Guest Blog post by Rosemary Roberts of Girl On Point
Rosemary Roberts, Girl On Point
The astonishing outrage being leveled at the White House, and more specifically, although indirectly, against women (by denying free access to birth control coverage), is yet another rouse to take the country’s eye off the multiple, critical balls in the air — jobs and the economy – and further fuel political hatred for the black guy sitting at the big desk.
Just ask the average construction worker out of a job: “Would you rather congress and the White House work on job creation and the economy at this critical time, or spend the next few weeks and months ensuring that religious dogma is forced upon the public – and in fact, made mandatory — beyond the church and into the lives of their employees? And by the way, does your wife or girlfriend use birth control, and how do you feel about having another kid in this economy?”
Watch his flannel shirt explode!
Forget about the needs of women, we’re told, or that 98% of Catholic women take, or have taken birth control. Forget that overwhelmingly, the country SUPPORTS the law that deems free access by employees to birth control, appropriate.
I agree. Forget all that because ultimately, that is NOT what this is actually about. It’s about political division and opportunism, nothing more …or perhaps, as you’ll read further down, MONEY …the “golden lining” of any political crisis, including one that encompasses the big-money machine often referred to as the Catholic Church.
As is often the case during an election year …and sadly, the American public falls for it again, and again, and again …a fabricated social injustice is being created out of thin air and dressed in the cloth of a crisis to incite a virtual riot out of fear and hate, or some imaginary threat that a population’s God-given or Constitutional right is under attack.
We’re being asked (or told in most cases, by the Catholic Church and the religious (opportunistic) Right) to rise up against a law that was put in place to protect the whole of our citizen employees without discrimination, and instead, allow for religion to dictate the rules under which both the Catholic and non-Catholic public at large is employed.
This “crisis” we’re arguing about is no crisis at all …of religious persecution at least, but more so a matter of political manufacturing that saw an opening to pit the very PUBLIC nature of doing business and abiding by laws that protect employees within the PUBLIC business sphere, and the exceptions already given to PRIVATE religious organizations to call their own shots on their own property, for which those involved have agreed to follow their religious theology.
Let’s remember too, that the Catholic Church not only does business with the general public as a provider of medical care, they are also an insurance provider, much like Blue Cross, Kaiser or any other insurance provider …and they make a handsome profit from it. Of course, they don’t call it “profit”, technically …wink, wink.
I was employed by Mercy of Sacramento (Mercy San Juan and Folsom) for years and had the choice of several insurance providers, including Mercy’s own plan.
As an insurance provider, they do what ALL insurance companies do …try to pay out as little on benefits as possible to realize higher profits.
Sort of makes you wonder …if the average employee taking birth control pills costs $600 a year as a benefit, and you have, say, a rather conservative number, like 100,000 employees insured through your own insurance plan nationally who will take advantage of that benefit (both women and the female spouses of male employees), how much could you save if you claimed an objection based on “Religious Consciousness” and could avoid paying those costs?
More precisely, how much could you GAIN in revenue?
Geez; that would be about $60 MILLION! What if it were 200,000 employees? Holly sacrament, Batman! That’s a lot of money!
It’s also a religion any business owner in their right mind should be involved with! I can see business owners all over the place, rushing to convert as we speak!!! “Give me the wine and cracker!” How much would THEY save on insurance premiums if they were allowed to opt-out? Lord knows their insurance plan providers would be thrilled, as it would mean more savings for them too!
Could it be that this “crisis” — as an after-thought perhaps — is seen by the Catholic Church as a great way to create greater revenue? Naaaaaaah. Really? Would $60Million or more be enough to encourage the Republican’s make-believe argument, despite the law’s root in the Constitution itself – the separation of church and state?
Further, why should the Catholic Church, as a self-funded insurance company — be afforded this savings (and added revenue) while other healthcare employers, such as Kaiser and Sutter are forced to pay? Doesn’t that also give them an unfair competitive advantage?
Let’s get one thing straight: The law is based on employment protections, period.
Nothing else.
Why do you think twenty-eight states have been able to enforce a similar health care mandate of birth control coverage, despite multiple challenges in court by the Catholic Church, which they have lost every time?
The courts have ALWAYS cited, in part (and I’m paraphrasing here): …any religious organization that becomes a BUSINESS OWNER AND EMPLOYER, engaged in doing business with the GENERAL PUBLIC, and for which like-services offered by any other provider (think Sutter Health or Kaiser) are rendered, UNRELATED TO religious dogma, and for whom NO LITMIS TEST OR REQUIREMENT OF RELIGIOUS FAITH is required for services or EMPLOYMENT, must comply with the laws of that state as they relate to employment, regardless their religious beliefs.
It’s very simple, actually.
If you’re a church conducting church-only business, you’re good to go. Step out into the world of business with the public, then public laws and protections apply.
When a religious organization, what the heck …let’s call it the Catholic Church, hires employees to work within the specific confines of their non-profit religious organization and its faith-based properties (the church grounds itself and associated activities and/or properties — think soup kitchens — not doing business for profit with the general public), such as office personnel, grounds keepers, etc, or for private Catholic educational facilities in which Catholic theology is a primary foundation and REQUIREMENT of the curriculum offered, AN EXEMPTION from state and federal employment laws, as it relates to employee health coverage, IS GRANTED.
There you go. If its activities are related to the church specifically, or functions of the church, or teachings provided by the church and it’s followers exclusively, they get to call the shots on insurance coverage provided.
No state or federal boot is placed to the throat of bishops demanding that the Catholic Church set aside its religious belief’s and choke on anti-Catholic practice in the form of birth control.
However, when the church steps into the public sphere and becomes a non-religious-based employer within a business entity that provides a fee-for-service to the general public – of different faith, or no faith at all –then state and federal employment laws apply relating to all matters, including, but not limited to, worker’s safety, minimum wage, discrimination and employee benefits, including free access to birth control.
The 1st Amendment does not extend the same religious protection in the general workplace when that workplace is a business supported by a paid service to the general public and further, engages in business as an insurance provider.
As a taxpayer, here’s a few other things to consider: The Catholic Church has received over $48 BILLION in taxpayer subsidies, and ARE EXEMPT FROM TAXES!
That means, in addition to the normal subsidies, we’ve agreed, as taxpayers to a trade. In exchange for taxes paid, they agree to offer some level of in-kind care for the poor and needy, and over the years, even that has proven to be a farce.
Investigation after investigation has shown that charity in the form of direct health care provided to the needy, or other form of community charitable participation has rarely matched the benefit of tax exemptions offered to most Sacramento health care providers, and others throughout the state.
That doesn’t mean their contributions should be ignored or unappreciated, and they do represent a huge chunk of change ($), it’s just that they’re often found to be weak when we’re talking dollar-for dollar, or value-for-value.
Yes, we the taxpayer of all or no faith, also shoulder the burden exclusively for maintaining the roads leading to and around Catholic hospitals, as well as provide for the clean water and air that they benefit from. We also cover the cost of services provided by the fire department, including the paramedics that deliver paying customers to their doors, and the salaries of the police that respond to crimes at their facilities. (Disclaimer: That’s been my understanding, and please, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.)
So if, indeed, we’re going to have this argument, let it be based upon facts and the laws that govern all business owners and employers, not just religious organizations, but every employer doing business with the general public at large.
Let’s engage with an open mind, alternative questions, such as, is there a relationship between cost savings (increased revenue) for the Catholic Church as an insurance provider if they’re successful in denying the standard, legal level of employee benefits under the mandate?
Let’s skip the nonsense; the name-calling and suggestions that the President has somehow decided to bring war to the steps of the cathedral because he is (we all know it, right?) a Muslim. Let’s not act as if the bishops themselves are being tar and feathered in the square, and catholic women everywhere are being force-fed birth control pills by flaming Liberals …we are, after all, the one’s who want government OUT OF OUR UTERUS AND DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIPS.
Employees – all hard-working employees in this country, are ENTITLED to certain rights under the law, regardless their employer’s religious beliefs, as long as that employer falls under the category of a business doing business, for a fee, with the public.
End of story. Now pass me the estrogen, please.
If you would like to post an alternative view on this issue, please send me your blog post for consideration. Thank you, Kevin Knauss
