Host:
BONNIE ERBE
GUESTS:
MEGAN BEYER,
NICOLE KUROKAWA NEILY,
SABRINA SCHAEFFER,
PATRICIA SOSA
FRIDAY, JULY 12, 2013
Transcript provided by
DC Transcription – www.dctmr.com
BONNIE ERBE: This week on To the Contrary, first, Catholic organizations claim denial of First Amendment rights. Then, women inmates sterilized. Behind the headlines, homegrown human trafficking.
(Musical break.)
MS. ERBE: Hello, I’m Bonnie Erbe. Welcome to To the Contrary, a discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives. Up first, health care reform split. The “Obamacare” free birth control mandate got an unlikely ally this week, the Catholic Health Association or CHA now says it’s OK with the administration’s latest compromise. “Obamacare” mandates all insurance should cover contraceptives free of charge. But members of the Catholic hierarchy objected. And Catholic faith-based nonprofits filed lawsuits saying that mandate violates their free exercise religious rights. The CHA represents hospitals that treat one in six American patients.
The latest administration compromise puts insurance providers, not Catholic hospital or faith-based nonprofits in direct touch with employees to provide free birth control. It takes the protesting hospitals and nonprofits out of the loop and does not use any of their funds to provide the disputed coverage.
While the CHA says this compromise does not violate the hospitals’ religious liberties, the U.S. Conference of Bishops is still staunchly opposed. The bishops say the regulations prove the Obama administration is hostile toward religious freedom. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are exempt.
So Megan Beyer is this latest compromise still a violation of free exercise rights under the Constitution?
MEGAN BEYER: Absolutely not. This is simply a matter of separation of church and state.
NICOLE KUROKAWA NEILY: I do think it is coercive to have individuals and companies have to pay for something that they don’t want to pay for.
PATRICIA SOSA: It is hard to believe that if the Catholic hospitals have to provide the services or pay for the services, their rights to religion expression is violated.
SABRINA SCHAEFFER: That is still definitely a problem and it’s assuming that contraception is the number one concern for all women.
MS. ERBE: But wait a second. First – I want to get first at the Constitution and the meaning of the Free Exercise clause. And I’m a little confused because it clearly – churches – within churches have – and you know, in society in general, have a right to exercise their religion the way they see fit. Does that extend – do you think the framers meant to extend that to businesses that churches run in the form of hospitals or other nonprofit groups?
MS. BEYER: And then why not their supply chain, you know?
MS. NEILY: Yeah, I mean, obviously this was something that the founders could not have envisioned whatsoever. They’re looking – think back to 1750. They were trying to escape from King George, who was not allowing them to practice their religion, period. So I think this is very different. And again, I think the fact that Catholic organizations get so many breaks from the government – this is – to me, this has gotten so muddled over the years that it’s not exactly this clean cut.
MS. ERBE: But you said earlier that you think it’s – you were opposed to the idea of forcing them to offer something they don’t want to offer on the basis of their religion.
MS. NEILY: Well, I think it is coercive to have an individual or a company or an organization or anyone have to pay for a product or service that they don’t support or believe in. So just taking a step back, religion aside –
MS. ERBE: But didn’t – but the Obama administration did pull back and say change – compromised the first time – it’s compromised a couple of times now – saying that these organizations did not have to pay for it. It was all the insurance companies have to pay for it.
MS. NEILY: Exactly. The insurance companies are paying for it, but nothing is free. So where is this money coming from? It’s coming from premiums. Money is fungible. So will people be paying more money elsewhere and then having this work out? It just – to me it’s very blurry.
MS. SOSA: Well, it’s blurry because what are the bishops after? And this is a problem. We have a health care law that allows – mandates that certain services are provided, including contraceptives, and they don’t want to comply with that law. And I think the reason – you know, there is the Obama administration trying to reach all sorts of compromises that I think as a lawyer they should not reach, but they are because they’re political compromises and it’s not enough for the bishops.
MS. BEYER: And you know, the thing is if you were to poll the Catholic people – I mean, it’s very clear that there’s no great unanimity among catholic about banning contraceptives. And I think that what’s happened is Catholics have gone along with the bishops. They’ve been in lockstep, but now, that this compromise has been presented, that the hospital association has accepted, this is a breaking of the ranks and I think there’ll be a cascade of finding this as a very good solution.
MS. SCHAEFFER: But you know, there’s always unintended consequences. And I think that this mandate, something that’s been overlooked is that when you start providing or at least heavily subsidizing all contraception, it means that we’re going to skew the marketplace tremendously. Suddenly things like the procedure to place an IUD in somebody is going to be covered pushing all sorts of other manufacturers out of the business. And most importantly, it’s going to push condoms out of the marketplace, which is the only thing that’s actually going to protect against STDs. And that is not talked about when we talk about contraception. I think it’s very important point to make.
MS. SOSA: I have to say. The interesting thing about this debate is that I thought the train have left the station. We’re not talking about a new technology or something that is a mystery that could have the unintended consequences that you’re mentioning –
MS. ERBE: But wait a second – is it true that contraceptives – condoms are not considered contraceptives and are not covered by the insurance plans?
MS. SCHAEFFER: I think it’s over-the-counter contraception and let’s be honest, women are going to take more responsibility on these things. This is why the male contraceptive has not been adopted. And it’s certainly the reason behind that is going to go away.
MS. ERBE: But I am curious here. You’re – you’re worried about when this law takes effect that more women will use contraceptives and fewer condoms and therefore be exposed to ST – because that’s an – that’s an argument I haven’t even heard yet.
MS. SCHAEFFER: No, no, they will forget – more and more people will say, well, I’m on birth control or I have an IUD and they’ll forget that, guess what, that doesn’t actually protects against STDs.
MS. ERBE: But what does that have to do with free exercise?
MS. SCHAEFFER: Because when we’re talking about what might happen in this marketplace, everyone’s assuming that mandating free contraception is a good thing, an all around good thing, but there are unintended consequences that I think we should consider.
MS. ERBE: But getting back – again – my main question and I haven’t heard your response to this and I would like to hear it is the Free Exercise clause talks about – when I hear the Church claiming that their free exercise rights are being violated, I’m stunned because it seems to me that nobody’s going into the church and saying you can’t preach against abortion. You can’t get politically involved, which a lot of people have problems with. All they’re saying is that when you walk away at least a couple of steps away from the process of running a church and running a religion, and you’re now running businesses, that you don’t have to abide by federal law because it violates your religious – your free exercise rights.
MS. SCHAEFFER: Well, I think Nicky’s correct, that it gets very blurry. I think that any – any group that doesn’t want to provide something, whether they’re – I don’t think this has to do with Catholicism, right? This is about your free exercise of speech and religion. And we’ve gotten so confused here on what this law means. I don’t think anyone at this table has a unified view on exactly what’s covered and what’s being mandated here.
MS. BEYER: But you know, when we talk about the separation of church and state and we talk about these religious freedoms, look at what’s happening in the world today, look at what’s happening in Egypt. Look at what is happening in Turkey. And these were societies where they expected to be living in a democracy and leaders who have decided that religious norms were going to be the law. And that threatens the democracy. We’ve seen it in Turkey. We’ve seen it in Egypt. And I think having this respect for an accommodation that makes that separation of church and state is good for the democracy.
MS. ERBE: All right. Let us know what you think. Please follow me on Twitter @BonnieErbe. From birth control to sterilization.
Nearly 150 female inmates in California were sterilized between 2006 and 2010. That according to the Center for Investigative Reporting, which also reveals another 100 women prisoners in California were sterilized since the late 1990s.
Former inmates recall medical staff pressuring pregnant women to undergo sterilization, but a doctor in charge of ob-gyn services at Valley State Prison told the Center nobody was pressured. And in fact, he said, the procedure was only recommended to women with multiple children and who had served multiple jail sentences. A licensed psychologist there told the Center some pregnant inmates, particularly those on drugs or who were homeless, would commit crimes so they could return to prison for better health care. The procedures cost some $150,000 over a decade.
So Sabrina Schaeffer, your thoughts on this.
MS. SCHAEFFER: Well, I was concerned when I first read the report that these women were genuinely coerced into having some kind of medical procedure, and sterilization is a serious one, against their will. But I’m not quite sure that’s exactly the case. If it’s the case that they were sort of given education and it was suggested to them this may be, you know, good family planning for their particular situation, then I suppose that they made a choice that fits with their purposes.
MS. SOSA: Well, that’s not the story. At least some of the examples of women, they were in labor, they were in really difficult moments in their lives. And the doctors kept repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating, you should do this. You should do this. They were advising women to have multiple c-sections to do it because that was better for the health when the practice does not recommend the sterilization in order to protect your health because you have three c-sections and you have a fourth child and you may die. So there was an extreme – you know, they were at the line, of course –
MS. ERBE: But let me ask you this because I think this story raises an interesting question, which is I guess everybody would agree that all Americans have an unfettered right to have as many kids as they want, no matter how incapable they are as parents. And I’m sorry, but I would say that somebody who lands in jail is not a capable parent. And in many cases, these women already had multiple children, four, five six, had been in jail – recidivists in jail again and again and again. So do they have an unfettered right to keep creating children that they can’t properly take care of? Secondly, do they have an unfettered right for taxpayers to keep paying for the messes that they make in the form of these children who are not going to grow up to be happy people because their mothers are stealing cars and ending up in jail?
MS. NEILY: I’m going to take a step back. I think we have an incarceration problem in this country. Looking at – I pulled the ACLU numbers before I came in – there are eight times more women in jail now than there were in 1980. African-American women are 30 percent of the jail population. They’re only 13 percent of the population outside. So we’re putting people – over-criminalizing – we’re putting people in jail above and beyond, keeping them there, and we’re setting these women up for a life of failure. So I think that’s one concern for me.
Another concern for me is how can you make an informed decision when there are laws in California against having these questions brought up and raised? These women are in labor. These women are under duress. These women are shackled. I mean, obviously, there are safeguards in place. Federal money can’t be used for it, so they use state money. State even says you have to have – there’re all these different laws and things that have to be sent often. Bodies were not notified. So certainly these women were treated very, very badly. Even if they shouldn’t be having children, they deserve better than this.
MS. BEYER: But you know, the California prison system in fact right now is in the midst of a – the prisoners are having a food strike –
MS. ERBE: Right.
MS. BEYER: – on an issue that’s related to health as well. They’ve been under –
MS. ERBE: Well, the incarceration of – this is male prisoners, but in solitary confinement for 25 years.
MS. BEYER: Yes. So actually the backdrop here and the context, which I think is really important, Bonnie, is that they’ve been under receiverships since 2006. And this was a failure of the receiver because they should have known that you have to go to a medical review board to have this procedure done, sterilization. The receiver must have seen that line item. And they knew that they’d heard nothing about the procedures being done. So I think more than anything this story is an indictment on what’s happening in the California prison system.