And maybe that explains why so many people are so desperately ignorant when it comes to the topic. The comments on Patheos' Facebook page set forth perfect examples of the "arguments" that people are setting forth, with Catholics being slammed with insightful comments like:
"Are you kidding me? What a joke. The government gives ALL citizens freedom, not Catholics the freedom to override that right. Dumb article. Dumb lawsuit."
"So can I file a lawsuit against the government because they are using my tax dollars to pay for a war? What about paying for corporate welfare? War and usery is against my religion...."And
"Cammie, no one is forcing these Catholic companies and organizations to buy anything. The ACA simply states (among numerous other things, like children can't be rejected medical treatment because of a pre-existing condition) that if they offer medical insurance, they have to offer *comprehensive* health care insurance, which includes birth control. And the people that choose to buy BC are the ones paying for it still. No one is paying for anyone's sex life except the person having sex. They pay out their own Premiums, their deductibles, their prescription costs.
I find it ironic that you feel that it's forcing someone's sex life costs onto others (which it's not) when Catholics attaching this measure are forcing their religion's interpretations onto all others and trying to mandate their beliefs into law.
If you don't like it, don't do it. Simple as that. No one is forcing you or any other person to use birth control."Oh where to begin? I guess the first comment is as good a place as any.
The second comment seems to imply that the commenter believes that Catholic institutions are fighting against paying a tax. While I absolutely do believe that we should dispute the right of a government to pay for the slaughter of the unborn (or to allow that slaughter at all), that's not the issue in this case. This isn't a tax. The HHS mandate is the federal government forcing private entities to pay for contraception and abortive services. That's a clear violation of our religious freedom, and another example of how the current administration is trying to take away our choice of what we can and can't purchase with our own hard earned dollars.
Then there's that last, third comment, directed at me. The woman seems a tiny bit confused over what we're talking about. Maybe she didn't read the article and put all her energy into responding to me.
Rather than going to usual route of: "Some women need those drugs for other reasons! And you're taking them away!" she decides to claim that Catholics are fighting against children being given medical coverage for pre-existing conditions by fighting "comprehensive coverage" that she seems to think just happens to include contraception. Now I should begin by saying that both arguments are completely false. Drugs like estrogen would still be covered for medical reasons. Because reasons do matter hugely in these cases when we determine what is and isn't moral.
For example I took misoprostol last year. It's a nasty little drug when taken for any reason. It is used to induce early abortions. It's also used to treat ulcers or, as in my case, in a last ditch attempt to help get rid of the "debris" that remained three months after my miscarriage. Two of these three scenarios would be covered right now. One wouldn't. Can you guess which on it is? I'm sure you can. Because anyone who can read this post can likely figure out which of these three uses would be considered moral by any Catholic who actually believes in what the Church teaches.
The second part of the argument, that what we're fighting against is children being covered for pre-existing conditions, is patently false. Anyone who wants to know what we're actually fighting against can read the whole lovely text here. It's not long.
Besides to hear the third commenter talk about premiums and deductibles you'd think that employers don't ever pay for a cent for insurance coverage, and that it's just these poor women paying for it themselves. If that was the case, this wouldn't be an issue would it? Because Church institutions not paying for these services wouldn't matter because, based on the claim, they're already not paying for them.
Her claim goes on to say that we're trying to "mandate our beliefs into law." So not paying for someone else's contraceptives is somehow changing the law? No. This mandate changed the law. And it changed the law to violate our constitutional right to freely practice our religion.
Yes the misinformation out there is pretty insane. And I have a feeling in the next months we'll be given ample opportunity to try to clear up the misconceptions... if anyone is actually listening.