Catholic college faces lawsuit over refusal to provide contraception

The president of a small Catholic college said Friday he would rather close the school's doors than violate the church's teachings on contraception -- Ben Conery of the Washington Times has the story:

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that Belmont Abbey College violated discrimination laws because the school's employee health insurance plan does not cover contraception, according to a letter the EEOC sent to the school.

"I hope it would never get this far," college President William K. Thierfelder told The Washington Times, "but if it came down to it we would close the college before we ever provided that."

The factual conclusion reached by the EEOC could be a precursor to the commission filing a federal discrimination lawsuit against the college. (More).

Further details from LifeSiteNews:

Eight BAC faculty members filed a complaint against the college for removing coverage for abortion, sterilization, and contraception from their employee health insurance, supplied by Wellpath. The faculty first complained to the North Carolina Department of Insurance that BAC was required to cover contraception under state law because it did not qualify for the religious employer exemption. Both the state department and Wellpath, however, disagreed with the complainants.

"If you ever came on this campus, the first thing you see is the Basilica of Mary Help of Christians," said Thierfelder. "That basilica is connected to a monastery. That monastery is connected to the main administration building."

The group of complainants, who joined forces with the National Women's Law Center, then made a gender discrimination complaint to the EEOC, which in March informed the Abbey that it had closed the issue. Two months later, the EEOC reversed its decision.

"By denying prescription contraception drugs, Respondent [the college] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives," wrote Reuben Daniels Jr., the EEOC Charlotte District Office Director in the determination. "By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women."

College president William Thierfelder is insistent that the school maintain its fidelity to Catholic teaching:

"[I]t is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible."

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy

Matthew Archbold reports:

Your favorite grandmother Nancy Pelosi defended the inclusion of millions of dollars being spent on birth control in Obama's new economic "stimulus" package by claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

So that's what you are folks. You are a cost to the state and federal government. You are not a product of love, an immortal being with a soul. You are the product of a cost/benefit analysis.

Here's the exact exchange on ABC's THIS WEEK. (H/T Drudge)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Now this just might explain why Obama and Pelosi are so vehemently pro-abortion. It's because they're so worried about the economy.

[More]

UPDATE
Video (Hat tip: American Papist):

Pro-Life Group Launches HumanaeVitaePriests.Org

Catholic News Service reports on the launching of a new website, humanaevitaepriests.org, to help priests, deacons and seminarians teach and evangelize using Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae:

The site producers plan to supply offering reflections, commentaries, homily aids and solid practical resources for priests to preach about and defend Catholic teachings concerning marital love and contraception. The site is located at http://www.humanaevitaepriests.org/

According to John Mallon, director of HumanaeVitaePriests.org, the site will examine the “disastrous aspects of widespread contraception,” including its “medical, sociological, hormonal, psychological, cultural, pastoral, spiritual, even environmental aspects.” It will feature the commentary of special guest experts.

The site includes a special supplement from the magazine Inside the Vatican’s 1998 issue commemorating the 30th anniversary of the encyclical. The free supplement, titled “A Prophecy for Our Time,” includes interviews with Human Life International founder Father Paul Marx, Priests for Life president Father Frank Pavone, Dr. Janet Smith, and Dr. Alice von Hildebrand. It also contains a pastoral letter from Archbishop Charles Chaput and an article from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before his election to the papacy.

“Our prayer is that this project will be a positive effort to spread the light and truth of God’s plan for love, marriage and sexuality,” said Mallon.

The Mockery of the Good: "Purity Dances"

The Sunday Chicago Tribune had a front page article on the national phenomenon of "purity dances" among conservative Christians. These are formal social occasions where fathers take their daughters to formal dances, where daughters pledge themselves to sexual abstinence before marriage, and where fathers embrace the role of protectors of the purity of their daughters. If you're a young man, listen up: there is new hope here for you, for finding a pure woman to marry, even in these United States. If you're a young man, here's a great motivator for you yourself to abstain from premarital sex: be worthy of the pure woman who has saved herself for you.

Of course, the article is full of the mockery, cynicism, sarcasm, and disdain for the truly good that our present-day social customs aim at any idealism in the realm of sexuality. That mockery is, in my view, a reflection of the jaded who no longer believe in any romantic or chivalrous idealism in sexual relations. That mockery is also the terror of the guilty who don't want to see anyone achieve what they so cavalierly threw away forever. The saying is that misery loves company. In many areas of life, it is also very true, deep in the psychology of many, that mediocrity loves company. Mediocrity in sexual matters and in other matters wants to level the playing field so that excellence is flattened. Mediocrity reacts with envy, anger, and sarcasm when someone is going for the brass ring in life because, when someone else shines, they are obviously and emphatically left in the dark. The rational solution is to get out of the dark yourself, not to drag others into it.

Yet, in spite of the mockery in the article, the very fact that the article had to be written, especially in an elite, national newspaper, is very good. Some people even in our debauched United States are waking up to reality. Christians believe that we have a God-given human nature. Sin and the incessant social embrace of sin blind, deaden, and paralyze many of our natural, healthy human instincts. Ironically, in this post-Freud age, the widespread culture of promiscuity represses the truly human instinct for sexual purity. There is a natural human yearning for a pure spouse who has reserved the sexual act for marriage. We have repressed that instinct for so long in the United States that this idealistic yearning seemed all but dead and fictional, a concoction of another age, a caricatured "patriarchal" age of oppression. But nature has a way of making its comebacks because we are hardwired for the good. As an old commercial used to say, "it's not nice to fool mother nature." When we try to fool mother nature, reality bites back--hence so much widespread chaos and turmoil today in relations between men and women.

Part of the mockery of chastity comes in the classic attack that abstinence does not work--that even teenagers who pledge themselves to abstinence end up engaging in premarital sex. These critics also like to make the point that, once the teens break the abstinence pledges, they are more likely to engage in "unsafe" sex because they know nothing--or at least nothing "accurate"--about contraception. Let's take this bromide apart, step by step. First, as noted by one of the conservatives quoted in the article, virtually all teens know about contraception in today's America. Just walk into any drugstore; and you will see the products lined up in open shelves in a bewildering, vibrantly capitalistic array of colors and labels. Second, as also noted by a quoted conservative in the article, why not respect the full freedom of the teen by laying out all the alternatives, which include abstinence? As in the abortion debate, social liberals have a great fear of presenting alternatives, of presenting options other than those celebrated in the media. You have heard of politically correct thinking--well, we have among many social liberals, sexually correct thinking: you should not take seriously the option of abstinence before marriage.

But there is a more fundamental and radical critique that can be made against the argument that teens who break abstinence pledges are more likely to end up pregnant. This radical critique says that there is nothing wrong with preserving the natural link between cause and effect in sexuality: the undeniable (though not exclusive) purpose of sex is to reproduce. If x, then y. That causal connection is a big red flag: if sex leads to kids, it's a great sign that sex should be reserved for that person judged by you worthy to be a parent. When we find that person worthy of parenting our kids, we want to claim them permanently so that they stick around for the arduous task of raising and educating the kids. That arrangement is marriage. We have just reinvented the wheel for a society that thinks itself too clever to need the wheel. An unwanted pregancy is surely a great problem, especially for those in economic hardship; but we can address the problem by social compassion, by alternatives such as adoption, by re-teaching the need for abstinence before marriage, without cutting the natural, healthy link between sex and babies. Once we try to fool mother nature, we are the ones who end up as fools. Many can testify to that result.

Neutered

A recent front page article in the N.Y. Times had this headline that is supposed to elicit great civic concern on our part: "Big Rise in Cost of Birth Control on Campuses." In my experience, the story on which a journalist is focused is often not even close to being the most significant story involved in a particular set of facts. We have the "official" news story, and then we have the "real" news story. The role of analysis is to uncover the "real" news story. The ostensible "official" news story here is that college students [read: female college students] are having to pay more for their monthly contraceptive fix (whether birth control pills or various barrier devices). The "official" story goes on to discuss some arcane government regulations that, apparently, for years had the effect of subsidizing fornication on college campuses. Even I, as a lawyer, found the regulatory discussion foggy and off-putting. But the arcane legal regulations are not the real story.

Yet, even the "official" story found this social welfare program a bit odd: "Not everyone is troubled by the price increases. Some people said they wondered why college students, many of whom manage to afford daily doses of coffee from Starbucks and downloads from iTunes, should have been given such discounted birth control to begin with, and why drug companies should be granted such a captive audience of students" (N.Y. Times, Nov. 22, 2007, at above link).

What struck me as the real story are the prominent photos of two attractive female college students. The photo spreads explicitly identify their full names and their colleges of attendance. My friends, I admit it: I am shocked that these young women are willing to advertise in one of the most prominent newspapers in the world that they are sexually active outside of marriage. And not just episodically ready for sexual activity, but always ready to fornicate based on their regular monthly subscription to birth control pills. That reality is not surprising today, but I thank God that I still am capable of being shocked. One of the students even notes that she discussed with her mother how to get a better deal on contraceptives. They should rather be discussing why her attractive daughter, at a young age full of so many good possibilities, needs to be ready, always and continuously on a month-to-month basis, to have contraceptive sex.

What also struck me is how these young women and millions of others have evacuated sex of any meaning whatsoever. Once we neuter ourselves, we take any meaning out of the sexual act: we have "neutered" the sexual act. It is no longer about finding the special person whom you judge worthy to be a lifelong partner. It is no longer about finding someone you're willing to have as the father of and role model for your child. It's no longer about heroically and courageously giving one's life to another. The sexual act becomes as "neutered" as the females with a monthly subscription to contraceptives: empty of all meaning, ending up as sound and fury signifying nothing. And we wonder why marriage is delayed for so long or even skipped altogether or why marriages don't last like they used to last. Sex becomes a passionless, routine aerobic exercise dispensed at will. They have strangled a great gift to humanity, a great gift that they could have really possessed and really enjoyed for life. Forget about the official news story. That's the real news story.

Contraception does not reduce Abortion

For those who think contraception reduces abortion, Robert Novak points out that the claim does not ring true:

The widely publicized claim by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that state-funded contraception aid cuts down abortion as prevention of unwanted pregnancies is contradicted by figures from the same abortion think tank the senators relied on for an April 18 op-ed in the Albany, N.Y., Times Union.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that California spends more than three times as much on contraception as South Dakota for each woman who requests such services. However, California's rate of abortion per one thousand women is 31.2 percent, nearly six times as high as South Dakota's 5.5 percent.

Reid and Clinton chided South Dakota for passing an anti-abortion law while being "one of the most difficult states" for low-income women to get contraceptive devices, which the senators claim drives up abortion.

I would be interested in seeing other similiar correlations. I would guess they are there.

UPDATE: The USCCB comments on this:

The authors also claim that widespread access to contraception clearly leads to lower abortion rates,” Ms. McQuade noted. “Yet Guttmacher’s own data show there is no correlation between the two. States ranking highest for access to contraceptive services, including California and New York, also rank highest in abortion rates. Others that Guttmacher considers weak in contraceptive services, such as Kansas and the Dakotas, have among the lowest abortion rates in the country.”

“Those states have reduced their abortion rates, in part, by choosing not to subsidize abortion, and ensuring informed consent for women and parental involvement for minors seeking abortions – policies which the Guttmacher report demands be rescinded,” she explained.