|
Post by joew on Feb 21, 2012 14:32:17 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification/confirmation, Joe. It is my understanding that the Catholic church does not have such rigid "rules," yet when I watched Santorum's speeches, it seemed to me that was what he was saying, even when interviewers allowed him to explain beyond the sound bites. He seemed unaware that there are many medical uses for birth control other than prevention of pregnancy. Santorum also said that when genetic testing shows a fetal abnormality, doctors "encourage" abortion. I know of no doctors who take that approach. We offer the testing, and what to do about the results is entirely up to the patient/family. Most obstetricians do not do abortions themselves. (Most of my patients decline the testing and would never consider abortion.) What do you think the Catholic Church teaches, Joe? Much of what I read sounds very like what K said originally. Our newspapers and blogs reflect the belief that, for Catholics, procreation must be the purpose of sex and that any 'unnatural' interference with that outcome is wrong. We in MN (and elsewhere) are in the midst of two controversies related to Catholic teaching - the argument about providing contraception to women and the proposed concstitutional ban on same-sex marriage. I'm interested to hear what you think is the true position of the Catholic Church. The teaching, as I understand it, is that sex has two purposes: procreative and unitive — to produce children and to unite husband and wife in their loving lifetime partnership as "one flesh." It would be wrong to exclude either purpose, whether by directly intervening with a pill or condom to make the act infertile or by engaging in it outside the context of a loving marriage where each party respects the needs and wishes of the other. In the current discussion, the unitive purpose is pretty much taken for granted, and it is the procreative that gets talked about, but both should be there. I think Bl. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body explains it well and movingly when he says that the marital act is designed as a physical image of the loving, irrevocable, total, creative self-giving of the Persons of the Trinity. Sex outside marriage does not represent irrevocable self-giving. Non-consensual sex is not loving. Artificial birth control is less than total self-giving and falsifies the (pro)creative purpose. Gay sex also fails to be procreative.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 21, 2012 22:02:38 GMT -5
Well put Joe, and said with perceptible aplomb. I love biblical concepts when they are described in their simplified form.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 22, 2012 0:27:28 GMT -5
Well put Joe, and said with perceptible aplomb. I love biblical concepts when they are described in their simplified form. Thanks, roges. I'm afraid it didn't turn out to be exactly what dock was hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 22, 2012 9:39:56 GMT -5
Actually Joe, I thought you (and JP2) captured the essence of the explanation very well, though I think it was gk who had doubts about Catholic teachings. The media coverage has been rather slanted by its conveying of a very rigid interpretation on use of birth control and the role of sex within marriage. I have to say that in the interview Bob Schieffer had with Santorum, Santorum did seem to say that he was against the use of birth control for any reason, and that sex was only for procreation. he didn't say anything about the unitive purpose.
20 - 25% of the US population is Roman Catholic, and given my profession, I can see that parish priests will marry infertile couples even though they will be sexually active but can't procreate. Catholic patients might have an "approved" tubal ligation if future pregnancies would be risky to the mother's health. Birth control pills are used for medical indications other than preventing pregnancy and that seems to be OK with religious teachings.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Feb 22, 2012 10:00:32 GMT -5
According to Santorum's version of Catholicism, my husband and I have been committing genocide since his vascetomy in 1975. Oops.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 22, 2012 10:08:22 GMT -5
Not to worry Jane. Studies show that Catholics use birth control at the same rate as non-Catholics.
And what is with this current dismissal of Obama's Christianity? He belongs to the UCC, same as I do; it is a mainstream Protestant denomination!
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 23, 2012 0:33:04 GMT -5
The controversies going on in MN focus on the sex-only-for-procreation interpretation, which is certainly what I've heard Santorum say. Our case is especially volatile because of the relatively new Archbishop, who gives every indication of being a reincarnated Inquisitor. Catholics write in to papers and blogs daily, courageously denouncing the positions taken by this autocrat. He is not a loving man. That's why I'm interested in interpretations across the country.
Yes, Jane, my marriage would never have been sanctioned because we knew we'd heed the advice that I not have children (family stroke/aneurysm history). I don't think most Catholics would agree with that judgment, but a self-righteous minority (some Protestants as well as Catholics) would say I should never have married and Jerry should have found a true wife.
I hope this discussion isn't offensive, Joe. There are millions of Catholics and, despite the Pope, Catholicism is not a monolith. Just look at the Supreme Court, which now comprises 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. There's a range of views among the justices, but their backgrounds hew to the assumptions of two religions which don't represent the majority of Americans' beliefs. Nonetheless, they get to decide law for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 24, 2012 16:24:47 GMT -5
One of the reasons I moved back yo the lake (from maintaining the apartments in town) was that the owners insisted on using oil based paints that are formulated with toxic organic solvents. They also require organic solvents for cleanup. Organic solvents are byproducts of petroleum production and they are, as detailed in their MSDS,. neurotoxins. The offer that was made to me was that I didn't have to do it myself. "We could hire others to paint with these toxins". To put this in perspective, the owner had used these petroleum paints and solvents for years and had come down with a very fast moving form of MS— a neurological disorder. Here is something to take note of: www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/24/147351453/chemical-used-for-stripping-bathtubs-kills-13?ft=1&f=1001
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 24, 2012 22:54:05 GMT -5
Thanks Roger, but I think I pass on taking this bait. I think I have had enough of "blame the victim" mentality.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 24, 2012 23:32:20 GMT -5
The controversies going on in MN focus on the sex-only-for-procreation interpretation, which is certainly what I've heard Santorum say. Yes, Jane, my marriage would never have been sanctioned because we knew we'd heed the advice that I not have children (family stroke/aneurysm history). I don't think most Catholics would agree with that judgment, but a self-righteous minority (some Protestants as well as Catholics) would say I should never have married and Jerry should have found a true wife. You must have some real wackos up there in the Twin Cities, gk. Though I have seen marriages break up or be avoided in the first place because the couple disagreed on whether they wanted kids, I've never ever had a woman tell me her boyfriend/fiancee/husband left her for a "true wife"! The procreation-only stuff is what Santorum said to Bob Schieffer last Sunday though he seems to have backpedaled, or at least expanded his definition. As Joe points out, that is not standard Catholic orthodoxy. I haven't heard any actual F2F "conservatives" spout that only-the-fertile-can-marry either, so I wonder if it is mainly when some ignorant blowhard gets access to a podium. This all started with the Obama administration's insistence that all employers must offer insurance coverage that included tubal ligation and birth control pills (OCP's)for free, whether it comported with organizational religious belief or not. Few base their opposition on opposition to birth control itself; most arguments seemed to focus on religious freedom, or to opposition to the Affordable Care Act and its universal mandate. I could not find any language in the IOM recommendations that referred to "free birth control pills," and I think it is disingenuous to state that such would be "free." I see no reason that OCP's should be free when all other prescriptions require a co-pay. This looks to me to be a cave in to some political constituency, using Secretary Sibelius as a sock puppet.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 25, 2012 9:44:22 GMT -5
Has anyone pondered the irony of these candidates who espouse the "smaller, less intrusive" government who at the same time want to intervene in the most intimate aspects of our marriages, childbearing ability & choices, our bedrooms and sex lives?
Medical care too - the Virginia legislature, composed largely of attorneys, wants to tell doctors exactly how to practice medicine and what types of imaging to use!
As Jane has noted before (I think), it is more than a little weird to have such an obsession with the sex lives of other people. As if the President did not have other things to worry about - wars, tanking economy here and globally, fiscal collapse threatened, for example.
I watched "The Loving Story" on HBO (or was it Showtime?) the other day, an excellent film. But did our nation really thoroughly consume itself with "maintaining racial purity" for decades? While we had two world wars, a Great Depression, and the Red Menace? Yes it did, and it seems so anachronistic now. But maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 25, 2012 15:56:20 GMT -5
Isn't ot true that Catholic hospitals get tons of federal $ from Medicaid and Medicare? I know everyone says those programs aren't exactly profitable (except for the egregious fraudent claims), but I'd have no problem with any organization refusing to offer birth control insurance if they took absolutely no federal money. (Ron Paul apparently never did throughout his medical career.)
Here's an excerpt from People For the Ameican Way: Standing Up for Women's Health -- We all heard about the War on Women's Health last year, when Tea Party-empowered state legislatures passed a record slew of anti-choice laws -- like Arizona's ban on "race-based abortions" and Virginia's attempt to shut down most abortion clinics in the state. These state legislatures were joined by an enthusiastic right-wing Congress that attempted to defund the entire $317 million federal family program, tried to redefine "rape" and eagerly promoted lies about their favorite bogeyman, Planned Parenthood. Well, the War on Women's Health is back, and it looks to be more an all-out War on Women. PFAW members spoke out when Susan G. Komen for the Cure threatened to cut off funds for Planned Parenthood because of internal influences from right-wing staff and board members. We're currently fighting an amendment in the U.S. Senate that would give employers the power to deny any health care to their employees that they take "moral" issue with personally. And we continue to track closely dangerous and extreme state legislation like the recent bill passed by Virginia’s right-wing Assembly that would force women considering abortions -- even rape victims -- to undergo invasive transvaginal ultrasounds.
Exposing the GOP Candidates' Extremism -- PFAW's Right Wing Watch last week uncovered the audio recording of a speech Rick Santorum gave to students at Ave Maria University in 2008 in which he said Satan, the "Father of Lies" was focusing all his attention on the United States of America. He said that academia had long ago fallen to this Satanic attack, derided mainline Protestant churches as no longer Christian and said that we are involved in a "spiritual war," as opposed to a political or cultural war -- a war in which we could only assume people with opposing views to Santorum's are on the side of Satan. The story took off like wildfire in both the blogosphere and the mainstream news media. It became the dominant storyline of the GOP debate for the two days leading up to the last debate and even had right-wing pundits like Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh, and politicians like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, asserting that Santorum's religious extremism is too much for a majority of Americans.
It's full of links that probably don't show up in the copy, but I'll try to post some live ones. Since we all pay for things we don't agree with on moral grounds, it's really upsetting to me that opponents of reproduction rights have been given so much special dispensation and continue to push for more. It's looking more and more like Sharia law to me.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Feb 25, 2012 17:17:34 GMT -5
my daughter's m-i-l says she feels like the whole country is in the"way back machine". Didn't we already fight this battle?
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Feb 25, 2012 17:18:09 GMT -5
She's an observant Catholic, btw.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 25, 2012 18:15:45 GMT -5
my daughter's m-i-l says she feels like the whole country is in the"way back machine". Didn't we already fight this battle? Yup, and probably more than once - considering all the states' efforts. But the "Get rid of Obama is Priority #1" crowd hates everything done in his administration, so they are seizing on this topic of birth control as the wedge issue. Only thing is, though the ACA mandate is subject to legitimate debate (which is why it is before the Supreme Court), 98% of Americans use/are in favor of birth control, especially women. The gender gap is widening... The whole matter has been managed just fine "in the real world" until some heavy handedness arose on both sides, causing that Wayback Machine sensation.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 25, 2012 23:10:08 GMT -5
Well, I guess people on both sides can get a bit overheated. But to me, this is a cake-taking example. Deny them health care? What are they going to do, lock them in the supply closet so they can't make their doctor's appointment or get to the pharmacy before it closes?
Let's try to be a little honest: it's not about "denying health care," it's about being forced to provide insurance that covers specific items. And what's this about not allowing a co-pay? Why are the anti-reproductive services so much more important than everything else that a policy covers that it is intolerable that there should be a co-pay?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 25, 2012 23:27:58 GMT -5
And don't get me started on the Orwellian newspeak which refers to the prevention of pregnancy as inherently a matter of health, as if pregnancy were a disease, or suggests that "reproductive freedom" were at stake, as if people were going to be compelled or forbidden to have sex.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 25, 2012 23:38:53 GMT -5
… Since we all pay for things we don't agree with on moral grounds, it's really upsetting to me that opponents of reproduction rights have been given so much special dispensation and continue to push for more. It's looking more and more like Sharia law to me. The more the state requires of individuals and organizations, the more it will command things that they find repugnant. It seems to me that there are three ways of responding to this fact. 1.) Intrude less. 2.) Grant exceptions to those who are conscientiously opposed. 3.) Go totalitarian.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 26, 2012 1:41:37 GMT -5
And don't get me started on the Orwellian newspeak which refers to the prevention of pregnancy as inherently a matter of health, as if pregnancy were a disease, or suggests that "reproductive freedom" were at stake, as if people were going to be compelled or forbidden to have sex. But if they can't afford birth control and can't risk pregnancy, they are, ipso facto, forbidden to have sex. It isn't at all Orwellian newspeak (puh-leez) to talk of the numerous health hazards inherent in pregnancy. I thought K had already covered some of them, but maybe that was some other forum. It's too late to go into them all. But Joe, you're neither female nor living with one. No deacon, priest, bishop, archbishop or pope knows whereof he speaks on women's health. Pregnancy is very definitely a health issue, which is why no church should be able to restrict it for anyone not a member of that church. And, relating to lesser health issues in addition to birth control, the pill is used to control cramps (for many women, utterly disabling) and regulating the menstrual cycle. It even clears up acne.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 26, 2012 9:24:48 GMT -5
In the real world, pregnancy is a covered benefit in most plans today because it has indeed become recognized that prenatal care and attended delivery is the second most effective and efficient expenditure of healthcare dollars that exist. Prevention/contraception is usually a covered benefit as well, one way or another; this controversy is making a mountain out of a molehill.
A month of birth control pills can be purchased at WalMart (and others equivalent $4 programs) for $9, which is less than most health insurance policy's co-pay) so I don't believe this "can't afford it" excuse. Condoms are handed out free at most county health departments as well as a variety of other venues. We have large bins of them in every exam room, as well as plain brown bags full at the pharmacy dispensing window.
And yes of course birth control pills have always been used for other reasons that prevention of pregnancy (cramps, irregular cycle, PCOS, acne, athletic performance), and the health plans of people who are employed at a Catholic church or school or hospital will cover OCP's for those purposes, just list the dx as "dysmenorrhea."
Same for tubal ligation for permanent sterilization: if it is because of risk to a woman's health, it will be a covered benefit; just list the appropriate dx for the indication for the surgery. Furthermore, if a woman wants a tubal ligation after delivery at a Catholic hospital, she goes to the community hospital 3 blocks away the next morning for the quick surgery, then back to her Catholic hospital (and 25% or more of all hospital beds are Catholic hospitals, especially in poor neighborhoods) in 2 or 3 hours.
With the exception of one high profile index case in Louisiana that was litigated successfully in favor of the woman, I am not aware of any medically necessary tubal ligation being denied payment - and that was at least 10 years ago, which is why there are few, if any, denials of medically indicated tubals today.
Again, "in reality" women who are covered by a religious institution's policies get these reproductive services covered. In small print, the debate has mentioned that 38 states have exemptions that have been found acceptable by churches and employees, and AFAIK, there have not been these problems so widely publicized in "the debate" - which is really just a political scare tactic.
I'm with Joe on the mandate that all reproductive services have to be provided "for free." They aren't free and I don't appreciate my services being declared worthless - which is what happens when they are done "for free." This is an insult to the intelligence of most people who know "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
I can find no language in either IOM or the ACA legislation (though at 2200 pages, I could miss it) that says these services should be "free." And I think immunizations (the most effective health care dollar), diabetic care, hypertension treatment, and all other medical diagnoses are just as important as reproductive services, so I see no reason why that care should be discriminated against by requiring co-pays when other services don't.
Gail, we are not really being forbidden to have sex or required to endure life-threatening pregnancies against our will in the real world. As a woman who cares for tens of thousands of other women, often for reproductive services, I resent being used as a political football in what is really a non-debate.
Almost forgot. There is an insurance definition of medically necessary health care: the treatment of illness, injury or disease, or the results thereof. Most commercial plans cover birth control, abortion, tubal ligation, vasectomy, and pregnancy/delivery, even if they are beyond the definition, because it is cheaper to do so than not. Only subscribers to public plans (Medicare and Medicaid, military & their families) get used as political footballs.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 26, 2012 9:37:01 GMT -5
Another thought. I have never, ever seen vasectomy be denied as "not a covered benefit." Several of my close friends who are religious Catholic physicians are big proponents of vasectomy, and perform the surgery frequently. Since vasectomy is frequently performed by urologists, family docs who want to do them need to promote them as part of their array of services.
It's an office procedure, so there are no big hospital bills associated - maybe that is what keeps it "under the radar screen." Where is the outcry for men's health? Do they get this "for free" in the brave new world, or do they have a co-pay? Men should also be protected against unwanted pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 26, 2012 12:07:10 GMT -5
I was watching Bob Schieffer interview Governor of NJ Chris Christie this morning, and Christie pointed out that the "social issues" uproar is all sparked by, and about, Santorum. No one seriously thinks he will be the nominee according to Christie, and the press is just seizing this for its 24/7 cycle.
And if Santorum is nominated, his ultra-conservative values, especially social values (he still has trouble with the church/state dividing line, and the difference between personal beliefs and governmental policies), will not be embraced by most Americans. He is a "True Believer" in conservative Catholicism, and most Americans are not.
Plus, if you make a mistake that hurts someone, you apologize - as per "Everything You Ever Learned in Kindergarden," though that is a little 48 hour news cycle sound bite.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Feb 26, 2012 15:10:13 GMT -5
One of the reasons I moved back yo the lake (from maintaining the apartments in town) was that the owners insisted on using oil based paints that are formulated with toxic organic solvents. They also require organic solvents for cleanup. Organic solvents are byproducts of petroleum production and they are, as detailed in their MSDS,. neurotoxins. The offer that was made to me was that I didn't have to do it myself. "We could hire others to paint with these toxins". To put this in perspective, the owner had used these petroleum paints and solvents for years and had come down with a very fast moving form of MS— a neurological disorder. Here is something to take note of: www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/24/147351453/chemical-used-for-stripping-bathtubs-kills-13?ft=1&f=1001That's an interesting article, Roges. Household cleaning products are on my personal list of chemical allergens. I can't even be in the same room where someone sprays "Windex," let alone something as toxic as that stripper. "Method" makes household cleansers that don't kill me. That's a good thing!
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 26, 2012 17:31:18 GMT -5
This is what I meant by my statement above K. It is thought that various environmental factors may trigger an inborn susceptibility to MS. This is known as a genetic predisposition to the illness. This is according to this site: www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/pageid/746and the reference to "environmental factors is on this Page; www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/pageid/746I've recently read some research that indicates early exposure to both household cleaning solvents and Vaccines as a possible factor in the proclivity for autoimmune diseases. If I had a tendency to be offended I guess I could feel that you were trying to insult me by calling me a heartless and insensitive Bastard. Since it is not true I will just take your statement as a misunderstanding of my intent and my (admittedly) clumsy articulation.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 26, 2012 23:03:36 GMT -5
As I said before, I don't care to participate in the game of "Blame the Victim."
Most illnesses are not caused by the sick person using the wrong kind of paint or cleanser, smoking, receiving proven life-saving vaccines or taking the expensive medication instead of the cheap one. If only things were so simple.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 26, 2012 23:09:26 GMT -5
It' not a game and it is not "Blame the victim" If you don't want to reply don't but don't unjustly accuse me for what you are reading into my posts.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Feb 27, 2012 15:05:17 GMT -5
Here's my question: if someone you really, really disliked in politics came up to you and stuck out his/her hand, would you shake it?
My liberal sensibilites say I would not. Dubya was in GR visiting one of the fat cat Amway money men while he was President, and he went to a deli for lunch.A friend of mine was there-also a flaming liberal. But he went up to Bush and shook his hand. I expressed disbelief.
My daughter says, "Now Bush is probably a really nice man and a good father. No one is evil. Cheney's family loves him, too."
Well, now, yes, I do think Cheney is evil and should be in prison. If he came up to me and stuck out his hand, even when he was VP, I would turn my back. My daughter is a complete and utter liberal but still contends that Dick isn't evil (he came and sat near them in Montana when they were in an airport, so she even has a picture of him three seats away from the family. Her husband whispered to her, "Don't let him waterboard the baby.") I would have moved.
What do you think? Is there evil and would you shake its hand?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 27, 2012 17:13:52 GMT -5
I like to believe that I would not shake Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin's hand. But I might shake Jimmy Carter's or Margaret Marshall's.
There is evil, but no human being is absolute evil IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Feb 27, 2012 18:05:30 GMT -5
I don't know who Margaret Marshall is.
So you don't believe a person can be completely evil? I know, I know, Hitler loved his dog, but I can't believe he had any redeeming virtues. There are, I think, people who are nothing but evil--Osama Bin Laden, the Assads in Syria, John Wayne Gacy. Of course, you can argue that is mental illness of the psychopath variety. Semantics.
But then, Osama Bin Laden was probably a cute baby. I read something about Columbine that said that Eric Harris was a psychopath and Dylan Kliland was a follower and deeply depressed. But they both did the same thing. It's a puzzlement.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Feb 27, 2012 18:06:22 GMT -5
Maybe you meant Elizabeth Marshall.
|
|