religious employers must cover birth control

[houseelf]

Putting on my Administrative cap here and warning people to cool it. Passion is fine, flaming is verbotten. This needs to clean up quick, there is no need for this kind of disregard on a support site.

[MarissaNicole]

I do see more than a little irony here. The right of privacy (which, legally, is the right to be left alone from state interference) was born not from the Constitution directly, but as an extrapolation by the Supreme Court of Constitutional concepts--and first took hold in the case of Griswold v Connecticut...the case dealing with the state regulation of birth control. Griswold's right to privacy then became the intellectual foundation of Roe v Wade, which of course determined that a state's prohibition on abortion was an improper interference with the right to privacy. And conservatives have been mocking the concept of a constructed right to privacy ever since. Now, one the strongest arguments outside the First Amendment for the unconstitutionality of the HHS rule were are debating is...that it infringes on a person's right to privacy...the right to practice one's religion without state interference.

Thank you for making this point, I think this is what I was having trouble with. It helps me better understand why I lean one way, but I couldn't seem to put it in words.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[PrincessFiona]

Uh. Oh. Kelly. I missed some posts while browsing on my phone. Thanks for catching it. *cough* Personal insults are not ok guys.

[GrayMatterWife]

I didn't take as a comment towards me in anyway.

Oh, good! I freaked when I saw that my post posted immediately after yours. I was worried that it sounded like I was commenting heavy handedly at you. It really was just a more general thought.

[diggitydot]

It really was just a more general thought.

That's exactly how I took it. No worries.

[medpedspouse]

Putting on my Administrative cap here and warning people to cool it. Passion is fine, flaming is verbotten. This needs to clean up quick, there is no need for this kind of disregard on a support site.

Thank you!!! I have really enjoyed this thread because although I had no opinion regarding either side, I have learned quite a bit from your very articulate and intelligent/well thought out responses. I am not Catholic yet was so hurt by the tone that some took. Not supportive at all. Made me so sad.

[diggitydot]

But, if a church decides to run a not-for-profit charitable hospital or a privately funded educational institution or runs a magazine for its members...these are all still part of the church's mission and are a part of religious beliefs and practice. Your belief would make a religious entity simply a small building with some people going to it occasionally. Churches run large websites, large charities, large school systems and universities, news organizations - all in the practice of their religion. And, they do this as a part of their protected freedom of expression of ideas and beliefs.

I really do believe that, say, "Bob" should not agree to work for an organization if "Bob" inherently disagree with that organization's purpose, values, requirements, and/or operation. I don't think the Catholic church should be forced to pay for practices it finds antithetical to its values, requirements, etc. any more than I believe you should be forced to pay for practices you find antithetical to your values.

Actually, I don't think that a church is simply a building; it is the people. If a religious group wants to form a non-profit and supply their own personnel to run it as a part of their faith, more power to them. But if they want to engage the secular world as a business, then they need to follow laws for businesses. You can't have it both ways.

And I don't think any religious person should be forced to behave in a way that goes against his or her belief system. However, they also shouldn't have the ability to dictate how people who don't share their beliefs should behave, either.

[HouseofWool]

I really do believe that, say, "Bob" should not agree to work for an organization if "Bob" inherently disagree with that organization's purpose, values, requirements, and/or operation. I don't think the Catholic church should be forced to pay for practices it finds antithetical to its values, requirements, etc. any more than I believe you should be forced to pay for practices you find antithetical to your values.

I would disagree, particularly in small town america where a faith based hospital may be one of the only employers hiring. So, should Bob remain unemployed or work for said hospital which is not of his faith?

[corn poffi]

What Kris said. Not to be cliché, but there are desperate people out there. Organizations like hospitals hire a ton of people at all skill levels. In this economy, people need to take what they can get. it's easy to say "if you don't like it, don't work there", but sometimes it's the only option.

There was a comment about just getting the cheapo stuff at Costco. That's fine, if you don't have horrible side effects to that crap. Planned Parenthood isn't the best option for the unemployed either. First, they are hard to find in more rural areas, and second (at least from my experience), they are big proponents of the depo shot, which has a huge number of side effects.

[v-girl]

The Catholic Church will close these hospitals, schools, charities, etc., before they pay for something that goes against our beliefs. I guess that would be preferable to those who want these things covered?

[diggitydot]

I seriously doubt they'll roll up the carpet and close down shop. Most of their businesses make too much money to completely shutter. Money that they can use to further other charitable projects.

My guess is that they'll most likely restructure these businesses if unable to swing some type of exemption. Truly, I doubt restructuring will be necessary, though. I'm pretty confident that they'll get some sort of concessions, even if not a full exemption.

[Pollyanna]

I'm pretty confident that they'll get some sort of concessions, even if not a full exemption.

Especially if we get Obama out of office.

[diggitydot]

I think it has a LOT more to do with whichever senators and state reps are in office than it has to do with who sits at the big desk.

[SuzySunshine]

I actually think this has a lot more to do with Sebelius, from what I've read she informed Obama there was no way around this and he made the call to the church.

With that said I think if he loses in November the whole health care bill thing will be repealed or change significantly.

[MarissaNicole]

I would disagree, particularly in small town america where a faith based hospital may be one of the only employers hiring. So, should Bob remain unemployed or work for said hospital which is not of his faith?

Or what if Bob is a medical resident; you don't exactly get to choose where you train. In our city which I consider to have a large number of academic hospitals, I believe two of the five hospitals are Catholic affiliated, and another is Lutheran/Methodist.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk