Derp!!!

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

I am LOVING this scandal because of how it's exposing how many on the right view women.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This applies to any organization offering insurance, not just ones receiving federal dollars, not that one's Constitutional rights should be waived in response for receiving tax dollars.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's great and all, but irrelevant.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This has nothing to do with whether one receives federal dollars.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The mandate has nothing to do.with federal dollars, and, again, one need not waive their constitutional rights when receiving federal dollars.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't see the church wanting anything any other religious group should have.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes on the first, no one the second since there's no way to accurately prove causation.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Yes on the first

There's that traditional old time religion.

"No Mr. Jones, despite your years of loyal employment, we cannot fund your daughters blood transfusion. Though it would save her life, it goes against the Lord. Because. We. Say. So. Do not despair, sir. She'll be with Jesus soon. A childs death is all part of God's glorious plan."."

Way to conserve traditional values!


there's no way to accurately prove causation.

Oh, who cares. Not like there was any way to accurately prove that ones eternal soul is in grave danger if forced to provide women birth control insurance.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Not ANY organization. Actual churches and other directly religious, not simply religious-administered, organizations are exempt.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Which doesn't go far enough, and kind of puts those who are crying about so-called "special treatment" in a bind anyway.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

How so? Churches and other directly religious organizations are only hiring adherents of their own religion, so if they want to refuse access to certain health services based on that religion, they know they're only affecting their followers, who have already signed the contract, so to speak - not just with an employer but with the deity. Religious-administered organizations, on the other hand, like Catholic hospitals, hire non-adherents of their religion extensively, so their health insurance needs to reflect that.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Religious-administered organizations, on the other hand, like Catholic hospitals, hire non-adherents of their religion extensively, so their health insurance needs to reflect that.

Why?

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Because separation of church and state, that's why. Because it would violate the Establishment Clause if religious employers could control what healthcare services their employees could access REGARDLESS of the employees' religious status. And since the insurance is state-mandated, the state damn well has an interest that can't be overruled by church doctrine. In this specific case even moreso, since the Catholic prohibition on birth control applies ONLY to Catholics, even in the wording of their own doctrine.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because separation of church and state, that's why.

But violating freedom of religion violates that separation.

Because it would violate the Establishment Clause if religious employers could control what healthcare services their employees could access REGARDLESS of the employees' religious status.

The Establishment Clause is about the government, not private industry.

And since the insurance is state-mandated, the state damn well has an interest that can't be overruled by church doctrine.

Except the First Amendment protects the religious from the government. Again, if we're talking separation of church and state, if we're talking about the free exercise of religion...

In this specific case even moreso, since the Catholic prohibition on birth control applies ONLY to Catholics, even in the wording of their own doctrine.

Not really, no. Any exemption being trotted out does not specify a specific religion, because that would show favoritism toward a certain religion in violation of current belief regarding the establishment clause.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

But violating freedom of religion violates that separation.

Sure does. So, if the government were, say, mandating that Catholics TAKE birth control, we'd have a problem. Luckily, the government's not doing that - it's just saying that Catholics cannot impose their opposition to birth control on non-Catholics.

The Establishment Clause is about the government, not private industry.

And this current political fight pertains to government-mandated health insurance. I get that you oppose that anyway on unrelated grounds. But given its existence, the government cannot grant exemptions that amount to state-sponsored imposition of religious morals. The government cannot say "It is okay for employers who follow the following religions to refuse to allow their employees health insurance coverage for the following medications and procedures," because then the government is making laws respecting the establishment of religion.

Except the First Amendment protects the religious from the government. Again, if we're talking separation of church and state, if we're talking about the free exercise of religion...

Sure, it protects the religious from the government. It also protects the differently-religious and non-religious from the religious, by ensuring the the government isn't throwing its weight behind one religion's mandates.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Luckily, the government's not doing that - it's just saying that Catholics cannot impose their opposition to birth control on non-Catholics.

...by imposing their opposition to Catholic doctrine on Catholics. You're utterly misunderstanding the protest.

And this current political fight pertains to government-mandated health insurance.

No, it pertains to private health insurance that private citizens are mandated to purchase. A significant difference.

The government cannot say "It is okay for employers who follow the following religions to refuse to allow their employees health insurance coverage for the following medications and procedures," because then the government is making laws respecting the establishment of religion.

Right. But they can say "It is okay for employers who have a religious objection to be exempted from this rule." It does not choose any religions over another, does not establish a religion, and treats everyone's beliefs equally. This sort of language is used constantly and without issue.

It also protects the differently-religious and non-religious from the religious, by ensuring the the government isn't throwing its weight behind one religion's mandates.

Absolutely, and a blanket religious exemption does not throw its weight behind any specific religion's mandates.

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

You know, saying something should be available is not the same thing as forcing people to take it. If Catholics don't want to use birth control, they don't have to.

I don't smoke, for example, though I could buy a pack of cigs and start today if I wanted. If Catholics don't want, then don't

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. But what if I told you that you had to buy me smokes anyway?