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, 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.
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.
That’s 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.