Comments on Debating the HHS Mandate on Contraception and Not Using Your Brain: Faculty from “The Jesuit University in Cleveland” – Part 1TypePad2012-03-09T04:51:32ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/03/debating-the-hhs-mandate-on-contraception-and-not-using-your-brain-faculty-from-the-jesuit-university-in-cleveland/comments/atom.xml/John Breen commented on 'Debating the HHS Mandate on Contraception and Not Using Your Brain: Faculty from “The Jesuit University in Cleveland” – Part 1'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2016763b4f0f2970b2012-03-12T16:42:11Z2012-03-12T16:42:11ZJohn BreenAndrew: I plan to post a reply to your comments on MOJ. Thanks for reading the post and taking what...<p>Andrew: I plan to post a reply to your comments on MOJ. Thanks for reading the post and taking what I have to say seriously. John</p>David Nickol commented on 'Debating the HHS Mandate on Contraception and Not Using Your Brain: Faculty from “The Jesuit University in Cleveland” – Part 1'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20168e8b5647f970c2012-03-12T16:02:23Z2012-03-12T16:02:23ZDavid Nickolhttp://www.religiousleftlaw.comMatt Bowman says: "Andrew thinks health is subjective. Then stop calling it health. Call it desire insurance." It is certainly...<p>Matt Bowman says: "Andrew thinks health is subjective. Then stop calling it health. Call it desire insurance."</p>
<p>It is certainly true that what we call health insurance does not fit Wikipedia's definition of insurance: "Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for payment." People arguing against contraceptive coverage in health insurance often point out how different health insurance is from car insurance. But do the American people really want health insurance modeled after car insurance? Certainly pure car-insurance-like health insurance would not cover the cost of hospital delivery for babies. There is no disease or accident involved. Childbirth is perfectly natural. It doesn't involve healing. Having a child is elective, not a matter of contingent, uncertain loss. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that health care insurance has evolved to be something other than pure insurance because that is the product that people want from insurance companies. And it has been that way for decades. To suddenly decide health insurance is not "really" insurance just because you oppose the contraceptive mandate comes rather late in the game. Those who think health insurance should be "pure" insurance, like car insurance, should have begun protesting long ago. </p>Andrew MacKie-Mason commented on 'Debating the HHS Mandate on Contraception and Not Using Your Brain: Faculty from “The Jesuit University in Cleveland” – Part 1'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20168e8a60cc3970c2012-03-11T02:56:32Z2012-03-11T02:56:32ZAndrew MacKie-Masonhttp://source4politics.blogspot.com/I don't see why some fuzzy teleological objectivism gets to claim the word 'health.' Health care, it seems to me,...<p>I don't see why some fuzzy teleological objectivism gets to claim the word 'health.' Health care, it seems to me, is fundamentally subjective. Consider vaccines: they don't fix any problem in the body. They don't cure a disease or disorder, to use the language of the original post. Instead, they serve to give the body an ability it didn't have before. In other words, they "fix" a problem with the body only in the sense that the body isn't serving all of the purposes the person wants it to. Especially when vaccines involved more risk and side-effects, it would make perfect sense for someone to weigh whether the lack of functionality in their body was worth the risk/side-effects. Vaccines for willing patients are clearly health care, vaccines for unwilling patients clearly aren't. How do you explain that, other than through subjectivity?</p>Matt Bowman commented on 'Debating the HHS Mandate on Contraception and Not Using Your Brain: Faculty from “The Jesuit University in Cleveland” – Part 1'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2016763a468b1970b2012-03-11T00:41:26Z2012-03-11T00:41:26ZMatt BowmanAndrew thinks health is subjective. Then stop calling it health. Call it desire insurance.<p>Andrew thinks health is subjective. Then stop calling it health. Call it desire insurance.</p>Andrew MacKie-Mason commented on 'Debating the HHS Mandate on Contraception and Not Using Your Brain: Faculty from “The Jesuit University in Cleveland” – Part 1'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2016763a2707a970b2012-03-10T17:09:29Z2012-03-10T17:09:29ZAndrew MacKie-Masonhttp://source4politics.blogspot.com/I'd like to nitpick a few things in this post, if I may. You write: "The letter simply assumes that...<p>I'd like to nitpick a few things in this post, if I may. You write:</p>
<p>"The letter simply assumes that contraception constitutes “healthcare” without showing this to be the case. For this assumption to be valid, however, one must regard pregnancy as a disease that should be prevented or “cured” once this condition ensues – a “cure” addressed by the abortifacient drugs also prescribed by the mandate."</p>
<p>This is somewhat accurate if we accept the implicitly teleological claim in your description: "“Health” is a scientific term that refers to the proper functioning of the human body and mind..." I don't think that claim is correct, though, and I think many people would agree. Health isn't about bringing everyone up to some objective universal standard of "proper functioning." It contains a highly subjective element of what each person sees as the proper functioning of their own body as an integral aspect of their self. This is a large part of the reason why we provide so much leeway for patient choice in health decisions (and, indeed, why religious claims are so often adhered to in health matters).</p>
<p>Once this is acknowledged, it's clear that one need not "regard pregnancy as a disease," or at least not pregnancy qua pregnancy. In point of fact, it's *unwanted* pregnancy that's seen as a health problem: that is, someone's body (an integral part of the self) operating in a way which they do not want.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>You also claim:</p>
<p>"It is far more accurate to see this confrontation not as something that the bishops sought out but as something brought to their doorstep – something forced upon them by an administration that made a political calculation: in light of the Catholic Church’s fractured state as a “block” of the electorate and the weakened condition of the episcopacy in the wake of the clerical abuse scandals, the administration thought that they could not only achieve their immediate ends with respect to contraception but establish a precedent effectively neutralizing the bishops’ role in public affairs in the future."</p>
<p>I've seen this claim (that the Obama Administration is, in a calculated fashion, trying to drive the laity away from the Church with a 'wedge issue') multiple times, but I've never seen any satisfactory evidence. Do you have any evidence of it, or are you simply guessing at the motives of an administration you disagree with?</p>Francis J. Beckwith commented on 'Debating the HHS Mandate on Contraception and Not Using Your Brain: Faculty from “The Jesuit University in Cleveland” – Part 1'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20168e89ccbdc970c2012-03-09T20:12:39Z2012-03-09T20:12:39ZFrancis J. Beckwithhttp://returntorome.comWhen a religious institution employs cerebral prophylactics, it is practicing safe sects. :-)<p>When a religious institution employs cerebral prophylactics, it is practicing safe sects. :-)</p>