The Catholic hierarchy and the Republican party are digging in their heels in their opposition to health insurance companies being required to provide contraception coverage to all their employees, and even extending their stand to opposing insurers providing employees with anything the employer finds morally objectionable.
They think they can win this by framing it as an issue involving freedom of religion. I think they are making a big mistake because while most people value freedom of religion as an abstract principle, they don’t make decisions based on abstractions. They tend to look at the concrete manifestations of those abstractions. So in this case, since contraceptives are used almost universally, even by Catholics, and are seen as a definite good with no negative elements associated with it, people are unlikely to agree with attempts to limit access to it. So while many people will say they support freedom of religion, they are going to be angry if access to their contraceptive services are taken away. The situation is similar to those older Tea Party supporters who say they support getting government out of health care as an abstract principle but will fight tooth and nail to retain their Medicare.
They are going to be especially unhappy that this limitation on women’s reproductive choice is occurring at the instigation of a small group of elderly and allegedly celibate men wearing dresses, like the ones below, even if they have those pink Susan G. Komen-ish sashes as accessories.
Some Catholic institutions realize this and are going along with the new government policy in opposition to their church hierarchy. Polls also indicate that the general public is comfortable with the government’s policy.
As another example of people preferring the concrete over the abstract, they will say they support the rule of law as an abstract principle but as we have seen they will support the president summarily murdering people using drones and other means because they think the president is ‘good’ and the murdered people ‘bad’.
It appears the Catholic conservatives, which includes most of the bishops, are digging in their heels while the moderates and liberals accept Obama’s compromise.
I believe the bishops will suffer a backlash from trying to enforce their anti-contraception dogma on non-Catholics who don’t agree with that dogma. The bishops have already had to back down on employing non-Catholic divorcees.
The Bible was used to support laws against mixed-race marriage, which were only overturned in 1967. Would it be acceptable for religious leaders to object to those rules on religious grounds?
The state creates the rules for the state. If religion doesn’t like it, too bad.
Marriage vs. Religious Freedom
Your sartorial observations…priceless! LMAO
By the Republicans’ logic, Christian Scientists would be allowed to deny health coverage for ANYTHING, since they don’t believe in medical treatment. One wonders how they have survived as long as they have.
The obvious issue that no one seems to want to confront (avoiding a cliche’ here) is that no one is being forced to use contraception. If Catholics don’t want to use them, they’re still free to do so. No one’s liberty is being infringed upon.
For those of us who appreciate good theater, the timing of this brouhaha is brilliant. The country should be talking about Obama’s soft bailout for the banks masquerading as punishment for robo-signing abuses. Instead, we’re fretting about the availability of contraceptives as if it were 1963. We should have an Oscar award for masterful distraction, but the huge cast of players would require too many trophies.