regligious exemptions against contraception coverage denied(and false)

[Signmaker]

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.

Actually it does enjoy that right. There are no laws in the US that prevent a private business from openly favoring or participating in any religion. This includes donating to religious charities, holding religious services, or having religious decorations.

There are laws preventing a business from discriminating against individuals based on the religion of the individual. However that would only apply to this situation if the employee claimed need for contraceptive on religious grounds. As strange as that seems...I can actually think of one.

...and an employer CANNOT discriminate based on the use of any legal substance, nor can they ask an employee to violate HIPPA.

Actually they can discriminate based on the use of a legal substance. There are many companies in operation where a prospective employee must agree to a tobbacco-free clause in their paperwork. In fact the very large corporation I work under conducts regular random tobbacco screenings.

This may differ in areas that function under right-to-work laws, but in at-will employment regions, there are only a few things you cannot force an employee to agree to.

One of them you brought up though, which is the use of a contraceptive drug not for the purpose of contraception, but for other health-related side effects. This would have to be exempted under any such employment waiver, as an employer cannot discriminate against otherwise legal medical items used for a documented medical need. For example in California, if you test positive for marijuana by an employer drug screen, you would be safe with a medical marijuana card, and fired without.


Just to clarify, I have no personal problems with contraceptives, and if I were an employer I would happily pay for them through my insurance program, as it is a cheaper alternative to maternity leave.

[Gravekeeper]

Actually it does enjoy that right. There are no laws in the US that prevent a private business from openly favoring or participating in any religion. This includes donating to religious charities, holding religious services, or having religious decorations.

This is not about flavouring or participation though, its about using your religious beliefs against others in a business environment. Religious liberty is your right to freely believe and make decisions for yourself, not to impose your beliefs upon others. Furthermore, it is still the employee that pays for the plan and thus the birth control.

Actually they can discriminate based on the use of a legal substance. There are many companies in operation where a prospective employee must agree to a tobbacco-free clause in their paperwork.

Actually, that's illegal in the majority of states. You just live in one where it isn't. Tobacco and birth control aren't exactly on the same wave length regardless.

One of them you brought up though, which is the use of a contraceptive drug not for the purpose of contraception, but for other health-related side effects.

Flip it around. Pregnancy by itself is physically, mentally and economically taxing. Pragmatically speaking, it is also a total net loss for the employer. While a healthy sexual relationship has a huge list of health benefits and no negative effect on the employer. A company trying to claim no birth control for religious reasons is, in reality, straight up saying "We don't want to employ sluts". Because that is, ultimately, what this entire issue is about. Slut shaming. When you get to that core, companies can fuck the hell off, because they are now intruding into their employee's private lives.

A company cannot legally discriminate against a woman for being pregnant or refuse to hire a woman because of the possibility she may get pregnant. So why should the reverse be allowed?

[Signmaker]

This is not about flavouring or participation though, its about using your religious beliefs against others in a business environment. Religious liberty is your right to freely believe and make decisions for yourself, not to impose your beliefs upon others.

If your religious beleifs (or lack thereof) say contraception is ok, and you force your employer to pay for it, are you not forcing a portion of your beleifs onto them?

Furthermore, it is still the employee that pays for the plan and thus the birth control.

Well technically it's the pool of insurance policy holders that pay for the birth control, including the employee and employer as a small percentage.

Actually, that's illegal in the majority of states. You just live in one where it isn't. Tobacco and birth control aren't exactly on the same wave length regardless.

29, and only 4 states have laws that cover things other than tobacco products, so in the majority of the states having a contraceptive employment waiver would be legal.

Flip it around. Pregnancy by itself is physically, mentally and economically taxing. Pragmatically speaking, it is also a total net loss for the employer. While a healthy sexual relationship has a huge list of health benefits and no negative effect on the employer.

Total agreement, we're not arguing the health benefits of contraceptives, only an employer's right to chose.

A company trying to claim no birth control for religious reasons is, in reality, straight up saying "We don't want to employ sluts". Because that is, ultimately, what this entire issue is about. Slut shaming. When you get to that core, companies can fuck the hell off, because they are now intruding into their employee's private lives.

While I personally agree, I still argue in favor of it being the employer's right to chose who they employ using any criteria that they see fit, outside of discrimination laws.

A company cannot legally discriminate against a woman for being pregnant or refuse to hire a woman because of the possibility she may get pregnant. So why should the reverse be allowed?

You have the right to not work for a company because the owners also own a greyhound racing track, and you find the sport cruel and inhumane. Why cant an employer deny employment to someone who frequently races greyhounds, if the employer finds the sport cruel and inhumane?

Liberty means you sometimes dont get what you want, but no one can force you to take what you dont want either.

[wolfie]

For example in California, if you test positive for marijuana by an employer drug screen, you would be safe with a medical marijuana card, and fired without.

There was a case a few years back where someone hired BY A CITY IN CALIFORNIA to grow medical marijuana was convicted (Federal court) of producing illegal drugs. The judge had ordered the defense lawyer to NOT mention "medical marijuana". Jurors polled afterward said that if they'd known it was a medical marijuana case (i.e. the defendant's actions were legal under state law), they would have voted for acquittal.

Also, in a federally regulated industry, drug screening is done according to federal standards. For truck drivers, it's been EXPLICITLY STATED that it doesn't matter whether or not you have a MMJ card, if you test positive for THC, you're disqualified from driving commercially.

[Signmaker]

There was a case a few years back where someone hired BY A CITY IN CALIFORNIA to grow medical marijuana was convicted (Federal court) of producing illegal drugs. The judge had ordered the defense lawyer to NOT mention "medical marijuana". Jurors polled afterward said that if they'd known it was a medical marijuana case (i.e. the defendant's actions were legal under state law), they would have voted for acquittal.

Also, in a federally regulated industry, drug screening is done according to federal standards. For truck drivers, it's been EXPLICITLY STATED that it doesn't matter whether or not you have a MMJ card, if you test positive for THC, you're disqualified from driving commercially.

Yeah, there are still some serious gaps in places where the state legalizes a federally controlled substance. The federal raids of MMJ dispensaries in CA make an excellect example of how the federal government runs roughshod over state's rights.

[s_stabeler]

actually, federal law trumps state law, so the raids are in fact, fully legal, ad not a states rights issue. ( technically the states are infringing the rights of the federal government by legalising MJ)

now, there is room for debating if the ability to ban drugs should be at the Federal level in the first place ( although i would recommend caution, since if drugs can't be banned by the government, you can say goodbye to the FDA.) but while Federal law bans certain drugs, they cannot be legalised by the states.

[Signmaker]

actually, federal law trumps state law, so the raids are in fact, fully legal, ad not a states rights issue. ( technically the states are infringing the rights of the federal government by legalising MJ)

now, there is room for debating if the ability to ban drugs should be at the Federal level in the first place ( although i would recommend caution, since if drugs can't be banned by the government, you can say goodbye to the FDA.) but while Federal law bans certain drugs, they cannot be legalised by the states.

Really getting into a seperate topic here, but getting rid of the federal FDA wouldnt be as bad as people think, since it would just be replaced by state governed FDAs. This is a common logical fallacy used against Libertarians by people claiming dissolving the FDA, EPA, and DOE would cause mass panic, riots in the streets, and horses breeding with cows.

[KitterCat]

If your religious beleifs (or lack thereof) say contraception is ok, and you force your employer to pay for it, are you not forcing a portion of your beleifs onto them?
Liberty means you sometimes dont get what you want, but no one can force you to take what you dont want either.

Sort of. But only because a third party, the insurance company, is offering it. I'm not very good at explaining things like this but here's my best shot. Basically its forcing companies that are a bit backward in their thinking to give what the majority of the populace wants and should receive but by using a third party. The insurance companies could just as well say we're not going to offer this anymore, go and by your BC on your own dime. However I don't think they'd remain long in business. To many women would probably find ways to switch to another provider.

It's sort of like if I were to go work for a Snake handler Church*, they probably wouldn't want to even offer me insurance. After all they believe that faith will save you, so why offer any insurance? But law and the majority of the populace believe otherwise, so legally they would have to offer it.

Personally I don't think it sets a good precedent for companies to be able to pick and choose exactly what treatments they will cover. It sets a precedent for someplace to say "we don't believe in surgery" for -insert your aliment here- due to our religious beliefs. We've worked it with the insurance companies to make sure your not persuaded to get surgery, so here's some holistic medicine** instead.

*http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...andlers_2.html
Yes WV has some real crazy's. No I have not meet any of these people. To my knowledge at least.

**I have no problem with taking herbal medicine, but there is a place for it. needing an appendix removed is not one of them.

[Gravekeeper]

If your religious beleifs (or lack thereof) say contraception is ok, and you force your employer to pay for it, are you not forcing a portion of your beleifs onto them?

No, it doesn't work that way. Birth control is not a religious position of itself. It's science and medicine. Also, again, the reason they reject birth control is No Sluts(tm). Your employer has no right to regulate your private life in the bedroom.

Additionally, the core issue here is that secular for profit businesses are the ones making this an issue. They are not religious organizations and enjoy none of the legal features or benefits of said organizations. Two of the loudest voices in this legal wrangling are a chain of arts & crafts store and a chain of furniture stores.

29, and only 4 states have laws that cover things other than tobacco products, so in the majority of the states having a contraceptive employment waiver would be legal.

28 states already have a legal mandate on contraception that requires insurers to offer it and Federally it is already legally considered discrimination for any company with more than 15 employees to refuse to offer contraceptives if their health insurance plan covers prescription drugs. So sayeth the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.

As for the rest a contraceptive employment waiver would likely end up in court so fast it'd make the boss's head spin.

While I personally agree, I still argue in favor of it being the employer's right to chose who they employ using any criteria that they see fit, outside of discrimination laws.

The problem with this issue is that its right on the fence of discrimination laws. Again, the reason for religious opposition to contraception is a belief that sex is only for procreative purposes inside of a Church approved marriage. At which point the employer is trying to control the employee's bedroom in accordance with their own religious beliefs.

A secular non-profit should not have any right to do that.

Why cant an employer deny employment to someone who frequently races greyhounds, if the employer finds the sport cruel and inhumane?

Greyhounds are not affecting your health insurance coverage. Besides there is already an amendment to the health care mandate that basically removes the business from the moral dilemma by making the birth control coverage external. This compromise was accepted by several major church organizations.

In light of that amendment, the remainder still objecting are, again, straight up trying discriminate based on owning and using a vagina.

Liberty means you sometimes don't get what you want, but no one can force you to take what you don't want either.

By creating a legal entity such as a business, yes, they can in fact force you to take what you don't want. By creating a business, you agree to operate within the laws and requirements of a business.

You're drawing the line in the wrong place. If you don't like the legal requirements of operating a business, then don't own one. People need employment and thus can be subject to whatever shitty things their company might do. People do not need to own a business though.

[Signmaker]

Look, we're getting distracted by religion and birth control being involved here, so lets see if we cant simplify the equation and get to the core of the debate. What I'm seeing is two connected arguments:

Should an employer have the right to hire or fire based on an employee's otherwise legal activities outside of the workplace, except in cases where they are prohibited to do so by law.

and

Does an employer have the legal ability to force an employee to agree to not using preventive medical devices during a non-essential activity, namely birth control.

To the first, my position is 'yes', based on equality between a person right to choose an employer, and an employer's right to choose an employee, outside of discrimination protections.

To the second, I say yes, based on not having knowledge of a law preventing an employer from requiring such. 80 bajillion pages of the ADA force me to cencede that I do not know this as outright fact.

[Gravekeeper]

Should an employer have the right to hire or fire based on an employee's otherwise legal activities outside of the workplace, except in cases where they are prohibited to do so by law.

I would say yes, provided those activities are a detriment to the working environment in some way or affect the company's reputation should they be known ( within reason of course ). But no if the activities in question are of a deeply personal nature that do not affect the company in any way and wherein the company would need to actively investigate or interrogate the employee to find out.

Does an employer have the legal ability to force an employee to agree to not using preventive medical devices during a non-essential activity, namely birth control.

No, as I mentioned, this is already illegal in 29 states and Federally considered discrimination for businesses with 15 or more employees. So its already a narrow spectrum where someone could try to do this and it would end up in court pretty quick me thinks. The current health care mandates are closing those last few holes.

That said, we're talking about a secular for profit business. Legally speaking a religious non-profit can put whatever sort of stupid shit in its employee contracts it wants and mainly just risk its reputation.

Which is the crux of the issue right now. A handful of secular for profit businesses are trying to argue that they can oppose Federal mandates based on religious beliefs. But a business is not legally considered a religious entity and what they're trying to oppose is essentially impossible to work out.

Due to the many valid medical reasons to be using birth control they would have to come right out and say it: We don't want to hire women that dare use their vaginas in a way we don't approve of. Which is an invasion of privacy and in no way the business of your employer. Never mind that it would be neigh impossible for an employer to prove or disprove without an invasion of privacy or a violation of doctor patient confidentiality.

[Andara Bledin]

To the first, my position is 'yes', based on equality between a person right to choose an employer, and an employer's right to choose an employee, outside of discrimination protections.

I would heartily agree were the relationship not so incredibly one-sided. When people are so desperate to retani a job -any job- that they'll put up with outright abuse from employers, I just can't accept that someone can get fired for doing something off the job that has zero effect on their ability to do the job and has no reflection on the workplace at all.

To the second, I say yes, based on not having knowledge of a law preventing an employer from requiring such. 80 bajillion pages of the ADA force me to cencede that I do not know this as outright fact.

The problem here is that birth control is used by as much as 80% of all users for purposes that aren't preventing pregnancy. In about 20% of all cases, the prescription is specifically for those other effects

To block the use of HBC entirely due to it's primary properties would be similarly to blocking the use of aspirin for heart conditions because you object to the pain relieving properties.

That said, the actual HL lawsuit is only going after two specific forms and allowing for all others, so it's not actually about birth control itself.

[s_stabeler]

Really getting into a seperate topic here, but getting rid of the federal FDA wouldnt be as bad as people think, since it would just be replaced by state governed FDAs. This is a common logical fallacy used against Libertarians by people claiming dissolving the FDA, EPA, and DOE would cause mass panic, riots in the streets, and horses breeding with cows.

Yes, there would be state governed FDAs. Which would be easier for a drug company to ignore. THAT is why i said you needed to use caution. In other words, figure out what the effects would be FIRST. Not to mention I doubt that having to go through 50 drug approval processes will reduce the cost of drugs.

[Duelist925]

Look, we're getting distracted by religion and birth control being involved here, so lets see if we cant simplify the equation and get to the core of the debate. What I'm seeing is two connected arguments:

Should an employer have the right to hire or fire based on an employee's otherwise legal activities outside of the workplace, except in cases where they are prohibited to do so by law.

No. The power is too imbalanced--who decides whats ok and not ok for an employee to do? Unless it's something that seriously affects someones ability to do the job or leads to negative consequences (such as medical marijuana users operating heavy equipment), then the employer needs to just butt out.

As Andara points out--it's too one sided. The company has all the power when people are desperate for a job, and they can and will abuse this power.

Does an employer have the legal ability to force an employee to agree to not using preventive medical devices during a non-essential activity, namely birth control.

No. I'm extremely fond of the quote "You're right to swing your fist ends at my nose"--meaning, you can exercise your rights as much as you want so long as it does not infringe on someone elses right.

And this cannot be turned around--I, as an employee, cannot "force" a company that makes more in a second than I do in a week to do anything. But they can shove a metric ton of crap down my throat at the drop of a hat, because they know I cannot lose my job, and so I'll take it.

So no, they should not have this legal ability.

To the first, my position is 'yes', based on equality between a person right to choose an employer, and an employer's right to choose an employee, outside of discrimination protections.

To the second, I say yes, based on not having knowledge of a law preventing an employer from requiring such. 80 bajillion pages of the ADA force me to cencede that I do not know this as outright fact.

That's not an equality tho--the power is far too one sides. I cannot choose an employer--I can only choose to leave employment, and choose to ask for employment. They choose to employ me.

And GK already pointed out the flaws in the second.

[Duelist925]

Yes, there would be state governed FDAs. Which would be easier for a drug company to ignore. THAT is why i said you needed to use caution. In other words, figure out what the effects would be FIRST. Not to mention I doubt that having to go through 50 drug approval processes will reduce the cost of drugs.

Not to mention the clusterfuck when one state declares a drug safe, and another declares it unsafe, all while lobbyists throw money at making "problems" go away.