|
Post by badgerhoya on Mar 2, 2012 12:41:38 GMT -5
Silly me, I thought "holding to Catholic doctrine" meant that Georgetown would support the health needs of its entire student body. Catholic Doctrine is pretty clear about contraception. The Church is pretty clear about it's belief that contraception affects the spiritual health of those who use it. Your ignorance of that fact is not the Church's fault. That being said, offering three plans that include contraception to employees and no plan that does to students is such a Georgetown thing to do. SMH What conditions / diseases are treated solely / best by birth control? I keep hearing people say it's more than just birth control, but I've only heard of it used as a combo drug (ie you get it bc of the condition AND the desire to have sex) Well, I can tell you that when I was at GU, I knew a deeply-Catholic woman student who needed to take Accutane (for acne), and as a condition of the prescription, the doctor required that she be on the pill as well, due to the horrific potential birth defects.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 2, 2012 12:44:22 GMT -5
Well, I can tell you that when I was at GU, I knew a deeply-Catholic woman student who needed to take Accutane (for acne), and as a condition of the prescription, the doctor required that she be on the pill as well, due to the horrific potential birth defects. It's actually a government regulation, due to the type of drug.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,597
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Mar 2, 2012 13:05:20 GMT -5
I think the dominant frame through which this issue is being viewed is flawed.
Employers are not 'paying for contraception,' unless you accept the idea that any transfer of money that eventually results in a purchase of contraception constitutes "paying for something." Employers are offering health care benefits as part of a pay package, in lieu of cash money. There is no effective difference between a religious institution paying you money directly, which you then use to go buy birth control, and that institution paying for part of an insurance plan, which you then go through to buy birth control. If anything, the former is the more direct path. In either instance, you are using funds and benefits that have been duly transferred by your employer and are now yours to command as you see fit.
Allowing an employer (beyond the narrow ministerial exception) to refuse to allow an insurance benefit to cover contraception is akin to allowing that same employer to refuse one's ability to buy contraception - or alcohol or pornography or meat on Fridays or any other good or service with which it may take issue - with the money he or she earned. Benefits are not a gift by one's boss, they're not altruistic, they're a form of remuneration that the employee has earned and takes home in lieu of money.
This concept certainly holds true with regard to other benefits. Religious institutions offer life insurance to their employees. That insurance is not conditional on said employees adhering to a religiously prescribed lifestyle. There's no "your family only gets the life insurance payment if you lived a good Catholic life" condition or a "you can only get the money if the person didn't die as a result of something immoral" condition. Similarly, retirement plans do not come with string attached on what those funds can be used for. Institutions do not say "we're going to pay into your retirement plan, but when you collect that money, you cannot use it to buy contraception."
We've created a system in which health insurance plans are considered to be a primary form of compensation offered by employers. Insofar as we do not allow employers to control what employees do with that compensation (within the bounds of the law and mindful of the ministerial exception), there is no reason that medical insurance should be treated differently. If a religious employer does not want any of its money going to pay for goods or services it finds immoral, its recourse is to only hire adherents to its faith.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 2, 2012 13:24:09 GMT -5
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Mar 2, 2012 13:49:14 GMT -5
Good for DeGoia.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Mar 2, 2012 14:53:06 GMT -5
I think the dominant frame through which this issue is being viewed is flawed. Employers are not 'paying for contraception,' unless you accept the idea that any transfer of money that eventually results in a purchase of contraception constitutes "paying for something." Employers are offering health care benefits as part of a pay package, in lieu of cash money. There is no effective difference between a religious institution paying you money directly, which you then use to go buy birth control, and that institution paying for part of an insurance plan, which you then go through to buy birth control. If anything, the former is the more direct path. In either instance, you are using funds and benefits that have been duly transferred by your employer and are now yours to command as you see fit. Allowing an employer (beyond the narrow ministerial exception) to refuse to allow an insurance benefit to cover contraception is akin to allowing that same employer to refuse one's ability to buy contraception - or alcohol or pornography or meat on Fridays or any other good or service with which it may take issue - with the money he or she earned. Benefits are not a gift by one's boss, they're not altruistic, they're a form of remuneration that the employee has earned and takes home in lieu of money. This concept certainly holds true with regard to other benefits. Religious institutions offer life insurance to their employees. That insurance is not conditional on said employees adhering to a religiously prescribed lifestyle. There's no "your family only gets the life insurance payment if you lived a good Catholic life" condition or a "you can only get the money if the person didn't die as a result of something immoral" condition. Similarly, retirement plans do not come with string attached on what those funds can be used for. Institutions do not say "we're going to pay into your retirement plan, but when you collect that money, you cannot use it to buy contraception." We've created a system in which health insurance plans are considered to be a primary form of compensation offered by employers. Insofar as we do not allow employers to control what employees do with that compensation (within the bounds of the law and mindful of the ministerial exception), there is no reason that medical insurance should be treated differently. If a religious employer does not want any of its money going to pay for goods or services it finds immoral, its recourse is to only hire adherents to its faith. Stellar post.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 2, 2012 15:19:18 GMT -5
Perhaps this has been covered above, but Rush Limbaugh is not Catholic. Perhaps many Catholics agree with his position (leaving his lack of tact aside), but consider also that he is doing what he often does - picking the right hot button to inflame people.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Mar 2, 2012 15:30:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2012 15:33:19 GMT -5
She did take a jab at Syracuse in there. Check Plus for that.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 2, 2012 16:16:11 GMT -5
There are so many things that are wrong about this article. Like hoyals05, I don't know where to begin. But she vilified a fellow Hoya and that is WRONG.
|
|
|
Post by flyoverhoya on Mar 2, 2012 16:17:50 GMT -5
Well, she flunks St. Augustine's test.
Also, while she took a shot at Syracuse, she then apologized to them, so minus fifty.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Mar 2, 2012 16:17:52 GMT -5
There are so many things that are wrong about this article. Like hoyals05, I don't know where to begin. But she vilified a fellow Hoya and that is WRONG. I'd say there's a 50% chance the article is a hatchet job and the real author was not a GU student. And if she is a GU student or alum, then she and Jennifer Altemus should be forever sentenced to Syracuse for the rest of their days.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 2, 2012 16:21:00 GMT -5
There are so many things that are wrong about this article. Like hoyals05, I don't know where to begin. But she vilified a fellow Hoya and that is WRONG. I'd say there's a 50% chance the article is a hatchet job and the real author was not a GU student. And if she is a GU student or alum, then she and Jennifer Altemus should be forever sentenced to Syracuse for the rest of their days. I don't care who wrote it. Her name is on it.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Mar 2, 2012 16:25:19 GMT -5
The student whose name appears on the article is listed in the GU directory, so if she didn't write it herself, she at least permitted someone to ghost write it in her name, so I think she must stand by its position. Here's my second criticism:
That she thinks she represents the general campus consensus is totally shocking to me. She must be totally and completely oblivious, but I guess that's no real surprise.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Mar 2, 2012 17:55:31 GMT -5
Wow. Angela Morabito must be a real piece of work. As TBird41 said on the first page, there's probably legitimate arguments to be made for a conscience exemption - this came nowhere near any of them, but was dripping with self-importance, reality distortion, and the same sort of vitriol that Rush Limbaugh employed.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,495
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 2, 2012 19:43:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Mar 2, 2012 21:26:10 GMT -5
So I also occasionally read an Auburn football board, and their political board is the most backwards, xenophobic, sexist, racist message board outside of the comments section on Fox News articles, but I digress...anyway, this was the first post about Sandra Fluke I encountered on there: mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=6&f=2777 yarnnelg Member 3807 posts this site Ignore this Member Posted: Today 7:14 PM Sandra Fluke Wants me to pay so that she can have sex. Tell ya what Sandra ....go home and ask Daddy to pay for your habit. Or tell your boy friends to spring for a condom. It ain't my responsibility. Rush is right. Ya want someone to pay for your sexuality .....that makes it prostitution ...... --------------------------------- It really is sad that that moron can actually convince people to buy into a position that he himself can't even believe. I mean, suggesting that women who have their birth control paid for be forced to post videos of themselves having sex on the internet? That is so far out there it seems like it has to be made up.
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Mar 2, 2012 21:59:56 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,495
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 3, 2012 19:21:05 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Mar 3, 2012 19:32:24 GMT -5
|
|