The Conservative War On Women

DSGamer wrote:
LarryC wrote:

However, Stodghill is filing complaint against a Catholic Hospital (not the Church) TO the state, which makes it a legal issue, not a Church one. In that case, it is consistent for hospital lawyers to point out that whatever their own moral stance on the issue, the law says what it says.

So the church should honor the law in both directions and if abortion is legal they should provide those services at their hospitals, no?

No - unless there were a law requiring doctors/hospitals to provide abortions. The legality of abortion simply means that the unborn have no constitutional or legal rights, which is the salient issue here, regardless of who is making the argument. Basically, this is the bed we as a society have made, we don't get to selectively decide not to lie in it.

Jayhawker wrote:

This case makes clear just how serious the church actually believes in protecting the sanctity of life, and makes obvious that their real intention is to just weasel out of following the PPACA.

Sorry to point out the obvious here but I doubt the hospital's medical insurer has particularly religious or political goals.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

This case makes clear just how serious the church actually believes in protecting the sanctity of life, and makes obvious that their real intention is to just weasel out of following the PPACA.

Sorry to point out the obvious here but I doubt the hospital's medical insurer has particularly religious or political goals.

You're forgiven. But aren't there Catholic hospitals that want to restrict what their employees can receive in health care benefits because of their particular or political beliefs?

How is that salient to this case per your original comment?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

This case makes clear just how serious the church actually believes in protecting the sanctity of life, and makes obvious that their real intention is to just weasel out of following the PPACA.

Sorry to point out the obvious here but I doubt the hospital's medical insurer has particularly religious or political goals.

But the entire argument the Catholic non-profits have made is that, as part of the Church, they should be exempt. The insurers have zero problem covering it, what with that being the industry norm and all, and the majority of the insurance plans available to employees already covered contraception.

From the Catholic Health Association, on the subject of the contraceptive coverage mandate:

“Catholic health care providers are participants in the healing ministry of Jesus Christ. Our mission and our ethical standards in health care are rooted in and inseparable from the Catholic Church and its teachings about the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.”

And now there's this gem.

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

edit: Even without the article saying so, it's very obvious this bill will not pass. But I find myself really worried about where we are as a society where this even gets this far.

Jayhawker:

That's a moral standard no organization that large or historical can possibly live up to. American soldiers knowingly patronize white slavery rings, with the understanding that their presence is the primary market driving factor for those rings (some are American-only setups). Am to take that to mean that you do as well, and that these yahoos represent your society and way of life?

Kraint wrote:

But the entire argument the Catholic non-profits have made is that, as part of the Church, they should be exempt.

Which was a politicial discussion around a law just being enacted - if they'd lost they'd still be liable for providing those services. Bottom line is, unless you're arguing that the unborn only have rights if harmed by a pro life person, the Church's stance on it as an organization is a legally moot point.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Kraint wrote:

But the entire argument the Catholic non-profits have made is that, as part of the Church, they should be exempt.

Which was a politicial discussion around a law just being enacted - if they'd lost they'd still be liable for providing those services. Bottom line is, unless you're arguing that the unborn only have rights if harmed by a pro life person, the Church's stance on it as an organization is a legally moot point.

No, I was pointing out that your statement re: the relationship between the hospitals, the church, and insurers was wrong. Attempting to separate the three doesn't work because the Church's claim is that the hospitals are part of the Church, and insurers aren't involved in the fight. I made exactly zero claims about the legal liability in the current case.

Kraint wrote:

No, I was pointing out that your statement re: the relationship between the hospitals, the church, and insurers was wrong. Attempting to separate the three doesn't work because the Church's claim is that the hospitals are part of the Church, and insurers aren't involved in the fight.

I'm not sure that argument holds water, considering the compromise reached was taking the financial (and therefore moral) onus for birth control off the Hospital/Church and onto the insurer - meaning that there is a difference.

Bloo Driver wrote:

And now there's this gem.

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

edit: Even without the article saying so, it's very obvious this bill will not pass. But I find myself really worried about where we are as a society where this even gets this far.

If I get stabbed, I should not try to suture the wounds. I ought to bleed to death so as not to "tamper with the evidence"!

Religious institutions, especially Catholic schools and hospitals, have been clamoring for exceptions to he written into the law of the land so that they don't have to pay any money to an insurance program that includes access to birth control, because unborn life are persons.

Now they realize that their malpractice insurance plans don't see unborn fetuses as people either, but instead of immediately starting to draft up a new insurance plan (at a slightly higher cost) to cover unborn, um, persons, they decide that, new, the current plan is cool.

They are being hypocrites, they'be decided that fetuses are people when it may save them money, but there is some cost they would have to pay where fetuses would no longer count.

Now, later on we may see them sign a new insurance plan that includes malpractice payoffs to the families of damaged fetuses, but it seems clear that if that does happen it will be because there accountants have informed them that the cost will end up being below the fetus-person threshold.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

And now there's this gem.

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

edit: Even without the article saying so, it's very obvious this bill will not pass. But I find myself really worried about where we are as a society where this even gets this far.

If I get stabbed, I should not try to suture the wounds. I ought to bleed to death so as not to "tamper with the evidence"!

Only if you get stabbed with a penis, apparently.

It sound to me that, at worst, these religious-affiliated hospitals and institutions are using their religious affiliation when it's convenient, but choose to ignore it when it's greatly inconvenient. That sounds like a fairly common human behavior to me, it's common even to large organizations that claim moral authority and leadership (some political, some religious).. Heck, historically, many Catholic organizations have been in similar situations. Not seeing where the outrage is coming from.

Maybe I'm just too used to that sort of thing.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm not sure that argument holds water, considering the compromise reached was taking the financial (and therefore moral) onus for birth control off the Hospital/Church and onto the insurer - meaning that there is a difference.

The insurers are separate and indifferent in this case - if I recall correctly, there is zero price delta between plans that cover and do not cover contraception(pregnancies are expensive, so birth control is a cost savings for them). Also, as I linked before, the Church had no moral problem covering contraception before the coverage was mandated. If there was a moral or financial issue with it, I would expect the Church to have dealt with it before then. I have a hard time seeing anything other than political point-scoring at play.

But this is off-topic. We(and every other internet community) have beaten the PPACA to death, and it is at absolute best tangential to the case at hand.

Just to reel it back, some insider, boots-on-ground thoughts on women in combat.

Those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan came to understand that in complex counterinsurgency operations, especially in Muslim nations, the presence of women troops is a vital way to interact with the civilian population—so important, in fact, that military leaders have long been skirting the old regulations by placing women in combat units.

Today, when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announces the repeal of the combat ban on women soldiers, the policy will finally catch up to the reality that many of us who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan already know.

LarryC, the fact that they ignore their morals when it is convenient for them is what invalidates their claim to being a moral authority. That is, I think, what is pissing people off here.

I doubt they even have direct control over the defense their insurer is using.

KingGorilla wrote:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...

About 15 percent of army recruits are entering in on waivers for health, weight, criminal backrounds, drug history, and education (lack of a diploma or GED).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/wa...

This is their own standards. We have not even gotten into what standards relate to the business of being a soldier. But it is shocking that the Marines or Army would accept men that probably could not get hired at Wal-mart.

And yet, those with waivers of any type would still be required to test under standard PFT regulations. As for the 5 year old article on felony waivers, even then it was less than 1% and it's even lower now with the forces shrinking again. So once again, no change from the general military population when it comes to physical readiness.

Paleocon wrote:

I agree that the female PFT standards would be a joke for men who can pass the male PFT. I also think that the PF expectations for some combat roles are considerably higher than either (Ranger school, for instance). I imagine that they will continue to make PF requirements role specific.

Yet many of the combat roles that women claim to want opened have no special PFT requirement. Will units such as the infantry and artillery have to institute their own requirements which are not gender biased?

Rallick wrote:

LarryC, the fact that they ignore their morals when it is convenient for them is what invalidates their claim to being a moral authority. That is, I think, what is pissing people off here.

That's like, true of every equally large moral authority, ever. Why get pissed with religious ones in general, and the Catholic hospital in the specific? It seems like saying "Hey, that guy farts!" Everybody does. Why's this guy any different?

LarryC wrote:
Rallick wrote:

LarryC, the fact that they ignore their morals when it is convenient for them is what invalidates their claim to being a moral authority. That is, I think, what is pissing people off here.

That's like, true of every equally large moral authority, ever. Why get pissed with religious ones in general, and the Catholic hospital in the specific? It seems like saying "Hey, that guy farts!" Everybody does. Why's this guy any different?

If it was a group of tax law consultants, or something, then you would be correct and this wouldn't be an issue, but the church claims to be a moral authority.

LarryC wrote:
Rallick wrote:

LarryC, the fact that they ignore their morals when it is convenient for them is what invalidates their claim to being a moral authority. That is, I think, what is pissing people off here.

That's like, true of every equally large moral authority, ever. Why get pissed with religious ones in general, and the Catholic hospital in the specific? It seems like saying "Hey, that guy farts!" Everybody does. Why's this guy any different?

Because that guy is saying that anyone who farts goes to Hell, that he doesn't fart, and that he can teach you how not to fart too so that you can also avoid Hell.

LarryC wrote:
Rallick wrote:

LarryC, the fact that they ignore their morals when it is convenient for them is what invalidates their claim to being a moral authority. That is, I think, what is pissing people off here.

That's like, true of every equally large moral authority, ever. Why get pissed with religious ones in general, and the Catholic hospital in the specific? It seems like saying "Hey, that guy farts!" Everybody does. Why's this guy any different?

Because they want special legal protection for their farts?
I don't think the fact that the Chuch is being hypocritical is what's pissing people off; like you said, many groups that claim to be moral authorities have problems practicing what they preach. I think it's mostly people who already don't think they have any moral authority pointing to yet another piece of blatant evidence for why they think that way. Considering how vociferous the Church has been that unborn fetus = person with rights, and that treating it as anything less is a sin, the gall they've showed in claiming otherwise just to save some money is pretty shocking.

And yet again I must point out that it's not the Catholic Church that's doing this. It's a Catholic-affiliated non-profit organization. If the Catholic Church goes back on its moral teachings for political or financial reasons, that's an issue. This is not an example of that, and it's not like we don't have this happening all the time, anyway. We even have examples of it in recent memory. Why is this instance so very shocking? Like the coverup of sexual offenses wasn't already?

"Felon robs store," doesn't strike me as a very surprising or shocking bit of news no matter how much the felon insists how innocent and virtuous he really is. And yes, I fully expect him to mount a legal defense.

People are like this. I would say most people most of the time are like this. The Catholic Church's moral authority doesn't rest on the good nature or actions of any specific person. Its teachings make it plain that any human is fallible, even priests.

LarryC wrote:

And yet again I must point out that it's not the Catholic Church that's doing this. It's a Catholic-affiliated non-profit organization. If the Catholic Church goes back on its moral teachings for political or financial reasons, that's an issue. This is not an example of that, and it's not like we don't have this happening all the time, anyway. We even have examples of it in recent memory. Why is this instance so very shocking? Like the coverup of sexual offenses wasn't already?

"Felon robs store," doesn't strike me as a very surprising or shocking bit of news no matter how much the felon insists how innocent and virtuous he really is. And yes, I fully expect him to mount a legal defense.

People are like this. I would say most people most of the time are like this. The Catholic Church's moral authority doesn't rest on the good nature or actions of any specific person. Its teachings make it plain that any human is fallible, even priests.

Then the Catholic Church should cut it's ties to this non-profit that clearly doesn't share it's moral stance of the personhood of fetuses, and lend their support to the couple suing them. It's not very shocking to me personally, since I already have a really low opinion of the Church (and organized religions in general), but they've been hammering on the fetus = person thing over here really hard for quite some time. The fact that one of their groups will so blatantly disregard their own moral teachings for money isn't surprising, that it's this particular teaching that's being disregarded is.
Maybe this is another cultural disconnect? Over here we expect the people that proclaim themselves to be bastions of morality to at least pretend to follow the rules they lay out for others.
Edit - I expected them to maybe make mention that while legally they don't have to, they're going to do it anyway since the law is at conflict with their faith. It'd be a good opportunity for them to push for what they want the law to be as well.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
military leaders have long been skirting the old regulations by placing women in combat units.

I see what they did there.

Annnnd it's official.

The Washington Post wrote:

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced Thursday a lifting of the ban on female service members in combat roles, a watershed policy change that was informed by women’s valor in Iraq and Afghanistan and that removes the remaining barrier to a fully inclusive military, defense officials said.

Bravo, about time, etc.

Stengah:

Maybe this is another cultural disconnect? Over here we expect the people that proclaim themselves to be bastions of morality to at least pretend to follow the rules they lay out for others.

That seems unrealistic. That would be like expecting the foremost political proponents of freedom worldwide to lend you a hand in overthrowing a dictator, instead of granting that guy political asylum.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

Maybe this is another cultural disconnect? Over here we expect the people that proclaim themselves to be bastions of morality to at least pretend to follow the rules they lay out for others.

That seems unrealistic. That would be like expecting the foremost political proponents of freedom worldwide to lend you a hand in overthrowing a dictator, instead of granting that guy political asylum.

Really? It's unrealistic to expect people to practice what they preach?

LarryC wrote:
Rallick wrote:

LarryC, the fact that they ignore their morals when it is convenient for them is what invalidates their claim to being a moral authority. That is, I think, what is pissing people off here.

That's like, true of every equally large moral authority, ever. Why get pissed with religious ones in general, and the Catholic hospital in the specific? It seems like saying "Hey, that guy farts!" Everybody does. Why's this guy any different?

Well, the farting guy doesn't provide health care services. And he's not picking and choosing which services to deny to people based on his personal beliefs on flatulence.

LarryC wrote:

And yet again I must point out that it's not the Catholic Church that's doing this. It's a Catholic-affiliated non-profit organization. If the Catholic Church goes back on its moral teachings for political or financial reasons, that's an issue. This is not an example of that, and it's not like we don't have this happening all the time, anyway. We even have examples of it in recent memory. Why is this instance so very shocking? Like the coverup of sexual offenses wasn't already?

If that's the case, why is it fighting tooth and nail against a Catholic-affiliated organization providing contraception for women?