Catholics ready to fight over mandatory birth control/abortion pill health coverage

[krisy]

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.
As CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer reports, it could affect the presidential elections.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/catholic-league-poised-to-go-to-war-with-obama-over-mandatory-birth-control-payments/


This could affect the election for Obama if Catholics are listening in church. I saw on the news that 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama in the last election. I'm not Catholic,but I think this is big government at its worst!! I am a Christian who does not believe in abortion. I am fine with birth control,but these are the church's beliefs and the government has no business in them.

[logroller]

Politics aside-- if you don't want to take birthcontrol, nobody is making you. But to tell an employer they can dictate what kind of medical care I can receive is not their business. If it were a fiscal issue, I could understand. But having a baby is more expensive than birth control. Besides, I was under the impression churches can require certain moral foundations to be observed by their employees-- so I don't think an insurance company offering contraceptives would be utilized as much as some would lead on.

[Abbey Marie]

Politics aside-- if you don't want to take birthcontrol, nobody is making you. But to tell an employer they can dictate what kind of medical care I can receive is not their business. If it were a fiscal issue, I could understand. But having a baby is more expensive than birth control. Besides, I was under the impression churches can require certain moral foundations to be observed by their employees-- so I don't think an insurance company offering contraceptives would be utilized as much as some would lead on.

And if you don't like that nativity in the town square, nobody is making you worship at it. Or even look at it long enough to register.

[logroller]

And if you don't like that nativity in the town square, nobody is making you worship at it. Or even look at it long enough to register.
Was their a nativity in town square, I must of missed it. Maybe its because my athiest employer doesn't give me eye coverage.

[ConHog]

And if you don't like that nativity in the town square, nobody is making you worship at it. Or even look at it long enough to register.

Yep, both are valid examples of fools who think they have the freedom of religion, but no one else does.

[krisy]

Politics aside-- if you don't want to take birthcontrol, nobody is making you. But to tell an employer they can dictate what kind of medical care I can receive is not their business. If it were a fiscal issue, I could understand. But having a baby is more expensive than birth control. Besides, I was under the impression churches can require certain moral foundations to be observed by their employees-- so I don't think an insurance company offering contraceptives would be utilized as much as some would lead on.


My belief is that first and foremost,the government should not be butting in on the subject of what kind of coverage a religous organization carries. Why should the Catholic church be forced to pay for services/products that is against their beliefs? Do people realise how repulsive the morning after pill may be to some people's beliefs? This is the thought police at their best. I have no doubt that any employee of a Catholic organization is aware of the coverage at the time of hire. They can accept or reject the job based on that. This is liberals trying to FORCE the church to believe something they never will. Again,the thought police at their finest. Just like if you don't believe in gay marriage,you MUST be some kind of jackass. This administration has no respect for Christian beliefs until it's time to get up and make a speech.

[ConHog]

My belief is that first and foremost,the government should not be butting in on the subject of what kind of coverage a religous organization carries. Why should the Catholic church be forced to pay for services/products that is against their beliefs? Do people realise how repulsive the morning after pill may be to some people's beliefs? This is the thought police at their best. I have no doubt that any employee of a Catholic organization is aware of the coverage at the time of hire. They can accept or reject the job based on that. This is liberals trying to FORCE the church to believe something they never will. Again,the thought police at their finest. Just like if you don't believe in gay marriage,you MUST be some kind of jackass. This administration has no respect for Christian beliefs until it's time to get up and make a speech.

I absolutely, positively believe that the Catholic Church could and should get an exemption for religious reasons. That doesn't apply to companies that happen to employ Catholics though.

[gabosaurus]

The Catholic leaders need to go back to sweeping pedophilia under the rug and leave women's health care alone.

[jimnyc]

The Catholic leaders need to go back to sweeping pedophilia under the rug and leave women's health care alone.

It's not them who are messing/changing health care within their employ, it's they who are being told they must do what is against their beliefs. The government cannot dictate who they marry, and they should not be able to dictate what they offer in their medical plans.

[MtnBiker]

In gabby's world 2 wrongs make a right.

[krisy]

The Catholic leaders need to go back to sweeping pedophilia under the rug and leave women's health care alone.

Uh,getting pregnant is a personal choice. You have sex,you may get pregnant,we are all well aware of that. Tell me why the Catholic church should pay for YOUR choice to have sex that ended in an unwanted preganancy,when it is against beliefs that they have had for years and years. If a woman(and man) do not want a baby,they will have to pay for the contraception on their own. They sell condoms just about anywhere.

[logroller]

My belief is that first and foremost,the government should not be butting in on the subject of what kind of coverage a religous organization carries. Why should the Catholic church be forced to pay for services/products that is against their beliefs? Do people realise how repulsive the morning after pill may be to some people's beliefs? This is the thought police at their best. I have no doubt that any employee of a Catholic organization is aware of the coverage at the time of hire. They can accept or reject the job based on that. This is liberals trying to FORCE the church to believe something they never will. Again,the thought police at their finest. Just like if you don't believe in gay marriage,you MUST be some kind of jackass. This administration has no respect for Christian beliefs until it's time to get up and make a speech.
Well there's two sides; you present one side well, but conversely, there is a question of personal freedom, and the extent to which an employer can dictate the private behavior of employees with fiscal restrictions. Say Jim hires a girl to do his books, and she has huge boobs; so huge that it gives her back problems. A breast reduction would solve her problem, but Jim doesn't believe in breast reduction and selected a health plan for his employees that doesnt cover that procedure. Same would go if he didn't support circumcision. If your beliefs are rational and convincing, why would offering contraceptive coverage matter, they shouldn't use it right?

[MtnBiker]

Well there's two sides; you present one side well, but conversely, there is a question of personal freedom, and the extent to which an employer can dictate the private behavior of employees with fiscal restrictions. Say Jim hires a girl to do his books, and she has huge boobs; so huge that it gives her back problems. A breast reduction would solve her problem, but Jim doesn't believe in breast reduction and selected a health plan for his employees that doesnt cover that procedure. Same would go if he didn't support circumcision. If your beliefs are rational and convincing, why would offering contraceptive coverage matter, they shouldn't use it right?

Are employees forced to work for anybody in this country? If the question of personal freedom is the issue then a person has the personal freedom to seek employment that offers a health plan that is acceptable to their choice.

[Gaffer]

Well there's two sides; you present one side well, but conversely, there is a question of personal freedom, and the extent to which an employer can dictate the private behavior of employees with fiscal restrictions. Say Jim hires a girl to do his books, and she has huge boobs; so huge that it gives her back problems. A breast reduction would solve her problem, but Jim doesn't believe in breast reduction and selected a health plan for his employees that doesnt cover that procedure. Same would go if he didn't support circumcision. If your beliefs are rational and convincing, why would offering contraceptive coverage matter, they shouldn't use it right?

But if the employer has a choice between insurances and one is cheaper but includes the reduction the employer will go for that. Fiscally it's the best option. The govt is saying you can't because they say so. They are taking all the options off the table and there no longer is a choice.

This is not obamacare anymore. It's what was planned all along, obamarules.

[krisy]

Well there's two sides; you present one side well, but conversely, there is a question of personal freedom, and the extent to which an employer can dictate the private behavior of employees with fiscal restrictions. Say Jim hires a girl to do his books, and she has huge boobs; so huge that it gives her back problems. A breast reduction would solve her problem, but Jim doesn't believe in breast reduction and selected a health plan for his employees that doesnt cover that procedure. Same would go if he didn't support circumcision. If your beliefs are rational and convincing, why would offering contraceptive coverage matter, they shouldn't use it right?


I would say that any employer has the freedom to carry the insurance that they feel is the right fit for his/her company. There are lots of insurance plans that don't pay for EVERYTHING. What if said insurance plan that pays for boob reductions is way too expensive for jim? Should the government force him to carry it and potentially drive him out of business?

The difference here is also that the government is FORCING someone to carry out something against their beliefs. The decision not to carry this kind of coverage is hurting no one since pregnancy can be prevented whether you pay for yourself or not. This is a slippery slope when the government can interfere with how the Catholic church chooses to practice. For example,what if they decide that they don't like the fact that in my church (non denominational Christian) adults and children are dunked under the water when baptised? What if they decided that was somehow cruel to children. Do they have a right to tell my church they can no longer do that even tho it is a 1 or 2 second dunk?

[ConHog]

Well there's two sides; you present one side well, but conversely, there is a question of personal freedom, and the extent to which an employer can dictate the private behavior of employees with fiscal restrictions. Say Jim hires a girl to do his books, and she has huge boobs; so huge that it gives her back problems. A breast reduction would solve her problem, but Jim doesn't believe in breast reduction and selected a health plan for his employees that doesnt cover that procedure. Same would go if he didn't support circumcision. If your beliefs are rational and convincing, why would offering contraceptive coverage matter, they shouldn't use it right?

Psssh good luck getting Jim to EVER agree a woman needed a breast reduction. :laugh2:

[logroller]

Are employees forced to work for anybody in this country? If the question of personal freedom is the issue then a person has the personal freedom to seek employment that offers a health plan that is acceptable to their choice.
In my county there are 7 hospitals, 6 of which are catholic healthcare west; so there's not much of a choice on where an obstetritional nurse gets work. Sure sounds all good when you put it in general terms , but religious based healthcare is quite common.

A 2005 Harris poll found 90% of Catholics approve the use of contraceptives; this is nothing more than the Catholic Church trying, as they consistently have, to rule on what is between God and the individual to decide. Religious freedom my ass; you don't want birth control, don't use it. Exempting a religious institution isn't an expression, it's an establishment!

[MtnBiker]

National policy should not be based upon circumstances in one county.

[ConHog]

In my county there are 7 hospitals, 6 of which are catholic healthcare west; so there's not much of a choice on where an obstetritional nurse gets work. Sure sounds all good when you put it in general terms , but religious based healthcare is quite common.

A 2005 Harris poll found 90% of Catholics approve the use of contraceptives; this is nothing more than the Catholic Church trying, as they consistently have, to rule on what is between God and the individual to decide. Religious freedom my ass; you don't want birth control, don't use it. Exempting a religious institution isn't an expression, it's an establishment!

Does the Church actually own the hospitals?

[Noir]

...why on earth would an employer be expected to pay for their employees birth control? =/

[ConHog]

...why on earth would an employer be expected to pay for their employees birth control? =/

Why in the world should an employer be expected to pay for healthcare insurance? In the beginning that was considered a perk that employers gave of their own free will, but now Obama has made it mandatory. Mandating that birth control be covered is a pretty small leap from there.

[krisy]

The Catholic church isn't hurting anyone with their beliefs. The State needs to stay out of the church.

[ConHog]

The Catholic church isn't hurting anyone with their beliefs. The State needs to stay out of the church.

Pssst there is of course no legal reason to keep the state out of the church, there is only a mandate that they not establish an official religion.

[Noir]

Why in the world should an employer be expected to pay for healthcare insurance? In the beginning that was considered a perk that employers gave of their own free will, but now Obama has made it mandatory. Mandating that birth control be covered is a pretty small leap from there.

But i mean, what happens? A guy walks in to by some condoms, flashes his card from work and gets them for free, what?

[KarlMarx]

The Catholic leaders need to go back to sweeping pedophilia under the rug and leave women's health care alone.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor any law prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

That's from a document that you probably aren't familiar with... the US Constitution. It's part of the First Amendment... see the 2nd part? The part that talks about the free exercise of religion? It's about the First Amendment and ... not about your parochial attachment to women's issues and your obsession with pedophile priests.

[krisy]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor any law prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

That's from a document that you probably aren't familiar with... the US Constitution. It's part of the First Amendment... see the 2nd part? The part that talks about the free exercise of religion? It's about the First Amendment and ... not about your parochial attachment to women's issues and your obsession with pedophile priests.

.
Ahh! Thank You Karl!! I was just getting ready to post this for conhog. I'm no legal expert or Constitutional expert,but it seems the government should NOT make a law prohibiting the free excercise of religion.

[krisy]

But i mean, what happens? A guy walks in to by some condoms, flashes his card from work and gets them for free, what?


No. The church is being forced to carry health insurance that covers morning after pill/contraception. Since the church pays for part of their employees health insurance as their employer,they are also paying for these services in which they don't believe.

[gabosaurus]

Uh,getting pregnant is a personal choice. You have sex,you may get pregnant,we are all well aware of that. Tell me why the Catholic church should pay for YOUR choice to have sex that ended in an unwanted preganancy,when it is against beliefs that they have had for years and years. If a woman(and man) do not want a baby,they will have to pay for the contraception on their own. They sell condoms just about anywhere.

Condoms are one of the least effective birth control items available. The Catholic Church views on contraception are many centuries out of date.
I would think that health care agencies would be happy to pay for birth control, since it is much cheaper than pregnancy costs.
If the Catholic church does not want to pay for birth control, then they should pay $100,000 to every member that has an unplanned pregnancy.

[Missileman]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor any law prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

That's from a document that you probably aren't familiar with... the US Constitution. It's part of the First Amendment... see the 2nd part? The part that talks about the free exercise of religion? It's about the First Amendment and ... not about your parochial attachment to women's issues and your obsession with pedophile priests.

It's a good thing then that the provision in no way prevents Catholics from practicing their religion. The hospitals aren't being forced to perform abortions OR provide birth control. The insurance policies provided to their employees has to include birth control, but doesn't mandate the use by Catholic employees. All of the Catholics are free to continue to avoid the use of birth control as their religion dictates.

[krisy]

Condoms are one of the least effective birth control items available. The Catholic Church views on contraception are many centuries out of date.
I would think that health care agencies would be happy to pay for birth control, since it is much cheaper than pregnancy costs.
If the Catholic church does not want to pay for birth control, then they should pay $100,000 to every member that has an unplanned pregnancy.

Since when is it an employers responsibility to ensure unwanted pregnancies don't happen?!!:laugh: Freakin ridiculous!

Doesn't matter how old the beliefs are, that has no bearing.No one is being hurt by them.

[MtnBiker]

Condoms are one of the least effective birth control items available.


Absintence is the most effective form of birth control, it works every time it is used. And it is completely free, no need to make anybody pay for it.

[jimnyc]

It's a good thing then that the provision in no way prevents Catholics from practicing their religion. The hospitals aren't being forced to perform abortions OR provide birth control. The insurance policies provided to their employees has to include birth control, but doesn't mandate the use by Catholic employees. All of the Catholics are free to continue to avoid the use of birth control as their religion dictates.

"free excersise thereof" - doesn't sound to me like they are free to "exercise" their religion, when that religion doesn't support what they are being "forced" to do/

[jimnyc]

If the Catholic church does not want to pay for birth control, then they should pay $100,000 to every member that has an unplanned pregnancy.

Where do the participants fit into this? Don't they have any personal responsibility?

[krisy]

It's a good thing then that the provision in no way prevents Catholics from practicing their religion. The hospitals aren't being forced to perform abortions OR provide birth control. The insurance policies provided to their employees has to include birth control, but doesn't mandate the use by Catholic employees. All of the Catholics are free to continue to avoid the use of birth control as their religion dictates.


No one said their hospitals are being forced to perform abortions or provide birth control. And everyone understands that no one HAS to take birth control or have an abortion.. The problem IS that the church as a whole is being FORCED to PAY for the products-morning after/b.c. that their faith does not believe in. That imo is not allowing free excercise of their practices or non practices.

[krisy]

Where do the participants fit into this? Don't they have any personal responsibility?


No they don't if they're liberals.:2up:

[Missileman]

"free excersise thereof" - doesn't sound to me like they are free to "exercise" their religion, when that religion doesn't support what they are being "forced" to do/

Like I've already said, there isn't anything in the provision that makes any Catholic use birth control.

[Missileman]

No one said their hospitals are being forced to perform abortions or provide birth control. And everyone understands that no one HAS to take birth control or have an abortion.. The problem IS that the church as a whole is being FORCED to PAY for the products-morning after/b.c. that their faith does not believe in. That imo is not allowing free excercise of their practices or non practices.


They are FREE to pay the fine and not offer insurance if their objection to non-Catholic employees using birth control is that strong.

[jimnyc]

Like I've already said, there isn't anything in the provision that makes any Catholic use birth control.

It doesn't change the fact that a law is being made that infringes on the exercise of the religion, that exercise being their not believing in birth control.

[jimnyc]

They are FREE to pay the fine and not offer insurance if their objection to non-Catholic employees using birth control is that strong.

Why can't we say that those who choose to use birth control are free to purchase it?

[krisy]

They are FREE to pay the fine and not offer insurance if their objection to non-Catholic employees using birth control is that strong.


Why should they pay a fine cause big brother doesn't agree with their beliefs and wants them once again to pay for this stuff?! Should all employers pay fines because they don't carry insurance that each and every employee loves or that big gov loves?

It's not about believing in B.C. or not. It's about the government interfering in religion-period.

Government is too BIG.

[Missileman]

It doesn't change the fact that a law is being made that infringes on the exercise of the religion, that exercise being their not believing in birth control.

They are still free to believe that birth control is wrong. The freedom to exercise their religion doesn't include the right to force non-Catholics to live by Catholic rules.

[krisy]

Why can't we say that those who choose to use birth control are free to purchase it?

Exactly!!! :clap:

[krisy]

They are still free to believe that birth control is wrong. The freedom to exercise their religion doesn't include the right to force non-Catholics to live by Catholic rules.

Who are they forcing? They simply don't want to pay for their contraceptives. Not carrying health insurance for bc pills is hardly forcing anyone to do anything other than pay for it themselves,which many people do.

[Missileman]

Why can't we say that those who choose to use birth control are free to purchase it?

Apparently for the same reason that we can't say those who purchase it are free to not use it. :poke:

I have no objection to removing birth control from EVERYONE'S insurance. But, if birth control is included in the list of things that are mandatory coverage, then the Catholic hospitals can opt out or suck it up. There are too many waivers to this debacle already.

[ConHog]

No. The church is being forced to carry health insurance that covers morning after pill/contraception. Since the church pays for part of their employees health insurance as their employer,they are also paying for these services in which they don't believe.

Here is why the Church has no standing. Because they can't legally hire ONLY Catholics at hospitals and such that they own. Which of course means all of their employees are not going to be devout Catholics who do not believe in birth control. It would be discrimination to only cater to their Catholic employees.

Now personally I believe employers SHOULD be able to discriminate and only hire Catholics or whatever, but under current law, they can not.

Catholic Church , shut up. case closed.

[ConHog]

Who are they forcing? They simply don't want to pay for their contraceptives. Not carrying health insurance for bc pills is hardly forcing anyone to do anything other than pay for it themselves,which many people do.

You realize that in some cases birth control is medically called for don't you?

[jimnyc]

Apparently for the same reason that we can't say those who purchase it are free to not use it. :poke:

I have no objection to removing birth control from EVERYONE'S insurance. But, if birth control is included in the list of things that are mandatory coverage, then the Catholic hospitals can opt out or suck it up. There are too many waivers to this debacle already.

Quite frankly, I think ANY employer should be free to offer whatever plan they want, and free to make it cover much less than anyone else, or much more. If you don't like what your employer offers, purchase your own, or find employment that offers what you're looking for.

It's the people who will hurt in the long run anyway, as the Churches and Catholic hospitals will just ensure that 100% of their employees are in agreement with their beliefs, which is their right. Or they'll just offer 1099's.

[jimnyc]

Here is why the Church has no standing. Because they can't legally hire ONLY Catholics at hospitals and such that they own. Which of course means all of their employees are not going to be devout Catholics who do not believe in birth control. It would be discrimination to only cater to their Catholic employees.

Now personally I believe employers SHOULD be able to discriminate and only hire Catholics or whatever, but under current law, they can not.

Catholic Church , shut up. case closed.

Wanna bet on that.

[ConHog]

Wanna bet on that.

religion is one of the things that can't be discriminated against due to the 1964 CRA

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

Treating applicants or employees differently based on their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, and benefits (disparate treatment);

[jimnyc]

religion is one of the things that can't be discriminated against due to the 1964 CRA

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

Treating applicants or employees differently based on their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, and benefits (disparate treatment);

WRONG.

Right from your own link:

2. Are there any exceptions to who is covered by Title VII’s religion provisions?

Yes. While Title VII’s jurisdictional rules apply to all religious discrimination claims under the statute, see EEOC Compliance Manual, “Threshold Issues,” http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html, specially-defined “religious organizations” and “religious educational institutions” are exempt from certain religious discrimination provisions, and a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization. However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion. The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races.

[ConHog]

WRONG.

Right from your own link:

2. Are there any exceptions to who is covered by Title VII’s religion provisions?

Yes. While Title VII’s jurisdictional rules apply to all religious discrimination claims under the statute, see EEOC Compliance Manual, “Threshold Issues,” http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html, specially-defined “religious organizations” and “religious educational institutions” are exempt from certain religious discrimination provisions, and a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization. However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion. The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races.

and a HOSPITAL is not primarily a religious institution. So yes, of course the Church has the right to hire Catholic nuns and such at their churches, but they can't just buy a hospital, and fire all the non Catholics - for example.

[jimnyc]

Then if I were them, I would simply spend one year and have every employee converted to 1099 contractors, and make it clear to them during this "redesign" exactly why they are no longer hiring FT employees.

[KarlMarx]

It's a good thing then that the provision in no way prevents Catholics from practicing their religion. The hospitals aren't being forced to perform abortions OR provide birth control. The insurance policies provided to their employees has to include birth control, but doesn't mandate the use by Catholic employees. All of the Catholics are free to continue to avoid the use of birth control as their religion dictates.

But it does prevent them from practicing their religion. It forces them to pay for something that they teach is wrong. It forces them to go against their conscience. It's similar to a situation where they were being told that they had to pay for executions of criminals (which the Catholic Church also teaches is wrong).

No one is forcing people to work for the Catholic church, nor is anyone saying that, as a condition of employment, their spouse's insurance can't cover birth control. Nor is it a condition of employment for employees of said churches to abstain from practicing birth control.

And by the way, it isn't just Catholic churches that will be forced to carry that insurance, it is all churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples... so this goes beyond the Catholic Church.

[ConHog]

Then if I were them, I would simply spend one year and have every employee converted to 1099 contractors, and make it clear to them during this "redesign" exactly why they are no longer hiring FT employees.

Or just drop the medical insurance altogether and pay the fine. Not as if the Catholic Church can't afford it.

I'm totally against this whole medical bill, AND I believe employers should be able to discriminate, but under the law their best option is to either A) drop the insurance pay the fine B) as you suggested hire independent contractors.

[Missileman]

Quite frankly, I think ANY employer should be free to offer whatever plan they want, and free to make it cover much less than anyone else, or much more. If you don't like what your employer offers, purchase your own, or find employment that offers what you're looking for.

It's the people who will hurt in the long run anyway, as the Churches and Catholic hospitals will just ensure that 100% of their employees are in agreement with their beliefs, which is their right. Or they'll just offer 1099's.


I'm no advocate of Obamacare, but if it survives, then there needs to be a standard set for minimum coverage. Companies would be free to offer more, but not less than the standard.

[ConHog]

But it does prevent them from practicing their religion. It forces them to pay for something that they teach is wrong. It forces them to go against their conscience. It's similar to a situation where they were being told that they had to pay for executions of criminals (which the Catholic Church also teaches is wrong).

No one is forcing people to work for the Catholic church, nor is anyone saying that, as a condition of employment, their spouse's insurance can't cover birth control. Nor is it a condition of employment for employees of said churches to abstain from practicing birth control.

And by the way, it isn't just Catholic churches that will be forced to carry that insurance, it is all churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples... so this goes beyond the Catholic Church.

Exactly right, and exactly as it should be Karl, NO religeon should get preferential treatment from the government so if the government says "okay Catholics hospitals (for example) don't have to offer insurance which covers birth control then it would completely be a violation of the first amendment if say a Muslim hospital wanted a similar exemption and the government said no.

Bad enough that the entire Obamacare is a violation of the COTUS without them also handing out unconstitutional exemptions.

[ConHog]

I'm no advocate of Obamacare, but if it survives, then there needs to be a standard set for minimum coverage. Companies would be free to offer more, but not less than the standard.


It seems to me that the EASY way around this for the government would be to simply dictate that all insurance policies sold MUST cover birth control, then Catholics would have no choice but to buy insurance which covered birth control if they choose to use it.

[krisy]

Here is why the Church has no standing. Because they can't legally hire ONLY Catholics at hospitals and such that they own. Which of course means all of their employees are not going to be devout Catholics who do not believe in birth control. It would be discrimination to only cater to their Catholic employees.

Now personally I believe employers SHOULD be able to discriminate and only hire Catholics or whatever, but under current law, they can not.

Catholic Church , shut up. case closed.

It is not about Catholic employees or non Catholic employees. It's about the church,as an organization being forced to BY THE GOVERNMENT pay with THEIR dollars for something they don't believe in.Simple! There is no discrimination against anyone period.

I agree with jim. Employers should be allowed to carry whatever plan they feel necessary. It is still a free country-right? It is THEIR business-right?

Apparently some here think government has a place in religion. IF they creep in here,soon they will be everywhere. Aren't we allready seeing the food police?

[Missileman]

It seems to me that the EASY way around this for the government would be to simply dictate that all insurance policies sold MUST cover birth control, then Catholics would have no choice but to buy insurance which covered birth control if they choose to use it.

Or dictate that none have to, as long as it's uniform.

[ConHog]

It is not about Catholic employees or non Catholic employees. It's about the church,as an organization being forced to BY THE GOVERNMENT pay with THEIR dollars for something they don't believe in.Simple! There is no discrimination against anyone period.

I agree with jim. Employers should be allowed to carry whatever plan they feel necessary. It is still a free country-right? It is THEIR business-right?

Apparently some here think government has a place in religion. IF they creep in here,soon they will be everywhere. Aren't we allready seeing the food police?

Well, Obamacare in general is about the government FORCING people to buy something that many don't want. So that argument doesn't just stand for the Catholic Church.

BUT , IF the Church gets an exemption from the government, THAT could be construed as establishing religion, at the very least it's government favoring a religion, and that is a big no no.

[ConHog]

Or dictate that none have to, as long as it's uniform.

Truthfully, all they have to do is state ALL prescription medication and or devices must be covered and case closed without even mentioning birth control at all, I would think. Aren't condoms the only non prescription birth control out there, and well buy your own goddamned condoms if you want them LOL

[DragonStryk72]

Well there's two sides; you present one side well, but conversely, there is a question of personal freedom, and the extent to which an employer can dictate the private behavior of employees with fiscal restrictions. Say Jim hires a girl to do his books, and she has huge boobs; so huge that it gives her back problems. A breast reduction would solve her problem, but Jim doesn't believe in breast reduction and selected a health plan for his employees that doesnt cover that procedure. Same would go if he didn't support circumcision. If your beliefs are rational and convincing, why would offering contraceptive coverage matter, they shouldn't use it right?

Apples and Oranges. There's a legitimate medical problem there, and again with circumcision, which almost universally performed these days unless the parents state otherwise.

Now, Jim's girl he hired was hired to preach against the legalization of marijuana, even by prescription, but because of her chronic back pain, she's eligible for medical marijuana, and opts for it. Now, she could just, say, work out to improve the muscles in her back that are causing the pain, but instead chooses the easy out. Should Jim have to pay for something he is not only against, but that have other, non-objectionable remedies to them? Keep in mind that her getting medical marijuana goes directly in the face of everything he hired her for.

[krisy]

Well, Obamacare in general is about the government FORCING people to buy something that many don't want. So that argument doesn't just stand for the Catholic Church.

BUT , IF the Church gets an exemption from the government, THAT could be construed as establishing religion, at the very least it's government favoring a religion, and that is a big no no.


The church gets a tax exemption,don't they?

[ConHog]

Apples and Oranges. There's a legitimate medical problem there, and again with circumcision, which almost universally performed these days unless the parents state otherwise.

Now, Jim's girl he hired was hired to preach against the legalization of marijuana, even by prescription, but because of her chronic back pain, she's eligible for medical marijuana, and opts for it. Now, she could just, say, work out to improve the muscles in her back that are causing the pain, but instead chooses the easy out. Should Jim have to pay for something he is not ontly against, but that have other, non-objectionable remedies to them? Keep in mind that her getting medical marijuana goes directly in the face of everything he hired her for.

under MY definition that ALL medically prescribed drugs or appliances. You bet, if Jim's girl lived in a state where it was a available, and could get a prescription then yes Jim's insurance carrier would have to cover it.


Oh , and I think another thing we are forgetting here is the Healthy Privacy Act. Quite frankly, not only is it none of Jim's business what medical care his girl is receiving he is legally not allowed to know.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/

[ConHog]

The church gets a tax exemption,don't they?

ALL churches do, and that isn't based off any particular belief the way this birth control issue is. It's perfectly reasonable to foresee a Muslim hospital (again for example) wanting the cheaper priced insurance that doesn't include birth control and the government not giving them an exemption because not believing in birth control isn't part of Islam. Then you have one religion receiving something from the government that another one is not.

[krisy]

Let's not forget that we are talking about birth control/morning after pill,not medication for diabetes or MS. The church not paying for this stuff is not causing harm to anyone.

[ConHog]

Let's not forget that we are talking about birth control/morning after pill,not medication for diabetes or MS. The church not paying for this stuff is not causing harm to anyone.

So you contend that no one has ever been prescribed birth control out of medical necessity? Clearly that isn't true.

[krisy]

So you contend that no one has ever been prescribed birth control out of medical necessity? Clearly that isn't true.

conhog,I'm guessing that you do realise that I am a woman. I know b.c. is used for other things. Did anyone say that a person still doesn't have access to b.c.? No. They have to pay for it themselves. I would feel for that person,but the churches beliefs are their beliefs.

I won't however feel bad for anyone because the church won't pay for their morning after/b.c. pills. boohoo. At least they have health insurance. We have none,make too much for help and I have two kids with medical issues that we have to come up with thousands for-my son's jaw and my daughter's hearing aids. Both problems hereditary and unavoidable,so people whining get no sympathy from me because they can't get knocked up and have the church pay for them to take a pill the next day to get rid of a pregnancy.

[logroller]

Then if I were them, I would simply spend one year and have every employee converted to 1099 contractors, and make it clear to them during this "redesign" exactly why they are no longer hiring FT employees.


Apples and Oranges. There's a legitimate medical problem there, and again with circumcision, which almost universally performed these days unless the parents state otherwise.

Now, Jim's girl he hired was hired to preach against the legalization of marijuana, even by prescription, but because of her chronic back pain, she's eligible for medical marijuana, and opts for it. Now, she could just, say, work out to improve the muscles in her back that are causing the pain, but instead chooses the easy out. Should Jim have to pay for something he is not only against, but that have other, non-objectionable remedies to them? Keep in mind that her getting medical marijuana goes directly in the face of everything he hired her for.

Talk about apples and oranges. marijuana is illegal and no insurance plan I'm aware of covers the prescription or the referent doctor visit. next. The reason circumcision isn't tantamount to genital mutilation is it serves a legitimate health benefit, so do contraceptives. Everybody wants to make this into abortion part deux. Its not that at all.My point is simple, I can go to a Catholic hospital and get sterilized and the hospital profits from doing so; but with their employees they claim having to pay for it is morally reprehensible. Pick a line and stick to it. The majority of Catholics (90%) don't even have a problem with contraception. Maybe its they who wish to push their agenda on others, not the other way around.

[krisy]

Talk about apples and oranges. marijuana is illegal and no insurance plan I'm aware of covers the prescription or the referent doctor visit. next. The reason circumcision isn't tantamount to genital mutilation is it serves a legitimate health benefit, so do contraceptives. Everybody wants to make this into abortion part deux. Its not that at all.My point is simple, I can go to a Catholic hospital and get sterilized and the hospital profits from doing so; but with their employees they claim having to pay for it is morally reprehensible. Pick a line and stick to it. The majority of Catholics (90%) don't even have a problem with contraception. Maybe its they who wish to push their agenda on others, not the other way around.


Are you sure you could get sterlized at a Catholic hospital. My sister had several of her children at Catholic hospitals and they would not tie her tubes. Is this different? Not being sarcastic,just asking

[ConHog]

conhog,I'm guessing that you do realise that I am a woman. I know b.c. is used for other things. Did anyone say that a person still doesn't have access to b.c.? No. They have to pay for it themselves. I would feel for that person,but the churches beliefs are their beliefs.

I won't however feel bad for anyone because the church won't pay for their morning after/b.c. pills. boohoo. At least they have health insurance. We have none,make too much for help and I have two kids with medical issues that we have to come up with thousands for-my son's jaw and my daughter's hearing aids. Both problems hereditary and unavoidable,so people whining get no sympathy from me because they can't get knocked up and have the church pay for them to take a pill the next day to get rid of a pregnancy.

you do realize that the Church isn't being asked to pay for anyone's birth control don't you? Sure, they are being asked to contribute to medical insurance which will pay for some birth control, but that's a far FAR cry from saying the Church is being asked to pay for anyone's birth control.

[Gaffer]

Pay the jizra and you can have any religion you want. For now. It's a back door jizra is all it is.

[krisy]

you do realize that the Church isn't being asked to pay for anyone's birth control don't you? Sure, they are being asked to contribute to medical insurance which will pay for some birth control, but that's a far FAR cry from saying the Church is being asked to pay for anyone's birth control.


It's no different imo.

[ConHog]

It's no different imo.

It boils down to this for me. What , if anything, is the fundamental difference between the Catholic Church saying we want special laws saying we don't have to pay employee insurance that covers birth control , and a Muslim mosque wanting a special law saying that their members will be tried under Sharia Law?

[Abbey Marie]

Here is why the Church has no standing. Because they can't legally hire ONLY Catholics at hospitals and such that they own. Which of course means all of their employees are not going to be devout Catholics who do not believe in birth control. It would be discrimination to only cater to their Catholic employees.

Now personally I believe employers SHOULD be able to discriminate and only hire Catholics or whatever, but under current law, they can not.

Catholic Church , shut up. case closed.

Backwards logic. People who do not like the rules of the Catholic faith shouldn't work for a Catholic entity. If they choose to accept employment from such a place, they should abide by their rules. Non-Catholic employees, shut up, case closed.

[ConHog]

Backwards logic. People who do not like the rules of the Catholic faith shouldn't work for a Catholic entity. If they choose to accept employment from such a place, they should abide by their rules. Non-Catholic employees, shut up, case closed.

I actually agree with you Abbey. BUT that is not the law. The law is clear, Catholic hospitals can't discriminate based on religion.

[krisy]

I actually agree with you Abbey. BUT that is not the law. The law is clear, Catholic hospitals can't discriminate based on religion.

Where is the discrimination? They aren't paying for ANY employee to get b.c.,including the Catholic ones that use it.

And uh Sharia law is a far cry from not paying for birth control pills.Again,no one is being hurt,and no law is being broken,or at least wasn't being broken.

[ConHog]

Where is the discrimination? They aren't paying for ANY employee to get b.c.,including the Catholic ones that use it.

And uh Sharia law is a far cry from not paying for birth control pills.Again,no one is being hurt,and no law is being broken,or at least wasn't being broken.

No, there is no discrimination if they just don't have insurance that doesn't cover b.c. I was talking about discrimination if they didn't hire non Catholics.

And yes, they ARE asking for an exemption for the law, just as the same as Muslims who want to live by Sharia are. There is no difference. I'm not arguing that ObamaCare is good law, but it IS the law, and the Church should get NO special considerations , just as NO church should get special considerations from the law.

How come no one addressed my comments about HPA? It's none of the CHurch's business and in fact they are barred by law from even knowing what medication their employees are taking (except for in the case of industrial accidents of course where testing is done)

[logroller]

Are you sure you could get sterlized at a Catholic hospital. My sister had several of her children at Catholic hospitals and they would not tie her tubes. Is this different? Not being sarcastic,just asking

At a CHW hospital, they offered to with my wife after/during her third c-section. The doctor prescribes her b/c in the same building. Maybe the doctor is an independent contractor like Jim said, but its a Catholic hospital, and they certainly receive some sort of monetary compensation. Like I said, I don't see how you can provide/allow the services to be provided, but renounce covering it for your employees for ethical reasons. My guess is if they refused to allow those services, the number of patients would be diminished; its a practical decision based on occupancy-- but that certainly compromises their avowed ethical stand.

[avatar4321]

I actually agree with you Abbey. BUT that is not the law. The law is clear, Catholic hospitals can't discriminate based on religion.

The law is wrong. It violates the Constitution. The government has no right to force people contrary to their religious beliefs.

[DragonStryk72]

Talk about apples and oranges. marijuana is illegal and no insurance plan I'm aware of covers the prescription or the referent doctor visit. next. The reason circumcision isn't tantamount to genital mutilation is it serves a legitimate health benefit, so do contraceptives. Everybody wants to make this into abortion part deux. Its not that at all.My point is simple, I can go to a Catholic hospital and get sterilized and the hospital profits from doing so; but with their employees they claim having to pay for it is morally reprehensible. Pick a line and stick to it. The majority of Catholics (90%) don't even have a problem with contraception. Maybe its they who wish to push their agenda on others, not the other way around.

CO, CA, VT? All medical marijuana states. It holds, so you not liking it makes it no less valid.

[ConHog]

The law is wrong. It violates the Constitution. The government has no right to force people contrary to their religious beliefs.

Wwhat does that have to do with discrimination? I mean i believe the cicil right act is unconstitutional as it pertains to private business. But that has nothing to do with religion

[Abbey Marie]

I actually agree with you Abbey. BUT that is not the law. The law is clear, Catholic hospitals can't discriminate based on religion.

They aren't refusing to hire non-Catholics, as far as I know. As I've said, if a non-Catholic wants to work there, it's their choice, but they go in knowing that their employer has a right to expound its religious beliefs. There is no discrimination, except by the gov't trying to force the church to go against its own faith.

[Abbey Marie]

At a CHW hospital, they offered to with my wife after/during her third c-section. The doctor prescribes her b/c in the same building. Maybe the doctor is an independent contractor like Jim said, but its a Catholic hospital, and they certainly receive some sort of monetary compensation. Like I said, I don't see how you can provide/allow the services to be provided, but renounce covering it for your employees for ethical reasons. My guess is if they refused to allow those services, the number of patients would be diminished; its a practical decision based on occupancy-- but that certainly compromises their avowed ethical stand.

If that is truly going on in a Catholic hospital, with their permission, and they cannot stop it, then it is muy hypocritical.

[CSM]

Hmmm ... makes me wonder if "separation of church and state" only works one way.

[ConHog]

Hmmm ... makes me wonder if "separation of church and state" only works one way.

Separation of Church and state is a myth and was NEVER the intent of the founders.

[ConHog]

They aren't refusing to hire non-Catholics, as far as I know. As I've said, if a non-Catholic wants to work there, it's their choice, but they go in knowing that their employer has a right to expound its religious beliefs. There is no discrimination, except by the gov't trying to force the church to go against its own faith.

I was basing on comments on some suggesting that they simply only hire Catholics Abbey, wasn't saying that IS what they are doing.

[CSM]

Separation of Church and state is a myth and was NEVER the intent of the founders.

Understood. I was kind of poking at the folks who do cry "foul" whenever they see something remotely religious in public.

[ConHog]

Understood. I was kind of poking at the folks who do cry "foul" whenever they see something remotely religious in public.

I figured as much. LOL Makes me laugh about how concerned some people are with their "rights" all the while trampling all over those of others . Sad really.

[Abbey Marie]

I was basing on comments on some suggesting that they simply only hire Catholics Abbey, wasn't saying that IS what they are doing.

Okey doke.

[logroller]

CO, CA, VT? All medical marijuana states. It holds, so you not liking it makes it no less valid.

Federally, its a schedule 1 drug; meaning legally, it has no medical purpose. I live in CA, my mother has a MM card for treatments of spasms for progressive multiple sclerosis, so I take issue with this position, but regardless-- insurance doesn't cover medical marijuana or the referral-- and to my knowledge, no proposed law seeks to change this or implement this mandate. But that doesn't refute your argument, it merely rules it irrelevant.

Whether or not any insurance mandate is justified I'll not consider, not that it isn't important, but its not germane to the OP; which claims the bc prescriptive coverage mandate violates the first amendment's free exercise clause.


Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person” represents the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest ..."

So the issue is whether a 'substantial burden of a person's free exercise of religion' exists. Merely offering birth control, even by legal mandate, does neither prevent, nor even burden one from exercising their religious beliefs, whatsoever! Those employees who choose not to use birth control are still free to exercise their religious beliefs, are they not?

[MtnBiker]

The bigger overall issue is the fact that the Federal government doles out money that is prevasive and some bereaucrat creates a regulation. Then the government through regulation tell everybody how they must conduct their business. We are discussing contraceptives, however what will be the next thing the regulations tell people they must do? And why do we accept this?

[fj1200]

...why on earth would an employer be expected to pay for their employees birth control? =/

Because a long time ago government regulations encouraged adding HC benefits to compensation to get around wage control regulations. Fast forward 50 years and that mistake is the basis for continuing regulations.

[fj1200]

I'm no advocate of Obamacare, but if it survives, then there needs to be a standard set for minimum coverage. Companies would be free to offer more, but not less than the standard.

No there doesn't. Minimum standards are why HC insurance costs keep going up. A politician decides a private company should offer X which drives up the costs for all.

[fj1200]

BUT , IF the Church gets an exemption from the government, THAT could be construed as establishing religion, at the very least it's government favoring a religion, and that is a big no no.

No it couldn't, government staying out of religion is NOT the same as establishing a religion.

[logroller]

No there doesn't. Minimum standards are why HC insurance costs keep going up. A politician decides a private company should offer X which drives up the costs for all.
I would COMPLETELY understand if the reasoning in the OP was fiscal-- does birth control drive up the cost of insurance? I would think not, as prenatal care and birthed dependents are far more costly than birth control.

[jimnyc]

I would COMPLETELY understand if the reasoning in the OP was fiscal-- does birth control drive up the cost of insurance? I would think not, as prenatal care and birthed dependents are far more costly than birth control.

Just because one is more costly doesn't mean the other doesn't have value. While I agree that what you mentioned is more costly, there are certainly expenses involved with birth control. Insurance companies should be free to offer insurance for various plans, companies should be able to offer various plans and employees should be free to choose what they want from various employers, or on their own. Forcing any of the above to change is just wrong. Same as shopping anywhere else, if you don't like the store, go shop elsewhere. Nobody should be forced to sell a particular product, and certainly no one should be forced to pay for it for others.

[ConHog]

No it couldn't, government staying out of religion is NOT the same as establishing a religion.

That would be true if ALL religions were getting the same exemption, but this will be a special exemption just for the Catholic Church.]

Oh, and lets be honest here the government saying no Church you can't not cover birth control is NOT the government getting involved in Church. It's government getting involved in something they have no business being involved in, but it is NOT a religious matter.

[fj1200]

I would COMPLETELY understand if the reasoning in the OP was fiscal-- does birth control drive up the cost of insurance? I would think not, as prenatal care and birthed dependents are far more costly than birth control.

It's not a fiscal argument. It's the government mandating things in the religious sector.


That would be true if ALL religions were getting the same exemption, but this will be a special exemption just for the Catholic Church.

No. They are asking because it matters to them. If it doesn't matter to a particular religion then they wouldn't ask but it's not anywhere close to establishing a religion.


Oh, and lets be honest here the government saying no Church you can't not cover birth control is NOT the government getting involved in Church. It's government getting involved in something they have no business being involved in, but it is NOT a religious matter.

The government is getting involved in religiously based institution. It may not be the intention but it is the outcome. It's undeniable.

[ConHog]

It's not a fiscal argument. It's the government mandating things in the religious sector.



No. They are asking because it matters to them. If it doesn't matter to a particular religion then they wouldn't ask but it's not anywhere close to establishing a religion.



The government is getting involved in religiously based institution. It may not be the intention but it is the outcome. It's undeniable.

So what if the Mormon Church saw that the Catholic Church was getting this exemption and they applied to and the government said " no, because that doesn't violate YOUR beliefs?" Well then CLEARLY they have favored a religion, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL . PERIOD. No matter you try to swing it.

And once again, this doesn't affect their religion at ALL, I would imagine that there is virtually no cost difference for a health insurance policy which covers birth control versus one that does not ( in fact a smart insurance company would make absolutely sure that the policy offered was cheaper if it covered birth control) and so consequently the church can't actually complain that they are having to pay for birth control coverage for anyone. In fact they are not. They are paying for medical INSURANCE and that is it.

[fj1200]

^:shakeshead: Follow the money.

[ConHog]

^:shakeshead: Follow the money.

excellent retort.


For real, this is just dumb, the Catholic Church should not be given an exemption based on religious views PERIOD.

Now that isn't saying that the government shouldn't be mandating health insurance in the first place, but since they are , no religious exemptions should exist.

Imagine some idiot saying "hey medical care is against my religion, so no medical insurance for my employees" What then? He's given an exemption to not purchase health care for his employees , but instead just pass out a card that says "Pray for better health?" Or, does the government tell him , "nope sorry the Catholic Church gets THEIR exemption, but your religion is too far out there so no exemption for you.?" That would CLEARLY be favoring a religion.

[krisy]

excellent retort.


For real, this is just dumb, the Catholic Church should not be given an exemption based on religious views PERIOD.

Now that isn't saying that the government shouldn't be mandating health insurance in the first place, but since they are , no religious exemptions should exist.

Imagine some idiot saying "hey medical care is against my religion, so no medical insurance for my employees" What then? He's given an exemption to not purchase health care for his employees , but instead just pass out a card that says "Pray for better health?" Or, does the government tell him , "nope sorry the Catholic Church gets THEIR exemption, but your religion is too far out there so no exemption for you.?" That would CLEARLY be favoring a religion.


They would not be giving them an exemption by the government leaving their health insurance alone. They would be abiding by the !st amendment of the U.S. Constitution like they are supposed to.


Apparently tho,other relgions are allowed to be exempt from obamacare. Now tell me that Christians and Catholics aren't being picked on

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21699

On top of that,you say the government should not mandate health care,so what problem do you have with the Catholic church fighting this? Shold the people roll over when they government is wrong?


“[P]eople who are conscientiously opposed> (http://libertyandpride.com/muslims-exempt-from-obamacare/) to paying for health insurance don’t have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion,” said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor.

[ConHog]

They would not be giving them an exemption by the government leaving their health insurance alone. They would be abiding by the !st amendment of the U.S. Constitution like they are supposed to.


Apparently tho,other relgions are allowed to be exempt from obamacare. Now tell me that Christians and Catholics aren't being picked on

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21699

On top of that,you say the government should not mandate health care,so what problem do you have with the Catholic church fighting this? Shold the people roll over when they government is wrong?


“[P]eople who are conscientiously opposed> (http://libertyandpride.com/muslims-exempt-from-obamacare/) to paying for health insurance don’t have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion,” said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor.


First of all, let me say that I agree with you that Christians and Catholics , as well as Jews it seems, are "picked on" in relation to other groups.

That being said, I am not sure I agree with allowing people to opt out because of religious views. Let alone opt out of certain services. I would object to ANY religious exemptions.

Oh, and I don't have a problem with the Church voicing their opinion about the government mandating health insurance coverage, I DO however have a problem with them wanting special exemptions simply because they are a church. I have the same problem with Muslims, Amish, or what have you.

NOW that I've said all that, I DO believe that if the government is giving exemptions to some religions, they should be giving them to all, which is EXACTLY why I oppose exemptions at all. It opens up a giant can of worms.

[Gaffer]

Repeal the whole God Damn thing and nobody needs to worry about exemptions.

[fj1200]

excellent retort.


For real, this is just dumb, the Catholic Church should not be given an exemption based on religious views PERIOD.

Now that isn't saying that the government shouldn't be mandating health insurance in the first place, but since they are , no religious exemptions should exist.

Imagine some idiot saying "hey medical care is against my religion, so no medical insurance for my employees" What then? He's given an exemption to not purchase health care for his employees , but instead just pass out a card that says "Pray for better health?" Or, does the government tell him , "nope sorry the Catholic Church gets THEIR exemption, but your religion is too far out there so no exemption for you.?" That would CLEARLY be favoring a religion.

The retort was all that was needed. The government is making requirements on religious money. There are plenty of areas where government requirements are not assigned to religious organizations. This is of course not an exact correlation but the precedent that a church is exempted from government requirements is not uncommon.
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Religious Groups Given ‘Exception’ to Work Bias Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html?pagewanted=all)</nyt_headline>
I will agree that it is stupid that the government is mandating health insurance in the first place because when they do, religious exemptions will have to be the order of the day.

Your example? There shouldn't be a requirement that he provide insurance but having said that; it's still not favoring a religion.

[MtnBiker]

Why is the Federal government compelled to mandate birth control?

[fj1200]

^Their mandating coverage. Because it's for women's health.

[logroller]

Just because one is more costly doesn't mean the other doesn't have value. While I agree that what you mentioned is more costly, there are certainly expenses involved with birth control. Insurance companies should be free to offer insurance for various plans, companies should be able to offer various plans and employees should be free to choose what they want from various employers, or on their own. Forcing any of the above to change is just wrong. Same as shopping anywhere else, if you don't like the store, go shop elsewhere. Nobody should be forced to sell a particular product, and certainly no one should be forced to pay for it for others.

And doctors should be free to deny any medical care because its not covered by somebody's insurance plan.


It's not a fiscal argument. It's the government mandating things in the religious sector.

Not specifically.

[jimnyc]

And doctors should be free to deny any medical care because its not covered by somebody's insurance plan.

I won't argue against that. Happens all the time.

[MtnBiker]

^Their mandating coverage. Because it's for women's health.

Mandating coverage for women's health. Hmmmm, well a government bureaucrat should mandate employers provide 3 heathly meals that include fresh fruit, whole grains, lean protein and dairy to every employee in the name of health. Afterall a healthy diet is better than an unhealthy diet. All it would take is a government mandate.

But wait, you might say "Mtnbiker don't be silly, employees will purchase healthy food with the money they are paid from their employer." I suppose that is true. People can purchase healthy needs for themselves, including contraceptives .

[ConHog]

Mandating coverage for women's health. Hmmmm, well a government bureaucrat should mandate employers provide 3 heathly meals that include fresh fruit, whole grains, lean protein and dairy to every employee in the name of health. Afterall a healthy diet is better than an unhealthy diet. All it would take is a government mandate.

But wait, you might say "Mtnbiker don't be silly, employees will purchase healthy food with the money they are paid from their employer." I suppose that is true. People can purchase healthy needs for themselves, including contraceptives .

Good point, BUT let's say the government did mandate a food plan for employees (let's forget that that would be as unconstitutional as them mandating a health insurance plan) and a church said hey we don't believe in eating meat, so we won't buy a meal plan which includes the option of meat. How ridiculous does that sound?

So of course the entire Obamacare is unconstitutional, but giving a church an exemption in noway addresses that issue. So that's a bogus argument, the ONLY argument is does the church have a right to the exemption they want? My opinion is no.

[fj1200]

Not specifically.

Was I not general enough? :poke:

[logroller]

Was I not general enough? :poke:

Not you, the law; its 'generally applicable'

But I digress, because I needn't show a compelling public interest as, per the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" (and nobody has responded to the following because its dead on accurate)
The mandatory insurance provision for prescriptive contraceptives IN NO WAY PREVENTS, PROHIBITS, NOR EVEN BURDENS the free exercise of religion. prove me wrong, show me how somebody, ANYBODY, is prohibited from choosing NOT to use contraceptives for ANY reason, religious or otherwise.

[fj1200]

Not you, the law; its 'generally applicable'

But I digress, because I needn't show a compelling public interest as, per the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" (and nobody has responded to the following because its dead on accurate)

The mandatory insurance provision for prescriptive contraceptives IN NO WAY PREVENTS, PROHIBITS, NOR EVEN BURDENS the free exercise of religion.
prove me wrong, show me how somebody, ANYBODY, is prohibited from choosing NOT to use contraceptives for ANY reason, religious or otherwise.

You are absolutely correct... in answering a question that wasn't asked. The burden here is not on the individual, it is on the entity that is required to pay for the BC requirement.

[Gunny]

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.
As CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer reports, it could affect the presidential elections.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/catholic-league-poised-to-go-to-war-with-obama-over-mandatory-birth-control-payments/


This could affect the election for Obama if Catholics are listening in church. I saw on the news that 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama in the last election. I'm not Catholic,but I think this is big government at its worst!! I am a Christian who does not believe in abortion. I am fine with birth control,but these are the church's beliefs and the government has no business in them.

Good. I could care less about Catholics as a specific. What I DO care about is Obama establishing a US Federal Government religion. By stating the Federal Gov't can dictate to and override the beliefs of ANY religion, not just Catholics, he is, in effect, stating the US Gov't is the supreme religion.

Just another example of that pesky Constitution getting in the way of his fascism.

[ConHog]

Good. I could care less about Catholics as a specific. What I DO care about is Obama establishing a US Federal Government religion. By stating the Federal Gov't can dictate to and override the beliefs of ANY religion, not just Catholics, he is, in effect, stating the US Gov't is the supreme religion.

Just another example of that pesky Constitution getting in the way of his fascism.

Why can't you be a good little government acolyte? :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Why can't you be a good little government acolyte? :laugh2:

Good luck. We're deja vu-ing 1930s Germany right now, and too many people are either unwilling to open their mouthes or too stupid to know it.

[logroller]

You are absolutely correct... in answering a question that wasn't asked. The burden here is not on the individual, it is on the entity that is required to pay for the BC requirement.
But the entity doesn't have to take bc either, how are they prohibited from expressing their religion; by not being able to refuse another theirs? The logic fails-- just be honest, you don't agree with the insurance mandate, period, it's religious impact is nil!

[logroller]

Good luck. We're deja vu-ing 1930s Germany right now, and too many people are either unwilling to open their mouthes or too stupid to know it.
Nice hyperbole; déjà vu ing 1930's America would be just as, if not more accurate.

[Gunny]

Nice hyperbole; déjà vu ing 1930's America would be just as, if not more accurate.

Refute my argument instead of trying to play with big words.

Obama is in fact establishing a US Federal Government religion -- a violation of the 1st -- by imposing the government on the religious beliefs of others. He's basically stating the US Gov't IS the religion because HE says so.

"Hyperbole" THAT.

[Missileman]

No there doesn't. Minimum standards are why HC insurance costs keep going up. A politician decides a private company should offer X which drives up the costs for all.

I'm no advocate of Obamacare, but if it survives the SCOTUS, and companies provide insurance or pay a penalty instead, then there needs to be a standard for the policies. Otherwise, a company could offer a policy that covers bandaids only and avoid paying the penalty, heaping more burden on taxpayers.

[Gunny]

I'm no advocate of Obamacare, but if it survives the SCOTUS, and companies provide insurance or pay a penalty instead, then there needs to be a standard for the policies. Otherwise, a company could offer a policy that covers bandaids only and avoid paying the penalty, heaping more burden on taxpayers.

Yeah, never mind the 1st Amendment.

The fact is, if I want contraception, guess what? I'm NOT going to "Holy Mary, Mother of God" to get it. Choice goes BOTH ways. The idiot that wants to be a promiscuous, irresponsible fool can go to the free clinic. They don't care WHAT they kill there.

This is just another illusion of "fairness" by the left, that is in fact, not fair as it forces people to concede to the minority.

Whatever happened to this country? If they asked me to join the Marines today to defend the Constitution of the US I got a 1 finger salute for you. This is a blatant, in your face violation of the 1st Amendment. I'm sure you don't get that. Doesn't suit your fancy.

The fact is, with his edict, Herr Obama HAS established a governement religion. His. Someone accused me of hyperbole before, but maybe y'all ought to get your facts straight. This is EXACTLY how Hitler took power in the 30's.

Like I said ... let me know when the Reichstag burns down. When Kristal Nacht happens, I wouldn't be around my house unless you got some GOOD Obamacare.

[ConHog]

Good luck. We're deja vu-ing 1930s Germany right now, and too many people are either unwilling to open their mouthes or too stupid to know it.

I was kidding in case you didn't notice.

[logroller]

Refute my argument instead of trying to play with big words.

Obama is in fact establishing a US Federal Government religion -- a violation of the 1st -- by imposing the government on the religious beliefs of others. He's basically stating the US Gov't IS the religion because HE says so.

"Hyperbole" THAT.

Its not that big of a word, besides i learned at this site. How ya like them apples?

In your previous post you made a statement, not an argument-- I disagreed with that statement. The bold above is an argument. I'll do my best to refute it.

To impose is to forcibly put a restriction on somebody; in this case, the free exercise of one's religious beliefs.
Mandating insurance to provide birth control

doesn't force anybody to use or even receive it;
doesn't prohibit the institution from expressing their religious opposition to its use;
doesn't restrict the institution from requiring those in their employ to swear an allegiance to uphold and live by the religious values of the employer
doesn't place any substantial burden on anyone from expressing or practicing their religion


-- thus, it doesn't impose any restriction on religious practices which refrain from birth control.

[Missileman]

Its not that big of a word, besides i learned at this site. How ya like them apples?

In your previous post you made a statement, not an argument-- I disagreed with that statement. The bold above is an argument. I'll do my best to refute it.

To impose is to forcibly put a restriction on somebody; in this case, the free exercise of one's religious beliefs.
Mandating insurance to provide birth control

doesn't force anybody to use or even receive it;
doesn't prohibit the institution from expressing their religious opposition to its use;
doesn't restrict the institution from requiring those in their employ to swear an allegiance to uphold and live by the religious values of the employer
doesn't place any substantial burden on anyone from expressing or practicing their religion

-- thus, it doesn't impose any restriction on religious practices which refrain from birth control.


And let's not forget that they aren't even being forced to provide insurance for their employees, they can opt themselves out of it entirely.

[krisy]

Its not that big of a word, besides i learned at this site. How ya like them apples?


To impose is to forcibly put a restriction on somebody; in this case, the free exercise of one's religious beliefs.
Mandating insurance to provide birth control


doesn't place any substantial burden on anyone from expressing or practicing their religion

-- thus, it doesn't impose any restriction on religious practices which refrain from birth control.


This is the issue. FORCING the church as an institution pay for these things IS prohibiting from freely practicing their religion. They are now paying for something that goes against their religion and their beliefs. It IS a burden for the church to actively participate in health care coverage that is against thier teachings.

Huge conflict of interest undoubtedly.

Not to mention,if people are so worried about women being able to pay for birth control if the church doesn't offer coverage,then why don't they run to the feminazi run planned parenthood?

[krisy]

And let's not forget that they aren't even being forced to provide insurance for their employees, they can opt themselves out of it entirely.


Sure they can, and watch their employess not be able to go to the doctor and get health care for real health issues,like diabetes. Even a non Catholic can see the huge delima this socialist administration has created. To a Catholic,paying for this health care would be a mortal sin.

I'm telling you,it is a slippery slope letting government but into religion.

I will try to find a link,but it's been on the news that several Democrat Catholics are upset about this because they were not aware that in this ridiculously huge bill that no one read,government was going to interfere in their religion.

[ConHog]

This is the issue. FORCING the church as an institution pay for these things IS prohibiting from freely practicing their religion. They are now paying for something that goes against their religion and their beliefs. It IS a burden for the church to actively participate in health care coverage that is against thier teachings.

Huge conflict of interest undoubtedly.

Not to mention,if people are so worried about women being able to pay for birth control if the church doesn't offer coverage,then why don't they run to the feminazi run planned parenthood?

catholic church =/= catholic hospital. Just for beginners.

[ConHog]

Sure they can, and watch their employess not be able to go to the doctor and get health care for real health issues,like diabetes. Even a non Catholic can see the huge delima this socialist administration has created. To a Catholic,paying for this health care would be a mortal sin.

I'm telling you,it is a slippery slope letting government but into religion.

I will try to find a link,but it's been on the news that several Democrat Catholics are upset about this because they were not aware that in this ridiculously huge bill that no one read,government was going to interfere in their religion.

your problem is with obamacare , not this specific exemption that the catholic church wants.

[krisy]

catholic church =/= catholic hospital. Just for beginners.


So they just call it a Catholic hospital for no reason?They follow Catholic beliefs. i don't know where you live,but here in Cincinnati,like I said before,no Catholic hospital would tie my sisters tubes.

[ConHog]

So they just call it a Catholic hospital for no reason?They follow Catholic beliefs. i don't know where you live,but here in Cincinnati,like I said before,no Catholic hospital would tie my sisters tubes.

and that is what we call heresay. Likewise we've also heard that a catholic hospital performs abortions.

That being said, do you believe Muslims should be able to buy a grocery store, call it a Muslim grocery store and petition to receive exemptions from US laws that they claim violate their religious beliefs?

[krisy]

your problem is with obamacare , not this specific exemption that the catholic church wants.

Did you miss the 8000 threads in which I've mentioned my problem is government making a religion pay for something that is morally to them and Obamacare as a whole of course? :2up:

[ConHog]

Did you miss the 8000 threads in which I've mentioned my problem is government making a religion pay for something that is morally to them and Obamacare as a whole of course? :2up:

no church is being asked to do so. a church related business IS being asked to pay for health insurance which will pay for it IF a patient wants it.

[krisy]

no church is being asked to do so. a church related business IS being asked to pay for health insurance which will pay for it IF a patient wants it.


They are not being asked,they are being forced.

[ConHog]

They are not being asked,they are being forced.

negative ghost rider. They can just not offer health insurance .

And once again, your complaint is that EVERYONE is being forced to either provide employees health insurance or pay the fines. Church ran businesses should be included in that everyone all the way.

[krisy]

negative ghost rider. They can just not offer health insurance .

And once again, your complaint is that EVERYONE is being forced to either provide employees health insurance or pay the fines. Church ran businesses should be included in that everyone all the way.


Of course.yes that is the root of the problem. Imposing this b.c.,a.p. coverage on the church is a double whammy.

[ConHog]

Of course.yes that is the root of the problem. Imposing this b.c.,a.p. coverage on the church is a double whammy.

Again, it is not ON the church. It is on a church sponsored business.

Answer me this, if the business , in this case a hospital, is religious, then how come they don't get an exemption from taxes?

http://www.chausa.org/finance/

open the .PDF and realize they pay taxes.

[fj1200]

But the entity doesn't have to take bc either, how are they prohibited from expressing their religion; by not being able to refuse another theirs? The logic fails-- just be honest, you don't agree with the insurance mandate, period, it's religious impact is nil!

Two mandates don't make a right.

[ConHog]

Two mandates don't make a right.

very true, but A) being wrong doesn't mean that its okay for B) to be wrong as well.

[fj1200]

I'm no advocate of Obamacare, but if it survives the SCOTUS, and companies provide insurance or pay a penalty instead, then there needs to be a standard for the policies. Otherwise, a company could offer a policy that covers bandaids only and avoid paying the penalty, heaping more burden on taxpayers.

The states already mandate minimum coverages. Besides, excessive minimum coverages are one of the reasons for high health insurance costs in the first place.

[fj1200]

very true, but A) being wrong doesn't mean that its okay for B) to be wrong as well.

The two are unrelated except for the abomination that was "reform."

[Missileman]

The states already mandate minimum coverages. Besides, excessive minimum coverages are one of the reasons for high health insurance costs in the first place.

I didn't say the standard coverage had to be excessive, just standard. I'm sure that the government, [/sarc]in their infinte wisdom[/sarcoff] will mandate some really extravagant requirements, after all, they're giving away the coverage to lots of potential voters. I mean if welfare recipients have the right to a big screen TV, game console, auto, and cell phone, imagine their insurance policy.

[logroller]

This is the issue. FORCING the church as an institution pay for these things IS prohibiting from freely practicing their religion. They are now paying for something that goes against their religion and their beliefs. It IS a burden for the church to actively participate in health care coverage that is against thier teachings.

Huge conflict of interest undoubtedly.

Not to mention,if people are so worried about women being able to pay for birth control if the church doesn't offer coverage,then why don't they run to the feminazi run planned parenthood?

A religious institution doesn't practice religion, the people in it do.
If those people's religion says no birth control, those people don't have to use it. That's exercising that right-- no burden. I've already mentioned that birth control being offered by an insurance company has the effect of lowering the anticipated outlays, so the premiums wouldn't rise-- so I don't see you they'd even be paying for it really. Not to mention a Harris poll found 90% of Catholics don't have a problem with contraceptives.

It'd be like saying you must have firearm clause in your homeowner's insurance, which covers gun violence in your home; the cost is negligible. Whether or not its legal to require anyone to have homeowner's insurance is debatable; but let's say you're Quaker and you're religion forbids you from committing any violent acts, (precluding you from even owning a gun)-- How would the firearm insurance mandate cause you to violate your religious expression of not committing violent acts?
Nobody is making you commit acts of violence in your home, they're just making sure its covered if someone else does.

[logroller]

Two mandates don't make a right.

Indeed. That wasn't my claim here. I just said they are two separate debates. We disagree with the existence of the FED, for example, but that doesn't mean we can't debate over how they should adjust rates. For the record though, I think Obama care is gonna stand at least through the election though, probably 2014. I think the USSC is gonna wait on it, claiming that whatchamacallit tax repeal before tax assessment thing.

[bullypulpit]

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.
As CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer reports, it could affect the presidential elections.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/catholic-league-poised-to-go-to-war-with-obama-over-mandatory-birth-control-payments/


This could affect the election for Obama if Catholics are listening in church. I saw on the news that 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama in the last election. I'm not Catholic,but I think this is big government at its worst!! I am a Christian who does not believe in abortion. I am fine with birth control,but these are the church's beliefs and the government has no business in them.

The fact of the matter is that many Catholic universities and hospitals already provide insurance coverage for contraception. Furthermore, 28 states have had rules in place mandating insurance coverage for contraception for some years now. Of those 28 states, 8 have provisions which make no exemptions for employers such as churches. But there was no outrage on the part of the GOP until the Obama administration introduced rules mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives. Never mind that the proposal was introduced and supported by the GOP in 2001, at least until they thought they could use the issue as a cudgel against President Obama...and then it was a moral outrage and an assault on religious freedom. Never mind that the new rule introduced by the Obama administration carved out exemptions for churches that would over-ride the lack of those exemptions in the 8 states mentioned above.

So, where was the outrage before the Obama administration introduced this rule? Nowhere to be found. So wake up, stop whining, stop being such a tool. Oh, and most of the Catholics, watching this tempest in a teacup play out on the right, support mandatory insurance coverage for contraception.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf

http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE (http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE )

[ConHog]

How about this.

IF you receive tax exempt status as a religious organization, fine, if not, shut up. Catholic hospitals. SHUT UP!

[fj1200]

... shut up. ... SHUT UP!

Ah, I see you've found your fallback position. :poke:

Besides, I would imagine that they'd qualify for tax exemption as a non-profit anyway.

[ConHog]

Ah, I see you've found your fallback position. :poke:

Why don't you just shut up?

:lol:

[fj1200]

:snapsalute:

[ConHog]

:laugh2:

[logroller]

Ah, I see you've found your fallback position. :poke:

Besides, I would imagine that they'd qualify for tax exemption as a non-profit anyway.
the tax exempt status of religious orgs is different than other non-profits; they don't have to report much, if any, information. It used to be like that for any small npo, but not anymore.

Doesn't matter anyways, Obama dropped it.

[jimnyc]

Imagine that, a majority aka religious people, have spoken, and got their way. Now all we need is for someone to sue and end up in the 9th circuit, like maybe an atheist organization. :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Its not that big of a word, besides i learned at this site. How ya like them apples?

In your previous post you made a statement, not an argument-- I disagreed with that statement. The bold above is an argument. I'll do my best to refute it.

To impose is to forcibly put a restriction on somebody; in this case, the free exercise of one's religious beliefs.
Mandating insurance to provide birth control

doesn't force anybody to use or even receive it;
doesn't prohibit the institution from expressing their religious opposition to its use;
doesn't restrict the institution from requiring those in their employ to swear an allegiance to uphold and live by the religious values of the employer
doesn't place any substantial burden on anyone from expressing or practicing their religion


-- thus, it doesn't impose any restriction on religious practices which refrain from birth control.

I learned in the 6th grade.

Are you missing something? Mandating religion-based MEDICAL FACILITIES to provide birth control when it against one of the specific religion's base tenets, IS a violation of the separation of church and state in that it makes the US Government the de facto "supreme" religion, superior to all others.

Again, it forces medical facilities to provide medical services that go against the belief of the base religion of the facility.

And yes, it places a moral burden on Catholics, in a Catholic hospital to provide birth control; which, IS suppressing their practice of their religion.


And let's not forget that they aren't even being forced to provide insurance for their employees, they can opt themselves out of it entirely.

Right.


no church is being asked to do so. a church related business IS being asked to pay for health insurance which will pay for it IF a patient wants it.

Bullshit. Do you REALLY think those hospitals just dream up some Catholic name out of nowhere?


negative ghost rider. They can just not offer health insurance .

And once again, your complaint is that EVERYONE is being forced to either provide employees health insurance or pay the fines. Church ran businesses should be included in that everyone all the way.

Try again.


Again, it is not ON the church. It is on a church sponsored business.

Answer me this, if the business , in this case a hospital, is religious, then how come they don't get an exemption from taxes?

http://www.chausa.org/finance/

open the .PDF and realize they pay taxes.

Again, YES IT IS. Calling it a church-sponsored business rather than what it actually is sounds like you belong on Herr Obama's staff.

[Gunny]

The fact of the matter is that many Catholic universities and hospitals already provide insurance coverage for contraception. Furthermore, 28 states have had rules in place mandating insurance coverage for contraception for some years now. Of those 28 states, 8 have provisions which make no exemptions for employers such as churches. But there was no outrage on the part of the GOP until the Obama administration introduced rules mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives. Never mind that the proposal was introduced and supported by the GOP in 2001, at least until they thought they could use the issue as a cudgel against President Obama...and then it was a moral outrage and an assault on religious freedom. Never mind that the new rule introduced by the Obama administration carved out exemptions for churches that would over-ride the lack of those exemptions in the 8 states mentioned above.

So, where was the outrage before the Obama administration introduced this rule? Nowhere to be found. So wake up, stop whining, stop being such a tool. Oh, and most of the Catholics, watching this tempest in a teacup play out on the right, support mandatory insurance coverage for contraception.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf

http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE (http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE )

The fact of the matter is, there's a lot of hemming and hawing and dodging around the base topic.

[logroller]

Imagine that, a majority aka religious people, have spoken, and got their way. Now all we need is for someone to sue and end up in the 9th circuit, like maybe an atheist organization. :laugh2:

Well that's politics; I said it early on in this thread, "politics aside"; because the reality is 54% of Catholics voted for Obama in 2008, justifying compromise as a political necessity. A suit would never get of the ground though Jim-- As I understand the rule change, they're just going to use another avenue for bc provisioning.

[logroller]

I learned in the 6th grade.

Are you missing something? Mandating religion-based MEDICAL FACILITIES to provide birth control when it against one of the specific religion's base tenets, IS a violation of the separation of church and state in that it makes the US Government the de facto "supreme" religion, superior to all others.

Again, it forces medical facilities to provide medical services that go against the belief of the base religion of the facility.

And yes, it places a moral burden on Catholics, in a Catholic hospital to provide birth control; which, IS suppressing their practice of their religion.

Kinda sounds like you dropped out of school in the 6th grade...

Let's say there's a religion that believes in the removal of a woman's clitoris, referred to as female genital mutilation, is necessary to ensure her maternal duties aren't perverted by her enjoyment of sex; should they be exempted from US laws prohibiting this practice? Wouldn't want the the religion of the united states forcing its views on a woman's right to enjoy sex on everybody. So there you go; if its refusing to offer birth control coverage now, female genital mutilation next-- there's some hyperbole for ya--:poke:

[revelarts]

Gov't shouldn't force churches to do much of anything.
Much less pay for covarage of what they don't believe in.
Why not force them to pay for abortions while their at it if it's OK force churches to pay. There is NO arugument that flies making the forcing right.





They are FREE to pay the fine and not offer insurance if their objection to non-Catholic employees using birth control is that strong.

Or just drop the medical insurance altogether and pay the fine. Not as if the Catholic Church can't afford it.
I'm totally against this whole medical bill, AND I believe employers should be able to discriminate, but under the law their best option is to either A) drop the insurance pay the fine B) as you suggested hire independent contractors.
"FREE" to pay the fine? Like "FREE" to go to jail if you go to church? that's just make no freaking sense at all. Make it ILLEAGAL to practice part of your religion. ANd to Do something you haven't been doing for say about... 500 years. But Now it's illegal, so you have to pay a fine for doing what you've been doing out of faith.
CRAZY.




I'm no advocate of Obamacare, but if it survives, then there needs to be a standard set for minimum coverage. Companies would be free to offer more, but not less than the standard. Who determines the standard, that's the rub isn't it.
but like Gaffer said
Repeal the whole thing.


Federally, its a schedule 1 drug; meaning legally, it has no medical purpose. I live in CA, my mother has a MM card for treatments of spasms for progressive multiple sclerosis, so I take issue with this position, but regardless-- insurance doesn't cover medical marijuana or the referral-- and to my knowledge, no proposed law seeks to change this or implement this mandate. But that doesn't refute your argument, it merely rules it irrelevant.

Whether or not any insurance mandate is justified I'll not consider, not that it isn't important, but its not germane to the OP; which claims the bc prescriptive coverage mandate violates the first amendment's free exercise clause.

So the issue is whether a 'substantial burden of a person's free exercise of religion' exists. Merely offering birth control, even by legal mandate, does neither prevent, nor even burden one from exercising their religious beliefs, whatsoever! Those employees who choose not to use birth control are still free to exercise their religious beliefs, are they not?
If it's not a burden then Log you won't mind paying for the coverage of those items the RC church doesn't cover?
Log, money out of your pocket for something you don't approve of is definitely a burden.

[gabosaurus]

Good to see that the Catholic church still believes that women have no rights. This is how you get families with 12 kids who strain the welfare system past the breaking point.

[ConHog]

I learned in the 6th grade.

Are you missing something? Mandating religion-based MEDICAL FACILITIES to provide birth control when it against one of the specific religion's base tenets, IS a violation of the separation of church and state in that it makes the US Government the de facto "supreme" religion, superior to all others.

Again, it forces medical facilities to provide medical services that go against the belief of the base religion of the facility.

And yes, it places a moral burden on Catholics, in a Catholic hospital to provide birth control; which, IS suppressing their practice of their religion.



Right.



Bullshit. Do you REALLY think those hospitals just dream up some Catholic name out of nowhere?



Try again.



Again, YES IT IS. Calling it a church-sponsored business rather than what it actually is sounds like you belong on Herr Obama's staff.

Once again, IF it's a church then why are they paying taxes on income?

[ConHog]

Gov't shouldn't force churches to do much of anything.
Much less pay for covarage of what they don't believe in.
Why not force them to pay for abortions while their at it if it's OK force churches to pay. There is NO arugument that flies making the forcing right.






"FREE" to pay the fine? Like "FREE" to go to jail if you go to church? that's just make no freaking sense at all. Make it ILLEAGAL to practice part of your religion. ANd to Do something you haven't been doing for say about... 500 years. But Now it's illegal, so you have to pay a fine for doing what you've been doing out of faith.
CRAZY.



Who determines the standard, that's the rub isn't it.
but like Gaffer said
Repeal the whole thing.


If it's not a burden then Log you won't mind paying for the coverage of those items the RC church doesn't cover?
Log, money out of your pocket for something you don't approve of is definitely a burden.



Already shown that health insurance that covers birth control costs no more than health insurance taht does not. SO that argument is a no go.

[fj1200]

Good to see that the Catholic church still believes that women have no rights. This is how you get families with 12 kids who strain the welfare system past the breaking point.

:facepalm99:

Please show how the Catholic church believes that women have no rights. Also. please provide statistics that show catholics with 12 kids straining the welfare system.

[logroller]

If it's not a burden then Log you won't mind paying for the coverage of those items the RC church doesn't cover?
Log, money out of your pocket for something you don't approve of is definitely a burden.

Fiscally speaking, I'm paying far more for unplanned children in the social welfare system through my taxes-- so why should I be additionally burdened, because some other entity (a tax exempt one, at that) owe's some duty to their conscience?

I've already explained why it wouldn't cost these institutions jack out-of-pocket, and likely save them money on premiums. So that argument fails to gain traction beyond anything but what ifs.

What ifs can be fun-- What if a Quaker pays taxes which fund wars? Some burden's are necessary Rev; the test for such things is coined the 'least restrictive means'. Check it out, query my recent posts-- I have addressed all these issues multiple times.

What it does do, purportedly, is cost them their moral conscience-- which truly has no monetary value. Based on my personal experience with a Catholic hospital prescribing BC and offering to sterilaize my wife, plus data on birth control use among Catholics in this country; it appears to be a clear case of not practicing what they preach--but we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church-- hypocrisy is an unwritten tenet.:poke:

In the end, politics rue the day; it matters not to me, for I shall accept the burden, and that's $43 dollars/month less I'm putting in the collection plate from now on.

[revelarts]

If it's not a burden then Log you won't mind paying for the coverage of those items the RC church doesn't cover?
Log, money out of your pocket for something you don't approve of is definitely a burden.



Already shown that health insurance that covers birth control costs no more than health insurance taht does not. SO that argument is a no go.


Fiscally speaking, I'm paying far more for unplanned children in the social welfare system through my taxes-- so why should I be additionally burdened, because some other entity (a tax exempt one, at that) owe's some duty to their conscience?

I've already explained why it wouldn't cost these institutions jack out-of-pocket, and likely save them money on premiums. So that argument fails to gain traction beyond anything but what ifs.

What ifs can be fun-- What if a Quaker pays taxes which fund wars? Some burden's are necessary Rev; the test for such things is coined the 'least restrictive means'. Check it out, query my recent posts-- I have addressed all these issues multiple times.

What it does do, purportedly, is cost them their moral conscience-- which truly has no monetary value. Based on my personal experience with a Catholic hospital prescribing BC and offering to sterilaize my wife, plus data on birth control use among Catholics in this country; it appears to be a clear case of not practicing what they preach--but we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church-- hypocrisy is an unwritten tenet.:poke:

In the end, politics rue the day; it matters not to me, for I shall accept the burden, and that's $43 dollars/month less I'm putting in the collection plate from now on.

money out of your pocket for something you don't approve of is definitely a burden.

Any Money for something against your faith is the problem. just becuase some don't recognize a this paticular issue as being morally taxing it's not your call it's the churches or individuals call. and the gov't has no right to force it's own morals or lack thereof onto them even in the face of the RC church's glaring inconsistencies.

Total financial cost is not the issue.
Paying for abortions is cheaper than keeping children the church still doesn't want to pay for abortions becuase it understands it to be wrong.
Paying for birth control is cheaper than keeping children the church still doesn't want to pay for abortions becuase it understands it to be wrong.
Same exact principal. Religious faith based stance.

as far as legal test goes, well it's easy for others to say "well for the good of the community you need to trash this or that portion of your faith becuase we don't think it's a "real" burden and we think this other thing is more important than what you think God says about it." For Some reason Log it just doesn't seem morally right. And it is an infringement on religion, plain and simple. weather or not the legal test find it so or not. Especially when the wider community is not claiming a higher moral solution.

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.

NO law should mean NO LAW
Not exactly "free" if your getting punished for it either.

And Quakers have had a history of refusing to pay taxes for war. many have had land taken and been jailed for it.
So they've paid the "fine" for exercising their religion. This bit of Obamacare just another instance of the gov't stepping on the 1st amendment. Many people are used to the idea that the gov't officials have a legal right to tell us what to do ,as long as it's got a supposedly good reason, I just can't seem to get there.

And Before you say well some religions condone bad things here's a bright the line our gov't can draw. No religion can legally include:
murder, stealing, fraud, kidnapping, rape, assault, mutilation, torture of humans or animals, forced marriages or compelling drug use.

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7BLiSp_O5NY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[ConHog]

If it's not a burden then Log you won't mind paying for the coverage of those items the RC church doesn't cover?
Log, money out of your pocket for something you don't approve of is definitely a burden.




money out of your pocket for something you don't approve of is definitely a burden.

Any Money for something against your faith is the problem. just becuase some don't recognize a this paticular issue as being morally taxing it's not your call it's the churches or individuals call. and the gov't has no right to force it's own morals or lack thereof onto them even in the face of the RC church's glaring inconsistencies.

Total financial cost is not the issue.
Paying for abortions is cheaper than keeping children the church still doesn't want to pay for abortions becuase it understands it to be wrong.
Paying for birth control is cheaper than keeping children the church still doesn't want to pay for abortions becuase it understands it to be wrong.
Same exact principal. Religious faith based stance.

as far as legal test goes, well it's easy for others to say "well for the good of the community you need to trash this or that portion of your faith becuase we don't think it's a "real" burden and we think this other thing is more important than what you think God says about it." For Some reason Log it just doesn't seem morally right. And it is an infringement on religion, plain and simple. weather or not the legal test find it so or not. Especially when the wider community is not claiming a higher moral solution.

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.

NO law should mean NO LAW
Not exactly "free" if your getting punished for it either.

And Quakers have had a history of refusing to pay taxes for war. many have had land taken and been jailed for it.
So they've paid the "fine" for exercising their religion. This bit of Obamacare just another instance of the gov't stepping on the 1st amendment. Many people are used to the idea that the gov't officials have a legal right to tell us what to do ,as long as it's got a supposedly good reason, I just can't seem to get there.

And Before you say well some religions condone bad things here's a bright the line our gov't can draw. No religion can legally include:
murder, stealing, fraud, kidnapping, rape, assault, mutilation, torture of humans or animals, forced marriages or compelling drug use.

NO ONE is being deprived of their religious beliefs here. Catholics believe in not using birth control. I simply can't find any canon that says they don't believe in having medical insurance that will cover birth control. PERIOD.

[krisy]

Good to see that the Catholic church still believes that women have no rights. This is how you get families with 12 kids who strain the welfare system past the breaking point.


Um,again birth control is NOT a right,and no one is responsible for it but you. I would also love to see statistics on Catholic families on welfare.

Also,there are many people in this thread disagreeing, but all have actually put some effort into their argument. It would be nice if you could do the same,rather than quick hit and run smartelic opinions.

[jimnyc]

NO ONE is being deprived of their religious beliefs here. Catholics believe in not using birth control. I simply can't find any canon that says they don't believe in having medical insurance that will cover birth control. PERIOD.

Rev didn't say anyone was being deprived. PERIOD. Also, FORCING them to cover birth control is affecting the way they exercise their beliefs, whether you agree with them or not. PERIOD.

[krisy]

NO ONE is being deprived of their religious beliefs here. Catholics believe in not using birth control. I simply can't find any canon that says they don't believe in having medical insurance that will cover birth control. PERIOD.


Have you not seen and read the bishops and other Catholic leaders all over the news that are saying the health insurance issue is wrong? How could you miss it?

Also,forced to pay and free(as in 1st amendment,free excercise) don't go together. Contradictory terms.

[logroller]

Log, money out of your pocket for something you don't approve of is definitely a burden...
money out of your pocket for something you don't approve of is definitely a burden.

Any Money for something against your faith is the problem. just becuase some don't recognize a this paticular issue as being morally taxing it's not your call it's the churches or individuals call. and the gov't has no right to force it's own morals or lack thereof onto them even in the face of the RC church's glaring inconsistencies.

Total financial cost is not the issue.


Of course its not the issue-- because it doesn't have a financial cost.
So paying nothing for something you don't want or take is a burden to you?



"well for the good of the community you need to trash this or that portion of your faith becuase we don't think it's a "real" burden and we think this other thing is more important than what you think God says about it." For Some reason Log it just doesn't seem morally right. And it is an infringement on religion, plain and simple. weather or not the legal test find it so or not. Especially when the wider community is not claiming a higher moral solution.
Is our government responsible for enforcing morals? By God I hope not.
Its seems to me you fail to see the obverse of the exact same argument. Wouldn't government NOT enforcing a specific sectarian moral tenet be an establishment of one religious moral view over another?


.. Many people are used to the idea that the gov't officials have a legal right to tell us what to do ,as long as it's got a supposedly good reason, I just can't seem to get there.
So you hold contempt for the law of the land--fair enough-- you're still free to enjoy the protection it provides, whether or not you choose to express that right is up to you-- just like birth control. Don't believe in it, don't use it! NO BURDEN. As opposed to "I have the right to impose my religious beliefs on others by disavowing birth control coverage."

Could a religious institution not hire any women with kids because they believe the woman should be in the home raising her kids. Honestly, if its a church-- i'd say yea. If its a church hospital, I'd say no.


And Before you say well some religions condone bad things here's a bright the line our gov't can draw. No religion can legally include:
murder, stealing, fraud, kidnapping, rape, assault, mutilation, torture of humans or animals, forced marriages or compelling drug use.


How bout Kosher food , but that could be seen as torture of animals -- supposedly for sanitary purposes-- but that's no justification for crossing your bright line.

Or how bout Native Americans and their beliefs on communing with God using peyote? Is that not compelling drug use?

Both of the examples above were actual court cases. Sorry Rev, your bright line was in the sand, and gets washed away with a modicum of scrutiny.

[revelarts]

Of course its not the issue-- because it doesn't have a financial cost.
So paying nothing for something you don't want or take is a burden to you?

Is our government responsible for enforcing morals? By God I hope not. ...
By God i hope So.
Every good law has a moral base. Every one. killing is morally wrong it's against the law. Stealing is morally wrong , its against the law. Heck even Obamacare claims society has a moral responsibility to keep people healthy. Nearly all law claims some high moral purpose.




Its seems to me you fail to see the obverse of the exact same argument. Wouldn't government NOT enforcing a specific sectarian moral tenet be an establishment of one religious moral view over another?
That A Broader discussion, and gets into where morals come from and where general civic and sectarian moral tenets cross, agree, cancel or accomodate one another. Plus the idea of old school religoius tolorance. Leaveing each other alone.




So you hold contempt for the law of the land--fair enough-- you're still free to enjoy the protection it provides, whether or not you choose to express that right is up to you-- just like birth control. Don't believe in it, don't use it! NO BURDEN. As opposed to "I have the right to impose my religious beliefs on others by disavowing birth control coverage."
The supreme law of the land is the constitution. Do you disavow that? And employees can buy all the birth control they want. They don't have a right to make Catholics to pay for it, even as a token. I don't get the problem. lets place the burden of birth control cost back in the hands of the individual that needs it. if the Catholic hospital is not paying them enough to buy condoms or pills they can get them for free at Planned Parenthood. that legal. NO BURDEN.





Could a religious institution not hire any women with kids because they believe the woman should be in the home raising her kids. Honestly, if its a church-- i'd say yea. If its a church hospital, I'd say no.
I suppose they could, and i wouldn't agree with it either but if 'its a sincerely held position, then what's the supreme law of the land say, that you don't dismiss (but seem to want nigh on contrary lower laws and court rulings to supersede) say? what's an honest reading?





How bout Kosher food , but that could be seen as torture of animals -- supposedly for sanitary purposes-- but that's no justification for crossing your bright line.

Or how bout Native Americans and their beliefs on communing with God using peyote? Is that not compelling drug use?

Both of the examples above were actual court cases. Sorry Rev, your bright line was in the sand, and gets washed away with a modicum of scrutiny.
I don't think the States ruled against peyote becuase it was "compelled to be used". correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think that's why.
And Kosher foods? We're talking food here, um... sure PETA sues everyone. But it's hates the secular meats industry for it's cruelty more than the Jewish practices.
Bright lines made with light don't move when the sand and water moves. they just wiggle until everything settles down.:poke:

[bullypulpit]

The fact of the matter is, there's a lot of hemming and hawing and dodging around the base topic.

Yes, there is. But it's in the form of the GOP and the religious right making and issue out of what was, for years, a non-issue. That is until the Obama administration issued a rule no different from what has been in effect in 28 states for a number of years, a rule less restrictive than that in eight of those states. Never mind that the GOP was for it before they were against it. Republicans Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Gordon Smith (OR), John Warner (VA), Arlen Specter (PA) co-sponsored a bill that would establish parity for contraception prescription coverage in 2001. Oh, and there was no opt out for religious groups opposed to contraception.

But do you hear any of this from the GOP? No. history is swept under the rug and conveniently ignored as the GOP continues to hem and haw and dodge around the real issues facing this nation.

[ConHog]

Yes, there is. But it's in the form of the GOP and the religious right making and issue out of what was, for years, a non-issue. That is until the Obama administration issued a rule no different from what has been in effect in 28 states for a number of years, a rule less restrictive than that in eight of those states. Never mind that the GOP was for it before they were against it. Republicans Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Gordon Smith (OR), John Warner (VA), Arlen Specter (PA) co-sponsored a bill that would establish parity for contraception prescription coverage in 2001. Oh, and there was no opt out for religious groups opposed to contraception.

But do you hear any of this from the GOP? No. history is swept under the rug and conveniently ignored as the GOP continues to hem and haw and dodge around the real issues facing this nation.


Fact of the matter is BOTH parties play that pathetic game. We need to stop pretending like one party is worse than the other.

[bullypulpit]

Fact of the matter is BOTH parties play that pathetic game. We need to stop pretending like one party is worse than the other.

Actually, the Republicans ARE worse than the Democrats.

[ConHog]

Actually, the Republicans ARE worse than the Democrats.


No they aren't and you do no one any favors by pretending otherwise.

[krisy]

The fact of the matter is that many Catholic universities and hospitals already provide insurance coverage for contraception. Furthermore, 28 states have had rules in place mandating insurance coverage for contraception for some years now. Of those 28 states, 8 have provisions which make no exemptions for employers such as churches. But there was no outrage on the part of the GOP until the Obama administration introduced rules mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives. Never mind that the proposal was introduced and supported by the GOP in 2001, at least until they thought they could use the issue as a cudgel against President Obama...and then it was a moral outrage and an assault on religious freedom. Never mind that the new rule introduced by the Obama administration carved out exemptions for churches that would over-ride the lack of those exemptions in the 8 states mentioned above.

So, where was the outrage before the Obama administration introduced this rule? Nowhere to be found. So wake up, stop whining, stop being such a tool. Oh, and most of the Catholics, watching this tempest in a teacup play out on the right, support mandatory insurance coverage for contraception.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf

http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE


That is something that I did not know. I will not support this kind of thing if it's a democrat or republican that is responsible.

I will argure that if Obama had cut out exemptions for religious groups,then why did he just have to go change the plan for Catholics? From what I understand groups like Muslims.Christian scientists,American Indians,and the Amish were exempt from Obamacare,but not Catholics.

[bullypulpit]

No they aren't and you do no one any favors by pretending otherwise.

And you do no one any favors by pretending they are the same. I would be all in for a progressive (read:liberal) third party. But until that happens, the Democratic Party is the only vialble alternative to the knee jerk reactionaries, fascist wannabes, regressives and American Taliban that is the GOP as it is currently embodied.

[bullypulpit]

That is something that I did not know. I will not support this kind of thing if it's a democrat or republican that is responsible.

I will argure that if Obama had cut out exemptions for religious groups,then why did he just have to go change the plan for Catholics? From what I understand groups like Muslims.Christian scientists,American Indians,and the Amish were exempt from Obamacare,but not Catholics.

No Krisy...Catholics were not singled out. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops simply screamed the loudest, with the GOP...looking for a wedge issue...adding to the cacophony. Anyone claiming that Catholic institutions were singled out for discrimination is, simply and bluntly, lying.

[krisy]

Maybe liberals should quit thinking that the government owes them everything. Now millions of people are dependent on the government and can't or won't break off. Great! I'm sick and tired of seeing baby mama with 5 baby by 5 different baby daddy get section 8 and food stamps,and health care. I realise the children of these morons are innocent in all this and they are also used by their parents to get lots of government perks. Meanwhile,people who work their asses off daily can get no help because their not "poor". Most of these people are stuck in the $40-60,000 range,and let me say,that with utlitities and gas,and food prices being so out of control,that is not a lot of money!
I ask you libs-is that fair? Someone who works and ALWAYS has can't get help? Even help they would be more than willing to pay it back. The system has been used and abused lots of people on welfare have learned how to work it. These are the same common sense lacking jerks that will be the first to whine when the government trys to control anything they do.

[Gunny]

Maybe liberals should quit thinking that the government owes them everything. Now millions of people are dependent on the government and can't or won't break off. Great! I'm sick and tired of seeing baby mama with 5 baby by 5 different baby daddy get section 8 and food stamps,and health care. I realise the children of these morons are innocent in all this and they are also used by their parents to get lots of government perks. Meanwhile,people who work their asses off daily can get no help because their not "poor". Most of these people are stuck in the $40-60,000 range,and let me say,that with utlitities and gas,and food prices being so out of control,that is not a lot of money!
I ask you libs-is that fair? Someone who works and ALWAYS has can't get help? Even help they would be more than willing to pay it back. The system has been used and abused lots of people on welfare have learned how to work it. These are the same common sense lacking jerks that will be the first to whine when the government trys to control anything they do.

THAT is Obama's goal.

[krisy]

No Krisy...Catholics were not singled out. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops simply screamed the loudest, with the GOP...looking for a wedge issue...adding to the cacophony. Anyone claiming that Catholic institutions were singled out for discrimination is, simply and bluntly, lying.


Then why are we going throug all this? If the exemption was there,why did Obama change the policy.

[Missileman]

And you do no one any favors by pretending they are the same. I would be all in for a progressive (read:liberal) third party. But until that happens, the Democratic Party is the only vialble alternative to the knee jerk reactionaries, fascist wannabes, regressives and American Taliban that is the GOP as it is currently embodied.

What? The Dems aren't progressive and liberal enough for you?

[revelarts]

C-SPAN Book TV presentation by the writer of The Creation of the American Soul. Some application to the discussion.
Sounds like a Great Book!






http://www.booktv.org/Program/13134/Roger+Williams+and+The+Creation+of+the+American+So ul+Church+State+and+the+Birth+of+Liberty.aspx


"Roger Williams and The Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty"


"John Barry recounts the life of Puritan minister Roger Williams, whose thoughts on the separation of church and state were deemed revolutionary in 17th century America. Mr. Barry also reports that Williams, equally influenced by the British political and scientific thinkers, Edward Coke and Francis Bacon, was a supporter of the concept of individual rights that contends government should be powered by the people. The author recalls William's confrontation with John Winthrop, the first governor of Massachusetts, who refuted William's ideas and ordered him to leave the state or face death and the Puritan minister's subsequent founding of Providence, Rhode Island in 1636 as a shelter for all to worship without state interference. John Barry speaks at Octavia Books in New Orleans. "

Also Mentions how minister Williams was a profound influence on John Locke. And the promotion of the idea liberty of individual conscious.


Future Airings

Sunday, February 12th at 3am (ET)
Sunday, February 12th at 11pm (ET)


Past Airings

Saturday, February 11th at 2pm (ET)

[ConHog]

And you do no one any favors by pretending they are the same. I would be all in for a progressive (read:liberal) third party. But until that happens, the Democratic Party is the only vialble alternative to the knee jerk reactionaries, fascist wannabes, regressives and American Taliban that is the GOP as it is currently embodied.


Give me a fucking break. Yes currently the GOP seems like the knee jerk party, to you, because they are reacting to an uber left agenda from a Democratic regime. Put a Republican in the White House and the roles would exactly reverse.

If you're too childish to admit that, then I can neither help you nor will I further debate it with you.

[bullypulpit]

What? The Dems aren't progressive and liberal enough for you?

LOL! You REALLY need to ask that?

[bullypulpit]

:thumb:

[Missileman]

LOL! You really need to ask that?

I'd say there's little room for them to slide any further left.

[bullypulpit]

Give me a fucking break. Yes currently the GOP seems like the knee jerk party, to you, because they are reacting to an uber left agenda from a Democratic regime. Put a Republican in the White House and the roles would exactly reverse.

If you're too childish to admit that, then I can neither help you nor will I further debate it with you.

Really? Project much? The current administration has more in common with the Nixon adminstration in terms of its politics than it does with either the Kennedy of Johnson administrations. All you need to do is look at the current crop of GOP POTUS candidates for proof of my assertion that the GOP, as it is currently constituted represents some of the worst elements of reactionay thought, if not outright fascism.

[bullypulpit]

I'd say there's little room for them to slide any further left.

See above.

[LuvRPgrl]

The Catholic leaders need to go back to sweeping pedophilia under the rug and leave women's health care alone.

yea, priests molest kids, but your cronies butcher and murder babies. WHICH IS WORSE????

[ConHog]

yea, priests molest kids, but your cronies butcher and murder babies. WHICH IS WORSE????

BUT BUT labeling those babies as fetuses makes it okay........ I hope pedophiles don't learn that trick...........:rolleyes:

[LuvRPgrl]

Condoms are one of the least effective birth control items available. The Catholic Church views on contraception are many centuries out of date. .apprently many of you also think the same of the US CONSTITUTION, PARTICULARLY THE FIRST PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT,,,



I would think that health care agencies would be happy to pay for birth control, since it is much cheaper than pregnancy costs..
so it is all about money for you



If the Catholic church does not want to pay for birth control, then they should pay $100,000 to every member that has an unplanned pregnancy.

yea, your best arguement in court for that is the part of the first amendment where it says women have an absolute right to free contraception and murder,,(abortion)

[ConHog]

apprently many of you also think the same of the US CONSTITUTION, PARTICULARLY THE FIRST PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT,,,



so it is all about money for you




yea, your best arguement in court for that is the part of the first amendment where it says women have an absolute right to free contraception and murder,,(abortion)

The first amendment does not give church's the right to ignore federal law and hide behind the blanket of religion, as you well know. Even when the underlying law is as horrible as Obamacare.

[krisy]

The first amendment does not give church's the right to ignore federal law and hide behind the blanket of religion, as you well know. Even when the underlying law is as horrible as Obamacare.


Yes,and the federal government shouldn't ignore the Consitution and hide behind women's rights.

[ConHog]

Yes,and the federal government shouldn't ignore the Consitution and hide behind women's rights.

Very true, but stating that any medical insurance an employee offers must include the OPTION of covering birth control is hardly ignoring the COTUS. I feel CONFIDENT that if it weren't Obama bringing this to the front most of you wouldn't care.

The rest is just bluster.

[LuvRPgrl]

The first amendment does not give church's the right to ignore federal law and hide behind the blanket of religion, as you well know. Even when the underlying law is as horrible as Obamacare.

you mean ignore a law that is unconstitutional?

[ConHog]

you mean ignore a law that is unconstitutional?

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

[fj1200]

The first amendment does not give church's the right to ignore federal law and hide behind the blanket of religion, as you well know. Even when the underlying law is as horrible as Obamacare.

Actually it does.

Supreme Court: Discrimination laws do not protect certain employees of religious groups (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-discrimination-laws-do-not-protect-certain-employees-of-religious-groups/2012/01/11/gIQAIbO4qP_story.html)


The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday for the first time that federal discrimination laws do not protect church employees who perform religious duties, a major church-state decision that recognizes religious groups’ constitutionally protected right to select their own leaders.

[ConHog]

Actually it does.

Supreme Court: Discrimination laws do not protect certain employees of religious groups (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-discrimination-laws-do-not-protect-certain-employees-of-religious-groups/2012/01/11/gIQAIbO4qP_story.html)

Actually it does not, because the CRA of 1964 already created many exemptions, one of which was religious institutions. So by suing for that particular "right" the churches were only wanting the existing law to be upheld, they did not in fact wish to ignore any law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Federally recognized Native American tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

[fj1200]

Actually it does not, because the CRA of 1964 already created many exemptions, one of which was religious institutions.

So because the right to ignore, given by 1A, happened to be codified in the CRA doesn't mean that they're not ignoring it? Gotcha.

[ConHog]

So because the right to ignore, given by 1A, happened to be codified in the CRA doesn't mean that they're not ignoring it? Gotcha.

The code clearly says they have an exemption. I 'm not sure why they even had to go to the SCOTUS to have that exemption upheld. Surely you agree that is entirely different than just ignoring a law altogether and THEN suing for an exemption?

[fj1200]

^Actually, it was an ADA case. ;)

[ConHog]

^Actually, it was an ADA case. ;)

Which case? Because I'm fairly certain that a church which is exempt from discrimination laws as pertains to religion can NOT discriminate for other reasons (IE handicapped)

[fj1200]

Click the linky.

[krisy]

Very true, but stating that any medical insurance an employee offers must include the OPTION of covering birth control is hardly ignoring the COTUS. I feel CONFIDENT that if it weren't Obama bringing this to the front most of you wouldn't care.

The rest is just bluster.

You have stated that you don't like Obama's health care plan. Is that just because you don't like Obama?

[ConHog]

You have stated that you don't like Obama's health care plan. Is that just because you don't like Obama?



No, it's because I think it's unconstitutional to tell people they MUST buy a product. In this thread I am only arguing that the Catholic hospitals should not receive an exemption based on religious views. So , in a sense I agree with you, but I don't think the Catholic Church has any more standing than any other business to complain just because they are a church.

[logroller]

Let's say I work at Our Lady of Guadalupe Hospital and have health insurance through the same; would it be a problem if I went to the insurance company and got a zero-cost add-on policy that covered birth control?

[fj1200]

... just because they are a church.

But they do.


Let's say I work at Our Lady of Guadalupe Hospital and have health insurance through the same; would it be a problem if I went to the insurance company and got a zero-cost add-on policy that covered birth control?

May God have mercy on your (Catholic) soul. :poke:

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

if the law is against ones religous beliefs, then it is unconstitutional, therefore an illegal law

[ConHog]

if the law is against ones religous beliefs, then it is unconstitutional, therefore an illegal law

False.

The government is precluded via the first amendment from establishing an official religeon or passing laws which prohibit people from exercising their freedom of religeon, but they are NOT prohibited from passing laws that might be against religious beliefs.

As an example. Is it legal for Muslims to commit honor killings? Of course not.

[LuvRPgrl]

No, it's because I think it's unconstitutional to tell people they MUST buy a product. In this thread I am only arguing that the Catholic hospitals should not receive an exemption based on religious views. So , in a sense I agree with you, but I don't think the Catholic Church has any more standing than any other business to complain just because they are a church.ita

If the hospital receives funding and support from the church and is owned by the church, then it should be both tax exempt, and exempt from any other rules, laws or any other imposisitions the govt wants to foster upon it.

fact of the matter is, this just illustrates why the feds shouldnt be collecting taxes and involving themselves in issues that should be left up to local reesidents.
the entire complexity of it, all of the different exemptions and legal citations recited here alone, and the many more thousands Im sure exist, show the govt shouldnt be involved in it at all.

the fact that they have to make so many exemptions shows that those making the exemptions are not the ones who should be in control of the rules and laws governing the topic

what ever happened to equal protecction under the law? ISNT that in direct conflilct with exemptions?

i thought the govt wasnt suppose to be in the job of creating morality, yet the libs like to cry that the feds make laws based on "rights", which is morality.

its like accidentally putting a black drop of paint in your can of red, so you add more red to fix it, but it doesnt, cuz now its purple, so you add something else, here, something else there, then you wind up with lavendeer, then brown, and you never really find the real fix, because that little drip of black paint, the feds, should never have been involved in the first place.

then the two sides are both trying to say why their side is right, and the opposistion points out flaws in what they said. and it goes on and on, cuz neither side is right, there is no good solution as long as the feds are involved. its like two atheists arguing over what jesus meant when he said the meek shall inheiret the earth,,,,neither of them really know the real, or best answer.

[LuvRPgrl]

False.

The government is precluded via the first amendment from establishing an official religeon or passing laws which prohibit people from exercising their freedom of religeon, but they are NOT prohibited from passing laws that might be against religious beliefs.

As an example. Is it legal for Muslims to commit honor killings? Of course not.

show me where the koran blatantly says mercy killings are the will of allah the putareli

besides, thats an example that involves a direct affect on another individual.

the govt cannot deny my religous freedom on activities that do not directly affect others, ie. fasting,

mercy killings involve an unwilling participant and involves a situation forced upon another who has absolutely no other recourse to address the problem.\
contraception is readily available, the church isnt trying to stop somoeone from taking it, they are merely refusing to give or provide something to someone that they believe is immoral

[ConHog]

ita

If the hospital receives funding and support from the church and is owned by the church, then it should be both tax exempt, and exempt from any other rules, laws or any other imposisitions the govt wants to foster upon it.

fact of the matter is, this just illustrates why the feds shouldnt be collecting taxes and involving themselves in issues that should be left up to local reesidents.
the entire complexity of it, all of the different exemptions and legal citations recited here alone, and the many more thousands Im sure exist, show the govt shouldnt be involved in it at all.

the fact that they have to make so many exemptions shows that those making the exemptions are not the ones who should be in control of the rules and laws governing the topic

what ever happened to equal protecction under the law? ISNT that in direct conflilct with exemptions?

i thought the govt wasnt suppose to be in the job of creating morality, yet the libs like to cry that the feds make laws based on "rights", which is morality.

its like accidentally putting a black drop of paint in your can of red, so you add more red to fix it, but it doesnt, cuz now its purple, so you add something else, here, something else there, then you wind up with lavendeer, then brown, and you never really find the real fix, because that little drip of black paint, the feds, should never have been involved in the first place.

then the two sides are both trying to say why their side is right, and the opposistion points out flaws in what they said. and it goes on and on, cuz neither side is right, there is no good solution as long as the feds are involved. its like two atheists arguing over what jesus meant when he said the meek shall inheiret the earth,,,,neither of them really know the real, or best answer.

I agree with a LOT of what you just wrote here; but would like to point out that I've already shown that the hospitals in question are NOT currently receiving tax exempt status as a religious institute, so wouldn't it then stand to reason that they should also not receive any other religious exemptions?

[logroller]

the govt cannot deny my religous freedom on activities that do not directly affect others, ie. fasting,

Fair enough, but could your employer decide not to allow you eat on site because you eating there would compromise their morals?

[ConHog]

Fair enough, but could your employer decide not to allow you eat on site because you eating there would compromise their morals?

How come no one has answered my question of why if these Catholic hospitals are not receiving religious tax exempt status that they should otherwise receive religious exemptions to US law?

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree with a LOT of what you just wrote here; but would like to point out that I've already shown that the hospitals in question are NOT currently receiving tax exempt status as a religious institute, so wouldn't it then stand to reason that they should also not receive any other religious exemptions?

a church receives its funds from donations, which have already been taxed, and should be tax exempt

a hospital, church owned/run, derives its funds from customers, making it a for profit org.
I dont think any businesses should be subject to taxation, especially by the feds, but if they are going to tax one, they should tax them all equally

[LuvRPgrl]

Fair enough, but could your employer decide not to allow you eat on site because you eating there would compromise their morals?

how would someone else eating on site compromise someone's morals?

[ConHog]

a church receives its funds from donations, which have already been taxed, and should be tax exempt

a hospital, church owned/run, derives its funds from customers, making it a for profit org.
I dont think any businesses should be subject to taxation, especially by the feds, but if they are going to tax one, they should tax them all equally

But the point is that just slapping the Catholic tag on a hospitals name doesn't make it a church organization for governmental purposes, not for taxing and not for exemptions from federal law.

[LuvRPgrl]

But the point is that just slapping the Catholic tag on a hospitals name doesn't make it a church organization for governmental purposes, not for taxing and not for exemptions from federal law.

I dont think anybody has "just slapped on" the catholic name on any hospitals.

[ConHog]

I dont think anybody has "just slapped on" the catholic name on any hospitals.

Really? Our local hospital is a branch of St Johns (recently renamed Mercy , but the signs haven't all been changed yet.) and yet there is no sign of them primarily being a faith operated anything.....

[logroller]

How come no one has answered my question of why if these Catholic hospitals are not receiving religious tax exempt status that they should otherwise receive religious exemptions to US law?
Probably because most hospitals still receive tax-exempt status as a public- benefit corporation. Such corporations, like any corporation, include bylaws which are pursuant to their mission; which can and do include religious clauses. They receive tax-exempt status because they serve some public interest in lieu of profit generation. They are required by law, on a yearly basis, to provide to the IRS the necessary financial information demonstrating their qualification for tax-exempt status. Some religious organizations, churches exclusively, are in a class all their own and financial reporting is not required like it is in every other corp, regardless of tax status.

So to answer your question, churches and religious organizations aren't same-- any corporation should be free to pursue its mission within the constraints of law-- churches aren't bound by such except under strict scrutiny. The issue I see is that it doesn't fundamentally interfere with the mission of the organization-- unless said mission is protecting the employees from moral hazards. A bit of a stretch IMHO.

[logroller]

how would someone else eating on site compromise someone's morals?
Same way an employee taking birth control would...or rather, wouldn't-- that's been my position since page 1!

[ConHog]

Same way an employee taking birth control would...or rather, wouldn't-- that's been my position since page 1!

Stop thinking such logic applies. :laugh:

[revelarts]

Let's say I work at Our Lady of Guadalupe Hospital and have health insurance through the same; would it be a problem if I went to the insurance company and got a zero-cost add-on policy that covered birth control?
That wouldn't be a problem.
Now lets say that the Our Lady of Guadalupe Hospital bought one set of insurance for all it's emploees that was inline with it's values then was told by the gov't that they cannot use that plan anymore but must use another plan that didn't agree it's values and would be fined if they didn't?







...the govt cannot deny my religous freedom on activities that do not directly affect others, ie. fasting,..
Fair enough, but could your employer decide not to allow you eat on site because you eating there would compromise their morals?

how would someone else eating on site compromise someone's morals?Same way an employee taking birth control would...or rather, wouldn't-- that's been my position since page 1!
The individual taking birth control of their own free will is not the issue, it's the church being force to be the conduit to provide the birth control against it's will.

[ConHog]

That wouldn't be a problem.
Now lets say that the Our Lady of Guadalupe Hospital bought one set of insurance for all it's emploees that was inline with it's values then was told by the gov't that they cannot use that plan anymore but must use another plan that didn't agree it's values and would be fined if they didn't?





The individual taking birth control of their own free will is not the issue, it's the church being force to be the conduit to provide the birth control against it's will.

First, we're talking about hospitals.

Second , the hospital is NOT the conduit providing the birth control , the insurance companies are

Third, These self same hospitals are performing medical procedures which amount to birth control. So hypocrisy, thy name is Guadalupe.

[Gunny]

Are we STILL trying to pretend this is anything more or less than Obama declaring a state religion? When y'all get done arguing over the nit-noid crap, let me know. The fact is, he just declared the US Government is "the" Supreme Being.

And he, and anyone who agrees with him, can kiss my ass.

[Nukeman]

Fair enough, but could your employer decide not to allow you eat on site because you eating there would compromise their morals?Actually if your employer is a religous institution than by all means they can restrict any activity inside their 4 walls they want on the bases of religion. If you go to a mosqu durring Ramadan I can assure you that YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO EAT DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS.. So Yaa they can. If you go to a Catholic church during lent I dont think you will ever see beef served on Fridays and they will limit what you can have in the church. So once again Yaa you can limit what is going on as a institution...

[LuvRPgrl]

Same way an employee taking birth control would...or rather, wouldn't-- that's been my position since page 1!

taking birth control pills does not = forcing an employer to provide something they bellieve is directly opposed to their religous beliefs

[ConHog]

Actually if your employer is a religous institution than by all means they can restrict any activity inside their 4 walls they want on the bases of religion. If you go to a mosqu durring Ramadan I can assure you that YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO EAT DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS.. So Yaa they can. If you go to a Catholic church during lent I dont think you will ever see beef served on Fridays and they will limit what you can have in the church. So once again Yaa you can limit what is going on as a institution...

That is patently false. Churches are bound by the same laws as everyone with certain exceptions. The statement that they can restrict ANY activity is false.

What does eating during Ramaadan have to do with following the law? A better example would be THIS. Could that mosque tell it's employees that they can't have a lunch break during Ramaadan? The answer is NO they can not. That would be a violation of the law , as employees are entitled to a lunch break if they work an 8 hour shift.

[LuvRPgrl]

False.

The government is precluded via the first amendment from establishing an official religeon or passing laws which prohibit people from exercising their freedom of religeon, but they are NOT prohibited from passing laws that might be against religious beliefs.

As an example. Is it legal for Muslims to commit honor killings? Of course not.

which is what this thread is exactly about !!
You are contradicting yourself.

In fact, you not only believe what this thread is about, but you wish to extend it to all organizations

[ConHog]

which is what this thread is exactly about !!
You are contradicting yourself.

In fact, you not only believe what this thread is about, but you wish to extend it to all organizations

I'm not contradicting myself, because I believe that what is being discussed in this thread does NOT violate their religious beliefs. IF the law said that they themselves HAD to use birth control, yes absolute violation. Having to pay for insurance coverage that will cover birth control if wanted? Not so much. Of course that is just an opinion. But that opinion means I'm not being contradictory.

I don't even know what you're getting at with the you wish to extend it comment? I suppose you are talking about my stance that the CRA is unconstitutional?

[LuvRPgrl]

That is patently false. Churches are bound by the same laws as everyone with certain exceptions. The statement that they can restrict ANY activity is false.

What does eating during Ramaadan have to do with following the law? A better example would be THIS. Could that mosque tell it's employees that they can't have a lunch break during Ramaadan? The answer is NO they can not. That would be a violation of the law , as employees are entitled to a lunch break if they work an 8 hour shift.

no, but they do have other options other than simply allowing them to NOT OBSERVE RAMADAN

[Nukeman]

That is patently false. Churches are bound by the same laws as everyone with certain exceptions. The statement that they can restrict ANY activity is false.

What does eating during Ramaadan have to do with following the law? A better example would be THIS. Could that mosque tell it's employees that they can't have a lunch break during Ramaadan? The answer is NO they can not. That would be a violation of the law , as employees are entitled to a lunch break if they work an 8 hour shift.Are you really this clueless... Uhh gee all knowing one during the celebration of ramadan all muslims fast from sun up to sunset so I would think that during one of their holiest of celebrations that Yaa they would not allow that to TAKE PLACE IN THERE HOUSE OF WORSHIP..

You honestly want to tell me that "the law" forces a religous institution to compromise the religous beliefs of the institution and its adherents for someones lunch.... Give me a break....

Please state the law that allows this.....

By the way NEVER said they coudnt have a break, but they sure as hell ARE NOT EATING IN THE MOSQUE at that time. Just like the Catholic church is NOT serving anything but fish and vegies on Fridays during lent......

[Little-Acorn]

Are we STILL trying to pretend this is anything more or less than Obama declaring a state religion? When y'all get done arguing over the nit-noid crap, let me know. The fact is, he just declared the US Government is "the" Supreme Being.


The leftist fanatics you mentioned, and their drones, will disagree with you over this.

They will tell you that they have NOT just declared Government to be the Supreme Being.... because it was that, long before they ever came around. They are only acknowledging what has always been.

Or so they devoutly believe, so much that it never occured to them that it might be otherwise.

Obama didn't just declare Government to be Supreme. Because it always has been Supreme. Who could possibly think otherwise?

So the leftists will tell you.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not contradicting myself, because I believe that what is being discussed in this thread does NOT violate their religious beliefs. IF the law said that they themselves HAD to use birth control, yes absolute violation. Having to pay for insurance coverage that will cover birth control if wanted? Not so much. Of course that is just an opinion. But that opinion means I'm not being contradictory.

I don't even know what you're getting at with the you wish to extend it comment? I suppose you are talking about my stance that the CRA is unconstitutional?


thats like saying "Im opposed to shooting this guy, but Im okay with the govt forcing me to provide the killer with the gun"

you need to learn the definition of CONDUIT
even if I am not physically providing something to another person, if I pay for it and allow somoeone else to delliver it, its still me providing it.
ie. FEDEX delivery, is FEDEX providing the package, or merely delivering it.

expanding means , everybody, not just the church

CRA???

[ConHog]

thats like saying "Im opposed to shooting this guy, but Im okay with the govt forcing me to provide the killer with the gun"

you need to learn the definition of CONDUIT
even if I am not physically providing something to another person, if I pay for it and allow somoeone else to delliver it, its still me providing it.
ie. FEDEX delivery, is FEDEX providing the package, or merely delivering it.

expanding means , everybody, not just the church

CRA???

Oh good grief, the INSURANCE company is the conduit, not the hospital.

You're just playing semantics anyway.

Bottom line these hospitals are not primarily religious institutions and so they are not afforded the same protections as a church. For example, they can't discriminate and hire only Catholic doctors/nurses. But certainly Catholic Churches hire only Catholics, and it's legal because there is an exception in the law.

Also, one can get a prescription for birth control at these hospitals, or just buy condoms at the gift shop. Hell, they even do emergency abortions to save the mother's life if need be.

This entire argument is bogus. The fact that Obamacare may be (and should be) ruled unconstitutional has NO bearing on whether these hospitals should receive an exemption if the law stands . NONE.

[Gunny]

Love the infighting.

Fact is, Herr Obama has just declared a state religion in violation of the 1st Amendment. All I see is a bunch of dorks posting bullshit to subvert the base fact. When y'all want to answer the actual topic, let me know. Otherwise, you're boring sheep looking for some place to bleat.

[ConHog]

Love the infighting.

Fact is, Herr Obama has just declared a state religion in violation of the 1st Amendment. All I see is a bunch of dorks posting bullshit to subvert the base fact. When y'all want to answer the actual topic, let me know. Otherwise, you're boring sheep looking for some place to bleat.

What are you even talking about? Everyone here EXCEPT you is discussing the actual topic which is UMMM should Catholic Hospitals get an exemption of this stupid law stands? Even those with whom I completely disagree are RIGHT ON TOPIC in this thread.

No matter how many times you call us dorks or sheep, it is YOU who is off topic. You want to discuss whether Obama has instituted some official religion, start a thread and start the discussion, I'll be along shortly to destroy you there to. In the MEANTIME can you stick to THIS topic which is not "can Gunny come in here and pretend like he's the only one who knows what time it is?"

How arrogant to pretend like you are the only one who understands the real topic of discussion, how hilarious that you claim exactly that all the while being wrong.

[LuvRPgrl]

first, we're talking about hospitals.

Second , the hospital is not the conduit providing the birth control , the insurance companies are

third, these self same hospitals are performing medical procedures which amount to birth control. So hypocrisy, thy name is guadalupe.


all of them?

[ConHog]

all of them?

Is that relevant? Are you now proposing that the exemption should be restricted to those hospitals which follow ALL Catholic edicts?

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh good grief, the INSURANCE company is the conduit, not the hospital.

You're just playing semantics anyway..
and you arent?




Bottom line these hospitals are not primarily religious institutions and so they are not afforded the same protections as a church. For example, they can't discriminate and hire only Catholic doctors/nurses..
not being able to hire only Catholics does not violate Catholic teachings, dogma.


But certainly Catholic Churches hire only Catholics,.
I doubt it, but even if so, they wouldnt do it because of Biblical law.


and it's legal because there is an exception in the law. .

Which just proves that it shouldnt pertain to anyone


Also, one can get a prescription for birth control at these hospitals,.
proof?

or just buy condoms at the gift shop..[/QUOTE]
you are claiming catholic hospitals sell condoms? I would be surprised if they did.


Hell, they even do emergency abortions to save the mother's life if need be..

Which is an entirely different animal than elective abortions


This entire argument is bogus. The fact that Obamacare may be (and should be) ruled unconstitutional has NO bearing on whether these hospitals should receive an exemption if the law stands . NONE.

THE church hospitals should not be forced to pay for contraception, its contrary to their teachings. If you cant provide an exception for them, then that just proves that nobody should be required to

[LuvRPgrl]

Is that relevant? Are you now proposing that the exemption should be restricted to those hospitals which follow ALL Catholic edicts?

its a simple question, not a proposal or statement at all.
Do all hospitals that have a belief in their religous teachings that contraceptives are immoral, performing "what amounts to birth control" ?

[ConHog]

its a simple question, not a proposal or statement at all.
Do all hospitals that have a belief in their religous teachings that contraceptives are immoral, performing "what amounts to birth control" ?

At least some of them are, so do you provide them the exemption anyway, or do we now split up the exemption and only give it to "real" catholic churches?

[LuvRPgrl]

At least some of them are, so do you provide them the exemption anyway, or do we now split up the exemption and only give it to "real" catholic churches?

good question. Probably isnt practical, or even possible.
But hospitals that dont provide birth control shouldnt be punished, or grouped with religous based hospitals that do. And Im not so sure any, or almost any Catholic hospitals are providing contraceptives.

[ConHog]

good question. Probably isnt practical, or even possible.
But hospitals that dont provide birth control shouldnt be punished, or grouped with religous based hospitals that do. And Im not so sure any, or almost any Catholic hospitals are providing contraceptives.

I'm sure many aren't , but I can guarantee you SOME are. We've heard too many stories too believe otherwise..

All of them are under the same umbrella Catholic organization so that means what any one does reflects on the entire organization, so the organization has some hospitals providing birth control and some not providing birth control, that invalidates the entire argument for the organization so that means your option is to now go hospital by hospital and determine on a case by case basis if they qualify? Totally impractical. So no one gets any exemption.

Oh and this is IF you can convince me that paying for INSURANCE that might provide birth control coverage violates anyone's rights. I contend it does not which makes my entire first argument theoretical anyway.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm sure many aren't , but I can guarantee you SOME are. We've heard too many stories too believe otherwise.. .

So your "proof" is gossip ?


All of them are under the same umbrella Catholic organization so that means what any one does reflects on the entire organization, so the organization has some hospitals providing birth control and some not providing birth control, that invalidates the entire argument for the organization so that means your option is to now go hospital by hospital and determine on a case by case basis if they qualify? Totally impractical. So no one gets any exemption..

still no proof, Ive heard wayyy to many stories about your fence straddling, so I guess it must be true.


Oh and this is IF you can convince me that paying for INSURANCE that might provide birth control coverage violates anyone's rights. I contend it does not which makes my entire first argument theoretical anyway.
Dont have to provide anything. It does.
Simple, my religion dictates that I cannot take another life, so if I supply a gun , knowingly that the person will use it to end someones life, I am guilty.
My religion says that birth control is immoral, therefore I cannot provide it, pay for it, or in any other way help people obtain it

[krisy]

Oh and this is IF you can convince me that paying for INSURANCE that might provide birth control coverage violates anyone's rights. I contend it does not which makes my entire first argument theoretical anyway.

The first amendment is right there,clear as day. That is the only proof needed. Just because someone doesn't like it is no reason to ignore it.

[revelarts]

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "
Thomas Jefferson

How much more propagation of activities?

[ConHog]

The first amendment is right there,clear as day. That is the only proof needed. Just because someone doesn't like it is no reason to ignore it.

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.


Here's the Amendment. Now we can stipulate that the Catholic Church believes its members shouldn't use birth control. Correct? Good.

Now can you show me where the Catholic Church has EVER advocated that its members not buy health insurance for their employees that MIGHT cover birth control if those employees choose to use it?

Those are two entirely different things and the Church is not being asked to do anything that is against their beliefs here. It's not like the Amish who simply don't believe in any kinds of insurance (by the way I have to ask this, we have some Amish around here who drive and I'm not aware of them being exempt from insurance requirements in that regard. Anyone know anything about that?)

Please don't come back with Obama care is unconstitutional. because of course it is, but that is irrelevant to THIS point.

[LuvRPgrl]

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.


Here's the Amendment. Now we can stipulate that the Catholic Church believes its members shouldn't use birth control. Correct? Good.

Now can you show me where the Catholic Church has EVER advocated that its members not buy health insurance for their employees that MIGHT cover birth control if those employees choose to use it?

Those are two entirely different things and the Church is not being asked to do anything that is against their beliefs here. It's not like the Amish who simply don't believe in any kinds of insurance (by the way I have to ask this, we have some Amish around here who drive and I'm not aware of them being exempt from insurance requirements in that regard. Anyone know anything about that?)

Please don't come back with Obama care is unconstitutional. because of course it is, but that is irrelevant to THIS point.

you must have thick skin, you dont mind being wrong alot.