Personhood Amendments

[yolland]

This Indiana case, which has made some appearances in national news, could be interesting in light of the January SCOTUS ruling which upheld the "ministerial exception" to job discrimination protections, while declining to define who is and isn't a "minister" in the eyes of the law.


Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, April 25

The Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend released a statement Wednesday asserting its right as a religious employer “to make religious based decisions consistent with its religious standards on an impartial basis” in light of a discrimination lawsuit filed against the diocese by a former teacher.

Emily Herx had taught literature and language arts at St. Vincent de Paul Catholic School since 2003. She alleges the diocese discriminated against her and violated her civil rights when she was fired because of her decision to undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to the lawsuit filed in federal court April 19.

According to the lawsuit, Herx had always been up-front and honest with the school's principal, Sandra Guffey, about her procedures. Herx suffers from a diagnosed medical condition that causes infertility. In 2008, Herx informed Guffey that she and her husband were considering fertility treatment, to which Guffey replied, “You are in my prayers,” according to the lawsuit. Infertility is considered a disability under the American Disabilities Act, according to the lawsuit.

In 2010, Herx asked to schedule sick days to undergo her first round of IVF. “At no point throughout the couple's first round of IVF did Guffey object, alert Herx to any Catholic teachings or doctrine that might be implicated, or take any disciplinary action against Herx,” according to the lawsuit. It wasn't until a year later when Herx requested sick days for her second round of IVF that Guffey asked Herx to meet with St. Vincent de Paul church leader Rev. John Kuzmich. Kuzmich told Herx that another teacher had complained about her undergoing IVF. He told Herx he feared if word spread about her IVF treatments, a “scandal” would ensue. At this meeting, Herx asked if her job was in jeopardy, to which Kuzmich responded that he “had to do more research and discuss the situation with others as he did not know much about this.”

After being notified the diocese would not renew her contract, Herx asked to meet with Guffey and Beth Kleber, the school's assistant principal, along with Herx's father, who is an attorney, and requested that the school reconsider her employment. Her request was denied. Herx than made the same request to Kuzmich, who told her she was a “grave, immoral sinner” and reiterated that the situation would cause a “scandal” if anyone found out a teacher at St. Vincent had undergone IVF. In this meeting, Kuzmich confirmed that Herx's firing had nothing to do with her performance as a teacher, as she was an excellent teacher, according to the lawsuit.

Bishop Rhoades also denied Herx's request to reconsider her contract renewal, stating that “IVF is an intrinsic evil, which means that no circumstances can justify it.” An appeal to the bishop was the final step in the process for Herx.

Herx alleges in the lawsuit that she was treated differently than other school employees such as Guffey, who is divorced, and other male teachers who have used contraceptives and received medical treatments, including vasectomies. The diocese's self-funded health insurance plan also covered Herx's visits to the fertility doctor and anesthesia services associated with IVF procedures, according to the lawsuit.

Herx, who received a bachelor's degree from Ball State University and holds a teaching license from Taylor University, was never required to take a religion class or to complete any training or education in the Catholic faith as a condition of employment, according to the lawsuit. But in its statement, the diocese said it “has clear policies requiring that teachers in its schools must, as a condition of employment, have knowledge of and respect for the Catholic faith and abide by the tenets of the Catholic Church.”

Included in the diocese's statement was the Catholic Church's stance on IVF: "The Church promotes treatment of infertility through means that respect the right to life, the unity of marriage and procreation brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act." The statement cited IVF as a process that goes against the Catholic teaching that every embryo has the right to life. "The process of IVF very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos or the freezing of embryos, which the church holds to be incompatible with the respects owed to human life."

According to the lawsuit, Herx told Guffey and Kuzmich in their initial meetings that during the actual course of her medical treatment, neither Herx nor her doctor destroyed a single embryo.

The statement continues to say that it is morally unacceptable to separate procreation from the conjugal act, insisting procreation not be reduced simply to reproduction.

[Liesje]

How did they even know she was doing IVF? It sounds like she told them when she needed sick days? I would have kept my mouth shut. It's a medical procedure/decision so they have no right to know anything about it other than what she voluntarily tells them, no? I work for a private school as well and we fire/not hire people for a lot of reasons that in the public sector would be discriminatory but my employer has no right and no basis for disciplining me based on my medical history. If we need to be out for any sort of medical procedure (even just a dental exam or yearly physical) we jokingly call it a "HIPAA event" and that's all anyone needs to know.

[yolland]

She isn't Catholic, so I'm guessing she didn't realize that IVF treatments for married couples violate Catholic doctrine.

[Liesje]

Whoops. So they will let her teach if she's not Catholic but fire her for IVF? I don't follow...

When we have kids, Phil will probably have to find a new job, as we can't afford (and just don't want to) abide by the requirements of his contract as far as where they can go to church/school.

[yolland]

Yeah, it's quite common for non-Catholics to teach at Catholic schools (just not religion classes), but, as the article mentions, their contracts do contain clauses to the effect that teachers must 'show knowledge of and respect for Catholic teaching,' act as 'moral exemplars' etc. (Though they're given no training in how to accomplish that.) Since her contract had such a clause, that *might* be sufficient CYA for the school--depends on how you interpret 'knowledge,' I guess; it's not like even lifelong Catholics have the catechism memorized, and while I'm sure any Catholic would realize that piping up about your IVF is a no-no, it wouldn't surprise me if many non-Catholics sincerely have no idea that even straight married couples can't use IVF according to the Church.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by yolland

Yeah, it's quite common for non-Catholics to teach at Catholic schools (just not religion classes), but, as the article mentions, their contracts do contain clauses to the effect that teachers must 'show knowledge of and respect for Catholic teaching,' act as 'moral exemplars' etc. (Though they're given no training in how to accomplish that.) Since her contract had such a clause, that *might* be sufficient CYA for the school--depends on how you interpret 'knowledge,' I guess; it's not like even lifelong Catholics have the catechism memorized, and while I'm sure any Catholic would realize that piping up about your IVF is a no-no, it wouldn't surprise me if many non-Catholics sincerely have no idea that even straight married couples can't use IVF according to the Church.

It's very common. I went to private catholic school growing up and we had a few non-religious teachers. Our science teacher was an atheist and he secretly taught us about evolution (the school wanted to teach creationism). I don't remember what happened to him. As far as "need to know" basis, I never have to worry about that because I work from home as a contract worker.

My S.O.'s office is vague as well. People will just send out an email saying "WFH (working from home)" or "OOF (out of office)" and they will never actually explain why. If it's during a crunch time when things absolutely have to get done, and it's for a doctors appointment they'll just say it's family business and very important.

I do a lot of volunteer work and my bosses are friends with me. We all get along great, so I'm more open with them about why I'm missing work (currently I have a sprained back). However in the professional business world I don't feel it's my employer's business unless it requires me to miss something extremely dire and important.

Originally Posted by Liesje

Seriously...maybe TMI but as I was reading that article it struck me that I don't even know my own cycle. My Dr. always asks about it, when was the most recent dates, bla bla bla and I never know what to say. I just don't really keep track of "stuff" like that, doesn't really matter to me. If some creeper congressperson wants to keep track for me they're welcome to but I've got too much to keep track of already.

I'm the same way and I'm on the pill. One would think, considering my periods are on an exact schedule (thanks to bc), I would know, but I don't. It's not something I think about and it's not something I think is the government's business. I was irregular before the pill and I didn't care then, don't care now.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I just want to know how Catholic schools focusing on IVFs or politicians trying to implement things like trans-vaginal procedures or restricting birth control access or whatnot think doing any of this will solve any of the "moral problems" surrounding such issues? If these restrictions and rules haven't stopped this stuff before, what makes these people think doing more of this will work?

(I know, I know, do the same thing over and over=insanity . But seriously, I'd like to know the supposed logic behind this line of thinking)

[Pearl]

My guess is fear - fear of science and technology bringing up new issues regarding faith. In the case of IVF and abortion, it brings up the question over when life begins, and if life begins, say when a child is born, then the Catholic Church loses its power over the fetus. Since the RC Church wants to dominate ever area of humanity, IMO, it also wants to control the fetus and the woman who carries it.

At the same time, I believe, the question over when life begins and how to get a woman pregnant, brings up secular questions and possible answers. When that happens, the Church loses its power and influence.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Numerous Catholics are using IVF, just as numerous Catholics are using birth control. So it's really pointless, all of it.

But I'm sure this will be called yet another assault on religious liberty.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Since the RC Church wants to dominate ever area of humanity.

It's pretty much dominated most of it already.

[Pearl]

Hence the reason why its afraid to lose control of that dominance.

[Pearl]

Gov. Sam Brownback has signed into law a bill that will allow pharmacists to refuse to provide drugs they believe might cause an abortion.
Called the Heath Care Rights of Conscience Act, the new law will bar anyone from being required to prescribe or administer a drug they "reasonably believe" might result in the termination of a pregnancy. The law was signed Monday.
Critics say the law will open the door for a pharmacist to refuse a request for something like the "morning-after" pill, which the Mayo Clinic says can prevent or delay ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
They argued that the law puts pharmacists and physicians in a position to refuse birth control and that it will affect many women, especially those in small towns and rural communities since the health provider wouldn’t be required to provide a referral somewhere else.
Abortion opponents said the bill is a narrow upgrade of a 1969 Kansas law that said no one should be required to perform or participate in abortion procedures.
State Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, was the bill’s sponsor. He said the law was intended to cover the abortion drug RU-486, not contraceptive medications. The morning-after pill is different from RU-486, which is used to chemically induce an abortion.
To be protected under the law, Kinzer said, a pharmacist would need "reasonable medical basis" to believe the drug would cause an abortion.
If someone were fired or sued for refusing to provide a drug, he said, he or she could then litigate whether there was a basis for believing the drug would cause an abortion.
He said the conscience protection would apply to any drug that would cause harm to an embryo after it is fertilized.
So-called conscience clauses have been around for more than 40 years following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1973 that legalized abortion.
Since 1970, Kansas has had a law that said no one should be required to perform or participate in an abortion procedure.
But in recent years across the country, the issue has moved to pharmaceuticals, particularly those given in an emergency to prevent a pregnancy.
Four states — Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota — have laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill an emergency prescription for contraceptives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Three others — Florida, Maine and Tennessee — have broad refusal measures that don’t specifically mention pharmacists.
This is the fifth bill restricting abortion that Brownback has signed since taking office.
Last year, the Republican governor signed bills requiring new licensing criteria for abortion clinics and requiring parental consent for juveniles to get an abortion.
Brownback also signed a bill banning insurance coverage of abortion and another one that tightened limits on late-term abortion.

Kansas Gov. Brownback signs act allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense abortion drugs - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com



This abortion/birth control issue is getting very scary. Not only does it show how misogynist some men are, but it also shows how backward the U.S. is becoming. Its 2012, and we're debating the use of birth control? What lobbyist exactly paid off these politicians?

[Moonlit_Angel]

I really don't understand these policies. If selling that stuff bothers some people so much, why get into that field of work to begin with?

[corianderstem]

It's fucking bullshit, and it is unacceptable.

[PhilsFan]

So sick of paying for people's sex lives with my tax dollars. That is all this issue is about, gang.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Quick, someone send this to the Romney campaign. That could be his economic plan.

forbes.com
|
6/03/2012
Women on Contraceptive Pill Should Pay $1,500 a Year More Tax

I agree that this sounds entirely absurd, that women who take the contraceptive pill should pay £1,000 ($1,500) a year more in tax, but it is the inevitable outcome of the standard logic that the polluter should pay. We do have to make a couple of assumptions of course, the first being that the European Union has got its science right, the second that they have got their costs right. But if they have then yes, the end result really is that women should be charged a higher tax for using the contraceptive pill.

The basic problem is that the hormones in the pill itself, the hormones which produce the desired contraceptive effect, then end up in the sewage system as part of the normal function of kidneys and bladders in human beings. Those hormones are then not captured by the standard sewage treatments and end up being released into the fresh water of the area. Where they are believed to cause sex changes in fish:

Ethinyl estradiol (EE2), the main active ingredient of contraceptive pills, can trigger a condition known as intersex in freshwater fish, which has caused significant drops in populations in many species – although no links have yet been made with human health.

So the proposal is that sewage treatment systems should be upgraded to deal with this. Perhaps fair enough, but what is the cost?

Achieving that target will not be easy, as Owen and Jobling point out in a recent issue of Nature. They calculate that, for a town of about 250,000 people, it would cost about £6m to install a system that uses granular activated carbon to cut EE2 levels, with a further £600,000 being needed to operate the system each year. To upgrade the 1,400 sewage waterworks in England and Wales would cost a total of more than £30bn, they add.

Let us leave aside that capital cost. Look purely at the running costs of such a system, some 10% of the capital cost. That’s £3 billion a year for England and Wales, and in that country there are some 2.5 million women using the pill. That looks a little low to me so just to make the math easier we’ll say 3 million. Or the running costs alone of such a system will be £1,000 ($1,500) a year for each and every women who uses the pill to regulate her fertility.

Where are we to find that money from? It is suggested that the manufacturers of the pill should pay:

Nor is it necessary that the public should pick up the tab, added Owen. “The pharmaceutical industry makes billions out of the drugs and treatments it sells. If these pollute the environment, what is wrong with making them pay to have it cleaned up?”

That, sadly, is near insane. The price to the NHS of the pill is of the order of £3-£5 a month, call it £50 a year tops. It is clear and obvious that Big Pharma is not making 20 times a year more profits than they actually charge. So it isn’t going to be the profits of Big Pharma that pay for such a clean up. Or if it is, suddenly the pill is going to cost £1,050 a year to the NHS. Which, given that the pill is free on the NHS just means that the taxpayer is going to pay.

Or, of course, the taxpayer can pay directly, simply shovel the money from the Treasury out to the water companies to pay these extra costs. Or we could even raise water bills for everyone to pay these extra costs.

But that isn’t what we actually say should happen, is it? In general we say that the polluter should pay, the polluter should pay the costs of cleaning up the pollution they cause. BP has to pay to clean up the waters of the Gulf after Macondo: we all think this is just and righteous. GE should pay to clear up PCBs in the Hudson River: certainly there are many on the left and in the green movement who think this is right and just.

Which brings us to: well, it is women taking the contraceptive pill who are causing this pollution. It is their choice to use the pill (and quite obviously they have every right to regulate their fertility). However, their choice of method of doing so imposes costs on the rest of us, upon the society at large. This really is pollution and yes, we do have this general assumption that the polluter should pay for having polluted.

Thus we come to the inescapable conclusion that women who use the contraceptive pill should be charged £1,000, or $1,500, a year for having done so. We cannot charge BP for killing fishies through pollution if we don’t also charge others who kill fishies through pollution, can we?

Another way of putting this is that the full cost to society of the contraceptive pill is not the £50 the taxpayer pays for it, but that plus the £1,000 to clean up the water: thus is £1,050 in total.

We might indeed say that women have a right to control their fertility: I most certainly do. But there are a number of alternative methods, various barriers, creams, sponges, IUDs, which do not carry this environmental cost. Those who choose to use this specific method should, at least if we are to be consistent about polluter pays, thus be bearing this extra environmental cost. An environmental cost that the other methods do not have.

Thus, as I say, women on the pill should be charged an extra £1,000 a year in taxes.

There are ways out of this conclusion. We could abandon polluter pays for example: that rather goes against the grain of the last few decades of environmental law really though, doesn’t it?

We could argue that the damage to the fish just isn’t worth worrying about: again, that’s rather contrary to the modern mantra that nature must be left pristine, without, if at all possible, any marker of human presence.

Other than those two I’m afraid that I really cannot see any way around the basic conclusion. The pill pollutes thus those who use the pill should pay the costs of their pollution.

[BVS]

Oooh a war on science and women rolled into one.

[corianderstem]

It's not a new concern, and yes, it IS a concern.

Medications going into the water and affecting the environment. Loads of medications, not just birth control.

But hey, let's just go after birth control and tax women.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Medications going into the water and affecting the environment. Loads of medications, not just birth control.

But hey, let's just go after birth control and tax women.

Exactly! That's the part that got me. Why did this author just focus on bc? To me it's very telling.

That have been numerous findings about this issue, and it was regarding several medications.

I just recently read an article and I wish I could find it but a small town was having issues with it's water life and water supply, they finally tracked it down to the psychiatric hospital and patients urinating in the showers. The way their infastructure was designed the showers drained directly into the river. Can you imagine the kinds of drugs these patients are on?

I think this says more about our water supply and sewage treatment than anything else.

[Moonlit_Angel]

*Reads birth control pill article*

*Flops head down on desk, sighs at the stupidity*

I don't even know what to say anymore.