News item:
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in its great wisdom, has determined that Belmont Abbey College discriminated against women when it changed a policy that had previously allowed women to have oral contraception covered by the College's medical plan.
This is discrimination against women, the EEOC says, because only women take oral contraception.
I hold that because Belmont Abbey is a Catholic college, it has a 1st Amendment right in this case. That may not be relevant in EEOC filings. I don't know.
The case, however, is significant in light of the ObamaCare debate. There is no question that the provisions of HR 3200 mandate taxpayer support of abortion. And when the "public option" plan is specified, it will undoubtedly require contraceptive coverage. You know the drill: the "public option" is only the first step on the way to single-payer, yada yada.
So the 'contraceptives required' violation of the 1st Amendment will be forced onto Catholics, too--just like abortion payments.
By the way, I think covering Viagra is insane, too, and if forced upon Catholic institutions, it is another 1st-Amendment violation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What's wrong with Viagra, from a Catholic perspective? St. Thomas Aquinas holds that sex is a positive good, if it accomplishes three things:
1) A greater sense of union between man and wife,
2) Physical pleasure,
and,
3) Hope of procreation.
As to that last, I suppose you could argue that men who need Viagra are past the age when they should hope to procreate; but Abraham was quite old, wasn't he?
You could also argue that their wives are likely to be too old to procreate at all, but Sarah was old as well; so one could honorably hope for a miracle.
If Viagra allows older couples to engage in sex that meets St. Thomas' three conditions, I would think the Church would approve of it.
I can think of several good policy reasons not to provide funding for Viagra -- I'm not advocating that the government should provide it to people at taxpayer expense. However, I'm not clear on why the Church would have a moral objection to Viagra in the way that it does to contraception.
It may well be a losing battle, but let's not roll over on this. Take it to the courts, and if we go down, go down fighting all the way.
Grim, there is no 'right' to sexual congress between married couples--any more than there is a 'right' to natural progeny.
I'm not arguing that there is a right, though. I'm trying to understand if there is a moral argument against Viagra, as opposed to against contraception or abortion.
If not, the Church still may not wish to be forced to provide the drug because it is expensive, and unnecessary, and they may rightly argue that there are better places to spend the money they have to spend. Still, if there is no theological reason why Viagra is bad, it's not a first-amendment issue. If there is no religious objection, it's a practical rather than a religious/1A question.
The question is not about the moral acceptability of Viagra (it is most certainly allowed), but whether it should be covered under insurance.
Post a Comment