I know I'm going to regret this, but let me ask two questions...
1) The contraceptive issue, as I understand it, involves the *mandated* federal minimum coverage, including contraceptives and abortions. Forcing all employers to provide this particular coverage *can* be viewed as heavy handedness, and forced violation of their moral beliefs.
The obvious example would be employers who are Catholic, being forced to provide birth control and abortions to their employees. The operative words in that sentence are employer, forced, and provide...there's nothing preventing the employee from buying or using their own birth control pills.
2) The issue, from what I've seen, does not seek to *ban* contraceptive use or abortion, but only to exclude its coverage under *minimum* coverage plans.
The posts in this thread seem to be saying that contraceptives would become illegal. But, from what I've seen, it would simply remain the responsibility of the person who wants to take this remarkably cheap pill.
I guess I just don't see it as the affront to human rights which many in this thread seem to be implying. Am I missing something?
This to me is what you are missing. Insurance companies that provide at no additional cost contraceptives in the long run save money. Insurance companies do extensive projections into the future on the cost of various types of coverages. According to what i read and I admit I don't have the link anymore, the insurance companies can provide the free contraceptives and still make more money.
The difference is under Obama's new regulation the women will have to contact the insurance companies themselves to get the coverage. As a matter of respect to religious freedoms, those who find contraceptives to go against their morality will not have to pass out the information to the females.
The second issue is that this insurance is national in scope. Jehovah's don't believe in blood transfusions. They believe that if a person gets a blood transfusion they are going straight to hell in a hand basket.
It would be wrong of me if I had the power to overrule a family member and against their religion force a blood transfusion. The emotional trauma would for them be so horrendous that some family members would not be able to emotionally function.
I don't believe for one moment that the blood transfusion is going to send their loved ones to hell, but if they have power of attorney, the decision should be left up to them.
Let's now turn the tables: It is a Jehovah's Witness who is in charge of this hospital that my minor son has been rushed after a serious accident. There are no major injuries except one: Tremendous bleeding.
Immediately, i get my pen out and ask where to sign for the two blood transfusions for my minor son as I get all the documentation needed.
Then I hear those haunting words, "This hospital is owned by the Jehovah's Witnesses. You are correct that two blood transfusions will save his physical life and he will be walking out of here and be back in school within two weeks.
But this hospital is not concerned with the physical life possibilities here. You see your son will burn in hell for eternity if we give him those transfusions.
I'm sure you understand why we are going to let your son die. You may hold his hand. Be quick. He hasn't much time."
Certainly not enough time to get the ambulance over to another hospital. Some can argue that in this hypothetical case, the ambulance driver would know not to go to THAT hospital. True.
But the analogy is to prove a point. Hospitals by nature are places where people go who are sick. The last thing most Americans want is to have some hospital administrator say yes or no in situations like I have given.
There are times when the family should with counsel with the doctors and spiritual advisers if they have them, make family decisions.
If the priest want to tell all the Catholic women who work at the hospital that if they are using contraceptives they will be refused Communion at Mass. Fine. I don't agree. But we have freedom of religion. There are plenty of mainline Protestant churches where the ladies using contraceptives can receive Communion. That is their choice what to do.
I agree that for people that are in "ministry that involves morality" that they be may be required to be in harmony what that ministries goals and morals and rules of that particular institution.
However, if the 18 year old boy that mows the church yard who is not even a member of that church gets a girl pregnant, that is not anywhere near the same, unless there is some kind of religious meaning around the cutting of grass where the grass is blessed before it is cut and then and so on.
The church has a yard with grass that grows. A boy down the street gives the best price to mow the grass on Saturday, rain or shine and do the necessary clean up that goes with mowing: That boy is not in some kind of "moral ministry." I wouldn't fire him as his sex life has nothing to do with the job he is doing. However, it can be argued that the church could have some say even in this situation.
But when it comes to the fact that the government is heavily subsidizing health care and that in reality the insurance company actually saves money when women use contraceptives and even if there was extra cost, it would be less than the amount our taxes would pay.
If you still don't see my point, then, perhaps, I should find out the percentage of our national budget that goes to defense spending. You see it is against my religion to have an army so I am not going to pay all my income taxes this year. I'll send a letter letting the IRS know that the Pentagon will have to reduce their spending by the amount I am not paying this year.
Really how far can that go? No culture or society can function with that kind of pluralism. It will implode before anyone can even get out of the country.
Our political system is based on a republic where the people elect thier leaders for a definite set term and can vote them out at the end of their term or vote to re elect them.
I may believe that green is better color to indicate stopping then red. But we have to have a set of common laws and procedures or the entire society will implode.
It happened to the USSR. It can happen to us.
A society must have four cultural traits: 1. A common belief system 2. A common system of government 3. System of communication as in one language all can understand and speak and fourth an integrated economic system.
The word society indicates a group of people who live and respect each other with laws and customs and their are positive consequences and negative consequences for behaviors that are for the most part clearly understood.
The US had a common belief system until the ultra right began to try to change it. Our government is officially secular. At the same time there is recognition in our official government documents that there is some almighty out there, perhaps fate or destiny, perhaps a personal God or intelligence that is built on all the electrical forces throughout the universe.
The government does not determine theology for its citizens. There is respect in our official documents for whatever God or life force is out there and certain approval for the citizens to believe what they wish about who or what this might be.
Our government does recognize in various ways that it is aware that the largest religious group by far is all the various groups in the US that claim to be Christian.
There is an understanding that much of our moral law comes directly from the Judeo-Christian background and our legal system is heavily based on the Greco Roman system. But there is not anything in our Constitution that indicates in any way that our courts use the Old Testament, the common religious book of Jews and Christians, to determine legal precedent.
Instead, our legal precedents are based on old English Common Law that comes directly from merry ole' England except for Louisiana which follows French common law. That is to say, if there is nothing written to base a ruling on, then the courts look back to the English or French common law to determine the ruling.
English common law is heavily influenced by Christianity for sure, but its roots are in the Angles and Saxons that migrated into England and were not Christians for several centuries.
Yes, by all means it would be terribly wrong to legally force a Catholic lady to use contraceptives much as it is to make a Jehovah's Witness accept a blood transfusion that to that Witness will send him into an eternity in hell fire and brimstone.
It is also wrong for religious leaders to interfere with national health care insurance for people who are not members of the Catholic Church. If that is the position of the Catholic Church then all employees should become practicing Catholics before they can be hired.
So far, I have tried to discuss this from a logical and legalistic viewpoint. Now I am going to give my personal belief about what this is really all about. There will always be some religious leaders that will want to force their religion on others. I have great respect for all the good the Catholic Church has done. I know that many of the priests, nuns and monks have given literally everything they have to the church and to relieve the suffering of human beings.
Having said that, there has always been a segment of the Catholic Church that wants to get people into heaven and make them moral people by force. It5 sounds lofty until we realize it takes all human decision making away.
Enter the religious right denominations that are as intent on the members taking orders from the top as the Catholics have been for much of their history and we have a political marriage of convenience. To market this, they have found a party, the Republican Party, to help with the governance of it all.
If we elect Santorum and give two/thirds majority in both houses of the US Congress to this Tea Party/Religious Right come November, some of us may meet each other in some prison.
I am not referring to Republicans like John McCain and perhaps Romney who are more mainstream Republicans. If Mitt gets the nomination, Mitt will return a little more to the center I believe.
While I won't be thrilled to see Romney elected, he certainly beats the hell out of all the other Republicans still in the race.
Sanatorium is scary to me. I fear that his bite will be much worse than his bark and it will be too late for any of us to do anything about it.
The Democrats have their fringe on the left to deal with. That is how the Affordable Health Act came to be have hundreds of pages and regulations. There was a need to get 60 votes in the Senate. Every one of the 60 got something they wanted.
Still, it is way better than the mess we had when the Act was passed.
Since the insurance companies can actually save money by providing free contraceptives, then by all means, let them do it and leave the employer out of it. We don't give a list of all our prescriptions to our employers.
Since it will save money in the long run for the insurance companies, I'm sure they will be quick about notifying all new employees that they are going to insure about the free contraceptives. No woman is going to go for months or years and not know about the free contraceptives.