Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Kathleen Parker on Obama's under-bus-throwing of the Church
Tom Smith

Good piece that makes the point that the issue is not whether women should be able to use contraception but the freedom of conscience of Catholic institutions.

| Permalink


The issue is not "freedom of conscience of Catholic institutions." The government is not requiring Catholic institutions to force Catholics to take birth control pills. Should the "freedom of conscience of Catholic institutions" similarly extend to granting Catholic institutions the right to discriminate against women? Oh, wait...

Posted by: Doug | Feb 9, 2012 10:01:04 PM


Refusing to pay for another's contraception is discrimination against women? Is refusing to cover facials and pedicures discrimination, as well?

Posted by: Joe Gator | Feb 10, 2012 6:25:02 AM


I think a more germane analogy would be to ask whether refusing to cover ovarian and breast cancer would constitute discrimination against women, and I think it would. But to go along with your comment, then sure, if facials and pedicures are covered for men, then absolutely it would constitute discrimination if the same procedures weren't covered for women.

From my perspective, if the Catholic church starts hiring employees (hundreds of thousands of whom are not Catholic) and providing medical services to millions of people (most of whom are not Catholic) in exchange for tens of billions of dollars (much of which is not from Catholics), then I have a hard time seeing why those employees should be excluded from receiving the same rights as employees of non-Catholic institutions.

If the Catholic church wants to go around providing charitable medical services with volunteers, then fine, that's a different situation, but that's not what's going on here.

Posted by: Doug | Feb 10, 2012 8:14:36 AM

So the Catholic church covers vasectomies and condoms for its male employees? If so, news to me.

How dare the Catholic church hire employees and not cover the entire panoply of their "rights" as determined Obama? Kathleen Sebelius?

Don't those employees have the ability to look for a different job with an employer that will cover every medical expense they could possible have?

Posted by: Joe Gator | Feb 10, 2012 3:03:33 PM