The Catholic Church's War on Healthcare

[adoucette]

It most certainly does not.

Here is an excerpt dealing with that specific title from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website, www.eeoc.gov:



The exception basically allows religious organizations to hire preferentially based on religious views (e.g. a Catholic organization wanting to hire Catholics).

So I pose my question to you again: Do you think a religious organization should be allowed to discriminate based on sex, age, race, or disability?

It most certainly does.

Indeed a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.

Who defines who and what is a "clergy role"?

The religion.

They can thus exclude anyone they want from that position, which can be as broad based as they care to make it.

Then of course religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion, and since a religion gets to control who is a member and can interview sufficient people for any position until a member of their religion applies, they indeed can effectively give employment preference to whomever they want.

 

[spidergoat]

Birth control is not a medicine for the sick. Most birth control is needed for recreational sex and/or for professionals who sell sex. This is different than a medicine needed to treat a health condition. Pregnant is not defined as a disease, unless PC has a new definition. Maybe alchohol can be covered under healthcare insurance plans since this too is for recreational use.

Treatment of a condition called precocious puberty does involve the same drugs that are used as contraception. I just heard that this morning from a mother who called in to a radio show on the subject.

Also:

Adolescent girls and young women are frequently prescribed birth control pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, and for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Girls who are diagnosed with PCOS are often prescribed oral contraceptives to lower their hormone levels and regulate their menstrual periods.

Additionally, lack of a healthy sex life is detrimental to a person's overall health, including mental health.

 

[adoucette]

Treatment of a condition called precocious puberty does involve the same drugs that are used as contraception. I just heard that this morning from a mother who called in to a radio show on the subject.

Also:

Adolescent girls and young women are frequently prescribed birth control pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, and for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Girls who are diagnosed with PCOS are often prescribed oral contraceptives to lower their hormone levels and regulate their menstrual periods.

Additionally, lack of a healthy sex life is detrimental to a person's overall health, including mental health.

And has the Church said they are against the drugs when used for legitimate non-contraceptive reasons?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Is this religious activity? Clearly not as one need not be a member of the church to be hired as an employee. So why are non-religious activities protected by religion?

It shouldn't, but unfortunately chruches are given inappropriate business advantages.

Precisely, what's more, any church could choose to buy a business; ignore employee rights, pay themselves huge salaries, and then claim they are non-profit. You don't consider this abusive? Is this what you are trying to protect?

How am I trying to protect it? I said before -

Yes, it is the church rendering unto ceaser, but it IS also an attack on religious freedom, which includes both freedom of religion and freedom from religion - in both cases the freedom of the employees of a different or No religion to avail government health services is being attacked.

and

I think it is an unintended attack on religious freedom, a textbook example of the dangers of absolutism, dogmatism, fundamentalism and authoritarianism. Its almost as if these people are stuck many centuries in the past - clinging to and defening their beliefs, opposing modernity [science, medicine and technology] and opposing progress [stem cell research and animal experimentation], etc.

Ps. I am a Agnostic weak atheistic apatheist.
Agnostic - on the existence of God
Weak - I dont claim God doesnt exist
Atheist - I dont believe in God because there isn't enough evidence or reason.
Apatheist - I dont care much for religion.

 

[spidergoat]

And has the Church said they are against the drugs when used for legitimate non-contraceptive reasons?

I think the point is it's none of their business how these drugs are used.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It shouldn't, but unfortunately chruches are given inappropriate business advantages.

That is why I suggested this will come back and bite the Catholics in the butt. While I didn't consider this an issue before, now I do.

 

[adoucette]

I think the point is it's none of their business how these drugs are used.

It is their business when you are saying they must pay for something that they consider to be a sin.

Look, I'm not religious.
I don't have any personal issue with dispensing BC pills.
I have no problem with the Day after pill either.

But I don't think the State has the right to exert it's force on Churches to do things that go against their established beliefs.

Again, the Chruch is not saying these people can't take the pills, they just don't want to be an active party to it.

Seems reasonable.

It's not like they came up with this belief last night.
It is indeed a LONG held and apparently very important belief for the Catholic Church.

The solution is also easily available.
The people could buy them themselves (they do have jobs after all) or the Govt could allow them to buy specific coverage for these drugs from the Exchanges that are also part of Obama Care.

There is no need for this government heavy handedness.

 

[spidergoat]

It's not like it's unprecedented. Seventh Day Adventists are vegetarians, but they run hospitals and have been forced to serve meat to their patients.

 

[Balerion]

It most certainly does.

Indeed a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.

Who defines who and what is a "clergy role"?

The religion.

They can thus exclude anyone they want from that position, which can be as broad based as they care to make it.

Wrong again. Here is another excerpt from the EEOC website:

Courts have held that clergy members generally cannot bring claims under the federal employment discrimination laws, including Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This “ministerial exception” comes not from the text of the statutes, but from the First Amendment principle that governmental regulation of church administration, including the appointment of clergy, impedes the free exercise of religion and constitutes impermissible government entanglement with church authority. The exception applies only to employees who perform essentially religious functions, namely those whose primary duties consist of engaging in church governance, supervising a religious order, or conducting religious ritual, worship, or instruction. Some courts have made an exception for harassment claims where they concluded that analysis of the case would not implicate these constitutional constraints.

The law defines the role of clergy, not the church. They can't just slap "clergy" on a nurse at a Catholic hospital and say he or she is not able to sue us for discrimination.

Then of course religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion, and since a religion gets to control who is a member and can interview sufficient people for any position until a member of their religion applies, they indeed can effectively give employment preference to whomever they want.

I'm sorry, that doesn't follow. They can not, "effectively" or otherwise, discriminate against anyone with the exception of by faith.

Now, I've noticed you've ducked this question twice now, but I'm not going to stop asking until you give me an answer: Do you think a religious organization should be allowed to discriminate based on sex, age, race, or disability?

 

[aaqucnaona]

That is why I suggested this will come back and bite the Catholics in the butt. While I didn't consider this an issue before, now I do.

Can you please expatiate?

 

[spidergoat]

Women that care about women's rights might tend to side with the Dems on this one.

 

[adoucette]

Wrong again. Here is another excerpt from the EEOC website:

The law defines the role of clergy, not the church. They can't just slap "clergy" on a nurse at a Catholic hospital and say he or she is not able to sue us for discrimination.

So?

The point is they CAN discriminate.

I'm sorry, that doesn't follow. They can not, "effectively" or otherwise, discriminate against anyone with the exception of by faith.

Then you miss the point.
A Religion can determine who belongs to their faith.

Now, I've noticed you've ducked this question twice now, but I'm not going to stop asking until you give me an answer: Do you think a religious organization should be allowed to discriminate based on sex, age, race, or disability?

They already do.
Or did you not notice there are no women Priests in the Catholic Church?

The fact is they can discriminate and say it was based on Faith and it would be up to the EEOC to prove that it wasn't.

Tough case to make.

 

[adoucette]

Women that care about women's rights might tend to side with the Dems on this one.

How is this about women's rights?

There is a right to contraception in the Constitution?

 

[spidergoat]

I think it falls under the right to privacy.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I think it falls under the right to privacy.

How so?

 

[adoucette]

I think it falls under the right to privacy.

No it doesn't.

The Church is not asking to be told if someone requests BC pills or Plan B.

They are simply saying that the medical coverage that they pay for won't include payment for those pills.

 

[Balerion]

So?

The point is they CAN discriminate.

The exemption you're hanging your argument on is for one very narrow, very specific instance. There is a much broader issue here, dealing with other enterprises--such as hospitals--which do not fall under the purview of the exemption.

And in those enterprises, they cannot discriminate for any reason.

Then you miss the point.
A Religion can determine who belongs to their faith.

I did misunderstand the first time. My fault.

They already do.

That wasn't what I asked. Please have some integrity and answer the question as it was posed.

Or did you not notice there are no women Priests in the Catholic Church?

Again, you're talking about clergy. That isn't at issue here. Obama's health care bill does not force churches to provide birth control to their priests and nuns.

The fact is they can discriminate and say it was based on Faith and it would be up to the EEOC to prove that it wasn't.

Tough case to make.

For one, it wouldn't be up to the EEOC to decide, it would be up to the courts. Secondly, it would not be a hard case to prove, and as the EEOC website implies, there is already a case history to show this.

 

[adoucette]

You went off on this tangent about hiring and the fact is that Churches can, by law, discriminate in hiring.

 

[spidergoat]

How so?

Why would an institution have a right to intrude on your personal health care choices just because they pay for it? My employer doesn't have a right to even know anything about my medical record.

 

[Nasor]

It most certainly does.

Indeed a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.

Who defines who and what is a "clergy role"?

The religion.

They can thus exclude anyone they want from that position, which can be as broad based as they care to make it.

Hahaha...let me guess, that assessment is based on your extensive experience as a civil rights attorney?

Good f*cking luck trying to argue in court that the accountant/nurse/whatever who you hired to do some clearly-not-a-clergyman job is really in a "clergy role" when you get sued under Title VII.