Religious freedom and contraception

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

And there was a hard-fought debate that lasted pretty much a full year.

Part of the trouble over the disagreement was in the goal(s) of health care reform. Both of the broadly defined two sides (in fact there were really many many sides) claimed to be after lowering healthcare costs and getting closer to universal access to healthcare. The plan that passed, IMO, actually went after increasing access (via coverage) more than reducing costs (though there definitely were some landmark cost-saving measures in the law, including what were effectively limits on insurance company profit margins).

The Republican plans all seemed to focus on reducing healthcare costs primarily by further limiting access.

There was also a fundamental rift in whether it should be primarily a federal program or something mostly run or administered by the states. The compromise incorporated some ideas from GOP plans (such as relying to a great extent on state-run insurance exchanges) was to allow the states to do what the law required unless they decide not to, in which case the federal government will come in and do it for them. (Curiously, opponents of "Obamacare" in the Missouri legislature passed a resolution refusing to set up the insurance exchange even when the federal money to do so was granted. The result, unless the state changes its tune, will be greater federal control over the state's insurance exchange.)

 

[xjx388]

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:

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

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

1. 1st Amendment prohibits govt from establishing or interfering with religion.
2. 1st Amendment rights can be overridden for compelling government interest.

I have believed these two ideas for as long as I can remember, certainly since I started on this thread. Nothing I've said contradicts these beliefs.

You haven't demonstrated a compelling government interest yet.

 

[xjx388]

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.

Getting pregnant can cause you to feel ill it can even kill you. But pregnancy is not a disease; it's a natural state of the female human body after successful intercourse.

I support Planned Parenthood (with my mouth and my wallet) and oppose the CCs attempts to close it down.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

So what?

Blood transfusions are not the same thing as mental health.
Mental health is not the same thing as HIV medicine.

Contraception is definitely a part of reproductive healthcare (whether you like it or not), and offering it at zero out of pocket cost is certainly within the public interest.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Really? Walmart is closing? That's news to me.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

it's a natural state of the female human body after successful intercourse.

And cancer is supernatural?

Cancer is the natural state of many human bodies (sometimes after exposure to carcinogens, sometimes through life-style choices, sometimes due to genetic predisposition, sometimes due to exposure to a virus, and sometimes with no known etiology at all).

[ETA: And in fact, your statement about pregnancy is not true with all female human bodies--not unless you're begging the question by some bizarre definition of "successful intercourse" that only means resulting in pregnancy. Indeed, since my vasectomy, pregnancy is not the natural state of any female human body after successful intercourse with me!]

There are any number of reasons why a woman would want to avoid becoming pregnant. There's no legal justification for a religious employer to force its beliefs about contraception on its employees (many of whom aren't even members of that religion).

 

[xjx388]

Contraception is definitely a part of reproductive healthcare (whether you like it or not), and offering it at zero out of pocket cost is certainly within the public interest.

Why is offering it a zero cost in the public interest? I agree that birth control is in the public interest but it is already widely available, costs very little and there are better ways to distribute it than through insurance -which not all women have or will have even under the new law.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's no legal justification for a religious employer to force its beliefs about contraception on its employees (many of whom aren't even members of that religion).

Given that contraception is widely available and cheap, even without insurance, and that religious employers never had any say in whether employees obtain contraception on their own, you've really got to stretch to claim that something is being forced on them.

 

[xjx388]

And cancer is supernatural?

Cancer is the natural state of many human bodies (sometimes after exposure to carcinogens, sometimes through life-style choices, sometimes due to genetic predisposition, sometimes due to exposure to a virus, and sometimes with no known etiology at all).

Seriously?

No. Cancer is a mutation of a cell that causes it to grow abnormally. It is the very definition of disease. It is not a natural state.

Pregnancy is a vital part of human existence.

There are any number of reasons why a woman would want to avoid becoming pregnant. There's no legal justification for a religious employer to force its beliefs about contraception on its employees (many of whom aren't even members of that religion).

That's a personal choice. There's no compelling government interest to force a religious institution to fund a personal choice they find morally abhorrent.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Really? Walmart is closing? That's news to me.

You still need a doctor's prescription to get many types of contraception. If we were only talking about rubbers, I doubt this requirement would be necessary.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is the very definition of disease. It is not a natural state.

How exactly are you defining "natural"?

Pregnancy is a vital part of human existence.

Not for me, and not for many humans (including many females). And it's certainly not something every woman wants to risk achieving all the time. We actually understand a great deal about how women get pregnant, and we are no longer required to just let it happen!

There's no compelling government interest to force a religious institution to fund a personal choice they find morally abhorrent.

But again, that's not how the law is written. (See above my question about minimum wage laws.)

 

[xjx388]

You still need a doctor's prescription to get many types of contraception. If we were only talking about rubbers, I doubt this requirement would be necessary.

And doctor's visits are already covered under insurance. Any doc will give you a prescription under you yearly visit or during the course of any sick visit. So get the script and go to Wal-Mart and buy it.

 

[Ziggurat]

You still need a doctor's prescription to get many types of contraception.

So what? Doctors aren't prohibited from writing prescriptions for non-covered medication. Did you think they were?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why is offering it a zero cost in the public interest?

Any number of reasons. To focus on the cost factor, it means that birth control won't have to be a financial decision. It also opens up a broader array of contraception choices.

It's certainly more cost effective than abortion or taxpayer support (even in the form of tax credits) for unwanted children.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So what? Doctors aren't prohibited from writing prescriptions for non-covered medication. Did you think they were?

No. My point was that without this requirement, going to the doctor to get that prescription could be a significant out-of-pocket cost. Even if the contraceptives themselves are inexpensive at Walmart, the office visit is an expense.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Given that contraception is widely available and cheap, even without insurance, and that religious employers never had any say in whether employees obtain contraception on their own, you've really got to stretch to claim that something is being forced on them.

So if employers don't offer any health insurance plans with zero out-of-pocket coverage for contraception (due to their own religious beliefs), the employees can somehow opt to get a plan that offers zero out-of-pocket coverage for contraception?

 

[xjx388]

How exactly are you defining "natural"?

In this sense - the natural state of a healthy human body.

Not for me, and not for many humans (including many females). And it's certainly not something every woman wants to risk achieving all the time. We actually understand a great deal about how women get pregnant, and we are no longer required to just let it happen!

But you would agree that pregnancy is still required for human existence, regardless of any one particular human's desires? Or are you and your friends the entirety of human existence?

But again, that's not how the law is written. (See above my question about minimum wage laws.)

X is an employer of 52 people. X doesn't want to pay for contraceptives on religious grounds. X refuses to provide insurance for this reason. The govt fines X $44,000. X refuses to pay because it is unjust. X get's fined more and put out of business.

They can write it however they want. Effectively, it's a mandate to pay for birth control.

 

[Bri]

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

1. 1st Amendment prohibits govt from establishing or interfering with religion.
2. 1st Amendment rights can be overridden for compelling government interest.

If the Constitution forbids something, then it cannot be "overridden" without an amendment to the Constitution.

I have believed these two ideas for as long as I can remember, certainly since I started on this thread. Nothing I've said contradicts these beliefs.

They contradict each other. The fact that you've held them the whole time doesn't make them consistent.

You haven't demonstrated a compelling government interest yet.

I believe that there's a compelling government interest in providing contraceptive coverage for all women. You disagree. The Supreme Court will decide soon enough.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And doctor's visits are already covered under insurance.

Well, all office visits to get contraception are covered at zero-out-pocket unless opponents of this measure get these institutions exempted. If they do, there is no requirement for this to be covered at zero-out-pocket.

Or do you suppose that minimum essential coverage under Obamacare does away with all co-pays and deductibles for all office visits?

 

[Ziggurat]

No. My point was that without this requirement, going to the doctor to get that prescription could be a significant out-of-pocket cost. Even if the contraceptives themselves are inexpensive at Walmart, the office visit is an expense.

Whether or not the contraception itself is covered makes absolutely no difference to the cost of the office visit.

So if employers don't offer any health insurance plans with zero out-of-pocket coverage for contraception (due to their own religious beliefs), the employees can somehow opt to get a plan that offers zero out-of-pocket coverage for contraception?

Why is there a need for zero out-of-pocket coverage? Contraception is affordable even without it.