Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

mickeyrat wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

the government should protect religious freedom, not oppress it.

thats the one part of the healthcare bill i cant defend.
ill leave it at that.

umm, it still does protect religious fredom. But as an employer there shouldn't be a different standard.

im not clear as to what you mean.... sincerely. Are you meaning that the government and employers should be held to the same standard?

WaveRyder wrote:

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - pretty easy to see the problem if you actually look at the text.

Nope. You may (or may not) understand the text of the Constitution, but you clearly don't understand the policy we're discussing. Or maybe you just don't understand what it means to exercise freedom of religion. Probably a little bit of all three.

Obama better be real careful here. The Catholic vote is really important. And despite the fact that plenty of Catholics use contraceptives, they do so under their own power and free will. Although they don't follow this rule, these Catholics respect the church's thoughts on the matter - or most likely, they wouldn't be self-proclaimed "Catholics". I think it's pretty logical to see that this is setting up a framework which would forbid Catholics from following their own beliefs. Catholics who use contraceptives and Catholics who don't won't look fondly upon this... especially as this plays out. They understand the difference.

Obama and Democrats would be best to alter this in any way they can, or they risk losing a ridiculously large demographic.

Afterall, why forbid Catholic institutions from this? What exactly is gained? When you go to a Catholic institution, you do so under your own free will. No one forces you to.

This is a huge threshold that's being crossed that steps well beyond religion.

_ wrote:

I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.

Perfectly fine with that. I certainly wouldn't work at a place like that, but I see no reason to force them to offer benefits they don't want to offer.

If their benefits are sub-par, nobody is going to want to work there. Should we force businesses to cover OTC drugs? Or are you saying a business can choose not to offer a health benefit due to financial reasons, just not religious reasons? If it is the latter, I do understand your position and it might even have be the more legal side. I still disagree wholeheartedly.

inlet13 wrote:

Obama better be real careful here. The Catholic vote is really important. And despite the fact that plenty of Catholics use contraceptives, they do so under their own power and free will. Although they don't follow this rule, these Catholics respect the church's thoughts on the matter - or most likely, they wouldn't be self-proclaimed "Catholics". I think it's pretty logical to see that this is setting up a framework which would forbid Catholics from following their own beliefs. Catholics who use contraceptives and Catholics who don't won't look fondly upon this... especially as this plays out. They understand the difference.

Obama and Democrats would be best to alter this in any way they can, or they risk losing a ridiculously large demographic.

Afterall, why forbid Catholic institutions from this? What exactly is gained? When you go to a Catholic institution, you do so under your own free will. No one forces you to.

This is a huge threshold that's being crossed that steps well beyond religion.

i don't think obama has to worry about losing the catholic vote from this alone. the church threatened to withold communion from john kerry and catholics still voted for him even though they were warned against it from the catholic church.

_ wrote:

Catholics use contraception at the same rate as non-Catholics, and I think in all the discussion about the free will to not use contraception people are forgetting about the free will of Catholics (and everyone else) TO use contraception.

No offense, but this shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. This is the Catholic institutions as employers who are not able to choose what they will and won't cover due to their religious beliefs. They are a private enterprise that should be permitted to do as they please, as they have for decades. No one is forcing anyone to work there or use their goods/services. People have known for years that they weren't covered there. Like they have for years, if they choose to use contraceptives, they may have to pay the twenty-five cents for a condom or hand over the roughly $30 for birth control pills.... Wowweee.

_ wrote:

No one is forcing anyone to use contraception against their will. But by refusing to allow contraception to be covered, these quasi-religious institutions - you know, the ones that want to be considered religious when it comes time to impose their religion on others but not when it comes time to take taxpayer funding - are forcing their religious beliefs upon all the people who do want to use contraception.

First... they aren't the one's changing anything. Your boy, Obama is trying to change what they've done for years.

Second, they are private. They aren't forcing anything upon anyone. They are selling a good/service and people "choose" (are NOT FORCED) to buy it. And those who are employed there CHOOSE to work for a religious institution. What you say here is the equivalent of saying that a seller of any good or service is forcing their beliefs upon buyers who may believe otherwise. It's a really poor argument.

_ wrote:

I know, I know, in theory, people can get contraception even if it's not covered by these institutions. But in reality, that's not the case; lack of insurance coverage is quite prohibitive.

Umm... condoms are cheap as shit. And birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. Don't exaggerate.

_ wrote:

I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.

First, let's break down your example. So, you are comparing lack of contraceptives being covered to blood transfusions? Are you even serious? A condom that costs roughly 25 cents, or a pill that costs MAYBE a little north of a $1 each.... to a $10-$100 thousand dollar operation? Seriously?

Second, let me point out something incredibly obvious... there's a distinction between something being permitted, and then being outlawed... and something being outlawed and then permitted. In other words, this is the way the Catholic church has operated (not covering this). Now, because Barry O. instituted a new law, and you and he think the Catholic church should be forced to change their existing approach. Don't confuse the two. Each example you provided was the opposite where someone within the company comes in and changes their own companies approach. Barry O is trying to change the Catholic church's approach. An approach that is not the equivalent of any of the examples you provided.

Third, my final point... he will lose here. This is like awakening a sleeping political giant. He's stupid politically for picking this fight. That was my point. Not only will this be overturned, he's going to be losing folks left and right (who do use contraceptives or don't) due to his infringement upon the private sector. This public tentacle stuff is exactly what people fear about him.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Obama better be real careful here. The Catholic vote is really important. And despite the fact that plenty of Catholics use contraceptives, they do so under their own power and free will. Although they don't follow this rule, these Catholics respect the church's thoughts on the matter - or most likely, they wouldn't be self-proclaimed "Catholics". I think it's pretty logical to see that this is setting up a framework which would forbid Catholics from following their own beliefs. Catholics who use contraceptives and Catholics who don't won't look fondly upon this... especially as this plays out. They understand the difference.

Obama and Democrats would be best to alter this in any way they can, or they risk losing a ridiculously large demographic.

Afterall, why forbid Catholic institutions from this? What exactly is gained? When you go to a Catholic institution, you do so under your own free will. No one forces you to.

This is a huge threshold that's being crossed that steps well beyond religion.

i don't think obama has to worry about losing the catholic vote from this alone. the church threatened to withold communion from john kerry and catholics still voted for him even though they were warned against it from the catholic church.

I do. This is the President of the United States actively altering private religious enterprise with public tentacles. This is not a random MA senator running for President. This is happening.

My point all along is - for what? Really, is this that important? That's my point. He should just back down here. It's not worth the fight. He will lose this fight and it will provide the religious right with the tools they need to to increase turnout, regardless of the Republican candidate. I keep coming back to... why?

whygohome wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

would you guys be so up in arms if it were sharia law involved in this instead of catholocism?

it just reinforces my position that religion has no business in any policies, business or political, or otherwise...

+1,000,000,000

wow, that is the first + a billion i have ever seen...

now if i could only convert those into dollars i could really help some people

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it just reinforces my position that religion has no business in any policies, business or political, or otherwise...

From what you wrote here, you probably have a big problem with the first amendment.

no, but keep it the fuck out of public policy and keep it out of business.

do you have a problem with my using my first amendment right to say that? :? :?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the constitution says that congress should pass no law infringing on expression of religion, but i do not interpret that to mean within policy.

No offense, but this is one of the funniest posts I've read on here.