What the Hades

Is the Agenda Really

Why the over-reach into catholic institutions? That was the question at the CIC panel discussion last night featuring prominent individuals on the church-state nonestablishment first amendment issues. It got openly partisan, but what really is going on. C-span covered it, check the archives-the House of God was packed.

The Catholic church preaches and believes that to interrupt the fruits of marital intercourse is an evil because it cuts off life. It is the one church (and I have been to a number) that has a view of contraception that is not laissez faire. Unmarried sex is just illicit fornication that can land you in hell if unrepented of.

The big objection concerned the exemption for houses of worship. They claim 'religion' should not just be construed as Houses of Worship- because 'religious institution' is much broader.
In effect, the religion compels them to serve in education and health fields because that is part of the mission. Does the government really want to make Georgetown University and hospital fire all Non Catholic professors and staff or cancel all its medical insurance so as not to comply with the rules? They can't afford to be hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines. How can the government put a fine on this mission? And why should everyone pay for someone else's illicit sexual preferences when others are not engaging in illicit sex, under their rules. When people argue that 'when your church wants to run businesses then they need to comply...." they have it exactly backwards. The 'church' has a mission intrinsic to its philosophy which naturally entails the expression of it's faith's commands to do the things the faith requires of it- healing being a fundamental aspect of it.
For the government to force a contraception mandate on them is too much a cost imposition against their grain.
It would be like the federal government forcing Quakers to at their expense purchase guns to put next to every fire escape in case someone breaks in, while Quakers don't believe and condemn the use of any violence as evil. Doesn't seem right, and constitutionally probably can't do it. Or like forcing Muslims to buy pork, or forcing Jewish congregations to buy icons of Jesus to display because Christians in high office say looking at the picture calms ones nerves.

There are already a few lawsuits out there to try to make the point. Constitutionally not permitted.

Lets take Georgetown for example. Clearly the college is a Jesuit run school, Jesuit faculty teach there, the Jesuit residence is located at the edge of campus, there is a major chapel on campus, the highest offices have catholic lay leaders and clergy and it teaches in the 'Jesuit tradition.' Jesuits run a lot of schools. It is absurd to make these places pay for contraception or abortofascient drugs through insurance or any other way for their workers whether they want them or not. Probably they don't anyway. Absurd and not fair.
Catholics maintain that contraception is 'intrinsically evil' - and they can give you a pile of
encyclicals and canon laws to make the point. It is a central part of their life teaching. Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit remember?

The political calculation on this was a bit off. The HHS regulation with the mandates and cost impositions looks too extreme even to people who like the Administration, even to Democrats.
Because it is viewed widely by even liberal catholics as something unpallatable there must have been some other profit motive to it one surmises. Who really profits off this scheme? Follow the money trail on the manufacturers and dispensers of this stuff. Who is really getting paid here?

Here is what else is crazy. Catholic hospitals wouldn't prescribe stuff that they are forced to pay for in these insurance mandates that people buy elsewhere. Moreover, its cost burden gets shared to people who wouldn't touch the stuff. Contraceptive drugs can be very hazardous in terms of side effects. Beloting isn't the half of it- they can cause blood clots that lead to stroke in some cases, they disrupt hormonal cycles to such a degree one believes they may actually contribute to suppressed immune systems, and links to breast cancer are suggested. They are DRUGS, and lots of people prefer not to put artificial pharmaceutical strange chemicals in their delicate systems. Lots of voters. So really, what is it with this 'reproductive freedom' crowd. Seriously. Do you want to lose the White House over them?