Rachel got asked on the Today Show this morning about Americans' access to contraception -- both the GOP's hard right turn against it and the Obama administration's ruling that insurance plans must pay for birth control. The White House is signalling that it might compromise on requiring Catholic institutions to cover contraception for their employees who get insurance through work.
This could mean hundreds of thousands, if not millions of American women can't get health insurance coverage for contraception. Mitt Romney wants to eliminate all federal family planning. So women have to pay for birth control out of pocket under the Republicans' plans now. All of the Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney, have supported legislation that could make birth control illegal, this personhood stuff.
We'll have a ton more on this tonight on the show. If you want to read in now, start with the personhood stuff Rachel mentioned and keep going with Mitt Romney here, here and here ("abortive pills" -- he said that).
Leave a Comment:
GOP Plan for Healthcare, don't get sick, for sexual healthcare, don't have sex.
For Climate Change, stick your fingers in your ears and go "Lalalala isn't happening."
In fact, no matter what the issue is, expect the official conservative position to be denial.
Ditto.
And the world was created at the same time writing was invented because the bible says so.
GOP Plan for Healthcare sub clauses:
don't get sick and if you do a) It's your own damn fault ya fat-so. b) God must have planned it.
don't have sex ya perverts. a) If you do have sex and get pregnant tell someone who gives a @!$%# like your priest who will condemn you to hell for eternity.
b)this clause not to include Gingrich, Sanford, Ensign, and all the others who fall into a special exemption plan for hypocrites
@vox, I couldn't agree with you more. I haven't ever spoken with so many people in absolute denial and ignorance since 2008.
Please respect a deep seeded and long term disagreement about birth control in the Catholic Church. Obama has awaken a sleeping giant.
Excuse me if I don't respect the Church's Judicious allocation of outrage.
Apparently they find allegations of sexual molestation to be a matter to be quietly discussed in discretion, but force insurance plans selected by religious businesses to cover reproductive medicine? Now that's outrageous! You've woken a sleeping giant!
None of this would be an issue if we just divorced health insurance from employment altogether, and created a public option or single payer system, so that people could get their medical needs taken care of without having to worry about whether their employer was officially connected to an institution that thought it was "naughty."
I'm sorry, I'm being rude, but this is in no way violating the separation of church and state, something I might add, that Christians only seem to believe is real when it is convenient to their goals.
It's more important to protect the well-being of these individuals than to protect this institution's desire to wag it's finger disapprovingly.
First. In the mid 1960s, our world faced a population ceiling of around 4 billion people. Only by the work of Norman Borlaug and his teams, as well as the scientists who came after him, that made it possible for our population to rise over this number. Nevertheless, we're quickly moving to a new population ceiling and we don't have another Borlaug to save the world, and it's not right to depend on someone to save us when our population isn't willing to take simple steps to save itself. At the same time, 1/3 of all pregnancies occur as accidents, a situation, which could be helped with available birth control prevention.
Second. Birth control is not just about birth control. It contributes to overall women's health. Additionally, it's exactly what he promised, ensuring insurance companies provide preventative care, instead of just treatment.
Maybe this is waking a sleeping giant, but maybe it's time for this giant to wake up and answer for it's mistakes.
Churches cannot become involved in political activity, which renders them mute on contraception, LBGT rights, and abortion.
Churches are free to do these things, but they are also free to pay taxes if they do so.
Legal charity status is the issue.
Churches cannot directly engage in political activity, which includes opening their mouth on the topic in front of the congregation.
Non-profit status must be revoked by the IRS for any institution engaged in significant political activity. That includes trying to influence elections and government policy. That includes health care.
Gingrich got in trouble with the House Ethics Committee for the same kind of thing and had to pay a $300,000 fine because of this during the 1990s. He was using a non-profit school to conduct political campaigns.
Non-profit status establishes a strict separation between church and state. Government is prohibited from influencing religion, and religion is prohibited from influencing government.
A more important distinction is that Unemployment Insurance is collected by government, but distributed to charities that include Work Investment Board (WIB). Only non-profit organizations can participate in government partnerships. The WIB is written into law in most states using this rule.
Similar arrangements exist for other organizations, like churches that run homeless shelters, schools, hospitals, and similar social support infrastructure.
Loss of non-profit status would terminate all partnership arrangements, contracts, and tax-exempt status.
Several churches have violated federal tax code by attempting to influence contraception, abortion, and LBGT rights. That makes all of those organizations libel for back-taxes dating to the time of the original infraction.
Members of the supreme court could be subject to impeachment if they vote in favor of churches on a dispute like this, so this is not a trivial issue. That becomes possible if the GOP screw up is so bad that Democrat politicians achieve super-majority in both house and senate.
Someone should "Read the Riot Act" to churches involving prohibited political activity.
You are correct about the tax implications, but the IRS is too timid to go after some of the churches. I would prefer that they go after any and all religious institutions that are getting involved in politics. As far as I am concerned, if the Church is using money for political activities, then they do not need my contributions.
No they're not.
One of the priests in our local parish received a warning letter after Bush was elected.
Some information on the web indicates other church leaders received warning letters.
PAC laws are tailor made to allow large churches to influence US elections without any accountability for their actions.
Much of our social strife is caused by organized religion getting into the politicis of control. I am 100% with you. If they want the 'bully' pulpit as well they must be taxed.
You are confusing politics with religious doctrine. The Catholic church has for centuries been opposed to contraception. What Obama did was open a wound that he will regret
The Catholic church as an institution may be opposed to contraception, but American Catholic women are another story entirely.
A church, once it hires people they are an employer like any other employer. They do not have another set of rules. And employer pays insurance because the employer believes the employees deserve it not because his employees are of the same political party, the same religion and agree with the employee in all issues. Churches should not be allowed to discriminate on any basis. Religion is a personal thing which is between God and the individual. Man can only judge in a personal issue as good or bad FOR THEM not for the whole group.
To tell the churches that they can have another set of rules, is to tell other employers that if they belong to a certain religion they can discriminate against those who do not think like them. The only ones who benefit from the arguing in this issue are insurance companies who are looking for a way to stop paying for that expense.
@afrommi,
Agree.
This boils down to a bunch of single men in charge of an international organization that wants to impose foreign law on employees working on US soil.
The Catholic Church has a mature network of fine health care institutions managed by single men that want to prohibit fertility medicine to the women that service their needs.
I'm glad to have you all as a peer group. I don't have anything to add to the discussion. You just make me proud, that's all.
Separation of Church and State? Okay, cut the funding to these organizations that don't want to comply with the law. They can - as Romney stated about Planned Parenthood - stand on their own with Government help.
That is, unless they want to go the way of homeless shelters closed by Bishop Richard Malone in retaliation for Maine's Marriage Equality bill.
Or deny access to the same-sex spouse of a hospital-bound patient.
Or close down adoption agencies, like in Boston, instead of allowing same-sex couples to adopt despite studies that show lesbians make the awesomest parents.
So sure, discriminate against women. Go ahead. Just don't expect to be subsidized by the Government anymore. And if you want to pursue it politically, get ready to start paying taxes.
Extra points for calling lesbians "the awesomest" parents! :-)
The University of California/Amsterdam and Zac Wahls would agree with that statement. ;)
Bishop Richard did not act according to Christian values. The act of judging another human being is not a real Christian practice.
Centuries of religious discrimination disagree with your statement, I'm sorry to say.
OT - Just want to congratulate Rachel on the Steinbeck award.
Absolutely - congrats to Maddow for winning the "Steinbeck Award: 'In the souls of the people". http://as.sjsu.edu/steinbeck/awards/index.jsp?val=Steinbeck_Award
Fans in and around San Jose can see her at SJSU on the evening of Feb 25: http://as.sjsu.edu/steinbeck/
Hi liberal! Yay for Maddow!
Hi Don Q! Long time no post, eh?
I've missed you dood! It has been a long while!
Hundreds of thousands of women use birth control for a variety of reasons other than birth control due to a number of physical ailments with the reproduction system that the pills help manage. So, women who need birth control medication to manage menstrual cycle issues will not have access to that health care unless they pay for it themselves. That's always been outrageous to me.
I can confirm that I had excruciatingly bad menstrual pains (enough to pass out regularly). The Gynecologist had to wait 2 years (I was too young) before he could put me on a pill due to age. I pay about 70$ a month not to pass out regularly and be unable to go to work if I get "behind" the pain, so there's that... isn't that missed revenue for my company too? GOP might care about that. But I'm sure glad that some octagenarian can get his bonerpills for free
On a personal note -- may I ask if you have ever had anything that hurt as much? Can you compare it to anything else you have experienced? Did it hurt more or less than a broken arm? Or a burn? Or...?
And thank you.
Some of those medical conditions can actually lead to death if they aren't treated for a long enough time. Women who are anorexic or bulimic or who otherwise have natural weight problems (both in terms of obesity and too little weight) are often treated w/ birth control pills or other hormonal treatments in order to keep them...you know, not dead. Women who have a history or ovarian or cervical cancer in their family are often encouraged to take birth control because it reduces the likelihood that they will develop cancer later on and/or makes it less likely that other complications (like cysts) will develop. You know that this debate is male dominated because of the fact that these medical maladies (along w/ so many others) aren't even considered in the discussion.
I had a friend in high school who had to take birth control. The doctors had wanted to start her at age 12 when she started menstruating, but by law they had to wait until she was I think 16. She was constantly underweight and struggled to keep her weight and they said part of it was that her estrogen levels were a typical. Often she would go months w/o having a period and the doctors were afraid that if she did not get more regular that she could end up having a hysterectomy by the time she was 30.
And then you have men like Rick Santorum saying that this medication is just "a license to do things."
Some day, it may be possible do proper sex changes (using a combination of gene therapy, stem cells and regenerative medicine probably, and if I knew exactly how that it would work, I'd have patented it by now). When that day comes, I propose that before any man is permitted to venture an anti opinion on a woman's right to control her own body, that man must first become a woman for five years and be denied every right he wishes to deny women for the duration. It probably wouldn't be long before a change of heart sets in.
My general feeling is that birth control should stay birth control in these discussions. That it has secondary uses for medical issues is great, but we shouldn't let them shame us for having sex lives, or try and pander to their delicate sensibilities by reassuring them that we're not using birth control to have sex like all those other loose folks. Don't succumb to the urge to categorize yourself as a "good girl" who needs her BCP for chaste, wholesome reasons. It's just a losing proposition and you're ceding the high moral ground when you don't confront their sex-phobic BS head-on.
That's a fair point Pony...although I wasn't seeing it that way. I was seeing it as listing all the benefits of birth control. But...since you brought it up:
Men who are opposed to birth control I have a question
1) How often do you have sex?
2) Do you use a condom every time or do you rely on her birth control?
3) If you rely on her protection so that you don't have to wear a condom- has it ever occurred to you that outlawing this would mean you'd either have to give up sex, snip your balls, or go back to the condom?
This is just the part I don't understand. Women love sex just as much as men, yes, but socially we encourage men to have sex and women not to. That then develops into these weird social beliefs about what is sexually OK and what isn't sexually OK for women. Do men not realize that this dichotomy a. encourages women to be ashamed of sex and to avoid sex and b. that this then inhibits their sexual lives as men? Seriously?
The Mouzer -- To put it indelicately, I see this as one of those "first world problems." It's been a couple of generations now since birth control became mainstream, and so people have forgotten the bad old days. They have romanticized notions of a big, happy family, and they don't understand that if their great-grandparents had been offered the birth control pill, they probably would have sold half the farm to get it.
Birth control was basically responsible for the modern era. When women were able to control the size of their family and when they were going to become mothers, it meant that the supply of cheap, disposable labor began to dry up. It became harder to convince people that it was a pretty cushy job getting up at 5 in the morning to empty chamber pots and polish silver and get the fires going in the drawing room (and if you were dismissed, it was basically to the street corner with you because lord knows there are plenty of people who want a job). You couldn't just throw a bunch of people down in the mine and not give even a passing consideration for their safety because there were always more miners on the way. The fact that the lower class was able to substantially shrink the available labor pool through birth control gave them incredible power. I'm not saying we live in a worker's paradise today, but it's not a coincidence that the people trying to roll back labor rights are the same people trying to roll back reproductive rights.
When you scratch the surface of an anti-choicer, you invariably get someone who longs to return to the aristocracy because they're convinced they'll be the ones "on top" and not the person getting up at 5 in the morning to empty chamber pots. Try it sometime -- next time you're talking to someone who's against a woman's right to choose, ask them how they feel about "the big old houses."
@Paola Cresti,
My mom had that. It ran in the family. My mom lived in Oklahoma and this was never treated properly because the doctors all "had religion".
One of the worst outcomes is cognitive decline due to anemia if untreated. My mom got that.
It is profoundly unethical for men except the doctor to have any say whatsoever with respect to gender specific medicine like this.
The types are hormonal or blood disorder. Hormonal is menorrhagia or dysmenorrhea. Blood diseases include Glanzmann's thrombasthenia, Bernard–Soulier syndrome, or Von Willebrand's disease.
These are disabling and can be fatal without treatment.
I am now thinking about Red Dwarf. Specifically, the sixth episode of series two. The one in which the ship jumps in a parallel universe where the crew (with the exception of the Cat) are the opposite gender. Those who know Red Dwarf will know where I'm going with this.
For those sad people who don't, Dave Lister, the main character, ends up going to bed with Deb Lister, his female counterpart (probably right after betting her he could climb the disco walls using only his lips). Arlene Rimmer is appalled and declares that she hopes that Dave gets pregnant. Turns out, in this universe, it is the men who get pregnant. Dave flips. "How could you do this to me?" he protests. "Do what?" Deb wants to know. "Take advantage of me. Fertilize me. You knew I was drunk. I didn't have precautions." "It's the man's responsibility," Deb argues. "It's the man who gets pregnant. It's the man who has to suffer the agony of childbirth." "Agony!" Arnold Rimmer exclaims happily. "This gets better and better!"
Long story short, Dave had twin boys. With huge heads.
I seem to remember hearing that health insurance generally covers male enhancement drugs but not birth control. If this is so, and if it ends up that insurance companies do not have to pay for contraception, then they should not be allowed to pay for Viagra.
Oh, it is very much so. The double standard still flies high. (In a manner of speaking.)
Obama's stand allows for individual choice; if the Church wants more people to refuse contraception/abortion, then the Church has to do its job better (preaching). The Repub party is backdooring its attempts to impose its beliefs on everyone through denial of insurance coverage...hmmmm. Individual rights/freedom of perosnal choice or church/repub party control over individual freedom of choice...which sounds American??
Many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits:
University of Scranton, appears to specifically cover contraception. The University of San Francisco offers employees two health plans, both of which cover abortion, contraception and sterilization…Also problematic is the Jesuit University of Scranton. One of its health insurance plans, the First Priority HMO, lists a benefit of “contraceptives when used for the purpose of birth control.”
DePaul University in Chicago covers birth control in both its fully insured HMO plan and its self-insured PPO plan and excludes “elective abortion,” said spokesman John Holden, adding that the 1,800 employee-university responded to a complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission several years ago and added artificial contraception as a benefit to its Blue Cross PPO.
Christian Brothers University in Memphis, Tenn., offers employee health insurance via the Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association, a consortium of Christian Bible and other private college and universities
Boston College, the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, and other Catholic organizations that are located in one of the 28 states that already require employers to provide contraception benefits could have self-insured or stopped offering prescription drug coverage to avoid the mandate — but didn’t do so. Instead, they — like many Catholic hospitals and health care insurers around the country — chose to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of Catholic women and offer these much needed services.
So Why all the outrage now? It seems so phony in light of what has already been happening.
Maddow, the GOP and contraception ... just came across this apropos comment in Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide—Kristoff & WuDunn—re: 1/3 of AIDS prevention funding going toward abstinence-only education under the Bush administration:
And I thought I could cease to be amazed ....
So I'm confused. This is all so convoluted. So a woman's body is a lollipop, and she is allowed to suck her lollipop but a man can't, at least not premaritally? Okay. (Could this be construed as innocent flirtation if a man just watches but doesn't co-suck?) And a dog can lick a woman's face, but definitely not a man, premaritally. Hmm. Well what if she gets too excited and sucks the entire thing? Or it breaks off and chews it all up? Is she then a stick and wrapper with no pop or lolli? Guess it depends how vigorously she sucks her pop. ; ) Is exchanging lollipops the same thing as going steady? Oh, I get it! Then when you marry, you can suck each others pops until there's no more lolli! Good thing lollipops have a long shelf-life! **but whaddya do if the wrapper falls off or you lose it?
Moral: Don't be a sucker, unless you suck solo. And even then, save some for later and don't lose the wrapper so you can protect your pop. And always take a shower, premaritally and post—you know, the saliva thing (yours or another's!)
K. I feel better.
I'm going to get in trouble for saying it.
But if I could suck solo, birth control would never be an issue!
Yeah, and if you think about it, wouldn't it be a whole lot cheaper just to fund suckers?! And heart-shaped ones at that. Gee, to think I've been looking for love in all the wrong places, and BAM! It's right there, a cherry lollipop in my face! The genius who thought this up ... !
More Red Dwarf:
Lister: "Love is what makes us different from animals."
Rimmer: "No, Lister, what makes us different from animals is that we can't use our tongues to clean our own genitals."
Is anyone else thinking "if only..."?
oh, the visuals...
Why are the Catholic Church and the Christian Right shoving Determinism down our throats? Didn't they know that one of America's most basic freedoms is freedom from the Deterministic viewpoint--the one that entails that everything is planned by God and that it is our duty to fall-in with the plan? The Age of Reason exemplified humankind's embrace of free will, and since then most sects have embraced the notion that God gave us free choice for a reason. This has a lot to do with this anti-contraception/anti-abortion free-for-all that is breaking out. If a baby "happens", Catholics and Christian Right-to-lifers insist, it is God's will. But what if an abortion "happens"? Both conception and abortion are examples of humans making choices, and neither should be relegated under the banner of fatalism, the idea that humans have no choice at all.
By the way, Chris Hayes looked good last night. He's relaxing and showing some real poise and command of the set. :):)
Well said. This doesn't even get into the Bible proclaiming that we all have free will.
You have said it God gave us free will for a reason. The State has no right to take that away. There are certain issues from which the state should stay away and that is birth control and freedom of choice. We all believe that everyone has the right to life, but that is where choice is freedom to use our free will.. But insurance companies should be regulated to cover for birth control. The idea that it is not a medical matter is outdated and archaic. Side effects may not be covered if birth control is not covered.
No compromise. When I was in college - if I hadn't had access to Planned Parenthood services, I probably would have gotten pregnant and the entire course of my life would have been changed. Birth control. I was an 18-year-old woman in college with a boyfriend I was crazy about ... and I knew that if I didn't figure out how NOT to get pregnant - it could happen any day. He waited - I got help and knowledge. Thank you Planned Parenthood - and oh - I made a donation the other night.
I don't care if the Catholic insurance (or any other) doesn't cover contraception as long as it doesn't continue to cover erectile dysfunction meds!
Reproductive care is basic health care. No employer should be able to single out what type of care we get. It's private. It's none of their business.
I really believe that the right wingnuts just spend far too much time with their heads up in other peoples junk. Sex is normal and basic. We are all here because of sex. We were all born of women. Why do they keep freaking the heck out?!
Maddow obviously has the most intelligent watchers out there. The content of these threads is genuinely informed and honest. I peruse the comment threads all over the web and I always come back here and find the best information. Thanks and keep it up.
As to the subject at hand I only have this quote which I wish everyone could read and believe in:
"I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable." -Alexander Shulgin
W.H. Auden had a somewhat similar take, although he put the border a little further out:
Which ties in nicely with what Christ said.
"It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out."
Leave Planned Parenthood alone. You should care that all insurance plans cover contraception. It's the key to continued choice. Whenever I see articles about young women, really young single (or for that matter, married) women having children, I cringe. They're not ready - the babies won't get the care they need - why does anyone reject birth control? I don't get it. It doesn't matter what economic strata you're in, having a baby too young is a bad idea and it can be stopped in its track with birth control. No compromise.
I once had--forgive me--extremely, dangerously heavy menses. In fact, I was anemic. I was given RU46 to REGULATE ME. It worked! But I almost didn't get it because of "the controversy". It appeared that it also worked for birth control.
To make BIRTH CONTROL a defining issue on what SHOULD BE strictly a health decision, --well that's what changed me, so long ago, from being a Republican, and I've never been sorry. Well--yes I have. I'm always sorry that it took a focus on ME, to see how evil Republicans are.
I'm very conflicted on the Catholic church's position, but I feel the church has a stronger allegiance to employment laws. The Catholic Church also disavows divorce, should they be allowed to forbid divorce among their employees? It's a sensitive matter, but I honestly believe citizen's rights come before "beliefs."
Oh Lord, if the Catholic Church wants to continue imposing its beliefs on employees, then I have a few suggestions of where they should start, the obvious being pedophilia among its priests. But, as someone who once worked in a Catholic hospital, maybe they could also disavow adultery between married doctors and nurses (just sayin'). Perhaps every woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock should be fired (and just her, because we know the little Jezebel is solely to blame for such a travesty. Men play no part in such nonsense.) Or how about insisting that all employees give up something for Lent, or forbidding meat being served on Fridays. And it seems that I got stuck working many an Easter Sunday without holiday pay. Tut. Tut. The holiest day of the year? If not time and a half, how about time and a quarter?
I remember getting my first real job as an adult--one with above minimum wage and health benefits to boot. I could finally support myself and not have to worry about getting sick. And then looking at the Prescription Drug Formulary and seeing that BC Pills were excluded. The lady in the benefits office had no answer when I questioned the policy. I was Catholic, so I knew the reason, I just wanted someone there to say it. There were hundreds of people working for this hospital and not all were Catholic. Take away the non-Catholics and you lose a big chunk of your work force. You'd think they'd be a bit more accommodating.
By the way - I was born and raised Catholic. No compromise - leave Planned Parenthood alone.
I would love to argue that Planned Parenthood has PREVENTED more abortions than anyone else, via education, medical care and birth control. Honestly, where was the first place you went for birth control?
I have no issue with the Republicans stance against insurance companies paying for birth control .. as long as the denial of coverage extends to Cialis, Levitra, Staxyn, and Viagra, any other erectile dysfunction drugs, and drugs like Propecia for hair loss.
Should church run organizations be required to provide health insurance that includes birth control? Since the main question is the Catholic church, a Christian sect, we should look to the teachings of Jesus for guidance. Jesus was asked about government taxation. He asked whose face was on the coin used to pay taxes. The answer was Caesar’s. He then said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21). In simple terms, if you enter the sphere of worldly commerce, play by the rules and pay what is required.
If the church runs an organization entirely with volunteers, such as priests and nuns, then it has not entered the world of commerce and need not follow labor laws and health care mandates of government. The separation of church and state supports this concept. But if a church run organization hires someone for wages, whether that person is of that faith or not, their employment and compensation falls under the rules of government. Jesus and the law are in agreement on this. Churches may not engage in unfair labor practices, and church run organizations may not require religious practices or impose strictures in the private lives of their employees.
In days long past, the doctors, nurses, educators, etc. in Catholic hospitals and colleges were all priests, nuns, monks and others supported by the church. We created this country to assure that no one could mandate what was required of the church in that support. Since today these institutions are often staffed by paid employees, the laws of worldly commerce apply. That means, according to the teachings of Jesus, the laws of the United States of America. Employees have the freedom to spend their wages on any activity allowed by law, including sometimes proscribed activities like alcohol, dancing and meat. They have the freedom to decline to use their insurance to purchase birth control. And under the new 80/20 rules of the Affordable Health Care for Americans Act, any money they save by following the teachings of the Catholic church, or any other sect, must be refunded to the employer. Jesus was a very smart man. It would do a lot of Christians good to study his book.
Why do people keep saying payback to Obama for the auto bailout? The bailout was announced in December of 2008, and Obama didn't take office until January 20, 2009!
In the spring 1983, a papal bull (a kind of decree or
charter) was issued by the Pope. In the
addendum to the bull (the part of the bull that only priests see, which is not
available to the lay members), priests were instructed that there was one case
in which the use of birth control was acceptable. If the priest thought that a couple was going
to leave the church over the issue of birth control, he was permitted to tell
them that birth control, including the pill, was okay. This might be one of the reasons why birth
control usage among Catholic women is so high.
I learned this from my parish priest during the pre-cana process
(basically, marriage lessons conducted by priests that are required before you
can get married in the Church) after a long argument about my use of the pill.
I don’t know if other women were given this information. Ironically, this was the last straw that
caused me to leave the Church.
In the spring 1983, a papal bull (a kind of decree or
charter) was issued by the Pope. In the
addendum to the bull (the part of the bull that only priests see, which is not
available to the lay members), priests were instructed that there was one case
in which the use of birth control was acceptable. If the priest thought that a couple was going
to leave the church over the issue of birth control, he was permitted to tell
them that birth control, including the pill, was okay. This might be one of the reasons why birth
control usage among Catholic women is so high.
I learned this from my parish priest during the pre-cana process
(basically, marriage lessons conducted by priests that are required before you
can get married in the Church) after a long argument about my use of the pill.
I don’t know if other women were given this information. Ironically, this was the last straw that
caused me to leave the Church.
Hey Tybee1, Thanks for the post! Quite educational.
I did not know that because, as expected, it is not something that was advertised at my Pre Cana. On the contrary, they brought in some motivational speaker to convince the crowd that the best gift a man and woman can give to each other is the child and that is the single best reason for getting married. A guy behind me spoke up and argued that if he and his wife (fiancees at the time) could not get pregnant, then does the Church claim their marriage has no meaning. I wanted to turn around and hug this anonymous crusader for sanity. The next meeting, they brought in a far right Catholic couple to talk about the merits of natural family planning. They had eight kids. Ummmmmm, I come from a huge family, but even my parents would concede that having that many is not for everyone. Nor did it take much "planning" on their part. You can guess the rest.
Huh, priests and sales people. Same playbook.
Every Catholic I know uses the pill! They prefer that to having a dozen children they cannot house, feed, or show quality time with. Not to mention no way to send them to college.
Ah--congratulations to MS. Maddow on her win of the John Steinbeck award. Well deserved.
Uh, I am one of a baker's dozen from a Catholic family. My Dad worked his ass off to feed my family and we were not starved for attention. As a factory worker, there were times where Dad was laid off, and we had to do what we could to get by, which meant turning towards those safety nets that were intended for such times. And sure, they couldn't afford to send us to college, but I grew up in a time when kids were expected to do their homework, study hard and just maybe earn a few scholarships for school and then work their way through to pay off the rest. To think that only kids whose parents can afford college deserve to go to college is wading into GOP territory. Don't paint us all with the same stroke.
But you are correct--many of us raised Catholic use the pill. The President should not compromise on this issue. What Church leadership wants and what the congregation want are almost never the same thing. Plus, if any institution is getting federal dollars, they should play by federal rules.
Sensible 1 - hear hear!
Tybee 1 - I left the Catholic Church for so many reasons. Thank you for your thoughtful post.
Papal Bull indeed.