{"id":4146,"date":"2016-03-21T06:30:55","date_gmt":"2016-03-21T12:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/?p=4146"},"modified":"2016-03-21T06:32:02","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T12:32:02","slug":"the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html","title":{"rendered":"The New York Times’ readers’ peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

On Friday, the New York Times<\/em> published a commentary piece by Constance Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor, \u201cObamacare\u2019s Birth-Control \u2018Exemption\u2019 Still Tramples on Rights<\/a>,\u201d in which she outlines her orders objections to the administration\u2019s implementation of the contraception mandate.<\/p>\n

She writes,<\/p>\n

the government has candidly told the Supreme Court that we \u201cdon\u2019t get an exemption\u201d at all. Rather, what Health and Human Services is calling an \u201copt-out\u201d is really an \u201copt-in\u201d \u2014 a permission slip where we authorize the use of our religious health plan to offer services that violate our beliefs and waive our protections under federal civil rights laws. That\u2019s why they need our signature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, their objection is fundamentally to the fact that the Little Sisters\u2019 health plan is the mechanism used to deliver contraceptives to its employees, regardless of whether, strictly speaking, another entity funds them.<\/p>\n

She compares the situation to a case in which a school would be obliged to permit candy vending machines on its property, and be told that its objections are duly noted, but since the vendor is paying for the machines, they have no right to object.<\/p>\n

And she notes that various major corporations, such as ExxonMobil and Visa, are exempt due to the special provisions for \u201cgrandfathered\u201d plans, and that, when adding in all the exempted plans as well as the uninsured, 1\/3 of all women are without contraceptive coverage despite the government\u2019s stated objective of universal coverage. Accordingly, she proposes an alternate solution:<\/p>\n

The obvious alternative to forcing us to offer these services is for the government to allow our employees to access them through its own health care exchanges. This would both protect our religious freedom and better meet the government\u2019s own goal of providing contraception coverage to women \u2014 those in protected religious plans and the millions of American women in exempted secular plans.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

None of which is anything you or I haven\u2019t read before. \u00a0I\u2019ve written myself that the law in question, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, poses the test of being able to burden religious freedom only if there isn\u2019t a reasonable alternative way for the government to achieve its goal, and here a more direct provision of contraceptives is clearly a feasible and appropritae alternative approach. \u00a0(See my prior post, \u201cAn incident at the drugstore, and the answer to the Little Sisters issue<\/a>.\u201d)<\/p>\n

But note two things:<\/p>\n

Veit does not object to tax dollars being used to provide contraception. \u00a0Instead, she specifically proposes this as their preferred solution to the issue. \u00a0It seems to me that it\u2019s fairly well-established that paying taxes, even if some of that money is used for morally dubious items, is at a far enough remove that it\u2019s not considered to be a form of coercion into participating in these activities.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the exact mechanics of how the contraceptives are funded isn\u2019t an issue so much as the fact that they are provided to Little Sisters\u2019 employees and dependents through the Little Sisters\u2019 healthcare plan. \u00a0Exactly how this plays out I\u2019m not sure, but I would guess that, as far as the plan participant \u201cuser experience\u201d is concerned, there is no difference and that, for instance, when such an employee consults the benefits information online to see what isn\u2019t and isn\u2019t covered, it\u2019s \u201cfemale contraceptive drugs and devices \u2013 100% covered\u201d just the same as for a secular employer.<\/p>\n

But of greater interest, really, are the reader comments. \u00a0Oh, sure, as with anything about the Catholic Church, there those who say, \u201cthe chuch should be put out of business because of its sexual abuse scandals,\u201d but they are the minority, at least here.<\/p>\n

Some take the approach that \u201caccess = cost-free provision\u201d \u2014 that is, they defend the Obama administration\u2019s stand because they believe that, if a woman\u2019s health insurance does not cover the cost of contraceptives, she is effectively denied contraception, an unjust violation of her own rights. \u00a0A minority of readers recognize that direct provision of contraceptives could get pills into women\u2019s hands without employer involvement, but mostly it\u2019s \u201cthe Sisters don\u2019t have the right to deprive their employees of contraception.\u201d For instance, sbmd says, \u201cIf you don\u2019t like the abortion and contraception services the government mandates, then don\u2019t use them. But don\u2019t deny them to your employees who happen not to share your religious beliefs.\u201d \u00a0Alternatively, some take the HHS contraceptive mandate as essentially a declaration of a new legal \u201cright\u201d \u2014 that of no-out-of-pocket-cost contraception \u2014 and therefore object that what the Little Sisters wish to do, denies women of their \u201cright\u201d to free pills.<\/p>\n

Other readers claim\u00a0that, because, even if the Little Sisters\u2019 health care plan didn\u2019t provide contraception, its employees could purchase condoms with money they earned from their jobs, there is no moral difference between paying people who may purchase immoral things with the money they earn, and providing those immoral things directly. \u00a0In this logic, I suppose, there\u2019d be no difference between providing a weekly allocation of pot, and paying people who may choose to smoke pot. \u00a0Relatedly, some readers say that since contraception is just one of many items that a woman might seek coverage for, so you can\u2019t really say that the health plan and the Sisters are \u201cpaying for contraception.\u201d \u00a0And, yes, beyond that, they do voice the idea that, since contraception would otherwise be paid for with tax money, funding contraception is inescapable so there are no grounds for complaining aobut the specific mechanism.<\/p>\n

And the majority have some variant of \u201copposition to contraception is just dumb,\u201d and, by implication, the government has no need to accomodating dumb religious beliefs.<\/p>\n

But what\u2019s striking is this: \u00a0every single one of these reasons given why the Sisters must be required to accept contraceptives being included in their health insurance plans, could apply just as well to abortion, or physician-assisted suicide, or pretty much anything to which one might object for reasons of conscience.<\/p>\n

And, taken in total, this set of claims \u2014 the objector and all adherents of its religion must be morally pure, the objection must not inconvenience anyone, the moral principle must make sense to the general public, as well as the mechanism of the objection and how it separates the objector \u2014 would seem to make the requriements for\u00a0conscientious objection and religious accomodation impossible to meet.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Friday, the New York Times published a commentary piece by Constance Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor, \u201cObamacare\u2019s Birth-Control \u2018Exemption\u2019 Still Tramples on Rights,\u201d in which she outlines her orders objections to the administration\u2019s implementation of the contraception mandate. She writes, the government has candidly told the Supreme Court that we \u201cdon\u2019t […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[269,255,351],"class_list":["post-4146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-contraception","tag-little-sisters-of-the-poor","tag-religious-accomodation"],"yoast_head":"\nThe New York Times' readers' peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"On Friday, the New York Times published a commentary piece by Constance Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor, "Obamacare\u2019s Birth-Control \u2018Exemption\u2019\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The New York Times' readers' peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On Friday, the New York Times published a commentary piece by Constance Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor, "Obamacare\u2019s Birth-Control \u2018Exemption\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Jane the Actuary\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-03-21T12:30:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-21T12:32:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jane the Actuary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jane the Actuary\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html\",\"name\":\"The New York Times' readers' peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-03-21T12:30:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T12:32:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#\/schema\/person\/ed9b99e0bd58c5eeeebae6b82fa5a77a\"},\"description\":\"On Friday, the New York Times published a commentary piece by Constance Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor, \\\"Obamacare\u2019s Birth-Control \u2018Exemption\u2019\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The New York Times’ readers’ peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/\",\"name\":\"Jane the Actuary\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#\/schema\/person\/ed9b99e0bd58c5eeeebae6b82fa5a77a\",\"name\":\"Jane the Actuary\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8d6a493d380e87d49599d5487691c9fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8d6a493d380e87d49599d5487691c9fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jane the Actuary\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/author\/actuaryjane\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The New York Times' readers' peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection","description":"On Friday, the New York Times published a commentary piece by Constance Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor, \"Obamacare\u2019s Birth-Control \u2018Exemption\u2019","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The New York Times' readers' peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection","og_description":"On Friday, the New York Times published a commentary piece by Constance Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor, \"Obamacare\u2019s Birth-Control \u2018Exemption\u2019","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html","og_site_name":"Jane the Actuary","article_published_time":"2016-03-21T12:30:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-21T12:32:02+00:00","author":"Jane the Actuary","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jane the Actuary","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html","name":"The New York Times' readers' peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-03-21T12:30:55+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T12:32:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#\/schema\/person\/ed9b99e0bd58c5eeeebae6b82fa5a77a"},"description":"On Friday, the New York Times published a commentary piece by Constance Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor, \"Obamacare\u2019s Birth-Control \u2018Exemption\u2019","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2016\/03\/the-new-york-times-readers-peculiar-understanding-of-contraception-and-conscientious-objection.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The New York Times’ readers’ peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/","name":"Jane the Actuary","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#\/schema\/person\/ed9b99e0bd58c5eeeebae6b82fa5a77a","name":"Jane the Actuary","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8d6a493d380e87d49599d5487691c9fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8d6a493d380e87d49599d5487691c9fc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jane the Actuary"},"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/author\/actuaryjane"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4146","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2209"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}