I came across an interesting article during my lunch break today about how Republicans and Democrats alike are both eager to turn the recent dispute over health care coverage for birth control into a big-time election year issue.The contraceptive fight is not the only indication that social issues have returned with a vengeance. The past three weeks have also seen the nation’s leading breast cancer research foundation defund a leading provider of breast cancer screenings over an issue (abortion) that has nothing to do with breast cancer, then restore that funding after succumbing to intense public pressure.And while it’s becoming increasingly clear that almost nobody likes Mitt Romney, does anyone really think it’s a coincidence that Rick Santorum has catapulted to the top of GOP primary polls? This recent flap over “religious freedom” could not be any more in his wheelhouse.
The difference between this and prior culture war battles, however, is that for arguably the first time, public opinion has taken a hard left turn away from the conservative viewpoint.
Planned Parenthood emerged from its fight with the Komen Foundation stronger than ever. Various polls peg national support for gay marriage between 46 and 53 percent. And despite Republicans thinking they’ve found a political winner in the argument over whether or not employees of religiously-affiliated institutions should be insured free access to contraceptives, polls show 59 percent of voters, including 57 percent of Catholics, backing the Obama administration’s requirement that they should.
You have to wonder why the Catholic bishops have been so aggressive on this issue. For his part, President Obama offered an entirely reasonable compromise that would insure contraceptive access for employees of church-based institutions, but require insurance companies to pay for it – thereby settling the issue of “religious freedom.” How did the bishops respond?
You have to wonder why the Catholic bishops have been so aggressive on this issue. For his part, President Obama offered an entirely reasonable compromise that would insure contraceptive access for employees of church-based institutions, but require insurance companies to pay for it – thereby settling the issue of “religious freedom.” How did the bishops respond?
It’s remarkable to me that those who would try to prevent the Church from moving beyond 16th century dogmas haven’t realized they are riding a sinking ship. In a world where 98 percent of Catholic women report having used contraception at some point in their lives, the bishops come across as a cranky cabal of old men whose stringent religious dictates lose more and more relevance by the day. As Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Beast put it:
“I’m sorry but I find the protectors of child rapists preaching to women about contraception to be a moral obscenity."For people like me, who were raised Catholic, still enjoy going to church, and think our faith has more to offer than fire and brimstone bromides against birth control, this recent flap is profoundly embarrassing. Increasingly, young folks like myself who don’t want to desert the church like so many of our peers have to perform the equivalent of sticking our heads in the sand simply in order to somehow pretend that our church is something other than the intolerant and arcane institution it has become.
What the bishops don’t realize is that every time they start a fight about whether women should have access to contraceptives in the 21st century, or whether evolution happened, or whether gay people should be allowed to get married, the entire Catholic faith loses. For those who lament the overall decline in American religious involvement, your blame should not rest with liberals. It should be with the old and radical – yes, radical – leaders of an institution that fails to see the writing on the wall that it needs to liberalize. This country isn’t abandoning its religious faith. It is moving forward, and the church is getting left behind.
The days are numbered before it will be electoral suicide not to support gay marriage – but to oppose it. And while conservative Republicans and hard-line religious leaders remain bullish on their prospects for capitalizing on the birth control debate at the polls this election, 2012 may be the first year where social issues become a different kind of political wedge – one that favors the Democrats.
Have an opinion on this topic or a related one? The comments section awaits...
Matt, I'd like to take the time to comment on a few of the points you make here. For our readers who do not know me well, I'm by no means a religious man, though I was raised a Catholic, I am certainly an agnostic now. However, that being said, I find no fault with the Catholic Bishops opposing birth control, but rather admire it (also, full disclosure I am by no means against contraception and I'm actually very much pro-choice). First, because I find it utterly ridiculous that the government can tell an incorporated entity "You must offer these benefits if you offer any benefits." But also, it just so happens that I admire perseverance. Just because the majority of Americans disagree with the Bishops should not sway their opinion (things could get dicey real quick if an extreme Nazi Germany example slipped in here). If there is any merit at all in religion, it's in the unwavering certainty that lies at its core. Something is good because it is undeniably, always good. God's plan, in their eyes, should not be impeded by any human because that is bad, and is always bad. Thus, they oppose contraception. Hell, if their assumptions are right (there is a God, life starts at conception, and life should not be impeded from being created), then their argument is pretty solid. And before you say I just support them because its anti-Obama, I'll let you know the only thing I like about Santorum is that he tried to create an indoor rain forest with tax payer money, and I only like that in the mocking and ironic way. Otherwise I see this as a petty squabble I could not care less about in determining my decision on the next president.
ReplyDeleteStephen, while the bishops and church have all the right in the world to oppose contraception, if they are going to compete for government funds for their universities, hospitals, and charities they must abide by the same laws that all non-religious, private companies and groups abide by. You set a dangerous precedent if religious entities can operate under different principles (Amendment 1 of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.") Now some argue this is a violation of respecting freedom of religion. I think Matt answered that argument aptly. The government is not telling you where to practice or how to pray; religious people don't have to take birth control if they don't want to. The government is not suppressing religion.
DeleteI find it interesting all the religious lobbying against this simple healthcare mandate. If religion really wants a say in government (which they shouldn't get; separation of church and state) then pay taxes. Why do corporations and citizens get a say in what their government does, because they pay taxes. The Church seems to think it can have the best of both worlds, a seat at the table without paying the cover.
It is unfortunate for women we live in a paternalistic world. The hypocrisy of the situation is male clergymen and a male dominated church suggesting they understand what women do and don't need. That Republicans would hold a hearing where the key witnesses are all male clergymen, not one woman being allowed to testify regardless of female, democratic member pleas, is appalling. A women shouldn't take contraceptives, it's her fault for getting pregnant, but even though it's her fault she gets no say in what happens post fusion of two cells no larger than a few bacteria.
One last thing, when did a church that ruthlessly slaughtered people in the name of god, tortured people for their religious beliefs, and sexually abused countless numbers of children become the moral authority on society.
Steve - and as you know I don't admit this very often - I think you make a compelling argument. But I think defending the bishops on the grounds of perseverance, or standing strong in the face of opposition, mistakes the forest for the trees here.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church needs to make a decision, and fast, on what it's going to be known for. Is it going to be the Church of the Latter Day Culture Wars, and further dwindle in significance until it becomes nothing more than a glorified weekly meeting place for elderly hangers-on? Or is it going to highlight those other parts of the Gospel that having nothing to do with divisive social issues: on loving thy neighbor, healing the sick, and bringing justice and help to those in need.
I don't think it's naive to think that a renewed emphasis on the Gospel's tangible application to modern life can help the Church win back some of its disillusioned followers. These themes are not only critical at a time of economic and social upheaval - they are broadly appealing. Yet instead of highlighting where the Church can make itself relevant in the 21st century, the bishops pick a fight over contraception. Just to clarify - I'm not arguing that the bishops or anyone else in the Church hierarchy should change their positions on social issues. What I am saying though is that when they make restricting birth control the overwhelming focus of their public advocacy, people turn away.
One more note on this bogus religious freedom argument - it's not anyone's right to claim that their "freedom of conscience" entitles them to deny rights to another person who doesn't share those beliefs. The Obama admin went out of its way to design an entirely reasonable compromise that ensures birth control for employees of religious institutions but puts mandated coverage in the hands of the insurance companies, NOT the institutions themselves. So who's "religious freedom," exactly, is being violated in this scenario? It's not religious freedom to deny health care benefits to someone based on your personal beliefs, which is exactly what the bishops are advocating for if they still oppose coverage for their employees and don't even have to provide it. That's religious tyranny, something which, for those keeping score at home, the First Amendment was also written to protect against.
The bottom line is that while I don't expect this to sway the election, the fact that the Christian Right is increasingly on the wrong side of American public opinion is an indication not only that its influence is waning, but that it could actually become a liability, sooner rather than later, for Republicans who have manipulated the social conservative movement for years, and think they still can.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere's also another side to this, that is probably more appalling to me, that I didn't even realize until a further examination. This compromise (and Matt, I do actually see your point in that the Church will not have to pay for the coverage, therefore its not pushing them to do something they oppose. That is a pretty reasonable compromise because as you correctly claim, my main argument was against your claim that the Church must change its stance because of popular opinion), however, really screws the insurance companies. I know Americans basically think insurance companies should exist to serve as a regulated utility, but they are not. They are private businesses that exist to create a profit, and forcing them to cover something that their customer will not (and does not in this compromise) have to pay for, severely damages their profit margins. That is unfair anyway you slice it.
ReplyDeleteThis is without a doubt another debate for another time, but we run into some pretty serious disagreement about whether health care should be left in the hands of for-profit companies whose #1 goal isn't to make sure that people get the services that they need, but to make money. I don't really care if this damages insurance company revenues, because you'd have a pretty hard time convincing me that it's better for society for health care companies to earn huge profits than for women to have access to contraceptive services that prevent both unwanted pregnancies and cervical cancer.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of space between ruthless unfettered capitalism in the health care market and "socialized medicine," that detestable conservative bogeyman. I think if we're not going to have single payer that the regulated utility model is what we should strive for, and thus have no problem with requiring insurers to provide certain types of care not only in this circumstance, but in most others.
Stephen, I don't know you, but I respect you because I've been reading this blog for about a month now and while I disagree with most of your political positions, I find they're well thought out and well intentioned. I'm an old friend of Matt's from his wild days in California, so as you may strongly suspect, my political disposition tends to lean, and perhaps sometimes stumble, left.
ReplyDeleteBut regarding healthcare policy in general, is there really a good, modern-day economic argument to be made against government intervention with healthcare? And if there isn't, then why shouldn't a policy be advanced that gives all females access to contraceptives?
Before we scream free-market and point to flaws in the legislation passed by Congress a few years ago, I think we should consider that first question. And if government can positively influence an important part of our nation's economy, why is the GOP absent from that dialogue? (I suspect it's because of special interest and an out-dated national narrative disparaging any governmental influence in anything. But that may be for another debate).
It seems that a compelling economic interest is to have a healthy populous to do labor. Government can do something to influence the quality of healthcare its populous receives. Therefore, I would think that it's wise economic policy for government to advance improvements in the quality and accessibility of its populous' healthcare. Leaving human rights and social interest concerns on the shelf for now, a simple economic interest demands government intervention in healthcare.
And if this is true, policy-makers should advance legislation that allows women access to contraceptives. I think it's obvious why there's an economic incentive for promoting sex that does not lead to unplanned babies, so I won't get into that. To me, the debate over whether the religious institutions must include contraceptives in their healthcare policies is frivolous. Given the religious dogmas and power of those institutions, it was an unwise political move by the president to mandate that they must provide contraceptives. Maybe it encroaches on their religious freedoms. Maybe the church is just woefully behind the times. But one way or another, government should advance a policy that makes healthcare and contraceptives accessible to its people. It makes sense economically, which, I think, is ultimately what most questions of policy boil down to.
Brett, thank you and I hope you've enjoyed Matt and my ramblings. This is an interesting point made here that if public healthcare leads to a stronger economic position, you would get my support. However, my fundamental belief is that the free market, if properly incentivised, can best provide the result. I find, and believe, that there is very little stopping the free market, much like a river. But, with a little guidance you can divert the river to where you need it. I also know that government spending (in the US and Europe) has not been tremendously successful. Yes, Europe has achieved better universal coverage, but with a model that every day is proving to be ineffective for future growth. The US, has obviously been less successful at universal coverage, but has blown out the competition in terms of top quality care http://hospitals.webometrics.info/Distribution_by_Country.asp and medical research http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/150823.php
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, Matt and I will probably get to healthcare in a big debate eventually.