37 Comments

• Michael F Brenn | Feb 19, 2012, 05:15 PM EST

  Mr. Patrick Roberts, 181 American bishops are trying to protect religious liberty for all Americans and spit out the Democratic party line. You have scandalized the AOH.

• eiriamach | Feb 15, 2012, 05:19 PM EST

  Right again, Joycean! As some commenters have pointed out, if we had a single-payer health care system, this contraceptive controversy would not have been a problem. (But would you be out of a job? Or would you be working for the government if we had a single-payer system?)

• joycean | Feb 15, 2012, 10:23 AM EST

  I think the basic problem with Obamacare is that it allows private insurance companies to continue to handle employer-based payment because insurance companies have enormous wealth and power. This would not be an issue if the US went to a single-payer plan, probably something that came out of everyone's pay checks like a tax.

• eiriamach | Feb 15, 2012, 06:57 AM EST

  Right, Joycean, the problem arose with loss of vocations. There are far fewer nuns, who ran schools and hospitals for a century without needing insurance that covered contraception for themselves. Right now, 28 states do not exempt Catholic employers from providing insurance that covers contraceptives, and Catholic institutions comply. It will make no difference at all in who uses contraception; the bishops know that. The Obama health care overhaul, however, will help Catholic hospitals that are struggling to provide care to people who cannot afford it. So the head of the Catholic Health Association, Sr Carol Keehan, and other nuns and lay leaders have welcomed the revised HHS rule. This debate reflects the rift in RCC since the publication of Humanae Vitae. After the disaster of Humanae Vitae, the anti-contraception encyclical, Pope Paul never published another encyclical in his lifetime. He had been scared into writing it by the strikingly clear change in direction that Second Vatican Council mapped out on social/ political issues. Afterwards, his own freedom-killing authority terrified him, so he left a legacy of recalcitrance, of refusal to re-examine past teachings, that the bishops now embrace as their religious identity. There is now a cadre of ultra-conservatives centralizing Vatican power and determined to expand RCC political power, at the cost of making women second-class citizens again. That's what's at stake in this debate.

• joycean | Feb 14, 2012, 04:26 PM EST

  Well, when I went to Catholic schools, the employees were nuns and all Catholics. Catholic hospitals were also run by nuns. I think the bishops could argue that because it is against their beliefs, none of the money they pay for health care can be used for contraception and insist there is no fungibility of their moneys with others. They could also insist that their employees sign binding contracts stating that. I handle medical insurance and I don't believe insurers and or providers are really planning on providing these services at no charge for Catholic employers. They probably think they can simply pass them off as something else.

• eiriamach | Feb 14, 2012, 04:03 PM EST

  Catholic organizations cannot "decide to only hire Catholic employees." That's called discrimination, and the USA made discrimination illegal in 1964. But now the Catholic bishops want to make it legal to discriminate against women in health insurance. Not in their churches--church employees are exempt from the requirement. They intend to discriminate in Catholic hospitals, social service agencies, and schools and colleges. These are places of employment, just as a business office or factory or tech lab is a place of employment. And Catholic organizations employ millions. If they will not obey the law, the courts will shut them down in the end. So be it! Equal treatment under the law is more important than the RCC empire. Serving the poor and healing the sick while treating female employees like chattel is not the way of Christians, so let's drop the pretense that the bishops want "religious freedom." They want the freedom to use government to deprive women of reproductive freedom and equal rights. They'll use GOP stooges like Santorum to try to re-shape the USA in their own regressive image. "Faith-Based and Fact-Free" is the new GOP campaign slogan, written and approved by the bishops.

• joycean | Feb 14, 2012, 12:00 PM EST

  I listened to Lew "explain" the Administration's position last night, and it made no sense. The Catholic employer will not pay for contraception; the insurer will. But insureres are private businesses that get their funds from the (Catholic) employer, not the government. I suppose that would work in a shifty sort of way, if all you are talking about is a doctor discussing contraception with a patient and calling it "preventive services" if the patient works for a Catholic employer and "contraceptive advice" if she works for someone else, whose employer is paying for both contraceptive services and preventive services. So the Catholic employer will pay twice as much for preventive services. But what if the Catholic organization's employee goes to her local pharmacy to have the prescription filled and perscriptions are covered under a separate, self (Catholic-employer)-funded benefit? What if she wants a tubal ligation? How is the insurer going to call that something else for her than it is for someone else? Maybe Catholic organizations will decide to only hire Catholic employees.

• PhlutiePhan | Feb 14, 2012, 10:02 AM EST

  During WWII, Ireland was accused by various media of being supporters of Germany and the Nazis because they stayed neutral and would not support the Brits. The Republicans just stand to gain because the Democrats have adopted an anti religous socialism along the lines of National Socialism of the 40s. That does not make the Catholic Bishops into Nazis. Traditionally, the Catholic bishops have always sided with the Democratic Party because of the Irish working class. According to Jodi Kantor in a recent book, the wife of the president has declared war on Irish politicians. The Catholic bishops dominated by Irish individuals are only "reading the tea leaves".

• MaryM232 | Feb 13, 2012, 11:49 PM EST

  BTW, to the dufuses who are whinging on, claiming that 'if a church hires people, the govt has the right to blah, blah, blah... yet Obama has exempted Islamic mosques, and Islamic owned businesses of all kinds from having to comply with Obamacare, only Christian and Jewish businesses, and churches must comply. Now, if you really believe what you wrote, then you must stand up and demand that Islamic run businesses and mosques be required to comply.. let's see how you brazen that out

• MaryM232 | Feb 13, 2012, 11:45 PM EST

  Patrick Roberts, you're a prime example of the ignorance and indifference of those who don't belong in the US. Obama's 'compromise' wasn't a compromise, it's a violation of the first amendment of the US constitution, ie.. "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." Now, if you know how to read, and know how to use a dictionary if you come across words you don't understand, you should be able to figure out what the first amendment guarantees. What's more, perhaps your brand of idiocy flies over in the old country, but it doesn't work here. The republican party isn't the enemy, it's the party that was formed to end slavery and fought the party of slavery, the democrats to end that slavery, the republicans were the party that fought and ended the Jim Crow laws that were created by democrats, and the republican party was the party that fought the KKK, which was formed by democrats. Being free to think and decide for one's self, the right to self determination, is the essence of being an American, a free person. We don't need an old country reject to dictate to us. Now, the bishops deserve what they got, they got into bed with the diseased Marxist left, now they're crying cause they woke up with bedbugs, but they're learning now. If you don't happen to like the US constitution, Paul, and you want to live by the disease that's mired Europe (and that includes Ireland) for centuries, that's your decision, get the hell out of the country, because that is the law of the land.

• BGAndersson | Feb 13, 2012, 02:58 PM EST

  Not sure what nauseats me more, your ignorant, snide columns or some of the people who post comments. But, just get used to this: the Church stands for something. They stick to it. Don't like it? Leave.

• TheOldPerfessor | Feb 13, 2012, 01:46 PM EST

  My insurance company covers Prozac. Nobody forces me to take it.

• eiriamach | Feb 13, 2012, 06:10 AM EST

  jmccarten asks, "Can a government official order a religious institution to do something prohibited by its religion?" When the religious institution employs people of various religions and none, it is an EMPLOYER, and, yes, government MUST require equal treatment of employees by employers. If you want a religious exemption from govt protection, then you should be working at a solely religious organization, i.e., a church, synagogue, or mosque, not a hospital, college, or social agency. Actual church employees are exempt; a nurse or orderly in a hospital, however, must have equal insurance benefits under the law. That's how government works when it does its job properly. Are you willing to forgo government requirements that you receive equal pay for equal work, that your workplace meet minimal safety standards, that you have the same insurance and pension benefits as your colleagues, and that your employer not require you to wear a phylactery at work or to pray while facing Mecca at noontime? We rely on government to prevent abuses and ensure fair treatment of employees in the workplace. That's precisely what the HHS Rule does. I believe religion should influence important aspects of my life, but that it should not deprive me of health insurance!

• jmccarten | Feb 12, 2012, 08:20 PM EST

  Catholics and Christains are tired of attacks on there religion by the secular leftists. This issue has nothing to do with contraception, it is about the 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion enumerated in our Constitution. Can a government official order a religious institution to do something prohibited by it's religion. Christains, espically Catholics have been under attack by the Progressive Secular Liberals led by Obama for years. Religion is ridculed and excluded from our public schools, yet our Children have to take classes on Islam, no religious displays are allowed in public places during the Christmas season (in fact liberals want to take the word "Christ" our of Christmas and call it holiday season), recently Mayor Bloomburg of New York banned the holding of religious service in public buildings even though churches had rented spaces in schools etc. for decades. This same Mayor Bloomburg did not invite any religious people to speak at the 9/11 Memorial Service in New York. There 72 million Catholics in America and 74% of the population identifies itself as Christain, Good Bye Obama you just got them all furious with you and your fellow liberals.

• Murph46 | Feb 12, 2012, 07:11 PM EST

  eiriamach some call me a radicalwhereas I see myself as a Constitutionalist,I am a veteran (of both military service and years on earth)but I believe in peoples rights ,limited government and freedom.I don't know of anyone that should put me in conflict with,but somehow ,someway it usually does.When it does I find it is normally someone who likes to "label"others.Don't know about you but i've never liked those people,and last of all my belief system was highly polished by a stubborn daughter though wrong who stuck to her guns for ten years b4 seeing the light! It was worth it.I admit I may be too much of a dinosaur for some of these discussions,but I'm just too ornery to back away!

• eiriamach | Feb 12, 2012, 05:29 PM EST

  Thanks for the explanation, Murph46. Interesting!

• mamaginnty | Feb 12, 2012, 04:26 PM EST

  Rome tried to stop the pill! coming into Ireland 30 yrs ago, but it did not work. We finally got the message, that bringing 10, 12, 14 children into starving conditions was wrong, what Rome actually wanted was more little catholics. That may be why they are seen to be moving a lot of furniture towards Africa lately, thousands of little villages where they can start brainwashing once again plus there will be no little drug stores near hand to stop the babies arriving. They have it all worked out.

• rugbyplayer | Feb 12, 2012, 03:36 PM EST

  The US RC bishops are basically tools of the Vatican but have shown themselves even when the late JFK was running for President to be willing tools of the GOP! The RC hierarchy worldwide since John Paul II wiped out any episcopal opposition to his Stalin-like authority and whose policy has been carried forward by Benedict XVI has once again reverted to fascism.

• Murph46 | Feb 12, 2012, 03:00 PM EST

  eiriamach you are so right I said stand for what you believe,when you try to serve two masters you serve neither,as I also explained,I am no longer a RC because of the duality of stands.If you take a stance without bending and stick to that stance even though you may be wrong,I will back your right to that stance right or wrong.That is an essential American freedom!

• eiriamach | Feb 12, 2012, 02:55 PM EST

  The ella pill delays ovulation for five days. It is effective even just before ovulation, the most fertile time of the cycle. While there is speculation that ella may also prevent attachment of an already-fertilized ovum to the uterine wall, there's no evidence that it has this effect, so calling it an abortion pill is a misrepresentation (otherwise known as a lie).

• EphraimKibbey | Feb 12, 2012, 02:47 PM EST

  @Porickseantuny - It would not be as foolish as you imply. It would actually save the insurance companies money in the long run. Before the Affordable Care Act, many companies charged women higher premiums because of the expense of pregnancy, its complications and related diseses. Now that they are required to treat the genders equally, this will be one way that they can recoup some of their extra costs from fairly covering women's health.

• eiriamach | Feb 12, 2012, 02:39 PM EST

  Murph46 writes, "When is it a grave mistake to stand for what you believe?" It's a grave mistake when the bishops try to wear two hats at once. As churchmen, they have all the religious freedom they need to condemn contraception; heck, they even have TV and radio stations--the mass media--as well as pulpits on Sunday, classrooms, newspapers and magazines, and Internet sites. All of those resources have not enabled them to bring their own flocks into line on contraception--yes, contraception--abortion is NOT the issue at stake in the HHS rule. So they plan to bring the coercive power of government to bear on women by trying to make contraceptives unavailable or unaffordable. They're wearing their politicians' hats at full tilt now. But they cannot wield the moral influence they might have had wearing their bishops' hats. It's simple common sense that contraception reduces the number of abortions, that married couples need to plan their families, and that wives need to work to provide for the children they already have. With their moral authority undermined by the sexual abuse scandal, they're rolling the dice, gambling their numbers power now-- Catholic voters. But not even Catholic women will vote to have a misogynist religious organization nullify their right to equal health insurance. Not even if the Ella pill were an abortion drug (it's not)! I will not weep in November to see the bishops bring down the GOP candidate with their vicious but ill-fated War on Women!

• carlow98 | Feb 12, 2012, 02:34 PM EST

  Your statement Mr. Patrick Roberts "The refusal of the Catholic Bishop's Conference to accept the Obama compromise on birth control and contraception is a grave mistake." My statement "No it's not. Don't be shortsighted Mr. Roberts."

• Murph46 | Feb 12, 2012, 02:13 PM EST

  jamyourbrain where have i referenced forcing anything on anyone,you may try to put words in my mouth but you would as usual be wrong.Everyone has a right to believe what they believe look it up in the US Bill of rights!I've never advocated forcing anything on anybody and besides in your case trying to force common sense upon you would be an obvious waste of time!

• bunkerisland | Feb 12, 2012, 02:12 PM EST

  I know few of these elders in black should have considered some birth control strategies for themselves rather than create bastards around the world.

• Pittsburghkid | Feb 12, 2012, 01:46 PM EST

  Mr. Roberts: This is not a right wing cause. This is about Church Doctrine, which Conservative support. Obama's deal is a deal with the Devil. The Church buys the package insurance without listing free Abortion Pills, but their there. The only person being fooled is you. Now concerning the Church making a big mistake by enforcing it's own doctrine. You, the Government Propaganda Media, and the Democrats are no friend of the Catholic Church. So where is the mistake. This is about Religious Freedom, and the battle is not limited to Catholic. There are many other religion, who do not want Obama to dictate to them either.

• Nicomax | Feb 12, 2012, 01:37 PM EST

  The Catholic Church, not unlike other religious groups, are free to practice their religion as they choose, and try to convince everyone else that theirs is the one true doctrine. After that they are no different than any other private group that attempts to insist their laws, rules and regulations trump civil law. Maybe in Ireland, Spain or many Arab countries this may be true, but not here.

• Porickseantuny | Feb 12, 2012, 01:36 PM EST

  How naive anyone is to think that insurance companies are going to provide coverage for the "morning after pill" i.e. abortion, for nothing. The church groups will pay for the coverage through their premiums.

• CitizenWhy | Feb 12, 2012, 01:27 PM EST

  Remember, according to new Catholic church dogma, every time a man - lay or cleric - masturbates he is killing a huge number of babies. ... Time for intelligent people to flee.

• jamthecat | Feb 12, 2012, 01:09 PM EST

  Murph46, it's one thing to have your own beliefs and quite another to force those on people who don't share those beliefs. That's not American; that's communism, and it's what radicals on both ends of the spectrum demand with their "My way or the highway" attitudes. But being one of those radicals, how could you possibly even begin to see that as referencing your own commentaries?

• MarybethC.P. | Feb 12, 2012, 10:40 AM EST

  I believe that Patrick Roberts is correct in his assessment of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and also agree with most of what pilip04 comments on here as well. The greates disappointment in my adult life has been seeing my fellow Irish-Americans take to the GOP and the country club life, just a generation or two after we were the immigrant church, and the voice for the poor. I can't help but notice the sea-change since Pres. Reagan was elected in 1980. Yes, our Church is indeed a shambles of pedophilia cover-ups, they lost the moral high ground a long time ago, they only care about forming life in the womb, and NOT about avoiding loss of life in our many wars since Viet Nam. I will never be an advocate for abortion, but I can't fathom how the church will not agree to contraception that is barrier-based, where the sperm never meets the egg. What a strange conundrum!

• Murph46 | Feb 12, 2012, 10:24 AM EST

  The right is vilified for what they believe in,so are the left,Americans have died for their right to choose,so why vilify someone for what they believe in.Isn't that the essence of freedom?

• Murph46 | Feb 12, 2012, 10:20 AM EST

  They need to stick to THEIR guns,the church is rightly in shambles as they let pedophiles reign,I left the church when they changed the doctrine of If you are not a baptized catholic you were condemned to hell.It is time for them to take a stand on some moral issue if they are to survive.I won't come back regardless.

• pilib04 | Feb 12, 2012, 09:53 AM EST

  Murph, I posted previously that these same men have lost their moral right to lead. Their beliefs are only whatever it takes to maintain their power. Hiding child rapists has is still the policy of our church hierarchy. Furthermore, Catholics in general use condoms and birth control pills so what is the objection! Murph, a question for you, do you believe that the overwhelming majority of Catholics use condoms, intra uterine devices (IUDs) and birth control pills, they are making a grave mistake???

• Murph46 | Feb 12, 2012, 09:42 AM EST

  When is it a grave mistake to stand for what you believe?

• pilib04 | Feb 12, 2012, 09:40 AM EST

  Reminds me of 1800 when the Irish Catholic bishops betrayed a nation by assenting to the Act of Unioin for a few pieces of gold or silver. These bishops bash our President and serve the interests of the 1%. They look the other way when their fellow bishops rape wee children, but condoms and birth control pills are anathema. RAPE VS CONDOMS!!! Yeah, these old men have their priorities straight, NOT. By their betrayal of our children they have lost the moral right to lead. You can't hide rapists bishops and priests and then insist on the right to speak morally. Cardinal Regan should be in jail as so many other leaders of our church.

• colkelley | Feb 12, 2012, 09:33 AM EST

  So the refusal of the Catholic bishops to become part of Obama's propaganda ploy makes them "tools" of the GOP? I suppose you would rather have them as witless stooges like you who continue to worship "The Chosen One." Every time you come up with something like this you prove how ignorant you are of the reality and tactics of the Conman-in-Chief.