I read with interest this piece in The Wall Street Journal today by Mary Ann Glendon, headlined “Why the Bishops Are Suing the U.S. Government,” partly because she is someone I’ve suggested in the past as a potential speaker in the Cardinal Bernardin lecture series (remember, last year we brought E.J. Dionne).
I first became interested in her a couple of decades back, when I was reading a lot of communitarian literature. I was interested in her study of how nations in Europe had found it easier to come to accommodations over abortion, because unlike Americans, they didn’t frame the issue as a clash between absolute “rights.”
Anyway, here are some excerpts from her piece today:
This week Catholic bishops are heading to federal courts across the country to defend religious liberty. On Monday they filed 12 lawsuits on behalf of a diverse group of 43 Catholic entities that are challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) sterilization, abortifacient and birth-control insurance mandate.
Like most Americans, the bishops have long taken for granted the religious freedom that has enabled this nation’s diverse religions to flourish in relative harmony. But over the past year they have become increasingly concerned about the erosion of conscience protections for church-related individuals and institutions. Their top-rated program for assistance to human trafficking victims was denied funding for refusing to provide “the full range of reproductive services,” including abortion. For a time, Catholic Relief Services faced a similar threat to its international relief programs. The bishops fear religious liberty is becoming a second-class right…
The main goal of the mandate is not, as HHS claimed, to protect women’s health. It is rather a move to conscript religious organizations into a political agenda, forcing them to facilitate and fund services that violate their beliefs, within their own institutions.
The media have implied all along that the dispute is mainly of concern to a Catholic minority with peculiar views about human sexuality. But religious leaders of all faiths have been quick to see that what is involved is a flagrant violation of religious freedom. That’s why former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, declared, “We’re all Catholics now.”…
Religious freedom is subject to necessary limitations in the interests of public health and safety. The HHS regulations do not fall into that category. The world has gotten along fine without this mandate—the services in question are widely and cheaply available, and most employers will provide coverage for them.
But if the regulations are not reversed, they threaten to demote religious liberty from its prominent place among this country’s most cherished freedoms. That is why Cardinal Dolan told CBS’s “Face the Nation” on April 8: “We didn’t ask for this fight, but we won’t back away from it.”
Related Posts
FYI, while I was looking for a link with info about Mary Ann Glendon, I ran across this story in the NYT, headlined “Romney Makes Appeal to South Carolina Evangelicals,” about a radio ad that ran here that featured her voice, among those of others, saying affirming things about Romney. I don’t remember hearing that at the time. Just FYI…
Religion is religion. Social programs are social programs.
Distinctions exist – even in the foggy grayness of an issue such as this.
One person’s religious freedom is going to have a tough time trumping another person’s individual rights and liberties.
The Founding Father’s were interested in a live-and-let-live philosophy; not tyranny by the few and oppression of the many.
Every time people try to assert their world view onto others I will come down on the side against such tyranny. Religious freedom means the right to worship in the manner of one’s choosing. It doesn’t mean the right to smother the larger society.
but you just hate, hate Kulturkampf issues. Hate them, I tell you.
But over the past year they have become increasingly concerned about the erosion of conscience protections for church-related individuals and institutions.
-Mary Ann Glendon
I stopped reading at this point. What she regards as “church-related” is in essense anything that is supported by the Catholic Church regardless of how public the institution is. Given the fact that the church can opt out of the mandate there is really no reason to allow other groups to do so on the basis of religious freedom. It is just not an issue. The Catholic Bishops are way out of bounds on this. They should comply with the law just like anyone else.
Second sentence in my response should read: … the churches themselves can opt out …
How about this for a Kulturkampf issue. Brad has written extensivelly about the sad loss of a relatively obscure member of The Band, yet cannot spare even a brief mention of the horrific losses of Robin Gibb and Donna Summer, two trully great and gifted performers.
Yes, I do hate them. Which is why I resent that the administration picked this entirely unnecessary fight.
It was stupid and destructive to give opponents of Obamacare an actual, legitimate issue to complain about, instead of the nonsense they usually spout.
Ideological extremists will paint ANY national health plan, however puny, as overweening governmental power. They had no legitimate grounds for saying that about Obamacare — until this.
Such a tragic blunder, to initiate this useless point of conflict…
Do Culture War posts drive up page views?
And Brad, do you really believe that Religous Liberty is declining in this country?
Tim, I’m sorry that you and Kathryn have trouble understanding why I find myself drawn to the subjects that disturb me the most. But I’ve always been that way. It’s one of the characteristics that drew me to opinion writing.
One of the barriers to our mutual understanding, of course, is that y’all fail to see what I see — that these subjects are brought up by the people in politics NOT to solve the conflicts they embody, but to use them to separate us. THAT is what disturbs me. And rather than let them do that without my protesting, I point it out.
This is essential to who I am, and to why I can’t be comfortable on either end of the current political spectrum.
I could, of course — since on the grand scale I want Obamacare to succeed — do what Democrats do and excuse all of this away, and pretend that the administration has not unnecessarily dragged us into the realm of Kulturkampf. But it has, and I will not pretend otherwise. So I can’t be a Democrat.
Nor will I go along with Republicans who want to allege that ANY national system for paying for health care is inherently intrusive to an unacceptable degree. That is NOT unavoidable.
I just don’t know how to explain it to you, except by pointing to everything I’ve ever written, and hope that your own particular filter doesn’t act as a barrier to seeing what I’m saying.
As for my own cognitive filter, I have trouble understanding why you and Kathryn have trouble understanding why I would return to the subject of something deeply disturbing to me.
Maybe most people don’t do that. But I do. I can’t speak for most people.
Tim and I just crossed paths with our comments…
In response to, “And Brad, do you really believe that Religious Liberty is declining in this country?”
No, I don’t. Not yet, it isn’t. But the administration’s gambit on this issue IS an attempt to curtail it.
And, to state my point yet again, it was COMPLETELY unnecessary. The administration did NOT need to pick this fight in order to address the nation’s health care problems. This is a reflection of having people in the administration with ideological goals that are separate from the issue of universal health care.
HHS is going to lose this lawsuit. The Supreme Court jealously guards religious freedom.
Everyone talks about an employee’s freedom to have the kind of health care they want.
Doesn’t an employer have an equal freedom to provide the kind of health care coverage that they want to provide?
This legal challenge also illuminates the problems of leaving the ACA in place and only striking down the individual mandate.
If you don’t strike the ACA entirely, challenges like this are going to continue to pop up. It’s better to pull the band-aid off all at once. The whole thing needs to be scrapped, and Congress can start over from a blank piece of paper. (or several thousand)
Bryan, your penultimate comment points to the gigantic problem with health coverage being employer-provided.
We should have single-payer, provided to all citizens by their own tax dollars rather than private insurance premiums. Then you eliminate the problem of the government compelling private employers to do anything.
Bryan, you may be correct. And that’s one reason I was pretty lukewarm to Obamacare from the start. It was just too complicated and easy to attack through the courts.
But instead of a blank piece of paper let’s just adopt a popular, effective and generally non-controversial plan that already exists – Medicare. Just eliminate the age limit and voila healthcare for everyone.
A blank piece of paper for a Republican controlled congress will essetially remain just a blank piece of paper. They have no intentions of doing anything at all and only propose busy-work “fixes” that will be quickly forgotten as soon as they gain control.
“We should have single-payer, provided to all citizens by their own tax dollars rather than private insurance premiums.”
We should also have free ice cream sundaes every day and cars powered by our smiles.
Keep dreaming. You can’t give people what they want (unlimited access to healthcare) at an affordable price via a system run by the government. All you will do is create two classes of health consumers – those getting rationed care from the least desirable providers and those getting better care from those driven by market forces.
We could get 95% of the way to what you want with three steps:
1) Allow any citizen to purchase the same healthcare plan that their elected representatives have access to at the same cost
2) Prevent any insurance company from denying coverage to anyone
3) Eliminate state level insurance regulators and allow for easier access to enter markets
Then just raise the Medicare tax rate enough to give vouchers to poor people to purchase insurance. We can even put Obama’s face on the voucher if he wants to take credit for another welfare program.
Doug, those are different approaches. If you choose option 1, you don’t have to mess with the other three.
That’s what I like about Doug… just when you think he’s deliberately misunderstanding you (if we’re PAYING for it through taxes that we pay instead of our insurance premiums, it is most assuredly not “free ice cream sundaes” or free ANYTHING — over and over, you accuse me of wanting something FREE, when I have never advocated anything of the kind), Doug turns around and offers an actual solution.
That’s all anyone wants — the opportunity to buy into a national system of good coverage that they can NEVER lose, wherever they work.
Doug. What you propose won’t work. Here’s why. The proposal to allow everyone to purchase the government plan would just be too expensive. You get into who pays, employers for example, then you get into the same problems we’re seeing the Bishops pushback on birth control.
Denying coverage cannot work without the mandate. That’s pretty clear to me now. You have to have a funding source. Without young folks paying the pre-existing conditions issue simply overwhelms the system with sick folks.
The buying across state lines is reasonable but would probably not do much. I don’t think lack of competition is the problem.
Why is it any different requiring Catholics to support contraception payments with their tax dollars that with employer coverage? If every sperm is sacred….
Contraception should be covered to the same extent any other preventive medication is covered. It certainly should be covered before Viagra is.
As long as you can come up with a system where the cost is not dependent on income AND the level of service is equal to or better than what I have now, I don’t care what you do.
But if it’s tied to income (pay more for the same thing), forget it.
More trolling for hits with the culture wars.
Wake up to the manipulation, people.
@Bud
So how much would YOU be willing to pay per month for health insurance? And should I pay more than you for the same thing (assuming we are both middle-aged non-smokers?)?
I keep hearing that the issue is that people can’t buy insurance. Isn’t that the issue? Or is it that people don’t want to pay their fair share for insurance?
That is why Cardinal Dolan told CBS’s “Face the Nation” on April 8: “We didn’t ask for this fight, but we won’t back away from it.”
What a drama queen.
Doug, the problem as I see it much more complex. If someone comes into the ER with a gunshot wound after they are held up through no fault of their own they will be treated whether they have insurance, money, assets or anything else of value to contribute to the high cost. A long while back I came up with a plan that would simply have the government pay for these events 100% since they are going to be paid for anyway. Other types of events, especially chronic events such as Brad’s asthma would be covered by a national health insurance plan but with certain deductibles and co-pays. These events are predictable and can be planned for. Then there are preventive care stuff like shots and mammograms (and yes, contraception) that are best covered in their entirety or with a small copay. That way the cost to the system is kept low since many diseases (and unwanted pregnancies) are prevented. I would treat cosmetic treatment on a case by case basis. If someone loses a breast to cancer or has their face shattered in a car crash then it’s reasonable to cover much of the cost by the insurance plan. Stuff like purely cosmetic nose jobs on a perfectly healthy nose would not be covered at all.
Perhaps there is room for private insurance to help pay the deductibles and copays. But no one should be completely without insurance.
Certainly it makes sense to have copays and deductibles built into the system. That would prevent much abuse. But no one should be ruined because they simply cannot afford health insurance.
I find it interesting that most health plans pay for oral contraception, but that condoms – which actually protect against many STD’s – aren’t covered by any plans, as far as I know. Is there a war against men? Did men already lose the war?
@bud – I’d support a high deductible/catastrophic care plan for everyone. If the taxpayer/NHS paid for the truly expensive stuff then most folks could afford an inexpensive plan to fill in the gaps or provide fancier service. The deductibles in Medicaid are really super low though, and don’t prevent much/any abuse.
@bud
You didn’t answer my question. How much would YOU be willing to pay for the coverage you describe and would I pay more for the coverage if my salary was higher?
And a couple other questions: would you force every healthcare provider to treat every patient? Could they set up their own private practices and not accept government patients? If not, then you see one of the big problems with a national health system. The best doctors and surgeons expect to be paid for their talents.
Re Silence’s observation about condoms. I am reminded about something that a newsroom wag said in my presence in a news meeting about 20 years ago.
A story bearing on condom use had come up in the discussion. He said, “The bishop was asked what he thought of condoms. He said, ‘They ruin it for me.'”
What would I pay? We need to look at this question as a national priority not a personal one. I’d suggest we aim for healthcare costs in the neighborhood of what the Canadians pay per capita. I’d be willing to pony up my share.
@Silence–condoms are OTC–nothing OTC is covered–for a while you could put it on your flexible spending account, but no more. I actually price the difference between OTC antihistamines and the exact same one Rx….
and you can get free ones in many places–like Planned Parenthood….
@bud
Seems like a simple question. At least answer the question as to whether you think people should pay for their healthcare with a tax based on income. That will never fly.
People should pay for the benefits of society, which include, without limitation, health care, decent education for all, safe streets for all, safe highways and bridges for all, in proportion to what they have received from society, i.e., based on their income.
Doug, I have no problem with the wealthy paying to support a quality healthcare system that helps the less fortunate among us. They’ve certainly stollen enough from the working classes that they can afford it.
@ Brad – LOL.
@ ‘Kathryn – then the solution would be to move the pill to be OTC. Equal rights for men.
@Kathryn – “condoms are OTC–nothing OTC is covered–for a while you could put it on your flexible spending account, but no more”
You’re doing it wrong, or they’ve now given it a really odd name… “flexible spending account”?
@Kathryn
“People should pay for the benefits of society, which include, without limitation, health care, decent education for all, safe streets for all, safe highways and bridges for all, in proportion to what they have received from society, i.e., based on their income.”
That doesn’t make any sense. My income isn’t “received” from society. It is received from the people who pay for my skills and output. My work does not belong to society. Anyway, I already do pay far more into the system than most people do. And yet I don’t hear many poor people thanking me for my alms.
Lots of people have suggested that the pill should not be Rx, as it is far less dangerous than many OTC drugs. The issue seems to be that there is some refinement in which one to prescribe–there are many different strengths or the various hormones, with different side effects. A solution to this is to make the scripts evergreen, so you don’t have to see a doc every year. The issue is that many docs use this to insist on a Pap smear, but the science suggests that for most women, an annual Pap smear is overkill.
I would posit that virtually all income over about $1 million/year is purely a matter of luck. Hard work and other factors may help you do well in life but to be truly rich luck (or perhaps theft) is the primary component. Not sure why it’s such a big deal to require these lucky few to give back to a society that has enabled them to prosper tremendously. What would these people sacrifice anyway, another Cadillac or maybe they’d have to get by with a smaller yacht.
Men are a minority in the US, and as a minority we are entitled to certain rights and protections. One of these should be free prophylactics.
This unjust war on men has got to stop. We must throw off the yoke of our female oppresors and rise up! And when we rise up, we must have government provided rubbers!
Also, as my sperms are solely my own creation, I should retain all rights to them, just like other intellectual property. After all, they contain unique genetic material. Men’s Rights!
@ bud – What % should the million dollar earners be required to pay in taxes (Federal, State, Local)?
There’s really not very many earners in that category – sports stars, top 40 musicians, leading actors, CEO’s of large companies, a handfull of Wall Streeters, folks selling their company to cash in and retire, and that’s about it.
Sure, they could “afford” to pay a little more in taxes, but it wouldn’t make a dent in our budget deficit. To really crack that nut you’ll need to raise taxes on the 200k households, and their ilk.
Bud’s mythical millionaire is the whipping boy for all that is wrong in this country. If we could just tax everything they make over a million, surely the country would prosper.
If they didn’t steal it, they earned it. Tough concept for some people to grasp.
The tax code should be revised to eliminate the separate rates for capital gains and dividends. A top rate of about 36-40% would be about right. My brackets would be as follows (for individuals):
0-12500 – 0%
12501-18000 – 4%
18001-30000 – 8%
30001-50000 – 12%
50001-100000 – 16%
10001-250000 – 20%
250001-1million – 28%
1million-5million -34%
over 5million -40%
I’d also eliminate mortgage deductions and most other deductions except perhaps for charity. I’d separate church donations that go to building projects, choir robes, pipe organs etc. from actual funds that go to feed and clothe people.
@bud – Kind of makes you wonder why anyone would work hard only to watch 30 cents out of every dollar go to those who aren’t willing to even try to make a better living for themselves.
Here’s a better bracket –
10% national sales sales tax with no forms to fill out or deductions period. You earn $20/hr., at the end of the 40 hour week you get a check stub for $800. You go spend $100 on groceries, the bill comes to $110. You buy a $30,000 vehicle, your total comes to $33,000 out the door. You raise your own food and ride a bike to work… you put $800/week in the bank.
Bud,
Three real problems there.
1) Everyone should pay income taxes; the poor should not be exempt. Everyone should have an oar in the water. Doesn’t mean that I am opposed to back-door subsidies, but everyone needs to believe themselves to be a full, contributing member of our society.
2) Capital gains must be treated differently than income. Apples and oranges there.
3) People are accepting of a graduated income tax. But your numbers are not that; your’s is a soak the rich plan.
It was also interesting to see the breakpoints that you chose; these are all over the board from $5,500 to $5,000,000. Flatter or steeper for the curve of the rate to suit your perspective, but keep it smooth…
@Steven
You have my vote.
But a simple tax code would eliminate the power politicians have to influence social behavior and reward their cronies (and selves) thru loopholes, deductions, etc.
I’d accept bud’s plan as well but without any deductions or exemptions. The cost of enforcement and compliance with the tax code is a huge drag on the economy. But it will never happen because there are too many large entities that exist solely to help corporations and people avoid taxes.
Mark, that was just a quick sketch of what I’d do. The brackets could be altered somewhat. Since this doesn’t include SS contributions I’d maintain folks already have some “skin in the game”. Allowing students and low wage earners working part time a bit of a break seems like a good way to provide some incentive to work. After all it’s it enough of a struggle to make ends meet on a $10k income without paying federal income tax?
Captial gains on short term investment income absolutely should get no preferential treatment, none. Long term capital gains on the sale of a piece of land might deserve some adjustment based on inflation.
As for dividends, how can anyone justify a lower rate for something that is not earned by the sweat of one’s brow. Makes no sense to me.
As for the inheritence tax I’m sympathetic to certain situations like a family farm or small family business. But it’s hard to justify something like a tax free inheritance on something as massive as George Steinbrueners estate. His children will receive an enormous benefit unavailable to the rest of us even if they do pay some taxes.
Under bud’s plan:
– earn $250,000 = $50,000.00 in taxes
– earn $250,001 – $70,000.28 in taxes.
By earning $1.00 more, it’s going to cost you $20,000.
I’d like to see the tax code encourage certain behaviors and discourage others, but more rationally.
1) Dividends, interest and long term capital gains should be treated preferentially in the tax code. This would encourage long term investment in the economy. Short term capital gains could be taxed at a confiscatory rate to discourage day-trading, stock flipping, and short term thinking.
2) At this point, repealing the mortgage deduction would devastate the housing market. If you are going to get rid of it, at least phase it out over the next 30 years. While you are at it, wind down government subsidies of home loans and let interest rates truly float. Don’t get me started on student loans.
3) Good luck getting rid of or reducing charitable deductions. Many recipients aren’t religious institutions at all, colleges for instance. If you eliminate the deduction for donating a building, funding research or endowing a chair, you’d pretty much collapse the higher ed system.
I’m in the 28% marginal rate bracket but after deductions and whatnot I pay an effective rate of about 15% I think. That’s not awful. The state tax situation is much more upsetting.
@ bud – 1) right now short term capital gains, interest and some dividends are taxed as ordinary income. Long term capital gains get no adjustment for inflation at this point, but it would make sense, since the government picks our pockets through inflation.
2) Since capital is required to make the economy function – fund businesses, make loans, etc. we have traditionally treated certain types of investment income preferentially. Capital is scarce, labor is not. That is key.
3) If you tax income appropriately, there is no need to tax estates. Taxing estates basically just punishes people for being frugal, healthy and/or living a long time.
Steven that’s not how brackets work. That 250,001 pays as follows:
1-12500 – $0
18000-12500 = $5500 x 4% = 220
30000-18000 = $12000 x 8% = 960
50000-30000 = $20000 x 12% = 2400
100000-50000 = $50000 x 16% = 8000
250000-100000 = $150000 x 20% = 30000
and finally
250001-250000 = $1 x 28% = 0.28
His final tax bill would be 220+960+2400+8000+30000+0.28=$41,580.28. For a guy earning 250k that doesn’t seem so unreasonable.
Silence, not sure why dividends/interest should get preferential treatment.
However, I do agree that an immediate end to mortgage deductions would be devastating right now. But now is probably a good time for new mortgages since rates are so low it may not have nearly the impact if rates were higher.
@bud – They don’t work that way now and you never said anything about a pay as you go scale. In other words, you’ve made current scales even more difficult. Are you an out of work tax accountant by chance?
@bud – dividends and interest are special.
A dividend is your payout of the share of the profits of a company you own part of. Your capital is put at risk – you are essentially giving it to a companys’ board and management and letting them put it to work. If they are successful and generate profits in excess of what they need to continue to fund the business, they may declare a dividend. The income was already taxed at the corporate level – now it is being passed to you, the owner. Let’s say that Scana Corp (SCG) declares a $.495 dividend. They take cash from the business’ account and pay it to you. Your stake in the company is now technically worth $.495 less, since they no longer have the cash in their account. The form of the money has changed, from equity to cash, but really the ownership has not changed.
Interest does not currently get any preferential treatment, except for certain types of municipal bonds. I posit that since you are lending your money (directly through a bond purchase, or indirectly through a bank deposit) and as a result, enabling the economy to function, you should get a reward.
In truth the interest rate required actually is adjusted by the tax amount, so it’s no biggie. That’s why yields on tax exempt muni’s should be equivalent to after tax yields on commercial bonds of similar duration and credit quality.
Dividends mainly accrue to wealthier individuals. Not always but usually. Seems like a lower tax rate on that is merely a windfall for the wealthy. The double taxation argument is really not valid since a corporation is really a separate entity from the owner. Didn’t Mitt Romney declare that corporations are people?
The double taxation argument could be made for wages also. The wages paid by the corporation have already been taxed once by the people who bought the stuff that allows the company to pay the wages. Besides increased wages are the very best way to stimulate an economy. Wouldn’t it make more sense to give wage earners a tax break?
As is my standard operating procedure, I sort of check out when y’all go off on these long tangents about taxes…
I’m just stepping in for a moment to say that, after a brief contretemps earlier in the week, Mark and I are back to agreeing on stuff. I agree that everyone should pay income taxes.
@bud – “Dividends mainly accrue to wealthier individuals.”
Do they also accrue for people with retirement accounts? Is everyone with a 401k now considered wealthy? What about those employees in employee owned businesses?
I wish bud would come out and tell us what the basis is of his hatred toward successful people. It’s something that is repeated in nearly all of his comments. If you make than $12,000/yr. bud hates you.
Brad,
It does catch my attention that you as such a strong, articulate proponent of rational, representative government would at the same time hold a viewpoint that is supportive of religious institutions possessing extra-Constitutional rights. One of our founding fathers’ central tenants was that we are one nation under God. They were pretty definite that religious institutions must not be permitted to overrule the rights of individuals and the structure of the state.
We are all bundles of contradiction, I certainly have mine, but this special rights for religious institutions is tough to decipher – from my perspective.
But the bishops aren’t seeking to overrule anyone else’s rights. They’re seeking not to be compelled themselves by the government to do something contrary to their beliefs. This is their Constitutional right under the First Amendment — a right that all citizens possess. Nothing “special” about it.
@ bud – one of the big differences between wage income/earned income and investment income is risk.
If I am working for a company, I generally get paid weekly, biweekly or monthly. I can’t lose more money then I am owed for the most recent pay period, if say, the company goes bankrupt or whatnot.
If I’m an investor in a company (stockholder) or a lender to the company (bondholder) my position is more tenuous. I can lose not only my monthly, quarterly or annual dividend or interest payment, but I can lose the entire amount invested.
The recent crisis is a great example. Many millions of folks lost jobs, and the paychecks stopped. That is tragic, and finding a new job can be difficult and take a while, causing further strains.
Bondholders generally took it on the chin, and stockholders in a variety of companies were wiped out. Granted, investors should be diversified to mitigate some of this risk, but still many people, including many elderly folks and retirees were badly bruised.
GM, Fannie, Freddie, WaMu, and many other shareholders wiped out. Bondholders taking pennies on the dollar. Risk capital showing the downside of risk.
SDII, I don’t “hate” successful people. Why would I hate myself. I just believe that wealthy individuals have received enormous benefits from society and it only seems reasonable to require them to pay it forward a bit. Not in a punitive way, just as a means of giving others a chance. Why would I want my taxes increased in order to subsidize someone who earns their income mainly from dividends and capital gains?
No one is exempt from following the law. Don’t like the law? Then change it. But for the Catholic Church to claim that the law of the United States not only doesn’t apply to itself (fine, churches are given certain Constitutional protections), but also to any number or affiliated enterprises is going too far.
It was probably suave of the Bishops – the few that support this suit – to pick the issue of contraceptive insurance coverage. And yet we still face the same basic argument that has been an issue since Martin Luther. Is the Pope in Rome the ultimate ruler in our society? This country was foundced on the ideal of religious freedom – but also on the condition of religious non-inteference in civil life.
This lawsuit isn’t about the freedom to practice one’s religion, it is about whether the law of this land will be set by our representative government or by the Roman Catholic Pope. What is at stake here is not a trifling issue but a core principle of our country’s founding.
@ bud – you wouldn’t be “subsidizing” them. You simply wouldn’t be taxing them as much.
The market is very capable of adjusting stock prices to take into account the taxes that will be paid on dividends. If an investor pays more in taxes then the stock price may fall. Assuming the tax code is neutral the higher tax paid on the dividends will be made up by a lower tax on something else. That could be lower overall tax rates which will accrue mostly to wage earner.
So what we’re really discussing is a tradeoff between low taxes on dividends/higher taxes on wages vs. higher taxes on dividends/lower taxes on wages. I would maintain that it is better for the economy to have lower taxes on wages. Wages accrue mostly to lower income individuals who mostly spend their money. Spending is the driving force behind our economy and ultimately that increased spending gets back to the corporations and the stock owners. This is a sort of trickle up effect.
Right now it is pretty clear that the low tax rates on dividends is not working as it’s advocates suggest. Demand is just not sufficient to give corporations the incentive to build and sell more stuff. But the stuff they do sell earns a tidy profit which goes to the stockholders who essentially sit on the money and not spend it. The trickle down effect just isn’t happening.
My proposal is simple. Just tax all individual income the same, regardless of the source. That is just the fair and just thing to do. The market will sort it out and the simplicity of that approach should benefit the overall economy.
Mark, talking about the Pope is misdirection (and a very old anti-Catholic tactic). Catholics, including US bishops, are American citizens just like everyone else, and have both the same Constitutional rights and the same input into shaping our laws, as any other citizens. No more, and certainly no less. And that means access to the same methods of exercising those rights, from the ballot box to the courts.
@bud – “Not in a punitive way, just as a means of giving others a chance.”
How is it not punitive if you’re punishing people who make more money by taxing them at a higher rate?
Why should wealthy people be forced to “give” by being taxed at a higher rate? If they choose to let them donate or contribute. What you want is for everyone to be in the same financial boat regardless of how much time, effort, money, sweat, blood, risk, etc… into the project.
“Why would I want my taxes increased in order to subsidize someone who earns their income mainly from dividends and capital gains?”
Would you make the same comment if you earned money from dividends and capital gains? It’s clear as long as it doesn’t come out of your pocket you’re fine telling others how they should spend their money.
Brad,
I agree – except for the misdirection part.
My concern here would be the same no matter what religious institution was attempting to assert itself outside of the realm of the “church”. One can look at an issue such as this from the perspective of an institution’s dogma; or one can view it from the perspective of it’s impact on the citizens of this country. In this case, I see hundreds of thousands of hospital orderlies, cafeteria workers, teaching assistants, students, janitors, maintenance workers, students, nurses, administrative services workers, etc. being denied healthcare opportunities available to every other citizen in this country and without regard for their own personal convictions. As I said, it’s not to me so much about the contraception issue as it is a larger question of freedom, liberty and religious disentanglement (i.e., religious tolerence) for me.
This is not about anti-Catholicism to me, it is about viewing the situation as: Which is to take precedence under law in the public sphere, the rights of individuals or the particular strictures of a religious organization? To my mind, we have now had almost 400 years of assertions by the citizens of this country that our civil society is not to be ruled by religous fiat. This was true in the days of our founding fathers when there was a near universal church. Our entire national identity is predicated upon the ideal that there will be religious tolerance for all people and that our civil laws will not be subsumed to religious dogma.
I chose to bring the Vatican into this discussion because it is a wedge issue. With this contraceptive insurance coverage dust up, I see the consertvative elements of the Roman Catholic church leadership trying to “get right” with conservative evangelicals. They are attempting to promote the idea that their position is more widely accepted than it would be if framed differently. So I framed it the way that says, oh yeah, we have been through this over and over in our history and yes, we have had long-standing consensus as a nation that we do not recognize expressions of religious sentiment by particular institutions (ie, any religion) in our public discourse.
This issue is about far more than the provision of contraceptives. To me it is a fundimental issue of the construct of our tolerant civil society.
The true issue here is that we have insurance being provided to people by an organization and this would not be a point of contention if people were not forced to go through an intermediary, their employer, to obtain health insurance; but that’s our nation’s albatross of a structural issue. You and I agree on that, I believe.
This issue is about far more than the provision of contraceptives. To me it is a fundimental issue of the construct of our tolerant civil society.
-Mark
I agree in part. The provision of contraceptives really is an important social issue in and of itself. If this was about allowing army recruiters access to Catholic institutions I’m not so sure I’d have the same opinion. Brad, would you feel the same way if that was the issue at hand?
That wouldn’t come up. I’m not aware of any Catholic teaching that would conflict with recruiters doing their jobs.
Couple of points. I don’t FEEL strongly about this issue at all. I’m not entirely sure who is right — these bishops, or the association headed by Sister Carol Keehan, which has accepted the administration’s offer of a compromise (previously, on the subject of Obamacare overall, I sided with the sisters, if you’ll recall).
What I’m arguing with y’all about is whether the bishops have a legitimate position — which I believe they do, whether I would ultimately agree with them or not. The point I keep trying to make is that this is NOT about what other people will do — it’s about what the Catholic institutions themselves would be compelled to do.
And it all comes down to the insanity of our system. In most civilized countries, this would never come up, because private employers are not expected to provide benefits. But here they ARE, and so when you find yourself in a position in which a PRIVATE entity is being compelled by the government to provide something contrary to its belief system, you’ve got a legitimate freedom of conscience issue. Pretend the church is a restaurant. It’s legitimate for the government to enforce public public health regulations at the restaurant. But it’s not legitimate for the government to tell the restaurant it has to serve brussel sprouts if it doesn’t want to.
This just wouldn’t come up in a rational system — which is to say, a single-payer system. Yes, there might be a political argument over whether contraceptives are covered, but you wouldn’t have this stark conscience issue, with someone being forced to DO something they don’t believe in.
Mark and I agree about that. Now, as reluctant as I am to point it out, he has just raised another point of stark DISagreement, which goes beyond what has been said thus far.
Mark says, “it is a larger question of freedom, liberty and religious disentanglement (i.e., religious tolerence) for me.”
Whoa, there. Religious tolerance does NOT equal religious disentanglement. Faith has just as much of a place in public discussions as any other set of ideas. The First Amendment practically guarantees that we will have entanglement — a delicate, precarious balance — by simultaneously guaranteeing that there will be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion (which falls far, far short of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” — remember, Jefferson wasn’t part of drafting the Constitution), and that nothing must interfere with the free exercise thereof.
Similarly I have to disagree with, “we do not recognize expressions of religious sentiment… in our public discourse.” Of course we do. We must no more bar religious expressions than we would people who love the color blue. Every view has a place at the table.
Note: To make my point more clearly, I left out the middle part of that sentence, “…by particular institutions (ie, any religion)…,” because it distracted from the main point: that we do not bar any sort of expressions, by anyone.
Now THAT is something I DO feel strongly about. Which is why, even when I’m not sure I agree with the bishops, I think it’s important to stick up for their right to assert their position.
Just call me Voltaire. No, wait… he wasn’t exactly a Catholic, was he? 🙂
Brad, you really didn’t adequately address what I find to be the fundamental issue here. Does the Catholic Church have carte blanche right to ignore any law it wants? Your answer seems to be yes. At what point do they have to comply with the law? I threw out the recruiter issue because I recall you seemed to defend that practice based on it being the law of the land. Perhaps the Catholic Church would be ok with that, perhaps not. The issue is whether they can exempt any law under the guise of freedom of religion.
Here’s another one, The Branch Dividians. They violated federal law by keeping a huge stash of weapons. Is that a legitimate church/state issue.
@bud – “The Branch Dividians. They violated federal law by keeping a huge stash of weapons.”
Please remind me, what law did they violate?
Sigh.
I’m just not expressing myself very well. These questions about “whether they can exempt any law under the guise of freedom of religion” simply aren’t relevant to any point I’ve made here. So I guess I’m not expressing them very well.
The only possible comparison is if the government were requiring the Branch Davidians to go out and enforce gun laws on its behalf. That would pretty much be a case of a private entity being forced to take action to carry out government policy, which would be contrary to that private entity’s beliefs.
A little hard to imagine, isn’t it?
This is not a case that has a lot of parallels. It’s very unusual, and it results from the insanity of the way we provide medical coverage in this country.
The lesson that ALL of us should carry away is that if the government wants universal health coverage (which it certainly ought to want), it needs to step up and recognize that it cannot require the private sector to do it in exactly the way the government does. The government needs to just do it, and leave out the middleman.
Basically, one of our problems here is that the church started long ago stepping up and doing something the government did not do — making sure more people had access to health care.
We have a great local example in Providence Hospital, which took it upon itself to start an open-heart surgery program when South Carolina didn’t have one — and before it was known what a profit center that would be for hospitals. It was a ministry to the community, undertaken voluntarily out of the sense of Catholic service and social justice.
Up to now, the provision of health care (the paying for it, anyway), has been left up to thousands, millions, of private entities — individuals, companies, nonprofits, churches — making their own decisions for their own reasons under particular circumstances. The vaunted marketplace at work.
And it turned out to be a mess. Which is why we need to start over.
Does the Catholic Church have carte blanche right to ignore any law it wants? Your answer seems to be yes.
Challenging a law in court is not at all the same thing as ignoring it. Why does that even need to be said?
Brad,
I mispoke or I was mis-interpreted. The former is more likely.
When I said religious expression I meant a religion impossing, or trying to impose its will outside of its adherents and its own institution. I didn’t ever mean to imply that individuals cannot bring their own personal viewpoints into our civic structure.
I also agree that the Bishop’s have the right to sue; and simply disagree with the merit of their case.
Let’s use Sharia Law as an example, since several states have more recently lost their collective minds over banning this sort of religious interface with the civic. I think it fair that we all protect the rights of those who believe in Sharia Law to follow that structure in their lives as religious adherents. Whether we think it “right” or not doesn’t really matter. Now let’s say Sharia Law conflicts with the laws of the United States? Which one should take precedence? Then say that other third parties, non-adherents are being subjected to “discipline” under Sharia Law in our country?
It’s no different here. Religious disentanglement means that every religion must operate under the structure of our Constitution – the rights of the many disperate peoples outweigh the dogma of a particular religious entity.
People believing and expressing a personal belief structure in civic discourse – ok. Religious entities asserting primacy of their particular dogma over the law and the general populace – not ok.
Here’s the brick wall that separates us on this whole issue. I find the contraceptive issue so completely beyond any reasonable argument that it astounds me that ANY and I mean ANY resistance that would make it more difficult for someone to obtain them just cannot be defended except through the most radical of contortions.
For those of you who don’t hold this issue in that regard just try and imagine some policy that you accept as settled. Apparently the gun laws or army recruiters just don’t resonate. How about racial discrimination? If the government passed a new law that required all employers to use only subcontractors that don’t discriminate based on race wouldn’t that be the same type of thing if a church group objected based on religious grounds? Wouldn’t that be a form of enforcing a federal mandate comparable to the contraception issue? Or find something even more radical if necessary. That’s my point.
The contraception thing is just so completely, totally, utterly, 100% a no-brainer I just can’t see any argument that makes it more difficult on woman. Brad and others don’t see it that way and I guess that’s the divide.
I do agree with Brad that the healthcare approach we are using now is very imperfect.
I’d like to revisit Mark’s astute observation about how church activities now include all sorts of unrelated business activities, to use a term of art. I mean, if it generates UBI, it doesn’t get to claim religious status. If the IRS doesn’t consider it exempt as religious, it doesn’t get to claim religious-based exceptions.
While the government wouldn’t force a restaurant to serve brussel sprouts, it did force them to serve black people if the restaurant serves the public in general (is not a private club). And it wouldn’t force a church to admit people they don’t approve of as members, but it does force them to serve those same people if they’re performing a public service (like a hospital).
I agree that I don’t like that employers must furnish health care — but given that that’s the way it is, it would seem analogous to me that if the institution came under federal civil rights laws for their employees, they would also do the same for health care laws.
I don’t know how all the rules concerning civil rights laws play out with church employers, but it seems like the principles might be the same.
@Susanincola–
Zackly!
Susanincola succinctly stated why the Bishop-lead lawsuit is almost certainly a loser. That’s probably was the administration’s rationale as well.
The same goes for Kathryn’s point; if an entity isn’t claiming to be a church (like a hospital, school or university), then that’s that.
@susanincola–I think civil rights laws exempt certain employers from tolerating gay people–I think it may be specifically religious organizations and not ancillary businesses.
I agree with Mark and Susanincola. I think a crucial point for me is that we are talking about the employees of church affiliated businesses, but not the church itself. In my mind, if the church chooses to venture into the arena of private business (such as hospitals and schools), they must be willing to follow the appropriate laws governing those they employ in those businesses. If they do not approve of the laws they would have to follow, they can choose not to go into that business. I really don’t see how their ability to practice their religion is being impaired by the law. They can go to their church, they can believe what they believe, they can choose to not to use contraceptives in their own personal life. They don’t get to take that choice away from others who don’t necessarily share their beliefs. Does the constitution say that religious institutions have the right to impose their religious beliefs on the general public through their private business endeavors?
The Constitution deals with government action vis-a-vis religion–there can be no established religion, nor limits on free exercise. Therein lies the conflict. Is not paying for contraceptives for employees the free exercise of religion?
Seems kind of a stretch to me. FWIW, the limits that can be placed on the free exercise tend toward the rational–you can make someone who takes a job shave his beard if it interferes with proper safety gear, for example.
The Constitution, via the Supremes, so far, has not been interpreted to allow the authoritarian imposition of religious beliefs on others as within the “free exercise” rights–you can’t mutilate your daughter’s genitals, even if you have a deeply held religious belief that you must…You can’t blow up buildings just because you believe you are defending Allah and the Prophet’s honor; you can’t marry more than one wife. This lies somewhere in between.
“The Constitution, via the Supremes, so far, has not been interpreted to allow the authoritarian imposition of religious beliefs on others…”
You’re right. Which is why the Obama administration cannot impose its beliefs onto the church, and require it to do something that violates its principles.
We’ve been around and around and around and around on this, and we’re just going to continue to see it wildly differently. For some reason, many of my friends here continue to believe that this mandate is about the church imposing something on somebody, when it is the government imposing something on the church. This is so obvious that it is stunning to me that anyone could see it any other way. The administration told the church it had to do something, and that’s what started this fight. Where was everybody else when this happened?
In my frustration I’ve been ignoring this thread, hoping y’all will tire of it (it’s a week old now!). But since I’ve allowed myself to get pulled back in, let me go ahead and address another point that has been made numerous times since I last weighed in…
These are NOT “private business endeavors.” They are core to the ministry of the Catholic Church. This is faith in action, serving others. Which do you think is more doing the work of Christ, as he instructed his followers to do: Having a building where Mass is said several hours a week, or having a place devoted to healing the sick?
You know, the Sisters of Charity tried a partnership with a business once. They sold a big chunk of Providence to HCA, and used the proceeds to set up the Sisters of Charity Foundation.
They found that their principles were completely at odds with the for-profit business world, and bought out HCA to resume sole control. Oh, and a postscript on that: The sisters didn’t use the money in the foundation they had gotten from the original sale. They mortgaged their mother house in Ohio to buy out HCA, leaving the foundation intact. Because for them, it’s about service to the community. It’s about what they are called to do. It is their ministry.
Brad, I too am tired of this. But you keep making the same arguments that essentially pose as religious indoctrination. Anyone who is NOT a Catholic sees this quite easily.
Or they don’t see it at all.
The problem is that here we all are looking at the same thing, presumably, and seeing opposite things. Which is not a good basis for a fruitful discussion.
If we can’t agree that A is A and B is B, how can we have a useful discussion of what we THINK about A and B?
“Anyone who is NOT a Catholic sees this quite easily.”
Not only is this not true but it is an incredibly arrogant thing to say.
“Person X who disagrees with me must be doing so because he/she is blinded by his [religion] because I am so obviously right.”