Skip to comments.Gov. Jindal Draws Correction from Church for Contraception Op-Ed
Posted on 12/17/2012 8:38:45 AM PST by marshmallow
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has voiced his support for over-the-counter access to birth control, a position that Church representatives say goes against Catholic teaching on contraception.
The Archdiocese of New Orleans disagrees with Governor Jindals stance on this issue, as the use of birth control and contraceptives are against Catholic Church teaching, Communications Director for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, Sarah Comiskey McDonald, told EWTN News on Dec. 14.
Robert Tasman, Associate Director of the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops, also echoed the archdioceses statement.
Gov. Jindal, a Catholic, argued in a Dec. 13 editorial for the Wall Street Journal that allowing access to artificial birth control without a prescription would remove politics from contraception, while also protecting the rights of individuals who are morally opposed to paying for its coverage.
In his opinion piece, Jindal cited a recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that says birth control should be available over the counter, arguing that unintended pregnancies are a major public health problem in the U.S.
Jindal said the two reasons women must visit a doctor for a prescription for a drug that research says is safe is because big government says they should and because big pharmaceutical companies benefit from it.
(Excerpt) Read more at ewtnnews.com ...
I believe that the Governor and the Archbishop may be arguing past one another.
He does have a point. If the birth control was available for purchase, then no one has to be forced by Obamacare to purchase it for anyone. The people that want it will buy it themselves.
Exactly. The Archbishop apparently mistook Jindal’s recommendation as promoting artificial birth control.
The Romanists and their progeny have been trying to reclaim control over the government as they did in Europe. That is why people left Europe to come here, and still do not want the religious component to make up a private citizen's minds over his/her own will. Imho
but he is promoting b.c.
the church is against any form of b.c. like that....
no one is ‘talking past’ anyone...
The Church can do what it wants, but is this logical?
Contraceptives are legal. The church argues morality. Jindal’s proposal makes contraceptives cheaper to obtain, and increases the risk of medical problems for women who don’t have a physician checking their reactions to the drug.
But notice the church is not arguing that Jindal’s idea is immoral because it puts women at medical risk.
They are arguing about the morality of using the drug at all.
By making the drug cheaper, Jindal is lowering the barrier for use (although really, anybody who is too poor to afford a medical visit can get a free medical checkup, or go to a free clinic, and get the prescription, and Walmart already sells the more popular drug for $4 a month so it is hardly going to get THAT much cheaper).
But since they make a moral argument, I would object — morality is based on a person’s choices, not opportunity. A woman who would desire in her heart to use contraceptives is not made moral because they can’t afford the drug.
Arguing that we should help people keep from sinning by making it marginally more expensive for them suggests that greed should drive morality, rather than a belief in doing what is right.
I don’t believe that contraception in itself is immoral, I am simply adopting the hypothesis for the purpose of discussion. My point being that Jindal’s suggestion does not appear to be immoral even if you oppose contraception, because he is NOT making it legal when it was once illegal, he is simply removing the government’s role in contraception, which actually helps the taxpayers who think that they are corrupted because their tax dollars are involved in contraceptive decisions.
Which I think was Jindal’s goal — to make contraceptive use an individual choice, so that doctors and taxpayers wouldn’t be involved, and we wouldn’t have political arguments surrounding a moral/church question.
I like Bobby but he is wrong on this one.
The reason they should require a prescription is that in some women they can have serious- even fatal- side effects. Of course this only works if the doctor is competent and has some medical history and baseline on the patient.
But not everyone is against birth control. The Archbishop is free to express his opinion on the subject, but is, and should be, totally powerless to prevent anyone from getting birth control. There are millions of non-Catholics in the country. They shouldn’t have to live under Catholic law. At the same time, if birth control was available without going through insurance companies, then people could just buy it on their own.
However, the leaders of the Catholic Church often do not understand how to fight the Left, as they tend to be PART of the Left.
Much to my frustration!
I still have a difficult time in believing that Jindal said this. However, if he did, he is not mentioning the possibility of these teenage pregnancies carrying the child to term and then offering it for adoption.
I don’t think we are getting the whole story here. Did something get taken out of context?
There’s plenty of data to show that prescription availability of the pill has had serious negative side effects on the country. It is the chief factor in the sexual revolution and the rise of casual sex. This is a moral blight on the society that the Church rightly concerns herself with. It was predicted exactly by Paul VI and everyone laughed at him. But time has proven him prescient.
Making the Pill OTC can only exacerbate this problem.
Those on FR who use this opportunity to drive a wedge between Catholics and non-Catholics do a disservice to all of us who care about the health of marriage and sexuality in our society.
The “ho-hum,” it’s just contraception, who cares, doesn’t hurt anyone as long as it’s freely chosen” attitude you and others offer here will come back to bite you in the butt some day. But by then you’ll have some other explanation why it’s all the Catholic Church’s fault when she was just pointing out the facts of the matter: contraception destroys healthy attitudes toward sex. Period. Sex is about procreation. It’s also about other things but it is irreducibly about procreation. Deny that (which is what ho-humming contraception does) and pay a price for it down the road.
And exactly how is Jindal not promoting contraception when he advocates making it a hundred times easier to obtain? If his purpose was to get around the HHS mandates, then he’s a fool—his prescription for cure is worse than the disease.
Jindal’s a fool because if indeed the Pill were made OTC, then OTC pills free of charge would still be mandated under new HHS Regs.
Yes, of course “health insurance” is supposed to be limited to prescription medications. But don’t kid yourself. Sebelius would just turn around and say, with Sandra Fluck: hey, contraceptions (actually including abortifacients) are so utterly utterly crucial to women’s health that we at HHS now MANDATE that all employers of more than 50 people provide free of charge OTC contraceptives to their employees.
The King-God has spoken, Long Live the King-God.
Don’t think for a moment that HHS would let Jindal outflank them in this manner. The original HHS regs were never about women’s health. They were always about power. And if Jindal thinks he’s so clever to try this flanking maneuver, he’ll learn very fast that the Power-hungry Gods of Washington will NOT ever give in on this one.
They’ll just mandate OTC pills. Just on principle.
There is far more demagoguery here by Protestants seeking to impose their will on Catholics. By marginalizing us, you play right into Obama’s hands. Jindal is a moron. End of story. Making it OTC will increase it’s usage, which is contrary to what the Church teaches. Jindal is a Catholic (or at least purports to be), thus he has an obligation to actually do what the Church teaches including on contraception.
Was God promoting sin by putting the apple within easy reach?
That implies that we should legislate the moral teachings of the Church. But not in an absolute way, such as by banning contraceptives, but through coercive means, such as by imposing needless regulation to drive up the costs of something to discourage it's use.
That seems like a backwards way to make a philosophical point. I realize though that since I don't agree with this particular teaching of the Catholic church, I don't have the same perspective. For example, I am all for regulatory hurdles that help stop abortion, because I believe abortion is wrong. I don't see contraception in all forms as wrong, so I view the ban as a religious tenet, and don't support increasing government regulation to encourage non-Catholics to follow the Church's religious teaching.
Obviously, if you believe that there is an inherent societal harm to contraception, you might look at increased government regulation as a reasonable method to force people to follow the religious tenets and therefore reduce the incidence of the societal harm.
But then my other argument applies -- there is no evidence that any person is making a choice about birth control based on cost. So in this case, I would argue that switching from prescription to OTC won't increase the incidence of use of contraception, and therefore won't achieve the goal of using government to enforce the religious tenet.
And it DOES do direct harm, by injecting government control into an otherwise personal choice, and involving taxpayers indirectly in the contraceptive decision, which could be a moral issue for some.
Why aren't we mad at all the other Catholic politicians who are not working to make it HARDER to get contraceptives, like proposing excise taxes like that for alcohol? Sure, they would fail, but at least it would be a more principled attack, using government to stop the use of contraceptives.
Your side seems to be arguing that Jindal's proposal is a fundamental change in the contraceptive equation. But it isn't. The Church opposes all contraceptive choices, but several, like Condoms, are already OTC. And anybody can get a prescription with little or no cost, and the pills are dirt cheap already. Jindal's sin is to remove one governmental barrier to the use, making it an individual moral choice. And in the end, I think for things that are NOT societally harmful, faith is best exercised by individual choice, not by government coercion.
In other words, I think it profits a man nothing if the only reason they don't sin is because they are prevented from sinning by the government.
Spewing bogus “Romanist” garbage can't change the fact that "non-Catholic Christians" are now and always have been the majority in this country.
As such, this country is a fine example of where "roll your own Christianity" has been heading ever since Luther preached that following Eve was the same thing as following Christ.
From ordained queers marrying other queers to one another, to the nuts like Koresh claiming to be a prophet, all the non-Catholic pseudo-Christians in this country insist they base everything they believe entirely on Scripture illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and they can all "prove" they're right just as much as anyone else can.
When people adopt Protestant doctrines they're really adopting the Self Worship of “to thine own self be true” and rejecting Christianity. That's why over time all non-Catholic churches drift away from anything like true Christian beliefs and into whatever makes the wallets in the pews most comfortable with their Self Worship.
If the folks who spew their "Romanist" and "Papist" garbage had spent a lot more time working to keep their fellow non-Catholic pseudo-Christians at least close to being Christian rather than blathering lies about the The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded the country wouldn't be in the mess the majority has made of things.
When non-Catholic Christians in this country rise up and halt the murder of over a million infants a year by abortion and about twice that many with contraceptives, they won't need to try their comical "Romanist" lies to divert attention away from their worshiping of their own, Most High and Holy Self rather than Jesus Christ and the disastrous results of their narcissistic Self Worship.
My point was that as a matter of policy, it would NOT increase the use of birth control, as the accessibility of birth control is pretty much universal, with no appreciable barriers to either availability or price, despite what Obama has argued.
Making some common pills OTC could increase the total use somewhat. It might even draw a few more individuals into use (these are separate issues). But when virtually every woman has used some sort of birth control at some point in their lives, there are few “new” women to be brought to use by such a rule.
My bigger point, given this is a religion thread, was that the morality of contraceptives does not lie in the manner by which they are obtained, but rather in their use. And sin is an individual act, where an individual decides whether to obey God, or disobey. Jindal might make it a bit easier for a woman to sin (again, I will adopt as a premise that contraception is a sin). But sin is not judged by the ease in which it can be engaged in.
We aren’t discussing making it legal where it once was illegal. We are talking about getting government regulations out of the process. Yes, government regulation can drive up costs and therefore discourage some use; but they also entangle all of us in the matter.
“That implies that we should legislate the moral teachings of the Church.”
Last I checked, Bobby Jindal is a member of the Catholic church. If he wishes to remain a member of the Catholic church then he shouldn’t pass legislation which is contrary to his own faith.
Other people are free to do as they wish. Jindal, on the other hand is not.
Two, legislation would have to be done to change the status of contraception. Essentially, what you are saying is that legislation contrary to the Catholic church ought to be passed, and that ‘preservation of the status quo’ amounts to ‘legislating in favour of the church’. Precisely the opposite is true. You’re attempting to pass legislation attacking the Catholic church and dressing up the Catholic defense of the present laws as ‘legislating morality’.
Three, all legislation concerns morality. The statement, “birth control should be dispensed OTC”, argues that we should treat birth control the same as we do aspirin. So you are in favor of ‘legislating your morality’, because this is what you believe.
Four, I believe the state has reasonable interests that have nothing to do with the teachings of the Catholic church and everything to do with the health and well-being of young women in not dispensing the pill OTC. Jindal’s reasoning here is terrible. Essentially he’s saying that we should capitulate because Democrats are jerks. That’s a terrible reason.
“there is no evidence that any person is making a choice about birth control based on cost.”
You assume that cost is the only hurdle. No, it’s not. Dispensing it OTC will increase it’s usage.
“And it DOES do direct harm, by injecting government control into an otherwise personal choice”
Given that we are all paying for contraception, it’s no longer a ‘personal choice’. If the government can force people to pay for it, then the government can also ban it outright.
“Why aren’t we mad at all the other Catholic politicians who are not working to make it HARDER to get contraceptives”
Because morons like Jindal undermine our efforts to keep sane regulations on it’s use and distribution?
“But it isn’t.”
It assumes that contraceptive are as dangerous as aspirin. And that’s simply not true.
“In other words, I think it profits a man nothing if the only reason they don’t sin is because they are prevented from sinning by the government.”
That’s because you believe government should legislate morality - your morality, and force us all to pay for your contraception. Here’s a clue. Now that contraception is covered, it’s no longer a ‘personal choice’. Government can now ban it altogether.
Was once true in Canada, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Now it’s no longer true in all four. Next up, America and England. Wonder what he’ll say when us evil Papists outnumber them?
Was Jindel talking about pills that don’t let a pregnancy begin or pills that end a pregnancy that has begun?
The usual jerks still dumb enough to yell "Papist" and "Romanist" will then get late night talk shows where they spin out conspiracy theories.
Their big scoop will be how evil Jesuits forced nice little Protestant girls to starve themselves, get tramp stamps, breast implants, butt implants, botox lips, take contraceptives, get abortions, and do all the other things they did to attract nice little Protestant boys.
Ignatius was referring to those under the Apostles. Last I checked Luther wasn’t an Apostle, nor was he a bishop. Those who have voluntarily disassociated themselves from the Church are free to go. They might not like the consequences of their choice.
The use of contraception is contrary to his faith. Is the issue of whether contraception is available by prescription or over the counter a matter of the faith and practice of the Catholic Church? I don't think so.
If something is considered immoral, and its use is a sin, what difference does it make if one politician makes it legal via prescription, and another makes it legal via OTC. They both make the drug available to the entire population.
You argue that OTC will make more people sin, but I don't think that is evident. And I argue that OTC means fewer people are a partner to the sin, which is a good thing. By making it OTC, we limit the sin to the person selling the item, and the person buying the item.
As a prescription, the sin is borne by the doctor who prescribes the medication, the pharmacist who fills it, the government which regulates it, the insurance companies who have to cover it, and the taxpayers who must finance it.
So, my argument is that EVEN IF more people choose to sin and take contraceptives because they are OTC, the TOTAL number of people sinning will be reduced, and will be limited to people who have complete control over those actions.
The statement, birth control should be dispensed OTC, argues that we should treat birth control the same as we do aspirin.
My argument there is that the method we treat legal medication like contraceptives and aspirin should be based on scientific determination, not the various religious strictures regarding the medication. I certainly wouldn't want my aspirin to be prescription simply because the christian scientists think it is immoral.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of the pill. It prohibits the use of the pill for the purpose of contraception. If a doctor found that a woman suffered from an ailment for which the pill was a logical treatment, the Catholic Church allows the woman to take the pill.
So in some cases, making the pill OTC would NOT violate the tenets of the Catholic Faith -- only if the person BUYING the pill did so for immoral purposes.
Four, I believe the state has reasonable interests that have nothing to do with the teachings of the Catholic church and everything to do with the health and well-being of young women in not dispensing the pill OTC.
I did not address that concern, because I was dealing with the religious issues raised, as this was the religion forum thread. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that the pill is dangerous enough that it should, on a scientific basis, be treated as prescription only. I am simply arguing that this should be a scientific debate, not a moral debate, and Jindal should be criticized if his proposal doesn't meet good scientific practice, not because of some morality play.
Given that we are all paying for contraception, its no longer a personal choice. If the government can force people to pay for it, then the government can also ban it outright.
Again, not wanting to argue the non-religious aspects. But as a matter of current Supreme Court jurispudence, government cannot ban it outright. And it remains to be seen if government can force people to pay for it. But the point of making it OTC is to remove whatever control Government had to dictate coverage or require payment from anybody other than the person wanting to take the pill.
Thats because you believe government should legislate morality - your morality, and force us all to pay for your contraception.
Actually, that is the opposite of what I believe, as I don't believe the government has the right to force anybody to pay for someone else's medical care, much less contraception that they feel is immoral. I also reject the dichotomy that government NOT making something illegal is identical to making something illegal. If government chooses NOT to make something illegal, man still has a free choice as to whether to do or not do, to act or not act.
If the government makes something illegal, it puts a barrier to making the choice to do; and in some ways takes away the moral judgment of the individual, who might act immorally except for the fear of government intervention. This is not a strong argument, since the Bible is replete with punishments for sin, so clearly the concept of government helping to enforce a moral code is Biblical. My argument is that on a personal level, freedom provides a better moral measurement, because if a thing is permissible, one has the freedom to choose rightly or wrongly.
And there is a difference between government making something legal, thus providing free choice outside the legal strictures, and the government REQUIRING action, which again takes away choice.
The government has required action, and I believe has done so unconstitutionally. Jindal has a proposal for one method to mitigate that action by government; I would prefer we simply revoke the regulation by which Obama has acted to mandate our universal involvement in contraception and abortion.
But in the end, I do not agree with the proclamation that Jindal's suggestion is itself immoral, or at least is MORE immoral than the choice of most politicians to do nothing. I don't see what he proposes as changing the moral landscape, merely making a sin a little more personal and less societal.
“The use of contraception is contrary to his faith. Is the issue of whether contraception is available by prescription or over the counter a matter of the faith and practice of the Catholic Church? I don’t think so.”
I’ll take the word of his bishop over you.
“what difference does it make if one politician makes it legal via prescription, and another makes it legal via OTC.”
If society in general wants it that is one thing. Advocating legislation to make it easier to get, quite another.
“You argue that OTC will make more people sin”
No. I argue that making contraception available OTC will increase it’s usage.
“And I argue that OTC means fewer people are a partner to the sin”
That’s a pretty subtle argument. So you are saying it’s better to turn a blind eye then to provide appropriate regulation? Hardly. Better to provide effective regulation of drugs that have serious side effects.
“and the taxpayers who must finance it.”
Nope, we don’t have to finance it whatsoever. The solution isn’t OTC, the solution is to make people pay for their own contraception rather than forcing everyone to pay for it. I thought you were a libertarian? Apparently not.
“My argument there is that the method we treat legal medication like contraceptives and aspirin”
You are saying we should treat contraception the same way we do aspirin. The two are not the same. Contraception has a far higher incidence of bad medical reactions, including blood clots which have killed young women in the past. This is all scientific evidence. Treating two drugs the same way when medical evidence suggests otherwise, is contrary to what science says, not in support of it.
“Interestingly, the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of the pill. It prohibits the use of the pill for the purpose of contraception. If a doctor found that a woman suffered from an ailment for which the pill was a logical treatment, the Catholic Church allows the woman to take the pill.”
Yes, and do you see Jindal making that argument anywhere? No. So this is a non-sequitor.
“So in some cases, making the pill OTC would NOT violate the tenets of the Catholic Faith — only if the person BUYING the pill did so for immoral purposes.”
The Catholic church teaches that there are permissible uses of birth control. That doesn’t mean that the Catholic church teaches that it should be dispensed OTC. There are very seriously side effects from hormonal contraception, and if it is being prescribed by a physician for other medical conditions, then, and only then can it be determined that the rationale for it’s prescription is not contraception.
If it’s dispensed OTC, then no such determination can be made. Ergo, the Catholic position is very strongly against contraception OTC.
“Jindal should be criticized if his proposal doesn’t meet good scientific practice, not because of some morality play.”
Jindal’s argument is essentially, “Democrats are jerks, we should cave to them”. It doesn’t even pass basic ethics.
“But as a matter of current Supreme Court jurispudence, government cannot ban it outright.”
Absolutely they can. This is a basic principle. If the government supplies it, the government can ban it altogether. Obamacare turns contraception from an individual’s responsbility to a beneficence of the state. The state giveth and the state taketh away. You can no longer argue that ‘contraception is a human right’, now that the state is paying for it.
“But the point of making it OTC is to remove whatever control”
Nonsense. The point for making it OTC is simply to force more people to pay for it, and for these people to pay more to supply it to these people. It’s like as if McDonald’s became free, and paid for by the state. Making McDonald’s open 24/7 would not lessen the power of the state, it would make it greater. It would remove the oversight of physicians and of pharmacists.
“Actually, that is the opposite of what I believe, as I don’t believe the government has the right to force anybody to pay for someone else’s medical care, much less contraception that they feel is immoral.”
Then you should be standing behind the Catholic church as it is trying to take down Obamacare. We are going to need the support of people like you, but instead, you are more interested in making sure you get your fair share of government goodies than fighting the increasing size of the state.
To be fair, most people are like this. Occasionally you come across someone who gets it, like Rand. But sadly few read her let alone understand her and take her writings to heart.
Thus the "Roman" church, the Navajos, the home-brewers, the duck-hunters, the Jews --- anybody --- has the right, and the opportunity, to make their case and attract such supporters as they may, in order that their shared ideas of good public policy might prevail.
And can do so without any insinuation that they are being anti-democratic. Quite the contrary.
This makes dour insinuations about Catholic civic involvement irrelevant, or worse, prejudicial.
The latter --- removing third-party complicity or coercion --- is certainly a desirable end.
I think it's worth discussing. I speak as one firmly opposed to contraception. Making sure the cost is borne by the users themselves --- like bullets, Bibles, and beer --- could very well be a step in the right direction.
This may be a mistake; Jindal may be mistaken. But it's worth discussing. Removing the 3rd party payer could be a good thing.
As a believing Catholic, and also as a rasonably knowledgeable advocate of women's health, I think contraceptives are harmful, and seriously so, on every possible level: moral, social, medical. But the Church is (I include myself) -- WE ARE --- very much to blame for not having proclaimed this from the housetops for the past 40 years.
We have been faithless; and we are paying the penalty for our faithlessness.
We must fight against contraceptives. Taking them off of the HHS perscription menu might (MIGHT) be a step worth considering.
I am perfectly capable of determining for myself if a particular medication will be useful to me for a particular purpose. And if I have a medical question, I am perfectly capable of consulting with a physician, or a pharmacist, or a nurse, or a good medical text, to help make that decision.
It may well be that in this case, the questions are difficult enough that no reasonable person could be expected to make a decision without professional medical advice. Remember, I'm arguing about religion here, not about whether scientifically it makes sense. This is a religion forum. But too many people are willing to cede their own freedom to make choices for themselves to the government, or in this case to the government's determination that you need professional help to make a decision.
Suppose a package of medicine lists the side effects, and recommends that you consult a physician before starting to take the medication (just a generic medication here, it's a general argument). I can choose to follow the warnings, or decide I know enough to act without help. That is actually a libertarian position, not that I am actually a libertarian -- to be allowed to decide for myself how much risk I am willing to take, and to do what I want with my own body, so long as it does not impair the freedom of others.
Prescription Drugs are a way for government to dictate to individuals what level of control they have in making their own decisions. No doubt this provides safety to the consumer, preventing harmful side effects and death, as well as addictions, and fraud. But it does nothing that a person could not have done on their own, by choice.
You are saying we should treat contraception the same way we do aspirin.
No, I was saying, in a religious thread, that the determination of whether contraceptive drugs should be prescription or OTC should be determined in the SAME WAY that we determine whether drugs like aspirin should be prescription or not -- by scientific determination. There are many painkillers, some are prescription, some are OTC. Aspirin is pretty much OTC, but it has dangerous side effects if taken in too high a dose, and some people shouldn't take it at all -- all things that a doctor would know, and which might suggest that making aspirin prescription-only would make it safer for people. But the cost and trouble, the violation of our freedom, would be far beyond the benefit.
Thats a pretty subtle argument. So you are saying its better to turn a blind eye then to provide appropriate regulation?
I think you have missed that I am NOT MAKING an argument about scientific risks of the pill. I am discussing the religious aspects of making a pill OTC. While I would argue that most everything government regulates is actually over-regulated, I'm not arguing that there should be no regulations, nor is "appropriate regulation" germane to my argument about whether advocating OTC contributes to sin.
The reason I used the term sin was that seems the point of the article, that Jindal has betrayed his religious beliefs somehow by modifying the method by which a person might obtain medication that in most cases is used "sinfully".
Nope, we dont have to finance it whatsoever.
My point was more subtle than the obvious "we are paying for other people's pills". But I will note that I agree we shouldn't, but the law as it stands forces us to, and there seems no chance in the near future to change that law, no matter how much we hope to. Jindal presented a method by which that law (or executive order) could be circumvented, by making the pill OTC so it is no longer something government regulates via prescription drug laws.
My more subtle point was that we pay the government salaries of the people who decide how to regulate prescription drugs, and we pay taxes for medicaid and medicare which cover prescription drugs, in addition to paying for a host of programs which give away contraceptives at the federal, state, and local level.
I'm not saying I like that -- I'm saying it is a fact, and making the pill OTC might well lessen the degree to which we pay.
but instead, you are more interested in making sure you get your fair share of government goodies than fighting the increasing size of the state.
I fail to see how an argument to remove government regulation of birth control, making it an OTC drug rather than prescription, has ANY bearing whatsoever on getting a "share of government goodies". I expect the government to be LESS involved in giving away contraceptives if they are OTC than government is now with the drugs being prescription. But in any case, making it OTC wouldn't possibly lead to them giving it away MORE.
Occasionally you come across someone who gets it, like Rand. But sadly few read her let alone understand her and take her writings to heart.
If you believe that Rand would support the use of government power and regulation to artificially inflate the price of goods, or to make it harder to obtain those goods, especially for the goal of legislating a religious tenet of the Catholic Church, I think you have a profound misunderstanding of her philosophy. I don't particularly hold to a Rand philosophy of life, but to suggest that she would support regulations, even IF the government imposed them to protect people from their own choices regarding the use of drugs, indicates that you probably don't adhere to her philosophy either.
You mean you can’t buy condoms?
Lesbian and homosexual Bishops and clergy, every con man under the sun setting up a "Church" and calling himself a "Reverend" or "Apostle", open support for Communism and the overthrow of right wing governments, yes the havoc and damage wrought by that fool, the tens of millions of lives snuffed out, what an appalling legacy.
Bringing millions of slaves to America long after the Pope had come out against slavery, then setting them free and enfranchising them (talk about a great idea!), waging war against the Sons of the Founders, yes, the legacy of the heretic Luther, still wreaking havoc today.
The Lutherans support homosexual marriage and the murder of the unborn.
The Church is the last bastion of morality on Earth.
They are the conscience in all lands that are still free, and Jindal will probably clarify his remarks because he is a member and supporter of the Church and respects it, not because he is threatened.
The Church stays out of politics and expresses only the moral conscience of the righteous.
The Church does not excommunicate evil politicians like Pelosi and Couomo , who support killing the unborn
The followers of Luther and their cohorts however, openly exhort their followers to vote for communists , baby killers, and perverted scum communists.
So take your criticism of the Church and stick it where the sun don't shine.
"We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort... that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples... We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters" (In Supremo Apostolatus, 1839).
“I am perfectly capable of determining for myself if a particular medication will be useful to me for a particular purpose.”
Great. You aren’t Catholic. I’m explaining to you why this position isn’t an acceptable one for a Catholic to take. You would have to provide a doctors recommendation that the pill was a correct prescription to correct a medical condition that couldn’t be treated otherwise. It’s not just enough to say, “I’m not using it for contraception”. Can it be done? Absolutely, but you have to go about the right manner. Picking it up OTC doesn’t permit this regulation to be fulfilled, in all effect is it the complete circumvention of it.
Which, obviously, was your point in advancing that particular argument.
It’s perfectly ok for someone who isn’t Catholic to do whatever they like, but someone who is Catholic has a different set of standards. They are supposed to obey the Church. Some people have issues with that which is why they aren’t Catholic. It’s a free world and that cuts both ways.
“Remember, I’m arguing about religion here”
Yes, and you are simply wrong here. Canon law is pretty clear, you have to obtain the doctor’s prescription with an explanation for the condition being treated. Your ‘say-so’, just isn’t enough. :)
“But too many people are willing to cede their own freedom to make choices for themselves to the government, or in this case to the government’s determination that you need professional help to make a decision.”
Now we are talking science, not religion. Science is very clear that the pill has singificant side effects, sufficiently so as to warrant it being available by prescription.
“That is actually a libertarian position”
The correct libertarian argument in this instance is: “people should pay for their own damn contraception”. Insofar as the state is forcing people to pay for contraception, the primary concern is to end this travesty. Arguing, “oh but the state should make it happen OTC”, is no more a libertarian position than arguing that there should be no oversight of food stamps, and that everyone should be given a card they can swipe whenever they want food.
“and to do what I want with my own body, so long as it does not impair the freedom of others.”
Insofar as people are required to pay for contraception, - they are no longer free to do what they want with their own body. They are being forced to supply their labour for the benefit of others. They are also being forced to disobey, through state coercion, their own conscience.
“Prescription Drugs are a way for government to dictate to individuals what level of control”
Ah, so the real issue here is the typical, “I want my dope argument.” I should have suspected this. Fine. Since pharmacies aren’t needed, they should all close down. Go ahead, mix all the drugs you like. :)
“No, I was saying, in a religious thread, that the determination of whether contraceptive drugs should be prescription or OTC should be determined in the SAME WAY that we determine whether drugs like aspirin should be prescription or not”
And science is how we determine such things. Science is pretty clear on this that contraception should not be dispensed OTC because it has serious side effects that it would not be reasonable for someone who is a layperson to anticipate.
“there seems no chance in the near future to change that law”
Absolutely there is a chance, but not if we have people like you giving up.
“and making the pill OTC might well lessen the degree to which we pay.”
The same way that giving people food stamps is lessening what we pay. Making it easier to take from the public has exactly the opposite effect. Insofar as it is covered by the people, we should not be removing what barriers do exist in prescribing it. In fact, that’s exactly what Obama wants, to get rid of these barriers, and Jindal is helping him.
“If you believe that Rand would support the use of government power and regulation to artificially inflate the price of goods, or to make it harder to obtain those goods, especially for the goal of legislating a religious tenet of the Catholic Church, I think you have a profound misunderstanding of her philosophy.”
If you believe that Rand would assert that making it easier to take from the state would lessen, not increase the overall cost to the state, you are profoundly mistaken. That is the point here. Making it easier will simply ensure that more people take advantage of it for their own ends, that wastage and spoilage go up dramatically, since there is no punishment for waste. Use it or lose it.
If you believe that Rand would assert that making it easier to take from the state would lessen, not increase the overall cost to the state, you are profoundly mistaken.
Nowhere have I ever said anything that would even suggest making it easier to "take from the state". Making a particular medication OTC instead of prescription has NO CHANCE of making it easier to "take something from the state" -- If anything, it will make it HARDER, because the state is involved with providing prescription medication, not OTC medication. Which was Jindal's point, and which you seem to either have missed entirely, or be completely misconstruing.
Making it easier will simply ensure that more people take advantage of it for their own ends, that wastage and spoilage go up dramatically, since there is no punishment for waste.
Well, the fact that they have to pay for their own drugs, and therefore wasting the drugs would be cost them money, there would be a "punishment" for waste. And if you are arguing that government exists to punish people for wasting their own resources, well again that is certainly not anything like what Rand espouses.
Canon law is pretty clear, you have to obtain the doctors prescription with an explanation for the condition being treated.
First, I am surprised to hear that "Canon law" includes the requirement for a government-authorized prescription medication in order to treat medical conditions. What would happen if there was a safe, effective pill that treated these conditions and was available OTC, would this "canon law" preclude such treatment? I stand ready to be corrected, but I never pictured Canon law to be so specific to the laws of a particular country.
But assuming you are correct, why? Can't the Catholic church simply require parishioners to get a Doctor's note and bring it to confession? I still am having trouble with your assertion that Canon Law claims that people can't be trusted not to sin without government intervention; how does the government guarantee that a man doesn't cheat on his wife? Is everything about the Church dictated by civil law to keep Catholics from committing sins? I just find this hard to imagine.
Furthermore, I would find it remarkable that we are expected to keep a drug on the prescription list simply because the Church decided that would be a good way to keep their parishioners in line. TO other Catholics in this discussion -- please remember, I simply have a hard time believing this, so if it is in fact wrong, please don't think I'm accusing the Church of such things.
Anyway, this was a Religion thread, but not a Caucus thread. As such, it is expected that differing opinions on religious matters would be argued. I gave an opinion that the attack on Jindal was wrong-headed. An assertion that "it is what the Catholic Church teaches" is an appeal to authority, and while it certainly is a fine point for the argument that Jindal is being chastised by his church, it is a non-responsive answer to an argument over whether the Church is making a sound argument.
You should also understand that I have never argued that contraceptives should be made OTC. My argument here is that the religious argument against Jindal is an absurd argument, not that his idea is a good one.
Its perfectly ok for someone who isnt Catholic to do whatever they like,
Except your argument here is to prohibit me, a non-Catholic, from buying a pill OTC, because Canon Law requires Catholics to get a doctor's approval and selling OTC will prevent the church from being able to enforce it's laws on Catholics. So no, you don't think it is perfectly OK for me to do what I like.
Ah, so the real issue here is the typical, I want my dope argument.
No, the argument was that prescription rules are a way for government to dictate a level of control. You certainly can't argue that prescription rules DON'T give government control over what I can do.
Nah, you got it wrong, the COmmunists want to reclaim control over the government and Obama is doing that -- how did you vote?
“Nowhere have I ever said anything that would even suggest making it easier to “take from the state”.”
That’s exactly what making contraception available OTC through Obamacare would do. You just don’t seem to get it, do you? Right now it takes a prescription to get it and you have to have a doctor and go to your doctor. If your change were implemented, now that hurdle would be gone and people could just line up and buy as much as they wanted, whenever they wanted and ring it up on their Obamacard! “Merry Christmas, suckers!”
“Making it easier will simply ensure that more people take advantage of it”
Can you say, “massive expansion of state expenditures”, boys and girls? Yes, you can.
“Well, the fact that they have to pay for their own drugs”,
Except that Obamacare ensures that they don’t.
“First, I am surprised to hear that “Canon law” includes the requirement for a government-authorized prescription medication in order to treat medical conditions.”
Absolutely it does, at least for Catholics.
“but I never pictured Canon law to be so specific”
There’s lots you don’t know about what the Catholic church teaches and why. :)
“why? Can’t the Catholic church simply require parishioners to get a Doctor’s note and bring it to confession?”
They have to supply the prescription. They have to be able to show that yes, it’s being prescribed by a physician and that these are valid medical concerns to use the pill.
“Is everything about the Church dictated by civil law to keep Catholics from committing sins?”
You still aren’t getting it. That’s the whole point of Canon law, if you follow canon law, you aren’t going to commit sins.
“Furthermore, I would find it remarkable that we are expected to keep a drug on the prescription list simply because the Church decided that would be a good way to keep their parishioners in line.”
Again, I said no such thing. There is significant scientific evidence showing serious side effects associated with hormonal contraception requiring it’s dispensation by a qualified physician and pharmacist. That is why it’s not and should not be distributed OTC. It’s not aspirin.
“I gave an opinion that the attack on Jindal was wrong-headed. An assertion that “it is what the Catholic Church teaches” is an appeal to authority,”
An authority that Jindal has submitted to as he considers himself to be Catholic. You are not. Ergo, what applies to you is not the same as what applies to Jindal. Oh, wait, I already said that, you just chose not to read that part.
“You should also understand that I have never argued that contraceptives should be made OTC.”
“My argument here is that the religious argument against Jindal is an absurd argument, not that his idea is a good one.”
The argument that Jindal should be expected to respect the canon law of the church that he purports to be a member? Hardly.
“Except your argument here is to prohibit me, a non-Catholic, from buying a pill OTC, because Canon Law requires Catholics to get a doctor’s approval and selling OTC will prevent the church from being able to enforce it’s laws on Catholics.”
Also lie. I believe that contraception should be regulated because it has serious side effects and that sensible regulation includes requiring a prescription from a qualified physician and dispensation through a qualified pharmacist. But then I already said this, you don’t care to hear it.
“No, the argument was that prescription rules are a way for government to dictate a level of control.”
Give me my dope right now! And make sure you pay for it! Some liberaltarian.
I think you have a misunderstanding of Obamacare. It does NOT COVER over-the-counter medicine. IN fact, it even prohibits the use of a person's own money in health savings accounts to pay for over-the-counter medication (note Jindal proposes that people should be allowed to use their own HSA accounts for purchase of OTC medicines, like they were allowed to before Obamacare took that away).
I understand though now what you were saying. Yes, if Obamacare covered routine medicine purchases, making the pill available without a prescription would not help. Fortunately, Obamacare does not. That was the entire point of Jindal's proposal -- that since Obamacare (and frankly all health insurance plans) don't cover OTC medication, if you make the pill OTC, you remove it from Obamacare coverage, and so you remove the government and taxpayer involvement in decisions involving contraception.
I'm sorry I didn't explain that earlier, but I thought everybody understood that as a given, since that was the whole point. Absolutely it [Cannon law] does [require doctor's prescriptions], at least for Catholics.
I don't believe you are speaking of Canon Law. I have been to the Church official publication of Canon Law on the web, and searched it extensively. It does NOT contain any references to prescriptions (it has 17 references to the word prescription, none of which apply to the method of getting medication).
My guess is you are treating all church teaching as Canon Law, but Canon Law is a very specific thing, and it would be shocking given the nature of Canon law that it would detail something as arcane as whether a particular medication would be obtained via a prescription or OTC.
It would be like claiming the Constitution requires that you stop at red lights.
I am ready again to be taught by you. Please go to the Canon Law website: Codes Of Canon Law - The Hole See and provide me a link to the passage that requires Catholics in the United States to only obtain birth control pills through a Prescription process.
If you can't find it, let me know what you really meant, and stop patronizing me with your snide comments.
Again, I said no such thing. There is significant scientific evidence showing serious side effects associated with hormonal contraception requiring its dispensation by a qualified physician and pharmacist. That is why its not and should not be distributed OTC. Its not aspirin.
I wish you would decide what it is you are trying to argue. You keep jumping back and forth between the "science" argument which I have not expressed an opinion about, and the Catholic Canon Law argument which is what this thread is about, and which you seem to misunderstand.
You specifically said in a prior post that the Church requires by Canon Law that Catholic Women get a prescription from a doctor in order to get birth control, because otherwise they could simply get the pill and use it inappropriately. That implied that the prescription requirement (which I still see no evidence for in the Canon Law) exists to keep the women from committing the sin.
Anyway, I have said multiple times that I think the decision whether the pill should be prescription or OTC should be made on a scientific basis, and not a religious basis, and I have repeatedly said that I am not making a judgment on that issue, I can't say, and I haven't said, that I disagree with your quoted statement above (I don't agree either -- I have not spent the time and study to reach my own conclusion).
So, is your argument that, if the FDA concluded scientifically that the pill met the requirements for OTC, that it SHOULD be made OTC? Or would you still have a religious objection to that based on your opinion that the Canon Law requires that the pill only be issued by prescription?
An authority that Jindal has submitted to as he considers himself to be Catholic.
(BTW, I don't respond to the parts of your post that I either agree with or see no value in clarifying). This statement would be of value if I was arguing that the Catholic Church has no authority to admonish Jindal -- but I didn't say that. I said that the Church was WRONG to do so. In that respect, your appeal to authority is simply begging the question, as I am questioning the opinion of that authority.
If you are going to claim something is a lie, you should provide some modicum of evidence. If I said anywhere in this thread that I advocated selling the pill OTC, please point it out to me, so I can post a correction.
Let me ask you a final question. This thread is a religious thread about the a Catholic Church admonition to Jindal, an elected politician, because he advocated making the pill available OTC. Their admonition appears to be based on the religious viewpoint of the church regarding contraception, not the scientific issues. The article cites a single complaint: "the use of birth control and contraceptives are against Catholic Church teaching,
The article also notes that the scientific community, in the guise of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, makes the scientific recommendation that the pill be sold over the counter. I realize that is counter to your scientific opinion, and again I am not going to compare your opinion against trained professionals.
My question to you is this: IF the pill was safe for OTC, and if as I claim Obamacare did not cover OTC medication, then would you still say that Jindal was prohibited as a Catholic from voting for a bill that would make the pill OTC, effectively forcing all of us to live under the Catholic strictures of what you claim is Canon Law?
“It does NOT COVER over-the-counter medicine. IN fact, it even prohibits the use of a person’s own money in health savings accounts to pay for over-the-counter medication (note Jindal proposes that people should be allowed to use their own HSA accounts for purchase of OTC medicines, like they were allowed to before Obamacare took that away)”
And this is why Jindal is a moron. The instant that contraception goes OTC - do your really think that Obamacare coverage of contraception will be dropped, or are the democrats going to ‘demagogue’ over this until we have OTC contraception and Obamacare coverage?
Now, for the rest of this:
“I don’t believe you are speaking of Canon Law. I have been to the Church official publication of Canon Law on the web, and searched it extensively.”
It’s in Humanae Vitae point 15. You certainly didn’t look very hard.
“On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there fromprovided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”
This requires proof that they are being employed for therapeutic means and not for contraception. It’s not enough to merely say, “I am using contraception for this condition”.
“it would be shocking given the nature of Canon law that it would detail something as arcane as whether a particular medication would be obtained via a prescription or OTC”
When it concerns the proper usage and circumstances of contraception? Not at all.
“stop patronizing me with your snide comments.”
When you start asking, “what does the Church teach on these matters” and stop telling, “this is what the Church ought to teach” then we can start. I suggest you start with reading Humanae Vitae all the way through, especially concerning the authority of the magisterium. Your issue really has nothing to do with contraception, and everything to do with obedience to a lawful authority. :)
“I wish you would decide what it is you are trying to argue. You keep jumping back and forth between the “science” argument which I have not expressed an opinion about”
You keep throwing up a wall. “This is science, ergo it is inadmissible”, “You can’t use science in this discussion”. Then you bring out the misrepresentations, “you want to restrict contraception because of your religion”. Is science relevant to this discussion? Yes. Do you contest my point? Obviously not. Now you have to concede that there are very valid reasons for the state to regulate the distribution of contraception all of which have nothing to do with religion. Game over.
“I said that the Church was WRONG to do so.”
Given that you’ve not even read Humanae Vitae, and aren’t Catholic, I’m not sure exactly why you believe your opinion on this matter has any force? Sure, I’m sure Idi Amin has plenty of opinions on the proper operation of democracy in America. Yes, his bishop does have the authority to call out Jindal on this issue, and yes, according to the teaching of the Catholic church, the bishop is correct and Jindal is wrong.
Psst, Humanae Vitae even shuts down your argument that it is ok to do evil so that good may result. ;) This is why I encourage you reading it and obtaining a properly formed conscience on this issue before issuing condemnations of Church policy.
“So, is your argument that, if the FDA concluded scientifically that the pill met the requirements for OTC, that it SHOULD be made OTC? Or would you still have a religious objection to that based on your opinion that the Canon Law requires that the pill only be issued by prescription?”
I don’t believe that the FDA’s decision is the one that determines what is scientific and what is not. Science is science, irrespective of the politics of the FDA. I believe that the science surrounding the complications of hormonal birth control is well established.
Since this isn’t a Catholic Caucus, casting opinion on whether the religious argument against Jindal is the point of the thread; dismissing opinions that disagree with the church by saying the church says so isn’t a good argument — as it would be if you were discussing in a caucus thread.
And so long as you understand that Obamacare doesn’t cover OTC, I disagree with your opinion of what might happen in the future, and dismiss your attempt to use your own prediction of the future to attack me for a position I don’t even hold based on your opinion of the future.
As for “Canon Law”, it is a specific thing, and I provided a link to the current “Cannon Law”. Since you had to go to a different link, and cite something other than the Canon Law, my guess is you are using a different definition of the Canon Law than “The thing called “The Canon Law”.
And I will note that even your non-Canon-Law reference doesn’t say what you claimed it said; it says what I knew the teaching was, and then you applied your opinion as to how that would “have” to be construed. Interpretation of Papal decree is not Papal decree, interpretation of Canon Law is not equal to the Canon law. You CLAIM that your quoted reference REQUIRES something that the reference itself does NOT require. Nowhere in that document does it say that the pill is REQUIRED to be dispensed via a prescription, or that a person using the pill must have a doctor to provide “proof”.
In general, God does not require “proof” that one is adhering to His law. God is all-knowing, and will see the hearts of his people. You might as well argue that since Catholic teaching says a woman should be a virgin until marriage, that it is a requirement that a woman be examined by a Doctor and provide proof of virginity before a Priest will perform a marriage ceremony.
So now I feel confident to assert that there is no reference in Canon Law, OR Papal Decree, that dictates that birth control only be provided by prescription, which was your assertion. I don’t have to be a Catholic to see that you are unable to provide a quote which shows a direct reference.
I dismiss your scientific claims because this is a religion thread based on a religious attack on Jindal, and that religious attack was that a public official could not suggest the pill be move to OTC because the Catholic Church opposes the use of contraception. Their religious decree had no statement of a scientific basis.
You are introducing a different argument, to make a different point. That isn’t useful to the discussion of the point that WAS made, and the scientific aspect of the question has NO BEARING on my religious claim.
So I guess you can attack my religious argument by raising an unrelated scientific argument, but it is illogical.
“I disagree with your opinion of what might happen in the future”
On what grounds? Now that contraception is covered, do you seriously believe that if they were OTC that the Democrats wouldn’t attempt to simply extend Obamacare to continue to cover contraception? Jindal’s argument is flawed. That’s the problem I have with it. The perceived ‘loophole’ isn’t one at all - it leads to a box canyon. If we take Jindal’s lead, it’s not going to take us where we want to go.
“Since you had to go to a different link”
Humanae Vitae is very much a part of Canon Law. Once again, you are demonstrating your profound ignorance on this point.
“Interpretation of Papal decree is not Papal decree.”
Where does Humanae Vitae affirm your position that the statement, “I’m taking this for medical purposes” is sufficient evidence?
“Nowhere in that document does it say that the pill is REQUIRED to be dispensed via a prescription, or that a person using the pill must have a doctor to provide proof.”
It states that hormonal contraception is only licit when proven that it is taken for medical purposes not related to contraception. How would one go about proving this? A doctor’s prescription stating such.
“In general, God does not require proof that one is adhering to His law.”
According to whom? The prophet Charles Wayne?
“God is all-knowing, and will see the hearts of his people.”
Then why did he establish his Church?
“You might as well argue that since Catholic teaching says a woman should be a virgin until marriage, that it is a requirement that a woman be examined by a Doctor and provide proof of virginity before a Priest will perform a marriage ceremony.”
Where does Catholic teaching state explicitly, “that a woman should be a virgin upon marriage?” It says no such thing.
“So now I feel confident”
Cool story bro. That and 4 bucks buys you a cup at starbucks.
“I dont have to be a Catholic to see that you are unable to provide a quote which shows a direct reference.”
I have provided a citation that demonstrates that contraception is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church.
“I dismiss your scientific claims”
Because they destroy your argument? Tough. It doesn’t work that way, unfortunately.
“That isnt useful”.
Sure it is, that is why you are attempting to dismiss it. It cripples your entire case.
Call me when you actually advance an argument rather than declaring yourself the victor, and perhaps we can have a constructive conversation. :)
The word proven does not appear in the text you linked. Here is the full text:
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there fromprovided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)There is nothing in that text about "proving" anything. It doesn't even specifically mention the pill. It states that any treatment meant for some other legitimate purpose is OK (not illicit), even if those treatments have the effect of contraception. The prohibition is based on the INTENT of the person. Which supports MY argument, not yours, as a doctor's note doesn't show intent, it shows need, and a person could get a doctor to show need when the intent of the person was to circumvent the rules.
But frankly, my argument was that the "Canon Law" did not state a requirement for prescriptions for birth control. I made that argument based on the absurdity of Canon Law actually saying that birth control could only be obtained by prescription, and by a search on the official church Canon Law website.
And it is clear I am correct -- you are casting your own interpretation into the Canon Law and the Papal decree you posted. You are free to interpret your Canon law as you like, but not to insert your own words into Canon Law. I'm not a Catholic, but I'm pretty confident about that. Unless you ARE the Pope, I guess....
As for whether the Humanae Vitae is literally part of the Canon Law or not -- well, there was a council that instituted something that is named The Canon Law, and the Humanae Vitae REFERENCES The Canon Law, so it seems to be something different. I believe it is ABOVE Canon Law -- I haven't yet found any reference to encylcicals that say they are a PART of "The Canon Law".
My guess is you did not use the term "Canon Law" literally (meaning the official published document that has the name "Canon Law"). But I'm not going to argue since even IF the Humanae Vitae was literal "Canon Law", it doesn't say what you claimed it said.
The entire notion of Canon Law of course had nothing to do with the original argument -- I simply thought it absurd that you were claim, which were analogous to expecting the U.S. Constitution to contain the words known as the "Miranda Rights". If you claimed that Miranda Rights were the law of the land, I wouldn't argue. If you claimed that the words of the Miranda Rights were spelled out in the constitution, and couldn't be changed, and that a law proposing a modification to the words would be unconstitutional, that would be a bad argument.
Your unjustified condescension aside, I would note that I did not start trying to argue about the fine point of church law. This is not a Catholic Caucus. It is a religion thread where Jindal is attacked for suggesting BC be OTC, on the basis that birth control is against Catholic Teaching.
My argument was that this religious appeal was inappropriate. Your responses have been all over the map, from arguing that his idea was bad science, to falsely claiming that Canon Law explicitly says that all Birth Control must be by Prescription, and therefore calling for OTC itself violates that law. (Of course, if the Canon Law actually SAID that, it wouldn't prove my assertion wrong, because my argument wasn't that they were misinterpreting Church Teaching).
So rather than continue the circular discussion and talking past one another (the sad fact being that I am not disagreeing with you on much of what you are saying, or making a value judgment on your church teaching), I'll simply re-summarize my point of this thread.
Jindal is an elected representative of the people. As such, I do not expect him to legislate particular tenets of his religious faith. If the pill WAS safe enough to be OTC, given that the pill is universally available already, already dirt cheap, and that for poor people the prescription can be obtained at no cost and little fuss, that it is NOT a given that making it OTC would cause people who otherwise wouldn't use the pill for religious reasons to now use it.
My argument is that the moral issues related to the pill are LESSENED if we remove the requirement for the FDA to control, insurance companies to cover, and doctors to prescribe the pill.
A Catholic Doctor currently is pressured by the law to prescribe birth control to non-Catholics, which would be against his beliefs. If it was OTC, there would be no pressure. Pharmacists are pressured to dispense, and wouldn't be if it was OTC. Insurance companies are pressured to cover under their prescription drug coverage, and wouldn't if it was OTC. People buying insurance see parts of their premiums underwriting coverage for birth control, and that would cease. Poor people get birth control under government prescription drug programs paid for by taxes, which would end (although I'm sure that the government would still try to establish SOME program to provide free birth control, either directly or through grants to free clinics, it wouldn't be worse than it is now).
In exchange for these moral benefits, the moral harm is that for those women who make the conscious decision to sin by using birth control, the ACT of that sin would be easier, because they wouldn't have to get a prescription first. But the woman would still have complete control over her own sin, whereas the rest of us have little control over our participation in the sin, and I think from a religious perspective that is an excellent trade-off.
Further, since even the Catholic Church does not oppose ALL uses of birth control, the existence of the pill is not itself immoral, and therefore making the pill OTC would benefit those who use the pill in a moral fashion.
That is the religious argument, and it isn't based on Canon Law, or whether Jindal is under the authority of the Church, or whether the Church has a RIGHT to make a decree.
BTW, lest you think I am being obtuse, I am aware that I took your reference to “Canon Law” quite literally. I know that the term “canon law” can refer to the entire legal system of the Catholic Church, including the systems set up to litigate matters of law.
But generally when someone says “Canon Law” they mean the actual documents that make up that highest level of proscriptions (not quite highest, as the encyclicals and Papal decrees are above Canon Law).
Since we were talking about a specific term being found in “Canon Law”, I took that to mean the document. If you HAD meant the more general application, you would have responded thusly; I never argued, because I wouldn’t know, if some church body somewhere in the Catholic church had made the argument you make. I was just arguing the notion that some Pope or council would have decreed that the pill had to be dispensed in the United States by prescription.
And I was open to being shown in a document where they did so — I wasn’t arguing infallibility.
So I wanted to clear that up.
Other people are free to do as they wish. Jindal, on the other hand is not.
If the citizens of Louisiana aren't happy with his work, they may choose to vote for some other candidate in the next election. That's how the system works. Imho, however, he has a greater chance of re-election if he stays true to the church.
“I know that the term canon law can refer to the entire legal system of the Catholic Church.”
Papal encyclicals are a part of Canon Law. This is basic stuff, Charles.
How do you know it was in easy reach???????
Well, she reached up and grabbed it. I suppose she may have had to climb it, that is possible, but there is no indication in the Bible she did. In any case, there is nothing in the Bible that says it was difficult to get to the apple. And why would God make it difficult? He wanted to test their obedience to Him, had he not even put the tree in the garden at all then there would have been no test. God also allowed Satan to tempt Eve. Obviously He thought the test VERY important.
We can hardly be considered obedient to God if the reason we don’t sin is because it is simply too difficult to do.