What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Guttmacher doubles down

Yesterday, the Obama administration apparently thought it the better part of valor not to continue to push any statistic about 98% of Catholic women--e.g., that they "have used" non-NFP contraception. So they took down the link to that claim.

Today, though, the Guttmacher institute has decided to double down on that statistic. Humorously enough, when Rachel Jones, one of the authors of the Guttmacher report that kicked off this discussion, was initially contacted by the Washington Post blog, she seemed a tad...impatient, not to say clueless, about any statistical shortcomings in her previous report. She seemed to think she could dismiss the matter with a little snark about not including "89-year-old women."

She seems to have rethought her dismissiveness since then and has published (drum roll) a new table. With patter. The patter is here. The new table is here.

The first thing you should notice is that the new table is based on "unpublished tabulated data from the NSFG 2006-2008." Translation: We plebes can't check this stuff out independently. Rachel & co. have it on their computers from the Centers for Disease Control and expect you to take their statements as gospel. Let's please continue to bear in mind what I have said in many comments on the thread: Jones did not "do a study." Guttmacher did not "do a study." They are using and interpreting data from a huge study on many topics done by the Centers for Disease Control.

The second thing you should notice is that there isn't a lot of additional detail to this table beyond the original bare assertion about 99% of all women having used non-NFP contraception and 98% of Catholic women having done so (sometime, somewhere). About the only thing this adds is the total size of the population surveyed in the 2006-2008 large survey plus some alleged breakdowns by other religious groups (such as mainline and evangelical Protestants).

So this is a very, very slightly dressed-up version of the original assertion, made by people who are not the original researchers, based on data to which they are not giving the public access in any detail.

Oh, and one more thing to notice as a preliminary: This additional material was produced in haste, in the last couple of days, by the Guttmacher Institute, for an avowedly political purpose, in the midst of a political controversy over their previous unsubstantiated claims. Not exactly the sort of situation terribly conducive to scientific care, objectivity, and accuracy in the analysis of the NSFG data.

Okay, to further details. First, here are the...

Things we already knew that bear repeating

--Virgins are excluded. Since the claim was always about "women who have ever had sexual intercourse," virgins were always excluded. Still, it's worth noting again, since this is supposed to have something to do with whether people are following Catholic Church sexual teachings.

--Only women between the ages of 15-44 are included.

--The highest statistic given by Guttmacher and the administration (the "98% of [non-virgin, ages 15-44] Catholic women") is about whether women have ever used a method of contraception. Ever. As in perhaps only once. This is not about whether women (including Catholic women) are presently using contraception, about their on-going habits, about what they can be expected to continue doing. I noted this from the beginning, anticipating that perhaps the "ever-used" statistic would be something Guttmacher would try to double down on. Actually, current use is a much more interesting and pertinent thing to examine. A statistic based on tabulating data concerning what a woman has ever done over possibly decades of her life risks giving the impression that it describes behavior that is regular, typical and on-going when it could easily be including statistics about behavior that is, at most, occasional or sporadic, or even highly unusual or unrepeated. In the context of a public policy debate where the point is supposed to have something to do with women's on-going use for contraception, the pertinence of an "ever-used" statistic is dubious in the extreme. (It goes without saying that it is irrelevant to the religious liberty issue.)

This is especially noteworthy since the Guttmacher patter attempts to talk about future expectations in its conclusion:

Importantly, the vast majority of women who are at risk but are not using contraceptives have used a method in the past and will most likely do so again in the future.

Head-shaking is called for. This sentence occurs in the course of attempted damage control concerning the revelation that 11% of sexually active women who are "at risk of" pregnancy and aren't actively trying to get pregnant are nonetheless using no method of birth control. Whatever else it may do, a statistic about how many women have ever used contraception at any point in their lives tells us little about the conclusion, "Women not presently using contraception even though they are sexually active and not trying to get pregnant will most likely use contraception again in the future." Indeed, one can easily imagine situations in which a woman at one life stage used contraception but did not do so later (e.g., after marriage, after converting to Catholicism, after finding that she enjoyed motherhood, after deciding that her fertility wasn't all that high, after deciding that she doesn't enjoy using contraception, after realizing how much her husband wanted children, or whatever).

Rachel Jones is pretty adamant about not getting it on this point. In response to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post blog, she said,

But the policies being implemented right now are ones that don’t effect [elderly women]. Right here and now, we’ve got 98 percent who have ever used a contraceptive method. Those are who will be impacted by this

See what she is doing? She is assuming that a 44-year-old woman who has "ever used" contraception, perhaps decades ago, is more "Impacted" by legislation mandating funding for contraception now than an 89-year-old woman. How does that work? If neither woman wants contraception anymore, then even if the 44-year-old is still fertile, she has no more use than the 89-year-old has for contraception! Jones is absolutely insistent on assuming that if a woman has ever used contraception and is presently of child-bearing age, she will "need" it again. That simply doesn't follow.

It's not even scientific.

But there's more. There are also...

Reasons to think even this qualified and irrelevant statistic is at least somewhat inaccurate

That is, specific reasons, in addition to those already noted about the haste with which these "supplements" were produced and the political context.

Because we do not have anything like the underlying data on which this new little chart is based, and in particular don't have the religious data, it's impossible for the moment to do further checking directly on the claim about Catholic women.

What we do have, however, is this document, brought to my attention by a reader in an earlier thread. This CDC report apparently doesn't include any religious data (so Guttmacher is claiming to get that from unpublished stats). However, take a look at Table 1 on p. 18, concerning what methods all women have ever used to avoid pregnancy, and look at the column for the 2006-2008 survey, which is what Guttmacher claims to be basing its statement on. Behold! We do find that 99.1% of total women have "ever used" "any method" of contraception. We also find a list of "contraceptive methods" in the chart below.

The alert reader will notice that the listed percentages of women who have used methods sum to far more than 100%. That's to be expected, since we're looking at "ever-used" statistics. A woman might quite easily have used more than one "contraceptive method" and was permitted to list more than one. You will also notice that no overlap information is given, which makes it impossible to tell from this table what the probability was that, say, a woman would have ever used the birth control pill given that she had ever used NFP or vice versa. Which brings me to something very interesting indeed: Natural Family Planning is simply listed as another method of contraception!

What does this mean? This means that, while this table could portray a situation in which 99% of women in the survey had ever used non-NFP methods (including some who had also used NFP), this table from the CDC could also include women in the 99% total who had only ever used NFP.

There is quite a high percentage of women in table 18 from the CDC who had ever had sexual intercourse with a condom: That is 93%, the most popular non-NFP method listed. So this means that at least 93% of the women in the survey had "ever used" a non-NFP method--condoms, at least. The next most popular method was the birth control pill, at about 82%.

The point is, however, that the most one can say from table 18 is that 93% of women had definitely (ever, at some point in their lives) used a non-NFP method of contraception. Perhaps no more. Because the 99% is of "all methods" including NFP.

Is it possible that Guttmacher has some additional data, not available here, that gives them sufficient information to tell them for sure that the 99% really is entirely composed of women who "have ever used" non-NFP methods? It's possible. But look at table 53 in this 2002 CDC document on an earlier cycle of the NSFG. It has the same features--methods summing to more than 100%, no overlap data available, NFP counted as a "contraceptive method." I think this gives us some reason to believe that at some point along the line the Guttmacher tabulators simply didn't notice that NFP is being listed as a "contraceptive method."

How much would such a mistake have affected the 98% "ever used" claim for Catholics? Well, again, we don't know, because we don't have public data this detailed by religion. It seems not too implausible that, as in the actual published CDC documents, condoms would be the most popular "ever used" non-NFP method and that that number would be lower than the total "ever used" numbers. How much lower? Again, we don't know. Might the number of "ever used condoms" (in their lives) for Catholic women still be in the 90%'s? Yes, it might. But 98% sounds so cool...

One more point: Condoms are evidently the most popular non-NFP type of contraception in the "ever-used" statistics, but they are cheap and are not what we are hearing about as required insurance coverage, needed "medical care," etc. Withdrawal is also a popular method in the ever-used table, and is cost-free. These points are relevant to Rachel Jones's silly comment to Ezra Klein that 98% of Catholic women are "impacted" by this legislation on the basis of their past use, ever, of any contraceptive method.

Summary of chief points:

*"Ever-used" statistics are even more removed from relevance to public policy matters than current use statistics (and neither addresses religious liberty issues).

*The new brief chart just published by Guttmacher is little more than the original bare assertion by Guttmacher dressed up in little squares. Insufficient further data has been provided to allow us to check its accuracy, and its accuracy is at least somewhat called into question by the haste and the politicized context in which it was produced in response to a critique of the earlier document.

*A comparison to independently published data casts doubt on the 99% ever-used non-NFP Guttmacher claim for all women. There is some reason to believe that such a claim cannot be substantiated at above 93% (for condoms) for all women. This point puts question marks over the 98% "ever used non-NFP methods" for Catholic women as well.

Comments (97)

mportantly, the vast majority of women who are at risk but are not using contraceptives have used a method in the past and will most likely do so again in the future.

Once again, this "report" obliterates the distinction between data, reliable conclusions from data, and opinions about the data that are speculative. There is, simply, NO SOURCE for the "most likely" comment in the data. It is purely speculative.

Secondly, they insist on calling the category of women who may get pregnant "at risk" for pregnancy. Ummmmmm. Pregnancy is a normal, healthy, worthwhile and laudable condition. It is not inherently a thing to be avoided, which is what we usually mean by "risking" something.

But wait, they use the expression "unintended pregnancy" as the risk. But that's not what they actually mean, what they mean is "pregnancies in opposition to your hopes, in spite of your deciding to have sex." [They repeatedly insist on ignoring the category of people neither trying to get pregnant through sex and who are not trying to avoid pregnancy though having sex.] Since all forms of birth control (except for complete abstinence) have a failure rate, what that implies is "pregnancies that occur in opposition to your hopes even though you know perfectly well that you might be one of the so-called 'failures', and you are willing to take that chance because you INTEND to have sex, so the pregnancy that results isn't wholly unintended either."

And they still keep using the numbers for withdrawal in the "uses contraception" category even though this method uses nothing that you buy, nothing that insurance would cover. Politicization of statistics is alive and well at Guttmacher.

(It goes without saying that it is irrelevant to the religious liberty issue.)

The stubborn fact is that facts on the ground matter, or this case the facts in the pews. If the bishops have only a minority control over their own congregation, why would people of different religions or no religion consent to be held captive by their religious dogma?

That said, I agree with most of what you wrote, insofar as "ever used" is fairly misleading without any further explanation of when and why they used it or why they did or did not continue. At this point, they should have an independent accounting agency verify their statistical methods and their data, and to the extent possible release as much of the raw data the CDC will allow.

On the religious liberty issue, I will mischievously point out a reason to restrict that liberty previously written by yourself: We should disinvite Islam because too many Muslims in the West stubbornly refuse to assimilate or to assimilate fully and, by their refusal, succeed in changing and interrupting Western life in unacceptable ways.

So if Western life includes a very large percentage of people using contraception during some part of their reproductive years, let's say 90+%, should it be acceptable to curtail the liberties of groups that refuse to assimilate?

should it be acceptable to curtail the liberties of groups that refuse to assimilate?

I don't get it, Step. In fact, I would say that this whole brouhaha kind of supports my point about not bringing in unassimilable minorities: The bandwagon fallacy is pretty powerful. If something is taken to be widely accepted, then more people accept it. And that scales to some extent. Even some acceptance prompts more acceptance. So the more widely acceptable it comes to be to force your wife on pain of being beaten black and blue to wear the hijab, the more people will think it's no big deal. Think that is an unbelievable example? You should read what some feminists who are into multiculturalism write about FGM.

That, however, is definitely OT, so I'll leave it there.

and to the extent possible release as much of the raw data the CDC will allow.

CDC is a government agency, subject to Freedom of Information Act. If they released the data to people like Guttmacher, they have to release it to others. It is just the format that is the problem: nobody can force them to release it in a DIFFERENT format than they already made it available.

I wonder how much people will be horrified at how deeply the data goes, how far they are tracking our personal lives? Aahhh heck, this is the age of 'reality TV' where people hope to get their entire lives put into the public domain.

That said, I agree with most of what you wrote, insofar as "ever used" is fairly misleading without any further explanation of when and why they used it or why they did or did not continue.

Yes, I think it would increase their credibility if they stopped making the kinds of comments that Rachel Jones is making, which amount to insisting that "ever used" is this hugely relevant statistic about what people are likely to do in the future. Quietly dropping such claims, if not retracting them, would be wise.

At this point, they should have an independent accounting agency verify their statistical methods and their data, and to the extent possible release as much of the raw data the CDC will allow.

Even doing the extra work (but that would slow things down, wouldn't it?) to publish more detailed data would make a difference to the credibility, though the ever-used statistic would still remain irrelevant. However, if they want to _document_ that statistic better than they have yet done, for whatever they think it's worth, here's just one way to go about it. Go back to their data of non-virginal respondents, and break it down in the following way: Women (broken out by percentages from each religious group) who have never used any method of avoiding pregnancy at all. Next, respondents who have ever used only one method for avoiding conception, each method listed separately, laid out by percentages of each religion. This should include any respondents who said that they had only ever used NFP or calendar method. Those groups would all be non-overlapping. Next, respondents who said that they had ever used two or more methods of pregnancy avoidance. Total percentages for this category should first be laid out by religion, and separately, under that, they could do something similar to Table 18 in the CDC document, showing the popularity of various methods and allowing those numbers to sum to percentages above 100%.

This would show that, unless they were actually falsifying data (which I haven't accused them of and have no intention of accusing them of unless I get some far more striking evidence), they had actually taken cognizance of the possibility of an overlap of the sort I note in the main post and had avoided it and were actually looking for any women who had only ever used NFP.

It would also break out the rather eyebrow-raising claim in their latest table that 100% (!!), every last one, of the evangelical Protestant respondents have ever used some non-NFP method of contraception--a higher rate than the general populace.

One other oddity should probably be addressed: The total number of respondents given in the new little Guttmacher table is somewhat lower (by tens of thousands, if my math isn't off) than the total number of respondents for 2006-2008 as cited by the CDC in their "ever used" table. Why is that?

Yes, Tony, the CDC's .dat files are available to anyone for download for the 06-10 NSFG. If one has software for reading, tabulating, and manipulating .dat files, one can get all of those. One also has to know how to do something called "recoding." Right now, at any rate, I'm not up to that type of job.

There are additional CDC raw data files of answers taken by computer on topics that were considered especially sensitive. These are available only to researchers with institutional affiliation who write and request them on institutional letterhead and can spell out their institution's privacy protocols. I'm _somewhat_ inclined to think that the statistics about religion and contraceptive use are in the first set rather than the second set, but obviously I can't be sure.

Respondents were I think we can take it willing participants and were paid for their involvement. My impression is that the actual research was done by people with the University of Michigan. Nonetheless, I do agree that the sheer idea that _anyone_ would answer such interminable questions (I've read some of the questions now--those files are a little more easily available) on such intimate matters is pretty shocking.

Oh, for the previous suggestion for more detailed layout, scientific NFP and the calendar method should be treated as a single category, so that the "two or more methods" group would _necessarily_ include participants who had used some non-NFP method.

Oh, by the way, Step2, to answer you a little more seriously: One doesn't just curtail people's religious liberties because they won't get with the program. That would automatically mean that the Amish should be forced to buy cars because most people do! The key phrase in your summary of my position was "in unacceptable ways." As in my example about wife beating, FGM, and so forth. The trouble here is that making employers subsidize their employees' contraception is being elevated to a plane of importance that is just crazy, as if refusing to subsidize your employees' contraception is akin to putting them in a chain gang or kicking kittens or something. It's just not an example of "unacceptable behavior" to fail to subsidize your employees' lifestyle choices. This shouldn't even need to be said.

Hey, maybe I should get in on this thing. Maybe my husband's employer should be forced to buy me a new car...After all, most people in the U.S. own cars. And gas. I wonder how many people have "struggled" to buy gas in the last few years. With prices the way they are, I bet a lot. If some "green" employer objects, then I guess he wants to hold me captive to his religious dogma.

It is absurd for the liberals to claim that the Church is trying to "force" or "impose" its morality on people simply because it won't pay for people's pills and rubbers. And I have heard a lot of otherwise intelligent people make this claim. They are either a)deliberately and intentionally using the word "force" in an Orwellian manner so as to gain a rhetorical advantage or b)they are using the word "force" in a loosened Marxist sense that has been drained of all content and is of no moral significance. Either way, the underlying argument is absurd. The government is the one deploying all of the "force" here, and yet we are asked to believe that the Church is "forcing" people not to use contraception simply by not paying for it. Using this same "reasoning", the government is "forcing" poor people to abstain from alcohol because food stamps don't purchase liquor.

Untenured, I tell you in all solemnity, the insanity of people's whole economic and entitlement approach to this is very nearly as frightening, if not more frightening, in its own way than the religious liberty issue. And indeed, the two are related. When something out of the blue becomes "health care" and then from there becomes an entitlement for full subsidy by the private sector, we really are moving into an extremely strange and politicized version of a communistic society. I say that knowing that it will get ridicule from the word-monitors. "She said a cognate of 'communism'! She's crazy!" Heck, around here I have even been called out for using "socialism" to refer to the notion that all the wealth of a country is the common stock of "the people," so long as that is not accompanied by the explicit assertion that the state should own all the means of production!

But indeed it is true that what we have here is a kind of selective and coercive Marxism. Arbitrarily, a politicized list of goods and services are treated as entitlements and, as the comments in these threads show, as though they have _always_ been entitlements, rather than having been newly minted entitlements in just the past year. From there the step to, "You are coercing me if you don't pay for this for me so that it is free-to-me" is but a small step.

I am probably going to put up a post at Extra Thoughts on these more economic issues because, frankly, I am sick and tired unto death of dealing with crazy liberal commentators here at W4 who are the very occasion of my realization of the appalling, childish, hysterical, and reality-challenged views that people are coming out with on these economic and social issues, while pretending that these new entitlement demands are long-standing accepted American values.

The other thing that is slightly amusing about Guttmacher's methods is that they define the category of "women" as some male fantasy out of a lad mag -- 15-45, sexually active, not trying to get pregnant or had a baby in the last year. In other worlds -- [edited]. If you're not [edited], you don't count. [Good point, but needed to be edited. LM]

I'm of the opinion that dropping the 11% of women that use "no method" was an honest, though revealing, mistake. From Guttmacher/PP's perspective, it is simply absurd that a woman would be sexually active, not trying to get pregnant, and not using any form of birth control. So, they are forgotten, dropped, when it's time to compile statistics. They don't count, either.

Thank you for your analysis; I agree with you.

The researchers do have many weaknesses; we must remember to be kind to them. As St. Vincent De Paul once said, "You never know when you are looking at the next St. Augustine."

Your English degrees are better than mine and I in no way mean to seem needling or nit picky as I have written millions of grammatically incorrect statements, but I think it should be "Rachel Jones' silly comment" instead of "Rachel Jones's silly comment". Perhaps I am incorrect.

Thank you for writing about this.
Marty

So, let's see what we have here...

Many people have touted this 98% statistic over the past few months, and especially the past two weeks, pointing to the Guttmacher Institute study.

Looking into that study reveals that this 98% figure could be arrived at by a fairly simple misinterpretation of the data -- i.e. not accounting for women who use "no method" of birth control.

Upon people pointing this out, Guttmacher claims that despite the 98% figure being included in the document with that data, it was not based on that data, but on some other source of data that they can summarize but only they have access to.

--

Let's apply Occam's Razor -- which is more likely?

- That Guttmacher made a very embarrassing mistake in their original publication of the 98% figure, and rather than apologize, they are shuffling and counting on people to take their word for it.

- By sheer coincidence, the numbers you reach by dropping those who use "not method" of birth control in the data included with the original study is *exactly* the same number supported by this other source of data.

--

I suppose charity demands allowing for the second possibility. But Guttmacher has not earned my trust.

For all the hooplah, yours, politfacts and many other analyses of this particular statement, what I walk away with is this:

The VAST majority of religious women, sexually experienced or currently active, have at least ONCE in their lifetime, used a means of artificial birth control.

For all the nitpicking over the actual number THAT'S THE FACT THAT STANDS - and further, smacks the religious, anti-birth control advocates right upside the head. THIS FACT contradicts the espoused NEED to make birth control less available because of the faithful's morals and conscience.

The institution says once thing, it's members say - pardon me - DO another. The institutions need to take this whole situation and assess in light of what REALITY demonstrates.

The bible doesn't say anything about birth control. OTher than Onan shouldn't have spilled his seed on the ground.

Let's focus on THAT stated religious tenant for once, instead of making arguments to support an absence in the 'holy book'.

I find myself appalled and amazed by this discussion. To state that the statistic that 98% of women have "ever used" contraceptives as being irrelevant is incredibly ignorant. It implies that having access, even "just once" to contraception would not be important. It implies that my needs as a woman are going to stay THE SAME for MY ENTIRE LIFE, and any changes in my life or medical needs are irrelevant.

For your information, using contraceptives in the past, and not using them now, can be incredibly relevant. Perhaps I was in school before, getting skills for the job I need to be able to support my family. And now that I have a job and can support my kids, it's time to have them. If I had them early, I don't finish school and end up on welfare instead of supporting my kids.

Or perhaps I have a medical condition which required birth control pills to manage (of which there are many), and now I have a different doctor who is helping me find different ways to treat my disease.

Or perhaps I was in high school and had sex with my boyfriend once because I thought he loved me and I was foolish, and thank god we used a condom because he dumped me the next day. I learned my lesson... and was very thankful not to also be dealing with a risky teenage pregnancy on top of it.

Or perhaps I was involved in an abusive relationship and needed time to figure out how to get out of it, and also needed birth control to make sure that my abusive partner didn't also get a kid to beat up, and now that I'm in a stable, healthy relationship, it is safe for me to have children.

Or perhaps my husband lost his job and I needed to work for a time, and could not stop working to take maternity leave, but now he got a new job so he can go back to work and I can get pregnant.

Maybe I already have 4 children, and am barely scraping by with both myself and my husband working multiple jobs, and we can't afford a 5th child. Maybe our family is as large as we can care for. We didn't need contraceptives before, but now? Now it's time to protect the children we have, and make sure we can continue to care for them the way we should.

Or perhaps... or perhaps... or perhaps... There are a million different scenarios I could come up with, all of them based on real women who face real, non-permanent, life issues. Does life change? Yes. Do my needs, and the needs of my family change over time? Yes. Will my need for contraceptives change over my lifetime? Of course! The need to use it once during my life, to prevent a pregnancy at the wrong time, or with the wrong person, or in an unsafe situation, is enough to justify having access to it for my whole life. Particularly since we're talking about public policy, which won't be able to predict which women will need it at which times. It is women, with their families, who are qualified to make that choice for themselves. You ought to have nothing to do with their decision, unless you are also committed to taking care of their families for them.

Why the f$W%@$%$#@ do you think that my need for contraception would not change over the course of my life, as well? That is the stupidest argument, proposed by presumably smart people, that I have heard in a very, very long time.

MP,

That statistic was not deployed to demonstrate that people's contraceptive needs vary over the course of their lifetimes, or that they require access; it was deployed to demonstrate a disconnect between the Church teachings (shorthanded to the bishops) and the practice of Catholics. The message was that the religious principle involved is only supported by a tiny minority of a minority, chief among them a group of celibate men wearing funny outfits who enabled sexual abuse by priests, and thus is not worthy of respect. That is what is bogus, and that is what Lydia is responding to.

The Church teaches against lying. I strongly suspect most Catholics have lied at some point in their lives. That doesn't mean the Church can be pressured to support lying.

But John, you've just stated it wrong AGAIN. The data DOES demonstrate a disconnect between Church teachings and the practice of Catholics. That's a FACT. And, if the faithful aren't following the institutional directives or if only a tiny minority are, what in fact are the bishops, et. al, arguing the point for? Real life actions contradict the importance and relevancy of their position.

I offer no respect to those who willfully choose to ignore facts and the reality in front of them.

Further, the Church's position on birth control is an architected one, as the Bible has no stated position on controlling conception. I think 'don't lie and don't murder' are pretty clearly & consistently stated in the Bible. If there were regulations proposed against that, I think it would be pretty clear that the Bible as a final authority, clearly contradicts that activity. Whatever 'position' the Church stands for here is one borne of multiple interpretations and analysis on what an omnipotent being MIGHT think on this topic. Further, it's MALE positions on the topic, not FEMALE.

I think of this as much like the edict against eating meat on Friday (which was in place when I grew up and went away long ago). The Church ruling authorities came up with that, and then let it go (for whatever reason). It wasn't because the Bible said it.

Religious institutions need to let this go.

I will concede that FACT that the teaching against contraception is not strongly followed among the faithful.

The same is true, as I mentioned for lying.

You say that's different because there is Scriptural support for the Church's opposition to lying, but none for its support for birth control.

That may be a relevant data point for whether the Church should maintain the teaching, but irrelevant to the question of whether this a legitimate teaching of the Church that the government should not interfere with.

Having the government should not be proof-testing religious claims against the Bible would be an even greater violation of freedom of religion.

MP, I can't imagine with whom you think you are arguing. It is _my_ point (as you'll see in the main post) that people's approach to and desire for contraception change over their lives. It is _Guttmacher_ that is insisting that "once used, will use again." Not I.

Current use statistics, if done right (which I haven't been able to find yet) would of course pick up people who were using contraception at one time and would quit later (the students, people waiting to have children, etc.). If one is interested in "perceived need for" contraception (obviously, _real_ need evaluation will be partly a moral judgement), rightly done current use statistics should pick up what that is in today's society, among various religious groups, or what have you.

From all I've seen thus far (and I emphasize strongly, this is a _guess_, since the statistic I'm talking about has not been compiled) current use statistics for non-NFP contraception among all Catholic women of childbearing age, including the pregnant ladies, the nuns, the virgins, and the party girls, might be somewhere in the vicinity of 60-65%. Which is still 60-65% too many from the perspective of Roman Catholic moral teaching, but is a lot less exciting sounding than either 98% or 87%.

MP, let me illustrate what the implicit argument is, being made with Guttmacher's supposed statistic.

Catholic leaders claim that they need an exception to this rule because it violates their practice of religion. Well, they DON'T need an exception to the rule, because 98% of Catholic women (virtually all) use contraception, so requiring Catholic employers to pay for it doesn't enable the women to do anything they weren't already doing.

Yes, I know, there are at least 2 logical fallacies there BESIDES the issue of the statistic, but try, if you can, to ignore those and let's just look at the way the statistic supports the claim. Now, let's see how it looks when a more valid statistic is used:

Catholic leaders claim that they need an exception to this rule because it violates their practice of religion. Well, they DON'T need an exception to the rule, because 65% of Catholic women (virtually 2/3) use contraception, so requiring Catholic employers to pay for it doesn't enable the women to do anything they weren't already doing.

Seems to me that the second argument is visibly weaker than the first, because of the different statistic. THAT's why people were using the 98% figure, as a rhetorical tool.

In reality, of course, both versions of the argument fail on other grounds anyway. So even if the 98% figure were right, it still wouldn't prove that it is ok to push it on Catholic employers. But that's a topic for a different post.

And, if the faithful aren't following the institutional directives or if only a tiny minority are, what in fact are the bishops, et. al, arguing the point for? Real life actions contradict the importance and relevancy of their position.

Dorothy, let us suppose, to take an even more extreme case, that ALL 100% of Catholic women were using contraceptives. The bishop's position is that the law would STILL be a violation of religious liberty. Here's why: even if 100% of women are violating Catholic standards of behavior, it need not be the case that 100% of their employer's are required to cooperate with that wrongful behavior and thus participate in the evil that they do. The bishops are pointing out that the law is requiring of employers (some of them men, some of them women) that they PARTICIPATE in the evil that the women choose to do, thus become sinners themselves, violating their religious beliefs.

NOTHING about the Guttmacher study proposes to show that 100% of Catholic employers want to participate with, cooperate with women in ignoring Catholic standards of behavior on this. So nothing about the statistic, whether it is only slightly off or whether it is off by 30%, speaks to the question of whether the law ought to be requiring an action that (according to the bishops and 1900 years of consistent Church teaching) forces OTHERS, besides the women choosing to use the contraception, into wrong actions. LAWS SHOULD NOT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO VIOLATE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. This law requires employers to violate their religious beliefs.

You think that the bishops and other Catholics and Christians are

those who willfully choose to ignore facts and the reality in front of them

The reason they do this "ignoring" is that it isn't the women using the contraceptives whose religious beliefs are being violated. The law isn't requiring women to buy contraceptives, or to take them. They aren't the issue.

Mary, I'm old-fashioned. The rule is that for a singular noun ending in s with just a couple of exceptions (such as Jesus or Socrates) the possessive is formed by adding 's. Adding just an apostrophe, except in those few cases, is for plural nouns. "The dogs' supper" means the supper belonging to several dogs. Hence, "Jones' silly comment" would mean a silly comment belonging to several people named Jone. Which is absurd. QED.

End of spelling digression. :-)

Dorothy,

If you want to get into theological debate on this issue. You should know that the Bible does not mention Euthanasia, stem cells, or even how abortions are conducted, so a church cannot take a position on this issue?

In fact far from proving the church wrong, these stats prove them right. Artificial contraception places the entire burden of family planning on a woman, and when the birth control fails the responsibility of taking care of the unwanted pregnancy also falls on the woman.

NFP splits responsibility.

Have Catholics ever lied?

Yes.

Should they?

No.

Is there anything wrong with the Church's teaching against false witness?

No.

Have Catholics ever used contraception?

Yes.

Should they?

No.

Is there anything wrong with the Church's teaching against contraception?

No.

Am I missing something here? 1) Churches are not being made to offer contraceptive coverage for their employees. 2) Non-church religion-run organizations (e.g. hospitals, charities) are not being required to pay for contraceptive coverage for their employees. The insurance companies are being required to offer that coverage instead in these cases. 3) The insurance companies are willing to do this because it actually saves them money, so not even YOU the individual are paying for the coverage. 4)Nobody is making you use contraception if you don't want to. 5. The only attack on liberty that I can detect here is that there are people who seem to be seeking to limit MY coverage due to THEIR religious beliefs.

A few specific responses:

"One doesn't just curtail people's religious liberties because they won't get with the program. That would automatically mean that the Amish should be forced to buy cars because most people do!"

- nobody is forcing you buy contraceptives


"It is absurd for the liberals to claim that the Church is trying to "force" or "impose" its morality on people simply because it won't pay for people's pills and rubbers."

What is absurd is to try to try to claim that anyone is making the Church buy anything for anyone.


I think of this as much like the edict against eating meat on Friday (which was in place when I grew up and went away long ago). The Church ruling authorities came up with that, and then let it go (for whatever reason). It wasn't because the Bible said it.

A). Abstaining from meat on Friday is still the discipline during Lent. B.) It's what Catholics would understand as a discipline, meaning it is changeable. The teaching against contraception is a constant and binding teaching regarding moral behavior, and thus unchangeable. C). There is Biblical warrant for the teaching in the account of Onan. Of course modern pointy-headed theologians with an axe to grind tell us the account isn't about contraception, but what else is new? Please get informed and not be another dime-dozen commentor who is clueless about our position but still manages to confidently declare that we are laughably wrong.

@Savvy

I'm having a little trouble with your logic.

"In fact far from proving the church wrong, these stats prove them right. Artificial contraception places the entire burden of family planning on a woman....."

I believe that the church also opposes the use of condoms. Last time I checked, those were most effective when worn by the man.

Beyond that, one could also say that 'artificial contraception (non-condom division) gives the opportunity to the woman to take control of family planning.'


"...and when the birth control fails the responsibility of taking care of the unwanted pregnancy also falls on the woman. NFP splits responsibility."

You're going to have to explain this one to me. The fact that a couple is using NFP indicates that they don't want a pregnancy to occur (i.e. it is 'unwanted'). Do you have any evidence to back up the implied assertion that the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy fall any differently on the woman depending on whether the couple was or was not using contraception?

While I'm at it, I have a question of genuine curiosity that has been bothering me. What, exactly, is the theological argument against the use of contraceptives? More specifically, why does the church make a distinction between using a condom and using a 'natural' method such as rhythm or withdrawal? I both cases, the couple is trying to avoid pregnancy. The only difference I can see is that one set of methods are more effective than the other.

Daniel, under Judaism for 1400 years before Christ, and under Christianity since the beginning, withdrawal was always treated as a violation of God's intent for sexuality. The Church took her understanding of that and found that the same principles applied to other methods of having sex while preventing the natural development therefrom, i.e. contraceptive methods. You can read about the reasons in all sorts of places, notably Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and many other sources. There are plenty of Protestant sources as well (pre-1930, especially).

The Pill's legacy is well-established; abortion, divorce, embryonic research, sexually transmitted diseases and the degradation of the human being as little more than a commodity of tissue, organs and cells.

Hard to think of another scientific advance that has wrought so much destruction, other than the nuclear bomb.

Love as voluntary self-gift was replaced by the desire for mastery and control and we became little more than slaves to passions and processes.

I'd prefer the thread not become a discussion of the morality of contraception.

Daniel, I and many others have answered the administration's deceptive baloney sausage to the effect that insurance companies and "not employers" are allegedly going to be required to give out the contraception free. And by the way, that's just a new verbal promissory note, not a change in the text of the law. But even if that promissory note is codified later, it is a bait and switch. I have addressed it in a post called "The Administration's Bait and Switch." And use Mr. Google. You can find many other people who have addressed it, including Yuval Levin. You can Google that, too. The bottom line is: The employers are being forced to purchase insurance plans which cover contraceptives for the employees.

That would automatically mean that the Amish should be forced to buy cars because most people do!

Let me take that comparison out for a test drive, so to speak. It would actually be like Amish leaders saying that they refuse to pay any taxes for "modern roads" because they've got horses and carriages to get along quite nicely, thank you very much. But then some intrepid liberal goes looking in their barns and lo and behold, over half of them currently own cars. Another significant portion admit that they at one time or another they rented a car, but it was only because they didn't have weeks to spend in travel time.

It's just not an example of "unacceptable behavior" to fail to subsidize your employees' lifestyle choices.

Perhaps, but I only view this as a minor curtailment of religious liberties. Besides that, the Amish have deliberately segregated themselves from society for the express purpose of maintaining their unique social structure, but the bishops want to stay integrated with the world but only on their terms. It's an entitlement mindset you might say.

@Gino McCarthy

The Pill's legacy is well-established; abortion, divorce, embryonic research, sexually transmitted diseases and the degradation of the human being as little more than a commodity of tissue, organs and cells.

That is quite a list of assertions you have stated there. Care to provide any evidence for any of them? In my particular field, a claim by someone that something is "well-established" is generally code for "I didn't do my homework, so I have no idea whether or not there is any basis for this, but if I say it's 'well-established', probably nobody will ask me about it. "

Hard to think of another scientific advance that has wrought so much destruction, other than the nuclear bomb.

Actually, not really. Nuclear bombs have killed about 300,000 people in history. Far more died during the Crusades. Gunpowder killed far more, as has the discovery of how to temper metal. The gathering of people into cities can account for maybe 75 million deaths, if you count only one aspect of that change. The Pill? Not so much. I suppose that by 'destruction', you are including you list from above, but, well, like I said, i'll wait for the evidence of that before deciding.

Love as voluntary self-gift was replaced by the desire for mastery and control and we became little more than slaves to passions and processes.

I'm pretty sure that I don't know what this means. Desire of mastery and control derives from the pill? How? What processes? How am I a slave? When ever was love a voluntary self-gift?

@Lydia

I will go use Mr. Google before commenting on that issue further.

Step2, we discussed the tax issue on another thread. Some people have argued that the bishops are somehow inconsistent for not urging tax revolt given that taxes are used to pay for contraception. Indeed, taxes _are_ used to pay for that. In large quantities, both here and abroad. Also for abortions and many other things.

I disagree with the analogy. Certainly, it's legitimate to lobby for tax dollars not to go to things one thinks evil. However, if one's lobbying is unsuccessful and the tax dollars still go for those things, I do not think one is then in conscience bound to engage in tax revolt.

The Obama mandate is far more directly aimed at the Catholic institutions and asks them to be involved in providing contraceptives in a more direct way than simply by paying taxes. It demands that they provide insurance policies to their employees which insurance policies provide contraception and sterilization.

I agree with the bishops that this is, given their moral commitments, a reasonable place for them to draw the line.

The fact that a lot of people in America use contraception, that it is widely socially accepted, simply doesn't place an onus on them to provide these insurance policies.

I would say that I find it difficult to understand how this came to be a matter of such urgency, except that some of the comments on this thread make it all too clear. Basically, it's a thirteen-year-old entitlement mindset focused obsessively on sex. "I have a right to do what I want, especially about sex, and I have a right to have someone else pay for it." It's utterly absurd, as is any analogy between not wanting to subsidize Sally's birth control pills and "unacceptable behavior" by religious minorities, of which I have given examples already.

I stand by my comments above on that topic and won't repeat them. I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself.

Also, Step2, I brought up the Amish only in response to your question about people who "won't assimilate." When I, at least, bring that up as a problem, I'm talking about _problematic behaviors_. I'm not just talking about being different in any way whatsoever. That was the only point of my comment about the Amish. My point was merely that when I raise worries about groups that won't assimilate, I'm not saying, "Everyone has to be the same in all respects whatsoever. If you won't get on Facebook, you should be forced to do it, because everyone is doing it." I'm raising concerns about problematic behaviors, dangers, and so forth. Refusing to subsidize contraception just doesn't _begin_ to fall into such a category, and no matter how popular contraception is, it still doesn't begin to fall into that category.

@Daniel,
The Pill set the stage for abortion, in fact abortion was originally sold as "emergency or back-up contraception."

The Pill "liberates" women ( a certain kind of male peddles this line) we are told; "safe sex" can be had before marriage, during marriage or outside of marriage. The result; a weakening of marriage and the escalation in divorce rates. And illegitimacy and all the pathologies that go with it.

Love is a gift of the self to another. Chemically altering the body of a partner or one's self is about control. I would think The Pill would be regarded as an enemy by all those who pay homage to nature, but what we really want is to master the environment and everyone in it. The logic of The Pill leads to discarded unborn babies, designer babies through embryonic research and destroyed families through conditional love and promiscuity. Quite a legacy.


@Gino

The Pill set the stage for abortion, in fact abortion was originally sold as "emergency or back-up contraception."

1) Wow. Bad facts AND bad logic. Abortion pre-dates the pill, so the latter could not have ‘set the stage’ for the former.

2) Even if it’s true that abortion was ‘sold’ as emergency contraception (and I’d like to see the source for that), one could only use that ‘fact’ as evidence that abortion set the stage for the pill (as in: Hey! Here is a contraceptive method that doesn’t require an abortion.) You might as well also assert that you should stockpile a lot of hay for your automobile, because horses were also a method of transportation.

3) Whether you agree with the morality of its use or not, it is hard to argue with the fact that a successful use of the pill can only prevent a later abortion, not lead to one.

The Pill "liberates" women ( a certain kind of male peddles this line) we are told; "safe sex" can be had before marriage, during marriage or outside of marriage. The result; a weakening of marriage and the escalation in divorce rates. And illegitimacy and all the pathologies that go with it.

We, plus a whole army of sociologists and religious scholars could argue the point of whether use of the pill weakens marriage, until all the cows come home a million times, and not prove it one way or the other. I happen to think its bullcrap, but you are welcome to believe what you want. What is interesting to me about your statement is that it actually supports what is my main supposition in these contraceptive arguments: that this is not so much about ‘religious liberty’ as it is about you wanting to impose your ideas about morality on me; i.e. the opposite of religious liberty.

The logic of The Pill leads to discarded unborn babies,

…except that the pill prevents pregnancy, doesn’t cause it.

designer babies through embryonic research

….which isn’t actually happening, and even if it were, it’s hard to see what it has to do with the pill…

and destroyed families through conditional love and promiscuity.

…again, bring on that army of sociologists…

Okay, I said already once that I really would rather this thread didn't become a debate about the morality of contraception. I do actually mean that. Post authors around here have leeway to guide the direction of comment discussions. This is addressed to both Gino and Daniel. Thanks, gentlemen.

Lydia - Daniel makes one valid point; the religious liberty aspect is not the only one worthy of consideration. The Catholic Church can rightly assail Obama's crude assault on the freedom of religion on Constitutional grounds, but it will be of very limited, short-term utility if the logic and consequences of The Pill are not a major part of the conversation. A teaching moment has arrived and even allies of the Church may have to give a fair hearing to a viewpoint that makes them uncomfortable.

Not in this thread. Unless we consider that you have already had a fair hearing, since I didn't delete the above exchanges.

@Lydia,

Okay, I said already once that I really would rather this thread didn't become a debate about the morality of contraception. I do actually mean that. Post authors around here have leeway to guide the direction of comment discussions. This is addressed to both Gino and Daniel. Thanks, gentlemen.

Yes I saw that. You might not have noticed that I was not really addressing the morality of contraception . But I do admit that I am weak when it comes to the avoidance of attacking specious arguments. I just can’t seem to resist, regardless of the topic.
But since I was not talking about the morality of contraception, I have to assume that your addressing this to me personally represents a request to not stray from the topic of your post at all. In deference to your request, I will refrain from attacking Gino’s latest unsupported assertion, or to try to decode further the word salad he has presented to us most recently.

I will say, however, that the reason that this tread seems to be drifting appears to be far more interesting than the topic of your original post. I think that this is for two reasons: First, the point is made regardless of whose numbers you take. Guttmacher was basically right. So were you. It all depends on what study population you choose to highlight. But whether it was 98% of sexually active Catholic women who have ever used non-NFP methods at some point in their lives, or 68% of currently sexually active Catholic women trying to avoid pregnancy who are using a ‘highly effective method’ (the pill, sterilization or IUD), the point is: the majority of sexually-active Catholic women are using non-NFP contraception. Second, whatever this percentage, it is only tangentially relevant to the real issues here. Sure, I suppose it makes some political points if one’s objective is to point out that the Bishops are trying to impose some rules on everyone that even their own flock won’t follow, but in the larger issues, it’s kind of tangential. Unfortunately, I can’t really expand upon what I think the real issues are here, for fear of running afoul of your thread-drift dictates. I’ll just point out that Hitler got his start trying to control thread drift (that’s a joke).

Lydia, I’m sure you are aware that there are other intrinsic evils that the bishops could logically exclude if this tactic succeeds, for example refusing to provide pregnancy coverage for unwed females (also a lifestyle choice), with normal out of pocket costs ranging from $6,000-$12,000. I seriously doubt you can provide a substantial reason known fornication is less morally objectionable than contraception.

Furthermore, any compensation at all could in some ways be called "subsidizing a lifestyle". So unless they have a morals clause in their employment contracts, I don't know how any employer (secular or religious) is able to avoid the accusation of funding these extracurricular activities.

Gino, I'm only providing links in order to avoid getting caught in the threadjack and to give you some better information.
http://www.salon.com/1999/07/01/fennel/singleton/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce

@Daniel - it is true, the Catholic Church has many adherents with a faith as hollow as yours. From that we are to conclude the State is right to coerce those who remain faithful to be complicit in something we hold to be evil. Exactly what, if anything separates you from a totalitarian? Besides of course, your own well-known noble intentions and advanced intelligence?

Just come out and admit it; there is not a single associative institution (churches, voluntary organizations, schools) you believe should be allowed to dissent from your ideology. You feel relieved of the pretense of tolerance and others will admire your candor.

Out with it. You'll feel better, without actually being so.

for example refusing to provide pregnancy coverage for unwed females

You can do better than that, Step2. Really, you can. Do I have to spell this out? Getting prenatal care and attendance for the birth of a baby is not an intrinsically wrong act. On the Catholic view, which one ought at least to _understand_ if one is talking about this, using contraception _is_. Hence, by subsidizing the latter they are subsidizing an actual act and activity that is, on their view, intrinsically wrong. Going to the doctor for monthly prenatal visits isn't. In fact, caring well for oneself and the unborn child is actually a _duty_ on a pro-life view, inasmuch as one is able, however one came to be pregnant in the first place.

If you want a better example, refusing to fund fertility treatments that include in vitro fertilization would be a better example, since performing IVF is, on the Catholic view, an intrinsically wrong way to produce a new human being. I'm sure that serious Catholic institutions want health care plans that don't cover IVF, and understandably so.

I'm so confused! First you don't want the thread to go near a discussion of the morality of contraception and then you engage Step2 in a discussion on the morality of contraception.

Does this mean that I have your tacit permission to respond to Gino's latest nonsense?

@Daniel: "1) Wow. Bad facts AND bad logic. Abortion pre-dates the pill, so the latter could not have ‘set the stage’ for the former."

The iPad, a type of tablet computing device, set the stage for popular tablet computing although tablet computers themselves predate the iPad by at least 10 years. There are in fact people who discovered the iPad, found it lacking or had it fail them and then moved onto full tablet computers. It's not illogical to say that the pill popularised abortion and expanded the market for it, even though the pill actually followed abortion by hundreds of years.

@Pete: So tablets set the stage for tablets? I'll give you this: A=A is not a logically fallacious argument, although it is a somewhat futile one. I would propose the alternate and more sensible analogy that 'personal computers set the stage for tablet computers, and when they were introduced, the sales of traditional PC's went down (kind of like the pill reduces abortions)'. But hey, analogies are by their nature only approximations of the reality they are meant to illustrate, and thus, it's generally fairly easy to poke a hole in one if you are so inclined. But for yours to be at all apt, one would have to suppose that of the 5ish% of women who become pregnant while taking the pill, that a greater percentage of those would go on to have an abortion than would have had they gotten pregnant while using some other method. We don't need to worry about the 95% of pill-taking women who didn't get pregnant. None of them will be having abortions.

But analogies are of limited use because they themselves are not arguments. They are but an attempt to help someone better understand your argument. So how about this? During it's first decade-plus of use, a time when it was used by millions, the abortion rate stayed flat. During the 1970's, during a health scare caused by concerns about the pill's side-effects, it's use declined, but the abortion rate increased. During the past decade, while introduction of new formulations resulted in renewed popularity of the pill, the abortion rate decreased. So while one can assert that use of the pill leads to more abortions, these data, along with the fact that every time the pill prevents a pregnancy, it removes one potential chance to have an abortion, argue for an inverse correlation, if any, between the pill and abortion rates.

@Lydia: Please note that I am not addressing the morality of contraception. Honestly, I'm not all that interested in the question of the morality of contraception. When it comes to morality, I pretty much believe 'to each his own'. Contrary to Gino's assumptions about me, I'm all for dissent. I believe that people, churches, voluntary organizations, etc. should hold whatever belief pleases them, and that they should just go ahead and shout it from the rooftops (schools, maybe not so much, but only for the semantic reasons that I find it difficult to imagine a school voicing an opinion). What I'm interested in is having a Church, religious organization, religious charity etc., not impose its morality on me. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. It also annoys me when organizations and their adherents go around screaming that their rights are being violated when they are not. They can, of course, voice that opinion, but I don't have to like it. The fact that I don't like it does not make me anti-church, it just means I disagree with something they are doing.


No, I've been discussing for quite some time with Step2 the question of whether the Obama mandate is a reasonable imposition on Catholic institutions. This is related to the fact that Catholics _believe_ contraception to be intrinsically immoral but not to the question of whether it actually _is_ intrinsically immoral, nor to arguments pro or con on that question. The fact that Catholic teaching is that contraception is intrinsically immoral was relevant to Step2's poor analogy to withholding prenatal care for out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

I really do think sometimes that people find distinctions hard to make.

Lydia,
Fair enough, it isn't a Catholic view, but it is a "violation of conscience" that other groups could and would take, especially if there is a monetary incentive involved to be as restrictive on coverage as they can. If they truly view fornication as a terrible sin, and very many conservative do, then enabling the result of that sin is at least arguably complicity in that evil, to use Gino's words. Surely you aren't going to say that only Catholic groups get to decide which actions violate a person's conscience or even that Catholics can only dispute intrinsic evils when it comes to subsidizing a lifestyle.

If you want a better example, refusing to fund fertility treatments that include in vitro fertilization would be a better example, since performing IVF is, on the Catholic view, an intrinsically wrong way to produce a new human being.

I'm also under the impression they view fornication as an intrinsically wrong way to produce a new human being. Apparently all of that sin disappears once the embryo is conceived. Admittedly my personal bias is showing, but what part of no required penalty for an intrinsic evil is supposed to make sense?

then enabling the result of that sin is at least arguably complicity in that evil,

No, it really isn't. I mean, I don't know how much clearer I can make this. You're just being illogical. I can't imagine anyone saying that going to a doctor for prenatal visits is evil.


Apparently all of that sin disappears once the embryo is conceived.

Again, illogical. The child and mother need medical care. Getting that medical care isn't sin.

no required penalty for an intrinsic evil is supposed to make sense

The Church's position isn't that one shouldn't use contraception because one should "suffer a penalty for intrinsic evil." After all, the Catholic view bans contraceptive use even within marriage, where the sexual act isn't itself viewed as wrong.

A baby isn't a penalty. You sure are letting your personal bias show, to the point of reasoning illogically.

The original argument was that “In fact, 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lifetimes.” The Guttmacher report supports that. She didn't specify women who have had sex. But she didn't make a claim about current sexual activity or continued use. At worst it's over-specific and somewhat vague. But it is a true statement.

As for the debate of Christian affiliated businesses not wanting to cover contraceptives, I have a problem with the logic. First, Obama isn't making the organization pay for contraceptives. Second, they aren't actual religious institutions, just affiliated. I would make the argument that, say, a tech company could call themselves "Christian" and somehow get out of covering reproductive health services is a ridiculous proposition. I would also argue that not all employees of a religious affiliated company are themselves religious. So, what should stop them from gaining affordable access? Further, some contraceptives, the pill in particular, are used beyond contraception. They are often used to treat ovarian and uterine ailments such as poly-cystic ovarian disease, which can be horribly painful and lead to loss of ovaries.

I have no intention of forcing a religious organization to embrace something it believes is wrong. But, I don't think religious affiliated organizations should be able to deny a non-religious employee affordable access to reproductive health.

The child and mother need medical care. Getting that medical care isn't sin.

I'm not saying it is a sin for them to receive medical care, just that who should pay for it is the essence of your entire argument. Why should her employer be responsible for her need, given the evil circumstances of how that need arose?

My personal bias is that while a large degree of flexibility is necessary to get along in a diverse and complicated world, at the end of the day some minimal rules have to apply. Rules that are routinely broken without penalty are not rules at all.

The Church's position isn't that one shouldn't use contraception because one should "suffer a penalty for intrinsic evil."

Then why use all the language of penalty: mortal sin, grave evil, etc.? It doesn't make sense to talk about it in those terms and then nonchalantly dismiss it as not being worthy of penalty.

Brian,

1. The text, but not the date, in the report supports that. An incorrect reading of the data (dropping the 11% who use "no method" of birth control) would support the assertion in the text. When this was pointed out, Guttmacher said that the 98% number was not based on the data in the report, but on some other data they summarized in a table. I'm dubious.

2. As far as I know, all current Catholic plans have specific exceptions for theraputic use of contraceptive medications, and the mandate was specific to their use as contraceptives, so that is not a relevant consideration for the current discussion.

3. What should stop them from "gaining affordable access" is that they are asking it from an entity that is morally opposed to it. They can gain affordable access by working for someone else, or you can help them get affordable access by starting up a fund for them.

My personal bias is that while a large degree of flexibility is necessary to get along in a diverse and complicated world, at the end of the day some minimal rules have to apply. Rules that are routinely broken without penalty are not rules at all.

I'm not sure why that "penalty" must include actions that will also harm an innocent child.

Brian,

I thought I'd jump in as I suspect Lydia is pulling her hair out right now ;-)

1) "She didn't specify women who have had sex. But she didn't make a claim about current sexual activity or continued use. At worst it's over-specific and somewhat vague. But it is a true statement." First of all, I have no idea what an "over-specific" claim is supposed to be. Second of all, a claim that is "somewhat vague" is not a true statement -- either it is clear and true or clear and false. If the statement is vague, we have no idea of knowing one way or the other other whether the statement is true or not.

Lydia has explained in careful detail how the original statement was just not accurate and now the clarifications, while helpful is some respects, still leave many confusions left.

2) Forcing an employer to purchase insurance that covers procedure X or Y is functionally the equivalent to forcing the employer to pay for procedure X or Y. I'm not sure why you don't understand that.

3) A "Christian affiliated business" is actually defined in the law as a business having a religious identity as a result of its mission or purpose. For example, a religious hospital, for example a Catholic hospital, was created with the express purpose of carrying out Christ's mission to heal the sick. Therefore, their religious identity is important to what they do in a way that is not important in the same way that a small tech company's religious identity might be.

4) However, if you were a Catholic business owner and ran a small tech company, if this mandate applied to your company (I'm not sure it does -- Obamacare has so many regulations it is hard to keep up with which ones apply to which employers) then I would argue you should also be free from having to cover a procedure that violates your deeply held religious beliefs.

5) Women don't need the pill (if there really are health situations in which the pill is needed, then I'm sure the Catholic Church and others would be O.K. with the use of those drugs for those healing purposes). Stop calling the pill "reproductive health" as if women who want to buy the pill using their employer's money have some sort of special right to do so. It betrays an entitlement mentality and suggests that the world will come to a screeching halt if somehow a woman somewhere doesn't have "affordable access" to the pill. That is the only ridiculous proposition being discussed here.

No, I've been discussing for quite some time with Step2 the question of whether the Obama mandate is a reasonable imposition on Catholic institutions. This is related to the fact that Catholics _believe_ contraception to be intrinsically immoral but not to the question of whether it actually _is_ intrinsically immoral, nor to arguments pro or con on that question. The fact that Catholic teaching is that contraception is intrinsically immoral was relevant to Step2's poor analogy to withholding prenatal care for out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

I see the distinction. So as long as we confine the discussion to what people believe about the immorality of contraception but not why they might or might not believe that, we are on safe ground. It reminds me a little bit about the old baseball joke. After what he believes to be a bad call, the manager runs up to the umpire. The umpire says "If you call me an idiot again, I'll throw you out!".
"What if I just believe you are an idiot?"
"I guess I can't throw you out for that."
"Well, then, I believe you are an idiot!"

I would make the argument that, say, a tech company could call themselves "Christian" and somehow get out of covering reproductive health services is a ridiculous proposition.

Others have said other things for me, so I'll just leave their excellent comments. Y'all see this? See my personal blog for my post on the entitlement mindset. It's crazy. Suddenly it's this prima facie entitlement for an employer to cover contraception, such that we have to scrutinize everyone's reasons. God forbid that such a horrible thing should happen as that someone should "get out of" this too easily. Why, why, that would be just terrible! Ridiculous! Mumblemumble, well, yes, there are perfectly ordinary secular employers all over the country who don't cover health insurance at all, or whose plans treat contraception as a lifestyle drug and hence don't cover it, but nonetheless it's *obviously an entitlement*! Why, it's part of the American way!

Contrary to Gino's assumptions about me, I'm all for dissent. I believe that people, churches, voluntary organizations, etc. should hold whatever belief pleases them, and that they should just go ahead and shout it from the rooftops

Daniel - working for faith-based organizations, schools, hospitals and associations are all choices voluntarily made by private individuals. Anyone who wants to dissent from the doctrines of these organizations can do so; but on their own dime and time. To compel the faithful members of these organizations to subsidize the dissenters is a raw act of bigoted thuggery.

Buy The Pill. Hand it out on the sidewalk. Give the gift that prevents giving to everyone you know. Just don't think you can compel those who find such behavior evil to pay for it without being called out in the starkest terms.

On the plus side of your argument,is a strong desire to de-link the Pill from it's many fruits; promiscuity, divorce, abortion and eugenics. Can't say I blame you. Liberation and Progress shouldn't look so broken, ugly and deathly.

If neither woman wants contraception anymore, then even if the 44-year-old is still fertile, she has no more use than the 89-year-old has for contraception! Jones is absolutely insistent on assuming that if a woman has ever used contraception and is presently of child-bearing age, she will "need" it again. That simply doesn't follow.
Does TOO follow. Long establish medical SCIENCE states that contraception prevents a host of diseases, like cancer, in all women, so also in 44 year old women, who are still fertile. It stands to reason that since an 89 year old women is not and hasn't been fertile for a long time, whatever diseases she will get, won't be related to being fertile. Jones is even understating her case, because ALL fertile women benefit from using contraceptive drugs. Not just those who have used it once.

But to get your knickers all twisted about the "ever used" phrasing: that's probably done to include young teens who just got started on the pill, have had sex just once.
If a 15 year old had had sex and was smart enough to use condoms, she's included. Which seems to me a good thing.

I'm just baffled at the hypocrisy: whatever measure you use, a stark majority of Catholic women use contraceptive measures.
All selective indignation seems hot air to me: what is immoral about using condoms?

Stop insinuating that condoms/the pill and abortion are the same, or come down to the same thing.

On the contrary, abortion will rise if contraception decreases
and do we really want to saddle women with kids they can't care for? We can't all be millionare Repubes with seven kids...

[We do not appreciate and will not tolerate gratuitous, nasty, personal attacks on this blog such as the one I have edited out here. Yes, even if those attacks are against people who aren't actually at this blog. Bag it or be banned. LM]

blah blah entitlement mindset
That whole tax-exempt status thing is TOO an entitlement! American miss out millions of tax-dollars because churches are tax-exempt.

If you're against "entitlements" and not just entitlements for people you don't like, like the poor, the handicapped, the ones on Medicare, etc. would you support revoking tax-exempt status for all religious organizations?

There are in fact insurance companies that will for a _verified_ purely medical, non-contraceptive need, cover birth control pills. Since health insurance isn't an entitlement anyway, I don't actually think there is any requirement even to allow this, but I imagine Catholic agencies would have fewer objections on purely religious grounds if the mandate were thus restricted.

As numerous demands and comments make clear, including your own, however, that is not the whole of the scope of the demand. The demand is for *specifically contraceptive* provision of such drugs and services, such as sterilization. Obviously, it was to contraception qua contraception that my comment about the 44-year-old woman and the 89-year-old woman referred.

But you need to control yourself. My tolerance level for trollish rants has been seriously eroded by the comments I have gotten on this subject.

@ Gino

In deference to LM's preference, I'm not going to continue to debate you on the morality of contraception.

To compel the faithful members of these organizations to subsidize the dissenters is a raw act of bigoted thuggery.

I have presented evidence, for example that abortions rates don't positively correlate with contraceptive use, and the obvious fact that prevented pregnancies can't be aborted. I find that when the response to evidence is overhead rhetoric, then the responder has pretty much run out of ammunition. It kind of reminds me of the arguments I have with my conservative cousin, the one who likes to invoke 'union thuggery', but can't actually present any examples of same, except of course for the ones that involve palm trees in Wisconsin.

I will address your subsidization argument. It's not happening. The insurance company is picking up the tab. They will not pass the tab on to you because it actually saves them money to offer contraception. It also saves them money to not have to administer different plans to different people. So you're not paying for it. You could even argue that people not wanting that coverage should be required to pay more because they are a greater cost-risk to the insurer. In fact, most insurance plans already cover contraceptives. I will say, in anticipation, that I know that LM does not agree with the former. She is not persuaded. Likewise, I'm not persuaded by her arguments in another post on this subject. But if, in fact, this coverage incurs no cost to those who don't want it, whatever their reason, then the issue becomes not one of violation of your religious rights, but rather an attempt to limit someone else's coverage based on moral grounds.

As for a loss of tax exempt status of churches - it would be fun to argue about, but kind of pointless...never going to happen.

They will not pass the tab on to you because it actually saves them money to offer contraception.

It's so funny that they never figured this out before...the secular ins. companies even had to be forced by laws to offer contraception coverage in the past.

I'll add this, though, Daniel: You've been a bit snarky in other comments, but I do at least appreciate your explicit acknowledgement that I've addressed this matter elsewhere. As I just said on another thread, one of the most frustrating things is a commentator's blithely talking like he's coming up with something brand new that one has to address now, even if one's already addressed it, even repeatedly, before.

Daniel - The Pill shaped the ethos that made the "Sexual Revolution" possible and it's barbaric safety-net of abortion, inevitable. You refuse to see the obvious connection and I think that speaks well of you, but you really should try to confront the reality of social conditioning.

The Church's insurance providers have to offer contraception coverage to her employees. This kind of economic coercion used to compel ideological conformity is called "soft totalitarianism." Wing-tips are less ominous than jack-boots and a Vichy Church is preferrable to one offering up martyrs and prophetic witness. Cesar knows his history.

@Lydia

Daniel: You've been a bit snarky in other comments,

I won't deny that. I've noted a bit of the same in some of your arguments. I'd maintain that there is nothing wrong with a little snark, so long as it is directed at a person's argument and not at the person themselves. Sometimes nothing makes the point as well as a little snark.


It's so funny that they never figured this out before...the secular ins. companies even had to be forced by laws to offer contraception coverage in the past.

Well, actually they have figured this out before. Most medical insurance plans with coverage for medications do cover contraception, albeit with a co-pay. The major difference here is that they will now offer it without a co-pay. Naturally, profit-driven insurers are going to be more in favor of providing a coverage that saves them money and for which they can also get a co-pay, but given that it still saves them money without the co-pay, they are willing to go along with it.

One could argue that the insurance companies eating the co-pay is some kind of affront, but (this snark is not addressed to you), but this hardly amounts to jack-booted brownshirts hauling Jews away to the railroad cars. I'm not further addressing your 'bait and switch' argument because it is a strongly-held belief of yours, for which you have argued cogently. I disagree for the most part with those arguments, but I can't imagine anything I have to say about it will change your mind. This means that the argument has only the purpose of sport, and while fun for awhile, it gets boring after a while, so I'll probably just leave it at this.

@Gino


Daniel - The Pill shaped the ethos that made the "Sexual Revolution" possible and it's barbaric safety-net of abortion, inevitable. You refuse to see the obvious connection and I think that speaks well of you, but you really should try to confront the reality of social conditioning.

In my life, I've found that the worst directions end with: 'it's obvious! You can't miss it!' It's the same with arguments.


The Church's insurance providers have to offer contraception coverage to her employees. This kind of economic coercion used to compel ideological conformity is called "soft totalitarianism." Wing-tips are less ominous than jack-boots and a Vichy Church is preferrable to one offering up martyrs and prophetic witness. Cesar knows his history.

Actually, I believe that the church's providers don't have to offer this coverage. It's the church-affiliated organizations like hospitals and charities. And honestly, I still can't find the coercion in here. The church isn't paying, nobody is forcing anyone to take a contraceptive if they don't want to, and it saves the insurance companies money. I don't even see ideology as the driving force here. The Institute of Medicine, the Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Public Health Association have all offered solid medical and public health reasons why universal contraceptive coverage is advantageous.


I believe that the church's providers don't have to offer this coverage. It's the church-affiliated organizations like hospitals and charities.

Oh, you should said so at the beginning; it is only the faithful who finance or work at Church charities that have to betray their consciences!

And honestly, I still can't find the coercion in here.

Of course not. Your self-image won't allow for it. Liberalism has to maintain the fiction of being an open-minded creed of tolerance while simultaneously suppressing any individual or institution that dissents from it's squalid doctrines, I mean empirically proven scientific truths.

Cue up John Lennon's "Imagine" as we find more tolerance on display north of the border;

“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,” Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications, told LifeSiteNews on Wednesday evening.

“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” she added.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-homeschooling-families-cant-teach-homosexuality-a-sin-in-class-sa?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com%20Daily%20Newsletter

@Gino,

I made a good attempt to figure out what you just said has to do with the issue at hand, or how it makes any sense in a larger context, or at all. I gave up.

Most medical insurance plans with coverage for medications do cover contraception, albeit with a co-pay.

I don't know about most, but to some extent, even the truth of that statement depends on the fact that laws have been passed in various states requiring it, usually on the basis of some kind of feminist political argument: "You don't care enough about women if you don't provide this." Actually, plenty of liberals have acknowledged that the change has been fairly dramatic and has been to no small extent driven from the top down, not because one fine morning the previously stupid actuaries woke up and figured out that having fewer people = saving money and therefore started providing contraception coverage. After all, if average family sizes increased, they could also increase premiums for families (which are usually different from premiums for an individual anyway). No, this is not just something that has happened osmotically because "it's cheaper for the insurance companies."

At least 26 states requires contraceptive coverage in health plans. Most women in the US have contraceptive coverage in their health plans, according the to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and a Kaiser Family Foundation study in 2010 found that 85% of large firms cover contraception in their health plans.

As for whether this coverage was driven by 'feminists', I don't know, and you don't provide any support for that assertion. But accepting that for the sake of argument, 'feminists' would be a bottom-up effort, not top-down.

The 'saving money' argument does not come down to simply 'fewer people, less money'. The population is growing, even with contraception, so aggregate premium collection is not going down. Every group insurance plan I've ever paid into has three premium categories: 1) Individual, 2)Individual + spouse, 3) Individual + spouse + children. If you have one child or seven, you pay the same premium. On the basis of this, I could argue that I am, in fact, subsidizing the religious beliefs of Catholics in as much as they have larger families and are not paying higher premiums. The point is, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of premium payment vs cost of care, I can find just as many examples of you subsidizing me as the other way around. If you want to argue that even a modest expense for a service that you aren't being forced to use is trampling on your religious freedom, I can argue that the medical costs resulting from your religious beliefs are trampling on mine as well.

Daniel, you don't seem to get it. If it had to be forced on the insurance companies by a law passed for whatever reason, it was not an actuarial decision. We aren't talking about "you subsidizing" anything. Insurance is all about pooled risk and pooled costs and pooled premiums anyway. At the moment we're discussing the claim, which has recently come out of the woodwork, that it is cheaper for insurance companies to provide contraceptive pills than not to. It is evidence against this that for a long time the insurance companies did not do so spontaneously for purely actuarial reasons but that the spread of their doing so (and some still don't) was driven instead by requirement by law.

By the way, please bear in mind: Apropos of your comments above about snark, there is an asymmetry, one I have no hesitation in leaning on. It's my thread, not yours. This isn't with reference to this last comment of yours but just a note to keep in mind.

Lydia...I understand that this is your thread. I've read your guidelines. I realize you can ban me if you choose. I trust that you are interested in having an argument. If I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong about it. As for the snark - I only meant to imply that you don't seem to be against it in practice. If, as your comment implies, you are for giving it but not taking it in your own playground, then OK. It's your prerogative. There are plenty of other places to play.

I, perhaps not surprisingly, think I do get it. The 'cost' argument is not the central topic in this debate. It is merely a supporting point in the larger issue. My subsidy point was meant to bring thing around to what I think is the main issue - whether this represents an attack on the religious freedom of Catholics.

The 2006-2008 CDC study was done on 7,536 women of whom 28% described themselves as "Catholics" but, apparently no one asked them if they were practicing Catholics. There are approximately 34 million female Catholics in the US. No one ever asked them if they are sexually active and if they use contraceptive "birth control" against the tenets
of their religion. Concluding that 98% of Catholic women use contraceptives from a study done on about 2,100 I would say is absolutely ridiculous and doesn't merit an ounce of statistical integrity, nor a second of any intelligent debate. The Guttmacher Institute, which interpreted the CDC study, is an arm of the world's largest abortion busines - Planned Parenthood. PP also sells contraceptives and when they fail, which they do, PP sells the hapless "pregnant" consumer an abortion. Check it out - The World Health Organization classified the Pill as a class a-1 carcinogen in the same category as asbestos and cigarettes, It has also been stated that the Pill raises the risk of breast, liver and uterine cancers. Why they give these chemical "molotov cocktails to teenagers to clear acne or irregular periods is an outrage to the extreme. Why ANY woman, Catholic or not, would intentionally jeopardize her own health by using dangerous steroidal/hormonal chemicals should be the question debated here. It's not OK to give steroids to boys, but it's OK to give them to girls? Maybe the Catholic Church was right in the first place -when you pollute your body with chemicals and mess with the delicate natural biological systems of your reproductive organs, you are surely going to pay the price - not only physically, but morally as well. The Male birth control pill [cremes, patches and injections] is very close to being marketed. How many guys are going to jump at the chance to have their sperm "temporarily" killed by hormonal chemicals? I hear a dead silence.

Clang! Clang! Clang! Me! I'll take it!!

I'm guessing, with a high degree of confidence, that you didn't actually read the WHO report. In that report, they state while some oral contraceptives are categorized as a Group 1 (not Class A1) carcinogen. , the studies on which they were based mostly concerned the older high dose formulations. They also point out that oral contraceptives increase the risks of some cancers slightly and decrease the risk of others. They also point out that, despite your scary grouping of oral contraceptives with tobacco use and asbestos, that those latter two are stronger carcinogens for orders of magnitude. Mostly, that report concludes that the health benefits of use outweighs the risk.

The link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer has been disproven, and in the longest and largest study of the effects of oral contraceptives on women's health, a cohort of 43,000 British women, followed for 39 years, showed that oral contraceptive use prolonged a woman's life, on average.

The Guttmacher Institute is an Official Collaborating Partner with the very WHO who's opinion you seem to hold in high regard.

With regard to the issue of whether 'practicing' Catholics use the pill, by your apparent definition, none of them do. Once they go against the tenets of the Church by doing so, they are no longer practicing. I guess we could conclude that 98% or 65% of, depending on how you want to define your groups, Catholic women are not Catholic at all!

Once they go against the tenets of the Church by doing so, they are no longer practicing.

Actually, church attendance would make a pretty good proxy for "practicing." And, in fact, there are some interesting additional statistics on this. I'm working on a post right now on some work that was done by someone else with the raw data.

At any rate, I hope the idea that 98% "use" present-tense contraception has now been _thoroughly_ debunked.

Daniel, Keep clanging like a hollow gong! Your logic is preposterous! The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed anew in 2011 that oral contraceptives can directly cause cancer. In what was a setback for Reproductive Health bill lobbyists, WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) tagged the oral combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives as “carcinogenic to humans.” The report classified the hormone pill under Group 1 carcinogens, alongside asbestos, arsenic, formaldehyde, and plutonium.“There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives. Oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives cause cancer of the breast, in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the liver,” the report read.This is the third time that IARC assessed the carcinogenicity of the pills. Similar studies were done in 1988 and 2005. The 2011 report also said: “A large body of evidence was evaluated for several organ sites, among which the Working Group concluded there are increased risks for cancer of the breast in young women among current and recent users only…” There was also increased risk for “in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and for cancer of the liver in populations that are at low risk for HBV [Hepatitis B virus] infection (this risk is presumably masked by the large risk associated with HBV infection in HBV-endemic populations),” the report said.“In addition, for cancer of the uterine cervix, the magnitude of the associations is similar for in-situ and invasive disease, and the risks increase with duration of use, and decline after cessation of use,” it added.

Please refer me to a legitimate study that concludes 98%[or 65%] of Catholic women ARE NOT CATHOLIC! Preposterous!

Ladies: Be sure you are fully informed about the
dangerous, and sometimes deadly, effects of contraceptives
and abortion. The abortion/contraceptive industry would
love to keep you in the dark.

Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
www.bcpinstitute.org

DR. CHRIS KAHLENBORN
http://onemoresoul.com/featured/breast-cancer-its-link-to-abortion-and-the-birth-control-pill.html

The Polycarp Research Institute (TPRI)
www.polycarp.org/

A gong, at least the familiar 'Chau' type of gong are more or less planar so hollowness is not really an attribute they can have in a Euclidian universe. The less familiar bossed gongs or bowl gongs could be said to have some aspect of hollowness, but they are more in the nature of bells. I should point out that hollowness in a bell is a positive attribute, for they cannot ring without the space inside. A solid bell would just be a piece of dead weight and kind of makes only a thunking noise when you strike it.

I already pointed you to a study, and I'd be willing to find another since you don't seem to recognize that one, but I see in your earlier post that you reject studies that utilize representative population samples in their methodologies. Since all such studies use this methodology, there really isn't anything to show you that you can accept, including the very studies that you yourself cite.

I thought that my quip that 65% (or 98%) of Catholics aren't Catholic was a fairly obvious joke. But since it apparently wasn't as obvious as I thought, I was merely trying to point out the fallacy of the definition of "Catholic" that you implied in an earlier post. Your complaint that the CDC did not ask the Catholics in their survey if they were 'practicing' would seem to open the door to the idea that if one does not follow all the tenets of the Church, one is not practicing, leads directly to the observation that anyone using contraception is not really Catholic.

Joan said:

"How many guys are going to jump at the chance to have their sperm "temporarily" killed by hormonal chemicals?"

Joan is right about that one. Not many guys would do this. They'd rather have a reversible vasectomy, if that.
She's wrong to describe the pill as "chemicals". The pill, afaik, is an mainly an increase of estrogen, something which is in your body anyway, even in men. No doubt it has some "chemicals" like a coating to keep in pill form.

Joan said:

"Daniel, Keep clanging like a hollow gong! Your logic is preposterous! The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed anew in 2011 that oral contraceptives can directly cause cancer"

Eeh ... It's YOUR logic that is off. Way off. But I am glad you tacitly admit it's categorized as a Group 1 (not Class A1) carcinogen.

Daniel pointed out that

"oral contraceptives increase the risks of some cancers slightly and decrease the risk of others" (...) "the report concludes that the health benefits of use outweighs the risk."

American Cancer Institute says about the same as WHO and Daniel:
"Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)"

Somehow, I don't know why, Joan's reasoning reminds a bit of John Boehners asssertion that "CO2 is not carcinogenic" implying that having lots of it isn't harmful. Water also isn't carcinogenic, but having lots of it means you're drowning. Even drinking 5 gallons per day will actually kill you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QViMRO0WAqg I guess it's the complete ignoring (ignorance?) of quantities by both Joan and John.

To get back on topic, to see why Joans logic is so off, consider this:
Taking part in traffic has directly led to people dying. But the benefits of taking part in traffic far outweigh the risks.
I will admit that I use an example where the benefits-risks proportion is huge, to make a point.

PS. the second line on that site you like, AbortionBreastCancer, reads: Free bumper sticker when you make a $20 donationThat's NOT free. That's a pretty expensive sticker. I'm just saying.

Daniel said:

And honestly, I still can't find the coercion in here.

Gino responded:

Of course not. Your self-image won't allow for it. Liberalism has to maintain the fiction of being an open-minded creed of tolerance while simultaneously suppressing any individual or institution that dissents from it's squalid doctrines, I mean empirically proven scientific truths.
But Gino, I've noticed you haven't actually shown the coercion. All you do is name calling on Daniel, which is a sure sign of a weak point. Or a none-existing one.

And actually, they ARE "empirically proven scientific truths". Reality DOES have a liberal bias :)

Allow me to compliment Daniel for his excellent posts, which are dissecting the fallacies and untruths of some of the posters here.
@lydia: all the comments surrounding snark tell me that Daniel doesn't really feel safe to dissent from you here. He goes out of his way to make you feel he's respectful.
Yes, it's your blog, fine. But from your posts, I think I've deduced your willingness to debate, not to run an echo chamber. I could be wrong about you on that one, but I don't think I am.

2. As far as I know, all current Catholic plans have specific exceptions for theraputic use of contraceptive medications, and the mandate was specific to their use as contraceptives, so that is not a relevant consideration for the current discussion.
Wow, I did not know that, and I truly baffled. What's all this about then? If that's true, this whole debate is pointless, because, can anyone tell me how employers distinguish between therapeutic use of the contraceptives and contraceptive use of contraceptives. Are there two pills? Methinks not. Do women have to say to their employer: I use the pill not to get pregnant, and I don't care about the preventive effects. Seems odd.

@lydia:

Daniel, you don't seem to get it. If it had to be forced on the insurance companies by a law passed for whatever reason, it was not an actuarial decision.

It isn't really forced on insurance companies, they are willing to cover this. The original proposition was to force a specific group of employers (NOT insurance companies in general) to do what most insurance companies and employers in the USA (and frankly, elsewhere in civilized world, like our 54th state, Costa Rica) do, which is to cover contraceptives.
Goose, gander, etc.

Aside from that, many actuarial decisions, (aka insurance companies realize this saves them money) have become a law. Driving on one side of the road saves society money, so it's become a law (Although I guess saving lives rather than money produced that one).
So, what's bad about a law which makes women healthier and saves insurance companies money (which they could use to combat more diseases through research)?

Also:
why NOT discuss the immorality of withholding contraceptives when providing condoms does so much good? The Catholic church (I don't know if American Catholics were with Rome on that one) was against condoms which DO and HAVE prevented the spreading of AIDS in Africa, where people are vulnerable anyway, so excuse me for finding them immoral in that case.

I am baffled that people apparently take everything the Church says about contraceptives as "moral" and preventing (not aborting) women from GETTING pregnant as "immoral". The Church does many good things, but on this one i think they're wrong. And bisshops aren't the church, the faithful are.

Fine, it's against your believes to use condoms and pills, but why is that a good thing? Being good stewards of the Earth (says Santorum) means not overpopulating it. We can use the Four Horsemen to do so. Or contraception.

Jack, I'm going to give you one chance to show that you're a serious commenter by addressing one objection that you raised. If I remain unconvinced (hint: your handle doesn't help) that you're serious, I'll just delete further comments.

Now then. You write,

If that's true, this whole debate is pointless, because, can anyone tell me how employers distinguish between therapeutic use of the contraceptives and contraceptive use of contraceptives. Are there two pills? Methinks not. Do women have to say to their employer: I use the pill not to get pregnant, and I don't care about the preventive effects. Seems odd.

This is simple ignorance on your part. Some women are prescribed hormonal medication to regulate their cycles for medical reasons having nothing to do with contraception. You can look up the details if you like, but I assure you there are numerous therapeutic uses for hormonal regulatory medication. The employer (via the insurer) in those cases would be aware of the therapy because a doctor has prescribed this course of treatment for a medical condition.

All of which is indeed quite beside the point of the contraceptive mandate being debated here. The Obamacare mandate concerns contraceptives qua contraceptives -- birth control used not for therapeutic medical purposes but for the artificial prevention of pregnancy. The mandate coerces the consciences of Roman Catholics whose Church teaches that such use of contraceptives is evil. The Church does not similarly prohibit the therapeutic use of hormone-regulating medication when medically necessary. Capice?

can anyone tell me how employers distinguish between therapeutic use of the contraceptives and contraceptive use of contraceptives

They get a doctor's letter. Sometimes they require it to be fairly detailed. This is well-known. And objected to by those who definitely want this to be required *for contraception*.



It isn't really forced on insurance companies, they are willing to cover this.

Actually, the insurers did not spontaneously cover this. There are still insurers that don't. In the states, it was *because* the insurers didn't spontaneously cover it that laws were passed to make them. At that point they complied, as they will comply here, because the insurers themselves (most of them) had only a monetary objection initially, not an objection of conscience. My point however is that this was not a decision made *because it saved them money*. That is a false meme that has simply come up in the last few months to make it seem like it is somehow costing the insurance companies more not to provide contraception for free. That is a lot of baloney, as their previous, actuarially drive practices show. That is, previous even to state laws on the subject. Indeed, if you read any history of this subject, including those written by liberals who agree with contraception mandates, you will see them saying that state-level mandates "turned around" standard practice on this.

Again, I was bringing this up to illustrate the falsity of the claim that the insurers save money this way. If that were true, insurers would have _spontaneously_ covered contraceptive pills for free.

I hope that you can follow that argument.

Lydia, I can follow what you're saying, but I simply disagree with you. It seems obvious that insurers save money: the cost of having kids is higher than the cost of contraception, be it pills or the other thing. Without birth control pill, women will have more kids. Often these people won't have insurance, which means that they would go to emergency services, which would be costlier.

But I'd love to see your numbers on your claim that this is all false.

If we think it through, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to imagine that if employers can use this loophole to not provide whatever health care to women. The result would an increase in babies born, but not to those who could afford new kids, but to the poor, predominantly in rural areas and innercities, like West-Virginia and Detroit.

This could all be avoided if we have a single payer system like the ones in Switzerland, Netherlands or Singapore those bulwarks of socialism.

Paul, you're too funny. But I don't respond well to threats.

If you can't see by the quality of my arguments that I am a serious commenter, then it's no use. Feel free to delete whatever of my posts makes you happy. Do realize, however, if you can't resist the urge to GAG me, you've lost the debate you weren't even having with me.
I like debating with people I disagree with, and yes I really strongly disagree with any rightwing ideological talking point.
Dude, feel free to delete whatever annoys you, or else point out what rule I am breaking.

My name is from Micronesia. My wife was a missionary in Iran and tells me that your name is a cuss word in Farsi. But I am not offended.

I have long thought that opposition against marriage equality was one of the weirdest thing to oppose, since there's no demonstrable harm done to anyone other than in their mind. But being against condoms and birth control pills .... well, it takes the cake.

I thought this was Lydia's blog, btw?

Sorry about the name, Jack. I misjudged it. But we've had plenty of drive-by trolls and threadjackers. Comment threads need diligent surveillance, especially when the post is seen by a lot of new eyes, as this one was.

I took one of your arguments and provided a response, the idea being to discern whether you actually "like debating with people I disagree with" and will do so fairly and reasonably. Your scattershot first comments strongly suggested otherwise.

I showed the poor quality of that argument, and I await your response to that. You were just plain wrong about therapeutic contraceptive prescription.

Now, something about your latest comment inclines me to think you are a serious commenter, so I'll show how another of your arguments is off-base.

You write,

It seems obvious that insurers save money: the cost of having kids is higher than the cost of contraception, be it pills or the other thing. Without birth control pill, women will have more kids. Often these people won't have insurance, which means that they would go to emergency services, which would be costlier. . . . This could all be avoided if we have a single payer system like the ones in Switzerland, Netherlands or Singapore those bulwarks of socialism.

And who, pray tell, will be paying for that vaunted single-payer system when women are not having children? This idea that, under conditions of social democratic welfarism, less kids = more money is the sheerest actuarial nonsense. There must be productive people to fund the social safety net. As much of Europe is learning the hard way, it's not possible to pay for generous welfare benefits without replacing your productive working population. How insurers specifically fit into this problem is not so clear. AIG was among the largest insurers on earth, and that company thought it had found a brilliant way to save money too. Didn't work out so well. It's quite possible for insurers to think something will save them money and be totally and disastrously wrong about that.

Jack, you say:

It seems obvious that insurers save money: the cost of having kids is higher than the cost of contraception, be it pills or the other thing.

But here's the argument, to which your comments are unresponsive: That seems obvious to you, but funny, for all those years it wasn't obvious to the insurers themselves. How's that? How did they miss this wonderful way to save money until the states and now the federal government forced them to do it? Think! Insurance companies aren't out there to lose money!! They weren't overlooking $100 bills lying about on the pavement. Their spontaneous, economically-driven decision was _not_ to cover contraceptive pills for free, because they expected that to _cost_ them money, not _save_ them money.

Obviously, if average family size in a given risk pool or employer plan grew, the insurer could raise family premiums. Plans _do_ sometimes raise family premiums, you know. In fact, they do it all the time. Why not for this reason among others? And make money that way. See?

(Paul is our editor here at W4. We have significant contributor independence in specific posts, but ultimately, Paul is the editor. Please see the sidebar.)

Jack (whose wife was a missionary in Iran),

In your last comment you say, "I have long thought that opposition against marriage equality was one of the weirdest thing to oppose, since there's no demonstrable harm done to anyone other than in their mind. But being against condoms and birth control pills....well, it takes the cake."

Earlier you said:

why NOT discuss the immorality of withholding contraceptives when providing condoms does so much good? The Catholic church (I don't know if American Catholics were with Rome on that one) was against condoms which DO and HAVE prevented the spreading of AIDS in Africa, where people are vulnerable anyway, so excuse me for finding them immoral in that case.

I am baffled that people apparently take everything the Church says about contraceptives as "moral" and preventing (not aborting) women from GETTING pregnant as "immoral". The Church does many good things, but on this one i think they're wrong. And bisshops [sic] aren't the church, the faithful are.

Now presumably, your wife was some sort of Protestant missionary, as you seem to be unfamiliar with Catholic moral theology and doctrine. Let me set you straight about a couple of things:

1) to oppose the redefinition of marriage is not "weird" or strange or somehow out of the ordinary -- folks who want to change the definition of marriage are the ones overturning common sense and moral tradition. Of course, to understand this you would need a basic understanding of what marriage is for. I suggest you start with this paper by Girgis, George and Anderson. It also goes without saying that a traditional understanding of marriage should be clear to all Christians of good will -- so you might want to discuss the matter with your wife.

2) I can certainly understand your reluctance to blindly follow the Catholic Church when it comes to their teachings on chastity and sexual morality (including birth control). But I would urge you to read the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae which is not a tough read and to consider its predictions in light of some of the arguments made in this article by Mary Eberstadt.

3) Your comments about the Catholic Church and condoms/AIDS in Africa are purest calumny (not to mention a tired old calumny at that!) You need to get one thing straight. There is one sure way to avoid AIDS -- don't have sex until you are married and don't have sex outside of marriage. All the Church asks of everyone, in Africa or here in the U.S. is to behave morally, according to the Bible and according to how God would want us to behave. Again, as I know there are some disagreements among my Protestant brothers and sisters, the messy details we can argue over -- what I say here is so basic that Christians of all different denominations can agree on.

http://truthinesswillsetyoufree.blogspot.com/2012/02/my-countering-of-guttmacher-institute.html

I liked this one because it actually had links to the CDC report that the institue used for its analysis.

"to oppose the redefinition of marriage is not "weird" or strange or somehow out of the ordinary -- folks who want to change the definition of marriage are the ones overturning common sense and moral tradition."

I still don't get it. How is anyone harmed by two girls getting married? Your religion isn't forced to accept anything. You don't have to religiously sanction anything. Separation of church and state goes both ways, although it was originally devised to keep the Church OUT of the state, NOT the state out of the church.

It's NOT a redefinition of YOUR marriage, it's a marriage by the state.
You claim tradition. Hmmm. Child labor was a tradition. Women being submissive, having no property etc.


2. "Of course, to understand this you would need a basic understanding of what marriage is for."
Wow, such a highly arrogant approach towards me!
Sorry, but that would be YOUR definition, which might be different from mine, which I will give you right here: Marriage is for raising eventual kids and putting the other person first. How do you see two girls/boys not do that?

In other words, and this why your side on this gets mocked, how's two guys marrying in Iowa, increasing the divorce rate in Kansas?
Because that's the argument you seem to be making.

How's all this compliant with live and let live?

@Lydia:
I thought Daniel answered that question way back, and i repeated it (did you miss that?):
Again then: Many insurance companies and employers DO already DO what you claim they've been recently forced into doing, by law.
That's the main answer. Please don't confuse this with the more basic response which is:
Do you imply that a law by definition is a bad thing?
or:
Even if I, for the sake for argument accept that they've been recently forced into doing this, do you deny that sometimes, it's a good thing to be collectively forced into doing stuff, so that there's a level playing field?

Like, for example driving on just one side of the road? Waiting for a red light?

For that whole collective vs individual thing:
Take water rights (in Arizona, I think.)
At first it seems outrageous that a state government tells you that the rain that falls on your land isn't yours to keep, until you realize that it's a very dry area, and that if you hoard water, little kids will have none, and farmers neither. So the state comes along and tells you that you can't redirect rivers, or do whatever to hinder to share the wealth, I mean water, with everyone equally.
My cousin became a Democrat because of this.


http://truthinesswillsetyoufree.blogspot.com/2012/02/my-countering-of-guttmacher-institute.html

I liked this one because it actually had links to the CDC report that the institue used for its analysis.

I also liked that one, because the writer says:

"How is it virtually possible for 98% of Catholic Women to "have used" a contraceptive when over 8% of the population of females, ages 15-44, have never had intercourse? "

that writer seems to think that taking pills automatically means having sex. ???
Not unlike a certain fat radioman, who has had four wives and NO KIDS with them .....

Many insurance companies and employers DO already DO what you claim they've been recently forced into doing, by law.

Not all that recently. From the nineties on. Look this isn't controversial history. It's admitted _by the pro-choicers_ that they didn't used to and were forced by a series of state laws pushed as "for women." So it seems highly unlikely that it is financially remunerative for them to do so.

Part of the problem arises from seeing health insurance as all pay-out and no pay-in, as a handout rather than a business. I assure you, until now, at least, insurance companies have not been run that way, and therefore "more people" wasn't automatically "drat" to them. It could mean more customers and higher premiums. It's only a (short-sighted) view of people as mere takers of largesse that views fewer of them as a savings.

Do you imply that a law by definition is a bad thing?

No, and the question reveals that you still don't get it. I have told you, what, three times now why I brought up the point about their being forced to do it by law, and you can still ask that question?


that writer seems to think that taking pills automatically means having sex.

Foolish answer. That writer, like you, evidently doesn't know that the statistic didn't count virgins. That should have been your answer. Badum ching!

And by the way, the question was *as a method of birth control* and was expressly related to acts of intercourse.

Jack, I'm still waiting for you to give evidence of your boasted willingness to debate with people who disagree with you. How about acknowledging your error on therapeutic contraceptive prescriptions? How about addressing my point about how birth control (preventing babies) exacerbates the problems of funding the welfare state?

ack, I'm still waiting for you to give evidence of your boasted
boasted? Really? I'm boasting now?


I have BEEN debating various people, haven't you been reading this thread? We weren't exchanging recipe's I assure you.

How about addressing my point about how birth control (preventing babies) exacerbates the problems of funding the welfare state?
Sorry, I don't see your point. How does it do that? More birth control = less poor babies = less poor adults = less welfare state?

the rich and the middle class will have less babies, no matter what. They always had that.

Without Roe v Wade, the number of poor people would have been enormously higher.

Aside from all that, why would you want to force babies upon people who can't take proper care of them? Again: PREVENTING contraception isn't ABORTION, even though some on the right seem to suggest that.
Also, Catholics by and large voted for Obama, the Democrat. I guess 2 to 1. As Catholics always do.

Oh and Paul?
I do hope this civility thing goes both ways. calling me a boaster is not civil.

as to your other point: It largely escapes me what you might mean, please be more specific.

That writer, like you, evidently doesn't know that the statistic didn't count virgins. That should have been your answer. Badum ching!
It doesn't? For arguments sake, I'll give you that one. But even if, consider this: 1. One can be sexually active and still be a virgin. (let's not get technical here)

more importantly:
2. One can still be a virgin, yet be on the pill.

Please tell me if you sitll think my answer is foolish.

Yeah, it still is foolish, because of what I also pointed out--the pill, when cited in this statistic, was *as a means of contraception*. And since virgins weren't included in the statistic anyway, why bring it up when trying to answer the question asked in the post you cite? I mean, you just don't seem to be able to roll with this statistics stuff.

Lydia,
I mean, you just don't seem to be able to roll with this "don't sweat the small stuff"-stuff

Costs are a side issue, relatively speaking, the small stuff.

I've noticed you haven't replied to the larger point that:
"So, what's bad about a law which makes women healthier and saves insurance companies money (which they could use to combat more diseases through research)?"

You can go and complain on behalf of the insurance companies that they're being forced to spend money on the undeserving poor, which they themselves, in majority, DO NOT do, by the way. The larger issue which you seem to avoid, is:
So what?

You assume that, if there's a law forcing them to do whatever, it MUST be financially detrimental to them. OH yeah? Says who? That just doesn't follow. Laws like that create a level playing field, like minimum wage laws. If one employer does it, he loses an edge, if they all do it, no one does.
I mentioned this a couple of posts back, you didn't reply to that.


So, Lydia, there's a law. Big deal.
What's bad about that law? It's not costs, because that doesn't make sense: preventative care reduces the costs of unwanted babies, and cancer. Moreover Big Health itself would not have complied so easily if it was too costly to them.

So what's bad about it?

Daniel, WAAAAAAY back already remarked this by the way, which you never answered, merely avoided.
He thought that the real issue wasn't costs, but "whether this represents an attack on the religious freedom of Catholics".
I think he has a point, but I think that the issue is even more insidious.
IMHO, this is not EVEN about religion being attacked, it's about how to make Obama look bad. My two cents: The rightwing pundits, like Foks and Rush L. are abusing the bishops to attack Obama, throwing women's health under the bus while they're at it.

But, I suppose y'all disagree with that ... ;)

Yes, Jack, this isn't about women's health. I've decided to close comments on this thread because you are simply wasting my time.

This "law" is not only unjust to those who have quite legitimate conscientious objections, it is economically insane. It is not about women's health. It is also hysterical. What? Free _contraception_ is an essential health issue? The left has lost even its bleeding-heart liberal credentials on this one. We could truck to Washington thousands of people who have trouble paying co-pays on medications and devices that are truly necessary to health, _far_ more central and important than, of all things, birth control medication. What has Obama done? Put a tax on durable medical devices to help with the economic sleight of hand. The left has lost its humanitarian mask on this one.

I can't figure out if you are a fool, a dupe, or an ideologue. Perhaps some of each. But you aren't going to waste my time anymore.