Comments about ‘Rights of conscience’

"The issue of requiring all institutions to provide free abortions and abortifacients to employees, despite one's religious beliefs, transcends whether you agree or disagree with abortions."

This statement can only mean one of two things. Either the author is totally ignorant of the facts and doesn't realize that the Affordable Care Act or the recent directive from the president contains nothing requiring the funding for abortions or a requirement that insurance policies pay for abortions - or - the author is willfully and dishonestly trying to sway peoples opinions by making claims and presenting evidence that just isn't true. In either case the author and the Deseret News should be ashamed.

Before the emotional rhetoric spirals out of control, think about what you really want. Reynolds v. US (1878) and related cases resolved this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision provided that although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The bottom line, this is a political, not a Constitutional dispute, and everyone knows it. Otherwise, let Mormons bring back polygamy. When we revisit all the other impositions on religious principles in action, you need to be consistent. Funny how some people want behavior regulated when they don't like it, but oppose any regulation of their own behavior.

The inaccuracies about abortion aside, this is the exact argument used to defend the Mormon church's practice of polygamy against government intrusion.

Free abortions?

Where did this writer dream that up? Is that the latest line of malarky Rush is spouting?

Free abortions? Absolutely false.

I would like to make three points.
-The issue is not birth control or abortion. It is not whether insurance companies should cover those things. The issue (to my mind) is whether a religion can be mandated to spend money contrary to its moral beliefs. I think most of us still believe the Constitution protects religion from this kind of infringement of rights.

-A couple of those commenting have brought up Mormons and polygamy, and imply that to not defend it represents a lack of consistency for religious freedom advocates. Shouldn't polygamy be legal between consenting adults? If we accept the notion that government can (re)define marriage, on what legal grounds do we accept same-sex marriage but reject polygamy? To me, the true contradiction is coming from those who will advocate same-sex marriage but condemn polygamy among consenting adults. The only difference I see is polygamy doesn't enjoy a favorable view among the population.

-It's great to stand up for the Constitution and freedom, as this letter does, but we should do it consistently. I've seen very few here opposing the NDAA, which Obama signed and Romney supports. That is also a threat to freedom.

By seizing on such a ridiculous position This makes Romney compete with Santorum over who's more anti-birth control (in 2012!) the GOP will continue to lose the under 30 vote and additionally, a large chunk of the independent vote, especially that of women. I almost want to say to them; "keep it up- yer doin' a great job!" :)

And I am "troubled" that Mr Kunz is "troubled" enough at the prospects of free abortion, but not "troubled" enough to do a little research to see that his concerns are not based on reality.

Again we see someone that would rather be outraged by lies than be satisfied with the truth.

Isn't this about contraceptives? Where does abortion come in? I would have thought the discussion this week would have focused on abortion if it was. If this discussion really bothers your female companion then tell her not to consume birth control pills. Of course again and again the ones making the big stink are men trying to control women's health.

Some of the posters here are somewhat "splitting hairs".

No, Obamacare doesn't provide abortions.
Yes, Planned Parenthood (funded by government)does.

The BIGGER issue here is: NEITHER of those things are anything the central government should be involved in.

AND - IF Obama gets a second term, consider what other mandates he will put in place when he has nothing to lose as a lameduck President. Right now he realizes he has to back off the birth control debacle.
Imagine what will happen when he has no reason whatsoever to pay any attention to what the MAJORITY of Americans hold as values!

"Imagine what will happen when he has no reason whatsoever to pay any attention to what the MAJORITY of Americans hold as values!"

The majority of Americans believe first - in telling the truth - not in creating a straw man that doesn't exist and then arguing against it. Secondly, the majority of Americans believe in rights of privacy and in making choices for yourself. A famous religious leader once said, "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." He didn't say "I teach them correct principles and then force them to live by those principles." Free choice, that is a principle we can all live with.

In my opinion, giving women access to contraceptives is far more acceptable than paying for abortions. The president and the Affordable Care Act cover the former but not the latter. That is the issue of this letter.

At issue is the 1st Amendment. Regardless of what Thomas Jefferson may have said, the CONSTITUTION says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The Catholic Church has doctrine that strictly oppose birth control and abortion. Congress can make no law pertaining to the Catholic Church, or any establishment of religion. That is the Supreme Law of the Land. That law supersedes all other law. Any law passed must first obey that fundamental law.

Congress has clearly passed a law respecting religion. That law is not constitutional.

The President has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. He cannot uphold the Constitution if he upholds Congress' "right" to pass a law respecting religion.

The President presents himself as a Constitutional scholar. He should know what is in the Constitution. He should know his duty to uphold the Constitution. He should have been the first to tell Congress to change that law. Now he has egg on his face for acting like a fool.

It is the duty of every citizen to see that the President restrains himself from abrogating his responsibility to US, we, the people, whose Constitution it is.

Isn't it interesting that the Affordable Care Act starts with rules that require
providing services that will increase the cost of insurance. Whether one supports these
provisions or not, all must recognize that increasing required coverages increases costs. This has been a problem in the states and now with the Affordable Care Act the Federal Government is
adding new requirements. How do these rule improve affordability? Why in a nation in which the birth rate is slightly below replacement is its government making rules that will expand the use of contraceptives encouraging further reduction in birth rates. (Most health studies have shown that improved coverage leads to expanded use.) Why are all individuals and employers regardless of their religious or other convictions that are subject to the rule required to subsidize the contraceptive and over night pregrancy pharmacuetical industry? Why have health exchanges supposedly to provide a free market and then have rules that require policies to be so similiar that their can be no difference in price. This issue just illustrates in reality all of the poor incentives the Affordable Care Act contains to limit the market place, reduce choice, and increase the price of insurance coverage.

There are many issues here. All extraneous laws not strictly and specifically permitted to any part of federal government, by the Constitution of the United States, are illegal. Congress should not pass such laws, the executive branch should not implement them, and the Supreme Court should not be excusing them with their talent for specious and obtuse argumentation.

The whole idea of using taxation to support anything that is not permitted constitutionally, which in the realm of medicine is all of it, is bogus.

If you think about it, we're pretty comfortable letting government interfere in individuals lives on behalf of religion. Utah, remember? I want rights of conscience, too. Just not your conscience.

How can the Deseret News even justify printing the letter. The premise is an absolute lie. The Affordable Care Act doesn't provide any money towards abortions or abortifacients. No if's and's or buts, it DOESN'T COVER THAT STUFF! This letter is a complete farce.

@ "ECR"
Who doesn't have access to contraceptives?
Just because some people want their insurance company to pay for contraceptives instead of paying themselves doesn't mean they don't have access.

I take aspirin. Should Obamacare MANDATE that my insurance co. pay for it?
Why not?
I would like a treadmill and new running shoes to improve my health.
Should my insurance pay for those things?

I am troubled by the notion that some Americans should have different rights and freedoms than others.

If we give some people the right to be exempt from the law because of their personal beliefs about morals, should we not extend that right to all other Americans. Or should we grant greater rights and freedoms to religions and lesser rights and freedoms to individuals.

Should the priest be exempt from traffic rules and regulations when driving a automobile on church business.

Should I have the right to skip paying my taxes because some of them are used to to pay for things I donât agree with.

Should all Americans be equal in the eyes of government, regardless of how they dress?

Deseret News, why would you publish such a deliberately false letter? To further your anti-Obama agenda, no doubt.

What's funny, is that most of you will be voting for the Grandfather of Obamacare this fall.

Ugh. Such selective outrage.

I want free lipo suction! I want a free face lift! These are absolutely necessary for my health. So do you all want to pay for that? What right do you have to demand someone pays for your needs or wants?
This has nothing to do with the pill, it has to do with the government demanding that they know best and so even though it's against the tenants of the Catholic Church, they must provide it. I am not Catholic, but by darn I stand with them. By the way, the after pill, does abort the joining of the egg and the sperm. Sorry don't exactly know how to say it, but the Catholics call that a special name abortifacio (?) I know that can't be the right word. Another step for the government to take over more and more of our lives.

The tragedy of this wole discussion is that it has elevated the ultra conservative opinion that anything that interferes with the growth of an egg and a sperm after they have united is abortion. you'll notice that many on this thread take this positon for granted. That's what conservatives do. They present an opinon and then argue it as fact.

Liberals, moderates, and indpendents don't let them get away with this. Re-capture the conversation and the assumptions. A day old zygote is not a cute cuddly baby and it may or may not ever be, and a blanket prohibition on pregnecy terminations pits the interests of that mass of cells against the intersts of a fully functioning adult female.