Contraception Controversy -- 30 January 2003

[Captioning Made Possible by the U.S. Department of Education]
just ahead on "Need to Know," state law now requires employers
to provide health insurance coverage for birth control.
That provision has some religious organizations up in arms.
We're going to take a look at this clash of church and state
when it comes to birth control.
We'll also have our weekly edition of the "Business Section
with the Democrat and Chronicle."
that's on the way on "Need to Know."

>> Has the state approved church and not a state approved
church.
That's an objectionable thing.
It's according to licensing.
A church should not be subject to state approval or
disapproval.

>> This is "Need to Know."
the Rochester area's only indepth news program.
"Need to Know" is a production of WXXI news and public affairs
covering issues, politics, education and current events.

>> "Need to Know" is made possible by lexus and through support
of viewers like you.

>> Thanks for joining us.
I'm Michael Caputo.
Earlier this month, a new law took effect in New York just as a
lawsuit challenging a part of the same law was filed in a New
York court.
The law is the women's health and wellness act.
Among the provisions are that health insurers will provide more
frequent mammograms and exams for osteoporosis.
Highly controversial.
But the lawsuit filed by 10 New York religious institutions is
challenging a portion of the new law.
A requirement for insurers to cover birth control.
This issue of equal access to contraception has increasingly been
pushed down from the federal level to the states.
19 states introduced bills introducing coverage for
contraception.
New York was among three states that approved such measures.
There are now 20 states that have adopted such laws over the
last five years.
The law does include a so-called conscience clause which allows
religious organizations not to provide coverage for some
workers but the exemption is a narrow one.
As the New York lawsuit suggests even signing such a bill into
law doesn't stop the age old debate that pits issues of
religious freedom against equal access to birth control.
Matt Cummings has this report.

>> Let's put it in the bag.

>> Erica wants the same ability to afford contraception that
many other women have.
Not for herself but for her 16-year-old daughter.

>> Hopefully later than sooner they will need the services, you
know, the birth control options and I -- it's hard for me to
tell her all of the options because I'm not sure what my
insurance will cover.

>> She works for a local religious-based organization, one she
did not want to name.
That organization chose not to provide birth control coverage
under their health plan.
Without coverage she will be forced to pay about $40 a month
for contraception for her daughter.
Not only is the out of pocket expense a concern but so is the
lack of access.

>> Mostly because women have to have a choice to use or not to
use it and the fact that insurance of companies or
organizations will tell you you can or cannot, it's unfair.
You know, it's reducing the margin of choices that women have.

>> But a new state law now requires all employers in the state
to provide birth control coverage.
A portion of the women's health and wellness act mandates that
employers use insurers that cover costs of doctor-prescribed
contraception.
But it's not sitting well with some religious groups.

>> At the core of the controversy are the issues of religious
freedom and basic fairness.
Church organizations filing a lawsuit in protest of the new
mandate said they should not be forced by state government to
pay for an insurance benefit that is directly against their
religious beliefs regarding contraception.
Opponents say failure to include coverage of birth control is
discriminatory because it denies equal access to
contraception.
Considered a necessity by many women.

>> It suggests that we have to force people to do things
against their will because the consensus now is we need birth
control coverage.
We're not the ones that have changed.
We're not the -- asking for other people to go against our
faith.

>> Tom is an associate for New Yorkers with constitutional
freedom.
A Christian lobbying group.
He says the mandate provides the old debate of church and
state.
A provision in the new law does make some exemptions for
religious-based groups but they are narrow, covering only those
employees who are directly affiliated with the church and its
teachings.
However, many other employees and church-run hospitals and
nonprofit organizations are not covered under the exemption and
now must be provided birth control coverage.
He says these exemptions in effect allow the state to define
what constitutes a religious organization.

>> This bill says all employers, including Catholic hospitals,
baptist churches, others, must have this insurance.
Then it says we'll let some religious organizations off the
hook.
Not all but some.
And again, that says a state approved church and not a state
approved church.
That's an objectionable thing.
That's equivalent to licensing.
The church should not be subject to state approval or
disapproval.
It shouldn't be a list of four things you have to be in order
to be a church.
Also, Christian businessmen should not have to pay for coverage
for something that he objects to.
The Catholic church is opposed to birth control but -- and a
long standing record on that.
They object on religious grounds.
This is forcing Catholic hospitals to provide coverage they
object to.

>> Assemblywoman Susan John of Rochester is a supporter of the
new law.
She says lawmakers in Albany tried to strike the right
balance.

>> Individuals who choose to work in a school or work in a
hospital should not have to give up or make their religious
beliefs conform to that of their employer.
So those who suggest that this is interfering with the church's
rights are really trying to expand the rights beyond their
present existence.

>> Last month, 10 religious organizations, including the first
baptist church of Rochester, filed suit to overturn the
position mandating contraception coverage and replace it with
one having a total consensus.
They have written a letter in support of the legal action.
Among those signing the letter was Rochester bishop Matthew
Clark.
Here is an ethnics professor and chair of the human ethics
department at the college.
He says they are discovering the conflict involving
compromise.

>> We have to have rules by which we live and we have to have
laws and regulations and almost always that means one group's
perspective is not going to perhaps honor the things of
somebody else's.
We try to compromise by saying things like we're not going to
force you to live this way, but we'll allow people to do this
and the tax dollars will be used in some way so yes, you have
to support something you don't agree with.
You don't have on do it yourself but the majority believes
right now it needs to be done this way.

>> He believes debates such as this are inevitable in a
democracy.

>> Whenever you have respect for people's own personal beliefs
and also a democrat society where we're going to have rule by
many, conflict comes into play.

>> Let me point out there assemblywoman Susan John is
sponsoring another bill regarding birth control.
This would provide hospitals to provide emergency contraception
to rape victims.
Let's get back to the discussion about insurance coverage for
birth control by bringing in the guests, Colleen Donaldson,
chairperson for planned parenthood advocates of New York.
Jann Armantrout, life issues coordinator for the Catholic
diocese of Rochester.
Thank you both for being here today.
I'd like to start with you if I could.
A democratic form of government always seeks the middle
ground.
I bring this up because the question I want to ask you is does
this issue belong at all in the state legislature?
Do you think?

>> Well, I think valid points are raised when one of the
speakers in the news reel previous to the conversation mentions
that compromises need to be made.
I'm wondering where this state law saw compromise.
I don't think it was with the leadership of the Catholic church
or the administrators of Catholic hospitals and social service
agencies or school administrators.
So -- and I think rules have to reflect part of the culture and
have to accommodate a variety of beliefs but I don't think this
one does.

>> Did it compromise?

>> Yes.
I believe so.
I’d like to make three points in reference to that in that the
law does include an exemption for religious organizations whose
primary purpose is religion, including seminaries and dioceses
and offices are not required to include this coverage.
And secondly, a few years ago when California passed some of
the -- similar legislation, it was
appealed by the Catholic conference in California and the third
circuit court in California ruled that it was not an illegal
activity.
It was not a violation of the first amendment of the
constitution because it does not require employers to offer
contraception prescription drugs.
Only if they already offer insurance coverage that includes
prescription drugs that it has to include contraceptive care.
It does not require they cover all prescription drugs.
I think the third point I would like to make is that it really
is up to the individual what type of their insurance coverage,
what they use out of their insurance coverage.

>> I would like to follow up if I may.
The argument that religious organizations are making is
basically that state government is defining what is religious
faith, what is religious practice.
Why don't you -- do you believe that and do you believe that to
be so?
Why isn't it so then?

>> No.
I don't think it's so at all and I agree with what the court in
California ruled was that it's not requiring the religious
organizations to cover contraceptive drugs unless they have
prescription writers on their insurance coverage and that it
should include contraceptive care as it includes other drugs
such as Viagra and other things that many people may object
to.

>> What do you say?

>> I think bringing this down to a very practical level, we
have Catholic schools that parents have supported for years,
sending their children to these schools because they wish to
have Catholic values calculated, incorporated into their
children's education.
They're not sending them to Catholic schools because of or in
spite of whether the third grade teacher is raising her
children.
Those parents have been told for many, many years they will not
receive state funds for instructional education because they
are religious institutions.
Now the state is coming back and saying, well, you're not
really a religious institution.
Therefore, a portion of those tuition dollars can be used to
buy birth control.
That to me captures the essence of the conflict of where the
state and religious organizations intersect and raises the
question of who should be defining --

>> Could you speak to that?

>> Yes.
And I don't see how the tuition is being used for contraceptions
in the school.

>> I think the fact is the school and church are separate in
that case but doesn't seem to be unless I'm reading it separate
in this case.
How would you answer that?

>> Well, the exclusion covers a lot of the Catholic hospitals
and other special service agencies that do include faith based
organizations.
However, the vast majority of those organizations receive
public funding and do receive and do serve the general public
and I'm referring to hospitals and social service agencies and
employ a significant amount of people that probably are not of
the same religion as the organization.

>> I want to bring up if I could, I want to talk a little bit
about the clause.
I guess I'm calling it a clause or an exemption that we heard
about earlier and let me ask you this.
What do you say to the woman who works at a Catholic hospital
who wants the same access to contraception that everyone else
has and doesn't believe they're Catholic.
What do you say to that?

>> I would say that the organization is designed by its mission
and its vision.
Catholic health care has been established because of the
continued nation and ministry of the church for the
implementation of Jesus Christ command to heal the sick,
educate the poor, care for less fortunate.
When one is employed by this organization, I think and I regret
most people the idea of their awareness of what the
organization stands for.
In the clause itself, there's requirement that a majority of
the employees and the majority of the consumers are the same
faith as that organization.
That becomes very controversial because it makes it incumbent
upon the employer to ask you, sir, what religion are you?
If you want to come to work here.
Or it also can ask you, do you want to be cared by this
hospital?
Are you of the same faith?
Those are very invasive questions and jeopardize religious
freedom and right to assembly.

>> I wouldn't mind you commenting on that.

>> I would like to add a couple of things to that.
I want to go back to the main purposes that go beyond this.
I think we’re just focusing on one quarter of the bill that also
covers prevention and equity issues.
Breast cancer, cervical cancer and osteoporosis which you had
mentioned earlier.
All of these are preventive health care issues that are so
essential to women.
I also wanted to add the point that traditionally women have
paid 68% more for health care costs than men in our country and
that's primarily due to contraceptive cost as was mentioned at
the beginning of this segment when you had the mother and
daughter on.

>> I would like to speak to what you heard her talk about
about -- again, I want to make sure I'm relating it right, that
basically, you know, we need 51%, I suppose or a majority of
workers, a majority -- is that required?

>> I don't know.
I wasn't aware of that legislation or I never heard of that
before.
It doesn't mean it isn't true.
I don't know.

>> Let me turn the question I asked around to you.
What would you say to a religious business owner who feels, you
know, I don't want to give -- is this is against my beliefs.
This is against my beliefs.
Why should I have to pay for insurance that covers birth
control?
What would you say to that person?

>> I would say several things.
One, it's an issue of equity for women.
People -- contraceptive health care is a basic part of health
care for women and as I mentioned earlier, in terms of economic
issues, that's a basic health care right that women are
entitled to.
Secondly, I feel that prescription drugs covered insurance plans
cover many, many types of drugs that people aren't going to use
and some that many people of all different faiths may object to
certain types of drugs and yet, it's still included in our
prescription plans.
The birth control pill has been in existence for 40 years.
It has never been routinely covered in health insurance plans
and I would say that's probably one of the very few drugs that
isn't.

>> And oddly enough, Viagra is covered.

>> Yes.

>> That has been a big argument for those who wanted to see
this law passed.
What would you say to that?

>> I would hope that everyone understands that Viagra allows
sexual relations whereas the birth control pill is a
contraceptive so they're different.
One of the things that we hear over and over again is this is a
woman's right and it's a right of health care coverage.
Were that we so lucky to live in a society where basic health
care coverage was indeed a right, there are 43 million uninsured
Americans right now as we speak and that number grows every
day.
Women, of course, are about half of that population.
If only the forces that were so very well mobilized behind this
legislation could get behind universal health care coverage or
making sure all health care needs are met, no employer in this
state nor in the country is required to provide health care
coverage.
The Catholic church and institutions provide health care
coverage because of its commitment to the rights and dignity of
the worker and so we in many ways are being penalized and again
this is sort of double jeopardy that we exist because of the
set of religious values and now we are being told because we
express those religious values, we will be forced to compromise
them.

>> I want to ask you if I could, one of the arguments I've
heard religious organizations make is that the wording in this
law is too vague.
Birth control, birth control devices could include ru-486,
could even include abortion.
What do you say to that?

>> Abortion is not included under that legislation.

>> What about RU-486?

>> I'm not sure about that but probably it isn't.
It includes prescription contraceptive drugs.

>> What do you think?

>> I think some prescription contraceptive drugs do include
ru-486 and also morning after pills as they're
commonly known and these can induce early abortion prior to the
time of implantation after an ovum is fertilized.
As someone mentioned earlier, 20 states now have legislation
and the states have addressed this in a variety of ways.
California is indeed in litigation.
Very costly, very time consuming litigation and it's anticipated
that could go to the supreme court.
In Hawaii accommodation was
made.
The conscience clause which is similar to what was requested by
the New York state bishops includes acting out privileges for
any non-for-profit organization which has connection to a
religious organization.
Catholic hospitals, Catholic social services, Catholic nursing
homes, Catholic schools aren't required to pay for morally
objectionable procedures.
That's what we want.

>> Go ahead.

>> That's OK.

>> I'm bringing this a little bit away from this topic and I do
want to get a little bit at the bill that's also before the
legislature, Susan John's bill basically requiring emergency
contraception for those women at a hospital.
I want your position on that first.

>> Obviously we totally support that and planned parenthood and
certainly myself totally support it.
If a woman is a victim of rape, absolutely she should be given
all options at this point in time.
At any time for any possibility that she may have as a victim
of rape.

>> I know that there are some Catholic hospitals that do
provide this kind of thing but do you feel as though this goes
too far again?

>> Again, a question what is the focus here and whether the
focus is on women's health and women's rights, things that the
Catholic church has been committed to for many, many years or
whether it's a case of imposing certain values and religious
organizations.
The emergency contraception bill would cross that line in terms
of what is acceptable in the Catholic social teaching and
Catholic health care.
There are ethical and religious directives that are
successfully used in other states that provide women with
contraceptive coverage after a rape.
But that's not the same as a broad based emergency
contraception which, again, is hastily defined and really opens
the door to even more objectionable procedures to the Catholic
church.

>> I don't think they're requiring people to use.
You're simply making it available to them and telling them this
is an option if they're a victim of rape.
It is not requiring anyone to go against their religious
belief.
It's simply making an option available.

>> Again, I have about a minute or so and I do want to touch on
this because it's the 30th anniversary of Roe v. wade and I
would like to get briefly, where do we stand right now in this
country?
If you wouldn't mind starting first.
Where do we stand right now with roe v. wade?

>> I think we stand with the Congress and the White House being
in support of a restriction on abortion at a point where the
will of the American people will be better captured in law.
The majority of Americans believe that there should be some
restriction on abortion.
The majority of Americans do think that in the case of rape or
the life of a mother, abortion might be necessary.
But they don't believe that it should be an all-out right where
partial birth abortion and other such procedures can take
place.

>> Where are we right now?

>> I have grave concerns whether or not we'll be able to
maintain roe V. wade and its access,
Its tremendous access across the United States.
Many counties in the country.
I see grave eroding of this right.
Yes.
And I also see if this happens that we'll return to illegal
abortions and serious threats to women's health as it was
prior.

>> I want to thank both of you for this conversation.
This discussion can continue on our web site,
www.WXXI.org/ntk.
And if you're looking for the latest on politics and government
news, including columns from WXXI news reporters, log on to
www.NYcitizens.org.

NOW IT'S TIME FOR THIS WEEK'S
EDITION OF "THE BUSINESS
SECTION" WITH THE "THE DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE."

(Music)

>> With us is Ellen Rosen, editor of the business section for
the Democrat and Chronicle.
We have numbers again.
Four numbers.
This time numbers for Xerox, fourth quarter numbers.
What is the mood with the globe?
What are they thinking?

>> I think they're feeling pretty good.
They're feeling proud that they can say that they will able to
continue the financial turn around for the company.
Xerox actually posted another quarterly profit but also its
first full year profit since 1999 so that was an accomplishment.

>> I want to ask you what -- what the community thought about
the numbers?
How should the community look at the numbers?

>> I think it's good news.
The analysts are saying that Xerox has issues they need to
address.
Sales have continued to decline for 11 straight quarters.
Some of that has to do with new issues and they have
lowered prices on some of the popular items as a way to be more
competitive and win business back they had lost to some
companies so there's those issues but I think Xerox still has
some things to prove.
I still don't think they're out of the woods in terms of the
financial community.
Trusting them 100% they're going to move forward.

>> We talked about this last week.
This is the news about kpmg and that whole situation.
That doesn't seem to have dampened the spirit of this earnings
report.

>> Xerox's take on this is they settled the issues regarding
their accounting.
They have a new C.F.O. in place, they changed accounting
practices, in agreement with the F.C.C., they have restated
their books back to 1997.
They're continuing to tinker as they see fit.
They just had an announcement last week of a minor charge and
so I think Xerox feels that's behind them and now kpmg needs to
deal with their issues.
The recent thing out of the court papers is that there were a
number of offices that were complaining worldwide about Xerox's
accounting issues.
Among them the Rochester office that raised red flags and it
says there was pressure from corporate Xerox to corporate kpmg
to squelch those.

>> Let's talk about the numbers for B & L.
How do they feel about what they did?

>> C.E.O. this morning feels very proud.
They feel their cost cutting measures and other things they've
put in place, B & L beat the street by a nickel.
Wall street tends to reward you when you beat the street.
So I think they're feeling good.
Again, they have some things to get over and they say in their
own earnings report that some of their sales in America's
region, particularly contact lenses were down,and they were -- if you
remember there's that injunction on the patent so they're still
a little concerned about that and they have ways to go.
They replaced -- the president of the Americas today stepped aside
and Ron will be taking that job over.

>> I have to ask you there's an interesting story last week
talking about forming a western New York and southern Ontario, province of Ontario, sort of business alliance chamber of
commerce.
What's the hope here with this?

>> Well, there's a large area they refer to as the golden
horse shoe, sweeps down to the Toronto area, over to Buffalo
and there it's been some talk for a while, a committee that
local folks sit on that's been talking about trying to pool the
resources, pool the energies, pool our marketing to attract
more business, to act regionally instead of city upon
city.
It's about capitalizing on the resources we have and making us
a megalopolis as compared to small cities.

>> Seems like there would be so many things to get over.
You know, two laws, American and Canadian laws in this
situation.
But it does seem like kind of an exciting opportunity.
I've only got about 30 seconds and I want to make sure you talk
a little bit about what's coming up this Sunday.
In the Democrat and Chronicle.

>> We have actually a very interesting story.
We're looking at local companies that have government military
contracts and are ramping up to get ready as we mobilize troops
for Iraq.

>> How timely after we've just had another dose of President
Bush telling us we may be going to war.
So there's -- we should be looking at this as an opportunity?

>> Well, we've got a lot of businesses here that are making a
lot of money.
Everybody from Kodak and Harris rx to small folks making
everything from gunny sacks to missile parts.