ForumGarden

I've heard a ton of strange arguments around this issue. The Church doesn't want to be forced to provide employees of their non-taxed businesses with extended health care that covers birth control. Their employees are not all Catholics. Most of their arguments are strange.

The strange argument on the side of forcing the plan coverage: Apparently birth control has been proven to be effective in health care.

It's worse than that, seems to be an issue for more than the churches.

Santorum criticized for comments on women

koan;1384988 wrote: I've heard a ton of strange arguments around this issue. The Church doesn't want to be forced to provide employees of their non-taxed businesses with extended health care that covers birth control. Their employees are not all Catholics. Most of their arguments are strange.

The strange argument on the side of forcing the plan coverage: Apparently birth control has been proven to be effective in health care.The church is a business like anything else which means they lose money for extra health care coverage

OK I know the american Christian right are strange people but how does this happen in 21st century America?

House Democrats Walk Out Of One-Sided Hearing On Contraception, Calling It An 'Autocratic Regime'

Why is a woman's right to use contraceptives even up for discussion?

gmc;1385044 wrote: Why is a woman's right to use contraceptives even up for discussion?It's not. Who pays for it is.

The news segment I saw today said that the coverage wouldn't cost the Church anything, it's billed to the insurance company and it's cheaper for the insurance people to pay for birth control than the complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

Accountable;1385047 wrote: It's not. Who pays for it is.


That's seems to me to be just an excuse to make it into an issue. We have the NHS - you don't see the churches arguing people should be able to opt out of paying NI contributions for their employees because they might be used to pay for contraceptives, although they do do their best to prevent family planning clinics giving contraceptives to sexually active teenagers without the parents permission (age of consent is 16 here) and sex education in school. Generally they get ignored as a bunch of nutters that represent nobody but their own strange attitudes. You seem to have a rather vocal minority that are determined to end the use of contraception on purely religious grounds by pretending it's about health.

What about things like heart transplants and the like - are they suggesting they should be allowed to opt out of that as well - how about jehovah's witnesses? Can they opt out as an employer paying for it altogether?

koan;1385066 wrote: The news segment I saw today said that the coverage wouldn't cost the Church anything, it's billed to the insurance company and it's cheaper for the insurance people to pay for birth control than the complications of pregnancy and childbirth.Some of these religious institutions are self-insured.

gmc;1385080 wrote: You seem to have a rather vocal minority that are determined to end the use of contraception on purely religious grounds by pretending it's about health.
Really?? You claim that the only way to pay for contraception is for the employer to foot the bill? How much are condoms in your neighborhood? They're pretty cheap around here.



eta: And they're not trying to end it pretending it's about health. They're saying that paying for it is promoting it and is against their religion. Purely religious grounds, full stop, and well within their rights, imo.

It's a shame the Catholic church couldn't find this passion and energy when it came to getting their own sex-abuse scandals under control.

Accountable;1385089 wrote: eta: And they're not trying to end it pretending it's about health. They're saying that paying for it is promoting it and is against their religion. Purely religious grounds, full stop, and well within their rights, imo.


So lets all make up a religion that prohibits everything we don't like. We won't have to pay taxes either.

yaaarrrgg;1385092 wrote: It's a shame the Catholic church couldn't find this passion and energy when it came to getting their own sex-abuse scandals under control.


yaaarrrgg;1385093 wrote: So lets all make up a religion that prohibits everything we don't like. We won't have to pay taxes either.
Yup, gets complicated when church & state get tangled up, dunnit?

This wouldn't be an issue if Washington didn't tax us to fund charities.

Recently the supreme court ruled (in favor of church) that churches are not "equal opportunity employers" and they can hire/fire people for all sorts of personal things. For example, if a person is not a Christian, they can be fired, or if they eat pork, etc. This case seems to be similar. I would expect that even if there is a conflict between U.S. law and self-insured churches, the church can take the position: "we are legally required to pay for birth control, as the insurer, but any employee using birth control will be fired, or have the amount reduced from pay." It's not like these churches wouldn't have access to a person's health records, or not be able to enforce their rule.

yaaarrrgg;1385093 wrote: So lets all make up a religion that prohibits everything we don't like. We won't have to pay taxes either.


It's called the tea party yaaarrrgg...

I've heard/read a couple of things on this (can't give references,

sorry, brain lapse!) that stand out for me. One is that the

Catholic church has for years paid for Viagra prescriptions for

men. I'm not as up on Catholic doctrine as I should be to comment,

maybe, but seems to me that unless the church made the men

show up with valid (read: heterosexual) marriage licenses and

proof of a wife of childbearing age etc. etc. then they are in

essence if not in fact violating some of their own rules about

sex being for the purposes of procreation, with the exception

of their vaunted rhythm method.

The other is the figure (again, this might just be local) that some

61% of Catholic women regularly violate church order and use

contraception. That's pretty high I think.

A little something I came across:

These religions appear to be doing whatever they can to prevent non-religious groups from forming. Luckily members of religious groups are leaving these groups on their own. We probably won't see the full demise of religions such as Catholicism, but I hope I live long enough to see it lose significant prestige. The world will be better for it.

For this particular subject, it seems to me that the religious orgs and their supporters are claiming some kind of 1st Amendment right to federal funding. Of course when you make a deal with the devil he's going to make demands. There are always strings attached to extorted money. Any principled religious organization who really feels their principles are being compromised would simply refuse the money and continue with their mission.

Now, if the federal gov't is trying to dictate the operations of the religious orgs, regardless of whether they receive federal funding, that's another matter entirely.

Accountable;1385132 wrote: For this particular subject, it seems to me that the religious orgs and their supporters are claiming some kind of 1st Amendment right to federal funding. Of course when you make a deal with the devil he's going to make demands. There are always strings attached to extorted money. Any principled religious organization who really feels their principles are being compromised would simply refuse the money and continue with their mission.

Now, if the federal gov't is trying to dictate the operations of the religious orgs, regardless of whether they receive federal funding, that's another matter entirely.


How can you possibly allow anyone the right to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of religious belief? If, for example, an employer bans prayers or the wearing of religious symbols like a cross they are the first to bleat their rights are being violated yet they want the right to discriminate against people whose lifestyles they find offensive maintained. Hypocritical is a barely adequate description for most religions, they grasp secular freedoms like a shield yet would deny them to everyone else if they could.

They do receive federal funding do they not, in the form of tax breaks? Besides, surely it is a function of government to protect the rights of ALL citizens regardless of their religious beliefs so why would you allow an employer access to an employees health records?

gmc;1385154 wrote: How can you possibly allow anyone the right to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of religious belief?Liberty. I don't really expect you to understand because you define the word differently.

gmc;1385154 wrote: If, for example, an employer bans prayers or the wearing of religious symbols like a cross they are the first to bleat their rights are being violated yet they want the right to discriminate against people whose lifestyles they find offensive maintained. It should not be an employer's obligation to maintain employees' lifestyles, whether they are offensive or not. How can it possibly be justified in a free land?

gmc;1385154 wrote: They do receive federal funding do they not, in the form of tax breaks?I spose that would be true in your country. Over here, we acknowledge that the money isn't the government's in the first place, so a tax break means the taxpayer rightfully keeps more of what's been earned, rather than the gov't allowing us to keep a little more of their funds.

However, many religious organization do indeed receive federal funding in the form of federal funding, which is what I addressed in the post you quoted.

gmc;1385154 wrote: Besides, surely it is a function of government to protect the rights of ALL citizens regardless of their religious beliefs so why would you allow an employer access to an employees health records?
Yup. Things get complicated when you make one party responsible for another, dunnit? Why would an employer not be allowed to know what they are being charged for in a financial transaction? Who does business that way and survives?

Accountable;1385160 wrote:

It should not be an employer's obligation to maintain employees' lifestyles, whether they are offensive or not. How can it possibly be justified in a free land?What about drug testing? It seems to me we've already crossed this line.

You see drug testing as maintaining an employee's lifestyle?

How so?

Accountable;1385173 wrote: You see drug testing as maintaining an employee's lifestyle?

How so?Maintaining as in controlling.

People don't have the freedom to behave as they wish. Why should any religious person get to enjoy their religious liberties if we can't enjoy our privacy liberties? What an individual does outside the workplace, provided it does not impede on the liberties of others, should not be the business of the employer. If religious institutions support drug testing they should support government control of contraception distribution.

I believe the argument for drug testing has been that drugs distracts from one performing at their best and is a distraction from work that increases insurance premiums due to expectant accidents. I think an equal argument can be made that the same can be said for religious symbols, devotions beliefs and so forth. Before you know it, corporations will be encouraging the government to pass laws that somehow make sure we devote or off time to thinking about bettering the company in order to keep our jobs.

The only way I see religious institutions maintaining their own rights is to support the rights of others whether they agree with them or not. That in itself puts religion at odds with itself. Religion believes in legislating behavior. They get bit by their own mantra of "we're a nation of laws". That's what is eating America - religion - it stalemates progress in every conceivable fashion.

posted by accountable

Liberty. I don't really expect you to understand because you define the word differently.


I doubt that very much. But seeing as I am using english and you use a variation of it called american English it is mine that is correct. :sneaky:

Tell me did you consider it right that the denial of civil rights to catholics in Ireland by the protestants in Northern Ireland in the seventies was justified by religious belief/bigotry and a very real fear of catholicism? Ones man's right to freedom of action and his own bigotry ends when it impinges on the freedom of another. In the UK it's mainly the catholic church that militates against contraception, in the main they get ignored even by their own members.

I don't see the problem, apart from the half arsed way the US seems to approach the issue of healthcare. Employer provided Healthcare is mandatory it should not be the employer that determines what is necessary for the health of the member. Are Jehovah's witnesses asking for an exemption not to pay for blood transfusions? Bet that would get very short shrift indeed. It's an issue driven by religious bigotry and misogyny. Why not object to funding for viagra as well.

It should not be an employer's obligation to maintain employees' lifestyles, whether they are offensive or not. How can it possibly be justified in a free land?


The point was rather that the churches are the first to complain if they feel anyone is attacking their religion. Here we have had employers who have a no jewellery rule being taken to court for asking someone to remove a cross. I you are working with machines removing jewellery is eminently sensible.

A curious thing about American politics is the alliance between libertarians and the religious right.

Both groups have similar short term goals, but long term they could not be further apart. The religious right does not actually want personal freedom... they want to rule people's personal lives with an iron fist.

They are also obsessed with penises. Hardly any part of their core platform is about anything other than penises: abortion, gay sex, contraceptives, sex outside of marriage, non-procreative sex.

Ahso!;1385174 wrote: Maintaining as in controlling.They're not necessarily synonymous.

Ahso!;1385174 wrote: People don't have the freedom to behave as they wish. Why should any religious person get to enjoy their religious liberties if we can't enjoy our privacy liberties? What an individual does outside the workplace, provided it does not impede on the liberties of others, should not be the business of the employer. If religious institutions support drug testing they should support government control of contraception distribution. I really don't see a parallel. However, I agree that drug testing as a general condition of employment is an unjustified and unjustifiable breach of liberty. Drug testing during the workday for certain positions or skill sets makes sense for safety purposes, but that's off the subject. I don't see how contraception should even be on an insurers list of services, but then I believe that insurance for anything less than catastrophe is wasteful. Forcing an employer to purchase wasteful insurance is ridiculous.

Ahso!;1385174 wrote: I believe the argument for drug testing has been that drugs distracts from one performing at their best and is a distraction from work that increases insurance premiums due to expectant accidents. I think an equal argument can be made that the same can be said for religious symbols, devotions beliefs and so forth. Before you know it, corporations will be encouraging the government to pass laws that somehow make sure we devote or off time to thinking about bettering the company in order to keep our jobs.:-2 Ooooookay.

Ahso!;1385174 wrote: The only way I see religious institutions maintaining their own rights is to support the rights of others whether they agree with them or not. That in itself puts religion at odds with itself. Religion believes in legislating behavior. They get bit by their own mantra of "we're a nation of laws". That's what is eating America - religion - it stalemates progress in every conceivable fashion.Religious institutions can support the rights of others outside their organizations while restricting behaviors inside them. Families do it all the time when they don't allow certain activities inside the home. Yes, religions want to legislate behavior and that is as wrong as the gov't legislating religious behavior. I'm guessing it's a struggle that will go on as long as the gov't claims to be the answer to everything and people continue to believe them despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Accountable;1385185 wrote:

I really don't see a parallel. However, I agree that drug testing as a general condition of employment is an unjustified and unjustifiable breach of liberty.religions support drug testing, probably in the hopes that former drug users will migrate over to their religion. one of several points I was trying to make is that religions can't have it both ways, they are either for the deterioration of liberty or they are not. It's coming back to bite them. Accountable;1385185 wrote: I don't see how contraception should even be on an insurers list of services, but then I believe that insurance for anything less than catastrophe is wasteful. Forcing an employer to purchase wasteful insurance is ridiculous.I agree but it's good economics in troubled times. The whole idea here is to loosen up some of that money being held by corporations. If they can't be taxed any further other creative ways of causing them to spend is what happens. Granted it only goes from one over-bloated industry to another, but hey, anything to circulate money.

Accountable;1385185 wrote:

Religious institutions can support the rights of others outside their organizations while restricting behaviors inside them. Families do it all the time when they don't allow certain activities inside the home. Yes, religions want to legislate behavior and that is as wrong as the gov't legislating religious behavior. I'm guessing it's a struggle that will go on as long as the gov't claims to be the answer to everything and people continue to believe them despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Substitute any ideal in place of 'gov't" (religion - corporations - economics - whatever one sees as a cure all).

It seems "penny wise, pound foolish" that an insurer would pay for pregnancy and NICU services, but not pay for birth control. Though I suppose they may make more money by neglecting preventive care.

Ahso!;1385188 wrote: religions support drug testing, probably in the hopes that former drug users will migrate over to their religion. one of several points I was trying to make is that religions can't have it both ways, they are either for the deterioration of liberty or they are not. It's coming back to bite them. I agree but it's good economics in troubled times. The whole idea here is to loosen up some of that money being held by corporations. If they can't be taxed any further other creative ways of causing them to spend is what happens. Granted it only goes from one over-bloated industry to another, but hey, anything to circulate money.

Substitute any ideal in place of 'gov't" (religion - corporations - economics - whatever one sees as a cure all).

yaaarrrgg;1385190 wrote: It seems "penny wise, pound foolish" that an insurer would pay for pregnancy and NICU services, but not pay for birth control. Though I suppose they may make more money by neglecting preventive care.Look at cancer, 90+% of which could be gone tomorrow as Ted Hutchenson has pointed out here on FG time and again. Cancer is a huge money maker which a few thousand lives annually is a small sacrifice.

Accountable;1385191 wrote: I know you do. However, grouping is what civilization is all about so either we have to pick one or create a new one. I personally think government works if it can be cleaned up.

I don't have a real opinion on whether or not the Catholic institutes should be forced to allow coverage for birth control because of religious freedom... because I didn't get past whether or not employers should be the main provider of health insurance. In "good old days" people had job security. Getting a job that provided benefits is still a hook that can draw employees who want to work for that company but that is now only a temporary situation. Anyone's job can suddenly disappear with no notice. Privatizing insurance and making people pay for it themselves doesn't work because the insurance companies refuse coverage to people who present a high risk so not everyone can get insurance even if they try and can pay for it.

It seems strange to me that a government can recognize something as a fundamental health care right and then insists that random other people provide it.... leaving aside the people who work at jobs that don't pay benefits at all and who probably compose the largest group of those who would be desperate for birth control.

Is this really a case where religious freedom being threatened? If the church employees actually practiced the religion (did not use contraception) the issue would be moot. There would be nothing to pay for because no employee would be using it. What the case here is about, is that not even members of the church think that the elders are making any sense on this issue. If the church wants to purify it's employees to like minded religious people, they are within their rights. But it's really not the government's job to impose the religion onto the people who don't fully practice the religion.

Ahso!;1385193 wrote: I know you do. However, grouping is what civilization is all about so either we have to pick one or create a new one. I personally think government works if it can be cleaned up.


You have government whether you like it or not, the argument is over what sort of government, what are it's functions and who controls it. Those who argue most for minimal government are usually the ones in a powerful position that want freedom to exploit others as they see fit.

If you control the female of the herd you control the male as well. simple and has worked a treat over time .