Since When Is Birth Control a Medication?

Those who have read this blog know that I'm very opposed to the HHS Mandate. I've talked about here: Why I Hate the HHS Mandate and here: Our Sacred Duty and the HHS Mandate. With the latest news about the Supreme Court granting a temporary injunction for religious organizations that conscientiously object to the contraceptive coverage, I wanted to renew my detest for the mandate with a thought I had on the way home from work today.

Regardless of whether you agree or not with the Catholic Church about birth control, I'm still baffled with why so many people think birth control should be covered by health insurance. If you look at what health insurance really is, and then you look at what birth control really is, it makes no sense (at least in my head) as to why it should be covered.

Insurance is all about the transfer of risk. In other words, if something bad happens to you, then your insurance helps cover the risk financially. If you're in a car accident, then your auto insurance covers you. If something happens to your house, then your homeowner's insurance applies. If something happens to your health (illness, injury, disease, etc) then your health insurance should help you out.   

Health insurance helps cover your health care costs- things such as physician services, testing, procedures, medications, etc. So does birth control fall under this? A lot of people think yes. I say NO.

Birth control by prescription (pills, patches, and whatever other methods there are) has everyone fooled that it's a medication. Medication helps treat illness, injury, and disease; but pregnancy isn't any of those things. It isn't like a head injury, diabetes, or cancer; all of which should be prevented whenever possible. Pregnancy is a part of being human and what's supposed to happen when a man and woman have sex. It's a medical condition that requires care, but not an illness that's supposed to be treated or prevented like the flu or kidney stones. Just because birth control requires a prescription doesn't make it a medication. (There are plenty of medications that don't require a prescription.) It's not the prescription that makes something a medication, but its therapeutic or prophylactic use for illness, injury, and disease.

Of course, I have no problem with a woman taking birth control for genuine health reasons. Medical issues like endometriosis, hormone problems, or even acne are reasons to take medication. I see no problem with Yaz being covered by health insurance for a 38 year old celibate nun who takes it for premenstrual symptom relief. Birth control taken for reasons other than birth control isn't actually birth control.

If birth control should be covered by health insurance, then I've got a ridiculous list of things should be covered, too. How about food and water- shouldn't these be covered since they're medically necessary to live? Then there's diapers and formula for my 6th month old, she can't live without either. Oh and someone could argue that toilet paper should be covered- we all know how bad it could be when the TP runs out! Toilet paper may not be strictly medical, but it's absolutely preventative. I can go on and on, but I won't.

Instead I'll end with a serious example. I know a patient who has to pay over $500 for 28 days of Lovenox (she needs it for a provoked DVT, and this is with her prescription coverage). If she doesn't get the medication, the chances of her getting another blood clot (and so many other life-threatening problems) are really high. Perhaps the Affordable Care Act should have focused more on people like her instead of forcing the Catholic Church to violate its morals. But hey, at least this patient has coverage for birth control if she wanted it.

We Need TRUTH, Not Hype!

Three days ago, a Chicago Tribune reporter wrote an article: Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons.  The article starts by saying: "Joining the chorus of Roman Catholic clergy in Illinois criticizing President Barack Obama before next week's election..."  Within minutes of it's online publishing, there were hundreds of comments.  Plenty of them supported Bishop Jenky of the Peoria Diocese, saying that he's done the right thing standing up for religious freedom.  Unfortunately, so many more were the extreme opposite.  A lot of angry people said that the Church's IRS tax-exemption status should be revoked for taking a position against a candidate or political party.  Many others took the opportunity to bash the Church, saying things like child abusers shouldn't tell other people how to vote, and we don't like abortion so we can abuse more kids.  If you ever wanted to see examples of misunderstanding and misplaced anger about the Church, there they are.

The worst part wasn't the comments themselves.  It was that the article didn't include a copy of the letter!  It doesn't tell you where to find it, and it wasn't easily found by a search engine.  The endless comments were written about a letter that I'm betting NO ONE EVEN READ.  So I went to the website for the Diocese of Peoria and found the actual letter that the reporter wasn't able to share. Here's the complete text:

Dear Catholic Believers,

Since the foundation of the American Republic and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, I do not think there has ever been a time more threatening to our religious liberty than the present. Neither the president of the United States nor the current majority of the Federal Senate have been willing to even consider the Catholic community’s grave objections to those HHS mandates that would require all Catholic institutions, exempting only our church buildings, to fund abortion, sterilization, and artificial contraception. This assault upon our religious freedom is simply without precedent in the American political and legal system. Contrary to the guarantees embedded in the First Amendment, the HHS mandates attempt to now narrowly define and thereby drastically limit our traditional religious works. They grossly and intentionally intrude upon the deeply held moral convictions that have always guided our Catholic schools, hospitals, and other apostolic ministries.

Nearly two thousand years ago, after our Savior had been bound, beaten, scourged, mocked, and crowned with thorns, a pagan Roman Procurator displayed Jesus to a hostile crowd by sarcastically declaring: “Behold your King.” The mob roared back: “We have no king but Caesar.” Today, Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb also thereby reject Jesus as their Lord. They are objectively guilty of grave sin. For those who hope for salvation, no political loyalty can ever take precedence over loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ and to his Gospel of Life. God is not mocked, and as the Bible clearly teaches, after this passing instant of life on earth, God’s great mercy in time will give way to God’s perfect judgment in eternity.

I therefore call upon every practicing Catholic in this Diocese to vote. Be faithful to Christ and to your Catholic Faith. May God guide and protect His Holy Church, and may God bless America.

Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, CSC
Catholic Bishop of Peoria

As you can see, to call the letter "anti-Obama" is inaccurate.  President Obama's name isn't even mentioned.  The letter is in opposition to the HHS mandate, and appropriately shows how the mandate threatens our religious freedom.  It has absolutely no IRS implications for the tax exempt status for the Diocese of Peoria.

So why do I care what about a bunch of angry comments on the internet?  Actually, I really don't.  I just wanted to point out that as a society, we're quick to judge without having all the facts.  And what empowers us to do this?  It's all the hype from the media.  It's no secret that the media likes to report more hype than truth, and they do it because that's what society is looking for.

So the bottom line- We don't need any more hype!  We need accuracy and reality.  Most importantly, we need the Truth (notice the capital T).  I admit it- speculation, hype, and sensationalism are more fun, and it's so tempting to get caught up in it all.  But it isn't real, and it's one of the devil's tools for keeping us from heaven. 

As I've said so many times before:  We Catholics need to stand up for ourselves.  Please don't tolerate hype!  If the news you watch is more hype than news, then change the channel.  If you're reading an article where the body doesn't match the heading, then it's probably more hype than news; either stop reading it or write a comment that calls it out.  Hype and sensationalism only add to the misunderstanding and misplaced anger towards the Church that's already abundantly out there.  

Lastly, stand up for your faith.  Don't let someone say things about the Church that aren't true.  You wouldn't let someone talk about your mother that way, so don't let someone talk about Holy Mother Church that way either!

Our Sacred Duty and the HHS Mandate

Since the Supreme Court starting hearing arguments for/against Obamacare yesterday, I thought it fitting to post this now. 

Immediately after writing Why I Hate the HHS Mandate, I got thrown into a lot of heating discussions. Most of it on Facebook, but also by e-mail and individual discussion.  As I participated in these exchanges, I had some additional thoughts and observations which I've written below. 

I suppose you could consider this "Part 2" of the original blog post.  If you've talked to me about this, then I apologize since you'll find some of this repetitive.  Nevertheless, when it comes to religious liberty and moral objection, this is all worth saying again and again.

Have you spoken to any women about this? How do they feel?  
Of course. I'm employed as a hospital social worker. The majority of the population I serve is women. My coworkers are mostly nurses (and most of the nurses happen to be women). Overall, I found that women tend to be more sensitive to conscientious objection than men. Everybody wants more access to health care, and you can do it without having to violate the moral obligations of someone else. 

Just like it's wrong to force a physician, nurse, pharmacist, etc, to do something they conscientiously object to, it's wrong to coerce the Church to pay for things it conscientiously objects to.  The issue isn't women's health; this is an issue about religious liberty.

Does religious liberty really involved here? It's really only a few people that have this problem.
Religious liberty has been a part of our nation since the beginning.  Quakers can't be drafted into military service.  Amish cannot be forced to take social security.  (Relevant Radio's Fr.  Francis Hoffman gave those to examples.)  Archbishop-Designate William Lori of Baltimore gave the brilliant example: Kosher delis in New York can't be forced to sell pork.  It doesn't matter how many Jewish people no longer follow a kosher diet, just like it doesn't matter how many Quakers or Amish there are.  If 99% of students have cheated on a test at one time or another, does that mean academia should permit cheating?  No!

The mandate really doesn't impact you since you don't work for a Catholic organization.  
Yes it does! My parish (like most parishes) gets almost all of its revenue through the offertory collection which I contribute to.  It gets about $600k a year.  $250k of the collection goes to the parish school since tuition only covers 60% of the cost. So under the HHS mandate, the school will be forced to spend about $144k each year (57% of the Church's subsidy to the school) to purchase into a health plan that offers abortion, sterilization, and birth control which the Church morally objects to. I estimated the cost by assuming there are 30 employees, each with a monthly premium around $400, not including dependents.  As it stands now, the religious exemption does not apply since the school has always been open to both Catholics and non-Catholics.  So in order for the school to continue, it would have to restrict enrollment to only Catholic students, or pay a lot more to offer a more appropriate health plan due to the fines from the mandate.  None of those are in the best interest of the parish school or its students.

What will really happen to the Church if the HHS mandate isn't changed or rescinded? 
This question is best answered by Francis Cardinal George's column "What Are You Giving Up For Lent?" in the Chicago Archdiocese's newspaper Catholic New World:

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

Cardinal George also paints a very sobering picture by writing:

If you haven’t already purchased the Archdiocesan Directory for 2012, I would suggest you get one as a souvenir. On page L-3, there is a complete list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in Cook and Lake counties. Each entry represents much sacrifice on the part of medical personnel, administrators and religious sponsors. Each name signifies the love of Christ to people of all classes and races and religions. Two Lents from now, unless something changes, that page will be blank.

I had the opportunity to meet Card George several times when I lived in Chicago.  He isn't exaggerating at all; he's the kind of person who says it like it really is. 

Lastly, I'd like to say that we Catholics need to stand up for what we believe in.  With a an exception or two like the annual Right to Life March, we tend to be a more silent or passive people.  Many of us opt out of making the Sign of the Cross in public, most likely because we don't want to call attention to the fact that we're Catholic.  When problems occur, we think "the pastor should take care of it," largely because we still tend to think the clergy is the Church, even though it's the laity that have the most opportunity to effect societal change.  Let's leave Church administration and sacraments to the clergy (that's why we ordain them), so that we the laity can do our part in society and speak up for the God given rights we should have within it.  Speaking out is our right as Americans, and our sacred duty as Catholics.

Tell anyone who will listen- the Obama administration can increase the availability of so called "preventive health services" without the Church taking part in supplying it.  Don't violate our religious freedom.  It's that simple. 

If you agree, write a comment below or share this with someone else. 

 

Why I Hate the HHS Mandate

Growing up, I never liked to be told what do to. Now as adult, there's times where I'm still like that, and I think that's okay. In fact, that's what makes me hate the new HHS mandate and the Affordable Care Act.

I have purposely been silent on this issue for a number of reasons. Every US bishop has spoken on this, so at first I thought it was an over-discussed topic. I had also thought that things would ultimately work out; after all good always prevails over evil in the movies. Finally, I hate talking politics and often avoid it. (Ironically, I was actually a borough councilman for a couple years.)

But now after several months of this, I've really seen how messed up this whole situation is, and I won't be tempted to stay silent any longer. There's too much misunderstanding and misinformation to not to say anything. There's even people who still know nothing about the HHS mandate despite all the attention it's been given. Below are several observations that I have.                                                                      

                                                           

People don't realize how serious this is. Abortion, sterilization, and birth control are serious issues, but I'm talking about how this is the first time our government is forcing religious institutions to violate their consciences. The separation of church and state wasn't to keep the church out of the government, but to keep the government out of the church. From the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But I guess since the executive branch isn't congress, so they don't really care about that.

"But hey, it's just the pill." That's what somebody said to me. Well no, it's not just the pill. Putting the whole forcing-religious-institutions-to-violate-their-consciences thing aside, it's also about abortions and sterilizations. Why should the Church have to pay for those things?

Is the Church really paying for them? The Church only buys the insurance. That's a great way to fool yourself. Just because there's a "middle man" doesn't mean anything. If you hire a someone to kill another, it's still murder, even if you only paid the hit man.

I'm not naive to the fact that the Church already indirectly pays for things that violate it's moral teachings. But this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. By some profound logic, I'm indirectly participating in a lot of things I don't agree with just by breathing the same air. The difference here is that now the government is coercing Church run institutions to directly cooperate in matters that it considers sinful.

But what about women who use birth control for other medical issues, not to prevent pregnancy? I have no problem with this. But we don't have to have a mandate that violates the Church's moral teachings to enable this to happen.  I'm all for expanding access to health care, but not at the cost of religious liberty, especially when the religious liberty cost isn't  necessary.

If 98% of women will have used birth control, then what's the big deal? The peer-pressure approach didn't work when I was in high school, and it doesn't apply now. Everybody doing it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean the Church should pay for it if it has a moral objection. Besides, if 98% of women are using it, then women who want it have no problem accessing it; so why have a mandate about it? (By the way, I don't think that 98% statistic is correct.)

I thought churches were exempt? "Religious exemption" or similar words are in the mandate, but it's very misleading. The exemption pretty much covers just the parishes. It wouldn't include any of the thousands of hospitals, social & charitable organizations like Catholic Charities, or even most Catholic schools since they don't limit their services to only Catholics.

Finally, I've also noticed that most Catholics who have no opposition to the mandate haven't actually read it! This is a drawback of having a representative democracy- the "let the other guy do it" mentality when it comes to laws and policies. Don't trust someone else to tell you what the mandate is about. READ IT YOURSELF. Of course if you've tried to read it, it's written in a way that hides all the concerns listed above, and you'll have been convinced that this is the best thing to ever happen- temptation always looks attractive.

Whether they've read it or not, there are many who support the mandate in the name of "freedom"- having the ability to access these "preventive health services" whenever they want them. Being able to do whatever you want and whenever you want sounds good, but that isn't freedom; it's licensure. Jesus Christ didn't dwelt among us so that we can have licensure; He came so that we might be free. Real freedom is being able to live as God calls us to. Real freedom is the opportunity to follow our conscience without the interference of others that forces sin or temptation. That's the freedom that Jesus wants for each of us, the freedom that ultimately leads us to eternal life with Him.

For more information, go to www.stophhs.com.

I'm also a big fan of what Relevant Radio is doing: 
www.relevantradio.com/rosary-across-america.