MSW Responds to Bowman & Garnett on HHS Mandates

MSW Responds to Bowman & Garnett on HHS Mandates by MSW

My response:

This is not merely a question of the rights of relgious organizations to resist government policy, but to resist what is considered essential medical care as determined by the Institutes of Medicine. The entitlement to coverage comes from the medical profession, not NARAL-Pro Choice America.

The new law did not institute requiring coverage of contraception - that was done by EEOC in 2000 - a fact that MSW consistently ignored. What is new is that coverage by employers is now mandatory (although I am not aware of Catholic employers who don't provide it now) and to be offered without copayment. The general ommission of this fact on both sides of the debate shows that both sides have an electoral interest in more heat and less light.

Ultimately, the religious liberty question is deeply tied to the moral question of contraception. Sterilization for economic or eugenic reasons is always wrong and should be resisted - but the Church should do this for its part by raising salaries by $12,000 per year for any staff member who adds a child to their family, regardless of wage - and by excommunicating Catholic employers who don't follow their example. Sterilization for medical necessity, however, is not the same thing and it is only prudishness tht resists it.

The question of abortion inducing drugs rests on the question of whether they do, in fact, end a human life rather than a potential human life. Since before gastrulation, the blastocyst is controlled by only the maternal genes, it must be inferred that it is also controlled by the soul which existed in the Ovum before fertilization - which is the soul or life force of the mother (the higher determines and is shown by the lower). Therefore, there is no life issue and the only objection is the sexual morality of employees. No employer, not even a religious one, has any right to say on it or to deny health insurance because of such objections.

The individual mandate will likely be considered constitutional and will likely lead to single payer, as it is inadequate to keep people insured in the face of pre-existing condition provisions and community rating (which will raise basic rates beyond where some can afford them).