Responding to Injustice
— Posted by John (October 24, 2006 at 4:47 pm)
Regarding last week’s outrageous New York state court ruling that religious social service groups must pay for employees’ birth control coverage — even if the groups believe that contraception is sinful — we issued this press release today:
Court Shows Anti-Catholic Bias
CHICAGO, Oct. 24 — “It is outrageous to expect the Catholic Church to go against its own beliefs, said Joseph M. Scheidler, National Director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, in response to the ruling by New York State’s Court of Appeals that Catholic Charities must provide contraceptive coverage to its employees.
“Some common forms of contraception can even cause abortions,” said Scheidler. “This ruling is a blatant affront to the right of conscience that should protect every religion.”
“The Catholic Church should not be punished for hiring employees who are not Catholic or for providing their services to non-Catholics,” said Scheidler. “Perhaps the Court should consider the consequences of Catholic institutions restricting their services only to members of the Catholic Church. The state would then be burdened with providing not only social services to thousands of people, but health insurance for the additional employees that would be required to meet these needs.”
“This Court of Appeals ruling is extremely short-sighted and discriminatory,” said Scheidler. “If it is not overturned by the Supreme Court, this country is in serious trouble.”
The Pro-Life Action League has taken a public position against contraception as the root cause of abortion. Its groundbreaking conference, “Contraception Is Not the Answer”, held last month in Rosemont, IL, explored the impact of contraception on society from the perspective of history, sociology, demography and theology. For further information, visit www.prolifeaction.org.
This entry is filed under Contraception, Law & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Michael-2 says:
I am not sure why employer and employee can not have a contract that both can agree to, courts notwithstanding. This total contract would include issues such as work duties and responsibilities, salary, vacation time, maternity leave, and health care. Now the entire package value is what is important, not some obviously divisive trivia such as the cost of contraceptives. At least not in a place like the United States where the salary range is what it is.
Someone wants the employer to cover the cost of contraceptives? Ask for a $5-$40/month raise. Or maybe, instead of continuing to cover the cost of contraceptives, the employer can teach the employee/spouse fertility monitoring such that there will potentially be NO FURTHER costs. Kinda like the proverb “give a hungry man a fish and he will be hungry tomorrow asking for another fish; but teach him to catch fish and you may never need to give him anything again”.
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 5:44 am