Regarding the ‘huge tax breaks’ that every charitable organization is entitled to (and get as long as they don’t go around campaigning for candidates), what I want to know is how do you tax nothing? The Church earns nothing it doesn’t spend. In fact, the Catholic Church, diocese for diocese, is in debt. They give out all that they take in, so how do you tax that? What ‘organizational income’ or ‘personal income’ does the Catholic Church have??? The property is usually donated. But I’ll tell you what, if it meant that we’d have autonomy, I would rather pay property taxes. Then again, what we’d put into property taxes would be unavailable to use for services for the poor.

Regarding individual doctors and pharmacists, if I’m a doctor and I tell patients ahead of time that I am morally opposed to contraception, birth control and abortion, that should be sufficient enough to allow me to operate my practice as I morally see fit. Same for pharmacists-if I’m asked to dispense drugs that provide abortifacient effects, and want to post that I will not dispense said drugs, or that my store doesn’t dispense birth control devices, that’s my business. It’s not necessarily a religious decision, but an ethical one. I for one will only use ethical doctors. Considering the choices in pharmacies, where there’s a Walgreens, Walmart, or grocery store pharmacy in every town, why is it a requirement that a pharmacist would need to quit their profession because of an ethical decision not to dispense a certain drug?? Especially if (s)he tells the client up front that (s)he cannot ethically do so?

At the very least, that is very unseemly, even though it is not illegal. Many would think it is just good hard-ball lobbying. But it is certainly not unusual for the church to make compromises when it finds itself in a position where it believes its beliefs are not being followed by some group. For instance, while the church is trying to coerce the D.C. Council, the church allows Georgetown University in the same city to “give[] benefits to some same-sex couples even though the university does not officially recognize that the beneficiaries are of the same sex.” Therefore, the Catholic church is going against previous practice and trying now to draw a line in the sand.

I also wrote a blog recently about the “moral imperative” of providing health care. This threat to stop providing social services seems to be the antithesis of a “moral” decision.

You say that, as long as a Catholic church does not accept tax dollars to subsidize a hospital, a government cannot tell it what it has to do. But remember that churches get a multitude of huge tax breaks on their property, organization income, personal income, etc. I don’t see any reason for those tax breaks. Do you?

But your comment was mostly about individuals being allowed to refuse to do something if it is against their beliefs. For a doctor or pharmacist, that is fine if they are determining medical decisions for their own care. (It is still problematic when parents decline certain medical care for a child if the care is contrary to the church teachings.) However, a doctor or pharmacist is employed in the field of medicine, not religion. Her obligation is to provide for the medical needs of patients. Any decision based on religious beliefs, rather than the medical needs of the patient, is contrary to that obligation. It seems rather base for me to simply say that, if a pharmacist does not want to provide contraceptives, she would quit the profession. But that’s the only solution I see.

If I’m a doctor and I want to perform abortions, let me advertise it and let those who want it come on in! If I’m a doctor who’s morally opposed, why should I be required to perform said procedure? If I’m a pharmacist, why should I not be allowed to post a sign saying that this pharmacy will not provide abortifacient drugs? In regards to same-sex marriage, if that’s morally against one particular (very large) group of people, why are they not just as entitled to blow off gay marriage as gays are to belittle married people if they so choose?
I will say this-as long as you’re sucking at the government teat, you should be beholden to the government, so if you accept tax dollars to subsidize your hospital, the government has a right to tell you what you must do. But if I’m a private hospital (and most Catholic hospitals are private) and not taking government money, and you tell me I must provide abortion services, I can see where disobedience is necessary. So the hospital will either be what it is, or will cease to be. In this case, what you should understand is that you’re also going to lose all the free services that Catholic hospitals provide to those who cannot pay…