43 Catholic organizations sue Obama over contraception

What would Jesus do? Forget about protecting the meek, turning the other cheek, feeding the hungry and clothing the poor–he’d get himself a good lawyer! The University of Notre Dame, the Archdioceses of Washington, New York and Michigan, and the Catholic University of America are among the 43 Catholic organizations suing the Obama administration over regulations requiring most employers to provide birth control coverage as part of their employee health plans. Check out by Kaili Joy Gray‘s take over at Daily Kos:

The bishops had their chance to weigh in on the Obama administration’s new policy to require health insurers to cover birth control without co-pays. The Obama administration generously carved out a boatload of exemptions for them to address their “concerns.” The bishops even got their puppets in Congress to introduce bills on their behalf—which the American people overwhelmingly opposed. They even got themselves invited to the boys-only congressional hearing on birth control—because who understands birth control better than a bunch of supposedly celibate men?

Check out the rest of the post here.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

6 Comments

  1. Posted May 22, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t think it was even possible to sue the president. What the Catholic Church won’t do to force their views on us.

  2. Posted May 22, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    Employers should not be forced to provide a medical plan unless the job is physically dangerous. I can understand why employers would not want to spend extra money on birth control because they see it as unrelated to work. Where do we stop? Can I get money for condoms or a new male birth control pill if it comes out? Employees have the freedom to leave if they don’t like it.

    • Posted May 23, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

      Most medical issues are unrelated to work though – the plan isn’t to cover workplace injuries (which the employer must cover regardless) but to cover all of the regular medical issues that employees face – be it childbirth, a cold, or a broken leg on the weekend.

      I don’t understand your point about spending extra money on birth control though. First of all – it is absolutely related to work. If an employee has a child, whether it’s a man or a woman, it’s going to affect their work and how much work they miss. So it’s in an employer’s best interest to prevent pregnancy. Secondly, it’s well known that preventive medicine such as birth control actually saves tons of money to the provider and insurance company. E.g., birth control is alot cheaper then having a baby. Finally it’s been proven that you can’t stop people from having sex. Even 95% of people who make an abstinence until marriage pledge break that pledge. So funding this is a big win for employers and insurance companies. The only plausible reason to oppose it is on moral grounds b/c financially and otherwise it’s in the employer’s best interests.

      • Posted May 23, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

        Robert, in addition to honeybee’s excellent points, remember also that the current status quo is that the hypothetical religious employer does not have to pay for birth control; the insurer is on the hook for that cost.

      • Posted May 23, 2012 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

        You have some good points honeybee but if this was in the employer’s best interests, why do many oppose this plan? With the Catholic church it may be a moral issue but not with the thousands of employers who don’t care about religion. Also, employers can easily replace someone that chooses to miss work. That’s why so many single moms are paying for day care because if they miss too much work employers will find a childless dude that won’t take time off for kids. I said this a while back on another thread, I’ve talked to employers who secretly always look to hire a childless man first because they know they aren’t going to need much time off. This is very common with employers but they won’t admit it to the public for legal reasons.

  3. Posted May 23, 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Wow….I can hear Church clergy and members talking about how the Church is “being persecuted”
    Need a freaking drink

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

178 queries. 0.284 seconds