• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Separation of church and state on birth control

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
Under the new health care law, religious organizations must provide employees access to birth control, or face fines.

The problem is, some religious organizations have a moral objection to certain types of birth control.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/21/obama-administration-religious-employers-must-pay-for-the-pill/

So where do we draw the line? What right does the government have to tell people what they can and can not do while following the religion of their choice?

By setting guidelines for religious organizations, isn't the government promoting a centralized religion? Or rather a form of centralized religion?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
The government should have no business telling anyone that they have to provide birth control to their employees. That should be a matter between the employer/employee, but not to those who prefer the all-encompassing state make all decisions for everyone.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Under the new health care law, religious organizations must provide employees access to birth control, or face fines.

The problem is, some religious organizations have a moral objection to certain types of birth control.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/21/obama-administration-religious-employers-must-pay-for-the-pill/

So where do we draw the line? What right does the government have to tell people what they can and can not do while following the religion of their choice?

By setting guidelines for religious organizations, isn't the government promoting a centralized religion? Or rather a form of centralized religion?
There is a qualitative difference between requiring that certain benefits be available under a health-insurance plan, and actually requiring that employees use it. They aren't forcing any individual to do anything. The position of the USCCB is flat out wrong here. People should expect certain benefits under this law that should not be denied to them because they work for a religious institution. An employer is still and employer, even if they are church-affiliated.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Basically, they are saying in effect that the Church MUST by law go against it's own principles and directly fund something against their rules. It's absurd. If the employer doesn't want to provide it, they shouldn't. Don't like it? Don't go work at that particular religious institution, find one more in line with your beliefs.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
So where do we draw the line? What right does the government have to tell people what they can and can not do while following the religion of their choice?
How about animal sacrifice? Should the government be able to tell you that you can't kill your dog for religious purposes?
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
There is a qualitative difference between requiring that certain benefits be available under a health-insurance plan, and actually requiring that employees use it.
The federal government is forcing an organization to purchase a product that the organization has a moral objection to.

The employees have the option to use the product. Regardless if the employee uses the product or not, the church is being forced to purchase a product.


How about animal sacrifice? Should the government be able to tell you that you can't kill your dog for religious purposes?
No.

In fact, Texas has laws on the books that protects animal sacrifice. The animals can not be mistreated before the sacrifice though.

The Animal Plant channel showed a program a few years ago where some neighbors in Houston called about people killing animals. When the police showed up, the people were doing some kind of voodoo ritual. There was nothing the police could do about the animals being killed.
 
Last edited:

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
The federal government is forcing an organization to purchase a product that the organization has a moral objection to.

The employees have the option to use the product. Regardless if the employee uses the product or not, the church is being forced to purchase a product.




No.

In fact, Texas has laws on the books that protects animal sacrifice. The animals can not be mistreated before the sacrifice though.

Umm... you have reminded me of another older news story. About some religious whacko's who didn't believe in doctors because Western Medicine was against their religion. They allowed their daughter to die of a very curable illness because they thought prayer was the only medicine needed. Guess what? Those parents are in jail. Is that so hard to comprehend? Some of the basics and rights of life we have MUST be dictated and enforced by government. Without that we'd be stuck with Jim Crow laws and other bullshit still. Just like religious organizations can not discriminate whom they hire based off any federally protected attributes either.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
If a religious act involves the possibility of killing someone or something, then I can see the government having a reasonable role in intervening.

Birth control doesn't exactly fall in that category.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Basically, they are saying in effect that the Church MUST by law go against it's own principles and directly fund something against their rules. It's absurd. If the employer doesn't want to provide it, they shouldn't. Don't like it? Don't go work at that particular religious institution, find one more in line with your beliefs.
Telling employees to "go work somewhere else" if they want this covered is akin to saying that the church should get out of running schools, hospitals, etc. if they don't like US laws concerning them. The employees themselves should be making the decision on whether or not to use BC, not the church. There are many non-catholics working for catholic-affiliated institutions.
 

PhoKingGuy

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2007
4,689
0
76
Its funny because those same "Religious institutions" have no problem covering viagra prescriptions for their employees as well.

You bet they would hold onto their right to those with a death grip, Priests would be up in arms without it.
 

PhoKingGuy

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2007
4,689
0
76
Telling employees to "go work somewhere else" if they want this covered is akin to saying that the church should get out of running schools, hospitals, etc. if they don't like US laws concerning them. The employees themselves should be making the decision on whether or not to use BC, not the church. There are many non-catholics working for catholic-affiliated institutions.

As a former hospital admin, I'm proud that CA has laws on the books to make sure religiously affiliated hospitals stock contraceptives.

Hell most of these hospitals are religious in name only, I doubt any more than a scant percentage of the employees gave a damn about it. Its a paycheck, nothing more.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
As a former hospital admin, I'm proud that CA has laws on the books to make sure religiously affiliated hospitals stock contraceptives.
I dont know about over in your part of the country, but here in southeast Texas we have several Catholic hospitals. Those hospitals will not preform any kind of permanent birth control surgery - no tubals, no vasectomies or anything along those lines.

What is the next steps in the health care law? Forcing hospitals to preform services they have objections to? Will the hospitals be forced to have an abortion clinic setup next to the birthing ward?

I live in Jasper Texas, the only hospital in town is Catholic. If a woman wants a tubal, she has to drive a hour one way to wither Beaumont or Lufkin to get services.

My daughter-in-law had some bad complications during 2 of her 3 pregnancies. She is 26 or 27 years old, after the birth of her 3rd child the doctor suggested she get a tubal. When the doctor approached the hospital about doing the tubal, the request was rejected.

All 3 of her children went into early labor, like 2 - 3 months early. During the last 2 children, she was bed ridden for 2 months and had an IV for medicine to stop the labor. Then there was the diabetes that came on with the pregnancies.

There were enough complications her doctor asked her not to have any more children (3 is probably enough anyway). Even though the health and safety of the mother were a factor, the local catholic hospital refused to allow the tubal.
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,103
9,970
136
The federal government is forcing an organization to purchase a product that the organization has a moral objection to.

The employees have the option to use the product. Regardless if the employee uses the product or not, the church is being forced to purchase a product.




No.

In fact, Texas has laws on the books that protects animal sacrifice. The animals can not be mistreated before the sacrifice though.

The Animal Plant channel showed a program a few years ago where some neighbors in Houston called about people killing animals. When the police showed up, the people were doing some kind of voodoo ritual. There was nothing the police could do about the animals being killed.
If a woman is beaten and raped and taken to the nearest hospital ER which happens to be catholic should they be allowed to refuse to treat the woman with the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy?
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
If a woman is beaten and raped and taken to the nearest hospital ER which happens to be catholic should they be allowed to refuse to treat the woman with the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy?
I believe that yes, the hospital should have the right to deny certain non-life threatening treatments. If we are to say "the hospital must provide "the morning after pill"", where do we draw the line?

If we say a hospital must provide 1 treatment, then shouldn't a hospital provide all treatments?

But there is nothing stopping the lady from getting the pill from somewhere else.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
Bleh,

Non sequitur here as I just looked it up. Religious organizations like CHURCHS are still exempt from having to pay for it. Just those with affiliations are not such as hospitals.

http://www.drudge.com/news/152664/insurers-must-now-cover-birth-control

If you work directly for the Catholic Church perfoming a service like cleaning the organ then the church doesn't have to pay for health care coverage of birth control. However, if you are an orderly at a Caothlic affiliated hospital then the hospital must provide insurance that covers birth control. There is a fine line distinction here that the OP forgot to mention.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,103
9,970
136
I believe that yes, the hospital should have the right to deny certain non-life threatening treatments. If we are to say "the hospital must provide "the morning after pill"", where do we draw the line?

If we say a hospital must provide 1 treatment, then shouldn't a hospital provide all treatments?

But there is nothing stopping the lady from getting the pill from somewhere else.
Not if she's unconscious and the family wants it. So its ok for her to become pregnant with some scumbag rapists baby. I guess the next step is her being forced to carry it to term.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,955
0
76
This is one of the issues with gay marriage. The religious orgs don't want to pay for benefits for same sex partners of their employees but could be forced to.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
Not if she's unconscious and the family wants it. So its ok for her to become pregnant with some scumbag rapists baby. I guess the next step is her being forced to carry it to term.
I do not have an answer for you, we can play the "what if" game all day long.

Where do we draw the line on how far can the government interfere in our lives?

Should the choices be left to the hospital and to the people, or to the government?
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
Providing access to birth control to people who aren't even going to use it? Isn't this a moot point? I don't shoot a gun and don't believe in owning a gun but I really don't have a problem with people selling guns.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,310
175
106
Basically, they are saying in effect that the Church MUST by law go against it's own principles and directly fund something against their rules. It's absurd. If the employer doesn't want to provide it, they shouldn't. Don't like it? Don't go work at that particular religious institution, find one more in line with your beliefs.
No, this is ridiculous.

Can a Jehovah's Witness organization deny insurance claims made by its employees when they need a blood transfusion? Of course not.

Better yet -- what about a faith healing church? Should they be able to deny ALL insurance claims because the employees just need to pray hard enough?
 
Last edited:

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
Basically, they are saying in effect that the Church MUST by law go against it's own principles and directly fund something against their rules. It's absurd. If the employer doesn't want to provide it, they shouldn't. Don't like it? Don't go work at that particular religious institution, find one more in line with your beliefs.
Yeah, I don't think you thought this through very well.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,760
11
81
Not if she's unconscious and the family wants it. So its ok for her to become pregnant with some scumbag rapists baby. I guess the next step is her being forced to carry it to term.
If she's unconscious, the hospital should NOT be terminating the pregnancy anyway, regardless of whether the family wants to do so or not. Until it's established that she is incompetent (temporary or permanent) and unable to make her own health care choices, or perhaps a minor, the family's wishes are pretty irrelevant.

Why are most of your hypotheticals stupid?
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
1
76
More stupidity - the church being anti contraceptive in the first place is utterly ridiculous, and now they want to object to employers giving their workers medical benefits? Pro life or whatever I can see - denying coverage for an abortion would be understandable. But denying birth control pills on the account of your religion? That's just plain idiotic.

What's next - can an employer say that they are against statins based upon religious grounds and deny any coverage for Lipitor?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY