U.S. top court seeks more information in contraception insurance case


The use of contraceptive drugs for those health issues is not part of the mandate. HHS is mandating 100% coverage only for contraceptives for the purpose of contraception. For any other reason, the insurer is free to charge whatever they see fit or deny coverage entirely.


Actually, LittleSheep, contraception is a level one carcinogen.

Another reason to refuse to pay.

Don’t make the nuns go against GOD.


Birth control pill is grouped by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in the same group as asbestos and tobacco, group 1.


“This is an excellent development,” said Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Clearly the Supreme Court understood the Sisters’ concern that the government’s current scheme forces them to violate their religion. We look forward to offering alternatives that protect the Little Sisters’ religious liberty while allowing the government to meet its stated goals.”


And ibuprofen. And wood shavings.


Is that supposed to undermine the seriousness that birth control pills are in that group?

Presumably wood dust is the same as wood shavings. This is from an interview with a scientist:

Dr Cliff said: “We have seen the International Agency for Research on Cancer declare that wood dust is a type 1 carcinogen. The fact that the particles are too small to be monitored or regulated is, in my opinion, a risk. By ignoring this risk we are going to create a problem that could be as big as asbestos.”



And alcoholic beverages, processed meat and Chinese style salted fish.

Also an interesting note on estrogen oral contraceptives:

NB: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary

emphasis added


None of Obama’s other nominees follows the Constitution. Why should we think this one will? The definition of insanity comes into play here.


Name for me a single doctor who directs patients to eat/breathe wood shavings and take ibuprofen every day.


Nuns don’t need contraception. And an insurance company doesn’t have a magical money tree they use to pay for birth control pills. They take in premiums which they use to pay for medical services/drugs. If contraceptives are covered, the nuns are paying for it, period.

There is no way around this. You have to choose. Who do you support, the nuns who are following Church teaching, or the government who wants to force them to violate Church teaching?


Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, issued the following statement regarding the new order.

“We are reviewing the Court’s order with our attorneys, and we will indeed be filing a supplemental brief. We see this as a positive development in that the Court appears to be looking for a least restrictive alternative that would not burden our religious beliefs, which will ultimately mean that the government did not satisfy its burden under Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”



Thank you for this information.


If fertility is not a disease, then we should stop trying to fix something that ain’t broke. I don’t know. It would be like taking a pill that allowed us to eat as much food as we wanted “consequence-free.” Are there pills that help people who have digestive system imbalances? Of course. That would be a health problem. But it’s far harder to argue the health benefits of that miracle pill if it elevates gluttony to the status of healthcare, and one that must be paid for by everyone. I know a lot of people reject the analogy, and of course it isn’t perfect, but despite what people say, I’m not abandoning its aptness.

I happen to think contraception more damaging since it strikes at the heart of one manifestation of Jesus’ spousal relationship with the Church. If one strikes at marriage, one strikes at the fruit of marriage. But if one doesn’t hold a sacramental worldview, then that point is rather hard to drive home, even though St. Paul mentions that marriage is an image of Jesus’ love for the Church. Jesus’ love is always faithful, and always fruitful. He didn’t hold any of Himself back on the cross. His entire mission is an example of extravagant and prudent self-donation. Honestly, Jesus doesn’t “contracept” His love for us. This finer point really is a squabble between Christians though, unfortunately, and not the wider world at large.

The theological argument is incredibly logical but from a natural standpoint, self-control is the best answer against contraception. That doesn’t have a lot of upfront sex-appeal, pardon the pun. It’s very empowering though, and entirely possible. It also helped my health by uncovering a simple hormonal imbalance that would have been masked and gone untreated if I had gone the conventional route of contraception. That’s just a benefit, though. There have been others.


Again, arguments about the “dangers” of birth control deeply undermine the Church’s moral position on that issue. With all medication, there is a risk/benefits analysis to be done.

Whether or not the Catholic Church accepts it, the vast majority of scientists and medical doctors consider birth control to be safe effective medicine for women for a variety of conditions as well as a safe, effective way to prevent pregnancy. Always safe for every women? - of course not - no medicine is always safe for every woman.

Again, I’m not arguing the Church’s position regarding ABC’s morality. But it shows that position to be exceedingly thin when the Church tries to prop it up by spreading propaganda that is in direct conflict with what scientists and medical doctors (and many many many woman) accept and know as fact.

It is fair for people to believe ABC is immoral. It’s nonsense to pretend ABC any more unsafe than advil, tylenol, heck, even the synthroid that I have to take daily for my missing thyroid.


I am well-versed in the Catholic Church’s theological position on this issue. I do not accept it from a natural law standpoint or from a Christian standpoint.

There are already plenty of threads here discussing that subject, but it is not a subject that I find worthy of discussing.

I do hope that, per the Court’s direction, the parties can find a solution that works well for everyone.


I agree that the adverse health effects shouldn’t be played up. I am curious, though, how one could argue hormonal contraception is better for the environment than self-control, when studies have shown how it affects the water system and fish population. I just figure that if it’s that hard on the environment, it surely isn’t that great for us on the massive scale it is being consumed. If we’re trying to be consistent in our “green” ethics, then that should apply to hormonal contraceptives.

Even if it had no adverse physical effects though, like condoms, that doesn’t change the nature of the act.


An accusation made by conservatives that can’t be backed up. :rolleyes:



I hear what you are saying, but I am not well-versed enough in how ALL of our medications (and there are plenty that are more prescribed than ABC - antidepressants, opiates, benzo, chemo to name a few - should we stop using all those things as well?) affect out environment other than to know that they do.

Is it better for the depressed person to NOT take (or not even have access to) her medications and perhaps become so despairing she harms herself or others in order to take better care of our planet? Is it better for a person to not use ABC and abstain from sex instead of enjoy its unitive, stress-relieving, health-building, marriage-binding effects in order to take better care of our planet? I’m not prepared to say yes to either question.

And scientific research tells us that more of the second question (healthy sex) means less of the first question (depression).


It may be a positive development that the Court is looking for a way to avoid requiring employers to be complicit in an action which they consider immoral.

The HHS mandate was not a part of the ACA—the act which enacted Obmacare. It came about afterward, by edict of the HHS (Health & Human Services department) which was given the authority to write regulations relating to the Affordable Care Act. So the HHS mandate is a product of the bureaucracy. It states that certain services must be covered without co-pay, including contraception (but not contraception for other than contraceptive purposes.)

Agency regulations can and are frequently be modified and re-written. The mandate could in the future be amended to include abortion services, euthanasia services, or other services deemed ‘medically necessary.’

The real problem is not finding a solution which preserves the mandate while protecting conscience. The problem is the mandate itself. The problem is allowing the executive branch to overstep its bounds by allowing it to mandate immoral services.



The HHS mandate was not a part of the ACA—the act which enacted Obmacare.

ACA is Obamacare.

The mandate was enacted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius.

President Obama, just three weeks prior to this, had a phone call conference with Cardinal Dolan, who was then president of the USCCB and assured him that no mandate would be put in place against Catholic institutions and others who did not want to cover contraception.

Three weeks later, the mandate was announced by Kathleen Sebelius and Cardinal Dolan was outraged.

There was word that Obama and his staff had a heated argument with Sebelius, HHS staff and women members of congress, to put the mandate in.

He gave in, which I fault him for. In fact, this isn’t the first time he caves into feminists demands.

But ACA is Obamacare, its not separate.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.