POLITICS - The Birth Control Battleground

"Can White House, Religious Leaders, GOP Reach Consensus on Birth Control?"
PBS Newshour 2/9/012


Excerpts

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): The mandate is based on recommendations from the U.S. Institute of Medicine study that showed reproductive health services without co-pays leads to better women's health.
----
RAY SUAREZ: It sounds like you want something even broader, not just for the colleges and universities and hospitals, but even Catholic employers.

ANTHONY PICARELLO, general counsel, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Well, yes, because the principle here is that of religious liberty. And it's not only religious employers that are entitled to religious liberty under the Constitution.

So all of those should be protected. They should not be put in this situation in the first place. They shouldn't be required by the government to provide, through sponsorship and subsidy, benefits that are offensive to their moral beliefs.

RAY SUAREZ: Jill Warren, is there a middle ground? Is there a position that you can contemplate that gets Mr. Picarello more of what he wants, without giving away something that you view as essential?

JILL WARREN, executive director, Methodist Federation for Social Action: The issue for me is that it's not about a religious exemption or creating some sort of compromise position. It's a position of health care and health care policy. And that is different than religion.

And even though I am part of a religious nonprofit, the United Methodist Church and the Methodist Federation for Social Action, we don't see this in any way as a religious issue. So, for me, in answer to your question, the compromise that might be sought by the Roman Catholic tradition isn't one that is of the best public good for all of us that would be covered by this policy.
----
RAY SUAREZ: . . . where does conscience attach at the nexus of three different entities, insurers, employers and the ensured, who all may want different things?

JILL WARREN: That's right. Yes, that's right.

I think that one of the points that I would like to make in our conversation is that we have a choice about what insurance we choose, whether we choose a sectarian plan or we choose a public plan, or whether we choose no plan at all, or even have access to health care as an insurance option in the first place.

So, as an individual, I can choose what health plan I might most benefit from. I think, in this case, there are insurers, as Anthony has mentioned, and there are hospitals, but they are -- there are already exemptions for conscience clauses. And there are sectarian organizations who don't have to provide these services in the first place.

Good arguments from both sides.

I side with "it's a health care issue." Especially since (as stated) there are already existing exemptions. BUT I do have an issue with an individual employer/owners of a NON-RELIGIOUS company imposing religious views on employees. An owner of a local hardware store who is Catholic (or any other religion) should NOT impose his personal religious beliefs on employees.

The counter-argument would be, those who do not agree with the owner "need not apply." But that is limiting employment to the community which should not be, especially in today's job market.

To put this in another way, the religious beliefs of an employee should NOT be a prerequisite for employment in a company not run by a religious organization.