regligious exemptions against contraception coverage denied(and false)

[BlaqueKatt]

story here

Hobby lobby lost another round in trying to force religion on it's employees, and according to the article some Catholic non-profits are demanding exemption from insurance paying 100% EVEN THOUGH THEY ALREADY PARTIALLY COVER IT. Which makes the "religious exemption" 100% bullsh*t, it's about controlling women.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

If you are for-profit, I don't care what your religion is. Your business is a completely secular entity and you are using the infrastructure paid for by the US of A government to make money and a profit. You will pay taxes. You will follow our laws. You will deal with Obamacare.

The non-profits I'm not so sure about. I've been rolling over arguments in my brain for both sides, can't seem to resolve my opinion on it.

[bara]

Its simple really, a woman's healthcare should be decided by herself and her doctor.
End of story right there.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Originally Posted by bara

Its simple really, a woman's healthcare should be decided by herself and her doctor.
End of story right there.

Yes, but should the burden of paying for that decision be on anyone but the woman depending on what her decision is?

That's where it gets stickier, especially in terms of her working for a religious non-profit.

[bara]

Originally Posted by AmbrosiaWriter

Yes, but should the burden of paying for that decision be on anyone but the woman depending on what her decision is?

That's where it gets stickier, especially in terms of her working for a religious non-profit.

There are multiple reasons why a woman would not wish to become pregnant other than not wanting to have a kid. Medical reasons. Maybe she has diabetes or is simply a very small woman or one of dozens of maladies that would make getting pregnant exceptionally dangerous. There are also ailments that women can get that are treated by using birth control medicine.

Accidents happen, even when using other forms of birth control. Her health issues and requirements are in no way the business of the employer whether they are a non-profit or not.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by AmbrosiaWriter

Yes, but should the burden of paying for that decision be on anyone but the woman depending on what her decision is?

That's where it gets stickier, especially in terms of her working for a religious non-profit.

Well, here's the thing. The Catholic Church isn't actually paying for contraception. They're paying for insurance. That the insurance happens to cover contraception does not mean the Church is paying for contraception, particularly because under the deal it made with Obama last summer, their premiums don't actually go towards paying for that kind of care--it comes out of the insurer's pocket (which is another whole can of worms).

The whole purpose of insurance is to be there when people have health care needs. Those needs should not be cherry picked by outside organizations based on anything other than medical evidence.

I, for one, will be very glad when the Church wakes up and realizes that contraception is not the same thing as abortion.

[draco664]

Originally Posted by Panacea

I, for one, will be very glad when the Church wakes up and realizes that contraception is not the same thing as abortion.

Oh, the Church knows that full well. But spreading ignorance among its flock is the easiest way to ensure it stays in control of their lives. And hey, if a few inconsequential women have to die in agony or some rape victims have to suffer just so that a few men can dictate how the rest should live their lives while paying tithes for the privilege, well, it's a price the Church is willing to pay.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by draco664

Oh, the Church knows that full well. But spreading ignorance among its flock is the easiest way to ensure it stays in control of their lives. And hey, if a few inconsequential women have to die in agony or some rape victims have to suffer just so that a few men can dictate how the rest should live their lives while paying tithes for the privilege, well, it's a price the Church is willing to pay.

I don't think the Church's motive is control. I think it's a genuine expression of the sacredness of life that was formed before we really understood how conception works. It's based on outdated ideas. The Church eventually embraces science; it learned its lesson with Galileo. But change in the Catholic Church comes very, very slowly and is always resisted by conservatives (as happens in most organizations).

I don't think the Church wants women to die in childbirth. They're just stuck in a Biblical cleft of their own making, and haven't figured out how to fix it yet.

Pope Benedict XVI surprised me over the weekend with the publication of his book that treats the Nativity as traditionally portrayed (animals in the manger, singing angels as described in Luke) as a myth. He's trying to get people to understand the historical Jesus; the human side of Jesus. It's a bold move, and the consequence it could have will be undoing some of the superstition in regards to some Christian traditions; and it may open the door to viewing the Bible as it should be views; through the lens of the times in which it was written.

A very surprising move from the man who was in charge of Doctrine under John Paul II. But I welcome it.

[crashhelmet]

Originally Posted by Panacea

I don't think the Church's motive is control. I think it's a genuine expression of the sacredness of life that was formed before we really understood how conception works. It's based on outdated ideas. The Church eventually embraces science; it learned its lesson with Galileo. But change in the Catholic Church comes very, very slowly and is always resisted by conservatives (as happens in most organizations).

I don't think the Church wants women to die in childbirth. They're just stuck in a Biblical cleft of their own making, and haven't figured out how to fix it yet.

Pope Benedict XVI surprised me over the weekend with the publication of his book that treats the Nativity as traditionally portrayed (animals in the manger, singing angels as described in Luke) as a myth. He's trying to get people to understand the historical Jesus; the human side of Jesus. It's a bold move, and the consequence it could have will be undoing some of the superstition in regards to some Christian traditions; and it may open the door to viewing the Bible as it should be views; through the lens of the times in which it was written.

A very surprising move from the man who was in charge of Doctrine under John Paul II. But I welcome it.

I heard about the book this weekend too. I'm planning on ordering it and look forward to reading it

[Nekojin]

It's very simple to me. Religious belief is personal. It doesn't matter if Sister Mary Margaret, Father Murphy, or Pope Benedict opposes birth control - it's up to each individual to decide for themselves whether using birth control is a violation of their own religious beliefs. As such, I don't believe that even a church has any right to block the legally-mandated insurance from providing birth control for their employees. It's not their decision to make. Ever.