Why Does the Catholic Church Enjoy IRS Protection?
WASHINGTON – The answer is simple. Because no Republican or Democratic politician has the courage to challenge them. This could apply to any religious institution meddling in politics, which the Catholic Church continues to do religiously without repercussions. E.J. Dionne reveals why:
That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law.
His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health care law.
… Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.
What Mr. Dionne reveals is that “Catholic allies” are more important than the integrity of protecting the individual person against the institution. The female individual having no lobbying crew or elite to protect her, for which she relies on the government, because only at the highest levels can a woman’s individual civil rights be secured. “Competing liberty interests” doesn’t address the lack of power an individual person has against institutions, seen in this debate by the Catholic Church who wants to deny reproductive health care to women, which hits rural and poor women directly.
Contrary to the fantasy that the Obama administration waging “an attack on their religious freedom,” an argument Russ Douthat makes today in the New York Times, what Pres. Obama has decided gives power to the individual over institutions.
Nothing is in higher keeping with the founders’ principles. It also is what Republicans and other conservatives, including Democrats, tout all the time, except where women are concerned. Then all of a sudden freedom it is just for men.
One woman’s privacy is more important than any religious institution’s prerogatives. It’s just one of the subjects I take on in my new book through the chapter titled “Is Freedom Just for Men?”
This highlights the biggest scourge in our politics and that is allowing religion and faith to have entrance into the debate in the first place. Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the “Moral Majority,” which was neither then or now, a religious litmus test has entered our political and policy landscape.
In thousands of parishes this weekend, Catholic priests read a version of the following letter to their congregation denouncing this decision as an attack on their religious freedom. Each bishop personally sent the letter out, and so there were some local variations. Here’s the one read in the Phoenix Archdiocese. Here’s another from the Bishop of Trenton. What follows is from the Bishop of Marquette… – Business Insider
I’m a rebel Episcopalian that now relies on daily meditation as my spiritual bedrock. I won’t take a back seat to any fundamentalist or evangelical or Catholic on spirituality. However, any person’s preferences in private should have no sway in public policy matters.
Since the Catholic Church is clearly encouraging it’s parishioners to wage a political campaign against this decision there should be substantive questions raised as to why this religious organization deserves protected status under the IRS code.
From Catholic News in November 2011:
“The law says that organizations exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which includes charities and churches, may not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office,” the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.
That means no endorsements, checklists, guides promoting one candidate over another or sample ballots by tax-exempt parishes and organizations or their publications.
But it does not prevent religious leaders or members of other tax-exempt organizations from speaking out on the issues, organizing voter registration drives or nonpartisan educational forums or publishing candidates’ responses to a questionnaire as long as the questions cover a broad range of issues and do not reflect any bias.
As you’ll see from the letter below, provided by Business Insider, there is nothing nonpartisan about it.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.
In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette
Taylor Marsh is the author of the new book, The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss, which is now available in print on Amazon. Marsh is a veteran political analyst and commentator. She has been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and has been seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her new media blog.
48 Responses to “Why Does the Catholic Church Enjoy IRS Protection?”
I agree with Dionne. “Obama would do well to revisit his decision on the Hawaii compromise”. That sounds like a good idea.
The Catholic church has been on both sides of the political aisle depending on the issue. So losing their IRS standing won’t change that or enhance any political balance.
My personal preference is to tax all churches’ profit, like any other organization, and especially to let local entities levy property taxes if they are so inclined. This will leave true non-profits free to operate without onerous tax burdens.
“This highlights the biggest scourge in our politics and that is allowing religion and faith to have entrance into the debate in the first place. Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the “Moral Majority,” which was neither then or now, a religious litmus test has entered our political and policy landscape.”
Taylor I agree with you. This “attack on religion” meme is probably as old as–(I would say “old as the hills” but the entirety of human religious belief is so so much younger.)
Here’s the thing: to the degree that religious people want to have their say in matters of the public square, it is entirely fair game to debate and disagree with any dogma that has potential to become standards of public life.
My boy was born at a Catholic-run hospital. I have every expectation of that institution to provide care as compared to the standard of care of the medical community in general, not care based on religious beliefs. And especially if the institution is supposedly “indifferent” to my race or creed.
And if my option is to choose a different, secular hospital, then it would behoove the Catholic-run hospital to not accredit itself as an equivalent competitor in the marketplace of health care, or to advertise as a “religion exclusive” institution.
Jeff P
We happened to have two hospitals in my home town; one Catholic, one secular. Abortions were illegal then and in any iffy situation, patients were sent to the secular hospital.
The question is if the Catholic run hospital is the only reasonable option in a particular town, does the public’s right depend on forcing them to provide services which are directly opposed to their creed?
Is that an intrusion on the separation of church and state? It’s complicated.
Most of our difficult questions revolve around competing rights.
Freedom of conscience means not being compelled to act against our conscience. This is one of those rare occasions when that right is in competition with others.
Even the Catholic Church is not proposing that contraception be outlawed. People of faith in this country who believe that contraception is morally wrong certainly don’t want it outlawed. They just don’t want to be compelled to participate in it in any way.
You probably think the moral objection to contraception is silly. I won’t argue that.
I think the moral objection to eating ham is silly, but I surely wouldn’t compel a kosher deli to serve it to me.
My fellow Ohioan makes a good point. I’ll expand in two ways.
If contraception were difficult to obtain, it might be an interesting question. But it isn’t. Nearly everywhere in this country, the pill is about as easy to find and as expensive as a good ham sandwich.
On the other hand, abortion is difficult to obtain in many areas. I don’t think anyone is proposing that doctors be complelled to move to those areas and perform abortions even if the doctors consider abortion gravely immoral. Why then would you compel Catholics to participate in contraception even where it is easy to obtain?
Taylor Marsh is wrong. First of all the article by E. J. Dionne suggested that the author was female, not male. In addition, Ms. Marsh should have read the entire article. The Catholic Church was willing to refer those employees who insisted on the proscribed coverage to other entities. This was a promise made by Obama back when he signed the Health Care act into law.
If you think that the Church is bluffing, think again. As I wrote in the comments of Dionne’s article, in Massachusetts they tried to force any agency that helped people adopt children to help same sex couples do so. Routinely (until the idiot law was made) the Catholic Church referred same sex couples to agencies that would work with them. That wasn’t good enough for the a**h**** on Beacon Hill.
The Catholic Church was about the only agency that had any success in placing older children with adopting parents. Not any more–they had to close down the adoption agency. State law eliminated the only group that had success in placing older children.
If Obama continues with his current plan, there will be hospitals closing. The health insurance currently offered to workers in Catholic institutions (universities, schools, etc.) will be cancelled. The Church will simply have to take the ‘penalty’ option–they can not compromise on matters of faith.
When prohibition was enacted, the Catholic Church had an exception for it. The priests had to use wine, that is an absolute requirement. Even with an amendment to the Constitution, the country allowed the Church to continue following the practices laid out over 1900 years before.
As I asked in the previous article’s comments section: what’s next? Making Christian Scientists and Amish set up computer operated hospitals for their members? Like it or not, religions sometimes have beliefs and practices that may not fit in with the society of death.
I will not vote for Romney or Gingrich, however, if Obama does not relinquish on this point, I won’t vote for him either. I will find another candidate or simply write one in.
There is absolutely no moral high ground to forcing the Catholic Church to provide Plan B pills (abortion pills). The Church has not changed its stance on this. The stance has been the same for nearly 2000 years. Abortion used to be illegal in every state in the union. It is the U.S. that has changed its stance. Don’t ask the Church to go along with it.
Ohioan-
yes sir. “It’s complicated” is probably the best answer to a lot of this dilemma.
I remember reading about a similar situation regarding a Catholic-run Emergency Department where services were referred to “up the road” when it came to religious belief-systems conflicting with patient desires or needs.
I would think that if it were made explicitly clear that Holy Cross Hospital serves the general public insofar as belief systems run congruent between providers and consumers of care, good. It’s out there and people can make decision about whether to locate to a particular community based on this criteria, if it’s important enough to them. Not all citizens are familiar with creeds of religions.
In my experience, though, National Hospital accreditation is a major advertising point among secular and religious institutions when they exist in similar communities, demonstrating a degree of competency, and perhaps that ought to be the measured contingency.
(Maybe religious institutions could have an independent accreditation agency, and people could make up their minds whether they wanted religious criteria applied to competency?)
Should pharmacists not be “coerced” into dispensing medications they believe are religiously immoral? Similar question–It’s complicated, but I’d rather allopathic medicine continue to strive to be evidence based instead of creed-driven.
Great movie: “Something the Lord Made,” about the invention of the Blalock-Taussig procedure with Tetrology babies at Johns Hopkins Hospital, with an incredible main story but a revealing issue with the battle that one surgeon (Dr. Blalock) had with the creed of the institution–the heart should not be tampered with because it was “Something the Lord made..”
Excellent post Taylor. It’s long past time the catholic church had it’s IRS protection yanked. Of course this isn’t likely to happen anytime soon for the simple reason logic and fairness aren’t the drivers of policy in this country.
I worked for a non-profit religious organization. I know they were very very particular about where income came from and how much “profit” we were allowed to make from book sales and what not. I don’t know if the Catholic church gets special treatment by the IRS, but if they do have to play by the same rules, they shouldn’t be pulling in too much profit.
of course, they probably do receive special treatment…like everyone else that has a lobby.
and of course how much profit can you be pulling in when you are paying out hundreds of millions in child rape settlements.
Jeff P
“Should pharmacists not be “coerced” into dispensing medications they believe are religiously immoral?”
Like the hospitals, if they think they are going to have to compromise their morals, they shouldn’t be in the business of providing services to the general public; maybe they should be in a conglomerate that only provides services to a particular set of the population.
That’s what the laws are about. If you provide a service for the general public, you must provide everything they require.
If I have moral qualms about paying for a war I disagree with, should I have the right to withhold my taxes? The law says no, I think, so what should I do? Move to another country?
Yes, it’s very complicated. See:
http://themoderatevoice.com/136080/brain-dead/#comments
Nearly all Catholic institutions – hospitals, universities, grade schools, relief agencies – serve the general public. The general public is even welcome at mass, though not at the communion rail.
I thought it was already explicitly clear that all of those services are available to anyone and that only services congruent to Catholic principles will be provided. If you don’t like it, go to another school/hospital/agency.
I would think it’s true for any professional in any field. There’s a fair amount of gray area in the practice of law and even in the practice of accounting. Lawyers and accountants are free to turn down business if clients demand they work outside of their scruples.
I think this issue only becomes complicated if the scrupulous provider is the only game in town.
Ohioan
How would your proposed principle be applied to the kosher deli? Macy’s sells clothes, but Sears sells clothes and tools. Should Macy’s be compelled to sell tools too?
Health care is clearly more important than ham sandwiches. But the truly complicated case of the only hospital in town being Catholic gets even more complicated. They will shut their doors rather than be compelled to act against their conscience. Now instead of a health care provider providing only 99% of what you would call health care services, you’re left with no provider at all.
Ohioan, JDave
Agreed, on both counts.
Shannon makes a good point too.
If tax exempt status were taken away, churches could operate in pretty much the same way as any non-profit. I’d have little issue with that.
Taxes are a matter for Ceasar. Freedom is matter for Americans. Moralizing is a matter for any church worth its salt.
JDave
I suppose the answer is partially that the deli, Macy’s, and Sears are selling products, not services. If the public doesn’t want their products they can go elsewhere.
As you say, selling services, especially life saving services, is in an entirely different category.
If a Catholic hospital closes because they refuse to provide the service, they will lose any profit and any chance to serve people even without profit.
I doubt the government is required to keep them in business if they do not wish to comply with the law; why should it?
But you are correct, the end result of a Catholic hospital closing would result in even more suffering. Though I would think that, practiclly, a medical group would buy the Catholic hospital and keep it running as a for profit enterprise. That’s what happened to the Catholic hospital in my home town mentioned above.
“There is absolutely no moral high ground to forcing the Catholic Church to provide Plan B pills (abortion pills).”
PLAN B IS NOT AN ABORTION PILL. Please, please get your facts straight. You have them wrong.
“First of all the article by E. J. Dionne suggested that the author was female, not male.”
EJ is most certainly a man. He at least presents as a man. He appears fairly regularly on Maddow — look it up.
Ohioan
I don’t think services/products is a useful distinction, but I’ll agree that health care services is important.
If the law should compel pharmacists to provide contraceptives, why wouldn’t it also follow that the law should compel doctors to provide abortions?
As to why the IRS does not tax the Catholic Church, my understanding is the political restrictions on non-profits relate mainly to the endorsement of candidates. Non-profits or officers acting in the non-profit’s name cannot tell people who to vote for or not to vote for. Certainly non-profits are able to support political causes they believe in, indeed in many cases that is a major focus of the non-profit.
Similar concerns have been raised by the right with respect to political speech in African-American churches and groups like Rainbow Coalition/PUSH. Just going by memory here but I believe some negative things were said about Bush and the GOP, but since the groups did not explicitly tell people how to vote that did not threaten the non-profit status.
I also want to add that there are non-contraceptive medical uses for hormonal birth control. It is regularly prescribed to reduce ovarian cysts (that cause infertility and even death if they burst), endometriosis, severe menstrual cramps or bleeding, and acne.
“EJ is most certainly a man.”
Yup. He doesn’t exactly try to keep his sex a secret either.
Not only is he on Maddow, he’s also a regular on PBS and NPR.
DaGoat is right. A non-profit can register as a 501(c)3 or a 501(c)4 or both.
[Political campaign activity:
•501(c)3s cannot in any way support or oppose anyone running for public office, though they may be involved in political campaigns by way of non-partisan public forums, voter registration drives, etc.
•501(c)4s can engage in political campaign activity, so long as this is consistent with the organization’s purpose and is not the organization’s primary activity.
Charitable Donations:
•Donations to 501(c)3s are deductible to the full extent of the law.
•Donations to 501(c)4s that are public entities (ie, state, local governments, volunteer fire stations) are deductible if they are used for public services.
Donations to other 501(c)4s are not deductible.]
http://estela-kennen.suite101.com/what-is-a-501c4-organization-a14959
I remember that now DG, thanks. And roro, those uses are often considered OK by many pious, scrupulous, orthodox Catholics.
To get back to the question of tax-exempt status.
Catholic bishops weigh-in on many matters but are always careful not to endorse a single candidate. The left gripes when the bishops oppose their favorite causes, but don’t demand tax reform when bishops oppose the death penalty, when the bishops oppose welfare reductions, when the bishops stand up for the dignity of immigrants legal and illegal, when the bishops oppose torture…
It’s true that Catholic bishops in the last 20 years have been more vocal about abortion and same-sex marriage. But their message on those other matters has been consistent too. The press likes to hype this a bit.
On another related matter, while I think it is very rare indeed that a Catholic hospital is the only game in town, it is extremely common for Catholic grade schools to be the only effective schools available.
Taylor would force hospitals to either sell or act against their conscience. Someday not so long from now, she may want to force Catholic grade schools into the same dilemma, except there’ll be no buyers for those schools. They will simply close.
“And roro, those uses are often considered OK by many pious, scrupulous, orthodox Catholics.”
But, to the point of this decision by Obama, they won’t cover them from an insurance perspective. That leaves all the women who need them for non-contraceptive reasons on their own, in ways that men never are.
JDave
It is a useful distinction because one controls life and death matters and the other does not. Though the deli is closer in questions of religious prohibitions.
If the pharmacist is compelled, he must choose to either follow the law, not do so and take the punishment (or attempt to change the law), or find a new occupation or a new meilieu.
The hospital has, so far, been exempted by the law. Should the hospital also be compelled is now the question which is why the law is being tested.
Both are free to follow the law, get it changed, or close up shop.
These questions are why Supreme Court nominee choices are so important.
I find the statement that no one wants to make contraceptives illegal interesting. Before Roe v. Wade there were two more Supreme Court decisions that hinged on a right to privacy. These were Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to purchase contraceptives and Einstadt v. Baird, which extended that right to single people as well. The current stance of most Republicans is that the right to privacy cited in Roe v. Wade doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t, then the two earlier rulings would be voided as well. Rick Santorum, for one, has argued against the legality of contraception. Of course there are “people of faith” who want contraceptives banned. What do you think the right of conscience argument is all about? It’s not just about refusal to provide but there are also those who insist that it should cover a right to refuse to refer to someone else.
I think religions should have the freedom to offer the services (be it hospital, adoption, etc.) they want within their religious views and not be compelled to offer “services” that go against their beliefs.
However I also believe that any institution which accepts public (government) money does so with the responsibility of offering all services to everyone, including, if a Catholic hospital has any public funding, abortion and contraceptives. Once a “religious” organization begins accepting tax dollars from the public to stay in business that organization needs to offer services to the public that is paying them.
And to the point of the article about religious institutions enjoying IRS protection…. Taylor is 100% right- no politician has the courage to stand up to them (for one, the politician probably would not be re-elected as people would probably consider that politician to be attacking their religion.
A couple years ago during the anti-gay marriage campaign in which conservatives wanted to amend the California constitution to bar same-sex marriages… didn’t the Mormon Church (and other faiths) meddle in the state’s (and people’s) affairs and give money to ban same-sex marriages? The Mormon Church should lose tax exempt status over that issue alone. No one was forcing the Mormon Church (or any other church) to perform same-sex marriage. However these religious organizations that got involved were more than happy to force their own religious views onto others of different faiths, who do believe that same-sex couples can marry. If religious organizations truly did believe in freedom of religion, they would stop attacking and stop actively seeking to limit the right of others who do not share that religious organization’s beliefs.
JimS
Point taken. Santorum is an extreme nut-case, and I’m sure some bishops would outlaw contraception if they could. At present though, bishops aren’t calling for it because it just wouldn’t fly.
StockBoy – I agree withthe tax dolar distinction. I think the Boy Scouts eventually turned down tax dollars so that they could act according to their conscience on homosexual leaders. That was the best way to balance the competing rights.
On your other point. I think churches should be allowed to have a voice in all matters of public policy whether we agree with them or not (for the record, I think the US should allow same-sex marriage for pretty much the same reason I think pharmacists should not be compelled to sell contraceptives. It’s the libertarian in me.) How they are taxed is a matter for Ceasar to decide.
Ohioan
The more interesting question is what should be. I argue that the pharmacist’s freedom of conscience, and the hospital administrators’ same right, is more important that the public’s right to convenience of access. In the very rare case that they’re the only game in town, maybe they should sell.
JDave,
I have a question for you concerning your statement to Ohioan. You said, “I argue that the pharmacist’s freedom of conscience, and the hospital administrators’ same right, is more important that the public’s right to convenience of access.”
Does the right of a pharmacist to have a freedom of conscience supersede the right of their employer to compel the pharmacist to sell contraceptives?
I think it’s reasonable for an employer to require their employees to dispense all legal meds. I would guess that some employers are willing to make concessions for some of their employees letting them pass certain scripts to others, but I also imagine it would be very tough indeed for orthodox Catholics to be pharmacists these days.
I really would like someone to try to tackle my question(slightly recast here): “If we should compel owner-pharmacists to act against their conscience, then why wouldn’t the same principles demand that we require doctors to perform abortions against their consciences?”
It isn’t a gotcha question. I just want to understand the reasoning.
JDave — One of the untold stories about the right’s push to limit women’s right to choose is that, due to political pressure, it is becoming increasing rare for medical programs to even offer training in how to perform a surgical abortion, even for OBGYNs. So the idea of forcing a doctor to perform an abortion doesn’t really make sense — it’s almost certainly the case that, in an age of specialization where med students can essentially choose which specialization they study in depth, any student who is very anti-abortion would have an easy time just not being trained in how to do so. This is markedly different from a pharmacist, whose skillset in distributing birth control (or the abortion pill, for that matter) involves putting a pre-packaged pill pack into a paper baggie, checking for drug interactions with the patient’s other meds, and being able to explain dosage and side-effects. It’s the same skillset they need for every other prescription they fill.
Thanks roro, but that was an argument on pragmatic terms. I am curious about the underlying principles.
The principle that would compel pharmacists is that no one should be denied access to medical care for any reason.
If hospitals can be compelled to offer abortions, then why shouldn’t med schools be compelled to graduate a minimum percentage of trained abortionists?
Or the converse, if doctors can easily dodge the issue by simply not getting trained, why shouldn’t pharmacists be allowed similar flexibility to act according to their consciences?
JDave — Well, from the point of view of a woman, the issue around pregnancy, birth control, and abortion are all extremely pragmatic. Philosphy is interesting, but doesn’t really get to the heart of things. Underlying principles for most of us womb-bearing individuals generally fall into the “I can’t have a kid right now, and I need pills to keep that from happening.” Access to abortion and birth control are pretty pragmatic subjects.
However, if practicalities aren’t interesting, let me say this: if I don’t think that’s the whole principle there. There are lots of reasons to deny medical care. “You’re a dirty slut and deserve to get pregnant” and “God said be fruitful and multiply” just aren’t among them.
I guess by trying to force this argument into pure philosophy, which we could theoretically do, I suppose, you’re missing the heart of the issue. We can’t force an orthopedist or a brain surgeon to learn to perform abortions — practically. It’s my opinion that it certainly should be part of general, ER and OBGYN care. Major med schools haven’t asked my opinion lately, though.
As for why pharmacists shouldn’t be allowed similar flexibility — there are specific laws that govern places where they distribute drugs, and those laws include keeping stock of certain types of medicine, and these laws are in place specifically so that those with limited access to multiple pharmacies can make sure to have access to the drugs they need. You can’t discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs, but if I have a religious belief that eating animals is wrong, then I probably shouldn’t be applying to work at a deli, then refusing to handle meat.
JDave
There is no difference when any hospital or doctor is asked to provide a legal medical procedure and they refuse and when a pharmacist is asked to dispense a legal drug and they refuse, if that answers your question.
If they refuse on grounds of religious convictions, they should have the same protections that conscientious objectors, etc. have – and accept the same penalties, if any.
If we don’t want to force them to do something against their conscience, we must provide a exception for them as we do for other groups – many of which have been mentioned.
At the same time, we must make sure that legal procedures and drugs are available to all citizens that need them. And there’s the rub – we don’t; and some people die because we don’t.
It’s not just whether it’s a good or bad abstract idea, it’s peoples lives that are affected and those doctors and pharmacists that refuse certainly must understand that.
JDave “If we should compel owner-pharmacists to act against their conscience, then why wouldn’t the same principles demand that we require doctors to perform abortions against their consciences?”
I think an OWNER pharmacist does not even need to sell drugs against their conscience. I think pharmacies are private businesses and owners have the right to sell what they want. (But employees should sell what their employers tell them to, regardless of religious conviction). Though pharmacists who do not sell particular medicines do so at the expense of profit and getting a “bad” reputation around town as someone who is intolerant of others and won’t serve the medical needs of people with different beliefs. Would the same pharmacist who refuses to sell contraceptives refuse to sell drugs to treat HIV or AIDS because that pharmacist does not believe in homosexuals? What about selling HIV drugs to straight people but not homosexuals? Once you apply your own convictions and begin on the slope of not selling drugs intended to help others, that slope gets slippery really quickly. Where does it stop?
As far as doctors… doctors are held to a higher standard and should provide services to help their patients. A doctor just can’t decide that this service is best for all patients and this service should never be offered because he/she doesn’t like it. How would you like to go to a doctor who believes that most people seek too much medical treatment even for minor things and therefore always prescribes, “take two aspirin and call me in the morning” without doing a thorough exam?
That said… I don’t think a doctor in a religious setting (meaning that the clinic receives no funding from the government- that the only funding the clinic receives is from their religious sponsor, in addition to their patient payments)…. I don’t think a doctor in those circumstances should be compelled to offer abortion or whatever. However that doctor has a responsibility to ensure the well-being of their patient is given priority. Once a patient brings up abortion a responsible doctor would discuss the pros and cons of abortion (or whatever the procedure) and do referrals if the patient requested. In examining a pregnant woman there is no need for the doctor (any doctor) to bring up the subject of abortion. The woman should bring up the subject first unless the woman’s life is at stake or there is some other reason for the doctor to bring it up.
I think we are in nearly full agreement StockBoy.
Discriminating because of who the other person is, is immoral and illegal. Westboro Baptists have already slipped down that ugly slope. Catholic teaching is no where near it. We’re encouraged to care for the sick no matter who they are or how they got sick. It’s an interesting topic but I think we’d generally agree.
My doc wouldn’t give me antibiotics for my cough. They refuse patients all the time, usually for good reason. When we don’t like the answer, we can find another doc. (Abusing that is how oxycoton pill mills work, btw.)
My thanks to everyone for the calm discussion of difficult topics.
I’ve been reading TMV for years. I know I must look like one of those insufferable people who scans the web for their favorite topic and then takes it over, but I don’t do that. This is the first I’ve commented in years. Obviously, I care a lot about this topic, but I only commented here because folks here are very level headed.
(Looks like I may have overrun word count on a previous post – sorry moderators)
Hi mods — why is my comment on the actual price of birth control still in moderation? I’m pretty certain it’s got nothing offensive, nor any links, in it. I tried to repost, but that is in moderation now too…
Well, it looks like this thread is going to fall off the page before the comments in moderation are released.
So, JDave, if you’re still peeking into this thread, birth control costs a lot more than a sandwich if you don’t have insurance. Between $60-100 a month, plus the cost of a getting a prescription at a doctor, which is an appointment also not paid for by insurance under the plans proposed.
Yep, still peeking.
I saw nothing offensive anywhere in this thread. One of my comments is still in moderation too, and there was nothing remotely ad hominem in it. I’m puzzled. Must postpone my answer except to say that is more expensive than I imagined.
roro & Ohioan
I think conscientious objector(CO) is a great model and a very practical solution.
Quakers have long been allowed to make non-combatant contributions. They’ve not been penalized or fined in any way. As a society we’ve accomodated their rights and not compelled them to act against their conscience. Laws prevent them from claiming CO status frivolously, e.g. they must demonstrate a long standing moral objection to all wars, not just an objection to toppling Saddam for instance. All of this is done without significantly compromising the overall war effort.
Without significantly compromising access to health care, Catholics could very practically be allowed CO status too. Catholic employers should be allowed to offer health care that does not compel them to act against their conscience.
roro80 is correct that “dirty sl*t” and “be fruitful” are not legitimate reasons. Like pacifists, an employer should have to demonstrate a long standing moral objection to all constraception or abortion.
Many employers offer really crappy insurance that covers very little, even not convering life saving procedures well at all. Prospective employees consider those factors in whether they take a job or not. Catholic employers may have trouble attracting the best candidates. That’s their penalty.
I can’t get a comment to go through on this system, JDave. Let’s try in pieces.
That [your first sentence] only works under two conditions: (1) the job requires a specialized, sought-after skillset, or (2) there are more jobs that need to be filled than people looking for them.
In other words, you need to have employers competing for workers they need, as opposed to workers competing for jobs they need. Someone who works in health care and lives in an area with limited medical services access pretty much has the choice of taking the job at the Catholic hospital or moving somewhere else. Likewise, the patients who are serviced by those same hospitals (whether they’re insured or not) are the ones who will be hurt by the very same laws.
In urban and suburban areas, these sorts of laws usually make very little difference. If Sacred Heart Hospital doesn’t offer the service you need, you walk the three blocks to the Municipal Hospital, or even one of the free clinics around. All these places probably have different insurance plans for their workers, and you can probably decide, if you’re a medical worker, which to apply to. These are not the places where the concern is.
Ok, I had one more sentence, but I keep trying to break it into pieces, and it just won’t go through.
Appears pretty reasonable at first glance.
When jobs are scarce, prospective employees often have to settle for insurance which is crappy and does not cover even life saving procedures well.
But usually that’s for cost savings reasons. This is just “we don’t want you dirty ladies to have sex”. Insurance companies love to offer birth control — it’s one of the easiest, cheapest, most effective to save against the really staggering costs of paying for pre-natal care, maternity/delivery costs, and then the health care costs of a baby/child.
OMG this system is killin’ me!
Well, Catholic teaching doesn’t want anyone – male or female, dirty or otherwise – having sex unless they’re “open to making a baby”. I understand how it appears that dirty ladies are singled out, but it isn’t accurate.
SIlly as that seems, it’s been Christian thought across all denominations all the way to the beginning before there were denominations. Until just a few decades ago, that is.