Religious freedom and contraception

[crimresearch]

What is the 'good reason' for mandating BC coverage?

No. I want the government to leave religious practice alone entirely unless there is a compelling public need.
Because you haven't read the 1st Amendment and you haven't looked at all the cases where SCOTUS has upheld religious practice over public interests: Wisconsin vs. Yoder, for one.

I just cited the 1st Amendment and you didn't recognize it. So you can drop the projection and spin any time.

And you are still running away from explaining why forcing Catholic doctrine on others is a compelling public interest, or a 'good reason', or protected by the Constitution, but Muslim et al. doctrine is not.

 

[RandFan]

It's not all or nothing but I think the public need has to be very compelling before we override religious freedom.

When they hand out IUD's and other services then I will be on your side on this.

I don't think mandated BC coverage meets a compelling enough public need when there are other ways to ensure women get what they want.

You are entitled to your opinion and I can respect that. So long as experts deem that it is in the public good and it doesn't keep people from practicing their religion I'm fine with it. Church members and clergy allready pay taxes that are used for birth control. This single issue does not represent a valid slippery slope nor is it a present danger that will erode religious freedom. Clergy and congregants already pay taxes right? Public Health Service Act Title X provides funding to Planned Parenthood and other organizations, in part, for contraception. They are already doing it.

And let's be honest, we are talking about a perception. The religious organizations pay employees money that the employees are free to use on contraception. right? So, the Feds could mandate that employee salaries be increased by the amount of the co-pay and the employee would be mandated to purchased contraception which many already do.

IMO: It's an absurd stretch to declare a loss of religious liberty when institutions and individuals are already required to partially fund contraception. I'm sure god has exemptions.

 

[Bri]

It's not all or nothing but I think the public need has to be very compelling before we override religious freedom. I don't think mandated BC coverage meets a compelling enough public need when there are other ways to ensure women get what they want.

Before you said, "As I said, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with religious practice. Forcing the Catholic Church to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice." That is incorrect.

But now you're indicating that you understand that it's not an all or nothing proposition, that it depends on whether there is a public need that overrides religious freedom. That is significantly different than what you said originally.

The actual law (which is a congressional law, not a constitutional law) calls it "compelling government interest" rather than "public need" but you've stated the general gist of it. The law also states that if there's another way to implement a law that is less restrictive on religious freedom it should be implemented in the less restrictive way.

-Bri

 

[crimresearch]

Before you said, "As I said, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with religious practice. Forcing the Catholic Church to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice."

But now you're indicating that you understand that it's not an all or nothing proposition, that it depends on whether there is a public need that overrides religious freedom. That is significantly different than what you said originally.

The actually law (which is a congressional law, not a constitutional law) calls it "compelling government interest" rather than "public need" but you've stated the general gist of it. The law also states that if there's another way to implement a law that is less restrictive on religious freedom it should be implemented in the less restrictive way.

-Bri

Noticed that sudden flip-flop, did you?

 

[Bri]

Noticed that sudden flip-flop, did you?

It was fairly obvious, but I'm not so concerned with whether xjx388 acknowledges the shift of position as much as I'm concerned with whether xjx388 (and anyone following the thread) has an accurate understanding now.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

A point not brought up often enough:

The mandate only applies to organizations that receive public funding. They could keep their principles by rejecting the money. How many of you who are arguing the principle of religious freedom think these institutions will give up their public funding if that is what is required?

 

[Bri]

The mandate only applies to organizations that receive public funding. They could keep their principles by rejecting the money. How many of you who are arguing the principle of religious freedom think these institutions will give up their public funding if that is what is required?

Are you sure about that? I thought it applied to every employer who will be required to provide health insurance under the new health care law.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Are you sure about that? I thought it applied to every employer who will be required to provide health insurance under the new health care law.

-Bri

Not 100% but there are a number of articles that make that claim.

Catholic Universities That Receive Federal Funding Must Provide Access to Birth Control

 

[xjx388]

Before you said, "As I said, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with religious practice. Forcing the Catholic Church to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice." That is incorrect.

No, it is perfectly correct to say that forcing the CC to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice. How can you assert otherwise?

But now you're indicating that you understand that it's not an all or nothing proposition, that it depends on whether there is a public need that overrides religious freedom. That is significantly different than what you said originally.

It's not different at all. Keep track:

1. Fact: The BC mandate interferes with religious practice and violates the 1st Amendment.
2. Fact: There are some compelling public interests which override the rights given by the 1st Amendment.
3. Opinion: The BC mandate is not one of these compelling public interests.

That you don't share my opinion is fine. But my reasoning is sound and I haven't heard any argument which has changed my mind about this.

The actual law (which is a congressional law, not a constitutional law) calls it "compelling government interest" rather than "public need" but you've stated the general gist of it. The law also states that if there's another way to implement a law that is less restrictive on religious freedom it should be implemented in the less restrictive way.

-Bri

But that's my whole point. There is not enough of a compelling government/public interest/need regarding mandated birth control coverage to override religious freedom.

1. The mandate does not do a thing for women who are not covered by insurance. Therefore, it doesn't do what you think it does; i.e, give all women access to BC - only those covered by insurance.
2. There are less restrictive ways to ensure that all women have access to BC if the want it. In fact, all women already have access to BC if they want it.

 

[xjx388]

It was fairly obvious, but I'm not so concerned with whether xjx388 acknowledges the shift of position as much as I'm concerned with whether xjx388 (and anyone following the thread) has an accurate understanding now.

-Bri

You don't have an accurate understanding of my position, that's for sure. I haven't flip-flopped on anything.

 

[Bri]

Not 100% but there are a number of articles that make that claim.

Catholic Universities That Receive Federal Funding Must Provide Access to Birth Control

Does this mean that all employers who don't receive federal funds are exempt, or only religious ones?

According to this article, the mandate applies even to religious organizations that receive no federal funding:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/02/17/the-faqs-the-contraceptive-abortifacient-mandate/

FWIW, Wikipedia also implies that it applies to all employers and educational institutions regardless of whether they receive federal funds:

With the exception of churches and houses of worship, the Act's contraceptive coverage mandate applies to all employers and educational institutions.​

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

Does this mean that all employers who don't receive federal funds are exempt, or only religious ones?

According to this article, the mandate applies even to religious organizations that receive no federal funding:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/02/17/the-faqs-the-contraceptive-abortifacient-mandate/

-Bri

The mandate applies to all employers with more than 50 employees.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think you're mistaken RandFan.

The employer "mandate" is not tied to receiving federal funds. It's not technically a mandate either. If the employee isn't offered minimum essential coverage by the employer, then the fine assessed to the employer is meant to make up for the premium credit offered under the insurance exchange program that the employee needs to get insurance.

I think what you're talking about is an exception to the religious exception to the employer mandate. And in fact, I don't think what you're talking about is established law as much as it is someone's opinion of how it should be. From the article you cite:

However, institutions and employers that receive federal or state financial assistance (whether directly via grants or indirectly via tax relief or other subsidies) should provide access to birth control. It goes against the public interest and basic common sense to think otherwise.

I agree that that's how it ought be, but I disagree that this implies that any religious employer who does not receive public money is exempt from the employer "mandate".

 

[RandFan]

I think you're mistaken RandFan.

The employer "mandate" is not tied to receiving federal funds. It's not technically a mandate either. If the employee isn't offered minimum essential coverage by the employer, then the fine assessed to the employer is meant to make up for the premium credit offered under the insurance exchange program that the employee needs to get insurance.

I think what you're talking about is an exception to the religious exception to the employer mandate. And in fact, I don't think what you're talking about is established law as much as it is someone's opinion of how it should be. From the article you cite:



I agree that that's how it ought be, but I disagree that this implies that any religious employer who does not receive public money is exempt from the employer "mandate".

Moi? Wrong? Shirley you jest. Maybe that's why it's not brought up often enough.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, it is perfectly correct to say that forcing the CC to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice. How can you assert otherwise?

That's very easy: no one is forcing any religious employer to buy birth control. The law "mandates" these employers provide minimum essential health insurance to their employees. This is considered to be a benefit of employment. It is no more accurate to claim that the CC is forced to buy birth control if the employee were required to pay for contraception out of pocket (using money that came in pay from the CC).

[ETA: Do you consider minimum wage laws to be requiring employers to buy food, clothing and other essentials for their employees? Or isn't it more accurate to say that it's just a requirement for minimum compensation? The idea is that it's earned by the employee.]


At any rate, for those trying to nitpick on a technicality (how the thing was worded put a mandate on employers including religious institutions to provide free birth control), Obama already proposed a work around to that: the insurance companies are mandated to cover certain things in their minimum essential coverage plans. No out-of-pocket birth control is a regulation the insurance companies are subject to, not the employer. Similarly, the "Obamacare" law limits how much of premiums collected insurance companies must pay out in actual healthcare. (Also the law prohibited them from refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions, doing away with the practice of rescission and post-claim underwriting, and removed unreasonable caps on benefits, etc.)

 

[Bri]

You don't have an accurate understanding of my position, that's for sure. I haven't flip-flopped on anything.

You have either changed your position or you're not making your position at all clear. Here are two quotes from you that are in direct opposition:

As I said, the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering with religious practice. Forcing the Catholic Church to buy BC is interfering with their religious practice.

It's not all or nothing but I think the public need has to be very compelling before we override religious freedom.

Either the government is constitutionally forbidden from interfering with religious practice or it is allowed to do so when there is a compelling public need. Which is it?

-Bri

 

[Corsair 115]

Yet if the Canadian system was so much superior it should have prevailed. But of course, we couldn't take the time to carefully discuss and analyze the data, look at the pros and cons. We had to do something now! Right now! Thus the monstrosity of Obamacare was born.

Remind me, which side was using cries of "Death panels!!!" and "Socialism!!!" to argue against any sort of single-payer universal health care system? It's a little hard to have a constructive and thoughtful discussion of what might be done when one side or the other is offering up little more than scaremongering and meaningless ideological rhetoric.

It's also a false dichotomy to suggest the choice for the U.S. was either its current model or the Canadian model. There are many variations of UHC systems practiced around the world. The U.S. could have taken a good look at all those variants and decided which was the best fit for its particular conditions. Or it could have picked the best elements from other systems to create a new blend.

But that requires a thoughtful, rational, evidence-based debate. Instead what the U.S. got was "Death panels!!!" and "Socialism!!!" as the argument against anything other than the status quo (with perhaps minor tweaks).

 

[Ziggurat]

Remind me, which side was using cries of "Death panels!!!" and "Socialism!!!" to argue against any sort of single-payer universal health care system?

Ahem.

It's a little hard to have a constructive and thoughtful discussion of what might be done when one side or the other is offering up little more than scaremongering and meaningless ideological rhetoric.

Quite so. But let's not pretend that that was a one-sided phenomenon.

It's also a false dichotomy to suggest the choice for the U.S. was either its current model or the Canadian model. There are many variations of UHC systems practiced around the world.

True. But it's also a false dichotomy that the choices were the present system and some form of UHC. There were other possibilities.

 

[Indy418]

Contraception is not the same thing as mental health.
Contraception is not the same thing as blood transfusions.
Contraception is not the same thing as HIV medicine.

Putting aside other uses for it (which would be covered by any insurance plan), contraception is used so that you can have sex without worrying about getting pregnant. Pregnancy is not an illness. It's the natural outcome of sexual activity. There is no pressing health need for contraception. There is no issue public concern with people getting pregnant. It's not really a health issue in the same way that blood transfusions and mental health are health issues. You won't die if you don't have sex. If you don't want to get pregnant but still want to have sex then you can buy your own contraception. It's cheap and in many places you can get it for free.

So again, where is the pressing public need for contraception?

Oh really? I guess that's why I've been violently ill for the last month and will probably be so until the end of the first trimester (and I actually wanted to get pregnant- well mostly I want the baby and am sad we can't grow them in pods like in scifi movies, but I digress). That isn't to say that all pregnant women are going to be very ill for a third of their pregnancy, but to make pregnancy out to be all flowers and sunshine. I would also argue that the ongoing debate about abortion would count as public concern with people getting pregnant. Also, many of the places to get free or cheap contraception are being closed by the same religious folks that don't want your insurance to cover contraception.

 

[RandFan]

...we couldn't take the time to carefully discuss and analyze the data, look at the pros and cons. We had to do something now! Right now! Thus the monstrosity of Obamacare was born.

Remind me, which side was using cries of "Death panels!!!" and "Socialism!!!" to argue against any sort of single-payer universal health care system? It's a little hard to have a constructive and thoughtful discussion of what might be done when one side or the other is offering up little more than scaremongering and meaningless ideological rhetoric.

It's also a false dichotomy to suggest the choice for the U.S. was either its current model or the Canadian model. There are many variations of UHC systems practiced around the world. The U.S. could have taken a good look at all those variants and decided which was the best fit for its particular conditions. Or it could have picked the best elements from other systems to create a new blend.

But that requires a thoughtful, rational, evidence-based debate. Instead what the U.S. got was "Death panels!!!" and "Socialism!!!" as the argument against anything other than the status quo (with perhaps minor tweaks).

Clinton tried to pass UHC 20 years ago. We needed it then. Where exactly were these thoughtful Republicans then and since?