Religious freedom and contraception

[cwalner]

Nonsense. Nobody's freedom is infringed because someone didn't buy something for them. They remain free to buy it themselves.

That doesn't contradict anything I said. You want to be able to purchase health insurance. I don't blame you. But this is an entitlement, or if you prefer, a positive right. It is not a freedom. Perhaps you should be able to. Perhaps it is even right and just that the government act to ensure that. But that doesn't make it a freedom. It is not.

So is the ability to purchase healthcare a freedom or an entitlement?

 

[RandFan]

Yes, but now you've moved the goal posts.

No. I'm simply pointing out the limits. That's not moving any goal posts.

I don't believe that I ever said that such negotiations were going to be 100% or even at all successful! OBVIOUSLY there are all kinds of factors to be considered.

I don't believe I ever said you did.

Just as the employer evaluates each applicant and pics who is best for the position/company, the employee based on being the most desired applicant can try to get as much as possible. That fact that most employees are not aware of this doesn't change that.

No argument. I'm not trying to counter your point and I went out of my way to agree with you.

That being said, I'll back you up. I've negotiated for benefits before but that is applicable only to some percentage of jobs.

 

[Magyar]

You negotiated the amount you would pay for health insurance? I have gotten more vacation time, more salary, working from home and even work hours, but I've never had any company even consider health care payment as negotiable. I'm aware unions do it all the time, but not on an individual basis. Learn something new every day. BTW: I looked at monster and could not find anything about negotiating health care costs with an employer. I must be missing it, could you point it out?

sorry, i might have put that in a way that could be miss undertood. I am not talking about the weekly insurance cost that gets taken out of your paycheck but I have negotiated getting insurance coverage from day one as opposed to the usual 90 day wait and I asked how much the insurance costs per week and used that figure as part of my overall salary requirement and consideration between jobs.

so for example job a with 80K per year and a weekly inurance cost of $120 vs job b with $78K and $50 per week.

 

[Ziggurat]

So is the ability to purchase healthcare a freedom or an entitlement?

The right to purchase something when you have the money is a freedom. The right to have something you cannot afford is an entitlement.

And yeah, with enough money, I guarantee that anyone, regardless of medical history, can buy health insurance. If your medical history is bad, then "enough" might be far out of reach, but that's a different issue.

 

[Tony]

The right to purchase something when you have the money is a freedom. The right to have something you cannot afford is an entitlement.

 

[Bri]

I have negotiated getting insurance coverage from day one as opposed to the usual 90 day wait and I asked how much the insurance costs per week and used that figure as part of my overall salary requirement and consideration between jobs.

In addition, the employer often pays a certain percentage of the employee's health insurance. Most people consider the amount the employer pays for their health insurance as part of their compensation (in addition to salary, retirement contributions, paid leave, and other benefits).

However, as far as contraception coverage is concerned, the mandate forces all employers to offer it at no cost to the employee. Therefore, it cannot be considered part of the employee's compensation, nor can the employer negotiate whether or not to offer contraceptive coverage as part of a compensation package when hiring.

-Bri

 

[Magyar]

However, as far as contraception coverage is concerned, the mandate forces all employers to offer it at no cost to the employee. Therefore, it cannot be considered part of the employee's compensation, nor can the employer negotiate whether or not to offer contraceptive coverage as part of a compensation package when hiring.

-Bri

Wait minute - are you saying that contraception is a separate and unique coverage FROM healthcare/prescription coverage that employers offer!? That's news to me!

Outside of the right wing woo machine, how is contraception presicription different from any other presctiption? I was born in Hungary where lard is a food group
coupled with genetics I have high blood pressure.

Are you saying that if I apply for a job where the boss is a vegan he should be able to deny my high blood pressure med coverage because he believes meat is evil? IF not HOW is this ANY different than denying a 20 year old woman who wants to be sexually active with her husband but doesn't want kids yet?

 

[crimresearch]

Religious freedom and contraception

I am trying to make sense of the idea that requiring employers to provide contraception violates the first amendment. Does the reasoning go something like this:


The employers money might support an action the employer finds morally objectionable on religious grounds. Since SCOUTS has ruled that money equals speech, then withholding money is also a form of speech or expression. In this case religious expression. The employer is denied freedom to express themselves by non-contribution.


Please tell me this is inaccurate.

That might be the employer's reasoning if said employer were the Pope.

Coming from the mouths of right wingers who have a track record of rejecting Catholic doctrine on birth control, it is simply hypocrisy.

 

[cwalner]

That might be the employer's reasoning if said employer were the Pope.

Coming from the mouths of right wingers who have a track record of rejecting Catholic doctrine on birth control, it is simply hypocrisy.

Its a misconception that objection to birth control is exclusively a Catholic issue. I had a co-worker who was fundamentalist Protestant who refused to use it despite the fact that she nearly died from previous pregnancies because of he own medical issues. It is apparently a doctrine now shared by fundamentalist Protestant churches.

 

[Bri]

Wait minute - are you saying that contraception is a separate and unique coverage FROM healthcare/prescription coverage that employers offer!? That's news to me!

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not negotiated compensation any more than safe working conditions are negotiated compensation. ALL employees will be required to provide the same contraception coverage. It will be a mandate -- there will be no negotiation.

Are you saying that if I apply for a job where the boss is a vegan he should be able to deny my high blood pressure med coverage because he believes meat is evil? IF not HOW is this ANY different than denying a 20 year old woman who wants to be sexually active with her husband but doesn't want kids yet?

No, I agree with the mandate. I just disagree with your argument that the mandated contraception coverage is part of the employee's negotiated compensation package. By definition, a mandate cannot be negotiated.

-Bri

 

[crimresearch]

Its a misconception that objection to birth control is exclusively a Catholic issue. I had a co-worker who was fundamentalist Protestant who refused to use it despite the fact that she nearly died from previous pregnancies because of he own medical issues. It is apparently a doctrine now shared by fundamentalist Protestant churches.

Then you'll have no trouble citing the current equivalent of a Papal decree from the Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, or Anglicans declaring contraception to be a sin, and forbidden to practice for all members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception

 

[Bri]

Its a misconception that objection to birth control is exclusively a Catholic issue. I had a co-worker who was fundamentalist Protestant who refused to use it despite the fact that she nearly died from previous pregnancies because of he own medical issues. It is apparently a doctrine now shared by fundamentalist Protestant churches.

What I don't understand is that Catholic doctrine (and I assume other churches that forbid the use of contraception are similar) doesn't required Catholics to turn down health insurance if it includes contraception coverage. Individual Catholics are simply told not to use it, so it seems to be recognized that the individual is capable of making her own choice as to whether to use contraception or not. So why is it against the Catholic religion for Catholic employers to provide something that's not against the religion to have?

-Bri

 

[cwalner]

What I don't understand is that Catholic doctrine (and I assume other churches that forbid the use of contraception are similar) doesn't required Catholics to turn down health insurance if it includes contraception coverage. Individual Catholics are simply told not to use it, so it seems to be recognized that the individual is capable of making her own choice as to whether to use contraception or not. So why is it against the Catholic religion for Catholic employers to provide something that's not against the religion to have?

-Bri

Oh, I am fully on board with your confusion. I was simply pointing out that there are fundamentalist Protestant Churches in the USA that apparently also preach against contraception. I don't know to what percent, as I simply have one anecdote. However, a single anecdote does work to counter the argument that all protestants favor contraception.

Also for full disclosure, the co-worker was pretty severe with her views, as she also opposed abortion even in cases of rape, incest and threat to mother's life. I in no way intended her as an example of typical Protestant views.

 

[Bri]

Oh, I am fully on board with your confusion. I was simply pointing out that there are fundamentalist Protestant Churches in the USA that apparently also preach against contraception. I don't know to what percent, as I simply have one anecdote. However, a single anecdote does work to counter the argument that all protestants favor contraception.

Also for full disclosure, the co-worker was pretty severe with her views, as she also opposed abortion even in cases of rape, incest and threat to mother's life. I in no way intended her as an example of typical Protestant views.

Sure, well about 98% of Catholics who are sexually active use birth control according to most polls. It's also pretty evident that there are far fewer Catholic families with 9 or 10 children than there used to be. So really we're talking about a significant minority of people who don't use contraceptives. But the Catholic church and the businesses it runs don't want to provide coverage for contraceptives even though they know that almost every Catholic uses them regardless, and even though the church doesn't require Catholics to turn down health insurance that contains contraception coverage.

-Bri

 

[Bikewer]

All employers universally love to have their vital employees take extended leave for pregnancy and child-rearing. It's a simple matter to hire a temp to fill those slots, even if the employee performs specific, highly-skilled tasks.....

(Couldn't find the "irony" smiley)

 

[Augustine]

What I don't understand is that Catholic doctrine (and I assume other churches that forbid the use of contraception are similar) doesn't required Catholics to turn down health insurance if it includes contraception coverage. Individual Catholics are simply told not to use it, so it seems to be recognized that the individual is capable of making her own choice as to whether to use contraception or not. So why is it against the Catholic religion for Catholic employers to provide something that's not against the religion to have?

-Bri

This is (IMO) a fairly balanced article that accurately represents the issues involved. To answer your last question, I would recommend you explore the issue of scandal and think about the implications of Catholic institutions providing first-dollar coverage of contraception (mentioned in the second question quoted).

• How closely are Catholic hospitals participating in the execution of the evil action? And how close is too close?
• Will providing insurance coverage for contraception give the impression that the Catholic hospital approves of this action and thus give rise to scandal?
• How should a Catholic institution balance the competing goods of witnessing to its moral teaching and providing its employees with health insurance, now mandated to include a service contrary to its moral teaching?

 

[RandFan]

This is (IMO) a fairly balanced article that accurately represents the issues involved. To answer your last question, I would recommend you explore the issue of scandal and think about the implications of Catholic institutions providing first-dollar coverage of contraception (mentioned in the second question quoted).

Thanks.

There’s a lot going on here. This is a religious liberty issue. It is an issue of cooperation with evil. It is a women’s health issue. It is an issue of the common good’s connection to contraception. It is an issue of forming individual consciences. It’s an issue of the participation of religious institutions in public life.

First let me say that I commend the author for conceding that the issue is, in part, about women's health.

That said, it needs also be acknowledged that freedom of religion AKA freedom of conscience, is a fundamentally important right found in our constitution. The thing is that the balancing of religious perceptions of evil with health should, IMO, fall to health. Contraception being evil is a religious dogma. No secular analog exists. For some, blood transfusions are evil. For others modern medicine is evil. Because of this, in some states, children can be abused and neglected to the point of death. I think most reasonable people would agree that in the case of a child's health, religious belief ought to take a back seat.

IMO, lacking secular reasoning for any religious prescription then health should take precedent. I understand why this is difficult for the Jesuit. I would appeal to him that if he thinks that religious dogma should not take precedent over the health and life of a child then he ought to concede that any organization that receives federal funds needs to acquiesce to the state when it comes to women's health.

 

[xjx388]

If the employer is an actual religious institution, I don't see how you can (or why you would want to) force that institution to provide a service they consider to be the ultimate evil. I haven't seen one argument on here that it would serve some pressing government need or that there's no other way for people to get birth control other than through mandated coverage. Absent those factors, forcing the Catholic Church in this way serves no legitimate purpose.

 

[cwalner]

If the employer is an actual religious institution, I don't see how you can (or why you would want to) force that institution to provide a service they consider to be the ultimate evil. I haven't seen one argument on here that it would serve some pressing government need or that there's no other way for people to get birth control other than through mandated coverage. Absent those factors, forcing the Catholic Church in this way serves no legitimate purpose.

The problem with that argument is that the law does not exclusively target the RCC. the craters of the law decided it was in the best interest of the people of the USA that all employers be mandated to provide a certain basic health insurance for their employees and that such includes contraception.

If you disagree with the law as it is applied to secular businesses, then you are correct that the burden of proof should be on the government to show that such an imposition provides a greater good. However, if you only argue that this provides an imposition on religious institutions, then the burden of proof is on them to show why an exemption should outweigh the law as applied to all other businesses.

 

[Bri]

This is (IMO) a fairly balanced article that accurately represents the issues involved. To answer your last question, I would recommend you explore the issue of scandal and think about the implications of Catholic institutions providing first-dollar coverage of contraception (mentioned in the second question quoted).

Thanks for posting this. I looked through the article, as well as some of the articles linked from the article. It's a good article, but I suspect that my answers to the questions it asks are different than the ones that would be proposed by the author.

In my opinion, it doesn't make logical sense that it would be considered scandal to provide something that (1) you (and every other employer) are mandated to provide and therefore don't have a choice, (2) is part of a comprehensive prescription drug coverage plan, and (3) the recipient isn't prohibited from having.

As for the third question, the use of contraception may be contrary to the moral teachings of the Catholic church, but health insurance that contains comprehensive prescription drug coverage apparently isn't since Catholics aren't prohibited from having such coverage as long as they don't use contraceptives.

But I may still be misunderstanding something.

By the way, my question is mainly out of genuine curiosity. I understand that it's not valid for one person to suggest that something isn't a violation of another person's religious beliefs. If a Catholic says it violates their religious beliefs, I take them at their word. Similarly, if someone says that it violates their religious beliefs to pay taxes, I would take them at their word. In both cases, I don't think individual religious beliefs should take precedence over the greater public good.

-Bri