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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Salesmonkey]

Charities, religiously affiliated hospitals, religion-affiliated businesses, &etc. aren't protesting this JUST because they are cheap and don't want to pay for decent health care, they are protesting because this is a cover for apostasy.

Consider, for a thought experiment, if Obamacare would cover the cost of a brick should I desire to bludgeon little Mr. Kitty to death. I would be morally disgusted, but it wouldn't really affect me because I don't plan to destroy the cat.

The problem the litigants have here is that their employees actually DO WANT decent health care. Nobody is chaining up little girls and making them take birth control. They are fighting for birth control. They are paying too much money in order to wait in a boring room, see an overwhelmed and underpaid doctor, and get a prescription to pay too much money to a pharmaceutical company. I don't see any coercion here.

But instead of understanding that most sensible people don't want the kool aid of religious crazy, the litigants in these cases have chosen to equate "religious freedom" with "I'm oppressed if there are other people doing things I don't like".

[Daskinor]

I will throw this out there, while it is not true in every state and risk group. Insurance premiums for a contraceptive free health care plan is more than one that includes contraception.

Oh and for the record, fuck anyone up the ass with a bowling ball that disallows treating Endometriosis with birth control pills. that shit aint right.

[Signmaker]

There is an easy solution. So simple, in fact, I'm really confused as to how this became a national-stage issue. Oh yeah, derp, "religion", "constroversy", "women's rights", and "ObamaCare" are buzzwords that sell stories. Forgot.

The solution is this. I own a for-profit company, say...toilet paper making. As the owner, my personal religious views are that using contraceptives is sinful, and I must do everything in my power to avoid paying for it. No problem...I just wont hire anyone who uses contraceptives. It'll be in your new-hire paperwork, as part of your agreement to work for me, you agree to abstain from using birth control. If you do, and I find out, it's a breach of contract and you can be let go. In the end, my employees will have insurance co-paid by me, but none of it will go to birth control.

Dont want to go without birth control? Dont apply to work here. Dont want to support a company with these ideals? Dont buy my toilet paper. Free market is an awesome thing. Except that it takes government out of the loop...which is verboten.

[Gravekeeper]

Isn't this, philosophically speaking, removing free will from the equation? Its up to the employees whether or not they use birth control and thus choose to "sin". If this is the argument they want to go with, they can't pick and choose. They have to go through the whole health insurance plan and snip off everything that could benefit the results of sinful behaviour.

The solution is this. I own a for-profit company, say...toilet paper making. As the owner, my personal religious views are that using contraceptives is sinful, and I must do everything in my power to avoid paying for it. No problem...I just wont hire anyone who uses contraceptives.

You say that like it wouldn't create a total legal shit storm. >.>

Your personal religious views and your business are, legally and constitutionally, two separate entities. A business does not enjoy the constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion. Regardless of what its owner or owners believe.

[BlaqueKatt]

I just wont hire anyone who uses contraceptives. It'll be in your new-hire paperwork, as part of your agreement to work for me, you agree to abstain from using birth control. If you do, and I find out, it's a breach of contract and you can be let go. <SNIP>Dont want to go without birth control? Dont apply to work here.

ok except birth control is a female health issue, and can be used to treat disabling illness(ovarian cysts, endometriosis, PCOS) , and an employer CANNOT discriminate based on the use of any legal substance, nor can they ask an employee to violate HIPPA.

So your "example" violates 4 anti-discrimination laws. Oops.