Religious freedom and contraception

[RandFan]

RandFan has provided evidence.

Peer-reviewed and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. But most people who buy into CT only accept evidence if it fits a preconceived world view.

 

[Neally]

Just your opinion, unless you are a gynecologist, we have no reason to accept it.

You don't need to be a gynecologist, Dr. or have anything above a high school education to know that men and women have multiple methods of contraception available to them.

Fact is that the way health insurance is sold, and the way that health care gets billed, denying coverage at work shuts some women out of the system.

Claim by assertion.

Then there are sleaze bag pharmacies that refuse to serve trheir areas after they edge out the independents.

Typical random off topic rail.

The point is that the recommendation by the panel of health experts will likely increase the use of contraception.

Sorry, no. My point continues to be that the cost is not neutral or negative to the employer.

False. There is plenty of evidence that birth control coverage is less expensive than the unintended pregnancies it would prevent.

Contraception is good to prevent births. No revelation there. We don't need panels, experts, models and studies to state the obvious. But what isn't shown is that private employer birth control coverage is less expensive including unintended births and all other related employer expenses, than no coverage.

And the panel of health experts that made the recommendation was very clear that the recommendation wasn't based on any assumption of cost savings, so it's disingenuous to claim that cost savings is "the point." It's A point, but not THE point.

It's point I've been making. I think it's the most important point when you are looking at imposing some program on private employers that is supposedly for some sort of social benefit. The numbers don't add up.

Please define "by in large." If by "by in large" you mean "except for people who won't buy their own if it's not free," then I completely agree.

By in large means the vast majority.

Sure, some would pay for contraception out of their own pocket. Some wouldn't. Some who have coverage wouldn't if it wasn't free, some because they can't afford the copay. The new requirements would fix that, and would likely increase the number of women who use contraceptives and decrease unintended pregnancies.

If you're going to impose a new requirement on private employers, you'd better be prepared to show a cost benefit. Something more than, Miss Fluke wants it, someone else says it seems like a good idea, etc. Otherwise I need to get my free running shoes also.

RandFan has provided evidence.

The only such study was a model showing full coverage contraception compared to partial contraception coverage, so no, there is been no such evidence presented.

There are other studies, some of which were cited in the report by the panel that made the recommendation.

Great. Links to the actual studies then?

The only way I can think of that it wouldn't be less expensive is if a huge number of women switch to less cost-effective birth control. Can you think of another scenario where birth control wouldn't cost less than the unintended pregnancies that would be prevented?

LOL. Not even close to on topic. That birth control is cheaper than having a kid is hardly a revelation. You're not even trying now.

Regardless, cost savings isn't the most important consideration. The panel didn't base their recommendation on cost savings at all, and made the recommendation even if there is a positive cost.

Fine let's discuss why a private employer should be forced to pay for this. Cost saving certainly isn't one of the reasons.

 

[xjx388]

Peer-reviewed and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. But most people who buy into CT only accept evidence if it fits a preconceived world view.

That's an editorial, not peer-reviewed research. Opinions are nice but everyone's got one.

Another angle: Why should we cover birth control when there are so many other more important unmet medical needs? Dental care? Life-saving prescriptions? Vision services? Vaccines? Put another way: People are expected to cover these kinds of services on their own, why not BC?

 

[RandFan]

That's an editorial, not peer-reviewed research. Opinions are nice but everyone's got one.

If that so then I apologize. How do you know? Opinions? Are you serious? Did you see the sources? Come on. I mean, if it's not peer-reviewed then I was wrong for saying so, but just opinion? It's based on multiple studies by various experts. It's not just some opinion.

Another angle: Why should we cover birth control when there are so many other more important unmet medical needs? Dental care? Life-saving prescriptions? Vision services? Vaccines? Put another way: People are expected to cover these kinds of services on their own, why not BC?

Read the report. And why have Title X? Why have vision services when we could take those resources and plow the money into cancer research. Bad logic. There are diminishing returns for resources allocated. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Let the experts decide. The arguments against are just ad hoc rationalization to justify an ideological position. Which is what those opposed to this trivial bit of policy has been from the beginning.

Title X. No one is demanding we end it to put the money into cancer research. Which should tell you something.

 

[xjx388]

If that so then I apologize. How do you know? Opinions? Are you serious? Did you see the sources? Come on. I mean, if it's not peer-reviewed then I was wrong for saying so, but just opinion? It's based on multiple studies by various experts. It's not just some opinion.

Read the report.

I did, they make no mention of other health needs that might be considered a priority by the American people.

And why have Title X? Why have vision services when we could take those resources and plow the money into cancer research. Bad logic. There are diminishing returns for resources allocated. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

This is an issue of coverage, not medical research. Why mandate BC coverage when Dental and Vision are not mandated? If matters of public health are government interests, then the govt should prioritize the issues it's going to address. Why cover BC when people yet don't have easy access to Dental care or Vision Care?

Let the experts decide.

Not in America. It's 'of the people, by the people.' The opinions of the religious are just as valid as scientific ones. You can't marginalize religious people just because you don't agree with them.

The arguments against are just ad hoc rationalization to justify an ideological position. Which is what those opposed to this trivial bit of policy has been from the beginning.

And it can be argued that the supporters have their own agenda. Everyone's got one.

Title X. No one is demanding we end it to put the money into cancer research. Which should tell you something.

And Title X already serves the govt. interest.

 

[BenBurch]

Here; The insane idiots who oppose BC on the subject of BC causing abortions;

http://www.prolifewisconsin.org/pro...+and+its+Abortion+Causing+Effect&aid=270&id=6

They will never rest until all BC is banned.

 

[RandFan]

I did, they make no mention of other health needs that might be considered a priority by the American people.

Fallacy. The report provides justification for the policy.

This is an issue of coverage, not medical research.

Special pleading.

Why mandate BC coverage when Dental and Vision are not mandated? If matters of public health are government interests, then the govt should prioritize the issues it's going to address. Why cover BC when people yet don't have easy access to Dental care or Vision Care?

The govt could simply raise taxes and pay for it and you would be fine. This is a red herring. Start another thread.

Not in America. It's 'of the people, by the people.' The opinions of the religious are just as valid as scientific ones. You can't marginalize religious people just because you don't agree with them. And it can be argued that the supporters have their own agenda. Everyone's got one.

You are back to black and white thinking. Religious people pay for BC. They are not suddenly marginalized because of a mandate. And you admit that if we simply raised taxes to cover the co-pays it would be okay so you are special pleading.

And Title X already serves the govt. interest.

And this mandate serves it a little more. And we could raise taxes instead of the mandate. One form of govt infringement is okay with you and the other isn't. You are so blatantly engaging in special pleading.

 

[xjx388]

Fallacy. The report provides justification for the policy.

Anyone can write a report to justify anything. An expert's opinion doesn't carry any more weight than a religious opinion when it comes to the law.

Special pleading.

Research is one issue, mandated coverage is another.

The govt could simply raise taxes and pay for it and you would be fine. This is a red herring. Start another thread.

They could increase funding and I'd be fine. I have a big issue with raising taxes. Public health needs are not a red herring; they are the very essence of the issue.

You are back to black and white thinking. Religious people pay for BC. They are not suddenly marginalized because of a mandate. And you admit that if we simply raised taxes to cover the co-pays it would be okay so you are special pleading.

im OK with increasing funding to Title X. That's it.

And this mandate serves it a little more. And we could raise taxes instead of the mandate. One form of govt infringement is okay with you and the other isn't. You are so blatantly engaging in special pleading.

No further infringement is necessary. Not one report I've seen has even mentioned Title X. The fact is that it's out there right now for any woman to take advantage of. There are still 'unwanted pregnancies.' It hasn't been proven that mandated coverage will decrease unwanted pregnancies. What about cultural issues? It education? Or noncompliance? I'd bet those are bigger issues than coverage.

 

[RandFan]

Anyone can write a report to justify anything. An expert's opinion doesn't carry any more weight than a religious opinion when it comes to the law.

Now you are wandering into CT territory. And ad hominem. What is relevant is that experts are making arguments for the policy and those arguments must stand or fall on their own.

Research is one issue, mandated coverage is another.

Not in this context. We are talking about the allocation of resources.

Public health needs are not a red herring; they are the very essence of the issue.

Your inclusion of them in this discussion is a red herring.

• You haven't made a case that the mandate takes away from other programs.
• Each program must be funded on its own merit based on a cost benefit analysis.
• Experts, not you, are the ones to determine funding.
• The experts have made their case.

im OK with increasing funding to Title X. That's it.

Yes, money for increased funding is magical. It just appears when you decide to fund something like a free lunch program.

Let's be honest, the money must come from somewhere and increased funding will reduce discretionary funding of the organizations in question. A distinction without a difference as the result is the same.

Let me ask you this question. Can you understand how and why those of us on the opposite side find your argument absurd?

• It's okay for an organization to pay X if it is through taxation.
• It's not okay for an organization to pay X if is through a mandate.
• Taxes = special circumstances justifying X.
• Mandates ≠ special circumstances therefore X is not justified.

Textbook special pleading.

Not one report I've seen has even mentioned Title X.

I mentioned it to demonstrate your special pleading.

You claim that taxes constitute a special circumstance justifying infringement on religious freedom. You claim that a mandate lacks those special circumstances even though the net result, decrease in discretionary income, is the same.

You just are not going to get away from that.

 

[xjx388]

Now you are wandering into CT territory. And ad hominem. What is relevant is that experts are making arguments for the policy and those arguments must stand or fall on their own.

It's just a simple statement of fact. Everyone's opinions have to be taken into account: experts, the Catholic Church, Joe Blow from Altoona. But according to you, the only opinions that matter are the experts. All I'm saying is that that's one opinion and others carry the same weight when it comes to the law.

It's not CT, it's the way America works. We aren't a Technocracy.

Not in this context. We are talking about the allocation of resources.

If you want to discuss how the government wants to allocate it's resources that's one argument. I agree, let's have the government fund the healthcare research and the people pay for their own healthcare. But, again, different argument.

We are actually talking about how private employers are being forced to allocate their own resources.

Your inclusion of them in this discussion is a red herring.

• You haven't made a case that the mandate takes away from other programs.
• Each program must be funded on its own merit based on a cost benefit analysis.
• Experts, not you, are the ones to determine funding.
• The experts have made their case.

• There are no other programs for dental, vision, etc. except for Medicaid -which already covers BC.
• You can make a case for almost anything under a cost benefit analysis.
• Congress, not experts, me or you determines funding. They must take all opinions into account.
• Perhaps, but we are not a Technocracy. (Link might be NSFW)

Yes, money for increased funding is magical. It just appears when you decide to fund something like a free lunch program. Let's be honest, the money must come from somewhere and increased funding will reduce discretionary funding of the organizations in question. A distinction without a difference as the result is the same.

We need to prioritize what's important -increase funding here, cut funding there. You don't need to increase taxes.

Let me ask you this question. Can you understand how and why those of us on the opposite side find your argument absurd?

• It's okay for an organization to pay X if it is through taxation.
• It's not okay for an organization to pay X if is through a mandate.
• Taxes = special circumstances justifying X.
• Mandates ≠ special circumstances therefore X is not justified.

Textbook special pleading.

I guess the Supreme Court and Congress are special pleading too . . .
General Taxes ≠ religious exemption
Some laws = religious exemption

And let's not forget that the Church is already largely exempt from federal and property taxes. They pay employment taxes, but not corporate or local taxes. So, by and large, they don't directly fund BC. The employees pay the taxes and SCOTUS is ruled that you can't be exempt from that on religious grounds.

You claim that taxes constitute a special circumstance justifying infringement on religious freedom.

It's not a special circumstance; in fact, it's the opposite: A general obligation of every citizen as ruled by SCOTUS.

You claim that a mandate lacks those special circumstances even though the net result, decrease in discretionary income, is the same.

A mandate may or may not meet a compelling govt. interest but it certainly is not the least restrictive means by which to do so. We already have the least restrictive means: Title X.

 

[RandFan]

A An expert's opinion doesn't carry any more weight than a religious opinion when it comes to the law.

Question: Should there be law mandating that expert medical opinion should outweigh religious opinion when it comes to children?

• Religious opinion: No blood transfusions on religious grounds. Religion dictates prayer and fasting.
• Expert opinion: Blood transfusions save lives. There is no evidence that prayer and fasting will..

Now, what was it that you were saying?

 

[Neally]

It's not CT, it's the way America works. We aren't a Technocracy.

For some people, any disagreement with their evidence, no matter what the reason, means you must be a conspiracy supporter, and thus any further discussion is dismissed with a hand wave.

 

[RandFan]

All I'm saying is that that's one opinion and others carry the same weight when it comes to the law.

Nonsense. When it comes to the lives of children the opinion of the religous cannot and does not carry the same weight.

It's not CT, it's the way America works.

It's CT if you dismiss the arguments and evidence the way you have.

But, again, different argument.

You are the one that made the fallacious argument.

We are actually talking about how private employers are being forced to allocate their own resources.

Because taxation doesn't do that (taxation is a special circumstance).

You don't need to increase taxes.

If it's deemed in the public interest and there is not enough funds then you do. The idea that we must harm one group to help another more important group is absurd.

General Taxes ≠ religious exemption

Title X cannot be used for abortion. General taxes = religious exemptions.

It's not a special circumstance; in fact, it's the opposite: A general obligation of every citizen as ruled by SCOTUS.

Yet Title X cannot be used for abortion. Your cherry picking is rather transparent. And the fact that you carve out special circumstances to justify one program but not another is also transparent.

 

[xjx388]

Question: Should there be law mandating that expert medical opinion should outweigh religious opinion when it comes to children?

• Religious opinion: No blood transfusions on religious grounds. Religion dictates prayer and fasting.
• Expert opinion: Blood transfusions save lives. There is no evidence that prayer and fasting will..

Now, what was it that you were saying?

And look at the thorny history of parental rights in medical treatment. I personally believe that we should protect the child in this case because they cannot make such a decision themselves. The child's best interest is the overriding factor here; the expert's opinion is superfluous. Adults can still refuse life-saving treatment on religious grounds, experts be damned.

 

[RandFan]

And look at the thorny history of parental rights in medical treatment. I personally believe that we should protect the child in this case because they cannot make such a decision themselves. The child's best interest is the overriding factor here; the expert's opinion is superfluous. Adults can still refuse life-saving treatment on religious grounds, experts be damned.

I'm sorry, how do we know whether or not a procedure is life saving without expert testimony? These cases have gone to court and what exactly do you think the judge relied on to make his decision?

xjx, you are working so hard to rescue your position that you are making absurd claims. Superfluous? Is reality so malleable?

 

[RandFan]

These cases have gone to court and what exactly do you think the judge relied on to make his decision?

Examples.

Courts cannot render such a judgement without expert opinion.

Christian Scientists maintain that seeking medical attention is a personal decision and that the First Amendment protects their right to believe that "God's infinite goodness, realized in prayer and action, heals," as noted on the website of the The Church of Christ, Scientist. But a long list of major U.S. organizations have already called for repealing of existing religious exemptions, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. "Too often, deference to religion in contemporary American society has resulted in us subordinating all other values," says Dr. Richard Sloan, professor of psychiatry at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. "The law must recognize that the right of children to live supersedes the rights of their parents to free expression of religion."

Whose opinion would you trust, the religious or the AMA?

 

[xjx388]

I'm sorry, how do we know whether or not a procedure is life saving without expert testimony? These cases have gone to court and what exactly do you think the judge relied on to make his decision?

xjx, you are working so hard to rescue your position that you are making absurd claims. Superfluous? Is reality so malleable?

In the case of blood transfusions, an expert's opinion is superfluous. No one, not even the people refusing the treatment, doubts that the treatment will save their lives. The efficacy and benefit of the treatment is not at issue. Religious freedom is.

You might need a doctor to stand there and say, yes, in this case it will save the child's life, but that's a formality.

 

[xjx388]

Examples.

Courts cannot render such a judgement without expert opinion.



Whose opinion would you trust, the religious or the AMA?

Me personally, the AMA. But that's irrelevant. It's a thorny religious freedom issue, just like BC. But I agree that in the case of a child, we should intervene on behalf of a dying child who can't judge such things for themselves. But mature minors and adults? It's not so clear cut.

 

[RandFan]

You might need a doctor to stand there and say, yes, in this case it will save the child's life, but that's a formality.

Who made the determination that the child needed the transfusion in the first place?

 

[RandFan]

Me personally, the AMA. But that's irrelevant. It's a thorny religious freedom issue, just like BC. But I agree that in the case of a child, we should intervene on behalf of a dying child who can't judge such things for themselves. But mature minors and adults? It's not so clear cut.

I will grant you that.