Reader Annette wrote to ask whether Congressional health plans cover contraception. Good question. According to the bracingly accurate FactCheck.org, our representatives in Washington pick their insurance from the same system used by all other federal employees. And, according to the more accurate Guttmacher Institute [pdf], this insurance covers contraception:
Additionally, federal law requires insurance coverage of contraceptives for federal employees and their dependents; it includes a limited but seldom used exception for religious insurers. In December 2000, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made it clear that an employer’s failure to provide coverage of contraception, when it covers other prescription drugs and preventive care, is a violation of protections against sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; those protections for employees’ benefits include no exemption for religious employers.
In other words, for a dozen years, every Member of Congress has probably purchased contraception coverage, and it’s been mandated by the EEOC of all employers who provide insurance, yet for some reason, the Bishops have decided to freak out about it now. Perhaps some journalist will ask some of those freaking out, like Marco Rubio, if he’s on a federal plan that includes contraception, and if he’s willing to follow his own advice:
If an employee asks for birth control, that worker could pay for it themselves or choose to work elsewhere.
Raven
Whao, dueling mornin threads!
Tom Levenson
We are a finely honed machine here at Balloon Juice. ;)
Villago Delenda Est
Yup, Raven, was about to point out the same thing.
Rubio is a moron. He’s also a Rethuglican. But I repeat myself.
c u n d gulag
Rubbers and pills for me and mine.
But not for thee and thine…
And a nice salary and pension insure that even if they outlaw a woman’s right to choose here, they can always fly their wives, daughters, and mistresses to some other nation that allows abortion.
You know – a different cuntry (sic)…
WereBear
They play with our lives to score political points that make them rich.
Morality is meaningless to them.
elftx
Would be interesting if Anonymous was able to get some records of purchase.
mistermix
@Raven: You’re lucky to get complete sentences from me at this point in the morning. Coordinating posts would be like flying to Mars.
Omnes Omnibus
@Raven: Given the themes of the two threads:
“This is my rifle. This is my gun.
This one’s for shooting. This one’s for fun.”
Barry
@c u n d gulag: “And a nice salary and pension insure that even if they outlaw a woman’s right to choose here, they can always fly their wives, daughters, and mistresses to some other nation that allows abortion.
You know – a different cuntry (sic)…”
In the long term, that wouldn’t help; in a post-Roe environment, it’d be illegal to procure an ‘abortion’ anywhere (US citizenship starts at conception, ya know).
I use the term ‘abortion’ because it’d undoubtedly cover as much contraception as they could.
Schlemizel
@Omnes Omnibus:
8-{D
gnomedad
Anyone else seeing toilet paper ads in Spanish? What’s triggering that? This proves we need a multi-trillion-dollar border fence.
MattF
@c u n d gulag: Note the archaic word ‘pension’. Not something that the underclass sees these days.
c u n d gulag
@Barry:
You’re right.
We’re ALL “Anchor Babies’ now!
But something tells me we’ll have an increase in Swiss and German visa’s.
For “tourism,” of course. Nothing else!
Our politicians will want to know how those Godless Socialist cuntries (sic, again) manage to operate without Jesus looking into every vagina.
c u n d gulag
“Awaiting moderation.”
That’s the story of my life…
j rockoford
Callista Gingrich is 45 and started absorbing Newt’s sacred seed in 1993, when she was 27, prime childbearing age.
They have no kids. They’ve been messing around for 20 years and no kids. Assuming neither is impaired, is Callista using birth control?
It’s a fair question. Somebody should ask.
Raven
@Omnes Omnibus: Not if the mackerel snappers have their way!
Chyron HR
@gnomedad:
The load of Cuban-American bullshit quoted above.
Luthe
Why the hell should Rubio care if his insurance covers contraception? Only those bad slutty wimmenz who like sexytime take birth control. They can pay for it themselves…
WereBear
Rules are for the little people.
jibeaux
I love the idea that we should all be making career decisions in life based on our family planning (or other purpose) insurance coverage needs. In a saner world, it would be one of those “you know the system is fucked up when there’s a pickle jar at the convenience store to raise money for the kid with cancer” moments, but since we have pickle jars at the convenience store to raise money for the kid with cancer I guess we’re not quite there yet.
Comrade Javamanphil
This would not be a story of interest to the gang of 500. It requires some research and would be confrontational which would cause one to be dis-invited to the cocktail parties. Now quit pestering them so they can get back to their story on which GOP candidate’s wife has the best First Lady hair style.
jrg
I hope Catholic parishioners are happy with themselves. Why don’t you contemptible mooks tithe to NAMBLA, instead? At least they don’t incessantly troll our elected leaders with contrived, right-wing bullshit.
robert waldmann
“Every ” ?!? Including post menopausal women? Pelosi does not need technology to avoid pregnancy. Neither, to be frank, does Frank.
As to the male members of Congress, I have no guess as to how many wear condone and am not naive enough to assume that congressmen and male senators with post menopausal wives have no use for contaceptives. I do suspect that some are actually faithful ( the plural implies at least 2) and I’m sure that others are discrete enough to pay out of pocket.
jayackroyd
CultureofTruth documented an atrocity this weekend, on this score. Here’s Noonan on Meet the Press (and, mind you, there was no “balance” on this one. Consensus on the panel).
The Village actually is so far out of the mainstream in their views that this kind of comment passes unnoted.
(The rest of CoT’s capture and commentary is here: http://bit.ly/yDWQEc )
beltane
All that will come of pointing out the Republicans’ hypocrisy on the matter will be to make sure that federal employees lose the contraception benefit. It’s a win-win for the GOP. They get to screw over federal workers while simultaneously proving their immense love for potential life forms.
beltane
@Chyron HR: And just last week we were scoffing at Google’s algorithm.
Litlebritdifrnt
@jibeaux: Yeah everyone should look at that pickle jar and really wrap their heads around what it means when the Repugs are all screeching about defense cuts.
There is a new show on BBCAmerica “Jamie Oliver’s Road Trip” Last week I think he was in Georgia, and was talking to a woman who ran a pit BBQ place about her life (she has a daughter with CP). Jamie was utterly gobsmacked to discover that if you don’t have health insurance and you have a major illness you basically lose everything you own to medical bills. It just never occurred to him that there would be such a place. He ended the spot with “Wow, England is looking like a really good place to live right now”.
jibeaux
@Litlebritdifrnt: Ha, I saw him in the very first season of the show where he tries to change school cafeteria menus — can’t remember what it’s called right now — but he also tries to get individual families to change their diets. He took this entire overweight family to get checkups where they discovered that their teenage son was pre-diabetic. He said something like, “look, I don’t know what’s going on with health care in this country but I do know it shouldn’t take Jamie Oliver taking you the doctor to find out you’re prediabetic.”
Scott
I would pay money for some smart reporter to ask Rubio how he’s been married for 15 years and only managed to produce four kids. Is he just unmanly? Or is he using (gasp) contraception?
WereBear
For that matter, why is the “rhythm” method considered all right? So you can mentally outwit God, but you can’t come up with a physical method to do so?
beltane
@WereBear: Religious people are all about finding loopholes in their stupid laws. They assume the entity they worship is both dim and somewhat corrupt, sort of like they are.
Schlemizel
@WereBear:
Along that line, since Mrs. Schlemizel had two spontaneous abortions wouldn’t that make the Harry Thunderer an abortionist? In fact, given His history wouldn’t He be the successful abortionist of all time?
jibeaux
@robert waldmann: He said contraceptive COVERAGE.
jibeaux
@WereBear: Never understood that either. You can sort of see it with the pill, if you squint real hard, but a condom is just a barrier, for pete’s sake. The difference between barriers and timing is angels on the head of a pin stuff as far as I’m concerned.
Luthe
@jrg: As an escaped Catholic (altar service *and* Catholic school), I never thought I’d be defending the Church, but here goes.
1. Not all priests are pedophiles. A significant minority, perhaps, but that’s it. Most are just men who felt compelled to serve God, full stop.
2. As much as they would like to think they do, the Bishops don’t speak for the whole Church. Most of the laity and a chunk of the clergy think the Bishops are talking out their asses and ignore stupid orders from on high. See also the majority of Catholic women using birth control and the nuns who have no problem with contraception coverage.
3. The Church does good work. Most of those tithes you were talking about go to local churches and charities, with only a fraction going to support the hierarchy. And the Church runs a lot of soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and prisoner outreach programs. Social justice and social advocacy are one of the bright spots of Catholicism.
4. The Church is consistent. While most fundies believe “life begins at conception and ends at birth,” the Church is there every step of the way. See above, re: social justice. The Church is also against the death penalty because it is pro-life for everyone, not just fetuses.
While I would run screaming if the Newtster or Mr. Frothy were elected, I think most Catholics are good people and take offense your insult.
Luthe
@WereBear: Actually, the Church wants you to the use the rhythm method to get it on when the woman is most fertile, not least. If you have to be boinking otherwise, the rhythm method is ok because the little swimmers at least have a chance of getting to an egg.
WereBear
I was raised Protestant, but am very familiar with the “angels on a pin” style of argument.
But these kinds of questions are why I’m not “organized” about my religion, any more.
jrg
@Luthe:
The hierarchy covered up abuses. It’s not about the pederasts, it’s about those that enable them.
Could have fooled me. You do know that people can go to other churches that don’t have loons like that representing you, right?
OK. So I walk an old lady across the street. I guess that makes it OK for me to go take a dump on the hood of your car? It all evens out?
No, they are not. That’s the point of MM’s post.
Scuffletuffle
@jayackroyd: English is clearly not her first language.
PurpleGirl
@jayackroyd: I think I’m a reasonably intelligent person, yet (after several readings) I have no idea what the f**k Nooners is trying to say in that excerpt. I think they need to do a breatherlyzer test on her before she goes on talk shows.
Schlemizel
@Luthe:
Wrong on 2 & 4
The Bishops DO speak for the official church & are in fact conveying the message the Pope has put forth. If “a good chuck” of the laity chose to ignore them it is at the peril of their eternal souls. Since the Pope spoke “ex cathedra” on the matter of birth control he is the word of God, infallible.
The church is NOT consistent. It used to maintain that life began at “the quickening” (about 6-8 weeks) when motion might be felt. There are other changes also but thats a biggy right there.
The men in funny hats are not terribly consistent on other issue the Pope has spoken about, the death penalty, war (specifically Iraq) and social justice. They may excuse themselves by noting these words were not ex-cathedra but that is a weak foundation on which to build.
Villago Delenda Est
@Luthe:
While I think this is true, the hierarchy is utterly corrupt, and needs to be destroyed.
shortstop
Others have already disposed of Luthe’s errors, so I’ll just add: Of course most lay Catholics are good people. They are good people who choose to belong to/support an institution that does unspeakable harm to children and still actively seeks to protect the criminals rather than the children who’ve been entrusted to their spiritual care and authority. The question is what a good person does in response to that bleak fact.
Rita R.
@jibeaux:
They’re not all that concerned with intent. Their argument goes that using the rhythm method doesn’t thwart God — who “collaborates” with a man and woman in the sex act to create new life — nature and all that is holy because you’re not messing with the natural biological rhythms since women can’t get pregnant during the times when they’re not fertile.
They view that artificial contraception is wrong because it acts to prevent pregnancy when a woman is or should be able to conceive, and that apparently makes Jesus weep. The pill, IUDs and the morning-after pill, of course, are considered as amounting to abortion, despite medical science saying otherwise.
To me? Yeah, it’s angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin bunk. But lofty theological arguments trumping the reality of people’s experience and needs is the bread and butter of the Catholic Church.
jayackroyd
@PurpleGirl:
Yeah, it’s incoherent because she can’t say, in so many words, that giving women access to contraception is a radical idea, that contraception is fundamentally corrosive to US society.
But that is the core understanding of movement conservatives. I just read Red Families vs Blue Families, and did an interview with one of the authors. June Carbone She, and the book, explain:
State sponsored contraception has the effect of condoning premarital sex, and undermining the tools conservatives want to use to keep families together. That’s the point Noonan is surrounding, but can’t state outright. This is, of course, a profoundly bad strategy in a world where women marry at 24 rather than at 19 or 20. Moreover, the “conservative” elites actually live the lives of the Blue State Americans, with kids who graduate from college, marry late and, err, have sex before marriage without getting pregnant.
Contradictions abound.
(Cahn and Carbone point out that the Blue State strategy has problems as well. Late marriage means lower fertility rates, and more difficulties conceiving kids. Late marriage enhance family stability; both partners have made their life decisions, and there are no shotgun weddings. But they do so at the price of fertility.)
Villago Delenda Est
@Scott:
Alas, a “smart reporter” is as rare as a snowflake in Singapore, at least on the political beat in DC.
dcdl
All women need to be more like Michelle Duggar. Not!
Rita R.
@shortstop:
I am very critical of the Church and in my mind have mostly left it — I go to Mass on Easter and Christmas because I’m with my family on those days, everyone goes and it makes my mother happy. But that’s about it.
But I think some here are making a mistake by trying to condemn Catholics who’ve stayed in the faith despite their uspet and anger over what the pope and the rest of the hierarchy are doing and have done. Shortstop said that the question is what do Catholics do in the face of the pedophile scandal. Well, what many of them did was demand accountability and reform. In one example, Catholics created a group called Voices of the Faithful to demand as much, and continues to fight on the issue.
On the larger point, however, Luthe is right. There’s the
“big C” Church, which is the institution, and there’s the “little c” church, which is the people. Why should the members of the church who believe in and love the religion — not all the bullshit by the institutional Church — let the corrupt hierarchy basically steal what’s dear to them by leaving?
A lot of Catholics are truly torn between their anger over the institutional Church and their faith. I think we should have some compassion for them.
shortstop
Rita, I hadn’t even gotten to the point of suggesting that people leave. First things first: I’m more interested in seeing how long it takes most remaining lay Catholics to fully accept the depth of the betrayal in the systematic commitment and cover up of pedophilia. From my conversations with literally hundreds of still church-connected Catholics, I have to conclude that many are still in denial.
But some, as you say, are demanding accountability from inside the church. So far, they’re not getting it. What is their plan of action if they never do? Are they thinking about that, or is the very act of protesting the end of what they consider their moral responsibility? Are people even thinking about that?
As for the big C, little c, I get a little skeptical of folks accepting the primacy of the church hierarchy except when it fails morally. The church doesn’t become a lateral organization only on the occasions in which it benefit the flock’s sense of comfort to think that it might be.
I have every sympathy for the true believer’s catch 22
here–but not for any pretense that any layperson doesn’t have to thoroughly consider the nature of the moral dilemma in which he or she is, by virtue of his or her choice to continue the connection, personally entwined.
The Other Chuck
What’s the matter Marco, afraid you might lose a few percentage points if you used the proper pronoun there?
jrg
“sheep” is truly the right word for people who can’t decide if they should leave an institution that provides cover for people who rape kids. Sorry if you find that offensive.
Did anyone catch The Daily Show last night, where they showed clips of RCC priests whining about how oppressed they are? Can you imagine what would happen to a secular organization that did half the shit the RCC has done? Can you fucking imagine?
shortstop
@The Other Chuck: That made me laugh.
Rita R.
Well, sure, there are always going to be substantial numbers of Catholics who accept what the hierarchy says and will pin the scandal on the 1960s or too much sex on TV or any of the other boogeymen the Church blamed.
But there’s a substantial number who don’t. I don’t know what their plan of action is if they fail — they’re trying to get change from this massive, bureaucratic institution primarily concerned with its own power, after all. But they’re trying. And I don’t think it’s some kind of pro forma effort to show moral responsibility. I think there’s real outrage.
As far as accepting the church hierarchy, my point is that the Catholics I’m talking about aren’t really focused on that. Why do you think so many of them ignore the edict against birth control, divorce, support for gay marriage, etc.? It’s about the religion and the beliefs.
We agree it’s a moral dilemma for them. But my take is that it’s a personal religious struggle, and I won’t judge them.
the dude
The problem here is that (for historical reasons) the employer chooses your health insurance provider, to be paid out of your total compensation package (salary + health).
Is there an option in the U.S. to join a private health insurance provider of your choosing, and having your employer increase your salary by the amount that would have been paid on your behalf into the employer’s choice of health fund?
Then you could work for a religious employer but how you pay for health insurance is none of their business, and the “accept my health coverage or find work elsewhere” ultimatum is moot.
shortstop
It’s about which religion and which beliefs? The belief that using birth control with full knowledge and consent isn’t a mortal sin, even though the hierarchy tells them it is? The belief that they’re divorced, even though the church tells them they’re not? The belief that they don’t need to confess certain actions they don’t personally consider sins, even though the church tells them they must?
I get that many lay Catholics choose their own beliefs in direct contradiction to what their church teaches…and then stay in that church because…why? They believe the leadership when it says the RCC is the one true church? They believe that continued membership in this organization is the only path to salvation? Suddenly the bishops know what they’re talking about on these matters (but about not what it takes to achieve that salvation within that church)?
Look, there’s a whole lot of selective believing and disbelieving going on, which is par for the course and even encouraged in all churches that don’t by definition require full fealty to top-down directives upon penalty of eternal damnation. The RCC isn’t one of those churches. Catholic laypeople who “aren’t really focused on that” are free to choose the parts of their religion and church that appeal to them/are comfortable and remain insistently blinkered to the rest, but it doesn’t say a lot for their honesty and self-examination.
Here’s another way of looking at it: In what other sphere would we “not judge” someone for continuing to support people who enable systematic rape of children? Would we “understand” someone staying with an employer who did that in a case where there are other means of employment? How about supporting a spouse who serially rapes kids and shows no signs of stopping? Would we judge someone who stayed friends with people who do this?
Rita R.
Christianity. That religion and its beliefs. Not the Church-created and widely ignored rules named. Not what the bishops say.
I thought there was a consensus around here against people unquestionably following everything their religion dictates. Fundamentalists, zealots, etc. Now those Catholics who do question and even disagree with the Church are dishonest and un-self-examined?
Staying Catholic does not equate to “supporting” the hierarchical Church and the enabling and covering up it did of child sexual assault. Leaving your religion — walking away from what you believe to be true, and in most cases, from what you’ve believed all your life to be true — is not in any way the same thing as leaving an employer, friend or even a spouse.
So, yes, I view the fact that many, many faithful Catholics are struggling with this — and some in fact do choose to leave — as worthy of compassion and understanding.
shortstop
@Rita R.:
You’re misrepresenting what I said. I’m all for people using their own brains and moral compasses to question the dictates of authority. And there are plenty of churches and religions in which that kind of journey is encouraged.
What I said, and what you seem to keep glossing over, is that the RCC is not one of those churches. It simply does not allow the members of its flock to use their own consciences as guides for many of the looming moral issues laypeople face, most especially the issues you named. This particular church is purposely set up so that the authority flows downward from the top. The faithful are told exactly what the rules of behavior are and what the potentially eternal consequences are for flouting them. So you can pretend that one can be Catholic and follow one’s own conscience on issues for which the church says there can be no variation from official position. But you cannot pretend that the RCC says anything other than that salvation will be denied to those who break with some of the social issues we’re talking about.
Some of the laypeople breaking with the church like to say they are the true church. History, tradition and contemporary church governance and practice all say they are not. This has not changed in our modern times just because laypeople wish it so.
How to reconcile those contradictions? Not by ignoring them, surely. That’s where the dishonesty and lack of self-examination come in. You can’t be part of an institution that has always and continues to define itself as A and wishfully say that you’re part of institution B. The institution simply doesn’t recognize that you have any authority whatsoever in defining it.
But you’ve already said that many of the faith disbelieve a good deal of what the church taught them and that they once believed to be true. What is it about this particular religion that can’t be obtained elsewhere, particularly when one is tacitly admitting that one doesn’t buy the idea of papal infallibility or pure apostolic authority, or that breaking with church teaching will cause one to burn in hell? Why reject what prove to be some of the main differences between what RCC and several other denominations expect of their flocks, but continue to believe that what’s left is somehow distinctive to Roman Catholicism? (I really don’t think most people are sticking around over questions of trans vs. cons, for example.) What is it that leads people to accept horrific behavior only here that they wouldn’t countenance in another context?
I think we’re operating with different definitions of “compassion and understanding.” As mentioned, I have sympathy for the dilemma. I don’t, however, think that the mere existence of the dilemma is a broad excuse for failing to face one’s own moral culpability as a member of the institution. By giving money and/or headcount cover to a church that covers up for a massive ring of child rape, one is at least indirectly supporting that action. Now, you may feel that the good the church is capable of doing, and that many laypeople do, outweighs this evil. But so far you’re not even admitting that laypeople also necessarily contribute to the evil via their continued membership.
Jrod
You know, I’m just torn over my membership with NAMBLA. Sure, they promote the mass rape of children, but on the other hand they run a charity bake sale once a year and have terrific potluck dinners every week.
Gosh, don’t you just want to weep over my horrible dilemma? How can you not have sympathy for my plight? I mean, am I just supposed to find another group that does potlucks? Inconceivable! But rest assured, I really do oppose the whole child-rape thing, just not enough to give up my potlucks. Surely you understand. Right kids? Now go with the nice man into the back room, and remember: no snitching! /wink
Rita R.
@shortstop:
Look, what it boils down to is you may want to make the sweeping judgment that every Catholic who hasn’t left the faith, or is struggling with whether or not to leave it, supports and is complicit in whatever wrongdoing the Church does. I don’t.
And BTW, to make clear, I’ve never made the argument that the good the Church does outweighs the bad. In fact, I haven’t defended the Church at all, and have pretty clearly, in every post I’ve written on BJ, condemened it. That doesn’t mean I condemn all Catholics.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@Rita R.: Yes, sweeping judgements are best left to the church, who has taken it upon themselves to decide what medical care will be allowed in the US.
I don’t condemn all Catholics either (that’s another thing best left to the church, I suppose). I simply want them to face what their church truly is, dead in the eye. No bullshitting themselves, no half-hearted muttering about soup kitchens. Just face reality for a change.
Face the reality that some of the money you put in your collection plate is being spent in an effort to install theocracy in your country. Face the fact that you are financing a vast conspiracy to strip away your rights, your bodily autonomy. Fact the truth that by continuing to attend mass and defend the church, you are supporting these efforts to undermine our way of life. Own up.
Rita R.
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire:
Many Catholics are coming to “face reality” and see that they can no longer be part of the Church, and I’m sure the bishops’ power play attempts like they are doing now will open more eyes. Kay’s post about Catholic hospitals is horrific, and I’d bet most Catholics don’t even know about it. Getting information like that out to Catholics and the public, seeing the bishops make their move, these are the things that will sway more Catholics away from the Church.
But to expect someone who’s been Catholic all their life to instantly turn it all off isn’t realistic, at least not for most. There’s a process, a struggle, and some may never get there, instead trying to make change from within, as daunting as that may be. All I was trying to do from the start of this discussion was recognize and respect that.
Nancy Irving
I always love the way GOPers talk about workers’ right to “choose to work elsewhere.” Don’t they know there’s a recession on?
Another Halocene Human
@Nancy Irving: When you’re “unemployed” with $200mill in the bank, you can afford to wait around for the right opportunity.
WereBear
I left the Southern Baptists, but it took ten years for the Baptists to leave my mind alone. And this is a church I wasn’t born into, but my parents converted to. This was before the Baptists started worshipping Mammon instead; before televangelism really hit it it big, before they starting showing up on the news found dead in wetsuits.
That helped, all of that helped, but they work very hard to implant fear of Hell, and it takes a while to shake. I’m, like Rita, sympathetic.
But what I discovered is that spirituality is what makes us feel close to god. And no church has a lock on that.
One woman, leaving Mormonism, feared she would never again feel the “burning in the bosom” that is a sign of being close to god. Then one day she went running in the park, having left the Mormons firmly behind… and got it from happiness, freedom from doubt, and beautiful nature scenes.
That’s what god is. We can get it on our own.
Rita R.
@WereBear:
Thanks Werebear. And with this, I agree wholeheartedly: