Published: Sunday, Feb. 19 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
'Late last year, the Department of Health and Human Services ordered all
employers to cover in their employee insurance plans "preventive
services" such as sterilization, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs
and devices. This would force many religious hospitals, universities and
charitable organizations to either violate their religious beliefs by complying
or face the consequences.' - Article Alright... But Mr.
Hatch: ** 'Romney Maintained Massachusetts Contraception Requirement
That Mirrors Obamaâs Rule' - By Igor Volsky - Think Progress - 02/07/12 'In 2002 â the very same year Romney campaigned for governor of
Massachusetts â the state enacted a âcontraceptive equityâ law
that REQUIRED insurers that provide outpatient benefits to cover hormone
replacement therapy and ALL FDA-approved contraceptive methods. â
article Mitt Romney signed almost the EXACT same legislature... in Massachusetts. In 2002. You said,
nothing. Besides ignoring the policy of the Republican party, there
is a very simple answer here. 1) Over 80 of Catholic women already
USE birth control. 2) If you don't like birth control...
don't use it. It is not yours to dictate who ELSE, cannot use a
'Religious freedom is an important, fundamental constitutional right' - Title This is not about religious 'freedom'. Otherwise: ** 'Thousands chant 'No Mosque here!' on 9/11 Aniversary' - By Guy Benson -
Townhall - 09/12/10 ** 'Federal judge dismisses Summit suit against
Pleasant Grove' - By Dennis Romboy - DSNews - 06/04/10 "A
federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the city that claim it violated
the establishment clause of the US constitution by allowing a Ten Commandments
monument by rejecting one showing the the Salt Lake-based religious sectâs
beliefs. The clause in the First Amendment prohibits government from adopting a
national religion." - Article Otherwise, we would hear this
plea for help with OTHER faiths.... and not JUST, one.
The self-serving words of a politician playing games with the concept of
religious freedom astound me! When you are consistent, Orrin, across the board
on the concept of religious freedom, come back and talk to us. You want
religious freedom for the things you like, but deny it for beliefs and practices
that you do not like. Your own religious history provides a perfect example.
Do you support the principles of Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) or not? If so, then
you must be honest and agree that the Obama Administration was well within its
rights under the law to do what it did. If not, then you should call for the
right of groups to exercise polygamy and other activities based on religious
beliefs. Senator, you cannot be honest and have it both ways. Otherwise, you
are teetering on the edge of a state-sponsorship of religion, and if that
happens, you can bet your religion will be left on the outside as it was in the
past. Stop demagoguing it for your political ambitions.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.."
Sorry senator, the first amendment does not trump the laws of your creator.
Civil Rights afforded one sex are due the other sex. The problem is religions
are acting in violation of this basic human truth..that all men are created
equal. Within the confines of religious practice the first amendment does
protect that discrimination. A civil society should however not honor the
violation of human rights by anyone. Human rights granted by our
government, whether by law, stature, or constitutional amendment is due all
members of our society.
Ever Politicking. The Affordable Health Care Act is some dangerous threat to
Religion. Bunk! But if we really wanted to avoid any controversy we
should have totally eliminated the Insurance - Employer funded approach and
adopted a national single payer system like most modern countries have long ago
done. The politics of fear once again raises it insidious hand. I
am ashamed that a senior Senator from Utah is doing it, but not surprised.
The most dangerous threat to religious freedom is religious freedom itself. When we deny the government the ability to prevent the beliefs of one
religion to be forced upon another religion, we are destroying the power and
wisdom of the American Constitution. No where in the Constitution
does the concept of religion extend into the operation of business. If a
religious hospital or an insurance company or any other business like
organization caters only to the members of that religion, then it can be argued
to be protected from civil law by the Firs Amendment. If a business
operation of any sort caters to the general public, it must accede to abide by
the civil law.Business operations are the requirements of society.
They only exist to serve society. They are and should be controlled by the
society wherein they exist. They are not an extension of a religion, nor are
the an extension of the rights of individuals.
The First Amendment protection of religious freedom is a freedom held by the
People - not by corporations.My refusal to follow the dictates of a
religion to which I do not belong is not an infringement on - or a threat to -
the rights of that religion.
Senator Hatch,You lost me at Obamacare (third word). If you want us
to be informed and care about the issues, why not use the proper terms for
@Pagan "If you don't like birth control...don't use it."If
you choose to use abortion-inducing drugs, don't try to force me -- against my
religious beliefs -- to pay for them. That's the issue.
@NateDon't force me to subsidize your blood pressure or diabetes
medicine because you didn't follow the Word of Wisdom. Don't ask me to
subsidize (through my insurance premiums) your blood transfusion as it may be
against some others' religious beliefs. See, we could do this all
Does the radical right ever stop and wonder WHY the Amish never have any
problem with this?Let me giver you a clue -- They don't tell
Government or anyone else how to live or what to do, So - Government and
everyone else doesn't tell THEM what to do.If you want Government
out of Religion, Keep Religion out of Government.
To Nate | 3:01 p.m. Feb. 19, 2012 If you choose to use
abortion-inducing drugs, don't try to force me -- against my religious beliefs
-- to pay for them. That's the issue.--------------------------------Once again an attempt is being
made to mis-state the effect of the medication which this argument concerns.
They are NOT "abortion-inducing drugs". They are contraception --
they prevent pregnancies from starting. They do NOT (and cannot) abort
pregnancies. Those are the facts.
How can something be an 'abortion pill'... BEFORE, there is even a
fetus? This, is a human being? The NIGHT after, sex? Show me this, in the bible. This is not a religious
belief. This is propaganda!
@Furry1993 "Those are the facts."The mandate includes all
FDA-approved "emergency contraceptives," including ella, or ulipristal
acetate.Ella works by blocking progesterone, which is needed by the
uterus to grow and feed an embryo. It can prevent a fertilized egg from
implanting on the uterus, and it can also cause an already-implanted embryo to
starve. Therefore, using either definition of pregnancy, ella can terminate
it.Those are the facts.@Pagan "The NIGHT after,
sex?"Up to five days after, according to the manufacturer.
Just to be clear about why ella is labelled as a five-day emergency
contraceptive. It's not that ella won't work after five days; it's that it's
likely to act as an abortifacient then. (Because it normally takes about 6-10
days for a fertilized egg to implant.)
Everyone that is opposed to the contraception mandate miss the greater point
that has nothing to do with religious freedom. It should be pointed out that
women already have access to contraception through various means. Many plans
already cover birth control voluntarily without a mandate. Also birth control
is also available pretty cheaply. This is a good thing. Competition in the
birth control markets have brought the costs down through the years. Basically
everyone who wants birth control now gets birth control.But when
consumers are removed from the price mechanism, prices will go up. Similar to
the reason that health care is so very expensive in the US. Health care
customers don't participate in the price mechanism because they
"think" they are getting something for "free." But there is
no such thing as a free lunch. Women will get all their birth control for free.
This will change women's attitudes and they will demand more birth control even
when they don't need it. And the costs will be passed along to others.
Nate It's against my religion to pay for any of the benefits you get
from the government. Your kids, their schools, your church, etc. Anything that
gets my tax dollars because of your deductions are against and an insult to my
God. I shouldn't have to pay one dime for you violate the laws of my
religion.Get it now.
Well, we at least have Pagan to help us.
Career politicians like Senator Hatch must salivate every time an issue like
this comes up. It provides a great distraction from real issues and allows him
to bang the partisan exaggeration drum and hope that the Tea Party likes the
beat. As far as I am concerned, you can keep your hyperbole, Senator. You know
this is no threat to religious freedom. But that's not the point, is it?
Re-election is. Scoring points for the Party is. Helping this nation and it's
Yes, Senator Hatch, Religious Freedom is an important constitutionally protected
right.Yet how much religious freedom do we have in our schools and
what have you done about it?It's time for new leadership. We need
someone like Dale Ash.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments