The State, The Church, and Contraception

[hardheadjarhead]

I'd be interested in seeing the response to this article:

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...PTIVES?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT



I know there are a number of Catholics on the board...what is your take?

I took it for granted that it was a dead issue. Apparently not.

Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't think the pope will ever go for it. I grew up catholic, then became a catholic apologist, and then evolved, so I may be a bit removed from this paradigm.

 

[Andi]

Interesting issue.

I'm not entirely clear on the law here. Are we saying that your employer has to offer contraceptives if requested? And do employers have to offer these private employee prescription plans?

Tough call. Requiring an organisation to break its own rules seems a bit out of order, but as the article says, they wouldn't be the first religious group to have to do this. How do you choose whose rights to protect? The rights of freedom of religion or rights for health? Can't really win there. And anyway, how hard is it to get your own contraceptives?

I hope it gets settled soon. Wouldn't like to see this blow up into some huge heated debate.

 

[Cruentus]

""The church's claim that it is coerced into violating its religious beliefs by a state law requiring health insurance plans and disability policies to include prescription contraceptive coverage is nonsense," said California Deputy Attorney General Meg Hollaran."

I am a Catholic, but I must say that I agree with this statement, although it may be difficult for Clergy to who are often pretty far removed from a worldly society to understand.

First off let me tell you a dark and scary secret (at least scary for many Christian leaders); "Sin" by our definition is usually never black and white. "Contraceptive" by itself is not a sin; it's the intent that makes all the difference. There are many women out there who need "the pill" for medical reasons such as regulating hormones and preventing Ovary Cysts rather then preventing pregnancy. If a woman is taking the pill for medical reasons rather then contraceptive reasons then by definition this is not a "sin."

You could be a nun, yet you could need to take the pill to regulate your hormones...this has nothing to do with "contraception," yet should be covered by insurance. This may be difficult for a priest or Bishop to realize because as men, they only think of "the pill" as a contraceptive.

BTW I am glad that they passed this law; its only a way for companies to avoid covering women and paying more $$, regardless of whether or not they NEED the pill. To not cover contraception IS discrimination, even if discriminating isn't the intent.

The reason why the state, in my opinion, can't make an exception for the church is because then any institution will be able to ask for an exemption in covering the pill because "its against the beliefs" of that institution, thereby bypassing the responsability to cover women in need of the pill for health reasons once again. I hate to be a cynic, but I imagine also that this is $$ motivated for some of the Church leaders as well, which fustrates me.

Regardless I hope the state does not rule in the churches favor on this one. The Church will be able to find other ways to instill its morals in its employees simply by doing the right thing and TEACHING, and letting the responsabilities fall on the members to do right, rather then trying to control and impose.

PAUL

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I would think it an individual responsibility to the Church to observe its dictates.

Good observations, Paul. I never thought of it in that way.


Steve

 

[OULobo]

Related topic:

The denial of scientific evidence in a catholic cardinal's statment that latex condoms don't stop HIV transmission. If I remember correctly, he holds that the gaps in latex rubber are large enough for an HIV virus pathogen to pass through, despite glaring and proven scientific evidence to the contrary.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The myth of condom failure regarding HIV is one circulating amongst Protestant fundamentalists as well.

Many here in the forum may not be aware that contraception was illegal in the United States until fairly recently. When I say that, I mean in my lifetime. I'm not talking abortion...I'm talking condoms, the pill, the I.U.D....you name it.


Regards,


Steve Scott

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
The myth of condom failure regarding HIV is one circulating amongst Protestant fundamentalists as well.

Many here in the forum may not be aware that contraception was illegal in the United States until fairly recently. When I say that, I mean in my lifetime. I'm not talking abortion...I'm talking condoms, the pill, the I.U.D....you name it.


Regards,


Steve Scott

Illegal Contraception?

Local Law?

State Law?

Federal Law?

I thought the Military would hand out Condems to their soldiers, pre the birth of one hard head jar head .

:asian:

 

[OULobo]

My pops used to talk about shore kits being handed to every enlisted man leaving the ship who was taking shore leave at a foreign country. He said that it included a condom among other things. That was early sixties.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Rich,

Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965) was the Supreme Court decision allowing a woman access to contraception as a right to privacy.

Many of the laws from the old days grew from the Comstock Act.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_comstock.html

As late as 1960, the American legal system was not hospitable to the idea of birth control. Thirty states had statutes on the books prohibiting or restricting the sale and advertisement of contraception. These laws stretched back almost a century, reflecting an underlying American belief that contraception was lewd, immoral and promoted promiscuity

Note the following...Margaret Sanger was went head to head with Comstock:

The first U.S. birth control clinic, opened (1916) by Margaret Sanger in Brooklyn, N.Y., was closed by the police; she received a 30-day jail sentence. She later permanently established a clinic in New York City in 1923. In Great Britain the Malthusian League, aided by Marie Stopes , established a birth control clinic in London in 1921.

Sanger also helped organize (1917) the National Birth Control League in the United States; in 1921 it became the American Birth Control League, and in 1942 the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Meanwhile, in 1918 an American judge ruled that contraceptive devices were legal as instruments for the prevention of disease, and the federal law prohibiting dissemination of contraceptive information through the mails was modified in 1936. Throughout the 1940s and 50s, birth control advocates were engaged in numerous legal suits. In 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the one remaining state law (in Connecticut) prohibiting the use of contraceptives.

Took this above from:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/birthcon_HistoryoftheBirthControlMovement.asp

Here's the phrasing of the Conn statute that led to the case:

The statutes whose constitutionality is involved in this appeal are ss 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.). The former provides:

'Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.'

Section 54-196 provides:

'Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.'

For the case:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/court_cases/griswald_v_connecticut/courts_opinion_douglas.asp


History of contraception:

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...+history+of+contraception+laws&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


And...

http://tx.essortment.com/birthcontrolhi_rzcx.htm




Regards,


Steve

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by OULobo
Related topic:

The denial of scientific evidence in a catholic cardinal's statment that latex condoms don't stop HIV transmission. If I remember correctly, he holds that the gaps in latex rubber are large enough for an HIV virus pathogen to pass through, despite glaring and proven scientific evidence to the contrary.

Actualy the aids virus is smaller than the pours in latex; however ,the lie is in the fact that viruses need to piggyback on cells to travel, and cells would be like trying to drive a city bus through your front door into your living room.
Sean

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
Actualy the aids virus is smaller than the pours in latex; however ,the lie is in the fact that viruses need to piggyback on cells to travel, and cells would be like trying to drive a city bus through your front door into your living room.
Sean

The argument comes from a study that found that latex used in rubber gloves has, on average, "pores" 5 microns in diameter, which are really defects in the molding process. In comparison to the .5 micron sized HIV particle. However, condoms are not single dipped like gloves, but double dipped and therefore drastically reduced in the amount of "pores", if not completly devoid of them, because occurance of two defects or "pores" occuring in the same five micron area, allowing barrierless passage, is nearly impossible. A study of latex condoms by the National Institutes of Health using an electron microscope found no holes at a magnification of 2000, macro to the 5 micron defects, and there is no chance of the HIV getting past the covelent bonds that hold latex together in micro to the 5 micron defects.

You are correct that on top of the notion that the defects are so seldom, is the idea that HIV is generally transmitted by intracellular transmission verses free particle virus. A third factor is the viscosity of seminal fluid hindering the transmission of anything through a 5 micron defect. For referance, a spermatazoa, the most common carrier of the HIV in this situation, is on the scale of 50 microns in size. While nothing is certain in this world, I think it is ludicrous to say that condoms are ineffective in stopping the HIV.

I'm a catholic, at least in practice, and I try to support the church in many things, but this was a disgusting display of trying to manipulate the uneducated by abusing trust.