If LH levels are high, the drug cannot be used in good conscience. Sources: Plan B and Ella labels from the USDA, NCBC, and several articles from the journal, Contraception.

@ several folks Church members pay taxes just like everyone else. We also provide many services that neither the government nor private entities want to provide, because we do it for little or no pay. Shut those down and the poor will suffer. But, at the end of the day, if the government will not allow the Church to accomplish her primary mission - the salvation of souls - those programs will be shut down. The Church will not compromise the faith in order to hang onto her social outreach programs. They will be shuttered and new approaches to serving the poor will be created.o

the suffering of millions of people under our current wretched health care system should be priority number one for the CC. instead we get lectures and rubbish like this. alas.

Really, at the end of the day, there are only three options, for the Church will not change her teachings on the immorality of contraception. Here are the options for those who oppose her: 1.) Learn to deal with the tension (i.e., allow us to have religious freedom) 2.) Convert to Catholicism (the wisest option) or 3.) Kill us all. Now, looking over history, options 2 and 3 have been tried the most, with 2 being the most successful and 3 being the least. If that does not work, you could go with option 1 and learn to live with people you disagree with. If not, I suppose you could go with 3, but it won't work in the long run.